BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE
Senator Robert M. Hertzberg, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Bill No: |AB 514 |Hearing | 7/8/15 |
| | |Date: | |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Author: |Williams |Tax Levy: |No |
|----------+---------------------------------+-----------+---------|
|Version: |6/29/15 |Fiscal: |Yes |
------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant|Weinberger |
|: | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FINES FOR COUNTY ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS
Raises the maximum amounts of administrative fines and penalties
that counties can impose for some violations of specified types
of ordinances.
Background and Existing Law
Under state law, a violation of a county 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,
a violation of local building and safety codes determined to be
an infraction is 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.
AB 514 (Williams) 6/29/15 Page 2
of ?
A fine not exceeding $1,000 for each additional
violation of the same ordinance within one year.
As an alternative to 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). Counties' administrative fines and penalties
are subject to the same maximum fine limits that state law
applies, in general, for ordinance violations that are
determined to be an infraction. 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.
Some county officials suggest that the maximum amounts of fines
that counties can impose under current law are too low to deter
some people from willfully violating county ordinances. For
example, in some circumstances, the costs of obtaining county
permits to hold a large event or undertake some kinds of
construction projects can far exceed the maximum fine amounts,
thereby allowing people to save money by choosing to violate
county permit requirements and pay the fines. To help counties
deter this kind of behavior, county officials want the
Legislature to increase the maximum fines that counties can
impose for some ordinance violations.
Proposed Law
Assembly Bill 514, as an exception to the general statutory
limits on fines that counties can impose for infractions, allows
a county to impose a higher administrative fine for a violation
of a local building and safety ordinance, brush removal
AB 514 (Williams) 6/29/15 Page 3
of ?
ordinance, grading ordinance, film permit ordinance, or zoning
ordinance that is determined to be an infraction. The amount of
the administrative fine must be based upon the severity of the
threat to public health and safety and must not exceed:
For the first violation, the amount of the permit fee
required by the ordinance multiplied by three or $5,000,
whichever is less. In the absence of a permit fee, the
amount of the fine must not exceed $1,000.
For a second violation of the same ordinance within five
years of the first violation, the amount of the permit fee
required by the ordinance multiplied by five or $10,000,
whichever is less. In the absence of a permit fee, the
amount of the fine must not exceed $2,500.
For the third violation and subsequent violations of the
same ordinance within five years of the first violation, an
amount greater than $10,000, but less than $15,000. In the
absence of a permit fee, the amount of the fine must not
exceed $5,000.
State Revenue Impact
No estimate
Comments
1. Purpose of the bill . Assembly Bill 514 seeks to encourage
proper permitting for construction activities and for large
events at residential locations by providing for increased fines
for specified county ordinance violations. The relatively low
maximum fines that counties can impose are not sufficient to
deter some county residents and property owners from regularly
violating county codes by failing to obtain proper permits for
special events (parties, weddings, and film shoots) and failing
to comply with other county ordinances restricting construction
hours, noise levels, and other health, safety, and quality of
life standards. When some property owners can receive thousands
of dollars in revenue per day for unpermitted events held on
their parcels, they may simply choose to accept paying fines as
a "cost of doing business" rather than paying more to obtain
proper event permits from a county. AB 514 creates a reasonable
AB 514 (Williams) 6/29/15 Page 4
of ?
deterrence mechanism and provides counties with more control to
enforce local health and safety ordinances.
2. Deterrents and incentives . It is unclear whether AB 514
strikes the proper balance between the need to deter willful
violations of county ordinances and the need to ensure that
fiscal consequences for violating local ordinances are
proportional and don't unduly burden California residents who
may already be struggling financially. Imposing higher fines as
a deterrent against ordinance violations makes sense in the
context of wealthy property owners whose financial resources
allow them to flaunt local laws. However, the bill does not
apply only to deep-pocketed scofflaws. By allowing counties to
impose fines of thousands of dollars for violating county
ordinances, AB 514 may have the unintended consequence of
placing substantial burdens on county residents who are
struggling financially and may be unable to maintain their
property in a manner that complies with local ordinances. In
counties that are struggling to pay for public services, the
higher maximum fines allowed by AB 514 may prove tempting as a
source of revenues. Aggressive administrative enforcement of
county ordinances could generate thousands of dollars a year in
additional county revenues. To ensure that legislators have an
opportunity to assess how counties implement the broader fine
and penalty authority granted by AB 514, the Committee may wish
to consider imposing a sunset date of January 1, 2023 on the
provisions enacted by the bill. The Committee may also wish to
consider amending the bill to require that the Legislative
Analyst's Office report to the Legislature by January 1, 2022 on
whether the bill's provisions resulted in any substantial
changes in the frequency of county ordinance enforcement actions
or in counties' fine and penalty revenues.
3. Mandate . The California Constitution requires the state to
reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded
state mandated local programs. Because AB 514 imposes
additional duties on officials who are responsible for imposing
fines or penalties for violations of specified ordinances,
Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate.
AB 514 requires the state to reimburse local agencies if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes a
reimbursable mandate.
AB 514 (Williams) 6/29/15 Page 5
of ?
Assembly Actions
Assembly Local Government Committee: 6-2
Assembly Appropriations Committee: 11-4
Assembly Floor: 47-27
Support and
Opposition (7/2/15)
Support : California State Association of Counties; Lake County
Board of Supervisors; Napa County Board of Supervisors; Santa
Barbara County Board of Supervisors; Shasta County Board of
Supervisors.
Opposition : California Farm Bureau Association.
-- END --