Even with the Philadelphia Eagles’ home opener on television, more than 100 residents packed into a Pennsbury School Board Act 34 hearing Thursday night to weigh in on a proposed $212.4 million new high school project.
The 497,000-square-foot building would replace Pennsbury East and Pennsbury West, two campuses dating to the 1960s. Once completed, the old buildings would be razed. School officials say renovation was considered but rejected due to structural and safety concerns, as well as issues with natural light and security.
Including $33 million for site development and $1.3 million in architectural fees, the total project could cost up to $269.5 million. Financial adviser Zach Williard of PFM said the district’s strong Aa3 credit rating would allow it to issue bonds without insurance, and the debt package may incorporate old debt to minimize the tax impact.
The total millage is projected at 14.6 mills.
Parents and some construction workers welcomed the plan, arguing Pennsbury students deserve a modern facility. School board candidate Jim Boice praised the board for “having the will to act.”
“The students are the heart of our district,” Boice said. “But the buildings matter. We want our kids going to top-quality buildings, so they feel good about themselves.” Renovation, he added, would disrupt learning and leave mold problems unresolved.
But opponents — particularly senior citizens — warned the tax burden could drive longtime residents from their homes.
“Everyone is going to have to sell their house because they’re not going to be able to pay their taxes here,” said school board candidate Andrew Dell, who argued the cost estimate was unrealistically low.
Mo Epstein, a resident since 1976, compared renovation to the military’s B-52 bomber, still in service decades after its introduction. “What’s wrong with renovating what you got?” he asked. “The last tax bill I had is $4,500 a year. How much longer I can afford this, I don’t know.”
“You are not the federal government,” Epstein added. “You cannot print money like Joe Biden.”
Juliana Winberg, another resident, cited income disparities in Falls Township.
“Here in Falls Township, the median household income is about $86,000 a year. But when we include retirees, the elderly, and those who are unemployed, the per capita income drops to just $37,000. That is the reality for many of our neighbors,” said Winberg.
“The projected tax increase tied to a new school build is about five percent every single year. For families already stretched thin, and for seniors on fixed incomes, that burden can quickly become unbearable.”
Nearly half live in poverty, she said. While younger families might see their income increase, “15 percent of our residents, especially seniors,” will not.
“I toured both schools. Yes, they are older buildings, but to my surprise, they look much the same (as when her daughter attended). They are functional, they are safe, and with proper maintenance, they can continue to serve our children well,” she said.
Critics also raised alarms about the proposed site itself. Activists Tim Daly and Robert Abrams presented photos of puddles and sinkholes, even during dry weather, and asked the state Department of Environmental Protection to investigate.
“The biggest issue is water,” Daly said. “Water is everywhere.” He suggested underground streams or old drainage systems could undermine construction.
District spokeswoman Jennifer Neill said Pennsbury has already vetted the site. “Significant time and work have been expended to ensure the project is feasible and will meet all legal requirements,” she said, adding that DEP review is routine for a project of this size.
Some residents voiced distrust over the district’s finances. Abrams claimed a former business manager had pegged the project at $368 million — a figure that would have required voter approval in a referendum under Act 34.
“You wonder why the business department is all gone,” Abrams said. He also questioned the transparency of cost estimates, citing a right-to-know response from contractor SitelogIQ that labeled some pricing details a “trade secret.”
With 77 percent of district households having no children in the schools and nearly 20 percent of residents over age 65, Abrams called the plan “an abomination.”
Superintendent Tom Smith, Ed.D., defended the need for a new school, citing aging infrastructure, lack of natural light, and safety issues across the split campuses. “Many classrooms lack natural light,” he said, stressing that consolidation would resolve both security and logistical problems.
Under Act 34, the school board is required to hold public hearings before advancing a major construction project. No vote was taken Thursday.