HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05121992 - 2.3 t.
2.3
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on May 12, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden., Schroder, Torlakson and McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Request for Refund of Permit Fees from InnerCity Homes, Inc.
The Board on May 5, 1992, DEFERRED to this date the decision on the request of
InnerCity Homes, Inc. regarding refund of permit fees; and REQUESTED the Building
Inspector to investigate if the Department at the time of the issuance of the permits had any
knowledge that the property was to be acquired through eminent domain proceedings by the
State.
Mr. Franklin Lew, Director of Building Inspection, appeared and gave an oral report
on the matter. Supervisor McPeak requested him to follow up with a written communication
to the Board..
Board members discussed the matter before them.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED THAT the request of InnerCity Homes, Inc., for
a refund of permit fees on three homes is DENIED.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action token end ontored on the minutes of the
Board of Supenn rs on the date shown.
ATTESTED: q �
PHIL 13ATCHELOCler of the Board
of Suporvisors end County Administrator
By Deputy
cc: Building Inspection
County Counsel
County Administrator
T
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ` 5O11tCG'
�,-
FROM: Franklin Lew, Director of Building Inspection Casa
:<
DATE: April 29 1992 �\ � Count
ra co.
SUBJECT: DENY FEE REFUND REQUEST BY JOHN K. FORD FOR PERMITS 259415, 161470
AND 161471
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)d BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DENY the request of John K. Ford for a refund of fees paid for Building Permits 159415, 161470 and 161471 as recommended
by the Building Inspection, Community Development and Public Works departments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None,
BACKGROUND:
John K. Ford (dba Innercity Homes Inc.) obtained permits to build three houses in North Richmond. After their completion,
but prior to occupancy, the houses were purchased by the City of Richmond for a freeway extension. Mr. Ford has stated that
he lost money on the sale. He contends the County should not have issued the permits, and has requested a refund of the permit
fees to help offset his losses. The Board asked Mr. Ford to provide information on the amount of money he received from
Richmond for the houses. He was told subsequently by staff that data on actual construction costs also are required. He
subsequently submitted closing cost data for the sale of the houses.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
These buildings were completed only recently, and Mr. Ford should have documentation on all his actual,costs, including the
permit fees paid. It is reasonable to assume that these costs were known to Richmond during the negotiations, and that the City
offered a purchase price that at least equaled his costs, including permit fees. The documentation Mr. Ford submitted does not
refute these assumptions. The numbers show the size of the construction loans outstanding,but nothing on the actual construction
costs. In a meeting with staff, he used the phrase"reasonable profit" on several occasions,which indicate his"loss" may have been
of anticipated profits rather than out-of-pocket costs.
The Building Department incurred costs servicing the permits and performing inspections,so the building permit fees cannot be
refunded. The road and park dedication fees collected reflect anticipated impacts from the houses that now will not materialize,
and refunds may be appropriate. However,since these fees likely were included in the price paid by Richmond, the Community
Development and Public Works departments believe any refunds should be requested by and paid to Richmond. Any refund of
school fees must be decided by the school district.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER