Some CCIPRA work on the Hazard Abatement Ordinance
A look at the final version of changes to the Hazard Abatement Ordinance, dated May 12, 2010.
CCIPRA's view of remaining issues in the Hazard Abatement Ordinance (HAO)
The County's recent drafts of
the HAO have been confusing. In late March, a draft was posted
for the April Commission meeting; but about a week before that meeting,
a different draft was posted; and recently another changed draft was
posted -- all without any specific acknowledgment of changes. It
took a while to unravel the confusion. Even deputy county
attorney Ambrose didn't see the problem before having a conversation
However, as to the substance of
the proposed changes, comments have gone to Ambrose, but no discussion
has come back. A two-way dialogue before this meeting would have
The discussion below quotes what appears to be the latest draft of the HAO, and adds NOTES about citizens' concerns.
PART I: DEFINITIONS
5. "Days" means calendar days unless otherwise noted.
--NOTE, "days" should mean "business days," especially when a deadline is short.
6. "Dilapidated Building" means any building [whose] strength or stability is substantially less than a new building ....
--NOTE, old buildings are often
substantially weaker than new buildings, so "substantially less than a
new building" gives very broad discretion to an inspector.
Attorney Ambrose says that phrase is required by law, but this writer
hasn't found that statute. In this case, more openness by the
County before this meeting would have been appropriate.
14. "Public nuisance" means [trash] that constitutes a hazard ... as determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer.
--NOTE, Should add "or by a hearing if one is requested."
PART II: VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE ...
A. A person ... shall
have created a public nuisance ... if such person ... without lawful
authority and in a manner that constitutes a hazard to public health
and safety ... 2. ... permits ... rubbish [etc.] to remain upon
contiguous sidewalks, streets and alleys ....
--NOTE 1, in Cochise County,
many people dump obnoxious trash alongside unwatched roads. This
is not a property owner's fault, and owners should not have to pay to
clean up trash left by people without their permission.
--NOTE 2, the word "permits"
sounds like a property owner has a duty to resist anyone dumping near
his property. This might lead to armed confrontations.
B. A person ... shall ...
abate a public nuisance ... within 30 days after mailing or personal
service of a Notice and Order ....
--NOTE, Mail dropped into the
outbox on Friday may not be postmarked until Monday. When action
is required within a set time after mailing, the clock should start on
the postmark date.
D. The Notice and Order to Abate shall include ...
2. A statement that the
Hazard Abatement Officer has determined that there is a reasonable
belief that a violation ... has occurred ....
--NOTE, should the belief meet a higher test than "reasonable"?
4. A statement that
rubbish, trash, weeds, filth debris ... must be disposed of [by] legal
means and ... evidence of legal disposal is to be submitted ....
--NOTE 1, A comma is needed between the words "filth debris".
--NOTE 2, If the trash is disposed of at home, e.g. by burning, what is acceptable "evidence of legal disposal"?
7. A statement that the owner, occupant or lessee shall have fifteen (15) days from the post mark date ... to appeal ....
--NOTE, 15 days may not be enough notice for someone away or in the hospital; how about 30 days?
E. Any person receiving a Notice and Order ... may appeal ....
1. Notice of Appeal. A written Notice of Appeal shall be filed ... within fifteen (15) days ....
--NOTE, 15 days may not be enough; how about 30?
3. ... the
Board shall, within a reasonable time, place the matter on the agenda
[or] refer the appeal to the hearing officer.... The hearing
shall be informal and without regard to the rules of procedure or
evidence governing court proceedings. The Board shall decide the
appeal, and its decision shall be final.
--NOTE 1, CCIPRA much prefers the BOS to conduct hearings.
--NOTE 2, If the Board doesn't hear the case within the 30 days, is the person noncompliant?
--NOTE 3, does "decision shall be final" imply no appeal?
--NOTE 4, several specific guarantees from existing 603 are gone:
-- -- 603(c), Hearsay evidence
... shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it
would be admissible ... in ... courts ....
-- -- 603(d), Any relevant
evidence shall be admitted if it is the type of evidence on which
responsible persons are accustomed to rely in ... serious affairs ...
-- -- 1987 Sec. 603(f) lists
rights of each party, including "To call and examine witnesses on any
matter relevant to the issues" and "impeach any witness ...."
Every specific guarantee already stated should remain stated.
