[WSBARP] Payment of Exorbitant Developer Fees

[Paul Neumiller]

Thanks to all who posted.  They were very helpful.  

 

-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com> On Behalf Of scott at scottgthomaslaw.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 3:43 PM
To: 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Payment of Exorbitant Developer Fees

Depends on additional facts.  All governments in WA charge a plan check fee in addition to a permit fee.  The permit fee covers the cost of administering the permit and doing inspections; the plan check fee covers the costs of reviewing the permit application.  Look at the ordinance by which the city adopted its building code to see what, if any, restrictions are placed on the fees and charges.  You may also need to pull up a copy of the building code to understand it all.  And an observation: hard for me to imagine a superior court judge concluding that a consulting engineer did the wrong thing, unless you have an expert witness telling the judge that.  As to the cost of the engineer, laws governing the selection of an architect/engineer/surveyor by the government requires the government to select the best qualified to do the work, not the cheapest.  So yes, fees tend to be higher than average.  And, when an engineer is engaged to review water, storm, wastewater, and structural, $8k doesn't sound like a lot, especially on a challenging parcel.

The lawsuit you are thinking of is probably the one from a number of years ago in which a developer paid for a permit under protest, and then sued arguing that the permit fee was being used to subsidize the government and was excessive to the needs of running the building department.  These kinds of arguments can work if the government set up the building department to be solely funded from permit fees.  But most governments have moved away from that model, because typically the building department has to be subsidized by other revenues.  Thus, there is no unconstitutional tax.

-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:46 PM
To: WSBA Real Property Listserv <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: Re: [WSBARP] Payment of Exorbitant Developer Fees

Any thoughts or this a typically hopeless cause to be filed under "you can't fight City Hall"?


-----Original Message-----
From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>
On Behalf Of Paul Neumiller
Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 4:05 PM
To: wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com
Subject: [WSBARP] Payment of Exorbitant Developer Fees

Listmates:  Client Developer queries the appropriateness of (what appears to
be) excessively high fees.  Developer seeks permission from City to build house.  City does not have an engineer on staff to review the plans but rather contracts out this work.  There are multiple issues between Developer's representative and the City's contract engineer.  After multiple meetings, the problem is determined to be with the contract engineer (though I doubt he admits this).  But to no avail, the City passes on an exorbitant fee to the Developer for the time/costs of the City's contract engineer (in excess of $8K).  This amount is in addition to the standard building permit fees.  City refuses to issue the building permit until it is "reimbursed"
for its engineer contractor.  I don't know if this is an issue but it appears the contract engineer charges a rate above the prevailing market rate, probably because the City doesn't care about the rate because the City just passes the cost onto the unsuspecting public/developer.  Is this typical?  How does Developer fight this, if possible?

I vaguely remember a strategy where Developer pays the bill, gets the building permit, and then sues for reimbursement at a later time (though I don't know on what grounds.)  Thanks ahead of time for your input. Any guidance would be appreciated.  --Paul Neumiller






***Disclaimer: Please note that RPPT listserv participation is not restricted to practicing attorneys and may include non-practicing attorneys, law students, professionals working in related fields, and others.***

_______________________________________________
WSBARP mailing list
WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.fsr.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fwsbarp&data=04%7C01%7C%7C778661240e264da5aada08d89c9c8d9e%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637431543489289517%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ccKaxeZ2sDMCWWgofocMniKQ9%2BDbWJYx6DDGA8NFkMA%3D&reserved=0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Paul A  Neumiller.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 34670 bytes
Desc: Paul A  Neumiller.vcf
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20201210/0ef2fd6f/PaulANeumiller.vcf>