Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Economy Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tenino real-estate owner asks council to waive nearly $900 penalty after sign permit confusion; building official defends code
Summary
Castle Realty owner Dave Champagne asked the Tenino City Council to forgive a $894.54 penalty tied to a sign installed before a permit payment; the city's building inspector said the penalty follows code when work begins before permit issuance and urged consistent enforcement.
Dave Champagne, owner of Castle Realty, asked the Tenino City Council on Jan. 28 to waive penalties tied to a recent sign installation, saying the city's permitting process and communication left him unaware of a nearly $1,000 permit fee and a subsequent $894.54 penalty for work completed prior to payment.
"My first request is to be relieved of my penalties," the statement from Champagne, read aloud to the council by Jen Sharber, said after describing a six-week permitting process and a surprise total charge of $1,856.33 including penalties. Champagne said his contractor later confirmed the city marked the contractor as approved and that he did not see the December 20 email warning about endorsement.
Brian (the city's field inspector) responded in a written note to the council that he had confirmed the permit thread and that the contractor was not licensed with the city at the time of the work. The inspector explained the city's policy: "Per code, any work commencing before a permit is issued is subject to fees; in this case, we doubled the fee for permits if it wasn't done prior to installation." He told the council he would follow whatever direction they chose.
Council members acknowledged both the business-owner's concerns about tone and transparency and the building official's point that rules exist to ensure safety and fairness. Members discussed several near-term responses: asking the building official to attend the next meeting to answer questions directly; clarifying permit emails to say a permit is "ready, pending payment" rather than implying full clearance; and exploring whether the permit-fee schedule or communication packet (checklist) could be revised to be clearer for new businesses.
No final relief was granted at the Jan. 28 meeting. Council members agreed to have the building official appear at the next meeting and to review whether administrative changes or a checklist could reduce future misunderstandings while preserving code compliance.
The council also noted that penalties are rarely a significant revenue source and stressed the goal of balancing business recruitment with covering inspection and administrative costs.
