Senate committee advances bill changing unsafe‑structure penalties amid dispute over liens vs. tax billing

The Senate Local Government Committee on an unspecified date advanced Senate Bill 197, a measure that would change how local governments enforce unsafe‑building orders and collect associated civil penalties. Sponsor Senator Freeman told the committee the bill would lengthen the time a property owner has to request a hearing and permit an administrative law judge to refund penalties when a property is brought back into compliance.

Freeman said, “we're gonna go from 10 days to 90 days to allow somebody to come forward and ask for a hearing.” He added that, under the amendment, “when somebody comes into compliance, there's a hearing from the ALJ and then, the homeowner can get all their money back, all the penalties and fees or none of it. It's up to the ALJ.”

The measure’s most contentious change relates to how civil penalties are collected. Freeman’s initial amendment would make the penalty a lien on the property rather than an item on the property tax statement. Senator Jackson and code enforcement officials flagged practical problems with removing fines from the property tax bill, saying it would make recouping the fees harder.

Jackson said, “when you don't bill it to the actual...property tax bill, it's hard to reclaim those funds,” warning that continuing to invoice outside the tax process could limit code enforcement’s ability to recover money. Senator Taylor described the potential effect on homeowners and urged caution in shifting collection mechanisms, saying some homeowners could end up with lingering liens on small fines.

Senator Niemeyer raised a related concern about tax sales, asking whether a persistent lien could lead to involuntary sale. "May create a tax sale on this piece of property because this continuously stays on there would be my concern," he said.

Committee members negotiated competing amendments. An initial Freeman amendment that contained the 10‑to‑90‑day hearing change and the ALJ‑refund language was adopted by roll call (recorded 6–2). A later amendment that would preserve the ability to place certain civil penalties on the property tax bill and thereby keep the existing municipal collection mechanism was also adopted, and the committee moved the amended bill forward on a final roll‑call tally reported as 6–3.

Committee members and sponsors repeatedly described the measure as a work in progress. Jackson said she was willing to continue negotiating: "It's not the final product...I'm willing to...continue to work on this beyond this point." Freeman likewise said the committee would "land this plane appropriately" as the bill proceeds through the legislative process.

What the bill does: under the adopted language, owners cited for unsafe building conditions would have a longer window to request a hearing and could, upon coming into compliance, seek refund of fines and fees in front of an administrative law judge. The committee debate focused on whether fines should continue to be added to property tax statements (which code enforcement officials said facilitates collection) or be recorded as liens (which some lawmakers said could avoid unintended tax‑sale outcomes for low‑income or elderly owners).

The committee frequently returned to the policy tradeoffs: speeding municipal revenue recovery versus protecting homeowners from lingering liens that might burden title or create foreclosure risk. Lawmakers discussed possible future fixes — including carving out different treatment for commercial versus residential properties or creating targeted assistance programs for elderly homeowners — but no such changes were adopted in committee.

The bill will go to the full Senate with the committee’s amendments. Committee members asked staff to prepare additional information on how liens are collected in practice and how often property tax sales result from nonpayment of civil penalties.