A Bay County special magistrate presiding over a code enforcement hearing on April 17 accepted staff recommendations to impose fines and authorize abatement and liens on a repeat-violation parcel, while finding several other properties in compliance or underway toward compliance.

The session addressed five code-enforcement dockets. The magistrate imposed an initial fine and daily fines and authorized county entry and lien recording for a parcel found in repeat violation, accepted affidavits and photographs showing compliance for three properties and noted permit filings and ongoing work on another property.

The most significant action involved code enforcement case CE20243022 (parcel 01398-000-000). Kevin Fordson, a code enforcement staff member, told the magistrate the property had been found in repeat violation of Bay County Code section 17-2 after a March 13 hearing and that inspections through April 14 showed trash and junk remained. Fordson described the magistrate's earlier order that the respondent have five days to comply or face an initial fine and daily fines thereafter. Code enforcement recommended imposing an initial $300 fine and a $50 daily fine for 25 days, authorizing county staff and any contractor hired by the county to enter the property to abate violations, and recording any enforcement costs as a lien against the respondent’s property. The magistrate accepted code enforcement’s recommendation.

On case CE20241328 (903 E. 20th Street), Catherine Ashman, Bay County code enforcement manager, reviewed a longer history: the property was found in violation on Sept. 19, 2024, the magistrate had ordered corrective action with an initial $200 fine and $25 per day thereafter, and reinspections through February 2025 showed continuing blighted conditions. Ashman said photographs from Jan. 9 and subsequent inspections showed some work and maintenance, and that on March 13, 2025, an inspection found the property in compliance and fines ceased as of that date. Ashman also reported that county records showed the property was sold in foreclosure on April 8, 2025, to Fresh Legal Prospective Trust. Later in the hearing Ashman recommended imposition of a $25 daily fine for a period of 144 days totaling $3,600 and that the costs be recorded as a lien; the magistrate accepted the recommendation and closed the docket for the item.

For CE20242330 (6721 Sunrise Drive), Ashman presented that photos shown to the magistrate on March 25, 2025, indicated the property had been brought into compliance within the 10-day period granted after the first hearing. The magistrate said she had viewed the March 25 photographs and accepted code enforcement’s recommendation to find the property in compliance, closing the case.

Case CE20243333 (4437 Garrison Road) was a compliance hearing. Code enforcement staff said the owner claimed compliance and that photographs dated March 18, 2025, showed the cited violations corrected. The magistrate accepted the recommendation that the property be found in compliance and closed the case.

On CE20242891 (7116 Brown Road), Inspector Thorpe reported that permits and engineering submissions had been filed and that case review was approved; staff said they expected the property to move toward compliance. The magistrate noted that another compliance hearing would be scheduled if permits expired and then closed that docket for the day.

The magistrate routinely noted when she had viewed photographic evidence and accepted code enforcement recommendations. For the parcels where fines and liens were authorized, the magistrate’s orders authorize recording costs as liens in Bay County public records and permit county abatement actions and assessment under Bay County’s Uniform Assessment Collection provisions.

No members of the public appeared in any of the dockets to contest the staff presentations. The hearing adjourned at 1:18 p.m.