CITY OF INDIOij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Indio-CPRA-Dox.pdfNuisance Property: 45800 Rubidoux Indio, California 92201 APN 611-110-039-2 Cost Recovery Amount: $9,956.85 Hearing

CITY OF INDIO

NUISANCE ABATEMENT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT

COST RECOVERY INVOICE

March 18, 2016

DELIVERED VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

IPD Case #: 1507I-1486Nuisance Property: 45800 Rubidoux

Indio, California 92201APN 611-110-039-2

Cost Recovery Amount: $9,956.85Hearing Request Deadline: April 2, 2016 (IS days)Payment Deadline: May 2, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Katherine E. Dagermangy, as trustee ofthe Trust identified in the Estate ofFlorence A. Keck, Case No. Indio P6920300 South Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, California 92262

Irene Schmerl, as trustee of the Trustidentified in the Estate of Florence A.Keck, Case No. Indio P6920300 South Palm Canyon DrivePalm Springs, California 92262

Katherine E. Dagermangy, as trustee of John Wessmanthe Trust identified in the Estate of Wessman HoldingsFlorence A. Keck, Case No. Indio P6920 555 South Sunrise Way, Suite 2001550 Camino Lindo Palm Springs, California 92264South Pasadena, California 91030

To All Interested Parties:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code ("IMC") section10.23, the City of Indio ("City") hereby seeks to recover its costs, expenses, fines, and fees("Enforcement Costs") incurred in prosecuting violations of the IMC and abating public nuisanceson the Nuisance Property.

-lof2-

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 1Qp Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 922Q1 www.INDIO.org

The City's unpaid Enforcement Costs in this matter total $9,956.85 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services, litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdirect costs and expenses arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC, § 10.20(B).)

1. Code Enforcement Investigation Costs: $2,359.802. Administrative Costs: $1,759.553. Prosecution Fees: $5,837.504. Total: $9,956.85

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45t~'day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "City of Indio" and must be remitted to the attention of the Indio City Prosecutorat Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California 91764.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section ]0.23(C), ifthe EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(D), an Interested Partymay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement CostRecovery Hearing Request Form ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of-business on the15`" day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust youradministrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost recovery rights.

Questions regarding this Invoice may be directed to the Code Enforcement Division of theIndio Police Department at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201, or by calling 760-391-4123.

Jason AndersonCode Enforcement SupervisorIndio Police Department

—2 of2—

p: 760.391.QOOQ f: 760.391.40108 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIC1.org

.... ._ -=n~t^,rurTi:,è~rii"t'~:~~,.~svrrui~rrt

MEMORANDUM

To: James Butzbach, Hearing Officer

From: James McKinnon, Indio Deputy City Prosecutor

Date: May 18, 2016

IPD Case Number: 1506I-4867Nuisance Property: 45800 Rubidoux, Indio, California 92201

APN 611-ll-039-2Subject: City of Indio's Right to Recover Costs Incurred in Nuisance Abatement Action

I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Support of The City's Right toCost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the NuisanceProperty. This Memorandum is supported by the Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"), which expresslyauthorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") it incurs inabating public nuisances on private property and enforcing the provisions of the IMC. The IMCalso allows for the City to recover the Costs it incurred for holding a hearing sought by a propertyowner or interested party to contest the amount of costs sought to be recovered by the City.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case involves a large parcel of real property that once contained a grocery store andseveral attached storefronts. On May 7, 2015, transients started a fire inside the abandoned grocerystore on the Nuisance Property. This fire quickly spread throughout the Nuisance Property,resulting in severe fire damage that created severe health and safety hazards for the public. Cityinspectors conducted an inspection of the Nuisance Property on November 10, 2015 anddiscovered numerous violations of State and local laws that led the City to pursue a nuisanceabatement action.

Following the inspection, the City issued a Legal Notice and Order to Repair or Abate("N&O") on January 21, 2016, which required all interested parties to cure all of the nuisanceconditions on the Nuisance Property within 30 days. Wessman Holdings, LLC currently leasesthe Nuisance Property and began working with the City to cure the violations on the NuisanceProperty. Ultimately, Wessman Holdings, LLC obtained a demolition permit and demolished thestructure on the Nuisance Property.

—] of3—

p: 76Q.391.4QQQ f: 760.391.4008 100. Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INC}IO.arg

Now that the violations on the Nuisance Property have been cured, the City initiated costrecovery proceedings in order to recover the costs the City incurred initiating this nuisanceabatement action. On March 18, 2016, the City issued a Cost Recovery Invoice in the amount of$9,956.85, which were the Costs the City incurred up to that point in its nuisance abatement actioninvolving the Nuisance Property. Wessman Holdings, LLC timely requested a hearing to contest.the cost recovery amount stated on the Cost Recovery Invoice. The City requests that HearingOfficer James Butzbach ("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recover its fullCosts in abating the public nuisances on the Nuisance Property as listed on the Cost RecoveryInvoice and that the City also has the authority to recover the Costs it has incurred in preparing forand holding this Cost Recovery Hearing.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Related To Enforcing Any CodeViolation Or Nuisance Abatement

IMC section 10.20 states that the City is "entitled to recover its costs related to enforcingany code violation or nuisance abatement." Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes citiesto establish their own procedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions.IMC section 10.23 is part of that procedure established by the City. IMC section 10.23(C) requiresthe City to issue an invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties for the nuisanceconditions or code violations. This invoice must also be sent to entities with a recorded interest inthe property where the nuisance conditions or code violations were located. IMC section l 0.20(B)states that the City can recover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs,investigation costs, enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs,and attorneys' fees), and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatementaction by means ofthe cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23.

Here, the City has the authority to recover its costs that it incurred in abating tha nuisanceconditions on the Nuisance Property. The City discovered numerous nuisance conditions and IMCviolations on the Nuisance Property. In order to cure the hazardous conditions on the NuisanceProperty, the City began initiating a receivership action. The City incurred $9,956.85 in Costs tocompel Wessman Holdings, LLC to abate the nuisance conditions on the Nuisance Property. Asrequired by the IMC, the City issued an invoice to all interested parties, including WessmanHoldings, LLC, who were liable for the Costs. The amount on the Cost Recovery Invoice is thetotal of the City staff costs and the City's attorneys' fees incurred in the nuisance abatement actionand they are fully recoverable under IMC section 10.20. The City has followed all of theprocedures required by the IMC to recover its Costs in this matter. Therefore, the City is entitledto recover the full amount of Costs listed in the Cost Recovery Invoice.

-2of3-

p: 760.391.40Q0 f: 760.391.40(78 ~ 100 Givic Center M~II Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.IN[710.org

B. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Incurred For This Hearin

IMC section 10.20(A) states that the City has the right to recover its Costs relating to theenforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After an invoice has been issued by theCity to recover these Costs, IMC section 10.23(D) states that the liable parties have 15 calendardays to request a hearing regarding the amount of the Costs. Pursuant to IMC section 10.23(F),the cost of the hearing will also be a liability of the non-prevailing party at the cost recoveryhearing.

Here, the City is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding thiscost recovery hearing because the City is entitled to recover its full Costs in abating the nuisanceconditions on the Nuisance Property. As discussed above, the City has complied with all of therequirements to recover its Costs as outlined in IMC section 10.23 and, therefore, has the right torecover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section l 0.23(F) specifically states that the non-prevailingparty in a cost recovery hearing is liable for the costs of the hearing as well. In preparing for andholding this hearing, the City has incurred an additional $1,435.00 plus Hearing Officer fees inCosts. These Costs include the fee for the Hearing Officer and attorneys' fees. The City hasfollowed all of the procedures required by the IMC to recover its Costs in this matter and, therefore,is entitled to recover the full costs of the cost recovery hearing as well.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of$9,956.85 should be confirmed and Wessman Holdings, LLC must pay this amount as well as thecosts incurred by the City in preparing for and holding this cost recovery hearing which amount to$1,435.00 plus Hearing Officer fees. Thus Wessman Holdings, LLC must be ordered to pay atotal of $11,391.85 plus Hearing Officer fees.

Attachments: 1. IMC Sections 10.20-10.242. City Staff Invoice3. Silver &Wright LLP Invoice4. Cost Recovery Invoice

—3of3—

p: 760.391.4000 f: 760:391.4008 100 Civic Center Mail Indio, CA 92201 www.INQIO.t~rg

CITY OF INDIO



Apri14, 2016


IPD Case #: l 5091-3607Nuisance Property: APN 616-120-054

Cost Recovery Amount: $4,660.04Hearing Request Deadline: April 19, 2016 (I S days)Payment Deadline: May 19, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Coachella Medical Center, LLC200 East Beverly Boulevard, Suite 200Montebello, California 90640

Linkage Financial Group Inc.12368 East Valley Boulevard, Suite l l7El Monte, California 91732

C T Corporation SystemAgent for Lawyers Title Company8l8 West Seventh Street, Suite 930Los Angeles, California 90017

Hedy Z. Eckles234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 720Pasadena, California 91101

Albert A. Webb Associatesc/o Karpeles &Associates8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 346Beverly Hills, California 9021 1


Investors Title Company7530 North Glenoaks BoulevardBurbank, California 91504

Kuanyu Chen234 East Colorado Boulevard, Suite 720Pasadena, California 91101

Willard J. Novodor200 East Beverly Boulevard, Suite 200Montebello, California 90604

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code ("IMC") section10.23, the City of Indio ("City") hereby seeks to recover its costs, expenses, fines, and fees

-1 of2-

p: 760.391.400Q v f: 760.391.4008 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 922Q1 ~ www.CNDIO.org

("Enforcement Costs") incurred in prosecuting violations of the IMC and abating public nuisanceson the Nuisance Property.

The City's unpaid Enforcement Costs in this matter total $4,660.04 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services, litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdirect costs and expenses arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC, § 10.20(8).)

1. Code Enforcement Investigation Costs: $920.002. Administrative Costs: $815.243. Prosecution Fees: $2,924.804. Total: $4,660.04

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45t~'day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "Silver &Wright LLP", attorneys for the City, and must be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California91764.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(C), if the EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(D), an Interested Partymay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement CostRecovery Hearing Request Form ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of-business on the15t" day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust youradministrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost recovery rights.



—2of2—

p: 76q.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4Q08 1Q0 Civic Center Mall India, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIO.org

MEMORANDUM



Date: July 26, 2016

IPD Case Number: 1509I-3607Nuisance Property: APN 616-120-054

Subject: City of Indio's Right to Recover Costs Incurred in Nuisance Abatement Action

I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Support of The City's Right toCost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the NuisanceProperty. This Memorandum is supported by the Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"), which expresslyauthorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") it incurs inabating public nuisances on private property and enforcing the provisions of the IMC. The IMCalso allows for the City to recover the Costs it incurred for holding a hearing sought by a propertyowner or interested party to contest the amount of costs sought to be recovered by the City.


On July 28, 20l 5, Code Enforcement Officer Greg Eastman ("Officer Eastman") receiveda call regarding a transient camp on the Nuisance Property. (Declaration of Attorney JamesMcKinnon, "McKinnon Decl.", ¶ 3.) Officer Eastman responded to the call and observed thetransient camp, overgrown weeds and vegetation, and junk, trash, and debris throughout theNuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) After this inspection, Officer Eastman researchedproperty title information for Nuisance Property and discovered that Coachella Medical Center,LLC ("Requestor") owned the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) He subsequently issuedan administrative citation to Requestor. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.)

On August 24, 2015, Code Enforcement Officer Sabrina Soltis ("Officer Soltis") inspectedthe Nuisance Property and observed overgrown weeds and vegetation and an accumulation of junk,trash, and debris throughout the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.) After this inspection,Officer Soltis issued another administrative citation to the Requestor for the violations observedon the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.)

—lof4—

p: 76(1.391.4000 ~ f: 780.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 www.INDIO.org

On September 22, 2015, Officer Soltis reinspected the Nuisance Property and observed thesame violations as she had observed during her August 24, 2015 inspection. (McKinnon Decl., ~5.) Due to the continuing violations on Nuisance Property, Officer Soltis sent this case to the CityProsecutor for criminal prosecution. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 5.)

