Flip-flop on hiring

by Darren Handschuh CASTANET - Aug 11, 2015 / 7:00 am
The City of Vernon's planning department will be getting a temporary, full-time planner after all. Council agreed Monday to hire an additional planner for one year at a cost of $84,000. At its last regular council meeting in July, the majority voted to reject the request to hire another person for the department of eight, but reversed that decision and gave the go ahead to bring on the extra help for a year. Counc. Brian Quiring led the charge saying the new position is needed because the city is losing money because development projects are not being taken care of fast enough due to the heavy workload existing staff face. Counc. Juliette Cunningham supported the motion as did Counc. Dalvir Nahal who had previously opposed the hiring. Nahal said she has talked to some developers since the last meeting and saw the need for another city planner. “When the issue did come back, I felt I needed to step up,” said Naha. “This is going to create more jobs. There is a shortage so this is a necessary position.” The idea is to have the development fees pay for the position, but Counc. Scott Anderson said if there is a sudden slow down, the person could spend the year with very little work to do. Quiring did not see that as a concern, noting current staff are too busy. “Look at our statistics, the numbers are up. They are just overloaded and this is a temporary position,” he said. “We should be able to get some good revenue over the year.” Quiring said the application process is more complex now than it has ever been “because of requests from higher levels of government. Things are taking longer and we need more help.”
-----------
Don Quixote Note: The original motion from the minutes of July 13: (p.23):
Moved by Councillor Quiring, seconded by Councillor Anderson: THAT Council endorse the creation of a Planning Assistant position in the Current Planning Department for a period of twelve months, effective immediately, and funded through the excess development revenue anticipated from 2015 building permit activity; AND FURTHER, should excess development revenue from 2015 be insufficient to cover the additional staffing cost, that the balance be funded from the Development Excess Reserve, to a maximum of $84,200. DEFEATED, with Councillor Lord, Spiers, Naha!, and Anderson opposed. 
-----------------
This motion was brought back at yesterday's  and passed by a 4-3 vote. (Lord, Spiers,Anderson opposed)

Hydro Underway With $29M Project

Posted on 7/31/2015 by Pete McIntyre 107.5 KISSFM

Construction continues on new regional head office for BC Hydro on Kalamalka Rd. The Crown Corporation is investing 29 million dollars into a new regional head office and industrial building on Kalamalka Road. Hydro spokesperson Mary Anne Coules says work started in June, and they expect it to be done before the end of 2017. She says their current head office will be demolished, and replaced with a new building. "The new building is going up behind where the building is now, and then this building will be the parking lot," says Coules. The existing office -- which houses 220 employees -- dates back to 1973. "The old building doesn't conform to current building codes, and there's a number of issues, so it's definitely time for an upgrade," Coules tells Kiss FM. Another 20 employees work from an office in downtown Vernon and will move into the new building when it's done.
-------------
To Get monthly Building Reports with $ Value:
http://www.vernon.ca/services/pde/building_reports.html

To get Building Permits Issued:
https://ecommerce.vernon.ca/TempestLive/webinquiry/reports/permitissueentry.cfm?functionname=PERMITISSU

Regional District of North Okanagan propose skyrocketing building code fees

By Richard Rolke - Vernon Morning Star Published: July 22, 2012 1:00 AM
Not abiding by the building code could become a costly proposition. The Regional District of North Okanagan is proposing to hike the notice on title fee from $157 to $850 in the five electoral areas. “We don’t want people to have notices on title. We want them to conform,” said director Shirley Fowler. “This may be a way to get people to go by the book.” Notices are placed on title when a property has violated the building bylaw. Such a move eliminates RDNO’s liability if someone were to be injured because of a flaw in construction. Notice on title makes prospective purchasers aware of deficiencies. When a property owner seeks compliance with the building code, a fee must be paid to have notice on title removed. Staff says the hike to $850 reflects their time to handle notices on title, but there’s no support from director Eugene Foisy. “That’s a huge jump,” he said. “Some are for an old building that’s been there for 40 years and some guy has bought it. They’re not all people trying to be criminals. They’re caught in circumstances.” Opposition also comes from director Rick Fairbairn. “The numbers  are not based on time sheets. It should be in the $450 range,” he said. But other board members say the financial burden of the building service should be on those not conforming with code and not taxpayers. “We need an ability to get people to stand up and notice there is a building code,” said director Kevin Acton. RDNO is also considering notice on title fees for municipalities it contracts the building department service to (all jurisdictions but Vernon and Coldstream).

City building fees on the rise

 Wednesday, 09 November 2011 02:00 J.P. SQUIRE Kelowna Daily Courier

The city fees for building, plumbing and natural gas permits are finally going up, far more than the inflation rate but designed to reflect the actual cost of city inspections.  Doug Patan, manager of the building and permitting branch, noted building permit fees have not increased since 1993, plumbing permit fees since 1987 and natural gas permit fees since 1988.  During busy construction periods, fees covered more than the cost of service, he explained, and the city built a reserve fund. However, as construction slowed due to the recession, the reserve fund has emptied and increases are needed. The cost of one inspection was estimated at $55.16. Three natural gas inspections are required and five for plumbing, he noted. Based on $200,000 in construction, the building permit fee of $1,586 will increase to $1,643. Of 15 other municipalities surveyed, Kelowna was at the bottom and will rise to fourth place. West Kelowna had the highest fee at $3,280.  The plumbing permit fee will more than double from $140 (for 14 fixtures) to $290. Kelowna will rise from seventh to sixth position among seven municipalities surveyed. Vancouver has the highest fee at $699. The natural gas permit fee will rise from $91 to $135. Kelowna is seventh and will rise to sixth. Vancouver charges $212. Kelowna not only employs licensed journeymen plumbers, for example, but has two of the 13 level two inspectors in B.C., so it is second to none in the province, said Patan. Other Okanagan municipalities use building inspectors to check plumbing.  When Patan checked with professional associations, they had no objection to the fee increases, he said, and expected higher fees than that. Some neighbouring municipalities are increasing fees while at the same time decreasing service.
-----------
Reports from Nov. 14 Kelowna Council Meeting:
Item 8.1 - BL10483, Amemdment No. 1 to City of Kelowna Gas Bylaw No. 9316.pdf (30kb) (2011-11-09)  
Item 8.2 - BL10631, Amemdment No. 7 to City of Kelowna Plumbing Regulation Bylaw No. 5968-87.pdf (28kb) (2011-11-09)  
Item 8.3 - BL10632, Amendment No. 11 to City of Kelowna Building Bylaw No. 7245.pdf (55kb) (2011-11-09)  

City follows up on permits

Bruce Walkinshaw - Penticton Western News Published: September 09, 2010 6:00 PM

Over the last few months Doug Patan has become a familiar face at Penticton council meetings. Charged with clearing up about 2,100 incomplete permit files, the city’s deputy chief building official has been coming to council with bylaw infraction reports, seeking permission to encourage, pressure or force property owners to compete the obligations associated with the incomplete or expired permits on their property. The problem with most of the files is that no final inspection had been competed on the work that the permits had been issued for. “When a build happens and a registered professional architect or engineer is involved they are responsible to ensure that their design is constructed as per their drawings,” explained Patan. “So when we have an architect or engineer in town that hasn’t done his completion documents through the B.C. building code we cannot close that file out until we get his letter of assurance that he has done his inspections on it.” Worse yet, because a registered professional has not signed off on the completed work, if there is a deficiency in the design or construction of the building or something happens to the structure, the city can be found liable. Plus, it is simply just a matter of protecting the health and safety of the general public.

So far, Patan is almost halfway through the files — he’s at the P’s — with the vast majority of property owners getting inspections completed in a timely manner. “Most of the time, the property owners didn’t even know that they had incomplete files. But once they find out, they get their inspections done,” he said. “You do have some people that realize they are going to have to do some more work on their property, so they ignore us and then we have to take it to the next step.” The next step, depending on the specifics of each case, ranges from simply putting a notice on the city’s file that will red-flag the property to placing a notice on the title of the property. So far, Patan has only had to bring about 20 properties before council to consider such measures. “With a section 57 on the title, if the person wants to sell their house what it does is it says to the buyer, ‘There could be building code issues here,’” explained Patan. “It also makes it hard to purchase the property because banks do not want to lend you money to buy it if you do not have a clear title.” Sections 17 and 72 are placed on a property when there is an imminent danger, and gives the homeowner a set time for when the problems must be remediated. Once that time is up, the city can go onto the property, do the work and send the bill to the owner via property taxes.

