Museum of the American Revolution: Falling Out of Valley Forge and Marching Into Philadelphia

If you don’t walk out of Philadelphia's newest jewel, the new Museum of the American Revolution (MOAR) with a new understanding of and appreciation for the sacrifices people suffered in order to settle the colonies and fight for independence, in the process creating a new nation and becoming a new player on the world political and economic scene,you've missed one of the main points of the experience.  (Click here for a visual tour).

This past weekend I had the privilege of attending a founding-members only preview grand opening of the new Museum. I left with a renewed sense of awe that, despite the seemingly insurmountable obstacles and odds stacked against the American colonists in taking on the most powerful and wealthiest empire in the world, and the sheer luck - and unlikely alliances  - that emerged to help us prevail, We the People somehow accomplished something unbelievable and unheard of – a republic form of government in which the people rule themselves.

We may have drafted the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain in 1776, but we didn’t gain true freedom until 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris, and even then for some time thereafter the greatest focus was on the rights of each of the thirteen colonies. Having just thrown off a far-away powerful central government (a monarchy), Americans were in no mood to even consider the kind of strong central government eventually framed by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. This museum tells these tales, and many other, lesser-known facts and stories surrounding the American Revolution.

The path that the MOAR took to arrive at its new home at Third and Walnut in Philadelphia, and the length of time it took to accomplish it, lasted for more years than the actual revolution itself, and similarly, was no small feat against many obstacles over a long span of time. The gorgeous facility is a testament to the tenacity and dedication of its champions in finding a home for it, getting it built, and finally, at long last, dramatically displaying the artifacts and paying appropriate tribute to the War for Independence.

Efforts to bring the Museum to our area here in the suburbs date back as far as 1999 when the National Park Service and the MOAR (formerly known as the American Revolution Center, or ARC) collaborated on plans for a museum next to Valley Forge National Historical Park’s (VFNHP) welcome center.

In 2005, however, the ARC announced plans for its own museum and conference center two miles away. Philanthroper (and new chairman of the museum’s board of directors) H.F.”Gerry” Lenfest was brought in to try to move the project forward. He personally ponied up the $4.1M to purchase 78 acres of privately owned land adjacent to the VFNHP from the St. Gabe’s protectorate (Archdiocese of Philadelphia) in Lower Providence Township the day after the LPT Planning Commission approved the ARC’s request to rezone the parcel to allowed development beyond a museum.

The reasons for pulling the plug on the VFNHP location were referenced as park service red tape, federal fundraising concerns – the ARC board was nervous about the Park Service’s difficulties funding the maintenance of property and collections they already owned – and size restrictions on the proposed building footprint.

toppling a statue of King George III

However, the residents of primarily the Audubon portion of the Township (and other nonresidents outside the Township) were opposed to the development of the 78 acres. What soured many Audubon residents at the time on the project was the addition of a hotel and conference center and several small retail options to the project, added to help fund the cost of running the Museum and preserve the collection going forward. Also, at the time, the new four-way cloverleaf at 422 was just a fantasy, and traffic in Audubon, already difficult and of necessity directed through Audubon for access to and from the Route 422/Oaks, was envisioned to only worsen with the addition of the traffic the Museum would undoubtedly bring. Zoning challenges and legal battles ensued.

After spending millions of dollars developing plans and fighting in court, and years’ worth of time and effort, in 2009 Lenfest and the rest of the executives on the board realized that they had to rise above the local political squabbles and courtroom drama – that getting this long-envisioned project built and open to the public was of far more importance than the longer-term legal and political efforts of trying to convince a suburban community that it should want a project of national significance that would put it on the map and bring jobs, tax and tourist dollars to its coffers.

Lenfest and Ed Rendell brokered a deal for a land swap:  the ARC would abandon their plans to build the museum in or near VFNHP and moved the project to Center City. The new museum would be located at 3rd and Chestnut Street in downtown Philadelphia, within a 55-acre federal park space, on the site of the former welcome center built for the 1976 bicentennial, in exchange for the National Park Service receiving ownership of the 78-acre parcel of private land owned by the American Revolution Center within the boundary of VFNHP.

(Many, many articles [including my own] have been written detailing the headaches of trying to work with the National Park Service, and in trying to get the project built here in LP, which I won’t revisit here – Google or check out some of the links at the bottom of this article if you want more information).

Locally, I played a role in this effort circa 2008-2009 as a member of and chair of our Zoning Hearing Board that conducted many evenings’ worth of hearings, listening to hours of witness testimony and reviewing over one hundred exhibits in a validity challenge to the zoning of the 78-acre parcel. At one point there were a total of ten attorneys representing various parties in the hearings!

