Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks Capital topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents and supervisors clash over Wilson Farm Park costs; board tables Chase Road change order

Tredyffrin Township Board of Supervisors · July 21, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Discussion over accelerated Wilson Farm Park development and Chase Road change order revealed sharply higher projected costs (staff estimated roughly $2.3M total including land), prompting resident surprise and calls for clearer budgeting. The board voted to table the Chase Road change order and consider funding in next year’s budget.

The Board of Supervisors paused action on a Chase Road change order and heard extended public comment on the broader Wilson Farm Park development after residents and civic groups raised alarms about escalating costs.

Staff summarized the budget history: the property purchase cost $625,000 and the board previously budgeted $725,000 in 2026 for development phases. As site engineering, fencing, repaving and unexpected building repairs were examined, staff said total development costs had grown; the contract price for the current development phase was approximately $1.675 million and, when combined with the land purchase and other expenses, the staff estimate for the project rose to about $2.3 million.

Residents said they were surprised by the scale and pace. Carol Clark noted the change from an earlier $725,000 figure in the budget to a multi‑million-dollar total and asked how the excess would be funded. One resident observed the jump “is a big difference from 1.3 and 1,000,000 extra,” and urged clearer public disclosure before accelerating the project in a single year.

Board and staff leaders said the board had previously set aside funding and that doing multiple project elements together avoided multiple mobilizations and higher future costs. Staff cited higher asphalt and fencing costs, the need to replace damaged bathroom structure and more robust fencing (both safety and privacy), and bonding requirements as drivers of the increase. They also said public‑works preparatory work of roughly $55,000 had been done in advance.

After extensive public discussion that included civic‑association testimony both supporting and questioning the project, the board moved to table the specific Chase Road change order and directed staff to include the item in next year’s budget planning so the board and community could continue review and outreach.

What’s next: staff will provide more detailed cost breakdowns and funding options for board and public review; the Chase Road change order remains tabled pending further budget discussion.