BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 683|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 683
Author: Mullin (D)
Amended: 5/28/13 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FINANCE COMMITTEE : 5-2, 7/3/13
AYES: Wolk, Beall, DeSaulnier, Hernandez, Liu
NOES: Knight, Emmerson
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-22, 5/9/13 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Local government: fines and penalties: assessments
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill authorizes, until January 1, 2020, a city,
county, city and county, or special district, after notice and
public hearing, to order unpaid fines or penalties to be
specially assessed against a parcel if the fines or penalties
are related to ordinance violations on the real property that
constitute a threat to public health and safety.
ANALYSIS : 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 (California
Constitution, Article XI, Section 7).
State law defines a nuisance as anything that is injurious to
CONTINUED
AB 683
Page
2
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. Counties and cities can recover
abatement costs, including administrative costs, by using a
special assessment, abatement lien, or both.
This bill:
1.Authorizes, until January 1, 2020, a city, county, city and
county, or special district, after notice and public hearing,
to order unpaid fines or penalties to be specially assessed
against a parcel if the fines or penalties are related to
ordinance violations on the real property that constitute a
threat to public health and safety.
2.Requires a local government to mail or deliver notice of a
hearing at least 15 days prior to the hearing to the owner of
the parcel. For purposes of notice, ownership of the parcel
must be determined by the latest assessment roll, the records
of the county assessor, or the records of the tax collector,
whichever is most recent.
3.Allows the assessment to be collected at the same time and in
the same manner as ordinary county taxes and subject to the
same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of
delinquency.
4.Declares that all laws applicable to the levy, collection, and
enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment,
except the assessment does not constitute an assessment lien
pursuant to specified statutes governing special assessment
liens' priority. The bill also specifies that the assessment
does not constitute a lien on the real property until a notice
of lien is recorded.
If any administrative fine or penalty remains unpaid for 10
days following the conclusion of the public hearing, the tax
collector may send to the owner of the parcel, by certified
mail, a notice of enforcement that states that if payment has
not been received within 45 days following the date of the
notice, a lien will be recorded. If, after the 45-day period
following the notice, the fine or penalty has not been paid, a
CONTINUED
AB 683
Page
3
local government may specially assess the cost of the
administrative fines or penalties against the parcel and
record a notice of lien to perfect the lien. The lien notice
must:
Identify the assessor's parcel number,
Identify the record owner,
Set forth the last known address of the record owner,
Set forth the date upon which assessment was ordered by
the city, county, or city and county, and
State the amount of the lien.
1.Declares that recordation of a notice of lien has the same
effect as recordation of an abstract of a money judgment. The
lien against the parcel has the same force, effect, and
priority as a judgment lien on real property. The bill
al-lows the city, county, or city and county, or any
authorized officer to release or subordinate an abatement lien
in the same manner as releasing or subordinating a judgment
lien on real property.
2.Authorizes a city, county, city and county, or special
district to combine the administrative procedures governing
the imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative
review of administrative fines and penalties with specified
nuisance abatement procedures.
3.Allows a local agency, in administrative procedures, to
authorize the appointment of hearing officers to hear and
decide issues regarding ordinance violations and the
imposition of administrative fines or penalties.
4.Declares that the power it gives to the legislative body of a
city, county, city and county, or special district is in
addition to any other powers of a city, county, or city and
county under its charter or any other legal authority.
5.Provisions are automatically repealed on January 1, 2020.
Prior Legislation
This bill is nearly identical to AB 129 (Beall, 2011), which
Governor Brown vetoed. The Governor's veto message expressed
his concern that the bill weakened due process requirements for
CONTINUED
AB 683
Page
4
local agencies to obtain property liens and stated his
reluctance to change the current process for collecting unpaid
fines and penalties. This bill is also substantially similar to
AB 2613 (Beall, 2010), which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed.
The Governor's veto message cited the need to balance
homeowners' due process rights against a local government's
right to collect an ordinance violation fine.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/10/13)
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Association of County Treasurers and Tax Collectors
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
Cities of Sunnyvale and San Marcos
County of Sacramento
County of Santa Clara
League of California Cities
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, "AB 683 closes
the loop on an anomaly where cities and counties can recover
their costs for code enforcement by way of lien or tax
assessment - but are not able to similarly enforce fines. AB
683 allows local government to enforce local law against those
that are in violation of local health and safety ordinances. AB
683 seeks an efficient and effective remedy to enforce the law."
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 54-22, 5/9/13
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Blumenfield,
Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Ch�vez, Chesbro, Daly, Dickinson,
Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gordon,
Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal,
Medina, Mitchell, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Olsen, Pan,
Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Torres, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams,
Yamada, John A. P�rez
NOES: Allen, Bigelow, Conway, Cooley, Dahle, Donnelly, Beth
Gaines, Gorell, Gray, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones, Linder,
Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Morrell, Nestande, Patterson,
CONTINUED
AB 683
Page
5
Wagner, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Holden, Logue, Waldron, Vacancy
AB:nl 7/10/13 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED