HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 1214

BYRepresentatives Appelwick, Locke, Patrick, O'Brien and Ferguson

Changing provisions relating to the collection of nuisance abatement costs.

House Committe on Judiciary

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendments.  (12)

      Signed by Representatives Appelwick, Chair; Crane, Vice Chair; Belcher, Dellwo, Inslee, Locke, R. Meyers, H. Myers, Patrick, Scott, Van Luven and Wineberry.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (6)

      Signed by Representatives Padden, Ranking Republican Member; Hargrove, P. King, Moyer, Schmidt and Tate.

House Staff:Pat Shelledy (786-7149)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY FEBRUARY 9, 1989

BACKGROUND:

When a court has issued a warrant ordering an officer to abate a nuisance, the officer must collect the expenses incurred in abating the nuisance.  The officer can levy upon and sell any materials that the officer can remove as a nuisance.  If the proceeds of that sale are insufficient to cover the cost of abating the nuisance, the officer must collect the balance.  The law provides that the officer can collect the expenses "in the same manner as damages and costs are collected on execution."  Execution against real property is a cumbersome process.  Additionally, the officer executing a lien against the property that contained a nuisance has no greater lien rights than other lienholders.

Taxes upon real property must be uniform upon the same classes of property within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax and must be collected for public purposes only.  Once a tax meets that criteria, the person owing the tax can be subject to interest and penalties for delinquent payments and ultimately foreclosure for failure to pay taxes.  Tax liens have priority over other lienholders on the same property.  If an assessment against a property declared a nuisance could be characterized as a tax, or collected in the same manner as a tax, or subject to the same interest and penalty provisions afforded taxes, then collection efforts could be more effective and less costly.

SUMMARY:

BILL AS AMENDED:  The bill creates a collection mechanism by using the tax rolls and tax authority to collect the costs of abatement of a nuisance.  The city council must approve the collection of the expenses of abating the nuisance.  If the council approves the collection, the council must certify to the county treasurer through adoption of a resolution, that the amount is due. The county treasurer shall then enter the amount upon the "tax rolls" against the property and the assessment shall be collected with the general taxes against the property.  The amount can then be collected in the same manner as delinquent taxes.  The money shall be deposited to the credit of the general fund of the city. The abatement assessment constitutes a lien on the property and is given the same priority as a judgment lien.

AMENDED BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The original bill applied to cities with a population of 4,000 people or more, stated that the assessment "shall become part of the general taxes," and gave assessment liens priority over judgment liens.  The amended bill removes the population restriction, states the assessment "shall be collected with" the general taxes, and places assessment liens in equal rank to judgment liens.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 3, 1989.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Mark Summers, City of Seattle; Larry Shannon, Washington Association of Mortgage Bankers.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    The bill will give cities a more effective method to recoup taxpayer money spent on cleaning up private property, without jeopardizing other lienholders rights.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.