Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa County advisory committee weighs joining state Abandoned Vehicle Abatement program amid due-process concerns
Summary
At a Dec. 19 meeting, Mariposa County’s Code Compliance Advisory Committee reviewed draft code changes to join the state AVA program, heard staff estimate of about $25,000 in annual funding, and debated provisions allowing property entry, short notice periods and the mechanisms for collecting fees under Prop 26.
Get email alerts on the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mariposa County’s Code Compliance Advisory Committee met Dec. 19 to review draft amendments that would let the county join California’s state Abandoned Vehicle Abatement (AVA) program and to offer staff edits before the proposal goes to the Board of Supervisors.
Will Fassett, a community design and development planner, told the committee the AVA template used by 28 counties could yield an estimated $25,000 a year for Mariposa County to cover towing, audits and program administration. “We’re estimating that we would receive about $25,000 a year,” Fassett said, noting some neighboring counties receive larger amounts depending on registered vehicle counts.
Why it matters: the AVA program creates a dedicated funding stream — a roughly $1 DMV registration fee in many counties, subject to voter approval under Proposition 26 — to remove truly abandoned, inoperative vehicles that are public nuisances. Staff proposed shifting enforcement authority from the sheriff’s office to the county’s code compliance function and asked the committee to review redlined code changes and return edits before staff takes a draft to the Board for discussion.
Committee members and callers raised substantive legal and process concerns. Several speakers, including committee member Rob and public commenter Colleen Rhodes, warned that language permitting county personnel to “enter upon private property to examine the vehicle” could run afoul of the Fourth Amendment unless consent or a warrant is obtained. “There is no right to enter upon private property without permission or a warrant,” Rhodes said, adding that appellate decisions have overturned warrantless administrative entries.
Other points in the discussion included whether the standard notice period in the template (10 days) is too short; whether a separate local fund or interim county funding might bridge the gap while ballot steps proceed; and how the county should structure hearing-officer authority, valuation thresholds and administrative cost accounting. Rob pressed for longer notice windows, suggested including a simple release/consent form with certified mail notices, and questioned using the tax roll to collect unpaid abatement costs for low-income owners.
Staff responses and next steps: Planning Director Steve Vink and Fassett said the template language can be tailored for Mariposa’s rural context and that County Counsel will review final language before it reaches the Board. Staff asked committee members to submit written edits by Jan. 2 so a revised draft can be published with the Jan. 9 packet; staff suggested bringing the item to the Board for discussion on Jan. 13 or later, and noted that Elections requires 188 days to place a measure on a November ballot.
Public enforcement experience: Bart Connor of Code Enforcement said he has received about a dozen requests in the past year for help with abandoned vehicles, most on private property, and outlined practical hurdles such as towing distance and cost when no in-county tow yard exists.
Unresolved items and procedural note: Members debated whether to adopt the CHP template exactly or to adapt its language to avoid punitive outcomes for landowners who did not own the abandoned vehicle. The committee called for clearer language about agricultural zoning exceptions, hearing-officer qualifications, valuation thresholds and a shorter list of infractions that may already be covered elsewhere in county code. Staff committed to revise the draft and return it for final committee review; the transcript records a motion to conclude the meeting but does not include the full motion text or a complete recorded tally of the vote.
The committee said it will reconvene review at its next scheduled meeting and forward its recommended edits to staff for the Board packet. Staff indicated it will bring a revised draft back to the committee for final recommendation before any formal referral to the ballot or ordinance adoption process.
