folks over at Claremont. It may be that they they didn't call because we'd already been contacted by a city manager or something like that to say, >> "Hey, you guys interested? We might have already they might have already had us ex Yeah. Ran Wagner. Well, I put my I put my metal in the
bucket and I didn't set it off. So, >> I didn't have to go. I think that's what it is. I think last time because I was in a suit and tie, they just let me walk through and that's why I didn't didn't even register because now that you said it was there last time, I think I remember being there and >> just walking through and setting it off and thinking, "Well, just because I'm in
a suit doesn't mean I'm not up to no good >> in um in Sanford at the courthouse in the courthouse in Sanford, they used to if you would just flash your bar card um like your Florida bar card, they would let you in, you know, they you walk through, regardless of whether or not
you set off the metal detector, >> that policy ended when I don't remember what judge it was in front of, but the defense attorney >> had in his briefcase a handgun next to his criminal defendant who was on
charges of murder. >> No. >> Oh, >> nothing happened. the deputy, you know, the baiff noticed it >> and they dealt with it. But that was the end of the lawyers don't have to get metal screen, metal detector screening policy in Sanford. That was when I was a
very young lawyer >> at um county courthouse when I worked at the jail. If we went there, we could just show our badge but go they had an employee entry entrance but they would still you know want you not necessarily >> that's the Orange County courthouse has been that way forever. You have your
Orange County bar. You can go in the employee entrance, but you still have to go through metal detection, >> right? >> But they wouldn't question you, you know? >> Like if you go through the public section, if you have tweezers, they make you take them back to your car.
Don't judge. I think. I think >> did he >> he wasn't here right after >> well and we yeah we had other hearings the other time too so I wasn't other cases to get to I think didn't we just
have this one this one >> I think we had like a couple of like requests for for >> reduction reductions. Yes, we had other things on the agenda that one. So, >> there was space there was there were things to kill time if we needed to. >> Yes.
>> One more minute. >> I'm late. How much of St. Cloud is lined up in that perfect grid pattern that downtown is? >> I don't know. Pretty much all the state streets I would say at 3:00.
But only case that being the only case on the agenda. We'll just wait. former council member came by to say hi. >> I'm gonna I'm gonna wait until respondent shows to start. So, don't feel like you have to ready yet since this is the only thing we have on the
agenda. It is the code enforcement special match hearing for the city of St. Cloud. It is 3:05. Um we will begin with the pledge of >> 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. >> Since we only have one case, and I know you've been here before, I'll dispense with my introduction. You know who I am. You know how the process works. And so, we have on uh request for hearing on an
order imposing fines. Clerk, you want to read it or I can. >> Case number 2025-960, St. Cloud Hotel LLC owner David Fong registered agent location of violation 1004 New York Avenue St. Cloud Florida
>> and before you start city would you mind giving both the correspondence I reviewed the correspondence in the order but just so I have it in front of me while everybody's talking today if you would provide those. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Okay. Good afternoon Mr. Smith. Dan Manzer, city attorney for the city of
St. Cloud. And as you pointed out, we're here on uh a request for a hearing with regard to the order imposing fine and creating lean which the special magistrate has executed in this matter. Just a little brief history, as you recall back in January, we had the first hearing on this matter at which point
the special magistrate found a violation to exist and then asked that the parties get uh that the property be brought back at a the matter be brought back at the hearing in February to discuss remedial action. At that after that hearing in February, the special magistrate ended or supplemental findings of fact,
conclusions of law. That supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law said that the respondent shall do two things. The first of which would be to obtain the building permit that uh had expired sometime before the January meeting uh to obtain a new building
permit by March 6th. uh and also to create to address uh certain issues related to the fire fire safety issues that existed on the property. Uh as we sit here today, that building permit has not been uh has not been uh obtained by the respondent uh and which is
subsequent why you had entered into the order imposing lean and creating a fine. So, as we're sitting here today, essentially this falls within the confines of a Massie hearing uh for the respondent to explain that they are in compliance with your uh February 2026
order. Um the building department uh deputy building official is here. Uh she can explain to you where they are in the building permit process. Uh give you a little update as to the most recent information which we received apparently yesterday afternoon uh and the steps
towards getting that permit. But as we sit here today on May 20th, uh the permit has not been issued by the city of St. Cloud. >> Okay. But as to the fire the fire protection measures, those were all implemented. >> Well, we had some in some of those were done initially. There was an inspection
done and the fire marshall is here. He can explain to you what has been done. You remember there was some discussion about the I'm going to someone will correct me if I'm wrong about the firewatch piece. Yes. And a discussion about an alternative. I believe the fire marshall and the respondent did work out
on a potential to basically address that issue. So some of those most of a lot of those measures have been taken taken care of. Remember the way >> we're really only dealing with the with the permitting. >> Well remember how your order worked is was yeah 10 days after the permit was issued those f but they have been working with fire emotional on that.
>> Okay let me hear from respondent now. Let me hear from respondent first and let me and then then I'll kind of filter through the evidence as I think is is appropriate. But let me hear respondents position especially since we're here on their request for hearing >> and I I read the correspondence. I'm
aware of the request for status hearing. I'm aware of all that. What I want to hear from you is why is there not a permit in place? >> Exactly why I'm here as well. Exactly why I requested the status hearing. If you remember the second hearing you said that if I felt in >> Yes, I I remember what I said. Okay,
perfect. So, uh, I prepared a a little presentation that I have a physical copy and I emailed Claudia if we can get the >> and let me also swear you in before we start getting into testimony. If you'll raise your right hand,
>> do you swear from the testimony? Give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Yes, please. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Um, I just received it, so I didn't even have time to open it. >> Okay. Is that something that's possible to do or do you have your presentation on paper by chance? >> I do.
>> If you'll provide to council first, see if there's any objection. >> I have another one for you, sir. >> Let's he'll he let him review that and there's no objection, then I'll receive the other copy. Thank you. and respectively Mr. Smith, we object to
this entire presentation. This is a recounting rest of the entire case that was argued in January and February with regard to this matter. The only issue before you is whether your February order has been complied with, not what happened back in 2024, 2025, or 2026.
and that's what's contained in that presentation. He's also seeking other relief that is inappropriate before the special magistrate today. Okay, I reviewed the the presentation. I I'll accept it into the into the record. Um, but I do agree that it is a recap for the most part and then there's the
request for relief and and so again, I will state I I'm familiar with the history. I let me set the let me set the field at the last hearing. We spent a couple hours here going through the case, the fire issues, but also on the
building permit. And we spent the time that we did on the building permit to get to the point where if you submitted building permit for what you needed, for what needed work that needed to be done, you could come back later and amend that permit for the things you wanted to do. That's the context as I remember it. Do
you remember it any differently than I do? No. >> Okay. Within that context, my first question is why do we not have a permit today? >> Um, would you like to ask the city that question first? >> No, I'm asking you because you're the
one who's here to present to me that the city has prevented you from getting that permit. >> Correct. And that's exactly why I'm >> So, why don't we have that permit today? >> Because the city is uh >> you're going to have to tell me specifically what they're doing. >> Their processes are making it very impossible for us to get that permit.