4. If the
Board's decision is adverse to the appellant, the date of compliance
... shall be extended by the number of days elapsed between the filing
of [an] Appeal and the rendering of the Board's decision.
--NOTE, is this intended as an automatic stay?
F. Removal by Board....
1. The costs
... for removal or abatement shall not exceed the actual costs and
incidental expenses thereof....
--NOTE, It's good that the illegal 5-10% surcharges are gone, but how will "incidental expenses" be set and monitored?
H. Notice of Assessment....
NOTICE: ... FORCECLOSE THE LIEN ...
--NOTE, "FORCECLOSE" should STILL become "FORECLOSE."
The Notice of Assessment shall indicate that the owner, lessee or occupant shall have fifteen (15) days ... to appeal".
--NOTE, why not 30 days?
receipt of the Notice of Appeal of Assessment, the Board shall ...
place the matter on the agenda at a regular meeting or ... refer the
appeal to the hearing officer.... The decision of the Board ...
shall be final.
--NOTE 1, CCIPRA remains opposed to using a hearing officer instead of the Board Of Supervisors.
--NOTE 2, no appeal to a court?
P. ... the Board may ... appoint a hearing officer to review appeals of Notices ....
--NOTE, CCIPRA strongly prefers
that the BOS not delegate its duties as a hearing board. One
reason is exemplified by the hearing about Rev. Harter and Miracle
Valley; no matter what you think about the merits, the hearing itself
was procedurally unfair. The Supervisors should hear cases,
because it's the county that profits from any fees and fines. An
appointed Hearing Officer can dodge the consequences of being unfair,
but the three elected Board members can't. Also, if a Hearing
Officer is used, where's the provision for a careful Board review, with
every participating Supervisor required to read the entire transcript,
listen to all of the audio recording, etc.?
A look at the situation just before the final set of proposed changes
Important differences between Cochise County's 1987 Hazard Abatement Ordinance, and the draft proposed in December 2009
After the comparisons in Part I below, Part II mentions a few sections that have disappeared but should reappear.
If you find any errors, please email me at
I. SECTION-BY-SECTION COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE 1987 ORDINANCE AND THE DECEMBER 2009 DRAFT
1987, It is
the purpose of this ordinance to provide a ... method ... whereby any
rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, debris or damaged and dilapidated
buildings which constitute a hazard to public health and safety may be
compelled to be removed ....
DRAFT, "... weeds (as narrowly defined under this ordinance)"
definition is in section 201: "Any vegetation that impedes
emergency vehicle access, constitutes a fire hazard, or interferes with
the line of sight of vehicles on roadways."
P&Z Commission meeting on 12/9, the Department said it would
generally NOT police weeds that blocked a driver's view on a state
right of way; at most, it would supposedly cut such weeds as a
"favor." This section needs to be rewritten to accurately reflect
the Department's purpose.
1987, "The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all hazardous conditions ...."
"It is enacted pursuant to authority granted by A.R.S. 11-268" and
"Commentaries contained herein are intended as a guide to interpreting
and carrying out the text of this ordinance."
"Debris": The definition of debris in addition to its ordinary
accepted meaning shall include accumulations of combustible or
flammable materials which are determined by the hazard abatement
officer to constitute a hazard to public health or safety.
"Accumulations of combustible or flammable materials which are
determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer to constitute a hazard to
public health or safety."
Wherever action is allowed based solely on a determination by the
Hazard Abatement Officer, the language should be changed to clarify
that the HAO's "determination" cannot settle any issue in a lawsuit or
"Dilapidated Building": Any building in such disrepair, or
damaged to such an extent, that its strength or stability is
substantially less than a new building, or that is likely to burn or
collapse, and the condition of which endangers the life, health safety,
or property of the public as determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer.
Many old barns, sheds, etc., are substantially less strong or stable
than a new structure, but still perfectly useful and safe. To
except such buildings, the definition could read "Any building in such
disrepair, or damaged to such an extent, that it is likely to burn or
collapse, and the condition of which endangers the life, health safety,
or property of the public as determined by the Hazard Abatement
"Public Nuisance": A dilapidated building or an accumulation of
rubbish, trash, weeds, filth, or debris that constitutes a hazard to
the public health and safety as determined by the Hazard Abatement
COMMENT, Should read "as determined by the Hazard Abatement Officer or a hearing if one is requested."
"Wildcat dumping": The unauthorized placement, or transportation
for placement, by any person, firm or corporation, of any rubbish,
trash, weeds, filth or debris upon any private or public property
located in the unincorporated areas of the County not owned or under
the control of that person, firm or corporation.
builders' clique wants to make the word "wildcat" pejorative in
general. To avoid pandering to that clique, this title should be
changed to "Illegal dumping".
In fact, the
only draft section whose TEXT (not just title) used the term "wildcat"
dumping has been removed, so there is now no need for this definition
302 is entitled "WILDCAT DUMPING".
Section 302's title (but NOT its text) uses the term "wildcat."
The contents of the section are fine, but the title panders to the
builders' clique which wants to establish "wildcat" as a general
insult. The title should be changed to "ILLEGAL DUMPING."
DRAFT, "... a dilapated and dangerous building ...."
first use of the word "dilapidated" in this section has, since 1987,
read "dilapated." The Department has ignored this in all four
versions of the 2009 rewrite. That's embarrassing. Now,
shall we take the time to fix it?
after notice, and after the specified date of compliance, the owner,
occupant or lessee fails to remove the rubbish, trash, weeds, filth,
debris or dilapidated and dangerous building, and abate the conditions
which constitute a hazard to public health and safety, the County may,
at the expense of the owner, occupant or lessee, remove or cause
removal of such trash .... The cost to be charged for such
removal will be the actual cost of removal or abatement, including a
five percent (5%) charge for additional inspection and incidental costs.
the County may, at the expense of the owner, occupant or lessee, remove
or cause removal of such trash ...; however, if such removal or
abatement is not undertaken within 180 days after the right to do so
first accrues, a new Notice of Violation shall be served as provided in
Section 402. The cost to be charged for such removal will be the
actual cost of removal or abatement, including a ten percent (10%)
charge for additional inspection and incidental costs. Said cost,
if imposed against an owner of said real property, shall, if not paid
within 30 days or timely appealed pursuant to Chapter 5 of this
ordinance, constitute an assessment against the property upon recording
thereof with the County Recorder."
should not be allowed to charge a landowner for hypothetical charges
which will probably never actually be incurred. This charge is
In fact, if
the County removes the trash etc., the County knows what work it did,
and what possible reason is there for the County to re-inspect its own
of the work may be a bill from a contractor hired by the county; such a
bill must include a profit; but the county could not include such
profit in its own cost; therefore an assessment may be more than the
cost, although state law does not allow the county to recover more than
County, many transients dump incredibly obnoxious trash -- cigarette
butts, empty oil containers, used baby diapers -- alongside any
convenient and unwatched road. This is not the fault of the
property owner, it is a burden laid on every citizen of the county for
living in such an attractive area. Many individuals, families, or
organizations "adopt" a stretch of road for cleanup. Outside of
that system, many citizens spend a good deal of their own time and
money cleaning up such trash. Without proof that a person dumped
trash outside his own property, he should not have to pay for its
404(b): The cost of such
work may be made a special assessment against the property involved as
in the manner set forth in Section 703 through 709 of this ordinance,
or may be made a personal obligation of the property owner, occupant or
lessee, whichever the Board of Appeals shall determine is
appropriate. If made a special assessment, said assessment shall
... be a lien on the lot or tract of land until paid.
What is the
legal basis for the Board to create "a personal obligation" on the part
of a renter or owner -- of anyone?
The power to decide whether to place a lien on property, or to lay a personal debt on a citizen, is suspect.
What is the legal basis for converting an assessment against a renter into a lien on the property?
comments "I can not see how they can make this a personal debt, it
should be a lien on the property. Then it would be up to the property
owner to assess the renter or take the renter to court."
Enforcement of any notice and order of the hazard abatement officer
issued under this code shall be stayed during the pendency of an appeal
Enforcement of any notice or determination that is under appeal shall
be stayed during the pendency of the appeal ... unless it is determined
by the Hazard Abatement Officer that the condition poses an immediate
danger to life, limb, property or safety of the public or of an
we don't let people who issue orders decide whether or not the orders
will be enforced while you appeal them. By definition, the person
who issues orders has already decided that they are right -- and that
person cannot be an impartial decider of whether his own orders should
be enforced during an appeal from them. The 1987 wording is fine.
