Developers propose adaptive reuse of William Penn school as vocational hub; community task force, board members press for details

A team assembled by the Pennsylvania Social Equity Investment Fund presented a plan on June 17 to adaptively reuse the William Penn property as a vocational training and community hub, pitching classroom and maker-space uses to the Harrisburg City School District Board of School Directors and the receiver.

"This building was the primary location for CTE and vocational training," said Rob Schof, identifying himself as a Harrisburg resident and a member of the social equity fund team. Architect Paul Lang of Carina Wood Design, who inspected the building in November 2024, said the structure is "in remarkably good shape" for reuse and that typical structural defects seen in comparable projects were not evident.

The presenters described William Penn as a roughly 168,000–184,000-square-foot asset built in 1926 with an estimated "embodied value" of about $24 million. The team proposed a multi-phase redevelopment that would preserve the building’s core and shell and program vocational trades (carpentry, plumbing, welding), an MIT-style FabLab makerspace, culinary spaces, rehearsal/theater production areas and classroom space oriented to the OIC (Opportunities Industrialization Centers) workforce-training model.

Why it matters: presenters framed the proposal as a way to restore an underused historic asset while providing local career-technical education, apprenticeships and small-business incubation. The team said its goal is to keep long-term value in the community through nonprofit ownership or community land trust structures.

Financing and timeframe: presenters described a financing stack the packet lists as roughly $95 million in total project cost. Under the concept presented, the largest single piece would be a USDA Community Facilities loan of about $70 million; presenters also cited historic tax credits (roughly $10 million) and new-market tax credit financing (roughly $7 million) as potential components. The team said applications for those credits and loans are pending and that the numbers in the packet are conceptual and subject to underwriting and grant-award decisions. Paul Lang said a typical redevelopment timeline from green light to vocational occupancy could be about two years for the initial phase and that tax-credit application decisions would take an additional six to nine months.

Board questions and community comments: board members pressed presenters on market assumptions, tenant commitments, operating costs and site control. Board member Miss Hughes asked whether housing would be part of the scheme; presenters said the William Penn concept being offered does not include housing and that housing needs in the city were a separate issue. Miss Anderson pressed for clarification of the financing sources and was told the $70 million USDA line was the largest committed loan element and other tax-credit proceeds would require successful applications.

On the question of tenants, presenters identified OIC as a likely anchor tenant for classroom and training space and described the FabLab/makerspace and other vocational tenants as target occupants but said firm lease commitments beyond OIC are not in hand. "We know OIC is definitely one that's going to be taking into the space," the presenter said, and added that the proposal was intentionally preliminary to allow the district and community to shape programming.

Community members and the William Penn task force, which has worked on reuse planning for years, urged the board to rely on task-force recommendations and to move quickly to preserve the structure. Task-force member Melanie Cook said the task force had already produced detailed proposals and structural-engineering reviews, and asked the board to accept community-backed plans rather than repeatedly hearing the same conceptual pitches. Public commenter Shannon Wade, who spoke on separate agenda items as well, raised other district concerns during public comment; she did not object to reuse but emphasized accountability for district services.

Limits and next steps: presenters and several board members repeatedly described the plan as conceptual. The presenters said the social equity fund would pursue financing without district capital outlay and would lease space back to training providers and community partners; they said a ground lease or district permission to use the site would not preclude USDA Community Facilities financing. Multiple board members asked for additional details on tenant commitments, operating assumptions, structural reports and how district students would access seats in proposed programs. Presenters said those questions would be part of further public engagement and partner negotiations.

What was not decided: the board did not vote on the proposal and took no formal commitment of site control during the meeting. Several board members noted ongoing work by the William Penn task force and said any formal disposition or lease would require additional analysis, public engagement and legal review.

Ending: presenters left the board with an invitation to direct staff on next steps and to involve OIC and district leadership in designing program pathways for Harrisburg students and regional apprenticeships. Board members said they would continue the discussion in future meetings and through committee work.