Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Pennsbury board for more independent review of high‑school site and costs during lengthy public comment
Summary
Residents raised technical and financial concerns about the proposed new high school — citing groundwater, contaminated soils, excavation and long‑term tax impacts — while others urged support for district programs. Public comment prompted requests for additional independent study and transparent cost detail.
An extended public comment period at the May 15 Pennsbury School Board meeting produced sharply divergent views about the district’s proposed new high school and broader district finances.
Multiple speakers questioned the project’s cost assumptions, site suitability and the adequacy of the district’s technical reviews. Andrew Dell, a Falls Township school board candidate, criticized the district’s fiscal preparedness and said residents risk higher taxes; John Tadlock and Robert Abrams, who both described technical backgrounds, cited specific geotechnical concerns and offered alternative calculations for remediation quantities and costs. Abrams, citing his experience in site remediation, said certain borings in the geotechnical report represented “your hardest areas” and argued the district’s site‑remediation expense estimates omitted hauling and landfill costs.
Other speakers urged the board to consider local community assets in design: Michelle Dice recommended locally produced artwork and student design involvement to reflect Pennsbury history; Paul Schlicker proposed options to allow alumni reunions in existing facilities with conditions to address liability and FERPA. Supportive comments also came from residents who praised district programs and urged trust in board decisions; Anne Marie Dalworth said her family kept children in Pennsbury for its diversity and teacher quality and voiced support for a new facility.
Board members and administrators responded to some specifics during and after public comment. The district’s consultants and staff emphasized that the geotechnical report found the site buildable for the intended design but acknowledged ongoing work to refine estimates; several board members encouraged continued dialog with residents and additional data sharing. Multiple public commenters asked for independent third‑party review of key technical and financial assumptions.
Why it matters: The public comment demonstrates high local scrutiny of a major capital proposal that will affect district taxes, site planning, and the built environment. Calls for independent review and transparent cost accounting are likely to shape community expectations and the district’s outreach and reporting going forward.
What’s next: The district’s consultants continue to refine documents for township review and for the Act 34 public process; the board has scheduled a final budget presentation next month and will be expected to include clearer cost contingencies and documentation in future discussions.
