Magistrate Tiffany Sarga on behalf of Bay County held a final hearing on code enforcement case 20230305 concerning property at 19916 Highway 131 and ordered the county's abatement costs to be recorded as a lien on the property.

Code enforcement manager Catherine Ashman testified this was “a final hearing to impose lien for the cost of abatement and fines for non compliance,” and that the magistrate had previously found the respondent failed to comply with an April 10, 2025 order. Ashman introduced photographs and a timeline into evidence showing an asbestos survey performed on June 10, 2025 (cost $800) and that the county contracted cleanup work costing $3,414 after a pre-bid inspection on June 26, 2025. A reinspection on August 13, 2025 showed the property in compliance.

The magistrate accepted code enforcement’s recommendation to record the county’s incidental enforcement costs as a lien against the property and any other real or personal property owned by the respondent. Sarga also reduced the previously assessed $1,000 fine to $500, saying the reduction would help the property owner given the subsequent compliance shown in the August reinspection.

During public testimony, Ruby Saunders said she had not received mailed notices: “I didn't get none of that.” Kevin Bracken, who identified himself as the lessee and described having an agreement for deed and coordinating repairs, told the magistrate he had obtained contractor bids and tried to help the owner address the repairs but that notices and mail had not reached the owner’s current address.

The magistrate and code enforcement staff explained the distinction between abatement costs and fines: abatement costs are typically assessed to the property and may be placed on the tax roll and paid over five years, while fines may be subject to separate payment plans and accrue daily interest until paid. Ashman confirmed the abatement amount included the asbestos survey and the contractor bid.

The magistrate ordered the reduced fine and authorized placement of the county’s abatement costs as a lien; she advised the participants to coordinate address updates with the property appraiser and to stay in touch with inspectors if they intend to pay or contest the charges. The case will return for a compliance hearing or further proceedings if required.