1. He sends the violation for WWOP and maybe the lawyers figure it out...For the record, I think his technique is still pretty fair but.....
2. I'm sure the oil change contract has an end date....
All I am saying is we can't have it both ways.....If it is a fee for service and we are keeping those fees we have an obligation to provide the service or refund the money.....No different than the general fund taking our money and not allowing us to provide the service our customers pay for....It's not a popular lawsuit, but that don't make it legal....
I don't agree. I think the pre-paid oil change example is a good metaphor. At least in our town, we don't have a separate plan review fee for the building department. We have a "permit" fee, which is payable upon issuance of the permit. That means if we go through three rounds of plan review and rejection, and the applicant then abandons the project rather than make a fourth submittal, we get no fee for services already rendered.
The code clearly establishes the time frame for validity of applications and permits. Technically, if they do any work at all within each 180-day period the permit runs forever. The best way of documenting that is for them to call for at least one inspection during each 180-day period ... but the code doesn't require that. And the code also doesn't require the building department to return all or any part of the permit fee if the project is abandoned.
I look at it as being a bit like a product warranty. Let's say I buy a widget from Walmart. The widget has a 90-day warranty. I take my widget home and don't open the box until 93 days after I bought it. When I open the box, I find that my widget doesn't work. Should Walmart give me my money back? I knew there was a warranty period, but I elected not to try my widget within the
known time frame.
You say "we can't have it both ways," but shouldn't that apply to the applicant, as well? We work on a year-to-year budget, but many projects are permitted (and fees paid) in one fiscal year but many of the inspections -- maybe all of the inspections -- may fall in the next fiscal year. What about the do-it-youselfer who spends years building his basement rec room, deck, or garage? He calls for an inspection like clockwork every 170 days to keep the permit active, but the work is never finished. So we keep going back, inspection after inspection.
"Reinspection fees," I hear you say. Great idea. Our town council won't allow us to impose reinspection fees. The boss has been asking for them for years.
I don't view keeping "unused" permit fees as theft. I regard it as a contractual agreement. The applicant pays is a fee. For that fee, we agree to do however many inspections as are required or necessary. In return, the applicant [sort of] agrees to prosecute the work in a [somewhat] timely manner. This is where the "services paid for" and "theft" analogy breaks down. Say the project is a deck. How many inspections does the average deck require? Now suppose it's a busy guy who lays down a couple of joists a month (yeas, I'm using an extreme example) so it won't be finished within 180 days. So he calls for an inspection just to keep the permit alive. Maybe he does that twice for the framing, then twice more for the decking, then for the guardrails, then another for the stair, and yet another for the handrails he forgot to install. So a simple deck has resulted in 5, 6, maybe 8 inspections -- all for the same permit fee as the guy who took a week's vacation and banged out his deck lickety-split.
If you want to use a "pay for services" model, shouldn't the slow poke be paying for each inspection? Is he stealing services by using up so may extra inspections just to keep his permit alive?
