Pennsbury’s Act 34 Hearing Reveals Deep Community Divide

On September 5, 2025, the Pennsbury School District hosted a state-mandated Act 34 hearing at Fallsington Elementary School to present and solicit public feedback on its proposed $269.5 million high school construction project. The Act 34 hearing, required under Pennsylvania law for major school building initiatives, drew over 100 residents despite competing with the Philadelphia Eagles’ home opener—a testament to the intensity of local interest and concern. For those that did attend, many were unimpressed by the limited details put forward by Pennsbury and its vendors that last approximately 15 minutes

Pennsbury Act 34 Hearing draws strong attendance

The Proposal: Scope and Cost

The district’s plan calls for a 497,000-square-foot facility to replace the aging Pennsbury East and West campuses, which date back to the 1960s. The new building would be constructed on the south side of the current campus along Hood Boulevard, with the existing structures slated for demolition upon completion.

The total estimated cost detailed in the Act 34 Hearing booklet includes $212.4 million for construction, $33 million for site development, and $1.3 million in architectural fees. Financial adviser Zach Williard of PFM noted that Pennsbury’s strong Aa3 credit rating would allow it to issue bonds without insurance, potentially minimizing the tax impact. However, the projected millage increase of 14.6 mills left many residents uneasy.

Supporters: Safety, Modernization, and Educational Value

Proponents of the project—largely parents and younger families—argued that Pennsbury students deserve a modern, consolidated facility that meets current safety and accessibility standards. Superintendent Dr. Thomas Smith emphasized that the split-campus model forces students to walk between buildings, compromising instructional time and security. He also cited the lack of natural light and ADA compliance in the existing structures.

School board candidate Jim Boice, an employee of the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) teacher’s union, offered a glowing endorsement of the project, declaring, “The students are the heart of our district… We want our kids going to top-quality buildings, so they feel good about themselves.” But for many attendees, Boice’s remarks landed with the subtlety of a campaign flyer. His enthusiasm seemed less rooted in fiscal scrutiny than in personal excitement that his young son would be among the first to benefit from the new facilities.

Architect Michael Strohecker addressed design concerns, confirming the inclusion of both sex-specific and gender-neutral restrooms.

Critics: Tax Burden, Transparency, and Site Concerns

Opposition came primarily from senior citizens and longtime residents worried about affordability and transparency. Falls Township Tax Collector Kim Scarpiello warned that the tax hike could “shove [seniors] out of homes.” Juliana Winberg highlighted income disparities in Falls Township, noting that while the median household income is $86,000, the per capita income drops to $37,000 when retirees and unemployed residents are included.

Critics also questioned the district’s financial projections. Robert Abrams and Tim Daly, both Lower Makefield residents, pointed to cost overruns in past projects—like the stadium renovation ballooning from $4.1 million to $21 million—and raised concerns about the feasibility of staying within the approved budget. Abrams cited a former business manager’s estimate of $368 million, which would have triggered a voter referendum under Act 34.

Site conditions added another layer of controversy. Daly and Abrams presented photos of puddles and sinkholes, even in dry weather, suggesting underground water issues. They urged the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to investigate. While Pennsbury officials insisted the site had been vetted and DEP review is routine, residents remained skeptical.

Andrew Dell, a candidate for the Pennsbury School Board, also voiced strong opposition to the project. He criticized the district’s lack of transparency and questioned the financial prudence of moving forward without a voter referendum. Dell’s remarks echoed broader concerns about the district’s communication and accountability, positioning him as a vocal advocate for fiscal restraint and public oversight. “Everyone is going to have to sell their house because they’re not going to be able to pay their taxes here,” Dell expressed during his remarks, arguing that the cost estimate was unrealistically low.

Referendum Debate and Next Steps

One of the most contentious questions was whether the project should be subject to a public referendum. Currently, the district’s approved cost falls below the threshold that would require one. However, if bids exceed $217.1 million for building construction, either a second Act 34 Hearing will be required or a referendum would be mandated by the PA Department of Education.

The district plans to solicit bids this fall, and the outcome will determine whether a second hearing or referendum is necessary. Written comments from residents are being accepted until October 6, 2025, and can be submitted to the district’s Chief Financial Officer—though the position remains vacant following CFO Chris Berdnik’s recent departure.

Conclusion: A Community at a Crossroads

The Act 34 hearing laid bare the deep divisions within the Pennsbury community. Supporters see the new high school as a long-overdue investment in education and safety. Opponents fear financial overreach, displacement, and lack of transparency. With the bidding process looming and DEP review pending, the district faces a critical juncture—one that may ultimately require voters to decide.