Chadwick Schnee of Schnee Legal Services strikes again with another blatant case of quid pro quo!
To set the stage: a 120-acre prime property, complete with well maintained lawns and a very nice vintage clubhouse, in this area would typically fetch over $50 million even as industrial wasteland. Yet, Schnee Legal Services sells it off for a mere $4 million—conveniently, to a single favored buyer – he did the same earlier this year with the trash and recyclables collection renewals.
This is nothing short of a corruption scandal involving Exeter’s infamous solicitor, Chadwick Schnee, and Schnee Legal Services.
The contract itself is riddled with amateur mistakes, but the real outrage lies in its provisions that pander to his golfer buddies — the less than 400 (in a population of 25,000) golfers like the dunce-in-charge Gardella and résumé-fabricator Foy. It locks in the buyer to maintaining the taxpayer-funded, money-losing municipal golf course for another 10 years, protecting an industrial-embezzlement machine that’s bleeding millions of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
This entire charade seems designed to sweep years of embezzlement, corruption, and backdoor deals under the rug—and you, the taxpayer, are footing the bill!
How much longer will you tolerate these clowns?
Here the current Schnee Legal Services RCC No-Bid Contract:
Here is our current analysis of Schnee’s mediocre work product:
1. Valuation and Minimum Bid: The contract specifies a minimum bidding amount of $4,805,000.00, which is alarmingly low for a property of this nature. To put this into perspective:
a) Property Components: The sale includes a golf course, clubhouse, restaurant, pro shop, and snack bar, along with extensive equipment and personal property (as detailed in Exhibit “B”).
b) Land Area: The property comprises approximately 142.691 acres (Premises A) plus an additional lot (Premises B).
c) Location: Situated in Exeter Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, with frontage on U.S. Highway Route No. 422.
d) Comparable Sales: Recent sales of golf courses with similar amenities in desirable locations have far exceeded this minimum bid. For instance:
– The Woodmere Club in New York sold for $100 million in 2022.
– The Deer Creek Golf Club in Florida sold for $32 million in 2021.
– The Boca Raton Municipal Golf Course in Florida sold for $65 million in 2020.
While these are in different locations, they illustrate that golf course properties can command significantly higher prices. A more reasonable valuation for the Reading Country Club property could easily be in the range of $50 million or more, depending on its condition and revenue potential.
The lack of a recent, independent appraisal mentioned in the contract is a glaring omission. This absence, combined with the low minimum bid, suggests a potential undervaluation of a significant public asset.
2. Bidding Process Issues:
The bidding process, as outlined in the contract, presents several concerns:
a) Timeline:
– Publication Dates: August 28 and September 4, 2024
– Bid Due Date: September 27, 2024 at 1 p.m.
– Public Bid Opening: September 27, 2024 at 2 p.m.
– Bid Award Date: October 14, 2024
This compressed schedule allows only 23 days from the last publication date to the bid submission deadline. For a property of this complexity, this is an extremely short period for potential bidders to:
– Arrange financing
– Conduct due diligence
– Assess the property’s condition and potential
– Develop a comprehensive bid
b) Mandatory Property Tours:
Tours are only available on two specific dates:
– Friday, September 6, 2024 at 1 p.m.
– Tuesday, September 10, 2024 at 1 p.m.
This restrictive schedule could exclude potential bidders with conflicts on these specific dates, particularly out-of-state or international investors who might require more flexible viewing options.
c) Question Deadline:
Questions must be submitted by September 13, 2024, with answers provided by September 20, 2024. This leaves only one week between receiving answers and the bid submission deadline, which is inadequate for complex inquiries or follow-up questions.
3. Operational Restrictions and Obligations:
The contract imposes several conditions that could deter potential bidders:
a) Use Restriction: The property must be maintained as a golf course and/or restaurant for 10 years from the recording of the deed. While allowing for hotel/motel construction, this restriction significantly limits potential development options.
b) Employment Requirement: The purchaser must offer employment to all current Exeter Township employees and other individuals working at the property for at least six months with “reasonably similar wages and benefits.” This obligation could be financially burdensome and operationally challenging for a new owner.
c) Event Commitments: The purchaser must honor all existing event bookings, including a “Win A Wedding” promotion. Without detailed information on these commitments, this represents an unknown financial obligation.
d) Golf Cart Lease: The purchaser must assume a lease for 70 golf carts, which expires on October 31, 2028, at an annual cost of $90,522.00. This four-year commitment limits the new owner’s flexibility in equipment decisions.
4. Contract Deficiencies:
For a transaction of this magnitude, the contract lacks several crucial elements:
a) Financial Disclosures: There’s no mention of current revenue, operating costs, profitability, or other financial metrics essential for valuing the business operation.
b) Property Condition: While an equipment list is provided, there’s no comprehensive assessment of the property’s condition, recent improvements, or needed repairs.
c) Environmental Issues: Given the typical use of chemicals in golf course maintenance, the lack of environmental assessment information is a significant omission.
d) Historic Preservation: The property’s listing on the National Historic Registry is mentioned, but the implications and potential restrictions are not detailed.
e) Utilities and Easements: While some easements are mentioned in the property description, there’s no comprehensive information about utility services, rights-of-way, or other encumbrances.
5. Problematic Clauses:
Several clauses in the contract raise additional concerns:
a) Waiver of Deficiencies: The township reserves the right to “waive any technical and legal deficiencies or irregularities of the bids.” This broad discretion could lead to questions about the fairness of the selection process.
b) Rejection of Bids: While the township reserves the right to reject any and all bids, there are no specified criteria for doing so, leaving this decision potentially arbitrary.
c) “As Is” Condition: The property is being sold “as is,” which, combined with the lack of condition assessments, places a significant burden of risk on the buyer.
d) Possession Date: The township retains possession until December 12, 2024, which is an unusually long period post-sale and could complicate the transition for the new owner.
In conclusion, this contract presents numerous red flags that suggest it may not be structured to obtain the best value for the township or ensure a fair, competitive bidding process. The combination of a potentially severely undervalued minimum bid, restrictive bidding conditions, lack of crucial information, and onerous operational obligations imposed on the buyer all contribute to a process that appears deeply flawed.
It would be strongly advisable for the township to:
1. Conduct and disclose an independent, professional appraisal of the property.
2. Extend the bidding timeline to allow for proper due diligence.
3. Provide comprehensive financial and condition reports on the property.
4. Reconsider the operational restrictions and obligations placed on the buyer.
5. Clarify the bid evaluation and selection criteria.
Exeter Taxpayers, you must ensure that a more transparent, competitive process that is more likely to result in a fair market value sale of this significant public asset.
AND ….. FIRE SCHNEE!
