Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to establish a procedure to use a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment to collect abatement costs and related administrative costs.

This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2024, the legislative body of a city or county to also collect fines for specified violations related to the nuisance abatement using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment. The bill would require any fines or penalties related to nuisance abatement that are recovered pursuant to these provisions to be used for specified purposes relating to supporting local enforcement of state and local building and fire code standards. The bill would require the city or county to create a process for granting a hardship waiver, to reduce the amount of the fine, upon a specified showing by the responsible person. The bill would also require the enforcing entity to provide a reasonable amount of time, as specified, to a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation prior to the imposition of penalties, except where the violation creates an immediate danger to health or safety.

Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to establish a procedure to use a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment to collect abatement costs and related administrative costs.

This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2024, the legislative body of a city or county to also collect fines for specified violations related to the nuisance abatement using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment. The bill would require any fines or penalties related to nuisance abatement that are recovered pursuant to these provisions to be used for specified purposes relating to supporting local enforcement of state and local building and fire code standards. The bill would require the city or county to create a process for granting a hardship waiver, to reduce the amount of the fine, upon a specified showing by the responsible person. The bill would also require the enforcing entity to provide a reasonable amount of time, as specified, to a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation prior to the imposition of penalties, except where the violation creates an immediate danger to health or safety.

Existing law authorizes the legislative body of an incorporated city to, in the exercise of its police power and for the purpose of regulation, license any kind of business not prohibited by law transacted and carried on within the limits of its jurisdiction. Existing law provides that the legislative body of a charter city, that fixes the rate of license fees upon a business operating both within and outside the legislative bodys taxing jurisdiction, levy a license fee so that the measure of the fee fairly reflects that proportion of the activity actually carried on within the taxing jurisdiction.

This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to collect an additional fee from any applicant for a local business license or equivalent instrument or, in a jurisdiction that does not issue a business license, to collect an additional fee from the applicant for a building permit, to be used by the city, county, or city and county to increase the proactive inspections of commercial buildings for compliance with state and local fire code and building code requirements. The bill would require the local entity to create a fund, entitled the Proactive Building and Fire Inspection Fund, in which to 90% of the fees collected under these provisions would be deposited. The remaining 10% of the fees collected would be remitted to the State Fire Marshal for deposit into the Fire Inspection Assistance Fund for use in advising local agencies on implementing a system of proactive inspections to facilitate compliance with state and local fire and building codes. The bill would require the local entity to make an annual report to the State Fire Marshal regarding the amount and use of the fees collected, as specified. By imposing additional duties upon local entities, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make findings and declarations as to the need for proactive inspections for building and fire code violations.

This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of ²/₃ of the membership of each house of the Legislature.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

 VETO  

Bill No: SB 1416

Author: McGuire (D)

Amended: 8/24/18

Vote: 21

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/9/18

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Hernandez

SENATE FLOOR: 33-1, 5/21/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Bradford, Cannella, Dodd, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Newman, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wiener, Wilk

NOES: Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: De León, Fuller, Jackson, Nguyen, Wieckowski

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0, 8/29/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Cannella, Chang, De León, Delgado, Dodd, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Jackson, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Morrell, Nguyen, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski, Wiener, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Berryhill

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-15, 8/28/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Local government: nuisance abatement

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill allows cities and counties to recover fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments until January 1, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, under the United States and California Constitutions, governments from impairing property rights without due process of law.
2. Allows counties and cities to adopt and enforce ordinances that regulate local health, safety, peace, and welfare.
3. Defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage.
4. Allows counties and cities to adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances (AB 2593, Veysey, 1965) and to recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
5. Allows, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency’s legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty (SB 814, Alquist, 1995).
6. Provides that a violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. In general, every ordinance violation that is determined to be an infraction is punishable by:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
   2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
   3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
7. Establishes higher limits for a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction, punishable by:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
   2. A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
   3. A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
8. Allows cities to impose fines and penalties through civil or criminal proceedings. These fines and penalties are limited to $1,000 per violation and six months in prison.

This bill:

1. Authorizes a county board of supervisors to assess fines related to nuisance abatement against a parcel if the parcel owner fails to pay the costs of abatement upon demand by the county.
2. Authorizes a city council to establish a procedure to collect abatement related fines by a nuisance abatement lien and to include fines in the cost of abatement that the council can specially assess against the parcel of land on which the nuisance is maintained.
3. Requires fines that are collected through a special assessment or nuisance abatement lien to be used to support local enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances, and to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.
4. Authorizes the collection of fines and penalties through these mechanisms only for violations that apply to electrical, plumbing, or other similar zoning or structural issues that create an immediate danger to health and safety.
5. Requires a city or county levying a fine pursuant to this bill to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the responsible party that the responsible party has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party.
6. Prohibits the collection of fines through these mechanisms for a violation that does not create an immediate danger to health or safety against a parcel pursuant to this bill unless the county has provided for a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties.
7. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2024.

