Abington board hears $285 million middle school plan; officials and residents debate renovation alternatives ahead of May 20 referendum

At the Abington Board of School Directors meeting on April 22, 2025, consultants from ICS Consulting and Schroeder Group Architects presented a facilities plan for a new Abington Middle School sized for 2,200 students and estimated at $285,000,000, and answered board members’ questions about timelines, modular swing space and a lower-cost renovation alternative if a May 20 referendum fails.

The presentation was led by Phil Solomon, regional manager at ICS Consulting, and David Schroeder of Schroeder Group Architects. Solomon said the district’s demographic study guided capacity planning and that the team sized program spaces to support the district’s “middle school teaming model.” Schroeder described the program-to-area process that produced a net area of about 238,000 square feet and a gross building area of roughly 345,000 square feet to accommodate circulation and building systems.

Why it matters: the board will ask district voters on May 20 to approve borrowing for construction. If voters do not approve a new building, consultants said the district faces a set of alternatives — an “emergency prevention” systems-only renovation estimated at about $105,000,000, a more extensive renovation (about $206,000,000), or a run-to-failure approach that consultants warned would cost more over time.

Key numbers and scope

- Proposed capacity: 2,200 students. - Net program area cited by Schroeder: about 238,000 square feet; gross area: about 345,000 square feet (157 gross square feet per student). - Construction-only cost cited by presenters: about $513 per square foot; total project cost including site work, escalation, contingencies, professional fees, furnishings and other owner costs: $285,000,000. - Systems-only “emergency prevention” option: approximately $105,000,000; modeled as a 20‑year bond at about 5% interest, producing a modeled annual budget impact of roughly $8,300,000 per year. - Estimated schematic design cost to produce public drawings: $2,000,000–$3,000,000, per the consultants. - Estimated design and permitting timeline: 12–18 months; construction duration: 3–4 years (consultants presented a 4‑year construction cycle in planning discussions).

Construction logistics and student impact

Solomon and Schroeder explained the proposed site fit (several contiguous parcels that make up North Campus) and said the project would require temporary modular classrooms for swing space while construction proceeds. Solomon told the board the modular program modeled in the estimate assumed roughly half of one grade would be in modules at times during construction.

On timeline, Solomon said the district should plan for escalation and contingencies: the consultants used an escalation assumption of about 4.5% per year applied to the midpoint of construction (they noted that equates to roughly 12.8% of the budget in their model).

Board members’ questions and concerns

Multiple board members pressed for clarifications about cost drivers, ADA access, and what a failed referendum would mean for the general fund. Mrs. Brown, member of the Abington Board of School Directors, asked whether the district could afford a major ADA upgrade without voter approval and said she would prefer voters see the cost and implications before deciding.

Mr. Mohammed, member of the Abington Board of School Directors, highlighted access concerns and urged the community to consider the tradeoffs between a planned referendum and ongoing incremental repairs that could disrupt educational programming.

Miss Hartman, member of the Abington Board of School Directors, asked directly whether the $105,000,000 “emergency prevention” model would make the building ADA compliant; the consultants replied that the modeled $105,000,000 covers mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire-safety and the “warm, safe, dry” components but does not assume a full ADA upgrade. David Schroeder said that bringing the building fully up to current code in many areas would require much larger work and would likely push the cost closer to the higher renovation estimate.

Public comment: a divided community

Public comment during two comment periods included both support for and opposition to the referendum.

Opponents questioned the scope and procurement process and urged a delay for more community review. Joe Rooney (Ardsley) said, “When asked to spend $285,000,000, we should be extremely cautious.” Another commenter called the process too rushed and urged additional analysis and competitive bids for major contracts.

Supporters said deferred maintenance has reached a point where a long-term investment is cheaper than repeated repairs. Matthew Palmer (Carmet Road) argued, “You can't create the plan without the funding in the first place,” describing the typical referendum-state practice of sizing the program and then designing after voter approval. Multiple parents and longtime residents who called or spoke in person said they would vote yes on May 20 to avoid repeated band-aid repairs and to secure ADA access and modern learning spaces for students.

Safety, hazardous materials and accessibility

Board members and commenters also asked about hazardous materials. A board member asked about asbestos and whether phased renovation would keep students safe; presenters and staff said abatement and containment procedures would be required in renovation work but acknowledged that managing hazardous materials on an occupied campus is complex and part of the reason new construction was proposed.

What happens next

The board did not take a vote on the construction plan at the meeting; the presentation was positioned as an orientation ahead of the referendum that will appear on the ballot May 20, 2025. Presenters encouraged residents with specific questions to use the district’s information portal (1ASD1future.org) and to submit questions to be posted as FAQs. Board members and the administration said they would continue community outreach and update the site with additional design and cost detail where possible.

Ending

Consultants and members of the public repeatedly framed the choice ahead of voters as one between a single, planned capital investment now and a long sequence of repairs and restricted programming that the district would absorb if the referendum failed. Board members urged residents to study the materials posted online and to consider the fiscal and accessibility tradeoffs before voting on May 20.