Showing posts with label Michael Sheridan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Sheridan. Show all posts

Friday, August 17, 2012

Just Go To The Y-M-C-A!

The 80’s group Village People’s enthusiasm for the YMCA as expressed in their famous song isn’t exactly shared by some Lower Providence residents, as evidenced by comments from several residents at a recent public meeting and in an online petition regarding the proposed heath club/swimming facility in our Township.

As one of  West Norriton's Markley Farms’ longtime patrons, I was naturally disappointed when it closed its doors and ceased operation.  From the time I was about 12, we’d either get dropped off by my parents or ride our bikes over to swim on sweltering summer days. We’d stay as late as possible, usually til closing. Often it would be practically dark by the time my parents could drag us out of the pool, wrap us in towels, purple lips chattering, and take us home. I have many fond memories of the friends we made, the occasions we celebrated, the games of ‘Marco Polo’ we played, and the cute lifeguards we tried to impress.  Not only that, each summer was a family reunion of sorts as you’d see and interact with the same local families from the surrounding townships year after year.  It was truly a vibrant hub of the community, and is very much missed.

Markley's post close, 2012
Markley's, August 2012

I was even more disappointed when what I felt was the Freedom Valley YMCA’s solid plan for the Markley property, land already functioning as a recreational facility, was turned down by the West Norriton Township Supervisors, largely due to a few nearby residents’ objections – much of it NIMBY in nature. Unfortunately, that rendered it very unlikely that the Markley property will be used for anything other than residential development, which has its own traffic impacts, as well as additional impacts upon the community. I ran into co-owner Scott Markley in May, and he indicated that unless he can find someone who is interested in running the facility ‘as is’ for them, it will probably sit empty unless they can sell to a residential developer…and in this economy, nobody is building. That’s a shame, not only for the community that has lost the use of their wonderful pools and swim teams, but for West Norriton Township which is now generating less revenue from it as it sits empty, not selling memberships or snack bar food.

People in our and surrounding communities often bemoan the fact that there is so little for our kids to do (especially teens) other than hanging out at the mall, so I felt at the time that it would be fantastic if Lower Providence could figure out a way to bring the project here and make it viable for people of all ages to enjoy. Thus, I attended the presentation by George Marks of architects Kramer Marks outlining the YMCA’s proposal to place the project at the former General Washington Golf Club (now the Club at Shannondell) with great interest. 

Ironically, the YMCA originally took a look at Lower Providence in approximately 2010 in an effort to potentially build a full-scale facility here,and Township officials toured the Spring Ford facility at the time to get an idea of a typical operation. Ultimately, YMCA officials opted to try to locate at the Markely Farms facility when it became available. After being shot down by West Norriton earlier this year, they are again looking to LP for a solution.


The plan details appear on the Township’s website and have been well documented in the press already, so I won’t spell it out again here. In summary, the plan proposes to co-locate the new YMCA facility next to the existing Chadwick’s restaurant and pool facility already in existence and to keep 9 of the 18 holes of golf. The new facility would go on land which currently contains the other 9 holes of the golf course. It would include three outdoor and three indoor pools, two indoor basketball courts, a second-floor running track, a driving range, mini golf course, and room for additional indoor facilities and amenities. Between 500 and 600 parking spaces would accommodate those using the facilities.
Club at Shannondell, front 9
Club at Shannondell, front 9














The Township’s 2005 Open Space Master Plan for Zone E, within which this parcel falls, indicated a need for more recreational park space in this segment of the Township which has limited options for the placement of such a use. This plan would go a long way toward fulfilling that need as this section of the Township does not have a large community-type Township park.


Aggressive Timeline

During the presentation, George Marks indicated the Y's hope for an aggressive approval and construction timeline; they’d ideally want to begin construction in fall (approximately November) of this year, start to sell memberships beginning in January 2013, and open in fall of 2013. For this to happen, an unlikely ‘alignment of the planets’ would need to occur, in some cases concurrently, where possible, and occur quickly:

·        All land development approvals would have to be essentially fast-tracked, and since those approvals and any waiver requests they encompass would also need to include time-consuming traffic studies and stormwater runoff plan reviews – processes that can take months themselves – this alone could take months.

·        The Township would need to draft, hold a public hearing on, and vote to approve some sort of zoning district overlay on the property to permit the use in the first place (or, pass a text amendment creating a new zoning district to be applied to the property, which may give rise to claims of spot zoning or an ordinance validity challenge),  AND

·         A township open space/purchase agreement with Montgomery County in the mid 1990's to purchase the golf course provided $1.1 million from the County as an open space contribution toward the total $3M purchase price. To move forward with the YMCA, the Township would have to either return the county's open space money, or find or create another suitably sized and/or valued Lower Providence open space parcel to swap in place of that open space.