But I asked you at the last hearing, we spent the time that we did to get to the point where city said if he will submit >> the work that needs to be done, all the things that everybody agrees need to be done, they would process that permit and they would also allow for you to amend
that permit later for the things you wanted to do. >> So we have submitted. >> So why after that hearing was it was the permit for what needed to be done not submitted? because I left that hearing thinking the parties were in agreement as to at least we can get them through
initial permitting and then they can argue about the extras later. >> Correct. >> What happened? >> We're not getting there. >> Did you submit the permit for what needs to be done or the things the extras? >> So, if you could allow me the time to break it down for you. >> I don't want to allow the time yet. I
will allow that time. But first, I want an answer to my question. >> Okay. your question. I we submitted everything on our end by the deadline in order to get >> When you say you submitted everything though, was it everything that we talked about in that hearing, the basics that
the parties were in agreement on needed to be done or did you add to it? >> No, we didn't add to it. On the contrary, we were added upon it. And this is what I'm here to prove is that their processes have made it impossible for me to comply with your order in the
timely manner that the order was specified. >> So, After just want to make sure I'm understanding. >> Yes. >> So after that hearing, you submitted what we had talked about at that hearing which was the basics. Not worrying about which windows the windows you wanted to upgrade, not worrying about those upgrade items, just the things that the
parties were in agreement on that day. >> Correct. >> Okay. And then what happens? >> Um so I would like to start with this on the last hearing. >> My question is then what happened? >> So we went through we were going through the processes. We were we were going
through. >> So explain what happened. I don't I'm I'm asking you questions. I want right now I want answers to my questions. I don't want to hear the story you've prepared. And I don't mean story negatively. I just mean I don't want your narrative. I want answers to my questions right now.
>> Okay. Can you please restate your question? >> Yes. You submitted the permit the permit application. Then what happened to delay you? >> So the permit application has been submitted a long time ago. If you recall during the first hearing and this is the
reason why I'm doing a recap is because um >> I don't need the recap though. I just want answers to my questions now. I will allow you time to present but right now I want answers to my questions so I understand what went wrong after our last hearing.
>> Okay. Can I please state in the middle of our last hearing on February 18th, we the general contractor released a email while we were in the middle of the meeting arguing about the permit that
the permit was issued. That email he received from the building department was at 4:15 p.m. while the architect and myself were in front of the podium with you and the city trying to come to an agreement on what is really holding up the permit. We get out of the hearing. I didn't
catch it in the middle of the hearing or I would have presented it to you. We leave the hearing and I look at my phone notifications and I see the email we both did and the architect forwarded that email to the city and
asking questions about that that issued permit. like we're in the middle of a two-hour hearing arguing about an issuing a permit and we're in the middle of the hearing and we get the permit issued. So, he asked questions and no
one was responding. So, according to your order, I had 10 days from the issued permit to comply with the fire safety that the fire marshall requested for the site that was making the site unsafe in case of a fire. Therefore, I
did. The following day, I started taking measurements on the site in order to make the site safe on all of the items that we talked about on the last hearing, which I um on February 24th, we received an email
from the city basically saying that the permit we may have received an email that the permit was issued, but no, the permit is disapproved on February 24th. Therefore, um we are confused. No one
responded to his email or to either one of us until that email comes and we're now saying that there is no permit issue. So now we're trying to figure out what are the issues that are holding up the permit. Yes, there were comments if
you remember from the fire marshall. We are working with a fire marshal on the site safety to please the fire marshal and make sure that they're safe while at the same time the architect is taking care of the comments that were on
fire's end because on the first hearing fire comments were not brought up or those would have been addressed before even the second hearing because it would have been one of the issues that was holding up the permit if you remember correctly. So on the second hearing that was brought up. We're working towards
that. We actually take care of that by the time of the deadline. Now, what's holding up the permit? It is a subcontractor list that the city is actually demanding as a required in
order to not release the permit. and the general contractor who is present submitted a subcontractor list because when he originally filled the application, he left the subcontractor list uh blank because we have not picked out those subcontractors list. We
haven't picked out the roofer yet because we're still in litigation for the roof uh and we haven't picked out the MEPs yet and we don't know who are those going to be. Therefore, if they required someone that we intend to use, then I asked him, I said, "Please list
who you intend to use. Just list them, submit it to them, and then we'll go forward afterwards. If we need to change, we'll put in an order to change and all that." Well, the city is saying that the subcontractor list is required to be submitted and the subcontractors
to be registered with the city prior to the issuing of the permit, which for all of us, it's um it's a first and it's something that is not heard of before because when you go to the subcontractor, usually you have the
permit in hand. you're signing a contract with them and then you take them and and add them to the permit with all the right documentations and then their license get linked and attached to the permit. So we're talking now for a list that is simply a
um a formality of being known to something becoming a process that we really can't fulfill. So it's almost like a catch 22. And the reason being and the reason why I've put together a whole recap for you
is because I believe this whole entire thing was actually done for us to not comply and for us to start acrewing fines. And this is why I'm in front of you today and I have everything to prove and that's why I want to go back in time. >> I I will tell you I'm I'm disinterested
in going back in time. I heard the facts. I heard those presentations. I made that determination. We are here today on a rehearing on the imposition of fines. That is all I would be will be considering today. With with that said,
let me ask you to sit for a minute. I'm going to ask if you can make building official or I guess building official >> the deputy building official >> building official. >> May I May I please say something? >> One more thing because I want to hear on on the your testimony regarding the permit is what I want to focus on right now. But but yes, what would you like to
say? I would like to say that on the first and the second hearing, I held myself back for bringing facts in front of you. So, you heard facts only one-sided. I would like to present >> you had you raised those facts then I would have told you the same thing I'm
telling you now. I'm here to determine whether or not there's a violation motive. Whether it's the respondent's motive in there being a mo a violation or whether it's city's motivation in bringing a case. All I am interested in is does the property comply with code. yours does not. I have made that
determination. I am disinterested in your motivation for why it's in the condition it is or the city's motivation for why the case is being brought because there is a property that's not in compliance with code and that's what we deal with in code enforcement. >> So the only reason it's not in compliance with code is because there is no permit >> and that's what we're talking about
today >> and I would like to ask questions of the building. >> That's what I would like to prove to you is that the whole permitting process >> I do not care about the I cannot fix the permitting process. I will deal with what has happened. I cannot change the code. I cannot change the regulations of
the city of St. Cloud. But I do want to follow up on the facts you have presented to me. So please allow me to ask the city these questions. >> Thank you. >> Deputy building official. >> I swear you please. Do you swear from the testimony? You give us the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
>> I do. >> And what I would like you to focus on is you've heard the testimony of respondent. I would like to hear if there's anything more than what has been presented and if not what happened first with the with permit being pulled back
and not being issued and then we hear that the the sub the subcontractor issue is what's holding up the permit. So I would like to understand that. >> Yes. So the last hearing the things that we were missing were a list of the sub subcontractors which included the drywall, electrical,
mechanical, plumbing um rolloff container. Um, so we needed that and we needed an update updated application. On March the 4th, they did >> just looking for a good if you would state your name and title for the record. >> Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Christina Sodto, deputy director of the building department. >> Okay, so we're on March 4th.
