Sorry but I am not participating in the “Art-fest”.

Your comments regarding Gib and the last 3 million state dollars was very, very well said and exactly why I give Art Morris no credit whatsoever for his tenure at the LCCCA. He was willing to whore himself for the completion of “Dale World” just like the rest of the politicians and his previous chairmen.

I would love for someone to go back and take a look at all of the things that Art may have complained about not receiving proper state funding for while he was Mayor, and see just how many of them could have been satisfied with this $3 million. And remember, that is just the last $3 million.

Simply being better than his predecessors does not make him effective. Failing to demand the undo of the harm sewn prior to his arrival, and merely completing the project within the same awful framework in which it was started, does not deserve praise.

Furthermore, he had absolutely no business, based upon his previous public statements, political activities and job with LNP, even considering a position on the LCCCA. He had no more business serving on the LCCCA than I, and I at least know “a little” something about the industry in question.

Everything is relative. Was Art’s LCCCA better than Jim’s or Ted’s? Of course it was. That said, it was still an awful example of taxpayer stewardship. Art may have lit a candle inside of a pitch black room but the lights remain OFF.

The Reamstown Area National night Out will hold its Third Annual Block Party on TUESDAY, AUGUST 4 from 6:30 pm to 9 pm.  The event is held on the first block of Bunker Hill Road, Reamstown, centering on the grounds of the East Cocalico Church of the Brethren, 4 Bunker Hill Road.

Guests include the Reamstown Fire Company, the East Cocalico Township Police, and over 15 exhibitors representing various churches and social agencies in the area.  There will be games for all ages, lots of food and refreshments, music by a DJ, and many door prizes.  The entire evening is FREE to the public!

We are located at the intersection of Rt. 272 & Bunker Hill Road, just North of the traffic light in Reamstown.  Alternately, we are 1 mile South of the Turnpike Exchange/US 222.

The purpose of the National Night Out is to promote Drug/Alcohol Awareness, crime prevention and safety, and the services available through local agencies.

I had a recent conversation with an elected official that had my resume for a board position.  He wanted to explain why the seat was filled by a much less qualified person when there were only two of us interested in giving our time.

He told me that I am too outspoken!!!!!  My reply was that sitting on a board or committee is a thankless position, similar to being on a jury.  When you sit on a jury, something takes hold and you take that task very seriously so as to do what society expects of one in that seat. You strive to be fair and honest in an appointed position, at least that is my experience.

Would not we be much better off to elect ofselect those that have knowledge of the office or board?

Can you believe the cartoonish like drawings Lancaster Newspapers is publishing related to the Roseboro murder case?

I would hang my head in shame if I had all those resources and that’s all I could come up with.

The following appeared under “[Kevin] Fry named Convention Center chair”:

“I just wanted to say thank you very much,” [former State Senator Gibson] Armstrong told him. “It was great working with you. You got it to the finish line.” Morris, in return, thanked Armstrong for helping find $3 million in financing to close a funding gap the project experienced before the start of construction.

WATCHDOG: Visitors and staff of the Lancaster Public Library on Duke Street may feel differently because Armstrong had promised the $3 million towards renovation and expansion and the library ended up aborting the project and being out over $1.5 million.

Over 1300 Lancastrians rely on this downtown library every day.  How many use the Convention Center?

The first in a series by Cliff Lewis

For business owners Cheryl Young and Kharran Cattell, Expressly Local Food was an organic expression of their passion for healthy local food products. The scope of the project has naturally expanded with the demand for these local items; however, in recent months, the business has run into considerable strain through the effort to set up shop in a downtown storefront.

Several years ago, their strong network of relationships with numerous small, diverse farms in Lancaster County allowed Young and Cattell to assume an informal distribution role, routinely rounding up a collection of locally produced food items for affordable resale. This co-op eventually took the form of Expressly Local Food, a stand run by the two owners at Eastern Market, Lititz Market, and sometimes right out of Cattell’s Race Avenue front porch.

Around the end of last summer, these owners decided that the next step for Expressly Local Food was to establish a physical presence in a fixed location with regular business hours. The fresh inventory would move faster; the selection would expand; and healthy local foods would be available on more than just market days. Around last September, they began calling facility owners in downtown Lancaster—“we wanted to make that commitment to the city,” Cattell said.