On December 4, 2015, the Indio City Prosecutor filed criminal charges against Requestorfor maintaining the Nuisance Property in violation of IMC Section 95A.104(k)(l0) and95A.104(M)(1). (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 5.) The case ultimately resulted in Requestor's convictionon both counts and the Requestor was ordered to pay a $100 fine for each count. (McKinnonDecl., ~ 9.)

Now that the violations on the Nuisance Property have been cured, the City initiated costrecovery proceedings in order to recover the Costs the City incurred initiating the nuisanceabatement and code enforcement action. On April 4, 2016, the City issued a Cost RecoveryInvoice in the amount of $4,660.04, which were the Costs the City incurred up to that point in itsnuisance abatement action involving the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 11.) Requestor,timely requested a hearing to contest the cost recovery amount stated on the Cost RecoveryInvoice. (McKinnon Decl., ~( 11.) The City requests that Hearing Officer James Butzbach("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recover its full Costs in abating the publicnuisances on the Nuisance Property as listed on the Cost Recovery Invoice and that the City alsohas the authority to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding this Cost RecoveryHearing.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS


IMC section 10.20 states that the City is "entitled to recover its costs related to enforcingany code violation or nuisance abatement." Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes citiesto establish their own procedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions.IMC section 10.23 is part of that procedure established by the City. IMC section 10.23(C) requiresthe City to issue an invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties for the nuisanceconditions or code violations. This invoice must also be sent to entities with a recorded interest inthe property where the nuisance conditions or code violations were located. IMC section l 0.20(B)states that the City can recover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs,investigation costs, enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs,and attorneys' fees), and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatementaction by means of the cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23.

Here, the City has the authority to recover its costs that it incurred in abating the IMCviolations on the Nuisance Property as a personal obligation of Requestor. The City discoveredIMC violations on the Nuisance Property and instituted a criminal action against Requestor, who

—2of4—

p: 760.391.40Q0 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 10Q Civic Center Mail India, CA 92201 ~ www.INplO.org

at the time owned the Nuisance Property, in order to compel Requestor to bring the NuisanceProperty into compliance. Requestor's ownership of the Nuisance Property at the time andRequestor's exercise of control over the Nuisance Property by abating the nuisance conditions andIMC violations on the Nuisance Property demonstrate Requestor's responsibility for theseunlawful conditions. Therefore, Requestor is personally responsible for the City's Costs incurredin this nuisance abatement action. Furthermore, Requestor pled guilty to both counts in thecriminal case and this solidifies Requestor's responsibility for the nuisance conditions and IMCviolations on the Nuisance Property.

The City incurred $4,660.04 in Costs to compel Requestor to abate the IMC violations onthe Nuisance Property and to enforce the provisions of the IMC. As required by the IMC, the Cityissued an invoice to Requestor who owned the Nuisance Property at the time and who exercisedcontrol over the Nuisance Property by abating the nuisance conditions and IMC violations thereon.The amount on the Cost Recovery Invoice is the total of the City staff costs and the City'sattorneys' fees and costs incurred in the nuisance abatement action and they are fully recoverableunder IMC section 10.20. The City has followed all of the procedures required by the IMC torecover its Costs in this matter. Therefore, the City is entitled to recover the full amount of Costslisted in the Cost Recovery Invoice.

B. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Incurred For The Hearing ToContest The Citv's Cost Recovery Proceedings

IMC section 10.20(A) states that the City has the right to recover its Costs relating to theenforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After an invoice has been issued by theCity to recover these Costs, IMC section 10.23(D) states that the liable parties have 15 calendardays to request a hearing regarding the amount of the Costs. Pursuant to IMC section 10.23(F),the cost of the hearing will also be a liability of the non-prevailing party at the cost recoveryhearing.

Here, the City is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding thiscost recovery hearing because the City is entitled to recover its full Costs in abating the nuisanceconditions on the Nuisance Property and enforcing the 1MC. As discussed above, the City hascomplied with all of the requirements to recover its Costs as outlined in IMC section 10.23 and,therefore, has the right to recover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section 10.23(F) specificallystates that the non-prevailing party in a cost recovery hearing is liable for the costs of the hearingas well. In preparing for and holding this hearing, the City has incurred an additional $4,571.43plus Hearing Officer fees in Costs. These Costs include the fees for the Hearing Officer andattorneys' fees and costs in preparing for all of the necessary documents in support of the City'sright to cost recovery for the cost recovery hearing, researching municipal and State laws, andattending the cost recovery hearings. The City has followed all of the procedures required by theIMC to recover its Costs in this matter and, therefore, is entitled to recover the full costs of the costrecovery hearing as well.

—3 of4—

p: 76Q.391.40fl0 ~ f: 760.391.4008 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 92201 www.INDIO.org

..,~. F~.n . ~...-

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of$4,660.04 should be confirmed and Requestor must pay this amount as well as the costs incurredby the City in preparing for and holding this cost recovery hearing which amount to $4,571.43 plusHearing Officer fees. Thus Requestor must be ordered to pay a total of $9,231.47 plus HearingOfficer fees.

Attachments: 1. IMC Sections 10.20—] 0.24.2. Declaration of Attorney James McKinnon in Support of City's Cost RecoveryRights.

-4of4-

p: 760.391.4QQQ ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 10d Civic Center Mail Indio, GA 92201 ~ www.INDIO.org

CITY OF INDIONUISANCE ABATEMENT AND CODE El'eTF~RCEMEl'~T

COS'X' RECOVERY INVOICE

September 12, 2016


IPD Case #: 15081-2838Nuisance Property: APN 600-130-022-8

Cost Recovery Amount: $4,411.63Hearing Request Deadline: September 27, 2016 {I S days)Payment Deadline: October 27, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Jae Soon ParkAgent for Dops LLC28928 Mirada CirculoValencia, California 91354

Richard A. SmithAgent for National Covenant Disbursements,LLC25 Old Roate 37New Fairfield, Connecticut 06812

Morris Platt and Arthur PlattP.O. Box 1360Rancho Mirage, California 92270

Thomas E. LindstromAgent for Polo Square Partners, LLC79020 CitrusLa Quinta, California 92253

Kwang Soo LeeAgent for National AgricuCtural CooperativeFederation, us Trustee for Daol New LeafierPalm Spring Real Estate Fun~18-417785 Center Court Drive, Suite 360Cerritos, California 90703

Joe A..MortonAgent for Commerce Tztle Company3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Fifth FloorLos Angeles, California 90U10

C T Corporation SystemAgent for Comtnonwealth Land ?'itleCompany818 "West Seventh Street, Suite 930Los Angeles, California 90017

C T Corporation SystemAgent for RBF Consulting$18 West Seventh Street, Suite 930Los Angeles, California 90017

-1of3-

p: 760.331.4000 f. 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center MaIC Indio, CA 922Q1 www.(NDfO.org

Carl McLarandAgent for MVE Stu~lr'a, l`nc.1900 Main Street, Eighth FloorIrvine, California 92614

To All Interested I'ac-ties:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"} section10.23, the City of Indio ("City") hereby seeks to recover its costs, expenses, fines, and fees("Enforcement Costs") incurred in prosecuting violations of the IMC and abating public nuisanceson the Nuisance Property.

The City's unpaid Enforcement Costs in this matter total $4,411.63 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services, litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdirect costs and expenses arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC, § l 0.20(B}.)

1. Code ~nfarcement Investigation Casts: $506.002. Administrative Costs: $b32.I33. Prosecution Fees: $3,273.504. Total: $4,411.63

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45tH

day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "Silver &Wright LLP", attorneys for the City, and must be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California917b4.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(C), if the EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a Iien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 14.23(D), an Interested Partymay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforceme~~t Costs. If you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abateanent and Code Enforcement CostRecovery Hearing Request Form ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of-business on the15`" day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 46840 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust your

—2of3—

p: 760.391.40Q0 f: 760.391.4008 10b Civic Center Ma{I Indio, CA 922Q1 www.INDlO.org

~` ~

ad►ninistrative yemediesand shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost recovery rights.

Questions regarding this Invoice may be directed to the Code Enfo~~ce~nent Division of theIndio Potice Department at 46800 Jackson Street, India, California 92201, or by calling 760-391-4123.

'1~

~:as And rson

~.,Ie nifer StroudCode Enforcement SupervisorIndio Police Department

—3 of3--

p: 760.391.4000 f; 760.391.4008 100 Civic Center Ma(I Indio, CA 92201 www.INl7[C1.org

CITY OF INDIO



April 5, 2016


IPD Case #: l 502I-1077Nuisance Property: 82796 Smoke Tree Avenue


Cost Recovery Amount: $1,989.66Hearing Request Deadline: April l 9, 2016 (15 days)Payment Deadline: May 19, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Mr. Juan Gonzales, Jr.82796 Smoke Tree AvenueIndio, California 92201

Ms. Rosa Gonzales82796 Smoke Tree AvenueIndio, California 92201

Genpact Registered Agent, Inc. M & T BankAgent for Mortgage Electronic 1 M & T Plaza,Registration Systems, Inc. Buffalo, New York 1420315420 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite l00Irvine, California 92618

Ms. Lisa G. GarciaAgent for Old Republic Title Company275 Battery Street, Suite l 500San Francisco, California 941 ] 1



—] of2—

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 76Q.381.40Q8 100 Civic Center ivlall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.iNDlO.arg

("Enforcement Costs") incurred in prosecuting violations ofthe IMC and abating public nuisanceson the Nuisance Property.


l . Code Enforcement Investigation Costs: $322.002. Administrative Costs: $480.563. Prosecution Fees: $1, l 87.104. Total: $1,989.66

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45t~'day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "Silver &Wright LLP", attorneys for the City, and must be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Pyosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California91764.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(C), ifthe EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(D), an Interested Partymay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement CostRecovery Hearing Request Form ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of-business on theI St" day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust your.administrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost recovery rights.



-2of2-

p: 76Q.391.40ti0 f: 760.391,4fl~8 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.WDlQ.org

CITY OF INDIO



March 30, 2016


IPD Case #: 1505I-2862Nuisance Property: APN 692-220-019-5

Cost Recovery Amount: $4,835.35Hearing Request Deadline: April ]4, 2016 (15 days)Payment Deadline: May 15, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Glyn J. BurgeAgent for Indio Burge, LLC490 Grand Avenue, Suite 200Oakland, California 94610

CSC —Lawyers Incorporating ServiceAgent for Walgreen Co.2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150NSacramento, California 95833

Rudy HerreraAgent for Shadow Hills Plaza, LLC73081 Fred Waring DrivePalm Desert, California 92260

CSC —Lawyers Incorporating ServiceAgent for First American Title InsuranceCompany2710 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 150NSacramento, California 95833


Brian J. HolcombeAgent for FirstBank Holding CompanyFirstBank, 73-000 Highway 111Palm Desert, California 92260

C T Corporation SystemAgent for Minnesota Life InsuranceCompany81.8 West Seventh Street, Suite 930Los Angeles, California 90017


— 1 of2—

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4QQ8 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIO.org

~ ~



You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45t~'day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "Silver &Wright LLP", attorneys for the City of Indio, and must be remitted tothe attention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California91764.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(C), if the EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(D), an Interested Partymay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement CostRecovery Hearing Request Form ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of-business on theI Sty' day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Po(ice Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust youradministrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost recovery rights.



—2 of2—

p: 760.397.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIO.org

.. ;~.`

CITY OF INDO

1'~1U~ISANCE ABATEMENT AND CfJDE ~ENFORCEIl~E1'~T

Ct~ST RECUVERY N'VC►I~~l~u~ust 30, 2(71(a

I~F.l,i1~l~ R.F t~ V.I.A CI:It'T1FIF.,.I.1 MAIL.

