Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07151997 - C59 r C.59 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on July 15, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.59 LETTER, dated June 2, 1997, from Wendell and Mary Harper, 4151 Miflin Court, El Sobrante, CA 94803, protesting a bill from the County's Public Works Department for a sidewalk improvement. *****REFERRED TO PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR REPORT IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations as noted (*****) are APPROVED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.. �f ATTESTED "andd Phil the Boar of Su rvjAdministrator By _ - `�! Deputy c.c.Correspondents (1) Public Works Director 4 C.5q Wendell& Mary Harper June 2, 1997 4151 Miflin Ct. El Sobrante, Ca. 94803 BE ED COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA JUL - 319 Board of Supervisors 651 Pine St. Rm. 106 CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Martinez, California, 94553 CONTRA COSTA CO. Dear Supervisors: As owners of this property, situated at 4151 Mitlin Ct., we write board members to notice our wish to appel this matter. We also write directly to your board, for clarification. It is imperative that we know whether you support this kind of enforcement, as District Supervisors. We have recently received a bill from the County of Contra Costa's Department of Public Works. A bill for sidewalk improvement. The bill lists the final cost of repairs related to the sidewalk section that fronts our property. The final estimate has nearly quadrupled. The first cost estimate for repairing "our" sidewalk was $1200.00. But costs have swelled to nearly $4500.00. In addition, the project, was delayed until August of 1996(at least four years), assuring higher costs. We have several copies of letters from the county,. declaring that the sidewalk repairs would be done within a short time if we didn't contract for the pavement construction ourselves. On at least three occasions we have read the same threat, from the same source. In stating our position, we reject, categorically and unequivocally, the county's assertion that it is we who should be assessed for the casts of sidewalk repair. Our Appeal is based on the following facts: ' The highway code related to this dispute was in effect long before we moved onto this parcel at 4151 Mifhn Ct. It is your Public Works Department that dropped the ball. The County did not adhere to the code's requirements in a timely way. It did not enforce a mandate as it governs this dispute. * The sidewalk was in need of repair before we purchased the property. * The County of Contra Costa is duty-bound to enforce its obligations in a timely manner. It should hold liable the appropriate owner and make them meet the code requirement. To pay for sidewalk repairs. Upon the sale of this property(no. 904440), the County of Contra Costa withheld approval of the sale and transfer because county officials said the house, upon inspection, did not meet "code requirements". At that time, the condition of the sidewalk was the same... unsafe. It is then that the county should have given notice to the owners of record, informing them that they are liable for sidewalk safety. County officialls should never have approved the sale with the "unsafe" sidewalk conditions. v It should have intervened and warned the buyer of the sidewalk safety problem. But county officials authorized the sale. Noone from the County informed the incoming owners of anything. We received a letter from the Public Works Department several years after the County allowed the Gomez family to sell the property and leave. The Department's letter sought to make us pay in lieu of those who are truly liable. Former homeowners of this plot. The letter said that the sidewalk fronting our property was "unsafe". Our disagreement with the county does not mean, however, that we do not intend to service this debt. That has never been our position. Our suggestion is that the county allow us to make arrangements to place money in escrow pending the outcome of this matter. We do not waive our right to appeal this claim by the county or to take such action as we deem necessary. Before departing, I am compelled to express strong objection to the attitudes and approaches of some county officials who have operated like bullies toward us in this matter. Some of their tactics were, in our opinion, despicable, frankly speaking. We trust that in the near fixture, we should be hearing from the county as to when a date may be agreed upon for a hearing on this dispute. We are most anxious to resolve this issue. The sooner, the better. Sincerely ,l ' f Y!aA�'