Cheltenham Township may soon have a new community pool, but residents are concerned about the project’s terms.

On April 15, the township announced its plans for a “brand new, state-of-the-art public pool at the Melrose Country Club redevelopment, which will ultimately replace Conklin Pool.”

The announcement notes that the pool “has reached the end of its useful life” and “has ongoing leaks, aging mechanical systems, and other equipment failure that ultimately needs a complete replacement.”

“The costs to fully repair and modernize Conklin are estimated to be over $8M and are not fiscally responsible given the Township’s budget constraints,” the announcement says. “Faced with this critical issue, the Township secured a partnership with the Melrose developer, through which the Township was deeded the land to build a state-of-the-art pool complex for $4.5M, a fiscally feasible solution.”

On Wednesday, July 15, the township’s board of commissioners signed a contract that commits the township to closing the existing Conklin Pool and building a new one at the Enclave at Melrose Park (formerly the Melrose Country Club) site at 7600 Tookany Creek Parkway.

The contract commits the township to buying the pool for $4.5 million, or to making annual lease payments to the developer of $382,500. According to the contract’s terms, lease payments would not count against the $4.5 million principal. The lease, as it stands now, spans 15 years, with two automatic 10-year renewals.

The 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.

Sam Thacker, a resident of Cheltenham Township, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday, July 22, through the Montgomery County Civil Court system which argues that the contract violates the Separation Act and competitive bidding requirements for large projects.

The lawsuit alleges that the ground lease contract is a municipal construction contract in substance, and is thus subject to statutory competitive bidding requirements. The terms of the ground lease can be found in July 1’s Building & Zoning agenda, beginning on page 19.

According to Thacker, the township’s board of commissioners did not adequately address residents’ questions and concerns prior to signing off on the contract. He believes taxpayers are now on the hook for a bad business decision.

“They didn’t address these questions before the decision was unanimously approved. These are fundamental questions. The only acceptable course is to nullify the contract,” Thacker told Glenside Local.

Thacker claims he also submitted two Right to Know requests for township documents pertaining to the decision. He says he received a “denied” response to the first and a 30-day extension on the second.

“My request for a property value assessment of the gifted Melrose property where the pool is to be built was denied on the basis that no such document exists,” he said. “That was a huge piece of information for me for the lawsuit, because our charter requires assessments for real estate transactions, and any contract that doesn’t follow our Home Rule Charter should be unenforceable. I’m hopeful that the court will grant a preliminary injunction.”

“From a legal standpoint, our charter provides an exemption for real estate transactions,” Thacker continued. “They never performed that assessment by their own admission, so the real estate transaction is essentially void because they didn’t follow the mandatory protocol. It’s a construction contract.”

Thacker’s next step was the creation of a Change.org petition—signed by 342 people as the time of this writing—which includes a list of township-directed questions.

On Wednesday, Thacker appeared in Montgomery County Civil Court “to prevent the contract from moving forward.” He filed “pro se,” representing himself and the taxpayers of Cheltenham Township, and says he compiled the lawsuit with the help of online resources.

Thacker highlighted the township’s Home Rule Charter, Section C1207C (4), as the basis for his argument.

“The township charter is very clear and short. It lays out when real estate transactions are exempt from public bidding,” he said. “There are two issues here. The legal issue pertains to the contract. The other is the communication gap between what’s documented as the township’s intentions and their public remarks. I attended the Building & Occupancy meeting last week to address that disparity, but they didn’t respond. The decision was never brought before the public before the press release on April 15. I find that unacceptable, and then they entered into a ground lease contract. They had the opportunity to listen to public feedback and essentially ignored it.”

“I’m not saying we can’t build a pool at Melrose, but there needs to be public deliberation about a decision of this magnitude,” he said. “Bidding laws exist for a reason. The township needs to protect its residents from that and they aren’t.”

On Wednesday evening, assistant township manager Alyson Elliot emailed Glenside Local a list of responses to Frequently Asked Questions regarding the project.

Excerpts include:

Why wasn’t this project bid like a traditional Township construction project?
Because litigation is currently pending regarding this issue, the Township cannot comment further on the legal questions surrounding the procurement process at this time. The Township intends to provide additional information on this topic if and when it is appropriate to do so.

Why is the Township paying $4.5 million?
The Ground Lease provides that Cheltenham Township will purchase the completed public pool for $4.5 million.

Prior to the Melrose opportunity, the Township’s 2023 Facilities Study estimated that constructing a comparable standalone replacement pool would cost approximately $6–8 million. The Board concluded that acquiring a completed Township-owned public pool for $4.5 million represented a significantly lower cost than constructing a comparable facility independently.

What is the Township’s plan regarding the $4.5 million improvement payment?
The Board’s objective is to acquire the completed facility as a Township-owned public asset in the most fiscally responsible manner available at the time construction is complete. Financing decisions will be made as the project progresses and will occur through the Township’s normal public budgeting process.

Thacker responded to the township’s FAQ in a press release:

Cheltenham Township’s August 12 FAQ creates a direct contradiction with its own legal stance in court. While telling the public that it is purchasing a $4.5 million municipal pool built to precise Township specifications, the Township argues in court filings that the deal is merely a ‘real estate lease’ exempt from public bidding. Our pending lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas challenges this legal fiction, while public concern continues to surge—our resident petition raising these legal and fiscal concerns reached 331 signatories in its first 48 hours alone.

The press release continues:

1. The Direct Contradiction: Municipal Construction vs. “Real Estate Lease”

• The Public Narrative: The FAQ repeatedly boasts that the Township “established the requirements for the public pool,” holds “inspection rights throughout construction,” is paying a $4.5 million “Improvement Payment” for the build, and is gaining “a modern aquatic facility.”
• The Legal Fiction: In court, the Township seeks to evade mandatory competitive public bidding laws by labeling the entire transaction a mere “Ground Lease.” Under Pennsylvania’s PSP NE substance-over-form doctrine, courts look past labels: a $4.5 million municipal construction project built to public specifications is public works procurement, not a simple real estate lease. Bypassing competitive bidding laws deprives taxpayers of market pricing.

2. Failure to Comply with Home Rule Charter Mandates

• The Legal Violation: Section C1207C(4) of the Cheltenham Home Rule Charter mandates specific, mandatory pre-assessments and procedures before the Township can encumber, lease, or transfer municipal real estate assets.
• The Record: The Township executed the July 15, 2026 Ground Lease without fulfilling these mandatory Charter prerequisites, rendering the contract ultra vires (beyond the Township’s legal authority) and void as a matter of law.

3. Unfunded $4.5 Million Financial Obligation

• The Financial Risk: Under the July 15 agreement, Cheltenham taxpayers are obligated to either pay a $4.5 million lump-sum “Improvement Payment” or make $382,500 in annual lease payments (an 8.5% yield to the developer).
• The Admission: In the FAQ, the Township confirms it has no secured financing plan in place, stating that “financing decisions will be made as the project progresses”—effectively binding the municipality to a major capital expenditure before establishing a budget.

4. Surging Public Demand for Statutory Compliance

• The Grassroots Response: Within 48 hours of launching, a community petition (change.org/9vRj8mJzZd) gathered over 330 local signatories calling for a halt to the project, compliance with competitive bidding, and adherence to the Home Rule Charter.

According to an email sent by Thacker this morning, his wife, Pam, created a timeline of events, as shown below:

“The Township cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell the public they are acquiring a custom-built $4.5 million municipal pool complex, while telling a judge it is just a routine real estate lease that doesn’t need to be competitively bid,” Thacker said in a statement. “You cannot build public infrastructure by setting aside the Home Rule Charter and using legal loopholes to bypass public procurement statutes. Gaining over 330 signatures in two days demonstrates that residents expect full statutory compliance when millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake. Our lawsuit asks the Court of Common Pleas to enforce the law and ensure that public taxpayer dollars are protected.”

More to come.

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