June 21 2009 Coming Soon Interview with Ray Tate. He Contacts the US with his side of the Story! Won't find this in Ellen Pirie's Scotts Valley Senile Breaking NEWS:LA TV Crew Here for "NEW" Ray Tate Case discovers "OLD" Ray Tate CASE. County Geologist, and all blaming each other and trying to hide it- many, many more disappointing documents on the way... Another Horrified SAFETY and Environmental Concerned Neighbor Ignored by Santa Cruz County Planning Dept
DOES SUSAN MAUREILLO LET BURNS WRITE ALL OF HER LETTERS? WHAT DOES SHE DO?
MEMORANDUM To: Supervisor Mark Stone From: Tom Burns, Planning Director Re: Tate I am writing in response to your recent memo concerning the Tate property of 136 View Circle. You asked for an update on the County’s actions to abate the nuisance condition on the property, and secondly, for an update on whether Mr. Tate has reimbursed the County for the funds previously expended to remove the dangerous building on the site and to perform corrective grading on the parcel.
As noted in your memo, the County declared the burned-out RV and other equipment a public nuisance and ordered the property owner to remove them from the site. He failed to do so by the deadline; therefore the Planning Department solicited bids from qualified contractors, selected a contractor and approved a contract with Chris Wortman to remove the fire damaged RV. The Planning Department determined that the RV was the most pressing issue- the remaining equipment and materials were not a serious hazard. The removal of the fire damaged RV was completed
The next step in the process will be to take the remaining violations forward to administrative hearing. At the same time, the County will be presenting the costs of the most recent abatement action to the Administrative Hearing Officer and asking him to declare these costs to be the obligation of the property owner. This will enable the County to pursue cost recovery. We anticipate completing this by the end of this calendar year.
You are correct in stating that the court order issued in 2003 required Tate to remove the structure and illegal fill, and if he failed to do so, the County was authorized to perform the corrective work. Further, the County declared the cost of the demolition and abatement to be personal obligations of the property owners, Wilma Jean and/or Ramon Tate, Jr. After the County completed both the demolition and corrective grading on the Tate property, County Counsel returned to court and asked the judge for an order confirming the costs of the abatement. Subsequently, the matter was forwarded to our Collections Department to pursue cost recovery.
First, let me clarify that the previous court order only required the removal of the dwelling, the over height fence, the retaining wall and the illegal fill/grading material at the Tate property since they were deemed a public threat. The court order did not include abatement of the vehicles. Since then, as you have noted in your correspondence, an RV, several pieces of machinery, a boat, and a trailer containing equipment have been stored on the property.
To address this matter, the Planning Department has taken the following actions. First, the Department has determined that there are several violations of the County Code on the property, and, on June 2, 2005 a notice was posted on the property for these violations. The Department also determined that a public nuisance exists due to the current situation on the property.
Second, due to the property owner’s non-compliance with the notice after the thirty-day “cure” period, the department has initiated abatement proceedings. The property will be posted with the required abatement notice on July 15, 2005, and the property owner will have 10 days after receipt of the abatement notice to file an appeal. If no appeal is filed, the County will select an abatement contractor to remove the fire-damaged RV and any other remaining equipment that constitutes a nuisance in approximately 45-60 days from the date of posting. This is the most expeditious means of removing this degraded vehicle and addressing the nuisance that exists at this property.
The next action taken will be scheduling the case for an Administrative Hearing in the fall after the nuisance abatement has been completed. At the hearing, the County will seek recovery of its’ abatement and enforcement costs, and will also request a monetary civil penalty to be added as a lien on the property, or as a personal obligation of the property owner. As you may know, the previous court order included an order for payment of the initial abatement costs for the structure and grading.
With regard to the delinquent property taxes, you are correct that the taxes have been delinquent for five years, and as a result the property will be sold at public auction unless the owner pays the delinquent property taxes in full prior to the auction. Based on the noticing requirements for tax defaulted property sales, and the preliminary schedule for public tax auctions, it is anticipated that this property would be sold in an August 2006 auction. If the property is auctioned off, the County will take the amount of back taxes and any excess proceeds can be used to pay off liens against the property, which would include County abatement costs. An information sheet on the public auction process is attached.
In closing, let me reiterate the County’s commitment to remedy the current situation as quickly as possible. I know that this situation has been very difficult for you and your neighbors. I believe that the actions previously taken by the County and the subsequent ones outlined in this letter should provide for mitigation of any hazardous situations that exist, as well as place the financial responsibility for the mitigation on the property owner.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Susan A. Mauriello County Administrative Officer
cc: Supervisor Mark Stone Fred Keeley, Treasurer-Tax Collector __________________________________________________________________
September 3, 2001 Mr. Mike Dever County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Suite 500 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Dear Mr. Dever: I am writing you today to give my input on the situation in Felton on View Road. The property in question is 136 View Circle, Felton, parcel number APN 064-271-22, belonging to the Tale's. I live on View Road and find it appalling that this matter has gone on so long with no follow up or assistance from you or your office. The comment from you in the Sentinel on August 27, 2001 just shows how ineffective your department has been in this matter. There is a danger to anyone that drives by on Highway 9 past this property. It is still slipping. You can see how much by just coming by. The highway is already down one lane because of the land in the immediate area still moving. We will be without emergency services with more damage to Highway 9 and you don't see this is a priority. Tate had tons of new fill illegally dumped on this property adding to the danger. Once winter comes and that new fill gets wet, there will be tons of added weight to an already unstable, documented slide area. The house should have been moved 20 years ago. Tate pays less than $200.00 per year in property taxes when I pay over $4,000.00 per year. The original owners followed the letter of the law and sold only the property to Tate with the understanding that the house would be moved. This is public record - go look it up! The County obviously acknowledges that a house shouldn't be there since he only pays taxes on the property, excluding the house. As a property owner, I want action on this issue. I want to see the tons of fill removed and the several County code violations enforced. I would also appreciate a response from your office telling me when and how this will be happening. RebeccaL.Rue 181 View Road Felton, CA 95018 831-335-0302 rlvnnerue@,ivillage.com cc: Robert Sherwin, 182 View Circle, Felton, CA 95018 Jeff Almquist, Supervisor 5th District, County of Santa Cruz Alvin James, Planning Director County of Santa Cruz _________________________________________ RAY TATE SR. -Felton house saga far from over due to Inept County Planning Department HEATHER BOERNER - SENTINEL STAFF WRITER
Article Launched: 08/09/2004 12:00:00 AM PDT FELTON - The homes on View Circle just north of Henry Cowell State Park have spectacular views of the redwood forest. The neighborhood is quiet, except for the buzz of cars on the highway below, birds chirping and the occasional barks of Daisy, a tubby Rotweiller who patrols the neighborhood. At the entrance to the street is a vacant lot filled with vehicles: The site where Ray Tate's long-condemned house was torn down by the county two months ago. Now hay has been laid over the flat land where the house used to stand. On the spot that used to be the kitchen, there's a spot of green - where there's either a natural spring or a broken water main. Tate has owned the View Circle property since 1986. He hooked up a generator because he wasn't permitted to get electric service; permitted people to store their vehicles on his property, and allowed Caltrans to dump fill on his land. He also spent the better part of several years fighting the county's ruling that his house, which moved in a 1982 mud slide, was uninhabitable. Tate claimed there was nothing wrong with the land stability under his house, and spent $50,000 on geologists to prove it. Tate lost. Judge Robert Atack ruled last year that the risk of a mud slide under his house was so strong, and Tate was so intractable in fighting his removal, that the house should be torn down. When Tate refused to do it himself, the county paid $11,000 to do it for him. Attempts to contact Tate last week were unsuccessful. But last year, Tate said, "If the county tears (my house) down, then they are going to buy it for three times its value." Neighbors don't expect the fight to be over. "We knew full well that as soon as the house went down, (the lot) would become a parking lot and storage," said Bill Boxill, who's lived in his modest View Circle home since 1996. "So to the county, we say, ‘Thanks for doing what you did, but it's not over.' " There's still a lot of animosity among neighbors for the stress they feel Tate has put them through. Boxill said he didn't feel taken by Tate, "but I did feel like he was trying to take us."
Two months after the house was demolished, he's still angry at Tate and at the county. At Tate, because Sherwin claims he's "turned it into a junk property" by bringing in the vehicles, and at the county for driving 18-wheelers on a private road on which residents aren't even allowed to bring a garbage truck. "You know, everyone in this neighborhood has worked hard to fix their places up and bring up the value of their property, and Tate is doing everything he can to bring it down," he said.
Sherwin wants the county to buy the property to abate the hazards
caused by changes to run-off patterns resulting from development on
Tate's property. __________________________________________________________
Mike Dever Assistant Planning Director County of Santa Cruz 701 Ocean Street Suite 500 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 28August,2001 DearMr.Dever, I am writing today to ask what actions the County intends to take to alleviate the dangerous conditions created by the illegal dumping of fill by CalTrans and Parnum Paving . TIu's occurred on a red-tagged piece of property here in Felton occupied by Mr Ray Tate, Jr. and owned by his mother, Wihna Tate. I have written you with this request before (May 15) and received no response. We in the immediate neighborhood have been didligently trying to effect an enforcement of the exisiting codes that would remedy the myriad of problems that exist with flu's property. We were rurther gratified when the recent Administrative Hearing Officer, Theresa Shook, issued her orders to vacate the house and remove the hazards and impose fines accordingly. However, Stet Holbrooks' article in yesterdays Sentinel, wliile accurately reporting the facts, poses more worries that Mr Tate is refusing to comply with the directives already issued and promises a lengthy fight. Tin's particular piece of property has been red tagged for destruction since the Toll House Gulch Slide in 1983. The same slide that destroyed the house inimeditely next door and that is responsible for the current degradation of yet another lane of Hwy 9 immediately below where the illegal dumping has occured. Just when is the County going to take some definitive action? What will be the next step in coming to a permanent remedy for this almost 20 year long saga? Mr Tate's recent tlireats to "close down the Planning Department" simply underscore the difficulty we, as a neighborhood, continue to have in getting this neglected property cleaned up. The litany of comtinuing violations is long and egregous. These include but are not limited to; illegal hook ups to PGE, tractor trailers chained to redwoods, continual non permitted construction dating back to 1986, illegal occupancy of a comdemned dwelling for over 16 years, failure to pay commensuarate taxes on the house and property, and, of course, the most recent illegal dumping of 400 cubic yards of fill. It is beyond our comprehension that despite flu's and the Grand Jurys findings regarding County Code Compliances lack of consistent coding applications, you assert in the same article that there are currently "no complaints that pose immediate threats to health and safety." Just what violations would have to exist to constitute a "tHreat" of significant consequence ro rise to your own own, self imposed, code system? Yours truly, RobertShewin 136ViewCircle Felton,CA cc. Alvin
James. Planning Director Dave Laughlin. Code Compliance Stet Holbrook. Santa Cruz Sentinel ____________________________________________________________________________ June 15, 2009 SORRY JUST RECEIVED THESE GEMS AND THEY WILL PASTE --JUST ADDED ATTACHMENT GOING AROUND LOCAL EMAILS TODAY- 6-15-09 WORD DOC ATTACHMENT C L I C K HERE!>>>>>>>>>TATE Thanks Richard 6-14-09.rtf ____________________________________________________
Richard Nieuwstad
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Joseph Hanna Thursday, January 16, 2003 7:22 AM Richard Nieuwstad; Marie Costa David Laughlin RE: RAY TATE VIEW CIRCLE PROPERTY Richard and Marie: Tate attempted to submit a report last Friday afternoon informally without paying the review fee. We turned him away simply because once we take that report he'll claim he complied. He way told that he needed to submit the report with an application at the Counter just like anyone else. Marie, can you get me a copy of the order to Tate? I want to have it when the report is submitted. Even so, we should prepared for abatement. The toe of the slide is moving again and the pull apart under the Tate house is saturated and seeping. I still believe that movement is possible. Thank you, Joe Hanna County Geologist CEG 1313 County of Santa Cruz —
Original Message — Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 1:03 PM To: Marie Costa Cc: David Laughlin; Joseph Hanna Subject: RAY TATE VIEW CIRCLE PROPERTY Marie, Last September Judge Atack ordered Ray Tate to clean up his property and to submitt a complete geologic report no later than 3 January 2003. As of today no applications have been submitted and a driveby last Friday confirmed that the house at 136 view Circle is still occupied. The large semi-trailer is gone along with the LNG tanks, and part of the fence has been removed, ._but the fill remains in place. What is our next step. Do we now go back to Judge Atack for a "eviction" and/or an "abatement 11 Order. Richard cc: Dave Laughlin Joe Hana Richard Nieuwstad From: David Laughlin Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:48 AM To: David Lee Cc: Richard Nieuwstad Subject: COURT ORDER FOR TATE Dave, I'm sure you remember the Ray Tate case; we got a favorable