IPU Case #: 15QSI-~faS 1Nuisa~xc~ Pr~pert~r: AI'N ~if~0-~30-007-~

GostRecovery Amo~~nt: ~~,22 ] ,t)~)H~a~~in~ ttequest Deadtinet S~~~te»Zbcr 14, ?O1 G (I 5 c~ays~)P~ynient Ucadlin~: t~ct~ber l4, ~U1G (~~ clays)

Interested Parties:

:qtr. Cecil Blackwell 1izr~e~t~ner~t I.~evelo~a~~~e~~t C;rc>u;a LI.,CFt~c~r2t.~vt• Ini~c~strnc~f~-t L~e~~c~lu~~razc~nl C~r•ui~{a ~C)~1 S ~VeisktapfL,1 C La Qui~~ta. C<~~lifc~rn~~r 02253~f)~ 15 ~i/ei5~;c~pfLa C,~uinta, ~àlif~arnia 9253

'i'o <~~1 ]z~~er~steti Pa~~tie~:

I~1OT(C'E I> I~~}~FE3Y ~It~'~N that, ~a~irsuai~t to Inc~iU M~~nici~~al C'c~~#e (:`111~IC"? s~ctic~n1 Cl.~:~, tllc Ci }£ ~f" I~~ciic~ (<:~ìty") l~c~r4~y seei s t:~} rt~ec~~3~r its c~ast~, c~~en~es, tines, and ties(`Ì~nfc~~~c~~~~~~1 C'c>sts"} ia~c~arc~~c~ i~l ~a~~«seci~tir~~ ~ri~~l4iti~il~ rat tht~ IVIC' e~~7r~ cil~~itii~~; public nuis<ulcescan the I~iuisane.~ P~c~~~erty.

"l~h~a C'ity's t~~~~~~id C n(r~~~ceznent ~'c~scs ia~ #hjs ~~~f~tte;f• total ~~,221.~)t) ~~nti include, taut ~ii-et~tat limited tc~, t}l~; ~dulinistrativc~ fines, acirY~in str~ativG cc~st5, insp~ctic~~~ costs, inv~;sti~~~tic~~~ cc~~tserifcaz°i:~~~~c~r~t e;c~~ns~~, le~;G~l service.s~ liti~;~ti~x~ casts, c:c~urt cc~~ts, ~ttcarn~y~' f c~~, ~xyc~ any e;~ti~e~•ciiz•ec;t cca~ts ~ncj ex~~ense:s ririsin~ ~~s a c~at~s~c~uer~c;c c~f'tl~~: z~uis4~cx~.G c5r vic~latic~~. MIMIC, ~ 1(}.`?0(B).}

I. ~'c7c~~ ~r~1:~~~•cetx~~nt Lt.~~~~:sti~;~fiio~~ C'~~ts: 29~J.(J{J?. Ac~n~inistrafi~te Canis: ~~~~3.~~:~. I'rc~s~~utic~n Fer;s: ~:~,253.~(.74. Tata1: ~4,221.U9

__ 1 cif' a ~...

~: ~E~C~.3~°t.~(~DO f. ?CJ.3~~.~OCI ~ ~UC~ ~ivicR ~~~nt~r i~l~ll Ir~c~~c~, ~,°A ~~~t)1 ~ ~t~uv..ltd(~ItJ.carc~

_. ri~,..«~a a43 ..

Yc>u ~~~ust ~~ay the balariGe c~w~cl tc-~ the CiC~ iao taker t1~a11 the cl«s~-caf-busirt~es~ r~1~ the 4~'nday after the ~n~ilin~ cat this Tnv~iG~, P~yrnent rust b~ in the #t~nn ~f' ~ C'~shi~r'~ check ~~~~cleSri}~~~ble Yo tEi~ "Sih~~r & W`ri~ht LI~~"', attflrn~~s far tl~e City, anti must be r~i~~it~C~d tea t~h~atf~ntie~n ref t}~~ India City Prc~se~cutor ~t Suite 25U, 33Sq Sheiby Str~e~, Ontario, Calif~rni~~ 1.764,

NC}`T'IC~E. [S ~1~~RE~Y GIVEi~! that, ~~u~-suant tc~ I~M~" :~ec;tita~ l t).23(G), if'th.e ~~Ifarccai~e~3k~"t~sts ire nc~t }~aic~ iii full as r~e~uirec~ by 1~~~~, th~~~ a lien or special ~tsscss~7~~n~ w7I) E~c~ r~cc~rd~d or~:har~;ed ~~~ii~st tY~c~ Nuisance Pxc~~~i-ty~ as~d the Nt~isa►~cu ~Pr~a~erty ri~~y ~c sulci afC~r t}~t•e~~ y~a~•sby tl~~ tn~ c<~ll~ctc~i• f~~r ~rnpair~ d~li~~yu~:~~t ass~ssn~ents.

NtJTIC.~ IS H~~RE~3~' CaTV~1~! t}a~t, {aur~ua~~t~ t~ IMC s~ct~c~rY 1 ~J.`?~{~7), a~a Int~l~~st~ci P~~Gyt~~ay r~c~u4st ri l~earir~~ tc7 di~~~utca thy: ~tr~ac~l~nt c~f`thc sc; ~r~f~r~;~:~n~nt Cc~~ts. If yc~u ~:ho~7se; tc> requesta I~c;arit~b, ~~u roust ~;camplete and i~~turn a Nui~anc~~ A~atcYnerYt anc~ Cade Ez~tc>rc~me~3t ~r~stF~~~o~~ery' ~~I~arirt~;~ Rce~u~si ~~~aY•~T~ ("NiZI~~'") tia tlae City i~4~ later tl~a» the clt~se-cif busi~Xe~s ~f1 theI S`~' day ~~~~r tht; mailing cif this Invcsie,~. Thy HRE is av~il~ble upf>n rec~u~st at the ~z~dic~ Pt~li~~;Dr;p~rf~n~nfi lc~cateci tit ~CiBQO Jacksn~~ Street, I~~die~, Calift»-nia ~22(~l . Tlxe HRF ri~ust ~~; rE~tuz`~~ecito the attention c>f the ~Indic~ Palic~ Depart~~le.nt C`c~d~ ~ i~fcarc~e~~1~~~t I~ivisic~zt within t~l~~ tiia~~r~quireci by l~~v. Fail~~x'~ tc~ ti~~~el}x r~;quest a lxearir~g shall cr~nst~i~ute a failure to Gxhau~t youradmirii~tr~tive ru~~2~c~ies and sl~~ll cc~nstitut~ a wruver ~~~fyaut~ ~~i~;ht Cc~ ciis{~uC~ this ~~~vc~ic;~ car furth~echall~n~;e the City°'s c'c~st~ r~~;occry ri~llts.

t~u~s~i~ans ~•e~a~~c~ir~~ fihi~ ii~v~~ice z~~r~y t~~ directed tea J~znc~ McKinnon, Tndi~a ~7e~uty CityPrr~sc~c~uta~, by ~-~~~~ail at JMc~kinn~>a~{%~~ilv~rWri~l~tL~w,ccaXn c>i- by c;~lli~a~; ~4~-~~35-(~~31, ~~xt~.l (}3.

;J'ei aif4r S c>ud .~.~ F r 3ason Aa~c~~z•st~iaCG~cie E~~f~x-i~zn~►~t Superviscal•tc~ciic~ ~'c~lice I7~parttn~;nt

_. 2 n1' 2 _.

~: i~i4~-,;~~~~t.~~C~(3~ ~ f; ~~at~,~~10~~08 - ~(~0 t~iori~ ~~r~t~r Mill ly~r~ic~, ~:~ ~~~~~1 ~ w~+~ut.it~i~l(~,~rc,~

MEMORANDUM



Date: November 30, 2016

IPD Case Number: 1508I-4651Nuisance Property: APN 600-230-007-4


I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Support of The City's Right to

Cost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the Nuisance

Property. This Memorandum is supported by the Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"), which expressly

authorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") it incurs in

abating public nuisances on private property and enforcing the provisions of the IMC. The IMC

also allows for the City to recover the Costs it incurred for holding a hearing sought by a property

owner or interested party to contest the amount of costs sought to be recovered by the City.


On July l5, 2015, City Code Enforcement Officer Sabrina Soltis ("Officer Soltis")

inspected the Nuisance Property and observed trash and debris throughout the Nuisance Property.

(Declaration of Attorney James McKinnon, "McKinnon Decl.", ¶ 3.) Officer Soltis also observed

overgrown and unsightly vegetation throughout the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ~ 3.)

After observing these conditions on the Nuisance Property, Officer Soltis researched title and

determined that Requestor Investment Development Group LLC ("Requestor") owned the

Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) Officer Soltis issued Requestor an administrative

citation which gave Requestor 15 days to cure the violations on the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon

Decl., ~ 3.) Officer Soltis inspected the Nuisance Property again on August 10, 2015, August 31,

2015, and November 10, 2015. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) During each of these subsequent

inspections, Officer Soltis observed the same violations as those observed during the July 15, 2015

inspection. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) Officer Soltis forwarded this ease to the City Prosecutor for

criminal prosecution due to the continuing violations on the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl.,

¶ 3•)

- l of4-

p: 76p.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 922Q1 www.INDIO.org

On February 9, 2016, Indio Deputy City Prosecutor James McKinnon ("AttorneyMcKinnon") appeared at the Arraignment Hearing for Requestor for maintaining the NuisanceFroperty in violation of IMC sections 95A.104(K)(10) and 95A.104(M)(1). (McKinnon Decl., ¶6.) Attorney McKinnon appeared at three more court hearings in order to compel Requestor tobring the Nuisance Property into compliance. (McKinnon Decl., ~¶ 7-9.) Requestor brought theNuisance Property into compliance and was ultimately convicted of four counts as Infractions fora total fine of $400.00 plus penalty assessments. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 9.)

Now that the violations on the Nuisance Property have been cured, the City initiated costrecovery proceedings in order to recover the City staff costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees("Costs") that the City incurred as a result of the nuisance abatement and code enforcement action.(McKinnon Decl., ¶ 10.) On August 30, 2016, the City issued a Cost Recovery Invoice in theamount of $4,221.09, which were the Costs the City incurred up to that point in its nuisanceabatement action involving the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 11.)

Requestor requested a hearing to contest the cost recovery amount stated on the CostRecovery Invoice. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 12.) The City requests that Hearing Officer JamesButzbach ("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recover its full Costs in abatingthe public nuisances on the Nuisance Property as listed on the Cost Recovery Invoice and that theCity also has the authority to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding this CostRecovery Hearing.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS


California Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes cities to establish their ownprocedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions, including attorneys'fees. California Government Code section 38773.5 further provides that cities may speciallyassess these costs against the parcel of (and where the nuisance occurred.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 38773.5, IMC sections 10.20-10.24 outline the City's cost recovery procedures. Accordingly, IMC section l 0.23 is part of thatstatutorily authorized procedure established by the City. IMC section 10.23(C) requires the Cityto issue an invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties for the nuisance conditions orcode violations. This invoice must also be sent to entities with a recorded interest in the propertywhere the nuisance conditions or code violations were located. IMC section 10.20(B) states thatthe City can recover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigationcosts, enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs, and attorneys'fees), and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatement action by meansof the cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23.

-2of4-

p: 760.391.4pfl0 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIQ.arg

Here, the City has the authority to recover Costs incurred in abating the IMC violations on

the Nuisance Property because the City followed the procedures outlined in the IMC and the

regulations outlined in the California Government Code. The City discovered IMC violations on

the Nuisance Property and discovered that Requestor owned the Nuisance Property. As the owner

of the Nuisance Property, Requestor has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the Nuisance

Property is maintained in accordance with the provisions of the IMC. After having issued an

administrative citation and observing the continued existence of the nuisance conditions and IMC

violations, the City instituted a criminal action against Requester in order to cure the IMC

violations on the Nuisance Property. The City incurred $4,221.09 in Costs to compel Requestor

to abate the IMC violations on the Nuisance Property and enforce the provisions of the IMC. As

required by the IMC, the City issued an invoice to Requestor to recover these Costs. The amount

on the Cost Recovery Invoice is the total of the City staff costs, expenses, fees, and the City's

attorneys' fees incurred in the nuisance abatement action up to that date and is fully recoverable

under IMC section 10.20 and California Government Code section 38773.5. Therefore, the City

is entitled to recover the full amount of Costs listed in the Cost Recovery Invoice.

B. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Incurred For The Hearing To

Contest The Citv's Cost Recovery Proceedings

IMC section 10.20(A) states that the City has the right to recover its Costs relating to the

enforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After• an invoice has been issued by the

City to recover these Costs, IMC section 10.23(D) states that the liable parties have 15 calendar

days to request a hearing regarding the amount of the Costs. Pursuant to IMC section 10.23(F),

the prevailing party is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding this

Cost Recovery Hearing from the non-prevailing party. The Costs incurred in preparing for and

holding this hearing are also recoverable under the provisions of the IMC as they constitute a part

ofthe nuisance abatement action as it deals directly with the City's abatement, through the criminal

process, of the nuisance conditions and IMC violations on the Nuisance Property.

As discussed above, Requestor is liable for the City's Costs incurred in this nuisance

abatement action as the owner of the Nuisance Property and as the entity who is ultimately

responsible to ensure that the Nuisance Property complies with the provisions of the IMC.

Furthermore, the City has complied with all the requirements to recover its Costs as outlined in

the relevant sections of the California Government Code and IMC and therefore has the right to

recover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section l 0.23(F) specifically states that the non-prevailing

party in a Cost Recovery Hearing is liable for the costs of the hearing as well. The cost of this

hearing is a direct cost and expense arising as a consequence of the nuisances and IMC violations

on the Nuisance Property. But for the violations observed on the Nuisance Property, the City

would not have incurred the Costs to abate the nuisance conditions and IMC violations on the

Nuisance Property.

In preparing for and holding this hearing, the City has incurred an additional $3,502.89

plus Hearing Officer fees, in Costs. These Costs include Hearing Officer fees, attorneys' fees, and

-3 of4-

p: 780.391.40fl0 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Centar Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIU.arg

other administrative expenses preparing for and attending this Cost Recovery Hearing. The Cityhas followed all of the procedures required by the IMC to recover its Costs in this matter and isentitled to recover the full costs of the Cost Recovery Hearing as well.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of$4,221.09 should be confirmed and Requestor must pay this amount as well as the costs incurredby the City in preparing for and holding this Cost Recovery Hearing which amount to $3,502.89plus Hearing Officer fees. Thus, Requestor must be ordered to pay a total of $7,723.98 plusHearing Officer fees.

Attachments: 1. Government Code sections 38771-387752. IMC sections 10.20-10.243. Declaration of Attorney McKinnon in Support of City's Cost Recovery Rights4. Hearing Officer Proposed Decision

-4 of4-

p: 780.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 10Q Civic Center Mail Indic, CA 92201 www.INDIO.org

. ~~4 ~~f:'.i .

i ~

U~ ~-h ~

~~ t" ,~~~ ~~,

Z_ ~jY~;' ~'Q""'K l_ yam,

~;~ ~~~t~a~r~~C.'~Z"rP.f 4~f ~f)ZECft

'~'

. ; ~ ~:~ ~.

:I i t ~, M , ~

January 17, 2017

DEi,IVERED VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

IPD Case #: 1510I-4863Nuisance Property: 80749 Canyon Trail.

Indio, California 92201APN 600-360-063

Cost Recovery Amount: $2,363.4Hearing Request Deadline: Februa~•y 1, 2017 (l5 days)Pagrment Deadline: March 3, 2017 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Ms. Tania Jennifer MirelezSU749 Canyon 'frailIndio,.California 922Q1

C T Corporation SystemAgent for JPMor~an Chase Bank&18 West 7tli Street, Suite 930Los tingeles, California 90017

Ta All IXiterested Parties:

`rc)'~~)E} ~t~a6✓.~~~~./~ a~'c`§Ksi:a7 ~ ~tvS3~+./r {;~1~.,~'~.~$~tV~t'~ `J~f..~/~

~r~o~ ~~~-c~~7 ~c~~a~ ~ ~~~o~ ~~a-~~~~ ~~Y

"~~r C~~~2~~~2rt;~1 ... tt;~rrr Cr~~tzr~r~~r~ent,>

J. BreitmanA~;enl foJ° Hyperion Fund, I.P.1417 Via AnitaPacific Palisades, California 90272__

NOTICE IS HERF,BY GIVEN that, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code ("IMC") section10.23, the City of Indio ("City") hereby seeks to reco~~er its costs, expenses, Vines, arzd fees("Enforcement Costs"} incrrrrcd in prosecuting violations of the IMC axed abating publicnuisances on the Nuisance Property.

The City's unpaid F.,ziforceme7it Costs in this matter Total $2,363.54 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, i~lvestigation costs,enforce~xient expenses, legal services, litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdirect costs azld expenses arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC,l 0.20(B).)

1, Code Ln:Porcement Investigation Costs: $460.002. Administrative Costs: $583.343. Prosecution Fees: $1,320.204. Totat: $2,363.54

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on t17e 45 x̀'day after the mailing of'this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "Silver &Wright LLP", atto27~eys for tl~e City, and must be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California91764.

NOTICE IS .HEREBY GIVEN .that, pursuant to IMC section 10,23(C), if theEnforcement Costs aze not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment willbe recorded o1• charged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be soldafter three yeaY•s by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICC IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section. 10.23(D), an InterestedParty may request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose torequest a hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement ai7d Code EnforcementCost Recovery Hearing Request Fenn ("HRF"j to the City no later than the close-of-business onthe 15 h̀ day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF~ is available upon request at the IndioPolice .Department located at 46$00 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The I~RF must bereturned to the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within thetime required by haw. failure to timely request a hearing shalt constitute a failure to exhaustyour administrative remedies and shall constitute a waivex of your right to dispute this Invoice orfurther challenge the City's cost recovery rights.

Questions regarding this Invoice may be directed to James McKinnon, Indio Deputy CityF~~osecutoY•, by e-mail at JMcKinnon(~7SilverWrightLaw.coizf or by galling 949-:i&5-6431, Ext.J ~3. _.. _ _ _ _ __ _ r ~

AndersonEnforcement SupervisorPolice L7epaz-tment

MEMORANDUM



Date: February 3, 2017

IPD Case Number: l 508I-4651Nuisance Property: 80749 Canyon Trail

Indio, California 92201APN 600-360-063


I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Support of The City's Right toCost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the NuisanceProperty. This Memorandum is supported by the Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"), which expresslyauthorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") it incurs inabating public nuisances on private property and enforcing the provisions of the IMC. The IMCalso allows for the City to recover the. Costs it incurred for holding a hearing sought by a propertyowner or interested party to contest the amount of costs sought to be recovered by the City.


On October 29, 2015, City Code Enforcement Officer Brenda Johnson ("Officer Johnson")arrived at the Nuisance Property in response to reports of an IMC violation and observed aHalloween decoration hanging from a City street light pole on the Nuisance Property without theproper encroachment permit. (Declaration of Attorney James McKinnon, "McKinnon Decl.", ¶3.) Officer Johnson observed- Tania Jennifer Mirelez ("Defendant") removing the Halloweendecoration from the City street light pole. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) Officer Johnson recognizedDefendant due to Defendant's commission of similar violations in years past on the NuisanceProperty. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) Officer Johnson researched City records and verified thatDefendant had not applied for or obtained any encroachment permit to hang Halloweendecorations from the City street light pole. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) Officer Soltis issued Defendanta Notice to Appear for violating IMC section 97.005(A) and forwarded the case to the CityProsecutor's Office for criminal prosecution. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.)

-1 of4-

p: 760.391.4Q00 ~ f: 760.391.40n8 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 92201 www.iNDlO.org

.. ~ ~€d ~}

On December 15, 2015, Indio Deputy City Prosecutor James McKinnon ("AttorneyMcKinnon") appeared at the Arraignment Hearing for Requestor for maintaining the NuisanceProperty in violation of IMC section 97.005(A). (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 6.) Defendant failed toappear at the initial Arraignment Hearing and the Court issued a Bench Warrant against Defendant.(McKinnon Decl., ~ 6.) On September 9, 2016, Defendant appeared in Court without noticing theCity Prosecutor's Office and was ultimately convicted of one count as an Infraction and wasordered to pay a fine of $200.00 plus penalty assessments. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 8.)

Now that the violations on the Nuisance Property have been cured and the criminal casehas resolved, the City initiated cost recovery proceedings in order to recover the City staff costs,expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") that the City incurred as a result of the nuisanceabatement and code enforcement action. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 10.) On January 17, 2017, the Cityissued a Cost Recovery Invoice in the amount of $2,363.54, which were the Costs the City incurredup to that point in its nuisance abatement action involving the Nuisance Property. (McKinnonDecl., ¶ l l .) As a part of the cost recovery process, Attorney McKinnon researched property titleinformation and discovered that Requestor Hyperion Fund, L.P. ("Requestor") held legal title tothe Nuisance Property at all times during the City's nuisance abatement action. (McKinnon Decl.,~ 2.) The City issued the Cost Recovery Invoice to Defendant, Requestor, and all Interested Partiesof the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 11.)

Requestor requested a hearing to contest the cost recovery amount stated on the CostRecovery Invoice. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 12.) The City requests that Hearing Officer lamesButzbach ("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recover its full Costs in abatingthe public nuisances on the Nuisance Property as listed on the Cost Recovery Invoice and that theCity also has the authority to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding this CostRecovery Hearing.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The City Has The Authority To Recover It's Costs Related To EnforcinE Anv CodeViolation Or Nuisance Abatement

California Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes cities to establish their ownprocedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions, including attorneys'fees. California Government Cody section 38773.5 further provides that cities may speciallyassess these costs against the parcel of land where the nuisance occurred.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 38773.5, IMC sections 10.20-10.24 outline the City's cost recovery procedures. IMC section 10.23(C) requires the City to issuean invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties for the nuisance conditions or codeviolations. This invoice must also be sent to entities with a recorded interest in the property wherethe nuisance conditions or code violations were located. IMC section 10.20(B) states that the Citycan recover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,

—2of4—

p: 760.391.400 f: 760.391.40n8 100 Civic tenter Mali Indio, CA 92201 www.INDIO.org

enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs, and attorneys' fees),

and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatement action by means of

the cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23. IMC section 10.24(B) further

provides that the City may levy a special assessment against the Nuisance Property to recover any

unpaid Costs.

Here, the City has the authority to recover Costs incurred in abating the IMC violations on

the Nuisance Property because the City initiated a nuisance abatement action in order to compel

Defendant to bring the Nuisance Property into compliance with the provisions of the IMC.

Defendant illegally hung a Halloween decoration from a City street light pole that was located on

the Nuisance Property and the City pursued criminal prosecution to compel compliance. The City

incurred $2,363.54 in Costs to compel Defendant to abate the IMC violations on the Nuisance

Property and enforce the provisions of the IMC. As required by the IMC, the City issued an invoice

to Requestor, Defendant, and all interested parties of the Nuisance Property to recover these Costs.

The amount on the Cost Recovery Invoice is the total of the City staff costs, expenses, fees, and

the City's attorneys' fees incurred in the nuisance abatement action up to that date and is fully

recoverable under IMC section 10.20 and California Government Code section 38773.5.

Therefore, the City is entitled to recover the full amount of Costs listed in the Cost Recovery

Invoice.

As the owner of the Nuisance Property, Requestor has the ultimate responsibility to ensure

that the Nuisance Property is maintained in accordance with the provisions of the IMC.

Government Code section 38773.5 and IMC section 10.24(B) further demonstrate this

responsibility by expressly authorizing the City to collect its Costs incurred in a nuisance

abatement action through the levying of a special assessment against the property on which the

nuisance conditions and IMC violations existed. Requestor therefore is jointly and severally liable

to the City for its Costs and these Costs may be collected as a personal obligation of Requestor

and as a special assessment against the Nuisance Property.


Contest The City's Cost Recovery Proceedings


enforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After an invoice has been issued by the

City to recover these Costs, IMC section 10.23(D) states that the liable parties have l5 calendar


the prevailing party is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding this

Cost Recovery Hearing from the non-prevailing party. The Costs incurred in preparing for and

holding this hearing are also recoverable under the provisions of the IMC as they constitute a part

ofthe nuisance abatement action as it deals directly with. the City's abatement, through the criminal

process, of the nuisance conditions and IMC violations on the Nuisance Property.

As discussed above, Requestor is liable for the City's Costs incurred in this nuisance

abatement action as the owner of the Nuisance Property and as the entity who is ultimately

-3 of4-

p: 760.391.40Q0 f: 760.39.4008 1QQ Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INQIO.org

responsible to ensure that the Nuisance Property complies with the provisions of the IMC.

Furthermore, the City has complied with all the requirements to recover its Costs as outlined in

the relevant sections of the California Government Code and IMC and therefore has the right to

recover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section 10.23(F) specifically states that the non-prevailing

party in a Cost Recovery Hearing is liable for the costs of the hearing as well. The cost of this

hearing is a direct cost and expense arising as a consequence of the nuisances and IMC violations

on the Nuisance Property. But for the violations observed on the Nuisance Property, the City

would not have incurred the Costs to abate the nuisance conditions and IMC violations on the

Nuisance Property.


plus Hearing Officer fees, in Costs. These Costs include Hearing Officer fees, attorneys' fees, and

other administrative expenses preparing for and attending this Cost Recovery Hearing. The City

has followed all of the procedures required by the IMC to recover its Costs in this matter and is

entitled to recover the full costs of the Cost Recovery Hearing as well.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of

$2,363.54 should be confirmed and Requestor must pay this amount as well as the costs incurred

by the City in preparing for and holding this Cost Recovery Hearing which amount to $1,898.23

plus Hearing Officer fees. Thus, Requestor must be ordered to pay a total of $4,261.77 plus

Hearing Officer fees.

Attachments: 1. Government Code sections 38771-38775

2. IMC sections 10.20-10.243. Declaration of Attorney McKinnon in Support of City's Cost Recovery Rights

4. Hearing Officer Proposed Decision

-4of4-

p: 76p.391.A000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 10Q Civic Center MaN Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INDI(7.org

.,. ~ ~~ ~~

' i ~ ~

August 30, 201 fi

DELIVERED VIE1 CERTIFIED iV1AIL

IPll Case #: 1506I-0630Nuisance Property: 82389 O1~ange Grove Avenue

India, Calif'~rnia 92201APN 610-1 b2-019-8

Cast Recovery Arnaunt: X3,030.33Hearing Request Deadline: September 14, 2016 (l 5 days)Payment Deadline: October 14, 201 fi (45 clays)

Interested Parties:

Ms. R~rt~ana K. Morales,Trustee of'I'hc Morales Family TrustDated. March 9, 19979-923 Castille Drive,La Quinta, California 92253

Ms. Ramona R. vlarales,Trustee of The .Morales Family Trustmated March 9, 1999823$9 ~ran~e Grove Avenue,Indio, California 92201

Mr. Toseph William DaviesAgent for SCME Martga~e Bankers, Inc.8324 Allison Avenue,La Mesa, California 91.942

'I'o Ali Interested Parties:

NOTICL IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Indio Municipal Code ("IMC") section10.23, the City of Indio {"City") hereby seeks to recover its cc7sis, expenses, fines, anc~ fees("E~.7lorcement Costs") incurred in prosecuting e~iol~tions of the IMC and abating public nuisancesozi the Nuisazice P~~operty,

The City's unpaid ~ nfarcement Costs in this matter total X3,030.33 and include, but arenot liiryited to, the adtnir~istrative files, administrative costs, inspection casts, investigafiion costs,

. ~~i' 2 —

~3; f~1~.:3~~~.ta~~~ ~ ~' ~~~{~).:~~-~~~ 11~1{l~ ~t~l(1 #"`.ittir~~ ("`.nt9fcar AA~xI[ iz^crlira ("`.11 C1~?'~f19 ~.,,<,~., 4t~it'7ir-'1 r,w«,

..._

enforcement expenses, legal. services; litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdiz•ect costs and expenses arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC, ~ 10.20{B),}

1. Code Enforcement Investigation Casts: $1 15.002. Ad~ninista~ative Costs: X507.533. Prosecution Fees: $2,407.8Q4. Total: $3,030.33

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45 h̀day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check rrzadepayable to tl~e "Silver &Wright i,LP", attorneys fòr the City, and must be remitted to theatiention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 SheEby Street, Oiztario, California

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursua~~.t to IMC section 10.23{C), if the EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a. lien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVF.,N that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(D), an Intec-ested Partynay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Casts. I1~ you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Cade Enforcement CostRecover~r Hearing Request Form ("~-IRI'") t~7 the City no later than the close-of-business nn the15`h day after the inailir~g ofthis Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 4b800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF rnust~ be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a bearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust youradministrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost rec«very rights.

Questions regarding this Invoice may be dit•ected to James McKinnon, India Deputy CityProsecutor, by e-mail at JMeKinnan~~SilverWri~htLaw.cnm or by calling 949-385-6431, Ext..1.03. ___ _ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ___

`'~~c~l' .~ ciSt t1 r`tI1C~l',i S~)II

Cade Enforcement SupervisorIndio Police Department

--2~f2-_

C1' ~~i~l :i<~1 ~If1("l(1 f• 74it3 `~Cli ~9f9t1S2 9l1fs t"`f~,~., (`.,.,kr,~ RA,.~t1 9,-.,-d;,-, t"~n tznnr:-€ ......... eair>~,~ _.--

MEMORANDUM

To: James Butzbach, Hearing OfficeN

From: James McKinnon, Indio Deputy City PNosecutor

Date: September 27, 2016

IPD Case Number: 1506I-0630Nuisance Property: 82389 Orange Grove Avenue



I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Suppoirt of The City's Right toCost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the NuisanceProperty. This Memorandum is supported by the Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"), which expresslyauthorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") it incurs inabating public nuisances on private property and enforcing the provisions of the IMC. The IMCalso allows for the City to recover the Costs it incurred for holding a hearing sought by a propertyowner or interested party to contest the amount of costs sought to be recovered by the City.


On June 4, 2015, City Code Enforcement Officer Stroud ("Officer Stroud") inspected theNuisance Property in response to a complaint regarding roosters at the location. (Declaration ofAttorney James McKinnon, "McKinnon Decl.", ¶ 4.) Officer Stroud observed one chicken in thebackyard through the side yard fence. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.) Officer Stroud tried making contactat the door but received no answer. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.) After observing these conditions onthe Nuisance Property, Officer Stroud researched title and determined that Requestor Ramona RitaMorales, as Trustee of The Morales Family Trust Dated March 9, 1999 ("Requestor") owned theNuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.) Officer Stroud also discovered that Requestor did nothave a business license for using the Nuisance Property as a rental property though there areindividuals renting the Nuisance Property (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.) Officer Stroud forwarded thiscase to the City Prosecutor for criminal prosecution due to the continuing violations on theNuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ~ 4.)

— 1 of4—

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4Q08 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 www.INDIO.org

On September 15, 2015, the Indio Deputy City Prosecutor appeared at the ArraignmentHearing for Requestor for maintaining the Nuisance Property in violation of IMC Sections110.03(A) and 159.606(B)(1). (McKinnon Decl., ¶~ 5, 7.) Requestor was ultimately convicted ofboth counts as Infractions for a total fine of $150.00 plus penalty assessments. (McKinnon Decl.,

~ ~•)

Now that the violations on the Nuisance Property have been cured, the City initiated costrecovery proceedings in order to recover the City staff costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees("Costs") that the City incurred as a result of the nuisance abatement and code enforcement action.(McKinnon Decl., ¶ 8.) On August 30, 2016, the City issued a Cost Recovery Invoice in theamount of $3,030.33, which were the Costs the City incurred up to that point in its nuisanceabatement action involving the Nuisance Property. (McKinnon Decl., ~ 9.)

Requestor timely requested a hearing to contest the cost recovery amount stated on the CostRecovery Invoice. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ l0.) The City requests that Hearing Officer JamesButzbach ("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recover its full Costs in abatingthe public nuisances on the Nuisance Property as listed on the Cost Recovery Invoice and that theCity also has the authority to recover the Costs it incurred in prepat•ing for and holding this CostRecovery Hearing.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS


California Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes cities to establish their ownprocedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions, including attorneys'fees. California Government Code section 38773.5 further provides that cities may speciallyassess these costs against the parcel of land where the nuisance occurred.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 38773.5, IMC sections 10.23-10.24 outline the City's cost recovery procedures. Accordingly, IMC section 10.23 is part of thatstatutorily authorized procedure established by the City. IMC section 10.23(C) requires the Cityto issue an invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties for the nuisance conditions orcode violations. This invoice must also be sent to entities with a recorded interest in the propertywhere the nuisance conditions or code violations were located. IMC section 10.20(B) states thatthe City can recover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigationcosts, enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs, and attorneys'fees), and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatement action by meansof the cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23.

Here, the City has the authority to recover Costs incurred in abating the IMC violations onthe Nuisance Property because the City followed the procedures outlined in the IMC and the

—2of4—

p: 760.391.40x0 ~ f: 760.391.4008 700 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92207 www.INDlt7.org

regulations outlined in the California Government Code. The City discovered IMC violations on

the Nuisance Property. In order to cure the IMC violations on the Nuisance Property, the City

instituted a criminal action against Requestor. The City incurred $3,030.33 in Costs to compel

Requestor to abate the IMC violations on the Nuisance Property and enforce the provisions of the

IMC. As required by the IMC, the City issued an invoice to Requestor. The amount on the Cost

Recovery Invoice is the total of the City staff costs and the City's attorneys' fees incurred in the

nuisance abatement action up to that date and is fully recoverable under IMC section 10.20 and

California Government Code section 38773.5. Therefore, the City is entitled to recover the full

amount of Costs listed in the Cost Recovery Invoice.


Contest The City's Cost Recovery Proceedings


enforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After an invoice has been issued by the

City to recover these Costs, IMC section 10.23(D) states that the liable parties have 15 calendar


the City is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding this Cost Recovery

Hearing because the City is entitled to recover all of its Costs in abating a nuisance. This Cost

Recovery Hearing is part of the nuisance abatement action as it deals directly with the City's

abatement through the criminal process.

As discussed above, in IMC section 1.0.23, the City has complied with all of the

requirements to recover its Costs as outlined in the relevant sections of the California Government

Code and, therefore, the City has the right to recover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section

10.23(F) specifically states that the non-prevailing party in a Cost Recovery Hearing is liable for

the costs of the hearing as well. The cost of this hearing is a direct cost and expense arising as a

consequence of the nuisances and IMC violations on the Nuisance Property because but for the

violations, the City would not have incurred the Costs to abate the nuisances, which Requestor is

attempting to dispute in this hearing.


plus Hearing Officer fees, in Costs. These Costs include the fee for the Hearing Officer and

attorneys' fees. The City has followed all of the procedures required by the IMC to recover its

Costs in this matter and, therefore, is entitled to recover the full costs of the Cost Recovery Hearing

as well.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of

$3,030.33 should be confirmed and Requestor must pay this amount as well as the costs incurred

by the City in preparing for and holding this Cost Recovery Hearing which amount to $2,628.69

—3 of4—

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.40g8 1Q0 Civic Center Mall Indio, CR 92207 www.INDIO.org

.- <~ ~~,

plus Hearing Officer fees. Thus, Requestor must be ordered to pay a total of $5,659.02 plusHearing Officer fees.

