A Direct Response to Commissioner Fithian: The Case for Moving Forward with a New Middle School in Chestertown

Posted by Sam Shoge in response to Commissioner Fitihian’s appeal to upend plans to construct a new middle school in Chestertown in favor of renovating Worton Elementary School.

Commissioner Ronnie Fithian recently published a commentary questioning whether Kent County should move forward with funding a new middle school. His argument is straightforward: $32 million is a lot of money, taxpayers should be concerned, and perhaps Kent County can save millions by renovating Worton Elementary School or placing some middle school students at the high school.

I understand why that argument resonated.

Kent County residents are practical and they do not want waste, nor do they want to see public dollars spent casually. Many look at empty or underused buildings and ask a fair question: why not use what we already have?

That instinct is not wrong. In fact, it is the exact instinct county leaders should have when evaluating any major capital project. But instinct is not the same thing as analysis, and a cheaper-sounding idea is not the same thing as a cheaper plan.

That is the central problem with Commissioner Fithian’s post.

It presents numbers, but not the full context. It presents alternatives, but not a complete plan. It presents concern about cost, but not the financing tools already in place. It gives residents the impression that Kent County is choosing between a fiscally reckless new school and a fiscally responsible renovation.

That is not the real choice before us.

The real choice is whether Kent County is finally going to act on a school facilities problem that has been studied, discussed, delayed, reduced, and analyzed for years–or whether we are going to move the goalposts again, reopen questions that have already been reviewed, and risk turning a hard-fought state funding opportunity into another example of Kent County talking itself out of investing in its own future.

Let me be very clear: I support building the new middle school–and building it in Chestertown. I support it because the need is real, the planning process has been extensive, the current financing position is stronger than many residents have been led to believe, and the alternatives now being promoted are not fully developed alternatives at all. They are assumptions.

And Kent County should not make a generational decision based on assumptions.

This Concern Is Years Late

The first point that needs to be made clearly is this: the middle school project did not appear out of nowhere.

Planning for Kent County’s school facilities goes back years. In 2018, Kent County Public Schools published a Six-Year Facilities Strategic Plan that made plain what many families, teachers, and students have known for a long time: our school system was operating with aging buildings, educational and performance deficiencies, severe fiscal constraints, and facilities that no longer aligned with modern educational needs. The plan was grounded in three goals: improve the learning environment, align the size of the facility plant with student enrollments, and provide a more financially sustainable support infrastructure.

That same 2018 plan identified the future of Kent County Middle School as “the single largest capital decision” the Board of Education and County Government would face in the next decade. Instead of ignoring the issue, the plan recommended an educational specification and feasibility study process to determine whether the middle school should be renovated, replaced, relocated, or otherwise reconfigured.

This missing context is critical because Commissioner Fithian’s post reads as though this concern is just now being discovered. It is not.

The record shows a long process. A strategic planning committee was approved in 2017. Community meetings were held. The committee toured school facilities. The middle school issue was identified as a major long-term planning challenge. The need for educational specifications and a feasibility study was put on paper years ago.

More recently, beginning in 2021, a committee made up of administrators, educators, state officials, school construction experts, and parents began reviewing possible paths forward. More than a dozen scenarios were narrowed down. Additional community input sessions were held. A feasibility study was completed in 2023. The options were reduced from five, to four, to two, before the Board of Education approved building on the current Chestertown campus.

That was not a rushed process, nor was there a lack of opportunity for input.

So when the public is now told, just weeks before a major vote, that we should suddenly pivot to a new renovation concept for Worton Elementary School that has not been designed, priced, reviewed, or approved in the same way, residents should ask a different question:

Why now?

Why is this level of concern arriving at the 11th hour after years of planning?

If a commissioner wanted to make Worton Elementary School the serious alternative, the time to develop that plan was during the study process, not after the project moved through years of review and after the county and school system worked to secure a better state funding formula.

The Cost Is High. The Deal Is Also Hard-Fought.

Now let’s talk about the number that has everyone’s attention: $32 million.

That is a significant local obligation. No serious person should wave that away. Kent County taxpayers have every right to ask how the county will pay for it, whether the cost has been reduced where possible, and whether the final project is worth the investment.

But what has been missing from Commissioner Fithian’s argument is the amount of work that went into getting the county’s cost share to this point.

