Harrisburg board reopens options for William Penn campus as demolition, reuse debate continues

HARRISBURG, Pa. — Harrisburg City School District officials on April 8 revisited the future of the vacant William Penn campus, weighing community proposals to repurpose the building against consultants' recommendations to demolish and the district's financial and safety constraints.

Receiver Dr. Suske summarized the property's history and the legal context, telling the board that Initiative RO8 of the district's 2021 amended financial recovery plan originally called for sale of vacant district buildings but was later revised to prioritize retaining the land and exploring repurposing options. He said the initiative has been amended multiple times through filings with the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas and that the district must close out RO8 as part of its amended recovery-plan obligations.

Why it matters: The William Penn site has been the subject of years of community debate, task-force review and consultant study. The district faces recurring costs tied to trespassing and security, lacks property insurance for the building in its current condition and must reconcile short-term costs with long-term needs for field space and instructional capacity.

Officials and administrators laid out three broad options: demolish the building; retain the land and undertake phased renovations or new athletic fields; or pursue a long-term lease to a private or nonprofit partner that would repurpose the campus. Superintendent Dr. Henry and chief operations administrator John Reedy described operational and programmatic uses the district has considered, including athletic fields and an expansion of Camp Curtin to accommodate shifting grade configurations.

From an operations perspective, Reedy said the building has extensive infrastructure failure: “the building...has no HVAC, has no electric. It's extremely large from a renovation perspective. It has a massively deteriorating roof, and the water is actually leaking onto the first floor,” and that consultants declined to inspect the roof because of safety concerns. From finance and risk, Dr. Stokes told the board the property is effectively uninsurable without basic life-safety work and that the district already spends substantial funds on round‑the‑clock security that do not stop trespassing: “security, as much as we try for 24/7, at a tune of over a half a million dollars a year is not successful.”

Community proposals have included a Bridge Foundation plan to lease the campus for an “eco village” and developer-driven concepts that contained housing components. The Bridge Foundation applied for an EPA community change grant; administrators said the grant must be led by a nonprofit and that federal grant guidance has been stalled since January, so the district cannot rely on that funding. Task-force results were mixed: the task force favored career-and-technical-education (CTE) uses and some adaptive reuses, but no single proposal gained broad consensus.

Board members pressed for clarity about costs and timelines. Several members said they want a single executive summary of viable options, with updated cost estimates, permit implications and revenue or operating assumptions. In response, district leadership agreed to compile an executive summary of the task-force proposals, the Bridge Foundation option (including any revised plan B without housing), and Crabtree Royal/Barn (Crabtree) study alternatives; Crabtree is scheduled to present options to the board at its May meeting.

Receiver Dr. Suske also reminded members that the district's status in receivership constrains new initiatives: if the district seeks to exit receivership, he said, state rules would bar the district from entering new initiatives for five years after exit, which in practice makes near‑term large projects more complicated. That constraint — and the continuing security, insurance and capital-reserve issues — weighed heavily in administrators' recommendations to favor either demolition or a phased district‑led reuse tied closely to demonstrable educational need.

The meeting yielded no final vote on William Penn. Instead the board directed administration to assemble detailed, comparable materials for the May presentation so elected members have time to digest options should local control be restored. Members and several community speakers urged that the district keep athletic fields in active use where feasible while long-term decisions are being developed.

Ending note: The district plans to post an executive summary and Crabtree's alternatives ahead of the May meeting to allow board members and the public time to review the options before a final recommendation or action.