Private for profit company on US Govt real estate

[ICE]

It's the lazy local ahj on salary that does not want the extra work

You really should be smarter than that.

 

[conarb]

Not my first dance with this and they are required to notify you of the planned construction. The lease requires that they pull a permit and get inspections by the local authority which is me. They have an obligation to pull a permit and have inspections performed anyway so I was just helping them by having them read their contract after I received the notification. The govt should not be wasting their money and resources to inspect a for profit company when the lease requires he lessee to have those services provided by the local AHJ. This is pretty simple and I'm not attempting anything, just doing my job and providing a required service. Since I too am a for profit company this is good for me. It's the lazy local ahj on salary that does not want the extra work, not me. I'll take it all day long.

Jeff:

I guess you said it all, if the parties to the contract decide not to honor that clause in their contract, which is their right, I guess you, not the AHJ, could bring a third party beneficiary contract action on the basis that you are damaged by their failure to enforce that clause in their contract. Interesting that you see it as your job to run around and enforce private/public contracts for your profit, almost like the handicapped running around suing people for their profit.

 

[jar546]

Jeff:I guess you said it all, if the parties to the contract decide not to honor that clause in their contract, which is their right, I guess you, not the AHJ, could bring a third party beneficiary contract action on the basis that you are damaged by their failure to enforce that clause in their contract. Interesting that you see it as your job to run around and enforce private/public contracts for your profit, almost like the handicapped running around suing people for their profit.

Because it is my job when they contact me as ask me if they need a permit. I can only answer them after I see the contract. I don't go around calling them. They call me first. The other part is that capitalism is alive and well and embraced by everyone. I would like to retire one day ya know.

 

[Mark K]

In California and I would assume some other states the State regulates public utilities and their construction standards. The local jurisdictions have no authority. The question is this cell phone company considered a public utility. If so you have no jurisdiction whether it be on public or private land.

 

[conarb]

Because it is my job when they contact me as ask me if they need a permit. I can only answer them after I see the contract. I don't go around calling them. They call me first. The other part is that capitalism is alive and well and embraced by everyone. I would like to retire one day ya know.

At least you are being honest and I can't knock that. If you are really working to retire get a government job with a pension, I'm going to be 79 next month and am still working, my friends who had government jobs are floating around the world on cruise ships plunking quarters into slot machines while I work and pay over half of what I make in taxes to help pay their retirement costs.

 

[jar546]

At least you are being honest and I can't knock that. If you are really working to retire get a government job with a pension, I'm going to be 79 next month and am still working, my friends who had government jobs are floating around the world on cruise ships plunking quarters into slot machines while I work and pay over half of what I make in taxes to help pay their retirement costs.

At your age that is pretty sad to hear. It does seem like the govt jobs from the muni level on up are the ones with the good benefits and retirement. I don't plan on being able to retire anyway.

 

[conarb]

In California and I would assume some other states the State regulates public utilities and their construction standards. The local jurisdictions have no authority. The question is this cell phone company considered a public utility. If so you have no jurisdiction whether it be on public or private land.

It goes even further than that, I've done work on two private hospitals on private land, all permitting and inspections were done by the Division of State Architects, no city permits at all, I've done remodeling on two state buildings and I've built a couple of city schools too, no permits there either, the DSA does schools too. On schools, hospitals, and state buildings the local fire marshal did inspect them. On the Federal projects I don't remember any inspections, there was a government employee assigned to my jobs and he reviewed what I did for contract compliance when I applied for payment, but I wouldn't call his reviews building inspection. I guess the government accepts their designs as compliant, so all building inspection amounts to is plan and spec compliance. I've done several jobs at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratories, all design and inspection was done by their in-house engineers, this is state land sitting within the City of Berkeley, no Berkeley or state permits or inspections, and this is the location of our building science laboratories. I built two cyclotrons there, on the first one the inspector was an engineer, I ended up remodeling his home and building him a new duplex, on the other one of the inspectors was an engineer and was my neighbor. I remodeled the building department in the basement of the old San Leandro City Hall, no building permit there, the CBO (and later one of his inspectors when he went on vacation) reviewed my work but nothing like an inspection.

