The Village at Carsins Run, a 200-resident continuing care retirement community whose planned arrival in Aberdeen was nearly a decade in the making, left town in a hurry last month and now is enduring additional criticism in light of recently uncovered documents and more intense scrutiny of the company’s intentions.
After withdrawing plans in mid-March to construct the multi-million-dollar facility, Presbyterian Home of Maryland said it is still interested in building elsewhere in Harford County. But the company will have to contend with lingering questions, strong accusations, and words of caution from the mayor of the city which ran them out of town.
Aberdeen Mayor Mike Bennett claims Presbyterian Home never acted in good faith with the city, continually misled officials and residents, and may even have been laying out an elaborate scheme to turn The Village at Carsins Run into nothing more than a “high-priced residential community that was tax exempt,” he said.
Responding to Bennett’s accusations, Presbyterian Home representatives assert the company followed the letter of the law and that city officials may have not completely understood the process.
A Village Comes to Town
Nine years ago, Presbyterian Home came to Aberdeen with the idea of building Harford County’s first continuing care retirement community. The community would cater to active 60-year-olds living in individual units, offer assisted living options once those aging residents required additional assistance, and finally provide complete nursing care through the end of those residents’ lives. Provide comfort and support with a recliner chair for elderly users.
A 138-acre parcel adjacent to Ripken Stadium was selected as the location of the community, blueprints of the facilities and amenities were drawn up, and the requisite paperwork was filed with the Maryland Department of Aging.
Aside from sporadic updates from the Presbyterian Home marketing department, there was little, if any, movement on the project for the next few years, even though plans had called for The Village at Carsins Run to break ground in 2011 and open in late 2013.
That changed early this year, when, as Bennett puts it, “Presbyterian Home went down to play games in Annapolis behind everybody’s back.”
Bennett was referring to the relationship that developed between Presbyterian Home and Del. Mary-Dulany James at the start of this year’s Maryland General Assembly session. On February 9, James introduced House Bill 584, a measure that would have provided significant city and county tax breaks to The Village at Carsins Run over the next 15 years, while, confounding some watchers, establishing a 5-percent hotel room tax.
The bill was met with immediate and intense opposition from city officials, who felt dangling their long-sought after hotel tax as a carrot to take on the sizable tax break for The Village at Carsins Run amounted to blackmail.
Had Presbyterian Home come to the city and asked for assistance or leniency for city fees and charges, Bennett said they probably would have been able to cut or discount some items. One possibility could have been trash collection fees, since The Village at Carsins Run would have its own private waste-hauling arrangement.
But that conversation never occurred.
“They never came in and asked,” Bennett said.
In fact, Bennett said Presbyterian Home never once approached the city to talk about any of the financial issues or circumstances surrounding the project. That failure to communicate made for an easy decision when James’ Presbyterian Home tax break bill was due for a hearing.
Bennett, the entire city council, and a large contingent of residents and business owners from Aberdeen were ready to travel to Annapolis to testify against James’ bill. Before they could, she pulled it from consideration.
On the day James withdrew her bill – and the chances for a tax break for their facility – Presbyterian Home announced The Village at Carsins Run was abandoning plans to build in Aberdeen and would search for a new, friendlier home in Harford County.
While the legislative effort to secure the Presbyterian Home tax break was unsuccessful, Bennett remains disgusted by the actions of James and those who supported her bill in the General Assembly – so much so that it may have had an impact on his own political career.
“The conduct of some of our members of the delegation goes beyond the pale of what we want our elected officials to do. That’s why you’ll never see me going to Annapolis as a senator or delegate in any way shape or form,” he said.
“…Subscribers Will Need to be Sent to Outside Facilities for Assisted Living and Nursing Care by 2015 and 2016…”
In the middle of the legislative brouhaha over James’ bill, Aberdeen officials became aware of documentation that seemed to confirm Presbyterian Home had not been completely honest with the city or its own prospective residents.
A Feasibility Study Review, dated July 30, 2010 from the Maryland Department of Aging to Susan Shea, Executive Director of Presbyterian Home of Maryland, Inc., first came to Aberdeen’s attention by way of city finance director Opiribo Jack – formerly an employee of the Department of Aging.