The commissioners asked for the state-local funding formula to become much more favorable to Kent County–something more like 80/20. That was not a small ask. For years, Kent County was operating under a much less favorable structure. The school system helped achieve what many people thought would be impossible: a new formula of 75/25, with Kent County eligible for an additional 5%, bringing the state-local share for eligible costs to 80/20.

That is a major win for taxpayers.

Then the commissioners asked for the square footage of the proposed building to be reduced. Again, that happened. The project was reduced by approximately 5,400 gross square feet, eliminating four general classrooms, a chorus classroom, and a health education classroom compared to the educational specifications. That reduction was a good-faith effort to bring costs down while still preserving the core educational program.

Now, after the funding formula was improved and the project was reduced, the new request is essentially: forget the current plan and convert Worton Elementary School into the middle school.

That is what many would call shifting the goalposts.

At some point, Kent County has to recognize a win when it gets one. Taxpayers are being presented with the best, hardest-fought school construction funding deal this county has had in decades. Rather than acknowledging that, they are being presented with the illusion of a choice between a reckless new school and a prudent renovation.

But the “prudent” alternative is not a plan–just a statement.

Worton Elementary Is Not an Empty Building Waiting to Become a Middle School

The Worton argument is powerful because it sounds simple. Worton Elementary School is there. It was closed as an elementary school. It has a new roof. It is near the high school. Therefore, why not renovate it and save millions?

That is a reasonable starting question. It is not a complete capital plan, however.

It is important to know that Worton Elementary is not simply empty space. The 2018 facilities plan recommended retaining the Worton campus precisely because it offered flexibility. The plan identified multiple possible uses: administrative functions, possible future elementary capacity, and, yes, even the possibility that it could be considered for a future middle school with appropriate renovation and expansion if needed. But preserving an option is not the same thing as proving that option is now the best, cheapest, most educationally appropriate, or most state-fundable path forward.

The same 2018 plan also recommended using Worton for Board of Education offices, transportation functions, and other possible uses. That recommendation was not random, but connected to a broader strategy to reduce the school system’s overall building footprint, move out of the former Rock Hall Elementary School building, and save taxpayer money on utilities and operations. The plan estimated that surplusing Millington Elementary and the Rock Hall board office would reduce school system space by 67,704 square feet and generate more than $99,000 per year in utility savings alone.

That is the missing context.

If Worton Elementary is converted into a middle school, then the current and planned uses of that building do not disappear; they must be relocated. Transportation operations must be accounted for. The alternative learning environment must be accounted for and relocated. Board office relocation must be accounted for. The plan to shed the former Rock Hall Elementary building, currently the central office building, and reduce long-term operating costs must be accounted for.

Commissioner Fithian’s post does not account for those costs.

It does not account for the cost of relocating existing uses. It does not account for code compliance. It does not account for accessibility. It does not account for security upgrades. It does not account for middle school science, technology, special education, student support, stormwater, utilities, or modern building systems.

It simply says: renovate the building, build an auditorium, and assume it can be done for far less.

To me, this is speculation, not a full and robust analysis.

The “Simple Renovation” Was Not the Studied Option

Above all else, this distinction might be the most critical.

The public has already seen real options studied. The September 2023 location recommendation presented to the Board of Education by professional school planning consultants reviewed several alternatives from the feasibility study: renovation/addition to the existing middle school at approximately $49.8 million in construction cost, replacement on the current Chestertown site at approximately $55.8 million, replacement at another site at approximately $61.3 million plus site acquisition, replacement at the Worton site at approximately $54.5 million, and replacement as an attachment to Kent County High School at approximately $50.5 million.

Those numbers show that when actual school construction options were evaluated, the supposed low-cost alternatives were not $10 million answers. They were tens-of-millions-of-dollars projects.

The new claim being made now–that Worton Elementary can be renovated into a first-class middle school for a fraction of the cost–was not the same as the options that were fully studied. It has not been put through the same architectural, engineering, cost-estimating, state-review, or educational-specification process.

That does not mean Commissioner Fithian’s proposal is impossible, just unproven.

And an unproven idea should not be treated as though it is more responsible than the plan that has actually been reviewed.

School construction experts consistently warn against assuming renovation is automatically cheaper than new construction. Renovations often involve phased work, code compliance, accessibility upgrades, safety improvements, hidden conditions, old utilities, and construction logistics that can cause renovation costs to rival or exceed the cost of building new. They also note that once renovation costs approach roughly 65 to 75 percent of the cost of new construction, districts often have to ask whether renovation still makes sense.

That is exactly why “just renovate Worton” cannot be accepted at face value.

