UPPER POTTSGROVE, Special Report: That may sound like a sensational statement, but, unfortunately, after what happened at the August 17th Board of Commissioners meeting, it is a request that deserves to be taken seriously, with many questions unanswered.
This is no longer simply about political disagreements or competing opinions. We are talking about millions of dollars in taxpayer money being committed with remarkably little public explanation and without a reasonable justification ever being demonstrated to the taxpayers who are being asked to pay for it.
Last Monday night, Aug 17th, the Board voted to spend approximately $3 million to purchase three properties from a single developer. At best, the Township appears to need only a portion of one of those properties for a possible municipal building site. The justification for purchasing all three remains difficult to understand.
Adding to the concern is the developer’s longstanding connection to Commissioner Elwood Taylor, a relationship that has already raised public concerns. The Township is now being asked to spend millions of dollars on properties owned by a developer with those same connections. Taxpayers have every right to ask whether these circumstances are simply coincidental.
The Way Last Monday’s Vote Was Handled Raises More Questions
The procedure used for this vote was significantly different from how boards have handled major agenda items in the past. Even The Pottstown Mercury took note of the unusual approach.
Normally, boards introduce an agenda item, explain what it is proposing, commissioners discuss the matter, and then the public is given an opportunity to comment or ask questions. Last Monday night, the order was essentially reversed. The public was asked to comment before the Board had meaningfully explained or discussed the proposal.
That left residents trying to ask informed questions about a transaction they had not yet been given enough information to understand. Even so, residents raised some very legitimate questions:
- Why does the Township need to purchase all three properties when it appears that, at most, only one may be needed for the municipal building?
- How was the purchase price determined? Why is the Township paying more than $85,000 per acre when it recently purchased comparable land for approximately $23,000 per acre just a month ago?
- What will the other properties actually be used for? If the Township does not have a specific use for them, why are taxpayers spending millions of dollars to acquire them?
- Has the proposed building site been properly evaluated? Residents raised concerns about wetlands, streams, steep slopes and difficult topography.
- Has an engineering study been performed to determine whether the site is actually suitable for the proposed municipal use?
- What about potential environmental contamination?
Those are not unreasonable questions. They are exactly the questions taxpayers should be asking before $3 million of public money leaves the Township.
Board President Leach Moved to Explain but Only Created Even More Questions
After public comment, Board President Leach explained that the plan was apparently to use one property for open space and the other two properties—approximately 24 acres—for two separate building sites.
He also attempted to explain the nearly $3 million purchase price by stating that the Township had an appraisal valuing the properties at approximately $3.7 million and therefore believed it was receiving a discount.
If that appraisal exists, taxpayers should be allowed to see it. The follow-up questions people had included: When was the appraisal commissioned? Who authorized the expense? What exactly did it appraise? When was it completed? But the public was not allowed to ask follow-up questions, so those went unanswered.
And once it was suddenly revealed that part of the purchase was supposedly for Open Space, another basic question arose: Was the Open Space Board involved? Did they even know about this plan? According to the Journal’s reporting, the answer to both questions was no. Additionally, when municipalities use Open Space funds to purchase land, the law requires public hearings.
Why was the Open Space Board left out of a decision involving property supposedly being acquired for Open Space? These are basic questions when a municipality is preparing to spend millions of dollars. Unfortunately, the public was not permitted to ask those questions—or meaningful follow-up questions—before the vote.
The Environmental Testing Explanation Was Particularly Troubling
Leach also addressed concerns about potential contamination on the property that he had previously raised. He stated that two tests had been performed and that no contamination had been found. He then identified the testing as Phase I environmental assessments. That distinction matters.
A Phase I environmental assessment is primarily a historical and records-based investigation intended to identify potential recognized environmental conditions. It does not, by itself, constitute comprehensive physical testing of soil or groundwater.
If the Township has not yet conducted Phase II testing, then saying the property has “no contamination” goes considerably further than the testing described would establish. Why would Leach tell taxpayers there was no contamination when the testing he described does not actually test the soil or groundwater for contamination? That deserves an explanation.
Leach subsequently indicated that Phase II testing would be conducted. That creates another obvious set of questions: Who ordered the Phase I testing? Who performed it? When was it authorized? Who paid for it? And why is the Township apparently committing nearly $3 million before the appropriate testing has been completed? Again, these follow-up questions were not allowed to be asked before the vote.
Something about this process does not add up, and taxpayers deserve clarification before the purchase moves forward. If there is nothing to worry about, then complete the appropriate testing first and provide the results to the public. That seems like a perfectly reasonable request when spending nearly $3 million.
Where Is the Appraisal?
