Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff outline proposed code enforcement changes to chapters 95, 120 and 168; commissioners give direction on fee structure and process
Summary
A work session reviewed proposed amendments to Seminole County code chapters governing abatements, junk vehicles and administrative procedures. Staff was directed to return ordinances and fee‑structure options, including consideration of eliminating the $700 appeal application fee and creating a hardship fund.
Seminole County staff presented proposed amendments to county code sections at a Sept. 23 work session, outlining changes intended to speed abatement processes and reassign some decision authority from the Board of County Commissioners to the special magistrate and code enforcement board.
Trisha Johnson, deputy county manager, and Mike Rhodes, compliance coordinator, reviewed the background and listed targeted chapters: the administrative code, chapter 95 (abatement notice and process), chapter 120 (currently titled "junk and junk dealers," proposed to be refocused on junk vehicles), and chapter 168 (abatement procedures and related assessments). Johnson said the county's new code enforcement division launches Oct. 1 and staff is developing an improved public portal and case‑management tools.
Rhodes summarized key proposals: shift lien reduction and waiver authority to the special magistrate/code enforcement board (sections 3.2 and 3.21 in the draft administrative code changes); specify notice, correction timelines, invoicing and collection procedures for overgrown and trashy yards; create an actionable towing/abatement process for junk vehicles with notice and recovery of towing costs; and explicitly authorize the code enforcement manager to carry out abatement actions for nuisance conditions when appropriate.
Rhodes also recommended removing the existing $700 appellate application fee (a $500 initial fee plus $200 if the county manager denied an application and it was appealed to the board), saying the fee may create an access barrier for owner‑occupied properties. Commissioners discussed alternatives: some supported eliminating the fee; others requested a smaller fee or a structure that refunds fees or creates a community assistance fund to help low‑income owners pay for necessary abatements. Commissioner Herr proposed a reverse‑engineering approach where fees could be assessed at the end of proceedings depending on outcome; Commissioner Zimbauer suggested a fund financed by fees to assist residents in hardship.
Staff requested direction and said draft ordinances would be prepared for advertisement and consideration at a future meeting (targeted for the Oct. 28 meeting) and that additional work remains to secure mowing, towing and other abatement contracts. Commissioners generally expressed support for the proposed changes and asked staff to return with specific fee alternatives, legal constraints and options for a hardship or matching fund. No formal ordinance was adopted at the Sept. 23 work session; staff will draft ordinance language and implementation plans and present them for future board action.
