Just how high are the stakes on the Parkhouse sale?

In a word: HUGE.

Since the sale of Parkhouse "pervades every aspect" of the 2014 Montgomery County budget, it's worth taking a look at the single biggest budget issue that Montgomery County faces:

Logan Square Shopping Center, aka "Studio Centre," aka "Norristown Centre," aka Giant Economic Development Boondoggle.

Back in June of this year, Natalie Kostelni penned an article for the Philadelphia Business Journal chronicling the tragic history of the Norristown Studio Centre, the too-good-to-be-true project that was going to single-handedly undo years of mismanagement and economic decline in Norristown. Like the quick fix that project promised, the County Commissioners are looking for a similar quick fix to fill the $24.5 budget hole that the project created. Kostelni's article (linked here) is worth reading in its entirety, but for a sense of scale as to how dire the County's fiscal crisis is as a direct result of this project, this passage is worth quoting at length:

The county finds itself on the losing end of the deal even though it had been warned. A March 18, 2009, memo from John F. Nugent, the executive director of the Montgomery County Redevelopment Authority, questioned why the county was committing so much money toward the project and why it would enter into an arrangement in which the county would be subordinate to the primary lender. Regardless, the commissioners signed off on the agreement.

“We were told by our experts allowing the first lender to have a higher priority than the county was needed to have the deal happen,” said Joe Hoeffel, who was serving as a county commissioner at the time and fully supported Studio Centre. Hoeffel contends that in spite of the county being on the hook, the money helped keep USM Services and its jobs in Norristown.

“There are 400 jobs and a Class A office building and a parking garage,” Hoeffel said. “That’s why I call the project a successful job creator for Norristown.”

Bruce L. Castor Jr., who was a commissioner then and currently holds the same post, also backed the project.

“I liked that the tax credit would bring glitz and glamour to the northern end of Norristown,” Castor said. “That was a Rendell thing and I thought it was a good idea.”

However, Castor said he didn’t know he was signing off on a deal that put the county funds in such jeopardy. He blames Hoeffel, a political nemesis, for the situation.

Josh Shapiro, a current county commissioner, said attempts were made to renegotiate the county’s secondary position after the fact, but that was rejected by the lender.

Bleak Future

Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman is also looking into the matter. This is based upon recent public disclosures about decisions and actions undertaken by the past commissioners related to the Logan Square project, she said in an email. It is also prompted by a December 2011 report issued by a Montgomery County Investigating Grand Jury that addressed the conduct of some county government officials and employees and allegations of political corruption.

In the meantime, the foreclosure process is expected to take six to nine months and has left the county reeling. It recently put forth a bond issue and its exposure on the Logan Square debacle was listed as a liability.

Also of concern is how the situation will affect the amount the county and Norristown receive from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and its Community Development Block Grants funds. Since HUD loans were part of the funds given to Studio Centre and the project is unable to generate enough money to make payments on the loan, the payments will come from future CDBG money earmarked for the county and Norristown.

Translation: This one deal could haunt Montgomery County over the long term. The county is also dealing with the reality that it may not realize any return from the money it gave the developer for Studio Centre and even recoup any of the $24.5 million.

“We will follow whatever options and legal remedies that we have,” said Uri Z. Monson, chief financial officer for Montgomery County.

"Whatever options and legal remedies" clearly includes the sale of Parkhouse and apparently only the sale of Parkhouse. With it's $39 million price tag, that neatly fills the hole created by Studio Centre with enough left over to pay down the existing $8 million in debt on Parkhouse and the $6.23 million on outstanding contracts.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the County must pay $528,000 in annual interest payments alone on the Logan Square loans.

A $528,000 interest payment on a redevelopment project that foreclosed in May. The county-guaranteed loan for Logan Square - better known as the former Sears shopping complex at Markley Street and Johnson Highway in Norristown - will cost the county $9.4 million through 2030.

Another failed investment in Norristown, this one in a sewer project, will cost the county $110,000 in 2014, according to Monson.

Those two projects, approved under the previous administration, have also cut into the 2013 budget. The county recently made an $8,883 payment for the sewer project, and the county Redevelopment Authority made a $363,362 payment for Logan Square.

Moody's downgraded Montgomery County's bond rating in August. Another downgrade would raise the interest rate.

