Agenda 04/13/2021 Item #12A (Code Enforecement Lien Process)04/13/2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board discuss changes to the current process in applying for and
receiving a reduction in Code Enforcement liens.
OBJECTIVE: To discuss potential changes to the Code Enforcement lien settlement process.
CONSIDERATIONS: During the Board’s regular meeting on March 23, 2021, through a discussion
initiated by Commissioner Saunders during Communications, the Board directed the County Attorney to
review the current Code Enforcement lien forgiveness policy, which was instituted during the Great
Recession (which commenced in 2008), and report back to the Board as to whether the policy should be
modified.
History
As reflected by one of a number of regular Status Reports that I prepared (included in the back -up), prior
to the Great Recession Collier County vigorously pursued Code Enforcement violations, and reductions
of liens were not routinely granted. Public petitions and public comment from residents complaining
about Code Enforcement were common. Far too often, non-English speaking residents unaware of the
process were particularly negatively impacted.
The Great Recession led to a foreclosure crisis in Collier County with abandoned homes posing a
significant threat of neighborhood blight. The Board Policy that evolved during the Great Recession was
to change the primary goal of Code Enforcement to that of encouraging residential and commercial
property owners to bring properties into compliance with the Collier County codes, and once code
compliance was achieved, Code Enforcement liens could be greatly reduced. As part of that overall
policy, Resolution No. 2012-46 empowered the Code Enforcement Director to settle fines and liens based
on demonstrated financial hardship and new ownership, that included the reduction of fines accrued prior
to the transfer of title and fines accrued in the 30 days following the transfer of title to the new owner as
long as abatement was pursued and compliance achieved.
Current Situation
In the last five years, the Code Enforcement Director recommended settlement of 69 Code Enforcement
liens, all of which were approved by the Board. The liens recommended for settlement totaled
$17,431,289.95 of which $303,143.46 was paid pursuant to the settlements. Many of the approvals were
due to the abatement of the underlying issues by new owners, many whom purchased the homes through
foreclosure sales or from tax deed sales and subsequently brought the property into compliance. One
could argue that the new owners achieved a windfall with the forgiveness of all or part of the lien, as the
purchase price likely reflected in some measure the lien.
Currently, there is no formal process in place for a property owner seeking settlement or reduction of
enforcement liens. Historically, the Code Enforcement Director has received written requests from
property owners outlining the basis for the requests for lien reductions and settlements. Neither the Code
Enforcement Ordinance nor the associated Resolutions provide specific instructions as to how lien
settlements can be communicated to the Director.
Under current practices, there are no lien caps, which means that if the lien is not addressed in a timely
manner, the lien value with its per day accrual amounts can grow to exceed the value of the property and
thereby discourage any potential reinvestment in the property. As set forth in the back -up, in recent years,
excessive Code Enforcement liens throughout Florida have received increased media attention and have
led to ongoing constitutional challenges in other Florida jurisdictions.
12.A
Packet Pg. 244
04/13/2021
Recommended Changes
That the Board direct the County Attorney, working with the staff, to bring back a revised
Resolution that would do the following:
1. Establish a written application process for those requesting reduction of liens. A precondition
to the request would be that the underlying violation has been corrected, to be verified by an
inspection by Code Enforcement. An application fee to cover the costs of the inspection
would be warranted. The process should be set forth in the County’s main website for easy
access by the public.
2. That for non-life or safety violations, a limitation or cap be placed on the amount of fines that
can accrue, with repeat offenders having a higher cap.
3. That unless the Board finds special circumstances in a given case, this capped amount would
be required to be paid in full, together with the administrative costs associated with the
underlying code case, in all code cases. As an example, a month ago Pinellas County
amended their Code Enforcement Ordinance to include the following provision:
“The aggregate amount of any lien(s) imposed by a Special Magistrate for Code
Enforcement Division violations pursuant to this Section may not exceed twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000.00) for a property or structure lawfully utilized as a
single-family residence. Up to a twenty thousand dollar ($20,000.00) aggregate lien
will remain on the property or structure until the lien is paid and compliance is
achieved.
The aggregate amount of any lien(s) imposed by a Special Magistrate for Code
Enforcement Division violations pursuant to this Section may not exceed one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for a property or structure that is lawfully
utilized, but not as a single-family residence. Up to a one hundred thousand dollar
($100,000.00) aggregate lien will remain on the property or structure until the lien
is paid and compliance is achieved.”
The County Attorney recommends that life and safety issues fall outside this process and be
vigorously prosecuted.
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board direct the County Attorney, working with staff, to bring back a
revised Resolution as set forth above.
PREPARED BY: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (PDF)
2. Resolution 2012-46 (PDF)
12.A
Packet Pg. 245
04/13/2021
3. Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (PDF)
4. Ficken v Dunedin (PDF)
5. Martinez v Lantana (PDF)
6. TBN article 3-2-21 - Pinellas Co moves ahead with lien forgiveness program (PDF)
7. Palm Beach Post article 3-19-21 - Lantana resident accumulates $165,000 in code enforcement
fines (PDF)
8. USAToday article 8-27-19 - Dunedin, FL drops lawsuit against woman over code violation fines
(PDF)
12.A
Packet Pg. 246
04/13/2021
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 12.A
Doc ID: 15480
Item Summary: Recommendation that the Board discuss changes to the current process in
applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.
