On May 1, 2025, Pennsbury’s Facilities Committee convened for its monthly meeting, drawing public objections over another alleged violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law. The concerns centered on the withholding of documents from the agenda, which critics argued hindered public participation. Despite the objections, Linda Palsky dismissed them in discussion, repeatedly attempting to interrupt their presentation.
During the meeting, Dr. Tom Smith was recorded stating that no one had received the reports. However, this claim was contradicted by vendor KCBA, who had reviewed the documents and even included a slide about them in their presentation. The slide was ultimately skipped, seemingly due to the objections raised. Public attendees noted that none of the Pennsbury School Board members present which also included Joanne Steere, Chip Taylor, and Donna Petrecco, appeared aware of the report’s contents, nor did they pose any relevant questions during the meeting.
Geotechnical Report Is Revealed
The Geotechnical Report was released to the public through a Right to Know (RTK) request on May 8, 2025, exactly one week after the Facilities Committee meeting and the maximum delay permitted under Pennsylvania law. During the Finance Committee meeting held that same day of May 8th, a school board member’s spouse openly disclosed and it was overheard by multiple meeting attendees that Pennsbury School Board Members had received copies of the report prior to its public release and had been “pouring over” the report. This revelation confirmed suspicions that Pennsbury had deliberately postponed access for as long as legally possible. The report itself, as indicated on its first page, was completed on April 10, 2025.
Below is the complete, unedited report detailing the significant presence of water and the questionable underlying rock formations on the desired land. These are issues Pennsbury officials have been aware of since August 2023. These concerns were first identified in a Geotechnical Report conducted at the time by Earth Engineering Incorporated. Much like the latest report, the previous finding which raised serious questions about the land’s viability were downplayed by Pennsbury officials, with minimal discussion of their implications.
What Does The New Geotechnical Report Say?
The latest report from David Blackmore & Associates (DBA) largely aligns with the findings from Earth Engineering Incorporated (EEI) two years ago, offering little contradiction to the earlier assessment. The report reaffirms previous concerns about the site’s heavy water saturation, the presence of silt and sand and the nature of the underlying metamorphic schist rock formations. The primary differences in this new study compared to the earlier report lie in methodology: the boring holes were drilled a few feet deeper, and the number of borings drilled was quadrupled across the planned construction zone.
Although the DBA study was conducted during a period of severe drought alerts, it still found water at remarkably shallow depths throughout the planned construction site. Page 5 of the report offers detailed insights into the water level conditions recorded. Notably, the water table readings in this study reflected even more concerning metrics than those documented in EEI’s previous report, despite the extreme drought conditions at the time of the more recent survey.
Groundwater was encountered in each of test borings completed. The groundwater levels encountered range from 0.83 feet to 13.17 feet below the existing grade, corresponding to surface elevations ranging from 83.47 and 100.28 feet. The variation is groundwater depth and elevation are related to perched groundwater conditions associated with the interbedded sand and silt and clayey silt layers encountered onsite. NOTE: Groundwater was encountered approximately 2.5 to 4.5 feet above the planned pool bottom elevation of 92.5 feet. See Borings B36B, B37, B38 and B39 which are in the vicinity of the pool.
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION | DAVID BLACKMORE & ASSOCIATES | APRIL 10, 2025
Page 10 of the report outlines the subsurface conditions and rock formations found during the study. DBA identified various types of metamorphic schist, whose suitability for building foundations depends on rock density. The report classifies these formations into Stratum IF, Stratum II, Stratum III, and Bedrock. Of these, Bedrock—considered the most stable foundation material—was only present on the western edge of the planned construction site. Stratum II emerged as the most prevalent type of schist, appearing in all drilled boring holes.
Stratum II: 2.0’ to 21.33’ thick; Interbedded alluvial deposits including alternating layers of orange-brown, brown, and gray mottled fine sand and silt; fine to medium sand with some silt; micaceous fine sand and silt with some rock fragments; and brown and gray clayey silt. This stratum is a primarily moderately stiff to dense deposit with SPR values ranging from 6 to 34 blows per foot. However, localized low SPT values ranging from 2 to 3B/F were encountered (See boring B16 and B17) at depth within this stratum within the groundwater vadose zone. This condition is attributed to pore pressure variations in the borehole and is not considered to be indicative of a widespread compressible soil layer. This stratum was encountered in each of the borings completed.
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION | DAVID BLACKMORE & ASSOCIATES | APRIL 10, 2025
What Warranties Are Presented In The Report?
This is where the Geotechnical Report gets a bit sticky. While Section 9 referred to as “Limitations” found on Page 20 of the reports offers a pause for a concern. It is not uncommon for the lack of warranties to exist in such an engineering report given you never know what might be underlying that isn’t determined from the boring holes drilled. In a project of this magnitude, any issues uncovered after excavation begins could result in massive change orders that could explode the cost of the project.
LIMITATIONS
REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION | DAVID BLACKMORE & ASSOCIATES | APRIL 10, 2025
Services performed by DBA, including the Geotechnical Exploration, report, and any subsequent construction monitoring have been or will be conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing in the same locality under similar conditions. No other warranty or guarantee is indicated or intended in this report or any opinion, document or otherwise stated.
The recommendations included herein are based on the conditions encountered by the test borings performed at the subject site. It is noted that, although soil quality has been inferred from the interpolation of the site sampling data, subsurface conditions beyond the test borings are, in fact, unknown. As a result, these recommendations may require modifications based on the conditions encountered and exposed during construction excavation. Should any conditions encountered during construction differ from those described in the report, this office should be notified immediately in order to review and possibly modify the recommendations included in this report.
At the Facilities Committee meeting on May 1, 2025, officials assured attendees that the land was suitable for construction based on the findings in the Geotechnical Report. However, in reality, numerous obstacles and significant change orders are likely to arise—particularly given the history of past Pennsbury School Board construction projects. These modifications could easily surpass eight figures, adding to the financial burden on the Pennsbury community beyond the already contentious $270 million cost estimate, which is 25% to 30% lower than comparable school building projects in nearby communities.
What Project Changes Can Be Expected?
According to the report’s findings and widely available research, metamorphic schist is not an ideal foundation material for construction. Its density can vary, and it has a tendency to fracture horizontally under significant weight pressure. Additionally, in waterlogged conditions—such as those identified in the report—schist requires extensive water management and pumping solutions to mitigate stability concerns. Furthermore, research suggests that a floating slab foundation is generally not advisable in such conditions. Instead, deep footings or pilings are recommended to anchor the foundation to the densest underlying rock for optimal structural support.
The report highlights the extensive excavation required, which appears to exceed the initial plans outlined earlier in the process. According to the DBA report, the construction footprint spans 295,064 square feet, with excavation reaching 20 feet deep, totaling 248,148 cubic yards of material to be removed. This volume translates to an estimated 12,407 truckloads needed for removal. Given the current landfill rate of $87 per ton in the Philadelphia area, disposal costs are projected to reach approximately $27 million. Notably, this expense does not appear to be accounted for in SiteLogiQ’s most recent estimate presented at the April 3, 2025 Facilities Committee meeting.
When will the Pennsbury School Board come clean and admit that this building cannot be constructed at the prices they continue to float?