Good morning, neighbors 👋

Here’s a recap of some local stories I’ve been covering this week. If you’d like to stay plugged in to local stories all week long, feel free to follow my Facebook Page.

Have a great week!
Corey

One person has died after a vehicle struck two pedestrians at Valley Forge Towers Thursday evening.

Upper Merion police, fire and EMS responded to the front circle at approximately 5 p.m. Both patients were transported to local trauma hospitals, where one later died from their injuries. The condition of the second patient was not released.

Police said the driver remained at the scene and cooperated with investigators.

The Upper Merion Township Police Department Traffic Safety Unit is conducting an investigation. No additional information is being released at this time.

Upper Merion Tax Collector Evelyn Ankers is again urging residents concerned about township spending and property taxes to attend the final 2027 budget workshop on Nov. 5.

Ankers says she previously asked the Board of Supervisors to create a citizen budget committee, or alternatively hold a budget open house where residents could ask questions of supervisors and finance staff. She says those requests were rejected.

Her concern comes as township property taxes have risen substantially in recent years.

Township records show the tax rate was 3.380 mills in 2022, increased in 2023 and 2024, remained unchanged in 2025, then rose to 5.619 mills in 2026. That represents an increase of about 66% since 2022.

Ankers emphasized that she collects the taxes but does not set the township budget or tax rate.

The final budget workshop is Thursday, Nov. 5 at 6:15 p.m. at the Upper Merion Township Building.

The Upper Merion Area School Board is scheduled to consider four real estate tax assessment appeal settlements Monday night that list up to $523,302.46 in school-tax refunds for the 2025-26 and 2026-27 school years.

The four properties currently carry combined assessments of $45.89 million. Under the proposed settlements, their assessments would eventually fall to $34.65 million, a combined reduction of approximately $11.25 million, or 24.5%.

And these are far from the first.

A review of regular School Board meeting agendas dating back to November 2021 found assessment-appeal settlements on at least 17 previous agendas, involving at least 27 distinct tax parcels.

If all four settlements remain on Monday’s agenda, the tracker would grow to at least 31 distinct parcels and mark at least the 18th regular Board meeting since November 2021 to include an assessment-appeal settlement.

Some parcels have appeared more than once as assessment disputes continued or returned to the Board for additional action.

The largest of Monday’s four proposed settlements involves 1000 Continental Drive.

EOS at 1000 Continental LLC appealed the property’s $28.86 million assessment after the Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals declined to make a change in 2024.

Under the proposed settlement, the assessment would fall to $21.385 million, a reduction of approximately $7.48 million.

The agreement lists $366,588.71 in UMASD refunds for the 2025-26 and 2026-27 school years.

That property alone accounts for more than 70% of the school-district refunds listed in Monday’s four agreements.

Combined, the agreements list $244,801.16 in school-tax refunds for 2025-26 and another $278,501.30 for 2026-27.

The actual amount refunded could be slightly lower. Each agreement states that the refund may be reduced by 2% if the property owner originally paid the taxes during the discount period.

The financial impact does not necessarily end once the refunds are issued.

Each settlement establishes lower assessments for future tax years. The final settled assessments would remain in place unless there is another successful tax assessment appeal, a countywide reassessment, a qualifying change to the property or another change permitted by law.

UMASD’s current 2026-27 real estate tax rate is 25.03 mills.

Using that rate only as a benchmark, an $11.25 million reduction in taxable assessment would represent approximately $281,500 less in annual school-tax revenue.

The actual impact in future years will depend on the millage rate adopted by the district.

The four property owners initially challenged their assessments in 2024. After the Montgomery County Board of Assessment Appeals declined to make the requested changes, the owners appealed to Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.

The proposed agreements state that the parties decided to settle based on the “risks and hazards of litigation.” The district has also maintained a $2 million assigned General Fund balance for real estate tax assessment appeal refunds in recent years.

The Board is also scheduled to consider three confidential student settlement agreements, all to be paid using General Fund money.

The public agenda does not disclose the amounts of the agreements.

If all three are approved, our tracker would increase from 40 to 43 identified confidential student settlement/release actions since September 2021. According to one school board member, these have now cost the district over 2 million dollars to date.

A $12,000 civil action filed by Bridgeport Borough against two residents over an exterior light at a residential property has been continued for a second time.

The borough filed the case Sept. 11 in Magisterial District Court, alleging zoning-code violations related to an exterior light and glare affecting an adjoining property.

The dispute had already reached Borough Council before the lawsuit was filed.

At Council’s Aug. 18 meeting, members discussed a zoning violation involving the property and unanimously voted to table further action, giving the borough solicitor additional time to try to resolve the matter.

Less than a month later, the borough filed the civil complaint.

The case was originally scheduled for a hearing Oct. 23. That hearing was continued to Oct. 30, and the case has now been continued again, with the next hearing scheduled for Nov. 19.

One of the homeowners told me that he was aware of the underlying dispute involving the light, but said he had not been aware that the borough had filed a civil lawsuit naming him.

“We have a lot going on in the house and I informed the Borough that when we were able to finish the rewiring of our home, we will replace the light,” he said in a text message.

The publicly available court docket shows the case remains active.

I will continue following the case ahead of the Nov. 19 hearing.

Work is now underway at 720 Vandenburg Road in King of Prussia, where a 205-unit apartment development was approved earlier this year.

Plans call for a six-story multifamily building on the 6.85-acre property, replacing the former office use at the site. The project received Upper Merion Township approval in August after moving through the township’s land development process. (Vimeo)

The development was one of the larger residential projects approved in Upper Merion this year, and now residents will begin seeing the physical changes along Vandenburg Road.

Pennsylvania’s measles outbreak has now reached 1,426 confirmed cases across 44 counties, with 268 hospitalizations and five measles-associated deaths.

A new public exposure was also identified this week at a Target in Lebanon County.

Locally, I haven’t seen a new Upper Merion or Montgomery County exposure alert.

But the outbreak is starting to change how nearby school districts prepare.

My school recently asked employees to provide proof of MMR vaccination or measles immunity. That made me curious whether other local districts were doing the same, so I asked.

I’ve now heard from employees in Methacton, Upper Darby, Lower Merion, Perkiomen Valley, Downingtown and the Chester County Intermediate Unit who say they have also been asked to provide that information. There are likely more.

One Upper Merion employee tells me UMASD has not asked staff for it.

I have inquired to see if they have a plan in place to prevent schools from closing.

Bridgeport Borough Council adopted an updated animal ordinance Tuesday night after residents raised detailed questions about feral cats, barking dogs, registration requirements and enforcement.

The ordinance, which amends Chapter 155 of the borough code, was approved without opposition.

Before the public discussion, Borough Manager Keith Truman said the update was prompted in part by the borough’s recent zoning rewrite, which uncovered outdated and conflicting language dealing with animals. He said most of the existing animal code remains unchanged.

The new provisions clarify rules for livestock and exotic animals, update enforcement authority, revise certain fines and create a new section distinguishing stray cats from feral cats and establishing rules for registered feral cat caregivers.

Much of Tuesday’s discussion focused on how those feral-cat rules will work in practice.

A Mill Street resident who said she has worked in veterinary medicine for nearly 15 years questioned the cost and difficulty of repeatedly trapping feral cats, keeping vaccinations current and meeting other requirements. She also asked whether the borough might work with veterinary offices or rescue organizations to help residents with the expense of trap-neuter-return efforts.

A Bush Street resident with previous TNR experience asked Council to reconsider portions of the ordinance, saying some requirements could create additional burdens for volunteers already spending their own time and money caring for feral cats. Borough officials responded that the ordinance had been reviewed through a subcommittee process and developed with input from the borough manager and solicitor.

Other residents asked how barking-dog complaints would be handled, whether feral-cat caregiver registration would carry a fee and how animal waste near neighboring properties would be addressed.

Officials said police would continue to use discretion in barking-dog complaints and would generally attempt to resolve problems before issuing citations. The borough manager also said he did not anticipate a fee for feral-cat caregiver registration and said registration would apply to an individual or household rather than each cat.

After the public discussion ended, Council moved forward with the ordinance as advertised and approved it without opposition.

Enjoying the Spotlight? Don't stop here.

The best local stories come from the community. Have something that deserves the Spotlight? Email us at [email protected]

Thank you for reading,

Corey