[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6529126,"mediaKeyId","3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6","parentId",3804039,"title","East Penn board reviews $95 million K–8 realignment schematic and multi‑year financing plan; no vote taken","audioSeconds",3883,"startMs",1400000,"endMs",5283000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6&start=1400&end=5283","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6/thumbnail_1400000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6529126/Pennsylvania/East-Penn-board-reviews-95-million-K8-realignment-schematic-and-multiyear-financing-plan-no-vote-taken","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6529126-42a736a26b583765ef405dd4ec30dc85/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073531&Signature=EeZwJnvLPf1MVA7Fqac4v2gRGys2MujLp3xBLSD0B88r0cY7CbxvVr80LoNnVhL3pNWfgGWC49GYU-q0q5YPata5i2te08uZENI9PGP0YhL01OQ~4lYfocjBZAILVIA14Je-Gf1HUZCEUTMfbwyCSbdnD8~hu60sNULjQq2fS~BAWWLRPdmjTJ61Uz863WZcgWR2b21pHoDH4~qwVKpIN6fZ0lc8Jk0cEDeFEDBX4EBPe~7NtaRa-Bif1A4-tachnIb8oFkLe8MrKrAuNCSqlL~RxvJY2zgaZsJioEJzBj7YbWAeo7wG2rv5k2X99qZoJXLOuAwpL7f1Kp0ciqcD0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","East Penn School District","date","2025-06-10T13:57:06.08Z","article","The East Penn School District Board of School Directors on June 9 reviewed schematic designs and a long‑range financing plan for a proposed K–8 realignment that designers and financial advisors estimated at about $95 million. The presentation, given by CHA project manager Mike Sander and financial advisers from Public Financial Management (PFM) and Raymond James, was informational; the board did not vote on the plan and was told action on schematic design is tentatively scheduled for June 23.

The schematic designs presented by CHA covered two separate middle‑school projects: a renovation‑focused work at Eyer (sometimes rendered in documents as “Iyer”) Middle School and a large‑scale addition plus renovations at Lower Macungie Middle School. Mike Sander, CHA project manager, said the team had broken costs into “hard costs” (construction) and “soft costs” (design fees, approvals, testing, technology and furniture). He said the budget includes multiple contingencies to address phasing in occupied buildings and market uncertainty, and that the team is using contingencies rather than a single fixed tariff line item.

“That’s why we continue to carry contingencies for these purposes,” Mike Sander said, describing design and construction contingencies meant to manage unknowns.

PFM financial adviser Ben Kappenstein summarized multi‑scenario modeling that tested the project’s impact on the district’s long‑term fund balance. Under a “base case” that assumed paying the project largely from available cash and continuing an $8 million annual transfer to capital, PFM’s model showed fund balance deteriorating over time and projected the district would run short of reserves by about Feb. 2031. To avoid that outcome, Kappenstein said the advisers modeled a package of steps that together produced a viable five‑ to eight‑year forecast: (1) the board’s annual willingness to levy tax increases up to the Act 1 index; (2) reducing the annual pay‑as‑you‑go capital transfer from $8.0 million to $6.5 million and funding the gap with borrowings; and (3) scaling back some staffing additions tied to the reconfiguration.

“Financially, this new scenario is viable,” Kappenstein said, but he emphasized it depends on the district raising taxes to the index each year and on choosing the middle staffing option presented in the analysis.

Ally Mackey of Raymond James walked the board through a millage study that isolated the debt‑service impact of the project and of borrowing to replace the current pay‑as‑you‑go capital plan. Mackey said phasing borrowing and using existing capital reserves to smooth the early years would let the district phase in a roughly 0.22‑mill additional rate (about 1.05–1.1% of the Act 1 index) over the first several years to cover project debt service and associated operational costs such as transportation and new staffing.

Board members pressed presenters on several risks and assumptions: the scope and size of contingencies (one member asked why there was not a single 10% tariff allowance), the potential effect of new tariffs on steel and aluminum, where change orders are most likely to arise during construction, and how enrollment projections used in the decision were tracking compared with prior PowerSchool estimates. Several board members said they supported the programmatic goals but expressed serious concern about the financing approach—particularly committing to annual Act 1 index increases for multiple years. Others argued the K–8 plan addressed immediate elementary capacity needs more affordably than alternate approaches and said they wanted to keep the process moving to obtain more precise bid numbers.

No formal motion or vote was taken. Dr. Campbell, the superintendent, told the board the presentation was informational and that the administration would use the questions and feedback to refine the proposal before any future action.

Board members and presenters said the next steps are further cost‑refinement, preparing bid packages and returning with a recommended financing and schematic‑design approval. The board was reminded that adopting schematic design would not immediately obligate the district to final construction pricing; bidding and contract awards would follow further public processes.

Why this matters: the district’s advisors told the board the financing path chosen now will affect tax rates and operating flexibility for years. Board members asked for additional line‑item detail, a clearer accounting of contingencies for tariffs and construction market volatility, and more explicit enrollment and staffing sensitivity analysis before making any commitment.

Ending: Administration and advisors will return with additional detail ahead of any June 23 action; the board did not approve schematic design or borrowings at the June 9 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","EPSD Board Meeting - June 9, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The East Penn School District Board on June 9 received schematic designs and a long‑range financing plan for a proposed K–8 realignment, with project presenters estimating total costs at about $95 million; no board vote was taken.","taxTitle","East Penn SD, School Districts, Pennsylvania","taxId",78424,"location","Pennsylvania","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6529117,"Emmaus students press for more AP/honors access and a fencing team; parent seeks answers after alleged security breach",730,63000,793000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6&start=63&end=793","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6/thumbnail_63000.jpg","/articles/6529117/Pennsylvania/Emmaus-students-press-for-more-APhonors-access-and-a-fencing-team-parent-seeks-answers-after-alleged-security-breach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6529117-0551fb4fcd4aa2b78d1b04c675a80f0a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073531&Signature=NolLFAOCgsKTKkck5SkF3aLApBqkzmcSE3bsefLHQl2Fi7C42IXVNo38~MtsAr2yiHbvosRaZlpG~L2NCmxClYSK9R3~TlU0fWhPKzG4z688aM4cbwEyeDrhtCzH6WExUoyxu8mnTprXRGzFWUYxDIduh~wZWG0cfj0FdHab2-HH46dArvyKl~HCAeN7ieEZzgkGPHa7m7Z0dlPPsb~Xi4jk2Ls00-r9jWsIpyDw8V3imdU~F4crsQNkKB2RIp~ydQweWB5fAgSusWN4cdeVxOPbvc6-apveD-WLJw26kyzPltn8hKw2nso~IoelzlCxnwBNGPXQD7qNy59dQ02hQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Three public‑comment speakers at the June 9 East Penn School District board meeting urged changes ranging from course access to extracurricular offerings, and a parent asked the district to explain an alleged security breach at Emmaus High School.

Abigail Jeter and Madison Peters, juniors at Emmaus High School, presented research from an AP Language and Composition project advocating expanded access to advanced coursework for freshmen and sophomores. The pair told the board Emmaus currently offers only a small number of AP courses to underclassmen and called for more AP and honors options so motivated students can “spread out difficult coursework over four years.” Abigail Jeter said, “Readiness is not a number or a grade,” and argued that offering earlier access to AP and intermediate honors classes would convey trust and help students save time and money on college credit.

Emmaus junior Ethan Amie urged the board to support a fencing team or club, calling the sport “physical chess” and saying it offers both mental and physical benefits and access for students who might not make traditional sport teams: “Anyone can do it, and anyone can get good at it,” he said. Board members responded positively to the suggestion and encouraged the high school administration to consider starting a club as a first step.

Thomas Beaky II, a parent, described an incident he said occurred on May 28 in which a former student entered Emmaus High School, spent roughly an hour in the building and interacted with staff, and that his daughter was subsequently suspended three days for a code‑of‑conduct violation related to the episode. Beaky said he had asked Superintendent Dr. Campbell to preserve video from the bus and school and requested information about any charges filed against the individual. “It was swept under the rug,” Beaky said, and he asked the district to provide footage so parents could understand what happened and how the district is responding.

Superintendent Dr. Campbell said district and building administrators had “had lengthy conversations with the parent regarding the allegations” and that he had responded to the parent’s email on June 2 with an invitation to meet. Dr. Campbell said administration would extend that invitation again to discuss the allegations and next steps.

Why this matters: Student requests for expanded AP, honors and extracurricular offerings flag potential program equity and access issues that affect course sequencing, staffing and scheduling. The parent’s security concerns prompted requests for documentation (bus and building footage) and a clearer account of administrative follow‑up; the superintendent reported ongoing administrative contact with the parent and offered to continue discussions.

