Dear East Norriton Neighbor –

East Norriton Residents Organization (ENRO) Response to Township Letter

May 18, 2009

This weekend you probably received a letter from East Norriton Township marked “IMPORTANT TOWNSHIP INFORMATION”.   ENRO, along with candidate for Township Supervisor, Barry Papiernik, have been accused of circulating lies and misinformation. ENRO is interested in getting the facts straight and therefore we feel compelled to respond to these accusations. 

A quick note: ENRO has decided not to respond to some of the accusations as we did not state them in the first place. The Township letter confuses ENRO and Mr. Papiernik as the same voice. This is not true. ENRO and Mr. Papiernik have each stated their views separately.  Many of the allegations made by the Township were never made by ENRO and we don’t know where they come from.

Straightening out the facts - ENRO responses to specific accusations from the Township’s letter:

• The true facts concerning a new hospital: From the very beginning ENRO’s position was that Wood's Golf Center is simply not the right location. ENRO is not on a “mission to prevent a modern, state-of-the-art hospital”. ENRO is not “placing personal agendas ahead of the health, safety and welfare of the residents of East Norriton and the surrounding area”.  Rather, since Montgomery Hospital is in dire need of a new building, we’d love to see modern hospital facilities in our area. Instead of closing Montgomery Hospital, it could be rebuilt in Norristown and provide medical services in the population center of Montgomery County where modern land planning locates hospital services – the infrastructure is already in place. As Norristown goes, so goes East Norriton. Einstein should become part of the revitalization of Norristown rather than blighting the current area. Or, since our state representatives are starting to wonder what should be done with the State Hospital grounds, why not put a new hospital there where infrastructure already exists? Please read this editorial from the Philadelphia Inquirer, December 2, 2007, for more information: Norristown not East Norriton best site for Einstein to build.

• Concerning personal political goals: ENRO is not taking an “opportunity to pursue personal political goals”. ENRO is a non-profit, non-partisan community organization whose mission is to advocate for the preservation of the rural-suburban character, quality of life, and financial health and safety of the East Norriton community. While the hospital is one issue we have investigated, it is by no means the only one. One recent example is that we expended many volunteer hours and dollars to hold a candidates forum for the School Board election to provide voters with information. You can read many more examples on our website at www.EastNorritonResidents.org. While some members of ENRO have decided to become politically active, their campaigns do not necessarily represent ENRO’s views. Would you think a Little League volunteer that decided to run for office represented Little League? Of course not. The same applies to ENRO members. Because we are involved in local government issues, it is no surprise when some of our members decide to join politics. But, they do that on their own and we review their positions the same as we do other candidates.

• About Whitpain: Whitpain Township did turn down Einstein’s plans to move to Blue Bell. The letter says it’s not true, but it is true. Read the Philadelphia Inquirer article from May 18, 2006:  Whitpain rejects site for hospital which says: “Controversial plans to move Norristown's major hospital out of town are at least on hold after Whitpain Township rescinded zoning approval for a hospital near Unisys Corp.'s Blue Bell headquarters. Tuesday night's vote by Whitpain Township's Board of Supervisors was hailed by Norristown officials and Blue Bell residents who have strongly protested plans to build a new Montgomery Hospital there.”

• About the money going back and forth: The letter quotes as not true the statement: “East Norriton Resolution No. 2430 gives Einstein $4,345,945 in tax breaks, and an outright contribution of $500,000.” Even though this is not a statement made by ENRO, we’d like to comment. You can read the actual Resolution 2430 and draw your own conclusions, if you like.  To help sort out all the details in the Resolution, we draw your attention to a township “Memorandum for the Record” available from the township, dated March 23, 2009 from Helmuth J. H. Baerwald, Township Manager, called “Who pays for what?” This memorandum says the following in summary: “The developer has agreed to construct the township required improvements estimated to cost $7,200,000.00 and the township has agreed in principle to offset those costs by crediting the above fees totaling $ 4,420,945.00 to complete those improvements.”  ENRO agrees with the township letter these are not technically tax breaks. But they are credits back to Einstein of township money. Our opinion is that these figures demonstrate a negotiation failure on the part of our township. Instead of crediting back the fees to Einstein, the township should have required Einstein to cover the complete costs and used the fees for road and sewer improvements elsewhere in the township. Areas that do not immediately abut the hospital property are affected by this development and the fees should have gone to road and sewer improvements in those locations. ENRO believes the deal negotiated by the Township is not the best we could have gotten. More details from the Resolution are quoted in the Notes below, if you are interested.

• Other allegations in the letter were not statements made by ENRO.

One can only ask: What is the motivation for this letter? We expect our elected Township Supervisors to be fact checkers just as we are, since they have access to the same information. Our only thinking has to do with the primary election coming up. It is interesting to note that the letter arrived in your mailbox 3 days before the election when 2 incumbent Township Supervisors are running for re-election. ENRO has endorsed candidates (both Republican and Democratic) that are running against these incumbents. Negative campaigns happen, and, while ENRO does not like negative campaigning, there is no question these techniques can be effective. What is very interesting here is that this negative campaign literature was sent by your local government and the mailing was paid for by your local tax dollars. In other words, your current local officials are using township funds, your tax dollars to rebut their opponents by falsely accusing our organization. This is cause for concern. However, there is mounting evidence this tactic may backfire. We’re hearing from many people that they believe this letter is an unethical, if not illegal action by a township government. ENRO cannot take a stand at this time about the legality – we really don’t know, but we certainly do believe it to be negative campaigning.