If Commissioner Fithian believes Worton Elementary can be converted into a modern middle school for dramatically less, then the full plan should be put on the table: drawings, construction estimates, soft costs, relocation costs, code analysis, IAC eligibility, state reimbursement assumptions, operating costs, and long-term tradeoffs.

Until that exists, taxpayers are not being offered a prudent alternative. They are being offered an attractive assumption.

State Participation Is Not Automatic

There is another technical point that needs to be understood.

State participation in school construction is not automatic simply because a county prefers a different idea. The project must go through the state process. It must be eligible. It must align with educational specifications. It must be reviewed. It must receive approvals. It must fit within the state’s funding rules.

The 2018 facilities plan explains that state funding participation is based on eligible project costs and that eligibility differs by project type. For major projects, state funding participation is calculated based on enrollment, square footage allocation by school type, the annual state construction cost factor, and the state-local cost share. It also notes that project development costs, ineligible items, and certain other costs remain local responsibilities.

In other words, the county cannot simply say, “We prefer this new renovation concept,” assume the same funding participation, and move forward as though nothing has changed. Changing the project changes the process.

Changing the site, scope, building use, construction strategy, and educational plan would require new analysis. It would invite delay and could affect state approval. It could affect timing. It could affect cost. It could affect the level of state participation. It could put the current opportunity at risk.

That is not fiscal prudence. Instead, I see it as gambling with a state funding opportunity Kent County worked hard to secure.

The High School Proposal Is Not Much of a Plan Either

Commissioner Fithian also suggests that Kent County should consider moving eighth grade into the high school.

Again, this sounds simple until it is examined.

The argument relies on a surface-level comparison between past high school enrollment and current high school enrollment. But facility utilization is not the same thing as usable space. The 2018 facilities plan makes this point directly: low utilization does not necessarily mean a school has unused spaces. A school can have a low utilization percentage and still have instructional and support spaces fully used because of program requirements, grade-level scheduling, special education needs, and specialized instructional programs.

This is especially true at the high school level.

A high school is not a warehouse of interchangeable classrooms. A carpentry shop is not an English classroom. A culinary kitchen is not a seventh-grade math room. A science lab is not general overflow space. A gym, auditorium, CTE wing, media center, athletic training area, administrative suite, and performing arts space cannot simply be counted as empty capacity because the building once held more students.

The 2018 plan did consider high school co-location concepts. But even those options assumed separation between the middle and high school programs and acknowledged that the middle school would still need its own auxiliary gymnasium, physical education classrooms, locker rooms, and separate programmatic elements.

That is a very different idea from simply placing eighth graders in the high school because the building looks underused on paper.

It is also important to acknowledge what parents have consistently raised: many do not want middle school students placed in close proximity to high school students. The 2018 facilities plan specifically noted that a 6-to-12 configuration would not meet community expectations that middle school students be kept separate from high school students and would require costly renovations and additions to Kent County High School.

So once again, the question is not whether something can sound efficient in a paragraph. The question is whether it works educationally, operationally, financially, and safely.

On that test, the high school idea is not a plan, just another assumption.

The Chestertown Location Was Not Chosen Randomly

Some residents have said they support a new middle school but question why it should be in Chestertown rather than Worton. That is a fair question, and it deserves a direct answer.

The Chestertown site was not chosen randomly. It was evaluated against the Worton site through a location recommendation process that examined academic, physical education, social-emotional, community, and facility-operation factors. The presentation acknowledged that both locations had advantages and disadvantages and that the decision was “not simple or unambiguous.”

That is exactly the type of language I want to see in a serious facilities process. It does not pretend the choice is easy–it evaluates tradeoffs.

The Chestertown site had several clear advantages: access to Chestertown resources such as Sultana, the library, Washington College, and other community assets; a separate middle school identity; no sharing of fields and tennis courts for physical education; walkability, sidewalks, and lower traffic speeds; support for an existing community; and the possibility of attracting families with walkers. The Worton site had advantages as well, including proximity to high school programs and easier coordination for some families with both middle and high school students. But it also had serious drawbacks: it could block future high school expansion, it was not walkable for nearby students, and it created physical education and athletics concerns because high school facilities would have priority and distance from facilities could reduce instructional time.

When the sites were scored through an objective process, Chestertown scored 101. Worton scored 15. The final results found Chestertown more favorable for core education, student support, physical education, social-emotional learning, and student safety and security.