 

[Frank]

At least you are being honest and I can't knock that. If you are really working to retire get a government job with a pension, I'm going to be 79 next month and am still working, my friends who had government jobs are floating around the world on cruise ships plunking quarters into slot machines while I work and pay over half of what I make in taxes to help pay their retirement costs.

I retire on my modest VRS pension tomorrow. Some time after that I am looking at setting up as code consultant and independent consulting engineer.

 

[conarb]

I retire on my modest VRS pension tomorrow. Some time after that I am looking at setting up as code consultant and independent consulting engineer.

Obviously you didn't spike your pension if you still have to work. It may be too late for you, but for other civil servants here's how it's done. We make a big deal here about the handicapped blackmailing us, our servants are blackmailing us too.

 

[Min&Max]

Ultimately you only get on the property if the feds or state allow/request that you be there. If they do not you are done. If they do, why not go? Collect the fees and do what you do.

 

[conarb]

Ultimately you only get on the property if the feds or state allow/request that you be there. If they do not you are done. If they do, why not go? Collect the fees and do what you do.

And ultimately isn't that what it's all about, collecting the fees, with the rationalization that you are protecting the health and safety of the public?

 

[steveray]

Conarb....It is not rationalization...It is reality, have you seen any of ICE's pictures? The quality (builder, electrician, plumber, architect, engineer, and maybe even inspector) are in the small minority in my world at least. Just the things that I have seen that would have gone unchecked and then repeated exponentially without anyone teaching someone is insane. I give at least $200,000 back to my taxpayers (by that I mean general fund) from my fees, and up to $500,000+ on a big year on a 1 and 1/3 person budget...I couldn't care less about the money, I just want to see things done properly....

Example: New $20 mil school, firewall detail on plans shows it stopping short of the roof deck with arrows going over it marked airflow....Being the "everyone makes a mistake" kinda guy that I am, I asked the lead architect on the project what the air over the firewall detail was about. He said "we have to vent the roof" ......I said, not at the expense of not having a firewall....

Ohhhh......and not all municipal employees get a pension...but I do get to get out of bed in a blizzard at 3 AM to look at trees through houses in my own vehicle, for "free"....So it all balances out.....

 

[Frank]

Obviously you didn't spike your pension if you still have to work. It may be too late for you, but for other civil servants here's how it's done. We make a big deal here about the handicapped blackmailing us, our servants are blackmailing us too.

Conarb Virginia has rules in place to exclude those things from the pension calculation, uses a 3 year average final compensation, and collective bargaining for public employees has been illegal forever --sometimes sensible government can hurt lol

 

[Min&Max]

Obviously collecting fees is important. If we do not collect fees the average taxpayer is going to pay for the inspections at the new Walmart Supercenter, "non-profit" medical facility or detached garage in their neighbors back yard. As a taxpayer I do not want my taxes going towards the improvements on someone else's property. Fees collected over a five year time period should, ideally, cover the cost of running a jurisdictions inspection program, no more no less. Not all govt. employees have the old school pension plan. Through my employer I have a self-directed 401(k) with absolutely no opportunity to "spike" my future retirement income.

 

[Mark K]

If the local agency does not have jurisdiction I do not understand on what basis they can perform plan checks and inspections. The contract between the Feds and the party building the building is irrelevant.

Even if you did review these projects there would be no enforcement powers.

If a local jurisdiction were to perform these services where they did not have jurisdiction it would appear that they would not be able to rely on the governmental immunity from liability.

 

[conarb]

If the local agency does not have jurisdiction I do not understand on what basis they can perform plan checks and inspections. The contract between the Feds and the party building the building is irrelevant.

I think they can, one governmental agency and a private corporation enter into a contract, a clause in that contract requires another government agency to provide inspection services, I think that's an acceptable civil contract unless there is something in the government code that forbids it.

Even if you did review these projects there would be no enforcement powers.

Enforcement would be an action filed in a civil court just like any contract between two parties, but no police powers. I assume that the contract clause requires the cell phone company to obtain the permit, that being the case I would think that the AHJ would be subject to all other subcontractor requirements like insurance and bonding. It's like when I employ special inspectors to comply with Chapter 17 requirements, they have to provide me with insurance naming me and my customer as additionally insured, that is a requirement of my liability carrier, along with approved Hold Harmless and Indemnification clauses. I'm sure that the cell phone company's liability carrier(s) have similar requirements. I think the city/county attorneys and cell phone company's attorneys are going to spend a few months on this one. I had one where my attorneys and a corporation's attorneys spent three days over one word in my AGC standard form Hold Harmless and Indemnification clause. Jeff is a sub-subcontractor and would have to also provide liability insurance cross indemnifying all other parties, he should probably consult his attorneys on this one.