Background

Counties’ nuisance abatement procedures. A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing in front of the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to a hearing board or hearing officer. A county may summarily abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determine that it constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county’s abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement cost to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as are provided for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it can also record a notice of abatement lien, which has the same effect as putting a lien on the property and has the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Cities’ nuisance abatement procedures. A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abatement of a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments. The tax collector's power of sale is not affected by the failure of the property owner to receive notice. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receive notice prior to recordation of the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. This hits them where it hurts: their pocketbook. But some recalcitrant property owners maintain nuisances on their properties while ignoring the administrative fines imposed by local governments because they realize that it is challenging for local agencies to enforce these fines through the courts. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities’ and counties’ efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings. The Golden State experienced the tragic consequences that unabated nuisances can have when the Ghost Ship warehouse caught fire. SB 1416 helps prevent these types of fires by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It enacts a recommendation from the Ghost Ship working group established by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which included local officials who have real-world experience with trying to make buildings safer. Using special assessment and abatement liens gives local officials a less expensive and more effective method for collecting unpaid fines and will provide a stronger incentive for property owners to comply with local ordinances. SB 1416 helps local agencies protect the public’s health and safety by giving them stronger code enforcement authority that mirrors the authority they already use to collect nuisance abatement costs.
2. Lien on me. Special assessments and abatement liens are powerful debt collection mechanisms, which local officials can use to foreclose and sell real property. When local governments use such powerful tools, property owners need substantial due process safeguards. Local administrative proceedings must meet minimum due process standards established by the courts, including adequate notice to the proper parties, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a chance to challenge the evidence. Additionally, state law specifically allows property owners to appeal local administrative fines and penalties in Superior Court. Allowing local officials to collect unpaid administrative fines with special assessments and abatement liens puts the burden on the property owner to dispute the fines after it has already been collected, instead of requiring a local government to go to court when a property owner doesn’t pay. This makes it easier for local governments to collect the money, but harder for a property owner to dispute improperly imposed fines. In addition, cities that want a stronger deterrent can pursue civil or criminal charges. Given that local governments have other powerful tools available, is this tool needed?

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 345 (Ridley-Thomas, 2017) contained similar provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2023, and would have also increased the maximum administrative fines for violations of city building codes and safety standards. AB 345 was subsequently amended for an unrelated purpose.

AB 2317 (Saldana, 2010) also contained similar provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, but with a sunset date of January 1, 2014. AB 2317 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 10/5/18)

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California Building Officials

California Business Properties Association

County of Riverside

League of California Cities

OPPOSITION: (Verified 10/5/18)

None received

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Senate Bill 1416 without my signature.

This bill allows, until January 1, 2024, cities and counties to recover fines related to nuisance abatement through liens and special assessments.

I vetoed a similar bill in 2011 because I was concerned that allowing local governments to collect fines by assessing them against an owner's property reduced important due process protections. My thoughts on the matter have not changed.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-15, 8/28/18

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Chen, Cunningham, Dahle, Harper, Lackey, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Voepel

NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi, Flora, Fong, Kiley

Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119

10/9/18 10:57:32

**** END ****

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 1416

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/9/18

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Hernandez

SENATE FLOOR: 33-1, 5/21/18

AYES: Allen, Anderson, Atkins, Bates, Beall, Berryhill, Bradford, Cannella, Dodd, Gaines, Galgiani, Glazer, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Lara, Leyva, McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Moorlach, Newman, Nielsen, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Skinner, Stern, Stone, Vidak, Wiener, Wilk

NOES: Morrell

NO VOTE RECORDED: De León, Fuller, Jackson, Nguyen, Wieckowski

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-15, 8/28/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill allows cities and counties to recover fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments until January 1, 2024.

Assembly Amendments

provide an opportunity to cure the violation before fines accrue, narrow the use of the collection mechanism under the bill to violations of electrical, plumbing, or other similar zoning or structural issues that create an immediate danger to health and safety, and establish a procedure for granting a hardship waiver.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, under the United States and California Constitutions, governments from impairing property rights without due process of law.
2. Allows counties and cities to adopt and enforce ordinances that regulate local health, safety, peace, and welfare.
3. Defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage.
4. Allows counties and cities to adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances (AB 2593, Veysey, 1965) and to recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
5. Allows, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency’s legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty (SB 814, Alquist, 1995).
6. Provides that a violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. In general, every ordinance violation that is determined to be an infraction is punishable by:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
   2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
   3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
7. Establishes higher limits for a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction, punishable by:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
   2. A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
   3. A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
8. Allows cities to impose fines and penalties through civil or criminal proceedings. These fines and penalties are limited to $1,000 per violation and six months in prison.

This bill:

1. Authorizes a county board of supervisors to assess fines related to nuisance abatement against a parcel if the parcel owner fails to pay the costs of abatement upon demand by the county.
2. Authorizes a city council to establish a procedure to collect abatement related fines by a nuisance abatement lien and to include fines in the cost of abatement that the council can specially assess against the parcel of land on which the nuisance is maintained.
3. Requires fines that are collected through a special assessment or nuisance abatement lien to be used to support local enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances, and to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.
4. Authorizes the collection of fines and penalties through these mechanisms only for violations that apply to electrical, plumbing, or other similar zoning or structural issues that create an immediate danger to health and safety.
5. Requires a city or county levying a fine pursuant to this bill to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the responsible party that the responsible party has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party.
6. Prohibits the collection of fines through these mechanisms for a violation that does not create an immediate danger to health or safety against a parcel pursuant to this bill unless the county has provided for a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties.
7. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2024.