It's not only in the County's fiscal best interests to plug this budget hole as quickly as possible, but it would be best for all parties involved in the original transacation to make this project disappear down the memory hole as quickly as possible.

Because, where did that $59 million go?

It did not go into paving the parking lot, I can tell you that much.

As a matter of fact, other than the renovated Sears building and the parking garage, it's difficult to see where, in fact, that money went. Montco resident Walter Interrrante filmed the "before" images back in 2007:



Here is the "after" image, taken today, 11/23/13:

On October 31, 2013, the Logan Square property was sold to the developer for $8,000 dollars.

Logan Lender, a Wayne firm, bought the two parcels for a total of about $8,000 after filing a foreclosure suit in Montgomery County Court in May against Johnson & Markley Redevelopment, a New Jersey firm led by developer Charles Gallub.

The 24.5-acre property sold as two parcels, which includes where USM, a facilities maintenance company, has offices. Together, the parcels were valued at about $37 million, reflecting Logan Lender's investment.

It's worth noting that just this year, the Montgomery County Commissioners broke ground on yet another economic development project that would, as Commissioner Leslie Richards said, "change the way Norristown is perceived."

Where have we heard this before?

The project got started with $11.5 million this year. An additional $20 million contract is slated to be awarded in August 2014 and a third $20 million contract is due to be awarded in late 2015 for this project.

Am I missing something here? If it was an economic development project that dug Montgomery County's fiscal hole, then shouldn't economic development funds be used to dig them out? Surely, the County should not be "investing" in economic development projects until it cleans up the mess from the last project.

And it certainly shouldn't be using Upper Providence's open space to do it.

Look, I get that the current County Commissioners inherited a mess from the previous Board. Lord knows, they can't sit in a meeting together for five straight minutes without reminding everyone of that. The fact remains, however, that they all ran for office with a full understanding what they were getting into. And it's more than a little troubling that many of the same names that were floating around the groundbreaking of the Lafayette Street Corridor project were floating around during that fabulous Studio Centre proposal.

Montgomery County does some things very well: Parkhouse is a five-star facility that serves the County's most vulnerable aging adult population. Since 1993, Montgomery County has preserved acres and acres of open space and farmland.

The County should not trade funds earmarked for things they do well to pay for things they do very poorly.

Right To Know Request Library

Following are the Right to Know requests (and responses) on record to date (other than those filed by Upper Providence Twp). As of today's date, even though the winning bid was to have been disclosed weeks ago, Montgomery County still has not made it available to me or anyone else for public viewing. How are we supposed to ask questions about it if we can't see it what's in it?

Right to Know Requests #1 and 2 for winning bid/proposal, and appeal of same to PA Office of Open Records:



PA Office of Open Records - Receipt of Appeal (Appeal #1):



Kearney supplement to record - Appeal #1 to PA Office of Open Records, for RTKs #1 and 2:




Montco's supplement to the record (Appeal #1 to PA Office of Open Records, for RTK's #1 & 2):




Final Determination of Appeal #1 from PA Office of Open Records:



Post-Final Determination correspondence:



RTK #3 for Puhl Tract - deed and resolution from 1983 (the only Right to Know request Montco granted, probably because they didn't realize it was requested in conjunction with the Parkhouse matter):



RTK #4 for the Mid-Atlantic proposal plus Appeal #2 to PA Office of Open Records:



RTK #5 & county response - email sweep:



RTK #6 and Montco's response  - other 9 proposals:

Timeline of Significant Events in the Parkhouse sale

February 21, 2013 The County's RFI for Parkhouse was issued. It was "exploratory" in nature and no mention of the surrounding land was included in the original RFI posted on Montco's website:

The County of Montgomery is soliciting proposals of interest from qualified individuals or entities in the private sector (not-for-profit or for-profit) to purchase, lease, or form a public/private partnership for the County owned and operated nursing care and rehabilitation facilities known as Parkhouse, Providence Pointe, Riverview Adult Day Health Services, and Montgomery Meadows Independent Living Suites.

March 2013 Upper Providence learned of the possible sale of Parkhouse via various news reports about the County's issuance of a "Request for Information" ("RFI"). At the time, the Township Planning Commission was working on various "cleanup" of zoning ordinances, including the Institutional Overlay ("IN") and the designated open spaces in our Township, both of which apply to the Parkhouse parcels.