Meeting Date: 04/13/2021
Prepared by:
Title: Legal Assistant – County Attorney's Office
Name: Wanda Rodriguez
04/02/2021 3:54 PM
Submitted by:
Title: County Attorney – County Attorney's Office
Name: Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
04/02/2021 3:54 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/05/2021 8:15 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 04/05/2021 4:13 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/06/2021 7:34 AM
County Manager's Office Dan Rodriguez Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/06/2021 9:46 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 04/13/2021 9:00 AM
12.A
Packet Pg. 247
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
12.A.1
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Status Report - Code Enforcement Lien Foreclosures - dated January 27, 2005 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
it
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -46
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPLACING AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2010-101, AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF THE
CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, AS DESIGNEE OF THE
COUNTY MANAGER, TO UTILIZE A COLLECTION AGENCY FOR
THE COLLECTION OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS; TO
RECOMMEND SETTLEMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS,
USING SPECIFIED CRITERIA; TO EXECUTE AND RECORD
SATISFACTIONS OF LIEN AND SATISFACTIONS OF JUDGMENT IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO PERFORM SUCH ACTS
NECESSARY TO THE SETTLEMENT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
LIENS.
WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 1, Fla. Const., provides the Board of County
Commissioners (hereinafter "Board") as the governing body of Collier County, with powers of
self-government as provided for by general or special law; and
WHEREAS, certain of these powers have been enumerated in Section 125.01(1), Fla.
Stat., to include: (1) the power to adopt resolutions necessary for the exercise of its powers and
prescribe fines and penalties for the violation of ordinances in accordance with law, and (2) the
power to perform any other acts not inconsistent with law; and
WHEREAS, Section 125.01(3), Fla. Stat., provides all implied powers necessary or
incident to the carrying out of the powers in Section 125.01, and states that Section 125.01 shall
be liberally construed in order to effectively carry out the purposes of this section and to secure
for the counties the broad exercise of home rule powers; and
WHEREAS, the County Manager is responsible for the administration of all departments
of the county government which the Board has authority to control pursuant to Chapter 125, Part
III, the general laws of Florida and other applicable legislation; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Code Enforcement is charged with the responsibility of
enforcing the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County and the Land Development Code
of Collier County;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 162, Fla. Stat., the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board and Special Magistrate may, upon factual findings of a violation and the violator's failure
to correct or abate the violation pursuant to a previous Order by the Code Enforcement Board or
Special Magistrate, impose fines, and costs to repair, by virtue of an Order Imposing Fine/Lien;
and
WHEREAS, Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., provides that the Code Enforcement Board or
Special Magistrate may authorize the Office of the County Attorney to foreclose the lien or to
sue to recover a money judgment for the amount of the lien in the event the fine/lien remains
unpaid three months after recording of the Order Imposing Fine/Lien; and
12.A.2
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Resolution 2012-46 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
WHEREAS, Section 162.09, Fla. Stat., also authorizes the County to petition the court
for enforcement of the order imposing fine and further provides for execution and levy to the
same extent as a civil judgment; and
WHEREAS, foreclosure, execution and levy, or suits for money judgments, are often not
effective methods for the recovery of code enforcement liens; and
WHEREAS, the use of a collection service has proven effective for recovering other
types of fines and/or assessments, and often presents the only cost-effective means of obtaining
partial or total recovery of liens; and
WHEREAS, a collection agency will typically require thirty percent (30%) of all
amounts collected as compensation for its efforts; and
WHEREAS, the use of a collection agency for the collection of code enforcement liens
is a proper and lawful manner of enforcement by the County and in the best interest of the
public; and
WHEREAS, the County is required to prepare and record a satisfaction or release of
code enforcement liens as well as a satisfaction of judgments for civil code infractions in every
instance where a lien or civil judgment has been paid; and
WHEREAS, the County wishes to establish criteria for the compromise, settlement and
satisfaction of code enforcement liens and has determined that the policy set forth in this
Resolution is in the best interest of the County.
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the collection of code enforcement liens by the
Director of Code Enforcement under the criteria set forth herein is reasonable and in the best
interest of the public.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that:
1.Utilizing the most cost-effective means of enforcing and collecting code
enforcement fines and liens imposed by the Collier County Code Enforcement Board or Special
Magistrate is in the best interest of the County. It is the intent and purpose of the County in
adopting this Resolution to set forth a policy dictating a means of enforcement and collection
under circumstances where it is neither feasible nor cost-effective to pursue foreclosure or other
legal proceedings for the collection of these fines or liens.
2.To this end, the Director of Code Enforcement Department is hereby authorized
to collect code enforcement liens through the services of an independent debt collection
company. This authority may only be exercised when all of the following conditions have
occurred.
A. A certified copy of the Order Imposing Fine/Lien has been recorded in the public
records of Collier County; and
B. Three months have passed since the recording of the Order Imposing Fine/Lien
and the lien remains unpaid.