ruling from judge Attac back in September. Tate came in a couple of weeks ago to submit a geologic study as required by the court. He asked for a copy of the court order, as he had not gotten one. Richard, who handled the case, has asked Marie for one by phone and email, as he had not received one. Yesterday I asked Marie for one and she indicated that she was working on it. My problem is I don't want to go over/behind her and ask her boss about it but I am worried that we don't know the next action to take, the neighbors are hot on this, it was headline material for the Sentinel, and most of all, we want our marching orders from Superior Court so we can seek compliance. I don't want this inability to follow-up to reflect on Planning. Any suggestions on how to tactfully solve this problem? Richard Nieuwstad From: Joseph Hanna Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 9:49 AM To: David Laughlin; Marie Costa Cc: Richard Nieuwstad; David Lee Subject: RE: TATE COURT ORDER David: I will write another memo indicating that we are at an impasse with the geologist on this project, but I need to complete a couple of urgent issue first and will write the memo late today or tomorrow. Joe Hanna County Geologist CEG 1313 County of Santa Cruz —Original
Message— Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 5:23 PM To: Marie Costa Cc: Joseph Hanna; Richard Nieuwstad; David Lee Subject: RE: TATE COURT ORDER Marie, based on your explanation, we will inspect to determine if the building, zoning and grading violations specifically the construction/remodel of the house, construction of the retaining wall, construction of the over height fence, the neglected property, grading and placement of fill without grading permits remain in violation. I will request Hanna prepare a determination if the required geologic report was submitted by January 10th. We will then advise you. Thanks. —Original Message— From: Marie Costa Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 4:30 PM To: David Laughlin Subject: RE: TATE COURT ORDER The Court Order provides that Tate The Court found that Tate illegally occupies the house because it has been determined to be geologically unsafe. Based on this portion of the Order alone, the County has prevailed. The •* Court added that because the neighbors were present in Court and complained of the junk, debris, metal tanks and vehicles- that Tate must clean up his yard by October 12, 2002; and that he was to have submitted a geologic report deemed "complete" by the Planning Department no later than January 10, 2003. The Court stated that if Tate did not submit a complete report by 1/10/03, the Court would order Tate to vacate the property. The Order provides that Planning Department has the option to either pursue further court action before Judge Atack to have the property vacated as Tate has failed to submit a completed geo report by 1/10/03 or to continue to work with Tate. Please advise. Thanks. —Original
Message— Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:44 PM To: Marie Costa Cc: David
Lee; Richard Nieuwstad Marie, the proposed court order denying the appeal does not address the correction of the violations listed on page 2. If the judge forgot these items, lets remind him as the order does not address the remodel of the house, line 4, the 200 square foot addition line 5, the construction of the retaining wall, line 6, the over height fence line 6, nor the grading and/or placement of fill line 7. Thanks for fixing this. Richard Nieuwstad From: David Laughlin Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 5:23 PM To: Marie Costa Cc: Joseph Hanna; Richard Nieuwstad; David Lee Subject: RE: TATE COURT ORDER Marie, based on your explanation, we will inspect to determine if the building, zoning and grading violations specifically the construction/remodel of the house, construction of the retaining wall, construction of the over height fence, the neglected property, grading and placement of fill without grading permits remain in violation. I will request Hanna prepare a determination if the required geologic report was submitted by January 10th. We will then advise you. Thanks. —Original
Message— Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 4:30 PM To: David Laughlin Subject: RE: TATE COURT ORDER The Court Order provides that Tate The Court found that Tate illegally occupies the house because it has been determined to be geologically unsafe. Based on this portion of the Order alone, the County has prevailed. The Court added that because the neighbors were present in Court and complained of the junk, debris, metal tanks and vehicles-thai Tate must clean up his yard by October 12, 2002; and that he was to have submitted a geologic report deemed "complete" by the Planning Department no later than January 10, 2003. The Court stated that if Tate did not submit a complete report by 1/10/03, the Court would order Tate to vacate the property. The Order provides that Planning Department has the option to either pursue further court action before Judge Atack to have the property vacated as Tate has