March 26, 2013 Two Township applications were initiated. One to update Upper Providence's zoning map to include several parcels of Township-, County-, and State-owned land in the Open Space Conservation ("OSC") district and another to clean up several housekeeping issues with the IN institutional district.

May 17, 2013 Upper Providence received the Montgomery County Planning Commission review letter dated May 17, 2013 with comment on the Township's intention to re-zone the aforementioned public spaces. The MCPC letter (linked HERE) recommended re-zoning all County, State and Township spaces, except the Parkhouse parcels, stating that

...the Open Space Conservation District may is not (sic) consistent with current County land use planning objectives. We point out that the R-1 Residential-Agricultural District zoning may be more in keeping IN/R-1 District zoning than OSC zoning, which does not allow development (emphasis mine). Permitted uses in the OSC District include open space preserves, wildlife sanctuaries, forest or woodland preserves, and reforested land

Accordingly, the MCPC recommends that these two particular properties, with its on-site geriatric facility, be removed from this list. We find that classifying the other, remaining County-owned parcels listed in this ordinance as OSC Open Space Conservation is appropriate and consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan.

It should be noted that the County review letter goes on to further recommend that rezoning ALL of the properties listed in the ordinance were found to be consistent with the Township's 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update and the Township's Open Space Plan, both of which were reviewed and approved by the County at the time of their adoption. It is safe to conclude from this letter that the County's objectives for this land changed at some point between July 19, 2010, which is the date of Upper Providence's Comprehensive Plan update, and sometime in 2013.

June 6, 2013 Montgomery County issued the "Request for Proposal" ("RFP"). A copy of the RFP, without the map, was provided to Upper Providence by Montgomery County on July 22, 2013 and that copy is linked HERE.

The RFP states,

The County is willing to consider all proposals, which could include, but is not limited to, the purchase of one, two or all of the Parkhouse facilities and related/other assets, including the land on which Parkhouse is located.

July 16, 2013 Upper Providence Township's first direct contact with Montgomery County. Representatives from the County indicated that they had received several responses to the RFP but did not offer details when asked. Montgomery County officials expressed concern about the Township's pending OSC and IN ordinances.

August 19, 2013 The Township held hearings on the OSC and IN ordinances as part of the regular work session. The Board of Supervisors passed both of these ordinances by unanimous vote over protests from County officials present at the meeting.

October 3, 2013 Upper Providence Township staff met with County representatives to introduce the proposed subdivision of the park from the main parcel west of Route 113. The County questioned a "natural subdivision" by right because of Route 113.

October 8, 2013 Representatives from Upper Providence Township attended a meeting at One Montgomery Plaza where the "Working Group" of County employees assigned to evaluate the bids for RFP makes a presentation to the County Commissioners. A presentation from Dr. Scott Rifkin, of Mid-Atlantic Healthcare, LLC is also included.

October 17, 2013 Montgomery County Commissioners vote unanimously to approve the sale of Parkhouse to Mid-Atlantic Healthcare LLC

November 3, 2013 County representatives meet with the Upper Providence Board of Supervisors and is advised by the Board that a sub-division application should be submitted for the requested sub-division on Route 113. Upper Providence Planning and Zoning is instructed to place the application on the next available Planning Commission Agenda.

November 12, 2013 Montgomery County submits sub-division plan.

November 13, 2013 Upper Providence Planning Commission reviews plans and tables action to December 11, 2013.

Upper Providence Township did not receive any kind confirmation of the intent to sell this land from the County until the RFP was issued in June, however the MCPC letter of May 17, 2013 piqued my suspicions in May. What no one knows at this point, not the public or the Township, is what Mid-Atlantic intends to do with that land now that they have been awarded the bid. To date, despite numerous requests to the County, including records requests under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, the terms of the winning bid have not been disclosed to Upper Providence Township or the public.

Upper Providence's request is simple: if the land is not critical to the successful operation of Parkhouse by Mid-Atlantic, would the parties consider altering the terms of the deal to exclude the land from the sale or offer to dedicate it to the Township? If the land is critical to the successful operation of Parkhouse by Mid-Atlantic, Upper Providence would appreciate the disclosure of the plans for that land.