Attachments: 1. Government Code sections 38771-387752. IMC sections ] 0.20-10.243. Declaration of Attorney McKinnon in Support of City's Cost Recovery Rights4. Hearing Officer Proposed Decision

-4of4-

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIO.org

CITY t~F INDI(J

1 1 ~

August 3U, 2016

DELIVERED VIA CEI2TlTIED MAIL,

IPD Case #: 1603I-189?Nu►lance Property: 45212 Fargo Street

Indio, California 92201APN 611-175-0? 7-2_ _ _ __

Cost Recovery Amount: $3,327.14Hearing Request Deadli~ie: Septez~~ber 14, 2016 (15 days)Payment Deadline: October 14, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Mr. I'ernaz~do Ortega65802 ~3uena Vista AvenueDesert Hit Springs, California 92240

Mr. Fernando Ortega15151 Via MontanaDesert Hot Sprizigs, California X2240

Mr. I~ ernandc~ 4rte~;a45212 T'argo StreetIndio, Califonlia 92201

Filenioi~ M. Landeros and Maria E.I,at~deros374U2 Ironwood DriveYucaipa, California 923)9

L.A. Camn7ercial Group, Inc. dbaContinental Commercial Group317 South Brand BoulevardGlendale, California 91204

Increstors Title Corn~any7S3Q North Glen~aks BoulevardBurbank, California 91.504___ _ __

Mr. Richard Galdm.anAgent for Priority Collections, lnc.21818 Craggy View Street, Suite 241Cl~atsw~rth, California 9l 311

Mr. Norman S. Solomanflgent,for G'ontineratcxl Comnaej•cial Group,L~,C929 East 2°a Street, Suite 101Los Angeles, Califoi-~ia 90012

- i. o~':~ .....

~~: 7~af~,3~31.~1t4(`1(1 ~° 7~t~ .'~~1~ ,~C~~7~ ~iCt~1 t'" x,rir~ r''.r~,.~~r ~~~se [~w~;~, r'~n c~~> ar~-s ,A„m,e., En~rtion ,,,-„

American Express ~3ank, FSBc/o Patenaude &Felix, A.P.(:.4545 Murphy Canyon Road, Third T'loorSan Diego, California y2123


C "I" Corporation SystemAgent for Anae~ican Express Centuf•iotzBank818 West Seventh Street, Suite 93(}Los Angeles, California 90Q17__ __ __ _ _

NOTICE IS ~-~EREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to India Municipal Code ("IMC"} section10.23, the City of Indio ('`City"} IZereby seeks to ~•ecove~• its costs, expenses, Vines, and fees(".1r;nforcement Costs") incurred in prosecLztin~ violations of the IMC and abating public nuisanceson t11e Nuisance I'zaperty.

'Tl1e Cit}''s unpaid Enforcement Costs in thrs matter total X3,327.14 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services, litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdirect costs and expenses arising as a cansec~uence of the nuisance or violation. (:[MC, § 10,20(B).)

1. Code Enforcement Investigation Costs: ~ l 15.002. Administrative Costs: X541.243. Prosecution Fees: ~2,b70.904._ Total: $3,327.14

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 4S h̀day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the farm of a Cashier's Check izaadepayable to the "Silver & tiVright LLP", attor7~eys for the City, and must be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 2.50, 335(1 Shelby Street, Ontario, California91.764.

NC7TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section I Q.23(C:), if the EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as requzred by law, then a lien. ar special. assessment will be recorded oz•cl~arged against the Nuisance Property, and tl~e Nuis~~nce Property may be sold aftex tl~uee yearsby the tax collector fnr unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS ~IEREBY GIVLN that, put•suant to IMC section 10.?3{D), an Interested ~'ai-tymay request a hearing to dispute the amount cif these Enforcement Costs. If y<~u choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a. Nuisance Abaterrlent and Cade ~nforceznent CostRecovery Hearing Request Foz~tn ("HK~"") to the City no later than the close-of=business on theI S }̀' day after the mailing of this Invoice, The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDcpartnlent located at 46$OQ Jackson Street, Indio, C;'alifornia 92201. The HRP must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code enforcement Division within the trinerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a faiture to exhaust your__

_.. ~ os :......

~: 7601.3 ~i.~` C7 f: 7"~Q.;3~~,~~}~9~i ~ ~C3{7 C;it,ir: C;~nis~r jai( t~~ir~irti t~";1& ~:~;~~t1 ~R~ti~~~nr t~~r`dtt'l r,~~,

administrative remedies and shall constitute <t waiver ~f your right to dispute this Invoice or furthercl~allez~ge the City`s cost recovery rights.__ __ __ _ __

Questions regarding this I~lvoice may be directed to James McKiiuion, lndin lleputy CityProsecutor, by c-mail at [email protected] or by calling 949-385-6431, Ext.103, _ __ _ _ ___._ _ _ __

P ~~ ~

Ter~tiifer ~ruuci'.~,s~`z~ Jt~st~~z A.~acic;rst~rtCode Enforcement SupervisorIndio Police Department

q__ .> c.t .3 .....

€~~ 7f~C7.~~~1.~4C~0~1 9~: 7~C~.39S.~C1C~£~ 9(~(~ C;i~,~ir C;€~r~:~ar ~R:a€# Inriir~ C~;~1 ~3~~C~t iR„A,t~, rfl~t`~~t~ ~-~~~~

..~:_ _ . ,~'.~V~ff

~1

CITY OF INDIO



June 8, 2016

DELIVERED VIA C~RTIPIED MAIL

IPD Case #: 1507I-21.92Nuisance Property: APN 692-010-010Cost Recovery Amount: $6,634.81Hearing Request Deadline: June 23, 2016 (15 days)Payment Deadline: July 23, 2016 (45 days)Interested Parties:

Robert E. WynnerAgent for Paradiso 177 Indio LLC31248 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 100Westlake Village, California 91361.

Jeanette SanbornAgent for Palm Springs Plaza Del Sol,LLC555 South Sunrise Way, Suite 200Palm Springs, California 92264


C T Corporation SystemAgent for Stewart Title of California, Inc.818 West Seventh Street, Suite 930Los Angeles, California 90017



1. Code Enforcement Investigation Costs: $1,610.002. Administrative Costs: $680.813. Prosecution Fees: $4,344.004. Total: $6,634.81

— t of2—

p: 760.391.40fl0 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center. Mall Indio, CA 922Q1 www.INDIQ.org

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45`''

day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the foi-~n of a Cashier's Check made

payable to "Silver & Wright LLP", attorneys for the City; and must be remitted to the attention

of the India City Prosecuiar at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California 91764.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IM.0 section 10.23(0), if the Enforcement

Costs ar•e nat paid in full as required bylaw, then a lien or special assessme~zt will be recorded or

charged against tl~e Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after• three years

by the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(D), an Interested Party

may request a heari~zg to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose to request

a hearing, you must complete and return. a Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement Cost

Recovery Hea~•ing Request Form ("HRF"} to the City no later khan the close-of-business on the

15`'' day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio Police

Deparnnent located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returned

to the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the time

required by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust your

administrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice oa• further

challenge the City's cost recovery rights.

Questions regarding this Invoice may be directed to James McKinnon, Tndio Deputy City

Prosecutor, by e-mail at JMcKinnon@SilverWri~;htLaw.com of~y calling 949-385-6431, Ext.

1.03. /'

Azadersone Enforcement Supervisoro Police Department

—2of2—

p: 760.391.4QQD f: 766.391.4008 - 1Q0 Civic. C;c:nt~r M~~il Indio, CA 92.201 www.INDIO.nrg

CITY t7F I~DIt~

NUI:SAN~E A~ATENIENT AMID ~t~DE ENFQRCEM~NT

~(~ST RECOVERY INVOICE

A~.i~~,~t 3t), 2UIC~

D~~~v~.~t~v v~~ C.~tt°~~tt~t~b MAtt.

1PI) Case #: 1504I-5~3SNuisance Property: Assessar'~ I'arc~l NurT~t~Grs (,~~-~2()-Q2t)-5, (~~)2-22f)-t)21-Ci,

6~~~-~~2(~-t)22-7, a~~d Ci~,?2-22t~J-U24-9

Cost Iteca~°ery Arnouz~t: ~1 ~,5~)5.~~Hearin Request ~lc~adline» ~~pt~ii~ber 1 A~, ?-Q! 6 (~ S d€iys}Faym~nt D~~dirne: C}ctr~b~r l ~, 2O l f> (4S d~y~~

ir~t~restecl Pa~•kies:

C T C't~~-~oratic~n System.4gc~rrt fay• SH,IK. I~LCf318 W~SC Seventh Street, end FloorL.ras An~;etes, (~àlifort~i~ ~Qt?17

Sl-.II2, I.,LC'341 S South Sc;pulvecia Bc~ul~vard,Saute bat)L;as An~;elcs~ Califc~a-ni~ 90()3

S~-iJR, t~T~,~'€~2~)Cl0 A~tcz~ue; 42Iridi~~, California 92Z{)3

Tc~ 1411 lr~terestecl P~i~z~s;

~,isri ~. Pait~e~nt.I~~r• Ti~'ilslai~~c~ 13ccr~132~t1 Wi~~l~~ire Be~ul~~rard; Su~it~ 14l {~I.~~s A~~~el~s, Calit~~rz~ia 9()t31(?

1~It7TICE t5 I~ER~BY C IVEN t}~~t, p~~~•su~nt zc~ Inch t~ M~~z~icip~~l C'c~cic~ {=ÌI~9C",) section1(}.2a, t}~e City cif' It~dir~ (:`('ity~"~ k~er~ek~y= seck5 tc~ r~cc~uea~ its cc7sts, er~ei~ses, tines, ~inc1 tees(~`~~~for•c~n~~nt C'c~sts") i~~uri•e~~ ix~ }~rosecuti~l~ r3i<7l~tions of #1~e lMC a~ad al~atin~ putrli~ rxuis~~~cescan the Nuisance Prc~pc~ky.

T'l~~ C'i~P's u~~,~aic1 ~n~~rc~rzl~ut C'r~st~ iii this ~n-~~tx~r dotal ~ 18,5~~.~~ ~n~ iz~~lt~c~~, t~r~t are~~c~t li~~~it~ci tc~, tl~.e acin~i~ist~~ative fi~xcs, ~~dminisYrativ~ ~r~sts, i~~5~~eeti~n c~~sts, i~~v~s~i.,~atic~n casts,~;t7~`c~r~ei7~e.nt ~:~p~i~s~s, legal se:r~~ ~~;s, litigatit~rY costs, court cysts, attc~r~ieys' f'e~s, anc~ gay c~tlierciir~~.t ~;c~sts ar~cl ~ x~~ens~5 arising; ~s ~ ct~7lseyuc~nc~ cif the nuisance cox viol~~ti«n. ~tMC', ~ l t~.2()(6).)

__ r G,f~2

f~;t7.~ 1.=~C~t~t) f: 7fi~.~~~11.4f~~t3 ~i(7f3 civic: ~;~nt~r~ ~~I~II fr~c3ia, Gil ~ ~t71 w~nrv,~.ENC~If~,cary

,~~

1. ~~c~cie Enf<~rc~;in~i~t InvGsti~~tic~n Cc~sf~: ~ 1,21 ~.t)f3?. Aci~»inistrative: C'{>sts: $1,409,4;~. I'~rc7~~cutic~n~'e~;s. ~35,E)f~fa.~iC~~. Total: ~18,59~.44

~'"~u must pays tt~e balax~c~ c,wec~ tc~ the t;ity ~~~~ later tl°~ xa~ the clr~~;e-cif-bu~~ne~s r~xa the 4aa'day af~ur ih~ t~r~iling cif 1k~is Invc~ic;~. P~3~n~lex~k x~~ust lie in tla~ f~~►r~» at' a C"~~stxi~r's ~'i~e~k n~ar~~pay~~hlG tt~ tlae "Stiv~r ~ ~'1'ri~l~t LI.:~~P", attorneys t~~r ~_l~~ City, and ~~aust ~~ ~~~~~nitt~d tt~ tl~t~att~7~ti~z~ c~~ tl~e ~Inclin C"i~y~ Prc~~:~cu~c~~~ at Suits 25C), 335O ~helbv Street, (Jntario, C;alifoe•nia9176.

NOTICE IS HEREF~Y GI~'~N that, ~aui•~uant t~ I?V1CY se~ctic~~a 1(~.2a(C'), t'il~e Enfc~rcc~int~i~►t.hosts are ~~c~t ~~id iii full as r~c~uiz•e~ by lz~~v, t}~~n ~ lie~~ car sp~~ial ~~ss~ss~x~~nt ti~ji11 die ~•~Gc~z•ded carc~t~z•ged against tt~u Nuisance ~'►•ta~c~~-ty, and the Nui~af~ce Prc~}~~rty n~~y b~ ~t~1cl ~ft~r t1~rc~e yearsby Cl~c~ tax. cc>Ilectar tia~• ~un~aic~ ti~linc~ue~~C ~~sses~~~~ez~ts.

