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

Evidence that the Parkhouse acreage is Open Space

Immediately following the Montgomery County Budget Hearing on December 12, the Chairman of the Montgomery County Commissioners, Josh Shapiro, stated that, with regards to the 220 acres surrounding Parkhouse,

"[T]he term open space is being used 100 percent inaccurately. It is not county-protected open space and the county is the only entity that can deem it to be open space."

Perhaps Mr. Shapiro may want to revise that "100%" estimate down. Considerably. The map below is the Montgomery County Planning Commission Future Land Use map from 2005:



The pdf below is an except from the Montgomery County Planning Commission's Comprehensive Plan dated 2005:



The map below is the 2005 MCPC Montgomery County Rural Resource Areas



The map below is the Montgomery County Planning Commission Future Land Use plan dated 2010:



Montgomery County defines their Open Space Plan on their website thusly:

Open space. Natural areas. Farmland. Scenic views. Historic properties.These important resources are essential to Montgomery County’s high quality of life.Yet, as the county is developed, these landscapes and heritage resources are lost.Our county has an abundance of beautiful and important natural assets, including rolling farmland, historic properties, scenic streams, and wooded ridges, that should be preserved for future generations.While 28,000 acres of these assets had been permanently preserved by 2000, this only represents 9 percent of the county's total area.

Recent development has put pressure on the remaining unprotected resources.If current development trends continue, more of these assets will be lost than necessary for normal growth and development. Open space and cultural resources provide recreational opportunities, improve the environment, and add to everyone’s enjoyment of everyday life.In addition, these resources have a strong economic impact, both directly through tourism and farming and indirectly by making the county a more attractive place for workers and businesses.The Open Space, Natural Resources, and Cultural Resources Plan is an important element of the county's comprehensive plan.It focuses on preserving and interconnecting critical open spaces and natural areas, expanding county trails, increasing farmland preservation, and preserving historic properties.

On Page 116 of the Montgomery County Open Space, Natural Resources and Cultural Resources Plan, Parkhouse and the Upper Schuykill Valley Park are discussed in depth:

An existing master plan for this park focuses on three objectives: protection and enhancement of the park’s significant natural resources through promotion of environmental stewardship, preservation of land necessary for park activities, and implementation of a continuous trail network centered around the park. The recent emphasis on the Schuylkill Greenway makes the park a regional hub for river recreation, environmental education, and interpretation of the agricultural heritage of the county’s river corridor. For this reason, the master plan should be updated to address the additional opportunities presented by this greenway relationship.

Upper Schuylkill Valley Park’s most significant natural feature and scenic resource is the Schuylkill River (1). The park’s location along the riverbank provides both visual and physical access to the river. Motorized boats in the Black Rock Dam Pool have caused considerable erosion of the riverbank. Boats access the river from the Pennsylvania Fish Commission’s boat launch across the river from the Upper Schuylkill Valley Park. A riparian restoration project currently underway along the river will protect and enhance the natural and scenic qualities of the park’s waterfront. The county should work with Chester County and the Fish Commission to manage use of the river and to develop additional protection and restoration strategies for the riverbank.

Upper Schuylkill Valley Park is bordered and buffered from surrounding development by farmlands belonging to the Montgomery County Geriatric Center (2). Loss of any of these lands would impact the park’s scenic views and unique agricultural character. All of the property associated with the Geriatric Center extends the park’s open space and should be permanently preserved and maintained as an example of farming practices in an otherwise suburban area.

The proposed Schuylkill East Trail, synonymous at this location with the Schuylkilloop Trail, will pass through the park and will be a spine for local connections to Upper Providence Township’s community park, the Schuylkill Canal Recreation Area at Mont Clare, and adjoining neighborhoods and corporate campuses. This more regional focus provides an opportunity to adaptively reuse an uninhabited farmstead (3) located at the lower end of the park as an interpretive facility and visitor center.

A future project called Schuylkilloop Gateway will create a river hub that is accessible to visitors of all ages and interests. Because this section of the river includes scenic ravines and bluffs, any opportunities to protect views, buffer natural resources, or enhance the Greenway in this area should be considered high priority for acquisition and protection, especially the riverfront portions of the former Malickson and Rivercrest properties, both now under development (4). In addition, properties that could fill gaps between county-owned parcels farther west along Dreibelbis Road (5) should be considered of primary importance.

On page 6 of the deed for the Puhl tract, linked below, it clearly states that "the Open Space Department and the Montgomery County Geriatric and Rehabilitation Center recommend the acquisition" of the parcel and that the "Open Space Department recommended an offer of $89,000" and "it is in the best interest of Montgomery County to attempt to purchase this property in lieu of condemnation rather than proceed through condemantion proceedings."



Finally, linked below is the Montgomery County Planning Commission review letter sent in response to Upper Providence Township's Open Space ordinance, proposing to re-zone the Parkhouse parcel as Open Space. The review letter is dated May 17, 2013. This review letter states that rezoning of the Parkhouse parcel as open space "is not consistent with current County land use planning objectives," however, it goes on to say that the rezoning this parcel as open space is consistent with Upper Providence Township's Comprehensive Plan Update (2010) and Open Space Plan (2006), both of which were reviewed and approved by the Montgomery County Planning Commission at the time of their adoption by the Township.



According to the evidence, which, I remind you, is 100% supplied by Montgomery County, the only thing that is being represented "100% inaccurately" is the that the acreage that Montgomery County Commissioners are selling is NOT Open Space.

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.

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

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.