"New signs will 'brand' Montgomery County public facilities"

Times Herald 12/3/13:

NORRISTOWN — The Montgomery County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously Tuesday to hire a company in Georgia to create signs that will be hung around public places in the county.

The commissioners approved a payment of $44,830 for the signs, which are being designed by Creative Impressions of Norcross, Ga. Forty-six signs will be placed across the county at various public places.

“I think it’s important if county tax dollars are going to sustain these sites, that people know they are walking into a Montgomery County facility,” commissioners Chairman Josh Shapiro said.

There are no final designs yet, and commissioners have seen preliminary sketches. What exactly will go on the signs is still being worked out.

Revealed here for the first time is the sign design the County Commissioners have decided upon in order to identify public spaces owned by Montgomery County:

The 46 signs will cost just under $1,000 each. Shapiro said the commissioners’ plan on having them installed by county employees which will save the county money.

Additional money can be saved by simply selling off the County places.

Most. Transparent. Administration. EVAH.

What follows is the County's response to Upper Providence Township's Right to Know request:

Dear Mr. Skypala:

Thank you for writing to the Montgomery County Open Records Office with your request for information pursuant to the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law (“RTKL”).

On November 21, 2013 we received your request. Please be advised that we require additional time to respond to your request, pursuant to 65 P.S. § 67.902.

This right is being asserted for the following reasons:

a. a legal review is necessary to determine whether the record(s) is a record(s) subject to access under the Act;
b. to determine if the request requires redaction of a public record(s); and
c. bona fide staffing limitations (in retrieving and reviewing the record(s) requested).

We presently estimate that a response will be available no later than, December 21, 2013.

Natasha Taylor-Smith, Esquire
Assistant County Solicitor
Montgomery County Solicitor’s Office
P. O. Box 311 Norristown, PA 19404-0311
Ph: 610-278-3033
Fax: 610-278-3069
NTaylors@Montcopa.org

Considering the State Office of Open Records has already directed Montgomery County to release this document to Janice Kearney, you'd think they'd have it pretty close at hand.

Historic Parkhouse Established 1807

Parkhouse, Upper Providence, boasts rich, 200 year history
By Jenny DeHuff, Pottstown Mercury, September 9, 2013

UPPER PROVIDENCE — It began as almshouse for the less fortunate, but the Parkhouse nursing care facility in Royersford has come a long way since it opened its doors in 1808.

On June 7, 1808, Thomas Jefferson was president and Pennsylvania’s second governor, Thomas McKean, was nearing the end of his third term. Parkhouse, then known as the county almshouse, opened that day to serve a vast number of Pennsylvanians in need of charitable housing.

According to Sally Hawk-Jones, director of activities for Parkhouse Providence Pointe, Montgomery County purchased the land from Abraham Gotwaltz in 1806. It was on 256 acres at the time, which later grew to 296, close to where it stands today.

The Parkhouse complex itself comprises three main buildings. The oldest, referred to as the West Building, dates back to 1872. The cornerstone of the centrally located building is marked “1900,” and the North Building, and youngest, was erected in 1972.

Today, they are known as Montgomery Meadows, Parkhouse Pointe and Riverview Meadows, and together they offer independent living suites, short- and long-term rehabilitative care and adult day health services, respectively.

“It was an almshouse, a house for paupers, essentially,” Hawk-Jones said. “So the county started building almshouses because it was the county’s charge to take care of the indigent. That’s how it all got started. Prior to that time, money was made available to take care of people who had nothing. State government, by way of the townships, used the money to take care of the people in the community. It kind of makes me think about the old Charles Dickens (philanthropy).”

The almshouse was entirely self-sufficient, Hawk-Jones said, having gardens to grow its own vegetables, stables to keep horses and other farm buildings, such as a unique barn known as the Sweitzer barn, which was unusually large for its type in that day.

The almshouse building was leveled to the ground by fire in 1821 and again destroyed in a fire in 1872, Hawk-Jones said. Six residents died in the latter blaze.

The barn, too, and many of the farm-related outbuildings were destroyed by fire in 1867. The large, red barn that exists today was built in the late 1860s. It and other farm buildings across the street (Route 113) from Parkhouse are now part of the county park system.