Last December, after a few months and a lot of unreturned calls, Young and Cattell finally found their future location at 213 West King Street. The shop was perhaps a few steps away from the “ideal” downtown strip, but nonetheless, a location that Cheryl says Lancaster City is “ready for.” Even more, the property owner—who had been looking for a tenant that would provide a unique contribution to the quality of life in Lancaster City—saw that potential contribution in Expressly Local Food. An official lease was signed in January.

Allowing time for existing tenants to move on and for the owner to implement necessary renovations, Expressly Local Food had estimated that they would begin moving into the facility around early May and open for business in June, an ideal time of year to start up a new local market. Now, however, nearing the end of July, the owners have yet to even begin setting up their space. The owners attribute this delay, almost entirely, to an unwieldy system of Lancaster City code requirements.

As Cattell explained it, “I’ve heard over the years from various people who have opened businesses in Lancaster, and it’s always the same story: It’s a lot of red tape….You find out one thing, and then you try and do it, and then you find out that wasn’t exactly how you were supposed to do it. So you’re spinning a lot of wheels.” Young noted that the process their business has undergone is overcomplicated and difficult to follow. “It’s beyond opaque,” she said.

Further complicating matters was a decision by the City in May to outsource its inspections and commercial plan review process to Associated Building Inspections, Inc., an Ephrata-based firm. This change, resulting in higher fees and allegedly slower service for some small business start-ups, carries its share of potential benefits and drawbacks, which will be further discussed in a later installment of this series. But, regardless of the politics, Expressly Local Food continues waiting for its new space as the summer season unyieldingly rolls by: “We signed a lease in January,” Young said, “and we’re still I-don’t-know-how-many moons away from actually moving in at this point.

Arthur Morris chaired his final Lancaster County Convention Center Authority (LCCCA) Board Meeting on Thursday evening. The meeting, much like any other, dealt with a moderate list of project change orders, bid awards, and bill payments. But, near the meeting’s conclusion, the Board voted unanimously (with members Sharon Nelson and Laura Douglas absent) to elect Kevin Fry as the new Board Chairman and Sharon Nelson as Secretary.

At the June 25 LCCCA meeting, Morris announced his resignation, effective the last day of July.

In his departing remarks, Morris paid special tribute to both the staff that served alongside him and members of the local community that involved themselves in the process: “I feel we have a unique set of people, characters, professionals—a wonderful set of people,” Morris said.

State Senator Gib Armstrong, a supporter of the Convention Center project from its early inception, attended the meeting to honor Morris for his hard work and tenacity in leading the Board. Also, Josh Nowak of Interstate Hotels & Resorts thanked Morris for his years of service.

Among members of the Board, R. B. Campbell and Ted Darcus recognized Morris’s contribution to the Authority. Campbell, who joined the Board around the same time as Morris, thanked the resigning Chairman for freely committing significant time and effort to ensuring that issues were resolved with due diligence. Darcus, the previous Chairman of the LCCCA, expressed gratitude for having the opportunity to work with Morris, and succinctly honored Morris’s particular form of leadership.

Randolph Carney, a longtime follower of the Convention Center project, echoed the accolades from the speakers, and concluded by noting that his only regret is that “Mr. Morris wasn’t Chairman 10 years ago.”

The first in a series by Cliff Lewis

As Lancaster’s Buy Fresh Buy Local® program encourages the community to take their “21 Day Challenge” of buying local produce, NewsLanc will be spotlighting the Historic Eastern Market. In an interview with market manager Doug Smith, it became clear that Eastern Market plays a much broader role in the surrounding community than one might expect from the typical farmers’ market.

Strolling East from Central Market, one will observe the towering Marriott Hotel on the right, followed by the courthouse on the left, and, a little further, the Demuth Tobacco Shop on the right. Many would assume this end of all “viable” destinations East of Penn Square. But, since 2006, the Historic Eastern Market at 308 East King Street has been working to prove that assumption wrong.