Background

Counties’ nuisance abatement procedures. A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing in front of the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to a hearing board or hearing officer. A county may summarily abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determine that it constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county’s abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement cost to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as are provided for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it can also record a notice of abatement lien, which has the same effect as putting a lien on the property and has the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Cities’ nuisance abatement procedures. A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abatement of a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments. The tax collector's power of sale is not affected by the failure of the property owner to receive notice. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receive notice prior to recordation of the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. This hits them where it hurts: their pocketbook. But some recalcitrant property owners maintain nuisances on their properties while ignoring the administrative fines imposed by local governments because they realize that it is challenging for local agencies to enforce these fines through the courts. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities’ and counties’ efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings. The Golden State experienced the tragic consequences that unabated nuisances can have when the Ghost Ship warehouse caught fire. SB 1416 helps prevent these types of fires by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It enacts a recommendation from the Ghost Ship working group established by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which included local officials who have real-world experience with trying to make buildings safer. Using special assessment and abatement liens gives local officials a less expensive and more effective method for collecting unpaid fines and will provide a stronger incentive for property owners to comply with local ordinances. SB 1416 helps local agencies protect the public’s health and safety by giving them stronger code enforcement authority that mirrors the authority they already use to collect nuisance abatement costs.
2. Lien on me. Special assessments and abatement liens are powerful debt collection mechanisms, which local officials can use to foreclose and sell real property. When local governments use such powerful tools, property owners need substantial due process safeguards. Local administrative proceedings must meet minimum due process standards established by the courts, including adequate notice to the proper parties, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a chance to challenge the evidence. Additionally, state law specifically allows property owners to appeal local administrative fines and penalties in Superior Court. Allowing local officials to collect unpaid administrative fines with special assessments and abatement liens puts the burden on the property owner to dispute the fines after it has already been collected, instead of requiring a local government to go to court when a property owner doesn’t pay. This makes it easier for local governments to collect the money, but harder for a property owner to dispute improperly imposed fines. In addition, cities that want a stronger deterrent can pursue civil or criminal charges. Given that local governments have other powerful tools available, is this tool needed?

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 345 (Ridley-Thomas, 2017) contained similar provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2023, and would have also increased the maximum administrative fines for violations of city building codes and safety standards. AB 345 was subsequently amended for an unrelated purpose.

AB 2317 (Saldana, 2010) also contained similar provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, but with a sunset date of January 1, 2014. AB 2317 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/28/18)

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California Building Officials

California Business Properties Association

County of Riverside

League of California Cities

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/28/18)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 61-15, 8/28/18

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Berman, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Daly, Eggman, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez Fletcher, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rivas, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Acosta, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Chen, Cunningham, Dahle, Harper, Lackey, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Steinorth, Voepel

NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi, Flora, Fong, Kiley

Prepared by:

8/28/18 21:35:55

**** END ****

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1416

Author:(McGuire)

As Amended Ver:August 24, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 33-1

SUMMARY: Allows, until January 1, 2024, cities and counties to recover fines related to nuisance abatement through liens and special assessments and requires fines recovered to be used for specified purposes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows the legislative body of a city or county to collect fines related to nuisance abatement by using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment.
2. Specifies that the imposition of fines and penalties authorized by this bill is authorized only where the violation applies to electrical, plumbing, or other similar zoning or structural issues that create an immediate danger to health and safety.
3. Requires fines that are collected through a special assessment or nuisance abatement lien to only be used to support local enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances, and to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.
4. Requires a city or a county levying a fine pursuant to this bill to establish a process for granting a hardship waiver to reduce the amount of the fine upon a showing by the responsible party that the responsible party has made a bona fide effort to comply after the first violation and that payment of the full amount of the fine would impose an undue financial burden on the responsible party.
5. Prohibits a city or county from specially assessing fines or penalties related to nuisance abatement for a violation that does not create an immediate danger to health or safety against a parcel pursuant to this bill unless the city or county has provided for a reasonable period of time, as specified in the ordinance, for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or otherwise remedy the violation prior to the imposition of administrative fines or penalties, except where the violation creates an immediate danger to health or safety.
6. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2024.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.
2. Allows counties and cities to adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances and to recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
3. Defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage.
4. Allows, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency's legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty.
5. Allows the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county, to collect any fee, cost, or charge incurred in specified activities, including the abatement of public nuisances, enforcement of specified zoning ordinances, inspections and abatement of violations of the State Housing Law, inspections and abatement of violations of the California Building Standards Code, and inspections and abatement of violations related to local ordinances that implement these laws.
6. Limits the amount of a fee, cost, or charge described above to the actual cost incurred performing the inspections and enforcement activity, including permit fees, fines, late charges, and interest.
7. Provides that violation of a county or city ordinance is a misdemeanor, unless by ordinance it is made an infraction.
8. Provides that a violation of a county or city ordinance may be prosecuted by county or city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.
9. Provides that every violation of a county or city ordinance determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
   2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and,
   3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
10. Provides that a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
    1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
    2. A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and,
    3. A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill allows a city or county to collect fines related to nuisance abatement by using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment for violations that apply to electrical, plumbing, or other similar zoning or structural issues that create an immediate danger to health and safety.

Funds collected may only be used for the following purposes: to support enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances; and, to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.

Cities or counties levying a fine pursuant to this bill must establish a hardship waiver process to reduce fines when they pose an undue financial burden for responsible parties. This bill prohibits counties and cities from specially assessing fines and penalties for a violation that does not create an immediate danger to health or safety, unless a reasonable period of time has been granted to correct or otherwise remedy the violation.

These provisions sunset on January 1, 2024. This bill is sponsored by the author.

1. Author's Statement. According to the author, "Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. Fines hit bad actors where it hurts: their pocketbook. If they don't fix it, the city or county can abate the nuisance for them. For example, one of the contributing factors to the Ghost Ship fire was the accumulation of flammable material in and around the building. These materials can constitute a nuisance and – more importantly – intensify fires. However, local agencies can only recover the costs of abating the nuisance through a special assessment against the property; they can't make the landlord pay the fines in the same way – they have to go to court. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities' and counties' efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings.

"SB 1416 helps prevent unsafe conditions, including those like occurred at the Ghost Ship, by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It allows local governments to recover nuisance abatement fines through assessments and liens on properties. This is similar to existing practice – it just allows local officials to use the same mechanism they already use to recover abatement costs to also recover fines. This ensures that local governments can collect the fines that they impose, instead of letting violators off the hook for maintaining unsafe conditions and ensures that local governments have the tools they need to protect public health and safety."

1. Background. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. This "police power" provides the right to adopt and enforce zoning regulations, as long as they do not conflict with state laws.

