Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health And Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owners appeal abatement fees; council asks staff to follow up and holds items on desk
Summary
Several property owners disputed abatement assessments and administrative fees from the Department of Building and Safety, arguing they had abated violations and should not pay a 40% administrative charge. Building and Safety recommended confirming the assessment; the council held the items on the desk for follow-up.
At the June 27, 2001 Los Angeles City Council meeting, property owners addressed the council to appeal abatement assessments entered by the Department of Building and Safety, disputing timing, notification and an administrative surcharge of roughly 40 percent.
Property owner testimony described receiving a notice of nuisance, undertaking abatement steps and later finding the city had contracted abatement work and assessed administrative costs. One speaker who asked to be heard on item 14 said the notice was posted on Nov. 5, 1999, he "abated the property," met with inspectors and later found additional charges applied; he called the assessment process "an extortion attempt" and asked the council to permit him to pay the base costs and not the extra administrative percentage.
The building department responded at the meeting, describing a long-running complaint that included unpermitted construction and vacancy; a Building and Safety official said the department had recorded notices on title, monitored contractors and carried out abatement work when the property was vacant. The official explained the 40 percent charge covered administrative costs for contracting, inspection and monitoring.
Council members said they have handled similar appeals in the past and that extenuating circumstances can justify reducing fees. Given the factual dispute and examples cited by the owner, the council agreed to hold the items on the desk and asked staff to meet with the owners to review the records and seek a fair outcome.
The council did not confirm the assessments at the meeting; instead it held the items to permit staff and council offices to work with the property owners on possible adjustments or payment arrangements and to clarify the record of notices and abatement action.