According to manager Doug Smith, the space at 308 E King was used as a farmers market from 1883-1927. Then, for almost 80 years, this facility was passed through a variety uses—a car dealership, a boat showroom, and more. In 2005, the Historic Market space was purchased by Tabor Community Services, which now uses much of the facility to house their offices.

Then, in 2006, the East King Street Improvement District, a neighborhood revitalization effort headed by Tabor, initiated the rebirth of Historic Eastern Market. In this regard, the Market itself stands on the front line of efforts to improve quality of life in the Eastern and Southeastern sections of Lancaster City. This is why Smith calls it a “mission-driven market:“

“Eastern Market was started for a couple reasons. One was to provide community space for this side of town, where people could come and be in a friendly environment….Another reason was in response to a food study that was done, which identified the southeast side to be an area of poor food access. That’s when we started inviting farmers to set up here and revive the historic market.”

Now in its fourth season, Eastern Market has expanded its vendor line-up to as many as 20 stands—all of them featuring fresh local produce and diverse prepared foods. The Market, open on Saturday mornings and Wednesday evenings, has already carved itself a unique niche by frequently showcasing local artists and musicians, and by integrating members of the diverse local community. According to Smith, about 50% of Eastern Market’s city customers come from its own surrounding neighborhood.

[In response to "Another CC/Hotel Scandal?"]

Newslanc may be at a loss but this reader is not.

While the lack of proper and separate metering may fly in the face of common sense and the most basic responsibilities for the LCCCA to provide accountability and transparency to the taxpayer, this omission is well in-line with every aspect of this project and the LCCCA’s poor stewardship since day one.

Lots of people think that the LCCCA has changed in recent years and while the Morris led board may have been better than those that preceded him, the bar was set wo low by Pickard and Darcus,  that simple improvement does not begin to get us where we should be.

Case in point.  Whether you wish to go back to the first set of one-sided agreements signed between PSP and the LCCCA, including the $100/year rent on the taxpayer funded public space that Marriott would have forced them to build, or the LCCCA’s decision to ignore all of their own advisers and select PSP’s common management model, the LCCCA has never been anything but a taxpayer funded rubber stamp for Dale High.

Anyone who cites this latest revelation with surprise knows nothing about the LCCCA or its history, and those who do not know and understand it, are destined to repeat it.

(Twenty-second in the series)

“… [O]ur findings lead us to conclude that the potential economic benefits are not likely to be sufficient to justify the risks involved, including the potential need to raise the hotel tax to fund operating deficits after several years should the reserves become depleted. We therefore recommend that, prior to proceeding further with this project, the parties involved consider exploring a downsizing of the project or an alternate use for the site.”

– From the Pannell, Kerr, Forster (PKF) “Executive Summary” of its feasibility report for the Lancaster County Convention Center project, May, 2006. The PKF study was the first actual feasibility report done on the project.

The Lancaster County Convention Center battle was waged on several fronts in early 2006. On the Convention Center Authority board, the three new county appointees were aggressively questioning Authority spending. The hoteliers and citizen-activist April Koppenhaver were filing separate lawsuits against the project. And the County Commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson, despite being under grand jury investigation, were still raising questions about the project in court and in the media.

On February 15, 2006, five weeks after Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray challenged them to fund a feasibility study, Shellenberger and Henderson, at Robert’s Field’s insistent lobbying, voted to hire Pannell, Kerr, Forster (PKF) to perform the first feasibility study on the project.

“The point of the feasibility study is that there has never been one,” Commissioner Henderson said at the public meeting where she and Shellenberger voted to engage PKF. “To undertake a project of this magnitude without doing one would be a disservice to the citizens of Lancaster County.”

The selection of PKF represented a victory for project critics. First brought to the fore as an issue by Field in late 2005, it was evident that the numerous studies done on behalf of the project – paid for by either organizations connected with Penn Square Partners or the Lancaster County Convention Center Authority – were clearly not “feasibility” studies. Now, PKF with its impeccable reputation as a leading consultancy of hotels and convention centers, would, finally, examine the economic feasibility of the project.