>> So on March 4th, they submitted a response to comments, which is not the traditional form, which is also not the form we asked them listing a bunch of names of contractors. We replied to them that same day telling them that that's not an acceptable acceptable way to submit that they needed to update the application
>> state requirement to include subcontractors on permit application. Where does that come from? >> That is a requirement. So because the >> requirement of what where does that requirement come from? Where is it codified? What what what is it? What creates that requirement? >> I can't tell you for sure. I want to say
the Florida building code, but I want >> I'm going to need an answer to that. >> I I can get you that. So all of the sub the scope of work he is including all trades. So we cannot issue a permit for a bu building permit that includes
electrical, mechanical, plumbing because those need to be done by a licensed contractor. So if the building permit was strictly just building the the CGC could pull that permit because that scope of work is allowed under his license. He cannot do electrical work.
He cannot do mechanical work. He cannot do plumbing work. So that scope of work needs to be done by a licensed plumber, a licensed electrician and a licensed uh mechanical contractor. So because his scope of work includes that those trades, we need to know who what
licensed contractor is doing that work. We could not issue a permit to a general contractor to do work outside of their scope. >> So let me I I think I understand. Let me state it as I'm understanding and make sure that I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly.
that the issue here was the scope of work and there was work outside of the scope that the GC was allowed to do pursuant to the GC's licensing and as a result that there has to be a licensed individ a person holding or a a
contractor holding the right license to do the work that's included in the scope of work for that permit. >> That is correct. >> So it's not the city of St. Cloud requires every construction contract to have subcontractors listed. It's that the city of St. Cloud requires every contract application to have licensed
contractors to perform the trades that require specific licenses. Just as I connect the things that that I know from my history of of doing this work and make sure that that what I'm saying makes sense or what I'm thinking makes sense. Is there is there another
type of lensure? Right now you have a CGC I think you said was the correct lensure of the GC. Is there a license that would that's broader than that that would allow that maybe the contractor doesn't have? But are there contractors that have licenses that in this case would also cover the
trades work or would this always kick in on an application? >> This would always so for a commercial building a general contractor cannot do the trades work. It has to be a licensed contractor for that trade. >> Does that come from Florida building code or is that something the city of St. Cloud has done? >> That is No, that is correct. Okay.
>> Um, so when he submitted on March 4th on a a response to comments, we sent him back saying that this needs to be updated on the application. Um, from then we never heard back until yesterday. Yesterday we got an updated application with listing all the contractors. His plumbing qualifier was
not registered with the city. So, and also his drywall contractor was not registered. >> So, registration with the city is that that's that city of St. Cloud regulations, not Florida building code. Is that correct? >> We have to validate your liability workman's comp. We have to make sure that they're a licensed contractor
before >> I'm not questioning the rationale behind it. Again, same with the total respondent. I can't change what the regulations are. I'm just trying to understand where they come from. >> Sure. >> So, the registration of contractors with city that's is that in city code? >> I also believe that's Florida building
code, but we can get that answer for you. >> So, because they're not registered, we cannot issue the permit. So we told him yesterday that the drywall contractor and the plumbing qualifier were not registered and that the line of description on the application was
blank. So we said as soon as you can register them, we are ready to put the permit in approved status which allows him to pay for the permit and once the permit is paid for, we issue the permit. So that is all we're missing. Plumbing qualifier, drywall um contractor to be
registered and payment of the permit. Okay. Mr. Manz, are you looking for those citations of Florida building code? >> Okay, while you're looking for that, you can sit for a minute. I I may call you back up, but right now you've
answered the question that I had. >> Yes, I actually would like to hear from contractor. You start by letting me swear you in. Do you swear from the testimony you give us the truth all truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And if you would state your name in relationship to the property for me. >> My name is Larry Schnapper. I'm a state
certified general contractor CGCA27951. Um 45 years in con in construction in Orlando. Uh came here 1980 to build Epcot Center. I'm very well verssed in construction in Central Florida.
Typically in in my experience you get a permit then you now you know what exactly the plans are. You don't have so you put it out to bid with
approved drawings so you get approve so you get fixed numbers from the subcontractors. Once you h start work then the individual subcontractors mechanic electrical plumbing fire alarm
systems elevator systems they are individual contractors that are licensed by the state and they pull their subcontract permit against my general permit.
Then you start work a lot of times. Now when you do the shell or the structure of the building, you have to coordinate all the traits. You know, electrical, he's going to be
running as conduit. The plumber is going to be putting in the underground utilities. Uh so they all have to work together and they all have to be coordinated together. But to get them to sign a contract,
you want to have an approved set of drawings. Now, I have no problem, and it's normal for the building departments to say before the electrician can start, he needs to pull his own permit for his
portion of the work. >> Yeah. Now help me help me understand that if we have if we have permit that includes all of the work being applied for at this point, >> right? >> Why would there be a later issued permit?
>> Sub permits. You pull a general per you pull the general permit up front. I pull that permit for the general project. Then the individual subcontractors pull their own permits against the
general permit for each of their trades. Now, another thing that's new here is the plumbing contractor, who I've used plenty of times in the past, is registered with
the city, but the qualifier isn't. I've never heard of that before. I've never heard of the qualifier being registered separately from the contractor. Usually, it's the company that's
qualified with the city or the county. So, that was a new one to me. And this is part of the problem is every time we get to the goal line, they move the goal line a little bit and a little bit and a little bit. We We want
to get this project done. and it's been getting dragged out for years. We want to get it done. We want it to look beautiful. We want the downtown or St. Cloud look beautiful. The building official sees it every day from his window.
You know, we want it done. We want to uh be proud of the project. And you people, you know, the city wants a successful business paying taxes and such in their business. We want to get this project started and we want to get it done, but we need a permit to do that. And I would
need I would prefer to have a permit and before I put it out to bid to know that I gain the best bids. >> Help me understand that. I don't understand that. Let's say, and this is where it gets
really interesting, is when let's say I'm bidding a building for you and the door, you say I want that door. Now, when I'm bidding it, the door guy will give me a certain price for that door. Now, if I get the job, if I give him the
job and then you ch change the door, he's going to not give me the best price on the door. He's going to try to charge me an arm and a leg for that door. So, I'd rather know upfront that that door is the door that I'm going to be installing so that I get the best price
for my subcontractors. Anything else? Right now, >> like I said, I've been doing this for 45 years in Orlando. This is the first time I've had this much trouble. >> I may call you back, but let me let me Go ahead, Mr. Man. I mean, Daniel, I've known How long have I known you?
>> Since Mlin. >> You don't have to admit that. >> Yeah. A long time. >> 30 years. Is that um >> Yes. Actually, I was going to I was going to ask if there was having heard Mr. Schnapper's testimony if there was
>> the the first thing I would and and the deputy uh building official can she can discuss it and she introduced herself as a deputy director, but Christina is actually a building official in the state of Florida. So the the the first thing is this issue of the subcontractors in my my view is a red
herring on this thing. This was discussed at the January meeting. They had to provide the sub the subcontractors to get the permit. That was part of the discussion we had. Uh Christina could talk to you about the about the the statutory requirements for the registration piece. She has that available to be able to address that and
give that to you as we sit here today. What I find very interesting about this is and Mrs. Schnapper is honestly they just submitted the information that we asked them to submit in January. So sometime between January and yesterday
afternoon and they figured out okay we can give them this information. So all this discussion about how they can't get the information is again a red herring. They got the information they gave it to the building department. There's a couple of tweaks left to get the permit issued and then the permit would be
issued. So I can have her come talk to him. She can tell you a little bit more about >> Yes, please. >> All right. So the requirement to have um the contractors be registered with the city is a Florida statute 489 that requires um any department to have a
precondition for issuance of a permit that the contractor of the permit provide verification of the registration. So that's that's the state statute. >> Does that provide verification of registration with the city or registration with the state? Well, that's what we ask for to re for us to register, we need their state license
and showing. So, when you say that the you've never heard that the qualifier needs to register, we just need to verify the qualifier works for the company that you've issued. So, the company is registered with us, but they've never listed that qualifier or that license holder under their
business. So, we just need to verify that their license holder works for that business, if that makes sense. Um, as far as you've also mentioned that you've normally had a permit for just the general work and then the subcontractors
would um apply for their separate permits. That is not something that we do here. Um, that would be a parent child type of permit where the um building section would be one permit and then we would issue separate permits for electrical, plumbing and we would link them. So there would be a parent child.
We don't do that here. the permit that we're talking about in this case. >> Yes. >> Am I understanding incorrectly that we are talking about one permit and on that once that permit is issued, they don't have to worry about permitting anymore, at least for the work that's included in that permit. >> Correct. It's one master permit for the whole scope.
>> Yep. >> Okay. >> Did I answer all your questions? >> You did answer the questions I was going to ask. Thank you, Mr. Schnapper. I saw you shaking your head there to that last answer. Do you have a response you'd like to provide? >> I can only speak to my experience with
20 different building departments. Every building department I deal with each individual subcontractor. Not all of them. Like I never heard of it. Some municipalities do require a drywall contractor to be registered.
There is no licensing requirement for a drywall subcontractor. But electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire sprinklers, fire alarm, low voltage, they are all required to be licensed by the state and they pull their own individual permits against the the
parent permit, which is my permit. >> Let me ask a question. It's a if you if you disagree with me, this is your opportunity to say I disagree with that. But as I do my profession and when I work with building officials and this is
frequently, you know, when you have city manager, city attorney and building official, sometimes a mayor or an elected official sitting in a room and everybody says, "Well, I think I think this, I think that, I think the other thing." Every city I work with, I have always said, "Well, at the end of the day, if we're talking about building
code, there's one opinion that trumps all of ours, and that's that building official." Because the the built Florida building code gives each building official in each jurisdiction they have the interpret interpretive authority of how that building code applies. Do you disagree with that statement? >> Short of the Florida Building Commission
and there being appeals to the Florida Building Commission. But before you get there within that jurisdiction, the Florida Building Officials interpretation of the Florida Building Code is the law for that jurisdiction unless the Florida Building Commission says otherwise. Do you disagree? >> Yes. >> You disagree? >> Yes. >> Okay. Explain the disagreement.
Actually, for five years, I was on Orange County's board of codes of adjustments. You would have the building official would make a ruling on a issue for a contractor, an architect, an owner. They disagreed on the interpretation
and they would appeal to our board who would then make our own determination. You are you are a step they in that jurisdiction they had created their own appellet board that precedes the state board because of the process they've
created absent that intermediary board. Do you agree with my statement? >> Yes. >> Has the building officials determination been appealed? >> No. But in all honesty, at this point, since
the the items appear to be very minor at this point, it's just the registration of the plumbing contractor verification. >> The drywall >> and the drywall, which I'm not sure I'll find out. >> That's a construction service.
>> I may have to get a different drywall contractor then who is registered or has the ability to get registered. If it's those two items is the only thing that's left and there's not going to be something else added on, I'm more than happy in the next day or two to find
another drywall contractor and to get the plumbing contractor is a big plumbing contractor. So I know he's got, you know, my impre from what I recall when I registered my company,
I showed I had to put on LBS Construction that Larry Schnapper is the qualifying agent to get my state license as LBS Construction. I'm the qualifying agent for LBS
construction >> and and I I I understand. >> So, I'm not sure how >> I understand parties have disagreement on how Florida building code should be applied. And this isn't why I use my analogy. I really was using that analogy
to get to understanding on what was being argued. But I would also say because of that building officials when it comes to building code, building official trumps all of us, including me sitting in this chair. If that's the building, if that's the building officials interpretation of building code here, that's how building code works here until building commission
says otherwise or building official says otherwise. So I cannot change that. Um, but I do appreciate the testimony and it helps me understand. I don't think I have any questions for you right now. I think I have another a further question for the for the deputy building official.
I'm sure I'll hear more about it, but I'm starting to get my head around the subs, the the trades issue and the easy the lowhanging fruit, what appears to be at least low hanging fruit. Once we get past that, are there any other holdups that you foresee on this permit issuing?
>> No. if as long as they can make payment and we have those two things that's all we need in order to issue the permit. >> Okay, Mr. Matteo, now before and I will I will let you I I will stop inter intervening and I will
let you tell me what you would like me to hear at this point taking into context what I've heard so far. But my first question, maybe you can use it as a segue into what you'd like me to hear or answer my question and then go into what you would like to say. First question is,
why has it taken this long to get the building official what the building official was saying the building official needed to issue that permit? >> Okay. And let me help by saying just telling me we disagreed with the process they were requiring is not going to be
enough for me because of what you just heard me say. Building official says if building official says do it. If the holdup is, hey, we need to know the subcontractors. Why did it take this long to get on the subcontractors? >> Okay. Well, the subcontractors don't depend on me, they depend on GC. And as
far as the so the the permit application simply lists that there is a section for the subcontractor list and they list they need the subcontractor's name, the license, the address, and the amount of uh the amount of money it takes for the
work to be done. So he supplied that information. Why are they asking for more than that information? They've never asked before. >> When was that information supplied? >> On the 4th. March 4th. So, and then the other the other objection that I have with Mr. Manzerius's statement, this was
not brought up to your first hearing or it would have been on your order. On your order, what was pending for the permit was simply the certificate of appropriateness. Your item on the first order, you order a site inspection, certificate of
appropriateness figured out, and then um order the windows. I will say this, what does not what does not influence my decision nor does it make it into my orders is what does building official require because that's not I have no authority over that. I have no authority over the permitting process.
