Today, the negotiator for the Allegheny Ridge Corporation (ARC) initiative to buy an option to purchase the East Broad Top Railroad National Historic Landmark from its private owner and inject an additional $1,000,000 into rehabilitation of the EBT's existing operation, authorized release of the following information. This amplifys what is publicly known about how the project was to be funded and replies to Alan Maples post from his perspective as a Commisison Technical Committee member (below).

With regard to the Southern Alleghenies Planning and Development Commission, ARC Executive Director Jane Sheffield and Assistant Director for Planning Fred Querry were given a tour of the EBT Shops and related areas. Mr. Querry understood that leaders of the initiative were not after SAP&DC's 2002 allotment which was about $1,300,000.

However, PennDOT procedures for TEA-21 Transportation Enhancements Program funding require a sign-off from a Local Development District, which in this case is SAP&DC. Ms. Sheffield made a presentation to their Board and Technical Committee on January 23, 2002.

There was no intention to use SAP&DC's listed allotment for the EBT project. The $1,000,000 in 1999 funds previously approved did not belong to the Commission and the $1,000,000 of additonal 2002 funding was intended to be from the PennDOT Secretary's 20 percent Discretionary Set Aside. Simply put, the project would not cost the Commission anything. The Secretary's discretionary funds are for projects "of statewide significance," a standar that everyone agreed was met by the EBT project.

The negotiator's opinion is that the real resistance from the Board flowed, as they stated, from a desire "to get on with things," meaning they had had it with Mr. Kovalchick because he sat on the $1,000,000 in 1999 TEA-21 funding for which he, himself, had applied.

The negotiator states that, although it will be easy for the owner to claim that the purchase offer was not enough, he would not counteroffer or agree to an option. Everyone involved with public money knew that an appraisal, or appraisals, would be necessary and, therefore, the purchase price was an open issue. The enhancement funds would have been approved contingent on appraisal with anticipation of future Federal and state funds.

The negotiator was developing an application for a National Park Service/National Endowment for the Arts "Save America's Treasures" 50/50 grant. With a due date of April 5, 2002, using state funds for the match, this application could have raised another $2,000,000. The NPS/NEA grants are for rehabilitation only which certainly fit the EBT project.

ebt4evr@aol.com

Phil,

I don't want to come off too negative but are you spokesman for these multiple organizations? Please let us know because there are a lot of folks who don't approve of your tone. I am trying to form my own opinon of this whole situation. You have demonstrated some inside knowledge but have not said if you are speaking as an official spokesperson. You tone sounds like a mix of fact and opinion and I have noticed that some folks think it might not be good for the greater cause.

I like everyone here would love to see the EBT flourish.

Tom Gears
Wilmington, DE


Forgotten Delaware
tom@forgottendelaware.com

> However, PennDOT procedures for TEA-21
> Transportation Enhancements Program funding
> require a sign-off from a Local Development
> District, which in this case is SAP&DC.
> Ms. Sheffield made a presentation to their
> Board and Technical Committee on January 23,
> 2002.

> There was no intention to use SAP&DC's
> listed allotment for the EBT project. The
> $1,000,000 in 1999 funds previously approved
> did not belong to the Commission and the
> $1,000,000 of additonal 2002 funding was
> intended to be from the PennDOT Secretary's
> 20 percent Discretionary Set Aside. Simply
> put, the project would not cost the
> Commission anything. The Secretary's
> discretionary funds are for projects
> "of statewide significance," a
> standar that everyone agreed was met by the
> EBT project.

Phil,

I don't argue with any of the above, only I note that at the January 23rd meeting I don't recall any discussion about discretionary funds being asked for or used.

- Alan Maples

AMaples@aol.com

> Phil,

> I don't want to come off too negative but
> are you spokesman for these multiple
> organizations? Please let us know because
> there are a lot of folks who don't approve
> of your tone. I am trying to form my own
> opinon of this whole situation. You have
> demonstrated some inside knowledge but have
> not said if you are speaking as an official
> spokesperson. You tone sounds like a mix of
> fact and opinion and I have noticed that
> some folks think it might not be good for
> the greater cause.

> I like everyone here would love to see the
> EBT flourish.

> Tom Gears
> Wilmington, DE

I was asked by the person who negotiatied for ARC and coordinated many of the actions between public agenices to make public what happened. The Finding of Fact that was published was approved by the principals on the public sector side. That included witholding some details for confidentiality. This makes the material appear more general that all of us would like, but that is not within our control. I also have permission to release the full text of the letter from ARC to PennDot withdrawing the application, but have not done so yet. If that is desired by RYPN readers, I will do so.

The objective fact is that the situation for the EBT presently is very bad. There are people who ae in serious denial about that, but I have to deal in the real world as it is. recalled to mind is Harry Truman's famous response to a comment from a whistlestop crowd: "I only tell it like it is and it sounds like H*ll."

Phil Padgett


ebt4evr@aol.com