Many of Parkhouse’s early residents were of German descent, and a list of its directors and overseers from the early 1800s to today lies within the administrative offices.

Parkhouse was also recently recognized as a bird habitat with the Audubon at Home Program
More history on Parkhouse can be found at the following links

Mongomery County Almshouse - Asylum Projects
Bean's History of Montgomery County PA

Hard hitting investigative reporting on the County budget

Oh no.

Not Montgomery County's controversial budget that uses the sale of Parkhouse and 220 acres of open space to fill a budget hole. No, this hard hitting investigative report is about ergonomic chairs purchased by BUCKS County. NBC10:



Believe it or not, this story was one of the lead stories on NBC10's morning broadcast. NBC10's intrepid reporters even went to other counties to "investigate" how much other counties spent on ergonomic chairs. Meanwhile, Montgomery County residents can't get the details of the sale that "pervades every aspect" of Montgomery County's 2014 budget.

(Also, as an aside: It's a little curious that the title of the Montco Memo post I linked here last night was changed from "Sale of Parkhouse pervades every aspect of Montco's 2014 budget" to something more innocuous and "pragmatic." Seems like controlling that spin is pretty important, hmmmm?)

And lest you think that our local reporters are incapable of filing an RTK request themselves, behold this story from yesterday's Times Herald:

WORCESTER — When the Methacton School Board meeting was opened up for public comment Tuesday night, Winnie Hayes, a former board member and president, called for the resignation of current board president Joyce Petrauskas. Hayes’ request stemmed from information that surfaced on the Internet regarding DUI charges filed against Petrauskas in February 2013 in Clearwater, Fla. The information can be found on http://mugshots.wtsp.com/profile/1538079/joyce-petrauskas. Hayes said she has sent a right to know request for the arrest record from the Clearwater Police Department. The Times Herald has also filed right to know request for the criminal complaint against Petrauskas.

We can argue about the newsworthiness of Joyce Petrauskas' alleged DUI in Florida in another conversation. But isn't the sale of Parkhouse at least AS NEWSWORTHY AS THAT?

Can some reporter SOMEWHERE start asking questions about this sale before the County jams it through?

Sales of Parkhouse pervades nearly every aspect of Montco 2014 budget

Montco Memo:

The commissioners on Thursday released the 2014 draft budget of $371,473,973 -- an 8 percent reduction from 2013, with no tax increase.

(...)

The sale of Parkhouse senior center, and to a lesser extent the Human Services Center in Norristown, pervades nearly every aspect of the budget. The county hopes to complete both sales by the end of this year.

The county had been spending about $45 million a year to operate Parkhouse, but next year expects to spend only $6.23 million on some outstanding contracts. That frees up room in the general fund to provide modest increases to almost every county department, a 1.5 percent raise for all non-union employees, and merit bonuses of up to 1.5 percent.

The privatization of Parkhouse reduces the payroll by about 400 employees. It reduces energy costs by $1.78 million. It reduces debt service by $19 million. And proceeds from the sales will bring the county's reserve fund up to 11 percent, the recommended level.

This only tells half the story. Parkhouse also generates some $47 million in income every year. Add an additional $6.23 million in spending for outstanding contracts and my math has that at a net loss for FY 2014.

The full budget is available here.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/montco_memo/County-reveals-371M-budget-proposal.html#Mt0ly4C0lhbSrZri.99

Montco to Public: "We have to close the sale in order for you to find out what's in it."

Lower Providence resident and community blogger/paralegal Janice Kearney has had a Right to Know request (RTK) submitted to Montgomery County regarding Parkhouse since early September. Ms. Kearney's request of the County was simple: disclose the details of the winning bid for the sale of Parkhouse and the names of the other bidders. But it would appear that the County is more interested in playing games and muddying the water than being transparent. Consider the timeline below, and keep in mind, the Right To Know Law is the minimum an agency must do. There is nothing precluding them from providing more than what you ask for or faster than the Law states.

Also keep in mind that the County is pushing hard to close this sale by the end of this year. Are they trying to run out the clock?

Her notes follow:

September 6, 2013 – I filed original RTK with Montgomery County seeking information relative to RFP 13-27 (the Parkhouse request for proposals). 

September 13, 2013 - Montgomery County’s Assistant Solicitor, Sharon Glogowski (instead of the Open Records Officer) neither denied nor granted the request, but requested an additional 30 days to respond.

