Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cost Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community member urges independent audit of middle school cost estimates, cites missing escalation and contingencies
Summary
A Chadds Ford resident told the board that the feasibility study understates escalation and omitted bidding contingency, urged an independent review of PlanCon and cost assumptions, and warned the community will demand transparency at any future Act 34 hearing.
Get email alerts on the Cost Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the public comment portion of the Unionville-Chadds Ford School District work session, community member Mike Ashmore urged the board to commission an independent review of the project cost estimates and PlanCon/Act 34 assumptions.
Ashmore summarized his review of right-to-know documents and said the feasibility study's $120 million figure omitted roughly a year of escalation and did not include adequate design and bidding contingencies. "So your $120 million was actually $129 million," he told the board, adding that more recent CHA estimates, he said, corrected escalation and effectively align with other updated numbers but that the historical $120M figure should no longer be treated as authoritative.
He urged administrators to produce PlanCon Part A documentation and to consider consulting the Pennsylvania Division of School Facilities to ensure room counts and instructional-station assumptions meet Act 34 rules. Ashmore said PlanCon requires that the ABES/maximum building construction cost reflect the building'as'designed at the time of the hearing, and that room uses must be justified for the day of the hearing.
Administration acknowledged Ashmore's concerns, reiterated plans to recheck Act 34 calculations and to re-engage the architect on room utilization and contingency assumptions, and agreed to return with more detailed documentation. No board action or vote resulted from the comment; the board asked staff to include the additional analyses in next meeting materials.
Because cost assumptions and PlanCon classifications can change whether a project requires a referendum, Ashmore urged public transparency and an independent technical check to avoid surprises at any future Act 34 hearing.

