Borough solicitor: School district cleared for land development; borough to propose tiered building-permit fees

Borough Solicitor told the Clifton Heights Borough Council that the Upper Darby School District (name used in discussion) has obtained a PennDOT permit for its middle school project, clearing the last required third-party approval so the district may record the land-development plans and provide required security funding.

The solicitor said the school district has established a public improvement security account “of 12,000,000 plus at TD Bank, in the name of the borough” and that the district must also fund a professionals’ escrow and provide a check for about $550,000 to cover estimated legal and engineering costs for the project.

The solicitor said the construction-value estimates discussed ranged “anywhere from about $70,000,000 to a hundred and $5,000,000,” and that applying the borough’s current commercial building-permit fee (4% of construction cost) would produce an estimated permit fee of roughly $3,000,000, an amount the solicitor said would be “not reasonable” to charge the district.

To address that, the solicitor recommended retaining the 4% rate at lower project values and moving to progressively lower percentage tiers as project value increases (for example, stepping down to 2%, 1% and smaller fractions at higher construction totals). He said the proposal would be circulated to council members and be proposed for adoption at the March council meeting.

Why it matters: the permitting choice affects how much revenue the borough gains directly from the project and how much of the construction cost is borne locally by taxpayers or the school district. The solicitor emphasized the borough must balance fairness and administrative justification for any fee charged.

Council members and staff discussed the next steps the solicitor outlined: recording the land-development plans, receipt and administration of the public improvement security, and collection of a building-permit fee under the proposed tiered schedule. No formal vote on the fee structure was recorded in the transcript.

Supporting details: the solicitor said the borough already has a land-development agreement, a public improvement security agreement and a stormwater management agreement in place for the project. He also said he has reviewed fee structures used by 10–12 neighboring or similarly sized municipalities to craft a proposal the borough could justify.

The solicitor said the $550,000 check discussed was an estimated total to cover what might be incurred over the whole course of the project (legal and engineering costs), not a precise accounting of costs incurred to date.