Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance Tax Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables action on placing unpaid code‑compliance costs on tax rolls after public pushback
Summary
Supervisors voted to table for 60 days a routine item that would add delinquent code‑compliance administrative costs as special assessments to the secured property‑tax roll after extensive public comment and legal concerns were raised.
Nevada County supervisors on June 24 voted 3–2 to table for 60 days a routine resolution that would add unpaid administrative costs from code‑compliance cases to the secured property‑tax roll.
County staff and County Counsel explained the process — used by many California counties — in which administrative costs incurred during code‑compliance investigations and abatement activity are certified and, if unpaid and after due process, recorded as a special assessment on a parcel’s secured property‑tax bill. Code‑compliance staff said the list before the board represents cases that exhausted appeal rights or for which owners failed to pursue appeals, and that the administrative costs are distinct from civil penalties or abatement costs.
Several public speakers, however, called the process unlawful and alleged due‑process defects; some speakers threatened litigation if the county placed the amounts on tax bills without additional review. Speakers also urged the board to pursue other collection methods or to restore a previously dissolved Treasury Oversight Committee.
Supervisor comments were divided. Several supervisors said the statutory mechanism is frequently used and is the county’s most efficient recovery method, and that alternative collection routes (civil judgment, private collections) typically cost more or are slower. Other supervisors expressed concern about the potential consequence — including very remote risk of tax sale years later — for relatively small administrative charges, and urged staff to seek alternatives and to review the individual cases identified on the list.
After nearly two hours of public comment and board discussion, supervisors voted to table the item for 60 days and directed staff to return with additional materials: a legal summary of the authority and case law supporting the process, confirmation that alternative collection efforts had been pursued for the listed accounts, and options for case‑by‑case work‑out plans and collection alternatives.
Why it matters: Adding unpaid administrative costs to the secured tax roll creates a long‑term lien that ultimately can be enforced through the property‑tax collection apparatus. Residents and nonprofit advocates argued that process risks disproportionately affecting low‑income homeowners and asked the county to ensure all appeal rights and collection alternatives were exhausted before placing assessments on tax bills.
