Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction Act 34 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident warns Act 34 calculations could trigger referendum on proposed middle school
Summary
At the Aug. 18 Unionville-Chadds Ford School District board meeting, resident Mark Stuckey said the district’s Act 34 cost calculations for the proposed middle school were incomplete and incorrect, and urged the administration to recheck numbers and share them publicly.
Mark Stuckey, a Chatsford Township resident, told the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District board on Aug. 18 that the district’s Act 34 calculations for the proposed new middle school were performed only after he raised questions and that the district’s math understated costs in ways that could require a voter referendum. Stuckey said he first raised Act 34 on June 25 and that a subsequent right-to-know request produced documents showing the district had not done the required calculations until then.
Stuckey said the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) advised a cost cap of $93,000,000 for the project using aggregate building-expenditure standards. He said the district substituted a $95,000,000 figure and that the $2,000,000 difference was enough to change whether a referendum would be required. He also said district construction projections omitted realistic design, fixtures-and-equipment and contingency costs, understating construction by more than $10,000,000 in his analysis.
Why it matters: Under Pennsylvania’s Act 34 school construction law, projects whose net costs exceed statutory caps must go to referendum. Stuckey argued that using PDE’s $93 million figure — rather than the district’s $95 million — would push the planned building over the threshold and require voter approval, which he said was not reflected in district communications.
Stuckey called on the administration to explain how a projected $120,000,000 project could have a net cost within the PDE cap and said he welcomed outside review. He told the board he expects district consultant Breslin to recheck the calculations. He also criticized how district staff responded when he pressed the issue, saying his questions were met with dismissive comments rather than full engagement.
Superintendent Timothy Hoffman did not dispute the account during public comment; later in the meeting board members acknowledged Stuckey’s persistence and said they expected staff follow-up and clarification. No formal action or vote on the middle-school plan or Act 34 compliance occurred at the Aug. 18 meeting.
The matter remains in the discussion stage: Stuckey said he will provide data and asked the district to share its calculations and supporting documents with the public so voters can understand whether a referendum will be required.