In 2005, LP asked the county for  permission to remove 3.78 acres of the property from the county open space deed restriction (part of the 97 acres) to permit construction of the new pool and restaurant. This was approved but conditioned upon LP's acquisition of and deed restricting as open space, a 19-acre property along the Perkiomen Creek near Collegeville.

The 19-acre purchase and open space designation was executed before the Commissioners’ approval which allowed a change in the 3.78-acre open space deed restriction. LP then entered into a leasehold agreement with Audubon Land Development (ALD) to build the facilities there today plus, as Phase II, an additional 50,000 square foot banquet facility which has yet to be constructed. The value of all those buildings was in the $21 million range and those buildings are owned by the Township.  One option would be for the Township to possibly let ALD off the hook for Phase II and instead allow them to repay a portion of the money owed on the municipal bond.



Club at Shannondell, abutting Egypt Rd

Opposition?

While other local media reported that there were 30-40 people in the audience to hear this presentation, that’s not entirely accurate.  The YMCA pitch was shoehorned in on the night of the month normally reserved for Zoning Hearing Board meetings, and that evening’s ZHB meeting was pushed back an hour to make room for the Y to come in. There were four hearings scheduled to be heard by the Zoning Hearing Board. Of the 30-40 people in the audience, most of the people were either applicants with ZHB hearings on the agenda or their attorneys. I counted 10-12 people – including myself - who were there specifically to hear the Y’s proposal.

While only a dozen or so township residents came to the informational meeting specifically to hear the plan (and the rest of the approximately 26,000 residents did not), a petition opposed to the project has sprung up online. As of today, 3 weeks after the presentation, only 41 “residents” (some appeared to be from Norristown, Limerick and Upper Providence) have digitally signed it, and judging by comments on the petition and to other online articles, objections center around the location, expected traffic impact,  and concerns about the loss of open space. Again, LP currently has approximately 26,000 residents….you do the math as to what percentage actually oppose the plan.

One topic expressed by those objecting is that they love the project in concept but not the location. Sites in the corporate center bordered by Trooper, Audubon & Rittenhouse Roads (Park Pointe at Lower Providence) have been suggested as alternative locations, and at the meeting a couple individuals suggested the long-empty former Commodore Semiconductor site (which is being remediated for hazardous wastes and TCE, hardly a site I’d want children playing on…). In any event any development on that site must be cleared by DEP, another government agency not exactly famous for moving quickly, if the site is even anywhere near to being repurposed). 

While I agree that there are numerous empty lots or vacant buildings there, there is not enough space in common ownership to make such a purchase easily feasible (to the extent it even IS feasible). Not to mention, the money the Y has set aside is for project engineering and construction, and doesn’t include having to make a costly land purchase on top of those costs. 

No outcry from LP Concerned Citizens/Friends of Lower Providence

The chain of events revealed at the July 26 public meeting was that YMCA officials came to Audubon Land Development with their proposal, and together they reached agreement in principle enough to approach the Township about the possibility of their support in making this happen. So, at this point, no one has any idea what our supervisors individually or collectively think or whether any of them support it.  And, so far, neither of the above community groups – both of whom have officers who are largely BOS Chairman Rick Brown cronies – have officially weighed in. FLP has been largely dormant since CVS was built 6 or 7 years ago and LPCC, originally founded back in the 80’s by Rick Brown  – after many years of dormancy, was recently revived to fight the American Revolution Center and other issues.

I was particularly interested to see that some of the very same people – several of whom have recently been appointed to township boards by the current Board of Supervisors and thus may want to sit out public comment - who were so opposed to CVS/Commerce Bank back in 2005, and the American Revolution Center circa 2008, in no small part due to perceived traffic issues and the potential impact on Audubon roads and intersections, completely mute when it came time to voice opinions on this project. Some of them were in the audience that evening, or conspicuous by their absence. Hopefully these minions aren’t merely waiting for their puppetmaster to determine which way the public wind is blowing before taking a position, but if they ultimately come out supporting it, I wonder how they will justify doing a 180 degree flip in order to support the very same things they’ve fought relative to past projects in virtually the same area.