>> I understand >> my authority my jurisdiction is is there a code violation and what do we do to get it into compliance? >> Mr. Smith the reason why the city raised what the city raised was to say you had notice back then. Honestly, as we sit here
today, it doesn't affect my judgment today whether you knew in January, December, five years ago that you had to submit subcontractors. My question is why when you were told you have to submit subcontractors, we're now in May, still having this
debate. Why wasn't it done in permit issued? You've offered me an answer to that question that we supplied all the information that they asked for. So, let me ask the city what was deficient in that information if you would. I know I promised you I'll let you have your say, but let me let me get to that question
and then I'll bring you back up. City. So, what Mr. Matteo has testified, you can come up. What Mr. testified to is that they supplied subcontractors. What information was lacking as of March 4th? >> It was on the wrong form. He we have told him that in order to have
>> So, he submitted the right information on the wrong form. >> Wrong form. So, we just told him this needs to be because it needs to be notorized. The form he gave us was just a response to comments form. It was not a notorized form. When was respondant notified that that they needed to submit it on a notorized form?
>> The same day. >> Yes. >> Don't go far. >> Sure. >> We'll probably do some back and forth here. So, responded. So, you submitted the right information, wrong form. Importantly, it needed to be a notorized form. Did you receive that communication
back from the city? >> Uh, we all did. We were all on an email link. And so why was the information not resubmitted at that point on a notorized form? >> Um I'm not sure that it was presented exactly like that because we resubmitted
again on the 5th and then again on the 6th. >> Okay. Was was it notorized on the 5th? >> I can't I can't see because Mr. Schnapper submits through the portal. They receive and then I receive whatever copy he gets back afterwards. So,
>> let me pause there then because this is an important factual issue. So, I want to kind of get to the bottom of it while we're here. W building official, if I may. >> You can stop. You don't even have to sit because I don't think it'll be long, but you can. You're welcome to sit. You
don't have to sit. Uh, so what did they say they received on March 4th? In short order, they resubmitted information. What resubmitts were made after March 4th? >> Yesterday. That is the last we've heard of them. What was the next resubmitt after March 4th?
>> Yesterday, the 19th. May 19th. After we asked them to submit the proper form, we got nothing back until yesterday. So from March till May 19th, we haven't received anything.
>> So, uh, Mr. Snapper had to submit the electrical plans. So the fire comments that were holding up the permit affected the electrical plants. So >> but both parties we we just spent a few minutes with both parties telling me the
holdup was subcontractors. >> It became that. So the the thing is that the entire thing it's a game being played when the rules of the game change at any point. >> And that's what's the confusing >> I'm trying to figure out who's playing a game honestly. Oh, I can prove to you
who is playing the game. >> Well, you just told me that you submitted you resubmitted right on the heels of March 4th and they told you you needed to resubmit those contractors and deputy building officials said no, they didn't. And now you don't seem to be standing by what you just testified to.
>> Larry, did you resubmit again on the 5th and the sixth? >> So, that's a question. >> I don't remember. It's been part of the problem. gonna get you on the microphone out just to make sure we get you on record. >> It's been dragged out and I in all honesty, it's probably a lot of it's my
fault. All right. Uh it's very hard to get people to bid on a job that's been sitting for so long and you don't have approved plans. So trying to even get people to bid the job has been a nightmare.
So try and getting people who are already registered in St. clouds is even harder. So going back and forth, but I know I've submitted since March
4th. You know, part of the problem, one part of the problem is we've had a constant problem with submitting plans and such through their portal. A lot of times I had to submit directly through email
to uh what shows for last name directly to the plan reviewer to make sure he got it. I came here one day and sat down with the plan reviewer to make sure that he got the email or got the drawings directly from my
computer to his computer because it was getting screwed up in the system. So, like I said, it's very hard to get subs to submit to a project when there is no permit. And it's been dragged out
for years, honestly. I mean, I've been working on this project for what, 10 years now? It's been a while. And we want to get it done. I want to get it done. I don't want an I force eyesore on my resume. I built Epcot in three years. This has
taken and I you know this shouldn't take more than two years to do this project but I got to start and I need a permit to start. Okay, let me get building official back. Thank you Mr. Sh.
So respondent in addition respondent has testified that in addition to the subcontractor issue with the permit issuing there were fire comments. What were the fire comments or what were any comments left as of March 4th as that were
holding up that permit? >> So we sent them an approval email saying all reviews have been approved. The only thing we're missing now are subcontracting. >> When was that sent? >> That was on sent on March 4th. So and then he submitted the response to comments and we told him that was on the
wrong form. We just needed it on a notorized application and we've received nothing since then. So the the plans have been approved since March. We're just waiting on just the up that's all we needed since March
and we've emailed that to him. I have copies of all the emails >> and it has or has not been submitted as of today. >> The updated application has been submitted. That's fine. What we need is for the the qualifier and the drywall to register with the city in order for us
to update the application that they're are registered and then we can approve it and then they can pay. >> What goes into that registration? >> It's same day. Nothing. There's no charge for it. So the drywall is considered a construction service that is done through community development. >> Let me ask my question in a different way. Sure.
>> Is it as simple as coming in and saying this is who I am and this is my license? >> Yes. And signing the application. That is correct. Is there anything in that application that could cause a wrinkle that for whatever reason, assuming that that subcontractor holds the license they need for that work, that would stop
them from being registered? >> No. >> Okay. Can we just clarify the date that application you're talking about was what was submitted yesterday afternoon? >> Yes. Yes. >> I I understood that. >> Okay. I'm sorry.
>> No, it's okay. I appreciate everybody trying. Everybody's efforts are helpful to me. Um, >> this project >> I I understand. >> Okay. I I may not have to call you back
up. I think we're getting Mr. Matteo. >> Go ahead, Mr. Smith. We went through a major plans review in 2024. We updated our plans because we applied for the permit in 2019. So we had 2017
codes. Okay. So we updated plans 2024 major plan review. It took us almost six months for the permit to get reinstated. We get the permit reinstated in June and we get the permit expired in June and get told to reapply again for a
new permit. We started reapplying again for that new permit in June. >> I >> of 2025 >> and I remember I remember the testimony. I remember the history. I remember this. >> How have we not figured out what is missing since June all the way?
