Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Abington Heights board hears $7 million five‑year shortfall, facilities committee urges steps to free capital

Abington Heights School District Board · May 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Abington Heights School District’s facilities committee reported a roughly $7 million cumulative shortfall over five years and recommended the board authorize administration to begin exploring a possible sale of the administration building to create capital for repairs and projects; no board vote on sale occurred at the meeting.

The Abington Heights School District board was told May 20 that administration’s base-case five‑year projection shows a cumulative shortfall of about $7,000,000, and the facilities committee recommended the district begin exploring options — including potentially marking the administration building for sale — to create capital for repairs and projects.

"The base case projection that administration has shared with the facilities committee was a shortfall of about $7,000,000 cumulatively over 5 years," said Mr. Azar, who presented the Facilities Committee report. He told the board the district faces large variables, including growing health‑care and special‑education costs and debt tied to the middle‑school project.

The committee grouped future capital work into three buckets — major (multimillion‑dollar projects), moderate (roughly $1 million–$3 million) and minor (under $500,000) — and recommended deferring major new projects until the district has clearer fiscal capacity. Mr. Azar said the committee unanimously felt the board should "start the process and authorize administration to come to the board with next steps on potentially marking this property for sale." The board did not take a formal vote on a sale at the meeting.

Administration warned that some repairs now appear non‑optional. Mr. Azar cited the high‑school roof as a multimillion‑dollar need and said the Waverly building floor "is going to be over a half $1,000,000," language indicating the cost is expected to exceed about $500,000. Dr. Schafer, the district administrator who answered detailed questions, said the roof and Waverly work rose to the top of the moderate bucket in recent months.

Dr. Schafer also described how state funding could change the projections: "State funding, which represents anywhere from 25 to 30% of our budget, is usually pretty flat," he said, noting recent volatility in targeted grants. He pointed to one line item — the accountability block grant — that rose from roughly $292,000 historically to about $1,000,000 this year and said the governor has proposed $2,000,000 for Abington Heights next year. "If we get the money that he proposed for 2627 and held it the same for the next 4 years, that $7,000,000 deficit drops to 3," Dr. Schafer said, describing a hypothetical that depends on legislative action.

The district also discussed operational and lower‑cost options for amenities: Mr. Azar said permanent public restrooms for athletic fields would cost more than $1,000,000 to construct, while mobile restroom units could provide an interim, lower‑cost option. The facilities team described plans to prioritize summer safety and technology upgrades such as exterior door controls, buzzer systems and video for entries.

Mr. Azar said administration and the facilities committee were preparing to bring contracts for survey work and environmental review to the board as part of the due diligence process if the board wants to pursue a sale. Dr. Schafer said the adjacent facilities building has known issues (lead, asbestos, structural) and that the district will need a replacement location for vehicles and equipment if the administration property is sold.

The Facilities Committee’s recommendation to begin the sale‑exploration process was a committee action, not a board motion at this meeting; board members asked for more detail on priorities, timing for summer projects and the scope of required due diligence. The board approved routine procedural motions at the start of the session (agenda and minutes) but took no formal vote on a property sale.

Next steps: administration will bring contract proposals and additional details back to the board for consideration and any required formal vote.