One who did speak out against the project as proposed was Tom Borai, current vice chair of the Zoning Hearing Board. It is not inconceivable that if the Township elects to move forward and places an overlay district on the property, it may be challenged in a validity hearing at some point by residents who object to the project, a hearing which would take place in front of the Zoning Hearing Board. Given Mr. Borai’s past outspoken viewpoint – mostly directed at me relative to the American Revolution Center – that sitting board members shouldn’t express any viewpoint on issues that have not yet, but may, in the future, come in front of them via a hearing for which an impartial decision would have to be rendered – I was surprised to see him publicly come out against it at this meeting (part of his comments can be found here). Perhaps with Tom it’s “do as I say, not as I do”.

Budget Woes May Drive Need for Increased Revenues From This Property / History of the Property 

Late last year I attended the 2012 budget review & planning meetings wherein it was revealed that even though this property brings in $100,000 a year to the Township in the form of lease payments, the Board wanted to explore ways to potentially obtain more funds from it somehow. 

At a recent Lower Providence Republican Committee meeting I attended, Colleen Eckman (a Republican committeewoman as well as a current supervisor)  mentioned, essentially, that this property costs the township $250,000 a year but only brings in $100,000 - that the debt service on the bond exeeds the money that the Township receives from the Club at Shannondell, so there’s a $150,000 deficit.  She was basing this on an assertion that the municipal bond used for the project was bundled with other things such as road repairs.  However, that's not entirely true. I'm not blaming Ms. Eckman; I suspect she's not getting the whole nine yards from those who know it.

And local news sources reported that the property currently pays in $50,000 a year to the Township, which is incorrect. Per the Township's own 2012 budget, the annual lease payment is $100,000.

In actuality, there were two bond issues pertaining to this property. The first, in 1994, when the property was originally acquired by the Township (supervisors at the time were Brown, Ralston, McFarland, Fornal and Gaugler, along with solicitor Dick Sheehan), also included funds for the library and road improvements. The millage (for tax collection) was never adjusted to cover the entire bond issue and the property, with its golf course in poor condition and original, aging buildings needing constant repair (including an ice rink that leaked coolant so much it was frequently closed to the public), consistently lost money for the Township.  

Later, in approximately 2004, the Township (under a completely different set of Township supervisors) issued a second bond regarding the property, for capital improvements to the golf course facility. Those improvements included construction of the golf course, club house, pro shop etc. and entered into an operating lease with Lower Providence Recreational Partners ("LPRP") to manage the facililty and pay the Township $100,000 in annual rent.

Originally, this second financing was done as a municipal bond issue,. At the time of this financing, current LP BOS solicitor (and solicitor of the Municipal Authority at the time) Mike Sheridan, as Municipal Authority Solicitor, advised the BOS at the time that because of the bond class used, applicable laws dictated how much money the Township could legally derive in revenue (ie accept in rent payments) in order to maintain tax-exempt status of the bond, so the LP could not accept more than $100,000 in rent payments or else they would be in default of the bond terms and the bond investors could file claims against the Township.

In the 2009-2010 time frame the Township refinanced this second bond into a loan with the Delaware Valley Investment Trust, thus removing the limitations on how much rent could be accepted.
  
Bottom line, the bond/loan for capital improvements at the Club at Shannondell was not bundled with anything else and the lease payments made by Lower Providence Recreation Partners was never intended to finance the 1994 bond issue. 

Now, in 2012,this difference in what the property brings into the Township financially versus the total cost of the 2 bonds (one of which has since been repackaged as a loan) has effectively become a 'can kicked down the road' in time. This first bond could and should have been paid off long ago, but is instead now coming out of the General Fund and is a significant reason why we are talking about potentially laying employees off, not replacing departing employees, and making the across-the-board budget cuts discussed and approved at the June 25, 2012 special budget meeting [details here].


Understandably, the Township's  desire to explore ways to increase the amount of money earned from the property is likely the only reason the Township is even entertaining discussions with the YMCA - in an effort to raise money for the Township without having to resort to raising taxes on residents in the worst recession since the Great Depression.





Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Executive Privilege



It should go without saying that we expect the elected officials we trust with our votes to put the interests of their communities as a whole over those of special interests, and certainly over their own interests. When they can't, they're supposed to step away from the issue. They're certainly not expected to insert themselves hip-deep into the middle of it. 


But that's what it would appear has happened after digging below the surface of a couple of recent Letters to the Editor published online and in print in The Times Herald (both appear below) pertaining to the vacant lot at the corner of Ridge Pike & Trooper Road, the former home of Norristown Ford. I am asked at least once a week as to what is going on there, and is any new business ever going to go there. Well, judging by what I have seen and heard, probably not for a very long time.


