​SUPERVISORS REPORT
 
 
As you're aware, my concerns about the township's management are fairly clear and well documented, however, my current focus is on the confusing and illogical manner surrounding the so-called “sale” of the Promenade to the Berks County Redevelopment Agency (BCRDA) introduced in the March 11th BoS meeting by Mr. Schnee.
 
I was just as shocked as everyone else when the township solicitor suddenly announced this sale to BCRDA. Not only was I kept in the dark, not being informed or involved in any discussions about this matter, but you, the public, were also completely unaware. This sale involves a property that has already cost taxpayers a staggering $3 plus million, and yet, it was never brought up in any public meeting for discussion to option it BCRDA.
 
Currently, the only detail we have is that the BCRDA approached us with a proposal.
 
The Board as I understood it directed Schnee to gather more information. However, it seems that no one explicitly asked Schnee to obtain an offer or propose an offer, yet here it is.
 
This raises the question: why do we have an offer on the table? Whose idea was this in the first place?
 
Let's delve into this matter. There are so many discrepancies and falsehoods present that it's crucial to illuminate each one. Following this examination, we'll propose a theory regarding Schnee's motivations. The way this solicitor has acted, including how this matter was introduced to both the board and the public, is alarmingly & troubling.

1. It appears that I may have been the only one not aware of this deal and the vague terms. I did not participate in any discussions that led to this decision, so who did?

 

1. I have not been provided with any documents nor have my questions been answered such as but not limited to:
   1. Where is the Offer to buy.
   2. Who developed these Specific terms.
   3. How was the minimum selling price arrived at?
   4. Explanation as to why sell now.
   5. Why tie this up with the BCRDA?
   6. Why not a commercial broker?
   7.  Consider the current state of the commercial market.
   8. The possible inflation effects. Potential Hyper-inflation
2. New conditions subsequent to these behind the door negotiations
   1. Is it really a sale? The sec. 1503 requires that a sale occur in this instance and the motion and discission recorded in the minutes appear to make this sound like an option sold to BCRDA to market our property, not buy it. The township sets the selling price at $3 million with a $100k down payment. The remaining at time of settlement. Here is where the devil is in the details and these details are missing. When is settlement? Until a deed conveying the property to BCRDA is executed and recorded, no sale takes place and we do not receive the remaining $2.9 million. I heard rumors settlement may not occur until Feb. of 2026. This is not a sale. Waiting for BCRDA to find buyer?
   2. If the BCRDA sells the property for more than $3.3 million we will split the excess proceeds with BCRDA. Again, this does not spear to be a sale. Why would we do that? It sounds at this point more like an option to market our property, not a sale as required under this sec. 1503 (c)(15) 
   3. Request for zoning change in this motion includes a request to change Township Commons Zoning District to a right as opposed to obtaining permission to a controlling ordinance, the specific issue not clearly defined. This in my estimation would require the township to put this out to bid again as possible interested parties may like the new change and enter the bidding process. Requires advertising to change the existing zoning.
   4. Finally, this past week, legislation has been proposed and passed by a Pa. House Panel to provide resources to municipalities and provide incentives to developers to make properties like the promenade productive again. This proposed legislation is to contend with struggling main streets and “zombie” suburban shopping centers. 

i.This legislation also would require the DCED to establish an advisory board to provide guidance for municipalities on redeveloping shopping malls into affordable housing and other mixed-use space.
ii.More than a dozen malls across Pennsylvania fit the description of a dead mall.
iii.Another house bill introduced would create a two-year grant program administered by the DCED to assist with renovation and redevelopment of historic buildings that do not conform to modern building codes. This program will provide up to $500,000 to bring mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire protection systems up to code. The grants can also be used to make buildings more accessible to people with disabilities. 

1. To apply you must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places…. guess what? Our RCC is on the Register.

 
 
 
Considering all of these points should lead everyone to question the wisdom of selling any properties at this time. I propose that we halt Mr. Schnee's forceful attempts to sell off our assets, which serve as an effective defense against the current wave of inflation. With potentially new funding sources now accessible to enhance these properties, we have the opportunity to significantly increase their value for our community. Most critically, we must ask why Schnee is behaving as if he were a commercial real estate broker. Could this be the reason for the absence of a contract or any documentation? Our goal is maximum return for our residents and a use consistent with what our resident wish to see on this land. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

My opinion concerning the current solicitor:
 
In the past two years, M. Schnee's professional missteps have become increasingly evident, from initiating expensive and fruitless lawsuits to his inability to draft contracts effectively, resulting in disadvantageous terms for our taxpayers, as seen with the RHM and RCC deals. Moreover, Schnee's deliberate distortion of public records through the manipulation of meeting minutes to suit his biases, rather than providing factual accounts, undermines trust. His habit of exceeding his professional responsibilities to boost his income, by meddling in the governance and political affairs of our township, further aggravates the situation. Compounding these issues, Schnee has ignored directives from our township manager to abstain from social media, where he is active at taxpayer’s expense, engaging in deceptive practices alongside his wife by using fake profiles to deflect criticism and attack those questioning his competence. This situation necessitates a pivotal shift. Our community deserves the services of ethical and efficient law firms and solicitors who prioritize public interest over personal enrichment. I suggest we disengage our government and our community from Schnee legal services and find a competent law firm closer to home. 

PART TWO
​Exeter Ordinances Chapter 340 Article IX Volunteer Service Credit Program
This concerns section 340-82:
 
I have concerns regarding the oversight issues related to the Exeter Township Volunteer Fire Department (ETVFD), their annual funding, and the new tax forgiveness rates. Tonight, I plan to address the recent resolution authored by Mr. Schnee regarding the criteria that must be met to earn the tax forgiveness.
Recently, Mr. Bell, Gardella, Vollmer and Kircher raised the tax property forgiveness rate from 50% to 100%, and the earned income credit was increased from $500 to $1,000. These changes represent a significant impact. However, I find the criteria for earning these generous tax advantages to be inadequately defined. To support this tax forgiveness, we need clearer and more specific criteria. Unfortunately, the current resolution does not sufficiently address the five areas outlined in the ordinance where/how credits can be earned.
Given my limited time due to the suppression of speech, which seems to be incorporated into ordinance updates supported by Schnee, I am submitting a request to the township manager tonight. I ask that the following documents be made available for inspection by all supervisors for the years 2023 back to and including 2019:

1. Notarized List signed by the Chief. 340-82 (E)
2. Criteria in effect for each year and the resolution that adopted the criteria 340-82(B)
3. Service logs required to be kept by the Chief and made available to the Board of Supervisors, State Fire Commissioner, and the Auditor General as per 340-82 (E)
4. Original volunteer applications for credits, signed by the Chief 340-82 (F)
5. Proof of municipal review per 340-82 (G)
6. The official tax credit register 

The recently passed resolution for criteria is inadequate and requires immediate revision. These are significant benefits well deserved for the volunteers who earn them.
—Supervisor Hughes
 

The Exeter Township Supervisors appear to be at a standstill, struggling to secure and maintain a competent Township Manager, which has led to significant disruption within the township's government.

This leadership vacuum, coupled with a problematic solicitor situation, has pushed our government to a tipping point. The solicitor's self-drafted resolution, redefining his job responsibilities, highlights the complexity and severity of these issues. We have an agreement with  Schnee Legal Services.

A lack of consistent leadership has been a long-standing problem, but for clarity, let's focus on the timeline from 2020 to the present, March 2024.
Starting in January 2020, following J. Granger's dismissal, we've seen a revolving door of leadership:
    •    January 2020: Michelle Gilbert steps in as Interim Township Manager.
    •    March 2020: Clarence Hamm fills the interim role as Gilbert moves to another position.
    •    June 2020: Jeff Bartlett becomes the Permanent Township Manager.
    •    March 2022: Post-Bartlett's dismissal, Hamm returns as Interim Manager.
    •    May 2022: Betsy McBride from KMS serves as Interim Manager, then becomes Permanent Manager in February 2023.
    •    July 2023: McBride resigns and Larry Piersol takes over as Interim Township Manager, a position he holds to date.

The critical role of Township Manager has seen constant change, with six managers in just four years, leading to supervisor abuses and overall chaos. This period of instability, marked by a mix of interim and permanent management, has hindered meaningful progress, resulting in policy shifts, inefficient spending, and poor asset management. The resultant fiscal mismanagement has led to unnecessary budget deficits and unjustifiable tax increases for 2024, as well as a lack of clear strategy for managing township resources.

The turmoil is exacerbated by an inexperienced solicitor, whose excessive billing and erratic guidance have turned governance into turmoil.
Upon reviewing meeting minutes to track these managerial transitions, the solicitor's disruptive influence becomes evident, affecting management, politics, and policy. Schneelegal.com

Currently, the outlook remains bleak. Despite initially identifying eight candidates for the Township Manager position, delays and withdrawals have forced us to restart the search. With new candidates on the horizon, there's concern they too may move on before we take action.

The absence of leadership at both supervisory and management levels is palpable. I invite feedback on my observations. Have we made any progress over the past three years? It seems not; the same leadership persists, infrastructural neglect continues, and taxpayer funds are squandered.

Claims that I haven't proposed solutions are untrue. My efforts to suggest changes have been met with personal attacks and procedural changes aimed at limiting my input, illustrating a broader reluctance to engage in meaningful debate. 

I am concerned that the management policies followed in the past that led to the need to sell the Sewer Plant (See: Why we had to sell the Sewer Plant) are in play today and the consequences for our community could be devastating.
​

I am appalled by the absurdity of the situation: I am not allowed to see Schnee’s invoices, but other board members like Piho and Bell can. Our interim township manager told me that the chairman and vice chairman forbid him from sharing the unredacted information with me because of the litigation against me. It seems that Schnee is involved in this litigation, which he should not be. This case is handled by Koslov Stoudt, not Schnee. Schnee’s invoices should not have any confidential or privileged information anyway. This shows a clear conflict of interest and a lack of authorization. Schnee is trying to make money from our township’s governance issues. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. Piho and Hamm claimed to bring honesty and professionalism to our government, but they are doing the opposite. They are telling the township manager to hide information from me. How is that honest or professional? What if I told Mr. Piersol to deny John Piho, of PIHO Engineering and a new supervisor, access to the treasury report? Would he listen to me? Piho and Hamm have no more authority than any other supervisor, but they are acting like they own the government.

Respectfully acknowledging Larry's efforts, his qualifications for managing the sale of a significant asset like the Reading Country Club are questionable, especially given the strong interest from RHM. This company already gains financially from the township's support of their unprofitable hospitality venture, leading to a $500,000 yearly deficit for the township while RHM profits substantially. The likelihood of Larry seeking advice from Schnee, who would eagerly charge high fees for non-legal services, presents a risk of unnecessary financial outlays to the benefit of Schnee's law firm. A wiser strategy would be to postpone this issue until a new, experienced township manager is appointed—a process that is in progress, with interviews and a decision expected soon. This would enable Larry to focus on his strengths in public works. The revelation that BCRDA and now this purported INVESTOR GROUP as the potential buyer adds complexity, considering the potential conflicts of interest and ethical concerns linked to our solicitor and Joan London of BCRDA, and the absence of competitive bidding, raising alarms about financial integrity.
In the meantime, to improve our community and reduce financial losses, particularly the $700,000 spent annually on staffing for the golf course and banquet facilities, it is prudent to reevaluate these operations. Reducing or discontinuing these services could offer financial relief. Decisions on these matters should be made without Schnee's involvement, as they do not require his legal expertise; his role should be limited to legal matters, avoiding interference in township governance for financial gain. Together, we must find solutions that serve our residents' best interests, promoting fiscal responsibility for a more positive community outcome in the long run. Note that this commentary/opinion is based on limited knowledge as there exists to the best of what I know, no offers, no terms available. Just an email from the township government telling me it might be BCRDA and then in the Monday March 11th meeting Chair Piho intimating that it is an INVESTOR GROUP. That was the first I have heard of this possibility.....the whole board is not privy to what is going on with the. attempt to sell these properties.

Sale of Promenade:
 
I don’t understand why we are rushing to sell the property. There is no urgent reason to do so. The Berks County Redevelopment Authority wants to build low-income housing there, which is a big decision for our board and our area. The commercial real estate market is about to meltdown which means anybody who acquires this property will transform it into low-cost residential rentals, this is the only growth sector in real estate today. Also, I found out that their lawyer is Joan London from Kozlov Stoudt, who is suing us with the township’s money. This is a clear conflict of interest. Moreover, Schnee is pushing for this sale because he wants to make more money and charge more hours to the township. This is unacceptable and must be stopped. The motion says that our township manager can go ahead with the sale, but he doesn’t have much experience with complex real estate deals. Schnee says he will supervise and approve the deal, but we know he is not a good negotiator or contract writer. He made a bad deal with RHM that we are still suffering from. He is also trying to maximize his billable hours because his law firm is failing. He is using the township as his main source of income. We should not let him do that. We should wait until we hire a new and qualified township manager who can handle this deal better. We are in a time of high inflation, so waiting will benefit us more. The inflation rate is north of 6% suggesting that every month we wait this commercial property increases in value. For example, say if the selling price was $4 million. In three months, the property value could increase over $65,000 and in a year possibly over $260,000 increase in value. Let’s bring the permanent and experienced Township manager on board so that Larry Piersol can go back to his full-time job as the Executive Director of Public Works. Once our experienced manager has had the chance to review and work out a favorable disposition of this property, he will bring this before the board for approval. Please table or reject this motion until further developments occur. IN MY OPINION THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO.

