HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07281992 - 1.76 1.76
1.76 through 1.80
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on July 28, 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Powers, Fanden, Schroder, Torlakson, McPeak
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Correspondence
1.76 etter dated July 2, 1992, from Patricia M. Grossgart, 3460 Sky Lane, Lafayette 94549,
challenging a weed abatement assessment of$2,400 levied against her Property.
***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1.77 LETTER dated July 6, 1992, from Merlyn McIntyre, Chairman of the Government Affairs
Committee, and John F. Imler, Director, Government Affairs, Travel Parks Association, P. O. Box
5648, Auburn, CA 95604, requesting the Board to urge Caltrans to adopt the Federal System of
highway mileage markers and exit numbers.
***REFERRED TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
1.78 LETTER dated July 8, 1992, from Christy Dallimonti, 2871 Creston Road, Walnut Creek 94596,
Commenting on the problems in her neighborhood which she believes are a result of the
Morehouse Homeless Program.
***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1.79 LETTER dated July 12, 1992, from James and Elaine Slaughter, 1919 Cannon Place, Walnut
Creek 94596, requesting that their names be withdrawn from the petition regarding the
Morehouse shelter issue.
***REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
1.80 LETTER dated July 22, 1992, from John Cooper, Acting Fire Chief, Moraga Fire District,
transmitting a resolution adopted by the Moraga Fire Commission regarding a ballot measure
increasing the maximum fire tax rate.
THIS MATTER WAS CONSIDERED WITH AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.6.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the actions on the items as referenced by (***)are
APPROVED as listed.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE A
TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION
TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED: _July 28, 1992
Phil Batchelor,Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and County Administrator
Bye(. O• �i' Deputy
Cc: Correspondents
County Administrator
Director, Community Development Department
Transportation Committee
1 . 76 .
RECEIVE®
Patricia M. Grossgart
3460-- Sky Lane 1992
Lafayette, CA 94549 JUL 7
510 . 284 . 9156
CLERK ON RAOCOS7A cp!SIRS
July 2 , 1992
Board of Supervisors
Contra Costa County
651 Pine Street, # 106
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Weed Abatement at Parcel # 232-080-013-5
Dear Board Members :
I have enclosed herewith a letter which I sent to
Supervisor Fanden on April 23, 1992 . As I have indicated in the
letter to Supervisor Fanden, I feel that the County has unfairly
assessed weed abatement charges in the amount of $ 2 , 400 . 00 . I
wish to challenge the assessed charges, but do not know how to
seek a remedy.
Supervisor Fanden has not yet responded to my letter.
I have also telephoned Supervisor Fanden's office on several
occasions . Each time I have telephoned, I have been told that a
response to my inquiry would be forthcoming. However, I am still
waiting for a response. I fear that if I wait any longer, I will
lose the opportunity to challenge the assessment.
Please notify me at your earliest convenience of the
appropriate procedure or forum so that I may pursue the matter.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or comments,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
nc ely,
Patr' is M. ossgart
enclosure
r
Dr. and Mrs . Peter Grossgart, M.D.
3460 Sky Lane
Lafayette, CA 94549
April 23, 1992
Ms . Nancy Fanden
Supervisor, District 2
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
651 Pine Street # 106
Martinez, CA 94533
Re: Weed Abatement at Parcel #232-080-013-5
Dear Ms . Fanden:
I am writing this letter because I feel that the County
has unfairly assessed weed abatement charges in the amount of
$2, 400 . 00 . I have paid these charges , but am presently seeking
reimbursement therefor.
In May of 1991, my husband and I received notice from
the County that if we did not cause the weeds along the perimeter
of our property to be cleared, the County would contract to have
the weeds cleared at our expense. In response to this notice, my
husband contracted with our landscaper to have the weeds cleared
by the County's deadline of May 23, 1991 .
The job was delayed because of late rains and because
of personal problems of our landscaper. However, actual weed
clearing on the property began on May 23, 1991 . Our landscaper
was well into the process of clearing our property when my
husband discovered that County workers had also entered the
property to begin clearing weeds . My husband informed the
County's workers that the weed abatement was already in process .
After trying to persuade my husband to allow them to do the
clearing, the County workers left the property.
Precisely how long the County workers had been working
and how much grass they cleared has never been properly
established. Nevertheless , for their work, we received a weed
abatement assessment of $2 , 400 . 00 . My husband went over the
parameters of the property with Fire Chief Davis . At that time,
my husband raised the question whether the county had charged us
for clearing a portion of our neighbor's property. After
considerable delay, the County acknowledged its error and sent us
an "adjusted" bill for $2400 . 00 , apparently reflecting a
0000 . 01
April 23, 1992
Page 2
reduction for the work on the neighbor's property for which we
had been charged together with a payment penalty of $400 . 00 .
We request that the County address the following
issues :
A. We have since appealed the matter to Chief
Insrect.or Bell . He stated that County policy
prohibits County workers from entering private
property for the purposes of weed abatement if the
work is already in progress . He could not explain
to us why the County workers entered our property
in violation of this policy. As I have indicated,
my husband unambiguously informed the workers that
the weed abatement was in process .
B. My landscaper informs me that the photographs
which the County has produced to demonstrate its
weed-clearing efforts depict county workers
standing in front of land which our landscaper,
and not the County, cleared of weeds . Obviously,
at this point we can offer only the testimony of
our landscaper to establish this allegation. We
do not deny that the County cleared a portion of
the weeds . However, it offends me to think that
the County would seek compensation from us for
labor the County never performed.
I protest the billing of $2 , 400 . 00 . Please understand
that I have paid this sum in addition to the $1, 300 . 00 billed to
me by my own landscaper. Parenthetically, I would like to draw
your attention to the significant difference between the sum I
paid my contractor and the sum the County has billed to me.
Section 88-105 (c) of the Contra Costa County Code provides that
the County must bid out the weed abatement . It is difficult to
believe that the County did not receive a lower bid from another
responsible bidder.
0000 . 01
April 23, 1992
Page 3
Ms . Fanden, if you feel that issues of the kind I have
outlined above are outside of your role as a County Supervisor,
please refer me to the appropriate authority. In the meantime,
should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact me at 510 . 284 . 9156 . Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Patricia M. Grossgart
cc : Robert L. Davis
52711.1