Have you seen the Daily World Article released today on this?

This is consistent with my understanding.

Again, the commissioners could have had a deputy prosecuting attorney collect and analyze the complaints which precipitated the contract with the ICC. The only relevant questions relative to complaints of building code enforcement are 1) was the code faithfully enforced as adopted by the state legislature and board of commissioners, and 2) was the code enforcement staff polite and respectful in enforcing the code.

Folks complaining about building codes is nothing new.

Lynn Kessler once called me a lunatic because the code, which she voted to adopt, required that a handrail be installed on a stairway leading from her home to the religious shrine gazebo she imported from Southeast Asia. She refused to install a handrail.

Of course Kessler also refused to improve Kessler LN in accordance with a commitment she made in writing when subdividing her property in the 1980s.

Thanks, Steven, for your reporting of this matter.

The building code was not the only subject of this audit, violations of the subdivision codes also fell under this report and this is where a great many of the problems came in.

Interesting. Thanks for the info. I wonder if anyone has complained about the county's illegal imposition of impact fees, as in taking land and cash as a condition of subdivision such approval.

I also wonder how the ICC staff are qualified to investigate administration of land use regulations.

It was, reportedly, the ever witless Paul Easter who recommended to the commissioners that they contract with the ICC for the so called "audit" of the Planning and Building Dept.

Eventually, thankfully, the commissioners realized that the gutless and witless Easter had no business managing anything, and eliminated his unnecessary position.

Upon the resignation of Mike Daniels, a competent and pragmatic manager, the commissioners narrowed down Daniel's successor to a seasoned, very competent, completely ethical long time county government administrator, and Easter. Dixon was supporting the appointment of the seasoned, competent county administrator; Dan Wood was supporting Easter; and the congenitally witless Beerbower couldn't decide. Wood and Easter shared religious predilections.


Filing into the commissioners meeting room, for the commission meeting during which Daniel's successor would be named, Beerbower turned to Wood (I have on the authority of someone present) and said "I'll second any motion you make". Thus begot Easter's incompetent tenure as Dir. of Public Services, at a cost of about $100,000. per year, a position created in the mid-1990s to provide supervision over incompetent Planning Director Kimura, whom the commissioners were reluctant to discharge so near to his retirement date.

The ICC is an organization that administers the compilation of the building, plumbing, mechanical, fire and other codes which have become the standards throughout most of the USA, as well as other countries. The organization has only peripheral expertise in "planning", the county division which I understand also generated complaints which precipitated the commissioners decision to contract for an audit.

The commissioners, upon Easter's advice, as I have learned, really blew it on this one.

There are, it seems to me (with 25 years experience in GHC building and zoning code enforcement and administration), that when confronted with a complaint the only questions the commissioners, or mayor, need to answer are 1) was the law faithfully enforced, 2) did the complainant receive good service, and 3) was the complainant treated with respect throughout the process?

It is generally gutless and incompetent elected officials, often advised by a gutless, incompetent appointed administrator, who call in outside entities to assess the performance of their subordinate departments.

The whole "audit" thing would be a joke if it weren't so pathetic.

I know Willis wasn't in office when the decision was made to contract with the ICC, but she did campaign ignorantly parroting Mark Doyle's complaints about the Planning and Building Division. Anyone whose been in the code enforcement business in GHC knows that Mark Doyle is amongst the most prominent outlaws in GHC, when it comes to complying with building and zoning code requirements.

This "audit" rigmarole is what we, the largely uninformed, disinterested electorate, get for electing incompetent, gutless commissioners.

While I'm ranting I also note that Planning Dir. Shea has no problem with illegally exacting "impact fees" and "land" from subdivision, and other development permit, applicants. At least as of 2005, impact fees, under WA state law, could not be exacted unless the governmental entity was "planning" under the state's "Growth Management Act", which GHC does not. None-the-less, former Planning Director Kimura and County Engineer Esses, some years back, concocted a system of illegally exacting land and cash from developers.

If you're interested in the subject send me a private message and I will send you evidence.

As of 2003, AWC advised Montesano that impact fees were appropriate, provided the impact was demonstrable and proximate (e.g. impacts to the storm water utility)

Storm water utilities were, as I recall, specifically approved through state legislation. Impact fees are another subject. Even jurisdictions planning under the "Growth Management Act" must effect "impact fees" through legislation, which GHC has never done. Kimura and Esses cooked up the system of exaction, without legislative approval.

Here's a discussion of the subject relative to a 2004 GHC appeal of a City of Elma subdivision approval for your entertainment.

Facinating reading.

The hearing examiner found in the city's favor, except for one specific finding relative to the capacity of the country road to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the subdivision.

Planning director Shea's response to the staff report, during the appeal hearing, was that the county would impose the land and cash exactions as a condition of it's road access approval, regardless of the hearing examiner's determination. Some day someone is going to wise up, sue the county, and realize a pay day.


I realize it is a esoteric matter, but believe also that it it is a matter where an uninformed electorate has permitted their local government to violate the law for years.

Folks often said to me "just tell me what you want". To which I responded "it doesn't matter what I want, it only matters what the law requires", and presented them a copy of the relevant law.

You are correct, Turnow, that impact fees are not legal in Grays Harbor County because we are one of the few counties that opted not to plan under the Growth Management Act. We are allowed to charge "connection fees" for new construction but not impact fees.