October 2, 2013 - Montgomery County’s Director of Purchasing, Joseph Coco (not the Open Records Officer)  wrote, in response to the 9/6/13 request, claiming that they could not produce the requested materials because the RFP had not yet ‘been finalized and cannot be produced at this time’. (I don’t know why they couldn’t have just told me that on September 13 instead of asking for more time).

I was advised to ‘wait a few weeks to a month, and check back to see when the contract becomes finalized or [I] could resubmit another RTK request in a few weeks’ or a months’ time”.

The way the Right to Know Law works is, if the agency does not formally grant or deny the request, or ask for an extension of time, within five business days, it’s ‘deemed denied’.  

October 8, 2013 I filed a second RTK with Montgomery County because I was aware that a decision had been made as to whom the bid would be awarded to, and that it was going to be announced at a meeting scheduled for 10 am October 8. The meeting was indeed held, the winning bidder announced and it was recommended to the County commissioners that they sell to this bidder, Mid-Atlantic Healthcare. No other bidders’ names or proposals were disclosed at the meeting and the winning bid package was not made available either at the meeting or subsequent to the meeting.  

Also on October 8, 2013 I received a response from Montgomery County’s Office of Open Records indicating that they were considering my two requests as one and that the ‘information requested will be sent to you as soon as the RFP is finalized’.

October 17, 2013 – the Montgomery County Board of Commissions voted unanimously in a public meeting to accept the proposal of the winning bidder (Mid-Atlantic Healthcare). They distribute an internal email documenting same, a press release, and the story is covered in the press.

October 17, 2013 – Joseph Coco, Director of Purchasing (not the Open Records Officer) writes and again claims the requested documents have not yet been finalized and cannot be produced, again advising that I wait “a few weeks to a month, and check back to see when the contract becomes finalized or I may instead submit another RTK request in a few weeks or a months’ time”.

I responded via email, asking him to please define what the County means by ‘finalized’ as the Right to Know Law does not make any such distinction as a prerequisite for disclosure. Proposals are to be disclosed when the bid is awarded. I am still awaiting a response to that question. Surely, it cannot mean when all agreements are executed at the closing of the sale at the end of the year. How is the public supposed to have meaningful dialogue and ask questions if we can’t even know what the winning bidder (or other bidders) proposed until after the sale closes? No one knows whether the winning bidder is proposing to continue operating the facility as is, what additional operations they might plan, or what is intended for the 200 acres of adjacent open space and the potential impact any development of same might have.

October 22, 2013 – considering this a ‘deemed denial’ situation, I filed an appeal of the deemed denial with the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (PA OOR).  The appeal is accepted as being filed timely and the Commonwealth begins their review, which must be completed within thirty days.  As soon as I filed the appeal, the County turns over the list of names of the other 9 bidders whose proposals were rejected.

During the 7-day period in which additional material can be submitted to PA OOR  in support of a party’s position, the County supplements the record with an argument of how they do not need to disclose the contents of the proposal because the transaction is not “finalized”. I supplemented the record, making the case that the Law does not have any requirement for ‘finalization’ as a prerequisite for disclosure.

November 18, 2013 -  PA OOR issues a Final Determination granting my appeal. However, the Decision fails to recognize, erroneously, that I did request the proposal itself along with the list of bidders. Despite the fact that both the County and myself recognized that the proposal was the main subject of the appeal, and our supplemental arguments dealt with that document, PA OOR inexplicably exempts the proposal from their determination. It does direct that the County turn over the list of bidders (which they did upon my filing of the appeal) and any other records responsive to the request other than the proposal itself.

When I contacted PA OOR and showed them that yes, in two places I had requested the proposal, they reviewed the matter further. They admitted they were wrong and that I had requested the proposal, but that they will not revise their Determination because technically at the time I made the second RTK request the award had not yet been made. They consider the contract award date to be October 17, 2013 and direct me to file a third RTK with the County.

November 18, 2013 – I filed a third RTK with the County and ask them, in the interest of dealing in good faith, since they could have made this available anytime since October 17, to waive the 5-day period of time they are permitted to wait before granting or denying this request.

The five days goes by without response. Since it's 'deemed denied', I filed another appeal with the PA OOR on November 26.

In the meantime Upper Providence Township has filed their own Right to Know requests.

November 25, 2013 - I filed a Right to Know request for all emails pertaining to the Parkhouse sale between the commissioners themselves, the commissioners and the bidder, and  the commissioners and other county employees, as well as the nine rejected proposals.

November 29, 2013 - Montgomery County's response to the 11/25 Right to Know requests is to ask for a thirty-day extension of time to determine if they can release them. The PA OOR has already stated that the winning and rejected bids should be disclosed as of October 17, 2013. To date the County has made none of this available.

 

 

Upper Providence Planning Commission Meeting, Parkhouse Subdivision 11/13/13

"If you like your geriatric facility, you can keep your geriatric facility"

As an Upper Providence Township Supervisor and a resident of Montgomery County, I am troubled by the lack of transparency surrounding the sale of the County’s Parkhouse facility on Black Rock Road. The proposed sale, which the County is rushing to close before the end of the year, includes approximately 220 acres of rolling farmland in my township that has been designated as open space on County planning maps since at least 2005. It was designated as permanently protected open space in the Township’s 2006 Open Space Plan which was then incorporated into the Township’s 2010 Comprehensive Plan.

As a Township Supervisor, my concern is for the future of this property. Once this gem of open space is transferred to a for-profit entity, its preservation cannot be assured. Why hasn’t the County offered to subdivide off the geriatric facility and keep the balance of the tract preserved as open space? On

October 8, the County Commissioners heard a recommendation from the “working group” assigned to evaluate the RFP submissions for the purchase of Parkhouse. This group, made up entirely of County employees, recommended that the RFP be awarded to Mid-Atlantic Healthcare LLC. After only eight days of deliberation and no public input, the County Commissioners voted unanimously to sell Parkhouse to Mid-Atlantic for $39 million. During that meeting, the Commissioners spoke often about the happy employees they encountered during their scheduled tour of a Mid-Atlantic facility and gushed about how nice the facility smelled. At no time during the public information session on October 8 or during the regularly scheduled meeting on October 17, did anyone tasked with evaluating this transaction address the fiscal health of Mid-Atlantic Healthcare, LLC.

Mid-Atlantic Healthcare is a company currently undergoing a rapid expansion, and has, in fact, doubled in size since 2011. Excluding Parkhouse, Mid-Atlantic Healthcare currently owns fourteen facilities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, seven of which have been acquired only within the last two years. They have financed the purchase of at least $106 million for six of these seven homes.

One of the primary reasons that the Commissioners cited for selling Parkhouse was that, according to County Chief Financial Officer, Uri Monson, the facility loses $2 to $7 million per year. Mid-Atlantic’s rosy presentation on October 8 included assurances that care at Parkhouse would not be compromised, employees would retain their level of seniority and salary and the community would continue to be served by this resource. Dr. Scott Rifkin, the principal of Mid-Atlantic, claims he can save money by joining a group purchasing organization (“GPO”); however, it seems unlikely that this strategy will be enough to not only honor Mid-Atlantic’s lofty promises, but cover the losses that Parkhouse allegedly incurs annually and the debt service of $39 million for the purchase.

This raises several additional questions: Has Mid-Atlantic committed to retaining a certain percentage of Medicaid beds, or will they abandon the Medicaid patients in favor of private pay insurance to increase their revenues? Will Mid-Atlantic need to develop the balance of the property to make its numbers add up? And if it was as simple as joining a GPO to save that much money, why didn’t Montgomery County attempt to do that before selling?

On October 30, the site of the once-proposed Studio Center at Logan Square was sold at auction for a meager $8,000, leaving Montgomery County with a gaping budget hole of $24.5 million as second position lien holder on the property. There remain many unanswered questions about the uses of some $61.5 million that was poured into that site for what eventually amounted to the refurbishment of an existing office building. Since no real compelling reason has been given for the urgency of closing the sale by year end, it would be unfortunate to conclude that Parkhouse, and Montgomery County’s most vulnerable low to moderate income aging population who depend upon it, are being sacrificed simply to fill this budget hole.

There remain too many unanswered questions regarding this sale and I would urge that the County Commissioners slow down and honor their commitment to transparency by allowing for a more public vetting of Parkhouse sale before proceeding further.