Cheltenham’s $4.5M pool project may be delayed by a resident’s lawsuit, a township official says
But a lawyer for the resident who's suing the township argues the pool lease should've required a public bidding process and is actually an illegal construction contract.
A legal battle over Cheltenham Township’s pool contract has bred tension at meetings and divided some neighbors, but a township official and the suing resident’s lawyer agree on one thing: It could take a while.
The dispute centers on Cheltenham’s lease of land to a private developer for $10 per year to build a pool complex — the same land that the developer had given Cheltenham for free in December 2025.
The agreement requires the township to pay up to $4.5 million for three public pools that a new entity, Melrose Pool LLC, will construct on that land, or rent the pools from that entity. The township had hoped to open the new complex at the former Melrose Country Club by 2027 to replace the aging Conklin Pool across town. The developer, meanwhile, is building houses and a medical facility right next to the new pools.
But Cheltenham resident Sam Thacker sued in July, and argues that the ground lease was in fact a public construction contract and should be subject to a bidding process to determine the best provider.
Cheltenham has argued that the township received estimates for replacing pools on other properties, and therefore determined that $4.5 million is a good deal for the Melrose project.
The litigation has reached a stage that could take a year to resolve, Thacker’s lawyer said. And whether construction continues alongside the suit may depend on whether a court grants an injunction Thacker filed last week to halt the project. A long delay may scuttle the entire pool project, a township official said.
Where the suit stands
Thacker’s suit was dismissed by a judge last month who found it lacked standing, but he has appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
It could take six months to hear the appeal, said Thacker’s lawyer Christopher McCabe, who specializes in construction and government contracts, and a year to get a decision.
Thacker, who was representing himself until he hired McCabe this month after raising more than $6,000 from dozens of donors in a GoFundMe campaign, also filed a new injunction with the higher court to halt pool construction in the meantime.
A long delay could mean the new pools don’t happen, township Commissioner Emily Cheramie Walz wrote in a social media post last week after delivering the same remarks at the Sep. 16 commissioner meeting.
“There is a real risk that continued litigation could jeopardize the funding and timeline for the Melrose project,” Cheramie Walz wrote. “Families across the township who were excited about having a new pool could lose that opportunity.”
Cheramie Walz’s comments echoed part of Cheltenham’s legal defense in the case, that halting the project would cause more harm to township residents than allowing the project to proceed — an argument the lower court judge agreed with.
But McCabe asserted in the emergency injunction request filed last week that that logic doesn’t hold up, because the Melrose agreement is a no-bid construction contract disguised as a land rental.
“Then every municipality would simply argue that the object of an illegal contract will be greatly beneficial to their residents and the taxpayers,” McCabe wrote, and residents would be unable to stop an illegal contract.
When the developer, an entity associated with BG Capital, gave 2.7 acres to the township last winter, the document referred to an unspecified “advantage” that the developer would receive by gifting the land to Cheltenham.
The developer’s lawyer Amee Farrell, who is also former chair of the township’s zoning board, has not answered questions about what the developer expected to gain from the land gift.
“If [Cheltenham] owns the land free and clear, what prevented them...from putting out a request for bids?” McCabe said Monday. “You don’t know whether there was corruption here because you don’t know what the discussions were.”
An ongoing topic at public meetings
Although the township has repeatedly declined to comment on the details of the ground lease because of the lawsuit, Cheramie Walz addressed the subject of the suit directly in her post last week.
“There is no secret no-bid deal,” she wrote. “We have spent an embarrassing amount of time and public resources dealing with this litigation — resources that could be going toward the work residents actually expect us to be doing.”
Some residents have also expressed frustration over the suit and the controversy.
“We want new centers for community to grow and businesses to develop and thrive,” resident Nick Steever said. “The bidding process isn’t what certain people are upset about, but rather the fact that [Conklin] Pool is closing.”
Thacker and the township commissioners have exchanged tense words during public comment. When Thacker spoke at a Sep. 14 committee meeting, Cheramie Walz asserted that Thacker’s lawyer had told officials they shouldn’t speak directly to Thacker, so they would not.
McCabe said Monday that he’d told Cheltenham’s lawyers to communicate with him, not Thacker, now that he had legal representation, and was not referring to all township officials.
Thacker said Monday that any delay or waste is on the township.
“They are the ones who executed a no-bid construction contract,” he said. “I do not bear any responsibility for the costs incurred as they dig deeper into defending it.”
Inquirer Greater Abington
This suburban content is produced with support from the Leslie Miller and Richard Worley Foundation and The Lenfest Institute for Journalism. Editorial content is created independently of the project donors. Gifts to support The Inquirer’s high-impact journalism can be made at inquirer.com/donate. A list of Lenfest Institute donors can be found at lenfestinstitute.org/supporters.
