York Suburban board advances intermediate-school plan, approves township agreement after design, timeline and budget revision

The York Suburban School District board heard a detailed update April 28 on the proposed intermediate school and approved an agreement with Springettsbury Township that allows the district to restart the land-development process for the project.

The board voted to approve the agreement with Springettsbury Township on the motion before it; the roll call showed eight yes votes and one abstention (Mister Sanders), and the measure passed 8-0 with one abstention. The abstention was recorded by Sanders because two members of his firm had worked on the agreement.

Crabtree (architect/owner’s representative) consultant Seth Wentz reviewed schedule scenarios, program changes and updated cost estimates. He told the board the district can still meet a 2027 completion target under two timing scenarios tied to township approvals: a conditional-approval path that would allow recordation of land-development plans as early as August 2025, or a delayed path that would move recording to October 2025. Wentz noted that bids are valid for 60 days after opening and said, “There are some exceptions that apply to this, but it's our recommendation to stick within that 60 days if at all possible.”

Nut graf: The presentation described program reductions designed to lower costs without removing core educational spaces. The district reduced the gym footprint (removing a stage and related storage), expanded the music classroom to compensate, and says the revised estimate (with tariff and eight months of escalation factored in) sits at about $47.6 million without an alternate and $48.6 million with a proposed alternate; the consultants say neither figure triggers a public referendum under current rules.

Wentz said the program has been trimmed by roughly 7,000 square feet, with the gym/stage reduction accounting for the bulk of that change. He said the design team preserved core instruction spaces — music suites, practice rooms, occupational therapy and intensive-learning rooms — while removing the built-in stage and some small bleacher seating to produce savings. He also described an alternate that would add two co-teaching “learning lab” spaces (described in the presentation as about 1,400 square feet each).

The board discussed the budget mechanics. A board member asked for a breakdown of savings driven by reduced square footage versus increases caused by materials-cost escalation and tariffs. Wentz described three concurrent factors: (1) a reduction in total square footage, (2) an increase in escalation applied to costs, and (3) an updated cost-per-square-foot estimate. On tariffs he said the contractors the district consulted recommended an approximately 2% contingency applied to overall construction cost to cover tariff risk for this type of new-construction project.

Wentz outlined the Act 34 public-notice steps required for the project: a revised Act 34 booklet will be delivered to the board for review on May 12; the board’s approval and authorization to advertise is scheduled for May 27; advertisement by the solicitor would begin June 2; an Act 34 public hearing is scheduled for June 24; and a 30-day public-comment period would end July 24. Wentz said the district intends to sequence these steps so that public comment is not cut off during bidding and so that the board will not be asked to act before the 30-day comment window closes.

Board members pressed for more detail on escalation and monthly cost impacts of the eight-month update; Wentz said he did not have an immediate per-month breakdown but reiterated that the largest single cost driver in the update was the reduction in square footage and the market escalation factor applied across the project.

The high school project received a brief update: civil survey work has begun and zoning/ordinance research is underway; architecture and budget updates are in progress and additional program-level discussions are planned.

Ending: The board approved the township agreement that allows the land-development process to move forward and directed staff to return with the revised Act 34 booklet and the project’s revised materials for the board’s May review and the scheduled June hearing.