There were also very few details provided about how the $2.9 million purchase price was determined. Leach repeatedly stated that he had an appraisal valuing the property at approximately $3.7 million. That claim was also reported in The Mercury’s article about the meeting. He also said he had an offer from another developer for a substantially higher purchase price.
Again, Leach clearly stated that the purchase price was supported by an appraisal, and he indicated the purchase price was actually at a discount. So where is it? A great follow-up question would have been who performed the appraisal? When was it ordered? Who authorized it? What exactly was appraised? And where is the invoice?
The Township should have obtained its own independent appraisal. Yet the invoice did not appear on the monthly bill list we reviewed. Did the public miss it? When did the Board authorize the expenditure?
The Journal has filed a Right-to-Know request seeking a full copy of the appraisal and the invoice submitted to the Township. The Journal has serious questions about this transaction and intends to get answers. And just to be clear: an appraisal is not a real estate listing. It is a professional valuation performed by a qualified appraiser. If commercial property is involved, the appropriate commercial appraisal should be obtained—not simply a residential valuation.
The Financial History Also Deserves to Be Corrected
Leach also told the public that the previous Board would have had to borrow money to complete the municipal complex. That is not true.
The previous Board designed the building project so that the Township would not need to borrow any funds. Through its investments and fund accounts, the Township had what it needed to fund the approximately $9.2 million full municipal complex, including approximately $500,000 in contingency, and maintain a healthy reserve, without any debt.
That is a very different financial picture from suggesting that borrowing was inevitable, as the current Board is pushing. The previous Board eliminated all debt. Oddly enough, it was the same debt Taylor created in his previous several terms as commissioner.
And Then the Public Was Shut Out of the Follow-Up
After Leach finished his explanation, residents repeatedly attempted to ask follow-up questions based on the new information he had just provided. They were denied.
The meeting was controlled by Leach, and the public was repeatedly told it could not ask follow-up questions before the vote once new information had been presented. Think about that for a moment.
The Township was preparing to spend approximately $3 million in a single meeting cycle and residents who had legitimate questions were not permitted to ask them after the Board provided its explanation. It is understandable why many people left the meeting angry. To some residents, it appeared as though the decision had already been made before the meeting even began.
Where Were the Other Commissioners?
Perhaps the most disappointing part of the entire evening was that not one commissioner stood up and challenged the process on behalf of the taxpayers. Not one commissioner stepped in and said residents deserved answers. Not one commissioner insisted that the Board slow down and obtain additional information before committing millions of dollars and potentially creating decades of new financial obligations.
As one observer described it, Taylor was the mastermind, Leach was the mouthpiece, and Commissioners Paretti and Robinson were the followers. Commissioner Waldt was the one no vote on the land purchases, but to many it seemed that his vote was a defensive move to protect himself rather than anything. He made no comment to justify his no vote whatsoever.
The taxpayers who took the time to attend the meeting, listen, and ask informed questions were essentially left on their own—with no opportunity to receive meaningful follow-up answers before the vote.
And Then Came Another $100,000 Payout
The Board voted to provide the same developer with another approximately $100,000 settlement related to another lawsuit, despite questions about how much, if anything, the Township actually owed. Instead of holding the developer accountable, the Board paid out $100,000.
That means that, in the span of one meeting, taxpayers watched the Board approve millions of dollars in property purchases involving one developer and then approve another substantial payment involving that same developer.
What About the Existing Developer Obligations?
Residents have also raised concerns about outstanding obligations involving this same developer. According to issues raised at recent meetings, the developer has an unpaid bill of approximately $75,000 with the township, unresolved work affecting residents of Sprogel’s Run, and other unfinished obligations.
Residents from Sprogel’s Run have repeatedly appeared before the Board seeking assistance in resolving those problems. The response has generally been that there is little the Township can do about the past.
Taxpayers are entitled to ask why ordinary residents and businesses are expected to satisfy their obligations to the Township while a developer with substantial business before the Township appears to receive extraordinary consideration.
If an ordinary taxpayer owed the Township money, would the Township simply ignore it? Would the bill disappear? Would the Township then turn around and hand that same person millions of dollars?
It Is Time for an External Look?
At this point, the question is no longer simply whether someone agrees with this Board of Commissioners. It is whether the Township’s decision-making process is functioning in a way that protects taxpayers, public funds, and the long-term financial stability of Upper Pottsgrove.
When millions of dollars are being committed with limited public explanation, when major questions remain unanswered, when residents are denied meaningful follow-up, and when substantial financial transactions repeatedly involve the same developer, it is reasonable to ask, as several residents have, whether an external authority should take a closer look.