 Also, one of our current township supervisors, Colleen Eckman, had a starring role, arguably launching her local political career on this one “not in my backyard” issue, after becoming a vocal opponent of the project (which would have been located not far from her home in Audubon) and also serving as one of the witnesses in the zoning validity challenge hearings questioning the proper zoning of the parcel.

So – at long last, in 2017, here it is and here we are. Lower Providence's loss is Philly's gain. Much has already  (here, here,  here,  here,  here,  here, and here -- both in the NY Times and Philly Inquirer) been published about the Museum since it opened, detailing its displays and collection.  Maybe it's just that as a member of DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution, who donated the painting "Siege at Yorktown" to the Museum) I had more than a casual interest in the subject matter, but I found it totally absorbing and, of course, long overdue. Most importantly, take the time to go see this wonderful addition to the Philadelphia historical scene in person. Consider becoming a member to help support the museum going forward. Check out the gift shop, well-stocked with items not typically found in tourist traps, to which a section is devoted specifically to items about the Continental Army’s brutal winter at Valley Forge.

And last, but certainly not least, the next time you feel defeated about something, allow yourself to be inspired by the story of We the People to think about how much American success in the American Revolution illustrates the impossible odds that can be overcome and the things that can be accomplished by brave, determined people with tenacity and the courage of their convictions.  


http://www.philly.com/philly/news/pennsylvania/20070629_Critics_voice_concerns_over_nonhistoric_extras__Battle_brewing_over_museum.html

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2009/07/land-swap-moves-american-revolution-center-out-valley-forge-national-historical-park

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/release.htm?id=877

https://www.lincolninstitute.org/archives/somedays/070730.php

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OIvAGHL_UYIJ:usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2008-04-08-valley-forge-museum_n.htm&num=1&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1&vwsrc=0

http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/article/PV/20080813/NEWS01/308139971                                                                                                                                                                             

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/inga_saffron/american-revolution-museum-architecture-stern-inga-saffron.html?utm_campaign=Philly.com+Facebook+Account&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=Philly.com+Facebook+Account&cid=Philly.com+Facebook

http://www.pottsmerc.com/article/MP/20090410/NEWS01/304109982 )

Gerry Lenfest at 4-19-17 ribbon cutting

Moody's Sours on LP

Last week Moody's Investors Service, a New York commercial credit rating outfit, downgraded the bond rating for LP's guaranteed revenue sewer bonds from a rating of Aa2 to Aa3. This rating affects all the township bond holdings and more importantly impacts its ability to cheaply borrow funds into the future for projects such as road paving and capital improvements.

I spoke to township manager Richard Gestrich on this subject Friday afternoon (4/24) and he told me substantially the same thing as was reported by LP TAP before I had a chance to write up an article, so I won't repeat that conversation here; you can check it out for yourself.

While Gestrich's outrage about the changes in rating methodology and his feelings that the township was victimized in its treatment by Moody's may be legitimate, it's worth noting that no surrounding townships were similarly lowered, nor was Methacton School District's bond rating (although their business manager recently mentioned in a school board meeting that he 'is concerned' about eroding tax revenues in the district, a harbinger of a potential downgrade). Anyway, it's all about the ability to repay debt, which obviously Moody's sees as a potential problem brewing for LP.  The Board of Supervisors should be very concerned about whatever is giving Moody's agita because a downgrade is, any way you cut it, a big deal.  Moody's earns their keep by risk rating bonds much like auditors review loan portfolios and giving people bond ratings upon which they can make investment decisions; it does not serve their purpose to issue random downgrades without a solid reason.

I did ask Gestrich whether our Finance Committee was aware of the downgrade and if so, what they had to say about it. I noted that according to the Township's website, this committee did not appear to have met for months (although I have heard that they do meet, and Gestrich has publicly referenced this committee meeting, I don't know how 'public' those meetings are since there no agendas or minutes). A constituent who was tapped to serve on this committee told me over the weekend that he was frustrated with it because they sought him out to serve, and he was eager to do so, but then they never met. Gestrich told me he believed the Finance Committee was going to meet Monday evening, April 27.

(As a follow-up, Gestrich told me in a 5/1 email that he had passed the full Moody's report to Finance Committee member Lucien Calhoun, who is also with the Delaware Valle Finance Authority). He said "Lucien opined that since the Township remained at a Prime 1 rating, that it would not make a difference on our interest rates going forward".

Moody's downgrade comes on the heels of a glowing audit review which Gestrich presented in March to the BOS. While we ended 2012 with a thin balance in the general fund going into the next year, we had a much more comfortable cushion going into 2014 to the tune of almost $1.4 million, which was attributed to increases in earned income taxes and real estate transfers. After the BOS voted late last year to raise taxes for the first time in ten years, Chairman Eckman stated earlier this year that the Board expects to give more frequent financial updates to residents.

Among the reasons Moody's provided for the downgrade was 'continued erosion of tax base'. This is something I've been sounding the alarm about for some time. In recent years our Board of Supervisors seemingly had a policy of harassing and obstructing businesses from coming here and bringing jobs, revenue, and taxes and fees with them (sometimes spending ridiculous tax dollars in legal fees to do so). While this environment was primarily driven by former supervisor/chair Rick Brown, a couple folks who have supported those actions are still serving. Chasing out or creating a less-than-welcoming, hostile business environment for proposed businesses like the American Revolution Center, the YMCA, Bestline, WaWa and others has a cost.  You can't provide services without adequate revenue streams coming in and you will surely have a harder time borrowing money.

It pains me to drive through West Norriton, King of Prussia and Upper Providence and see not only new businesses that went there instead of here, but also businesses that used to be here, but have moved to those communities. It is also heartbreaking to drive through the township and at every entrance be greeted with an empty building...the former Collegeville Inn...the former Bud's Bar....the former Norristown Ford...nobody seems to be focused on making it a priority to find suitable uses for these properties or changing the zoning so that they can be repurposed. 

Also, former township manager Joe Dunbar raised a concern circa 2010 that the LPT Sewer Authority appeared to be using capital reserves to fund operations and presented specifics. Then, when former supervisors Brown and DiPaolo got control of the BOS, they dumped the auditor who developed the findings, Maillie Falconero. As the Township is the guarantor of all township debt, including the Sewer Authority, I can see why this would have been concerning at the time and could be having an impact now.

A damning move like this from Moody's tells me that Job One for our BOS ought to be to get the word out ASAP that we are not only open for business but we will bend over backward to bring you here and try to work with you. Stop being a NIMBY township and reverse Rick Brown's legacy for LP: a lowered bond rating.

 

Cause for "Concern"

 ‘Watching. Listening. Acting”.  This was the credo of local citizen activist group Lower Providence Concerned Citizens Association (LPCCA), whose logo was a wise old owl. Over the past few years, if you’ve donated money to or been a member of LPCCA, you might want to ask if you knew who you were dealing with and what  really happened to your money, particularly if you thought it was tax deductible.

The words they selected to represent themselves apparently don’t include ‘complying’, because according to the federal government, LPCCA is an IRS scofflaw, appears to have inappropriately solicited funds, and possibly misappropriated the donated money they received. This supposedly nonpartisan group represented to donors that they held status as a 501(c)3 charitable organization.

Created back in 1981 (according to the PA Secretary of State's office) by (primarily) former longtime Township supervisor Rick Brown to fight Moyer’s Landfill, this organization lay dormant for a long time until revived in recent years just in the nick of time to fight the American Revolution Center (ARC) project and run it out of town. Their more recent members have come from the anti-ARC ranks (including current supervisor Colleen Eckman, a former vice president of the group), Planning Commission member Harold “Ted” Baird, who, courtesy of Brown has helped LPT rack up thousands in legal fees fighting a local business on his behalf and whom I've written about several times previously on this blog;  virtually all of the current Zoning Hearing Board members, and Arcola residents Cathy Beyer and Mary Kaczor (whom I've also written about previously), who have been embroiled in battle – at considerable Township expense - with the 5 other member municipalities of our regional sewer authority.

In addition to collecting membership fees, LPCCA held several functions in recent years to raise funds to support its aims (mostly, fighting the ARC, the interceptor project, and any other projects (and people) Brown and his minions didn’t approve of.

The candidate for supervisor in last year’s BOS race that Brown supported – Democrat Jim Donohue - stated in campaign materials and online that he was LPCCA’s  latest secretary, having assumed that role not long before he threw his hat in the ring for the 2013 election. Other than that, the members of their executive board were not widely known.

In 2011, LPCCA facilitated and hosted an allegedly nonbiased candidate forum in that year’s supervisors’ race -- in which I (the chair of the ZHB during the ARC hearings) was a candidate and Brown’s Public Enemy #1 – the first and only such candidate debate they ever held. They didn't bother to hold one last year.

Curious about this group after they inserted themselves into my race and their members were publicly supporting my opponent, I started to look into them a couple of years ago and learned that not only had they not obtained a 501c3 determination letter from the Internal Revenue Service, as they’d been representing, but according to IRS officials, they had never even applied during their entire 30+ year existence.