The short document, provided below, which confirms certain processes and procedures Presbyterian Home must meet to gain property authorization to operate such a facility, also contains the following curious passage:
“The utilization data in our actuarial study, dated December 31, 2008, indicates that subscribers will need to be sent to outside facilities for assisted living and nursing care by 2015 and 2016, respectively.”
Bennett said the document “very graphically tells the story,” a story he believes would have ended with The Village at Carsins Run relinquishing its 10 assisted living beds and 10 comprehensive care beds and consisting only of the planned 183 independent living units.
In other words, Bennett thinks Presbyterian Home was more interested in coming to Aberdeen to be a residential housing developer than a long-term nursing and assisted-living care provider.
“The reality is what you really have in 2016 is just a high-priced residential community that was tax exempt. That’s exactly what it is, you can’t read anything else into it,” he said.
Shea did not respond to interview inquiries, which were directed to Bel Air attorney Joe Snee, who has represented The Village at Carsins Run since it came to Aberdeen nine years ago.
Snee explained the Department of Aging statement was just part of the three-phase process of constructing the facility.
“Our first phase of the [continuing care retirement community] campus contemplated initially 10 assisted living and 10 nursing units in addition to the independent living units. The second phase planned for an additional 20 assisted and 20 nursing. That phase would have been completed by 2015 so that we could meet the needs of our residents.
“The language of the [Department of Aging] letter of approval was simply a statement to cover the unlikely eventuality of phase 2 not being constructed. We knew we would be building phase 2 rendering the [Department of Aging] language moot,” Snee said in an e-mail.
“Phase 3 called for 20 more assisted and 20 more nursing units at the [continuing care retirement community]. Remember that the residents at the assisted and nursing units must come from the Phase 1 independent living units, i.e. those initial residents in nursing and assisted cannot come from the streets, they must come from our [independent living units] and transition to the nursing and assisted units. As such, we phased the assisted and nursing units to approximate the demand for those units from the expected aging of our [independent living unit] residents and their assisted and nursing needs,” Snee continued.
In the document, which was approved in August 2010, the Department of Aging also required Presbyterian Home to include a disclosure statement informing prospective patients about the lack of facilities within just a few years of opening:
“That information must inform potential residents that they may need to go to another facility for assisted living or nursing care, if such care is needed, after 2015.”
Bennett doubts this was ever done.
“My sense is maybe that wasn’t being verbally communicated. Maybe it was in literature somewhere,” Bennett said.
Snee says it wasn’t yet needed.
“The Disclosure Statement would be released after [Presbyterian Home of Maryland] pre-sells 70 percent of the units, resulting in the Department’s issuance of the Final Certificate of Registration followed by our Disclosure Statement. Obviously the project never got that far along,” Snee wrote.
There’s also the matter of the property tax relief Presbyterian Home sought from Aberdeen and Harford County, which the Department of Aging addressed as such:
“The Feasibility Study assumes Presbyterian Home of Maryland, Inc. will be able to secure adequate property tax relief from the City of Aberdeen and Harford County. It also recognizes that without that relief the project is not financially feasible.”
The way the document is worded makes it seem as if the Department of Aging was mandating the tax exemption, but Bennett says that’s only because Presbyterian Home submitted its initial application under the premise that such exemptions would be granted.
What the Department of Aging was really requiring, Bennett said, was that if Presbyterian Home couldn’t get the tax exemptions it initially planned for, it would need to reapply with a new plan.
“All along they were trying to lead us to believe the Department of Aging was requiring them to get the tax-free exemption. Well, that’s not really the case,” Bennett said. “The only way they could make that work financially was to get property tax exemptions from Harford County and the City of Aberdeen.”
Not stopping there, Bennett said the company “misportrays itself in another aspect too.”
Although it describes itself as a “faith-based, not-for-profit charitable organization serving adults of all faiths,” Presbyterian Home is not related to or a function of the Presbyterian Church.
“They have no connection to the Presbyterian Church. None,” said Bennett, who fielded questions from several city residents, including a few from the Presbyterian Church, who expressed concern that the project seemed linked to their church.
In a public statement released the same day James withdrew her tax exemption/hotel tax bill in mid-March, Shea, Executive Director of Presbyterian Home, said her company was already looking for a new home in Harford County.
“I understand Mayor [Wayne] Dougherty has welcomed them with open arms to Havre de Grace. OK, that’s fine,” Bennett said.
