Another Fine Mess: Are Non-ad Valorem Special Assessments for Local Government Nuisance Abatement Charges Legally Defensible?

Cities in Florida are dealing with a problem of neglected and abandoned properties that violate city codes and create health and safety issues. These properties have racked up huge fines, but the city has a hard time collecting the money. To solve this problem, some cities are considering adding the costs of cleaning up these properties to the property owner’s annual tax bill. This seems like a simple solution, but there are legal concerns that need to be addressed before doing this. A special assessment is a charge for property that gets specific benefits from a government service, like fixing up a vacant building or controlling noise. It’s different from regular taxes or fees. Some cities use special assessments to make property owners pay for fixing up nuisance properties. But there’s a debate over whether these charges are really special assessments or just regular service fees. This matters because special assessments have different rules for how they can be collected. It’s important to figure out which type of charge is being used. A service fee is something you pay for a specific government service, like trash pickup or a park pass. It’s optional and can’t be added to your tax bill. Courts look at several things to decide if a fee is a service fee or a special assessment, like who has to pay it and if it’s a one-time or recurring charge. Chronic nuisance property ordinances usually make the property owner pay for cleaning up a mess, even if the neighbors benefit too, so it’s like a service fee. Charges for abatement costs are considered voluntary because property owners can avoid them by keeping their property free of nuisances. It doesn’t mean they have a choice once the costs are assessed, but rather they have the option to avoid the charges by not creating nuisances. This is similar to a bridge toll being considered “voluntary” because a person could choose to live in a different location and avoid having to pay the toll. So, in the same way, property owners can avoid abatement costs by preventing nuisances on their property. Special assessments for nuisance abatement services must meet a two-prong test: 1) the services funded must provide a direct, special benefit to the assessed property that is different from the benefits provided to the community as a whole, and 2) the assessment for the services must be fairly apportioned to all properties receiving the benefit.

A standard chronic nuisance property ordinance does not fairly apportion the costs of abatement to all properties receiving a benefit. While it makes sense to hold the violating property owner responsible for the burden on government services, it may not be fair to solely allocate the costs to that property. The Florida Supreme Court has suggested that more than one property should benefit from an improvement for a special assessment to be fair.

Ultimately, the legislative body establishing the assessment has the authority to determine the special benefit and fair apportionment, but their decision cannot be arbitrary. It must be based on reason and evidence, not just convenience or preference. If the proposed ordinances willfully ignore the benefits of abatement to other properties, they could be considered arbitrary.

Additionally, there is one more obstacle to overcome for special assessments to be collected using the Uniform Collection Method. Special assessments can be added to the tax bill only if they are also “non-ad valorem assessments,” which are not based on property value. These can become a lien on a home, but only for certain things like taxes and home improvement costs. However, code enforcement fines and costs cannot become liens on a homestead property. Some property appraisers have refused to add these assessments to the tax bill, saying they don’t comply with the law. This has caused disagreements between property appraisers and cities, and the courts may have to decide who is right. In Florida, cities and counties are considering adopting chronic nuisance property ordinances to address problem properties. These ordinances come with benefits but also potential challenges, including constitutional challenges. This means that lawyers advising these cities and counties need to carefully consider the pros and cons before recommending adoption of these ordinances. This is important because there is no perfect way to assess the benefits and costs of these ordinances. Various cities in Florida have specific codes and ordinances for dealing with nuisance properties and recovering costs associated with abating nuisances. Some cities have faced legal challenges related to these ordinances. It’s important to consider the specific details of each ordinance when evaluating its legality. Courts have also weighed in on the issue, providing guidance on how these ordinances can be enforced. These are references to Florida laws and court cases about property assessments and clean energy loans. They talk about how the value of a neighborhood can affect property values, and how factors like crime and nuisances can also impact property values. The cases also discuss how government home-improvement loans are repaid as special assessments. The definition of a nuisance is also mentioned, along with a reminder that even if people don’t like a decision, it still has to be upheld if it’s made correctly. In Florida, there are rules and laws about how taxes and assessments are calculated and applied to properties. These rules include things like what can and cannot be included on a tax bill, and how liens for things like code enforcement fines are handled. It can get pretty complicated and sometimes seems kind of confusing, but there are specific laws in place to make sure everything is done fairly and correctly. Justice Lewis was uncomfortable with the issue of lien priority in the Reynolds v. FDFC case, and the Federal Housing Authority is trying to address concerns about it. The Florida Administrative Code states that just following the rules for the UCM is not enough to validate an improper assessment levy. There have been instances where municipalities have considered suing property appraisers to strengthen code enforcement, and some property appraisers have refused to support proposed ordinances that could potentially lead to homeowners losing their homes. The Pinellas County property appraiser and tax collector also raised concerns about proposed assessments not being in line with Florida Statutes. Determining compliance with tax collection procedures is not easy, even if you focus only on the technical requirements. A county must follow all the rules, not just some of them. The law says that if a government official has a duty to do something, they also have the power to do what’s necessary to fulfill that duty. This means they can use their judgment if needed.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/another-fine-mess-are-non-ad-valorem-special-assessments-for-local-government-nuisance-abatement-charges-legally-defensible/