Town Hall Meeting Questions and Answers

How does this plan differ from the previous plan?  Were any changes made other than the financial plan?
No. After the November referendum, the school board of directors did research the KCBA study in which the KCBA architects presented a few designs and estimated their costs. The board asked the administration and MM Architects to review the KCBA 30-35 million dollar design and compare it to the current project. It was found that the KCBA design did not take into account many necessary items that the current plan did. After applying the escalation costs, the plans were found to be comparable.

What is the impact on taxpayers with the new financial plan?  Could we have tax calculations like the ones that were presented with the first plan?
The actual structuring of the debt service will be done at the time the debt is issued.  There are numerous factors which, until that time, can only be assumed.  The impact of borrowing $30 million, assuming level debt service payments for 25 year bonds, and based upon the current bond market conditions and certain state reimbursement considerations for this project, would be approximately 1 mill.  This additional mill would be phased in over a three (3) to four (4) year period.  For a taxpayer with a $250,000 assessed value home, the total additional tax related to the $30 million borrowing after the phase-in, would be approximately $250.  The remaining $32.5 million, to the extent it is obtained by borrowings rather than capital campaign, would be funded by millage generated under the Act 1 cap.

How will any future projects (like the middle school renovation) impact taxes?
Again, hard to tell, but it is certain that the district will have to conform the financial plans to the limits of Act 1, which means project costs will have to be kept under the Act 1 limit or the district will have to ask taxpayers permission to incur debt through a referendum.

62.5M vs 32M – was the project cut in half?
No, the project costs remain at 62.7 million. What has changed is that the district is now asking for permission to incur up to 30 million dollars above the Act 1 tax limit. The rest of the funding, 32.5 million dollars, will have to be found within the tax increase limits set by Act 1. This means the district will decide how to fund the debt out of its normal budget. This can be supplemented by fundraising efforts.

Actual cost, actual debt
The actual debt (and how it is structured) will not be determined until such time as it is issued.  Actual cost of the project is estimated to be $62.7 million by the architect.  Actual impact of borrowing to the taxpayer will depend upon the actual costs and debt incurred, when it is incurred and how it is structured.  Under one scenario calculated for planning purposes by the District’s financial adviser, it is estimated that the electoral debt will increase taxpayer impact by approximately 1 mill.  This represents an additional $250 to the annual tax bill of a home with a $250,000 assessed value.  Further, this additional $250 amount would be phased in over three (3) or four (4) years, and continue for the estimated 25 year life of the borrowing.  The impact of this millage will then be eliminated once the bonds are paid.  The amount of fund raising would then determine the balance of the borrowing necessary to fund the project.  This debt service would be funded within the Act 1 limit during the years it is phased in.

So to summarize:

• Construction Costs estimated at $62.7 million
• Electoral debt financing total limited to $30 million

• Estimated impact on annual tax bill of $250,000 assessed value home is $250, phased in over three (3) to four (4) years and continuing  for 25 years at which time it is eliminated

• Fund raising is yet to be determined, however, for discussion purposes lets use less than 50% of the goal, or $9 million provided by private, tax deductible contribution
• The financial advisers have estimated that to allow for phasing in within the Act 1 limits, and to provide sufficient construction capital, the remaining debt would require approximately 0.80 mills over a three (3) to four (4) year phase-in.  This additional millage would be included within the Act 1 limits

How will the additional 30M be acquired?
The rest of the funding, 32.5 million dollars, will have to be found within the tax increase limits set by Act 1. This means the district will decide how to fund the debt out of its normal budget. This can be supplemented by fundraising efforts.

What if the goal of 30M can’t be reached, what happens then?
If the April referendum fails to pass, the school board of directors will have to decide which course of action best serves the needs of our students and balances the will of the community.

Where will the funding for the additional operating costs to run the larger building come from?
There are natural increases in the budget from year to year due to higher market values, new construction, and tax increases. As in the past when buildings were expanded or constructed because of increased enrollment, the district will have to operate the buildings out of normal budget increases.