>> That's not that is not something I can order today. >> Well, this is what I'm telling you. This is why I have prepared a presentation to go back in time and tell you exactly why >> I'm not interested in back in time. I'm not interested in anybody's motivation. and I'm interested in getting this I'm interested in getting permits issued
project completed and that building done. >> So let's not waste anybody's time because the thing is that it's a formality and it's a formality that is being used as a reason. We list we list >> but if you had done what the city asked
for on the heels of March 4th when they first asked for it, we also wouldn't be sitting here. Why wasn't what they asked for done in March? >> I am not sure. I'm not the one that needs to respond to that. I'm not I'm not >> You are the party to this case. >> I am. And I asked the >> GC is responsible to you, but you are
responsible to the city. >> Yes. But the city wants everything to go through the GC. The city wants the plans to be submitted through the GC. The city wants anything submitted to the GC. So, I have to account on that. The GC gave me confirmation on the third. >> Let me make my statement a different
way. The GC is your agent. The GC's wrongs are your wrongs. If the GC makes errors, the the the property owner bears those errors as between the property owner and the city. >> So then I am in the middle of a rock and
a hard place because if I have if my GC is telling me that he submitted and gives me a copy of the submittal form and I'm being told that they were not submitted or I'm being told that yes, we received it but no, we don't want it like that. We want it into this
just for a reason for me not to comply with your order and and you told me that if I felt if there was anything in the process that would >> we're here having that now but I will tell you based on the testimony that I've received I do not think that this
is pretextual to cause you to not comply again they told you in March 4th in order to get this permit we need this submitted on a different form about as simple as you can They they so they're basically saying uh
they wanted that information added to the actual permit to the actual application of the permit. >> Correct. But what if I'm understanding what's been presented, they asked for that. You submitted that information to
add it to the permit file. it simply was not on the required notorized form. So the city said you need to submit this on the proper form that has a notoriization to it. >> Okay. Um so where is again this is where where we get caught
up into things right where >> but this is why I had the dialogue that I did of and why I had that dialogue with the contractor because contractors understand it. When the building official says do it. If you want your permit do it. You have two options. Either do it or appeal them to the
building commission. >> So, please ask the contractor directly because >> I did ask the contractor that question and it's been answered. >> So, was it >> it was the contractor agrees that the building officials word is law until the building commission says otherwise.
I mean, I I'll give you Mr. Mr. Snapper, you have something to add. I'm I'm putting words in your mouth, so please do come up the podium and add it. I don't want to misconrue what you said. >> Yeah, I love he tends to want to beat the horse. >> From what I understand,
for whatever reason, there was a miscommunication between this the notorized form, the non-nottorized form. That's in the past. We're here today. We want a permit. I'm being told that if we give her the
registration for the plumber and the drywall contractor or pick another drywall contractor who is registered that we'll have a permit be it that we pay the fees and we're done.
>> I lean in favor of your pragmatism. I do and and we are getting to that point and I appreciate that pragmatism. >> I like to get things done. I'm a contractor. I'm an engineer. I like to just get things done. Keep it simple. >> Understandable.
City attorney, may I have you up? >> Yes, sir. >> Um I hopefully you have these numbers. If not, you're welcome to tell me what witness does. Uh what have our fines accured to today? Or what is the seeking seeking an imposition of fines today? >> Well, you have signed the order
imposing. >> They're running though. They're running at a rate. So, do we >> a day from March 7th? So there would be >> cler can run the calculations for us >> as of May 7th there would have been 60,000
trying to find 73,000 >> running the calculator. We'll get exact number here in a second. 60,533 with three. >> Well, it would be >> Hold on. This might not have the right
change. >> I'm sorry. We should >> It's okay. Let let me it's it's probably a specificity that I don't need at this point because it gives me enough of a ballpark to state where I was already at. Here's the facts
as I perceived them today. First of all, respondent was on the ball with the fire issues and those were the most pressing at both of the hearings that we've had before me. Fire chief is raising his hand. Let me have fire chief up. the fire marshal.
>> Fire marshal. >> Let me swear you in. >> Do you swear >> fire marshal? >> Do you swear from the testimony? Give us the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> I just want to clarify. They were saying the fire comments were holding things up. We made our comments within the deadline. The response to comments were
holding things up. Um, as far as the, um, complying with all of our fire safety concerns, uh, the day after the last hearing, Mr. Matteo did work diligently to get probably a good 90 95% of the stuff done. On March 17th, uh we
went to do an inspection, my inspector and I. We were met with um Naomi, which was his representative. We did an inspection of the building. Uh there was a few um issues that still minor issues that still weren't resolved, some that still needed a little bit of work, but
good 90 95% of the stuff was done. Um at that inspection, I made mention to Mr. Matteo um to put the the firewatch in place. He said he absolutely will not do that because he doesn't have the building permit. Uh that was on March
17. So that building has still um been neglect of having any kind of a firewatch in place. Um around that time he presented four options because he doesn't want to do the the uh in-person security guard. He
presented four options. Out of the four, myself and the fire chief reviewed it. We approved two of them and uh those have yet been to be installed. So, I just wanted to put that on the record that he hasn't been compliant with the the the major part of what we
wanted done, which was the firewatch. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just thanks for clarifying, but that's I just wanted when I mentioned that earlier, I was referring to the alternative means that the fire marshall and the respondent had worked out >> and those are the two options.
>> Oh, the number >> it's se and it's I did calculate 74 days of non-compliance. >> Okay. Okay. >> Anything else? >> No. >> Are you good, sir? >> I am. Thank you.
>> I I appreciate the clarification. I am still where I was, though. At least as to how the case is presented to me today. Respondent has city and respondent are still working together. I understand that there may still be work to be done. responded has
shown initiative and effort to address the life safety issues. The permit and why I wanted to understand what was going on with the permit is to see what the holdup was. I do think that the holdup ultimately
lands on respondent's side and it sounds like what's frustrating to me is it sounds like you were so close to having that permit in hand for the same for the same reason. Let me speak because I think you're going to be
inclined to probably not say anything more when you hear where I'm going. I'm frustrated because instead of doing the easy thing, you keep on finding a reason to try to
villainize the city. I understand it has a long history. Usually in long histories, everybody deserves to have a finger pointed at them for something. But I do not hear in this case a city trying to hold you up to penalize you.
and we're here today on the order I entered. But what I hear is a respondent that was making effort, you did submit the initial permit application. It's not like you simply walked out the door and ignored my order. If there was one piece of advice I could
give you in working with cities, and it's the same issue we keep coming to in each hearing that we've had the opportunity to talk is sometimes when the city does something if there is a path to where you want to
get even if it's more than the path you want to take say okay I'll work with you let me do that let me get what I need right now and come back and let's talk about that later instead of simply digging in your heels and saying it's either my way or the highway because
once it gets to me and I start issuing orders it's not because if you don't comply with my order, I have the ability to fine. And the fine is not because you didn't do something in the city's processes. The the fine is because I said do it or
you're going to have a fine. So that's the point that I want to drive home. That said, what we have is a permit that's been not issued for about 75 days beyond the time that I said have it in hand. It was $1,000 a day, which is why we
start talking about the $75,000 number. Given the facts that I've heard today, I think $75,000 is way outside of what's appropriate on these facts. As frustrated as I am with respondent for letting an issue of submit the same
information you submitted on a different form that's notorized at the bottom to let that become into 75 days of delay, that's upsetting to me. But I also recognize that at the end of the day, we're looking at a at a project timeline
because I don't remember what the exact date was. I know it was 2027. I have the order in front of me. >> March 6th. >> March 6, 2027 of completion date. So, the person you have hurt most with this delay is yourself because you've taken 75 more days away from meeting that
completion date. And at our last hearing, I did say if there were challenges that were being created in meeting that completion date that I wanted to have a status hearing. And that is where the right for status hearing. And I want everybody to understand if respondent says I've got
problems meeting that compliance. I there was probably miscommunication. I don't need to be told what the facts were. I'm I'm gonna have problems meeting that compliance state. I'm still willing to listen to that. But at this point, you've you've hindered yourself by 75
days. So my willingness to move the back end, you don't have to respond. I'm just expressing where we are if we get there because I hopefully we don't even get there. Hopefully you get the project started to get the project done and that time we don't have to have to have it. But where today could come back to bite
you is somewhere between now and March 2027 when you say, "Hey, I need about 60 more days. I'm going to be remembering this hearing and I'm going to be reminding you, well, you could have had that permit 75 days sooner if you just submitted on the right form after they
asked you to submit the proper form. But given that we're talking about a permit to issue for work that we expect that I have ordered to be done a little less than a year from now, now I cannot impose $75,000.
And I do hear a respondent that's trying to work with the city. I hear a respondent who's done more since the first hearing to today to do what I'm saying, which is try to work together. And I do hear both sides of
testimony. I hear that happening. And so that also gives me a reason to mitigate based on the evidence that I've heard. And I will give both respondent and city the opportunity to speak to this before I say this is my order.
And I guess what I'm looking for is not how do you feel about it, but given the circumstances, is it just and does it move us towards getting the project done? My inclination is to reduce that fine to
$5,000 with an additional contingency on it. If that permit is in hand by respondent by the end of the month, I know next week is a holiday week, so you've got one less day to get it done.
But if that permit is in hand by the end of the month, I will abate that $5,000 fine until we get to the end of this road. That doesn't mean it's going away. It doesn't mean that I that if if that project isn't done by completion date
that it doesn't come back, but I will abate that number, which means it doesn't become a lean. You don't have to pay it today. It's just sitting in limbo, giving you the opportunity to continue showing good faith through the rest of this project
to get it to completion and done. Like I said, I'll give both parties the opportunity to to respond to where I'm leaning as to an appropriate penalty for where we are and how we got to where we are today and what we have left to do.
Neither of you are jumping up. So, who wants to go first? Respondent. >> Say thank you. >> Take your contractor's advice. Maybe I should go first. >> Yes. >> And and we certainly understand the
special magistrates's view on this and how it's working. The problem the city has with your proposed order is that it was only your order that got us to a response on May 19th. One of the key elements of the statute
under chapter 162 is the cooperation when it comes to the fine is the cooperation of the respondent. Right? We demonstrated the fire issues on there which creates the public safety issue. The cooperation of the respondent of this as you clearly pointed out has been
fight with the city, fight with the city, do whatever the city don't do whatever the city has to do when they simply could have taken the easy button and done what the city has to do. The problem associated with that is I'm glad Mr. Schnapper's here, right? I've known him for years as he said. I represented
that board that he referred to that he was on for five years, right? I know him. The problem is this is the first time he's been here on this hearing. This gentleman is not a licensed contractor. He's not the respondent. He's not the one submitting the plans.
He is the problem. And that's why we're in this situation. He is the lack of cooperation that has led to the thousand a day fine that included in this. I think $5,000 on behalf of the city, I tell you, I think $5,000 given the circumstances is not enough motivation. Otherwise, we will be in this position a
year from now without the building being done, which is what the city has only asked us to do. And let me and let me give more of my logic because I I agree wholeheartedly with that last statement you made and which is why I said what I
did directed to respondent which is that they have taken away from themselves 75 days because if we get to that to that final timeline and also why I told respondent I am less than inclined now to give more time because if we get to
that finish line and they're not there, it's $1,000 a day forward. And and so that's kind of what you just said is why I have the perspective here is the end of the day, what we're working towards is project completion. And what the
permit delay has done has mean in order for them to meet that date, they have compressed their own timeline. >> Agreed. And so that's exactly why I'm thinking the way that I am is now they either have to get it done 75 days sooner, not
sooner, but shorter, or else they're going to be facing the penalty for what they've done to this point to cause any delay. I'm not trying to change my you don't have to recede from your opinion. I'm just helping you understand mine and why I am where I am so that if there is
anything else you'd like to say that you have the opportunity. I appreciate that and we understood that when you made that recommendation as we are and we stated where the city's position we do not believe that this individual that is working this project will get this project completed. We have serious
doubts about it and we're hopeful that it does get completed but we do not think the current folks working the project are the ones that are going to get it done with not with Mr. Schnapper. I've known him for years. I said that the only other thing we'd point out your February ordered costs to be paid. Those were never paid either. So they they
can't even pay the simp follow a simple portion of the order which was pay those costs by I believe March 16th they were supposed to be paid >> and they were not paid. So they can't follow a simple part of the order and we have no faith that they will continue to do that in the future and the only thing
that's able to do that is the fact that there's a lean in place and a and a fairly significant fine. Thank you. Why haven't costs been paid? >> Um, I think we're talking about the $533
cost. I sent someone in person to go pay that cost and to go see Miss Claudia. Um, and I'm not not exactly sure, but the way that the order stated is that we obtain the permit, take the measures within 10 days
from the obtaining of permit, and then we had x amount of time to pay that fine after that was done. Therefore, since we didn't obtain the permit, is that really due? The respondent shall be responsible for
payment of the cost of prosecution incurred by the city in the amount of three $533.3. Which amount shall be due honor before March 16th, 2026? >> Yes, which is 10 days after the obtaining of the permit. >> Shall be due honor before March 16th, 2026.
>> I would encourage you, don't argue with the guy who wrote the order about what the order is. >> I'm sorry. I I had it understood that we had until March 6 to get the permit. We had 10 days to do the stuff we needed to do on site and then pay that fine. It's
not a the $533 fine is not the problem. >> I didn't think so. I just >> I'm trying to see >> why the city has the perspective it does. And to be honest with you, I see why the city has the perspective
it does. And it goes to why I just said what I said. I wrote an order that says very clearly, do this by March 16th, 2026. And you tell me, well, I interpreted it differently than you than you said it. When I said it pretty clearly,
I'm not sure that it's the city's rules that are the problem. I'm not I'm not saying this is the problem, but I understand why they're telling me your constant insistence on reinterpreting every rule is a problem. And I do
believe it is a problem that is holding you up, >> Mr. >> I will make sure the client pays us tomorrow. >> I'll make it easy. And again, it's less about the $500 and more about that point. And I'm not saying it to be
cruel. I'm not saying it because I'm displeased. I'm saying it to try to help you. >> Sometimes you have to go along to get along. >> I've been going along. I have >> I don't hear it. You're arguing with me about an order I wrote.