Over the course of a year, I checked the IRS' online so-called 'cumulative list' and called them three different times, thinking that maybe it was (very belatedly) in the works and delayed during the IRS’s Tea Party targeting scandal, or that I’d happened to get an IRS agent on the phone who didn’t know what he or she was doing and provided incorrect information. Each of the three times the agent on the other end of the phone gave me the same information. Each time I checked online, there was no charitable organization listing with the IRS for LPCCA. I guess this may explain why they had never filed annual 990 reports and why there was no official record as to whom their executive board officers were or how much money they had raised.  

Any citizen has the right to request a copy of a charity’s IRS determination status letter in order to determine their legitimacy, and since the IRS did not have it, I was directed to try to obtain directly from LPCCA whatever documentation they had that they felt supported their claim to 501(c)3 status. I asked a friend to write both an email and a formal letter to LPCCA to request their determination letter (since I presumed they wouldn’t respond if it was me asking for it); no response to her inquiries were ever received. They never even acknowledged receipt of her correspondence.

The IRS indicated it would look into this group and take whatever action they felt necessary if they determined LPCCA had falsely represented their status to potential and actual donors.  The IRS itself will not disclose whether they investigated and if so, what the outcome of that investigation was. FOIA laws, they claim, preclude that.

However, the group is no more. Last fall I learned from a local attorney that on October 21, 2013 the officers of LPCCA had abruptly met and voted to disband LPCCA. Could it have been because the IRS was breathing down their necks?  Since they never filed anything with the government and other than Baird, never put their officers’ names and titles on their website, we can only know who was involved from materials the group themselves put out and quotes attributed to them in the press (such as here and here).

If you contributed funds to LPCCA that you thought were tax deductible, you might want to check with your accountant before the IRS catches up with you.  Otherwise, since I also discovered another local charitable entity with 'Lower Providence' in its name who has had their 501(c)3 status revoked for non-filing of annual reports, let the donor beware.

 

Old Business, New Business...and Open For Business

The beginning of every New Year – especially after a local election cycle – isn’t complete without the reshuffling of municipal boards and commissions. In LP, on our Board of Supervisors, we saw the end of the (second) Rick Brown era, as he opted not to stand for re-election.  Brown made no secret of the fact that he’s been suffering from multiple myeloma for the past few years and presumably that weighed in his decision not to run again.

 

While Brown originally came into office in the late 70’s / early 80’s on the strength of his work fighting the Moyer’s landfill, and his early days as a supervisor were positive, in recent years he’d become more of a divisive factor politically, particularly as he ran up a high legal spend championing special interests at the expense of all LP taxpayers, which ultimately benefitted his longtime friends, attorneys Richard Sheehan, and Michael Sheridan of the  firm Fox, Differ, Callahan, Sheridan & McDevitt, by appointing them as solicitors. Some of that divisiveness spilled out publicly at the end of the year as the Board tried over several contentious meetings to get a 2014 budget (with tax hike) approved.   Sheehan/Sheridan are now gone as well. 

But, 2014 is a new year, and with it comes new leadership.  Monday night saw the swearing-in of new supervisor Patrick Duffy (after a painful, 15-minute delay in which former vice-chair Don Thomas neglected to make sure the judge had arrived for the ceremony before starting the meeting and then awkwardly had to try to fill those long, silent minutes), and the selection of Colleen Eckman as our new chairman and Jason Sorgini as our new vice-chair. I’ve been impressed with how both of these individuals have grown in their positions since their election, their work ethic, and that both appear to do their homework and ask good questions, so I am confident they will do an effective job. This, together with the selection of supervisor Lisa Mossie across the bridge in Upper Providence as their chairman, marks the first time in a very long time, if ever, that both sister municipalities have been led by women.  

The fact that people merely showed up and were sworn in shouldn’t be a big deal, but consider this: In Trappe, as new borough commissioners were sworn in, one of those left in the minority faction chose to quit on the spot rather than contend with the winners. Over in Royersford, two borough council  members who won in November apparently moved – or perhaps weren’t residents at the time of their election at all, since the timing of their evident relocation is unknown – and didn’t bother to tell anyone that they would not show up to be sworn in,  or serving. That mystery is still being unraveled.  While there’s often been no shortage of drama in LP politics, at least we’ve never had those issues.  
 

I had an opportunity to connect with Jason Sorgini about the possibilities this new page in LP government could represent and to determine what they see as their most urgent priorities, obstacles, and what was behind their unexpected selection of solicitor.  Sorgini’s excitement and eagerness to roll up his sleeves and get to work was evident. 

