Why the Rush to Replace Patton Middle School?

A tale of hidden costs and exaggerated concerns

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary

New Year 2026 Update

The True Cost of Replacing Patton MS

Is a New School Really Necessary?

The Biased Financial Analysis

UCFSD Aims for a “Taj Mahal”

The Board Seeks to Avoid Public Engagement

About the authors:

Lindsay Tucker is a parent with four children in the District.

Mark Stookey has lived in UCFSD since 1990. All three of his children attended District schools.

This site was created by ordinary school district residents, just like you, who are investing their own time and money to raise public awareness. They are concerned that the Superintendent and School Board are trying to push through a quarter of a billion dollars of spending over 35 years before the public learns about the cost, the flimsy rationale, and the alternatives.

New Year 2026 Update: Some Good News but Mostly Bad News

Project Likely Delayed but Costs Up Significantly

On January 12, the UCFSD Board met to review a new schematic plan for the Middle School prepared by their new architect, Breslin.

There is good news and bad news.  First the good news:  the District is now on a course to delay the construction of a new middle school by four years, with construction scheduled to begin in 2031 vs. 2027.  This means there is more time for the Board reconsider their direction and more time for the public to state their concerns.

The bad news—which is very bad—is that with the new design, the estimated cost of the new school has increased by nearly $20 million, or 16%, from $120 million to $140 million. The new design has a slightly larger building, and site work and demolition are significantly more expensive than in the feasibility study. In addition, inflation over the four years of project delay is likely to add ~$20 million to the project cost.  Consequently, we estimate the total amount to be financed at approximately $160 million.  The cost per taxpayer will therefore be higher by about one-third, from about $28,000 in the original plan to approximately $37,000.

The tone of the Board meeting was remarkable.  The Board clearly continues to be infatuated with having a new building.  And there was considerable self-congratulation about their “fiscal stewardship” in delaying the construction, even though the projected costs are well above the $120 million that the previous Superintendent said was the maximum the District could afford. 

Pennsylvania law requires a referendum for a new school building in two situations:  if servicing the related borrowings leads to an increase in property taxes above an annual inflation-related limit (Act 1), or if the cost of the building exceeds statutory standards (Act 34, the “Taj Mahal Act”).  As previously reported, the Board desperately wants to avoid a referendum and apparently believes that this much more expensive building can be financed within the Act 1 limits, if they wait four years.  Similarly, the Board believes that the total cost of the building will be within Act 34 limits, allowing them to avoid a referendum on this basis.  There is considerable doubt about the accuracy of those claims, which will need to be tested.

The District is banking on the paydown of debt related to the high school renovations to enable them to add new borrowings without exceeding tax increase limits.  However, the debt reduction between 2027 and 2031 is significantly less than the estimated $40 million increase in the cost of the new school, so there does not appear to be a net benefit.  In addition, long-term municipal bond rates have increased somewhat since the feasibility study, which may further add to debt service costs.  Plus the District has run an operating deficit over the past two years, which, coupled with the magnitude of the new borrowing, may put pressure on UCFSD’s debt rating.

Moreover, at the meeting, the District Administration revealed major new budget pressures over the next few years:

  • A reduction in the Act 1 property tax increase limit from 4.0% in 2025-26 to 3.5% in 2026-2027, with further steady reductions to 3.1% by 2030-31.  Thus, overall budget increases will be much more tightly constrained.
  • A significant jump in the employer pension contributions as a percentage of pay from 33.6% currently to 37.5% by 2033-34, leading to a major increase in benefit costs even before accounting for wage inflation.
  • Continued large increases in medical expenses.  Claims are expected to increase by nearly 9% in the next fiscal year, a multiple of the Act 1 limit.
  • Major upward pressure on electricity costs, which, on a unit basis, have been increasing at double-digit rates.

It is very unclear how the District will stay within Act 1 limits while paying for these cost increases and funding their largest debt increase ever.  In any event, it is axiomatic that taxpayers will be expected to pay for all of this.

Ironically, when in early 2025 taxpayers suggested a delay in the construction timeline (which would have allowed more time to consider options and also would have enabled UCFSD to avoid an expensive debt restructuring), the District stated the building was urgently needed and they could not take a pause.  We must now surmise that the need is not so urgent, if building now would put UCFSD in the undesired position of having to hold a referendum to seek the opinion of taxpayers who will have to pay for it.

UCFSD has promised a more thorough review at the School Board workshop meeting on March 9.  We urge taxpayers to continue to follow this project and provide input to the District.  It is notable that the recent glossy mailer from the Superintendent stated that the District had sought feedback on the new Middle School design from the “many councils” of UCFSD.  None of these “councils” are devoted to taxpayers without students in the District, so we will need to be assertive if we are to be heard. In the meantime, the District is continuing to spend millions of dollars with Breslin to design a building it may not be able to afford.