Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pensacola special magistrate orders fines in multiple code-enforcement cases

City of Pensacola Code Enforcement Authority · March 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a March 3 special magistrate hearing, the City of Pensacola ordered daily fines in several longstanding code-enforcement cases, noted one property corrected and waived court costs in a case now in compliance; compliance dates and fines were set for others.

Special Magistrate John Trawick reviewed seven property cases at a March 3 City of Pensacola Code Enforcement Authority hearing, imposing daily fines in multiple matters, noting one property as corrected and waiving costs in a case now in compliance.

The most immediate actions came at the start of the hearing. After Officer Kevin Smith presented photographs and inspection findings for 3470 Brookshire Drive, the magistrate ordered the previously assessed fine to begin, saying, “the fine of $50 a day will commence now.” The magistrate likewise ordered a $25-per-day fine to begin March 3 in case CE255566 at 6390 (transcript: "Foot Fair") Drive after the city presented evidence the property remained in violation.

Not every case resulted in a penalty. Officer Ron Bowden told the authority that the inoperable vehicle at 4960 Spring Hill Drive had been removed before the hearing; the magistrate noted the property as corrected and did not impose the $25-per-day fine previously ordered.

Several other orders followed. In CE255885 (3525 Wellington Road), the magistrate found no improvement and ordered a $50-per-day fine to commence that day. For the 800 block of North 7th Avenue (case 254806), Officer Jason Hendricks detailed repeated inspections and certified-mail notices after finding loose litter, open storage of carts and containers, and other violations; the magistrate found a violation, awarded $200 in court costs, set a compliance date of March 16 and ordered a $100-per-day fine to begin March 17 if violations are not corrected.

In a sanitation case at 2617 North 7th Avenue (CE26278), Officer Tom Lucia reported the property had been the subject of a sanitation complaint but was shown in the city’s CIS sanitation records to be in compliance as of Feb. 26; the magistrate waived court costs because the owner said squatters had occupied the property and the owner took corrective steps once aware.

Finally, in CE26105 (200 West Highland Drive) the magistrate found the property out of compliance because an operable vehicle and tree debris remained; the authority awarded $200 in court costs and ordered a $25-per-day fine to begin April 7 if the property is not brought into compliance by April 6.

Votes at a glance - CE2619 (3470 Brookshire Drive): $50/day fine ordered to commence March 3; referenced IPMC 302.8; magistrate ordered fine to begin immediately. - CE255566 (6390 [transcript reads "Foot Fair"] Drive): $25/day fine ordered to commence March 3; municipal ordinances cited in testimony. - CE256103 (4960 Spring Hill Drive): Property corrected (vehicle removed); no fine imposed. - CE255885 (3525 Wellington Road): $50/day fine ordered to commence March 3; multiple IPMC sections cited. - CE26278 (2617 North 7th Avenue): Property found in violation on Feb. 18 but shown in compliance as of Feb. 26; court costs waived. - 254806 (800 Block North 7th Avenue): Violation found; $200 court costs awarded; compliance due March 16; $100/day fine to begin March 17 if not corrected. - CE26105 (200 West Highland Drive): Violation found; $200 court costs awarded; compliance due April 6; $25/day fine to begin April 7 if not corrected.

The magistrate closed the hearing after announcing there was no unfinished business. Compliance deadlines and daily fines set by the magistrate are subject to the authority’s enforcement process; affected property owners may pursue administrative remedies per the ordinances and statutes cited at the hearing.