Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marion County clears one code-enforcement lien, reduces another and orders payment plan
Summary
The board rescinded a 2019 code-enforcement lien for one property and reduced a second, older lien to the county’s abatement cost with a payment plan; commissioners approved the actions at Tuesday’s meeting, with one dissent on the second case.
Marion County commissioners took two separate actions on code enforcement liens: they rescinded the outstanding lien on one parcel after partial payment and approved a reduction and repayment arrangement on a second, older lien.
Case 9.1: Growth Services Director Chuck Verdin told the board that case 767636 (parcel ID 14432-000-02) was recorded in February 2019 as a code-enforcement lien for junk, unserviceable vehicle and an improperly sited business and RV. The owners had paid $1,500 toward the total lien; staff reported administrative hard costs of $1,056.10 and listed the total code-enforcement board lien as $6,000. Jimmy Mason told the board he had cleared violations. Commissioner Zalick moved — and Commissioner McLean seconded — to rescind the remaining balance on the lien; the board voted unanimously to clear the remainder. (Growth Services’ paperwork listed a remaining balance of $5,556.10 prior to the vote.)
Case 9.2: Growth Services described two separate recorded liens on parcel 5115-031-013 from May 16, 2012: a code-enforcement board lien and a junk-abatement lien tied to vendor cleanup costs. Staff reported the vendor abatement cost at $4,350 and administrative hard costs of $991.83, with interest accrued on the abatement lien. Wesley Bailey Jr., the current owner, said he had purchased the property through a transaction in which a title search apparently was not completed; he said he was unaware of the lien when he bought the parcel several years earlier.
After discussion, the board voted 4–1 to reduce the outstanding obligation to the county’s direct abatement cost ($4,350), waive accrued interest going forward, and apply $500 that Bailey previously paid toward that abatement; the applied payment reduces the remaining balance to $3,850. The board asked county staff to set up a reasonable payment schedule handled at staff level. Commissioner Zalick cast the lone dissent on the 4–1 vote.
Both actions were taken in public session. In the 2012 case, staff noted the property changed ownership multiple times and was sold at tax deed in 2013; board members discussed mechanisms that could notify the county when documents are recorded against parcels with active liens to prevent future unnotified transfers.
