An unreleased, internal review of the Lower Southampton’s Zoning Department suggests a past failure to charge zoning and land development applicants correct fees and escrow amounts, costing taxpayers more than $75,000 in missed fees alone over five years.
The seven-page report, obtained through a Right to Know Request, also revealed previously unknown information about missing applications, payment receipts and other records.
The township report dovetailed with this news organization’s investigation last year, which estimated Lower Southampton lost at least $60,450 in revenue as a result of wrongly charged application fees. Both the township and news organization reviewed applications submitted between 2012 and 2017, though the township reviewed only 56 projects and the news organization reviewed 134.
Acting Township Manager Joseph Galdo ordered the review in December, after this news organization sought comment from township officials prior to publication of its findings, according to Zoning Officer William Oettinger, who prepared the township report.
The supervisors and township solicitor received the report about two months ago, Oettinger said. This news organization requested the report in February but was told it was under legal review at the time. Supervisors have not discussed the report at meetings so far this year.
This news organization was unsuccessful in reaching Galdo or solicitor Francis Dillon for comment on the new report Tuesday.
The supervisors have privately discussed Oettinger’s report, according to Supervisor Kim Koutsouradis, who has added he continues to push for the township to find out what happened to prevent the situation in the future.
“I still have issues why was our former zoning officer going off the fee schedule without supervisor approval and where were our checks and balances to have stopped this,” he added.
Bucks County District Attorney Matt Weintraub would not confirm if his office had been forwarded a copy of the internal report, but said “it’s a document that would be germane to our investigation.”
Last year his office, at the request of supervisors, opened an investigation after an outside consultant’s report found an unusually large number of common administrative “irregularities” in two dozen zoning files. The state Labor and Industry Department also opened an investigation into the department last year; that probe, too, is ongoing, a spokeswoman said.
In his review, Oettinger, who took over the zoning department last year, estimated $75,845 in lost revenue as a result of incorrect fees. The department also collected $144,623.97 less than it should have in escrow, which is money applicants are required to set aside to pay for project-related expenses. Without escrow a municipality can get stuck paying for required legal and engineering and other professional service fees.
More than half of the 33 land development submissions that Oettinger reviewed were undercharged application fees; only seven applicants were required to post the escrow amount outlined in the respective year’s fee schedules.
Similarly, the department failed to require commercial zoning applicants post a fee schedule-required $300 escrow 11 out of 16 times, the report found. Fifteen of the 23 times applications were wrongly charged fees, the difference was between $20 to $2,600 compared to what the fee schedule required.
One zoning applicant, a Wawa developer, was overcharged by $300, Oettinger found.
According to Oettinger’s report, zoning files for two projects were missing: a 2014 sketch plan submitted by Bussingers Auto and a 2015 waiver of land development application submitted by Young Property Investment for a property in the 900 block of Bustleton Pike. There is no record that Bussinger paid the $3,000 application fee or Young paid the $1,300 application fee and neither payment appears in a township record of subdivision and zoning fees collected between 2012 and 2017.
Township supervisors approved Bussingers’ preliminary/final plans, which included a 5,000-square-foot addition in December 2015, according to township minutes. A review of 2015 supervisor meeting minutes found no mention of a public vote for Young Property Investment.
Nearly half the application fee shortfall is attributed to County Builders Inc.’s preliminary/final plans for the 131-unit Emerald Walk residential development in the 500 block of Old Street Road, according to the report, which found other discrepancies involving the Warminster builder.
Oettinger estimated the township should have charged $45,650 in fees; instead it only charged $10,500 to reflect 30 additional proposed townhouse units.
County Builders originally submitted an application for a smaller project, but withdrew it later that year and resubmitted it in 2013 with more townhouses and a commercial zoning district where the Shoppes at Emerald Walk is located. Since application fees are generally not refundable the second submission should have been treated as new.
The report also noted that Oettinger was unable to find an application for Shoppes at Emerald Walk, a project proposed by P & M Property Management, a County Builder subsidiary, so he could not determine the correct fees and escrow.
Records show County Builders paid a $2,700 application fee and posted a $10,000 escrow when it submitted final land development plans in 2014. This news organization estimated the application fee should have been $7,700, with $20,000 for escrow, based on the size and number of tenants.
No records in zoning project files reviewed by this news organization included explanations why the wrong fees and escrow amounts were charged. Only supervisors are authorized to consider fee reductions or waivers at a public meeting; our review of zoning files and township minutes found no mention of such votes between 2012 and 2017.
Supervisor Chairman Ray Weldie said this week he recently authorized the township’s solicitor to send out collection notices in an attempt to recoup some of the losses. The township also will be reviewing escrow balances on active projects and requiring applicants to meet minimum thresholds, Weldie said.
In December, County Builder Vice President Kevin Reilly wrote in an email to this news organization the company would be “happy” to repay Lower Southampton if it was determined they were “uncharged” fees. He also denied that “anyone in my company” was aware of discrepancies with fees or escrow amounts.
The developer has not reached out to him, Weldie said, but it was relayed to supervisors that the company would be willing to reimburse the township for any undercharges.
There is some concern among supervisors about how and why the department charged incorrect fees and escrows, Weldie said, but he added with the ongoing district attorney investigation the board’s hands are tied as far as how deeply it can investigate.
“The board doesn’t know why the decisions were made,” added Weldie, who has sat on the board since last year.
No comments:
Post a Comment