Monday, January 21, 2019

Family has questions regarding Bucks inmate’s suicide

Posted Jan. 6, 2019

When Charles Freitag took his own life last year while incarcerated at Bucks County prison, it was not his first suicide attempt. Or his second.
Charles Freitag
Twice before in 2017 he tried to end his life, according to family and medical records. His first attempt was on his 57th birthday. His second attempt two weeks later was after he slammed his pickup truck into his former wife’s house, which led to the criminal charges that landed him in the jail.
After that second suicide attempt and subsequent arrest on Sept. 13, 2017, the Bensalem postal worker was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. Months before that diagnosis, Freitag was treated at two psychiatric hospital units where he was taken for suicidal thoughts, according to copies of medical records his family provided.
Nearly two months after he entered prison last June, his attorney emailed the corrections center requesting a well-being check. His family feared that Freitag, a first-time offender, was showing signs of mental deterioration in phone calls and visits with him.
Three weeks before he died, Freitag began mental health counseling, his family said. Corrections officers were required to check on him every half-hour the day he died, according to the prison.
But Freitag was not considered a suicide risk when he fatally cut his forearms, an executive with the county’s private medical contractor confirmed.
The failure to recognize Freitag as a danger to himself is not unusual, according to behavior and correctional health experts and studies.
“A substantial number of inmates who do commit suicide were not identified to be at-risk,” said Christine Tartaro, a professor of criminal justice at Stockton University in southern New Jersey and an expert on suicide in correctional settings.
The last two Bucks County inmates who died by suicide, in 2006 and 2010, were not considered suicide risks, though one previously had attempted suicide at some point, according to published reports. In Montgomery County jail, none of the six inmates whose deaths were ruled as suicides in the last five years were on a suicide watch, a status that triggers safety measures, according to prison officials.
While national research has found jail inmates on suicide watch protocol rarely take their own life, experts say that suicide prevention programing in local county correctional centers is often superficial, if it exists at all. This is despite federal data that shows suicide rates in jails are consistently higher than in state prisons.
In Pennsylvania, suicide surpassed natural causes as the leading cause of death among county prisoners for the first time in 2016, according to state Department of Corrections data, which is self-reported by county jails. Reported suicide attempts in jails increased slightly from 159 to 165 between 2012 and 2017. Montgomery County had the highest number of attempted suicides in county jails reported to the state in 2017, accounting for 27 percent of the 165 incidents reported to the state.
Bucks County prison averaged 68 inmates on suicide watch per month, roughly 7 percent of its 960 inmate average daily population between July and September last year, according to PrimeCare Medical, the contractors that provides health care services for Bucks and Montgomery County prisons. At Montgomery County prison, the average is 113 inmates, roughly 6 percent of its average daily population of 1,877 inmates.
It is unknown if Freitag was placed on suicide watch protocols at any point during the 72 days he was incarcerated or if he had additional suicide risk screenings. A PrimeCare Medical executive said that he was unable to answer some questions about Freitag, citing privacy concerns and pending legal action.
On the day he died, Freitag was under “psychiatric observation status,” according to Todd Haskins, vice president of operations for PrimeCare Medical. The enhanced monitoring is for inmates whose behavior warrants closer observation, but it is not used for suicide prevention, he said. Haskins did not say what behavior led to placing Freitag on the protocol.
On Aug. 25, 2018, Freitag spent his last hour alive alone in his cell, monitored periodically by a correction officer, according to a county-led death investigation. His cellmate had left to play basketball shortly after 9 a.m.
The day before, Freitag had been sentenced to serve six to 12 years in state prison for aggravated assault, criminal mischief and reckless endangerment. His bail was revoked, but the judge agreed to delay his transfer to state prison for a week so he could get his affairs in order.
At 9:12 a.m., Freitag was given undisclosed medications, according to Bucks County Coroner Dr. Joseph Campbell. Four minutes later, a corrections officer checked on him. Two more checks followed at 10:04 a.m. and 10:21 a.m., Campbell said.
Thirty-four minutes later, another inmate found Freitag slumped over his bed, Campbell said. He used a piece of broken plastic cup to inflict fatal wounds, according to the autopsy.