From the time the hotel and convention center project was introduced, the sponsors of the project consistently referred to the “feasibility” studies that they said supported building it. Beginning with the Ernst & Young “Market Study” of 1999, two “Marketability” studies by PricewaterhouseCoopers, one in 2000 and a 2002 “Update Draft,” a 2003 HVS “Market Study, ” and finally the C.H. Johnson “Memorandum Draft,” the sponsors publicly referred to them as “feasibility” studies by name.

The studies themselves, based on a project far smaller in size and cost than the now $140-plus million, 220,000 square foot development, were clearly – and clearly labeled – “market” studies. The Ernst & Young study, the one that was most often referred to as a “feasibility study,” went out of its way to say in bold print to state their study was not a financial feasibility report: “It is important to note that this does not take into account the estimated costs associated with the development of each Scenario, the financial feasibility, or the anticipated returns.”

Additionally, all of the market studies prior to 2006 point to several significant “Competitive Weaknesses” in the downtown Lancaster market, including poor parking, congested traffic, lack of cultural attractions and amenities, no air-service, among other drawbacks.

Finally, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, the firm that had conducted a “marketing” study in 2000 and an “update” in 2002, distanced itself by asking that its name not be associated with the project.

In an email to Jack Craver, the county LCCCA board appointee, Robert Canton, Director PricewaterhouseCoopers Sports, Convention & Tourism Services and the lead consultant for the Pricewaterhouse report, voiced serious professional concerns about the feasibility of proposed project.

Canton wrote: “In March of this year [2006], I was so concerned that [PriceWaterhouse Cooper's] analyses (demand study, economic impact, etc.) of a different building program were being used to ‘promote’ the proposed convention center development, that I wrote a note to Mr. Hixson requesting that all reference to PwC be removed from the LCCCA website.”

The memo also included: “Regardless of any review of our prior studies, the physical characteristics of the development that I understand to be proposed are VERY different from the project I studied (the equivalent of using a study of a 500 room Marriott to evaluate a 300-room Hampton).” [emphasis added.]

Canton concluded the memo by stating: “…I try to be very clear that we will not be influenced by what the client or community stakeholders ‘want,’ but rather will base our findings on what the market supports.”

David E. Arnold, an executive-vice president with the Philadelphia office of PKF, was the lead consultant who would head the Convention Center-Hotel study. Arnold was surprised to discover that he would not be receiving any cooperation from most of the sponsors of the project.

On February 22, one week after PKF was hired by the County, LCCCA Executive Director Hixson announced his board – co-created by the County Commissioners — would not cooperate with the study. Lancaster Mayor Rick Gray said the same thing regarding city cooperation with the report. Nevin Cooley, in his role as spokesman for Penn Square Partners, said no one from his organization would cooperate with PKF.

On February 26, LCCCA board Chairman, Ted Darcus, wrote an open letter to the County Commissioners’ board published in the Sunday News. In the letter, Darcus says one reason the Authority would not participate in the PKF study was the $65,000 contribution from Robert Field, whom, wrote Darcus, “is a self-acknowledged opponent” of the project.

Speaking for the other sponsors, Darcus wrote: “Specifically, neither the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster nor Penn Square Partners have expressed any willingness to participate in this further feasibility study by PKF.”

Darcus took the opportunity in the letter to take aim directly at Shellenberger and Henderson:

“Please be advised that the authority views this study to be another example of the two commissioners attempting to usurp the powers of the authority, to diminish, distract and interfere with the ongoing business of the authority in fulfilling its statutory mission, and to bring further focus to the self-interests and competing goals of the project opponents.

For these reasons, the authority board and its staff will not participate in the process relating to the consulting services to be provided to the county by PKF Consulting.”

Darcus closed the letter with a warning to the two Commissioners:

“Accordingly, the authority places the county and commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson on formal notice that: (1) PKF Consulting and the county are proceeding on your own, independent of the authority; (2) the authority will not be responsive to PKF Consulting’s data gathering, other than to continue to respond in conformity with statutory requirements; (3) the authority will not be responsible for any errors in, or misstatements of, data, contractual and/or legal relationships, or other information relating to either the project or the public agencies or private participants; but (4) in the event of any such errors, misstatements, or other dissemination of false or misleading information relating to either the authority, the project, or the public agencies and private participants, the authority will hold the county, commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson, and their consultants, and any public or private group or individual supporting such acts or omissions, financially.” [emphasis added]

Of the project sponsors, it was only State Rep. Michael Sturla, who was willing to speak with Arnold.