December P&Z Commission meeting, the Department argued that the HAO
should decide whether there should be a stay, because an incident might
involve hazardous material that needs to be dealt with
immediately. The Department's argument has no basis in
reality. In an incident where hazardous materials are involved,
Haz-Mat teams will be called in to take immediate action. Cochise
County fire departments staff a joint Hazardous Materials Response Team
of certified technicians, with specialized equipment and supplies of
all kinds, to stabilize and contain a haz-mat emergency. All
local Haz-Mat teams have agreed to cover each other's district as
needed. Fire districts and law enforcement agencies will also be
involved in any emergency, and there is a County Emergency Manager for
overall coordination. In an emergency, the HAO could do nothing
except interfere with people who know what they are doing. The
Department's argument about the HAO needing special emergency powers is
Board of Supervisors, sitting as a Board of Appeals, shall have the
discretion at any time to delegate the hearing of any appeal brought
pursuant to this Ordinance to a duly appointed hearing examiner ....
essentially nullifies the right to have the Supervisors hear an
appeal. Section 505 is an attempt to cheat the people out of a
hearing by three elected public servants, and relegate people to a
hearing by one appointee of unknown qualifications, training,
interests, history, and personality, with no way for a citizen to
object to the appointment of any particular hearing examiner.
Section 505 should be deleted.
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting on December 9, 2009, the
Department and its attorney said that the Department has no plans to
implement Section 505, and that this language was for "down the road"
in the indefinite future. If the Department has no plans on using
a hearing examiner in the near future, then this section should be
if 505 is passed, the Board, not the Department, will decide whether to
use Section 505, so the Department's assurances are meaningless.
Meaningless assurances generate suspicion.
proceedings at the hearing shall also be reported by a phonographic
reporter if requested by any party thereto. A transcript of the
proceedings shall be made available to all parties upon request and
upon payment of the fee prescribed therefore. Such fees may be
established by the Board, but shall in no event be greater than the
proceedings at the hearing shall also be recorded if requested by any
party thereto. A transcript of the proceedings shall be made
available by the Clerk of the Board to any party upon request and upon
payment in advance of the estimated cost of transcription and
copying. Upon completion of transcripts, the actual cost of
preparation shall be determined and, if more than the estimated cost,
the requesting party shall pay the balance due prior to receiving the
completed transcript; if the actual cost is less than the estimated
cost, the balance shall be refunded to the requesting party. If
one party orders a transcript of proceedings, other parties may obtain
additional copies of trial transcript for the reasonable cost of
copying, as established by the Clerk of the Board.
procedure for paying for a transcript. The procedure is the way
the system works in many courts, but that is because court reporters
often are, or work for, private businesses, and they make sure they
don't work without pay. There is no apparent reason why the
procedure should be codified in such detail here.
proceedings should be recorded, without the necessity for a request by
anyone. If anyone wants a transcript, payment terms can be
settled with the Court Reporter who will prepare a transcript.
parties may have the right to examine transcripts (especially of
statements made outside of trial proper, for instance of depositions as
part of discovery) for accuracy, and to make corrections.
Consideration should be given to setting up such procedures for
transcripts at these hearings, too.
are hereby notified that a hearing will be held .... You may be,
but need not be, represented by counsel...."
are hereby notified that a hearing will be held before the Board Of
Appeals at (or before a Hearing Examiner) .... You may be, but
need not be, represented by counsel. If you are going to be
represented by counsel, written notice of that representation must be
filed with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least five business
days prior to the hearing...."
statement "you may be, but need not be, represented by counsel" is
ambiguous. It means to say that a person has a choice about
whether or not to hire an attorney, but it gives the impression that a
person may not actually need an attorney at all. The County
shouldn't give that impression. The sentence would be more
accurate if shorter, along the lines of "It's your choice whether to
have an attorney represent you or not." That leaves no
implication about whether or not a person "needs" an attorney.
The issuance and service of such subpoena shall be obtained upon the
filing of an affidavit therefore which states the name and address of
the proposed witness; specified the exact things sought to be produced
and the materiality thereof in detail to the issues involved ...."
subpoena shall be obtained ... at least fifteen (15) business days
prior to the date of the hearing ...."
"materiality" comment may require a party to reveal his theory of the
case to his opponent before the hearing. It might be more fair to
impose penalties on someone who obtains a subpoenas for reasons that
are "frivolous" in the legal meaning of the term.
Complications will result from the interaction of the 15-day
requirement here, and the 5-day requirement for hiring a lawyer.
A lawyer might be hired, and see the need for issuing subpoenas, after
the time for issuing subpoenas has passed. It would be better to
set a deadline for hiring an attorney to be far enough before the
hearing to let the attorney become familiar with the case in time to
meet the other deadlines.