His memorial service took place five days later, the day before his 58th birthday.
‘Shell of a person’
Months later, frustrated family members have many questions about the death.

The biggest is why someone with a documented mental health history was not placed on suicide watch protocols, which would have required correctional officers observe him at intervals no longer than every 15 minutes. The prison was sent Freitag’s medical records, including his mental health diagnosis and history of treatment and past suicide attempts, the family said.
“This was the first time he had ever been in jail so he was very scared and confused,” his brother, Bob Freitag, said. “As far as we can tell, my brother was not given the care and compassion that we requested and that he so desperately needed.”
Sherrie Crane (l) and Robert Freitag

Bob Freitag recalled a July 31 phone conversation with his brother, during which Charles told him that he no longer wanted to get out of bed. The conversation prompted Bob Freitag to contact his brother’s attorney to see if the prison could put Charles on a suicide watch. 
The family doesn’t know the outcome of the request. But after his attorney asked for a well-being check, Freitag started receiving mental health counseling three times a week, according to Bob Freitag. Haskins declined to confirm the counseling.
“I remember (Charles) saying that the therapists would tell him that he needed to forgive himself for what he had done,” Freitag added. “But when he tried forgiving himself, he was told by authority figures that he was not taking responsibility for what he had done and was using his mental illness as an excuse.”
Family members describe Freitag as a loyal, kind and generous man who loved fishing. He earned an American Red Cross pin for donating 15 gallons of blood in his lifetime and he was an organ donor.
But Freitag grew increasingly despondent starting in February 2017, after the deaths of two brothers and a close friend, and a divorce that followed a two-year separation, family members said.
His family believes Freitag intended to die the night he drove his pickup truck into ex-wife’s house, the act that led to his arrest. It took at least 60 stitches to close a wound he inflicted with a box cutter just after the crash, said Sherrie Crane, who had known him since she was a teenager and considered him a father figure.
When Crane visited him in the hospital after the accident, Freitag told her he wanted his ex-wife to find him dead, she said.
“He didn’t want to live without her,” Crane said. “He was scared and remorseful.”
Freitag told the same thing to licensed therapist Mary Edwards, who treated him after he was arrested, according to a copy of a letter the Freitag family provided this news organization.
While free on bail, Freitag entered intensive outpatient treatment for his depression and continued therapy for the eight months before his June trial, according to his family and medical records. He returned to work and his mood started improving, his family said.
“He was so full of life,” Crane said. “I thank God for the last eight months.”
But over his two-day trial, his mood deteriorated, family members said.
“You could see the life sucked out of him,” another brother, Joe Freitag, said. “He was a shell of a person.”
Edwards said she wrote a letter to the prison two days after he was convicted and bail revoked strongly recommending he be put on a suicide watch.
A second psychotherapist who treated Freitag also wrote a letter to the prison warning it was imperative that Freitag be placed on a suicide watch. The family provided copies of the letters to this news organization.
“Due do to the outcome of his trial and the pending sentencing, it is my clinical belief and concern that he may have some thoughts of harming himself,” therapist Erica Shmilovich wrote.
Balancing act
First-time offenders are more likely to experience the so-called “shock of confinement,” described as heightened feelings of hopelessness, loss of normalcy and fear of an unknown future, which can trigger suicidal thoughts, said Tartaro, the Stockton University professor. Individuals with histories of mental health and substance abuse issues are also at a higher risk for suicidal thoughts.
Individuals with recent suicide attempts, like Freitag, are especially vulnerable, she added.
But identifying inmates who pose a suicide risk can be a challenge for jails, which generally house defendants awaiting case outcomes or those convicted of minor offenses. Jail turnover rates are far higher, but staffing, funding and resources are more limited than state prison systems, studies and correctional behavior experts said.
The medical staff may lack immediate access to detailed behavioral health histories for incoming inmates and corrections staff may not be trained to recognize inmates in distress, Tartaro said. Most jail suicide watch programs focus exclusively on inmates identified at imminent risk of harming themselves, but ignore ones with risk factors who are not actively suicidal, she added.
“So many inmates are experiencing some level of mental stress,” Tartaro said. “The challenge is identifying who might be suicidal, and human behavior is very hard to predict.”