Current law allows counties and cities to establish ordinances, and makes violations of ordinances misdemeanors, unless by ordinance the county or city makes them infractions. The violation of an ordinance may be prosecuted by county or city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action. Current law outlines the following fine structure for ordinance violations, and for building and safety code violations, that are determined to be infractions:

1. Nuisance Abatement. Both cities and counties are allowed, via ordinance, to establish administrative procedures for abating nuisances that include the ability to recover abatement costs via special assessments and abatement liens. A public nuisance is generally defined as "Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway." In addition, a city's legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance via ordinance.

A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abatement of a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receive notice before recording the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing before the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to a hearing board or a hearing officer. A county can abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determines constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county's abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement costs to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures, and sale in case of delinquency as for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it also can record a notice of abatement lien, which has the same effect as recording an abstract of a money judgment and the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

1. Ghost Ship Fire. Late on the night of December 2, 2016, a fire at a converted warehouse known as the "Ghost Ship" resulted in the deaths of 36 individuals – the highest death toll for a structural fire in the United States in over ten years. The electrical system was identified as the most likely source of the fire: residents of the Ghost Ship frequently used extension cords in place of functioning wiring inside the Ghost Ship, and power was provided through a connection to a neighboring auto body shop instead of being directly provided to the warehouse. Other safety issues at the Ghost Ship included a high concentration of flammable materials throughout the space.

Over the past year, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee held two hearings on the Ghost Ship fire to identify the challenges that local governments face when trying to identify and fix dangerous buildings. The Committee also convened several working group meetings and identified a set of proposed solutions. This bill is one of those proposals.

1. Previous Legislation. AB 345 (Caballero) of 2018, would have allowed cities and counties to recover nuisance abatement fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments, and would have increased the maximum allowable fines for violations of city building and safety codes. AB 345 was subsequently amended to address a different subject.

AB 556 (Limón), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2017, allowed counties to assess increased fines for a violation of an event permit requirement that is an infraction as follows: a fine not exceeding $150 for the first violation; a fine not exceeding $700 for a second occurrence of the same violation by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation; and, a fine not exceeding $2,500 for each additional occurrence of the same violation by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation.

AB 514 (Williams) of 2015 would have allowed counties to assess larger administrative fines for specified violations of county ordinances determined to be infractions that govern building and safety, brush removal, grading, film permitting, and zoning. AB 514 was vetoed with the following message:

The public's health and safety is compromised when people willfully violate county ordinances. Deterring such behavior is a worthwhile goal. This bill, however, lacks the balance needed to prevent unintended consequences, especially on those with modest means and those who are unfamiliar with their local ordinances.

AB 2317 (Saldana) of 2010 would have expanded nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2014. AB 2317 was vetoed with the following message:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2317 without my signature. It is important that the due process rights of homeowners are balanced against a local government's right to collect a nuisance abatement fine. The current system that requires a local government to seek judicial approval to impose a lien properly balances these opposing interests. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill.

1. Arguments in Support. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors, in support, states, "This authority represents an important new tool for local governments in ensuring compliance with fire and building codes and in protecting public safety. Importantly, the measure would require any recovered fines or penalties related to these provisions to be used for supporting local enforcement of state and local building and fire code standards…The County of Riverside has considerable experience with property owners who have not been deterred by the issuance of fines. Therefore, we believe that the new authority that would be conferred by SB 1416 is appropriate and would be used judiciously."
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0004904

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 1416

Author:(McGuire)

As Amended Ver:April 4, 2018

Majority vote

SENATE VOTE: 33-1

SUMMARY: Allows, until January 1, 2024, cities and counties to recover fines related to nuisance abatement through liens and special assessments and requires fines recovered to be used for specified purposes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows the legislative body of a city or county to collect fines related to nuisance abatement by using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment.
2. Requires fines that are collected through a special assessment or nuisance abatement lien to only be used to support local enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances, and to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.
3. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2024.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.
2. Allows counties and cities to adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances and to recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
3. Defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage.
4. Allows, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency's legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty.
5. Allows the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county, to collect any fee, cost, or charge incurred in specified activities, including the abatement of public nuisances, enforcement of specified zoning ordinances, inspections and abatement of violations of the State Housing Law, inspections and abatement of violations of the California Building Standards Code, and inspections and abatement of violations related to local ordinances that implement these laws.
6. Limits the amount of a fee, cost, or charge described above to the actual cost incurred performing the inspections and enforcement activity, including permit fees, fines, late charges, and interest.
7. Provides that violation of a county or city ordinance is a misdemeanor, unless by ordinance it is made an infraction.
8. Provides that a violation of a county or city ordinance may be prosecuted by county or city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.
9. Provides that every violation of a county or city ordinance determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
   2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and,
   3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
10. Provides that a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
    1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
    2. A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and,
    3. A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill allows a city or county to collect fines related to nuisance abatement by using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment, and requires those funds to only be used for the following purposes: to support enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances; and, to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing. These provisions sunset on January 1, 2024. This bill is sponsored by the author.
2. Author's Statement. According to the author, "Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. Fines hit bad actors where it hurts: their pocketbook. If they don't fix it, the city or county can abate the nuisance for them. For example, one of the contributing factors to the Ghost Ship fire was the accumulation of flammable material in and around the building. These materials can constitute a nuisance and – more importantly – intensify fires. However, local agencies can only recover the costs of abating the nuisance through a special assessment against the property; they can't make the landlord pay the fines in the same way – they have to go to court. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities' and counties' efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings.

"SB 1416 helps prevent unsafe conditions, including those like occurred at the Ghost Ship, by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It allows local governments to recover nuisance abatement fines through assessments and liens on properties. This is similar to existing practice – it just allows local officials to use the same mechanism they already use to recover abatement costs to also recover fines. This ensures that local governments can collect the fines that they impose, instead of letting violators off the hook for maintaining unsafe conditions and ensures that local governments have the tools they need to protect public health and safety."