Will experts be involved with the project in the construction field to provide the proper supervision and manage overruns?
Yes, we actually have several layers of oversight/supervision.  First, the Pennsylvania Department of Education must review all plans and specifications to be sure we are in compliance.  During construction, the District will have in-house personnel, the project architect, and an independent construction manager to provide three levels of inspection/supervision of all work being performed as well as monitoring any additional costs.

Will experts be involved with financial plan, to provide accountability?
The budget prepared by the architect includes funds for professional construction management services during the project.  Further, the District will continue it’s relationship with PFM as a third party financial advisors in structuring all debt issues and dealing with debt underwriters.

Comment: Delaware County residents are UCFSD resident too.

Students have not appeared as a concern yet; what about the safety of our students?
Student safety is our primary concern. Every design, every plan and action will weigh the safety of our students first.  This is true not only in the design but also through the actual construction of the building.

What about the future benefits that would be provided for our students from this project?
When the project is complete, they will not have to travel to temporary modular trailers in the courtyard, they will not have to stand virtually back to back to perform science labs, they will not have to bring their lunch into school because they do not have time to wait on the long cafeteria lines. They will have classrooms that are built as classrooms, not converted storage areas, they will have science labs in which they can perform relevant experiments, they will have an auditorium which allows them to give their best without the limitation of space. They will be able to walk through hallways that are not cluttered by items which should be put in the storage rooms that were converted to classrooms.

The issue is that the plan was not changed, no change in scope or cost of the plan.
The plan has been through an 18 month process of review and evaluation – it has already been reduced from 90 million dollars. The district has presented a plan that they feel meets the needs of the students for the next 20-25 years and balances the burden on the taxpayer.

The process of this meeting is one sided, it does not provide equal representation for both sides.
There are many sides to this issue. The district has endeavored to gain an understanding of the community’s wishes going forward. Everyone at the meeting was given an opportunity to voice their concerns.

By approving the 30M, we are approving the 62.5M project and how will the remaining amount be funded?  By approving the 30M what are we committing to?
Taxpayers would be committing to allow the district to borrow up to 30 million dollars for the high school project. It would the be the district’s responsibility, as it always has been, to operate the district using the existing budget, at the high level of excellence the community has come to expect.

Why split the plan 30M/32.5M?  Just vote the whole plan – the same referendum as before.
Based on the November referendum and other input from the community, the school board has heard the taxpayers wish for a reduced tax burden associated with the project. By funding only 30 million above the limits set by Act 1, the district is lowering future burden to only that which can be funded within the Act 1 tax increase limitation.

Why was the referendum voted down in the first place?  Do a community survey.
The district has received a great deal of commentary as to why the referendum did not succeed in November. There were many strong and compelling reasons why taxpayers voted no. It has been the task of the school board and administration to balance those concerns with the needs of our students for the next 20-25 years.

Comment: Everyone is putting too much interpretation into the voting results of the first referendum.  There is an over reliance on both sides as to the results.

Because of our demographics 70%/30% the referendum is difficult to pass.  Pocketbooks are this issue.
First, the 70/30 ratio of taxpayers with no children in school to those with is about the same in most districts. Second, it is unfair to assume that those with children in our schools are more or less likely to vote for an education issue and vice versa. Third, our experience in Pennsylvania to date is consistent with other states which have legislated referenda.

Where do the cuts from each year come from?  1 to 3.5%   What will be trimmed?
The use of the word “cut” is not representative. The question should be “What will not be implemented?” While the district will not cut existing programs, they will have to make decisions about future programs and the ability to fund them. This process happens today as we strive to balance what is needed and the funding to provide effective programs for achievement.

What outstanding debt do we have right now?  What is the total debt picture?
At the close of the 2007-08 fiscal year the District will have outstanding General Obligation Bonds in the total amount of $56,950,000.  The current annual debt service required to pay the principal and interest on this debt is just over $7 million.  In 2013-14 the annual debt service for this debt drops to just under $4.8 million.