A 2013 study by Lindsay Hayes, a nationally recognized expert in suicide prevention in correctional settings, found only 20 percent of county jails had comprehensive suicide prevention programs in place that included regular staff training and retraining on identifying and reporting suspicious behavior and provided ongoing mental health screenings during incarceration.
The Hayes study also found few jails had suicide-resistant bedding and clothing. Bucks and Montgomery county prisons use suicide-resistant smocks, and Montgomery County uses tear-resistant bedding.
A national survey of jail suicide conducted in 2005 and 2006 by the National Institute of Corrections found 63 percent of jails did not conduct a death review after a jail suicide, according to a 2016 report by the Vera Institute of Justice, a national correctional research and policy organization. The report also found no comparable research exists on the prevalence of reviews for incidents involving self-harm or injury in jails.
Research shows the initial suicide screenings given inmates entering jail are important, but that it should not be a “one-and-done” event, Tartaro said. The American Correctional Association, American Psychiatric Association, and the National Commission on Correctional Healthcare all recommend repeat suicide risk screenings during incarceration at significant junctures such as after a court appearance or sentencing, she said.
The suicide prevention protocol that PrimeCare uses is reviewed annually with a national expert in the field and employs several tools to potentially identify suicide risk levels, such as whether an inmate is experiencing drug or alcohol withdrawal, according to Haskins, the company executive.
When they enter prison, inmates are asked if they want to see a mental health professional or if they have thoughts of harming themselves, Haskins said.
Suicide risk assessments are done when an inmate is placed on suicide watch and if that status is changed, said Haskins. Risk assessments are done if a referral is received suggesting an inmate may be suicidal, but it is unknown if any referral was made with Freitag after his sentencing.
Inmates considered at an extreme risk for suicide are placed on a 24-hour watch protocol with a corrections officer stationed outside the cell. Inmates who have indicated they plan to commit suicide, attempted suicide in the past 30 days, engage in self-injurious behavior, or have a history of self-destructive behavior are put on watch protocols where they are observed at five-minute and 15-minute intervals, Haskins said.
Inmates identified as having serious mental illness are seen by PrimeCare medical staff a minimum of every 30 days during incarceration, Haskins said. An inmate previously placed on suicide watch is seen a minimum of every 90 days, even if they are not receiving mental health services, Haskins added.
Bucks County prison also has a separate suicide prevention policy for corrections staff, according to Director of Corrections Chris Pirolli. Under the policy, if a staff member identifies someone as potentially suicidal, the inmate is placed on suicide precautions and referred immediately to mental health staff, Pirolli said.
A shift commander, mental health or medical provider may initiate a suicide watch, but a licensed mental health professional designates the suicide watch level and supervision needed, he added.
Under the PrimeCare procedures, inmates typically are not on suicide watch for long periods, Haskins said.
“The goal is to downgrade watch levels as quickly as clinically indicated for the inmate’s safety while keeping them in the least restrictive level of observation,” he said.
No answers
Sherrie Crane, Robert Freitag and Charles Freitag Jr.
The family has hired an attorney to find out more about the care Freitag received while he was jailed and the circumstances surrounding his death.

They also started an online petition calling for Bucks County to create a trial diversion program for people with mental illness; so far, it has collected more than 1,500 electronic signatures. Nineteen other Pennsylvania counties, including Montgomery County, have such programs in place.
“We have not received any information regarding his death. We still can’t believe it happened. We don’t even know how something like that could happen,” Bob Freitag said. “If a sentence like that is handed down there should be an automatic psychiatric evaluation. He just had his life pulled out from underneath him.
“Obviously we can’t bring my brother back, but we can try to make sure this don’t happen to somebody else.”
Added Crane, “No family should ever have to live this nightmare.”

Montgomery County corrections training focuses on watching for inmates at risk for suicide

Posted Jan. 6, 2019

At Montgomery County Correctional Center, it is not unusual for more than half the 65 infirmary beds to be occupied by inmates on suicidal precautions, according to officials.
Cpl Kevin Patton
Reports of attempted suicide at the jail more than tripled — from eight to 45 — between 2012 and 2017, according to state corrections data.
