Countdown to Board of Supervisor Meeting. . . Looking for Answers

Full Disclosure Request

Where are you going to be Monday night at 7:30 PM?  I suggest that you either attend Tredyffrin Twp’s  Board of Supervisors meeting or tune in from home.

There are questions swirling in regards to the recently released BAWG report and the suggestion of a $50K offer from St. Davids Golf Club in regards to the sidewalk construction.  St. Davids Golf Club has been in default since July 2008 to build the sidewalks and now mysteriously this $50K offer from the country club appears in the BAWG report. Since BAWG released its report, I have been trying to get the following questions answered, but to date I have come up short. 

  • Where did the $50K St. Davids Golf Club offer come from?
  • Was this a written offer from St. Davids Golf Club Board of Directors and was it made directly to the BAWG committee?
  • Was the Township Solicitor, Township Manager and members of the Board of Supervisors advised of the St. Davids Golf Club offer (prior to BAWG’s publication of its report)?
  • If this is a written offer, what are the conditions and timeline for its acceptance?  Who has the authority to accept the offer?
  • Was this offer and the details discussed with the Planning Commission or Sidewalks, Trail & Paths (STAP) Committee prior to appearing in the BAWG report?
  • Are any of the members of the BAWG committee also members of St. Davids Golf Club?
  • Are any of the members of the Board of Supervisor also members of St. Davids Golf Club?

Prior to Monday night’s Board of Supervisor meeting (and BAWG presentation), I suggest that you review the timeline (and Planning Commission minutes) that I put together for an earlier blog entry.  Click here for St. Davids Golf Club Sidewalks – Is it to Nowhere? 

It is my understanding the Tom Colman, Chairman of the BAWG committee will make a public presentation on the report and here’s hoping that there will be time for the public’s questions and answers.  This is one taxpayer with questions, and so far . . . no answers.

Advertisements

2 Responses

  1. For someone new to the discussion, exactly what did St Davids get in return for the alleged sidewalk promise/transfer of $50,000? Was it a fasttrack approval for demolishing the old club and building the new one? I believe the footprint stayed close to, if not right on, the original. At any rate,it was about the fastest construction job I’ve ever seen. My question is: Is the need that great for sidewalks on Radnor Rd? There’s ample side on the side of the road to walk. In the twp, we have areas that are so much more dangerous: have many many more pedestrians, multiple times the traffic – and big truck traffic, to boot -driving speeds that are double what we see here. If the club does in fact owe some money, which I’m not totally convinced of, perhaps it could be used elsewhere.

  2. I would agree that there is probably other areas of the township more in need of sidewalks than St. Davids Golf Club.

    However, there is a problem with this so-called $50K offer. As part of the original land development contract, St. Davids signed an agreement to build the sidewalks – the Planning Commission approved the application based on the inclusion of the sidewalks. St. Davids signed the contract – the project moved forward – building completed but project not completed There remains $25K escrow money in the township, pending the completion of the sidewalk. In addition to usurping the authority of the Planning Commission, allowing this ‘deal’ would create precedent for all future development in the township. Any developer who decided not to complete a part of a project, would just need to point to the St. Davids situation (should they be allowed to out of this contractual agreement) as a way out.

    Secondly, the $50K offer is also less than the amount of money that will need to be spent by St. Davids to build the sidewalks. I understand that the bill for the sidewalks is approx. $75-100K. So the notion is they get off ‘easy’, would not have to build sidewalks and have less expenditure.

    Thirdly, this offer that appears in the BAWG report has yet to be substantiated — in other words, the public report reads as if there is a written offer on the table. No one has seen a copy of this offer, yet this report reads as if this offer exists.

    Questions but no answers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: