Over the past several weeks, Cheltenham Township residents have been voicing their concerns regarding plans for a public pool at the Melrose Country Club redevelopment. Some of those concerns were addressed during the Board of Commissioners meeting on Wednesday, August 19.

As it stands now, the project’s contract is structured as a ground lease which does not require competitive public bidding. A subsidiary of the developer (Melrose Pool, LLC) was given the construction contract. The terms of the ground lease can be found in July 1’s Building & Zoning agenda, beginning on page 19.

Last week, township resident Sam Thacker told Glenside Local that he filed a lawsuit on Wednesday, July 22, through the Montgomery County Civil Court system. The complaint argues that the contract violates the Separation Act and competitive bidding requirements for large projects. He highlighted the township’s Home Rule Charter, Section C1207C (4), as the basis for his argument and appeared in Montgomery County Civil Court last Wednesday.

That evening, assistant township manager Alyson Elliot published a list of responses to Frequently Asked Questions regarding the project.

During August 19’s meeting, Thacker read a series of statements, including the following excerpts:

“The township intended to build a municipal pool but kept the decision to themselves for months. There was no public discussion before the April 15 announcement. No bids were solicited. There is no adopted plan to pay for this project. Melrose Pool LLC has no history of building municipal pools.

“The lack of transparency and the recklessness of the board to make a deal without consulting residents should make you feel ashamed,” he continued.

Resident Ryan Thacker asked the board to consider an alleged non-response to Sam Thacker’s letter.

“This specific deal was never discussed in this forum. My brother did not receive a response to his inquiry,” he said before issuing a series of questions, including when the final designs are to be publicly discussed.

Another resident highlighted a Change.org petition—signed by 594 people as the time of this writing—which includes a list of township-directed questions. The resident demanded that the board halts all financial commitments associated with the July 15 ground lease.

“Cheltenham taxpayers demand transparency. While the contract is styled as a $10 real estate lease, it locks our township into a $4.5 million lump sum payment without competitive bidding,” he said. “The board has bypassed the public procurement rules and has not articulated a plan to pay for this massive expenditure.”

Litigation related to the pools was not discussed during the meeting, though multiple commissioners offered their thoughts.

“There are a couple items that have been discussed in the public,” board president Matt Areman said. “There has been discussion about the language ‘township amenity’ during the previous months. We used that term because we didn’t know what the proposal was going to be. Original plans called for a community center in addition the pool, and we realized we couldn’t afford both. As soon as staff, the developer, and the involved board members decided that it was going to be a pool, it was announced. Three months later, the ground lease was proposed in public.”

Areman was referring to an April 15 township announcement for a “brand new, state-of-the-art public pool at the Melrose Country Club redevelopment, which will ultimately replace Conklin Pool.”

“That process is going to work its way through the court system,” he continued. “There have been allegations that the township is spending lots of money on highly paid attorneys. That is not accurate. Our attorneys are being paid through our insurance policy. There may be costs through the litigation, but those are not paid for by township coffers, though it is possible that may be the case at some point.”

Areman said that the proposed pool and the associated property will be owned and managed by the township.

“It will not be subject to restriction by the HOA, the developer. They will not be able to say who can and can’t go. Those rumors are not accurate,” he said.

Finance chair Daniel Norris noted that funds for the project were previously allocated for the 2026 budget.

“Last year, when we did the capital fund budget, we planned it for three years,” Norris said. “In the 2026 budget, there is money for this new pool. It’s a planning document and sometimes exceptions are made, but the pool funding is there for this year.

“I will be recommending a single $4.5 million payment,” Norris said. “I’m fairly confident it will be accepted.”

Commissioner Emily Cheramie-Walz emphasized that while nothing about the process or the outcome has been set in stone, she considers the current path to be the right one.

“This is the fiscally responsible decision that we all agree has to be made. We are willing to have conversations about the future of Conklin. Nothing has been decided,” Cheramie-Walz said. “I’ve heard some tremendous ideas about how to solve certain issues, and we recognize that we’re not going to make everyone happy, but we feel that this is the right decision.”

More to come.

For all the latest news, follow us on Facebook or sign up for Glenside Local’s “Daily Buzz” newsletter here.