Harrisburg officials outline capital plan, present competing options for William Penn campus

Harrisburg School District staff presented the district's 2025–26 capital improvement priorities and a range of options for the vacant William Penn campus at the board's May 27 general business meeting, saying staff will return in June with detailed cost estimates for specific projects.

The capital plan presentation, led by operations staff member Mister Reeder, listed four priorities for 2025–26: safety and security work, HVAC and roofing repairs, food-service equipment upgrades and continued work on electronic locks. Reeder said the plan would draw on vendor assessments (Tremco for roofs; Trane and Heim for HVAC) and on facility-condition studies and community input.

Reeder told the board the 2025–26 roof restoration line is budgeted at about $2,085,000 and noted that John Harris High School roofing work is mobilizing now at roughly $2.5 million. He recommended continuing a multi-year roof program and said staff would present formal estimates for 2025–26 work in June. Reeder also described a $150,000-per-year commitment for kitchen and food-service upgrades (double-door freezers, milk coolers, pass-through warmers and an ice machine) and said the district purchased 11 ovens earlier this year.

On security, Reeder described phase 2 of an electronic-lock project (following a deployment at John Harris) to start at Camp Curtin Middle School. He listed benefits—centralized lockdown, keyless entry by fob, access control and monitoring—and estimated a Phase 2 budget of about $264,000, including IT work and hardware. He said the locks include battery backup and mechanical keyways for emergency access and that the district is pursuing additional grant funding (including COPS) to expand the program.

Reeder said the district needs additional soccer fields to support new girls and middle-school soccer teams and recommended two short-term/long-term solutions: repair and regrade the existing William Penn (Fager) field for near-term use, and create a second grass field along Division Street that would require leveling, sod, bleachers and a perimeter fence. He said staff will present full cost estimates in June for those options.

William Penn update, structural report and trespass

Reeder reviewed a facilities tour of William Penn, reporting the building currently has no operating HVAC, no functioning electric or plumbing in portions, highly deteriorated windows and roof sections, and substantial water infiltration. He said combustible material and some asbestos were removed in 2024, that vandalism and trespassing persist, and that further deterioration has accelerated since the building was cleaned out.

The district contracted structural engineer Baker Ingram & Associates. Reeder summarized the engineer's findings: the main structure and bearing walls and steel framing appear intact, but interior ceilings, plaster and some wood flooring and finishes are collapsing or failing in places. The engineer's recommendation is continued maintenance and stabilization; without intervention, conditions will worsen.

Reeder and board members described an active trespassing problem; Reeder said two security officers are assigned to the site, which is roughly 250,000 square feet, and that the district has seen a significant reduction in roof access and some arrests but that securing the building is difficult with current staffing and cost constraints.

Master-plan options and public-private proposals

Crabtree/Rohrbach representative Mister Straub presented a campus master-plan study that explored multiple configurations for fields, parking and partial retention or demolition of William Penn. Straub reviewed options including: (a) phased stabilization and selective demolition with reuse of portions of the William Penn facade facing Italian Lake, (b) demolition and creation of a multi-field athletic campus with parking and a new entry near Third Street, and (c) a three-story addition at Camp Curtin in an alternative scenario to create up to a dozen classrooms (Straub estimated a 3-story classroom addition could cost roughly $6–8 million). For full stabilization/demolition and site work he described a wide range of high-level estimates (several slides showed figures ranging from roughly $5 million for limited demo/stabilization up to many millions more for full campus redevelopment) and said the campus plan could be phased over multiple years.

Straub highlighted a possible police/fire substation at a campus corner as a way to increase security and community use, and he emphasized that many of the large-scope options would require outside funding or a capital campaign. He estimated a concession/amenity building as an allowance figure (about $1.5M), demolition allowances (roughly $5M), and overall campus work in the $8–10M range for more comprehensive site work, while noting these were preliminary, feasibility-level numbers.

Board members and the receiver pressed staff for specifics on costs, funding sources and risk. Several board members asked whether the district could phase a small, lower-cost field project (Division Street) in time for fall soccer and whether capital-reserve or other funds could be used for demolition or initial site work. Chief finance and recovery staff said the district has a capital reserve balance with an existing allocation for William Penn demolition from a prior board action (an earlier estimate cited roughly $4.7M for demolition), but emphasized the district cannot afford a large, multi‑million-dollar campus buildout without external partners, grants or a capital campaign. Staff repeatedly asked the board for policy direction: keep the building, sell or lease it, or pursue a public-private partnership that could include subdividing the parcel.

Public comment and outside proposals

A public commenter, Melanie Cook, urged the board to preserve William Penn and highlighted a previously offered pro forma from a private developer (named in public comment as Gary Gilliam) who, she said, proposed private funding for fields and revenue-sharing arrangements with the district. Reeder and Straub affirmed the district has received multiple proposals and said the board must decide whether it will retain ownership of the land or entertain long-term leases, because long-term leases materially change the district's risk and financing options.

What's next

Reeder told the board staff will return to the June committee with full design and cost estimates for Camp Curtin internal projects (converting office space to classrooms, reconfiguring large rooms into multiple classrooms and expanding the cafeteria/kitchen) and with cost estimates for repairing William Penn field and for building the Division Street field. The structural report recommended maintenance and stabilization; staff said continued trespass and water infiltration create urgency.

Ending

Board members asked the solicitor to provide a written analysis of legal and financial risk related to proposals (leasing vs. sale vs. retention) and the receiver and administration said they would bring more-detailed cost breakdowns at the June committee meeting. The district did not make a final decision on William Penn at the May 27 meeting.