Bennett said an 80-acre site at Bulle Rock in Havre de Grace has been rumored for months to be the destination of a retirement community, and the Aberdeen mayor surmised Presbyterian Home may move in that direction.
If so, Bennett said the local government and citizens of Havre de Grace shouldn’t be surprised by what Presbyterian Home requests of its next would-be home.
“I have a feeling they won’t be going away from their property tax relief [demands] wherever they go,” he added.
Congratulations to the Mayor and Council for standing up to these people. In 2005 to 2007 we had several encounters with Pres Home and I always felt that I needed a shower afterward. The relationship got to the point of communication being stopped between the City and the developer. This project has stunk from the very beginning and I for one am glad our Council stood up to these bullies.
Great article, I mean great. I am glad to see the Mayor and City Council “take the bull by the horn” and believe it or not, the City wins, even if there is not a hotel tax this year.
In the article the day Presbyterian Homes pulled out, Mrs. Shea said the real loser was the City of Aberdeen. I think not.
Even though I believe a facility like they “proposed” is surely needed in Harford County, taxpayers cannot be expected to pick up the bill any longer. No new tax credits for anyone. We cannot afford it! Santa Claus is not in Harford County any longer!
This is an unfortuante situation. No, CCRCs should not ride on the backs of taxpayers, but Mr. Bennett’s conclusions may be, and I repeat, may be a bit over-reacting. CCRCs are complicated animals, and understanding the legislative process is equally complicated. Yes, they are extremely political as your article points out … there’s no denying that fact. In this matter, Mr. Bennett has served the interests of his community well and is to be commended. (One characteristic of light is that it exposes.) But another failure to bring a CCRC to Harford County is disappointing.
Couldn’t agree with you more there!!!
Continuing care retirement communities are money machines. And, for many people they are almost as bad a deal finacially as time shares.
That kind of business model certainly doesn’t need tax breaks!
This is unbelievable. The Mayor won this one, so what is the need for this? Is the Mayor insecure in his decision and needs to “prove” what he did? Maybe he has received complaints from people and feels the need to lash out. Either way this is not leadership. Look closely at this article, even the title itself “questions the intent”- all of the Mayor’s comments are suppositions of his without basis for fact. Look closely at the article.
I have seen a letter that was circulated by the Presbyterian Home to prospective residents (I’m not one but my neighbor is) and it states that the Mayor, two years ago, SUPPORTED the tax break and put it in writing!!
For all those who say “no more tax breaks”, please know that that is how business and government works. Ask around, almost every business in Aberdeen has received some sort of tax break, and new businesses will receive them too. That is how it works.
As to the question of church affiliation, what does that have to do with anything? It sounds to me as if the Mayor has made this personal. The real question is whether or not they are tax exempt as a non-profit. Yes they are and that is a matter of public record, look it up. I have never heard their representatives pass themselves off as from the church. All they have talked about is that they are a non-profit. And that is true. For those residents who are questioning this, how much do you know about your church? Are you ranking members who have some say? Look to the history of the Presbyterian Home and you will see that they have been around for over 100 years and yes, was founded by the Presbyterian church. Again, let’s do some research people and not fly on emotion.
I ask the Mayor, as a citizen, do you not have anything else to do with your time? Please show us leadership in trying to solve our problems, not attacking a business for doing what every other business does, ask for a tax break.
Either Presbyterian Home of Maryland is a non-profit or not-for-profit legal entity or not.
Mayor Mike Bennett is on a fool’s errand in discrediting what is a fact or is not a fact. So Mr. Bennett is Presbyterian Home of Maryland a non-profit or not-for-profit?
There is no question as it is public record, simply look it up as I did. They are not a for profit agency, that is a fact of record.
@Frank Well then that confirms Bennett is a fool for discrediting Presbyterian Home’s non-profit status.
I am thankful that Mike Bennett stood up and said no to this facility. There are very few people living in this area that can afford to live in a CCRC like this and for the City of Aberdeen to give them a huge tax break would be ridiculous all the while they are pulling in thousands from these residents. The typical CCRC takes in a huge amount of “up front money” from the resident under the premiss they are “buying” their home but in this particular case they get nothing out of this if they move out or die. No Equity and on top of that they usually have to pay thousands per month to live there, upwards of 3,000 per month. I don’t know about you but I don’t know many folks that can afford that no matter how appealing it is to have all of your care in one place.
