BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 683
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 683 (Mullin)
As Amended August 12, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: |54-22|(May 9, 2013) |SENATE: |23-12|(September 3, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: L. GOV.
SUMMARY : Authorizes, until January 1, 2020, a city, county, or
special district, after notice and public hearing, to impose a
special assessment and to record a lien against real property
that has incurred fines or penalties for violating public health
and safety ordinances.
The Senate amendments extend the bill's authority to special
districts and specify that the county, rather than the tax
collector, may send a notice of enforcement to the property
owner.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Allows the legislative body of a city, county, school
district, municipal corporation, district, political
subdivision, or any board, commission, or agency thereof, or
other local public agency to make any violation of any
ordinance enacted by the legislative body subject to an
administrative fine or penalty.
2)Allows cities and counties to establish by ordinance a
procedure to collect nuisance abatement costs and related
administrative costs by a nuisance abatement lien or a special
assessment.
3)Allows a county board of supervisors to delegate its powers
and duties to establish a nuisance abatement procedure to a
hearing officer pursuant to statutory provisions governing
hearing officers.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill:
1)Authorized a city, county, or city and county, after notice
AB 683
Page 2
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)Required the city, county, or city and county to mail or
deliver notice of the hearing at least 15 days beforehand to
the parcel owner. Ownership of the parcel shall 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)Allowed the assessment to be collected at the same time and in
the same manner as ordinary county taxes and subjects the
assessment to the same penalties, procedure and sale in case
of delinquency as are provided for ordinary county taxes.
4)Declared that all laws applicable to the levy, collection, and
enforcement of county taxes apply to the special assessment,
except that the special assessment is not subject to the
priority for special assessment liens pursuant to current law.
5)Provided that the assessment does not constitute a lien on the
real property until a notice of lien is recorded pursuant to
this bill's provisions.
6)Provided that, if any administrative fine or penalty remains
unpaid for 10 days after a public hearing, as specified in the
bill, the county tax collector may send the owner of the
parcel via certified mail a notice of enforcement stating 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, the city, county, or city and county 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 notice of lien must identify the
assessor's parcel number and 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 identify the amount of the lien.
7)Declared that recordation of a notice of lien has the same
effect as recordation of an abstract of a money judgment. The
AB 683
Page 3
lien against the parcel has the same force, effect, and
priority as a judgment lien on real property. The city,
county, or city and county, or any authorized officer may
release or subordinate the lien in the same manner as
releasing or subordinating a judgment lien on real property.
8)Authorized a city, county, or city and county, by ordinance,
to combine the administrative procedures that govern the
imposition, enforcement, collection, and administrative review
of administrative fines and penalties with existing nuisance
abatement procedures authorized in statute for cities and
counties.
9)Provided that the administrative procedures adopted by
ordinance governing the imposition, enforcement, collection,
and administrative review of administrative fines and
penalties may authorize the appointment of hearing officers to
hear and decide these issues.
10)Declared that the powers given to the legislative body of a
city, county, or city and county pursuant to this bill and
existing law governing the imposition, enforcement,
collection, and administrative review of administrative fines
and penalties is in addition to any other powers of a city,
county, or city and county under its charter or any other
legal authority.
11)Sunsetted the bill's provisions on January 1, 2020.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : This bill authorizes a city, county, or special
district, after notice and public hearing, to specially assess
and record a notice of lien for fines or penalties related to
ordinance violations that constitute a threat to public health
and safety on the real property for which the fines or penalties
are being assessed or recorded, if the owner of the real
property fails to pay those fines or penalties after demand by
the city, county, or special district. 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 governments to enforce local law against
those that are in violation of local health and safety
AB 683
Page 4
ordinances."
Current law allows cities and counties to establish, by
ordinance, procedures to recover their costs for abating
nuisance conditions on private property. They can do this via a
special assessment or a nuisance abatement lien, and must follow
specified notice and (for counties) public hearing requirements
beforehand. Assessments can be collected on the property tax
bill, subject to the same penalties, procedures and sale in case
of delinquency as for ordinary county or municipal taxes. All
laws regarding the levy, collection and enforcement of county or
city taxes apply to the special assessment. Nuisance abatement
liens, once recorded, have the same effect as a judgment lien.
Cities and counties may also impose administrative fines or
penalties for violations of their ordinances if they adopt an
ordinance that specifies the administrative procedures that
govern the imposition, enforcement, collection and
administrative review of these fines and penalties. If a fine
or penalty remains unpaid, local agencies must go to court to
collect. Supporters note that the court process is lengthy and
costly for local jurisdictions to pursue. This bill provides
mechanisms that local jurisdictions may use to collect fines and
penalties that mirror the procedures that current law allows for
nuisance abatement cost recovery.
The Legislature has approved similar bills twice: AB 129
(Beall) of 2011 and AB 2613 (Beall) of 2010 contained nearly
identical provisions. Both bills were vetoed. The veto message
for AB 129 stated:
"At a time when property owners are struggling to pay their
mortgages, this bill would weaken the due process requirements
for local building departments to obtain property liens. Local
governments already have a fair process in place, and I see no
reason to change it."
The Legislature may wish to ask the author and sponsor how they
plan to address concerns raised in the previous veto messages.
Support arguments: Supporters argue that allowing local
governments to collect unpaid administrative fines/penalties
through the property tax collection system and to combine their
administrative fine/penalty and nuisance abatement processes
provides local agencies with a more efficient collection
AB 683
Page 5
mechanism than civil litigation.
Opposition arguments: Opposition could argue that liens are a
powerful tool that should only be used in the most limited
circumstances. Expanding the liabilities for which a lien may
be imposed to include fines could offer incentives for local
governments to increase fines and set a precedent for further
expansion of special assessments and liens.
Analysis Prepared by : Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
FN: 0001646