In the future Patan said permits will be filed in a new computer program which will allow the city to warn property owners when their permits have two months left to go.

City caught in development crunch

By JOE FRIES Monday, November 24 Penticton Herald:

City officials are expecting a 30-per-cent drop in the total value of building permits next year in the wake of ongoing economic uncertainty. But Mitch Moroziuk, the city’’s director of development and engineering, said he’’s not aware of any current projects being halted due to the credit crunch. He’’s "also had people come take out big building permits in the last months," although that doesn’’t mean they plan to move immediately: "they might spend a little more time doing their paperwork now, so they’’ll be better positioned to move ahead when they think there’’s more opportunity to do that." Indeed, in the first week of October, Vancouver-based Pilot Pacific Group took out a permit for a $20-million apartment building to be located on Skaha Lake Road. No one from the company was available for comment Friday afternoon. Pilot Pacific is the firm behind the Alysen Place project also on Skaha Lake Road. At least one local developer, however, is slowing the pace on a large project. The Singla Brothers are building a five storey, 40-unit condominium complex on Winnipeg Street that’’s still in the framing phase. Paul Singla said there is "no rush" to get the product on the market, because "people are not looking to buy right now." He didn’’t want to mention names, but said there are other some developers who are simply sitting on plans right now while they ride out the storm and wait for buyers’’ nerves to mellow.

Homeowners fight city hall and win

CBC NEWS: June 27

A group of residents in Coquitlam declared victory Friday in their fight against city hall. The residents threatened the city with a class action lawsuit over building permit fees they had to pay in the 1990s. Susan Antoniali's fight began in 1999, when she was getting ready to do some home renovations. A building permit from the city that should have cost $5,200 ended up costing her more than $19,000 because of extra fees, called "deposits" by city hall. The city collected thousands of dollars in "deposits" from homeowners like Antoniali to pay for new sidewalks, curbs and streetlamps, as a condition of issuing the permits. However, the money was never returned, meaning in some cases, people paid three times what they should have in order to get a building permit. "In my mind, it was simple. You collect it as a deposit and if I don't harm you and you don't harm me, I get my deposit back," Antoniali said. She first took the city to small claims court, but lt. Then, she learned of others in Coquitlam who had also paid the deposits and didn't get their money back. They joined forces, and 272 homeowners signed onto a class action suit to get their deposits back. "They really shouldn't have tried to impose, let's call it a tax, on people when it's not justified by legislation," said John Dives, a lawyer representing the homeowners.

The threat of the suit was enough to get Coquitlam City Hall to offer a settlement that cost the city $1.8 million. On Friday, residents began receiving their settlement cheques, some for as much as $6,000. On average the residents who took part in the class action suit got back at least 90 per cent of what they had paid out. "I think the message for municipalities is get your ducks in order in advance and only collect fees you're entitled to collect, otherwise these kinds of processes are available for the little guy to get his money back," Dives said. Antoniali called the settlement a huge victory. "When it doesn't make sense, you've got to do something about it," she said. "You can fight city hall, basically."

PRICE CHECK

CLICK ON ARTICLE TO ENLARGE:

The article attached from today's Daily Courier is interesting. Some of the history and my original take can be found at New Building Permit Policy to be addressed by Council soon ?

New Building Permit Policy to be addressed by Council soon ?

On Nov. 19 almost a year to the day of the situation described below a building permit has been issued for 14 units of a 60 unit complex for a value of $3,010,000. This works out to an average of $225,000 per unit. All the units are being presold and 4 have been sold so far, 3 at $397,500 and 1 at $424,500. Now this might not be a problem and I'm sure that City staff has vetted this permit using the existing policies re building permits. However the new policy that was under review in Feb. of 2007 has still not made it to council so this problem can be addressed? We are entering into the 2008 budget cycle and an estimation of impact on future building fee revenues is needed quickly !