Why were questions that were emailed to the school not answered?
The district will continue its effort to answer all communications in a timely manner.

What is the process to control finances so that funds are spent wisely?
The state of Pennsylvania and the federal government control and regulate how educational finance is managed. The district must comply with all laws and regulations regarding effective management of public money. The finance department submits to an independent audit each year and an in-depth state audit every three years.

How do we control misinformation?  How do we get the accurate information out there?
The town hall meeting, web site and other efforts are aimed at informing the public. The district cannot control inaccurate information that arises from other sources. It is our democratic process. The district has, and will continue to use every means available to inform the public about the facts of the referendum and the high school project. Legislation surrounding the referendum prohibits the district from spending taxpayer money to market for the referendum vote. We can only ask that voters validate the sources of any information they receive and make an educated decision at the polls.

Have any benchmarks been done with other referendums?  What was the process to make it successful?
Yes. Members from the district team have had contact with the one other Pennsylvania school district with a referendum – a successful one at the Upper Dublin School District. In addition, the district has had a great deal of input from community members who have moved from referendum states.

What is the correlation/impact of the quality of school to property values?
Anecdotely, real estate agents in the area comment that the high reputation of the school district has been one of the biggest reasons new residents choose to live on our area.  Upper Dublin School District also noted an increase in real estate values immediately upon their successful resolution.

What is plan C if this referendum does not pass?
If the April referendum fails to pass, the school board of directors will have to decide which course of action best serves the needs of our students and balances the will of the community.

What are the enrollment projections?  For example new construction?
Enrollment projections can be found here.

What will the high school be like down the road if this is not approved?  What will be the impact on the students?
The students and staff will continue to labor with an inadequate number and quality of classrooms; their cafeteria, athletic areas and auditorium will not support the current and projected student enrollment.

Benchmark with other schools.  Other local schools are catching up with us, improving at a faster rate than we are.  We must continue to improve.
While it is true that other districts in our area are improving their education delivery, UCFSD still maintains one of the best programs in Chester County, indeed the state of Pennsylvania. It is this high level of achievement which the district seeks to continue. As it has in the past, the district asks only for what is necessary, giving the community one of the best spending to achievement ratios in the state (this has been documented by the state several times).

What will be done with all this feedback? How will it affect the plan if it is already completed?
This input will be used in the implementation of this plan and future plans by better gauging how the community feels about the decisions of the school board and administration.

How will the employees (teachers and staff) be affected if the referendum does not pass?
Certainly, no one wants to continue to labor in undesirable circumstances without any “light ant the end of the tunnel”. Regardless of the conditions, while employed by the district, teachers and staff will continue to put student safety and achievement as their number one priority.

Will the new facilities be open to the public to use?  Will the public still be able to run on the track or maybe workout in the weight room with their children?
There are no anticipated changes to the current policies regarding facility use.

What is the scope of the 30M project that keeps being mentioned?
There has been a great deal of discussion surrounding this supposed 30 million dollar project which was actually, by the responsible architect’s own admission, a two year old “very rough estimate” for a possible future project. After the November referendum, the school board of directors did research the KCBA study in which the KCBA architects presented several designs and estimated their costs. Most recently, the board asked the administration and MM Architects to review the KCBA 30-35 million dollar design and compare it to the current project. It was found that the KCBA design did not take into account many necessary items that are included in the current plan. When all of the necessary items are included and after applying the escalation costs, the plans were found to be comparable.

How does this project compare (cost comparison) to other schools projects in the area?
The project compares favorably to other projects in the area. West Chester’s Rustin High School for instance came in over 100 million dollars several years ago (construction costs are rising an average of eight percent yearly).  We have also compared this project to several other comparable projects in the area.  When all factors are considered, to properly compare these projects, we are very much in line with current scope and costs.