>> Okay. >> I'll let him off the hook. Here's >> a question. >> Yeah. Back to your your proposal. >> You're talking about a permit being issued by May 31st. >> Yes. And if the permit is not issued by
May 31st, would the fine or lean continue to acrue at its mounting? >> I I actually was going to stop acrruel as of today until May 31st if it's not. Let's work with that >> again. And I would point out to you that
that as you know, you've been through this process before for with plenty other cases. There is always at the end of the day an opportunity to address whatever fine, whatever lean acres on the property. We we could I think work with what you're talking about if there
would be an ability if the permit is not received by that date to at least revert to the amount that's set forth in your February order. >> And >> I want to ask the parties and by the parties I mean I want to ask deputy building official and Mr. Snapper, I'm
going start with deputy building official. Is there anything foreseeable between now when we walk out of this room today and when Mr. Matteo and his contractor come in with or I guess is there do you still need different
information on a on a new form or do you have everything you need now? >> So I it's separate. So the application now is complete. You just need the the subs to come in and register >> the two subs to register and those are on separate forms and that's a separate thing >> as long as they hold the proper state
licenses. Is there anything foreseeable that would be a even a time hold up on that process being completed? >> No fee >> they have to so >> I understand they have to pay the fee. I just want to if it's I want to make sure that that that we are down to the only
thing a respondent has to do once those subcontractors are registered is pay the fee. if that's it. And that's what I'm that's that's what I'm trying to get to is what other slips between the cup and the lip are there between now and getting them some breathing room. >> Sure. That's all I need. I know um Larry
did mention that he may change the drywall contractor. And if that's the case, then we just need an updated application listing the new drywall contractor. But if he's going to have whoever is there register, then we don't need an updated application. We just need them to register.
>> Okay. Mr. Snapper. >> Yes, sir. >> Understanding the process as you do and it's St. Cloud and it may be different than other places. And if I can get you to share the microphone, please. So, I don't know how well it picks up when you're sitting in the in the gallery. Do you foresee anything between now and the end of the month that would be a
hold up in getting that permit in hand >> with these two minor issues? No. The only thing that we need to verify is that the client is in Dubai. So I have to make sure that the monies
for the permit can be transferred quickly enough. That's part of the problem of this whole pro. You know, you're dealing with foreign investors. But when I leave this meeting, oh, we're on a eight hour time difference.
Tomorrow morning, I will make sure that And if you want me to call you or Dan, >> definitely not me. learned that can't call the magistrate. I can't talk to you outside of the hearing. Um, okay. >> Or the building official, whoever. I
will keep in communication where we're at with getting the the amount that's new. We need to pay for the permits. >> I I can speak to that, sir. That permit fine will be paid. So the permit >> no problem getting the the the permit
paid for by the end of the month. >> Okay. Then then >> it's 20 something,000 >> $26,928.91. >> Still good. Mr. Teao was no issues. >> Okay. Was there something else you wanted to say?
Okay. So given that X-ray, he it has has caused me to revise good and bad both ways where I was leaning. I am going to as of today, you mean what I've already imposed,
right? As we sit here today, those fines will stop acrewing until I'm going to say close of business June 1. Add one extra day to it just in case because the 31st falls on a Sunday. So,
this will push us out to close of business June 1. The fines that have been acrewing will stop acrewing. So, whatever that amount was today, $75,000 and change, that amount is locked in. Won't grow anymore between now and the end of the month. If that permit is in
hand by the end of the month, I will reduce just as I said before to $5,000 the acred fine amount as well as abate that fine to the end of
end of the proceeding so that it does not become due does not become a lean. until either we've missed the backend deadline of March 2027 for completion or
whatever else might happen between now and then that either party comes and says this is this is a fact change something has changed there's been a substantial change of position and we need the management to weigh in from the city side unless it was something related to fire
and I guess there could be issues there the fire protection during the buildout that could be one of those issues but it does sound like at least from what I'm hearing you started with a lot of issues and you have narrowed them down and part of my find part of my reason for finding
the abatement and $5,000 abated that actually is whether you recognize it today or not that is substantial benefit to respondent at this point because like everybody here, I want to see the project done and like I think you've heard me say, I'd rather see you
spending money on contractors than paying fines at this point because that's how you get the project done. So, I hope you understand that I am trying to help you through this process because we all have the same end goal.
But that reduce and debate has a lot to do with what I heard today both from you and the city. Even if the city doesn't necessarily see it as you, you know, kind of being hipto- hip with them and working on this, what I saw my
first hearing to what I heard today, you have been taking to heart we've been talking about and you have been doing a better job of responding. I want to see that continue. I want to see you get a little bit closer at the hip with them and I think you're helping them maybe a little bit there,
but you know, keep moving in that direction. So, that's really why I'm doing today to say I hear what you're telling me. I see what you're showing me. I don't see a city acting in bad faith, but I do hear maybe even what you
weren't even trying to tell me. you were trying to tell me bad faith, but what I'm saying is even though you feel like there's bad faith on the other side, you're working hard to try to to try to get through this. And so that's why I am doing what from the I guarantee you from the city's perspective looks like a gift
to you, but it's not. It's because I believe you when you say you're trying, but I want you to listen to me when I say yes. But sometimes I said before, go along to get along. It's
just like the last hearing. The only thing in the permit that's holding up the permit is the extras you want to do. Whether you consider them extras or not, what I will call extras, get the permit and talk about the extras later. And I think you've gotten that message and I think you've been working more along those ways. So that's why I'm ordering
what I'm ordering today. And I do believe what I said that the person that's been hurt most by this delay is you because you got one big ticking clock on the back end of this and you got to get it done by then. And again, if you come before me between now and then and say, "Hey, I need 60 more days." I'm going to remind you. Remember
those 60 days of the permit delay took. Okay, I know. Hey, he's not going to give up that podium. He's not going to make room for you to come up there and talk. I just want you to hear me. Hear me. Okay.
Mr. Snapper, anything else from you? >> Just want to get it done. >> City. >> No, sir. >> Um the clerk has I I will add the costs to that just to make sure they get paid. So, but part of that that order that
you'll receive is that those costs need to be paid to get to this reduction and abatement. But since you have said cause big no problem. Big thing is make sure that permits. >> Is there anything that I haven't covered that either party believes I should cover today?
>> No sir. >> Okay Mr. Snapper. Thank you for your assistance today and you can leave the vote. >> So that is that is >> the only case. >> Yes. that I just say that is my ruling that that will be my written order. Um, Son Holly, I'll try to get it out
tomorrow. So, we'll try to get in the mail to you tomorrow with Mr. Snapper's consent. If there's something you'd really like me to hear, I'm I'm happy to listen to you. >> Okay. Okay. Nothing else on our agenda. Clerk,
>> new business. None. Next scheduled meeting June 17, 2026. >> Good. Okay.