So what we are saying is two things: 1. we are too poor in Aberdeen, 2. if I can’t use it no one can.
My point has always been this: if we truly are too poor then what is Mayor doing about it? Oh, I know, being defensive about this and raising a bunch of fees! How do either of these help us out if we are so poor? Where is the leadership? Where are the solutions? Maybe most of us couldn’t go there, but many of our residents could have been employed there. How is the job market here? What about the ancillary services and money that would have been brought to the area by the business.
I say the Mayor is being shortsighted.
@Frank You’re talking crazy talk now! Rich people employing other people…Aberdeen will have none of it.
Mayor Bennett has just turned away funding, jobs, and facilities for his cash strapped community. They will continue to pay for their favorite son who is living off the poor citizens of Aberdeen. The hotel tax would have taken the tax burden off of the citizens of Aberdeen. Visitors to the area would help differ the rape of the Aberdeen tax payers by Cal Ripken. All these wealth seniors that would become Aberdeen residence would shop and create jobs in the area. I’m sure Mayor of Havre De Grace or Bel Air will welcome them to their community. There was the “Curse of the Bambino” and now we have “Bennett’s Blunder.”
As a resident of Aberdeen who pays thousands of dollars in city tax alone I believe it would be a mistake to grant tax relief for Presbyterian Home of Maryland.
If a hotel tax is good enough with a tax break to Presbyterian Home of Maryland then why doesn’t our delegation support and pass it on its own merits?
Do you really believe those seniors were going to shop in Aberdeen? Do you really believe a large number Aberdeen residents were going to be employed there?
If that is true then build it in Havre de Grace on the backs of Havre de Grace tax payers and Aberdeen can reap the shopping and employment benefits anyway.
I truly hope that you don’t believe what you wrote J Bianca. This project is practically revenue neutral IF THEY PAY PROPERTY TAXES. The additional jobs and business you alude to are just that illusions.
Brian Goodman, who wrote the article, is totally off base when he said the Mayor ran VCR out of town. Their brazen request for a 15-year tax break for the people who can afford these high-priced dwellings is what killed the deal. Hell, I’d love 15 years of relief from my taxes, but that won’t happen either. Good riddance to VCR!
How is this brazen? State law allows for municipalities to consider and accept such requests. Plus, 2 years ago the Mayor wrote a letter of support to VCR for a perpetual relief on their property taxes! If he supported that why does he not now support only 15 years? And to give up the 5% room tax. We are in need of jobs and money to pay off city debt. If we lose business and jobs I guess more fees and taxes will be levied on us poor folks, only making us poorer. Might be time to move.
“Mayor” Bennett DID support the property tax relief 2 years ago (I’ve seen the letter signed by him, Council President Mike Hiob and Councilman Ron Kupferman that proves it!) Mike Bennett is NOT a leader. He is a follower and a wussy. He got heat from some of his voter base because of his support, and he flip-flopped like John Kerry and John McKane! He took the easy way out and bailed, rather than attempt to explain the logic behind his original support. Maybe the problem is not Mike Bennett’s, maybe it’s the illogical citizens of Aberdeen that he “works” for!
If the city is looking for ways to increase business, lets use the existing city owned property we have, ie. Ripken Stadium, to its highest potential. The parking lot alone could be used to host car shows, concerts, flea markets, military shows, farmer’s markets, animal pagents, and those ideas are but of few of the many uses that exist. The property could be used on a daily or weekly basis, that could generate numerous business opportunities for the Aberdeen residents. It has the area,the paved parking lot could be used on a daily or week end event,location, so close to I95, and the potential for many ideas to be used. If baseball is not producing enough income to support the maintenance of the stadium, then other options ought to be sought. These ideas are not new, but have been fought against by many folks. Maybe its time for testing the waters of new ideas. One Saturday a month of flea markets w/ a $25.00 vendor fee would generate $7500.00 if 300 vendors showed up and the lot would still have plenty of room.
This would be a start, but maybe even a contest that the city ran to generate income producing ideas would be more effective than the higher taxes, fees that were passed on Monday night.
Are you aware that the parking lot never got its final coat of asphalt? The lot is deteriorating rapidly and there is no money to fix it. The events you mention would be great if the project had been finished, but like everything else about the stadium the City screwed that one up too.