Jail officials attribute the dramatic increase to a policy that categorizes any suicide risk referral as a suicide attempt, as well as efforts to increase staff vigilance to better identify inmates experiencing distress.
In September, two dozen newly hired Montgomery County corrections officers spent the day learning what to do if an inmate threatens suicide — as well as what they should never do.
“Don’t brush it off,” Warden Julio Algarin told the officers.
The warning was repeated often during a training devoted exclusively to suicide awareness and prevention.
While suicide risk is among the topics the prison’s 65 corrections officers routinely cover in annual training sessions, the September session was the first one to address the issue in depth, Algarin said.
The Eagleville correctional center implemented the training in April, not long after the prison experienced what coroner data shows was its third inmate suicide in less than six months.
The program uses a protocol called QPR, which stands for Question, Persuade and Refer, explained Anna Trout, a community mental health program specialist who led the training. The focus is on educating corrections staff to recognize signs of emotional distress and suicidal behavior in inmates and effective ways to respond.
“Hope is not lost until that person is gone,” Trout explained at the September training. “So as much as we can intervene, that is what we want to do.”
The Bucks County prison started training new hires in QPR techniques two years ago, said Donna Duffy-Bell, who heads the county’s department of mental health/development programs, who handles the training. PrimeCare Medical oversees the annual re-training for existing staff, Duffy-Bell added.
Over the last decade, many U.S. jails have implemented suicide prevention procedures and trained staff to recognize common risk factors, efforts generally driven by wrongful death lawsuits, said forensic psychologist Michele Galietta, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City.
But the effectiveness and thoroughness of those programs depends on how seriously the top administrators take suicide prevention, she added.
“It’s not about how many people you have, it’s do you care. Are they just filling out a form or do they understand the purpose of the assessment and feel an obligation to care for these people,” Galietta said. “Are you just trying to meet the minimum standards or are you trying to make a change?”
Ann Trout
Available national statistics show roughly one quarter of jail suicides happen within the first 24 hours of incarceration, but nearly as many occur weeks later. For that reason, corrections staff need to be trained to watch for inmate behavior changes, especially around significant events like court dates, cell block transfers or after visits and phone calls, mental health experts point out.
“The officers need to know mental health because they are the ones who spend the most time with inmates,” said Galietta, a recognized expert in suicide risk assessment and prevention in correctional settings.
The most effective corrections suicide prevention programs include ongoing training for all prison staff, added Christine Tartaro, a professor of criminal justice at Stockton University in southern New Jersey and an expert in suicide in correctional settings. She pointed out that frequently after an inmate suicide happens, prison officials learn that corrections officers noticed suspicious behavior, but didn’t know where to report it.
“Everyone in the jail needs to be involved,” Tartaro added. “You never know who is going to hear something or see something and that information has to be taken, communicated, to the correct authorities.”
Galietta has trained correction officers on the best ways to interact with inmates to determine their mental status, as well as how they can help inmates develop coping and problem-solving skills that reduce suicidal thoughts.
What death investigations frequently turn up is multiple breakdowns occurred in the inmate risk-assessment process, said Galietta, who has participated in such reviews. Either an inmate did not speak to a medical professional, no one asked about prior suicide attempts or the jail had information but nothing was done with it, she said.
Another common mistake is assuming if an inmate hasn’t attempted self-harm the danger has passed, she added.
During the Montgomery County training, corrections officers were told if they learn an inmate has experienced a recent personal loss or setback, a report should immediately be filed with prison medical staff and a suicide risk assessment recommended, said Cpl. Kevin Patton, a Montgomery County corrections officer who assisted in the training. Only medical staff can initiate, modify or discontinue a suicide watch.
Patton also emphasized the importance of officers informing staff on the next shift about inmates displaying suspicious behavior.
One of the biggest challenges with suicide prevention in correctional centers is getting staff to take suicide threats seriously, Tartaro said.
“The staff members don’t want to get played. They don’t want to fall for someone who is faking it. So there is a temptation to weed out who is mad versus bad,” she said. “If you are not a qualified mental health professional, you shouldn’t be trying to make that decision.”

