Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sanitation Service Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pensacola orders $200 court costs for property with delinquent sanitation bill; fines to begin April 15 if unresolved
Summary
The code enforcement authority found a property listed as 408 (Fairfax/ North Haines) in violation for lack of active sanitation service, ordered $200 in court costs, and set a $25-per-day fine to begin April 15 if the account is not brought current by April 14.
Get email alerts on the Sanitation Service Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Special Magistrate Matthew Hargraves found a Pensacola property listed on the agenda as 408 Fairfax Drive (evidence also identified the address as 408 North Haines Street) in violation for failure to maintain active sanitation service, ordered $200 in court costs and said a daily fine of $25 would begin on April 15 if the property was not brought into compliance by April 14.
Tom Bush, identified in the hearing record as a code enforcement specialist for the City of Pensacola, testified the case opened Feb. 18, 2025, after a sanitation department complaint. Bush presented a city sanitation account (CIS) showing a delinquent balance (the record shows $354 at the time of inspection) and said certified mail and public postings were completed. The officer offered photographs of the posted notices.
Hargraves said, "Based on the evidence presented, find the property to be in violation of, section 4-3-41 of the municipal code. . . . Order court cost for to the prevailing party, the city of Pensacola, in the amount of $200 to be paid within 30 days of today, 04/01/2025. If the property is not brought into compliance by 04/14/2025, I order that fines will commence in the amount of $25 per day on 04/15/2025." The record shows certified mail was not returned earlier in the process and that the property and city hall were posted per procedure.
The transcript records the hearing officer clarifying the proper address for evidence because the agenda and the evidence referenced different street names; the magistrate accepted the evidence submitted and based the finding on that record. The owner presence and other follow-up actions were not detailed in the transcript.