2
12.A.2
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Resolution 2012-46 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
3. The Director of the Code Enforcement Department shall have the authority to
procure the services of an independent collection service company (hereinafter "Collection
Agent") whose services provide for payment to the Collection Agent based on a percentage of
the amount recovered. This percentage shall not exceed thirty percent of the recovery. Under no
circumstances may the Collection Agent negotiate the lien amount to be paid.
4.The Director of the Code Enforcement Department may recommend settlement of
those code enforcement liens, upon consideration of specific criteria set forth herein, and may
prepare certain documents necessary in the execution of this authority, subject to Board
approval.
4.1 Before a code enforcement lien settlement recommendation is made to the Board,
the following conditions must be taken into consideration:
A. Fine/lien amount is fixed and no longer accruing on a periodic basis.
B. Underlying violation(s) resulting in the fine/lien has been abated or corrected.
C. History of violations involving the offering party.
D. For code enforcement liens and fines on a property that has new ownership, fines
that accrued prior to transfer of title and thirty days following transfer of title
would be considered for waiver so long as the new owner has diligently pursued
abatement and compliance has been achieved.
E. Extent to which payment of the full lien amount would impose a severe financial
hardship on the property owner; fines accrued by an existing owner would be
considered for a waiver as long as the existing owner has diligently pursued
abatement and compliance has been achieved.
F. The amount recovered will equal or exceed the costs and expenses incurred by the
County in prosecuting the violation and obtaining, recording, and enforcing the
fine/lien.
4.2 All liens, excluding any that have been fully paid, must be formally released with
the approval of the Board of County Commissioners.
4.3 Once a code enforcement lien has been compromised by Board approval and full
payment of the compromised amount has been received by the County, as verified by the
Director, or his/her designee, a Satisfaction and/or Release of Lien shall be prepared for the
Board Chairman's signature. Within thirty (30) days of Board approval, the Director, or his/her
designee, shall effectuate recording of the releasing instrument.
4.4 To the extent that other documents are needed to effectuate any action taken by
the Director pursuant to this Section, the Director is authorized to prepare and execute such
documents. This provision shall not be construed as permitting or authorizing the Director to
exercise any authority in violation of Florida law or County policy and law, but rather is intended
to encompass ministerial acts necessary to effectuate, memorialize, or implement a lien
compromise contemplated by this Section.
3
12.A.2
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Resolution 2012-46 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
5.The Director is further authorized to prepare and execute on behalf of the County
Satisfactions of Judgment for Final Judgments rendered by the Court for code citations issued
pursuant to part II, Chapter 162, Florida Statutes. Director, or her/his staff, shall verify that full
payment has been received by the Clerk's Office or other County agency. The Office of County
Attorney shall approve the executed Satisfaction of Judgment as to form and legal sufficiency
prior to recording. After approval by the Office of County Attorney, the Director, or her/his
designee, shall effectuate recording of the instrument.
6.The Director may perform all such acts as may be necessary or appropriate in
connection with the exercise of the authority granted herein.
7. Nothing contained herein is intended or shall be construed to create any rights,
entitlements or remedies to the enforcement and collection of a code enforcement lien in a
particular manner by any person or entity. It is the intent of the Board to merely articulate a
means of compromise and collection when doing so is in the best interest of the County and a
more cost effective means of collecting a code enforcement lien. The recommendation of
whether a lien should be compromised or subjected to collection through a collection agency is
made at the discretion of the Director of Code Enforcement.
8.The Director of the Code Enforcement Department, or his/her designee, may
record the Release and Satisfaction of Lien for those code enforcement liens which have been
fully paid.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if one or more of the provisions of this policy
should be held contrary to any provisions of law or contrary to public policy, or shall for
whatever reason be held invalid, then such provision shall be null and void and shall be deemed
severable from the remaining provisions of this Policy and in no way shall affect the validity of
all other provisions of this policy.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this policy shall become effective immediately
upon the adoption of this Resolution, and it shall replace and supersede Resolution 2010-101.
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second, and majority vote favoring
same this the 134)1 day of March 2012.
ATTEST:BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
po
3>z By: -;
1-1-1- (A,.
At_ it. to Chkfrillti4y Clerk FRED W. COYLE, CHAI AN
Approvr4 as t:1 tnn :
and legal salAciep yr
Jeff /Wright
Ass'stant County Attorney
4
12.A.2
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Resolution 2012-46 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
RON DESANTIS
Governor
LAUREL M. LEE
Secretary of State
R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Telephone: (850) 245-6270
February 26, 2021
Honorable Ken Burke
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
Pinellas County Courthouse
315 Court Street, 5th Floor
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Attn: Christian Eres
Dear Mr. Burke:
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your
electronic copy of Pinellas County Ordinance No. 21-05, which was filed in this office on February 25,
2021.
Sincerely,
Ernest L. Reddick
Program Administrator
ELR/lb
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
From:Bryant, Linda C.