History of this Problem:

Luxury condos for $100,000? Not likely.

On Nov 22, 2006 the above posting brought a problem to the scrutiny of Council: Highlights from that article are:

City staff are reviewing how a luxury condo development got away with a bargain basement building permit.A permit worth $2.8 million was issued on Nov. 6 for a 28-unit condominium complex on Centennial Drive in downtown Vernon. Valued at only $100,000 per unit on the permit, the two and three bedroom condos are being sold off at prices starting from $239,000 per unit. But according to some city councillors this is not the first time a developer has secured a building permit for less than market value, said Coun. Juliette Cunningham. “I know there has been an issue in the past, that when you apply for a building permit it’s not reflective of the actual value,” said Cunningham. “If it’s being undervalued we have to look at why that’s happening.”In 2005, building permits brought in more than $1.1 million into the city’s coffers. Coun. Barry Beardsell said that if developers don’t pay proper value for permits, then residential taxes will have to be raised to make up for any budget shortfalls.

From CITY MAY REVAMP BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS posted Feb 16/07 :

Staff at Vernon City Hall are preparing a report that may recommend an overhaul of the building permit process. As reported in the Vernon Daily Courier in November, a review was launched after a 28-unit condominium development received an undervalued building permit from the city. “What we’re doing right now is a revision of the bylaw governing how fees are charged,” said planning, development and engineering manager Jeremy Kinch. Kinch said that the goal of the review is to ensure that developers are charged equally. One of the recommendations staff are considering is a provision to go back and charge an additional fee if the permit value turns out to be too low.

“We don’t currently have an explicit back charge,” he said. “We’re looking at equitable distribution of charges to people using the service.” A development of a project on Centennial Drive was given a building permit based on a $2.8 million construction value, but with the developer estimating a market value of $100,000 per unit some councillors felt that developers were getting away with too much of a bargain. The units were later sold at prices starting from $239,000 per condo. “If it’s being undervalued we have to look at why that’s happening,” said Coun. Juliette Cunningham in November.
-----------
EDITORIAL By Wylie, Vernon Courier same day:
The issue of undervaluing a project came to light in November, when we reported that a developer was given a building permit under the assumption the project was worth $2.8 million – placing a value of $100,000 on each condo. The units were later sold at $239,000 or higher, meaning the city charged far less for the building permit than what it was worth. Some city councillors said the developer was given too big a bargain. We agree. Permit fees are an important revenue source for the city. As Vernon grows, so too do the costs for things such as policing, fire protection, sewers, water, garbage removal, etc., and those costs fall on us, the taxpayers. Fees collected from developers are a way to offset those costs, so when the city loses out on money from permits because the project was undervalued, it will cost you more money in the long run. If the city can come up with a fair way to back charge where need be, taxpayers will be the beneficiaries of keeping developers honest.
------------------------------
at a Feb 20/07 posting Construction Value for Building Permits
Some cities described how they addressed this problem:
Among the 6 cities described were 3 that stood out:
Nanaimo
Building Permit Fees The charge for building permit is based on market value of the finished project
Sidney
The value of construction excluding land shall be the greater of:
(a)The contract price including taxes and a reasonable allowance for extras, or,
(b)The value as determined by the Authority having Jurisdiction based on fair market
value.
New Westminster
9.5 Each application for a building permit shall state the estimated market value of the proposed construction.

Wanted: Council with a backbone

Aug 31 2007 EDITORIAL http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/

Kamloops city council did the expected Tuesday and, in the process, essentially sent a message that should send shivers down the streets of every subdivision in the Tournament Capital. By sending the now notorious and illegal 12-unit Thompson Road building to a future public hearing, the city’s lawmakers have sent a clear message to those wishing to do some major work on their home: don’t ask for permission; simply do what you want to do, and do it fast. Then, when your nefarious work is found out, ask for forgiveness. The Valleyview building owned by Vito Pavlovic was originally built as a four-plex. However, over the years and without city approval, the number of units inside have swelled to 12, increasing the capacity of residents and, no doubt, the revenue taken in by the owner.

