Published: Sunday, March 28, 2010
County's fines fall short of solving building code violations
For violators, penalties can quickly mount and hamper efforts to come to a resolution
-
Mark Mulligan / The Herald
Clifford and Fern Bartholomew have been living in a travel trailer on their property since 2008, after they dismantled the home they built in the 1980s without necessary county permits.
-
Courtesy photo by the Bartholomews
The home Clifford and Fern Bartholomew built on their property in the 1980s and raised their six sons in before demolishing the home in 2008. The couple has been living in a travel trailer on their property ever since. The Bartholomews hoped they were taking the final step in complying with a $146,000 judgment made by the county in 1994 for various code violations. Unfortunately, the judgment still exists, and the Bartholomews are still waiting to begin building a new home on the property.
-
Courtesy photo by the Bartholomews
Clifford and Fern Bartholomew built a home without any permits on their property in the 1980s before demolishing the home in 2008 to satisfy a county order.
TULALIP — People can't believe it when Clifford and Fern Bartholomew tell them they owe Snohomish County $146,000 in fines.
The penalties stem from building code violations that have dogged the couple for more than 15 years.
The Bartholomews' problems started when they moved from Alaska and bought their 5-acre property. Acting on what they now recognize as bad advice, they built a one-story house in 1980 without seeking county permits. They believed they didn't need them. The family says the rural setting about a half-mile off Marine Drive was a good place to raise their six boys, now all grown.
County code enforcement officers didn't like what they saw when they paid a visit in 1992. The Bartholomews were told they'd violated a bunch of county building codes in building the house, keeping old cars in the yard, grading without a permit, operating a wood stove without a permit and living in a travel trailer. In 1994, the county obtained a six-figure court judgment against them.
“We were told then, ‘Get everything taken care of and it'll go away,' ” said Fern Bartholomew, 66.
Clifford Bartholomew, 68, finished his wife's thought. “It didn't happen,” he said.
County officials say the purpose of code enforcement fines is to compel people to bring homes and property into compliance with laws intended to keep buildings safe, protect the environment and shut down illegal businesses.
County staff handled about 1,000 cases last year, and managed to resolve about 85 percent of them without penalties, said Mike McCrary, who oversees code enforcement for the county's department of planning and development services.
Still, the Barthlomews' situation is one of more than 200 unresolved code enforcement cases playing out at the county. All told, the people involved owe nearly $2.7 million.
“Those bigger fines will likely never be collected on,” said Larry Adamson, acting director of the county's planning department. “Because of the code, they just kept on adding up.”
Mounting code enforcement fines have led to confusion, as happened recently at a Lynnwood-area center promoting Korean culture. The nonprofit group wound up with $22,000 in penalties before county officials realized that earlier problems at the center had been corrected.
In the Bartholomews' case, the legal judgment may be blocking the family from making things right.
Their fines piled up at a rate of $100 per day per violation. The situation, like many others, required significant time and money to correct. The family spent tens of thousands of dollars to haul old cars to salvage yards, bring in electricity and drill a well. Just over two years ago, they tore down their illegal house.
With the property cleaned up, they thought the fine would go away. Nothing changed.
Now they're living in two travel trailers on their property, which the county said was OK for the time being. The county's lien has prevented the family from getting a loan to rebuild, although this time they've already received the required permits for a new house.
Needed overhaul
County officials recognized years ago there was a problem with code-related fines swelling out of proportion to the original violation. Fixing that problem was one of 62 recommendations the county's performance auditor made in 2005. Former county planning director Craig Ladiser requested the audit.
Among the reforms since then, code officials and the County Council have capped the maximum amount of fines. Now, penalties can't exceed $10,000 for each noncommercial violation and $25,000 for each commercial violation. Repeat violations can result in double penalties; those for violations involving a critical area, such as a wetland or waterway, can triple.
Still, older fines remain on the books that far exceed those limits. Code officials say there isn't much they can do to change them.
“Code enforcement agrees that these fines are extremely high, but because they were set by the hearing examiner or Superior Court, we do not have any flexibility to reduce the fines,” McCrary said.
The Bartholomews' case is the second largest penalty on file being carried on the county's balance sheet.