To:Eres, Christian
Cc:County Ordinances
Date:Friday, February 26, 2021 8:47:29 AM
Attachments:Pinellas20210225_Ordinance2021_21_05_Ack.pdf
CAUTION:
This message has originated from Outside of the Organization. Do Not Click on links or open
attachments unless you are expecting the correspondence from the sender and know the content is
safe.
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
ORDINANCE 21-_____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF PINELLAS,
PROVIDING THAT THE PINELLAS COUNTY CODE BE
AMENDED BY REVISING SECTION 2-625, RELATING TO
CODE ENFORCEMENT BY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE,
PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FINES, COSTS, AND
LIENS; PROVIDING FOR SEVEREABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
THE AREA EMBRACED; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN
THE PINELLAS COUNTY CODE; AND PROVIDING FOR
FILING OF ORDINANCE AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Pinellas County is Florida’s most densely populated county and many of its
homes were constructed before 1990;
WHEREAS, Fla. Stat. § 162.09 permits Pinellas County to impose daily accruing fines and
impose liens on properties for noncompliance with its code;
WHEREAS, Pinellas County’s primary code enforcement goal is compliance, and
maintaining safe, healthy, welfare, and preservation of properties;
WHEREAS, Pinellas County determines that lien caps are appropriate to ensure a
proportionality between its code compliance efforts and curtailing excessive liens; and
WHEREAS, Pinellas County continues to be an innovative leader in promulgating citizen-
friendly policies.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. Chapter 2, Section 625 of the Pinellas County Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 2-625. - Administrative fines; costs; liens.
(a)The Special Magistrate, upon notification by the Enforcing department that a code enforcement
order has not been complied with within the set time, may order the Violator to pay a fine in
an amount specified in this section for each day the violation continues past the date for
compliance set forth in the order, or upon notification by the Enforcing department that a
Repeat violation has occurred in the case of a Repeat Violator, for each day the Repeat
violation continues, beginning with the date the Repeat violation is found to have occurred by
the Enforcing department. If a finding of a Repeat violation has been made, a hearing shall not
be necessary for issuance of the order imposing the fine. An order imposing a fine shall be sent
to the Violator with a notice that the Violator may request a hearing to challenge the fine
amount within 20 days of the order. Orders imposing fines shall not be filed as liens until the
latter of the expiration of such 20-day notice period, or the completion of such timely requested
05
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
challenge. A challenge to an order imposing a fine shall be limited to a consideration of only
such new findings necessary to impose an appropriate fine and create a lien.
(b)In addition, if the violation is a violation described in subsection 2-622(e), the Enforcing
department shall notify the Special magistrate. The Enforcing department may immediately
take all corrective actions necessary which are required to secure the property and ensure public
health and safety, and charge the Violator with the reasonable costs of the corrective actions
along with the fine imposed pursuant to this section. Taking such actions does not create a
continuing obligation on the part of the local governing body to take further actions or to
maintain the property and does not create any liability against the local governing body for
damages to the property if such repairs were completed in good faith.
(c)A fine imposed pursuant to this section shall not exceed $ 1,000.00 per day for a first violation
and shall not exceed $5,000.00 per day for a Repeat violation and, in addition, may include all
costs of repairs or other corrective action pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. If, after due
notice and hearing, the Special Magistrate finds a violation to be irreparable or irreversible in
nature, the Special Magistrate may impose a fine not to exceed $15,000.00 per violation or as
otherwise authorized by Florida State Statute. In determining the amount of fine, if any, the
Special Magistrate shall consider the following factors:
(1)The gravity of the violation;
(2)Any actions taken by the Violator to correct the violation; and
(3)Any previous violations committed by the Violator.
(d)The Special Magistrate may, in its discretion, adopt a consent order proposed by the Enforcing
department setting forth agreed terms for payment of any fine in lieu of execution or
foreclosure as set forth in subsection (e), below.
(e)A certified copy of an order imposing a fine, or a fine plus repair costs, may be recorded in the
public records in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, Florida.
Once recorded the certified copy of an order shall constitute a lien against the land on which
the violation(s) exists and upon any other real or personal property owned by the violator in
Pinellas County, and it shall be enforceable in the same manner as a court judgment by the
sheriffs of this state, including execution and levy against the personal property of the Violator,
but such order shall not be deemed to be a court judgment except for enforcement purposes. A
fine imposed pursuant to this section shall continue to accrue until the Violator comes into
compliance or until judgment is rendered in a suit to foreclose on a lien, filed pursuant to this
section, whichever comes first. Once recorded the lien shall be superior to any mortgages,
liens, or other instruments recorded subsequent to the filing of the code enforcement lien.
(f)After three months from the filing of any such lien which remains unpaid, the county may
foreclose the lien in the same manner as mortgage liens are foreclosed. Such lien shall bear
interest at the rate allowable by law from the date of compliance set forth in the recorded order
acknowledging compliance. The local governing body shall be entitled to collect all costs
incurred in recording and satisfying a valid lien. No lien created pursuant to the provisions of
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
this ordinance may be foreclosed on real property that is a homestead under Article X, Section
4, of the Florida Constitution.