While we cannot know the true motivation, we suspect the incumbents are worried about their chances in the election. In fact, this is the only motivation we can think of to explain the timing of this letter. There is no “late breaking news” in the letter - there is no reason this letter could not have been sent many weeks or months ago. Why did the township wait until now to send it?  Probably because the primary election is next Tuesday, May 19, where the incumbents are facing challenges from within their own party.

Bottom line: please vote on Tuesday, May 19. ENRO has been looking into our local government and uncovering issues of concern, and all we can hope is that you, the voter, is better informed. We invited the incumbents to a public forum to discuss the issues before the township, but they declined to participate. The fact that they feel it necessary to spend tax payer dollars for this mailing tells us they don’t want real dialog with voters - which is one reason why ENRO has endorsed new candidates: two Democrats and two Republicans. 

Additional notes about Resolution 2430 (Resolution 2430):

• Direct quotations from Resolution 2430:

• In section 3: “…$1,377,600.00 (the “Tapping Fee”). The Township agrees to credit the entire Tapping Fee in consideration of Applicant’s assumption of the obligation to construct offsite sanitary sewer improvements…”

• In section 4: “…a Traffic Impact Fee in the amount of $1,093,345.00 (the “Traffic Impact Fee”).”  … “The township shall credit back to the Applicant the entier $1,093,345.00 Traffic Impact Fee in consideration of Applicant assuming the obligation to construct the offsite roadway improvements…”

• In section 5: “…The Township hereby accepts the Applicant’s offer of a $1,375,000.00 fee (the “Park & Rec Fee”) in lieu of donation of land to satisfy said Park and Recreation Ordinance…”  … “The Township agrees to credit all or a portion of the Park & Rec Fee in consideration of Applicant’s assumption of the obligation to construct the Sewer Improvements, the Road Improvements, and Future Trail pursuant to the terms set forth hereinafter.”

• In section 6: “The Applicant shall post a financial guarantee of $75,000.00 (“Easement Fund Escrow”) to assist the Township in fulfilling its payment obligation for just compensation related to acquisitions necessary to accomplish the Roadway Improvements and/or Sewer Improvements, if any. To the extent such financial guarantee is not so expended, the same shall be refunded to the Applicant upon final dedication of the subject public improvements.”

• In section 6: “The Township agrees to fund an account in the amount of $500,000.00 (the “Township Fund”) to be used in accordance with the terms of this Resolution to assist in the funding of construction costs related to Roadway Improvements. In the event the actual costs of Roadway Improvements exceeds $4,700,000.00 (the current estimate of Roadway Improvements cost hereinafter referred to as the “Roadway Estimate”), the Township Fund shall be utilized to pay such overages.”

• In section 6: “The Township shall be responsible for any further financial obligation for completion of the Roadway Improvements and/or Sewer Improvements.”

• Add it up: The resolution states the following credits and contributions that will be made by the Township to Einstein Health Care Systems:

$1,377,600 credit to Einstein for the Sewer Tapping Fee

$1,093,345 credit to Einstein for the Traffic Impact Fee

$1,375,000 credit to Einstein for the Park and Recreation Fee

$     75,000 Easement Fund Escrow to be refunded to Einstein

$   500,000 contribution to Einstein from the Township if the road and sewer improvements go over Einstein's budget.

• ENRO agrees with the township letter these are not technically tax breaks. But they are credits back to Einstein of township money. Our opinion is that these figures demonstrate a negotiation failure on the part of our township. Instead of crediting back the fees to Einstein, the township should have required Einstein to cover the complete costs and used the fees for road and sewer improvements elsewhere in the township. Areas that do not immediately abut the hospital property are affected by this development and the fees should have gone to road and sewer improvements in those locations.  Surely, it would not cost $1,375,000 to construct a trail across the proposed hospital property. ENRO believes the deal negotiated by the Township is not the best we could have gotten.  In addition, we wonder what management control and oversight will determine whose fault would constitute overages. If overages are caused by Einstein, the Township should not have to pay the $500,000. We are concerned that the resolution makes no provision to protect these Township dollars from waste or abuse. And, by the way, the Road Improvements are for Germantown Pike – which is a County Road which makes the County responsible for road improvements. Even more reason for the township to have kept the fees for road improvements to use on other impacted township roads instead of crediting them back to Einstein. It matters whose pocket you want road improvement dollars to come out of – the township or the county.

• Just one more thought: While the township held many public meetings and hearings over time about the proposed EinsteinHospital Complex development, never once in any of those meetings were these figures discussed in public. ENRO repeatedly requested information about the financial costs and benefits of this development and these figures were never discussed. At the December 23, 2008 regular Board of Supervisors meeting the township solicitor summarized Resolution 2430 and the public was asked for comment. As you can see for yourself, this resolution takes some time to read and comprehend. The public was not given an opportunity to read it before the board unanimously passed it. ENRO is for better transparency into our local government decisions than was demonstrated in this case.

VOTE on Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Sincerely,

Connie Bennett, ENRO President