Mom,
I agree that there should be other ways to monetize the property that ABERDEEN CITIZENS OWN, but the contract doesn’t let Aberdeen manage anything at the stadium. It can only be done by the management team.
Good ideas though.
-p
Patrick, you are wrong. The city has its own management board which not only ALLOWS these types of activites in and around the stadium, it works very hard to PROMOTE them. The problem is, there’s just not enough of the events around that “mommy” mentioned in her article to neutralize the annual debt that the stadium loan creates for the city of Aberdeen and its residents. Nice try, and good luck with your next try at elected office this November……..
Ripken Stadium is used for other events. Just Cal Ripken gets all the money. Afterall, the City gave away all that authority in the lease to Ripken’s Tufton Group.
Why would Aberdeen give a tax break to a project like this? Only Frito Lay, Sax Fith Avenue, and all those warehouses get tax breaks. Oh, and Art Helton. Less we forget Bennet’s first official act as Mayor was to grant tax relief to his biggest contributor. If Pres Homes wanted a tx break, they should’ve wrote a check to Bennet’s re-election campaign.
This project would have generate taxes because it is a community and will not move away like a business does after the tax break is gone. I belive that the seniors would shop and it would lure business to support these people. If the Mayor would have met with the delegation maybe the years could have been adjusted. I’m sure the Mayor of Havre De Grace will welcome them. Also the Great White Elephant of the Stadium only benifits Cal Ripkin with the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Nothing to the tax payers and all to Cal.
Shame on the delegates for trying to bundle a deal. Apparently Delegate James has much much more interest in the project than the average citizen, the same citizen’s that she was elected to represent. Shame on Presbyterian Homes for trying to disguise what would have become Screw The Taxpayer Part II: Village At Carsin’s Run, the sequel to Screw The Taxpayer: Ripken Stadium. Then we would have 2 taxpayer supported burdens that the town only reaps bread crumbs from.
“The conduct of some of our members of the delegation goes beyond the pale of what we want our elected officials to do. That’s why you’ll never see me going to Annapolis as a senator or delegate in any way shape or form” (Aberdeen Mayor Mike Bennett) I’m hanging on to this quote just in case, too good to pass up.
I applaud Mike Bennett and the Council for this decision. Even if they did agree two years ago and I don’t know that for certain. Things have changed and times have changed and I am thankful that they put their foot down and said NO, we cannot afford this. My personal feelings are Presbyterian did not have the interest they expected and are just using this as an “easy out” without having to explain themselves. No, not everyone in Aberdeen is “too poor” to live there but most are. Have you investigated what the initial buy in is for this facility and then your monthly costs on top of that. I think you would agree that this is not the type of community many of us could afford.
this is a victory for the taxpayers and citizens of harford county and the state of maryland. i don’t want to beat up on “old people” or the elderly. but it’s a fact that over the course of the lives of every potential resident in that proposed community — there will be ambulatory care requirements many times per week called to those residents. that alone will be a tremendous burden on the aberdeen community. water, sewerage, and other “hotel” services provided by the city, again will burden the taxpaying public. corporations need to stop seeking free lunch from the citizens and help share the public service burden.
I wonder what caused Bennett to flip his position on Pres Homes? Maybe it was the water tower they were going to build that would have openned up more development on that side of I95. Maybe it was the roof tops we needed before the retail we have been promised at the planned Aberdeen Town Center and The Avenue across from Ripkin Stadium. Hell we can continue to drive to Bel Air to go to the movies and buy clothes. As an economic driver, Pres Homes is one of the best. Along with Eagles Rest the two developments would have anchored the area around the stadium for all the proposed retail development and the revenue stream to the city would have dwarfed the tax break.
But the folks that really support Bennett and his no growth policies don’t live in town; they all reside just outside of town and in the area Pres Homes was promised the tax breaks by the last three Mayors including Bennett.
With all the economic development as well as the hotel tax what did we really have to lose by the tax break? They were building upgrades to infrastructure and a water tower and a CCRC doesn’t have much need for police protection.
So while some of you are applauding Bennett get ready for this…more cuts in service to citizens, no increases in pay for city workers, more attrition in your police department or….a huge raise in taxes and increased water bills. one or the other. If we keep a no growth puppet government of dolts and idiots who wont let us increase our tax base someone has to pay.