Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Middle School Project Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises transparency, cost concerns over proposed middle school replacement project
Summary
A resident who co-signed a formal complaint told the board he found errors and omissions in the district's response and in records about the proposed middle school replacement, questioned cost estimates and requested independent review.
A Chester County resident and co-signer of a complaint about the proposed middle school replacement told the Unionville-Chadds Ford board on April 21 that district records and the board's written response to his complaint contained errors and omissions, and urged further independent review.
Mike Ashmore of Chads Ford said he submitted a Right-to-Know request and reviewed 1,361 responsive documents with district staff, including a spreadsheet he said showed the replace option's total cost, including financing, of about $263 million and a bond payoff date in fiscal year 2061 or 2062.
Key points raised in public comment - Ashmore said the board's response to the 906 complaint used inflated present-value estimates rather than true net-present-value calculations because the records did not show cash flows or discount-rate assumptions. - He said district analyses of delay options were incomplete because they looked only at construction-cost escalation over three years and did not account for time value of money and cash-flow impacts. - He said the district extended debt maturities and back-loaded principal payments to stay within borrowing limits and avoid a referendum, which increased total financing costs. - Ashmore urged the district to accept offers of assistance from community members with capital-project and financial expertise and to commission an independent expert review; he said the district did not do so. He also noted the board's outreach had been largely directed to the immediate UCFSD community and cited a letter to the editor as evidence of broader concern.
Board response and context Board staff acknowledged the Right-to-Know production and provided records to Ashmore; district staff Mike Dady met with him to follow up on questions. The speaker referenced the board's earlier written reply to the 906 complaint and cited SEC regulations and Act 1 borrowing limits in discussing the financing structure.
Ending Ashmore asked the board to consider the discrepancies and omissions he identified and asked that the district employ or accept independent review to ensure transparency around cost estimates, project schedules and financing choices.
