County employee gets fee waiver

Steve's story

Lots of comments on this one. I'm going to read these

Carl

(Old fashioned cut and paste below too)

Neighbors raise eyebrows over waiver of county employee's building fees

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/14/3768485/neighbors-raise-eyebrows-over.html#ixzz1S71pqVE7

When they learned last year that a county employee had built a house without construction permits and other requirements, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors responded in a way that surprised some neighbors of the home in Carmichael.

Supervisors agreed to waive $13,000 of the $19,000 in planning fees owed by the home's owner, county Health and Human Services Department supervisor Darnell Hampton.

Later, the county's zoning administrator granted a variance for the home, which sits closer to the property line than allowed under the zoning code.

The county's handling of the case has upset some of Hampton's neighbors, who don't like the addition of a second home on her lot on Lincoln Avenue, near Manzanita Avenue. The case has been appealed, and will go before the Planning Commission July 25.

The Carmichael planning advisory committee, which had recommended denial of the project, filed the appeal. The advisory committee unanimously opposed the project, noting that several neighbors didn't like how the home looked.

If the Planning Commission reverses the zoning administrator, the Hamptons may be asked to tear down the home.

Judy Kennedy lives on the same street as Hampton's home. She said decisions in the case smack of favoritism, because county officials let a county employee break the rules. "This is a disgrace," she said.

County officials, including supervisors, said they were just trying to make the best of a difficult situation.

According to Hampton, the contractor who built the house neglected to get building permits or plan approvals. Her mother lives in the house.

County inspectors cited Hampton three times for building without a permit, starting in June 2008 when the house was being framed. Hampton said she went to the county planning department and was told she had to pay $20,000 in fees.

So last year, she asked supervisors to waive the fees. In letters she wrote to supervisors, Hampton said the fees would force her to file for bankruptcy protection, and that county budget cuts had reduced her income.

Hampton made about $71,500 last year as a department supervisor, an increase of more than $10,000 over the previous year, records show. She said this week that she received the increase for filling in for her boss the last half of the year, after she asked supervisors for the fee waiver.

In January 2010, the same month she wrote to Supervisor Susan Peters to request a fee waiver, Hampton transferred the title of another home she owns in Rancho Cordova to her mother, records show.

Hampton said recently that she was told by an attorney to switch ownership of the property so it wouldn't be an asset if she filed for bankruptcy protection. She said she rents the house to a tenant and owes more on it than it's worth.

Last year, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 to waive the majority of Hampton's planning fees. Two supervisors were absent on the day of the vote.

Supervisor Don Nottoli, who supported the waiver, said he was sympathetic toward Hampton and her mother.

"They were in a difficult situation," he said this week. "There was a hardship."

Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan, who also OK'd the waiver, said the board often approves fee waivers, and this case had nothing to do with Hampton's county job. MacGlashan said the fees are too high for a small home such as Hampton's.

Prior to the board's vote, Supervisor Jimmie Yee noted that Hampton was legally responsible for the contractor's actions.

"The problem is that you trusted the contractor to pay those fees," he said. "That's your problem. That's not the county's problem. Now you're asking us to waive those fees."

Hampton said she hasn't been able to locate the contractor since he finished working on the house. Searching a state licensing database, The Bee also could not find a contractor with the name and address Hampton provided.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/14/3768485/neighbors-raise-eyebrows-over.html#ixzz1S71kg84K

I like the part about the $10K raise. I thought CA was going broke... guess not. Besides there isn't a Human Resource Supervisor on the planet that is worth $71K. I wonder which County Supervisor she's boinking...

All the land development regulations around here (zoning, subdivision, etc.) that I've seen specifically exclude from the waiver or variance process "self created hardships".

I read that this morning.

Fees are out of control in California. It cost a friend $10,000 to get a permit to improve a garage (no change in building footprint).

The Soups mishandled this one.

I have reached the conclusion that those in authority with planning and any type of permit process are enemies of freedom and should be exported to a dictatorship country where they would fit right in, or have their heads removed, if they rocked the boat.
jud

I'm sorry, Dave, but that doesn't sound possible. Are you sure that wasn't the cost of the improvements?

Don

Can't we all just get along..

😛

I've been on my county's planning commission for about two months. Hopefully I'll be able to keep my head. I went on the commission to try and get some changes for the benefit of landowners. So far I'm quite encouraged.

Don

I'd say in Sacto. County, that would be quite possible if there were any little Planning entitlements or hearings involved. I'd be interested to see how that $10K is itemized but I'm not a bit surprised.

Don

I think it is in Loomis, Placer County. I didn't ask to see their checkbook.

Loomis is kind of it's own little universe so there are probably all sorts of reviews required.

Now just about any government decision triggers some kind of CEQA review so there is a fee for that, I imagine. I assume a lot of the small stuff is categorically exempt but someone has to determine that which costs dollars.

Probably a lot of the fees in California are due to the spaghetti of State laws and local ordinances. I'm sure a lot of what the County does is required by State law and there is no revenue except that that comes from the project proponent. Hence the high fees.

An example of how government works is the legislature puts some paperwork requirement on the agency which seemed like a good idea at the time. The public tends to blame the agency for all of the red tape but mostly the agency is just implementing laws and ordinances cooked up by the legislature or Board of Soups. For example, the legislature thought we should track recycled paper purchases. Seems like a great idea. Everyone likes recycled paper. So every time we buy paper we have to track whether it was recycled or not and there is probably a percentage goal. Then some analyst has to track this. Records have to be kept. Tracking and records don't do it themselves. It takes someone with a salary to do that. That is why things get so expensive. Records take floor space or computer space which costs money, etc. At my last job I had a credit card (that was major pain all by itself). I used the credit card to get some docs at the county recorder. I turned in my credit card package at the end of the month. Accounting wanted me to do the paperwork on the recycled paper. It took at least two hours of my time and two hours of our office accounting person's time to convince them that I was buying information, not paper. I should be surveying, not dealing with stupid stuff like that. Luckily in my current job I have no credit card. On occasion when I need something I just buy it and claim the expense which is a different process with less requirements (strange but true). Mostly I use the "beg for forgiveness" ploy rather than try to get permission which my boss goes along with.

Dave

Oh, you think it was Loomis? Maybe the guy had to trim an oak tree or something. I've entertained you guys with my last outing in Loomis where my client got approval to divide his land into three parcels, one with an existing house. The tree removal was going to cost him an estimated $212,000 just in city fees.

Dave

It's hard to believe California is going broke with government fees like this. It costs $20 in my county to get a clearing permit and remove all the trees you want.

Dave

I have about 100 acres in rural Utah. About 20 acres covered with Rocky Mountain Juniper trees. I have long range plans and been taking out at least a hundred trees per year for 3 years now. Roads, building site, camp site, water and power lines. Don't get a permit to do any of it, far as I can tell no permit required. If I'm in a trackhoe or the bobcat and get the urge the tree is a gonner.

I have a band saw in the truck used to take out trees to clear sky for GPS. I've whacked a bunch of em.

Dave

Those Juniper trees are water hungry and will destroy range land by using all available water, increase your numbers from 100 to 200 per year.
jud

Dave

I don't know about that type of Juniper but I've got a couple of tables made out of "Alligator Juniper" that grows along the ground in Arizona. Beautiful rustic wood and so many rings I can't count that high.

Dave

Yeah, Rocky Mountain Juniper just another name for a weed. They do make good fence posts and if all else fails a good place to get some shade on a hot day. I've heard they make good bearing trees but so far I've never found one and rarely see them in the notes even though they are all over the place. For some reason the GLO guys that surveyed my county didn't bother with bearing trees, must not have been required in the 1870-80's.

I have plans to plant several thousand Austrian pines and some other deciduous trees. We have water for the whole place but need to phase it in or I wouldn't have hardly any tress.