Records show wrong fees cost Lower Southampton $60K

Posted: December 23, 2018

The Lower Southampton Zoning Department failed to charge correct application fees in dozens of cases over a five-year period, resulting in at least $60,000 in lost revenue, according to a review of more than 100 zoning project files and documents obtained through more than two dozen record requests.
This news organization’s review also identified instances in which taxpayer dollars were put at risk when the department failed to require some applicants to submit and maintain the minimum escrow fees outlined in the township’s subdivision and land development ordinance.
The reasons for these actions are unknown. No documents in the zoning project files reviewed by this news organization included explanations for the changes. Supervisors can vote to reduce or waive fees, but our review of zoning files and township minutes found no mention of such votes.
Officials at nearly a dozen other Bucks County municipalities interviewed by this organization said they rarely, if ever, reduce those fees or minimum escrow amounts, citing the potential loss of revenue.
This news organization spent five months reviewing documents associated with 134 projects submitted to Lower Southampton by 114 applicants between 2012 and last year. Among the findings:
  • Twenty-seven applicants paid less in filing fees on 40 projects than what was outlined in the  township fee schedule, an official document that details what townships charge for services in a given year including land development and zoning.
  • Four applicants did not pay any filing fees for six projects, a loss of more than $15,000 in revenue, records show.
  • 10 of 42 commercial zoning applicants and 16 of 34 subdivision and land development applicants did not meet minimum escrow requirements outlined in fee schedules or township regulations.
The findings raise new questions as state and county investigations into the township zoning department’s past are underway. Those investigations began earlier this year after a consultant’s review of two dozen zoning project records found an unusually large number of common administrative “irregularities,” including “numerous” projects improperly issued permits without going through the land development approval process. The June report reviewed departmental operations and did not look at project application fees or escrows.
In an emailed response in September to this news organization’s findings on the uncollected revenue, Supervisors Chairman Keith Wesley said the board requested the Bucks County District Attorney’s office conduct an investigation into the zoning department’s past practices, and the board is waiting for that report to be completed. In a text message Saturday morning, Wesley said, “It will take some time to go through each case individually and find out what the circumstances behind each one were.”
Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub this month confirmed the investigation is ongoing but declined to comment further. A Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry spokeswoman also confirmed its Bureau of Occupational and Industrial Safety investigation is ongoing.
Supervisor Kim Koutsouradis called the news organization’s findings “very disturbing.” He is the only other Lower Southampton board member who responded to multiple emails to their township or personal email addresses for comment in September and December.
“It makes me wonder why the checks and balances that are in place in this township were overlooked or not performed at all,” Koutsouradis said.
No explanations
This news organization sent applicant names and project numbers to Township Manager John McMenamin prior to his retirement on Sept. 21, as well as to acting Township Manager Joseph Galdo and Wesley to determine if supervisors approved the reductions.
McMenamin responded in an email he would look into it, but did not provide answers. Galdo said that it would be time consuming to research and suggested reviewing township meeting minutes. This news organization did not find any mention of fee or escrow reduction approvals or waivers in minutes that were reviewed.
Wesley, a supervisor for the last 10 years, said that he believed “some” escrow fee reductions were “agreed to between lawyers,” and may involve the law firm that currently represents the township.
Township Solicitor Francis Dillon, who was also township solicitor in 2012 and 2013, said he was “unaware of what or if any waivers were granted.”
Five applicants who responded to this news organization’s requests for comment said they had no knowledge they were paying less than the fee schedule outlined.
Unsigned, handwritten notes found in three project files from last year listed fee or escrow changes as “per CD” or “per Carol.” Current Zoning Officer William Oettinger identified the notes as referring to former Zoning Officer Carol Drioli.
Drioli, who retired earlier this year after overseeing the zoning department for 17 years, declined an interview request.
Discrepancies vary
Like other Pennsylvania municipalities, Lower Southampton charges a filing fee when a property owner submits a plan seeking permission to make a change to their property. Those fees generate revenue for the township and pay for zoning department operations. Application fees generally are not refunded, according to Oettinger and Dillon.
The fee schedule outlines what an applicant should be charged, if anything; with zoning and land development applications, filing fees vary based on whether the property is commercial or residential, and the type and size of the project.