[COMMENT, Several specific guarantees in 1987 Section 603 have been removed:
1987 Sec. 603(c), Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of
supplementing or explaining any direct evidence, but shall not be
sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible
over objection in civil actions in courts of competent jurisdiction in
DRAFT, it's gone.
1987 Sec. 603(d), Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the
type of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in
the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any
common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of
such evidence over objection in civil actions in courts of competent
jurisdiction in this state.
DRAFT, it's gone.
1987 Section 603(f) lists rights which each party has,including "To
call and examine witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues of the
hearing" and "To impeach any witness regardless of which party first
called him to testify."
DRAFT, both are gone, to be replaced by vagueness:]
Hearings may be conducted in an informal manner and without strict
adherence to the rules of evidence required in judicial
proceedings. Neither the manner of conducting the hearing nor the
failure to adhere to the rules of evidence required in judicial
proceedings shall be grounds for reversing any administrative decision
or order, providing that the evidence supporting such decision or order
is substantial, reliable, and probative. Irrelevant or unduly
repetitious evidence shall be excluded. Every person who is a
party to such proceeding shall have the right to be represented by
counsel, to submit evidence in open hearing and shall have the right of
cross-examination. Any attorney appearing on behalf of any party
shall enter his appearance, in writing and addressed to the Hazard
Abatement Officer, at least five (5) business days prior to the hearing.
COMMENT, The specifics from 1987 should be restored.
Section 603(g)(4), The Board may inspect any building or premises
involved in the appeal during the course of the hearing, provided
that: (i) notice of such inspection shall be given to the parties
before the inspection is made; (ii) the parties are given an
opportunity to be present during the inspection; and (iii) the Board
shall state for the record upon completion of the inspection the
material facts observed and the conclusions drawn therefrom. Each
party then shall have a right to rebut or explain the matters so stated
by the Board.
substantially the same, except in providing for a Hearing Examiner
instead of the Board, and adding a reference to the Open Meeting Law.
Appeals, as generally understood, don't hear new evidence. The
procedure proposed here changes a nominal "appeal" into an actual new
hearing. This is a bad idea. A party could make one case at
the original hearing, then make an entirely different case under
604(b)(3). It's not really an appeal if new evidence is
taken. If either side wants the Board to inspect premises, or the
Board wants to inspect premises, that should be done during the hearing
a contested case is heard before the Board, no member thereof who did
not hear the evidence or has not read the entire record of the
proceedings shall vote on or take part in the decision.
a case is heard before the Board, any member thereof who did not hear
the evidence or did not have the opportunity to read the entire record
of the proceedings shall not vote on or take part in the decision.
A Supervisor who did not see and hear the entire proceeding should not vote, period.
saying "Any member ... who did not hear the evidence ... shall not
vote," just say "No member ... who did not hear the evidence ... shall
vote." That is what is meant, and there is no good reason not to
say so clearly, instead of producing gibberish. Here is how the
sentence could read, to make its point even more clearly: "When a
case is heard before the Board, no member thereof who did not hear and
observe all of the witnesses and evidence, or attend the entire
hearing, shall participate in the hearing after said lapse, nor vote on
or take any part in the decision."
would pay a court reporter for the accelerated production of a
transcript? Even the shortest transcript costs hundreds of
dollars; transcripts can quite easily run into thousands of dollars;
accelerated transcripts cost even more. Since the accelerated
transcript would only be needed if a supervisor insisted on judging a
case without attending a case, the supervisor should have to personally
pay for the extra cost of acceleration. Surely the citizen on
trial should not pay for a supervisor's inability to do the job, nor
should the public treasury pay. Requiring a supervisor to pay
would, luckily, have the incidental effect of getting supervisors
either to do their job, or get out of the way.
decision shall be in writing and shall contain findings of fact, a
determination of the issues presented, and the requirements to be
complied with. A copy of the decision shall be delivered to the
appellant personally or sent to him by certified mail, postage prepaid,
return receipt requested.
decision shall be issued in writing within 60 calendar days of the
conclusion of the hearing, unless extraordinary circumstances
intervene, and shall contain findings of fact, a determination of
issues presented, and the requirements to be complied with, and may
provide that, if unpaid within 30 calendar days of the decision, that
decision shall be filed with the County Recorder, and thereby
constitute an assessment against the subject property.
The 60 day
requirement seems too long, especially compared to the 30 days allowed
to decide whether to appeal or pay. Surely, if a case is so
complicated that the Board takes 60 days to decide after a hearing, a
citizen should have the same amount of time to decide how to respond to
a complicated situation.
Automatically converting a decision into an assessment is another
assault on due process. Doing away with the commentary
emphasizing "protection of citizens' rights," letting the Board dodge
its duty to hear appeals, and converting unsuccessful appeals into
assessments against property, all seem to be prongs of one plan, to
reduce citizens' rights and reduce county government's responsibility
to treat citizens fairly.
Hearing Examiner shall, within 20 calendar days of the conclusion of
the hearing, submit to the Board of Appeals a proposed written
decision, with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Within 20 calendar days of filing of the proposed decision, and after
review of the written record, which shall include all pleadings and
orders in the Hearing Examiner's files, all evidence admitted at the
hearing, and any audiotape of proceedings, but no new evidence, the
Board shall adopt, modify or reject the proposed decision of the
incredible botch. The Board would -- in theory -- do just as much
work as if conducting the hearing itself, but without having the
benefit of seeing and hearing any live testimony; so having a Hearing
Examiner wouldn't save the Board any work, but would make the Board
into a poor substitute for a trial court. On the other hand, the
Board would also, in effect, be acting as an appellate board, but one
without the powers that a real appellate board must have. For
instance, the Board could see all evidence ADMITTED at the hearing, but
could not see all evidence OFFERED at the hearing, so the Board could
not make a finding that any evidence had been improperly excluded; in
other words, the dice would be unfairly loaded in favor of the decision
that the Hearing Examiner made -- because there would be no way to
argue that the Hearing Examiner improperly refused to admit any
would have two 20-day deadlines under 605(c), but under 605(b) the
County would have 60 days to act; that leaves 20 extra days for the
County to twiddle its thumbs, while a citizen waits for a decision
which must be very important to him or her.
the process under 605(c), would the Board review the most important
part of the order to a citizen, "the requirements to be complied with"?
605(c) provides another good reason for not allowing the creation of a
"Hearing Examiner." That position confers no benefit on anyone;
on the contrary, it is a complicated, unworkable drag on both
efficiency and due process -- a combination which is rarely seen.
II. SECTIONS THAT HAVE DISAPPEARED BUT SHOULD REAPPEAR
1987 Sec. 801
of public works shall keep an itemized account of the expense incurred
by Cochise County in the work or removal of any materials, done
pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. Upon the completion
of the work or removal, said director shall prepare and file with the
hazard abatement officer a report specifying the work done, the
itemized and total cost of the work, a description of the real property
upon which the hazard is or was located, and the names and addresses of
the persons entitled to notice pursuant to Section 402.
County is going to be charging people, why not keep accurate records of
the expenses? The County apparently intends to charge people for
estimated costs, without ever providing a way to compare estimates with
If 801 is restored, something like 1987 Sec. 802 must also be restored.
1987 SEC. 802
of said report [from Sec. 801], the hazard abatement officer shall
present it to the Board of Supervisors shall fix a time, date and place
for hearing said report and any protests or objections thereto.
The clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall cause notice and said
hearing to be posted upon the property involved, published once in a
newspaper of general circulation in this jurisdiction, and served by
certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner of the property
as his name and address appear on the last equalized assessment roll of
the County, if such so appear, or as known to the clerk. Such
notice shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date set for
hearing and shall specify the day, hour and place when the Board of
Supervisors will hear and pass upon the director's report, together
with any objections or protests which may be filed as hereinafter
provided by person interested in or affected by the proposed charge.
1987 Sec. 803
interested in or affected by the proposed charge may file written
protests or objections ... at any time prior to the time set for the
hearing on the report of the director....
Why should people interested in the charge, or affected by it, lose their right to protest or object?
If 803 is restored, something like 1987 Sec. 804 must also be restored.
1987 SEC. 804
Upon the day
and hour fixed for the hearing the Board of Supervisors shall hear and
pass upon the report of the director together with any such objections
or protests. The Board of Supervisors may take such revision,
correction or modification in the report or the charge as it may deem
just; and when the Board of Supervisors is satisfied with the
correctness of the charge, the report (as submitted or as revised,
corrected or modified) together with the charge, shall be confirmed or
rejected. The decision of the Board of Supervisors on the report
and the charge, and on all protest or objections, shall be final and