Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fort Lauderdale audits code‑enforcement liens; staff proposes tighter amnesty rules and restarting targeted foreclosures
Summary
City staff reported about $66 million in outstanding code‑enforcement liens, described collection approaches that include lien foreclosure and nuisance assessment, and proposed reducing amnesty discounts and targeting exemptions to improve recovery and preserve enforcement incentives.
Fort Lauderdale staff reported June 17 that approximately $66 million of code‑enforcement liens remain on the city’s records and outlined changes to the city’s lien amnesty, nuisance assessment, and lien‑foreclosure practices designed to improve collection and preserve the incentive to achieve voluntary compliance.
Portia Garcia, acting director of Development Services, told the commission that 1,321 properties account for the $66 million figure; many properties carry multiple liens and some liens date as far back as 20 years (staff said liens older than 20 years may be affected by statute‑of‑limitations issues and may require recertification by the city attorney’s office). Garcia described past third‑party collection attempts and noted the city previously used a city‑attorney referral process for targeted lien foreclosures; staff reported mixed results in prior foreclosure referrals, with settlements achieved in some cases but limited gross recoveries in others when the city required property improvements as part of settlement.
Garcia outlined the city’s lien amnesty programs (a tool the city has used to encourage payment and compliance). The current amnesty program has generated roughly $1.6 million in collected payments and has addressed $16 million in liens with $2.4 million in reductions approved through the amnesty process; staff said the current program had a 90% discount ceiling for qualifying accounts but recommended lowering the maximum discount to 85% and placing caps and exclusions on certain classes of violations.
Specifically, staff proposed limiting the maximum amnesty discount to 85% overall, and setting a lower 50% cap for nuisance categories that are city‑initiated cleanups — for example, municipal boarding, debris removal, cutting/maintenance, derelict vehicles and graffiti — as well as for repeat violations, certain vacation‑rental or noise offenses and other violations staff describes as irreversible. Staff cited a concern that overly generous discounts reduce the enforcement incentive for voluntary compliance.
The acting city attorney and staff noted that lien foreclosure efforts were curtailed in recent years because of staffing constraints in the City Attorney’s litigation unit; staff asked for direction to resume targeted foreclosure referrals for the city’s largest and most persistent liens while evaluating engagement of specialized outside counsel to process foreclosure workstreams. Commission questions focused on cost‑benefit tradeoffs (legal time versus likely recovery) and whether county tax‑roll non‑ad valorem assessments should be emphasized for some nuisance abatements; staff said they will return with a memo and a proposed ordinance amendment for the amnesty program and will present options for specialized foreclosure counsel and a prioritization strategy for cases.
