--------- the special magistrate code enforcement meeting of the city of St. Pete Beach for Monday, July 13th at 10:00 a.m. My name is Erikica Aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today's cases. I'm a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida Bar and board
certified in city, county, and local government law. have been appointed to this position in accordance with the authority set forth in chapter 162 Florida statutes and the city of St. Pete Beach code of ordinances. I am not an employee of the city of St. Pete Beach and I do not represent the city here today and I do not confer with the
city's code enforcement officers outside of the hearing process about your cases. It is my role to fairly and objectively review the matters presented. As such, I would like to advise you of certain matters related to today's proceedings. Today's matters will be heard in the order on which they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed. Every effort
will be made to hear all persons having relevant evidence, arguments, or comments related to the specific case that is being heard. If you wish to speak today is necessary that you will be sworn in, which I will do momentarily. All testimony given will be done so under oath, and in all cases, since the city has the burden of roof,
the city will present its case first. The respondent will then be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations. Though formal rules of evidence do not apply to this proceeding, I will make every effort to ensure that fundamental fairness and due process is afforded to all parties. After hearing all relevant evidence, I
will issue an order. The order will be reduced to writing and all parties will provide it with a copy. So, please ensure that we have your current address or email address. Additionally, you are advised that I do not have the authority to grant you a variance, permit, or special exception of any kind. My role is solely to determine whether a city
code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever remains are available to you. Please be advised that you may be subject to a fine and a lean may be recorded on your property if the violation is not corrected by the compliance deadline if one is provided.
If you wish to present any evidence today, please sign in at the podium before you speak and it will be necessary that you swear or affirm to tell the truth. Therefore, at this time, I will swear on any witnesses. Anyone wishing to speak today, if you could please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you swear or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay, so sworn. >> Do we have any changes to the agenda this morning, Mr. Der? >> Yes. Good morning, Madam Special Man Street. Pete Der, code enforcement manager for City of St. Pete Beach.
>> Yeah, I'm good. Case number 20260104. It's under I uh new case I. It should be under repeat violations. >> Mhm. >> Case number 2026129 61878th
Avenue. an update to provide survey quotes or offense. >> Okay. >> So, we have the case number two 2026 0104 is a repeat violation. So, we just need to move that underneath that heading. Is that correct?
>> I'm sorry. 0104. >> Yeah. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. And then the second case that you just said, >> we're going to do it administratively. Never mind. >> Okay. Never mind. >> 2026 0257
809 Golfway >> status hearing for repeat violation on turtle lights that never made it to the agenda. >> Okay. I'm sorry it's not on the agenda. So what is the >> 2026 0257 809 Gulfway?
You ordered that it come back for repeat violation uh for satisfying? Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So we'll add that as 3D. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other changes to the agenda? >> No, ma'am. Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. Then moving on to the first item on the agenda. Agenda item 3A, case number 20250177, city of St. Pete Beach versus Chris Spencer. Good morning, special magistrate Ayaka Rashell representing City of St. Pete Beach.
This case um per your last order dated June 8th, you gave him um Mr. Spencer 30 days till July 8th to secure a permit. The contractor did come in on June 30th and put in the application. However, as
of this morning, the permit is still in review. Um, it has been denied by the building department and the planning department and requests um additional scope of work. Okay. And the fence is still has still not
been removed. Is that correct? >> Correct. Okay. Because I think I gave the alternative that either was securing an after the fact permit or removal of the fence. So there was another means of compliance. So the property still is out of compliance. >> Correct. >> Okay. Um All right. Anyone here on behalf of the respondent,
Mr. Spencer, or anyone here on behalf of Mr. Spencer? Have you had any contact with Mr. Spencer at all? >> No, none at all. >> Okay. All right. And what is this the city requesting as far as fines? requesting $250 a day fine from um your compliance
date after the date after your compliance date which was July 8th. So starting July 9th. >> Okay. And administrative fines, what is that amount? >> Correct. $330. >> Okay. And the city would like the recording fees. >> Correct.
>> Okay. All right. I find that the property is still in violation and also in violation of my administr final administrative order. I will assess a fee, a fine, excuse me, of $250 a day beginning on July 9th until the property comes into compliance. It is the respondent's responsibility to notify
the city's code enforcement department when the property is in compliance. I am going to assess the $330 in administrative costs of the city as well as any reporting fees necessary to effectuate a lean on the property. All right, moving on to agenda item 3B. Case number 20250079,
City of St. Pete Beach versus Pa Bosella. Good morning, Madam Magistrate. See River, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. Uh, this was a status hearing for uh, >> Miss Boscella to pull permits for the AC split units that were installed. >> Um, she's been going back and forth with
the historic board and now she is waiting for, let me pull this email up here. >> I have email from Brandon Barry. She's supposed to come back now to obtain a variance for the setbacks. So, that's not scheduled until the end of August.
So, we'd like to continue this to the September uh hearing. 9:14, I believe it is. 9:14. >> Okay. >> She's she's working toward compliance at this point. She's kind of Yeah. held up with the city, having Yeah. with the the hearings.
>> Okay. All right. And Miss Bella, is she I don't see her in the audience. >> I don't see her. >> And and Miss Bella is okay, I'm assuming, with continuing the hearing. >> Uh Brandon Barry's been in conversation. we can be kind of relaying messages back and forth. That's who sent me the email saying that she needs the uh the uh
varian facts. >> Okay. >> So, she's aware of what's going on. I can reach out to her after the hearing. >> Okay. Well, and I'll send her an order of continuence regarding same. So, um since there's no objection to the continuence and Miss Bell is making a good faith effort to comply with my order as well as the city's code, uh we
will continue this case until 9:14 at 10 a.m. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to agenda items 3C. Case number 20260138, city of St. Pete Beach versus Timothy Wheeler and William J. Dudley for the estate of William J. Dudley.
>> Good morning, special magistrate officer Lucy Knight. Uh, I'm asking for continuance to August 10th for this one case. >> Okay. Um, and have you spoken with the property owner? Is the property owner here? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Wheeler or Okay, if you could come forward.
>> Do you have any objection to continuing this case until August? in communication documents, things I'm sure they want to review. >> Okay, perfect. Okay. Well, then I will go ahead and continue this case until the um August 10th uh magistrate hearing
at 10:00 a.m. and hopefully you guys will be able to figure it out before then. >> All right. And then moving to the new addition to the agenda, uh, item 3D, case number 20260257 809 Golfway.
Thank you, Madam Magister. Steve Marber again, city of St. Pete Beach Code Enforcement. Uh, this was a status hearing for the turtle lights that were repeat violation. I have a copy of your order since it didn't make it to the agenda. If you overhead, please.
So, this was your order that was uh from the June 8th hearing. >> Then here's the back where you gave them until July 8th to come into compliance. >> So, the property is in compliance. Uh the photo here, you can see where the
lights now you can't see them. Everything up here has been turned off. The lights that you can see up here are compliant. They're turtle light compliant. >> Okay. >> Um >> being that it was a repeat violation and they gave them until the 8th, we're asking for one day of a violation of $500 for the one day plus the at 3:30 in
administrative costs. He did email me the next day to tell me that he was in compliance. Um was Yeah, was next the day after the hearing. >> Yeah, I think the picture was June 8th on that. So, >> uh July 8th. >> July 8th. Sorry. >> Yeah. Yes.
>> Yeah. Uh July, I'm sorry. June 7th. >> June 7th. >> This photo, but the photo that um should have said July 7th. I printed out the wrong picture, but it's the same picture. >> Okay. >> Um but he was in compliance next day. >> Um I I didn't get out out there to inspect it until the 7th of July,
actually. Okay. >> That's right. Even though he had to the 8th, >> but we're asking for one day of the violation being that it was a repeat. >> Okay. Can you put my order up there because I don't believe I treated it as a repeat violation. >> No. And that was the confusion I believe. >> Right. Because technically it was a
repeat violation. However, >> you want the front or the the back here where you gave him till the date. >> You can leave that there. >> Yeah. Okay. I recall that now because he would have been in compliance regardless. It wouldn't necessarily been a repeat violation considering there was
a change in the topography of the dunes. It was really no fault of his own. It was fault of the topography around him. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um so I am um is anyone here on behalf of Hurricane Lounge? >> You said he just emailed you though. >> Yeah, he's so I had another case that we
were addressing that he took care of for me as well. Um he emailed me. He actually emailed Jen, our administrative assistant, the next day. She forwarded the email to me. I got out there July 7th to do the follow-up inspection being that he had till the 8th. um he was in compliance, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that it was in
compliance on June uh June the 9th. >> Um and that was the request for the one day for the violation. >> Right. Okay. All right. Um I am going to find that the property is in compliance because I did not treat it as a repeat violation due to the change in topography. I'm not going to allow the $500 um fine, but I will do the $330 in
reasonable administrative costs of the city. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And moving on to agenda item uh new cases. Agenda item 4A20260350. City of St. Pete Beach versus Ariel Lency.
I see again, City of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is case number 2026350. Respondent is Ariel Ignasio Lency. Forgive me if I said that wrong. Violation address is 1954th. have violation description. The property is
in violation of section 9.2 principal uses and structures of the land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection was 623 2026. Notice of violation dated and
mailed certified 624 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted to the property 624 2026. The following is a true and accurate representation of what I witnessed. This is the affidavit of posting at 1954 45th
A. This is a screenshot of the Airbnb ad. This is the Airbnb host information and nightly cost. These are the four reviews in violation. Uh, if you look, the first one from Ashley shows stayed a few nights.
There's one from Melissa says stayed a few nights. Uh, Dana stayed a few nights and Jennifer also stayed a few nights. See Airbnb review policy. Corrective action. The property can only be rented monthly. The property is now
compliant, showing 30-day uh rental only. Recommended fine is $1,000 per review for the four reviews totaling $4,000 plus a $330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. And that concludes my
presentation. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner, Ariel Lensy. Okay. If you could please come up, state your name in affiliation with the property owner for the record and you may respond to the city's allegations. Morning.
>> Good morning. And your name? >> So my English is bad. So it's possible translator. >> Um I'll for purposes of this proceeding. And what is your name, sir? >> My name is Christian Shepherd. >> I'm sorry. >> Christian Shepher.
>> And your last name, could you spell that for me? >> S C H E F E R. >> Okay. And who do you have with you here today? >> Lens. >> Okay. So that is the property owner. >> Yes. >> Okay. And can you ask him does he allow you to speak on his behalf?
>> Okay. All right. And go ahead and let me know what's going on with the property. >> Um, he purchased the property. He didn't know about the code. He's sorry. As soon as he received the letter right away, he fixed it. He changed the Airbnb uh to 30
Day Plus now. Um and um he also sent an email to the city letting them know that we corrected and you know anything else that we need to comply
not to have any fine um to let us know but they told us that we had to come here today. >> Okay. And how long has he owned the property? >> Um two months. >> Two months. Okay. And did you purchase it with the intent of using it as a short-term rental?
>> Yes. Yes, ma'am. >> And did you do any due diligence with the city to figure out if you were even allowed to do that within the city? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. >> Okay. And it looks like um just based on the Airbnb ad, you were charging about
$300 a night or $250 a night. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you had four um rentals during that period of time. Do you know how much money you made on each of those rentals? Um, probably about $2,000 >> on each one more. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Anything else there is that you'd like me to know? >> Um, no, we have the um the proof that we cancel all the future >> resations. Okay. >> Um, and you know, the people asking what happened that we cancel, we explain the
situation. Uh, and like I said, we even have a 30 days reservation that we cancel because we want to start from the beginning and and do the right things. Uh, >> okay. Um, I would suggest that you leave that proof with the city. I don't
necessarily need it, but they'll probably need it for you in order to comply with the order that I draft. Um, but um, thank you very much. All right. Anything else from the city? >> Yes, brother. >> Okay. So, the city is asking uh the city has determined that this is an irre the city has determined that this is an
irreparable or irrevocable um violation and I tend to agree. So, I'm going to find that there is a violation of the stated code section. It is irre revocable or irreparable. Um there were four violations of the city's uh short-term rental code. Um I am not
going to assess the $1,000 per each rental, but I am going to assess the $500 per each rental based on the credible testimony. There was about $8,000 that was made on those four rentals. So, it will be $500 for each rental for a total of $4,000 um plus the $330 in reasonable administrative cost
of the city and any fees that will be incurred as a result of recording a lean on the property. I would go ahead and get with the city on that one. Also, part of my order is going to say cannot rent the property less than 30 days. It looks like you guys have already taken care of that. and to provide the city with proof that there are no short-term
uh rentals on the books, which is why I said you might want to provide that to Mr. Rivera. Um, just make sure I have your contact information. I will get you an order to that effect. Um, and then just continue to speak with the city if you have any questions on that. >> Real quick, for the record, uh, if you said 4,000 500 times,
>> I'm sorry, 2,000. >> Yeah. I just wanted >> I actually had my calculator out. So, yeah. Mhm. Thank you. It's Monday, [laughter] >> Stephen. Why would you admit that? >> It was going to come out sooner or later. I am not good at math.
[laughter] >> All right. Thank you very much. >> All right, we're moving on to um 4B. Case number 20260245, City St. Pete Beach versus LCP South Postcard in LLC. Madame Magistrate, um
for this particular case, our code officer will make her presentation as we generally do. Um we will have one witness, I believe, um Lette Noli, um who will we will be bringing to you as the city's witness uh for additional
information. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Hey, good morning. Specialist offering the city of St. Keep beach. This is coast case number 20260245. The respondent is LCP postcard N LLC.
The violation address is at 6300 G Boulevard. The violation description. The property is in violations of sections 46-132 A1, B, C, and two. Sound level limitations of the code of ordinances of
the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial sound readings were on May 7th, 2026. A courtesy notice was dated and mailed certified. On May 13, 2026, a notice of violation was
dated and mailed certified June 2nd, 2026, and the second sound readings were taken on June 29th, 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property July 1st, 2026.
This is the affidav This is a true and accurate description of of what I witnessed. This is an affidavit of posting uh July 1st on the property, 6300 Gulf Boulevard. On the first sound reading date taken on
May 7th, um this is the summary report um that indicated that um there was one property found in violation. Note that this the time of this was taken during the day and so the parameter at that time was um greater
than 50 dibels. I do want to put into the record the um overhead please. Overhead please. Okay. So this is the certificate of calibration for the instrument that we use. It was just redone on June 15,
2026. So the machine is calibrated correctly. And for the record also um the individual sound readings taken at five different apartments are posted here. What I um have in the presentation is
the summary report but all the individual reports from each department is indicated here. Would you like me to go through the methodology of how we came came up with the violations or not? >> Yes, please.
>> Okay. >> And could you show us the [clears throat] survey with the violation and tell us how you measured it? >> Okay. So, um this was taken on May 7th
and this was the violation found at apartment number 402. Um both two officers were present, myself and Lucy Knight and um the instrument was calibrated first as indicated here by the start indications
and the um environmental conditions were also noted at the time. Um the way we do our sound readings is we take a um basically an ambient sound reading first which is the background surrounding noise that um u is lacks the the
violating sound that is recorded and then we um add the sound back into the um calculation and we take a noise source level reading. The difference between those two levels gives us our adjustment factor. As you can see here,
um the noise, the ambient sound reading was 51.4 dibels and the noise reading was 58.6. The difference between them indicated 7.2. We refer down to the chart here. If we have a difference of
7.2, we adjust the source reading by one decibel. So consequently 58.6 minus one brought it to 57.6 which was in excess of the 50 dibel maximum limit.
>> And just for clarity on this one even with the adjustment the ambient noise level is still exceeding the 50 dB that were there. So any additional source noise would have bumped it over the >> Is that correct? >> Correct. Correct. >> Correct. >> Yes. So that was for that out of the
five readings that we took on that day. It was just the one uh apartment that indicated there wasn't a violation. The others four did not. >> Could you introduce the meter that you um showed that was calibrated please?
>> See this on the overhead or do I need show stick? >> Put it on the overhead so everyone can see that we have a noise meter and that meter is calibrated yearly. Thank you. >> So, I'll go back to the presentation.
So, that was the summary report as I just described to you. Um, this is the HVAC unit that um sits on the roof that's producing the noise. Taken from different angles close um to the building.
Do we know if this is a fairly recently installed HVAC unit or has this been in >> It is it's it's an upgrade. The hotel has just been reopened again as of last month and so this is a new installation I understand. Yes.
Um after we we had been talking with the engineers there and they were um voluntarily trying to work with us to come and see what methods they could use to dampen the sound. And um on June 27th
um we spoke with the engineer and said that they had um voluntarily installed blankets to try and dampen the sound. So we we took the initiative and took another sound reading to see if that would make a difference and that was taken on June 29th. This time the time of that reading was done at 6:00 a.m. in
the morning to basically look at the nighttime hour parameter which is reduced now to a maximum of 45 dibels. Okay. And in that study there um we see that um all five of the apartments were
exceeded the 45 decibel limit. Again using the same methodology, I do have the individual reports here or the overhead of each apartment how it was calculated as explained previously. >> And then again on those five apartments, it looks like for the nighttime it
exceeds the nighttime decel rating, but it also exceeds the daytime decel rating. However, that doesn't account for the ambient noise that occurs during the day. Okay, understood. >> All right, back to the overhead. I mean to the presentation. So that is that
report. So the corrective action is the property must not exceed the sound level limits for the multif family dwelling units. It's table two whether it be day or night uh 45 dibel or 50 dibels. The property is not compliant and so the
recommended fine is $250 a day from the date of your order plus 330 administrative costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. I do want to make a note though that they have been working diligently trying to rectify this problem. They are
voluntarily working towards compliance. Their next resolution is to come up with a a silencer of some sort, but that has to be engineered and designed and um that time frame is sort of unknown at this point in time. >> Okay. So, do you know as you sit here today if the daytime decibel levels
based on the blanketing have been reduced and it's now just the nighttime levels that are exceeding the DBAs in the code? because the first reading was taken during the day and showed that it exceeded the daytime levels. I don't know if at that time it exceeded the nighttime levels. I can make an
assumption but I don't know what those ambient noise levels were at the time. >> Right. Without measuring accurately, I I mean I >> couldn't tell you specifically. >> Okay. But at this time it is there is proof that it it demonstrates that all five of those readings from all five of those reported the nighttime level even
with the blanketing. >> Yes. Okay. affidavit. >> All right. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? >> Um your honor, we still have Yeah, we have a witness and we also have a number of affidavits that we would like to include in the record as well. Um our
officer can briefly describe them. >> So these are affidavit from the residents and the um state manager. >> The just read the names for each affidavit. >> Mayor Caarick is the property manager there. And then we have residences I
believe. Um Bob Thrush >> please put them on the overhead Mark Pendleberry Short Tree Lzette Nati Kurt Huffy I Carol looks like Malta or something.
Mala and Christina Spencer. Eight affidavits here that are >> the essence of the affidavit is basically um based on their personal knowledge and their their um observations. Um and at this time, your
honor, we would like to go ahead and call uh Lizette Nati. All right. And the affidavit will be entered into evidence. If I could get a copy of those, appreciate it. >> If you could please state your name for the >> Yes, my name is Lette Natoli
and um I have been a part-time resident at the Silver Sands since uh 1988. Uh my unit was one of the units that the reading was taken from early in the morning. Um so I am very familiar with
the property of the Loose uh hotel. Um when we heard that there was going to be a renovation done, we were thrilled and I think I can speak for all of the residents. We thought it's wonderful. were going to have a nice um hotel next
door, possibly a a nice restaurant, beautiful landscaping and we were excited and throughout the two years um madam that the construction was taking place. We never once complained. We were hopeful that you know there would be an
end to it. But today, today we have a really serious issue. um the noise that is emanating from those two rooftop chillers. It's not just a hum. It's not just a push. I would
describe it as a roar. It is literally impacting the quality of our lives during the day as well as in the evening. My husband and I and I'm sure a lot of the residents love to sit outside on our balcony and have our morning
coffee. We are unable to stay on our balconies. The noise is so disruptive. We uh you're on up. We cannot even hear the birds. That is how loud that noise is. It is it
is lifechanging and impacting our you know enjoyment of our unit. When we enter inside, we close our sliding glass doors. When we're in our living room, we still hear the humming. At night, when
it is time for us to go to sleep, we close our sliders and we literally have to lower our hurricane shutters in order to be able to sleep. And we still hear the humming.
It's not just our stack that is being impacted. The entire side of the building as well as the interior. We have a lovely open air atrium. We cannot be in the atrium without hearing the
whooing from the chillers. And there are two chillers. It's not just one. So the noise that they are making is very significant. Our lobby, you can hear the humming in the parking lot. I was by the pool yesterday and someone said, "I was
walking my dog and what is that noise we're hearing?" They didn't know where that sound was coming from. The quality of our lives has been negatively impacted. And I just want to say I love
the Silver Sands. I love St. Pete Beach. It's a beautiful familyoriented community. We want to be good neighbors to the loose, but they have to be good neighbors to us also. This has been
dragging on on and on and we have no relief since this started. We have had no relief from the noise. Um and I just want to say shame on them. They know it has to be fixed. They should be fixing
it. It has been long enough. Please help us to remedy this situation. Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. >> Nothing further from the city. Okay. Um, did is there anyone here on behalf of
the respondent? >> Okay. And prior to giving whatever presentation, do you wish to inquire of the city's witnesses at all? >> Um, not to make this a contentious hearing, but I would object to the entire testimony. The city didn't ask a single question. Uh and so the witness just
basically testified on their own without any direction from the city without any objective um testimony. >> Sure. And I can understand that. However, this is not a formal proceeding in that type of scenario. I I note your objection for the record. And if I could get your name for the record as well. >> Yes. Um Kevin Reali. I'm uh with Sterns
Weaver Miller Law Firm U 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa. And I signed in in the back so you have my address. Appreciate >> your time. Um so uh we we do not contest the the city's measurements and so you know all the formality that the city covered with the decibel readings and
those measurements um we can we can um uh stipulate to those and and move on because really my my um discussion with you today is going to be twofold. One is going to talk about the violation itself and then two talk about what we've been doing to to remedy and I have the hotel manager here to talk about that with
some more detail as well. Um I'll start with the the more formal part of this first and then we can talk about resolution after. But >> [clears throat] >> um the city has cited in the violation uh section 46132 and they talk about A1 and and
specifically C is is mentioned and it talks about decibel limits of 45 and 50 uh for night and day respectively. That's not the limit for the property here. Um the property here is governed by section 46132A2
which is then um governed by the limits in subsection B table 1. Subsection C is for noise within a viol within a multif family dwelling and I'll quote here from the code uh in subsection C in a multif
family dwelling no person etc etc etc and then it talks about u set forth in table two and then table two talks about sound limits within receiving multif family dwelling unit this is for noises in between two units in a condominium it is not for noises on a receiving
property in subsection A um 46132A. You can see um that it it talks about uh I won't quote that section that that's the section we're governed by and then you have subsections one and two. One is a gen generic receiving property which
is the property line and then two gives a very specific um location of properties along Gulf Boulevard. So this property is under uh A2 and um so it is measured uh at the building or 30 ft in. So we actually we agree under A2 that this measurement was taken in the right
place and we agree that the measurement was taken properly but the the limit is not 45 and 50 the limit is 55 and 65. Um and so we we you know that does create an issue for notice today. I I think we can get past that probably with just a
renoticing and we we'll probably have to come back to you but more it's really important to us because that 4550 decibel limit needs to be um is not the level that the property needs to be held to. It is the 55 and 65. And so while in some manner this is a technicality it's
not a technicality on those levels that's very important to us. Um and so that's a very long way of me saying there is a problem with the notice. We're not fussing about the notice particularly. it will have to be renoticed because we need to, you know, use the proper procedure here. >> But um but the uh 45 and 50 is not the
limit that the property uh needs to be held to uh when this violation is updated. >> Okay. >> I'll stop there and see if you have any questions. >> Yeah, I was going to say I'm going to stop there and see if the city council would like to respond to that at all. Your honor, um we are looking at the
section that um that has been cited and um with all due respect, of course, we would disagree on the record with the interpretation. However, the city's main goal in this situation, as you've heard from our witness, is really to come to
some type of resolution and bring this property into compliance, whether it's noise that's being emanated between units or from other properties to the unit. Um, regardless, it is a um an unfortunate situation. Um, so our
preference would be to to remedy it and focus more on the remedy. Um, with that said, even if there were to be a violation found today, our recommendation would be to bring it back at your next meeting to um to further
address the level of compliance and a status. Um, which means we would be coming back in 30 days anyway. Um, just to, you know, clarify the record and make sure that we've um addressed everything. We could go ahead and
renotice it. Um, but still if if we renotice it, we're still coming back to you in 30 days. >> And I can understand that. And while that might be a practical matter from a legal perspective, it will depend on whether or not that there's a violation found. Understanding I know what the readings are and I know that it's kind
of irrelevant with the 55 and 65, but it does matter for compliance. And so, um, to the respondent's point, it the notice is legally sufficient in that they're here. So, they've got notice of the violation, but of which violation? So if the parties one if the city's holding
firm to the site the the section cited is the appropriate section then I can certainly take a look at it and I I can make a ruling based on that. If the city is not holding tight to that and the city is willing to amend the notice as we sit here today or you guys can stipulate to whatever the proper section
is I can certainly do that and then we can move forward with whatever the remedy is. we would be agreeable to um amending and if they want to stipulate that um that the referenced uh citation is the correct one. Um again, the city's
interest is really trying to get this thing resolved >> for compliance and I understand for my purposes it matters because compliance is going to look a little different under underneath one or the other and from a violation perspective. So the easier if if I may your honor um
um the stipulation would be the easiest if not we would amend it um at this time >> we we I can provide a memorandum of law and follow up if you want we absolutely do not agree that the limit is 45 and 50 period so notice is not what I'm fussing about here
>> it's the particular violation >> it's the violation right and >> so if the if the notice of violation were amended to reflect not the 46.132 A1 and then the C but instead the A2 two and then the B section of table one that would be sufficient for you.
>> Correct. But but again that's not right. That changes what the what the measurement requirements are. Right. >> It it changes the measurement requirements. It doesn't change it doesn't change the evidence sufficient enough to prove the measurement. >> Correct. And to be clear that like that's why I'm >> you would still be in violation. >> Uh we would be in violation for
nighttime >> for the nighttime one. Correct. Correct. >> Correct. And and and because we don't have a measurement on whether or not you're in compliance after the blankets with the daytime measurement. I'm just right now I'm just focusing on the activity >> and that's so that we we can for sure stipulate because I what I don't want what I don't want is this back and forth
to make it seem like we're not because we're going to get to the trying to be good neighbors part after this >> right >> but this is it's very important for the 55 and 65 uh from from our point of view not the 4550 >> understood. Um, does the city is the city willing to agree at this time, and if you're not, that's fine, but is the city willing to agree at this time that
the applicable code section that would apply to this violation is in fact the 46132 A sub 2 and then B underneath table one? >> Um, yes, your honor, we will. >> Okay. And so the parties will agree on the record that the notice is now uh orally amended to reflect that
particular section for code violation. >> Agreed. >> Okay. All right. So then we will proceed um under on forward moving under a violation for 46.132 subsection A2 with the reference numbers being under table 1 section B which is the 55 and 65
respectively. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Um so uh if that's agreed I'll move on to compliance and I do have the hotel manager to talk about that. Um um you know and I appreciate the testimony from the neighbor in and their understanding in in the rebuilding and rebanding of the hotel after the hurricanes because
it's not been an easy process. I'm actually primarily working with the hotel on land use and permitting and I'm helping them with this because it has been a challenge um because the the hotel's old and so there's FEMA compliance and and uh fire marshal compliance is very challenging um here
the uh AC units that were installed and I will submit this to the record. This is the engineer that they hired. It's signed by a professional engineer. The the units are not supposed to be this loud. uh the manufacturing data card shows that it would would be and now these manufacturing data cards you have
to understand they are measured right at the unit so it's about five feet off so the numbers and I'll make sure I quote the right ones but please refer to the to what I submit here for it but um the manufacturing data puts it somewhere around 70 dB right at the unit um and
then the engineer went through and did a calculation on how that should abate over the distance between where the measurement was taken and where where the unit is located and the units should be reading at 42 dB and and they're clearly not right and again we've stipulated to that and that that's not
the concern and so the first uh attempt that was done is to get the manufacturer out. The manufacturer admitted that the fans are running louder than they're supposed to and so at that point engineer was hired to basically come up with a solution. The first solution that thought would work would be the blankets. it's not working. And so now
basically a full uh an in a fully engineered solution has got to be installed around that's going to dampen the sound. Uh that is underway. But the you know it's basically a uniquely engineered product. So it has to be engineered and then built. And so the the problem here is the the timeliness
of of compliance because um you know the engineers are still working on that part right now. Um and I don't do I hand it to you or to the clerk. >> You can hand it to Um and then uh so as as far as working towards compliance that started before the violation, you
know, we got the courtesy notice, the engineers were working with the code enforcement staff. We we do want this to be better. We want to be better for the hotel. We want to be better for the neighbors. It's not supposed to be operating this way. It's a very expensive unit that you're supposed to be able to trust the manufacturing data
card. Going back and suing the manufacturer is not going to help anyone here. And so we're trying to find an engineered solution. It's definitely costing the the hotel money. So, this is not this is not them trying not to spend money. They were not trying to cut a corner with the install as the engineers
um um letter uh can identify for you. So, with that um you know, we are going to ask for for time um whatever time the if we come back in 30 days and then we can give you a status update of where the engineer is on that and then we could discuss um you know, what time compliance should be set out on that.
That's that would be a request and I did speak to the city attorney about something similar to that. you can please confirm with her. Um but but that would be our request. And then if you do have any questions of hotel management, um they're here for any specifics on on on what's been done. I I only understand what the what the engineer has reported
um in that letter that you're submitting. >> Okay. So I guess my question would be, you know, an engineered solution understanding it takes time. Do you have an anticipated amount of time that anyone has given you any type of I don't know outset that they're looking at?
>> I don't have the do you have that yet? We don't have it yet. >> Yeah, we don't have >> apologies. And what is your name, sir? >> My name is Jeremy Dilva, general manager of the Loose Hotel. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So, there is no estimated time for any type of engineered solution to this?
>> Not at this time. At first, it was them doing the discovery because originally, like was said is the unit shouldn't be, you know, operating at that noise level. So, they came out on a couple occasions to do their own readings to just get an overall assessment. Um, at this time the
same engineer team who was a part of rebuilding the hotel is actively working on this to come up with it's a unique solution to a unique problem that we're experiencing. >> Okay. And is the manufacturer involved at all trying to get solutions for this?
I mean, not that you guys need to, but just out of curiosity. >> Yeah, I know the uh engineer on record is working directly with the manufacturer to because I think they were also in agreeance too. It's like something's happening. We don't know what it is and then that team needs to
figure it out. Smarter minds. >> Okay. And is I mean I know there the solution of you you can't stop running the HVAC units. You've got units that need to be cooled. Is there anything that can be temporarily done until such time as the engineered solution can be
rectified? >> Yeah, we installed the blankets. That was the our first attempt to just soften them, but I don't know that it made the impact that we were all hoping for. >> But there are they still there? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And they will remain >> until such time as there's another
solution. Okay. Okay. Um Yeah. Okay. Anything else that you guys have um or any inquiries that you'd like to make of the city or its witness? >> Um no. I put an objection for the record
but again more of formality. Thank you. >> Understood. Thank you. Um and Miss Retoell, anything further from the city? >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um I am going to find that there is a violation of the amended um section
the amended notice of violation of 46.132A2 um table one subsection B with regard to um the nighttime violation. This 65 decel. Well, with regard to the noise violation, I'm going to leave it just
blank on the decibel level. Um, I am going to just call for a status hearing in 30 days. I'm not going to give a definitive date for compliance as there is a good
faith effort being made towards trying to remedy the situation. Um, but I will say that with caution. Um, understanding engineered solutions may take a while. It is not an indefinite open-ended date. So, I'm going to set the case status hearing for 30 days from
today. Well, not 30 days, but for the next hearing, which is August 10th at 10:00 a.m. Um, we will be back here to see where we are. And I'm going to ask the respondent to make every effort possible to get us an estimated date when that engineered solution might be available. Otherwise, I'm going to have
to set some sort of arbitrary date for compliance because the parties are in need of of some sort of resolution. I don't just mean their respondent in the city, but also the third party residents, and that might be able to um perhaps give the engineers a little bit more incentive to work faster, though
maybe not. You can only do what you can do. Um so, I will get an order out to that effect. Um and then I just encourage the parties to continue working together to come to a resolution of this matter. Okay,
moving on to 4C case number 20260169, City of St. Pete Beach versus Enam Ibraham Ibraham. >> Hi Aquar representing the city of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is
case number 20260169. The respondent is Enam Ibraim. The violation address is 42488th Avenue. Violation description. The property is in violations of sections 8.2 permitted principal uses and structures of the
land development code of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. The initial inspection took place on March 30th, 26. A notice of violation was dated and male certified. June 24th, 2026. and a notice of hearing
dated and posted on the property at on June 24th, 2026. This is a true and accurate description of what I witnessed. The affidavit of posting on June 24th at the property address. This is the Airbnb advertisement for the
property. This uh screen here shows the Airbnb five night reservation and the associated cost with that. There is um only one review and that was dated in September 25th from Zena.
September of 2025 I should say not September 25th. This is the Airbnb review policy and the corrective action is the property can only be rented monthly. The property is not compliant. The recommended fine is $1,000 per review.
It's only one review totaling a,000 plus $330 administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. That concludes my presentation. >> Okay. So, I have a question. On this property, you said there is only one review on the property. Period. >> Correct. at this time.
>> Okay. And the only review is for one night stay in September of 2025. >> Mhm. >> Okay. And then >> within a year now. >> Okay. And then there's no Okay, that's that's good. Okay. Thank you. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner?
You could come up and state your name for the record. And if you could just verify that you've been sworn in. >> Yes, ma'am. I have. My name is Beverly Boggas. >> Okay. And your last name is B. >> GG SS. >> Okay. And Miss Bogus, what is your
affiliation with the property owner? >> Um I'm Enam's sister and I take care of the house. >> Okay. And do you have um her or her N is >> she's here with us. Yeah. >> Okay. Do you have her authority to speak on your behalf today? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. And Miss Voggas, uh, go ahead and, uh, whatever presentation you'd like to make. >> I'm not sure what the violation was. I'm >> So, the violation is for a short-term rental being conducted on a property in in a zoning district that does not allow for a short-term rental. There was a one
night stay um, and a review for a one night stay on uh, the Airbnb platform >> in September, which we already came and spoke to you about and were fined for. So, I'm not sure why we're back for that. What do you have the case number or
anything on that? >> I I mean I don't think Do we have any? It's in your email probably. >> I feel like we were here like maybe Octoberish last year for this. This property 424.
>> She has the receipt. >> I appreciate that. I actually do have an order that's dated December uh let's see, it looks like it's dated December 8th, 2025. Um it is for the violation for one stay.
It was for a trial run. The person who stayed was a family member and a cousin and money not exchanged hands. I do recall that case. >> That's correct. Ma'am, >> uh, anything from the city on this one? >> I was just checking the date to see whether the reservation
was that was on March 30th of 26 showing that there's still possible to date um, you know, book a five night stay, >> but we have changed that to the 30-day. I don't know why it's showing that, but I we are at >> as of March 30th. If you look at the
bottom of the screen, >> can you exodate that? What is that? >> It's co-pilot, which is super unhelpful. So >> yeah, there you go. >> Okay. So as of this five night reservation in cost you look in the bottom right hand quote which I haven't
circled that's of as of March 30th 2026 >> and what date is the >> the one night review was >> what what date is the notice of violation for >> the same review? No, not what date is
the date of the notice of violation? >> June 24th. >> Okay. And what date was the the advertisement changed? >> It was back in 2025. >> Yeah. I don't recall when I changed it, but we set the calendar for 30 days. Um
because it it was on a 0 to 365. >> Sure. >> Um which I think is their standard thing. So we did go in and change it to 30 days and we've only had one 30-day guest which was in February. Okay. >> Um, >> other than that, it's just our it's our family, you know, we're currently
staying there, my husband and I actually, so it's our family kind of station place. >> Did you call the city at all when you got this violation and let them know? >> Man, we've been out of the country. Um, we just returned um from a couple weeks in Italy and then I had a pulmonary
embism on an airplane and spent a week in ICU in Canada. So, we're just getting home. I am so sorry to hear that. Okay. Um, understanding that on Airbnb you can go ahead and um, well, let me ask you this, Miss Rectell, did you go ahead and try and book the
property for less than the 30 days? Not just quote a price for the the two days, but actually book the property for less than 30 days. No, I just proceed as far as this screen goes to show that it's capable of doing a short-term rental. I don't actually hit the button reserve.
>> Okay. And per Airbnb's guidelines, you it or the functioning of Airbnb, it's you're not capable of doing that. You have to click the next button to see if it allows you to. Um I understand that we've now changed it from renting the property to advertising for the property, which underneath the city's
code is the same bucket. So, I understand the violation and the notice of violation would be the same. However, um this is not done as a repeat violation, which is fine. I also don't find that there is a violation. So, I'm going to dismiss this case. This has already been brought before me, especially with the evidence presented
with the one review. Um so, I am going to dismiss this case. Um and I will get you an order stating that and I apologize. Uh well, I don't apologize for anything, but thank you for coming today. >> No problem. Thank you. >> Okay, moving on to case number 20260287,
City of St. P Beach versus Cardinal Heights LLC. >> Good morning, Special Master. Lucy Knight, uh, Cardinal Heights, responded Cardinal Heights LLC. Violation address 1140 Bogus Ale Drive. Violation
description. the property is in violation of section 46-33 subsection 3 enumeration section 9865 unsightly conditions
uh subsection 4 the code of ordinance of the city of St. Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 520 2026. Notice of violation dated and mailed certified 528 2026. Notice of hearing
dated and posted on the property. 612 2026. Uh, these pictures are a true and accurate representation of what I observed on the date they were taken. This is the affidavit of posting.
Uh, this is the construction debris that was left on the driveway. Uh, it's an empty dumpster right next to it. They are now in compliance. They are now in compliance as of July
7th. [snorts] >> Jamie, back to the PowerPoint, please. Property must be cleaned and all debris properly removed and disposed of. Property is now in compliance.
Recommended fine was 250 per day from the date of your order plus 33 administrator costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. So, we're just asking for administrative fees of 330. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone here
on behalf of Cardinal Heights LLC? Anyone here on behalf of Cardinal Heights LLC, 1140 Bokea Siega Isle Drive? Okay. All right. I am going to find that the property was in violation of the state of code section. The property is
now in compliance as of July 7th, 2026. I'm not going to assess any fines, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Right. Moving on to agenda item E, case number 20260107, City of St. Pete Beach versus
Christopher H. Wilson. >> Good morning. Special master Lucy Knight. Case number 2026 0107. Respondent Christopher H. Wilson. Violation address 22843rd Avenue.
