Consultants from ICS, Schrader Group and engineers from T&M told the Facilities Committee on Oct. 13 that the Pennridge campus athletics area needs substantial work to host regulation games, reduce field conflicts and improve safety. The team presented two concept options with differing site, drainage and cost implications.

Ryan Murphy of ICS reviewed recently completed capital work (track replacement, dust‑collection system, door replacements, BAS upgrade) and the 2026 capital pipeline (generators, domestic hot water, boiler plant and a central middle‑school roofing project). He said design drawings have reached design‑development and the project team plans to issue bid documents in November and seek board approvals in January for summer 2026 construction, with a total 2026 capital budget for the listed mechanical and roof projects of about $5.6 million.

The campus athletics assessment — prepared with Schrader Group and T&M — identified steep slopes, overused natural turf areas, inadequate regulation fields and drainage problems on the upper practice fields, as well as proximity of the transportation facility to existing baseball/softball layouts. Consultants said township zoning permits school and recreational uses but noted potential zoning complications if the district pursues synthetic turf (impervious‑surface interpretation) or very tall lighting poles (ordinance caps around 70 feet) or if vegetative buffers are required along property lines.

Concept 1 (all‑natural regrading) would reconfigure upper practice areas to create more regulation‑size natural grass fields, separate throwing events, add retaining walls where required, and enlarge on‑site baseball and softball fields. The consulting team provided a conservative cost estimate of about $9,200,000 for Concept 1 but warned rock removal, retaining‑wall extents and other subsurface conditions could raise costs.

Concept 2 would leave the upper practice fields largely as they are but add one or two synthetic multipurpose turf fields with lighting and concrete spectator pads, plus the same baseball/softball reconfiguration in the lower portion. The consultants estimated Concept 2 at approximately $13,010,000. They emphasized synthetic fields typically require underground stormwater storage; that approach would not necessarily change a township determination that turf counts as an impervious surface.

Committee members focused on cost and staging. Several board members said the district cannot pursue either plan at full scope without clearer fiscal capacity and suggested breaking projects into smaller phases (for example, one turf field now, other elements later). Consultants proposed next steps: stakeholder engagement, test borings to identify rock and subsurface conditions, permitting discussions with the township about turf and lighting, and more detailed design to refine cost estimates.

Ending: The Facilities Committee received the study, asked the administration to pursue stakeholder input and geotechnical testing if the board prioritizes any concept, and deferred any funding decisions pending a clearer capital plan and fiscal analysis.