One of the letters to the editor was a complaint about our Township from a business hoping to expand here, and the other, a response from its new manager, Richard Gestrich. The rebuttal was interesting not for what it said, but more for what it didn't say; it omitted a significant detail. I'm giving Mr. Gestrich the benefit of the doubt here because, not only was he not the Township manager at the time this transpired, nor present for or a party to the conversations, but he wasn't even living in Pennsylvania at the time. In all likelihood, he was only provided with minimal details about discussions that occurred before he came to work for the Township in April.

The significant detail? This opportunity to add revenue and jobs in Lower Providence would appear to have been preempted by one of our supervisors who was apparently afflicted with a case of 'NIMBY' or, in other words, "Not In My Back Yard".

The original letter, a shortened version of which was printed in the Times Herald, was blistering in its criticism, particularly of the Township's solicitor, Michael Sheridan. While the letter primarily blasted Sheridan, it should be noted that Mr. Sheridan takes his direction from the Board of Supervisors.






I had the opportunity to speak with the original letter writer, Gary Euler of Euler Commercial Real Estate, the broker who tried to get a real estate deal completed in Lower Providence for his client, Bestline Equipment, to get more detail about what happened. As I suspected, Bestline was kept in the dark as to the identity of the main objector to their plans.



The subject property is the lot at the corner of Ridge Pike and Trooper Road, formerly the home of Norristown Ford. Except for a small piece occupied by the Sunoco gas station, this is all that sits at that corner, a gateway into the Township from West Norriton. The lot is zoned Highway Commercial, except for a strip to the rear of  approximately 36,000 square feet, which is zoned Residential. The property  also has the  Ridge Pike Business District overlay applied to it which would allow for the use that Bestline envisioned. It is a continuation of a non-conforming use. As long as the property is actively being sold or leased, the use is permitted. Bestline Equipment, a Harrisburg company in the business of equipment sales and rental, with six other locations in Pennsylvania, hoped to expand to a seventh by adding a facility in Lower Providence. They'd done their homework and felt the location and demographics were excellent in that we are a "vibrant community close to King of Prussia, where there is a strong need for these products and services".  While the asking price was a little bit north of what they wanted to spend, they felt strongly enough about the location that they elected to proceed. They reviewed the zoning ordinances concerning that property and its longstanding past use as a car dealership and repair facility, and felt the use they proposed was consistent, and thus permitted by the zoning ordinances. As the property was being placed under Agreement of Sale, in what is standard procedure in many communities, they arranged to meet with Township officials in an informal meeting to discuss their tentative plans and see what they needed to do to make them a reality. This all occurred just before Joe Dunbar, the former township manager, was fired in mid-December 2011.


Bestline- Shippensburg facility
Thus, when Bestline met with Township officials, Solicitor Sheridan and the interim township manager were present, along with  the director of community development, who oversees the planning and zoning efforts. Evidently none of the Township supervisors bothered to attend; had it been me, I would have wanted to be present any time a potential new business came calling to ensure that they felt welcome and wanted and to know we'd try to work with them if at all possible.  As the letter indicated, Euler and client Bestline found Sheridan's demeanor and conversation to be such that they understood him to be discouraging 
Bestline's acquisition of the property. Bestline felt from the outset that the unmistakable tone of that meeting was "we don't want you here, it ain't gonna happen, and you're fighting an uphill battle". Instead of being welcomed with open arms, or having the 'red carpet rolled out for them' as the Township has tried to make appear to be the case in their efforts to attract businesses here, Bestline distinctly felt the chill of a cold shoulder. Why is that? Why, in a poor economy, with few jobs and dwindling revenues (from which the Township is suffering enough to warrant calling a special budget review meeting just two days ago to consider budget cuts, layoffs, hiring freezes and the like), would any prudent municipality turn an expanding business away? In their own estimation, Bestline expected to add  30 to 40 new jobs here...as I was told, 'these would not have been low-end jobs...they would have been things like mechanics, sales people, and administrative positions."  After the informal meeting, it took Sheridan almost a month to get a response letter to Bestline together, and when it was provided to Bestline (via their counsel, local attorney Ed Mullin, who was retained by Bestline because he had also represented WaWa when they were interested in the property not long ago), it came with a list of demands before their proposal would even be considered.  Bestline was told that there were 'three groups of neighbors' who objected to the plans, and whose demands were enumerated in the letter. The 'groups of neighbors' were never identified, but curiously, there ARE three families with the same last name whose properties border the Norristown Ford property. 