Violation description. The property is in violation of section 46-33 subsection 3. Enumeration section 98-65 unsightly condition subsection 1A B3
section 98-66 subsection 24 residential and commercial property maintenance of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 223
20226. Notice of violation with dated and mailed certified 318 2026. Notice of hearing dated and posted on the property. 611 uh 2026.
These pictures are a true and accurate representation of what I observed on the date they were taken. Affidate posting fences in dis disrepair to where it was all down on the ground. Uh this is the opposite side, the east
side of the property and the construction debris up against the fence. Property must be maintained, repair, replace or remove fence and remove debris. Property is now in compliance.
We're asking for 330 administrator costs and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. This is the fence now. And I had permission and he let me inside to take a picture where the and
this concludes this presentation. >> Okay. Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Wilson? Anyone here on behalf of Mr. Christopher H. Wilson? 22843rd Avenue. Okay. I'm going to find that the property was in violation of the state of code section, but to come
into compliance as of July 7th, 2026. I'm not going to assess any fines, but I will assess the $330 in reasonable administrative costs of the city. Moving on to case number 20260168, City of St. Pete Beach versus Roma
Invest Group, Florida LLC. Lucy Knight. Uh, case number 2026168. Respondent: Roma Invest Group, Florida LLC. Violation address 4151 Bale Vista Drive. Violation description. The property is
in violation of section 98-123.1. Permits required the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection 3:30 2026. Notice of violation dated and
mailed certified 424206. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 611 2026. These pictures are true and accurate representation of what I observed on the day they were taken.
This is affid posting. Uh this is where they was putting up the door on the day that I arrived there. And this is the old door that they put off to the side. This is the unpermitted door.
Um just a stop work order where I stopped them. Property must obtain a permit for work being done. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is 250 per day from the date of your order plus 330
administrative cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this case. >> Okay. And the the violation is just for the replacement of the front door without a permit. Is that correct? Okay. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? Roma Invest Group Florida LLC.
Anyone here on behalf of Roma Invest Group, Florida LLC, 4151 Belle Vista Drive. Have you had any contact with the property owner? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. >> All right. I'm going to find that the property is in violation of the state of
code section. I am going to allow um 14 days to secure an after the fact permit for the installation of the front door. Um, and that's 14 days from the date of my order. And if not, we will come back and I will
assess any fines and fees that will be required. >> Madam Special Ministry, Pete Dur, code enforcement. Um, when you say secure, could you please explain what that means? >> The same as it has meant for the past couple years. They need to obtain, they have to secure a uh after the fact
permit. So, not just merely apply for it, they have to actually get it. Um, based on the testimony from Mr. Uh Curtis said the last few hearings doesn't seem like after the fact permits, especially for something so simple, should take very long. However, um if it does, they can come back at the
August 10th hearing and plead their case if they decide to show up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Mr. D. Okay. Uh thank you, Miss Knight. Moving on to case number 2026315, St. Pete Beach versus US Bank Trust National Association
at all. Following special master Lucy Knight case 2026 0315 respondent US Bank Trust National Association uh La Cabana series 4 trust violation
address 5903 Biminy way north violation description the property is in violation of section 46-33 enumeration subsection 1A A B 2 3 4 A B 89
section 98-65 Unsightly conditions subsection 1 BC 23 4 section 9866 residential and commercial property maintenance subsection 2789
101417 181 1920 of the code of ordinances of the Cedus St. Pete Beach initial inspection 528 2026 violation of address I mean I'm sorry violation
notice of violation dated and mailed certified 692026 notices of hearing dated and posted on the property 623 2026. These pictures are a true and accurate representation of what I observed on the
date they were taken. This is the affidavator posting. This is the light fix fixtures that's hanging down where the two red circles are. This is the stairwell where the arrow is
pointing. They have tape holding it up. Uh this is the crack columns. Um more crack columns. Uh the palm prawns, debris on the ground. This is the rotten wood deck that is
uh not safe. This is more the rotten deck steps going up to the deck. Uh the boat lift that is rotted out and falling over. Uh the damage to the seaw wall where it's a hole right where the arrow is
pointing down in the ground and it plus is cracked. The exterior ceiling needs to be sealed or replaced. Back door pulling and the r the wood is rotten on the door.
The exterior crack on the wall and tile structure must be properly repaired and maintained or demolished. Property is not compliant. Recommended fine is 250 per day from the date of your order plus 330 administrative costs
and any recording fees that may may be associated with this case. This concludes my presentation. >> All right. And Miss Knight, just for uh inquiry, the some of those pictures were taken in the rear of the property. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And did you have consent from the
property owner to go into the properties? Okay. >> Um there are a couple of violations I see on here. Well, just one of them underneath section 46-33 subsection 8. It says any building structure or other place or location where an activity which is in violation
of local, state, or federal laws conducted, performed, or maintained. Um, I didn't see any evidence that there was any act illegal activity being conducted on the property. >> Okay. I'm sorry about that. >> That's okay. So, I just wanted to make sure I I find violation. You guys, you sub subsection them out. So, I'm
[laughter] particular. Okay. So, um, and I didn't see any accumulation of stagnant stagnant water on the property. Did you see anything of that nature? >> No, because the pool was covered. >> Okay. And then for the abandoned and broken
equipment, was that related to the boat lift that's out? >> Yes, ma'am. And again with the swimming pool violation, you said it was covered. Were you able to find out if there was any violation with regard to the swimming pool? >> No, it was covered. We couldn't uncover it.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Anyone here on behalf of the property owner? If you could please come up and state your name for the record and affiliation with the property owner. >> Yes. Good morning, madame magistrate. My name is Johnny Fernandez. I'm on behalf of the respondent and I come from
Gaddati Burger. >> Okay. >> Yes, your honor. Um, so our client obtained the certificate of title. Um, right now we just want to give you a status update. We did uh submit the permit on July 8th. Um, we're just waiting on the city of St. Pete uh
department to approve the permit. Therefore, our contractor came in construction can move quickly in making the repairs. Um, it's not even a re uh remediation. they're going to go ahead and demolish. Um, all contractors are lined up. So, we would just request an extension for the city to approve the
permit uh to demolish the property, which we have spoken to the construction uh uh company, which would take about 7 days. And then we would just need time for the uh the inspector to come and inspect the property. And if there's any other outstanding issues for us to repair it. >> Okay. And how long do you think I know
you said do what day was the permit submitted to the city? >> July 8th. >> July 8th is what you did say that. Okay. And do you know where it is in the peritting process? >> I am not aware. I'm not sure right now. >> Okay. Um, so it is the intention of the new owner to go ahead and demolish the
property. What date did you take title of the property or did your client take title the property? >> We took it on July 28th of last year of 2025. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Anything else you'd like me to know on this property?
>> Not at this time. Okay. Anything else from the city? >> No. >> Okay. Um I am going to find that there is a violation of the state of code sections except for 43 subsections 89 and 98-66 subsection 18. Um but the remaining site code sections I will find that there is a violation. I will allow
for is today date is the 13th. I will allow um I've already applied for the demolition permit. I will allow 30 days from the date of my order. Well, let's do 45 days
from the date of my order to come into compliance. That would be for the demolition of the property. We will set a status hearing for the September it's September 14th September 14th code hearing um to determination if the property is in compliance um if there's
been a good faith effort moving forward, what's going on with the property, and I can assess any fines or fees if necessary at that time. So, it will be 45 days from the date of my order to come into compliance. >> Okay. >> Madam Special magistrate, could you
amend that please to um next month's hearing um for a status update? This property has been in violation since 2021. I know that's not before you, but we have an outstanding lean on this property and it's been an isore in the neighborhood since 2021. I don't see the
value in adding a status hearing for when I've given a date of compliance of 45 days. Coming before the date of compliance wouldn't make any sense to me. Uh but I would encourage the property owners to stay in contact not only with the city but with the code code enforcement department um to show that you are making good faith ever
moving forward. Um but other than that um yeah we'll see you back on September 14th if necessary. >> Okay. >> And then make sure I have your contact information on the team [clears throat] ordered to that effect. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay, moving on to 4H.
Case number 20260134, City of St. Pete Beach versus Plaza Beach Motel LLC. >> Morning, special master. Officer Lucy Knight, case number 20260134.
Respondent: Plaza Beach Motel LLC. Violation address 46 Avenue. Parcel number 063216 0000
33013 0 0 0. Violation description. The property is in violation of section 98-65 unsightly conditions subsection 1AB4 section 46-33
enumeration subsection 2 of the code of ordinances of the city of St. Pete Beach. Case summary. Initial inspection. 362026. Notice of violation dated and mailed
certified. 420 2026. Notices of hearing dated and posted on the property. 5:15 2026. These pictures, these pictures are a true and accurate representation of what I observed on the
date they were taken. This is the affidavit of posting. Uh the construction debris, the pile of rocks, uh the poles laying on the ground.
The property must be maintained and free of debris. property is not compliant. Recommended fine is 250 per day from the date of your order plus 330 administrator cost and any recording fees that may be associated with this
case. Uh I went out this morning and took pictures and this is what it still looks like. But also they moved the trailer to the on the property now. So, it's the pile of rocks and dirt and then the wooden poles.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Anything else from the city? >> No, ma'am. This concludes >> anyone here on behalf of Plaza Beach Motel LLC? You please state your name for the record. Your
>> honor, Robert, owner of the property. Uh, yes. That prop that stuff is still on the property. It was on the property when I bought the property uh about three years ago now. And that is all city property stuff. Those poles are not my poles. They were actually by the city when the city was doing the G Boulevard
improvement. And that was all the debris that they left there with the property. I refuse to take it away because it's taxpayer dollars. The taxpayers paid for that debris. The taxpayers paid for those poles. Soon as I remove it, I'm going to have residents showing up saying that Robert's stealing or
recycling taxpayer stuff. So that's not mine. I told the city, I said, "This is your property. You brought it here. You used it for construction debris. Take it away." I said, "I don't want to touch it. That's the last thing I need. I already have enough targets on my back here in this city to be then saying that I'm taking taxpayer dollars away from
the city." So I refuse to move it. The city has the machinery to do it. It's their equipment. Have them remove it. >> Understood. Any response from the city on this? >> Yes, ma'am. Pete door, code enforcement manager. I wrote Robert
May 26th to better understand your position regarding the material materials on your property. Can you clarify when authorization was granted for the city to store these item these items on site? Additionally, given that the materials
are located on your property, you are ultimately responsible for their removal or disposal. And I mentioned that the case will be scheduled for hearing today. Uh Mr. Seaison's response was city owned materials remain on my
property. The large light poles, pile of crushed concrete and or rock and wheel stops are municipal materials associated with and resulting from the city funded Gulf Boulevard improvement project which is what he just mentioned. But there was
never an agreement provided um to my email request. >> Mr. Der, did the city have authorization to put the the the debris on Mr. Saison's property? We don't know that for a fact. >> Okay. But you are the city, so you have
the ability to find out if your contractors and your um employees put city debris on private property. >> Agreed. But there is no >> that did that, >> right? But you have the burden to prove that there is a violation. I have
credible testimony from Mr. Saison here today saying that that's not his property. And understanding your point >> that he is responsible for the the violations on his property. And I don't disagree with you. I wholly agree with you. However, if the charging party is
the one who is responsible for the violation on the property and then now you are going back at him and saying you have to clear the thing we did to your property, that becomes a problem. So on this one, it is the city's burden to prove now because there's almost a
rebuttable, not a rebuttable presumption, but now I have credible evidence stating that the city in fact caused this and is now trying to get somebody to remedy it. Um, I have credible testimony saying that that's that's whose property it is. You're saying that we don't know if it's our property or not. Well, the burden now
shifts to you to prove that it's not your property. So, I understand your position. I understand Mr. Saison's position. Um and >> Madame Magistrate, um may we ask for a continuence of this one and that would
allow the city additional time to see that if it is surplus property or if they've relinquished any type of ownership interest in the property. I I agree and even if there is a relinquishment in the property, I would also suggest that if there has been a relinquishment, I would like to see that
because I am in a position right now where I have one party saying you are violating and the other party saying I am violating because you are your stuff's on my property and now you're trying to charge me a private citizen to clean up city things and and with a
concern that says and if I do it, which I might be willing to do it, but if I do it now, I'm going to get backlash for some sort of theft or misuse of public property. So, yes, I'm willing to grant a continuance until August 11th for the city to figure that out. And I would just encourage the parties to work
together to figure out what how that got there when it got there and if the city needs to remove it because Mr. Sison says it's not his. It's okay. So, I will grant a continuence until August 10th at 10:00 a.m. Um, understanding that the
next one for I is actually a repeat violation which will be underneath five, I'm going to call it because Mr. Saison is here. So, 20260104, City of St. Pete Beach versus Plaza Beach Motel LLC. Madam Special Man Trade Pete Dur code
enforcement, are we able to consolidate the next two cases, the two repeats, please, like you've done previously. >> Okay. Yeah. And so I will also call case number 202601,
City of St. P Beach versus Before I do so, I want to make sure that's okay with Mr. Saison. I do recall these cases being consolidated for the underlying violations. >> Yeah. Okay. I will go ahead and consolidate those two cases. The evidence will be presented in one and it
will be one hearing. Um the violations will be treated separately within my order. >> Madam Special magrate, uh the overhead uh shows your order. Paragraph 4 uh shows the violation sections. >> Would you like me to state those for the
record? >> It's up to you. It's your case. >> Yes. uh section 1.3 3.5 4.8 23.4 23.7 23.11 and 384 of the land development code and
section um that's not included. Moving on. So this property is being used for storage as well as parking. the um respondent is using the vacant lots on the property or off-remise parking uh for its business
without having a conditional use permit as required by the land development code. You assessed the respondent $50 per day um for this uh specific case which we're bringing back as a repeat violation.
And we would like the imposition of $500 per day fines from the dates these pictures were taken. These pictures um I can have the officers that took the pictures to
attest to their accuracy. Um >> Pete, for the record, can we go ahead and do that? >> Yes, please. Yeah, I was going to ask, can we present the cases, not just the fines that are being requested? It is a repeat violation, but the evidence is necessary to secure that there's a repeat violation.
>> Um, >> your honor, I believe we also have a a witness testimony um that we would like to put into the record as well. >> Okay. Can we please start with the presentation of the evidence and then we'll call a witness after the presentation of the evidence. >> So this first picture is taken by
officer Newman who is going to attest to the accuracy of what he observed on the date it was taken. >> And officer Newman, have you been sworn in? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh yes, I took these pictures on the date uh
on the p I guess it was 41 1826. Uh, at the time there's a young lady there and uh I asked her if um why they were parking in that lot uh resulted from a complaint. She said it was for a
celebration of life. I asked her if she was charging and she said no and I found no evidence of that at the time. >> Okay. This is all from a single day. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Okay. >> Okay. And what am I looking at here? >> Uh pictures that were taken of just of the the lot. >> This This picture is was taken by Officer Jones and he can attest to the accuracy of it, please.
>> And officer Jones, have you been sworn in? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So, these pictures are are true and accurate representation of what I observed on the date that's there, which is May 24th. >> Okay. Okay. So, it looks like there's an
SUV, a truck, well, a Jeep truck, and then there's somebody mowing the lawn. Is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Did you have an interaction with anyone while you were there? >> I Miss Knight. Okay. >> Yeah. I spoke to uh the gentleman here
and uh he allowed me to take the pictures and then that was it. I was just there to take the pictures. >> Okay. You didn't interact with anybody on the property? >> Just uh this gentleman here. Just Mr. Savon. Okay. And what were your interactions with him? >> Well, uh uh I was taking pictures and he
allowed me to to Well, he just allowed me to take the pictures. So, I told him I was there to take the pictures. He allowed me to continue to do that. That was that was pretty much it. >> Okay. But we don't know why the cars were there, whose cars they are. >> No. >> Okay. And do you know how long the cars were there for? >> I do not. They were there when I arrived.
>> Okay. Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. Officer, these other pictures, these pictures prove that They were um there was storage as well in as well as in the property
and officer night can attest to the accuracy of these pictures. This is the picture I took on July 10th of storage units that was sitting there. And uh yes, this Elena's debris. This is a true
these pictures are true and accurate representation of what I observed on the date that they was taken. This a better picture of what the hangers look like. I went this morning and this is what they look like now. You can just see the trailers that was
parked behind the storage units and the miscellaneous debris that's on the side. So, madame special magistrate, from April 18, 2026 through today's date, um we are asking for a repeat violation on
this property. >> All right. Any other evidence that you'd like to submit? >> This concludes our presentation time. As a matter of fact, we have a a witness um who would like to testify to a picture she took with a sign that says beach parking.
>> Call your witness. >> Amy or please. >> I came in late so I wasn't >> Okay. If you could state your name for the record. >> Amy Hourback. Uh I live on 46th Avenue. >> Okay. And how do you spell your last name as Arbback?
>> A U E R B A C H. >> Okay. Okay. And if you could raise your right hand, do you swear from the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> So sworn. Okay. And what testimony do you have today, M? >> I have testimony that I took this picture on Saturday, May 23rd, which was
the Memorial Day weekend, where um beach parking was being advertised on the corner of uh where the Yakamono is at the corner of 46th and Gulf Boulevard, and cars were just going in there to park all of Memorial Day weekend. But this is
specifically the promotion for that on May 23rd. >> Do you have any photographs of the actual uh property at issue here with the new vehicles being parked on it? >> Yes, I shared them with Nancy and Pete. They just didn't print them out, I guess. >> Okay. >> Do you want me to bring them up on my
phone? >> This is the city. So, >> yes, we we need to put those into evidence. That's not working. Okay. Okay. All right. So, this is May 23rd, 455.
23rd, 455. Here's a video on that day. 5 p.m. May 23rd. >> I do. Thank you. >> Anything else, Miss Arbach? >> That's it. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. >> Anything else further from the city? >> No, ma'am.
>> Okay. I do have a question. The order that has been provided in the evidence packet um unless there's another one is stated December 13th, 2023. And that order is specific only to
violation for a fence permit and states that the parking is not an issue and that has been complied with. Is this the order that the city is wishing to present for the underlying violation that this property cannot be used for parking or storage?
>> Yes, >> I I would have to defer to Mr. Dir. Um, my understanding was that there was a violation for parking. However, it came into compliance and this is a subsequent violation for parking. But please
correct me. And if that is the case, I'd like to see the underlying order with regard to that. And the only reason I ask is I know that myself and Mr. Thanis both heard evidence with regards to this case, but the order that's provided does not deal with parking.
>> What was the question, please? My question was for these two cases, the evidence that I have presented in the packet and that has been shown today has an underlying order dated December 13th, 2023 for the premise that these violations are repeat violations.
However, that order only states that respondent was in violation of the magistrate's order with regard to the feds permit and that the testimony that was brought states that the parking was not in violation and had come into compliance. So based on this underlying
order, this would not be a repeat violation as the underlying order does not deal with parking violation. It deals with the erection of six foot fence. >> If if I may ask the question, um, we do have the order, do we not? >> Yes, I'm looking at it.