As has been outlined in these pages since this matter has found itself before council, the illegal expansion of the building only came to the attention of city hall after neighbours complained. Once the city received complaints, it sent inspectors to the 12-plex, where they determined the ever-expanding interior was violating building and fire codes. This week, council went against the advice of city staff and decided to send the issue to a public hearing. That the owner of a building has been able to illegally add eight units to a building meant to be a four-plex, has been able to reject an order from the city to revert to a four-plex plan, has been able to force the city to even suggest he apply for a rezoning to accommodate eight units, has been able to reject that generous compromise and has been able to wait out council and be granted the pubic hearing is nothing short of disgraceful.

Mayor Terry Lake voted to send the matter to public hearing, yet added: “I think we need to send a message — you don’t just do what ever you want.” Yes, the city does need to send such a message, but how the hell does bending over backwards to accommodate a person who has ignored city hall rules accomplish sending such a message? And why hasn’t the city done an inspection in this illegal building? It’s incomprehensible that one has not been done in light of various safety concerns raised by councillors, including some who have aided and abetted this disregard for rules by agreeing to a public hearing.

--------------------------

Illegal 12-plex will get public hearing

By MARK MACDONALD Staff reporterAug 31 2007 http://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/

The owner of a Valleyview apartment building deemed illegal by the city will get the chance to present his case to the public. City council has voted five to two in favour of sending to public hearing Vito Pavlovic’s request to legalize his 12-unit complex, which has been expanded from a four-plex without the city’s approval. City staff recommended council deny Pavlovic’s application to approve the unit, but Mayor Terry Lake and councillors Joe Leong, Tina Lange, Peter Milobar and Arjun Singh first wanted to hear from the public. Councillors Jim Harker and John De Cicco voted against allowing the matter to advance to the public hearing stage.

Harker said the complex is riddled with “fire code infractions,” adding that Pavlovic has misled gas inspectors, showing a “total disregard for procedure. “He could have gone about this a different way.” But Milobar said the issue will be resolved faster if it goes to a public hearing, noting Pavlovic could have been granted 30 days to appeal if council denied his approval request on Tuesday. “Let’s hear from the whole neighbourhood,” Milobar said. “It’s still going to be a long shot. [But] I want to hear from the neighbourhood before I make a decision.” Lake also opted for a public hearing, though he expressed concern that Pavlovic broke the rules.

“I don’t think there’s any way to condone that. “I think we need to send a message — you don’t just do whatever you want,” Lake said. “I can’t condone the way it’s come to be in this situation. [But] I prefer to let the public have their say.” In response to Lake’s comment that Pavlovic is “flaunting the rules,” David Trawin, the city’s development and engineering services director, said Pavlovic could face fines for building without a permit and ignoring a zoning bylaw. Lange said denying Pavlovic’s request would further strain an already sparse apartment rental market in Kamloops. De Cicco was also hesitant to worsen the city’s shortage of low-income housing by denying the request. Still, he said he was “uneasy” with Pavlovic’s tactics. “There has to be a process and procedure to follow,” he said. “I cannot endorse this.” Singh was concerned for the safety of the tenants in the illegal building as the public and council ponders its fate. Trawin said he did not know the extent of the code violations, since there has been no official inspection of the building by city staff. However, he said city staff will notify tenants the complex was built without permits and “there are safety issues.”

Construction Value for Building Permits

CITY MAY REVAMP BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS
Above Post from Feb 15 was interesting as City Hall will try to stop the leakage of valid Building Permit Fees. Below is how some other municipalities have tried to address problem.
--------------------------------

UBC PLANNING
Contract Value: The current monetary worth of the work described on the permit application and includes finishes, roofing, electrical, plumbing, drains, heating, air conditioning, fire extinguishing systems, elevators and other equipment or materials, construction management, contractor’s profit and overhead, sales taxes (except goods and services taxes), insurance, the current monetary worth of contributed labour and materials and a reasonable value for site works and improvements not included in other permits.

