PANAMA CITY — Before she died in 2010, Eloise Cain thought all her properties in Panama City were in order, according to her son Pasco Cain.
Her lakefront property on Caroline Boulevard, with its tranquil view of Lake Caroline and St. Andrew Bay lapping on the shore farther in the distance from the affluent neighborhood, years before had been cleared of an unfit structure. The remnants were hauled off by the city’s sanitation department, and Eloise received a bill for the service.
“She’s in her 80s at this point,” said Pasco Cain, who began overseeing Eloise Cain’s estate shortly thereafter. “Mother said she sent the payment to them exactly the way they told her, and she was the type of woman that if she said she did something, it was as good as notarized.”
However, Panama City code enforcement records, acquired through a Freedom of Information Act request, show an outstanding $795 from the debris removal on Eloise Cain’s property, 906 E. Caroline Blvd., from October 1994.
The lien has since accrued interest at 10 percent each year, according to city records, coming out to about $2,385. It’s a fee Pasco Cain said he would challenge if the city includes it as it moves toward adopting a new law placing cleanup costs of properties on tax bills.
Panama City is one of several municipalities in Bay County aiming to adopt a new collection method for cleaning up nuisance properties. Costs for removing overgrowth from yards, towing of derelict vehicles and demolition of unfit structures — to name a few — could be added to property tax bills, guaranteeing the cities a return on funds spent in the process while promoting a more proactive approach to enforcing code violations.
“The problem has been: We have absentee owners and we can’t get a hold of them,” Panama City Mayor Greg Brudnicki said during a February public hearing on the fee. “Someone is paying the property taxes on these properties, and they will have to atone for whatever it takes to clean them up.”
Though some out-of-state banks only may be inconvenienced by additional fees on their tax bills, most of the properties on code enforcement’s list of outstanding liens are in low-income areas of Panama City where elderly or impoverished property owners would not easily be able to come up with hundreds or thousands of dollars in a short time span, which eventually could cost them their homes. If the city’s plans proceed on schedule, property owners could see the liens on their tax bill as soon as November.
New methods
Within the past three years, Panama City has spent $97,180 cleaning 99 properties in the city. In exchange, the city placed liens, or claims on the properties, for the amount spent in cleanup.
At the high end of the spectrum, one property has a lien of $7,845 placed on it, while others have liens as small as $20. With the assistance of a new collection method, several Bay County cities are expecting to be first in line to recover those funds, even if it means stripping property rights and selling the property to a willing buyer.
Since a recent Florida Supreme Court ruling rejected municipal liens as a “super priority,” several Florida cities have begun adopting “nuisance abatement special assessments,” which act similarly by placing property cleanup costs on annual tax bills.
In the past, the city would reluctantly spend funds on labor, supplies, fuel or other actual costs associated with cleaning a nuisance property of excessive growth or public health threats. The cost then would be placed as a lien on the property in a practice called “clean and lien,” with no promise of the government entity recouping those funds.
The court’s decision put cities at a financial disadvantage and affirmed liens could not have the same, or higher, priority than ad valorem taxes or mortgages, said Nevin Zimmerman, city attorney for Panama City.
“There is no way a city or county can move their lien up in priority over a mortgage,” he said. “So if there is a piece of property with a large mortgage on it, chances are the lien will never be collected by the city or any other government entity.”
Since cities were put at a financial disadvantage, many cities adopted the method of a special assessment fee, which is legal, combining cleanup costs with property taxes.
“It’s not like it is going to happen all the time, but if the city knows it can get its money back, it might encourage them to not just fine people but actually do the work themselves,” Zimmerman said. “They could make an impact visibly and get the money back in the special assessment.”
Many property owners adjacent to nuisance properties may herald the efforts to penalize unkempt lots. However, failure to pay the entire tax bill — including those with homestead exemptions — could eventually result in the seizure of that property.
“You can’t pay part of your taxes,” Zimmerman said. “It’s all or nothing.”
New technology
Code enforcement records indicate that of 1,225 cases worked in 2012, officers closed 939. Then, in October 2012, code enforcement received tax funds to beef up its ability to process cases with unprecedented efficiency using a code enforcement software program called Comcate.
Panama City’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) chipped in $27,800 funds in purchasing software and licenses, computers for code vehicles, printers, mounting equipment and a data server, according to CRA records.
The purchase ushered in a new era of code enforcement efficiency, said Panama City Police Chief Scott Ervin.
“Every time they would have to take any action they would go out, look at the property, take pictures, come back to office and do research at the office, so they were losing time,” Ervin said. “The amount of cases they were able to get to was hindered by that ability. Now they can do everything right there on site.”
Code enforcement can now research a property, file photographic evidence of a violation and print out citations on the scene with the assistance of Comcate.
In 2013, of the 2,059 reported violations, code enforcement’s four employees were able to knock out 2,006 of those — or about 5.5 resolved cases every day.
Combination
A barrier that may reduce the amount of properties the city actively brings into good standings with code is a lack of manpower in going through the actual process of placing the cost on property tax bills.
Right now, code enforcement documents a violation and property owners have 30 days to appeal it after a code enforcement board hearing. If an appeal isn’t filed, code enforcement gets the property cleaned and the case goes to a magistrate to assess and approve the cost; then another 30 days is set to appeal. A lien is then filed on the property for administrative costs and cleanup costs.
The nuisance abatement fee process would repeat in a regular meeting of the city’s elected officials before going on the tax bill.
“We have to go over each case with (the commissioners), which duplicates our process we take before a magistrate now,” said Lance Livingston, director of code enforcement. “Before we can put an assessment on the property as a tax, code violations will have to go before the commission — which will put more work on them and us.”
Over the past three years about 100 violations could qualify — based on direct costs of cleanup — for nuisance abatement fees, but some of those could be contested and some may not be worth the city’s time to pursue.
“It may not be worth it for $200,” Zimmerman said. “So (city staff) will look at it and ask: ‘What makes sense to do?’ ”
Zimmerman said many cities moving toward nuisance abatement fees don’t realize the additional workload that will have to be undertaken in enacting the law.
How many past liens on properties each of the cities will pursue to collect as a property tax is still unclear.
As for Pasco Cain, he said he contacted city officials late last week in an attempt to prevent his mother’s property coming before city staff for consideration.
On Friday, he informed The News Herald city officials told him they had dropped the lien on his mother’s property.