>> Okay. >> And so I'm trying to see what was ordered. I I recall this case, but I >> no a repeat violation. I need to know what the order is with regards to the underlying violation and if there was
actually an order that stated that there was an underlying violation or if there wasn't. I need that there was a finding of the offremis parking. I remember Miss Cole coming in and arguing that there was a conditional use permit that was being applied for. I have vague
recollection, but that's not helpful. And maybe um while the city is looking that up, perhaps Mr. Saison could go ahead and he can testify to his portion of All right, Mr. Der, while you're looking that up, I'm going to go ahead and Is is
there anything further from the city on this aside from my inquiry with regard to the underlying order? >> Not at this time. We're going to allow Mr. Saison to testify. >> Yes, I am going to allow Mr. Saison to testify. Mr. Mr. Saison, if you'll please come up here um and respond to
the city's uh violations against you. >> So, I want to get a better understanding of why I am here. Is it two different things? So, is it the containers and is it the parking? Is that why I am here for the for those two reasons? >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. Perfect. All right. So, let
me address both reasons for you. Um and Madam Magister, you're absolutely correct. Last time I was here, it was actually for a fence. There was no parking. So, this is not a repeat fence. Uh it was an understanding that I would not park cars there, but there was never a violation. So I have not been parking cars there with the exception of those
two times that were both shown. The first one, as the person test uh testified, was for a celebration of life. It was a dear friend of ours on St. Pete Beach who lived in Bella Vista. It's been a resident his entire life, passed away, and we did a celebration for life at the hotel for him and we
needed parking. So, I made an executive decision that for this one event, we would open up the uh facility and do that for the celebration of life. So, that was a one-day event. The second time we opened up the parking lot was for Memorial Day weekend, and we uh
rented the parking lot out for Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. So, there was three days of cars there. And that was basically a help to the city. The city is in need of parking and I did the right thing by trying to help the residents as well. The residents
constantly complain about cars being parked up and down the beaches and people can't find any parking spots. So I decided to make an executive decision, open up the parking lot and honestly saved hundreds and hundreds of cars from being towed from the Dolphin Village shopping centers where they get towed from all the time. So being the business
I'm at, I'm in the tourism business. Tourists only come back to destinations where they want to come back to and unfortunately the city doesn't realize that they are fighting off the hand that feeds them. The only reason the city has a job is because people like me that bring tourists to this area. So it's the tourism that comes back. No one's going
to come back to our area next year if their car got towed this year. So if their car got towed, we literally save hundreds of cars from being towed. They were all thanking me because there's so many people. Nobody ever comes back next Memorial Day weekend in 2027. They would never come back to St. Pete Beach. Hopefully by then St. Beach will have more parking. But I literally did a
public service job that weekend and saved people's rent cars from Maton. Then I donated all that money as well to charity with my kids. So I could have been anywhere. I don't have to rent parking. I own three planes. I could be in the Bahamas. My kids could be with
me. We literally did that to show my kids work ethic and giving back. So my kids were there. So the people hold on the sign. That was one of my daughters. So my daughter was there, my son was there, and we had another one of my son's friends helping out. So we did it because we did the kind of summit and we did it for the city. City doesn't realize they did it, but we did it for
them. We did it for the city and we did it for the residents as well that had no cars down their streets and they complained about all the cars down their streets. So that's what it was done for. >> Okay. And the containers >> containers are because I am one of the largest privately owned owners of land
on St. Pete Beach. I own property up and down. I don't know if anyone else owns as much property as I do. That's all from the hurricane recovery. [cough and clears throat] All those containers had hurricane recovery stuff. We've now moved them. So, but we the containers got there as soon as the hurricane happened. First thing I when the hurricane hit, I immediately got two containers on there.
Then the two containers became five containers. I own three hotels. I own the Dunkin Donuts. I own real estate all over the beach. And all that stuff was hurricane recovery. And what's unfair and why I'm being targeted is because I'm Robert Sison. Everybody else has containers and still recovering from the hurricane. I asked the city, I'm like,
"Why can't I still keep these containers here?" They said, "The hurricane recovery is over." Like, really? The hurricane recovery is over? I said, "Look around. How many people still have containers? How many people are still working on their houses?" So, they still have time to work on their homes. Yet, I don't have the privilege of working. Luckily, I moved all the containers. I had to move them off site to another
location. So, they're no longer there. But, I personally feel my attorney feels targeted as well. There's no question about that. But, we did comply. We did move the containers. So, as of Friday or Saturday, they were all moved out. So, the containers are out. There's still a little bit of debris there which we will clean up. It's just going to take us a week or so just to kind of find homes
for all that stuff, but the containers are moved. I'm not happy about it. I personally feel I'm being targeted by the city, but that containers are moved. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Saison. Anything further from the city? >> Um, no, your honor. We were still in the process of looking for that order and I
think that Mr. Dir um I think he agrees that maybe we do a continuence of this case. >> Yes. >> To straighten it out. Um, having heard the testimony, um, that's very helpful. >> Mr. Sison, do you have any objection to
the continuence? >> I do. Yeah. This is this is a waste of my time. It's a waste of your time in this kind of street. It's a waste of This is just ridiculous. There's no reason to continue this case. There's no violation here. Yes. Did I park for those three days from Memorial Day weekend, that one day for 4 days? Yes, I
did. And I told you why I did. And you want to find me, go ahead and find me. But this is done. Let's give it a >> Okay, I do have copies of the orders. You should Madam Special. >> Mhm. As I just heard you say, you're looking
at the orders. Respondent was notified that in and this is paragraph 4, as I mentioned in my testimony. Respondent was notified that it that it was a vi respondent was notified that it was in violation of sections 1.3, 3.5,
4.8, 3, 23.4, 23.7, 23.11, >> and 384, which are all parking, >> right? that they seemed they received a notice of violation on those that they were they noticed that they were violated. That's not underneath the conclusions of law and the order section
of the order. That's underneath the findings of fact portion. >> Correct. And in the order paragraph 8 >> I respond >> brings the property into full compliance with a >> but number seven says respondent failed
to comply with the ten the terms of the magistrate's order [clears throat] dated November 16th as the fence permit had not yet been secured. Nothing in this order says that there is a violation of the of any parking ordinance. this order. It's my order, so I'm well aware
of what it says >> that says that they were notified that they were in violation of those code sections, not that they were in violation. That was what the notices of violation said. So, I need an order that says that they were in violation of those code sections from the special magistrate. The city has not provided
that here today. >> Okay. >> So, if the city would like to recite Mr. Saison underneath a non-re repeat violation section, I'm fine with that. However, based on the evidence that's been presented here today, um, and the objection from Mr. Saison with regard to the continuence, I'm going to have to
find based solely on the information that was provided here today that this is not a repeat violation. Um, and so, uh, no fines will be assessed, no administrative costs will be assessed, and I will get an order finding that there is no rep repeat violation of the stated code sections. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Now, Mr. Saison has admitted that there was a violation of the code. However, that's already been tied to this notice of violation. So, I just want to tell the city that you cannot use that evidence in the future for a future violation. It will have to be a new evidence for a new violation. Um, that
will be for both of those code cases. So, um, Mr. Saison, I have your information. So I will get you all in order stating that there's no violation on case 20260104 or 2026201 as these are both notice as repeat
violation and there's no not sufficient underlying evidence to show that there was um an initial violation of those code sections. Okay. Um moving on to subsection 8 lean reductions case number 20250189
city of St. Pete Beach versus Marilyn L. Nolan for the Marilyn L. Nolan revocable trust. >> Good afternoon, Madame Magistrate. Excity of St. Pete Beach code enforcement. This is a lean reduction for case number
20250189. This property came into see here August 18th the property was found to be in violation as a copy of the order uh 4633 9864 65 and 66
gave the respondent 60 days to come into compliance $250 $50 a day from July 16th, 2025. Bear with me. This is my first time doing a lean reduction. >> No worries. >> Trying to make sure you get all the paperwork. >> Here's the lean reduction application
from the property owner. Property owner information. The total lean amount currently is $23,611.75. Not sure what the respondent is looking to have it reduced to. The property is now compliant. The buildings have been
demoed. >> Okay. Okay, it looks like the argument or the basis for the lean reduction is that the notices were not received, though they were sent to the property address that was located on the tax collectors. >> Correct. Uh and that that's been
updated. I still have the old one showing that it was going to Springfield, Missouri. >> Right. >> Uh all our paperwork's been filled out. >> Okay. Is so the property is in compliance. >> Property is in compliance. However, the city stands on the full amount to be
collected. However, we'll let Miss uh Nolan speak on her behalf. >> Absolutely. Okay. Any for the respondent, if you could please state your name for the record. >> Good morning. >> Good morning. >> I'm Marilyn Nolan. >> Good morning, Miss Nolan. And can you let me know what the basis for your
request is? Um the main reason and he's already uh said I was totally unaware of the proceeding um had I known I would have taken care of immediately.
I did provide an additional addendum last week where I gave a little bit more detail after the storm. Um, I didn't know exactly how to proceed. I
did try to contact um, Luke, the gentleman that uh, that condemned the buildings. I made numerous phone contacts. I did, and each time I
would say, I live in Gulport now. Um, I had moved to I had transitioned from Missouri to Gulfport full-time, end of 19, beginning of 20. So, I had paid the taxes on the property from a
bank in St. Pete Beach and from my address in Gulfport. So I assumed as far as any legal notification it would be based on the taxes on the property were paid from the address in Gulfport. I was unaware that they
totally unaware that they were being sent to Missouri but because of the length of time that transpired I was no longer getting any forwarded mail. So, I was just totally unaware. Uh, after the first of the year following
the storm, um, I would call Luke's office, um, I did get one email saying, um, to apply for permits. I wasn't sure because I had questions. The two
buildings in back were condemned. the front building, which was historic. Um, I didn't know if we were going to try to save it. You know, I needed to spend more time trying to decide what to do with that property. Uh, but I did make repeated phone calls and he did
have my email address and he did have my phone number in Gulfport. Um, then after the >> Oh, and I never did get a phone call back. I did get the one email saying to apply for permits. Um,
as everybody that I knew that was applying for permits, nobody was getting them. Uh, my renters that I had, uh, all were able to find other property. I actually helped them move and you know what they could salvage. I
helped them put stuff away and and get into storage. So because I wasn't sure what I wanted to do with the property, I figured I would just go to the back of the line and take care of it as I could. After the first year, I was in a car accident
and uh was hospitalized. I've had three eye surgeries. I have another one coming. I can barely see you today. This is my driver. Um so had I been aware of this, I would have taken care of it immediately. I would not have let it
gone on. >> Okay. And so, um, to Mr. Rivera's point, the application for lean reduction doesn't give, uh, what you're seeking to have the lean reduced to. Do you have a a proposed amount to seek the lean reduction for? And, and I would like to
preface that with this process is remedial after the fact. So, the city did follow the law and got the notices to the appropriate place. And I am I do sit in a position of equity. So, I I have to follow the law, but I also have a little wiggle room in being able to
take into other things into consideration that are not straight legal. Um, that being said, there were proceedings that happened. I did assess fines with it. Those fines did acrue and to the $23,000 lean. So, there's I'm
I'll just be frank with you. I'm not going to reduce it to zero because time and money was spent doing this and the city didn't do anything >> and I realize the city had expenses, right? Yeah. So with that being said, what is a proposed amount that you would like to see the lean reduced to
>> if you have one chance to speak? >> May I speak for >> Yeah, if you can state your name. Yes. >> Harry James Asenheimer Jr. I was Duis War in I find myself wearing many hats. I'm a friend of Maryland. I've known her going on maybe 15 years.
>> I've also been a realtor out here for 30 years on this beach and I've been uh privileged to be Maryland's realtor for uh five transactions now and I own approximately a block of property within two blocks of the subject property and so I've been dispatched on numerous
occasions to be the person blocking the property with the city and identifying notices on doors that was news to Maryland when I had Craig Green from the city come out to my properties very
congenial gentleman spent hours with us I know more about Mr. green in his past and his weight and everything else. Very civil person in the overwhelmingness of what everybody was going through. I asked him if he would walk my friend's property with me. We went down. We
looked at it. I said, [clears throat] "The condemned stickers." He said, "Yeah, we ran out of temporarily unsafe." I said, "Gee, that sends a different message when you post temporarily unsafe than condemned." Would you mind walking through the big structure with me? Walk through the 1920
structure. He looks at me. He says, "This is toast. No one spend money on it. It's not worth it." It's historic. It's 1920. Maybe the city would like it up at the shuffleboard court. Maryland offers it for a buck. At the same time, we were dealing with Mr. Rivera because
I had received four notices for my three properties for vegetation that was unsightly. That was what originally got us to the focus on Maryland's property. >> Went down there and found the condemn stickers. [clears throat] That's when we started to
uh respect Mr. Green's advice to contact a demo company. Sent Marilyn a bunch of companies. She picked one. They called up. They said, "Um, yeah, we can't tear them down." Said, "Why?" Historic Society says, "You can't tear them down." I said, "Well, one door at city
hall is telling them to tear it down. The other door at city hall is telling her not to tear it down. At the same time, she's being fined for not complying. This seems silly." So, when you call up the city, I can't tell you how many times I tried to reach Luke. He's the wrong person for the job. When
he finally showed up at my property about a month ago and told me he has 7,000 cases to get in line, it's not really the attitude you want to have to hear after 2 years of waiting. So, to me, the way the city has handled this has been worse than the storm. Storm was
6 hours of nightmare. The city's been nearly two years of nightmare. The you created the need to comply versus just being impacted by a storm and dealing with it. When I called a couple of weeks ago to address this matter, I tried to explain to the woman
that answered the phone that a client had been directed to do something by the city, but then told she couldn't do something by the city. She looked at her notes and she said, "It looks like we've done everything by the book." And I said, "How can you say that when one of
your own reps told me you put condemn stickers instead of temporarily unsafe stickers because he ran out of them. And her response, I'm not making this up, was, "Oh, that's a different department." I called up with the complaint that two different departments
were saying two different things. And I got the same exact response from that. Let me tell you on the overwhelming nature of already been pounded by these storms to continue to suffer at the plight of the overwhelming tasks that
you folks are surfaced with is has been a challenge. Um we got a dock down on 7th Avenue and pass still can't walk on. >> All right, Mr. James, I appreciate this. If you want No, this No, sir. And I just
like to finish. >> Mr. James, this is my hearing. I don't work for the city of St. Pete Beach. I don't work for the citizens of this community directly, but I do as an independent special magistrate. Part of that is public dollars go to pay my time to be here. So, we need to be judicious
about that. The thing that is before me is a lean reduction for Maryland's property. And I'm happy to let you speak if you are going to speak to the the little question that I asked, which was what are you looking for the lean to be reduced to? Your comments are valuable.
I think your comments would be better suited going to the city commission, which is the legislative body that controls the governing of this city. And then I can do nothing for you here today. The folks in this building can do nothing for you here today about what you're discussing.
>> I I was just given that as some background for why I'm coming to my answer with regard to the dollar bill. I I I and I appreciate that, but other properties in this community are not going to impact me on how I can reduce the lean on this property >> that I've made over the last two hours. I just like to finish my points with
respect. The timeliness of Maryland's compliance has been affected by the two door city hall. One door says do it, other door says you can't. She didn't have any written notice of an amount. And Mr. Rivera was explained to that over the vegetation matters, not even
the condemnation matters. >> B. So, Miss Ms Miss Nolan, what is it, Mr. James? You're I I B 0. So, Miss M Miss Nolan, what is it? Mr. James, you're I I appreciate your >> Thank you for your time. >> I I appreciate that. >> I'm going to sit down and get out of your way.
>> Miss Nolan, um, what I I've already said I prefaced that with I'm not reducing it to zero. So, what do you think would be a fair amount to reduce it to? What are you requesting? This is your petition. >> Yes. I I know the city has cost and expenses associated with this and I
value your time. I value all of your time. So, um I don't have a lot of money sitting around. I'll just be real honest that because I lost all the income from there when I lost the buildings. But, um
3,000 5,000 whatever. Okay. >> Thank you, Miss Nolan. I appreciate that. Anything further from the city on this one? >> Uh, no, ma'am. >> Um, and Mr. Rivera, the 23,61175, is that inclusive of your of the city's administrative costs? >> That's the administrative cost and the
lean recording fee. Can you total total cost? >> What is the f the uh just the fine amount on that? >> Uh, it would be minus the I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it' be minus the 330 and then $1850 for the clean recording fee. >> $18.50 50 cents and then the 330 in
admin. Okay. So, >> did I apologize? I didn't have those numbers. >> That's okay. I didn't have the the request in my packet. So, um 1850US30. Okay. So, by my calculations, using a
calculator so that everybody's on the same page, um I have the total fine amount is 23,26325. And I'm going to reduce that to 10% of that amount, which is $2,000 200, excuse me, $2,326.32
plus the 300 admin $330 in administrative costs of the city plus the $18.50 for the recording fee. Um, Miss Olen, I appreciate your time here today. Um, I understand the complications. I understand that the city didn't do anything wrong. They
followed the book. They are a legal entity. They are made of people. The people are doing the jobs that they are given. So this is just a confluence. This is why the city has this type of a process in it so that you could come back before me. Um I cannot do anything about the the violation on the property. It is what it is. Um but I will get you
an order. Please make sure I have your current contact information, email address or mailing address so I can send the order to you. Um you will have 30 days in which to com which to pay it. If you do not pay it within 30 days, then it will revert back to the full amount. um that the lean was calculated for um
anything else from either party here today? >> No, Madam M. Just for the record, what was the amount again? >> So, I had you told me that the the lean amount with the costs and the admin was 23,61175. I subtracted out the 330 and the 1850
from it, which ended up being 23,26325. And then I took it down to 10%, which is $2,326.32. plus the 330 in admin cost plus the $1850 for recording fees. >> Thank you, ma'am. >> You're very welcome. All right. Thank you very much, Miss N. I appreciate your
time here today. Appreciate it. I don't have anything else on the agenda. So, the next meeting is scheduled for August 10th, 2026. Anything else from the city that we need to discuss? >> Do we have one more case? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Did I skip it somehow?
is letter B for the lean reduction in section 8. >> I don't have on my agenda which I printed. I don't have a second lean reduction. I don't have a second lean reduction on this agenda that was provided to me this morning.
>> Is it's not on the agenda. It doesn't need to be agendaized as long as all the parties are here. >> Oh yes, he's here. >> Issued an order. You are correct, ma'am. >> I'm sorry. >> It's not on the agenda. You are correct. You issued an order. >> When did I issue an order? Do you have a
copy of it for the >> My question is I don't have anything else on the agenda and it wasn't brought up during changes to the agenda that there was an additional item added under lean reduction. I will hear it today if all parties are here. I don't have a problem with that. Uh nothing is required to be agendaized. I just need to know the information so that I can
consider it. >> Yes, ma'am. Uh Luc number >> is 20260046. Okay. And the property address >> 3593 Bale Vista Drive East, St. Pete Beach, 33706.
Uh, respondent Robert E. Partardo. >> Mr. Partardo. Okay. >> Actually, interestingly enough, I think on your online agenda there might be one. Okay. Please proceed. >> So, the fine and lean amount is 2,800.
Uh administrative fee 330 uh total fine and lean is 3130. Uh it's consistent with our policy. So the city does not recommend a uh reduction. >> Do you have a copy of the uh reduction
application? Can you put that on the >> I was able to pull it up website. Okay. >> Oh, I have it in my hand. >> You could please go ahead and just at least put it on for the record. The lean reduction application request
Mr. Robert Pradau 3593 Bel Vista Drive. This is the partial ID 07321607542004190. It says primary residence. Uh the date of the fine or lean imposed was 68 2026. The lean amount was 2800. Administrative
fee is 330. Total lean total fine and lean amount is 3130. He is requesting it to be reduced to 870 plus 330 admin fees. Notoriized and signed by Mr. Cardo,
this is his tax collector. >> All right. And Miss Night, you said the city stance is there is no they're not agreeing to any reduction. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you very much. Mr. Partardo, please explain to me your reasons for the request for the reduction.
>> Yes. Good morning. Um, thank you. I'll try not to be long-winded because I know you didn't have this on the agenda, so I'll try to be very brief and not longwinded, but thanks very much for having me here. Um, I'll see what I can do in providing you uh the basis of of
what the reduction is. Um, I'll try touch on on a few items. >> And I'm going to just preface this with Mr. Part because you were here a couple of times defending yourself with regard to the violation. And if it has anything to do with anything you mentioned previously um in defending the
violations, I am not going to take that into consideration for today's purposes because I've already taken it into consideration in assessing the original uh fines and the lean amount. >> Yeah, there there is some new information I'd like to go ahead and share with you all. >> I would appreciate if you comment.
>> You bet. You bet. And I just wanted to go ahead and and um open up and say, you know, that I was quite shocked when you had asked me and I guess we met on a month ago and when I heard the outcome, I was I was surprised and you had asked me, is there anything more you'd like to
add? And uh at the time I was just at a loss for words. So I've been I've gone back and I've reviewed some items and uh there are essentially four areas that I'd like to just touch on. Again, I'll [clears throat] be brief. And as I've reviewed the photos, I'm I'm going to
suggest there's a discrepancy of the violations, I also wanted to go over uh a second item regarding the communication that I had with the city and code enforcement and uh me not having the appearance here on May 11th. And lastly, the expectations of
homeowners. So, I I convey all this with great respect and whatever the outcome may be, I will honor that. But I just want to share this and not so much to benefit me or to have something that's justifiable, but I think across the board for the other residents of St.
Beach, I heard Mr. Seaison say uh a little while ago that he was advised that the hurricane recovery is over and that's unfortunate to hear and I also uh heard testimony about communication and I think that's something that needs to be enhanced for the city to to operate
in that manner. So I'll continue. Uh please jump in at any point in time. I I would just say anything in the discrepancy regarding the the conflicts of the violation. I'm not going to entertain any of that today. >> That should have been done during the time period. You were back here several
times. So that that should have been raised at those times. >> Well, I was here a month ago and I was here two months ago. I'm sorry. This is my third appearance. >> Correct. >> So, uh, with regard to an appeal, and again, I'm naive about this in the process, but when one enters into appeal, aren't they able to
>> It's not an appeal. >> Oh, it isn't? Well, then you have requested You have requested a reduction in the lean amount, not an appeal of your underlying violation. That is a separate process and I am not here to hear appeals. >> Oh, okay. >> I cannot hear appeals. >> Okay. Uh well then my approach with the city was inaccurate as well because
that's what I was suggested it would be. Well then I'll bypass that. That's un unfortunate. But I will summarize that I will I did go through the three sections of violations and it does specify height in increase of a height in excess of 10 in
and 12 in. I don't see anything in those photos where anything was in excess or near 7 in. Want to suggest that also with regard to trash and things of that nature in the yard. Nothing there. >> I know Mr. I have said I don't want to
hear anything on that. you can continue down that road and I will cut off these proceedings and decline your lean reduction. I'm just unlike a violation proceeding. All right. This is a reduction in the lean where you give me underneath the specified code section any information as to why you think the
lean should be reduced that does not have to do with your previous arguments on the underlying violation. Very good. >> Waved those arguments for purposes of this proceeding. They should have been raised under in the underlying. >> Very good. Well, then I'll go ahead and just go to I just scanned through these pages. That's what we was covering. I'll
go ahead and go to the the next area with regard to the communication. So, I have communications here with the city. >> Are these after the the the orders were issued? >> No, ma'am. They were for specifications or clarification regarding the
violations. >> Okay. Those should have been raised during I don't want to hear anything >> but then I'll skip over that too >> to the actual violations. All I want to hear from you is why your lean should be reduced. not why you shouldn't have been found in violation. >> Well, then I'll skip through a lot.
[laughter] >> Thank you. >> And and I say that uh again with respect and I I know time is precious. I will I will say this then >> I'll put this all this aside >> and thank you for bearing with me. Of course,
>> this can be a difficult process to go through and I understand that this distinctions are are nuanced a little bit. So, >> Oh, yes. Yes. And I appreciate that very very much. >> Can I use this overhead then? Is it >> okay? >> And if this goes in in uh in a direction
you don't want, >> I will let you know. Don't you worry. >> Well, good. All right. Thank you. This is um Max. Is it upside down for you or can you see that? >> Sideways. >> Thank you very much, >> Officer Knight. Just want to show you what it looked like after the storm.
>> Yes. >> I'm not going to entertain this. >> Oh, all right. Well, then that's gone. >> Been a lot of work done at the house. >> No, I I understand. And and Mr. Partardo, I understood that before. And keep in mind, after the storms, you did not receive an immediate violation. I
have already heard all that testimony. I have already considered >> everything with regard to your tree contractor coming out. Everything that happened, I understand that. >> Thank you. >> That has been heard and that is why I assessed the fines that I did and gave the time that I did. I took all that into consideration.
>> Very good. >> That said and done. The only thing you're asking here is to reduce that lean amount and I need to know why you're looking to have that the lean reduction. >> I'll try to be more specific to that. That Okay. Um, I want to suggest to the city and special magistrate that this is
a two-way street. You know, I I see through the city of St. Pete Beach. I've been here for a long, long time, and I've done a lot on my part to try and assist in any way I can the city and the other homeowners have gone through this.
Um, oh, thank you very much. This is where I used to drop that kayak of mine. It's still closed since the storm. and that's uh in the park in our neighborhood in Bell Vista. This is the
kind of condition that we have with trafficking in Bell Vista and these are all within the last two weeks. This is the condition, your honor. Um I object because this does not get to the heart of his specific case. Um if these are
adverse conditions, they're going to impact every resident. Um >> I I don't disagree, Mr. This is also not a legal formal proceeding with introductory of evidence. There's no evidentary standard. This is an administrative proceeding. >> Okay. >> Which you are asking to reduce your
lean. I have not heard anything nor will I entertain anything else that has to do with the conditions of the code violation. I have a very specific question, Mr. Partardo. Why are you asking for the lean to be reduced? It is a money situation. >> It is a money situation. >> The money has been assessed. You have a
lean. You are in compliance. I understand your neighborhood. I understand recovery from the hurricane. Why are you asking for the lean to be reduced from $2,800 to $870? >> I was seeking something that's more justifiable if if I haven't done my part and I've done everything that I can.
It's progressed. It's gone real, really good. I know that these fees weren't an intention for any form of punishment. It's for the safety and beautifification and the home has come a long long way. But what that also said that you know there are expectations of homeowners and you know we have expectations of the
city. So Pastor Grillil you know that's still in an area that's disarray here at sunset at sunset park disarray and there are areas of sidewalks that have just completely collapsed where there should be some cones there for citizens protection. So, the reason for that,
Madame Magistrate, is that, you know, if I'm due to go ahead and and pay some fines, I want it to be um comparable to what the city's going through. If they're going through, you know, budgets and and monies and workers that won't
even show up. So, that was a bas basis for it all that, you know, for what the condition of that property is in, I think it's come a long long way as of a couple of months ago. I still I still have an open permit. I'm now in, you know, we're in a new hurricane season. I
need to get this thing closed. I still haven't passed inspections and that's the communication I've had with the with the city. So, I'm trying to address your question, the basis for it. I'm just looking for something more justifiable. And what I tried to base it on was $30 a
day for that time frame plus the administration fees. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Part. I appreciate you uh coming to to the head of it >> and it's been a learning experience. I mean it's made me I think a better individual at least from a better homeowner and I know the laws a little bit better the codes which is something
that I should have known years ago being here a long long time resident. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Part. I appreciate that. Anything else from the city? >> No ma'am. >> Okay. Um Mr. Part your reason for looking for the reduction was justifiability based on a comparison between as a homeowner and what the city
is having to do, what the city should have to do, what you should have to do. I am not going to grant the the reduction request and this is why I took into account your position. I I my position here is irrelevant of what the city is doing. You I'm going to tell you
what I told Mr. Perry before. If you have a problem with what the city is doing, there are legislators that you elect that sit at this deis that you can go to and tell them that. I am not here for that. I am here to listen to you, which I did at several hearings in the past to make sure that whatever fine I
assess if I assess a fine and whatever fees that I assess are reasonable based on the circumstances. I did that. I took that all into consideration when I was assessing the fines on your property. I listened to the things that you had to say. We granted continuances. Um, I I
took all that into consideration because I ha I can. Um, I'm also confined by the law because that is what everyone that purchases property is confined by. Right. >> So, all that to say, I did all of that. I didn't hear anything here today that I didn't already take into consideration
except that I should have to pay less because the city should be doing more. That has nothing to do with your code enforcement um case. Um, and that has nothing to do with a reason why you should be looking for a reduction in lean from my perspective. So, I'm not
going to be reducing it. It is going to stay at the 28,000 or 28,000. I did not up it. Sorry about that. >> It's not [laughter] >> for the fine amount plus the $330 in administrative fees. Um, and and I'm going to get you an order that states
that. I do appreciate you coming here today. I've appreciated your appearance every step of the way. you've done more than a lot of people have, but I just don't find that the reasons are justified to reduce the lean. All right. So, thank you very much for that. And I have your information. I'll get you a an order on that as well.
>> Very good. Thank you very much again. Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Bardo. >> Um, is there anything else that is not on the agenda that I need to consider here today? >> Are we sure you This is your last ditch effort. >> Yes. >> I mean, we All right, sounds good. So
then August 10th we will be back here and I will see you guys then. We are turned. Part: 2
Florida LLC, the original defendant in this case. Um, I am not an employee of the city. I'm an independent attorney that's been selected by the city council to hear cases like this. Um, I have the only thing I know about the case is what
I did in 2022 and then the paperwork that's been submitted to me this afternoon. Our process usually is to let the city go first and then there's a response from the owners. Uh, what I'd like to do is have everyone identify themselves first. This is the only case, by the way, that's on our agenda today.
So, we'll um make sure we give it all the attention it needs. I'll start. Miss Stuper is the city attorney. Go ahead. >> Thank you. My name is Nancy Stuperich and I have the honor of serving as uh the city attorney. I am an attorney with the Voose Law Firm.
>> I'm Pete Der, the code enforcement manager for the city of St. Pete Beach. Then anyone from your team who will be testifying or or just just you? Okay. All right. And I know we have some other city employees who are just here to observe then. Is that correct? All right.
>> Um your honor, we we will have someone from budget here. Um and also from the building department. >> They'll be coming later. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Four gentlemen in the front row. If you could identify yourselves because I'm assuming that uh is District Holdings here or you are all
>> District Holdings is here. Adam Castbound for district. >> Okay. You were involved uh at least your name was involved at the the original hearing going back. >> My name was involved in the original hearing. I will tell you I don't believe I ever received notice of it.
>> Okay. And sir >> Okay. Sir Leon the co the second coowner of >> my name is Anthony Pav and I'm the GC of the project >> Pavoc P A V I C H
>> Edward Kilo >> I'm sorry >> EK P A V E K >> EK >> Yes sir. >> And you're the GC? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Excellent. All right. Usually u we start with the city. Usually that's a new case coming in, but since this has
some history, um I'll um I'll recite a set of facts that I believe are undisputed and then I'll let each side tell me whether I've assessed the situation accurately or not. Um the case started in 2021. Uh the allegation was
that the owner, the then owner uh started uh either repairs or develop redevelopment without permits and that the property was in substandard condition. That was in 2021. Uh on February 14th, 2022, I entered an order
imposing a fine of $250 a day retroactive to August 2nd, 2021. Uh Mr. Matt Johnson, who uh was the property manager, appeared at that hearing. Uh the city put on evidence and that was the order I entered on that day. On
March 9th, 2022, the city recorded a lean against the property with Penllis County Clerk. Uh, and basically it was the order that I had signed on February 14th. On April 8th, it appears the property was sold April 8th, 2022.
Property was sold to KAO Capital Partners. Assume that's who the two of you, Mr. Abraham, right? >> Ben. >> Okay. And Mr. Diane. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. And uh that was April 8th, 2022.
Five days later uh at a hearing in this room uh I was asked to enter a second order that I took to be as an agreed order with a then owner well at that point the former owners uh indicating that there'd be 90 days to rehab the
property starting uh from April 13th. um that $86,500 was going to be deposited by the original owner with a title company and that was the estimated amount of the fines that would have occurred uh through that 90-day period. Uh the fines
were going to run until the property was bought into brought into full compliance and that that I as special magistrate would have continuing juris jurisdiction to enforce the order. That's the order that I signed on April 13, 2022.
Uh this year, uh looks like the case restarted June 18th. The second order I signed in April of 22 was recorded with the uh Penllis County Clerk. Uh on June 19th, Miss Stupage, in her capacity as city attorney, sent a demand letter to
the title company asking for the release of the $86,500. Uh 4 days later, uh I was asked to issue a subpoena to Westchase Title asking them to provide documents uh to the city showing what was in what was actually in
the escrow and the documents that dealt with the $86,500 that was deposited in escrow. On June 26, the property was posted with notice to the um uh to the owners and it included both um uh KAO uh Capital
Partners and also the former owner, District Holdings Florida LLC and the registered agents. And then there was written notice sent the same day uh to uh all the parties KAO Capital Partners and District Holdings. That was June 26th uh informing them of today's
hearing. Uh today uh what's on the agenda is a status report from the city. And then part B of the uh review today is whether I would enter an order authorizing the city to foreclose on its code enforcement lean that was recorded
in 2022. That's what I believe um is before me today. There is a state statute uh Florida state statute and the city code that provides that the special magistrate may authorize the city attorney to foreclose on a lean uh after
3 months of the lean uh being recorded. So that's what brings us to today. Turn it over to Miss Stuprich if you have anything to add or to correct. And >> thank you your honor. Um >> I think Mr. Der had an opportunity to hear my recitation what I thought think >> well I think he came in at the right
moment. um the city's position. Um we have I believe we've extended notice of of our concerns today uh of today's hearing to everyone that we felt was was a part of this um
transaction and uh code violation. So the city's position and I will offer the testimony of um our code enforcement manager as well as our building official um regarding the status of the property. It is my understanding that the property
is currently not in compliance uh with the code um that it remains in violation of the um sections that were cited in your in your prior order. also that um there has been uh no ability to bring it
back into compliance and therefore there's been no release of the escroed money to the city uh to basically pay down the amount of the lean. We'll also be presenting an affidavit from um or a
representative from our finance department who will now give you the current um amount of the lean that is due and owing the city. At the time of these prior orders in 2022, it was anticipated um at close to their
day of closing, the amount of the lean was 64,000 um with the anticipation that the property would be brought into compliance and therefore then subsequently um a request could be made for a lean reduction
um which of course did not happen. the amount of the fine has has continued to acrue. Um and as I said, we'll have the um the exact amount for you. Um that is what we know regarding the status. Um
some of those facts will repeat itself when we go into a discussion regarding the authorization to foreclose. So at this point, I would defer to um our code enforcement manager to discuss the status of the property as far as
compliance. And I believe we have um a representative from our building department here as well. >> Yes. Um our building official Luke Curtis is in in lie of Luke uh Curtis our building official. Joe Boland will uh tell us the
update on the status of the permit against the existing owner. Um this case um does not just include the existing owner but the previous owner and the agreement was that the city entered into
some sort of a agreement so that the transaction the sales transaction that occurred um could have happened um as opposed to the previous owner having to pay the full amount of the fines that I think has
acred to over 300,000 and that's what this says that there was um funds held in an escrow account to be released to the city if the property was not compliant within 3 months of the order that you executed. >> Miss Dupert, did you get a response then
from Westchase on the subpoena that you issued? >> We did not. Um, so again, we were trying uh very hard to find um some documentation regarding the settlement that was represented to the former city
attorney that sat Mr. McConnell. Um so we did not find a copy of a settlement agreement nor a copy of an escrow agreement. We also thought that perhaps there might be reference to the escroed funds on a closing statement or some
other type of um documentation. So we did uh request that a subpoena be issued to Westchase. Um and that followed our demand letter. Um and to date we have not received any uh any information from them.
>> Okay. All right. And you wanted me to hear testimony then from your uh from city officials or city employees >> from our building official. If you could provide an update on >> She's not here. Okay. How about finance?
>> Joe Boland who is going to be speaking on behalf of Luke has access to the permit information and the current status. >> Okay. Is she here? >> Yes. >> Okay. Yes. if you can come to the stand and I'm assuming >> you know before we do that I kind of did
what I would characterize as an opening statement here. So what I'd like to do is just turn to the owners uh in former owner and if somebody from the group wants to make a brief opening statement just to give me your perspective on where we are if you want to. You don't
have to but I I would like to hear from you now if that's possible. >> Yeah. Um >> come on come on up. Yeah. So, we're not going to um normally if you're going to give testimony, you have to be sworn in. Uh
at this point, I'm just because we are just dealing with opening statements. I just want to hear what your position is and then we're going to go through a formal process if there's a need to do so. Go ahead, sir. And you were Mr. Cast Castell. Yes. Right. Go ahead. >> Um so, I don't have remarks prepared, so
I'm I'll go off the cuff. Um uh some of the things that were said uh make sense to me. I think I understand them. Um and others that I'm hearing for the first time. Um so
just to start from the beginning, I my company acquired the property in 2020 uh with intent to uh renovate the property uh and restabilize it in compliance with all uh
city requirements. Um I hired uh a company that I am familiar with. Uh this is the first property I've ever I had ever bought uh in St. Pete Beach. I owned a few properties in Sarasota. Um I had a good relationship with the company
down there that I engaged to uh manage the renovations and the lease up and stabilization of the property. Um and I'm a full I have a full-time job. I live in Washington DC. I am not local to
the area. Um I generally trusted them and relied on them to manage all aspects of the property of the you know renovations, repairs, stabilization. Um and
uh just to you know put another point on it uh I when I bought the property I closed on it in I think it was February of 2020. uh just before the COVID pandemic hit.