That does not mean every resident has to personally prefer Chestertown. But it does mean the decision was grounded in educational and operational analysis, not just preference.

The IAC Formula Is a Funding Formula, Not a Complete Educational Plan

Another major part of Commissioner Fithian’s argument is square footage. He argues that the state will only support a certain amount of space and that anything above that must be unnecessary.

That is a misunderstanding of what the formula does.

The IAC formula is designed to support equitable state funding across jurisdictions. It is not a complete educational plan for Kent County. It does not fully capture every local program, every scheduling need, every community use, or every design decision that makes a school work for the students and families who will actually use it.

The gym example is a good one. A formula may support a basic physical education space. It may not fully account for the kind of gym configuration that allows bleachers to pull out for families attending middle school basketball games. In Kent County, middle school athletics are a big deal. Entire families show up. Grandparents show up. These are the moments that build school pride and community connection.

We shouldn’t see this as waste. This is actually the life of a school, and it’s not accounted for in the IAC formula.

The same is true for STEM programming, gifted and talented programming, special education needs, student support spaces, and scheduling realities. A state formula cannot fully substitute for local educational judgment.

The district has already reduced square footage by approximately 5,400 gross square feet, eliminating multiple classrooms and program spaces. Further reductions are not simply “cutting fat.” At this stage, further reductions mean cutting into the educational program itself.

The real question is not whether the building can be made smaller on paper. The real question is what Kent County students lose when it is made smaller.

The Financing Is Within Reach Because Kent County Has Been Preparing for This

Now let’s address the question everyone has a right to ask: how do we pay for it?

Commissioner Fithian’s framing makes the project sound financially alarming. He points to the $32 million local share, the $19 million on hand, the possibility of borrowing, and the need to front state reimbursement.

But municipal finance is not household finance. Counties do not build long-lived public assets out of one year’s checkbook. We do not build wastewater treatment plants that way. We do not build pump stations that way. We do not build community centers that way. We do not build courthouses, detention centers, or major public infrastructure that way.

We finance long-term public assets over time because they serve the public over time.

That does not mean debt should be used recklessly. It means debt is a tool, and responsible governments use that tool to match the cost of long-lived infrastructure with the generations that benefit from it.

Kent County’s own financial report shows that the county has already been preparing for this school project. The FY2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report states that the county increased its income tax rate from 3.2% to 3.3%, effective January 1, 2026. That increase is expected to generate an additional $675,000 annually, and those additional funds have been earmarked for the construction of a new middle school.

Said more plainly: taxes have already been raised for this purpose.

The question now is whether county leaders will honor that action by moving forward with the project that gives taxpayers the best long-term return.

The same financial report shows that Kent County’s fiscal position is not nearly as fragile as some would suggest. At the end of FY2025, the county’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of approximately $29.5 million, an increase of roughly $6.7 million over the prior year. The general fund had a total fund balance of approximately $28.5 million, and the unassigned general fund balance was approximately $10.1 million, about 17% of general fund expenditures–a dramatic overperformance over the county’s target of 7.5%.

Does this mean that every dollar should be spent?

No. It does, however, mean Kent County has capacity.

It also means residents should understand what has happened: the county has collected revenues, maintained a fund balance well above its stated target, raised income taxes for the new middle school, and is now being told that moving forward may be too expensive.

That is very hard to reconcile.

It also poses an additional question: why is the county collecting so much tax revenue and not reinvesting it back into the community?

A responsible financing approach would not require draining every dollar of available reserves. The better approach is: preserve a meaningful portion of the county’s reserve, apply an appropriate portion of accumulated capital capacity, bond the balance, and manage reimbursable state cash flow separately. That structure allows the county to protect emergency reserves while still using the tools local governments are supposed to use for major infrastructure.

The county’s own debt schedule also shows that existing governmental debt service is rolling off and will approach historic lows. Governmental activity bond principal and interest decline significantly between 2026 and 2030, with existing governmental bond principal scheduled to be largely retired during that window.

This is critical context because the $675,000 in new annual income tax revenue earmarked for the middle school does not exist in isolation. It can be combined with debt service capacity that is freed up as older obligations are retired. That is how municipal finance works. You look at annual debt service, revenue streams, reserves, reimbursement timing, and debt capacity — not just the headline construction number.

Again, this does not make $32 million small. But it does make it manageable.

Deferred Maintenance Is Not Savings

Commissioner Fithian also raises the issue of the $3.4 million fine the state imposed on the county for not maintaining the middle school adequately. That issue deserves context, but not the kind that lets everyone quietly walk away from responsibility.

