--------- I will call to order. Start off the meeting with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with
liberty and justice for all. And if code force officers would like to stay standing, I'll go ahead and get you sworn in. I believe y'all are here on a reduction, so you probably won't testify. So I'll save you the swear again unless you just want to be swear again. We need to we can get to you later. Do you swear from the testimony? You give us the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. And since you are here on the reduction, I'll give an abbreviated introduction, but I will introduce myself. My name is Drew Smith. I'm the code enforcement special magistr. I'm an outside lawyer that they the city has hired for these hearings. Specifically, my role is as an independent finder of fact. Uh again,
you're here on a reduction. So, I will hear the uh the background on that request for reduction. I suspect there's already the the city manager has already uh and the respondents have entered an agreement on it. So, you already have an agreement. It likely will be a very short matter. And Dan, would you like to take theirs
first? We can go ahead and send them on their way. Doesn't even take any IT information for if you just want to jump to that one. Yeah. Case number 2022 1498. Jean Mark Scholard, owner, location of violation, 1600 Oregon Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida.
And good afternoon, Mr. Smith. This is a, as you've already pointed out, a a reduction of a lean that's over $50,000 is for as for process-wise and mostly for the respondents edification. Uh, you obviously going to make a recommendation today. The final approval of this reduction will be by the city council at
a future meeting. Uh so uh this is a case that was first heard be was heard before you in November of 2022. It has to do with high grass weeds and uh uh an abandoned vehicle that was on the property at the time. Um the prop the original compliance date was December
5th of 2022. Ultimately the property came into compliance April 3rd of 2025. However, a fine had acrewed of $100 a day uh from between uh December 5th of 2022 and April 3rd of 2025. That fine acrewed to a total of
$84,900 with administrative costs of $229.96 as you intimated just a short while ago. respondent did reach out to um uh the city uh and spoke with and dealt with the city manager and the respondent in the city have come uh have
reached an agreement to reduce the fine of 80 the $84,900 plus the co cost fine to a total of $8,719.96 provided that it would be paid within 30 days. Um, for additional information, I'll just point out to it's
my understanding that the the respondent that's before he actually has sold this property. However, we we worked with the closing agent to hold back sufficient money to allow for the closing to occur. And so, uh, it'll this matter will be finally resolved based on your
recommendation and also when it ultimately goes to the city council. And it is we just talked with the for your we did talk clerk's office to surely we had the pre-aggenda prep meeting for June 12th meeting and it is scheduled to be on the June 12th meeting for the
city. So that staff is supports and would ask that the city the special magistrate recommend approval as we've said. Okay. Based on that presentation and based on the agreement entered between the city manager and the respondent, I will recommend
approval of the request reduction of fines to the city commission. I'll go ahead. I'll get that over to you. You're good to go. If you're gonna tell me something, I have to swear you am. If you're going to ask questions, I don't have to.
This is my first time ever being in this process. Okay? And through the process, there was some communications that went on. Okay? And one of those things was is that I I
thought everything was taken care of. Okay, there was some communication with the officer and when I called her called them back, you know, I was under the assumption I'd taken care of. Okay, and then the only notification for me to
have come here, okay, was I got through a certified mail notification. Okay, at that time I was in Louisiana. My office was over here on 192. Okay. The package was delivered to
my address. Okay. Um, my name is spelled incorrectly. Okay. So, the last name instead of an I, there's a big L. Okay. So, somebody signed for that package. Okay. The signature is not mine. I never
knew about uh that the the fees were ever going to take place. Okay. And when I w uh um I was in and reached out with them. Okay. And I did reach out because uh there on one of the things it was never a dilapitated
vehicle. It was a trailer and so there was a door missing on it. Well, it took me from a marit almost two months to get the door. I got the door. I called the officer. I explained that that's in those pictures. Okay. And so when that happened and if you look at the
satellite photos from even when the property sold before, okay, which is just, you know, just when it turned 2003, you can see the yards neatly maintained and the ele and the trailer's been moved and it's in one location. So, and the door is on it and even in her
picture, in their pictures, the officer's pictures, the door. So that's where it's like, you know, for me, um, I never received anything to let me know that that billing was occurring,
that anything was occurring. Nothing. There was nothing telling me that that that was going on or I can tell you for fact that I mailed you two orders that told you one that you were in violation. You had a certain amount of time to cure that violation, two, if it was not cure, that those fines were run. Yes. But I
was my that's not my signature. So I'm trying to But it was mailed to the the same address that your tax roles go to, which is by Florida law where the city is required to send those things. All right. I I I agree. I'm here on a reduction hearing. I don't have to enter the author the recommendation for
reduction if you'd like me not to. No, no. I I I'm just trying to understand the process. I just wanted to I wanted to make a recommendation of other notification to a consumer there state law process. So it's all subject to state law. So we have to the
city has to follow the state law. No, no worries. Uh we've had someone come in. I'm not sure if that responded or case number 2025-146, Shannon Halas, owner, location of violation, 705 Great Avenue, St.