Um when I acquired the property, it was fully leased. Um once COVID hit, I was unable to collect a single penny in rent uh every single one of the 14 units. Uh and they all knew each other, I think, and you know,
they just decided they were not going to pay rent. Um, so I funded, you know, the everything out of my pocket. We did the best we could to um to bring the property into
compliance. Uh, I I don't have the figures in front of me. I think I spent somewhere between $3 and $400,000 uh on renovations. The company that I engaged, and this is the Mr. Matt Johnston works for that company. Um
I I don't know what um permits would have been required or what um he did or didn't do. Um the reports that I got, you know, throughout call it 20 and 2021 were that he was doing everything that
he could do um to bring the property into compliance. Um it was made difficult by the fact that the the tenants who were there at the time, you know, essentially refused to vacate the property. Um and it became a
difficult situation. Uh I continued to fund, you know, the property, paid all the taxes, paid all the repair costs, um until simply it became too painful for me to do it anywhere, to be honest. Uh, and um, I'm also I'm a full-time
practicing attorney um, in Washington DC. Uh, although I will tell you this is the first time I've set foot in a courtroom in 20 years. Um, simply not what I do. Um, and I just decided I I couldn't do it anymore and decided to to um,
>> to sell the property. Um, when I decided to sell the property, I think was the first time that I had learned of uh code compliance issues or anything relating to a lean on the property. Um,
and I quickly became pretty clear to me that uh it was not going to be possible to bring the property into compliance on my own. I just don't have the skills to do it. Mhm. >> Uh, and I no longer really fully was
able to trust or rely on the company that I had engaged. I didn't really have enough contacts locally to be able to hire someone else. So, I decided to sell the property. Engaged a broker um and uh you know, the broker marketed the
property and you know, eventually uh uh struck a deal to sell the property to these gentlemen here uh and their company. Um, and you know, I knew that there were discussions between my broker and
representatives from the city about the lean. My intention was to sell the property subject to the code compliance lean. To my knowledge, there's nothing in the Florida statutes or city ordinances that prohibits a property
from being sold subject to a lean of that type. Um, I don't know if that's true or not, but that's my general understanding. I'm not a real estate lawyer. Um, that was my intent. Uh, and that's what we ultimately agreed to do.
uh KO Capital Florida and District Holdings Florida agreed that the property would be sold subject to the lean um with an expectation that the um that these gentlemen would bring the
property into full compliance. Um the notion of a settlement with the city is um well certainly something that I have heard over the last call it two years
maybe three years that there was a settlement entered into uh in connection with that sale. Um I did not sign a settlement agreement. Um my intention was to sell the property subject to the code compliance lean. Um as part of the
transaction between my company and these gentleman's company um there was an escrow agreement uh for um and I didn't know the number off the top of my head. I think you said 86,500 for that amount of uh funds be deducted from the
purchase price of the property put into escrow. uh and held in escrow by the title company. Um the expectation at that time was that the escrow would be held the escro funds would be held for something like 90 days. Um to be honest,
I'll be fully transparent with you. My expectation was that there was no zero chance that the repairs could actually be done in 90 days. But um you know I was the seller in the transaction and uh yeah that that's what we all
agreed to. Um the escrow did not have a a limited period of time on it. Um there is an escrow agreement and I'm happy to provide that escrow agreement. I don't have a written copy in front of me but I have it on my computer if like if you
want me to print it out for you. I'm happy to even do that right now. I've got the computer in my car. Um the gist of the escro agreement though is you know that once the repairs have been done that the property were brought
back into compliance with uh all city requirements that uh the two of us that you the buyers and the sellers would jointly uh I'm not sure what the technical term is
but do some kind of a a request for uh a fine reduction um which I am told I was told is relatively routine um you know with the hope that and I sort of recognize that we're kind of at the mercy of the city uh you know with
respect to the reduction and the fine um but you know we we are expecting to you do the fine you know reduction request um and essentially you know throw ourselves at the mercy of the city for that to be reduced and for uh some of
those escro funds depending on what the ultimate reduction in fine was be released to the city um you know based on our you know written instructions and then you know the rest of the funds be released to uh to myself and and to them
and you know there's a relatively complicated uh provision in that agreement as to how any remaining funds would be split between them and me. Um, the city is not a party to that escrow agreement. Uh, to my knowledge, the city
never requested to be a party to that escrow agreement. Um, I think that's pretty much everything. Um, you know, beyond that, you know, since then, um, these gentlemen can tell you, you know,
their their journey in terms of, uh, trying to bring the property into compliance. Um, my understanding is they were pretty close uh until the hurricanes of 2024 hit and and that was a major setback for them. Um, that's I think that's all I have to say. I'm
happy to answer any questions that folks have. >> Um, I I actually I would also um say I I know there was a hearing in 2022. Now I know that there was. Um, the first time I learned of that hearing, uh, was when
I received the notice for this hearing. Um, I I don't know what happened. It was a little bit surprising to me because that hearing was only a couple of days after we closed on the sale. Um, and so I was sort of surprised that nobody brought
that up to to me. I'm pretty sure no one brought it up to these gentlemen either. Um, I do know that I was never served notice of that hearing. Uh, and to the best of my knowledge, my registered agent did not receive a notice of that
hearing either. >> All right. You know, rather than doing any kind of it really wasn't sworn testimony, so no cross-examination at this point. I think what we'll do is I appreciate your background on this gives me some background I did not have previously. I
think what we'll do is we'll let the city move forward with its case. You and the four of you will have an opportunity to respond as you see fit. >> Sound good. >> All right. All right. >> Thank you, your honor. >> Yes. >> Um I'll I'll start and then we'll have
um testimony from um city staff. >> Um I really don't object to any of the representations that um have been made as part of the opening statement. Um it is consistent with what we were able to find. What again as I mentioned earlier
we have not been able to obtain a copy of the escrow agreement which would have set forth um many of the terms the specific terms and conditions. However, um in April, there was a hearing before
your honor and um the then city attorney Matthew McConnell did provide um your honor with the facts that had been uh conveyed to him regarding the essence of the escrow agreement itself. And your
honor, those facts were um memorialized in your finding of fact and order um from April that was entered on April the 13th, again shortly after the the closing that transpired between the parties. A copy of the order was sent to
the respondent's property manager, Matt Johnston. Um, and it was also mailed to the respondent at 200 West Cameron Road Falls Church, Virginia on April the 14th.
So, the first um matter that we would like to basically bring and uh I have to add that your honor did retain jurisdiction um to enforce the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. Um and you
were also um authorized uh the parties to move forward with it and to take whatever actions were necessary. Um no actions have really occurred. We we recognize that the new property owner
um has continued to work on the property. However, it still is not in compliance. So the 90-day period that the parties thought would be sufficient um turned out not to be um and that was
in 2022 and yes we did have several storms um thereafter. However, as it stands today um it is my understanding that the property is not in compliance and at this point I'll defer to Mr. DIR to um
to talk about the compliance component and also refer to our building uh representative. >> Mr. Der, >> Mr. special magistrate. Uh part of the process for a lean reduction and the reason why
um there was this request or a settlement agreement was that the property could not have gotten a lean reduction um because the owner of the property at that time um was there were existing violations on the
property as well as those violations were not corrected at the time. So for him to be able to sell the property, he had to have corrected the violation. So again, contingent upon this um agreement and and the settlement was uh putting
funds into the escrow account as as um Miss Stupich uh mentioned is in the is contained in the order because the property was not compliant um against district holdings prior to it being sold. So the the sale was again
contingent on holding funds in an escrow account for the new property owners to bring the property into compliance within that three-month time frame. >> Okay. I know there was some discussion about lean reduction and we aren't anywhere near a conversation about a
lean reduction. I think um you had made the comment sir that u that there is a process for a lean reduction and u it's something that we've handled previously. I've handled it as special magistrate and it usually as Mr. Der indicated it
does come after compliance has been achieved. All makes sense and you know with and that goes into the the the decision as to whether a leaner reduction is appropriate as to whether there's been prompt compliance with a previously issued order. So that part I
I understand. So we're really not focused on lean reduction. That could come later on. I'm not saying I'm not inclined to consider it, but it's I don't think we're talking about lean reduction today. I think we're talking about the status of the property. >> Correct. >> And I'll disclose to the parties. I did
drive by the part the property. You probably saw me cruising the property this afternoon. Um and I believe we're talking about the white building. >> Both of them. Both both are white. >> Okay. >> 550. Yes, sir.
>> Is on the east side of I'm not sure what the north south road is or the one that >> Got it. All right. And then there's It looks like there's another piece of property that's attached to the white building. It's a singlestory. Is that part of this conversation?
>> I believe you mean like a second story. This is the same building. >> Same building. Okay. All right. Okay. Just so I because I wanted to see it. So, I had a visual as far as where you are with your repairs and that. So, so I think we're talking about the status of the property and then the question is,
is the city a will I authorize the city move forward with a foreclosure action? >> Um, your honor, we would like to present testimony from our building um representative um regarding the current status of of their permits that they have.
>> Joe Balden, the stand, please. >> All right. And ma'am, if you can give me your name again, please. >> Sure. My name is Joanne Boland, permanent administrator. >> Joanne, your last name is >> B O L A N D. >> Boland. All right. And I'm going to
actually will start swearing people in. Uh, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. You may proceed. >> Okay. Um, instead of going through, since this is an old permit, I don't know if you want me to go all the way
back to when it was first submitted for review. That will take probably an hour and a half going back and forth with revisions. I can tell you right now
for a permit that was submitted in 2022, inspections that have been performed, five inspections. First inspection performed 517 2024
for building windows, doors. There was no product approval on site. There was not a permit placard on site. It was failed. There was an inspection performed on 521 which passed
uh for the windows and doors as well. Um the building is open from the pool side of the building they're saying alongside Corey is locked up. So they approved that one on 521 2024.
There was a building framing on October 6th, 2025. Partial pass says all framing inside all individual units. Okay. There was an electric temp pole
inspection performed on 10:27, 2025 that passed and there was attempt to permanent power inspection performed on February 2nd,
2026 was cancelled by inspector Jason Steel. Not ready for permanent power. I assume you meant to schedule for temp sawpole hookup. Inspection was passed and released to Duke Energy on 10:27 2025.
It was not hooked up and now it looks like the meter can assembly has been removed. It will need to be fixed before any further action. Those are the five inspections that have been performed on this property. Right. >> Anyone from the ownership group, past
owner or current owner, have any questions of Miss Boland? Well, that last comment is >> Come on up to the podium, sir. If you could state your name and this is a opportunity for you to ask Miss Bolan questions. >> Yeah, this last comment is uh on the
wrong job. Um that the one being canceled by Jason for the temp. >> Yeah, come on a little closer. Is Mr. Pavoc, right? P AV EK. We he did that comment for 600 which is the same uh
building directly across the street. Yeah, we had not even are ready for that inspection. So maybe that was just misfiled and at the wrong one. >> Yeah, he could have put it on >> 550 instead of 600. >> Yeah, I mean but there's been a
multitude of things with this permit. So, I would say I'm I think I'm the second or third GC on this one on this project. And so, when I inherited it, there was definitely some violations that we had to clear up. Um, but this
has kind of been like a moving target. Uh, we had I had a meeting with Jason Fitzgerald, I believe, is his name, the fire chief. Um, when I was there, he told me that this building was owned by
not this gentleman, but the previous owner, the Russian lady, and that they basically were, you know, cooking meth in this place. It was very rund down and a rough, you know, area. I don't know anything about that. Um, upon my inspection of the place, you
know, they had actually cut to put um air conditioning, you know, in the wall just like plug-in ones. and they actually had cut through like venting stacks and were excuse me breathing in like waste into the building. >> And so I had known that there was some
issues and then after speaking with Mr. Fitzgerald he told me that on the second story there was basically a problem with the subfloor and we needed to pull um he's like you need to go check that out because that there's a problem in there. So obviously if the chief of of fire is
telling me that there's a problem I need to go fix it because I had been notified. Well, when we went in there, we proceeded to um go beyond the initial part of the permit. We had to, this is when Mark uh Vasquez was here. We had to
go back and we had to redo all of our there was a a pause on the project for an extended period of time for us to go back and be it be at level two or level three and get that solidified. we were able to work everything through, get to a level two, and then we had to introduce additional scope of work to
the property. Um, underground fire protection being one of them. So, we had to go run that whole course in order to get um back to a point where we could actually restart and move push the project along. You know, the hur the hurricanes came and then, you know, we had demoed, the hurricanes came and then
we had another long delay because FEMA was in here. They thought that we it was going against the FEMA numbers and they're like, you know, you're over your threshold for your 51%. And we had to stop everything and say, no, no, you know, our permit was from before. The work we've done before. In truth, the
hurricane didn't really affect us too too much in the sense of damage to the building as much as cleaning up the mess that was kind of all around us. So, there's been, you know, some longer um project delays in here that we've had
to work through. Additionally, there was another revision that needed to be done for uh the um permit where we they were building we had to build a deck to hold the HVAC in there. That took some time to get in there. So, and then then there
was another uh fire fire permit that was pulled on the property where the city came to do the backflow and they just put the backflow over here in a different spot and then we had to resubmit drawings. And so, I'm not saying the whole timeline is is that,
but there's definitely been some uh a lot of revisions and you know us going back and forth to try to get everything where I could get it approved and actually move the project along. regarding 600 Corey Avenue. >> Um, >> should have been the same note,
>> more inspections. >> So 600 Corey is not the subject of today's hearing, >> but he's saying that that inspection should have been on this one, but 600 Corey had the inspection for the attempt to permanent power and passed on July 13th. >> Oh, well, yeah, he just did it today,
but it was he did the inspection on uh July 1st. Okay. >> And Mr. Uh, again I'm jumping a hitter. Mr. Abraham and Mr. Diane, do you own 600 Corey also? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. So, not the subject. And is that occupied now?
>> No, not yet. We should have a CO building final this week. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> All right. Miss Boland, anything else that you wanted to add? >> No, I think I think that would be it. Like I said, if I were to go back to
2022 and go back and forth, back and forth, it would take too long. >> I don't think we need to go back through the history other than I'm surmising that the property is still not in compliance as we sit here today. I'm not ascribing any blame on anybody at this
point. I understand you with Mr. Casten Bomb's uh involvement. Uh we have an international pandemic that intervenes and then four years later we have her uh two hurricanes that hit the area unlike anything that we had seen in the last
100 years. Certainly understand that. Um but I think from my perspective the question before me today is the status of the property. And I'm surmising that the status is not in compliance. Sounds like Mr. Pavoc and his crew working towards compliance. City is working with
you. Whether it's to your liking or not, I don't know, and I'm not going to get into that. But that's that's a matter of communication between owners, GC, and the city uh staff, but I'm I'm I'm assuming at this point that the property is not ready for occupancy. >> No, sir.
>> Okay. >> And I would also say that this new building officials fivestar rate, we were just talking about it this morning. >> I'm glad to hear that. >> Okay. Okay. The new guys have been very helpful in getting >> through. All right. Miss Bolan, anything else to add? >> No, sir. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you very much.
>> So, your honor, as far as the the first part of um today's conversation at this hearing, um is the status of the property and and as you mentioned, uh we definitely agree that the property is currently not in compliance.
um that unfortunately because the various things that have happened um this permit was not uh the property was not brought into compliance within the 90 days whether that was realistic or not. Um and they continue to move
towards coming into compliance but they are not in compliance. Um, in closing on the status component, I just wanted to bring to your honor's attention um, your paragraph 7 in your order of April the 13th.
And there you have acknowledged that the respondent, the seller, um, District >> Holdings, >> District Holdings Florida LLC has prepaid the estate amount of the fine and that the fine would continue to
acrue. In paragraph 8, you made a finding that the title company was handling the transaction. they would hold the escrow in accordance with the escrow conditions which we have not been able to identify or by further order
issued by the magistrate. So we would be requesting that your honor consider issuing an order directing the title company to release the 865 to the city as a prepayment uh representing a
partial payment of the existing lean. That's uh and that's we haven't gotten to the issue as to whether I enter an order authorizing you to proceed with the foreclosure yet. >> We have not. >> Okay. All right. Mr. Kenbomb, I know you have an interest in that $86,500.
That's why you're here today. Usually, we would not see a former owner here unless uh the fine was still you were still subject to the fine, but it sounds like your agreement with KAO was for them to take it subject to the fine with
the $86,500 that you did not receive at at the closing being held by the title company. And >> correct. >> I don't know. Yeah. >> I will tell you also, >> come on up, come on up to the podium, please. So we >> in interest of of uh of full
transparency uh when uh when I sold the property to these gentlemen uh part of the purchase actually I think all of the purchase price for that property was in the form of a promisory note. So I have a lean on the property that I believe is junior to the lean that you are asking to be foreclosed. That's another reason.
>> So you still have an interest in the that as basically the lender at Yes. >> You've got several hats on right now. Okay. >> All right. Um, let's let's discuss the escrow then. So, come on back up, Mr. Kenbomb. So,
Miss Stupage, the city attorney, is asking me to enter an order directing the title company to release the $86,500 to the city. Your position on that is what? >> I would object to that order. >> Okay. And basis for your objection,
>> um, I don't think they're entitled to it. They're not a party to that escrow agreement. Um the escrow agreement is an agreement between District Holdings Florida and Kao Capital Florida. Um I don't see what interest the city would
even have in those funds other than as you I guess a payment on the lean. Um which I acknowledge is there. Uh our hope is still to uh request a lean reduction.
>> Okay. So the what I'm hearing is the the amount of the fine is six figures now in excess of $300,000 and I don't think we have an acc we don't have >> we don't have the number yet. >> We don't have the number yet but >> well we have it but that's >> we haven't gotten to that. We So, we're
going to hear that number later on and the city is asking for me to enter an order that would authorize the $86,500 to be released to the city credited towards that number. So, that number would be reduced. Um, I'm guessing that you your position would be along with
the current owners would be to come back and ask for a lean reduction probably. >> Correct. >> All right. So, that's as I said, that's not before me today. So the only issue is the enforcability of the order that I entered on April 13th. We had our hearing on April 11th. 2 days later I
did the written order and it was represented to me that the title company was informed of the city's interest in this pro in in this money. I was not I did not look at the escrow documents. I
left that to the city attorney and to whomever was working with you on the sale of your property to KAO and I'm assuming whoever they may have had as an attorney was looking at that also. So, >> correct. Correct. I was and and Kao's attorney was. Um, no one from the city
ever contacted me. Um, I do know that they talked to my real estate broker, but my real estate broker would not have had authority to enter into any agreement on my behalf. >> All right. All right. Miss Stupage, >> um, >> your next point
get a chance to speak, sir. >> All right, let's do that now. Are you okay with that? Any objection? I know we're taking things a little out of order. >> This is quasi judicial and um we really would like to get this resolved somehow. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I think that's that's everyone's goal. That's that's definitely my goal
in flying down here. >> Mr. Kenbomb has spent a lot of time at the podium today. He's represented that. He's an attorney in Washington DC area in either Virginia or DC. Um his Why don't we uh assume and have him acknowledge that his um testimony was
the truth and that we'll treat it as sworn testimony? >> No problem. >> All right. That way we don't have to have him come back up. All right. Thank you, sir. >> All right. Someone from KAO would like to speak. >> Come on up. And then why don't we have you before you speak identify yourself
because obviously we have a recording going. >> Sure. Omar Ben Abraham I am a coowner my business partner over here a little bit uh thick accent so hopefully you understand if you're not please let me know. Okay. So I prepared a little bit a note over here. Uh first of all we understand the city's concern. Okay it
took a little bit while uh but we all know that you know by saying hurricans and stuff like that it's not like a minor thing. Hurricanes people were here with canoes on the street. So, we know that I'll be a little bit less offic like uh official. I'll try to I'm just
uh talking from my heart and uh on this property we had a lot >> Let's do this. This sounds like testimony. >> Sworn in. Yeah. >> Right. Right. So, I'm going to have you be sworn in. Do you >> Do you have another option? Because Jewish people doesn't swear. >> I I allow you to be You affirm I always
use the word swear or affirm. So, do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? >> Yes, sir. >> Please proceed. >> Um, so we understand the city's concern. Okay. We here to work with you. Uh, you saw us dealing with the hurricanes, with
FEMA, with everything that we had. It's cost us a lot of money. I will tell you that. It's not nice for us for us not to have an occupied building. We all know that. We're here to tell the city and to you your honor that we're here to make it all the way to the finish line. You
saw 600 Corey which is the same building, same materials. We tackled whatever the city asked first which is the exterior. It was a eyesore for the city. Now guys, the city asked for uh the exterior of
the property to be tackled first and when we did that uh it was an eyesore. We understood that. We immediately went with windows and exterior all the painting and all that just in order to show the city that we're here to work.
We are in a finish line with 600 quarry. We show you guys that we are accountable. We are here to work. We have the funds ready. We have the contractor here. We have the former owner here. We work together on this one. This is a major thing for us. We,
you know, we're not fighting or stuff like that. We're here to work together and I believe that it shows you guys that we are serious. Um we flew in we have a cruise over here and we are here to tell the city and to you your honor that we have we can provide the city if
they would like to again in about within 72 hoursish to give like a full gun of the project to show you start to finish what is it that we're going to do the funds if you need to approve of funds whatever you guys need to in order to show that you guys that we are here to
work and to bring it to the finish line I think it's going to be the benefit of the city that's the the people in the SP beach for us as an owner for uh Mr. Casem for everyone here just to bring it to the finish line. I think it's going to be a a win from from our end and we
can provide more uh places that are brand new for people to for tennis to to be here. You know, we talk to the people over here. We we get a great comments. You your honor, you drove over there. You saw the property. You saw everything. And I hope that you like
that. Yeah. But uh the selection that we made, we made everything with uh the thought that hey, whoever going to live here going to enjoy and going to get a great product. And that's what we want to we about to to do the same on 550. So I know that as Anthony just mentioned,
we have a great guys working with right now with the city >> and hopefully that we can go hand to hand. We want to make it happen guys and we're here to work. >> So So I'm clear 600. Cory, how many units are in >> seven units over there and 14 in another one? >> Okay. And the intent on the rentals on
those units, what's the duration that you're pl Are they >> or 600 or 550, sir? >> That's 600. >> 600 is ready to go. That's it. We have already >> How long will the leases be on those? Are those >> It's already uh we already posted. It's already We have a lease up company. Everything is in place right now. We're waiting for the CO.
>> Yeah. >> And that's it. >> And what's the duration of those leases? And I'm not sure what zoning district that's in and what the restrictions are as far as the long term. >> Are they short? They're short-term. Long-term. >> Long-term. >> Long term. >> Long-term meaning at least you're talking.
>> Yeah, we want a year. Yeah. But I think that the term if I'm not I think that it's a more than a month, but we are shooting for a year. Yeah. >> Minimum is 30 days in that zoning district is what I'm hearing. And again, this is not a zoning. >> We want a year. Yes. >> All right. Yes. >> Okay. >> We want to provide. >> And what are you planning on doing with
550 then? same thing. >> Okay. >> Because the the city of St. Pete Beach um is very aggressive in enforcing its duration and if if the zoning ordinance doesn't allow short-term rentals, meaning one week or whatever the term
may be. I mean, I want to make sure both of you understand. >> We're not here to trick no one. We're here to make the we are a good boy. So, we'll do whatever need the city wants us to do. We'll make sure that people get the best units ever. >> Okay. All right. And Mr. Abraham, you
mentioned that you have proof of funds to finish the job. So, um, >> your financial arrangement with Mr. Kenbomb then is that you're going to finish the building at some point >> there's money that's paid to him or will
he continue being on the note? Uh, as >> right now the note he's he's on the note as you can see. uh we will finish the building and we're going to decide there is an um um the note will end sometime. Yeah, there was I don't remember the the specific date but there is a end date to
this one if you >> like I'm just curious again I'm trying to get the full picture here. >> Yeah. >> And I think the city has probably not had this opportunity to talk to you because I understand Mr. Kenbomb's from DC area Virginia side. Um Mr. Abraham
and Mr. or Diane. I think I saw a Wisconsin address for both of you. >> All right. So, and this is your first time that you've had a chance to meet uh some of the city employees or have you >> few times?
>> What? Four years ago. >> Yeah. Four years ago. >> All right. All right. >> All right. So, I'm sensing that you you're renewing an acquaintance now that started four years ago. But I think for the city to bring me in means they're at their the
end of their patience and they want me to move this along and I have certain tools in the tool box all the way up to foreclosure which is probably equivalent in again not as serious but equivalent to what would be death penalty in the
criminal case where you lose the property and all three of you end up walking away without anything. So that that's that that's how far this could go and that's why I think the city wants you to understand how serious they are at this point. >> Um whoever wants to go ahead
>> again one sentence uh we want to finish this project. We want to finish we want people the tenants over here to get the best product. I think there is a lake of good products over here which is units longterm. >> We want to have the chance we can show you guys whatever you want. Simple as that. We're here to work hopefully that
you like 600 because we think we did a great selections. Let us do it. I think that we're not going to disappoint you guys. >> So your honor, there is one uh I'd like to make one statement and then ask one question. Um the statement that I wanted to make, I was not the attorney that was
present. However, I did view the video of that hearing and there has been reference made to 600 Corey. 600 Corey apparently was able to come into compliance and at that point um there was a representation from Mr. McConnell
that there was a settlement reached on the lean on 600 with a reduction from 64,000 to approximately 13,000 or some ballpark of that. >> So this I just wanted to remember uh remind everyone of that that this is not
an isolated is uh incidents. this was part this whole idea of the 90 days and the city being able to recover its money uh payment of the lean was not um the the city that was really part of a
larger deal which was to try to bring these properties into compliance and I think that's an important fact to be uh remembered and then the one question I want to ask you is as the buyer as the current property owner are you opposed to the city being uh having the 86,500
being released to the city. >> Yes. >> On what grounds? Why? >> Again, so uh you want to uh want to help me out on this one? >> Yeah. Um I'll have my uh colleague over here to the home corner. >> Hi guys. >> To help you guys,
>> Mr. He was he's more involved in the in this uh 86,000. Uh >> all right. Sir, your name. >> Hello everybody. >> My name is Kefir Diane. You got that already. Thank you for everything you guys said. This a nice chance to
actually um say something in front of this uh in this forum. Um I believe this is not our only real estate deal. I mean we're pretty well experienced and seasoned. There's a lot of people that will walk away from that property long time ago.
We're fighters and we are finishers. Um, this property took a whole lot of bumps on the way in so many different different aspects when we took it in. Even the submitt of paperwork and and the plans and the planning, there's so much to it. It's a very involved project
and we took it upon oursel because we're winners, not because we're there to lose. I know that now it sounds like, okay, it's been four years, but it's been a four year of a lot a lot of dirt and a lot of bumps. And we never stopped. It's it's it's factual. If you look at the process within the city to
the engagement this the money that we put in and then we had to shift when the hurricane came money had to be shifted to 600 which was a a rented product. It was like a complete product that it wasn't the nicest, but it was like we had tenants. All of the sudden you need to put half a million dollar there or
whatever. I'm just throwing numbers or couple hundred,000 there. >> Manower >> and manpower the the the people that we have to put to actually work. We had to shift there to finish because it's a smaller product. So, we can actually rent and make some money back. So, there was a lot of bumps on the road. And I
hope you guys see it. Uh, and believe in us because we're actually here. We're working. We did a facade. We did windows. We did doors. We here to fight and finish. I'm not a loser. I've been doing this. This is not my first rodeo. Been doing this for a while. Dealt with a lot of cities. Got to tell you to be
honest. Just like as a tip for the city. I don't know how you're going to take it. Anthony is telling me that today like the team is better. It's been kind of difficult too in some aspects. And I'm not I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying this is not I've done hotel conversions that's been easier than than
what we're doing today. Uh but thank God things are going good. You know, we we're put in our efforts. We we are all in uh motivationwise. Um and hopefully soon enough you'll see it finished. You know, like Omar said, we can we can show you again of the
process. We hear very often as an owner, I live in Wisconsin. I'm a father of three. I have plenty to do. I have little kids. I have a full-time job beside that. So, we here because we want to win. We want to finish. So, all I'm asking is that you allow us to do that
regarding the escro, which is your point, right? Um, I'm in a position that that money should go toward the property, rather to go to the city because we've done everything in our power from day one to actually
comply or get it to compliance. And it's been a like I said, it's been a bumpy road and and so much money and efforts and people. I cannot even start describing. I can sit here for three hours and just like spill and and complain. But I don't want to. I'm here to tell you guys, we've
done everything we can. I'm here today. I've been here last week. I've been here two weeks ago. I've been here four weeks before that. We're flying in and out just to make sure everything is happening. 600 is finishing. We put a lot of gas on it so we can get that seal and we're riding back to 550. Please
allow us to finish it, sir. It's a lot of money. It's a lot of efforts. Don't take it away for us. Like, give us the chance, the ability to show the city, here we're done. At the end of the day, we all have the same goal. City is not a real estate investor. City wants to see
nice buildings and an upgrade to the um how do you say community. We're the latest and greatest on the beach by far. I can guarantee it. You walk into my building today, I've seen what's going on. We are the nicest looking. The other one also nicer looking. What it does,
it's it's it's it set up an example for the next building next to me. Allow us to do it. I I mean, I'm uh that's all I'm asking for. >> So, Mr. Diane, first of all, um I did not swear you in, so I'm going to have you affirm >> affirm. I can't everything you just testified to and that you'll be
testifying to uh in the future will be the truth. >> 125%, sir. We'll stick with 100%. Okay. >> All right. >> I don't like that. >> Number two, uh, what's your timetable for completion of 550 KOA? >> So, we we think we're going to do it at a certain amount, but I'm going to give
you the safe zone. Six months. >> And we can provide it again. >> We can provide the G so you can see it. >> G N G charts. I'm sorry. >> Sometimes our accent gets >> No, I got it. No, I understand you. >> But we have the funds. We have the
people. We have the motivation. And we just finished the exact same product. >> Materials is >> half half size like seven. This one is 14. >> So whatever we learned or even if it's material wise uh problems that you win
uh that you learn within the way like on the way you know you've been struggling with this with this you learn you can move faster. I know the time to it. It's quite a bit, but let me show you that we can do it. I mean, it's gonna be great, you know. >> All right. >> Thank you very much.
>> Thank you for allowing me to >> All right, Miss Dupris, did you have anybody else in the city that you wanted to have testify or Mr. Der? >> Um, no, but I think Mr. are um and it's probably more relevant for the foreclosure discussion, but if you could go ahead and advise everyone as to the
amount that's currently due in ing. >> The uh crude amount for 1441 days is $361,34. In addition to that, um if I'm not mistaken, there is a for sale sign of that property
550. >> No, we don't No. >> Why was your inspection cancelled in February of 2026 as Miss Bolan attested to? >> Anthony, can you answer? >> I'm sorry. First of all,
>> come on up. Come on up to the microphone if you could please. >> I would like to say first of all, where is that escrow? Um, not escrow, I'm sorry. That fine that you got the 361,000 is from and why aren't we aware of it?
I'm the owner of the property. please. That's the first question. Uh also, why am I not in compliance while I'm under um your uh permitting requirement? Even though it takes me time, it doesn't mean I'm not working. Why are you punishing
me for it? Uh that's a question that I will ask. I mean, I shouldn't be punished. I should be driven by you guys to actually finish. And you're right, there's probably an in a a patience uh span you can take, but we really went through quite a bit. Why making it
harder? You know what I mean? Like we here to work to finish. I I didn't even know we have $361,000. >> Yeah. So, that goes back to the original order that was entered of $250 a day. The state statute authorizes the city to ask the special magistrate to enter an
order based on a per day basis, a per day amount, and the city asks for $250. And it often is enough motivation for owners to get their their property in compliance quickly so they don't have to deal with a huge amount like $361,000.
>> Shocked. >> We're we're now four years removed from that date. 4 years plus. >> But within the >> So that's the 1441 days times $250 a day. So you the the city and the city
has the authority to collect that amount. They'd have to go through a process if you don't voluntarily pay it to to get that amount or they can do a foreclosure on the property. And that's why we're here today. I think the question is if you're able to work something out with the city, would I
consider a reduction in the amount? You have a couple options there. Yes, I would, you know, I would entertain a request. I can't guarantee I would give it. I'm just telling you, it sounds like we've been through this process before uh with on the other property where the fine was $60ome,000 and it got reduced
down to 13,000. >> That's before you bought it, >> right? >> That was at the time you bought it. Yeah. >> Yes. >> And that's how you were able to buy it. We have to remember that part. There was this was contingent on that >> with the city's agreement. >> I'm sorry. I I need to object to that. Yeah. Mr. custom bone.
>> I don't I keep hearing that from the city that the city had to agree to something for the property be to be sold. The city to my knowledge and correct me if I'm wrong, your honor. Um I don't understand that at all. The city cannot block a sale of property between two private parties.
>> I think what the city does is the city recorded its the order that I had signed which becomes a lean on the property that is disclosed in the title report. Correct. that these gentlemen or their attorney had that report prior to closing on the property and it sounds
like there was a discussion that they would buy it subject to the lean. >> Correct. We >> knowing that it's 200 and again they may not have known the details of it. I think they you know whoever helped you with the sale to for you to buy it uh may have told you that we'll get this
lean reduced and there and again that's not a guarantee. It's something that is discretionary on my part. Um and I've entertained and you know I've I've I've reduced leans um over the objection of the city. I've have I've denied requests
to reduce leans. I mean I've it depends on the set of facts of the case. I just don't want to telegraph right now what I would do with a $360ome,000 lean. Uh because I really need to see more progress before I would even start we'd start having that conversation. I
think in this particular case the city is frustrated. This is their opportunity to get your attention. They have your attention. Now, the best thing that the four of you could do would be to meet with the city, develop a plan, whether it's a three-month, four month, six-month plan, and get the plan uh in
place so the city can close the books on this particular piece of property, let you get get back, and if there's money left over from the 86,000, you know, you'll have whatever your agreement is with KAO, you'll be entitled to that. And then you put them in a position
where they can start generating some revenue to start paying the note that you are holding on the property. I get all that. Realistically, that's what needs to happen. And it sounds like I mean I I can deal with this today. I'd much rather see you have a conversation with Mr. Der, Miss Stuperidge and see if
you can find some kind of common ground on where we go from here. >> Yeah, I I would like that very much. uh as well. I think you know there's been a lot of engagement from these gentlemen and their contractor with uh uh maybe the technical people the the building people uh very regularly my
understanding I think maybe it's just not communication between those people and and and whatever the division is that y'all are with I could be wrong again I don't know but um you know I I I think you know what you're hearing maybe is some frustration from them I mean listen I I will you my view is I'm a
little bit um I I will tell you I was shocked when I saw uh that there was a hearing in 2022 within a week or two after the property was sold. Um the city clearly was aware that the property had just been sold. Um
I saw that these gentlemen were not present at the hearing. I'm kind of shocked that a hearing was held about a property where you knew ownership had changed hands. They were not given notice. I as the prior owner, >> I was not given notice. My property
manager may have been given notice. I don't know. I'm not working with them anymore. Um the real estate broker may have been given notice. I don't know. >> Um but you know the sale had closed and he got his commission. >> Um so I mean listen you heard Kefir you
know. >> So so Mr. Johnson was present at the first hearing. He spoke with authority whether he was communicating with you. you know, the city and I, as I sat here as special magistrate, believed him when he said that, >> and I'm sure that everything he said was
true. >> Authority, right? Right. He had authority to deal with this matter and he did and he was able to put together a sale subject to the lean and unfortunately there were a series of events that didn't allow this to happen with the speed it should have happened.
So, here we are four years later, >> your honor. Also, your um your findings of fact and order directing compliance in position of a fine corrected does say that the city is authorized to conduct reinspections. The case is set for status before the special magistrate on
April the 11th at 1 p.m. So, they were provided notice in your order itself. >> Yeah. I mean, Mr. Johnson, you know, we we had deemed that we had jurisdiction. Whether you received whatever notice was sent to your Virginia address or not, I
don't know, but Florida law shows you have to have proof of service. And then when we have a property manager show up, that tells us somebody was aware of this case. Yeah. >> Whether it was you or just Mr. Johnson not communicating with you or not giving you all the facts. Sounds like he was
working on trying to sell the property, which he did. Here we are though, four years later and we still need to get this man. >> Understood. Understood. I just you know you keep uh you know reading you findings of fact from a hearing that occurred uh 5 days after I think 5 days
after the property was sold um where you knew that that transaction occurred clearly and you knew that the owners of the property uh weren't present. I don't think you were able to show that the new owners of the property had notice of that hearing. I had no idea that that
hearing was going to occur. Um, so obviously didn't disclose it to them. I didn't know. Um, I just I I I would move to say that those findings of fact and I'm not saying that uh your findings of fact are erroneous, but um I I
I I'm not sure that we can take them as well, I don't want to say that. I just I I question the fidelity of the city um in moving forward on an enforcement action on the property under those circumstances. >> Yeah. I my assessment would be that the
lean would have been disclosed in the title report. It was >> and the the buyers would have been aware or should have been aware that would be notice uh under the legal definition of what notice was required and whether they were they needed to be added as a
party at that point. I don't think so. Uh I would obviously want to hear from Miss Dupich on that but my u my assessment is the order stood. It was recorded, ran with the land, and whoever bought it bought it subject to that fine being imposed.
>> Oh, we're not Yeah, understood. And we're not disputing. We're not disputing that. I'm just I'm just questioning the the notice of the that April 11 hearing uh and whether it was really properly done. >> Um I don't believe that any notice even of the original proceeding was was sent
to my registered agent. We would have to go back into the original code enforcement case, but we're not here today. >> Yeah, not even not even worth like revisiting all that. That's not what I'm suggesting, but I I understand it's a juris it could have been a
jurisdictional issue had it been raised in a timely manner. We're here we are four years later and I you know at this point I'm not going to render any kind of decision as to whether we had whether the city had jurisdiction over the previous owner or not. I think we're here today to try to deal
with this. And it sounds like we have parties that are willing to make uh an effort to complete the project in a now timely manner. And the question is whether the city wants to allow you to do that or whether they want me to move forward with an order authorizing
foreclosure. That's that's where we are. >> So your honor, again, as I mentioned, um the property is currently not in compliance. It has not been in compliance for approximately four years. Um, I've heard the testimony, you've heard the testimony, that they're
willing to move forward quickly, but I have to note that the testimony from our building official was that the last inspection occurred back in February, and today is July, and it took a lot of uh work on our part to try to do the research to try to find out, well, why
where's what is this money? Where's the status of it? How come it hasn't been released to the city as uh we believe was authorized in your order? Um can I >> you know I have both of the parties have objected to giving the city the 865 that
is in escrow. um they currently owe the city over 300 and something thousand 361,000 um865 could be a partial payment towards that and uh we could consider then perhaps um
waiting a bit before we move forward with a foreclosure. >> I yeah Mr. do or I my recommendation today and again I'm not trying to defer making a difficult decision because I I really don't see it as a difficult
decision. Um what I would recommend though is since you have the parties present um and I don't know if you're here for a few days or not but try to meet with the city officials and and get a >> solve the problem. Tell us what to do. >> Get asking for 300,000. I didn't understand why they're asking for right
now. you do ask the >> Yeah, they're they're entitled to 361,000 as we sit here today. Okay. And the question is whether and and the way they would collect that would be to start a foreclosure lawsuit that would be filed in Penllis County that you would have to respond to and that will
take some time. It will be some expense on your part also because uh unlike this proceeding more than likely you're probably not going to want to represent yourself. >> What's the benefit? Who who benefits from that? Well, the city's been the benefit for the city is it gets your attention and I know that you've been
making an effort. You've you've shown the effort you've made on 600 Corey now it and you've you're focusing on 550 Corey now. That's great. U but I think the city is frustrated at this point. And again, what's happened between February and July? I don't know. You
know, again, has it been total radio silence? I don't know. I'm hearing from Mr. havoc that the city staff that he's working with now is much more responsive and easier to work with. >> Yeah. The I I I would like to say the the city and this is just from my
experience with them while I was the owner of the property did everything they could to make it more difficult uh and to make it as difficult as possible uh to bring that property into compliance. Um it sounds like uh from what I've heard from these gentlemen uh at least up until recently uh it was a
lot of the same. Um, it sounds like the city may have a vested interest in dragging it on as long as possible to so the fines continue to acrue. Um, you know, I I'm not >> part of my calculus. In other words,
again, I I'm not I can't really hear it today because I really need to hear from the city as to what their employees because their employees may come back and say, well, the, you know, the GC was hard to find. He and again, I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying two sides to every story or three sides to
every story like this when there are multiple parties involved. So, but that's not something that we need to address today. The question is, and I did hear Miss Stupage say um the city might be willing to consider deferring a decision on the foreclosure, giving you an opportunity to meet with the city,
put a plan in place, take the gant, show the city >> with the delivery of the 865 to the city as a partial payment. What basis under law would you have to to you receive a partial payment on the lean? I I I don't I don't understand.