1. Background. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. This "police power" provides the right to adopt and enforce zoning regulations, as long as they do not conflict with state laws.

Current law allows counties and cities to establish ordinances, and makes violations of ordinances misdemeanors, unless by ordinance the county or city makes them infractions. The violation of an ordinance may be prosecuted by county or city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action. Current law outlines the following fine structure for ordinance violations, and for building and safety code violations, that are determined to be infractions:

1. Nuisance Abatement. Both cities and counties are allowed, via ordinance, to establish administrative procedures for abating nuisances that include the ability to recover abatement costs via special assessments and abatement liens. A public nuisance is generally defined as "Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway." In addition, a city's legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance via ordinance.

A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abatement of a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receive notice before recording the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing before the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to a hearing board or a hearing officer. A county can abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determines constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county's abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement costs to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures, and sale in case of delinquency as for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it also can record a notice of abatement lien, which has the same effect as recording an abstract of a money judgment and the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

1. Ghost Ship Fire. Late on the night of December 2, 2016, a fire at a converted warehouse known as the "Ghost Ship" resulted in the deaths of 36 individuals – the highest death toll for a structural fire in the United States in over ten years. The electrical system was identified as the most likely source of the fire: residents of the Ghost Ship frequently used extension cords in place of functioning wiring inside the Ghost Ship, and power was provided through a connection to a neighboring auto body shop instead of being directly provided to the warehouse. Other safety issues at the Ghost Ship included a high concentration of flammable materials throughout the space.

Over the past year, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee held two hearings on the Ghost Ship fire to identify the challenges that local governments face when trying to identify and fix dangerous buildings. The Committee also convened several working group meetings and identified a set of proposed solutions. This bill is one of those proposals.

1. Previous Legislation. AB 345 (Caballero and Aguiar-Curry) of 2017, would have allowed cities and counties to recover nuisance abatement fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments, and would have increased the maximum allowable fines for violations of city building and safety codes. AB 345 was subsequently amended to address a different subject.

AB 556 (Limón), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2017, allowed counties to assess increased fines for a violation of an event permit requirement that is an infraction as follows: a fine not exceeding $150 for the first violation; a fine not exceeding $700 for a second occurrence of the same violation by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation; and, a fine not exceeding $2,500 for each additional occurrence of the same violation by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation.

AB 514 (Williams) of 2015 would have allowed counties to assess larger administrative fines for specified violations of county ordinances determined to be infractions that govern building and safety, brush removal, grading, film permitting, and zoning. AB 514 was vetoed with the following message:

"The public's health and safety is compromised when people willfully violate county ordinances. Deterring such behavior is a worthwhile goal. This bill, however, lacks the balance needed to prevent unintended consequences, especially on those with modest means and those who are unfamiliar with their local ordinances."

AB 2317 (Saldana) of 2010 would have expanded nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2014.
AB 2317 was vetoed with the following message:

"I am returning Assembly Bill 2317 without my signature. It is important that the due process rights of homeowners are balanced against a local government's right to collect a nuisance abatement fine. The current system that requires a local government to seek judicial approval to impose a lien properly balances these opposing interests. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."

1. Arguments in Support. The California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, in support, states, "The Golden State experienced the tragic consequences that unabated nuisances can have when the Ghost Ship warehouse caught fire. SB 1416 helps prevent these types of fires by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It enacts a recommendation from the Ghost Ship working group established by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which included local officials who have real-world experience with trying to make buildings safer. Using special assessment and abatement liens gives local officials a less expensive and more effective method for collecting unpaid fines and will provide a stronger incentive for property owners to comply with local ordinances. SB 1416 helps local agencies protect the public's health and safety by giving them stronger code enforcement authority that mirrors the authority they already use to collect nuisance abatement costs."
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003646

Date of Hearing: June 27, 2018

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 1416

Author:(McGuire) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2018

SENATE VOTE: 33-1

SUBJECT: Local government: nuisance abatement.

SUMMARY: Allows, until January 1, 2024, cities and counties to recover fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments and requires fines recovered to be used for specified purposes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows the legislative body of a city or county to collect fines related to nuisance abatement by using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment.
2. Requires fines that are collected through a special assessment or nuisance abatement lien
   to only be used to support local enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances, and to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund
   at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.
3. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2024.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.
2. Allows counties and cities to adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances and to recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
3. Defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage.
4. Allows, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency’s legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty.
5. Allows the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county, to collect any fee, cost,
   or charge incurred in specified activities, including the abatement of public nuisances, enforcement of specified zoning ordinances, inspections and abatement of violations
   of the State Housing Law, inspections and abatement of violations of the California Building Standards Code, and inspections and abatement of violations related to local ordinances that implement these laws.
6. Limits the amount of a fee, cost, or charge described above to the actual cost incurred performing the inspections and enforcement activity, including permit fees, fines, late charges, and interest.
7. Provides that violation of a county or city ordinance is a misdemeanor, unless by ordinance
   it is made an infraction.
8. Provides that a violation of a county or city ordinance may be prosecuted by county or city authorities in the name of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action.
9. Provides that every violation of a county or city ordinance determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
   2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and,
   3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
10. Provides that a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction is punishable by the following:
    1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
    2. A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year; and,
    3. A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.

FISCAL EFFECT: None

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill allows a city or county to collect fines related to nuisance abatement by using a nuisance abatement lien or a special assessment, and requires those funds to only be used for the following purposes: to support enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances; and, to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing. These provisions sunset on January 1, 2024. This bill is sponsored by the author.
2. Author's Statement. According to the author, "Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. Fines hit bad actors where it hurts: their pocketbook. If they don’t fix it, the city or county can abate the nuisance for them. For example, one of the
   
   contributing factors to the Ghost Ship fire was the accumulation of flammable material in and around the building. These materials can constitute a nuisance and – more importantly – intensify fires. However, local agencies can only recover the costs of abating the nuisance through a special assessment against the property; they can’t make the landlord pay the fines in the same way – they have to go to court. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities' and counties' efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings.

