Abington Heights holds Act 34 hearing on proposed middle school addition; board previously set $28.8 million maximum building cost

Abington Heights School District officials held an Act 34 public hearing to present a proposed addition and renovation plan for Abington Heights Middle School and to explain projected costs, financing and expected tax impacts.

The district’s consultant team described a two‑story academic addition that would house seventh- and eighth‑grade classrooms, science labs and STEM space; a larger gymnasium; a new main entrance and parking area; and targeted renovations to existing music, art and STEM classrooms. District professionals said the plan aims to address accessibility, classroom size and building systems that the presenters characterized as undersized or outdated.

The project’s scope and cost matter because the board previously adopted project budgets and a maximum building construction cost that set the framework for bidding and potential taxpayer impact. The board adopted a total project amount of $48,489,992 and a maximum building construction cost of $28,755,675 at its Feb. 5, 2025 meeting; under state Act 34 requirements, the district must hold the public hearing to present the PlanCon documents and allow public comment.

Architect Michael Kelly of KCBA Architects described the design shown to the public: a gray‑shaded, two‑story classroom addition to the right of the existing half‑circle building, a new secure main entrance off the new parking area, an enlarged gymnasium, and courtyard spaces formed where the new and old buildings meet. "The new main entry will provide main entrance to the entire school complex, directly off the new parking area," Kelly said. He said all new classrooms will have natural light and district standard educational technology; the second floor of the addition would include larger STEM studios.

Dr. Schaeffer (district official) and Kelly said the plan keeps the existing half‑circle portion of the building in place while moving seventh and eighth grades to the new wing and leaving fifth and sixth grades in the renovated half‑circle. Dr. Schaeffer said the middle school, built in 1975, has had no significant renovations and currently houses about 1,106 students; he said the half‑circle wing and undersized toilet facilities and circulation are among operational inadequacies the project would address.

Zack Williard of PFM Financial Advisors, the district’s financial advisor, told the hearing that a general obligation bond issue is the most cost‑effective financing option for a project of this size and that the district does not plan to seek state reimbursement through the PlanCon process for this project. Williard presented an example borrowing schedule and estimated millage impacts: two $15,000,000 borrowings and a later $11,500,000 borrowing that, taken together with an earlier series and indirect costs, were estimated at a combined local tax impact of about 10.84 mills. Williard told the room the district plans to use a wraparound debt service structure to reduce near‑term budgetary impact and that bond insurance was unlikely to be required because of the district’s credit rating.

Cassie Bleeny, solicitor from Sweet Stevens Katz and Williams, explained the Act 34 hearing procedures and said the law requires another public hearing if bids exceed the board‑adopted maximum building construction cost by 8 percent. "If the maximum building construction cost that was adopted by the board on February 5 is exceeded by 8 percent, there will be a second public hearing," Bleeny said.

Public comment touched on classroom configuration, cafeteria size, gym and auditorium condition, security and safety in the half‑circle area, procurement and contracting oversight, enrollment trends, and whether the district had considered selling property. Diane Schumacher (substitute teacher and resident) asked whether cafeteria arrangements and classroom counts would change; Dr. Schaeffer said the cafeteria would remain in the same location and that about $1 million has been set aside for cafeteria improvements from a different funding source.

Several residents raised safety questions about the thin partition walls in the half‑circle area. Michael Kaczmarczyk (resident) said he understood earlier assessments had flagged those walls for lockdown concerns and asked whether the district planned immediate action. Dr. Schaeffer said the district is aware of acoustic and partition issues and that moving roughly half the students out of that area would significantly reduce crowding, while permanent fixes are on the longer list of improvements.

Mark Sanchez (resident and local business owner) urged stronger procurement oversight, citing a recent example from another district where unit bid pricing appeared inflated. Jim Marabelli (business manager) said Pennsylvania is a prevailing‑wage state and described the district’s procurement safeguards: architects selected through an RFP, a hired construction management firm, alternative bid strategies and a public review of bids. He added that the Act 34 statute itself creates an additional check by requiring a second hearing if bids exceed the adopted maximum by 8 percent.

On enrollment and timing questions, Dr. Schaeffer said the district has reviewed longitudinal enrollment and birth‑rate data and does not see the steep declines reported elsewhere; he said Abington Heights has remained relatively stable and that the district factored enrollment projections and deferred maintenance into the decision to pursue the addition. He also said construction costs have risen substantially since 2020 and argued delaying would likely raise project cost further.

District staff said the project team is pursuing traffic and queuing studies, separate bus access from parent drop‑off where possible, and including the parking and bus loop improvements in the site work. Officials said the auditorium is not part of the immediate renovation scope but remains under consideration for later phases. The district invited additional written comments and noted the public may submit written testimony through 4 p.m. on March 31, 2025.

Votes at the hearing: there was no formal vote at the Act 34 hearing. The adopted budget figures and maximum building construction cost cited at the hearing were actions taken by the Board of School Directors on Feb. 5, 2025; those board actions were presented during the hearing but were not voted on at this event.

Ending: District staff said they will post a Frequently Asked Questions summary addressing the public’s questions, share additional project visuals (including a 3‑D walkthrough), and publish bid results and any required follow‑up if bids trigger a second hearing under Act 34.