Bay County shifts code enforcement hearings to special magistrates, appoints two magistrates

Bay County Board of County Commissioners approved amendments to Chapter 7, Article 2 of the Bay County Code to replace use of the county's Code Enforcement Board with special magistrates for code enforcement hearings and to authorize magistrates to consider lien reductions, the board voted at its meeting.

The changes, presented by county legal staff, keep existing procedural protections in place and add a compliance hearing option while delegating timely consideration of lien reductions to special magistrates rather than reserving that authority exclusively for the board. "The procedure is not changing," the county attorney said during the presentation, adding that the amendments are intended to improve efficiency and align the county with other jurisdictions in the region.

Why this matters: The amendment alters who hears code enforcement matters affecting property owners, adding a new role for magistrates in handling compliance hearings and lien-reduction requests. Supporters said the change will reduce delays caused by difficulties convening a full volunteer board; opponents warned it could reduce opportunities for members of the public to be heard by a multi-member board.

County staff told commissioners that many Florida municipalities already use special magistrates or hearing officers under Chapter 162 of the Florida Statutes and that the proposed ordinance codifies that approach for Bay County. The presentation explained that the ordinance also clarifies definitions and enforcement procedures and that notice and a business-impact statement were published in accordance with state statute.

During public comment, Jim Robinson, who identified himself as a 23-year member of Bay County's Code Enforcement Board, urged the commissioners to retain multi-member hearings. "This is the people's court," Robinson said, saying people who come before the board "want to be heard" and that decisions about homes and personal property are intensely personal. Robinson said he believed it was "way too much for 1 individual to make a decision for the citizens of Bay County."

Several commissioners acknowledged those concerns while expressing support for the ordinance as a way to reduce delays and improve consistency. Commissioners asked staff about safeguards: the county attorney's office said the ordinance does not change existing rights to representation or to appeal; appeals from magistrate final orders proceed to the circuit court under Florida law. Staff also said the county currently uses two magistrates, Tiffany Serto Brown and Bill Lewis, and that both have handled hearings in a timely manner; staff noted the city of Panama City uses multiple magistrates.

The board voted to adopt the ordinance changes and then moved to appoint the two existing magistrates to serve under the new ordinance. The appointment motion passed on a roll-call vote with Commissioners Carroll, Crosby, Raffield, Peace and Chairman Moore voting yes.

The board did not specify a timeline for further evaluation but several commissioners said the county could "course correct" and revise the process if elements proved ineffective.

Ending: The changes take effect as the county implements the new hearing procedures under Chapter 7, Article 2; appeals from magistrate final orders remain with the circuit court. Commissioners thanked outgoing Code Enforcement Board volunteers for their service and said staff will monitor implementation and return with any recommended adjustments.