"SB 1416 helps prevent unsafe conditions, including those like occurred at the Ghost Ship, by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It allows local governments to recover nuisance abatement fines through assessments and liens on properties. This is similar to existing practice – it just allows local officials to use the same mechanism they already use to recover abatement costs to also recover fines. This ensures that local governments can collect the fines that they impose, instead of letting violators off the hook for maintaining unsafe conditions and ensures that local governments have the tools they need to protect public health and safety."

1. Background. A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws. This "police power" provides the right to adopt and enforce zoning regulations, as long as they do not conflict with state laws.

Current law allows counties and cities to establish ordinances, and makes violations of ordinances misdemeanors, unless by ordinance the county or city makes them infractions. The violation of an ordinance may be prosecuted by county or city authorities in the name
of the people of the State of California, or redressed by civil action. Current law outlines the following fine structure for ordinance violations, and for building and safety code violations, that are determined to be infractions:

1. Nuisance Abatement. Both cities and counties are allowed, via ordinance, to establish administrative procedures for abating nuisances that include the ability to recover abatement costs via special assessments and abatement liens. A public nuisance is generally defined
   as "Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment
   
   
   of life or property by an entire community or neighborhood, or by any considerable number of persons, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway." In addition, a city's legislative body may declare what constitutes a nuisance via ordinance.

A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abatement of a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receive notice before recording the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing before the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to a hearing board or a hearing officer. A county can abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determines constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county’s abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement costs to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures, and sale in case of delinquency as for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it also can record a notice
of abatement lien, which has the same effect as recording an abstract of a money judgment and the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

1. Ghost Ship Fire. Late on the night of December 2, 2016, a fire at a converted warehouse known as the “Ghost Ship,” resulted in the deaths of 36 individuals – the highest death toll for a structural fire in the United States in over ten years. The electrical system was identified as the most likely source of the fire: residents of the Ghost Ship frequently used extension cords in place of functioning wiring inside the Ghost Ship, and power was provided through a connection to a neighboring auto body shop instead of being directly provided to the warehouse. Other safety issues at the Ghost Ship included a high concentration of flammable materials throughout the space.

Over the past year, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee held two hearings on the Ghost Ship fire to identify the challenges that local governments face when trying to identify and fix dangerous buildings. The Committee also convened several working group meetings and identified a set of proposed solutions. This bill is one of those proposals.

1. Previous Legislation. AB 345 (Ridley-Thomas) of 2017, would have allowed cities and counties to recover nuisance abatement fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments, and would have increased the maximum allowable fines for violations of city building and safety codes. AB 345 was subsequently amended to address a different subject.

AB 556 (Limón), Chapter 405, Statutes of 2017, allowed counties to assess increased fines for a violation of an event permit requirement that is an infraction as follows: a fine not exceeding $150 for the first violation; a fine not exceeding $700 for a second occurrence
of the same violation by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation; and, a fine not exceeding $2,500 for each additional occurrence of the same violation by the same owner or operator within three years of the first violation.

AB 514 (Williams) of 2015, would have allowed counties to assess larger administrative fines for specified violations of county ordinances determined to be infractions that govern building and safety, brush removal, grading, film permitting, and zoning. AB 514 was vetoed with the following message:

"The public's health and safety is compromised when people willfully violate county ordinances. Deterring such behavior is a worthwhile goal. This bill, however, lacks the balance needed to prevent unintended consequences, especially on those with modest means and those who are unfamiliar with their local ordinances."

AB 2317 (Saldana) of 2010, also expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2014.
AB 2317 was vetoed with the following message:

"I am returning Assembly Bill 2317 without my signature. It is important that the due process rights of homeowners are balanced against a local government's right to collect
a nuisance abatement fine. The current system that requires a local government to seek judicial approval to impose a lien properly balances these opposing interests. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill."

1. Arguments in Support. The California Association of Code Enforcement Officers,
   in support, states, "The Golden State experienced the tragic consequences that unabated nuisances can have when the Ghost Ship warehouse caught fire. SB 1416 helps prevent
   these types of fires by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It enacts a recommendation from the Ghost Ship working group established
   by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which included local officials who
   have real-world experience with trying to make buildings safer. Using special assessment and abatement liens gives local officials a less expensive and more effective method for collecting unpaid fines and will provide a stronger incentive for property owners to comply with local ordinances. SB 1416 helps local agencies protect the public’s health and safety by giving them stronger code enforcement authority that mirrors the authority they already use to collect nuisance abatement costs."
2. Arguments in Opposition. None on file.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California Building Officials

California Business Properties Association

County of Riverside

Opposition

None on file

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 1416

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 5-0, 5/9/18

AYES: McGuire, Beall, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach

NO VOTE RECORDED: Nguyen, Hernandez

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill allows cities and counties to recover fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments until January 1, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, under the United States and California Constitutions, governments from impairing property rights without due process of law.
2. Allows counties and cities to adopt and enforce ordinances that regulate local health, safety, peace, and welfare.
3. Defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage.
4. Allows counties and cities to adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances (AB 2593, Veysey, 1965) and to recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
5. Allows, as an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency’s legislative body to make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty (SB 814, Alquist, 1995).
6. Provides that a violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. In general, every ordinance violation that is determined to be an infraction is punishable by:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
   2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
   3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
7. Establishes higher limits for a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction, punishable by:
   1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
   2. A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
   3. A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
8. Allows cities to impose fines and penalties through civil or criminal proceedings. These fines and penalties are limited to $1,000 per violation and six months in prison.