Sorgini said that while it’s ‘not a flashy thing’, he identified ‘getting a handle on our transportation and infrastructure – our roads and bridges’ as Priority 1, because it has a ‘big impact on our quality of life’.  In addition to obvious pain points like the closure of the Arcola Road Bridge, he noted that we also have to manage the long-term resurfacing and maintenance of our roads and how to pay for that. He mentioned the recent study they’d commissioned to research and identify the condition of all our roads and to look beyond immediate needs to develop a road improvement rotation plan for the next 5-10 years.

Of course, this goal ties in with an obstacle we (and most municipalities) face, which is that revenues are down and state and federal aid for many programs has been slashed. However, recent legislation passed by the state reverses that a bit. “The last loan in which the Township borrowed against our annual liquid fuels payments from PA ends in 2016, which frees up that debt payment for road improvements and, coupled with the increase in liquid fuels monies we’ve been told we can expect as a result of the recently approved state transportation bill, means that in a couple of years we could potentially see 60% more income from that source to help pay for our road and infrastructure needs."

The second immediate priority,  Sorgini said, is to “continue to attract business and development".   In fact, it was this issue he came across as the most passionate about. At the same time this is a goal, it’s also an obstacle.  “You know, perception is reality, and the perception out there is, rightly or wrongly, that we’re not interested. It’s frustrating to see all the new construction going on in Upper Providence and Upper Merion, while we have empty buildings at all the entrances into the Township”.  Sorgini stated that “We would like to let developers know that LP is willing to hear what they have to say and to work with them to bring in business that is meaningful and worthwhile for the residents”.

 

He cited the example of the Children's Hospital surgical and specialty care annex that is being built in Upper Merion as something they would love to have been able to bring to LP,  in no small part because of the ancillary businesses it would also attract and the high-end jobs associated with them.  “When I found out that CHOP was looking to build a new facility to replace the current facility near the mall in King of Prussia, I had asked Rich [Gestrich] to reach out to them to let them know about all that Lower Providence has to offer. Unfortunately, they were already well into working with Upper Merion to put the facility near the Wegmans. Despite the fact that we were unable to get CHOP in Lower Providence, I remain hopeful that a similar medical facility will realize that Lower Providence is the place to be!”     

Sorgini also cited continuing to build on the 85% occupancy rate of the township’s industrial park, Park Pointe at Lower Providence, as part of this effort and gave high praise to Township staff, especially  Director of Special Projects & Technology Bill Roth (who serves as the Township’s business manager for Park Pointe at Lower Providence), for their hard work not only in getting occupancy to this level but for continuing to beat the bushes with existing Township businesses such as Kimco to find ways to fill vacancies such as  the former Eagleville Genuardi’s shopping center. 

 

For their third priority, Sorgini identified “Continued fiscal responsibility”and mentioned that although the Board came “dangerously close to a tax increase to fund debt service”, they were able to avoid that (the approved budget had a small (5.89%) tax increase earmarked for the operating budget and library services). “We really struggled with that and recognize that the residents will be affected by the tax increases in the new state transportation bill, but also realized it would be irresponsible to continue to kick the can down the road any longer”, observed Sorgini.  

“In addition, there are major employment contracts coming up for renegotiation – police and non-uniformed personnel – and we need to be positioned to be able to be fair to them while balancing that with what’s fair to residents cost-wise to pay for those contracts.” I pointed out that in 2015 my understanding is that we will also need to replace our police chief, as he expects to retire soon, and Sorgini confirmed that LP Police Chief Francis “Bud” Carroll is in the DROP program and that in conjunction with those negotiations  ‘we will also need to replace a long-standing, well-respected police chief’.  

Continuing with obstacles, Sorgini said that “we need to live within our means with limited resources…there is so much to do.  We need to change the perception of Lower Providence with developers.“  He also cited “the reality that it’s impossible to please everyone” and that some issues “become very personal things…the Y(MCA) is a good example of that. Some things are more complicated than you think and you try to explain that to people…" (this was something I found frustrating in my various positions with LP as well, so I share in that observation…not much is as cut-and-dried as it looks on the surface).  
  

He said “I think of myself not as a politician, but as a public servant, especially because of my  job [as an elementary school principal]…and because I want to know what people think, I do look online at comments to see what people are writing. I prefer to listen to what people are saying and take the emotions out of it”.  

One of this board’s decisions that so far has left many people scratching their heads was the new board’s selection of solicitor. The appointment of John Rice of the firm Grim Biehn and Thatcher in Bucks County (“GB&T”) left some folks I spoke to puzzled as to why no one from LP was selected (keeping the business in the township) or at least a firm that is familiar with the players, issues and histories of businesses and properties within our boundaries.