(g)The aggregate amount of any lien(s) imposed by a Special Magistrate for Code Enforcement
Division violations pursuant to this Section may not exceed twenty thousand dollars
($20,000.00) for a property or structure lawfully utilized as a single-family residence. Up to a
twenty thousand dollar ($20,000.00) aggregate lien will remain on the property or structure
until the lien is paid and compliance is achieved.
(h)The aggregate amount of any lien(s) imposed by a Special Magistrate for Code Enforcement
Division violations pursuant to this Section may not exceed one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000.00) for a property or structure that is lawfully utilized, but not as a single-family
residence. Up to a one hundred thousand dollar ($100,000.00) aggregate lien will remain on
the property or structure until the lien is paid and compliance is achieved.
(i)Aggregate, as used in this Section, refers to the total dollar amount of any lien(s) imposed by
a Special Magistrate for one or more Code Enforcement Division violations on a single
property or structure. Aggregate does not mean the total number of any lien(s) imposed by a
Special Magistrate for Code Enforcement Division violations in separate proceedings against
different properties or structures where Code Enforcement Division violations occurred, that
are in Pinellas County, and are owned by the same owner(s).
(j)Any hard costs or fees incurred by Pinellas County are not subject to the limitations set forth
in this Section. Hard costs or fees may include any expenses incurred by Pinellas County in
conjunction with enforcing a Code Enforcement Division violation.
(k)Nothing in this Section may be construed as a limit or cap on any other liens imposed by
Pinellas County against a property or structure for any other reason, including, but not limited
to, a lien imposed for the failure to pay any applicable taxes or pay any applicable utility
payments.
(l)Nothing herein may be construed to limit or cap any liens imposed by the federal government,
the State of Florida, another local government, or any other government entity against a
property or structure, or to apply to any lien, judgment, order, or decree imposed by a court of
competent jurisdiction, imposed as a result of another quasi-judicial proceeding, or an
administrative proceeding.
(m)For the purposes of this Section, an individual unit intended for occupancy by a single family
in a multi-family residential building, included, but not limited to, condominiums and
townhouses, may be considered a lawfully utilized single-family residence.
SECTION 2. Severability. If any Section, Subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision
of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any Court of competent
jurisdiction, such holding shall not be construed to render the remaining provisions of this
Ordinance invalid or unconstitutional.
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
SECTION 3. Areas Embraced. This article shall be in effect in the unincorporated areas of
Pinellas County.
SECTION 4. Inclusion in Code. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that
the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Pinellas County Code and
that the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered and the word “ordinance” may
be changed to section, article or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 5. Filing of Ordinance; Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,
a certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the Department of State by the Clerk of the
Board of County Commissioners within ten (10) days after enactment by the Board of County
Commissioners. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing of the ordinance with the
Department of State.
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF PINELLAS
I, KEN BURKE, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Ex-officio Clerk to the Board
of County Commissioners, in and for the State and County aforesaid, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an Ordinance adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners of Pinellas County, Florida, on February 23, 2021
relative to:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal this February 25, 2021.
KEN BURKE
Clerk of the Circuit Court
(SEAL) and Ex-officio Clerk to the
Board of County Commissioners
By: _______________________________
Katherine Carpenter, Deputy Clerk
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Katherine Carpenter, Deputy Clerk, Board Records
Department
(727) 464-3458
Pinellas
PIN_20210225_Ordinance2021_21-05
From:Eres, Christian
To:countyordinances@dos.myflorida.com
Cc:Carpenter, Katherine
Bcc:Johnson, Krista
Subject:Pinellas County Ordinances - PIN_20210225_Ordinance2021_21-05
Date:Thursday, February 25, 2021 4:22:00 PM
Attachments:PIN20210225_Ordinance2021_21-05.pdf
Thank you,
Christian Eres
Records Specialist III
Board Records Department
Office of Ken Burke, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller
Pinellas County, Florida
315 Court Street, 5th Floor, Clearwater, FL 33756
Office (727)464-3464| Fax (727)464-4716
ceres@co.pinellas.fl.us | www.mypinellasclerk.org
Sender Full Name:
Sender Phone number:
County Name:
Ordinance Number:
12.A.3
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Pinellas Co. Ordinance 21-05 (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code
12.A.4Packet Pg. 268Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 269Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 270Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 271Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 272Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 273Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 274Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 275Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 276Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 277Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 278Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 279Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 280Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 281Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 282Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 283Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 284Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 285Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 286Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 287Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 288Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 289Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 290Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 291Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.4Packet Pg. 292Attachment: Ficken v Dunedin (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 293Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 294Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 295Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 296Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 297Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 298Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 299Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 300Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 301Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 302Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 303Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 304Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 305Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 306Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 307Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 308Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
12.A.5Packet Pg. 309Attachment: Martinez v Lantana (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in applying for and receiving a reduction in code liens.)
https://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/article_dc100032-7ba0-11eb-94e5-2701f0876267.html
Pinellas County moves ahead with lien forgiveness program
By SUZETTE PORTER, Tampa Bay Newspapers
Mar 2, 2021
LARGO — Pinellas County commissioners unanimously approved one resolution and two
ordinance amendments Feb. 23 that address code enforcement liens as well as
demolitions and condemnations.