Costs keep rising, how many increases have occurred in the time spent trying to pass the referendum?  How much more will it cost if we don’t move forward?
With construction costs rising at an average of eight percent per year, it is easy to see that delay is expensive. Because the project was costed out with 2008 dollars, the 62.7 million dollar figure is still accurate.

Explain why parts of the plan are needed, how decisions were made.  We need to hear all the why’s to understand.  Prove the need for and benefits of the parts of the plan.
- How state mandates affect our cost
- The reasoning behind using turf
Thousands of hours have been spent in the development of this project by the architectural, engineering, educational and financial experts in their fields. To summarize all that went into the design would be impossible. What can be said is that the design has been guided by current educational standards, and regulations regarding classroom size, special education, safety, finance, and construction, while at the same time being considerate of the impact on taxpayers.

Turf, see the question below.

What is necessary to have in the plan to meet the state mandates – must have, what is needed in the plan – critical, what items are a – would like to have.
See above.

It is stated that 62.5M was bare bones but I don’t believe that.
The term “bare bones” will certainly have a different meaning for each individual.  It is imperative that we not be shortsighted and think only of today’s students.  Remember, the design should serve the district for 20-25 years. The last change of this scale for the high school occurred 50 years ago when it was built.

What is the cost, life and maintenance of a turf field compared to a grass field?
It is very difficult to give a real comparison between the actual costs of natural turf vs artificial.  There are many variables that change from year to year with natural turf, such as the number of mowings, what amenities are added, how much and how often is sod replaced, how much rain do we have, etc. etc.  However, with that being said, there are reports that do show that the “cost per event” is less with artificial turf because of the ability to hold so many events on these fields.   There are also reports that indicate artificial turf leads to fewer injuries than natural turf.  Again, there is not conclusive evidence to support this.  The truth is that an artificial turf field will enable us to (1) practice and hold games/events at times when we typically would have to cancel, (2) provide our student athletes a field with a better, more uniform playing surface, and (3) enable us to better maintain our other fields by moving more events to the artificial turf.

What is the average number of Students in the core subjects (heard counts of 17 per classroom)?
- Per building
- Per grade
- Per classroom
You cannot simply take the number of rooms in a building and divide by the number of students.  Student enrollment in each class is useless without the mound of data behind each assignment. Factors such as student choice, student need, law regulating class size, limitations because of equipment needed to instruct, prerequisites, etc. make the student, and teacher, scheduling process extremely complex and last from December to August each year.  The bottom line is that we DO NOT have 17 students per classroom.  We typically average 22-26 per classroom.

How did we get to this point?  What type of future planning was done in the past to get us to this point?
Recognizing a need, the district contracted KCBA Architects to do a facilities study which was presented in 2006. KCBA identified the high school as the building in the most critical condition. A more complete history can be found here.

With costs increasing daily, how will this 62.5M cover the plan?  What will the over runs be and how will they be covered?  What else will be cut?

We are confident that the 62.M is a viable number to cover the plan.  This project has been estimated in 2008 values, with the appropriate escalation amounts included to carry through the construction process.  There is also a contingency amount included to cover any cost “overrun”.  Please understand that the 62.M is a maximum.

Why wasn’t this meeting held 30 days after the first referendum instead of 30 days before the second referendum?
The district will continue its effort to get community input in a timely manner.

There is a follow up meeting to this on April 16th.
True.

Assets do not make a school.  Family, teachers and the community make the school and provide the education.
That is quite true. The students, teachers and staff have to be given the resources and support to provide that education – one of those resources is an adequate facility.

How realistic is it to raise 30M after referendum?
The figure would actually be 32.5 million and it would come from fundraising efforts and/or the district budget which is limited by the Act 1 annual tax increase percentage.  We are very encouraged by the initial report from a fundraising consultant and we believe we can raise a significant amount of money.  However, if we are not correct in that belief, we are confident (and required by law) to fund the balance of the project within the confines of the Act 1 limits.