I presumed that township manager Richard Gestrich, who spent many years working for Upper Makefield and Middletown Townships in Bucks County as their manager, was familiar with GB&T and thus made the recommendation, but Gestrich stated that the board made this selection ‘on their own’ and that he only found out about it when Sorgini called to advise him that Rice would be submitting a letter of interest. GB&T doesn’t do much municipal business in Montco, currently listing only that they hold the solicitorship of Lower Moreland Township. Locally, the next closest proximity they have is an appointment as solicitor to Radnor Township in Delaware County. Still, by all accounts they are well respected and experienced in general municipal affairs.

Often, Board members lean toward a selection, usually someone they have developed a working relationship with and in whom they have a level of trust, whose advice and perspectives they’ve come to value. Thus, many insiders fully expected Joe McGrory of the firm Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell and Lupin (and allegedly a relative of one of the supervisors) to get the nod. I was initially told by a political source who wants to remain anonymous that ‘no one could count to three [votes] for their choice, so they went in a different direction’ but according to Gestrich, it played out otherwise. 

When I asked if he knew what the selection criteria had been, Gestrich stated that ‘they were looking for someone who had no ties to local developers and contractors’.  If true, I’m not sure which past solicitor(s) that may have been intended as an indictment of, but read into it what you will. If we ever had a solicitor that also had such interests as clients and said client ever had reason to appear before the BOS, the solicitor would have had to step aside on that issue in lieu of conflict counsel, and I don’t recall that ever happening at the BOS level in LP. Then again, maybe they’re just trying to be careful.    
 

Sorgini essentially validated Gestrich’s version. He said they interviewed seven different firms, including then-current solicitors Fox, Differ, Callahan, Sheridan & McDevitt, and that GB&T was selected for their specialization in municipal law and that they ‘don’t represent developers’. While he noted that GB&T doesn’t have as much experience in Montco as more local firms “there’s something to be said for that. When I hear from [solicitor] John Rice, he has no skin in the game, he’ll be a straight shooter. He has over 25 years of practice in municipal law and I look forward to learning from their expertise”.
 

Playing devil’s advocate, a non-attorney friend of mine, an official in another Montco municipality, weighed in with  “The downside of having a solicitor with ties to your township and county is outweighed tremendously by the upside. All of these Montco attorneys know each other and their network is second only to law enforcement's. If you want to see something coming before it runs you over, there's nothing better than a connected Montco lawyer. And the firms are all big enough that you can avoid conflicts of interest. It sounds like a "principle stand".  
 

Whatever it is, I hope it means that our apparent past policy of litigation as a first resort is history and that GB&T won’t be putting kids through college on our legal spend. I’d like to welcome GB&T to the Lower Providence community and hope that their tenure here is uneventful. 

Over at Methacton, they readjusted their Board late last year. Joyce Petrauskas was replaced by Christian Nascimento as president, and newcomer Brenda Hackett was sworn in, as were the incumbents who won reelection in November. Now they are focused on upcoming teacher contract negotiations and getting an ever-increasing capital improvement budget passed to facilitate the addition of lights and turf fields. As always, campaign promises to the contrary, it looks like Worcester Township is standing in their way, dragging out the ordinance adoption, advertising and approval processes as much as possible. What started out as an approximate $3M proposal has ballooned into a version containing all the bells and whistles, standing at approximately $5.5M, and the school district is considering taking on debt to pay for it (translation: hold onto your wallet).

 

 

I'm not sure I understand why such a high cost for turf fields and lights, a project which largely has no building construction costs included (with the exception of the option that includes building a new restroom facility outside the high school building), out of what is now a staggering 22 separate variations of options we could go with.   I'll explore this more in a future post and hope that Methacton manages to remain scandal-free for the foreseeable future. There are several court cases involving Methacton that are due to go to trial this year (if they don't settle), so I'll visit whatever comes out of those in the future as well.                 
 

 

 

Planning On The Y

 
 

Looking to get a feel for what Lower Providence Township officials might be thinking, Freedom Valley YMCA officials got a real workout when they presented optional sketch plans to LP’s Planning Commission, an advisory board to the Board of Supervisors, at an informal meeting September 26. At issue: does the Planning Commission think this project is a good use of the land at this location?

Sketch plan review is an optional step for applicants and is not subject to an approval process at this juncture.

In addition to the Planning Commission (PC) members, Lower Providence Supervisors Colleen Eckman and Jill Zimmerman were in attendance, as was Supervisors’ liaison to the Planning Commission, Jason Sorgini. Architect George Marks from Kramer Marks and engineer Tim Woodrow of Woodrow & Associates presented on behalf of the YMCA.

I've written about this subject before; the link is here.

Before anything can move forward in Lower Providence, the YMCA is concurrently trying to get a determination from the Montgomery County Commissioners as to whether they will lift a deed restriction on the property stemming from money provided to the Township for the initial purchase of the land in 1994, and what they will accept in exchange in order to be made whole for the funds they provided. They may want other open space in lieu of that which would be built on at the Club at Shannondell location, a full or partial cash repayment, or a combination. If they want alternate open space, Lower Providence needs to determine what and where those potential properties are. No meeting with County officials has yet been scheduled.

The YMCA indicated that they believe the County is taking the request seriously, but if the County isn’t interested in lifting the deed restriction, or suitable compensation cannot be worked out, the YMCA cannot move forward at this location.

As the applicant explained the project, they again noted that the initial phase calls for an 85,000 square foot building, with a 6,000 to 7,000 square foot lobby, and a large gym. In a Phase II, the total square footage could go up to 120,000, and include the addition of 3 indoor pools and slide, program space, indoor track of 1/10 or 1/12 mile, 3 outdoor pools, and a 12,000 to 14,000 square foot wellness center. If the County, Township and PennDOT approvals go as hoped, which would take about six months, the facility could potentially open sometime in mid-2014.

The pool currently on the property next to Chadwick’s restaurant would remain as they serve different customers than those served by the YMCA.

The operating agreement for the current Club at Shannondell facility would need to be modified to reflect the changes should the plan obtain all approvals.  While the YMCA would operate their facility under one operating agreement, Audubon Land Development (ALD) would continue to manage the Club at Shannondell’s remaining 9 holes of golf, the Chadwick’s restaurant, and swimming pool under a second operating agreement. Undetermined at this time is which entity (ALD, the YMCA, or a third party) would manage the operation of the driving range, miniature golf course and batting cages proposed for a third, separate operating lease.

PC Member Kristina O’Donnell asked what benefit there is to ALD to allow the change to their operating lease. The YMCA responded that you would have to ask them, but that the YMCA would not be presenting to the Township without their cooperation. ALD representatives were not present at this meeting, but the YMCA indicated that ALD was taking a back seat in this matter as the YMCA had come to them with the project and the idea of modifying the lease, so ALD, understanding that they have to go through a process to modify the lease if the project meets with Township approval, was letting YMCA officials take the lead for now.They are letting the YMCA drive the process until such point as a clear picture on the project’s viability and the Township’s position can be ascertained.

The revised plan now shows access to the property via an extended Crawford Road which will cut through the property and provide public access between Rittenhouse Road and Egypt Road, a solution which is expected to alleviate current cut-through traffic on Thrush and Lantern Lanes. ALD is doing a comprehensive traffic study which will encompass Crawford & Rittenhouse Roads, Rittenhouse & Egypt, Shannondell Drive to Park & Egypt, and Trooper Road to Park Avenue. YMCA engineer Tim Woodrow indicated during PC questioning whether the road would be public or private that the YMCA’s initial thought is to make it a public street, but if the Township thinks otherwise they are open to keeping it private.

Many of the Planning Commission members’ comments and questions, as well as those of residents, were reported in other publications (see links below), so I’m not going to repeat them all here. 

When asked what operating hours were envisioned for the driving range, mini golf and batting cages, YMCA responded that their primary hours when they are most in demand are in the evening, so they’d need to be lit, but the plans show these amenities located in the middle of the site so there is minimal impact on residents. Any lighting must comply with Township lighting standards. The busiest hours for the YMCA facility would be from 5-9 am and 5-9 am.
 

There was some discussion around parking. The current parking count of 674 spaces anticipates a total buildout of 120,000 square which is consistent with what other Y's in the region's needs have been. It’s approximately.400 or 500 feet from Egypt Road to where the parking area begins.

Sean Metrick, Montgmery County Planning Commission’s representative to LP was present and went over their review letter on the project. Mr. Metrick reiterated that in 1994 county helped LP buy the land to preserve as open space and the need to have the deed restriction released. The site has been used for active recreation since 1965. Now it's 'commercial' recreation. LP needs to decide if the added intensity is appropriate for the site.

Casey Moore of Traffic Planning & Design (TP&D) the Township’s traffic engineers, noted he's also a Township resident besides being the Township traffic consultant and is sensitive to the need to make all roads safe for residents. He will have TP&D’s letter with recommendations regarding the sketch plan to the Supervisors by next week.

 Public Comment

From the perspective of the approximately 30 residents in attendance, the comments and questions directed to the applicant and the Planning Commission reflected the same themes as those that arose at the initial July presentation: traffic, road improvements, intensity of use, stormwater runoff, and other aspects of the project that would be addressed later if the project makes it to the point of submitting formal plans for land development review.