Since composing the above information additional information became available at the Monday March 11th BoS meeting and news from Harrisburg. Schnee, Piho and Bell seem to be the holders of the information and the details. I have been unable to obtain any documents where the BCRDA has committed an offer on paper and I have not seen any solid terms. I do know that I believe that the three named above are misleading our community. This is not a sale, at best it is an option to market our property: the Promenade. Read the minutes of this meeting:

SCHNEE EXPLAINS THE PROMENADE "SALE" ?
​
Mr. Schnee explained the Second Class Township Code Section 1503 requires the sale of township
properties be placed for bid. This property went to bid last year and was unsuccessful at receiving an acceptable minimum bid amount. Under Section 1503, subsection C15 a township may sell a property directly to a nonprofit organization providing development activities without placing for bid.
The agreement is for $3 million with a $100,000 down payment due within 45 days and remaining to be paid at time of settlement. If the Redevelopment Authority sells the property for more than $3.3 million the Redevelopment Authority and the Township would equally split the excess proceeds.

Requested is a change with respect to Zoning Ordinance in particular to make permitted as a right as opposed to as by permission in the Township Commons Zoning District. The Township is requesting an easement from
East Neversink Road to East 40th Street.

END OF SCHNEE EXPLANATION

FINAL WORDS:
This is clearly an option to market our property and if they can sell it for more than $3.3 million we would split the proceeds with the BCRDA. Even a novice knows this is not a sale. Schnee and Piho and Bell are lying to this community. All three of them appear to be ethically challenged! What would their certifying agencies perspective would be with regards to their actions?

It doesn't stop at the misleading presentation, the deal is questionable as well. The scuttlebutt is the deal will not close possible until February of 2026! Again, this is not a sale. Finally, changing the zoning of this property may make it more appealing to a potential buyer now! They are changing the Zoning and therefore this property should go out for bid once again when the zoning changes are implemented. 

Property was recently appraised at more or less $1.9 million dollars. This begs the question as to where did Solicitor Schnee come up with the selling price of $3 million?

How about simply listing this with a commercial broker who would charge 4 to 6% depending on the selling price? 

One last thing, you hear Piho discussing costs in the meeting. Suggesting that this sale would eliminate our carrying costs. No way, not at all. Why? Because it's not a sale until the deed is transferred. The cost to carry in 2023 was $45,000, for 2024 its budgeted at $35,000 (perhaps considering an early sale) that equals $83,000 for the $100,000 down would be consumed.

What is it that we should want to accomplish by selling this property? I  am supportive of the sale. I want the best outcome possible for the taxpayers of Exeter Township. The largest amount we can obtain. We have or should have on the books at lease $3 million book value. That is what we invested. We must wait until we can receive at least what we invested into the property.

I don't think a deal with BCRDA is appropriate under the circumstances. Chad Schnee worked for the county of Berks, I don't exactly know what involvement he had with BCRDA, if any at all, I still remain concerned about conflict of interest. We know that the BCRDA solicitor is Joan London and she has been hired by the Township to prosecute me in the court of common pleas. Can she represent the township and the BCRDA at the same time? 

Lastly, this is best resolved when all five supervisors agree on the final outcome of this property!


 
 
 

We have very interesting post from Mr. Roy Foy responding to my little movie:

Ron Foy <rfoy>.          Tue 3/5/2024 2:16 PM
​David Hughes​
​
Supervisor (in name only) Hughes. 
In trying to go back years to two (2) prior boards in assessing blame (?) for sale of the above you only succeed in illustrating why it was such a good and financially prudent move. 
As outlined, the TWP was materially underfunded with zero ability for taxes to provide even the medium term revenue essential to supporting the infrastructure and policing/public safety/parks & recreation needs etc of the TWP. 

If not for the action of that board Exeter would be an example of failure to provide even modicum levels of those above needs. 

While I and many others believe it was poor oversight of RCC that led to the Viva fiasco and attendant costs (along with guaranteeing the next 5 years would see revenue rapidly decline because of those lost services), the Sewer sale has provided the TWP with huge reserves, annual interest funding and the ability to provide services TWP’s 2x our size don’t have.

No one on the BOS could have foreseen Act 12 perversion or that the PUC would remain a soft landing spot for prior American Water employees & affiliates. The horrible practices we’re fighting (you’ve been seen nowhere in this battle ) were unforeseen. 

Your continued search for Sasquatch in terms of a forensic audit are a complete waste of time and it and other rabbit holes you pursue allow you to pretend you’re working on behalf of the citizens while it’s all a smokescreen for the fact that you do nothing positive or meaningful— ever. 
As always, your avowed detractor. 
Ron Foy