http://district.wells.bc.ca/District/bylaws/Bylaw15-1999.htm
0.5% of the contract price, or if there is no contract, at the cost estimated by the Building Inspector with due regard to the contract price of the most recent work of a similar nature done in the closest proximity to the proposed project. If the applicant disputes the value estimated by the Building Inspector, then the average of two professional appraisals at the cost of the applicant, shall be used.


http://www.cariboord.bc.ca/Departments/Building%20Inspection/Fee_schedule.htm
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional/Public Building Projects
Fee formula applied to the contract price, or if there is no contract, at the cost estimated by the Building Inspector with due regard to the contract price for the most recent work of a similar nature done in the closest proximity to the proposed project. If the applicant disputes the value estimated by the Building Inspector, then the average of two professional appraisals, at the cost of the applicant, shall be used.

nanaimo
Building Permit Fees The charge for building permit is based on market value of the finished project

Sidney
The value of construction excluding land shall be the greater of:

(a)The contract price including taxes and a reasonable allowance for extras, or,

(b)The value as determined by the Authority having Jurisdiction based on fair market
value.

New Westminster
9.5 Each application for a building permit shall state the estimated market value of the proposed construction.

CITY MAY REVAMP BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS

By Vernon Daily Courier staff http://www.dailycourier.ca/ Feb 15/07

Staff at Vernon City Hall are preparing a report that may recommend an overhaul of the building permit process. As reported in the Vernon Daily Courier in November, a review was launched after a 28-unit condominium development received an undervalued building permit from the city. “What we’re doing right now is a revision of the bylaw governing how fees are charged,” said planning, development and engineering manager Jeremy Kinch. Kinch said that the goal of the review is to ensure that developers are charged equally. One of the recommendations staff are considering is a provision to go back and charge an additional fee if the permit value turns out to be too low.

“We don’t currently have an explicit back charge,” he said. “We’re looking at equitable distribution of charges to people using the service.” A development of a project on Centennial Drive was given a building permit based on a $2.8 million construction value, but with the developer estimating a market value of $100,000 per unit some councillors felt that developers were getting away with too much of a bargain. The units were later sold at prices starting from $239,000 per condo. “If it’s being undervalued we have to look at why that’s happening,” said Coun. Juliette Cunningham in November.

Coun. Pat Cochrane raised the issue at a council meeting in December. Staff said they were seeking a legal opinion and would report back to council in the new year. While it is relatively easy to determine the building permit value for a single family dwelling, Kinch said it is much more complicated with multi-family projects. Building permit fees are assessed based on a percentage of the estimated construction cost of a project and not on its market value. “If a particular contractor owns his own equipment than conceivably he may actually build the building much cheaper than the competition might,” he said. “They would have a lower building permit.” With the construction boom in Vernon, permit fees have become an important revenue source for the city. In 2005 the city expected to rake in $550,000 in permit fees but wound up with $1.1 million. This past year fee revenue eclipsed the $1.4 million mark.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EDITORIAL FEB 15/07 – Managing editor David Wylie http://www.dailycourier.ca/ HINDSIGHT IS GOOD FOR US

Don’t get us wrong: we like development. We’re happy that housing starts are on the rise. We’re thankful that developers are taking an interest in our beautiful community. We like the jobs being created by a hot housing market. But we’re not so happy about it that we’d turn a blind eye when developers undervalue their projects, resulting in a break on the fees charged by City Hall for said development. So we applaud the planning, development and engineering department at the city for undertaking a review that would give staff the power to revisit the price of the building permit if it seems the developer lowballed City Hall.

The issue of undervaluing a project came to light in November, when we reported that a developer was given a building permit under the assumption the project was worth $2.8 million – placing a value of $100,000 on each condo. The units were later sold at $239,000 or higher, meaning the city charged far less for the building permit than what it was worth. Some city councillors said the developer was given too big a bargain. We agree. Permit fees are an important revenue source for the city. As Vernon grows, so too do the costs for things such as policing, fire protection, sewers, water, garbage removal, etc., and those costs fall on us, the taxpayers. Fees collected from developers are a way to offset those costs, so when the city loses out on money from permits because the project was undervalued, it will cost you more money in the long run. If the city can come up with a fair way to back charge where need be, taxpayers will be the beneficiaries of keeping developers honest.