One is sitting supervisor Don Thomas, no stranger to special privilege (see here). The second is his parents, who live directly behind him, and the third is his brother and sister-in-law, who live immediately to the north of Don Thomas. I believe it is Don Thomas to whom Mr. Euler references as having had 'too much to say' and was 'allowed to unduly influence the sale' in his letter above. Were THESE the 'three groups of neighbors' who took issue with Bestline's plans? These homes and this property are within the boundaries of my own voting district, for which I am an elected Republican committeewoman. Both last fall and this spring, I spent a considerable amount of time knocking on residents' doors in my district, dropping candidate literature, campaigning in my own race, or obtaining petition signatures for various candidates to get on the ballot this spring, and NOT ONE resident  EVER mentioned ANYTHING about this project or their objections to it. Not even one resident from the neighborhoods directly behind the Thomas properties or within walking distance of it mentioned it. Not ONE. If there's an issue bubbling up, I hear about it. I find it very difficult to believe that it would not have surfaced if there were in fact three legitimate 'groups of neighbors' opposed enough to have come up with a list of demands, especially since a couple of other, far less substantial issues, did surface during that time period.  Also, since no official plans were ever submitted for formal review at this very preliminary stage, there was no notice to neighbors of adjacent properties required. Thus, unless the township reached out in some other way to them, which they were not required to do at that stage, no neighbors would ever have known about it. Don Thomas, however as a supervisor, would know about it.



Bestline - Harrisburg
The list of demands included things that are typically the purview of the Zoning Hearing Board and the Planning Commission to determine, if the plans even meet the criteria for review by those bodies. Bestline felt that the use they contemplated was substantially the same as what it had been used for over past decades and thus was a 'by right', or already permitted, use and that they did not need to go before the ZHB or PC; the Township tried to convince them otherwise.  It should be noted that both those boards are made up of a majority of members who are cronies of and appointed by the current supervisors, thus ensuring that any money and effort spent in pursuing that avenue would only end up wasting time and burning cash for the applicant without offering, in my opinion, a fair shot at a different outcome.  One demand made of Bestline was to submit an exhaustive list of equipment they carry and the gross weight of each, which they provided. Mr. Euler stated that the former business, Norristown Ford, carried dump trucks, and that nothing Bestline carries is bigger than that. Curiously, several of the demands smacked of self-interest. The mysterious 'three groups of neighbors' wanted:  
  • the running of electrical service from Trooper Road back to an accessory structure on one of the adjacent properties, identified as a 'barn'; there are several sheds and garages among the Thomas properties. 
  • 'lighting to the rear of your property apparently shines onto their property [sic] and they would like that corrected'
  • 'they want all equipment, repair and maintenance to be inside' (a zoning issue, not subject  to resident preference)
  • 'What they are asking is that the entire residential strip be left open as open space, the macadem removed, and a buffer installed in that area, with the balance of the ground to become part of the township park that is to the northwest of the property' (Brant Park). Bestline viewed this as an attempt at 'extortion'. (This is ironic to me, because it's my understanding from a former supervisor that the elder Mr. Thomas, and possibly his sons, initially fought against this park being installed, but now is apparently looking to expand it and bring it down more toward their own properties).  
Bestline - Hatboro
My opinion is that it appears that ONLY the Thomases, including Supervisor Don Thomas, simply did not want this business alongside their property, although apparently Norristown Ford was there before they were. Ultimately Bestline realized that they, along with other "unwanted" businesses the Township is already in litigation with, would be fighting a long, prohibitively expensive and time-consuming battle and in that period of time they could be up and running in a community that DID want them, so they elected to move on and look elsewhere. They ultimately wound up pursuing a site in Chester County.  Bestline is not the first business to take a look at that property. My understanding is that WaWa was previously interested, and that another entity, reportedly a supermarket chain, is considering it now, but I have to wonder if any business will ever be located there again as long as Mr. Thomas has any power to keep the lot empty. Mr. Euler told me that he supposed he would be dismissed as just some broker with sour grapes about not getting a deal done and losing a commission, but he said that what compelled him to write a scathing Letter to the Editor, which he'd never done before, was that 'in the 30+ years I've been in business and having dealt with numerous municipalities over that time, this was by far the worst experience I've ever had with one. I just don't understand why we could not work something out". 
Bestline - Muncy

Bestline - Towanda