Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Real Estate Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board extends due‑diligence period on ‘movie lot’ sale amid public objection over notice
Summary
Directors approved an amendment extending the due‑diligence period for a planned sale of the district’s movie‑lot property after a public speaker objected, alleging the sale’s hearing lacked required advertisement; the solicitor said the objection raised school‑code issues rather than a Sunshine Act violation.
The North Penn School District board on June 18 approved an amendment to extend the due‑diligence period for the sale of a property referred to in meeting materials as the “movie lot,” despite a public objection that challenged whether the sale hearing had been properly advertised.
The motion to ratify the amendment was moved by Mrs. Stoll, seconded and carried by voice vote after an extended public exchange. A member of the public objected on grounds he described as a Sunshine Act violation related to notice for the hearing. The objector said the previously approved hearing “did not have the requisite advertisement allowing everybody to attend the meeting and hold any [question the validity of the sale].”
Solicitor Mr. Summers responded that the concern raised was not a Sunshine Act objection but an issue under the Public School Code and the statutory process for sale of district property (the solicitor referenced statutory procedures). He recommended the board proceed, stating the objection did not present a grounds under the Sunshine Law to block the amendment.
The board then voted; the motion passed. The amendment in the board materials extends the due‑diligence period for the purchaser and leaves the underlying agreement of sale in place while the district addresses outstanding process questions.
What the public said "Because there was no advertisement, even though it was passed by the judge, the judge was probably given or must have been given a date that said it was advertised," the objector said during the meeting, asserting that passing a resolution based on a false decree could violate the law.
What the solicitor said Solicitor Summers told the board: "Your ability to speak at this moment is limited to any objection under the Sunshine Act and you're not raising any concerns under the Sunshine Act. It's under the school code." He advised the board there was no Sunshine Act impediment to moving forward with the due‑diligence extension.
Next steps The board president authorized the amendment and the board will proceed under the extended due‑diligence schedule; the district said it will make legal and administrative records available as required and may review the procedural concerns raised in more detail outside the public meeting.