If a local jurisdiction were to perform these services where they did not have jurisdiction it would appear that they would not be able to rely on the governmental immunity from liability.

I agree with this point, the AHJ would be acting as a private contractor and would lose any sovereign immunity. Since the AHJ would be contracting for a profit this would be illegal in California but I think we are the only state with a law banning government agencies from making a profit.

 

[Mark K]

Conarb

I believe that the California statute that you are referring to simply says that over a relatively moderate period of time that the amount of the fees that they collect cannot exceed the amount that they spend to provide the services associated with the fees. In practice this allows the local jurisdiction to roll over some excess funds to the next year but over the long term there should be no excess. Thus if the fees charged were justified by the hours spent there is no foul. Also a profit on one project would not be a problem if it was offset by other expenses directly associated with the enforcement activities not necessarily tied to that project. This was adopted to prevent cities from using building permit fees to fund the city's general fund.

I believe that there is a similar constraint on fees associated with planning approval. For example the City could not require a developer to build a new road on the other side of town that was not tied to the project being approved.

The fact that the Feds and a private enterprise enter into a contract that requires a state or local agency to do something does not create an obligation for that local agency to do what the contract says. This is a states rights issue. We are then faced with the question as to whether the building department can perform the service being requested?

My impression is that if a local building department were to agree to provide services where they do not have enforcement authority they would need the approval of the City Manager or the City Council, which would probably involve the city attorney in reviewing the contract. Given how risk adverse most cities appear to be and the loss of governmental immunity I do not see why a city would under take such an effort.

 

[Mark K]

I have done some research and it appears that there are situations where state and local jurisdictions can have jurisdiction for activities on federally owned property. They differ dependent on the type of federal property we are talking about so an attorney should be consulted. This jurisdiction is defined by law and court cases and not by contracts although the contracts may restate the feds understanding of jurisdiction. In such situations the project should be with in the boundaries of the jurisdiction.

 

[conarb]

I believe that the California statute that you are referring to simply says that over a relatively moderate period of time that the amount of the fees that they collect cannot exceed the amount that they spend to provide the services associated with the fees. In practice this allows the local jurisdiction to roll over some excess funds to the next year but over the long term there should be no excess. Thus if the fees charged were justified by the hours spent there is no foul. Also a profit on one project would not be a problem if it was offset by other expenses directly associated with the enforcement activities not necessarily tied to that project. This was adopted to prevent cities from using building permit fees to fund the city's general fund.

Mark:

I don't think it's as detailed as that, in 1978 we had the tax revolt and overwhelmingly passed Prop 13, Prop 13 allowed government agencies to levy fees for services rendered, but anything over and above that became a tax subject to a vote of 2/3 of the electorate. Jurisdictions immediately started raising fees to make up for lost tax revenue calling everything a fee and not a tax. Building departments were the worst offenders since builders weren't necessarily voters and finally the NAHB started suing AHJs for levying taxes disguised as fees and winning, many of the greedy cities paid the judgments and kept right on levying the fees, figuring that they were money ahead paying the judgments and continuing to collect the fees, probably because most of the judgments were covered by insurance.

Of course this and all following statutes were initiatives from the electorate and not legislation from the legislature, some of the following initiatives were Prop 218 in 1996 and Prop 26 in 2010, there was another in there that I am trying to remember.

The greedy cities continue to evade the intent of the laws by developing workarounds to continue to fund their operations and pay city/county outrageous pensions and other benefits, the big workaround that I see is incorporating other money losing services within the building departments, the most outrageous is the affordable housing mandate, a mandate passed without funding, so building departments now assess large fees to fund their affordable housing mandates and those fees are all part of the operating expenses of the building departments so we can't sue on the basis that they are taxing us for affordable housing, they are assessing us a fee to fund their department which is "serving" us along with housing "poor people" and socially engineering society by moving poor people into wealthy communities.