Kent County Public Schools is not an independent taxing authority. It cannot levy property taxes. It cannot levy income taxes. It cannot issue tax-supported debt on its own. The county’s own financial report states this plainly: the Board of Education is fiscally dependent on the County, and the County is responsible for levying taxes, issuing debt, and approving the Board’s budget.

So if the public is being asked to focus on a maintenance-related penalty, then the public should also ask the obvious follow-up question: Who ultimately controls the capital funding needed to maintain school buildings?

The answer is not complicated. The school system may manage its facilities, set priorities, and request funding, but the County Commissioners control the local purse. They decide how much capital funding is provided, how quickly projects move, and whether long-term facility needs are treated as urgent obligations or pushed into future years.

That is why the maintenance penalty cannot be used as a simple talking point against the school system while ignoring the funding structure that produced the problem. If school buildings fall behind, that reflects more than one missed repair or one administrative decision. It reflects years of capital choices, years of deferred investments, and years of deciding that holding the line today was more important than paying the full cost of ownership tomorrow.

For years, Kent County has stretched the life of old school buildings and called that prudence. But there is a point where stretching becomes avoiding. There is a point where “saving money” becomes transferring costs to the next group of students, teachers, parents, and taxpayers.

That is where we are now.

The Cost of Not Building Is Also Real

Finally, we need to confront the argument that may be the most damaging to Kent County’s future: why build a new school if enrollment has declined? This question sounds practical, but I think it gets the issue backwards.

Declining enrollment is not a reason to stop investing. Declining enrollment is the result of years of decisions that made it harder for young families to stay here, move here, buy homes here, find opportunities here, and believe Kent County was planning for them.

I’ve said it once on the campaign trail, and I’ll say it again: demographic decline is not destiny–it is a reflection of choices.

If we make every major decision based on the assumption that Kent County will keep shrinking, then we will guarantee that future. We will build less, expect less, attract less, and offer less. Then, ten years from now, we will wonder why even fewer young families see a future here.

I’m well aware that a new middle school will not solve every problem. It will not fix housing by itself. It will not create jobs by itself. It will not reverse enrollment trends by itself. And it will not raise academic achievement by itself. But it is a foundational investment.

It is a generational investment.

It tells families that Kent County is serious about children. It tells teachers that we value the environment where they work. It tells employers that we understand workforce development begins long before adulthood. It tells residents that we are done treating decline as inevitable.

If we want more families, we need more homes. If we want more homes, we need stronger communities. If we want stronger communities, we need modern schools. If we want a stronger economy, we need to stop separating school investment from economic development. They are connected.

A county with aging schools, shrinking enrollment, limited housing, and an aging population cannot solve those problems by refusing to invest. That is how the spiral continues.

In this moment–right now–Kent County has to decide whether it is planning for decline or planning for renewal.

I am for renewal.

My Final Thoughts

Commissioner Fithian is right about one thing: taxpayers should ask questions.

They should ask why the project costs what it costs. They should ask what state funding is available. They should ask how the county will finance its share. They should ask whether alternatives have been considered. They should ask whether we are making the best long-term decision.

But they should also ask whether the alternative being presented is real.

Right now, the current new middle school project has been studied, reduced, reviewed, scored, and advanced through a years-long process. The county has already raised income tax revenue and earmarked it for the new middle school. The state-local cost-share formula has been dramatically improved for eligible costs. Existing debt service is rolling off. The county’s fund balance exceeds its own target. The Chestertown location was selected through an objective process that found it more favorable for core education, student support, physical education, social-emotional learning, safety, and security.

On the other side is a proposal to renovate Worton Elementary School without a full design, without a full cost estimate, without a complete relocation plan, without a state funding approval path, without a clear accounting of existing uses, and without a serious explanation of how this would affect the broader facilities strategy.

I encourage the residents of Kent County to not confuse caution with delay. We should not confuse speculation with savings. We should not confuse an old building with a modern middle school. And we should not confuse the fear of spending money with fiscal responsibility.

The responsible path is to move forward. Move forward with the project that has been studied. Move forward with the funding opportunity that has been fought for. Move forward with the financing tools already available. Move forward with the investment our students deserve.

Kent County has gone long enough without building a new school. Our children should not have to wait another decade because, at the final moment, we decided to start the process over again.

The time for analysis has happened. The time for delay is over.

It is time to build the new middle school.