Comment:  Why doesn’t the community see the need for an improved high school.  Why can’t the facility match the efforts of the students and teachers?

Comment:  The voices that are not heard are the ones who will be affected the most by this vote.

How do you engage the “no” voters who don’t attend and have already made up their minds?
It is hoped that all taxpayers will not only validate the information and sources that come to them, but seek out the facts of each issue. The district will take every opportunity and use every tool at their disposal to reach and inform the community on this referendum and project.

This is a good forum but too late.  How do we reach everyone in the community to communicate the needs and engage everyone?
There will be another forum on April 16, 2008, 7pm  at Unionville High School. In addition, the district will be sending all community members more information via email, and U.S. mail.

Are we fighting a losing battle if the people with children in the school district are voting yes and the people with out children in the school district are voting no when the demographics are 30/70?
It is actually the other way around – 70 percent do not have students in school. First, the 70/30 ratio of taxpayers with no children in school to those with is about the same in most districts. Second, it is unfair to assume that those with children in our schools are more or less likely to vote for an education issue and vice versa.

Why is the follow up meeting so late?  Can’t it be moved up?
We have announced an earlier meeting on April 2, 2008, 7-9pm in the UHS Auditorium.

There are many school activities to work around.
That is the issue when trying to schedule large meetings which will impact parents and students and other events that are important to them.

Why doesn’t the other side have a say?
There are many sides to this issue. The district has endeavored to gain an understanding of the community’s wishes going forward. Everyone at the meeting was given an opportunity to voice their concerns.

If the referendum does not pass what impact will the current facility have on staffing?
Without a project, there will be the same staffing needs based on student academic needs and choices. Extra security personnel may be necessary to ensure student and staff safety.

Why can’t the project be planned in phases?
This was an option that was reviewed. In addition to the additional cost involved with phasing a project, the state of Pennsylvania does not allow for piece-mealing (this is done to protect the taxpayer) – any funding from the state would be forfeit.  Also, a phased project would require the District to be “under construction” for a much longer period of time and at a much greater cost with the end result being the same.

Plan C is based on the assumption that the referendum fails?

What is the breakdown of private funds?
A capital campaign project has been researched but not yet undertaken. That information is not available.

Why is it more expensive to build a public facility vs a private facility?  Is this because of the state mandates?
Public construction is subject to a myriad or restrictions and regulations that are not required in private industry.  For example: (1) the code requirements for “public” buildings are more stringent; (2) as a public school building, we have more requirements to meet the needs of Special Education students, and (3)  we have bidding requirements that are much different than private industry.  However, probably the biggest factor is that we are required to pay “prevailing wage” to all contractors working on a public project.

What will be the cost to the community, administration and school resources from the strain of the referendum, the conflicting wishes?  With this referendum and the ones to come in the future?
The legislature could not predict the impact that Act 1 would have on the operation of schools. There will be a great many repercussions as the reality of Act 1 settles in.

Did the board look at changing the plan or doing the project in phases?
Yes. As stated above, piece-mealing has drawbacks. The board and administration have reaffirmed the project several times as the right project for our district based on its requirement to look long-term at the needs of our community over the next 20-25 years.

Property values, dependence on accelerated real estate values.
Yes, there is a natural increase in tax revenues based on a rising housing market value. This is not always true, but historically, our area has experienced this growth, even with the downturn in the housing market and economy.

Why do school activities have priority over the referendum process?  This process should have top priority.
Scheduled student events will have priority. The community expects no less. Every effort will be made to schedule meetings which are advantageous for the entire community to attend while realizing this may not always be possible.

Penny wise and a pound foolish.
There are historical examples in this school district where short-term savings produced long-term issues and higher costs. That is why the school board and administration believe this is the right project for our community. It looks at our educational needs over the next 20-25 years and does not include items which are not necessary.  One example of short-term gains is the decision to cut air-conditioning from a project in 1991. The cost ten years later was many times the savings.

Will we have answers to all these questions?
Yes.