Code Enforcement leadership gave the City Council a comprehensive overview of enforcement practices, programs and hearing processes at the Sept. 23 Palm Coast workshop, describing how the division handles animal control, business tax receipts, urban forestry, unoccupied property nuisance abatement, and code hearings.

The briefing summarized typical top violations, the nuisance abatement process (used mostly for unoccupied properties and placed on the tax roll when unpaid), and the city’s animal licensing program, which City staff said helps return stray animals and encourages vaccination. Business tax staff described local business tax receipts (formerly occupational licenses), short‑term rental registration (enforcement is handled by code when complaints arise) and solicitation licensing, noting that unlicensed solicitors are enforceable by the sheriff’s office.

Staff explained the Code Enforcement Board hearing process under Florida Statute chapter 162, including required written notice (regular and certified mail at least 30 calendar days before hearing, plus property posting or hand delivery at least 10 business days before hearing) and the treatment of repeat or imminent‑threat violations. City Attorney Marcus Duffy outlined due‑process and First Amendment constraints and explained that cases may be appealed to circuit court after the board issues an order.

Staff also discussed differences between a hearing officer (an attorney who handles specific matters under contract) and the volunteer Code Enforcement Board (a seven‑member quasi‑judicial body appointed by council). For fiscal year 2025 staff reported hearing‑officer costs of about $22,880 (59 cases, including travel) and the Code Enforcement Board attorney costs around $13,500 (403 cases heard); staff presented an analysis that suggested using the volunteer board produces substantial cost savings compared with a hearing‑officer‑only model.

Urban Forestry staff explained wildfire mitigation obligations for undeveloped property, the no‑fee permit process for tree removals and the hazard‑tree enforcement process: property owners are notified and given time to comply and the city may abate hazards and bill property owners if necessary; staff said they coordinate closely with residents and prioritize imminent hazards. Animal Control staff described licensing and vaccination requirements, and the business tax office described door‑to‑door solicitation ID cards and the importance of asking solicitors to show permitted identification.

Code Division leadership emphasized education and collaboration as primary strategies, reserving board action for persistent or repeat noncompliance. Staff and the city attorney recommended continued use of the volunteer Code Enforcement Board for cost savings while noting the hearing officer remains available for some categories of appeal or specialized hearings.

Council members asked about technology and proactive monitoring; staff said officers use GPS in patrol vehicles and track zone visits, and noted limits when violations are not visible from a public right of way (investigations sometimes require neighbor affidavits or hand‑delivered notice). Staff also discussed complaint investigation, repeat violation policy, and the process for nuisance abatement placement on the tax roll.

Staff will continue enforcement and provide council the requested cost and operational information if council asks for further analysis.