Cloud, Florida. Hi, good afternoon co supervisor presenting uh this case on behalf of code officer Bennett for the property located at uh 705 Grape Avenue. At this time I would
like to of evidence the following items. A copy of the code compliance observation form sent regular mail. Copy of the clear city notice sent by regular mail to the property owner. Copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail to the property owner. Copy of the
statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the property owner posted on the property and city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation, affidavit of postings, evidence of bailings, the code section in violation, a copy of the original deed of the property, and a copy of the
cost incurred if the special magistrate funds are responded in violation and the amount of $267.77. The respondents are not here today. On February 10th, while completing a reinspection uh for a previously uh presented case, Officer Bennett observed
that those were installed at this location. She was able to verify that there was not a request for a permit on record. She mailed a copy of the co compliance observation form to the property owner with seven business days for
compliance. Um she took two photos on February 19th. Code officer Bennett was able to verify that there was not a request for permanent record. She mailed a courtesy notice with 10 business days for compliance. On March 5th, code officer Bennett was able to
verify that there was not a request for permit on record. She mailed a notice of violation by certified mail with 30 business days to comply. On April 16th, code officer Bennett was able to verify that there was not a request for permit on record.
On April 24th, code officer Bennett completed a statement of violation notice of hearing, sent to the property owner by certified mail, posted the property in city hall, and completed an affidavit of postings, and three photos were
taken. On May 5th, code officer Bennett had an in meeting with Robert to walk the property. At the time, Robert was provided with a permit application for windows. Court officer Bennett explained what information was necessary for submitt. Robert advised that the windows
were given to him and he would need to retrofit the window since they were not the exact same size. Code officer Bennett requested that work be stopped until Robert had uh a conversation with the building department and obtained the required uh
permits. On May 16th, code officer Bennett was able to verify that there is no uh permit on record. An inspection was also performed and three photos were taken. On May 21st, I was able to verify that there is no permit on record as
well. Um, it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allows to be installed at this location without obtaining a permit and not at the time specified. The city would recommend that the respondent be given until June 6th
to obtain the permit or a time in the amount of $250 a day be assessed until compliance is met. The city would also request that the cost incurred in bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $267.77 cents to be paid within seven
days of the written order by the special magistrate. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time. Just one question uh as to the request for relief requested compliance date of is June 6, 2025. Is that enough time for them to get through the permit process?