This bill:

1. Authorizes a county board of supervisors to assess fines related to nuisance abatement against a parcel if the parcel owner fails to pay the costs of abatement upon demand by the county.
2. Authorizes a city council to establish a procedure to collect abatement related fines by a nuisance abatement lien and to include fines in the cost of abatement that the council can specially assess against the parcel of land on which the nuisance is maintained.
3. Requires fines that are collected through a special assessment or nuisance abatement lien to be used to support local enforcement of state and local building and fire codes and municipal codes related to nuisances, and to facilitate compliance with state and local building and fire code standards, including through establishment of a revolving loan fund at the municipal level for rehabilitating substandard housing.
4. Repeals the above provisions on January 1, 2024.

Background

Counties’ nuisance abatement procedures. A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing in front of the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to a hearing board or hearing officer. A county may summarily abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determine that it constitutes an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county’s abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement cost to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as are provided for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it can also record a notice of abatement lien, which has the same effect as putting a lien on the property and has the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Cities’ nuisance abatement procedures. A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abatement of a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments. The tax collector's power of sale is not affected by the failure of the property owner to receive notice. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receive notice prior to recordation of the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. This hits them where it hurts: their pocketbook. But some recalcitrant property owners maintain nuisances on their properties while ignoring the administrative fines imposed by local governments because they realize that it is challenging for local agencies to enforce these fines through the courts. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities’ and counties’ efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings. The Golden State experienced the tragic consequences that unabated nuisances can have when the Ghost Ship warehouse caught fire. SB 1416 helps prevent these types of fires by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It enacts a recommendation from the Ghost Ship working group established by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which included local officials who have real-world experience with trying to make buildings safer. Using special assessment and abatement liens gives local officials a less expensive and more effective method for collecting unpaid fines and will provide a stronger incentive for property owners to comply with local ordinances. SB 1416 helps local agencies protect the public’s health and safety by giving them stronger code enforcement authority that mirrors the authority they already use to collect nuisance abatement costs.
2. Lien on me. Special assessments and abatement liens are powerful debt collection mechanisms, which local officials can use to foreclose and sell real property. When local governments use such powerful tools, property owners need substantial due process safeguards. Local administrative proceedings must meet minimum due process standards established by the courts, including adequate notice to the proper parties, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a chance to challenge the evidence. Additionally, state law specifically allows property owners to appeal local administrative fines and penalties in Superior Court. Allowing local officials to collect unpaid administrative fines with special assessments and abatement liens puts the burden on the property owner to dispute the fines after it has already been collected, instead of requiring a local government to go to court when a property owner doesn’t pay. This makes it easier for local governments to collect the money, but harder for a property owner to dispute improperly imposed fines. In addition, cities that want a stronger deterrent can pursue civil or criminal charges. Given that local governments have other powerful tools available, is this tool needed?

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 345 (Ridley-Thomas, 2017) contained similar provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2023, and would have also increased the maximum administrative fines for violations of city building codes and safety standards. AB 345 was subsequently amended for an unrelated purpose.

AB 2317 (Saldana, 2010) also contained similar provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, but with a sunset date of January 1, 2014. AB 2317 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/11/18)

California Association of Code Enforcement Officers

California Building Officials

California Business Properties Association

County of Riverside

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/11/18)

None received

Prepared by:

5/11/18 12:41:46

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE

Senator Mike McGuire, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Local government: nuisance abatement

Allows cities and counties to recover fines through nuisance abatement liens and special assessments until January 1, 2024.

Background

The United States and California Constitutions prohibit governments from impairing property rights without due process of law. The California Constitution also allows counties and cities to adopt and enforce ordinances that regulate local health, safety, peace, and welfare.

State law defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to health, indecent or offensive to the senses, obstructs the free use of property, or unlawfully obstructs free passage. In addition to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, counties and cities can adopt ordinances that establish local procedures for abating nuisances (AB 2593, Veysey, 1965). Counties and cities can recover abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a special assessment, abatement lien, or both.

Counties’ Nuisance Abatement Procedures. A county ordinance establishing administrative procedures for nuisance abatement must require that the owner of the parcel, and anyone known to be in possession of the parcel, receive notice of the abatement proceeding and have a hearing in front of the board of supervisors before the county can abate the nuisance. The county supervisors can delegate the hearing to either a hearing board or hearing officer. A county may summarily abate a nuisance that a board of supervisors or county officer determines to constitute an immediate threat to public health or safety.

If the owner fails to pay the county’s abatement costs, the board of supervisors can order the abatement cost to be specially assessed against the parcel. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as are provided for ordinary county taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment.

If a county specially assesses abatement costs against a parcel, it can also record a notice of abatement lien, which has the same effect as putting a lien on the property and has the same priority as a judgment lien. If no abatement lien is recorded and the real property on which an assessment is imposed is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the assessment transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Cities’ Nuisance Abatement Procedures. A city ordinance establishing a procedure for nuisance abatement and making the cost of abating a nuisance upon a parcel of land a special assessment against that parcel must include notice, by certified mail, to the property owner. The notice must be given at the time of imposing the assessment and must specify that the property may be sold after three years by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments. The tax collector's power of sale is not affected by the failure of the property owner to receive notice. The assessment can be collected on the property tax bill, subject to the same penalties, procedure, and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary municipal taxes. All laws regarding the levy, collection, and enforcement of municipal taxes apply to the special assessment. However, if the real property is sold, or becomes foreclosed, before the first installment of the taxes becomes delinquent, then the cost of abatement transfers to the unsecured tax roll for collection.

