Residents, board debate Patton Middle School project as costs and timelines rise

Unionville‑Chadds Ford School District board members on Monday heard more than an hour of public comment and extended discussion about a proposed replacement of Patton Middle School after residents and board members raised new questions about cost, timeline and transparency.

Community speakers said earlier estimates for the campus project had grown substantially and urged the board to pause, disclose full financial details, and more seriously consider renovation alternatives. “Why on earth do we need an extra school now?” asked resident Sharon Duranza, who said she received confusing communications about the plan. Mike Ashmore, another resident, asked why an originally presented $120 million project had been described in some documents as moving toward a $166 million budget and projected to create much larger long‑term debt service burdens. “The public deserves answers,” Ashmore said, citing Act 34 and PlanCon obligations and urging more complete NBCC estimates from the administration.

District leaders and staff described how the project evolved. Administration representatives said a feasibility study estimated a roughly $120 million construction cost; schematic design work and site‑related needs increased that schematic estimate to roughly $140 million, and escalation over a multi‑year timeline could push future nominal costs higher. Facilities director Ross Weitzel explained that site work — relocating fields, addressing stormwater, and parking/traffic improvements between the middle and high schools — accounted for much of the added expense and that splitting the campus program into separate projects could create “off‑ramps” that reduce near‑term escalation risk.

Board members and staff described three separable components: (1) tennis courts, circulation and parking improvements; (2) field relocations; and (3) construction of a new middle‑school building followed by demolition of the existing structure. Several board members supported moving forward with additional design work so the district could lock in early design fees and make the project more “shovel ready,” while others pressed for stronger cost‑control assurances and additional value‑engineering with a clear target to bring the schematic back toward the earlier $120 million figure.

Board president Dr. Baratta said the item had been converted from a vote to a discussion to allow time for public input and additional analysis. Administration said it had suspended active work for now and would return with further financial analyses and clarifying materials; the district’s finance staff and outside advisors (PFM) are expected to provide a debt‑service scenario to the board at the April work session.

The meeting produced no final approval of the building project; instead, the board agreed to continue discussion and to consider a path that could advance some site improvements sooner while pausing or further evaluating the full building construction timeline. Several residents urged the board to retain independent owner’s‑representation and legal review to protect taxpayers and to provide more frequent, clearer public updates as design and financing work proceeds.