Because request is for a permit to be issued by that date. If they submit promptly, will they will the city be able to issue permit by June 6th? Realistically, yeah. Um, but I don't mind giving them more time as you see fit. Okay. Uh, and on the 250, as we're
coming into hurricane season and with windows and no permit, those can become windborn if they're not properly installed. So, I do I do find justification for the asking for the 250. So, I will award the 250 per day. You want to give them just an extra week, I think, on that just to make sure that there's not a hiccup. And between
the time it takes me to draft the order, the time it takes to get to them and them claim an application and let's go ahead and give them um until June 13. Other than that, I will find the property is in violation as slated by the city of St. Cloud uh or the respond
to procure that violation by June 13, 2025. is not brought into compliance by that date, a fine of $250 per day to run. And I also impose the administrative cost incurred by the school of $257.77. That amount to be paid within
seven days. Thank you. Unfinished business reduction of leans under 50,000. Case number 2023-1818. Felipe Jose Rios owner location of violation 821 Montana Avenue St. Cloud
Florida. So the next item is uh as was stated by the clerk a reduction of lean under $50,000. Um this property was first heard by the special manager in February of 20 February of 2024 with a compliance date of March 1st with regard to per
work being done without a permit. Uh the fine eventually accured uh in to a total amount of $20,000 plus the cost of $2 to $30.77. Compliance was met on May 21st, actually a year ago today. uh and and uh
after discussions with the city manager and respondent city managers and respondent agreed that the f would be reduced to a total amount of $2,230.70 payable with 30 days and staff requests the special magistrate approve that reduction based on the presentation
I will approve that request reduction of le thank you case number 2024-1095 Five, Henry Romero, owner, location of violation 11:15 Vermont Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. And again,
this is a request for fine reduction under $50,000 under lean and fine reduction under $50,000. Case was first heard in October of 2024. Uh and uh at that time the uh person the um respondent was found in violation of
operating a landlord business without appropriate license business tax receipt and was given until October 28th 2024 to get that BTR respondent failed to do so. Finance was made on April 8 28th of 2025. More of the fine had occurred from
eight to $200 with cost of $270 as ordered at 39 cents as ordered by the uh special measure total fine $18,473 special the city manager respondent did review this and are proposing a reduction
$2,90.39 and we request payable within 30 days request the special magistrate approve that reduction. in the presentation. I'll approve that reduction in time. And that's all we have. New business? None. Next schedule meeting June 19th,
2025. Well, thank you everybody. Thank you. Appreciate it. Part: 2
I will call this to order. Start off the meeting with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all. And if code of force sponsors would like to stay standing, I'll go ahead and get you sworn in. I believe y'all are here on a reduction, so you probably won't testify. So I'll save you the swearing in unless you just want to be sworn in. We need to we can get to you later. Do you swear from the testimony? You give us the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. And since you are here on the reduction, I'll give an abbreviated introduction, but I will introduce myself. My name is Drew Smith. I'm the code enforcement special magistrate from the city. I'm an outside lawyer that they the city has hired for these hearings specifically. my role is as an independent finder of
fact. Again, you're here on a reduction, so I will hear the uh the background on that request for reduction. I suspect there's already the the city manager is already uh and the respondents have entered an agreement on it. So, you already have an agreement. It likely will be a very short matter.
And Dan, would you like to take theirs first so we can go ahead and send them on their way? Doesn't even take any IT information for if you just want to jump to that one. Yeah. Case number 2022 1498 Jean Mark Scholard owner location of violation 1600 Oregon
Avenue St. Cloud Florida and good afternoon Mr. Smith this is a as you've already pointed out a a reduction of a lean that's over $50,000 is for as for process wise and mostly for the respondents edification. Uh you're obviously going to make a recommendation
today. The final approval of this reduction will be by the city council at a future meeting. Uh so uh this is a case that was first heard be was heard before you in November of 2022. It has to do with high grass weeds and uh uh an abandoned vehicle that was on the
property at the time. Um the prop the original compliance date was December 5th of 2022. Ultimately the property came into compliance on April 3rd of 2025. However, a fine had accured of $100 a day uh from between uh December 5th of 2022 and April 3rd of 2025. That
fine acrewed to a total of $84,900 with administrative costs of $229.96 as you intimated just a short while ago. respondent did reach out to um uh the city uh and spoke with and dealt with the city manager and the
respondent and the city have come uh have reached an agreement to reduce the fine of 80 the $84,900 plus the C cost fine to a total of $8,719.96 provided that it would be paid
within 30 days. Um, for additional information, I'll just point out to it's my understanding that the the respondent that's before he actually has sold this property. However, we we worked with the closing agent to hold back sufficient money to allow for the closing to occur.