“I would love to,” Sturla said to Lancaster Newspapers. “I think if the feasibility study is done only with information from people with hostility to the convention center, I think there’s a pretty good chance that’s what the feasibility study will say.”

Around this time, late February, 2006, LCCA Chairman Darcus, approached the County Commissioners Shellenberger and Henderson with the offer that if they dropped their lawsuit and “cease and desist from all activity to obtain any market, feasibility or other studies of the convention center/hotel project,” the Authority would amend its financing contract with the county.

Under Darcus’ proposal, the Authority would agree to guarantee the use of its income from the county’s hotel room tax to pay down some of the debt service needed to finance the $137.8 million project.

Shellenberger said at a Commissioners’ public meeting that the offer from Darcus did not provide the protection for taxpayers for which he and Commissioner Molly Henderson had been seeking.

“It says nothing about the interest,” Shellenberger said. “And we all know when we pay a mortgage, most of the money paid the first few years is interest.”

Shellenberger said Darcus’ offer amounts to “horse trading.”

“I’m not interested in horse trading,” Shellenberger said.

When Darcus didn’t get the response he sought from the Commissioners, he fumed. “ I don’t know what they’re after,” Darcus said. “The more actions they take, the more it looks like they’re only interested in killing this project.”

The suggestion that PKF would compromise its international reputation for a $115,000 study in Lancaster, Pennsylvania was laughable on its face. PKF, along with Ernst & Young and Pricewaterhouse, represented the top-tier of hospitality industry consultants.

In May, 2006, even without the cooperation from the LCCCA and other sponsors, PKF delivered a professionally prepared and thorough feasibility study of the project.

In the 83-page report, PKF frames the analysis around the key trend of supply growth in the meetings industry outpacing demand growth, thus creating a more fiercely competitive environment for conventions events. This issue was developed in a Brookings Institute study that detailed the trend in depth.

PKF noted that: “…functions that previously would have been held at secondary or tertiary convention destinations are now being accommodated at primary destinations, as the larger facilities in major markets have the ability to host numerous smaller events concurrently.”

However, the report states with balance, “…there is a renewed interest on the part of many convention groups to consider second-tier cities in their evaluation of destinations, primarily for pricing reasons. Although it is reasonable to expect that third-tier cities [e.g., Lancaster] will benefit from this trend, the options open to groups at this level are extensive. Similarly, Pennsylvania associations which operate on a rotational basis for site selection now have a venue available in several geographic and city locations, reducing the visit frequency for each location.”

The PKF study also supported the conclusion of Robert Field, who declined to purchase the Brunswick hotel after assessing a poor downtown hotel market.

PKF writes that: “while the overall Lancaster County hotel market is stable, the downtown commercial hotel market has shrunk considerably in recent years. This has contributed to the decline of the Hotel Brunswick. Although the Marriott brand is extremely strong in this segment, the availability of Marriott products along Route 30 will limit this advantage.”

PKF, while noting some “Strengths” of the Lancaster area – its “wholesome image” ; extensive tourism base; strong hotel brand; “historic attractions downtown” — echoed the other market studies, pointing out Lancaster’s “Weakenesses.” Among them mentioned in the report were parking and traffic issues, undesirable downtown location, poor air access, and “Lancaster’s image not what conventioneers are looking for.”

It was an exhaustive study that included economic analysis, and multiple surveys of event planners in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland. And PKF’s conclusion after its sober study:

“… [O]ur findings lead us to conclude that the potential economic benefits are not likely to be sufficient to justify the risks involved, including the potential need to raise the hotel tax to fund operating deficits after several years should the reserves become depleted. We therefore recommend that, prior to proceeding further with this project, the parties involved consider exploring a downsizing of the project or an alternate use for the site.”

###

Chapter Twenty-Three: Fog of War: Opponents fall for misdirection