Funding Gaps May Delay New Ardmore Train Station

Financial constraints are prompting the township to consider deferring the long planned new train station and transit improvements, Lower Merion Board of Commissioners President Liz Rogan said on Wednesday night.

Rogan provided an update on the project during a meeting of the board’s Economic Revitalization Committee.

In May, the Board of Commissioners considered four options for Ardmore Transit Center and Business Revitalization project, and chose Option 2—a proposal which would include a new train station, transit improvements and mixed-use development—provided that a $20 million to $23 million funding gap could be closed.

The project is proposed for the area between Station Avenue, the Amtrak/SEPTA train tracks, Anderson Avenue, and the Lower Merion Township Administration Building.

The board agreed that if the money could not be found to close the gap, then it will make a determination as to whether it wants to instead proceed with option 3, which would defer the new train station and transit improvements, but like option 2, would include a parking garage near the train station and the mixed use development on Cricket Avenue.

On Wednesday night, Rogan said that due to financial constraints "we really have to focus on Option 3."

Rogan said Option 3 is "basically the same mixed-use option" as Option 2, but Option 3 would require deferment of the "more costly" transit improvements such as the new train station, a tunnel, platform improvements and making the station compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),

The township may reconsider Option 2, however, if it receives a $25 million federal grant for transit improvements.

The Economic Revitalization Committee voted unanimously on Wednesday night to recommend that the full Board of Commissioners approve a resolution of support and authorization to seek letters of support for a TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grant application. Through the TIGER grant application, the township is seeking $25 million in funds for transit improvements from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In the meantime, the township and the developer for the project, Dranoff Properties, are identifying ways to reduce costs for the project so that it can continue to move forward.

Township Manager Dough Cleland said Option 3 still has funding gaps (an exact dollar amount was not available on Wednesday night) but the township hopes to fill it.

Rogan said Option 3 and cost-saving measures had the support of the Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee when the group met on Oct. 4.

The cost-saving measures include reducing the size of the new parking garage from four or five stories to three stories.

Rogan said the three-story garage would have a total of 340 parking spaces, which would create about 120 new parking spaces for the area.

In order to net 120 new spaces, the township code would need to be amended in order to allow for slightly shorter and narrower spaces in the garage, Rogan said.

"At this point, it doesn’t look like we could afford any mixed use in the garage," Rogan said.

However, the plan still calls for a mixed-use building on the south side of Cricket Avenue. That building would be about seven stories high and have 11,000 square feet of retail space with 112 apartments above it, Rogan said.

There would be underground parking below the mixed-use building and parking behind the stores, Rogan said.

The township also does not have sufficient funds at this time for the Below Market Rate (BMR) housing which was originally proposed as part of the project, Rogan said.

Option 3 receives support from residents and business leaders

During public comment, several residents and business leaders spoke in support of Option 3 and urged commissioners to move the project forward.

C.D. Graham, a board member of the North Ardmore Civic Association, said that although the civic association had not met since the Ad Hoc Ardmore Committee meeting, they think "development on the Cricket lot is a good thing." The group is also happier with the smaller parking garage.

Graham said he is "disappointed there will be no significant improvements to the train station itself, since they’re badly needed" but Option 3 "is the best we can hope for" given the current economic situation.

Christine Vilardo, executive director of the Ardmore Initiative, said the business community "supports the project even in its current form."

"The transit improvements, while they would be wonderful, are not the most important," Vilardo said.

Vilardo said what is most vital is bringing new residents, new retail and more marking to Ardmore.

Vilardo said BMR housing is not a priority for business leader right now, but they would like to see it addressed later.

John Durso, the Ardmore Initiative Board Chairman and the branch manager for St. Edmond’s Federal Savings Bank, said he and other business leaders support the project, but he disagreed with one of the cost-saving proposals.

"We, the business community, feel very strongly there has to be some type of retail in that parking garage," Durso said.

Speaking on behalf of the Ardmore Progressive Civic Association, Maryam Phillips said the civic supports the project.

Phillips disagreed with eliminating BMR housing from the project. Phillips said the "goal of affordable housing is still a very worthy one" and she hopes BMR housing "is seen as a challenge and not a deal breaker."

Commissioners on the Economic and Revitalization Committee spoke in favor of Option 3, with one exception.

Commissioner Lewis Gould said he agrees with moving ahead with the project but he does not agree with moving ahead without transit improvements.

Developer Agreement

The Economic Revitalization Committee tabled a vote on Wednesday night about whether to recommend an extension of the development agreement between the township and developer for the Ardmore Revitalization Project, Dranoff Properties. They recommend that the full board approve a "Term Sheet" which forms the basis for a revised Development Agreement between the township and the developer.

Rogan requested that the vote be tabled until the board’s meeting next week because she said the township needs more time to negotiate with the developer and finalize the "Term Sheet."

If approved, the development agreement extension would be for an additional 90 days, from Oct. 31, 2011 to Jan. 31, 2012.