And so, uh, it'll this matter will be finally resolved based on your recommendation and also when it ultimately goes to the city council. And it is we just talked with the for your we did talk clerk's office to surely we had the pre-aggenda prep meeting for
June 12th meeting and it is scheduled to become the June 12th meeting for the city. So with that staff is supports and would ask that the city the special administrative recommend approval as we've said. Okay. Based on that presentation and based on the agreement
entered between the city manager and the respondent, I will recommend approval of the request of reduction of fines to the city commission. I'll go ahead. I'll get that over to you. You're good to go.
If you're gonna tell me something, I have to swear you am. If you're gonna ask questions, I don't have to. This is my first time ever being in this process. Okay? And through the process, there was some
communications that went on. Okay? And one of those things was is that I I thought everything was taken care of. Okay, there was some communication with the officer and when I called her called them back, you know, I was under the
assumption I'd taken care of, right? And then the only notification for me to have come here, okay, was I got through a certified mail notification. Okay, at that time I was in Le Louisiana. My
office was over here on 192. Okay. The package was delivered to my address. Okay. Um, my name is spelled incorrectly. Okay. So, the last name instead of an I, there's a big L. Okay. So, somebody signed for that package.
Okay. The signature is not mine. I never knew about uh that the the that the fees were ever going to take place. Okay. And when I w uh um I was in and reached out with them. Okay. And I did reach out
because uh there on one of the things it was never a dilapitated vehicle was a trailer. And so there was a door missing on it. Well, it took me from a maritral almost two months to get the door. I got the door. I called the officer. I explained that. That's in those
pictures. Okay. And so when that happened and if you look at the satellite photos from even when the property sold before, okay, which is just, you know, just when it turned 2003, you can see the yards neatly maintained and the ele and the trailer's
been moved and it's in one location. So, and the door is on it. And even in her picture, in their pictures, the officer's pictures, the door. So that's where it's like, you know, for me,
um, I never received anything to let me know that that billing was occurring, that anything was acrewing. Nothing. There was nothing telling me that that that was going on or I can tell you for fact that I mailed you two orders that told you one that you were in violation.
You had a certain amount of time to cure that violation. Two, if it was not cure that those fines were run. Yes. But I was my that's not my signature. So I'm trying to but it was mailed to the the same address that your tax roles go to which is by Florida law where the city is required to send those things. All
right. I I I agree. I'm here on a reduction hearing. I don't have to enter the author the recommendation for reduction if you'd like me not to. No, no. I I just trying to understand the process. I just wanted to I wanted to make a recommendation of other notification to
a consumer here state law process. So it's all subject to state law. So we have to the city has to follow the state law. No, no worries. We've had someone come in. I'm not sure if that responded or case number
2025-146. Shannon Halas, owner, location of violation, 705 Great Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. Hi, good afternoon. Um co compliant supervisor presenting uh this case on behalf of code officer Bennett for the
property located at uh 705 Grape Avenue. At this time I would like to evidence the following items. A copy of the co-compliance observation form sent regular mail. Copy of the courtesy notice sent by regular mail to the property owner. Copy of the notice of
violation sent by certify owner. Copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the property owner posted on the property and city hall. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation, affidavit of postings, evidence of mailings, the code section in violation, a copy of the original
deed of the property, and a copy of the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondent in violation and the amount of $267.77. Uh the respondents are not here today. Thank you. On February 10th, while completing a
reinspection uh for a previously uh presented case, Officer Bennett observed that those were installed at this location, she was able to verify that there was not a request for a permit on record. She mailed a copy of the co compliance observation form to the
property owner with seven business days for compliance. Um, she took two photos. On February 19th, code officer Bennett was able to verify that there was not a request for permanent record. She mailed a courtesy notice with 10
business days for compliance. On March 5th, code officer Bennett was able to verify that there was not a request for permit on record. She mailed a notice of violation by certified mail with 30 business days to comply. On April 16th, code officer
Bennett was able to verify that there was not a request for permit on record. On April 24th, code officer Bennett completed a statement of violation notice of hearing, sent to the property owner by certified mail, posted the property in city hall, and completed an
affidavit of postings, and three photos were [Music] taken. On May 5th, code officer Bennett had an in meeting with Robert to walk the property. At the time, Robert was provided with a permit application for
windows. Court officer Bennett explained what information was necessary for submitt. Robert advised that the windows were given to him and he would need to retrofit the window since they were not the exact same
size. Code officer Bennett requested that work be stopped until Robert had uh a conversation with the building department and obtained the required uh permits. On May 16th, code officer Bennett was able to verify that there is no uh permit on record. An inspection
was also performed and three photos were taken. On May 21st, I was able to verify that there is no permit on record as well. Um, it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allow to be installed at this location without
obtaining a permit and not at the time specified. The city would recommend that the respondent be given until June 6th to obtain the permit or in the amount of $250 a day be assessed until compliance is met. The city would also request that the
cost incurred when bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $2677 cents to be paid within seven days of the written order by the special magistrate. That concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.
Just one question uh as to the request for relief requested compliance date of is June 6, 2025. Is that enough time for them to get through the permit process? Because the request is for a permit to be issued by that date. If they submit promptly, will they will the city be able to issue permit by June 6th?
Realistically, yeah. Um, but I don't mind giving them more time as you see fit. Okay. Uh, and on the 250, as we're coming into hurricane season and with windows and no permit, those can become windborn if they're not properly installed. So, I do I do find justification for the asking for the
250. So, I will award the 250 per day. You want to give them just an extra week, I think, on that just to make sure that there's not a hiccup. And between the time it takes me to draft the order, the time it takes to get to them and them application and let's go ahead and give them um until June
13. Other than that, I will find the property is in violation as slated by the city of St. Cloud. Uh order the respond to procure that violation by June 30th, 2025. If not brought into compliance by that date, a fine of $250 per day to
run. And I also impose the administrative cost incurred by the school of $257.77. That amount to be paid within seven days. Unfinished business reduction of leans under 50,000. Case number
203-818. Felipe Jose Rios owner location violation 821 Montana Avenue St. Florida. So, the next item is uh as was stated by the clerk, a reduction of a lean under $50,000. Uh this property was first heard by the special manager in February
of 20 February of 2024 with a compliance date of March 1st with regard to per work being done without a permit. Uh the fine eventually acrewed uh in to a total amount of $20,000 plus the cost of $2 to
$30.77. Compliance was met on May 21st, actually a year ago today. Uh and and uh after discussions with the city manager and responded city manager respondent agreed that the f would be reduced to a total amount of
$2,230.70 payable with 30 days and staff requests the special magistrate approve that reduction based on the presentation. I will approve that request reduction of lean. Thank you. Case number
2024-1095 Henry Romero owner location of violation 115 Vermont Avenue St. Cloud Florida and again this is a request for fine reduction under $50,000 and lean in and fine reduction under $50,000. case was first heard in October of 2024. Uh
and uh at that time the person the um respondent was found in violation of operating a landlord business without appropriate license business tax receipt and was given until October 28th 2024 to get that BTR. Respondent failed to do so
was made on April 8 28th of 2025. More of the fine had it accured from 8 to2 $200 with cost of $270 as ordered 39 cents as ordered by the uh special manif,473.39 special the city manager
responded did review this and are proposing a reduction $2,90.39 and we request payable within 30 days request the special legislator approve that reduction. in the presentation. I'll approve that reduction in time. And that's all we have. New business?
None. Next schedule meeting June 18th, 2025. Well, thank you everybody. Thank you. Appreciate it. [Music] Give me no meeting, then you give me an easy meeting. And now you're going to give me the hard one coming up, right?