An estimated $60,450 in those filing fees should have been collected but wasn’t over the five years reviewed by this news organization. The discrepancies were as little as $20, and as much as $7,000 for a single project submission.
Warminster developer County Builders and its subsidiaries, for instance, paid at least an estimated $15,700 less in application fees than what the township fee schedules required for four of six proposals submitted between 2013 and 2015, records show.
Records also indicate the developer was charged less than the fee schedule required for its Emerald Walk development, but how much less is unclear.
County Builders originally submitted an application for a 101-townhouse development in the 500 block of Old Street Road in 2012. Records show the developer was charged $34,800 in 2012, instead of $38,650 as outlined in the fee schedule.
At some point that year, the plans were “withdrawn,” according to a note in the computer records, Oettinger said.
No documents in the project’s zoning file suggest the plans were formally withdrawn. But a copy of the project’s original 2012 land development application was changed to reflect a new application filing date of Feb. 8, 2013, and it was given a new project number.
The application also was changed to reflect an additional 30 proposed townhouse and a new commercial zoning classification.
County Builders paid an additional $10,500 to reflect the added homes in 2013. But, according to Oettinger and the fee schedule, the builder should have paid a second full application fee of $49,150 for the residential development portion of the project.
Since application filing fees are non-refundable, Oettinger said, fees paid for a project that is withdrawn should not be applied to a resubmission of the project.
In April 2013, County Builders received preliminary and final plan supervisor approval for the townhouse development and preliminary approval for a commercial mixed use development plan for a property, “which immediately fronts Street Road located in the C-2 commercial district,” according to board minutes.
In an email, County Builders Vice President Kevin Reilly said neither he nor “anyone in my company” was aware of any discrepancies with the fees.
“If it is determined that, in fact, County Builders was undercharged any fee at all, then we will be happy to send a check to Lower Southampton Township for the same immediately,” Reilly said.
County Builders is only one example of the discrepancies found by the records review. Others include:
  • Three out of six businesses applying for zoning variances in 2014 paid a $2,200 filing fee, while the others paid $2,400, which was the amount outlined in the fee schedule for that year.
  • St. George Georgian Orthodox Church was charged $420 for a variance request in 2014, the rate charged homeowners. But it should have been charged $2,200, the commercial property rate, since churches are considered community buildings under the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code.
  • Last year, eight applicants paid the $2,700 zoning variance application fee outlined in the fee schedule. Yet Gator Feasterville Partners, which is developing the former K-Mart property on Street Road, paid $2,600, and a local garage owner paid $1,000.
  • Of five homeowners who applied for zoning variances in 2017, only one was charged the $475 filing fee listed in the fee schedule for residential variances. Three others paid $450, and one resident paid nothing at all.
  • Two applicants were charged $2,500 for an application in 2016 and 2017 to change a lot line, but lot line changes were not included in the fee schedule. Applicants should not be charged for items not listed in the fee schedule, Oettinger said.
  • Toner Homes of Huntingdon Valley was not charged the additional per-unit fee for major subdivision applications, an additional $5,600, as part of its application for its 16-townhome development in 2017.
  • Citadel Federal Credit Union was charged $6,900 in application fees in 2017 when it submitted plans to subdivide and build a bank and retail business on property bordered by Philmont Avenue, Old Street, and Brownsville roads. According to the fee schedule, it should have been charged $500 more.
On top of the uncollected filing fees, the township lost another $5,000 when it refunded application fees for two homeowners and a business in 2012 and 2013, according to records.
“Left holding the bag”
In addition to paying filing fees, some zoning and land development applicants are required to open escrow accounts to ensure that expenses related to zoning and land development applications come out of the developer’s pocket and not the municipality.
Like filing fees, the minimum escrow amount varies, but it is outlined in the fee schedule. Unlike filing fees, once a project is completed, any leftover escrow is returned to an applicant.
Lowering or waiving escrow amounts carries potential financial risks for municipalities. If an escrow is too low or depleted, the bills associated with a project, such as fees for professional reviews by township consultants, still have to be paid.
