ParkhouseGate: The Movie

"An emotional tour de force! I laughed. I cried. I registered to vote."

Oh, Montco! You Shouldn't Have!

Over the past few months, as we’ve tried mightily to get specifics about the sale of Parkhouse, the winning bidder’s response to the Request for Proposals has become a Holy Grail of sorts.

What was so great about Mid-Atlantic’s proposal that clearly elevated it above all others, that made it the best option so much so that according to Mid-Atlantic’s owner Scott Rifkin they were asked to increase the amount of their bid? And what does the company that has ‘no set plans’ for the 200+ acres of wide open fields really intend to do with it?  I mean, it’s one thing to talk, but it’s what’s in writing that matters. And yet Montco has remained steadfast in their refusal to release that document.

After days, weeks and months of asking for that proposal and being denied repeatedly by Montgomery County, you can imagine my excitement when last evening an email quietly appeared in my inbox from Montco solicitor Josh Stein’s office.  Was this the Mid-Atlantic proposal at long last?

Alas, it was not to be. What I received was the equivalent of a gift-wrapped empty box.  I don’t know if Mr. Stein believes we don’t know the difference between what they sent and what we asked for - the actual Mid-Atlantic Healthcare proposal - but what they provided was the Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) – minus all the detailed schedules that are the real meat of the APA  -  plus an amendment. It was accompanied by the admonition that “Given the recent announcement that the sale will not close on January 31, 2014, there will likely be another amendment; however, that document has not yet been drafted”.


'Tis the proposal we seek!

So, even though it doesn’t reveal much, I am providing the APA and amendment here and here. If the Commissioners were hoping that this release gives them some sort of credibility in the ‘transparency’ argument, well, ok….you released some papers we didn’t ask for. Thanks, but it doesn’t mean you are off the hook.

My response to Mr. Stein is captured below:

“Dear Mr. Stein,

While I am thankful that you sent me the APA and amendment, I think you will agree that these documents are fairly meaningless without the associated schedules. Please provide those at your earliest convenience as they are not exempt from disclosure.

Furthermore, again, while I am glad that at long last Montco is releasing something meaningful about this transaction, it is not what I requested which, as you surely must recall since I have requested it at least three times myself (and others have requested it), was Mid-Atlantic Healthcare’s response to the RFP. I have also requested copies of the non-winning bids which also have not been disclosed. I am yet again asking that those be provided as there are no legitimate reasons for the County to continue to withhold any of these documents.

For your reference I am again attaching the PA Office of Open Records’ second Final Determination that I have been granted in this matter directing your actions.

~ Janice Kearney”
 

There's been no response from Montco. I'm still waiting....

 

 

Montco using Open Space as a piggy bank

The following is the full text of my latest letter to the editor, which has so far appeared in the Intelligencer.

There was a time in recent memory when the term Open Space meant something in Montgomery County. It meant that land was set aside to preserve it for future generations to enjoy. It meant that the community where it was located would be protected from overdevelopment. It meant that towns and municipalities could plan their neighborhoods with intelligence and foresight.

It used to mean all of that. For thirty some years, Montgomery County has been accumulating open space for all of these reasons. In fact, in 2003 Montgomery County voters overwhelmingly (78%) voted in support of a referendum on the ballot supporting higher taxes to the tune of $150 million earmarked for the purchase of Open Space.

One bad investment later and Open Space is nothing more than a piggy bank to be raided in order to bail out the County budget. The Commissioners have tried but failed to provide a compelling reason to sell the Parkhouse Geriatric Facility. They have not even attempted to make the case for the sale of 220 acres of Open Space.

The Montgomery County Commissioners are trying to pretend that they still value Open Space by splitting legal hairs over the definition of what is and is not considered Open Space. This not only ignores the spirit and intent of the Open Space program, but more importantly, it ignores the Montgomery County Planning Commission documents that clearly define the property surrounding Parkhouse as Open Space.

I can understand the argument for privatizing the geriatric center, but there is no need to include the land if, as the County says, they simply want to get out of the geriatric business.

In August 2012, Dr. Scott Rifkin of Mid-Atlantic Health Care sent an e-mail to Commissioner Josh Shapiro to express his interest in purchasing the Parkhouse facility and grounds. Six short months later, in February 2013, the Montgomery County Commissioners took the first official step required to sell the Parkhouse by voting to issue the County’s RFI. After an evaluation of all bids was conducted by a working group consisting only of county employees hand-picked by the Commissioners, this process ultimately concluded with the Commissioners agreeing to sell Parkhouse to none other than Mid-Atlantic. As the Logan Square Studio Center began sliding towards its inevitable bankruptcy and the consequences of that poor investment began to become apparent, one must wonder if the Commissioners’ sudden interest to exit the geriatric care business was sparked by Dr. Rifkin’s e-mail to Josh Shapiro.

Dr. Rifkin himself told Upper Providence Township that the $3 million line item for the land on the County-distributed Terms of Sale distributed on October 8, 2013 is simply a place holder and not reflective of the actual value of the land. Furthermore, he told Upper Providence Township that he was asked by the County to increase his original bid because of all that he was getting. One must wonder why Mid-Atlantic, an organization that maintains it is not in the land development business, would allow the County to drive up the price on the deal based on the inclusion of land that Mid-Atlantic claims it doesn’t need or have any “set plans” for.

Meanwhile, the County continues to insist that the Parkhouse sale is a “done deal” while simultaneously refusing to release the terms of the sale because the sale has not been “finalized.”

All of this, while proclaiming at every turn that this process has been “transparent.”

There was a time in recent memory when words used to mean something in Montgomery County, too.

Lisa Mossie
Vice Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Upper Providence Township

CBS3 picks up the Parkhouse story

Story below from CBS3:

By Steve Patterson

ROYERSFORD, Pa., (CBS) – Montgomery County Commissioners say they’re in finalizing plans to sell a large nursing care facility, while opponents are getting vocal on worries about privatizing care and how the company will use the land around the site.

County officials want to sell the Parkhouse, a nursing home that houses some 500 residents, employs nearly 700 people and sits on about 200 acres of land. The deal is set at $39 million from the private Maryland company: $36 million for the facility and $3 million for the land.

“The fear is that if it goes into private hands, we wont be able to guarantee it remains this pristine space,” said Upper Providence Township Supervisor Lisa Mossie. She is leading the opposition charge for the County to provide more reasoning on their decision and more assurance about what happens when the property changes hands.

“My concern is that the motivation of this sale is not so much to privatize this, as it is to fix a budget problem that Montgomery County already has…. to plug a hole,” she said. “And when that is your motivation, then I question everything about it. You have to.”

Upper Providence Resident Sharon Gehman placed her mother in the facility 13 months ago and is now worried about how care will change when the facility becomes privatized.

“We’re being assured by the commissioners and Mid Atlantic that nothing will change,” she said. “My fear is that the quality of care will change. The staff here is exceptional and you always have to worry that when something’s being privatized, something will change. These assurances don’t feel real.”

County Commissioner Josh Shapiro says a private company will only improve care, resolve debt and ease the burden on taxpayers.

It’s a very small minority that’s misconstruing the facts purposefully to try and create hay where there is none,” he said. “At the end of the day, our residents are going to be better off, employees will be protected and the community will benefit from having this back on the tax rolls.”

The finalized date is currently set for January 31st.

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.

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.

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.

 

 

"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.