Moon's $76 million high school wouldn't hike taxes
Friday, August 1, 2008
Construction of a high school costing $76.3 million will require borrowing but not an increase in taxes, Moon Area school officials said Thursday.
Building costs for the 291,000-square-foot structure on the site of playing fields behind the middle school will total about $61.6 million, said solicitor Jack Cambest, with the remainder to be spent for financing and professional fees.
Peggy Bell, a former school board member, said while she supports the project, she felt "sticker shock" over the cost. The school board -- when she was a member -- had approved and accepted a bid for a high school design in 2005 for $49.2 million. A board with members opposed to the plan was voted into office and canceled that contract.
"It would have been built," Bell said. "Now we're paying 2008 prices, and it's costing $12 million more."
Much of the construction costs - about $54 million - would be paid from an existing bond issue of $76 million, said Joe Muscatella, the district's bond counsel. However, the district will have to seek an additional bond for about $15.7 million.
That would be subject to public discussion at board meetings, Cambest said. The public has until Sept. 2 to submit to the district written comments, which will be forwarded to the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
Architect Daniel Engen said he anticipates that bids will be let in October and awarded a month later, with groundbreaking by the end of the year.
Bonnie Pfister can be reached at bpfister@tribweb.com or 412-320-7886.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer friendly version
- send to friend
- 709 reads







If they can borrow an additional 15+ million for the community center/high school without raising taxes that would be just swell. What will happen when they shove the poor little 5th graders into the current high school and there is no money left for renovations?
This is a lie.
What is a lie?
Sounds suspicious to me. However, here is an ability for the district to use real estate tax assessment inflation to get more revenue annually, that maybe part of it, but I'll take a wait & see approach.
The district isn't one to lower taxes....perhaps they could have done so if the former & current board [including Bell] hadn't floated their mega bond just days before new state legislation would have required a referendum to let the citizens decide.