″(A municipality) is leaving itself wide open to pay bills if the developer defaults,” said Herman Slaybaugh, co-chairman of the Pennsylvania Municipal Planning Education Institute and a former zoning officer and planner for State College. “If the applicant fails to pay the consultant, the municipality is left holding the bag.”
The Lower Southampton Subdivision and Land Development Ordinance requires applicants to maintain the original escrow amount. Applicants are required to post additional escrow if the fund falls below 20 percent of the original deposit.
The ordinance also requires the additional escrow amount be paid within 10 days of a township request. It also states that applicants understand that further review and approval of plans “may be withheld” pending the replenishment of escrow.
The ordinance also specifies that occupancy permits “shall be withheld until all fees and costs have been paid to the township in connection with the processing of any plans.”
But the township doesn’t penalize applicants who don’t promptly replenish escrow accounts when it falls below the minimum threshold, Oettinger confirmed. No documents in zoning files reviewed threatened penalties described in the ordinance for failure to replenish escrows.
Instead, records show, the township has used taxpayer dollars to cover the bills for those applicants with depleted or non-existent escrow accounts, then sent them notices requesting repayment. There is no deadline for the money to be repaid, Oettinger confirmed.
The township waited three years to be repaid $411.40 for an engineering bill that it paid for Lightageart LLC. The Northampton construction company is owned by Robert Irving Jr. and his son, former Lower Southampton Supervisor Patrick Irving.
The bill was related to an engineering plan review for one of two, two-lot subdivision applications Lightageart LLC sought for a property in the 600 block of Avenue A in 2015. Supervisors approved both minor subdivisions that year.
The outstanding bill was paid in June, records show.
In an phone interview, Patrick Irving, who resigned from the board last year, said he didn’t know why the bill wasn’t paid earlier and there was “plenty of money” in the escrow account.
But that isn’t true.
Lightageart did not post the $5,500 in escrow required for the project in the 2015 fee schedule, zoning records show. The same year, it posted just $3,000 for a second subdivision application.
Township policy forbids using escrow from one project to pay bills for a different project, Oettinger said.
Lightageart isn’t the only applicant whose project expenses the township covered. Others include:
  • Business owner Frank DiSandro Jr., posted $2,000 in escrow, instead of the $10,000 the fee schedule required for a three-lot subdivision application.  The township has repeatedly sought reimbursement for project costs, which reached as high as more than $5,500, before DiSandro repaid the township. Records also show DiSandro repeatedly failed to maintain the minimum $2,000 escrow amount despite township demands. Reached by phone for comment recently, DiSandro said, “I’m not answering your questions,” he said. “Just keep me out of it.”
  • Bussinger Auto posted only $1,000 in escrow, not the $5,000 required in the 2014 fee schedule, when it submitted a sketch plan  to expand the businesses. The business also did not pay a required $3,000 application fee, records show. In an email seeking comment, Steve Bussinger said the business paid all the fees “they were told to pay.” He added, “We actually paid over $15,000 in different fees. I am not aware of any discounts or waivers of fees.”
Not standard practice
Under Oettinger, Lower Southampton recently started requiring subdivision and land development applicants sign professional service agreements when plans are submitted to legally ensure payment.
But at least 11 other Bucks County municipalities have required those agreements for years to ensure that they are not stuck covering costs for project-related expenses even temporarily.
Officials in those towns also said they don’t waive or reduce escrow amounts under any circumstances and application filing fees are rarely discounted or waived, and only for public service, government or nonprofit agencies.
“In my tenure here, I do not recall the board ever even receiving a request from an applicant to waive fees for a zoning and land development application,” Newtown Township Manager Micah Lewis said.
Some townships go so far as to suspend project activity and professional reviews if an escrow fund falls below thresholds until it is replenished and fees paid.
Warminster was among the minority of municipalities that will pay township professional review fees “in some cases” for a developer when an escrow account goes below the required threshold, depending on the amount and the developer’s past history, Township Manager Gregg Schuster said.
“However, we will not cover a large amount and will instruct our professionals to stop work,” he added.
Upper Southampton Township Manager Joseph Golden said he couldn’t recall an instance where an escrow or application fee was discounted or waived.
“When solicitors and engineers expect to get paid, waiving is not really an option,” Golden added.