failed to submit a completed geo report by 1/10/03 or to continue to work with Tate. Please advise. Thanks. —Original Message— From: David Laughlin Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 3:44 PM To: Marie Costa Cc: David Lee; Richard Nieuwstad Subject: TATE COURT ORDER Marie, the proposed court order denying the appeal does not address the correction of the violations listed on page 2. If the judge forgot these items, lets remind him as the order does not address the remodel of the house, line 4, the 200 square foot addition line 5, the construction of the retaining wall, line 6, the over height fence line 6, •* nor the grading and/or placement of fill line 7. Thanks for fixing this. Richard Nieuwstad From: David Laughlin Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:53 PM To: Marie Costa Cc: David Lee; Richard Nieuwstad; Joseph Hanna Subject: FW: RAY TATE Marie, Richard completed the site inspection on Tate's property today and determined that he is not in compliance with most of the major violations. Therefore, based on his representation, I am formally requesting that you return to Judge Atack, inform him what is/is not in compliance and have Tate ordered to comply. What we want is for Tate to get a grading permit to recognize or remove fill, get a permit for retaining walls (2), obtain building permit for an repair and remodel of SFD and a 200 sq ft addition and an overheight fence permit, to gain compliance. What I want is a reasonable deadline for compliance, date specific and just to be clear, lit is the position of Code Compliance that there is no interest in "working with I assume that we can go ahead a lien the property. As a separate communication I've asked Joe Hanna to inform you of the status of the geologic report Tate submitted. Joe, would you send a memo/email to Marie that is definitive in your assessment of the geologic report Tate submitted. I'm aware of your letter but I didn't want to represent what you wanted to say. Send me a copy of your email. Thanks. —Original
Message— Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:47 PM To: David Laughlin Cc: Marie Costa Subject: RAY TATE Dave, I went by the Tate property today and verified that he has removed the big semi-trailer as well as all of the junk, debris, container drums and tanks, trailers, and inoperable vehicles. These were to have been removed prior to 12 October 2002 but since I did not have a copy of Judge Atack's Order until recently I cannot state that he met that deadline because I was not aware of it and therefore did not make an inspection on 12 October 2002. I can state that, as of today, Ray Tate is in compliance with section 5. of Court Order CV 141603. Section 1. of Court Order CV 141603 agreed with Administrative Hearing Decision & Order 01-026 which found the property in violation of building and zoning codes relating to the remodel of the single family dwelling, the construction of aij,approximately 200 sq ft addition, retaining walls, an overheight fence in front yard, and the placement of fill, all without the required permits. Judge Atack's Order did not specify a time frame to apply for these required building and grading permits so i am assuming that the deadline of 3 August 2002 in Teresa Shock's Order still stands. If it does then Ray Tate is now in violation of Decision & Order 01-026 and it is time to lien the property for the $589.45 code costs and the $4,500.00 civil penalty that was due after 3 August 2002 if the property was not in compliance Richard Tamyra Rice
From: Sent: To: Subject: Tamyra Rice Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:16 PM David Lee; David Laughlin; Joseph Hanna; Richard Nieuwstad Tate Deadline
Hi All-1 wanted to make sure that I request
everything necessary in my Tate brief. This is the list I've put together so
far \ that Tate & his family vacate the premises by or before 8/31/03; f that their failure to do so will give the Sheriff authority to forcibly evict them; \ / / that the County is authorized to demolish the dwelling after 8/31/03; and [ that Wilma be assessed the cost of the demolition and that the cost be made'a personal obligation. \
HELP!!! Tamyra COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT INFORMATION DATE: September 12, 2002 TO: Alvin James, Planning Director; David Lee, Assistant Planning Director; Dave Laughlin, Principal Planner; Joe Hanna, County Geologist; Richard Nieuwstad, Code Compliance Investigator
SUBJECT: Ray Tate - 136 View Circle, Felton (APN: 064-271-22)
The two day civil trial concluded today in the Ray Tate matter. Judge Atack ruled in favor of the County holding that Mr. Tate is required to clean-up the property located at 136 View Circle, Felton, within 30 days, obtain required permits and submit a complete geologic report no later than January^2003. If he does not submit a complete report, he is to vacate the house after the January 3, 4003 deadline date. In addition, due to the many years (16 yrs.) the County has been involved in meeting with Mr. Tate and his varied experts, review of reports, etc., all to no ayail, the Court awarded $589.43 in costs and $4,500.00 in civil penalties. The Court has retained jurisdiction to hear any matters related to this case. The Court agreed it did not see its role as getting in the middle of the geologic review process. However, if Mr. Tate fails to submit a complete geologic report which is approved by the County, and no agreement can be reached between Tate and the County, the geologic report issue will be calendared before Judge Atack with the request that Tate be ordered to vacate the premises. I want to acknowledge the time, effort, assistance and preparation undertaken by both Joe Hanna and Richard Nieuwstad in this case, in spite of their on-going heavy workloads. They were exemplary as Court witnesses and as County representatives. A group of dedicated neighbors were in Court to hear the decision and appeared pleased with the outcome. I anticipate Mr. Tate will file an appeal. TateiViemo3.wpd MORE OF THESE BUREAUCRAT'S DAMAGE AND DECEIT- CALLING Santa Cruz County Code Compliance - David Laughlin, Ken Hart, Anybody Home? | JUNE 23,2009 NEWEST RAY TATE NEWS- NEW ARRESTLOCAL LOTTO WINNER!!! CHECK OUT his Senior Picture SANTA CRUZ HIGH CLASS OF 1977- Just Plain Good Working Guy! KSBW TV IS GETTING IT- COVER YOUR EYES & EARS (as usual) KURTIS ALEXANDER WATCH TOM BURNS LIE and SLANDER ON TV. MANY, MANY COURT CASES, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, STATE SAYS COUNTY CODE NOT VALID..... COVE BRITTAN HERO! "A TRUE PROFESSIONAL, "THORN IN COUNTY"S SIDE" "ONLY ONE BRAVE ENOUGH TO STAND UP TO THEM"-Say Local Architects PLEASE WATCH "TRADITIONAL WHIPPING BOY FOR THIS COMMUNITY" & LIFETIME PLANNING DEPT. EMPLOYEE TOM BURNS WHINNY SMARMY AS EVER- HE IS JUST FINE WITH WHIPPING AS LONG AS HE IS THE ONE DOING IT! HEY- IS THAT THE SAME TOM BURNS, UCSC GRAD AND THE COUNTY'S GEOLOGIST WHEN THE LOVE CREEK SLIDE KILLED ALL THOSE PEOPLE? Hmm. Hostile Work Place has the Dirty Looks Flying- $137K Baby Sitter- David Lee Helps Soothe Planning Department Employee's Incestuous Battles ________________________________________________________ CALLING Santa Cruz County Code Compliance - David Laughlin, Ken Hart, Anybody Home?
Why is CODE COMPLIANCE IMPORTANT? IS IT BEING IGNORED IN SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY unless they want what you have. It is used as a tool of
intimidation for the County Bureaucrats over citizens, yet you can not
even call them on the phone to complain about a methlab next door- They
will "send you out a form" REALLY
Continually and Completely Inept, Code Compliance Manager Dave Laughlin States to David Lee and Richard Nieuwstad : "I am worried that we don't know the next action to take, the neighbors are hot on this, it was headline material for the Sentinel, and most of all, we want our marching orders from Superior Court . I don't want this inability to follow-up to reflect on Planning. Any suggestions on how to tactfully solve this problem" -Dysfunctional Dave Laughlin Code Compliance Manager We are worried too Laughlin! ___________________________________________________________From: David Laughlin Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:48 AM To: David Lee Cc: Richard Nieuwstad Subject: COURT ORDER FOR TATE Dave, I'm sure you remember the Ray Tate case; we got a favorable ruling from judge Attac back in September. Tate came in a couple of weeks ago to submit a geologic study as required by the court. He asked for a copy of the court order, as he had not gotten one. Richard, who handled the case, has asked Marie for one by phone and email, as he had not received one. Yesterday I asked Marie for one and she indicated that she was working on it. My problem is I don't want to go over/behind her and ask her boss about it but I am worried that we don't know the next action to take, the neighbors are hot on this, it was headline material for the Sentinel, and most of all, we want our marching orders from Superior Court so we can seek compliance. I don't want this inability to follow-up to reflect on Planning. Any suggestions on how to tactfully solve this problem? ___________________________________________________________________________ Here is Assistant Planning Director David Lee's ROUGH DRAFT OF HOW TO 'SHOW ME THE MONEY" with Code Compliance and Notice the lined out reference to Mrs. Tate, Ray Tate Jrs mom who was in a rest home and could not be served papers. . REALLY
MEMORANDUM To: Fiscal Staff Code Compliance Staff From: Nancy McCollum Re:
DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT
BACKGROUND
A number of questions have come up recently surrounding our code cost recovery efforts. These include:
1.) Is there a minimum amount of staff cost due under which we will not bill? (wouldn’t this also potentially apply to at-cost as well??) 2.) What is the minimum amount in staff cost recovery that dictates something will be taken to the Hearing Officer? 3.) Will we take cases to the Hearing Officer only for staff cost recovery, or will there always be civil penalties? 4.) Are we going to refer all non-Hearing Officer or non-court cases to County Collections?
