Impact Fee Removal

We sent an email to the city detailing our concerns about the fee. Later, I get a call: they agree! They found a "prior condition" clause and are removing that fee. They're appreciative of our "professional" input.

June 13, 2008

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday (Thursday June 12 2008) to discuss the developmental impact fee of $1157.13 that Public Works has imposed on our project (#2008-1849).

There are several layers of problems here, from missing records to a poorly structured charge for increased impact on publics works systems.

We don't argue the point that increased occupancy implies increased load on public works. But the incremental impact fee is defined as a delta between two sewer connection charges, triggered by 3 bedrooms, and this unnecessarily ties together events that could be separated by decades. Indeed, the sewer connection fees are clearly stated in the Fee Schedule to be collected *at*time*of*connection*, and that makes sense since fees are bound to change over the years. Also, the definition of "occupancy" by bedrooms is problematic, as number of bedrooms is not sent to the county for recording, only square footage is.

Even the fact that the impact fee is a one-time charge is a problem, as it forces homeowners and the city to dig up records that may never have existed. (Why is this fee a one-time charge anyway? Occupancy impact on public works is ongoing; wouldn't a multiplier on water usage would be more appropriate?)

Perhaps the biggest problem is this odd fee structure (subtracting sewer connection charges for adding a 3rd+ bedroom) is not clearly stated in writing.

As you mentioned, the city of Sunnyvale has perhaps become accustomed to large developments, but there are many 2BR sewer-connected bungalows out there waiting to have bedrooms added. This fee structure is just plain inappropriate.

It's even less appropriate when the bedrooms already existed. Our situation is marked by three events, separated by decades, that Public Works forced by this fee structure to pull together into one:

* circa 1960 -- sewer connection
* circa 1980 -- addition: 2 stories, 4 bedrooms, 2755 sq.ft.
* 2008 -- the Doudnas apply for building permit, no bedrooms added

While this problem's roots are in the fee structure itself, we understand we
need to try to work within the system as it exists. Given that, let's address
the facts.

A) Developmental impact fee is for adding bedrooms.

We're not adding bedrooms.
We're not creating new impact on public works systems.

There is ample evidence our house already had 4 bedrooms. The most compelling is your copy of plans for project #2005-1306, a tiny 2nd-story addition which clearly illustrate four bedrooms. Other projects (roofing, heating) involved the city, approved permits and on-site inspections. Dean Kimbler did most of the inspections, he will likely remember our oddball house.

We can also provided a dated photo of the house exterior in 2001 (included in a submittal to Sunnyvale for a Use Permit, project #2000-2042), that clearly shows the second story addition (though not the interior bedroom layout). We can also provide real estate appraisals, insurance forms, and affidavits from longtime neighbors that the house has had more than two bedrooms for years.


B) The City has no record of this fee ever having been collected for our
property.

We can't possibly be held accountable for missing or never-existing records.

The odds are high that the sewer connection was done when the neighborhood was developed in the 1960s, as evidenced by two letter "S" imprints marking our western sewer lateral on Kinglet Court, one on the sidewalk and another on the curb. Both appear to be original concrete poured when the subdivision was built shortly after our neighborhood was annexed by the city of Sunnyvale. As such, this fee may never have existed when our sewer was connected.

No matter, the fee applies when bedrooms are added, even though it's defined as a sewer connection charge. But we can't prove that fee was paid in 1978 any more than you can prove it wasn't. This is an impossible impasse.

It's a dangerous door to open to charge homeowners for old fees not recorded in the city database. We understand that a homeowner buys a home's liabilities, but we did all possible diligence when we bought the house to turn up these liabilities, including a permit search. We didn't come up with an original building permit either. We well understand your concern about finding illegal improvements, but a single absent record, in the presence of mounds of other evidence, isn't sufficient evidence of that.

We have other issues regarding the city's records of our sewer laterals that must also be addressed as well. But our building permits (or comments) are due June 18, and we would like to resolve this problem first.

*** We request a waiver of the $1157.13 developmental impact fee on the grounds
detailed above, summarized below:
- Fee structure ties together events that can occur decades apart.
- Impact fee itself not clearly stated.
- Occupancy definition based on bedrooms, which are not recorded by the
county.
- We are not creating new impact on public works systems.
- Absence of a city record by itself insufficient grounds to charge us.


Since purchasing our home in 1999, we have done everything we can to ensure the City of Sunnyvale is kept informed and issues permits for all applicable changes to our property. We have always worked within the system and we believe in it. Sunnyvale has been good to us, and our excellent past dealings with the Building Department contributed to our decision to stay in Sunnyvale and remodel instead of move. It's from that context that we genuinely believe a developmental impact fee on this project to be just plain wrong.

Please let us know which supporting documentation you would like us to bring for you to examine and copy, as Ms. Chu had suggested.

Regards,
...