Montgomery County state legislators oppose Upper Pottsgrove Smola Farm open space grab

UPPER POTTSGROVE — Both the state senator and state representative whose districts include Upper Pottsgrove Township have come out against the idea of using property purchased as open space for the township’s planned municipal complex.

Both state Sen. Tracy Pennycuick, R-24th Dist., and state Rep. Donna Scheuren, R-147th Dist., confirmed this view in response to a query from MediaNews Group.

Further, Al Leach, the Democrat who recently announced plans to run against Scheuren for the 147th Dist. seat, has confirmed that he opposes the plan as well.

MediaNews Group reached out to both legislators as a result of the township commissioners’ 3-2 vote in November to apply for a $1 million state grant to help pay for the public works building part project. Both were asked if the township had approached either one asking for a letter of support, as often happens with such applications.

The plan to build a new public works building is part of the controversial plan to build a new township complex on part of the 35-acre Smola Farm, which was purchased in 2009 as preserved preserved open space.

“I was not asked to write a letter of support for the Upper Pottsgrove municipal complex on Smola Farm,” Pennycuick responded, adding “I believe designated open space should always remain as open space as intended by the open space program.”

Scheuren’s response was more detailed.

“Neither I nor my office was contacted by Upper Pottsgrove Township for a letter of support on their most recent local share grant application. The (Department of Community and Economic Development) has confirmed receipt of the municipality’s grant request, now making this a state issue. I oppose the location chosen by the township, a 35-acre tract of land purchased to preserve open space, therefore I will not support this grant application,” Scheuren wrote.

“I believe that property purchased with taxpayer funds to preserve what little open space remains in the Township (i.e. the Upper Pottsgrove Open Space Fund) should be used for its intended purpose — to protect and preserve open space.  This issue has polarized township residents, inspired litigation to ensure that the Smola Farm remains permanently preserved and has caused a rift between township commissioners (as evidenced by news stories and a recent 3-2 vote to pursue the DCED grant),” Sheuren wrote.

She even went so far as to call on the commissioners to reconsider.

“I value the working relationships I have with all township officials throughout the 147th District, but in this particular case, I do hope the Upper Pottsgrove Township Commissioners reconsider their plans. Given all the concerns surrounding this project that I mentioned above, and my deep conviction to preserve open space purchased with taxpayer funds, I cannot support this grant request on this property as submitted to the DCED,” wrote Schueren. “I will always fight to protect open space, for as a resident and the representative of this breath-taking region of PA, I share the community’s passion and appreciation for the beautiful land that makes Western Montgomery County so unique and so desirable.”

Leach, who spoke at the Feb. 20 meeting and urged the commissioners to put the question up for referendum, said afterward “I’ve been opposed to this location from the very beginning.”

Scheuren’s communication was shared with all five township commissioners who were provided with an opportunity to respond. Only two, Cathy Paretti and Don Read, had responded by Wednesday evening.

Paretti wrote simply: “I deeply appreciate Rep. Scheuren’s commitment to preserving our community’s open space, a cause that I know she supports wholeheartedly. As someone who also values our strong working relationship, I stand firm in our joint commitment to protecting the essence of Upper Pottsgrove.”

Read’s response was more extensive.

“After reviewing Donna’s viewpoints, it’s evident she’s entitled to her perspective. However, as a lawmaker involved in crafting the law, it would be preferable for decisions to be grounded in legal principles rather than influenced by political currents,” Read began.

“The Open Space Act outlines various benefits associated with open space, explicitly stating that these benefits are not limited to those mentioned. Utilizing two acres of land, funded by local taxpayers, to erect a public building for the exclusive benefit of the community aligns with the principles of the Open Space Act. The act even mentions the concept of ‘reasonable development,’ which is precisely what we’re undertaking,” Read wrote.

“We’ve consulted with seven attorneys, all officers of the court, who have affirmed that this usage is in line with the act. We’re simply adhering to the law. In fact, during the February Board of Commissioners meeting, we discussed and approved  applying for a grant for an $8-9 million project on open space, including parking lots, sidewalks, buildings, and other amenities. This project pertains to Hollenbach Park, which is designated as permanently preserved open space,” Read pointed out.

“Interestingly, the term ‘permanently preserved open space’ is conspicuously absent from the Open Space Act and ‘permanently preserved’ is constantly referred to by those arguing that taxpayers cannot repurpose land they’ve acquired for anything beyond maintaining an unaltered landscape. This township has previously developed on open space within legal bounds, always with the aim of benefiting the taxpayers who funded it,” Read wrote.

First grant application was 6 months before the public was informed

As it turns out, this is not the first time the township has applied for this type of state grant for the municipal complex. It also applied, unsuccessfully, in 2022.

In March of 2022 — six months before the municipal complex plan was revealed to the public for the first time — Township Manager Michelle Reddick submitted an application to the same state program for a grant of $1 million, according to documents obtained by resident Matt Murray.

Murray is one of the two residents suing the township to stop the project and resorted to getting the documents from the state because when he asked the township for the documents, “I have been stonewalled in my request for information regarding the first application,” Murray wrote in an email exchange with The Mercury in which he shared those documents.

Interestingly, those documents show Reddick informing the state “a total project cost of $6,949,000 has been established,” which it attributes, in part, to the 185% increase in construction costs due to supply chain issues caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

But five months later, when the public was finally informed of the effort, the target ceiling cost was $5.5 million. The latest information obtained from the township, also as a result of Murray’s stream of Right to Know requests, puts the price tag closer to $8.8 million.

Reddick describes the location for the project as  “an open lot” that is “currently owned by the township.” Throughout the entire application, no mention is made of the fact that the lot was purchased to be permanently protected open space. The 2022 grant application indicates the number of buildings, their combined square footage and even the number of parking spaces — 86.

That grant application also projected a construction timeline to begin in the fall of 2022 and to be finished by fall of 2023 and even includes a schematic map of the project layout.

The grant application also requires a resolution by the township commissioners. Commissioners minutes indicate that resolution was unanimously adopted at the meeting on Feb. 22, 2022.

According to the minutes, prior to the vote, “T. Slinkerd explained the township was notified of additional funding from $25,000 to $4 million from the Commonwealth Financing Authority through DCED. These funds can be used for possible building projects.”

There is no mention made in the Feb. 22, 2022 meeting minutes of the grant amount for which the township would be applying; or the very specific purpose for the money that is nevertheless clearly indicated in the application itself. However, the resolution submitted to DCED specifically indicates the grant proceeds were “to be used for the construction of a municipal building.”