Ending: Board members thanked the student speakers for their advocacy; the administration said it would follow up with the parent about the alleged incident and invited further dialogue on course offerings and extracurricular start‑up steps.","During public comment at the June 9 East Penn board meeting, two Emmaus High School juniors urged expanded AP and honors offerings for underclassmen, a student requested a fencing team or club, and a parent described an alleged unauthorized entry at Emmaus High School and asked administrators for footage and clarification.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6529121,"Votes at a glance: East Penn board adopts 2025–26 budget 8–1; personnel, operations and curriculum items pass",1186,5216000,6402000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6&start=5216&end=6402","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3804039-abbd7deff4aa7f63a476ca1d130635a6/thumbnail_5216000.jpg","/articles/6529121/Pennsylvania/Votes-at-a-glance-East-Penn-board-adopts-202526-budget-81-personnel-operations-and-curriculum-items-pass","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6529121-b7a2eaf0de6c4c66456ae0b08d5e52cd/orig.mp4?Expires=1771073531&Signature=jdv-GSY0hHUNEYewtOlpQ0PfaF3qYKXeOuDta5D0-F57V3L4FoozMM8YnzNygBgEH23n8tHETDf327sTx1H4zSg99x6sDW4yv1XH9T2LLsyKHV2HG3eW2lLbswJVxpq388futMy7FiyilofMQoBAq5i0oUwhd-kXZQi2wjGYsqfQAR49Jj-OQpBeV64ZcTZBdKdcE7YwR5fkJA9IYXq5ttUPjgnw1JL8KKVeVdrdn899hQne88fC1ZcGZvH2OdIqf0rTCudYQ0h5l-5U6MtDaR1hcC8EepIMHlLYCJnMljdrG-5WYmU81FCmbTd0KleBIg-llHJNQpYom0DcLrbm6A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The East Penn School District Board of School Directors on June 9 approved the district’s 2025–26 final budget package (items A–D) after extended budget discussion. The budget package passed 8–1 on a roll call; board members then approved personnel, business operations, curriculum and policy items in separate votes, mostly unanimously.

Budget package (items A–D): The board approved the final general fund budget package, the fund balance commitment resolution, the Homestead and Farmstead resolution and continuation of the property tax rebate program in a single motion (items A–D). The motion passed 8–1. The approved budget maintains an increase at the Act 1 index (the board approved a 4% tax‑rate increase in the budget development) and includes a planned deficit of about $1.2 million for 2025–26 tied to committed fund‑balance uses (including technology infrastructure carryover and other one‑time allocations). The board also committed remaining ESSER funds ($55,200) and $1.6 million identified for future technology infrastructure from fund balance as part of the formal fund‑balance commitments. In the roll call Mr. Filaghy (recorded in the minutes as Mr. Filaghy/Filagie) voted no; all other members voted yes.

Personnel and routine items: The personnel agenda (including an addendum for extended‑school‑year assignments, a special education supervisor and summer learning academy staff) passed by roll call, 9–0. Business operations items A–G (including routine contracts and a donation acknowledgment) passed 9–0. Curriculum items A–B and third reading of policy updates were approved by unanimous roll call votes.

Why this matters: Board approval of the budget establishes the district’s operating plan, tax levy and fund‑balance commitments for 2025–26. The approved fund‑balance commitments earmark one‑time resources for technology and set parameters for how the district will use certain reserves. Several board members said they supported the budget reluctantly because of contractual obligations for 2025–26 staffing and benefits; one board member opposed the package citing tax burden concerns.

Ending: After votes on business, curriculum and policy, the board received routine reports from CLIU and LCTI and adjourned. Additional discussion on the K–8 realignment and schematic design will continue in future meetings.","At its June 9 meeting the East Penn School District Board adopted the 2025–26 budget package (items A–D) by an 8–1 roll‑call vote, approved personnel changes and several operational and curriculum items unanimously, and recorded multiple routine votes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

East Penn board reviews $95 million K–8 realignment schematic and multi‑year financing plan; no vote taken

Emmaus students press for more AP/honors access and a fencing team; parent seeks answers after alleged security breach

Votes at a glance: East Penn board adopts 2025–26 budget 8–1; personnel, operations and curriculum items pass