The current tax amount for the average assessed home in UCFSD is $8,519. Of that amount, $801 is currently allocated to pay for existing annual debt service. 

Under the assumption that taxes would continue to follow the 20-year average trend of a 2.8% increase per year, the chart below shows projected total annual tax amount for the average assessed home and the portion of that total amount that would be allocated to pay for debt service. The impact of a middle school replacement would be an additional $42 per year each year to the average homeowner’s contribution to the debt service component over a total of nine years beginning in the 2025/26 fiscal year.  After nine years, the debt service contribution will level off. As previously shared, the amount allocated for debt would stay at approximately 10% of the total amount.

The chart below highlights just the increase in the average tax bill (using 2.8% growth) and how much of that increase would be allocated specifically to the middle school project over the nine years. Again, after nine years the debt service amount would level off and not be a component specific to an increase.

• The current general fund budget of $105,838,802 has a total annual debt service of $9,963,059. The average tax bill to fund the general budget is approximately $8,500 (based on a home assessed at $264,000 in Chester County and a home assessed at $450,000 in Delaware County) with approximately $801 of that tax bill allocated to pay for the annual debt service.
• To fund a new middle school ($119,760,913) and continue to fund the long-range facilities plan for the other five schools over the next 10 years ($54,000,000), we will issue new bonds over those 10 years.
• As we issue new bonds, we will continue to pay down the debt incurred from our five open bond issues.
• In September 2026, we will have the opportunity to refinance/restructure the 2016 bonds (originally 2009 bonds to pay for the Unionville High School renovation), resulting in decreased annual debt payments.
• The decreased annual debt payments in the coming years resulting from paying off current debt and refinancing the 2016 bonds will give us the ability to build in the new debt required for the middle school project and the long-range facilities plan with minimal impact to the general fund budget and our taxpayers.
• The current estimate shows total debt increasing from the current $9,963,059 to a high of $13,790,928 in nine budget years, an average increase of $426,000 per year for each of those nine years. Again, this takes into account the pay off of current debt and refinancing of the 2016 bonds. So while we are adding new debt, the subtraction or lowering of old debt minimizes the overall debt service increase.
• To fund an additional $426,000 per year over those nine years in the general fund budget, the annual debt allocation within the average tax bill will need to increase for the average assessed home by $42 per year every year.
• As shown in the previous charts, this increase would be captured as part of the annual average tax increase, which remains under the Act I index.

Assumptions being utilized in the provided calculations include:

• Projected total general fund budget growth at 3% based on actual history
• Projected tax increase - 2.8% (based on 20 year average millage rate history)
• Debt assumptions - 5% interest on new debt (would be lower if done today); term of bond payback - 20 to 30 years depending on the bond issue; no savings currently projected in the 2026 refinancing (would result in savings if done today)
• Building costs as outlined within the final feasibility report with 6% design costs included

The initial working estimate was developed in partnership with Marotta/Main Architects during the feasibility study using actual costs from projects recently completed or bid and still in progress in the area.

• Costs are based on opening bids in the summer of 2027.
• These are working estimates. Final costs would be determined during the Bid stage of the process.

The breakdown of costs is as follows, as shown in the feasibility study report (beginning on page 61):

The indicated 18% project cost includes:

• Financing 0% 
• Architect/Engineers 6%
• Owner’s Representative 1.5% 
• Testing, Survey, Printing 1% 
• Technology 1% 
• Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment 3.5% 
• Construction Contingency 5%

• Similar to what has been utilized by the school district, the calculation is based on the total cost of the new middle school ($120,000,000) plus an estimated five percent interest on those bonds ($73,000,000).
• Real estate taxes fund the total general fund budget. The impact of debt on the general fund budget is the total annual debt service payments. Within the existing general fund budget, real estate taxes already fund on an annual basis an allocation of $9,963,059 in annual debt payments.
• The $20,000 tax impact that has been communicated by some in the community is simply looking at funding the $193,000,000 (estimate of replacement project cost and bond interest) with real estate taxes. 
  • ​​​​​​​Current total real estate taxes collected: $80,000,000; resulting average tax bill $8,500
  • Total funding needed for new middle school: $193,000,000 (2.4125 times the current annual real estate tax collections); resulting average tax bill required $20,506 (2.4125 times the current average tax bill)
• This calculation can be misleading because it does not take into account that the current level of real estate taxes already fund debt that will be replaced by future debt to pay for the new middle school. Additionally, the projects would not be funded all at once - it will be funded with bonds paid back over 25 to 30 years.
• Taxes will not increase by $20,000 to pay for the middle school (the current taxes cover debt that will be paid off and replaced with the new debt).
• Taking into account the completion of some existing debt payments, as well as restructuring/refinancing of other existing debt payments, the total annual debt service would need only to increase by $426,000 per year for nine years, until it reaches its maximum level to fund this replacement plan ($13,790,928 debt service level). 
  • Resulting debt service impact to the average taxpayer is a $42 increase per year each year for 9 years.

