Unionville-Chadds Ford board votes to seek design proposals for Patton Middle School after hours of public comment
February 01, 2025 | Unionville-Chadds Ford SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Unionville-Chadds Ford School District Board of School Directors voted 9-0 on Feb. 18 to issue a request for proposals (RFP) for design services to replace Patton Middle School, moving the project into a formal design phase that the district says will produce more detailed cost and schedule information.
Why it matters: The vote follows weeks of debate and a packed public-comment period in which dozens of residents pressed the board for more independent review of feasibility and financial analyses. Supporters said a new building is needed to address longstanding mechanical, safety and accessibility problems; opponents questioned the district's financial assumptions and the timing of the procurement.
Board action and outcome
The formal motion — “I move to approve the issuance of a request for proposal for design services to replace the middle school” — was offered by a school director during the facilities portion of the meeting and seconded; the board approved the RFP 9-0. Board members said the RFP would bring additional independent design perspectives and more detailed cost data for future decisions.
Public concerns and board responses
Speakers at the meeting voiced a mix of concerns and support. Lindsay Tucker, a resident who said she submitted a formal complaint on behalf of more than 100 signatories under board policy 906, said the group believed the district’s analysis was “incomplete, misleading, and biased” and asked the board to delay action until independent financial and architectural reviews were completed. Mark Stuckey, identified as a former senior finance executive, and several other commenters pressed for independent experts and more transparency about the feasibility study by Murata Maine and the district’s financial modelling.
Several residents framed their comments as fiscal concerns. Manav Maheshwari, who described a finance background, told the board he was not opposed to replacement in principle but repeatedly asked, “Why are we rushing to issue the RFP for the design work when there are still so many unaddressed questions and concerns from the residents?” Other speakers, including parents and former facilities managers, said continuing to patch the existing 1970s-era building would be costly and disruptive and argued replacement offered better educational, safety and operational outcomes.
Board members summarized their assessments before the vote. Directors said they had reviewed the Murata Maine feasibility work and financial projections presented by district staff and advisers; they noted the RFP would solicit multiple design firms rather than rely on a single firm, providing additional outside perspectives. Several directors cited ADA compliance limits, classroom configuration constraints and repeated mechanical issues as reasons renovation or a “maintain” option would be insufficient.
District finance explanation
District staff presented a financing overview during the meeting. The district’s finance presenter described a model in which current annual debt service of roughly $9.9 million would rise to about $13.79 million at the peak of new borrowing under one projection; the presenter said that change, averaged across the tax base, equated to roughly $42 per year for the average homeowner to fund the middle-school work as projected and phased in over several years. The finance presentation said the projection assumed a conservative 5% interest rate for planning and included options to restructure existing debt, and that the district planned additional checks and off-ramps if market or budget conditions changed.
Several residents and board members pushed back on the $42 figure, asking for clearer, side-by-side comparisons of the cost to maintain, renovate or replace and for clearer explanation of the assumptions behind the district’s debt schedules. The board’s finance discussion referenced work with municipal advisors and underwriters (PFM and Stifel were named by staff during discussion) and emphasized legal limits on who may provide formal municipal-advisory advice.
Supporters’ arguments
Other speakers and several board members said the existing building’s structural and programmatic limits—cited in the feasibility work—would make renovation disruptive, likely leave the school functionally deficient for modern teaching (including special-education needs and staff collaboration space), and result in repeated future expenses. Several directors invoked long-range facility planning and said timing was partly driven by debt schedules and the opportunity to restructure and smooth payments as older debt matures.
Votes at a glance (meeting actions)
- Motion to bundle routine minutes, bill list and budget transfers (agenda items 3.1–3.4): approved 9-0.
- Unifield High School Spanish Costa Rica trip (agenda 4.1): approved 9-0.
- Policies bundle (items 5.1–5.5): approved 9-0; additional policy approvals (5.6): approved 9-0; policy 906 held for further review.
- Motion to issue RFP for design services to replace Patton Middle School (agenda 6.1): approved 9-0.
- Construction/repair and equipment contracts: Equalist Group $75,211.50 for courtyard water infiltration at Unionville Elementary (6.2): approved 9-0; Stoneheart $26,650 for flooring at Hillandale Elementary (6.3): approved 9-0; purchase of Ford truck $67,621 for transportation (6.4): approved 9-0; Tri M $147,400 for HVAC controllers (6.5): approved 9-0.
- Personnel items and approvals, including superintendent retirement filings and related personnel motions: approved 9-0 (see separate personnel article for details).
What’s next
Board members said the RFP will solicit multiple architectural/design firms; district staff and the facilities committee will review responses and return with more detailed cost estimates and program-level designs for subsequent public review and board votes. Directors emphasized additional review points and said future decisions on design selection and financing would be separate votes.
Context and meeting atmosphere
The meeting included a lengthy public-comment period with more than 20 residents speaking; comments ranged from calls for immediate independent review to endorsements of a replacement as the least disruptive and most future-proof option. Multiple speakers cited concerns about communications and outreach, and several asked for more direct mail or mailings to reach residents who are not connected to school email lists. Several board members urged civility and noted that staff and prospective applicants for the superintendent role and other positions would be watching public conduct.
Ending
The RFP vote advances the district to a formal design phase; the board said additional financial and design details will be provided to the public in subsequent meetings before any final construction or bond votes occur.
Why it matters: The vote follows weeks of debate and a packed public-comment period in which dozens of residents pressed the board for more independent review of feasibility and financial analyses. Supporters said a new building is needed to address longstanding mechanical, safety and accessibility problems; opponents questioned the district's financial assumptions and the timing of the procurement.
Board action and outcome
The formal motion — “I move to approve the issuance of a request for proposal for design services to replace the middle school” — was offered by a school director during the facilities portion of the meeting and seconded; the board approved the RFP 9-0. Board members said the RFP would bring additional independent design perspectives and more detailed cost data for future decisions.
Public concerns and board responses
Speakers at the meeting voiced a mix of concerns and support. Lindsay Tucker, a resident who said she submitted a formal complaint on behalf of more than 100 signatories under board policy 906, said the group believed the district’s analysis was “incomplete, misleading, and biased” and asked the board to delay action until independent financial and architectural reviews were completed. Mark Stuckey, identified as a former senior finance executive, and several other commenters pressed for independent experts and more transparency about the feasibility study by Murata Maine and the district’s financial modelling.
Several residents framed their comments as fiscal concerns. Manav Maheshwari, who described a finance background, told the board he was not opposed to replacement in principle but repeatedly asked, “Why are we rushing to issue the RFP for the design work when there are still so many unaddressed questions and concerns from the residents?” Other speakers, including parents and former facilities managers, said continuing to patch the existing 1970s-era building would be costly and disruptive and argued replacement offered better educational, safety and operational outcomes.
Board members summarized their assessments before the vote. Directors said they had reviewed the Murata Maine feasibility work and financial projections presented by district staff and advisers; they noted the RFP would solicit multiple design firms rather than rely on a single firm, providing additional outside perspectives. Several directors cited ADA compliance limits, classroom configuration constraints and repeated mechanical issues as reasons renovation or a “maintain” option would be insufficient.
District finance explanation
District staff presented a financing overview during the meeting. The district’s finance presenter described a model in which current annual debt service of roughly $9.9 million would rise to about $13.79 million at the peak of new borrowing under one projection; the presenter said that change, averaged across the tax base, equated to roughly $42 per year for the average homeowner to fund the middle-school work as projected and phased in over several years. The finance presentation said the projection assumed a conservative 5% interest rate for planning and included options to restructure existing debt, and that the district planned additional checks and off-ramps if market or budget conditions changed.
Several residents and board members pushed back on the $42 figure, asking for clearer, side-by-side comparisons of the cost to maintain, renovate or replace and for clearer explanation of the assumptions behind the district’s debt schedules. The board’s finance discussion referenced work with municipal advisors and underwriters (PFM and Stifel were named by staff during discussion) and emphasized legal limits on who may provide formal municipal-advisory advice.
Supporters’ arguments
Other speakers and several board members said the existing building’s structural and programmatic limits—cited in the feasibility work—would make renovation disruptive, likely leave the school functionally deficient for modern teaching (including special-education needs and staff collaboration space), and result in repeated future expenses. Several directors invoked long-range facility planning and said timing was partly driven by debt schedules and the opportunity to restructure and smooth payments as older debt matures.
Votes at a glance (meeting actions)
- Motion to bundle routine minutes, bill list and budget transfers (agenda items 3.1–3.4): approved 9-0.
- Unifield High School Spanish Costa Rica trip (agenda 4.1): approved 9-0.
- Policies bundle (items 5.1–5.5): approved 9-0; additional policy approvals (5.6): approved 9-0; policy 906 held for further review.
- Motion to issue RFP for design services to replace Patton Middle School (agenda 6.1): approved 9-0.
- Construction/repair and equipment contracts: Equalist Group $75,211.50 for courtyard water infiltration at Unionville Elementary (6.2): approved 9-0; Stoneheart $26,650 for flooring at Hillandale Elementary (6.3): approved 9-0; purchase of Ford truck $67,621 for transportation (6.4): approved 9-0; Tri M $147,400 for HVAC controllers (6.5): approved 9-0.
- Personnel items and approvals, including superintendent retirement filings and related personnel motions: approved 9-0 (see separate personnel article for details).
What’s next
Board members said the RFP will solicit multiple architectural/design firms; district staff and the facilities committee will review responses and return with more detailed cost estimates and program-level designs for subsequent public review and board votes. Directors emphasized additional review points and said future decisions on design selection and financing would be separate votes.
Context and meeting atmosphere
The meeting included a lengthy public-comment period with more than 20 residents speaking; comments ranged from calls for immediate independent review to endorsements of a replacement as the least disruptive and most future-proof option. Multiple speakers cited concerns about communications and outreach, and several asked for more direct mail or mailings to reach residents who are not connected to school email lists. Several board members urged civility and noted that staff and prospective applicants for the superintendent role and other positions would be watching public conduct.
Ending
The RFP vote advances the district to a formal design phase; the board said additional financial and design details will be provided to the public in subsequent meetings before any final construction or bond votes occur.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting