Chalfont Borough Lack of Transparency

At the September 2016 meeting of the Chalfont Borough Town Council, some issues were raised that seem to be an ongoing problem as anyone who has attended a council meeting can attest to.

Often times, the "agenda" for the meeting is posted online a few hours prior to the meeting. The agenda for the Sept 13th meeting contained four action items.

During the meeting, it was announced that there were more action items. When a resident brought up the difference, the township manager, Sandra Zadell and lawyer (Nate Fox) explained they didn't even have to publish the agenda prior to the meeting and Chalfont went above and beyond by publishing the Agenda prior to the meeting, implying the citizens should be grateful.

The action items they added were things that had already been paid for, and needed to be approved "formally." One of those things was the demolishing and disposal of a house. The other was for payment to a uniform company.

Of concern: Does  township manager or any of the council members have any personal connection to the businesses township manager Sandra Zadell had hired prior to voting/approval?

The second thing that was of concern:  During the June 14th boro meeting, it was brought up that weeds in the sidewalks in front of some homes in the business district were cause for concern.  The council said it was a blight on the community and established that the council would pay to have the weeds killed, but after that it would be the homeowners responsibility and they would send letters to the residents about this new rule.

At the end of the meeting, a resident spoke about a retention basin that his new neighbors mow very rarely. The resident takes extreme care of his lawn/flowers, etc, and his neighbor allows the basin to get very high. A few of the council members (the manager and lawyer) were very sarcastic to this resident. The manager stated Chalfont couldn't "regulate aesthetics." But, isn't that what they are doing by sending letters to residents warning those resident if they don't take care of their weeds they will be fined?

When another resident questioned why the boro disregarded the complaints of the resident about the overgrown basin next to his property but the weeds were a problem, and suggested  ticks and mosquitoes live in tall grass were a health danger, boro manager Sandra Zadell sarcastically said, "We can't outlaw ticks. Ticks have a right to live in town." And a few members also pointed out that tall grass minimizes erosion...

Third Concern from attending that meeting: A water well had recently tested 2 points below toxic readings (68 out of 70) and that the well was taken off line (in July of 2016). There were no updates to be found on the Aqua website nor the Chalfont boro website.
 There was a mention iduring the August boro meeting that it would be tested every 2 weeks. IWhen a resident asked what the latest readings were, and the council president (Engle) and Manager Zadell, stated they hadn't heard anything. The resident asked if they had called Aqua to inquire and the manager stated, "When they call us, I will put it up on the website." Zadell had not bothered to call.
Also, in the minutes of the August meeting, President Engle had stated, "The wells tested well below the toxic level." giving the false impression that 2 points below EPA toxic level is nothing to be concerned about.

These concerns and issues not only point to a lack  transparency, but safety. Either they are not taking it seriously, or they want to downplay this water issue. We have an apartment building being built right now and a new development that will be going in soon, so, perhaps they don't want to make this an issue, for fear it will drive potential residents away.

They recently tore down a historic building citing that there was asbestos in it (the old age home on Park and 152) in order to build this apartment building.  Residents on the streets being affected were concerned that the boro/developers kept making changes without letting the residents know. Many residents have gardens, and when construction was tearing down the building, residents called and asked about the danger of the asbestos being released into the air. The residents were ignored. They started tearing down the building and no one was advised one way or the other if this was safe or not.

There is a total lack of transparency from the township manager and town council. The only way to assure the safety of Chalfont residents is to stay vigilant and attend the meetings.