In reviewing the estimated cost of each option, based on bidding work (setting costs) in the 2026/27 school year and a 5 to 7 year construction schedule, the cost and scope for each of the three options are as follows:

• Maintain: $67,340,061
  • Renovates the 75% of the building that hasn’t been renovated.
  • Updates Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing (MEP) systems, bathrooms and classrooms.
• Renovate: $113,173,141
  • Addition of new instructional wing.
  • Demolition of part of existing structure.
  • Updates MEP systems, bathrooms and remaining classrooms.
• Replace: $119,760,913
  • Construction of new middle school and associated site improvements.
  • Demolition of existing middle school.

Each option only covers design/construction costs. It does not include ongoing routine maintenance, operating costs, or potential operational savings.

While NPV can offer insights into the financial aspects of a project, it fails to capture the broader societal value and non-monetary benefits that are central to public school construction projects.

The originally presented time horizons referenced 20 years for Maintain, 7 years for Renovate and 5 years for Replace. The construction for the Maintain option was originally planned to be completed over summer months to minimize disruption to the classrooms, which would require a longer timeframe for completion as compared to the renovate and replace options.

The estimate to build a new middle school and continue to fund the long-range facilities plan increases total debt service by $426,000 per year for 9 years. Building in an additional $426,000 in revenue per year to the general fund budget would result in a $42 increase per year for the average homeowner based on an assessed home value of $265,000 in Chester County and $449,000 in Delaware County.

No. Restructuring of the 2016 bonds in 2026 and building a new middle school are separate decisions. Historically, restructuring/refinancing bonds has been a valuable fiscal tool to manage total debt amounts, giving us more flexibility to manage our annual budget. The district has refinanced/restructured debt many times (2009, 2015, 2016, 2022) to manage debt levels, and there will be a recommendation to refinance/restructure the 2016 bonds in September 2026 regardless of the decision on the middle school. Restructuring the 2016 bonds would help minimize the impact to the general fund budget related to the building of a new middle school.

Waiting an additional 3 years for the debt to drop off could result in increased construction costs of $9,722,959 (Net Present Value). Based on current projections, the increased cost of the bond restructuring of $413,042 (Net Present Value), would be much smaller than the potential increased cost of waiting to replace the building.

Moving forward on the recommended timeline ensures that our students and staff can begin benefiting sooner from the enhanced teaching and learning environment, as well as the critical health and safety improvements that a new middle school offers.

The process of looking into middle school options started almost a year ago. The District and the Board have taken a methodical approach to develop various options to address the chronic concerns at the middle school.  These included hiring an architect to complete a feasibility study, and engaging the community in the process over the past 6 months. (For a more detailed background and timeline, please view Dr. Sanville's January 6 presentation).

From an architectural standpoint, the strategic incorporation of natural lighting can yield substantial benefits, both in terms of energy efficiency and occupant satisfaction.  For instance, studies have shown that the judicious use of natural daylight can significantly reduce the energy demands associated with artificial lighting and climate control in office spaces (Zhang & Kim, 2020).  Similarly, in the context of educational facilities, the presence of well-designed daylighting systems has been linked to improved academic performance, enhanced visual comfort, and better overall student health (Tanić et al., 2019) (Yazit et al., 2018).  

For additional information on this topic:

Bringing in the Sun: The Impact of Daylighting in Schools - CPL Architecture Engineering Planning

Daylighting Impacts on Human Performance in School - Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society

The Impact of Daylighting in Classrooms on Students' Performance - International Journal of Soft Computing and Engineering

 The Importance of Daylighting in Classrooms and Its Effect on Primary Students' Academic Performance - University College London Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering

Our academic performance has remained consistently high, even as we’ve faced challenges with aging facilities. A new school building is an investment in our students’ future, providing modern, adaptable spaces designed to support innovative teaching and learning. Up-to-date facilities enhance both academic achievement and the overall student experience, ensuring we can continue to meet the evolving needs of our students and staff.

Per Pennsylvania statute, a public referendum is required when a school district desires to levy a tax increase above the state-defined Act 1 Index, a calculation based on wage inflation. As financial calculations indicate we will be able to afford any of the three options while remaining within our annual Act 1 Index guidelines, a referendum is not needed.

Opportunities for community input into the decision-making process have occurred through information sessions with Q&A, a community survey, and two community conversations. Additional opportunities continue to be available during public comment at each scheduled Board Work Session and Regular Board Meeting leading up to the Board vote on February 18, 2025.

The February 18, 2025 Board vote will be centered on whether to proceed with the first step toward replacement of the current middle school. There will be multiple steps within the process as outlined in the tentative timeline below, continuing to allow the Board opportunities, if necessary, to change course.

Tentative Replacement Timeline

• Issue Design Request for Proposal (RFP) | March 2025
• Evaluate RFP Responses | April 2025
• *Award Design Contract | May - June 2025
• Design | July 2025 - August 2027
• *Award Construction Bids | August 2027
• Construction | August 2027 - July 2030
• Completion of New Middle School | August 2030
• Demolition of Old Middle School | August - October 2030
• Final Sitework | September - December 2030

* Denotes Board's decision point to continue the process.

When we look back at the history of renovations at Unionville Elementary (100 years) and Chadds Ford Elementary (99 years), there were significant renovations and/or additions to the buildings approximately every 30-40 years. These renovations replaced critical infrastructure to extend the life of the buildings. The original middle school has not experienced significant renovations since its construction in 1972. While the building is still functional, critical system failures are likely and could affect occupancy of the building for an extended period of time.

We currently estimate that a replaced Middle School could cost approximately $100 Million. At the conclusion of the Feasibility Study, Marotta/Main will provide updated approximate costs for the options to maintain, renovate or replace the Middle School.

If we choose to renovate or replace the Middle School, tax increases will continue to remain below the Act I Index and Consumer Price Index (CPI). These two measures keep us in step with inflation and wage growth. It is also worth noting all three options - maintain, renovate, or replace will cost money - none are free.

If we choose to renovate or replace the Middle School, we can afford to do so without going to referendum. We will have the opportunity to refinance and/or restructure a portion of our debt in 2026. This refinancing and/or restructuring will result in cost savings to the District. We can choose how we will direct the cost savings, including to help renovate or replace the Middle School while remaining within the Act I Index and CPI.

If we choose to renovate or replace the Middle School, there will not be a taxpayer assessment to support the cost.

As you may know, Unionville High School (UHS) underwent a renovation in 2009, following two failed referendums. While the renovation has greatly improved the student experience at UHS, we recognize now that the lack of public engagement in the process negatively impacted our relationship with the community. As a result, for this project, we will provide the public multiple opportunities to be a part of the conversation. We also agree that, like our taxpayers, we need to spend within a budget. For school districts, the Act 1 Index keeps us in step with inflation and wage growth. UCFSD will not go to referendum or increase taxes above the Act 1 Index to support a renovation or replacement of the Middle School.

Marotta/Main has a long history of partnering with UCFSD, specifically on renovations at the Middle School. They made the best choice to complete a Feasibility Study because they know the building so well. If there is a decision to move forward with a renovation or replacement, we will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Architectural services and have a detailed evaluation rubric for selecting an Architect in the design phase.

Members of our community have long shared concerns about the lack of natural light in the Middle School. Currently 70% of Patton classrooms lack windows. The percentage of classrooms without natural light in other UCFSD buildings is as follows: 

• Chadds Ford Elementary School: 20%
• Unionville High School: 18% 
• Hillendale Elementary School: 11% 
• Unionville Elementary School: 5% 
• Pocopson Elementary School: 1%

In addition, we know that 38% of the building’s square footage (and virtually none of the Teaching & Learning space) has been renovated since its original construction. As a result, the current Middle School building will need an estimated $46 million in repairs over the next 30 years, including to address concerns related to ADA accessibility, air quality, asbestos containing materials, bathrooms, electrical systems, HVAC systems, roofing and traffic flow.

Generally speaking, research does show that schools built without adequate daylight adversely affect the health and academic performance of students. Research also shows that the quality of the space you spend time in makes a difference in how you feel and how you act. This Harvard Business Review article Welcome to the Experience Economy by B. Joseph Pine II and James H. Gilmore highlights this point. 

We can also point to the positive impact of the 2009 UHS renovation! In addition to anecdotal evidence, as a direct result of the project, UHS standardized test scores improved shortly after. UHS was no longer a Targeted Support & Improvement (TSI) school and UCFSD was named the Pittsburgh Business Journal’s District of the Decade.

Yes! The educational needs of students have undergone significant transformations since the 1970s, driven by societal shifts like technology. Thanks to that technology, the world is increasingly interconnected. As a result, we know that students need to develop 21st century skills like creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication to solve 21st century problems across cultures. These are the skills that will serve them best in an economy that is ever-evolving. In K-12 education, there is also a greater emphasis on inclusion and the individual needs of each student– including their mental and physical health.

School facilities play a crucial role in supporting the educational experience of students. Many 21st century schools emphasize flexible learning spaces that promote creativity, critical thinking, collaboration and communication– and are integrated with technology throughout. Examples could include modular walls, movable furniture, maker spaces, interactive displays, charging stations and Wifi. Well-designed buildings, including natural light, also make students and staff feel better about themselves and their school communities.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that students will spend over 15,000 hours in their K-12 schools. Over the past 10-15 years there have been numerous case studies that show a clear connection between improved scores on math/reading tests with increased daylight in schools. Increased daylight has also been shown to improve attendance, cognitive performance and mental health.

Yes we will. Part of the Feasibility Study includes demographics. We want to make sure that our building is the right size based on the best information available. While UCFSD has conducted enrollment studies in the past, we believe that it is important to have another outside set of eyes investigate this.

If we choose to renovate or replace the Middle School, safety & security will be a major driver of building design. We will take into account safety measures in design that are commonplace today.

Whether a renovation or replacement, a construction project of this magnitude will have some level of impact on the site. A renovation project would most likely have a higher level of impact as the building would be occupied while under construction. Construction of a new building could be better isolated while students continue to use the existing building. 

It is also worth noting that if we decide to maintain the building, some of those projects (bathrooms for example) could have an impact on the instructional day.

If we choose to replace the Middle School, Marotta/Main will make recommendations on its location as a part of the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study, including any recommended locations, will be made available to the public.

If we choose to replace the Middle School, it is possible that part or all of the current Middle School will be torn down.

If we choose to replace the Middle School, Marotta/Main will make recommendations on whether any parts of the current building can be saved as a part of the Feasibility Study.

Offering a date at this time is probably premature, because there are a lot of decisions to be made. One delay on a decision could have a trickle down effect. However, from a financial perspective, the earliest we could break ground would be 2026. Typically, construction takes three years. It is conceivable that we could open a new Middle School during the 29-30 School Year. Because of the need to stage renovations to reduce their impact on students and staff, it is possible that a renovation could take longer than new construction. 

There are currently no air quality issues in the Middle School that would negatively impact student or staff health. We do have old ductwork and an old “Multi-Zone” HVAC system in the original portion of the building that leads to challenges in operating efficiently. We take Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) concerns seriously, and have an IAQ complaint form (modeled from the EPA Tools for Schools Program) that is available for staff to utilize if they have any concerns regarding the air quality in their space.   

With a new building we would be in a much better position to meet these newer standards, and any other newer codes. We understand that indoor air quality is an important component of creating a conducive learning environment, and we would look to do that in a fiscally responsible HVAC engineering design.

Mature tree placement would be part of the land development process for the project. Consideration will be made to preserve specimen trees, but not as a short-sighted plan that limits the overall benefit of the project.

If renovation is the selected option, we would develop a detailed multi-year phased construction plan to make sure demolition work that would disturb asbestos containing materials would occur during times when the school is unoccupied. Additionally, asbestos abatement is strictly regulated and requires establishing negative air pressure, full containment and pre/post air testing to make sure that the work is done safely.

If we choose to maintain the current building, UCFSD will do our best to address the concerns we can as a part of our Long-Range Facilities Plan.

When we look at our other buildings, they have all been constructed or have undergone significant renovations over the last 20-25 years. The same can not be said about the current Middle School. There are components of the Middle School building that are 50 years old and original to the 1972 construction. Whatever is decided, we still have a Long Range Facilities Plan that addresses the ongoing routine maintenance and replacement needs of our other buildings.

A renovated or replaced Middle School would create opportunities to improve our current Middle School and High School campus configuration. Last year, we designed and bid a large renovation project to improve pedestrian and traffic flow on our campus. This included relocating the tennis courts and parking facilities. Given the cost, it made sense to put that project on hold in order to have these discussions around the Middle School building.   

With chronic community concerns, it is both respectful and responsive to our community to take an in-depth look at our options. 

Yes! At UCFSD, we believe in the power of public engagement – and will provide you multiple opportunities to be a part of the conversation. This Middle School Feasibility Study microsite remains the best source of always up-to-date information. Those with questions are invited to contact msfeasibilitystudy@ucfsd.net.

Yes! UCFSD will provide multiple opportunities to be a part of the conversation. You are welcome to share your ideas in-person at our Community Conversations or by email to msfeasibilitystudy@ucfsd.net.