At a minimum, we have a responsibility to bill for amounts due, even if they are very small. We do not have the authority to forgive accounts receivable. (unless we find out that there is a statutory limit- I’ve asked Rahn) That said, it does not make good economic sense to expend the same effort on small accounts as we would on larger ones.
COUNTY COLLECTIONS PROCEDURES
After we have attempted collection of code costs due by mailing the party a letter and invoice requesting payment, (followed by a second request notice?) we are in a position to either forward non-responders to County Collections , to the Hearing Officer, or to Court.
County Collections will accept accounts for amounts over $10 if we can provide a good address. If we do not have a good address they will only accept the account if it exceeds $100.
In addition to unpaid invoices, we also refer cases to County Collections where the Administrative Hearing Officer or a Court has declared that unpaid code costs, civil penalties, and/or illegal rents are the person obligation of a property owner. This may be in addition to filing a lien on the property for the same amounts.
County Collections prefers getting accounts promptly from departments. They will then do the following: (do they always do all of them, except for the bolded items, even for a small amount? If not, maybe change the into to “They will then do one or more of the following, depending on the amount owed“:
· Debtor is sent 2 automated notices · Debtor is assigned a Collection Officer who will send at least 1 or more additional notices. · Debtor is contacted by Collection Officer by phone if a phone number is available. · Debtor will be skip traced if mail is returned or phones are disconnected, etc. · Debtor will be reported to national credit file database and the information will remain there for 7 years, even after paid in full. · Debtor is asked to voluntarily provide document of financial status. · Debtor is given the opportunity to make monthly payments. · Debtor is served with legal proceedings. · Debtor is served with notice of court ordered "Order of Exam" for financial status. · Debtor's state income tax refund is withheld. · Debtor's wages are attached. · Debtor's bank account is seized.
The last 4 items in bold can only be used if the County has been awarded a judgement as a result of Court action, as occurred in the Tate case. Just having a Hearing Officer award would not be sufficient. (query- do they take the unpaid amount to court and get a judgement in order to take these additional steps?? Last unbolded item infers that they will. This is important, because if they would do that, that may influence our decision as to when we go to admin hearing)
All of these actions have certain criteria that must be met before Collections can proceed. For example, the first item on the list is also the first step for all accounts. However, if the address is not valid and the mail is returned they cannot proceed until they get good information. Also, the last item on the list is reserved for severely delinquent accounts with a high dollar amount. It is only used after all other steps have been unsuccessful and it does require that Collections has the debtor’s valid and current bank information to proceed, in addition to the aforementioned judgement. This process can only be attempted once per account and will only allow Collections to seize funds currently available; they cannot keep going back until we are whole.
Once a debt is paid, an owner may still need to pay an additional amount to Planning in order to expunge a recorded red-tag.
PROPERTY TAX COLLECION PROCEDURES
When the Administrative Hearing Officer
or a Court has ordered a lien
If the taxes are not paid within 5 years the property can be auctioned off and “sold to the State”. In that circumstance, our lien is on an equal footing with other special levies and will share in the distribution of the tax auction proceeds.
Once a lien is paid, an owner may still need to pay an additional amount to Planning in order to expunge a recorded red-tag.
HEARING OFFICER PROCESS
This is good language to get us moving, but lets land on the threshold and then put that in here. Frankly, given all that collections does, especially if they will get court judgements, my inclination is to move that bar up now to a much higher amount, like $1500…
SUMMARY
We will send
|