last time. All I had was I bet I'm not like How are you doing? Oh, sorry. And this is Catherine Catherine. She'll be covering for me if I'm sick or any
name and the last the operative number ones I saw. Same as you saw. We'll call this to order. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. And anybody's going to offer testimony to me today. If you'll just stay standing when we get done with the pledge, I'll swear everybody in at once to the flag of the United States of
America to the for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all >> and for those who are giving testimony today do you all swear up in the testimony you give us the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth >> thank you
as a brief introduction my name is Drew Smith I am the code enforcement hearing officer for the city of St. Cloud will also be hearing the school zone speed camera cases today. Uh I am not retained by the city as their lawyer. I'm a private practice attorney who is hired
to be an independent trier fact in these proceedings. So the way each both code enforcement cases and speed cases the way the order will proceed is the city will present its case first. When they're done, the respondent will have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness. If you would, when you come up
to the podium, uh you can stay where you are seated until you come up to the podium when the city is done. But when you come up to the podium, if you would like to ask any questions of the witness, let me know and then I'll make them available for you to to cross-examine. Usually there's not much cross-examination. Usually respondents just want to tell me what they want me
to hear, which is fine, too. And we usually just go straight to that. So, but if you do want to ask questions of the witness, just let me know and I'll bring them up to the podium so that you can you can have that cross-examination. And you'll have your opportunity to tell me anything you want me to to hear. If you have physical evidence, I'm happy to receive it. Just remember that anything
you provide, the city is going to have to keep. So, if you're giving me something, make sure that you have a copy to retain for your own records. Um, with that, clerk, you may call the first case. >> Notice 3829, Mitchell Daniel Alba, defendant. >> And this is case number
3869 or 3829 >> 29. Okay. Okay, you can proceed. >> On May 9th, 2025, >> oh, sorry. Investigator hostel or St. Cloud Police Department traffic unit.
On May 9th, 2025, at approximately 2:39 in the afternoon, there was a gray Nissan four-door bearing Florida tag bearing Florida tag Bravo Zulu 44 X-ray
Kilo that was traveling northbound on Michigan Avenue. It was picked up by one of our speed cameras. >> Pull that mic a little bit up closer to your mouth. The clerk's having a hard time picking up. >> It was picked up by the northbound Michigan Avenue speed camera in front of 2588 Michigan Avenue. The speed of the
vehicle was 28 miles hour in a 15 m per hour zone. So there is the violation information. Here is the first picture that was taken showing the as it was entering the school zone. The school zone light was active.
Here's the second picture where the vehicle is still continuing at 28 miles an hour. There is the tag which I confirmed and used the information provided through David to verify the owner of the vehicle as Mr. Alba.
And then here is a video of the violation. Here is the self test for the radar unit at that location. It tested itself at 220 or at about 2 o'clock and the violation
I just realized I put the wrong the wrong notice in here for the wrong radar test. >> Okay. >> The city has the full book if you'd like to >> if that helps you.
>> Mhm. Give me one second. So this is Okay. So, I have the camera log here. The camera was self tested at 2 in the afternoon. Uh the violation occurred at 2:39 and the camera did a second self
test at 8:00 where it passed its own self test. If you would like, I can bring this up so you can see it. Accept your testimony. >> Uh it was May 9th, the same day as the violation. And then as you can see here, here's the radar certificate showing that the radar
has been calibrated within the last year. This one calibration is from November 8th, 2024. Here is the administrative hearing notification letter. And then the recommendations based on
the testimony and video. In this case, it is determined that the respondent or an authorized individual was the operator of the 20 the 2019 Nissan with Florida res registration Bravo Zulu 44 X-ray kilo was driving 28 miles an hour in a 15 m per hour school zone school
safety zone. It was in violation of the St. Cloud City Ordinance 202448. uh in order for the respondant to be in compliance and the the respondant shall be found in violation of driving more than 10 miles over the speed limit of the school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day. Pay the cit
citation cost in the amount of $100 to be paid within 30 days of the written order of the special magistrate. And then here's a administrative cost affidavit. Uh for so it would be a total amount for administrative costs of 89.49.
>> Anything else from the city? Is Mr. Alba present? You can come on up. >> And if you would state your name for me for the record, please. >> Uh, my name is Chris Alba. >> My son is Mitch Alba. Okay. So, you are here on his behalf today? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> The reason is uh he financed the car
under his name. Uh my wife and I drive it. So, the one that was driving at the time was myself and my wife. I have another case here before you today. Okay. I just want to avoid any points towards his license in this case. That's all I want because under his name, I
don't want to jump out the driver's record and I'd like to know if anything uh could be done about reducing the the payment. That's it. >> Okay. I'm not here making excuses for myself. So, >> understood and I appreciate that. Uh, first off, and I'll look to the city's
attorney, too, to to verify what I'm going to say. I don't think as long as the citation is paid there, this is not a point. There are no points that come from this, number one. And so, Mr. Alba, there is there's actually a statutory process for if there's another driver than the person who cited. And so, the
only way we can transfer it is to go through that process. >> Okay. So, but then why I wanted to confirm for you that this is not this does not create points on the license. >> Okay, no problem. >> So, with that said, where I am today and you know with the uh the absence of a
defense offered, I am going to find in favor of the city. Um but again, there would not be points on your son and you what you can pay that that citation for him. >> That $100 citation, >> the $100 plus costs. Now, I can't reduce because the statute says if I find that
this the citation is supported, I shall award both the citation amount and the cost. So, I don't have discretion where you're asking for me to exercise discretion where I may have some discretion. If the city has no objection, I can give him more time to pay. Does the city have any objection to more time? >> And what's what's uh how much is uh the
whole to >> So, for for one, and I haven't heard the case on the other, but I'm going to assume it's going to be similar. So with the two cases, for one, it's it's just shy of $190. So you're probably looking at just shy of $380. I don't know what the cost only >> for two rolling them together. So again,
if if we're looking at assuming the second case goes the same way the first case goes that you're probably looking somewhere in the neighborhood of $380 that you need to pay. >> Okay. >> And I'm again I'm willing to give more time on that. And I'm asking you how much time would you how much time do you think? >> Well, I'm on disability. I give receipt
a check every third of the month. Um, you know, right now, >> how would 90 days work for you? >> 90 days will work fine. >> Any objection from the city to 90 days? Okay. I And I again, I haven't heard the second case yet, so I don't know where that one will go, but I assume that I will probably be giving the same time
for that second case. >> And Mr. Alba, you I will invite you up on the next case, too. You do not have to come up and say it all over again. You can stand on what you've said here on this case, but you're welcome to if you have something you'd like to Thank you very much. But
that that is my ruling on 3829. And before you leave, Mr. Alba, I will have an order for you. So I'm going to fill it out now. I will hold it up here. And before you leave after the second case, I'll just give you both of them. Okay? And you can take those. Yes, sir.
>> So I am upholding the the citation. Uh I'm going to allow 90 days for payment of the of the citation. citation. Original citation amount was $100. Awarded costs are $8949.
Grand total on this case of $18,949. Notice 7606. Mitchell Daniel Alba, defendant. Ready? Sergeant Kyler with St. Cloud Police Department. I'm currently assigned to our traffic division. On May 13th, 2025
at approximately 6:32 in the morning, a black Ford four-door bearing Florida tag, Quebec Hotel, Kilo Hotel 74, pass one of the speed cameras on Michigan Avenue going northbound near St. Cloud High School. The vehicle was doing 31
miles an hour and he posted 15 mph school zone with the flashing light. The video evidence was then forwarded to St. Cloud Police Department for review. And on May 20th, I went and reviewed that information and the notice that is
now up on the screen was sent to the owner of the vehicle. Kind of zooms in a little bit more for people with the bad eyes. Picture of flashing light. Vehicle entering a school zone. 31 milesPH is posted in the top leftand corner of the
screen. Another followup picture of it continuing in through the school zone. Zoom in on the license plate that matches what's on the notice of violation. And then a video of him entering the
school zone again with a flashing light. At the very end, you'll see they finally hit the brakes after the flashing lights of the camera go off. Uh this is the camera log to show that the the equipment was working properly. It was tested on May 12th, 2025 at 2:00
in the afternoon. On the morning of the 13th, it was I'm sorry, the violation happened at 6:32 and then at 8:00 in the morning on the same day on the 13th, it passed the inspection again. a
certificate showing that yes, it was calibrated within a year of this violation date. And the notice of hearing uh that was sent out to the defendant as well when they requested this hearing. And based on the testimony, evidence presented in this case has determined
the respondent or authorized individual was operating a 22 Ford uh with Florida registration of Hotel Kilo Hotel 74. They were driving 31 milesPH in a posted 15 mph uh school safety zone. And this is a violation of the city St. Cloud
Ordinance 2024 48. Uh we would recommend that he be found in violation of driving more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day. And we would also suggest that he pay the citation amount
of $100 and an administrative cost of the 8949 originally was saying within 30 days. Obviously there's some other circumstances here. I don't believe there' be any objections to anything further. Um given 90 days
and then cost affidavit also been included there to show the breakdown from city. Anything else you'd like to say, Mr. Alba? Nope. Okay. Then my ruling will be the same on this case as it was in the last case. I
will uphold the citation, allow 90 days for the payment. We'll also award the cost of $8949 to city for a grand total of $18949 again to be paid within 90 days of today's date. And Mr. Alba, you can come up and
receive your orders and then you are excused. Thank you. >> Notice 12200. Carlos Eduardo Cor Rodriguez, defendant. >> I'm sorry. You may proceed. >> Good afternoon, Captain Edo. St. Cloud
Police Department, Special Operations. on on 519 2025, the vehicle was traveling southbound at Colombia at Lake View Elementary. I received the information from
Vera. I reviewed the video and the photographic evidence. The vehicle was traveling at what is that 38 32 and the 25. It was not during flashing school hours, but it was during the school day. So, the cameras were
functioning. There we go. 8 8 8:36 a.m. and the vehicle was traveling 34. That's not right. >> Looks like the wrong That's the wrong W wrong location. >> Yes, sir. >> That's not the right vehicle either.
This is This is an old case. That's not the right one, sir. That should be 2490. 220. >> That should be 249. >> Oh, okay.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yep. There's the report where the vehicle was speeding. Calibration certification. The radar did a self test before and after the
violation. Administrative notice of hearing. We are requesting the operator of the 1995 Chevy with Florida registration, Juliet Zulu 349 X-ray, was was driving 36 miles per hour
in a 25 mile hour zone in violation of St. Cloud City Ordinance 202448. We are requesting that he be found guilty of driving more than 10 miles an hour over the speed limit in a school safety zone on a regular school day and
pay the citation in the amount of $100 to be paid within 30 days as well as an administrative fee of $8949. >> Anything else from city? Before I excuse the witness, I just want to con go over the notice of violation
and make sure that we're all looking at the same page. I'm going to ask you to approach and take a look at uh the notice of violation that was included in my evidence packet today and make sure that this is the correct notice of violation you want me looking at.
>> Thank you. And is Mr. Rodriguez here? No one's here on this case. Okay. Absent a petitioner, I will find in favor of the city. Uh,
I will uphold the citation. I'm sorry, officer. I was focused on the notice of violation. What were the the costs incurred on the case? $100 for the speeding and $8949 for administrative cost. Thank you. reported that the citation amount of
$100 plus the city's cost incurred in the amount of $8949 be paid within 30 days of the date of today's hearing. city's copy. I'll help mail the respondent since the petitioner petitioner is not here. So, I have that one I'll mail out with the other orders
from today. >> You may call the next case. >> Notice 2458. Matthew George Marshall, defendant. You may proceed. >> Good afternoon. Officer Manning with the St. Gloss Traffic Division. This is
notice 2458 for Matthew Marshall. Violation occurred on 58 of 2025 for the southbound traffic cameras for school zone Avenue at St. Cloud Elementary. Uh this is the notice violation that was received and this is the information. So the the
violation occurred on 5825. The time was 7:42 in the morning and this was again the southbound Butteringer Avenue St. Cloud Elementary's traffic traffic camera and the violation speed was 29 miles an hour in a 50 m hour active school zone. Registration come back to Marshall and
the vehicle is a 2017 Mazda Gray. the license plate number of Juliet Lima Victor Juliet 26. This is the first photo of violation showing that the camera is the school zone is active 15 m hour zone and the vehicle entering at 29 miles per hour.
This is the second photo taken. Still vehicle at 29 miles per hour in the 15 active school zone. This is a closeup of the vehicle to confirm the license plate which I did confirm was accurate. This is the video. There's no breaking. It's still there.
This is the camera log to show that the camera was operating properly that day. Was first uh deployed at 7 uh 57 2025 at 8 in the morning. Violation occurred at 58 7:42 and it was again checked at 58 at 8 a.m. 8 a.m. Excuse me.
This certification shows that it was checked on November 8, 2024. This is the administration hearing and notification letter that sent out. And the staff recommendation is based on the testimony evidence presented in this case determined that the respondent or
an authorized individual was an operate operating the 2017 Mazda Florida registration of Juliet Lima Victor Juliet 26. They're driving 20 miles per hour in a 15 hour school safety zone to violation of city ordinance 202448.
>> Anything else from city? Thank you, >> Mr. Marshall. >> All right. How did I do pronouncing that? Did I get it right? >> Marshall. >> And if you would state it for the record for me, any words? Uh, Matthew, George, Marshall,
>> thank you. >> Um, I thought I was I thought that all of these were going to be rolled into one when I got this like like when I got these uh like like this hearing in the mail and stuff like that. I'm actually a teacher up in that school. I've been like I and I've never had any problems in the 15 years I've been teaching
there. Okay. Um, supposedly the city installed these on 47 uh like 4725 because I have a school resource officer like uh like there. The first time I got my courtesy warning was 5:15 25. All of my citations are before are on 51525
before. Why wasn't I notified by the citations in April? Because my I was talking to my dad. I we have a tendency to drive the same way when we're going to work and like and like I like if if you look there, it's like 30 miles per hour and stuff like that. And like I said, I've
been doing the same thing. I've never had any problems or anything like that. And like I said, why was I given the warning on the 15th? Why couldn't the warning have come in April? I I would have like I would have fixed it if if I had known I was speeding, but I didn't know I was speeding. >> When you say you don't know didn't know you were speeding, what do you mean?
>> I didn't know like I I didn't know there was anything in place that was going to correct what I was doing. I've been taken the same way for 15 years. I've never had any problems getting back and forth to school. And honestly, I think it's kind of lazy of this of the of the police to like use this to to to try and
get people and stuff like that because I mean like >> an issue you can take up with the state legislature. State legislature created the program. >> I want to understand what you mean when you say you didn't know you were speeding. Did you know you were traveling faster than 15 miles per hour? >> Uh I knew I was traveling over 15 miles per hour, but if you look at that lane
and stuff like that, there's two lanes and it's 30 up until that spot and and usually there's no lights flashing. And if you look in that picture, there were no kids on there. I teach second grade >> the lights were were flashing >> uh and like uh if you look at some of the citations like my warning and stuff
like that were no there were no lights flashing >> on this case. Do you dispute the lights were flashing? >> I'm sorry. Is this a citation on the ETH? Uh this is six six weeks. That's the administrative letter.
>> Yeah, this should have been my warning then. >> Would you like would you like them to show the video again so you can see if those lights are flashing? >> Uh I I'd like I'm not disputing the lights were flashing. Uh the thing I'm disputing is the fact that I didn't get my warning until the 15th. So I like I said, I didn't know I was speeding or I
was getting a citation. >> So So that I'm going to ask that question. I want to come back to it with the with the city. Uh the the lights are flashing in in like in the citation I have. Yes. >> Okay. To the to the question you're asking though to make sure I understand the point. You received your notice your warning notice
>> on the 5ifth on the 15th. Yeah. >> After these additional citations were issued >> after all citations. I have one for the um I you probably want to get one citation at a time. >> I I have to I have to analyze the evidence all at the same time. But I will I apologize. I'm sorry.
>> No, no, no, no, no. You don't have to apologize at all. I'm happy to receive everything you'd like to say and I'll I'll apply it to each of the cases so you don't have to say it over and over and over again. Okay. But I will review the evidence for each case and I'll hold everything you've said into advisement as to the other cases too. But I want to
get to this one question as to the the notice. Does the city have any response to his question? I I understand the point being made is that the point of the warning is to advise people there's cameras now. Be careful. And he got his warning notice after the date of citations. And I I know there's a
statutory program. I know when the warnings go out is the key, not necessarily when the warnings are received. I just wanted to see the city had any response to the argument being raised. >> Uh yeah, this one it says you guys printed this one. Sorry. >> I threw it away because I thought I
almost threw it away because I thought it was I I fell for the Sun Pass scam, you know, when my phone and stuff like that, you know. So, I mean, at first I thought it was a scam till I talked to my school resource officer, you know. And I and I posted each of the times that I did get the citations.
>> So I this warning notice is not consistent with the case that's been presented. >> Oh, I I understand that. I'm assuming the warning notice was from a prior because I I think when those cameras went live, if I remember the how the programs were, >> right? There was a trial. There was a warning period. >> Right. And I'm assuming that occurred
during the warning period. >> So So I don't remember the exact dates, but the cameras were put up, I believe, in early April. There was a there was at least a 30-day warning period, which expired. I'm going to said it expired after May 2nd, but before May 8th.
>> And when was that? When was the >> this violation date is May 2nd for for this warning for traveling? 26. So this warning notice was was during that warning period. However, the
violations that the officer testified for were on May 8th, which is a subsequent violation. There were no warning notices issued. There were just a citation. >> But if but yeah, but if you look at this, this was issued 5925 >> something was issued but go to the violation. So it's has to do with the
violation. It did, >> you know, he did during the process. It did did work on the dates, but that on May 8th that's when the violation occurred and and respectfully I understand his his point of not
knowing but light flashing exceeding the 15 mph speed limit that's that's really where the violation >> um can I can I can can I continue to speak >> um as far as the citations too I got the warning notice on the 15th And then like
uh the citations when I was looking at each date were before the 15th on or before the 15th. So So like I said, I didn't know I was speeding. >> But you knew you were speeding. >> No, but I mean I didn't I didn't know I was being >> You didn't know you were going to get caught speeding is what you're telling me. >> Well, I didn't know there was anything
in place to like like to stop me. The most important thing I >> That's what you're telling me. You didn't know there was anything in place to penalize you for speeding? >> No, I mean I didn't. But like I said, the cops said like like they said there was a message sent out in Facebook. I don't check Facebook like like to know that there's camera lights going on because I got a two-year-old at home.
>> Here's here's the point that I'm struggling with. >> Okay. >> What I'm hearing you tell me is I didn't know I couldn't get away with it anymore. >> That's uh like like that's not what I'm saying. >> That's what I'm hearing. Tell me understand.
>> Okay. U I just want to say one more thing. And like I said, I got the warning on the 15th. All the citations are be are on or before the 15th and that's >> I understand that and as you heard there was a a there is by statute there's a warning period. So the what happened
with yours is you pretty much got that warning issued the last day of the warning period and then the next day you did it again was the citations get issued period which is why I wanted to why I was so focused on understanding your argument but I can't I I can't hear
your argument as anything other than yes I know the speed limit's 15 during the school dur when the school's in session I didn't know I was going to get a ticket for going 30. >> Like I said, I've been doing it for 15 years. Never had any problems. >> And that's but that's why the legislaturator's done with what they've
done because a lot of people have been doing it for a very long time and the legislature has finally said enough. >> Like I said, I got on the like like I got on the 15th. I got I got five citation citations. All my citations came like like like were posted before I got my warning. That's that's all I have
to say. If I need if I need to pay the fines for these, I like I'll I'll be I'll pay the fines. But like I'm a teacher, you know, I got my first paycheck like last week. Florida does not care about teachers, but it's okay. It's just our state as a whole, you know, and the fact that my school was in the corner over there shows that the
cops don't care either, you know. Sorry. I told my wife I'd take a deep breath. >> I apologize for my >> You don't owe me an apology. Uh, and I appreciate that. Based on the evidence again, you heard it before. The way the statute's written written, I don't have
discretion. I find that the evidence supports the violation. I I issue I support I you know pulled the violation but again especially and I am sorry you have five cases today um and I understand you're a teacher and again
willing to give time and my thought on this one city well first off how is n how does 90 days work assuming again I haven't heard the other four so I don't know how they'll go but assuming they go the similar direction how does 90 days work for you
>> can I plead guilty any other four and pay my citations and just pay 590. >> That would be up to the city. Do y'all want to take a minute and discuss that out of my earshot? >> I don't think we have authority. >> Okay. I think time is a flexibility
stagger 90 if you want to do that. I'm okay with that. >> That last suggestion may that one resonates with me. That may be the best one and essentially means you're paying one citation for the next five months. 30 60 90 and on out. How does that work
for you financially? um like as far as a citation. So, is it going to be $590 >> each one? I'm going to guess again I don't know what the costs are until it's presented to me. The citation is 100 for each and then the cost I'm assuming are going to come in around that 89.50 mark again. So, looking about 190 each and so
that would push out five months for the last one. You're basically paying one a month for five months. >> Yeah. But basically, I'm looking at them as a grant for for the citation that I have basically. So, there's no way that they can wave it. two. Well, and most of those costs are the
officer's cost in getting here, not the cost of the hearing. >> Yeah. No, I was just I was going to ask No, it was a question. I was kind of thinking out loud to myself. I was thinking the question of well, if if again back to the ple, but the costs that are being that are that are being that are being included in that are the
costs to get here, not the costs of being here. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Um, am I able to fight the ones without flashing lights on them? Because a couple of my citations don't have flashing lights on them. >> If the lights were not flashing, then I think that is that's an evidentiary issue. >> Okay. Um,
>> again, I will hear I'm going to hear each of the cases. So, >> okay. Can I can I can I give you my evidence? >> I asked case by case. >> Yeah, let's wait for each of those cases. So, um, let me rule on this one. Let's let me move off. Let's move off the first one.
>> Okay. and then you take a minute and see which ones which ones of those you want that you believe the lights weren't flashing and then as we go through them. Yes. So you'll I'm not going to make you come up again. I will ask you if you'd like to come up again for any of the next four. You're welcome to come up and we can we can talk more. >> Well, can we talk about the warning
because there's no flashing light for the warning that I was given. >> I'm not ruling on the warning today. >> But shouldn't the first one be the warning? So like like >> Mr. If I may there's no requirement in statute that warnings be provided any kind of >> I think yeah the statute talked about
there being a period but that >> talks about a warning period before the first >> right which is which is where that's where the statute but the the the lights whether the lights were flashing before your warning are irrelevant to today because that warning is not a precondition that warning that you got is not a precondition to the violations
which is what Drew saying >> exactly it's a statuto >> yes I understand no I understand >> so if you were contesting the warning yes but there's There's no requirement that first you send a warning and then you send a citation. It was a warning period. During this period, only warnings go out.
>> Can I contest the warning? >> There's no reason to contest the warning because I'm not ruling on the warning. >> Okay. >> So, back to 2458. Let based on the evidence testimony presented on that was 2458, right? >> 2458. I will uphold the citation.
>> $100 for the citation. It's 8949 for the cost grand total of 1894 49 since there are four more cases on the agenda with this petitioner. I'm going to hold in I'm going to hold in advance what I'm going to decide on the timing
of everything. So that will be my ruling as to amount. I will decide the timing when we get to the end of the cases and I may go with the staggered approach >> as a suggestion. Okay, >> we're okay with staggering. You want to go one at a time and then extend a day each time. >> That's that's where I'm thinking now,
but I kind of want to get through the cases and see how many how many I'm working with when we get there. So, I'm going to hold that for the time being and then we'll decide on the timing after we get through the rest of the cases for this petitioner. >> Next case, >> notice 20 2490. Matthew George Marshall
Captain Ed Mateo St. Cloud Police Department special operations on five I'm sorry on May 9th 2025 at 7:40 a.m. a gray Honda with Florida license plates
Lima Kilo Romeo Romeo25 was traveling southbound on Columbia Avenue in the school zone. The vehicle was traveling at 28 milesPH and a posted 15 with a flashing yellow light. Vehicle is registered to Mr. Marshall.
There's the first photograph. The lights on. There's the information of the violation. There's the second photograph. Closeup of the license plate and the video. Just show the video again. Okay,
there's a evidence report log. There's a calibration certification. It was calibrated prior to and after the violation was recorded. Notice of hearing. And again, based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case, special
magistrate, it is determined that the respondent or authorized individual was the operator of a 2018 Honda with Florida registration Lima Kilo Romeo Romeo 25
driving 28 miles per hour in a 50 mph school zone in violation of St. Cloud City Ordinance 2024-48. In order for the respondents to be in compliance, the respondent shall be found in violation of driving more than 10 miles over the posted speed limit in
a school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day. Pay the amount in the cost of $100 to be paid in 30 days of the special magistrate as well as the fee of $89.49. Anything else from city?
Mr. Marshall, anything you like to add on this case? And based the evidence testimony, I will find in favor of the city will award >> uphold total cost or total uh citation plus cost 18,949.
I'm going to wait until we've heard all of the cases for this petitioner until I decide on the timing of payment. We can move on to the next case. >> Notice 4835. Matthew George Marshall, defendant. >> Captain Ed Matel, St. Police Department
Special Operations on 512 2025 at 7 7:37 a.m. A gray Honda great 2018 Honda was traveling southbound on Budinger Avenue
license plates of Lima Kilo Romeo Romeo25. The vehicle was clocked at 29 miles an hour in an active school zone. Not notice of violation. The radar and camera were calibrated prior to and after the violation.
There's a notice of the violation. And again, the operator of the 2018 Honda with Florida registration, Liamo Romeo Romeo25, was driving 29 miles per hour and a posted 15 mph school safety zone in violation of City of St. Cloud
Ordinance 2024. We ask that the respondent be found in violation of driving more than 10 miles over the speed limit in a school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day. pay the citation cost in amount of $100 to be paid within 30 days of the written
order of the special magistrate as well as an administrative fee of $8949. Anything else from city? >> Anything you'd like to add on this one, Mr. Michelle? >> Please. >> First off, what are you showing me?
>> Okay. And Tell me what you want me to see. Go to the podium for a second. Let me get you on the microphone. >> It's so follow me. Tell me what you what you're going to what you're showing me for. >> Um I'm showing you the lights. The top light's not working and the bottom lights working. So maybe their lights
were malfunctioning. >> Okay. Would you show it to council? Yes. And so I have photo I have a photo here and let me see if it conforms to what's probably in your citation to save you trouble in terms of making a copy of that. Shows the top light on that speed limit sign
is lit. The bottom light is not. >> Uh the uh yeah the the the top light's not lit but the bottom light's lit. I'm >> Can we play the video back again, please? I'm sure I understand >> one light. I see that in the in the
video. >> Understood. when the camera pushes it may not actually. >> So, after seeing the video, is there still a point here that you want me to consider? >> Like I said, the light lights were working. So, I just wanted I just want to make sure the device was working correctly.
>> And so do I. Yeah, that's why I asked the question. Seeing the video, do you do you still maintain that there was a malfunction in the lights? >> Uh, no. I was going by a malfunction based on what I saw. Yeah. On the picture. Okay. >> Thank you. Anything else? No. Okay.
Based on the evidence testimony, I will find in favor the city will uphold the citation. >> Citation amount of $100, cost of $89.49 total 18,949. I will decide on the timing of payment
when we get done with all Mr. Marshall's cases. >> You can call the next >> notice 7069. Matthew George Marshall, defendant. >> You can proceed. >> Captain Edale, St. Cloud Police Department, Special Operations. On May
14th, 2025 at 7:38 a.m., a gray Mazda Florida license plates JLV J26 was clocked at 32 mph in a posted 15 mph zone. Vehicle did come back registered to Mr. Marshall.
There's the first photo. There's the violation information. Close up of the tag. Notice of violation. Calibration certificate. The camera and radar were calibrated prior to and after the offense or the violation.
Administrative notification. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case, special magistrate, it is determined that the respondent or an authorized individual was the operator of a 2017 Maza with the Florida registration of JVL,
I'm sorry, JLVJ26, driving 32 miles hour in a posted 15 mph zone. In violation of the city of St. Cloud City Ordinance 2024-48, in order for the respondent to be in
compliance, the respondent shall be found in violation of driving more than 10 miles an hour over the posted speed limit in the school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day, paid a citation cost in the amount of $100 to be paid within 30 days of the written order of the special magistrate, as well
as an administrative fee of $8949. Thank you. Anything else from Mr. Marshall? Bas testimony. Find in favor of the city uphold the citation in the amount of
$100. Award cost the amount of $8949. We'll discuss one more and then we'll discuss timing. >> Notice 8257 Matthew George Marshall defendant >> Captain Edmonale St. Cloud Police
Department special operations on 5:15 2025 at 7:39 a.m. A Grey Honda 2018 Grey Honda Florida license plates Lima Kilo Romeo Romeo 25 was clocked during 28 posted 15 vehicle
is registered to Mr. the violation information tag and the video notice violation calibration certificate. The camera and the radar was calibrated prior to and after the violation was reported.
Notice of hearing. Based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case, special magistrate, it is determined that the responder or an authorized individual was the operator of a 2018 Honda with Florida license plate
LKRR25, driving 28 miles an hour in a posted 15 mph school safety zone in violation of city of St. Cloud city ordinance 2024-48. In order for the respondent to be in compliance, the respondent shall be
found guilty in violation of driving more than 10 miles over the posted speed limit in a school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day. Pay the citation cost in the amount of $100 to be paid within 30 days of the written not order of the special magistrate as well as an 80 as well as an
administrative fee of $8949. Thank you. Whether you have a defense to this one or not, I want you to come forward. Is there anything you'd like to present in defense on this? >> Yep. This one actually has no lights on it. >> Okay, let's watch the video.
seeing the video. Do you want to maintain the same defense? >> No lights are on. >> I understand. But if still a photo doesn't capture the flashing light, which they are flashing lights. >> Okay. But but the but the photo should catch the flashing lights. >> Am I? It depends on when that photo is taken as to whether or not
>> I see I I thought the police department could stop it and stuff like that and and play it back whenever they wanted to so that way the lights are flashing. >> No, the the photos know the photos is taken. When you see the flash on the flash out there beyond that, that's when the photo it's all automatic. So the photo just it's a matter of when that
camera shutters or I guess however cameras work anymore and where the light is. But I can see from the video that the light is flashing. >> Okay. >> Anything else in defense? No, >> let's talk about timing. I'm I'm inclined
and I want to It's unfortunate. It is an unfortunate situation. Uh but I can't there there's there's no defense. I mean, it happened. Um but I
will work on time. I'm tempted to simply say 180 days on each of these and let the petitioner decide which ones they want to pay. But I'm afraid that creates more administrative work for the city and probably more work for you. So would it be easier first to to you, Mr.
Marshall, if for me to stagger these and basically have one due every 30 days out for the next five months or just to put one global everything due by, you know, one date for everything somewhere about five months out. >> You know what? They deserve to get paid.
Like like I said, my like my defense was my like with the fact that I didn't get my warning until that date. So, I'll pay I'll pay as early early as they want me to pay. >> Okay. So, if if I say 30 days or >> Yeah, I can do 30 days. >> Okay. I I'll tell you what, just in case you rethink that, I'm going to give them
90. And if you want to pay it tomorrow, you're welcome to pay tomorrow. But that way, if you get home and think, "Yeah, there's some things coming up that I wasn't thinking about." That way, you've got a little bit extra time. Does that seem fair? >> Yeah. Do you want to pay your administrative costs right now? >> No, you can because they'll actually have to once my orders entered, they entered into the system. So, the
earliest probably you can pay is tomorrow, I'm guessing. Maybe >> once I entered in the system, then it'll be available. >> Okay. So, it next week. >> Yeah. I think they mail him out. >> So, I'll get a I'll get a mailer. Okay. You'll get the order. Well, you'll get the orders here in a minute and I'll >> mailing these handles.
>> Uh, I see. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> So, what I'm going to do with each of these then is I'm going to make all of them payable within 90 days. Correct. There are there are there are
no points. That's okay. I wanted to make sure Okay. Yep. And Mr. Marshall, you can come and get these. Sorry. Just make make sure is any any questions on the orders before I before I move on.
Next case, Mr. Marsh, just make sure you can read my chicken scratch. Okay. >> The clerk is saying that yes, you will receive a payment notification online. So it'll that'll include all each of the each of them. They'll get a notice. >> They'll mail them a notice. >> So you'll get a mail notice that will give him payment instructions. >> Correct. >> So you'll get your payment instructions
in the mail. Yes, sir. >> For both >> for all. Yes, sir. You'll probably get one for each is my assumption. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. You can proceed. >> Notice 15427. John Caleb Potter, defendant.
>> Good afternoon. Incorporated with St. Cloud PD. uh currently assigned to the traffic division. On May 21st, 2025 in the southbound lanes of Bunninger A in front of St. Cloud Elementary, a violation occurred and was captured on the school zone speed cameras.
This is a notice of violation that was issued to the respondent. This is a little up close more of the information. Again, it occurred on 521 at 1:45 p.m. for the elementary school. Uh the vehicle was driving and a 15
active school zone by Mr. Potter. The vehicle is 2023 Ford white in color bearing Ford tag X-ray Golf 6 Yankee Lima. This is the first picture. This is the second picture. You'll see
the video the way the camera captured didn't capture the light, but you'll see in the video. This is the tag up close and again I ran it to confirm the register owner. And this is the video again. The vehicle was driving 27
opposed to 15. This is a calibration where it was calibrated before and after the violation occurred. This is the calibration record of the the radar. This is the administration administrative hearing notification
letter that was sent to the respondent staff recommendation based on the testimony and evidence presented in this case. It is determined that the respondent or an authorized individual was the operator of the 2023 Ford with Florida registration X-ray Gulf 6 inky Lima
driving 27 miles an hour in post to 15 mph school zone in violation of the city of St. Cloud city ordinance 202448. In order for the respondent to be in compliance, the respondent shall be in violation be found in violation of driving more than 10 miles over the
speed limit in a school safety zone on a regular scheduled school day. Pay the citation cost in the amount of $100 and administrative cost of 8949 to be paid within 30 days of the written order of the special magistration. And this is the administrative cost
affidate. >> Thank you. Thank you. Is Mr. Potter present? Anyone in this case? No. Basing evidence testimony presented. I will find in favor of the city. I will uphold the citation
of $100 for the citation. $8949 for administrative costs. order that paid be paid within 30 days of today's date and I will mail that Notice 13471. Gary Valente, defendant.
>> Ready. >> Officer Manning with the Cop Traffic Division on 520 2025. At 4:03 p.m., a red 2015 Nissan entered the southbound lanes of Michigan Avenue entering the school zone was captured on
the traffic camera going 28 miles per hour in a 15 m hour zone. The vehicle is registered to Gary Valente. This is the notice of violation that was sent. This is an up close of all the violation
that I just discussed. The first capture 28 miles per hour entering the school zone. This photo is clearly active. Again, clearly active in this second photo. Still at 28 miles per hour. Closeup of the vehicle license plate,
which I did confirm. This is a video evidence. calibrated before and after the violation occurred. This is the confirmation of calibration verification November 8.4 hearing notification letter was sent
and based on the testimony evidence determined that the operator of the 2015 Nissan bearing Juliet Quebec Juliet Golf 57 was in fact traveling 28 miles per hour in a 15 m per hour school zone which is in violation of city ordinance 202448. In order for a respondant to be in
compliance, the respondent shall be found in violation of driving 10 miles per hour of the speed limit the school safety zone register school day pay the citation cost amount of $100 pay within 30 days of written order from the special magistrate and with the administrative cost of 8949
>> Mr. Good afternoon, sir. How you doing? >> Good. And if you would state your name for the record for me. >> Gary Valente. >> Thank you. Proceed. >> Um my uh my uh let's see what I was trying to say is that the vehicle is registered. I am the owner of the vehicle. That doesn't make me the
operator of the vehicle. Whoever was uh driving the vehicle um you know, I didn't I didn't who I I just want to know who from the city who was driving the vehicle. You can't just pin it on me because I own the vehicle. I own three vehicles that are registered in the state of Florida that are insured.
>> The state legislature has answered that question for all of us. And they answered it that the owner of the vehicle is responsible for these violations unless that affidavit that was referenced in the notice that you received is filled out and sent to the city. >> In addition, I never received any kind of warning notice that this is going to
happen in the area. >> There is no requirement of a warning notice. As you heard in the earlier case, there was a warning period. So, if you didn't if you didn't speed through that camera zone during the warning period, you didn't receive a warning. >> Yeah. You know, that's this that's my defense. I I feel like, you know, I'm not you know, I I own the vehicle. Yes.
I mean, I have three l three individuals who drive within the household. Yes, that is correct. So for your information, the way that the state that the legislature created this program is the the citations go to the registered owner of the vehicle and they have deemed that the registered owner is responsible for the citation. There is a
process should it happen in the future, there is a process that's both referenced in the notices but also in the statute that you can look up. So if that does happen where you're not the driver and you receive a citation, fill out that affidavit and get it to the city so that the person who is responsible can be held responsible. But
without that affidavit, the registered owner is responsible for the violation. >> And in addition, you know, that there was a school was not even uh out. The school was out. It was like 4 4:00 4:05 after uh school was out was released on the >> and the the statute again, it's there's
there's the period before the school starts and the period after the school is let out is included. So there are buffers on either end of the school day. So it's not necessarily just when school's in session. depends on when that school when that school day is in relationship to that period before and
period after because the legislature recognizes that the students don't just show up when school starts. There's a process of getting them in and there's a process of getting them out and the legislature wants them to be safe during that period. >> I mean that's that's all I have, you
know, I mean that's just letting you know. I just don't feel like I was I was not the driver at that time in that field. And as I stated though, there's a process for that. And absent that process, I have to hold the owner responsible unless that affidavit was
submitted to the city. But that's the only defense I I'm going to find in favor of the city on it. You've heard me ask on the other cases though. Do you need additional time to pay? >> I'll take 90 days with you guys. Yes, sir. >> Any objection from the city to 90? No objection received. Then I will then I will allow 90. But I will find in favor
of the city. I will uphold the citation. Total amount will be $18,949. There's $100 for the citation and $89.49 for the costs. And again, if I didn't say it all, I think I did 90 days to pay. Mr. You can approach this.
back to code enforcement. >> Yes. So, Mr. Smith, the the last K there's no one here for the next case, but there is someone here for the reduction case. Would you like to take that one first? >> That'd be great. Thank you. >> Case number 2022-2126
Wellrung Commercial Investment LLC. Owner location of violation 718 13th Street St. Cloud, Florida. And again, Dan Manzer is a city attorney. So, this matter involves a a lean that's been in place going back to a hearing that was held uh back in March
of 2023. Has to do with un unpermitted work, in which case a special magistrate order set a compliance date, set a fine of $100 per day. Uh the property was ultimately brought into compliance in July of this year. Uh so, a fine has
occurred uh in the amount of $83,27.90. Uh we did get the city did get a request for reduction of that fine and lean as you're aware the process is it's over $50,000. So you can you're it's before you for a recommendation and ultimate final decision would be by the city
council. Uh the the respondent did request initially that the fine be reduced to uh the administrative costs which are 200 $227.90. Uh I believe the respondent had a meeting at least one meeting with the city manager. uh they did not come up to
a definitive solution resolution or settlement. Uh the sta the city manager recommended a reduction to $8,57.90. I and city this the staff is okay with this course which is a little different. We believe the respondent has tentatively agreed to that but would
like the opportunity to address it with the city council in which case we are excuse me I'm sorry which case we are uh uh the city's okay with that course of action also in other words we would ask that the special magistrate
>> recommend the 85 850790 >> and then move it forward to the city council and the respondent at that point would as always have an opportunity to address it in front of the city council I believe the respondent responding coming up. >> One one second. I'm reviewing my order
from 2023 to refresh my memory on the case. >> Take your time. It's been a while. >> Okay. What is it you'd like me to hear? Tisha. Uh first I'm Mark Wells Levy Liquor and uh Wellstrength Commercial Investments. We uh are WellStrength,
just for the record, WellStrength Commercial Commercial Investments is the uh entity that owns the property where we operate our business. We are both companies, my wife and I. Um just so that there's clarification, there's not a third party who lives
outside of our organization, so on so forth. Uh Tisha has informed me that this is essentially you just moving it down. We really need to take up any further reduction with the city council. I'm aware of that. I have nothing further to add other than the reason. Um
if you'd like to hear the reason we'd like a further reduction. >> Go ahead and make the record for it so that way when you tell the city council, you can tell them. You told me the same thing. >> Excellent. Yeah. No, no worries. Um what it was a perfect storm. March 23rd happened to be the date. Um, we
understood just prior to March 23rd that there was a violation. When we received the notice that we had been called into the magistrate, you had ruled and we had till April to rectify the situation that
same day on March 23rd. And when we received the email, we informed our contractor who was the one that pulled the permit. That permit was pulled or applied for in February. He never received the permit. we had contracted with that uh person recon construction
to do all the permitting for us and then bill us for that and that was in our contract with them. So on March 23rd when we when we received that information uh my wife Dana Wells who's a partner in the business with me immediately sent an email to Recon to
Kevin Gomes and said hey take care of this or we're going to sue you. paid the uh permit fee of at that time it was $200 and we received the permit. We on that exact same day of March 23rd,
Kevin came down to the city and filed for two more permits. We heard nothing else at that point. So in our mind, we were like, well, we took care of it before April. We paid for the permit because it was filed for this. Two more
permits were opened on May 23rd, which Kevin never told us about. We weren't aware. Shame on us. We were not aware that there were two more permits. Now, funny story because why not have some humor this afternoon. Funny story is uh
we were talking to Alex Miller maybe a month ago or so because we had put some stake signs out, road sign because they're called snipe signs. >> So, we had put some signs out. She had called us and said we were in violation. I said, "Well, that's interesting because the code blah blah blah. I
thought they weren't. What can we do?" Right? So, get on the phone with Alex. Alex is like, "Well, maybe we could do this. Maybe we do." Very helpful. We're just trying to get more foot traffic in our store. Turns out she says, "Hey, you're in violation.
You have a lean against your property." To which she says, "Claudia will give you a call." A week ahead of that conversation, I was downstairs getting our business license renewed. And as soon as we were getting our business license renewed, I can't remember the gal's name. Forgive me.
>> It's okay. It's okay. In the back, you I I want I just want to understand what the position is. So, you don't have to give me You don't have to give me Captain specifics. >> So, she So, the gal in the back, she says, "Hey, you know, we have a couple of permits you need to pay for for a sign." And I was in paying for my
license. I said, "Internesting." She comes, she says, "It's $400 for these." I said, 'Okay. You know, do you take card? No, take a check. Okay. I said, 'Well, let me run back to my shop. She goes, you don't have to pay for them right now. Like, no, I'll take care of it. Go back to my shop, write a check for $400, pay for the for the permits,
right? Didn't know that they were there. Paid for the permits, then get on the phone, find out, bam, $83,000. So, it just seems to me that there was this absolute perfect storm where we didn't know. We have always been advocating, you know, we we're good corporate citizens. All we're doing is saying,
"Hey, I know that it was thing. If there was any, we want to pay for any damages, but at the same time, it's a lot of money for us and that's where we're at." I get it. So, I I have one question and it really is for both of you. So, I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what's being presented to me because I
think what I'm hearing both from the city and from the respondent is that yes, in order to get to the final decision maker, you're both presenting the 850790, but both of you are presenting with the expectation that respondent will have
the opportunity to present their their rationale for reduction to the city council. That's right. I just and I will reference that in my order because what I want to make sure doesn't happen is against the council. Well, the magic recommended this. Why are you presenting more to us? I want to make sure that that it was very clearly presented to me
that we would like to move to the city council. We need your recommendation. So, we'll consent to this as a worst case scenario, but you have further arguments you would like the city council to hear. And I just want to make sure that's very clear in my order that the expectation is there will be arguments presented. >> Sure. We're just trying to fit in the process that's been established
ultimately. >> Understood. Yep. Whatever. >> Yep. Understood. I just I I just know that sometimes recommendations come whether it's from a board or a mag whatever. Sometimes recommendations come and it's hard to overcome that recommendation when it gets there and I don't want to create that situation
since both parties are saying to me we want the city commission to be able to hear his argument and reduce further if they want to. >> Okay. >> Yes sir. >> That was it. Then based on everything presented to me I will enter that order. Uh, I will recommend 850790, but I will
include the caveat that there is an expectation that city council will hear your story. Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. Case number 2025-356. Jason Baserto, owner, location of violation, 1514 California Avenue, St.
Cloud, Florida. Good afternoon. Pam Neil, City of St. Cloud Code Enforcement Officer. I am presenting this case for the property located at 1514 California Avenue. At this time, I would like to enter into evidence the following items. Copy of
the code compliance observation notice issued to the owner. Copy of the courtesy notice sent to the owner. A copy of the notice violation sent by certified mail to the owner. Copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent to the owner and posted on the property. and city hall. Copy of the
affidavit of posting. Copy of the PowerPoint presentation. Evidence of mailings. Copy of the deed to the property. Copy the code section in violation. Copy the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondent in violation in the amount of $2587.
Respondent is not here. On April 16th, 2025, I received a complaint on this location for high grass and weeds and tree debris. On April 16th, I went to verify and the grass was high and there were large piles of tree debris in the rear yard. A
code compliance observation notice was issued to the owner. On May 14th, a reinspection was performed and the grass and weeds were mowed and the the tree debris was removed. I did notice that there were three expired permits as of
June 8th of 2024. On May 14th, the courtesy notice was sent to the owner. On June 2nd, a reinspection was performed and the permits were still expired. On June 2nd, a notice violation was sent to the owner by certified mail. On June July 17th, a
reinspection was performed and the permits were still expired. On July 18th, a statement of violation and notice of hearing was sent to the owner by certified mail, posted on the property and city hall. An affidavit of posting was completed and two photos
were taken. On August 15th, a reinspection was performed and the permits were still expired. and I have not had any contact with the owner. I did go by on the 15th and take one more photo just showing that they were still there. It is the
city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing all three permits to expire at this location and to have the permits obtained by September 5th, 2025 or pay a fine of $250 a day until compliance is met. The city would like to also recover
the cost uh cover the cost incurred in bringing this case before the special magistrate in the amount of $258.87 to be paid within seven days of the written order of the magistrate as well.
And that completes my presentation. >> And just one question, I think your last photograph answered it for me, but the work was completed. The work that was in the permits, they did actually do the work. >> Yes. >> And looks like maybe they just didn't get it final out, >> right? They didn't have any inspection
if I remember right and there was three was for walls and siding the five windows and door and then the two mini splits >> was the three permits >> for I I I got that for the benefit I'm just trying to so assuming that the respondent receives the order in the
mail I'm trying to want to make sure they understand what they need to do. So it is do they need to call the building department to call in finals? Is that really is it as simple as that? Well, with it being in in 24, they might make them just resubmit. I'm not sure though. That's really up to the building department.
>> So, but they need to contact the building department. I'm just trying to give them some prompt to help them >> hopefully avoid getting penalties. Other than that question, I and there's no respondent present. >> No, sir. >> Bas testimony presented. qualifying in favor of the city order the respondent
to cure the violations honor before September 5th 2025. I will include language in the order telling that they need to contact the building department to get those per to figure out what they need to do with those permits to get them either reactivated and to get them reactivated
and final one way or another. I also order the respondent to pay the administrative costs in the amount of $2587. Um I'm going to go ahead and tie that to the September 5th date. make it easier since they're not here. And >> so order those costs payable by September 5th, which is the same as
their compliance date. Anything else from the city? >> Thank you. >> Unfinished business, none. New business, none. Next scheduled meeting September 17, 2025. >> And before you drop, just a little heads up, the council chambers is going to be
under significant renovation. So next month we will be meeting here but your October meeting will be in a different location. >> We're trying to work confirming that what location is we're working on right now. Okay. >> So, >> uh, as we were going through the
speeding camera cases, just terminology and I was reviewing the order, as I was preparing those draft orders, reviewing the order, and I note that by statute in those processes, the the person challenging the speeding
ticket is referred to as petitioner. And so I have made in my orders petitioner and respondent city has respondent in those cases. The officers will present how the officers present. Just letting you know they were still here. I was going to let everybody know just so they can work on terminology so we can all be
singing off the same music as we work through these work. >> They're not truly defendants. They are petitioners by statute. >> It does not create a problem here. Just eventually as we get used to them, I'm sure we'll >> Yeah, we're going to clean up. We'll clean up that PowerPoint a little bit. >> Yes, sir. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I thought it
went pretty smoothly actually for the first for the first real true run. Last one was a test run. Anything else from city? >> No, sir. >> Clerk, anything? >> And I think I owe you that one. Yeah. Okay. >> And I will journ