NQ"IÌGE IS H~Ct~~~' Ci1VEN tl~~t, ~Gia•su~i~k tt~ IMC` ~;~ctic»~ 1~a23(t7), an Ir~t~t•est~d Partymay rc;yu~4t a 1~~.~ria~~ tc7 ~iisputc~ tl~~: a~t~c>ui~t ~~~~t~~~st~ ~x~iorcerl~~nt C'c~sts. If yc~u Glic~vs~: tc~ r~yuest4i h~ari~~~, yc~u must cc~xnple~e ~Zncl return a Nuitiai~c~ Abate~~~enx ~~nc~ C.'c~de; Ei~f~~rc~r~~en~ C;ia~tI7~;c:c~ti~~t•~r T-~earin~ ~~r~u~~t ~c~rn~ {°'I~~(2F"} try til~~ City n~7 1~tc~r t.}~tY~~ tl~e cicsse-t~f=busi~i~~~s r~~t fh~i5a, day after the n~ailirl~; cif this Iz~vc~ic~. Thy HKF is av~il~bl~ upc~71 request ~t the 1iltiic~ I'c~lic~~~e~a~i~tla~~z~# lc~c.~tecl ~t 4~~O0 J~~;k~t~n ~t~•~t~t, ~In~lio, C~alif~x-~aia f)22t71. The I-IRF mint b~ retttrt~~dE~ ll~e atte~ltic~ra cif tllc I~icii~ Fc~tice Dc~p~~•tyl~tez~t Gc~c~c ~nfoi•ccanexit Divisie~n within Che ti~n~~~quiret~ key 1~~~~. F~~ilu►•e to "ti~~~Iy r~c~ucst a fi~~ring ~taalt cc~~~stitute a failure tc~ cxl~au~t y~u~rac~~tlir~istraCiv~ i~~tn~di~~ az~d sl~~ll ~:c~nstitut~ a waiver ~~f ycsur ri~l~t tc~ ~lispufie this Itivc~ice aa• fu~t-~l~~rchail~ng ~ tlae C'.ity's cast z•ecc~~~ery t~i~hts,

Questions re~arciit~~ this I~~~~a~ic-~ mny lie c~ir~cfed tc~ ~a~n~s McKii~ncan, Int~it~ D~~~i~y CityI'rus~:utor, tay c:-nail at ,~Iv1cI<ini~c~~~(i?Sil~~~rV~ri~}~tLa~v.cc~zt~ car lay ~;allin~; 94~-;~~5-C~31, Ext.1O;~ .

., , ~ ' ~ ~aCr.

J~ta aifer.. 'r~utl~c~ J~s~a~7 Arzdcrs~mC~7~iG nfi~rcez~~c~nt ~cF{~~r4tisc7r1r~ciic~ Pc~licr ~l~~:p~rta~~c~r7t

-- ? r~ f 2

~; 7~~.;~~`1,~(Jt]O ~ ~: 7~~7.3~1.4~C~~J~~ ~ ~(~~J C:ivir C~~r~~~rr (~t~~ll Ir~e~icr, C1A rt~1~1 ~ www,1~#~~It?~orr~

.. , ~~'

MEMORANDUM



Date: November 29, 2016

IPD Case Number: 1504I-5435Nuisance Properties: Assessor's Parcel Numbers 692-220-020-5, 692-220-021-6, 692-220-022-7,

and 692-220-024-9


I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Support of the City's Right to

Cost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the NuisanceProperties. This Memorandum is supported by provisions of the Government Code and the IndioMunicipal Code ("IMC"), which expressly authorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees,and attorneys' fees ("Costs") it incurs in abating public nuisances on private property andenforcing the provisions of the IMC. The IMC also allows for the City to recover the Costs it

incurs preparing for and holding a hearing sought by a property owner or interested party to contestthe amount of costs sought to be recovered by the City.


On October 6, 2014, City Code Enforcement Officer Vargas ("Officer Vargas") responded

to a complaint of potentially hazardous waste. (Declaration of Attorney James McKinnon,

"McKinnon Decl.", ~ 3.) Officer Vargas observed a large amount of trash, junk and debris inside

the dumpster enclosures and throughout the parking lot and planter areas of the Nuisance

Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) Additionally, Officer Vargas noted that the dumpster

enclosures needed to be secured. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 3.) After the inspection, Officer Vargas

researched property title information for the Nuisance Properties and discovered that SHJR, LLC

("Requestor") owned the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.) Officer Vargas

subsequently issued an administrative citation to Requestor for the IMC violations observed during

the inspection. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 4.)

On April 29, 2015, City Code Enforcement Officer Stroud ("Officer Stroud") responded

to a complaint regarding violations of the IMC on the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ~

— 1 of4—

p: 760.391.4040 ~ f: 760.391.4008 10Q Civic Center Mail Indio, CA 92201 ~ www,INDI(J.org

5.) In responding to the call, Officer Stroud observed overgrown vegetation, landscaping overrunwith excessive amounts of weeds and grass, and a large shattered window that was still intact andvisible from the front of the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 5.) Officer Stroud alsoobserved a boarded up window next to a door of one of the structures on the Nuisance Properties.(McKinnon Decl., ~ 6.) Officer Stroud also observed open and unsecure dumpster enclosuresthroughout the Nuisance Properties, many of which had an accumulation of trash and debristhroughout the enclosures that also encroached onto the driveways of the Nuisance Properties.(McKinnon Decl., ¶ 6.) Officer Stroud also observed a dilapidated and sun-damaged addressnumber posted on a building located on the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 6.) Afterobserving these conditions on the Nuisance Properties, Officer Stroud researched title anddetermined that Requestor owned the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 6.) Officer Stroudsubsequently referred the matter to the Indio City Prosecutor for criminal prosecution due to thecontinuing violations on the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 6.)

Indio Deputy City Prosecutors appeared at numerous court proceedings during the criminalcase against Requestor for maintaining the Nuisance Properties in violation of IMC Sections95A.104(F)(2), 95A.104(K)(5), 95A.104(K)(7), 95A.104(M)(1), and 151.137(C). (McKinnonDecl., ¶ 9-24.) The City even prepared to conduct a jury trial due to the continuing violations onthe Nuisance Properties but the case ultimately resulted in Requestor's conviction on all fivecounts and the Requestor was ordered to pay fines and bring the Nuisance Properties intocompliance within 30 days. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 20.) Defendant did not cure the violations withinthe 30 day compliance period but ultimately brought the Nuisance Prope~~ties into substantialcompliance and all of the dangerous violations were completely cured. (McKinnon Decl., ~ 24.)

After the violations on the Nuisance Properties were cured, the City initiated cost recoveryproceedings in order to recover the Costs the City incurred throughout the nuisance abatement andcode enforcement action. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 25.) On August 30, 2016, the City issued a CostRecovery Invoice in the amount of $18,595.44, which were the Costs the City incurred up to thatpoint in its nuisance abatement action involving the Nuisance Properties. (McKinnon Decl., ~ 25.)

Requestor, timely requested a hearing to contest the cost recovery amount stated on theCost Recovery Invoice. (McKinnon Decl., ¶ 26.) The City requests that Hearing Officer JamesButzbach ("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recover its full Costs in abatingthe public nuisances on the Nuisance Properties as listed on the Cost Recovery Invoice and thatthe City also has the authority to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding thisCost Recovery Hearing.

—2of4—

p: 760.391.40QQ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 www.INDIU.org

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS


California Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes cities to establish their ownprocedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions, including attorneys'fees. California Government Code section 38773.5 further provides that cities may speciallyassess these costs against the parcel of land where the nuisance occurred.

In accordance with California Government Code Section 38773.5, IMC sections 10.20-10.24 outline the City's cost recovery procedures. Accordingly, IMC section 1.0.23 is part of thatstatutorily authorized procedure established by the City. IMC section 10.23(C) requires the Cityto issue an invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties of the property where thenuisance conditions or IMC violations existed. IMC section 10.20(B) states that the City canrecover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs, and attorneys' fees),and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatement action by means ofthe cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23.

Here, the Gity has the authority to recover Costs incurred in abating the IMC violations onthe Nuisance Properties because the City incurred these Costs compelling Requestor to abate thenuisance conditions and IMC violations on the Nuisance Properties. The City adhered to theregulations of Government Code section 38773.5 and the procedures outlined in the IMC. TheCity discovered IMC violations on the Nuisance Properties and initiated a criminal action againstRequestor in order to cure the IMC violations on the Nuisance Properties. The City incurred$18,595.44 in Costs to compel Requestor to abate the IMC violations on the Nuisance Propertiesand enforce the provisions of the IMC. As t-equired by the IMC, the City issued an invoice toRequestor. The amount on the Cost Recovery Invoice is the total of the City's Costs incurred inthe nuisance abatement action up to that date and is fully recoverable under IMC section 10.20 andCalifornia Government Code section 38773.5. Therefore, the City is entitled to recover the fullamount of Costs listed in the Cost Recovery Invoice.

B. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Incurred In Preparing For AndHolding The Cost Recovery Hearing Sought By Requestor

IMC section 10.20(A) states that the City has the right to recover its Costs relating to theenforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After an invoice has been issued by theCity to recover these Costs, IMC section ]0.23(D) states that the liable parties have 15 calendardays to request a hearing regarding the amount of the Costs. Pursuant to IMC section ] 0.23(F),

the cost of the hearing will also be a liability of the non-prevailing party at the Cost RecoveryHearing.

-3 of4-

p: 760.391.400p f: 760.391.4Q08 ~ 1QQ Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 www.INDI(7.org

Here, the City is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding thisCost Recovery Hearing because the City is entitled to recover all of its Costs in abating a nuisance.This Cost Recovery Hearing is part of the nuisance abatement action as it deals directly with theCity's abatement through the criminal process.

As discussed above, the City has complied with all of the requirements to recover its Costsas outlined in the relevant sections of the California Government Code and the IMC and thereforehas the right to recover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section 10.23(F) specifically states that thenon-prevailing party in a Cost Recovery Hearing is liable for the costs of the hearing as well. Asdiscussed above, the City has the right to recover its Costs incurred in this nuisance abatementaction and thus would be the prevailing party in this Cost Recovery Hearing which would entitlethe City to recover the additional expense incurred in preparing for and holding this Cost RecoveryHearing. The cost of this hearing is a direct cost and expense arising as a consequence of thenuisances and IMC violations on the Nuisance Properties because but for the violations, the Citywould not have incurred the Costs to abate the nuisances, which Requestor is attempting to disputein this hearing.

In preparing for and holding the cost recovery hearings, the City has incurred an additional$6,255.18 plus Hearing Officer fees, in Costs. These Costs include the fee for the Hearing Officer,administrative costs, and attorneys' fees. The City has followed all of the procedures required bythe IMC to recover its Costs in this matter and, therefore, is entitled to recover the full costs of theCost Recovery Hearing as well.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of$18,595.44 should be confirmed and Requestor must pay this amount as well as the Costs incurredby the City in preparing for and holding this Cost Recovery Hearing, which amount to $6,255.18plus Hearing Officer fees. Thus Requestor must be ordered to pay a total of $24,850.62 plusHearing Officer fees.

Attachments: 1. IMC Sections 10.20-10.242. California Government Code Section 38773.53. Declaration of Attorney McKinnon in Support of City's Cost Recovery Rights4. Hearing Officer Proposed Decision

—4of4—

p: 760.391.40Q0 f: 760.391.4008 ~ 1Q0 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 www.INDIC1.arg

N f ~ < ~

~~ Daman

a~ ~~ '~~

`fie m g , "C}~r~~° ~'~rr~r~r~~tt~~y~ ... C~r~r ;c~rr~ itrr~~r~z~„

_(;}7.t~, 0;~.7~Ot1rB....... C„~IT OF INDIO


t i ~

May 30, _2017

D~~,rV~;~D V~ CERTr~r~,n M~tr,_ _

IPD Case #: 1702I-4704Nuisance Property: 81280 Daffodil Court

India, California 92201APN 6l b-342-036

Cast Recovery Amount; $3,966.61~~earing Request Deadline: June 14, 2017 (15 days)Payment Deadli►ie: July 14, ZQl7 (45 .days)

Interested Parties:

Ms. Anicia M. Wasil$1280 Daffodil CourtIndio, California 92201.___ __ ___

Geupact Re~iStered Agent, Inc.Agent f~nr Mortgage Eleet~~onrcRegistration Systems, Inc. (MFRS), asNorrcrnee fnr• Steafras Lenctin~, Inc.15420 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 100IY•vine, California 92618

C T Corporation SystemAge~at for Stearns Lendirz~, Irtc.818 West 'nth Street, Suite 930Los Angeles, California 90U17


NOTICE TS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to Indio Municipal Cvde {"IMC") section1 t?.23, the City of Indio ("City") hezeby seeks to recover its costs, expenses, fides, and fees

—iorz--

("Enforcement Costs'') incurred in prosecuting violations of the IMC and abating publicnuisances on the Nuisance Propel•t}~.

The City's unpaid Enforcei~lent Costs in this matter total $2,363,54 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services, litibation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, a~~d any otherdirect costs and expenses arisiizg as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC, ~S10.20(B).)

1. Code ~nfo~•cement Investigation Costs: $460.002. Administrative Costs: $577.213. Prosecution Fees: $2,929.404. Total: ~3,96G.61

You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45t1iday after the mailing of this invoice. Payment mast be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to the "Silver &Wright LLP", attorneys for the City. and must be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 100, 3 Corporate Park, Ii~~ine, California92606.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(C), if theEnforcement Costs are not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment willbe recorded aa~ charged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be soldafter three years by the tax collector foa~ unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10,23(D), an InterestedParty n ay request a Rearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose torequest a hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Code EnforcementCost Recovery Hearin; Request Fo~•m ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of business onthe I S`~' day alter the mailing of this Invoice. The I-iRF is available upon request at the IndioPolice Department located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must bereturned to the attention of the Indio Police Depaz-tment Code Enforcement Division within thetime required by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaustyour admi~listrative remedies and shall constihrte a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice orfurther challenge the City's cost recovery rights.

Questions regarding t11is Invoice may be directed to Ja s McKi~i~~on, Indio Deputy CityProsecutor, by e-mail at .iMcKinnon@Silvec•WrightLaw.com o,r by calling 949-385-6431, Ext.103.

nndersonEnforcement SupervisorPolice Department

--2of2--

CITY OF INDIO



March 30, 2016

DELIVGR~D VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

IPD Case #: 1502I-3538Nuisance Property: 82513 Requa Avenue


Cost Recovery Amount: $3,168.72Hearing Request Deadline: April 14, 2016 (15 days)Payment Deadline: May 15, 2016 (45 days)

Interested Parties:

Jose Zendejas Jose Zendejas82513 Requa Avenue P.O. Box l45Indio, California 92201 Indio, California 92202

Jose Zendejas Cuauhtemoc Naranjo80561 Harvard Court 3450 South Interstate Highway 35 East,Indio, California 92201 Unit 5

Cuauhtemoc Naranjo82513 Requa AveIndio, California 92201

Pacific Mortgage Exchange, Inc.73241 Highway 111, Suite l-APalm Desert, California 92260


Waxahachie, Texas 75165

Cuauhtemoc Naranjo83l 66 Rue ParayThermal, California 92274


- 1 of2-

p: 760.391.4000 f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall India, CA 922g1 www.INQIO.org

.~.3:~:: ••. ..:.:,~:.x:.;....:. .

("Enforcement Costs") incurred in prosecuting violations of the IMC and abating public nuisances

on the Nuisance Property.

The City's unpaid Enforcement Costs in this matter total $3,168.72 and include, but arenot limited to, the administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs, investigation costs,enforcement expenses, legal services, litigation costs, court costs, attorneys' fees, and any otherdirect costs and expenses arising as a consequence of the nuisance or violation. (IMC, § l 0.20(B).)


You must pay the balance owed to the City no later than the close-of-business on the 45tH

day after the mailing of this Invoice. Payment must be in the form of a Cashier's Check madepayable to "Silver &Wright LLP", attorneys for the City of Indio, and ►nust be remitted to theattention of the Indio City Prosecutor at Suite 250, 3350 Shelby Street, Ontario, California91764.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to IMC section 10.23(C), ifthe EnforcementCosts are not paid in full as required by law, then a lien or special assessment will be recorded orcharged against the Nuisance Property, and the Nuisance Property may be sold after three yearsby the tax collector for unpaid delinquent assessments.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to 1MC section 10.23(D), an Interested Partymay request a hearing to dispute the amount of these Enforcement Costs. If you choose to requesta hearing, you must complete and return a Nuisance Abatement and Code Enforcement CostRecovery Hearing Request Form ("HRF") to the City no later than the close-of-business on thel St'' day after the mailing of this Invoice. The HRF is available upon request at the Indio PoliceDepartment located at 46800 Jackson Street, Indio, California 92201. The HRF must be returnedto the attention of the Indio Police Department Code Enforcement Division within the timerequired by law. Failure to timely request a hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust youradministrative remedies and shall constitute a waiver of your right to dispute this Invoice or furtherchallenge the City's cost recovery rights.



-2of2-

p: 76Q.391.4QQQ ~ f: 760.391.4QQ8 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 922Q1 www.INDIO.grg

MEMORANDUM



Date: June 22, 2016

IPD Case Number: 1502I-3538Nuisance Properties: APNs 6l 1-19]-001 and 611-191-019Subject: City of Indio's Right to Recover Costs Incurred in Nuisance Abatement Action

I. INTRODUCTION

The City of Indio ("City") submits this Memorandum in Support of The City's Right to

Cost Recovery ("Memorandum") relating to its nuisance abatement actions involving the NuisanceProperties. This Memorandum is supported by the Indio Municipal Code ("IMC"), whichexpressly authorizes the City to recover the costs, expenses, fees, and attorneys' fees ("Costs") itincurs in abating public nuisances on private property and enforcing the provisions of the IMC.The IMC also allows for the City to recover the Costs it incurred for holding a hearing sought bya property owner or interested party to contest the amount of costs sought to be recovered by theCity.


On February 19, 2015, City Code Enforcement Officer Brenda Johnson-Lujan ("OfficerJohnson-Lujan") observed Jose Zendejas ("Zendejas") charge for parking on the NuisanceProperties. Officer Johnson-Lujan approached Zendejas and discovered that Zendejas did not havea business license and that the lot was not permitted as a parking lot. Officer Johnson-Lujan citedZendejas for operating a business without a business license and the case was sent to the IndioCity Prosecutor for prosecution. On March 11, 2015, the Indio City Prosecutor filed criminalcharges against Zendejas for operating a business without a business license. The case ultimatelyresulted in Zendejas' conviction and he was ordered to pay $100 in fines as a part of his plea.

Now that the violations on the Nuisance Properties have been cured, the City initiated costrecovery proceedings in order to recover the Costs the City incurred initiating the nuisanceabatement and code enforcement action. On March 30, 2016, the City issued a Cost RecoveryInvoice in the amount of $3,168.72, which were the Costs the City incurred up to that point in itsnuisance abatement action involving the Nuisance Properties. Zendejas timely requested a hearingto contest the cost recovery amount stated on the Cost Recovery Invoice. The City requests that

-lof3-

p: 760.391.4000 ~ f: 760.391.4008 ~ 100 Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 www.INDIO.arg

Hearing Officer James Butzbach ("Hearing Officer") find that the City has the authority to recoverits full Costs in abating the public nuisances on the Nuisance Properties as listed on the CostRecovery Invoice and that the City also has the authority to recover the Costs it incurred inpreparing for and holding this Cost Recovery Hearing.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Related To Enforcing Anv CodeViolation Or Nuisance Abatement

IMC section 10.20 states that the City is "entitled to recover its costs related to enforcingany code violation or nuisance abatement." Government Code section 38773.5 authorizes citiesto establish their own procedure for recovery of costs associated with nuisance abatement actions.IMC section 10.23 is part ofthat procedure established by the City. IMC section 10.23(C) requiresthe City to issue an invoice of the enforcement costs to the interested parties for the nuisanceconditions or code violations. This invoice must also be sent to entities with a recorded interest inthe property where the nuisance conditions or code violations were located. IMC section 10.20(B)states that the City can recover administrative fines, administrative costs, inspection costs,investigation costs, enforcement expenses, legal services (including litigation costs, court costs,and attorneys' fees), and any other direct costs and expenses arising from the nuisance abatementaction by means of the cost recovery procedures outlined in IMC section 10.23.

Here, the City has the authority to recover its costs that it incurred in abating the IMCviolation on the Nuisance Properties. The City discovered an IMC violation on the NuisanceProperties. In order to cure the IMC violation on the Nuisance Properties, the City instituted acriminal action against Zendejas. The City incurred $3,168.72 in Costs to compel Zendejas toabate the IMC violation on the Nuisance Properties and enforce the provisions of the IMC. Asrequired by the IMC, the City issued an invoice to all interested parties, including Zendejas, whowere liable for the Costs. The amount on the Cost Recovery Invoice is the total of the City staffcosts and the City's attorneys' fees incurred in the nuisance abatement action and they are fullyrecoverable under IMC section l 0.20. The City has followed all of the procedures required by theIMC to recover its Costs in this matter. Therefore, the City is entitled to recover the full amountof Costs listed in the Cost Recovery Invoice.

B. The City Has The Authority To Recover Its Costs Incurred For The Hearing ToContest The City's Cost Recovery ProceedinEs

IMC section 10.20(A) states that the City has the right to recover its Costs relating to theenforcement of any code violation or nuisance abatement. After an invoice has been issued by theCity to recover these Costs, IMC section 10.23(D) states that the liable parties have I S calendardays to request a hearing regarding the amount of the Costs. Pursuant to IMC section 10.23(F),

—2of3—

p: 760.391.40gp f: 760.391.4008 ~ 1Q0 Civic Center Mall India, CA 922g1 ~ www.INDIO.org

the cost of the hearing will also be a liability of the non-prevailing party at the cost recoveryhearing.

Here, the City is entitled to recover the Costs it incurred in preparing for and holding thiscost recovery hearing because the City is entitled to recover its full Costs in abating the nuisanceconditions on the Nuisance Properties and enforcing the IMC. As discussed above, the City hascomplied with all of the requirements to recover its Costs as outlined in IMC section 10.23 and,therefore, has the right to recover these Costs. Furthermore, IMC section 10.23(F) specificallystates that the non-prevailing party in a cost recovery hearing is liable for the costs of the hearingas well. In preparing for and holding this hearing, the City has incurred an additional $1,700.72plus Hearing Officer fees in Costs. These Costs include the fee for the Hearing Officer andattorneys' fees. The City has followed all of the procedures required by the IMC to recover itsCosts in this matter and, therefore, is entitled to recover the full costs of the cost recovery hearingas well.

IV. CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the cost recovery amount stated in the Cost Recovery Invoice of$3,168.72 should be confirmed and Jose Zendejas must pay this amount as well as the costsincurred by the City in preparing for and holding this cost recovery hearing which amount to$1,700.72 plus Hearing Officer fees. Thus Jose Zendejas must be ordered to pay a total of$4,869.44 plus Hearing Officer fees.

Attachments: 1. IMC Sections 10.20-10.242. Declaration of Attorney McKinnon in Support of City's Cost Recovery Rights

—3 of3—

p: 780.391.4000 ~ f: 76Q.391.40fl8 10Q Civic Center Mall Indio, CA 92201 ~ www.INDIO.org

Documents

CITY OF INDIOij.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Indio-CPRA-Dox.pdfNuisance Property: 45800 Rubidoux Indio, California 92201 APN 611-110-039-2 Cost Recovery Amount: $9,956.85 Hearing