The largest is $168,000 billed to the owner of a Clearview house where an extra bedroom was added without the necessary permits. The homeowner told county officials the bedroom was already there when he bought the house in 2001. Nevertheless, the fine grew by $100 per day from mid-2001 to early 2006 — 1,680 days in all.
The largest unpaid fines dwarf any the county has collected, according to a code enforcement database. In the past two years, the largest penalty paid in full was $18,000 for grading without a permit.
Continuing problems
Even with new rules designed to keep penalties in check, fines can grow quickly.
Last year, Snohomish County billed Morning Star Korean Cultural Center in unincorporated Lynnwood $22,000 over problems with two exit signs, required by the fire code. Convinced that the necessary repairs hadn't been made, county officials kept adding to the fines. It was only after a state senator stepped in to ask why the fine was so high that code officials investigated more fully. They lowered the fine to $1,000, saying the larger fine was an error. Officials have said the cultural center was unique and that problems there arose largely from a language barrier with the Korean-speaking minister in charge of the center.
Like much of Snohomish County's planning department, the code enforcement office has suffered from the economic downturn. Code enforcement has shrunk from 10 staff members and a supervisor in August 2007 to just six staff members and a supervisor now.
Code enforcement officers have a tough job. Whenever they investigate complaints, the process invariably leaves somebody unhappy: the person who made the complaint, the person being investigated and even the code enforcement officer who has to repeatedly address the same code problem at the same place.
“Code enforcement is a difficult thing,” said Adamson, the acting planning director. “No matter what you do, there's always someone mad.”
The county's most common cases involve grading without a permit, building without a permit and letting property develop junkyard conditions. Code enforcement officers give out warning notices and try to work with property owners on solutions, unless they're dealing with repeat violations or life-safety concerns, McCrary said. Fines are a last resort.
Royce Ferguson, an Everett attorney who practices civil and criminal defense, said he routinely explores whether his clients are being offered equal protection and due process. Government agencies must be able to show that their conduct is constitutional, he said. Part of that is being able to demonstrate that sanctions are in scale with violations.
If penalties aren't fair and evenly applied, that becomes the stuff of lawsuits, he said.
“Where do you go? You can't run to the government for help,” Ferguson said.
Trouble spots
Numerous code enforcement problems noted in the 2005 performance audit had also come up during an earlier audit, in 1992. Trouble spots in the more recent check included: a lack of documented policies or procedures; no system for prioritizing which complaints should be investigated first; inconsistent fine amounts; and sending unpaid fines to collections after 120 days.
By 2008, officials reported addressing most major issues, though the reforms remained a “work in progress.”
“You may find some things that don't look like they're consistent in (the database for tracking code enforcement cases), but part of that is any switch-over and changing culture,” Adamson said. “And remember, we've gone through a lot of upheavals in the department.”
Councilman Dave Somers, the chairman of a County Council committee that works on planning issues, said he agrees code enforcement has made big strides since the audit. There's room for improvement.
“It's not quite the optimal, fair system we'd all like to see,” Somers said. “I think they're making progress.”
In particular, the enforcement system would benefit from more leeway to investigate violations staff observe, rather than relying on public complaints to identify problems, he said. That might be hard to pull off without additional staff, he acknowledged. And more hiring is unlikely anytime soon.
The system should provide leeway to people who make mistakes, he said, even if it takes a long time to make things right.
“There ought to be a process now that the situation has been corrected to get the judgment reduced or forgiven,” he said.
‘We're just stuck'
In February 2008, a county code officer put a note in the Bartholomews' file saying that the couple had obtained permits for a new single-family home. They weren't able to start building, the official wrote, because the county judgment was holding up their loan.
The Bartholomews said officials told them to hire a lawyer to sort out their situation.
With Clifford Bartholomew working in a local Wal-Mart as a greeter and Fern Bartholomew no longer working at all, that's something they say they can't afford.
The county's chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney, Jason Cummings, said county attorneys cannot get involved in this, or any other case, without specific instructions from the county executive or the County Council. That's because the county government is their client.
Christopher Schwarzen, County Executive Aaron Reardon's spokesman, said county staff have no authority to change Superior Court judgments.
The impasse leaves the Bartholomews with a one-story mound of dirt in their front yard. It's covered in black plastic and weighted down by old tire rims. Next to the pile is the level rectangular plot, marked off by yellow tape, where they hoped to one day settle into a manufactured home.
“We're just stuck,” Fern Bartholomew said. “We can't go forward, we can't go back.”
Noah Haglund: 425-339-3465, nhaglund@heraldnet.com.
The penalties stem from building code violations that have dogged the couple for more than 15 years.
The Bartholomews' problems started when they moved from Alaska and bought their 5-acre property. Acting on what they now recognize as bad advice, they built a one-story house in 1980 without seeking county permits. They believed they didn't need them. The family says the rural setting about a half-mile off Marine Drive was a good place to raise their six boys, now all grown.
County code enforcement officers didn't like what they saw when they paid a visit in 1992. The Bartholomews were told they'd violated a bunch of county building codes in building the house, keeping old cars in the yard, grading without a permit, operating a wood stove without a permit and living in a travel trailer. In 1994, the county obtained a six-figure court judgment against them.
“We were told then, ‘Get everything taken care of and it'll go away,' ” said Fern Bartholomew, 66.
Clifford Bartholomew, 68, finished his wife's thought. “It didn't happen,” he said.
County officials say the purpose of code enforcement fines is to compel people to bring homes and property into compliance with laws intended to keep buildings safe, protect the environment and shut down illegal businesses.
County staff handled about 1,000 cases last year, and managed to resolve about 85 percent of them without penalties, said Mike McCrary, who oversees code enforcement for the county's department of planning and development services.
Still, the Barthlomews' situation is one of more than 200 unresolved code enforcement cases playing out at the county. All told, the people involved owe nearly $2.7 million.
“Those bigger fines will likely never be collected on,” said Larry Adamson, acting director of the county's planning department. “Because of the code, they just kept on adding up.”
Mounting code enforcement fines have led to confusion, as happened recently at a Lynnwood-area center promoting Korean culture. The nonprofit group wound up with $22,000 in penalties before county officials realized that earlier problems at the center had been corrected.
In the Bartholomews' case, the legal judgment may be blocking the family from making things right.
Their fines piled up at a rate of $100 per day per violation. The situation, like many others, required significant time and money to correct. The family spent tens of thousands of dollars to haul old cars to salvage yards, bring in electricity and drill a well. Just over two years ago, they tore down their illegal house.
With the property cleaned up, they thought the fine would go away. Nothing changed.
Now they're living in two travel trailers on their property, which the county said was OK for the time being. The county's lien has prevented the family from getting a loan to rebuild, although this time they've already received the required permits for a new house.
Needed overhaul
County officials recognized years ago there was a problem with code-related fines swelling out of proportion to the original violation. Fixing that problem was one of 62 recommendations the county's performance auditor made in 2005. Former county planning director Craig Ladiser requested the audit.
Among the reforms since then, code officials and the County Council have capped the maximum amount of fines. Now, penalties can't exceed $10,000 for each noncommercial violation and $25,000 for each commercial violation. Repeat violations can result in double penalties; those for violations involving a critical area, such as a wetland or waterway, can triple.
Still, older fines remain on the books that far exceed those limits. Code officials say there isn't much they can do to change them.
“Code enforcement agrees that these fines are extremely high, but because they were set by the hearing examiner or Superior Court, we do not have any flexibility to reduce the fines,” McCrary said.
The Bartholomews' case is the second largest penalty on file being carried on the county's balance sheet.
The largest is $168,000 billed to the owner of a Clearview house where an extra bedroom was added without the necessary permits. The homeowner told county officials the bedroom was already there when he bought the house in 2001. Nevertheless, the fine grew by $100 per day from mid-2001 to early 2006 — 1,680 days in all.
The largest unpaid fines dwarf any the county has collected, according to a code enforcement database. In the past two years, the largest penalty paid in full was $18,000 for grading without a permit.
Continuing problems
Even with new rules designed to keep penalties in check, fines can grow quickly.