The resolution allows Code Enforcement to partially forgive existing liens on residential
and commercial property to make sure compliance efforts don’t result in excessive
amounts that hinder property owners from making improvements and prevent
reinvestment opportunities.
The county has more than 500 properties with lien amounts that exceed the value of the
property, according to Blake Lyon, director of Building & Development Review Services.
The value of those liens is about $300 million. The plan is to reduce lien amounts that too
costly for property owners to address either physically or financially.
Approval of a companion ordinance allows lien amounts to be capped per violation at
$20,000 for single-family homes and $100,000 per violation for other properties, such as
multi-unit residences, and commercial and industrial buildings.
A hardship committee will consider lien reductions for residents facing difficult
circumstances once violations have been removed.
County staff says using a set methodology, the $300 million in existing lien value would be
reduced to about $30 million to $10 million. Using these methods, it would be possible to
reduce liens below the maximum cap.
In fiscal year 2019, code enforcement settlements on liens averaged about $7,800 with
total fines and hard costs recouped totaling about $523,000.
Page 1 of 3Pinellas County moves ahead with lien forgiveness program | Pinellas County | tbnweekly...
4/5/2021https://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/article_dc100032-7ba0-11eb-94e5-2701f0876...
12.A.6
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: TBN article 3-2-21 - Pinellas Co moves ahead with lien forgiveness program (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
Lyon said having a cap would allow organizations, such as Habitat for Humanity, to
consider investing in properties with liens. The county currently has no caps on its liens,
which increase daily.
Commissioner Karen Seel described the settlement process as “exciting.” She asked
about the potential loss in revenue from reduced lien amounts.
Lyon said the settlement would recoup hard costs to the county, but not staff time. He
favors the changes. He said in a pilot program using the new method, 40 properties had
been settled, which was triple what was settled before implementing the change.
“Investors are willing to buy because they know they can settle the lien price,” he said.
Commissioner Rene Flowers said she was “very supportive” of the changes, especially
with the intent to bring properties into compliance and not put people out of their homes.
“This may be a way to find residents in need of help,” she said.
Lyon said that was a purpose of the hardship committee, which would consider the
“human circumstance” and try to help people.
The second ordinance addresses code enforcement demolitions and condemnations of
unsafe non-homesteaded properties. It allows code enforcement to work with the county
attorney’s office to “lawfully and expeditiously address unsafe properties and help promote
compliance and improve the overall health, safety and welfare of our citizens,” according
to staff notes.
The ordinance would allow the process to begin within 30 days after a court or special
magistrate ruling.
Currently, code enforcement must wait for property owners to correct situations that make
properties unsafe. However, in cases of negligent or absent property owners that method
is not effective. It could take several years before the unsafe conditions are addressed and
properties continue to deteriorate.
Page 2 of 3Pinellas County moves ahead with lien forgiveness program | Pinellas County | tbnweekly...
4/5/2021https://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/article_dc100032-7ba0-11eb-94e5-2701f0876...
12.A.6
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: TBN article 3-2-21 - Pinellas Co moves ahead with lien forgiveness program (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
The new process would still ensure due process for responsible parties, but allow the
county to rid communities of unsafe properties.
Lyon said it is better to take down nuisance properties to improve blighted communities
and allow redevelopment.
In other business, commissioners also held a first public hearing on an ordinance to
amend several sections of the Building and Development Review Services system, as well
as adopting a new Transportation Design Manual.
The amendments address flexibility to review minor site plan changes and landscaping
standards; infill development for legal lots of record; additional flexibility for setback and
parking requirements; and enhancements to outdoor lighting standards.
Suzette Porter is TBN’s Pinellas County editor. She can be reached at
sporter@tbnweekly.com.
Page 3 of 3Pinellas County moves ahead with lien forgiveness program | Pinellas County | tbnweekly...
4/5/2021https://www.tbnweekly.com/pinellas_county/article_dc100032-7ba0-11eb-94e5-2701f0876...
12.A.6
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: TBN article 3-2-21 - Pinellas Co moves ahead with lien forgiveness program (15480 : Discuss changes to the current process in
LAKE WORTH
Lantana woman faces $165,000 in fines: 'Trivial code
violations' or ignoring the law?
Jorge Milian Palm Beach Post
Published 7:01 a.m. ET Mar. 19, 2021 Updated 11:31 a.m. ET Mar. 19, 2021
LANTANA — A $250 parking fine has mushroomed into a $100,000 bill for Lantana resident Sandy Martinez.
That's not all.
Two other violations — a cracked driveway and a broken fence — of the town's municipal code total more than $63,000. The
combined $165,000 that Martinez owes Lantana is around four times what she makes annually working at a doctor's office
in suburban Lake Worth.
On Feb. 25, Martinez filed a lawsuit in Palm Beach County court accusing the town of acting against Florida's constitution
by levying "excessive fines" against her for "trivial code violations."
"All too often, we’re seeing that municipalities are padding their budgets through code enforcement," said Ari Bargil, an
attorney with the Virginia-based Institute for Justice, a non-profit law firm that has taken Martinez's case. "Sandy's
situation is unique in that the fines are so high in light of something that is so insignificant.”
Any one of the three fines, Martinez said, is enough to cripple her financially, but the whopper is a six-figure penalty for
parking cars beyond her driveway. Lantana is demanding $101,750 from Martinez after she accumulated daily fines of $250
for 407 consecutive days between May 2019 and June 2020.
More:Lantana election: How an 'apprehensive' challenger trounced a 21-year mayor
Martinez claimed she rectified the issue quickly and notified the town's code compliance department, but didn't hear back.
When she inquired again around a year later, the 42-year-old mother of three said she was floored by the response.
"I was like, ‘What? Like how?,'" Martinez said. "There is no way."
Said Bargil, Martinez's attorney: "I think what we’re ultimately seeing here is another case of code enforcement run amok."
Not so, according to Lantana Town Attorney Max Lohman, who says the municipality's aim is compliance "with minimum
property standards, and not to collect money."
More:Late-night bicycle crash kills man, 56, near Lantana; rider wore black, had no lights
Martinez, Lohman said, is a "recidivist" who has been cited 31 times since 2007 for code violations. She fixed the related
infractions 10 times, but remained non-compliant on the remaining 21 violations and repeatedly failed to attend hearings
before a special magistrate, he said.
"She’s no stranger to code enforcement," Lohman said. "She’s well-versed in how the process works. The bottom line is she’s
recalcitrant. She doesn’t want to comply with the town’s codes. She does what she wants to do."
More:A 'pole barn' or an events venue? Jupiter Farms owners, county at odds
Martinez lives with two adult children and her sister, each of whom drives a car. She says the only safe place to park the four
vehicles is in her driveway. On May 2019, Martinez was cited for "vehicles parked on unapproved surface/grass/walkway"
and the $250 daily fines did not end until June 15, 2020.
12.A.7
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Palm Beach Post article 3-19-21 - Lantana resident accumulates $165,000 in code enforcement fines (15480 : Discuss changes to
Aside from the parking fines, Martinez was also written up for a broken fence damaged by a storm. The fence was covered
by insurance, but the claim process became extended, Martinez said, and the delay resulted in $125 daily fines for 379 days,
totaling $47,375.
A crack in the home's driveway, that Martinez said she couldn't afford to fix, accumulated $75 daily fines for 215 days,
amounting to $16,125.
More:Without permit, residents demolish historic Delray home, face steep fines
All told, she owes Lantana $165,250, plus interest.
"These fines are unconscionable," Bargil said. "The law requires proportionality, which is another way to say that the
punishment must fit the crime. These fines are woefully disproportional.”
Last August, Lantana agreed to slash the obligations facing Martinez to $25,000 as long as she paid by mid-December.
Martinez said she didn't have the money. so the fines went unpaid and reverted to the original amount.
"It is clear that she has dug quite a bit of a hole for herself, but it’s disingenuous to try and assert that the circumstances she
finds herself in is the town’s fault," Lohman said.
Lohman said that Lantana could have legally charged Martinez a maximum of $500 a day for the parking violation because
it was a repeat offense, but the town tries to "temper justice with mercy."
Because of the various liens against her 1,500-square foot home, Martinez said she couldn't sell if she wanted to. She
"stresses" about dying and being unable to leave the home to her three children, which include a 1-year-old daughter.
Martinez said she is a single mom.
"This has effectively turned Sandy into a renter in her own home," Bargil said.
Martinez, Lohman countered, is not a victim of "draconian regulations" or burdened by rules that don't apply to her
neighbors.
"This is not a persecution of Ms. Martinez," Lohman said. "It’s simply the town enforcing its code.”
jmilian@pbpost.com
@caneswatch
12.A.7
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Palm Beach Post article 3-19-21 - Lantana resident accumulates $165,000 in code enforcement fines (15480 : Discuss changes to
POLITICS
Florida city, under fire for imposing massive fines on
homeowners, drops lawsuit against woman
Kristine Phillips USA TODAY
Published 11:22 a.m. ET Aug. 27, 2019 Updated 8:00 p.m. ET Aug. 27, 2019
WASHINGTON – The city of Dunedin, Florida, which has been under scrutiny for massive fines imposed on homeowners, has
dismissed a lawsuit against a woman who was fined more than $100,000 over code enforcement violations at a house she no longer
owned.
The city said in a brief court filing late Monday that it is voluntarily dismissing the lawsuit against Kristi Allen, a former Dunedin
resident who was fined $103,559 – about twice her yearly income – over a dirty swimming pool and overgrown vegetation at a house
she said she left to the bank eight years ago.
The dismissal comes about a month after USA TODAY chronicled Allen's story and the city's history of imposing exorbitant fines –
sometimes tens of thousands of dollars at a time – for violating laws that prohibit grasses taller than 10 inches, recreational vehicles
parked on streets at certain hours, sidings and bricks that don't match or dirty pools. Over the past 5½ years, the city has collected
nearly $3.6 million in fines while its revenue grew.
Excessive fines? A Florida woman was fined $100,000 for a dirty pool and overgrown grass.
Across the country, fines have become a reliable source of revenue for cash-starved cities, and they have become a big – and rapidly
growing – business for local governments. States, cities and counties collected $15.3 billion in fines and forfeitures in 2016, according
to the most recent financial data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. That's a 44% jump from a decade earlier.
The litigation against Allen, a 38-year-old mother of two, threatened to bankrupt her and her family.
"I could finally breathe again. It's funny because this has been going on for so long. It hasn't really sunk in yet," she said after the
lawsuit was dismissed. "I've been playing defense for so long; it's hard to take yourself out of defense mode."
"The fact is that they had zero case and they realized that," she said of Dunedin officials.
Jennifer Bramley, city manager, said the "circumstances" of Allen's case "made it possible" for Dunedin to dismiss the lawsuit.
"The property has been brought into compliance and it is clearly in the public interest for the City to end the litigation so that Ms.
Allen can move forward in a positive way," Bramley said in an email.
Bramley said city officials have started a "thorough review" of Dunedin's code enforcement practices. Officials are looking at placing
a cap on fines for minor violations and rules on how to deal with repeat code offenders, among other things. In Dunedin, a repeat
code violator can be charged $500 a day even without notice.
Excessive fines are unconstitutional
In February, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that excessive fines are unconstitutional – the first constraint by a federal court
on how much money local governments can charge people for everything from speeding to overgrown lawns. But the ruling, while
lauded by civil rights groups, left it up to cities and states to determine when a fine is considered excessive.
Allen is one of several homeowners who have accused Dunedin, a small seaside city outside of Tampa, of overzealous code
enforcement and massive fines over violations that have more to do with aesthetics than public safety. Homeowners said they were
blindsided by fines that accumulated at a rate of $100 to $500 a day. Others said they were fined even as they tried to fix the
violations.
12.A.8
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: USAToday article 8-27-19 - Dunedin, FL drops lawsuit against woman over code violation fines (15480 : Discuss changes to the
Ron Sachs, a public relations expert the city hired amid controversy over another homeowner who was fined $30,000 because of an
overgrown lawn, said earlier that fines Dunedin imposes are neither excessive nor abusive. Those who end up owing the city
thousands of dollars in fines are homeowners "who have chosen to stay in violation," Sachs said.
His company no longer represents the city.
At a city commission workshop last month, Dunedin officials railed against press coverage of their code enforcement process, saying
Dunedin had been unfairly portrayed and criticized in the media, and coverage has resulted in death threats and obscene phone calls.
Still, officials recognized the need to examine current practices.
"There's obviously something here that folks are reacting to that we're having to deal with," Mayor Julie Bujalski said during the
workshop. "To take action is not – certainly doesn't make us look like we're listening. Inaction is a problem. Taking some action and
evaluating things, I think, is important that we do that."
A fight over government power
In Allen's case, she said she did not know she owed anything until fall of last year – seven years after she moved out of her Dunedin
home – when she received a letter from the city attorney telling her she owed $92,600 in fines over overgrown vegetation and a
stagnant swimming pool. That amount did not include interest and other administrative charges. Three months later, in December
2018, the city sued, setting off a legal fight over how local governments use their power to impose heavy fines on citizens.
Allen bought her Dunedin home in 2005. But a few years later, Allen, a radiologic technologist, took a pay cut and lost her house in
the wave of foreclosures that swept over Florida and the country. In 2011, she signed an agreement with the U.S. Bank National
Association allowing the foreclosure and moved out. But the foreclosure would not be finalized for another three years, and her name
would remain in county property records. Meanwhile, the house was vacant. Brown palm fronds littered the overgrown backyard, the
swimming pool turned green, and the house became a neighborhood nuisance.
City officials sent notices to Allen, telling her of the problems. The letters were mailed to Allen at the Dunedin house instead of her
current address and were returned undeliverable with no forwarding address. The city later imposed a fine of $100 a day, and the
amount accumulated for two more years – even after the foreclosure was finalized in late 2014 and Allen no longer owned the house.
Ben Hillard, Allen's attorney, said he wasn't surprised that the city dismissed the case. Before the lawsuit was dismissed, he said he
was seeking records that would have shown the city knew Allen's correct address but instead mailed the notices of violations at her
old one, allowing the fines to accumulate.
The city's attorneys previously argued in court records that Allen should pay, citing a state statute saying a lien the city placed on the
house where the violation occurred applies to other personal property Allen owned. In Florida and elsewhere, unpaid fines can be
attached to someone's property through liens, allowing cities to foreclose and take the property to collect what they're owed. Because
Allen no longer owns the house, the city sought other ways to collect.
The city dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning officials can refile the lawsuit if they choose to do so, though that is
unlikely. Bramley, the city manager, said officials don't intend to collect the fines through other means.
Hillard said he plans to ask the court to require the city to pay for Allen's legal expenses.
"It’s not just my win; it’s everyone’s win, the other people that are still out there fighting it," Allen said, referring to other
homeowners who still owe the city thousands of dollars in fines. "This is a win for us."
12.A.8
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: USAToday article 8-27-19 - Dunedin, FL drops lawsuit against woman over code violation fines (15480 : Discuss changes to the