Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout760561.tiff r., ^1 p „ do—, (-----.. m moRAnDurri. Carl Willie To Chairman Billings, Date October 1, 1976 Board of County Commissioners COLORADO From R. Russell Anson, Assistant County Attorney subject. Requirement of Building Permits and Fees on a Federal Agency. QUESTION: As I understand your question, it is, "Can the Weld County Building Department require an agency of the Federal Govern- ment to obtain a building permit and pay the required fees?" ANSWER: There is no definitive law on this specific question. I have been unable to find any specific statute to cover the matter, and the case law is scant. DISCUSSION: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has taken the position that a building permit and fee cannot be required of a Federal Governmental Agency. In a recent telephone conversation I had with N. W. Stiewig of that office, I was informed by Mr. Stiewig that he had been advised pursuant to an opinion by the Comptroller General, that an agency of the Federal Government is not liable for the payment of a building permit fee. I asked Mr. Stiewig for a copy of that opinion, and I received a copy a few days later. The two separate opinions involved were dated 1947 and 1950. Nearly all the cases cited in that opinion were dated in the early 1940 ' s. Several of the cases in- volved the Federal Lanham Act for Emergency Construction of Public Housing, and the Act expressly provided, "That where land is acquired under the Act by contract or other- wise, no regard is to be had for any Federal, State or Municipal law, ordinance, rule or regulation. " In attempting to find some case law specifically covering the point of issuance of building permits, I was unable to find anything substantial either for or against the require- ment that a Federal agency obtain a building permit and pay the required fee. There are two cases, however, that I was able to find that seemed very relevant. The first case, Public Housing Administration v. Bristol Township, 146 Fed.Sup. 859 (E.D. PA. 1956) involved the reconditioning of a Federal Housing project erected under the Lanham Act in October of 1940. The Public Housing Administration contracted with a local electrical contractor to provide electrical work on the project. The electrical contractor failed to secure any building permits prior to doingelectrical work under the contract. The building officer of Bristol Township issued 760561 Glenn Billings October 1, 1976 Page 2 a stop work order to the contractor. The Public Housing Administration brought this action to seek to enjoin Bristol Township from enforcing the stop work order. The Federal District Court denied the injunction stating: The United States Supreme Court has con- sistently held that Congress , in enacting legislation within its constitutional authority, will not be deemed to have intended to invalidate state or local rules for protection of the public safety unless its purpose to do so is clearly stated. Another case, DeKalb County, Georgia v. Henry C. Beck Co. , 382 Fed. 2d 92 (5th Circuit 1967) involved an action by a Georgia County against a contractor engaged in construction of a governmental hospital for a building permit fee. In the lower court, the contractor made a motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted, but no reasons for the granting of the motion were given. The Court of Appeals indicated that summary judgments should not have been granted and reversed and remanded the case to the lower court to receive additional facts. The Court of Appeals stated that there was not sufficient information made available to the court in order to balance the interest and policies of the Federal Government with those of the local government. Also no information was presented in regard to Federal policy as to building standards, nor any information as to what, if anything, the court has done in the case except try to collect money for the treasury. In summary, there does not seem to be any definitive law on the exact point as to whether or not a local governmental body can require a Federal agency to pay a building permit fee. Since there is no specific law on this point, the presump- tion could be made that a building permit and fee is re- quired. If the Federal agency refuses to pay the fee, and construction is begun on the project, a stop order could be given to the contractor and the contractor could be re- quired to pay the fee. Section 301 (a) of the Building Code states : No person, firm or corporation shall erect, construct, . . .without first obtaining a sep- arate building permit for each such building or structure from the Building Official. It appears that this section could require either the owner or lessee of the property or the contractor to obtain the permit. • Glenn Billings October 1, 1976 Page 3 R. Russell Anson, Assistant County Attorney APPROVED: CIM71.60)-neni- C:7 County Attorney RRA:cc cc: J. E. Jarvis Hello