Dr. José Sandoval, superintendent of the Unionville‑Chadds Ford School District, recommended replacing Patton Middle School with a newly built facility and said the district will seek design proposals if the board approves a motion scheduled for its Feb. 18, 2025 meeting.

The superintendent presented a yearlong feasibility process conducted with consultant Murata Maine and a district committee that yielded three options: restore (maintain), renovate, or replace Patton Middle School. “The recommendation is to replace,” Sandoval said during the Jan. 6 special meeting. He and district staff said the replace option would take about five years and is estimated at roughly $120 million; renovate was estimated at about $113 million and a present‑value restore/maintain scenario was presented at $67 million (an alternative 20‑year maintain escalation was shown as $89 million).

Why it matters: the project would be the district’s largest near‑term capital commitment and would be funded with a series of bond issues timed against existing debt retirements. District financial advisers told the board the timing can keep annual debt service near the district’s long‑run target (roughly 10% of the operating budget) and that refinancing some maturing debt in 2026 could create capacity to borrow while remaining below the Act 1 index. The superintendent said a new building could open in the fall of 2030 if the board moves forward on the current schedule.

Residents who spoke in two public‑comment periods urged more rigorous and transparent financial comparisons before the board votes. Mark Stuckey, a Chazeward Township resident who described professional experience in capital‑project analysis, told the board the district’s financial analysis “is wholly inadequate. It is incomplete and misleading.” Several other commenters with finance experience and parents echoed requests for an apples‑to‑apples net‑present‑value comparison of the three options and asked for district responses to specific questions before Feb. 18.

Board members described the process as detailed and iterative but acknowledged remaining questions. Board director Susan Anderson, a member of the feasibility committee, said the team incorporated community input — including using net present value for the maintain option after a resident suggested the approach — and called the committee’s work “comprehensive, thorough, accurate, and absolutely an honest analysis.” Other directors said they remain in listening and evaluation mode and requested clearer presentations on operating‑cost differences, financing costs, and the marginal cost per square foot for different sizing options.

District staff and outside advisers explained key assumptions in the cost comparisons and financing plan. The maintain/restore option was framed as a multi‑year program that could be executed over 20 years to reduce classroom disruption (hence the higher $89 million escalation total); discounted to present‑value over a comparable period, that scenario produced the $67 million figure. Renovate would be a phased partial demolition plus additions (a 7‑year schedule, roughly $113 million). Replace would allow construction of a new school adjacent to the current campus (a 5‑year schedule, roughly $120 million) and was presented as the option that best addresses light in classrooms, mechanical/electrical/plumbing needs, ADA noncompliance, asbestos behind plumbing, and other code and instructional‑space issues identified in the Murata Maine feasibility study.

Financial advisers said the district’s Aa1 Moody’s rating and scheduled debt retirements create capacity to issue bonds in stages so debt service stays near the district’s historical range. Ed Murray, the district’s bond underwriter, and John Fry, the district’s bond adviser, told the board they monitor market timing and can structure borrowings to match construction cash flow. They cautioned, however, that exact savings from any 2026 refinancing are uncertain until market conditions and specific refunding structures are known.

Several board members and commenters raised non‑financial concerns that factor into the decision: school safety and circulation within current facilities, student and staff instructional needs (science labs and STEM spaces), and the impact on staff recruitment and retention of working in older, low‑light classrooms. Other residents stressed potential tax‑bill increases for homeowners and asked for a district analysis showing the projected tax impact by county (the district spans Chester and Delaware counties) and for the board to publish answers to tonight’s questions on the project microsite and FAQ page.

What the board will do next: the board has scheduled a Feb. 18, 2025 vote on whether to authorize a request for proposals for design services tied to a replace option; directors said that vote would not itself obligate the district to a final construction contract. Administrators said the district will post answers to tonight’s questions on the project Q&A page and continue community conversations and webinars in January and February before the vote.

The meeting produced no formal board vote on the project. Directors said they expect to continue gathering public input and technical refinements prior to the Feb. 18 action.