Alternatively, a city can, by ordinance, establish a procedure to collect abatement costs, including administrative costs, by a nuisance abatement lien. The ordinance must require that the owner of the parcel on which the nuisance is maintained receives notice prior to recordation of the abatement lien. If the owner cannot be served with the notice, it can be posted on the property and published in a newspaper. A nuisance abatement lien must be recorded with the county recorder and has the force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien. The lien may be foreclosed by an action brought by the city for a money judgment.

Local Penalties for Ordinance Violations. As an alternative to civil and criminal enforcement mechanisms, a local agency’s legislative body can make any violation of any of its ordinances subject to an administrative fine or penalty (SB 814, Alquist, 1995). The local agency must adopt an ordinance specifying the administrative procedures that govern the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review of the fines or penalties. The administrative procedures must grant a reasonable time to remedy a continuing violation before the imposition of administrative fines or penalties when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural and zoning issues that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety. Within 20 days after service of a final administrative order or decision regarding administrative fines or penalties, a person contesting that final administrative order or decision may appeal in Superior Court. Local agencies must go through a civil court proceeding to collect unpaid fines and penalties.

Under state law, a violation of a city ordinance is a misdemeanor unless by ordinance it is made an infraction. In general, every ordinance violation that is determined to be an infraction is punishable by:

• A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
• A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
• A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.

As an exception to the general limits on fines for infractions, SB 567 (Torlakson, 2003) established higher limits for a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be an infraction. These violations are punishable by:

• A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation.
• A fine not exceeding $500 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year.
• A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.

Cities may also impose fines and penalties through civil or criminal proceedings. These fines and penalties are limited to $1,000 per violation and six months in prison.

Ghost Ship fire. Late on the night of December 2, 2016, a fire at a converted warehouse known as the “Ghost Ship,” resulted in the deaths of 36 individuals—the highest death toll for a structural fire in the United States in over ten years. The electrical system was identified as the most likely source of the fire: residents of the Ghost Ship frequently used extension cords in place of functioning wiring inside the Ghost Ship, and power was provided through a connection to a neighboring auto body shop instead of being directly provided to the warehouse. Other safety issues at the Ghost Ship included a high concentration of flammable materials throughout the space.

Over the past year, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee held two hearings on the Ghost Ship fire to identify the challenges that local governments face when trying to identify and fix dangerous buildings. The Committee also convened several working group meetings and identified a set of proposed solutions. The author wants to adopt one of the solutions brought forth by members of the working group.

Proposed Law

Senate Bill 1416 authorizes a county board of supervisors to assess fines related to nuisance abatement against a parcel if the parcel owner fails to pay the costs of abatement upon demand by the county. SB 1416 also authorizes a city council to establish a procedure to collect abatement related fines by a nuisance abatement lien and to include fines in the cost of abatement that the council can assess against the parcel of land upon which the nuisance is maintained. SB 1416 includes a sunset date for these provisions of January 1, 2024.

State Revenue Impact

No estimate.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. Local governments use various enforcement strategies to make buildings safer. One important strategy is to fine slumlords for having nuisances on their properties. This hits them where it hurts: their pocketbook. But some recalcitrant property owners maintain nuisances on their properties while ignoring the administrative fines imposed by local governments because they realize that it is challenging for local agencies to enforce these fines through the courts. These fines accumulate into large debts, which hinder cities’ and counties’ efforts to protect their residents from unsafe buildings. The Golden State experienced the tragic consequences that unabated nuisances can have when the Ghost Ship warehouse caught fire. SB 1416 helps prevent these types of fires by encouraging property owners to take care of nuisances on their property. It enacts a recommendation from the Ghost Ship working group established by the Committee, which included local officials who have real-world experience with trying to make buildings safer. Using special assessment and abatement liens gives local officials a less expensive and more effective method for collecting unpaid fines and will provide a stronger incentive for property owners to comply with local ordinances. SB 1416 helps local agencies protect the public’s health and safety by giving them stronger code enforcement authority that mirrors the authority they already use to collect nuisance abatement costs.

2. Lien on me. Special assessments and abatement liens are powerful debt collection mechanisms, which local officials can use to foreclose and sell real property. When local governments use such powerful tools, property owners need substantial due process safeguards. Local administrative proceedings must meet minimum due process standards established by the courts, including adequate notice to the proper parties, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, and a chance to challenge the evidence. Additionally, state law specifically allows property owners to appeal local administrative fines and penalties in Superior Court. Allowing local officials to collect unpaid administrative fines with special assessments and abatement liens puts the burden on the property owner to dispute the fines after it has already been collected, instead of requiring a local government to go to court when a property owner doesn’t pay. This makes it easier for local governments to collect the money, but harder for a property owner to dispute improperly imposed fines. In addition, cities that want a stronger deterrent can pursue civil or criminal charges. Given that local governments have other powerful tools available, is this tool needed?

3. Related legislation. AB 345 (Ridley-Thomas, 2017) contained identical provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, with a sunset date of January 1, 2023, and would have also increased the maximum administrative fines for violations of city building codes and safety standards. AB 345 passed the Senate Governance and Finance Committee by a vote of 5-1 but was subsequently amended for an unrelated purpose.

AB 2317 (Saldana, 2010) also contained identical provisions expanding nuisance abatement liens and special assessments to include administrative penalties, but with a sunset date of January 1, 2014. The Senate Local Government Committee approved AB 2317 by a vote of 3-1 but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger with the following message:

“I am returning Assembly Bill 2317 without my signature. It is important that the due process rights of homeowners are balanced against a local government's right to collect a nuisance abatement fine. The current system that requires a local government to seek judicial approval to impose a lien properly balances these opposing interests. For this reason I am unable to sign this bill.”

Support and Opposition

(5/2/18)

Support: California Building Officials (CALBO); California Business Properties Association; County of Riverside.

Opposition: Unknown.

-- END --