Jarrettown Elementary School. (Photo by Linda Finarelli).
The demolition of Jarrettown Elementary School and construction of a new $60 million, 84,000-square-foot facility in its place was approved by the Upper Dublin School Board June 23.
The agreement with ICS Consulting is to provide design, engineering and construction management services for the school to accommodate 600 students.
A financial plan for the project would, in part, require tax increases up to the Act 1 index for the next four years, currently projected at 4 percent, 3.6 percent, 3.2 percent and 3.1 percent, according to district CFO Andrew Lechman.
In line with that, the B, which equates to an additional $302 for a total tax of $7,921 for a home at the median assessed value of $199,255. The tax increase would be $262 for those with the homestead exemption.
Three residents spoke against the 4 percent tax increase prior to the vote.
Fort Washington resident Anita Brister criticized putting money into the capital reserve, part of the financial plan to fund Jarrettown, as “not illegal, but shows disrespect to taxpayers.”
Ambler resident Ginny Vitella, saying she was “against tearing down Jarrettown,” asked the board to “give us tax relief and put some money aside.”
A Kenmare Drive resident was also against the tax increase and concerned the new school would be closer to his home.
Board President Jeffrey Wallack said the vote was being made on an option to go forward with for the school, adding, “We are far from design.”
“The design of Jarrettown is entirely conceptual at this point,” Superintendent Dr. Laurie Smith said.
While the Jarrettown project “is a significant component for the tax increase,” board Vice President Mark Sirota also pointed to salary, benefits and other factors “going up faster than funding from the state budget.”
Finance Committee Meeting
The board’s finance committee had approved the recommendation by ICS of the second of two 84,000-square-foot options for the Jarrettown project at its June 18 meeting.
ICS was hired in May 2024 to do an analysis of the school, built in the 1950s with four subsequent additions, which determined the HVAC, control systems and low-voltage infrastructure have exceeded their expected lifespan. The building is not ADA compliant, shows signs of interior and exterior age-related deterioration and has logistical challenges.
It has no sprinkler system or central air-conditioning, has water service leaks, needs maintenance for a sewage pump and two boilers, has limited food service space and numerous exterior classroom doors, which is a security issue.
The recommended option would meet educational programming and provide adequate space on parity with the district’s other elementary schools, the ICS consultant said.
It was also deemed financially feasible, less disruptive than an occupied renovation and termed a “realistic and attainable option.”
Six options for consideration to either upgrade or replace the K-5 school ranging in square-footage from the current 70,000 to 94,000 with estimated costs of $18.7 million to $67 million were detailed at the meeting.
A second 84,000-square-foot option to renovate and expand the building was rejected by the committee after determining it would be extremely complex and cause the most disruption.
In one community survey, respondents wanted to have “as little disruption to the educational process as possible,” Lechman said.
The 70,000-square-foot options offered basic renovation without increasing the size and failed to address inefficiencies and the need for a larger gym and cafeteria, while “the 84,000-square-foot option really meets all priority needs” of the administration, the building staff and community, he said, adding, “I don’t believe we need a 94,000-square-foot building.”
“Our final recommendation is option 4, which meets the needs and addresses the highest priority issues” including building layout, ADA, size deficiency, modernization, site circulation, safety and security and parking, and minimizes disruption, Lechman said. “We can’t eliminate disruption, but it would minimize it to the best of our ability. The cost is beyond what was anticipated, but in my opinion, it is not unattainable.”
The three-year project, estimated to be completed in fall 2029, will require the use of modulars as well as having students rotate throughout the building, the ICS consultant said.
Describing the financial strategy to pay for the $60 million option, Lechman said based on budget projections it is assumed the general fund budget can sustain an increase in debt service of $3 million over the next four years, which, in addition to tax income from the new apartments at 1125 Virginia Drive, would require projected tax increases at the Act 1 index for the next four years.
“The $3 million planned transfer to the capital reserve gets replaced by this debt service,” he said.
The district would borrow $45 million with a 25-year payback, which would result in an estimated $3.2 million in debt service payments, leaving a $15 million gap, he said. The Capital Reserve Fund has $11 million earmarked for the Jarrettown Elementary project, “leaving $4 million to be sourced,” he said.
“I believe we have the capacity in the capital reserve to fund $4 million to cover the gap,” Lechman said, which could be replenished with annual budgeted transfers from the general fund.
The debt service fund has $5 million in available resources that could be used to make debt service payments over the next three years, using the cash reserves “strategically” to delay borrowing and time it based on rates, Lachman said.
“The funding is absolutely attainable with the current budget and resources we have available,” he said.
The main drawback is the strategy has the potential to create limitations on future project needs including the transportation facility and any future Thomas Fitzwater Elementary project, he said.
Several committee members brought up possible community use of the school, the need to maintain the fields and an interest to shrink the building where possible to lower the cost.
While supportive of the recommended option “with some caveats mentioned earlier and maybe rein in the footage a little more,” board member Jenna Evans said, “It’s more expensive than I would have liked” — a sentiment expressed by all the committee members.
“It does commit us to a certain financial strategy for the next four years,” committee Chair Mark Sirota said. “We’re setting ourselves on a path that will influence future boards and decisions … but it’s time.”
“It’s really important if we can get lower in cost, we should do whatever we can,” board member Titia Scherpbier said.