Last year, Snohomish County billed Morning Star Korean Cultural Center in unincorporated Lynnwood $22,000 over problems with two exit signs, required by the fire code. Convinced that the necessary repairs hadn't been made, county officials kept adding to the fines. It was only after a state senator stepped in to ask why the fine was so high that code officials investigated more fully. They lowered the fine to $1,000, saying the larger fine was an error. Officials have said the cultural center was unique and that problems there arose largely from a language barrier with the Korean-speaking minister in charge of the center.
Like much of Snohomish County's planning department, the code enforcement office has suffered from the economic downturn. Code enforcement has shrunk from 10 staff members and a supervisor in August 2007 to just six staff members and a supervisor now.
Code enforcement officers have a tough job. Whenever they investigate complaints, the process invariably leaves somebody unhappy: the person who made the complaint, the person being investigated and even the code enforcement officer who has to repeatedly address the same code problem at the same place.
“Code enforcement is a difficult thing,” said Adamson, the acting planning director. “No matter what you do, there's always someone mad.”
The county's most common cases involve grading without a permit, building without a permit and letting property develop junkyard conditions. Code enforcement officers give out warning notices and try to work with property owners on solutions, unless they're dealing with repeat violations or life-safety concerns, McCrary said. Fines are a last resort.
Royce Ferguson, an Everett attorney who practices civil and criminal defense, said he routinely explores whether his clients are being offered equal protection and due process. Government agencies must be able to show that their conduct is constitutional, he said. Part of that is being able to demonstrate that sanctions are in scale with violations.
If penalties aren't fair and evenly applied, that becomes the stuff of lawsuits, he said.
“Where do you go? You can't run to the government for help,” Ferguson said.
Trouble spots
Numerous code enforcement problems noted in the 2005 performance audit had also come up during an earlier audit, in 1992. Trouble spots in the more recent check included: a lack of documented policies or procedures; no system for prioritizing which complaints should be investigated first; inconsistent fine amounts; and sending unpaid fines to collections after 120 days.
By 2008, officials reported addressing most major issues, though the reforms remained a “work in progress.”
“You may find some things that don't look like they're consistent in (the database for tracking code enforcement cases), but part of that is any switch-over and changing culture,” Adamson said. “And remember, we've gone through a lot of upheavals in the department.”
Councilman Dave Somers, the chairman of a County Council committee that works on planning issues, said he agrees code enforcement has made big strides since the audit. There's room for improvement.
“It's not quite the optimal, fair system we'd all like to see,” Somers said. “I think they're making progress.”
In particular, the enforcement system would benefit from more leeway to investigate violations staff observe, rather than relying on public complaints to identify problems, he said. That might be hard to pull off without additional staff, he acknowledged. And more hiring is unlikely anytime soon.
The system should provide leeway to people who make mistakes, he said, even if it takes a long time to make things right.
“There ought to be a process now that the situation has been corrected to get the judgment reduced or forgiven,” he said.
‘We're just stuck'
In February 2008, a county code officer put a note in the Bartholomews' file saying that the couple had obtained permits for a new single-family home. They weren't able to start building, the official wrote, because the county judgment was holding up their loan.
The Bartholomews said officials told them to hire a lawyer to sort out their situation.
With Clifford Bartholomew working in a local Wal-Mart as a greeter and Fern Bartholomew no longer working at all, that's something they say they can't afford.
The county's chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney, Jason Cummings, said county attorneys cannot get involved in this, or any other case, without specific instructions from the county executive or the County Council. That's because the county government is their client.
Christopher Schwarzen, County Executive Aaron Reardon's spokesman, said county staff have no authority to change Superior Court judgments.
The impasse leaves the Bartholomews with a one-story mound of dirt in their front yard. It's covered in black plastic and weighted down by old tire rims. Next to the pile is the level rectangular plot, marked off by yellow tape, where they hoped to one day settle into a manufactured home.
“We're just stuck,” Fern Bartholomew said. “We can't go forward, we can't go back.”
Noah Haglund: 425-339-3465, nhaglund@heraldnet.com.
Story tags »
• Clearview • Tulalip • Laws • Wal-Mart • Executive • Planning and Community Development • Prosecuting Attorney • People • FamilyRelated
Comments
(
