Laserfiche WebLink
0 • <br />may be a need for additional training of personnel at different levels than has occurred in the <br />past. They are also looking to bridge the Finance computer mainframe and the Utility <br />mainframe. Organizational structure will also be scrutinized. <br />Commissioner Adams appreciated the information; it sounded to her like <br />Administrator Chandler had the problem under control. <br />13A AFTER -THE -FACT- PERMIT PENALTY FEES <br />Vice Chairman Macht reviewed a Memorandum of February 4, 1998: <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman <br />DATE: February 4, 1998 <br />SUBJECT: After the Fact Permit Fees <br />When an unpermitted structure or fence comes to the attention of County staff, <br />the landowner is required to obtain from the building department, if the <br />structure or fence is permittable, an after the fact building permit. The cost of <br />this permit is the standard permit fee plus a penalty. For example, a fence <br />permit fee of $50.00 becomes $100.00 if it is an after the fact permit. The <br />purpose of this penalty is obviously to discourage people from ignoring the <br />permitting process. <br />From time to time this penalty fee falls on the shoulders of an innocent third <br />party. The case at hand involved a Mr. and Mrs. Safikhani who purchased a <br />house from the second owner in 1995. Apparently, the fence had been erected <br />by original owner/builder in the late 1980's without a permit. In 1997 the <br />Safikhani's sought a building permit for a utility shed, at that time, the <br />unpermitted fence was discovered from the survey presented by the <br />Safikhani's. The Safikhani's were willing to pay the $50.00 for the permit but <br />felt the penalty of $50.00 was unwarranted because they were innocent third <br />parties. <br />I agree with the innocent land owners that the penalty is unwarranted and <br />should not be imposed in cases of this nature. I recommend that the Board <br />instruct the County Administrator to take any necessary action so that this <br />after the fact penalty fee will not be applied to innocent third party land <br />owners. <br />TPO/sw <br />Commissioner Eggert had talked with the gentleman and Deputy County Attorney <br />Will Collins. She agreed with Vice Chairman Macht. What bothered her, (and it is another <br />communication problem) was that the fence had been discovered by the Property Appraiser's <br />February 17, 1998 <br />OLX U41 ik" F <br />