County career‑tech center needs renovation; board urged to advise JOC ahead of March articles vote

District administrators and CTC Director Chuck Benton briefed the Cornwall‑Lebanon board on the Lebanon County Career & Technology Center’s feasibility work and four concept options for enlargement or replacement. The concepts ranged from additions to the existing building (options A, B and E in the presentation) to a full replacement (option F). Each option carries phasing and accessibility tradeoffs, Benton said, and some approaches would be harder to bid and phase around instruction.

Doctor Dimencic and Director Benton reviewed the facility’s history: the CTC was built in 1967–68, expanded in 1977–78 and renovated in 1991, and funding for construction has shifted from an assessed‑value (step) model to an ADM‑based model in 1996. The group noted that PlanCon — the former Pennsylvania reimbursement program for school construction — has been largely unavailable since a moratorium and that PlanCon 2 created in Act 70 of 2019 has not produced dedicated funding. That history complicates how a countywide capital plan would be funded.

Dimencic said any change to how the CTC is funded would require an amendment to the articles of agreement and a vote of the Joint Operating Committee (JOC). The JOC must approve recommended article changes by majority and then each of the six home‑district boards must ratify the articles per their local processes. Dimencic described a procedural path in which the JOC would recommend a funding approach and the districts would vote; he said the administration needs feedback from the board because the JOC vote in February and a motion on the March agenda could determine the next steps.

Director Benton also described program capacity: the CTC currently offers roughly 22 programs (mostly half‑day options), has admitted about 800 students when near capacity and aims to expand to about 1,250 seats to reduce wait lists for in‑demand trades (welding, HVAC and other career pathways). He said certain programs — welding in particular — are oversubscribed and that increased space would allow program expansions that align with county workforce needs.

Board members asked procedural questions about whether a JOC vote must be unanimous or by majority, how the articles would determine the construction‑funding model (examples discussed included mixes of assessed‑value and ADM), and whether the JOC recommendation would translate into identical decisions by each board. Administration’s summary: the JOC can vote by majority to amend the articles, but to implement a funding arrangement the district boards must vote in their own forums; the district expects to present a motion in March for an up‑or‑down vote from each board.