About a dozen or so residents got up to speak about the project. Most loved the idea, but not in that location.  One, Kathie Eskie of Trooper, a current alternate member of LP’s Zoning Hearing Board (the second ZHB member to comment on the proposal thus far) and whose daughter Kristina O’Donnell fired many of the evening’s sharpest questions from the Planning Commission to the applicant, said that ‘It’s a wonderful project, but it’s in the wrong place…you lose the only big piece of property available to all residents…it’s not good financially, other small parcels that may be swapped will cost us to maintain and retrofit. Are there even any such parcels left?"

She added “We’re giving it to a commercial venture. The YMCA is a nonprofit but still a 'business". We were told the Township would get revenue of $40,000 and maybe more, but we'd use that up for services to support the facility and in upgrading the other sites. '

Ms. Eskie is close friends with supervisors Rick Brown and Don Thomas, who were not in attendance at this meeting.

Resident Joanna Nutley asked the applicant if there is a playground planned or racquetball. The YMCA responded that a playground is very likely, and would most likely be in the babysitting area; racquetball courts are not planned for this site. She also wanted to know if the formal designs would incorporate the Township’s new solar ordinance and the YMCA indicated that they will have to, but that they are not yet at that step. .

 Joe Niccolo of Crawford Road stated that he was the owner of one of two open space parcels that were scheduled to be purchased by LP last year with county matching funds, which the County withdrew for budget and political reasons. His parcel is located off of Crawford Road near the proposed YMCA facility. The deal never went through, so Mr. Nicolo mentioned that if LP ‘still needs to find some open space to trade, to consider his, as “it’s a good piece of property -  if there has to be a swap, it’s still available”. He said that he ‘felt disenfranchised’  when he and the Township had gone to the trouble of trying to have his 9 acre parcel left open and preserved as open space only to have it go nowhere.

Resident Steve Smeyne complained that ALD had “promised to extend Shannondell Boulevard to Park Avenue but that it never came to pass." While this is part of the overall plan for the retirement facility, a trigger to mandate the completion of the road involving a milestone number of units sold has not yet been reached. In the past, representatives of ALD have told me directly that while their intention is to honor the commitment if and when the milestone is reached, they remain flexible and open to other alternatives if they make more sense to the overall evolving Audubon area

Smeyne also said that the 9 holes to remain ‘will fail’ as they are a swamp when it rains. Residents Patrick Duffy and John Shumaker also gave this opinion...as did resident Mark Million of Audubon. He said that his corporate golf league plays at Shannondell, as do other corporate leagues, and that the Club at Shannondell will lose that business if the current facility loses 9 holes. He noted they'd probably also lose other business such as the Methacton Post Prom fundraiser golf outing and possibly weekend golfers who don't want to keep playing the same 9 holes over and over. Million also noted that he felt that the 9 holes remaining would probably have to be redesigned or realigned. I would think that when the project undergoes stormwater review, the problem of 'wet' holes would likely be addressed then.

 

Other residents’ comments have been captured elsewhere, here (Patch) and  here  (Times Herald).

 

In a repeat of comments made at the initial July presentation of the project, several residents reiterated their belief that the project should be located within the former Valley Forge Corporate Center (between Rittenhouse and Trooper Roads) now known as Park Point at Lower Providence. However, there are several problems with that.

 

One, as Randi Elton, LP’s Community Development Director, explained, the Township has done a good job of marketing that site, which now only has 15% vacancy so, as she said ‘there isn’t much room down there’.  There are only 3 open parcels; 2 are empty buildings that just went to sheriff’s sale and one is the former Commodore Semiconductor (and Superfund site) located at 950 Rittenhouse Road. A representative of the site was on hand, Jake Hect, indicated he’d been working with the Township to develop and market this 14-acre site, which he said would require EPA approval before it could be sold and reused. The Y has previously indicated its feasibility studies indicated a need for parcels between 15-20 acres. A 1992 EPA report about the site can be found here. (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/rods/fulltext/r0392155.pdf ).
 

However, even if there is a large enough, viable parcel available within Park Point, when I spoke with architect George Marks after the presentation, I confirmed that the YMCA simply doesn’t have funds to both purchase AND construct the facilities. They have funds set aside for construction, but they are looking to lease precisely because to purchase land in any location would cost money they just don’t have.  So, this is a dead issue unless someone is ponying up the money for them to purchase land someplace.

 

Next week at their October 4 meeting, the Board of Supervisors is expected to take a vote on whether to formally request the County consider revisiting the open space agreement with LP and lifting the deed restriction.

 

Overall, the YMCA has a lot to bring to the community, but they clearly have at least one significant hurdle to overcome before they can proceed. It should be interesting to see where the supervisors line up with respect to this project at next week's BOS meeting.