Top Stories From the Upper Merion Area

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 or visit my website.

Have a great week!
Corey

At Thursday’s budget workshop, a resident asked how much Upper Merion has spent pursuing its proposed mixed-use sports, entertainment and housing development. The board did not provide a figure. The response was that the township needs to spend money to determine whether the project is viable.

Township records confirm $163,993.66 in electronic payments to one consultant, Neumann & Associates, LLC, between September 2024 and April 2026. The accompanying table breaks down those payments.

Neumann’s 2026 agreement calls for $12,500 a month through December. If all 12 monthly fees are paid, the township’s payments to Neumann since 2024 would reach at least $301,493.66. That is a projection, not an amount I can confirm has already been paid. It does not represent the full cost of pursuing the project.

The agreement expires December 31. It says that if the township is still pursuing the facility (which they said last night they were), the parties contemplate extending it or reaching a new agreement by December 1. Renewal is not automatic.

Another resident asked why the budget presentation showed no money for the project. The answer she received was: “It’s not a budget item, that’s why it’s not in the budget.”

Answers we’re still trying to get:

Does the proposed 2027 budget include money to continue Neumann’s work after his agreement expires? If not, does the township intend to renew or replace the agreement, and how would it pay for continued work?

What are your questions?

A developer is asking a Montgomery County judge to order Upper Merion Township to approve preliminary plans for a proposed data center at 3200 Horizon Drive and award damages over the township’s denial.

Bryemere Holding LLC filed the lawsuit October 30 against the township and its Board of Supervisors. The complaint challenges the board’s unanimous August 13 vote denying preliminary approval, followed by a written denial notice dated August 17.

According to the filing, the proposal would redevelop approximately 10.3 acres with a two-story data center/warehouse and additional office and warehouse space, totaling approximately 342,422 square feet.

Bryemere argues that its revised plans satisfied the township’s requirements for preliminary approval. It alleges that the township demanded details beyond those required at that stage, failed to provide reasonable opportunities to address review comments and refused to consider revised materials submitted before the vote.

The company also alleges that public opposition influenced the denial and that the outcome was predetermined. Among its supporting arguments, Bryemere points to a denial resolution included in the board’s meeting packet before the August 13 meeting.

Those are allegations made by the developer, not findings by a judge.

The filing also addresses the recently withdrawn zoning appeals.

According to Bryemere, those appeals challenged a July 20 letter from the township’s zoning officer concerning the proposed uses. The township argued that the letter was not a formal zoning determination that the Zoning Hearing Board had jurisdiction to review.

Bryemere says it withdrew the appeals because of that township position. The complaint therefore provides the developer’s stated explanation for the withdrawals, while its effort to obtain development approval continues in court.

Beyond preliminary approval, Bryemere seeks compensation for expenses it alleges resulted from the township’s actions, including financing costs, property carrying costs, taxes and insurance. The complaint does not specify a total damages amount.

The lawsuit is a complaint in mandamus, asking the court to compel an action the company argues the township was legally required to take.

For residents following the project, the distinction matters: withdrawal of the zoning appeals did not end Bryemere’s pursuit of approval. This filing asks the court to compel preliminary approval and award damages. It does not itself grant approval or establish wrongdoing by the township.

Source: Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, case 2026-24886, complaint filed October 30, 2026.

Bridgeport Borough departments have submitted approximately $5.21 million in capital requests for 2027.

Important: this is not an approved $5.2 million spending plan.

Borough Manager Keith Truman emphasized during the Oct. 27 meeting that these are department requests and the final capital budget is still being developed. If every request were approved, the total would be $5,209,700. At least $2.77 million is expected to be covered by grants or other funding, and the borough expects about $1.5 million in capital funds to carry over from 2026.

Here’s what departments requested:

FIRE DEPARTMENT: $32,000

• Portable scene lighting: $8,000

• Rope and rigging equipment: $10,000

• Water rescue equipment: $14,000

PARKS & TRAILS: $1,097,000

• Continued Bridgeport Spur Trail design: $80,000

• Front Street Pocket Park: $1,017,000

• The Pocket Park amount is expected to be grant funded.

SEWER: $1.5 MILLION

• Placeholder estimate for rebuilding the primary trickling filter following sinkhole-related damage

• Approximately $528,000 in insurance proceeds is available to offset the eventual cost.

ADMINISTRATION: $63,000

• Borough website redevelopment: $13,000

• Replacement of outdated accounting software

PUBLIC WORKS: $945,000

• Inlet and ramp project: $250,000

• Street paving project: $250,000

• Fallsview Drive Bridge repair: $80,000

• Snow-removal equipment

• Utility-body F-Series truck with snow equipment: $85,000

• F-Series truck with snowplow: $70,000

• Borough Hall/Public Works roof project: $100,000

• $400,000 of the Public Works total is covered by grant funding.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: $1,368,000

• Design and feasibility study for the former train station property at 18 Depot Street: $100,000

• 440 Mill Street redevelopment project: $600,000

• Acquisition and demolition of 134 W. Front Street: $668,000

• $1.268 million of these projects is expected to be grant funded.

POLICE: $204,700

• Patrol vehicle: $75,000

• Chief vehicle: $75,000

• Body cameras: $5,500

• Ballistic vests: $2,800

• Drone program: $10,000

• Server/system replacement: $8,300

• Accreditation software: $5,600

• Tasers: $12,000 for 2027

• Possible radio replacements: estimated $10,500 for 2027 under the example discussed at the meeting.

Budget discussions will continue before Bridgeport adopts its final 2027 spending plan.

The Upper Merion Area School Board approved three more confidential student settlement agreements Monday night, bringing the running total I have identified in public meeting records to 43 since September 2021.

The agreements were approved 8-1, with Director Gary Ledebur voting no.

But before the vote, Ledebur made clear that his objection is becoming less about any individual settlement and more about what he sees as a growing pattern.

“Having worked in special education [in] three or four districts in the state, I know that oftentimes confidential settlements are necessary,” Ledebur said. “Oftentimes they’re a good thing to do.”

He said, however, that he has become concerned by the increasing number of settlements across Pennsylvania, particularly in southeastern Pennsylvania.

“It has become a profit center for several law firms,” Ledebur said.

He continued: “Individual settlements may be justified… but collectively I am going to continue to oppose them because I believe Boards of Education, and particularly this board, should push back.”

“As long as we keep approving these, there will be more of them,” Ledebur said.

Director Jenn Lyons agreed that the increasing number of settlements is concerning, but disagreed with Ledebur’s approach.

“I can’t in good conscience withhold a vote to try to prove a point,” Lyons said.

She said the issue needs to be addressed at the state level and argued that refusing to settle could ultimately expose UMASD to greater costs.

“I don’t think that putting our district finances on the line as the gamble to prove that point is something that I could do,” Lyons said.

Ledebur responded that UMASD has both the educational and legal resources necessary to challenge cases.

“I do not believe that this school district lacks the talent to comply with that law,” Ledebur said, referring to the requirement to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities.

“I also believe that we have the procedural talent and the legal talent to challenge this.”

Ledebur then argued that settling amounts to acknowledging the district could not provide an appropriate education.

District solicitor Jeffrey Soltanik pushed back on that characterization.

Soltanik told the Board that his firm had recommended all three settlements and was “aligned with the administration in our recommendation.”

Asked whether a settlement amounts to an admission that the district fell short, Soltanik said the agreements “specifically state that they are not admissions of liability.”

Ledebur remained unconvinced.

“On any individual settlement, one could make a strong case that we should settle because it’s financially in our benefit so to do,” he said.

But he argued attorneys are evaluating individual cases rather than what he sees as the larger trend.

“I believe that the trend is such that boards of education need to strongly push back or we will continue to get more and more and more of these settlements.”

The financial numbers provide additional context to that debate.

UMASD Treasurer’s Reports show $308,959.50 in payments specifically labeled “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT” during July, August and September, the first quarter of the current fiscal year.

That is already more than the $240,522.19 in confidential settlement payments I identified during the entire 2025-26 fiscal year.

The Q1 payments should not be assumed to be payments for the three agreements approved Monday. No dollar amounts for those three agreements were publicly disclosed.

Here’s a look at some of the local numbers from Tuesday’s election, according to Montgomery County’s results dashboard this morning.

UPPER MERION

• Registered voters: 24,666

• Ballots cast: 14,156

• Turnout: 57.39%

Governor/Lieutenant Governor:

• Shapiro/Davis: 10,513 votes, 74.7%

• Garrity/Richey: 3,372 votes, 24.0%

• Krawchuk/Thomas: 161 votes, 1.1%

BRIDGEPORT

• Registered voters: 3,359

• Ballots cast: 1,776

• Turnout: 52.87%

Governor/Lieutenant Governor:

• Shapiro/Davis: 1,316 votes, 74.4%

• Garrity/Richey: 416 votes, 23.5%

• Krawchuk/Thomas: 33 votes, 1.9%

For comparison, turnout across Montgomery County was just over 62%, meaning both Upper Merion and Bridgeport came in below the countywide rate.

The two communities also voted remarkably similarly in the governor’s race, with Shapiro/Davis receiving about 74% of the vote in each.

Results remain unofficial while the county completes its count. What’s your reaction to the local turnout and results?

The following is the latest update from Rep. Briggs regarding the jet fuel leak:

Cleanup and product recovery efforts related to the River Road and Fourth/Colbert Street incident remain ongoing and are expected to continue throughout the weekend, according to the latest update shared by State Rep. Tim Briggs from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

DEP and the EPA remain onsite overseeing the response.

Air monitoring is continuing at 14 fixed locations, along with roving handheld monitors, including in residential areas north of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Officials are monitoring for VOCs, benzene and other potential hazards.

According to DEP, all offsite readings so far remain below actionable levels, and there is currently no identified air quality concern for the general public.

Residents who notice odors or have environmental concerns are encouraged to contact DEP directly at 484-250-5991 or submit an environmental complaint online.

DEP says it will continue monitoring its complaint line throughout the weekend and will investigate reports from residents.

Cleanup efforts remain focused on public and responder safety, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and containing and recovering spilled material.

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