Authorizes the city of Niagara Falls to add unpaid housing code violation penalties, costs and fines to such city's annual tax levy.
This bill authorizes the City of Niagara Falls to collect unpaid housing, building, and fire code violation penalties, costs, and fines by placing them on the city’s annual tax levy. To qualify, the penalties must have been reduced to a court judgment, recorded by the county clerk, and remain unpaid for at least one year after final adjudication and exhaustion of appeals. The bill also sets a minimum threshold: the unpaid amount must equal at least five percent of the property’s assessed tax value.
Once placed on the levy, the unpaid code violation amounts would be collected in the same manner as municipal taxes, with the same lien priority and enforcement procedures. The bill requires notice to owners and interested parties, allows payment plans, and provides that if violations are cured before the redemption period ends, the property is removed from the levy and foreclosure cannot proceed for that amount. It also addresses surplus funds after foreclosure sales and preserves the city’s ability to pursue remaining balances under other applicable laws.
The bill would amend the Real Property Tax Law by adding a new section specifically empowering Niagara Falls to use its annual tax levy as a collection tool for certain unpaid code enforcement debts. It would create a local statutory mechanism for turning adjudicated housing, building, and fire code penalties into tax-levy obligations, while carving out protections for owner-occupied primary residences and requiring tenant assistance planning before foreclosure. The measure would affect property owners with unresolved code violations, the city controller, corporation counsel, code enforcement officials, tenants in at-risk buildings, and the foreclosure process tied to municipal tax collection.
The bill appears aimed at strengthening code enforcement and improving collection of long-unpaid penalties, suggesting support for municipal enforcement and neighborhood property maintenance goals. At the same time, the inclusion of protections for owner-occupied homes, tenant relocation assistance, notice requirements, and the ability to cure violations indicates an effort to balance enforcement with homeowner and tenant protections. No vote or committee transcript is available, so the broader legislative sentiment cannot be measured from recorded debate, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy compromise rather than an uncompromising enforcement measure.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the use of tax foreclosure as a collection method for code violations, especially for landlords and absentee owners, versus concerns about due process, property rights, and displacement. The bill tries to limit those concerns by excluding owner-occupied primary residences, requiring notice, allowing payment plans, and mandating tenant assistance before foreclosure. Another likely issue is the five-percent assessed-value threshold, which may be viewed either as a safeguard against minor debts triggering foreclosure or as an arbitrary barrier that could limit the city’s ability to collect smaller but significant code debts.