Pennsbury presents $269.5 million high‑school plan; administration lays out worst‑case tax scenarios as residents push back

Superintendent Dr. Smith on Sept. 18 presented details of the Pennsbury School District's proposed single high‑school project, saying the district expects to fund the roughly $269,500,000 estimate with a series of general‑obligation bonds and to borrow on a construction draw schedule so money is spent as work is completed.

The presentation included a worst‑case scenario tied to the state Act 1 index and current bond rates and showed example tax impacts for homes at a range of assessed values. Dr. Smith said residents can submit written comments on the Act 34 hearing record; the administration listed an Oct. 6 deadline for written comments and directed interested parties to the district's high school project webpage for FAQs and reports.

Why it matters: The board's financing plan would be paid from property tax revenue and the proposal includes both short‑term construction debt and longer‑term operating assumptions. The district framed the project as addressing safety, security and long‑term operating costs, while residents at public comment questioned site suitability, long‑term debt and whether renovation would be preferable.

Administration's overview and finance details Dr. Smith said the single‑building concept aims to consolidate two aging high‑school campuses into one new facility she described as more energy efficient, with lower long‑term operating and maintenance costs. She said the district will seek federal and state grants where possible and pursue donations and fundraising to reduce costs.

On financing, Dr. Smith said the district will not borrow the full sum up front but will use staged bond sales tied to construction draws; she added the district's planning uses current bond rates and the state Act 1 index as a worst‑case cap, both of which can change and would affect tax outcomes.

The administration provided example household impacts under the worst‑case assumptions. For a property with an assessed value of $21,600, the presentation listed a gross tax amount rising to $4,406.46 and, after the state homestead rebate, a net tax of about $3,996; the slide showed a year‑to‑year net increase of about $130.56 in one illustrative year under the maximum scenario. The district stressed those examples were illustrative and dependent on bond rates, state rebate levels and the final amount and timing of borrowing.

Public comment: safety, land suitability and fiscal skepticism Several residents used their public‑comment time to respond to the project presentation. John Murray of Lower Makefield said he supported a new building on safety grounds, telling the board he had worked on large construction projects and that a new facility would be "much, much safer than any renovation we could have imagined." He praised KCBA, the district's architects, for involving staff in design work.

Other speakers strongly disagreed. Robert Abrams and others cited a recent geotechnical report (identified in public comment as a Blackmore/David Blackmore Associates study) and said borings showed groundwater and organics across the site; one commenter urged caution and said the study's results were concerning. Jennifer Metzger and Alan Barth told the board they were troubled by the level of detail and the timing of public notices and urged clearer cost and timeline information for residents and for the state record.

Several commenters questioned the tax examples and how the impacts would be felt by seniors and lower‑assessed properties, and one speaker raised tree‑maintenance and deferred maintenance concerns at existing campuses.

Board responses and next steps Board members and the administration discussed the Act 34 hearing format and the availability of supporting documents online. Dr. Smith reiterated that project reports, environmental reviews and finance presentations are posted on the district website and urged residents to submit written comments before the Oct. 6 deadline.

The administration said the final design, grant applications and future bond sales will determine precise tax impacts; it also said the district is pursuing grant funds and other sources to reduce the borrowing required.

Votes and related actions The board approved the meeting's consent agenda (items 4a through 10a) by roll call, a package that included multiple personnel and finance items related to district operations and which, as presented, encompassed the administrative recommendations on the agenda that evening.

Ending The district plans to continue public outreach as it finalizes design and financing. Residents seeking documents or wishing to submit comments were directed to the district high‑school project page on pensburysd.org and to the Oct. 6 comment deadline noted in the presentation.