Haverford Township SD cites $32 million in near‑term facilities needs; board to weigh bonds and capital reserve use

Jared "JR" Glugheme, facilities presenter for the School District of Haverford Township, told the Finance & Facilities Committee on June 9 that the district's five‑year facilities plan shows a spike in major work over the next three to four years, and highlighted a group of items he recommends the district address sooner rather than later.

Why it matters: The district has historically set aside roughly $1.5 million–$2 million for summer maintenance projects. Glugheme and other staff said the scale of upcoming mechanical, roof and site work will exceed that recurring allocation and will force a decision about bonding, capital reserves or other financing. Committee members asked staff to refine totals and discuss sequencing with the district's financial adviser.

Glugheme walked the committee through school‑by‑school items he moved up on the priority list. He called out three near‑term priorities: a failing hot‑water softener system at the high school (which he estimated at about $95,000 to replace), failing HVAC controls at the high school (controls work was cited later as roughly a $300,000 quote for the older three‑story addition), and a degraded section of the middle‑school roof that has closed a classroom. "The roof is in real bad shape and it can't be used," Glugheme said, and he recommended a partial roof repair this summer for about $200,000 to reopen the room before the school year. He said a full middle‑school roof replacement would be roughly $5 million and would take about three summers to complete.

Other notable items Glugheme listed: transferring boilers from one building to another ($373,000), an additional $25,000 to remove an oil tank when reusing equipment, replacement of stadium lighting and conversion to LED (staff cited an estimate of about $750,000), turf and tennis‑court renewals as the turf approaches about 10–12 years of life, and end‑of‑life chillers and towers at multiple sites. Across the set of projects he reviewed, he told the committee "what we got now is 32,000,000" over the next four years.

Finance and sequencing: Business Manager Mr. Testa and committee members discussed financing options. The district has historically allocated a summer capital allotment (roughly $1.5M–$2M) and also maintains a capital reserve from prior operating surpluses. Committee members asked staff to consult PFM (the district's financial adviser) about grouping projects and issuing bonds where appropriate; Jamie at PFM (mentioned during the discussion) was identified as a likely adviser to help structure multi‑year financing. Glugheme said he will recalculate and share corrected totals with Mr. Testa and the finance team so the committee can consider options.

Timing and delivery: Glugheme and others emphasized that many of the large mechanical and roof projects cannot be completed in a single summer and that multi‑summer contracting and staged bids are typical. The committee discussed using existing vendor contracts and roof consultants to maintain specification continuity across projects. Glugheme said a contractor who built recent roofs for the district is already under contract and that some work could be coordinated with that vendor to reduce lead time.

What remains unresolved: Staff will correct and reissue total cost calculations, provide firmer cost estimates from consultants for major mechanical replacements, and meet with PFM to outline financing scenarios. No formal motions or votes were taken; members asked staff to bring refined totals and financing recommendations to upcoming meetings.

Ending: Committee members also suggested a district facility tour so board members could see conditions firsthand before finalizing priorities. Glugheme and Mr. Testa said staff would follow up with corrected totals and coordinate a finance/financing discussion with PFM and board leadership.