>> We can accept a partial payment on the lean which would draw down the final amount. >> Are you willing to are you willing to release the lean? >> We don't >> I don't I don't think I don't >> not that's not a full satisfaction of the lean, but it would be a partial payment that would buy you a little more
time and then you could come back and ask for a reduction if you wanted to do that. you would have already prepaid 865 towards whatever that reduced amount would be. >> Yeah. You're not you're hearing from us. You're not going to get a voluntary agreement from us to do that. We're I I will tell you I am
I I I it's extremely emotional for me. uh you know how incredibly difficult the city was and made my life and my property manager's life um throughout 2020 to 2022 um the
additional amount of money that I had to continue pouring in to that property um only to hear uh that the city was throwing up further roadblocks and making further demands. Um, I my mental health suffered greatly,
continues to suffer. Um, and now I've stuck these gentlemen, you know, with the property, uh, stuff maybe isn't the right word. Um but I felt you know when I heard how difficult it has been for them uh you know when they it was uh
I would tell you guys if if you'd rather me not >> I I would tell you when when they came to me um in December of last year um saying that you know they needed you know reprieve from payments on the note
uh and and explain to me what you know the the situation that they was and I felt that they were in, I would felt terrible. Um, and so of course you I I did that and in fact I even uh you know they're raising additional funds to complete the property. I committed additional funds
to them uh because of how bad I felt about it. Um it was uh but I will tell you that the the saga of this property and what it has done to my life um is
I I don't know. Maybe one day I'll write a novel about it. >> Mr. Robert, you wanted to make a comment. >> Well, yeah. It's >> We share the same I don't want to say the same story, but same feelings. The amount of money that we spent could
go to way better places than interest than stuff like that. It's like throwing garb money to the garbage. We all all have families over here. We all feeding kids and we give charity. I prefer to give this one to a charity than to throw
it to the garbage. Payment after payment, four years of payment. If you're saying again, I'm repeating the same thing by saying it's a three months and hurricane came. I'm telling again, you know that people here there's a videos of people swimming with canoes
over here. It's not a regular rainstorm. people with canoes on the street and it's made us going back to 600 Corey renovate the whole thing raise another money go back to our investors that are not believers anymore hey another time another time you think how many times we
came back hey we need additional uh capital call capital man how many times we here to work I also want to say again it's not the situation right now but it's kind of a double standard I feel that when you have the ability to control on the inspection time or call a
time and you find me 250 a day. Okay, so you can drag it all the way to seven years. I'm not saying you no one did it, but I'm saying it's kind of when I'm thinking about it right now. It doesn't make sense. It was super hard back then even to get an appointment. We had
multiple emails. We I came here. I've been thrown out from here. Not throw out. But oh, you need to get an appointment. I need to get an appointment. Okay. An appointment. You're calling. No one is answer. Emails. No one is an answer. Man, you giving service. Give the service, man. I'm, you know, I'm here to work with you. It was that back then. Right now,
we have better people. I'm not going to blame no one. I want to work with the city. Let us finish. >> We understand that at this point. Um, I'm not on the city side. I'm the neutral. I'm the umpire that calls balls. >> I'm just commenting on the same comment that >> what I'm trying to do is I
>> Mr. Pav, go ahead. Just just to kind of add to what he was talking about, you know, I mean, immediately following the hurricane, it was like part-time hours here. You could only come in for a short period of time to talk to anybody like, you know, it was that was a very it wasn't just us. This was experienced
everywhere, you know. Go ahead. >> No, I got you. And and just some other contributing facts to why things were delayed, just to give some added context. You know, obviously this is Florida. There's a lot of labor, right? We try our best as builders to get real
guys to come in. They signed trade agreements that they're going to use real guys, but that's not always the case. Throughout the duration of this project, I think in July 1st, 2024, they made a law change here that if you had undocumented people, it was a felony. Immediately a bunch of labor
left the the the job, right? Um I probably had to recruit this job, I would say maybe five times. had to go get different guys because it was just hard to get um crews beginning in February going back to the beginning of this year. You know, we had a huge influx of ICE was here. A lot of people
I mean I personally lost like 20 guys um in like four crews. So, you had a bunch of jobs that all of a sudden were just sitting and everybody was fighting for labor to try to get things going. I'm not talking about the lean. I'm just telling you like what the market conditions were and what everybody's um just to give you an added understanding
of what's going on. And I'm well aware of what's going on in Florida in the last starting going back to 20 with COVID and then obviously with the hurricanes and then more recently with labor shortages. >> Yeah, I mean totally understand that. >> I mean that's all like a force majour. I mean, if the governor
>> had no control over those three events. Uh, but I understand what the city does control is its employees and there may have been um lack of communication or miscommunication between owners, GC, and city staff. U, I think what I'm
suggesting now is I mean, this is my third building official or fourth building official that I've been on since this project. There's been a lot of turnover. >> Say anything. It says something. We hear the work. All right. >> Hey, we left our job site on February. >> Mitch, final final word.
>> Yeah, I think we're we're starting to become a little repetitive perhaps. I know I am >> because you didn't lose money from your pocket. We lost money a lot. >> All right. All right. Let's do this. I What I'd like to do is we've been here for an hour and 20 minutes and I'd like to go ahead and have some kind of resolution.
>> Let's do a closing. basically um again as I've stated um that based on the documentation, the testimony um there is no evidence that the property is in compliance um at this time. And with
that said, we defer back to your order of April the 13th um where you retain jurisdiction and you did um state in the order that you would uh have a further order issued
by you uh to uh release the 865 that's being held in escrow. It was stated that it was prepayment of the estimated amount of the fine. Um, we believe that the city is entitled to that money at this time. Um, and that's that's our
statement. If they if they in fact if they in fact are sincere in doing that, there should be no issue in releasing the money to the city because we have to deal with what are we going to do with $361,000 lean that's due and owing. the 865 would
simply be a down payment or a partial release or partial payment of it. Um, that's all. >> All right. Last comments from ownership. >> Mr. Dan, >> um, I ask
that you please be factual. I know that that's what you be. You're you're neutral, right? In this case, I am. So, >> effort shouldn't be punished. especially full of gas efforts. Do you know what's
happened here? We talked to a bunch of properties owner here. This the same going through the same process that we've been through. The city should help and we we're here to work with you guys. I'm telling you, please in your face that I'm ready and able and we will
engage. We I'm here till tomorrow. I have to fly out uh tomorrow. We came for a couple of days for this especially. We have all the plan laid out. Forecast is all cleared up. 600 is almost finished. We shouldn't be punished based on efforts. >> So when would you be available to meet
with? >> I will be very happy to meet tomorrow early A.M. because I have a flight to catch in the afternoon. Gladly. I've I've done it many times here. >> Right. >> If not whenever is comfortable for you guys, give us like a week or two. >> I'll fly in. >> Yeah, >> gladly. >> Whatever it is, we'll work with you.
>> I've been coming here every two weeks. >> So my to do whatever needs. >> Okay. There's no reason to punish us for efforts. >> Told you what we needed. >> Yeah, >> we want money, but efforts and we have I want to say something off the record. >> No, it's on actually it's on the record. So, go ahead. >> On the record. Yeah, there's no off the record here.
>> Okay. I don't think it's going to be of like helping no one by find us again 300,000. I can put it in a property. Your people, our people can get a better property. Why not? We got suffered enough with money. I'm telling you so much money that I could give to the
better place and so are you and so everyone we want to take this money put it in this property finish the project say goodbye shake your hand and tell you guys thank you for let us be it is what it is now we I again I don't understand
what like how is going to help someone to come and just you know bring us all the way to the floor we already there we want your help right now >> you know we want your help >> it's degrading It's not >> we want you guys to feel for us a little bit and we want to finish this project.
Think about it. You you came all the way to the mountain and you can't just cannot enter the land. We want to be there. We have the materials, the contractors, the funds, the gant show us, tell us what we need. We'll make it happen. If we don't deliver, do whatever you want, but let us give us the chance, you know.
>> All right. >> Any interest? >> The further thing. >> Go ahead, Mr. Kenbomb. >> I I know it's been a long time already. um you the the ask for release of the 86,000 first. I I don't think there's a legal basis for it um without our
consent. Uh yeah, but uh also and we understand that you and you've indicated you're you're not you know ready to uh express any opinion on a lean reduction and I completely understand that. Um but the release of 86,000 uh you know would prejudice you know us in uh at least you
know some amount of that lean reduction that we would hope to get. Um uh and I would also further request uh you know respectfully uh based on the testimony that you've heard today uh that further approval of the fines um be paused while
these gentlemen continue to to to try to bring the property into compliance. >> Yeah, >> your honor, we strongly object to that. >> Okay. And I get that. I understand. And your objection is noted. I'm not going to pause the fine. the final continue on as we've discussed as the original order
um provided. Um, what I would like to do is I'd like to give everybody um some time to meet whether it's tomorrow morning or when you come back in a week or short notice. I'm willing to give everybody uh a month 28 days from today.
You you're still meeting on second Monday of every month I believe. Correct. >> Yes, sir. But I'm a little bit concerned about the meeting because we have been as these gentlemen have said they've kind of met over the last four years and we're still in the same place. So, I think this is the 11th hour for
everybody, for the owners. They understand that. I do believe they're sincere about completing the project. They did complete 600 Corey. Again, I don't know that to be a fact. I've not been inside, but it looks like it's a near completed project. I believe I heard that there is an inspection coming
up for the CFO fairly soon on Friday. So, you know, they and again, I think this is a um an opportunity for the owners and the city to meet uh one last time to develop a plan. If the plan doesn't come out of a meeting, then at
that point, I'll be ready to make a decision and the decision will be there will be some kind of fine imposed because it has been a long hall for the city. The city has incurred substantial costs. Um, and I understand there's frustration on the part of the ownership group, uh, as far as performance of
certain city employees, but the good news is I'm hearing also that you found somebody you can work with, and that's good news. So, >> will you be there, sir? >> No. >> A third party will be there. Someone will be there. >> No, it's between you and the city. >> Yeah.
>> Oh, yeah. We need like a mediator. Someone will help. >> I Well, I think I think you know, you're all adults and the city knows what the code is. you should know what the code is. Um, and I think at this point it's a question of timetable, proof of funds,
when you can deliver without coming back and asking for extensions that >> they will show it to you like you >> I I I'm not the person, you know, I'm not I'm not the I'm not in a position to approve a plan for you to follow and dictate that upon the city. The city
needs to look at the plan and decide whether it's realistic or not. But every day that goes by is 250 250. >> The 250 acres. Now, we've we've been through the lean reduction process before. I I will tell you the $361,000 is a huge number. I probably would agree
with you that some of that money should be put towards the property. I can't say I'm going to zero out the the the lean. I I'll tell you now, I'm not going to do that. There will be some kind of fine that will be imposed. how you break that down between you and the previous owner.
That'll be a matter of negotiation, but there will be a fine that will have to be paid. >> I understand that. I don't know if it's going to be 86,000 or not. I don't want to say right now, but you know, you do have to understand when you're meeting with the city. Um, you have to understand that there's probably going
to have to be some kind of fine imposed. >> Why, your honor, I'm I'm a little confused as to why you would be imposing an additional fine. It would just be the acrual of the continued. >> I'm not impos I'm not adding I'm just the $250 I I was asked to pause the $250.
>> Okay. I'm I'm sorry I missed I didn't hear that correctly. And the just to be clear the 865 is not currently coming out of your pocket because it's in escrow at the title company. >> Where money come from? That is the money. >> Yeah. >> Well, you don't have it. Yeah, but it's
it's >> so so the 86,000 the 86,000 >> our money consider it's your money that was deposited into escrow as security for the city because >> how many kids I can feed with 86,000 >> we have to go back though we have to understand you have to go back to April
of 2022 where the city agreed the then city attorney agreed to give the the new owners 90 days whether you were part of that discussion or not we don't No, because that it was just represented to us that an agreement had been reached.
>> There was also the reduction on 600. >> That's part of >> and that was and because there was and and that's why there was some good faith shown on the part of the city and then I was willing to reduce the lean at at that point and that was a substantial reduction. It was what an 80% reduction
which is something the city would normally object to >> and we appreciate >> and and and I don't know if they're going to Yeah. Yeah, and I understand the personal aspect of this, but you know, I I'm I'm looking at the business aspect of this as to what I would want
if I were the city attorney and the city code enforcement manager. But I also understand your your position, too. Um, I'm just telling you that as far as you being able to walk out of this f at the end of this process with no fine at all, that's probably not going to happen.
There's probably there will be some kind of fine imposed. Uh, what the amount of that will depend on how You can negotiate what we need. We'll make it happen. I'm telling you good. >> All right. So So not trying to I'm going to leave it beautiful.
>> So are you back on on August 10th with Miss Oello? >> Um well we will we'll have representation here. Um >> but your honor, we would like to move on to item B which is the authorization to foreclose. >> All right. >> Let let let me hear from Miss Uridge on
that. Go ahead. Is there a >> So under Florida law basically um if a lean is a fine is imposed and a lean is recorded and the lean is of record for more than three months um the local
government can come to the special magistrate and request authorization to foreclose that lean. The lean that we're looking at um requesting um the authorization for was um entered on February 16th of 2022.
Um it was recorded on March the 9th of 2022 and um is my understanding from staff um and Mr. door. Um you'll testify to this that the lean has not been paid um and
that it currently has accured um uh for 144 one,441 days. Um and let me let Pete go ahead and testify. So I don't want to testify to that.
>> Yes, it um Mr. of special magrate. The fines have acrewed for the last 100 uh 1,441 days and continuing to acrew at $250 per day and it's now upwards of $361,34 plus an administrative fine of um $1,054
and which brings it to the total of $361,34. Okay. So, the request is for me to enter that order. That statute allows me to enter if the lean is not paid. I think this gets back to our original conversation. If there's going to be an agreement, then I I'll defer a, you
know, if there's going to be a meeting to try to resolve this, I'll defer a decision on that, too, uh, and give the four people here today on behalf of the defendants an opportunity to meet with the city and discuss it. And if it's if there's no agreement reached, I will
enter an order that would authorize the foreclosure of the lane. >> Sir, how do I know that I can I can actually actualize action meeting the city? They seem like they want the money. Doesn't look like I don't feel like like >> Yeah. Yeah. I think you're going to have to meet with them though. I mean,
>> I would love to fate having a conversation at a special magistrate hearing a code enforcement hearing. We're not going to resolve that matter today because I, you know, I'm not the one that gets into the details of >> request a meeting and in their mercy we might have one. >> That's what we ask our third party.
>> I think uh they understand that they have an obligation to meet with you now as a result of today's exchange and if that meeting is productive and you come up with an agreement, I'll enter an order that there's an agreement that's been reached and I'll honor that agreement. If not, then mo most likely I
will enter an order authorizing the foreclosure of the lean because that's what the state statute authorizes me to do. If if the lean is still outstanding, the the validity of the lean has not been challenged even though I know you you don't agree with it, but it's still
a valid lean because went through a process. >> Yeah. Went through a process. Lean was recorded. You bought it subject to the lean. That was part of the negotiations. And now we're at that point where the city has to force force the action and
that's what they're doing. >> Okay. So in this forum you will tell you I'm here until I can meet until noon tomorrow or anytime that you guys set forth. >> Well I kind of did ask why uh you have not called in inspections and I don't think I got an answer. And by the way the the last inspection was October of
2025. So there is some responsibility on the owner's behalf to call in inspections. It's not just based on them blaming the city for certain things and blaming staff when they have a responsibility to call inspections in. As we just heard
from Miss Boland, there was a partial passing of an inspection. So again, this idea of meeting with us to discuss calling in inspections or having inspections done. I'm not sure how it is going to um so what what would be the reason? Please.
>> Well, I I would look at it. >> All right, let's one one person at a time. Mr. Pav, go ahead. >> I'm not looking at this as two different projects. It's more one project in my mind and how we're project management and sourcing guys. And so we basically,
you know, went and we started on 550. We moved everything to 600 because there was more of a pressing. There was financial issues, lender, you know, I mean, all of that that kind of comes along with it. We were able to quickly get that project resolved. As I said, we're just waiting on Duke. We've been
ready for building final inspection for 2 weeks over there just waiting for Duke to rerun their wire so we can energize and get everything closed off and then we were kind of circling back. So, it wasn't a matter of like walking away or abandoning the job. It was more looking at both of them as a as one project as a
whole and adjusting. Man, as I was telling you, you know, we've lost crews, we've had to move guys around and um taking it more as like a 360°ree approach. again. Yes, he he mentioned that to Miss Bolan when she made her presentation,
but that uh inspection was uh requested in February of 2026. My uh concern is looking at this status report, the building framing was the last inspection done on this property that was called in that was passed in October of 2025. My
request is how come no inspections have been called in since 2025? Never mind the the the one that you mentioned about Duke and and the installation of of the temporary power um called in in in February again. Why is it that the last
inspection was in October of 2025? >> Because you have to go in sequence. You can't go out of order. We had we got a partial framing inspection. I had to come in and I had to resubmit at a revision in order to get the deck approved so we can do that in order so I can get the front facade finished in
order to get the rest of the framing done. So, we have a partial uh inspection for uh fire protection is in there. We had the underground that also is ready to be inspected. When, as I kind of said before, we had uh the
county owns all the backflows. They didn't like our backflow. When they came to change the backflow, they moved it across the the the sidewalk. We had to resubmit drawings into Kelly for fire in order to get that. So, it's not a matter of not moving the project along. It's that you I would love to move without
any inspections. That would be great. I I've had I could have had this thing done in three months, but there's a lot of hurdles that we all have to go the right way. Um and sequencing is a big part of construction. You can't go out of order. >> And so where are you in the order? >> In the order, like I said, we have we
just got drawings back for the underground for as soon as I get that inspection, I can close up the ground. I can get all the concrete. I can get all that as on the inside the we had materials that were stolen. I mean, that was another thing. We had a bunch of materials that were on site that got stolen. I can provide police reports for
that. We had to repurchase that and all the while, you know, we've been working behind the gun as far as making sure that we've been able to keep the because we need everything costs money for us to keep on doing things. So, um I mean, we have the plumber is I think he's on site
now. Like, that's our next one is to get our uh plumbing um roughening completed. Did we we reordered the electrical materials that were stolen? I don't know when were they stolen. Keeper, do you remember the date? >> April. >> In April. So >> May 2025. We had like a substantial
>> I mean and there was just a lot of a lot of homeless people all running through here. >> Yeah. So I mean like I said I when it comes to inspections I was moving this whole thing as one project as a whole. When you say one project, are you talking 600 and 550?
>> Yeah, in my mind. >> Well, right now they're two separate projects. >> Fair enough. >> And you have to focus on 550 because 600, it sounds like you're going to get your inspection on Friday. >> Yes. >> And you'll be able to move forward with that assuming it's all in compliance. >> Yeah. >> My point is you need to move quickly.
You need to get it done. >> I agree. >> You can meet with the city, ask for whatever inspections you need now. uh provide whatever proof of funds they may be asking for so they can make sure that you can you have the wherewithal to finish the project and whether they agree to three months, four months, six
months, you know, that's something and if they don't agree then at that point it comes back to me and then I'll make a decision. I I'm not at that stage in this process for a lean reduction. So, you know, this it is acrewing at $250 a day. I've told you I'm already willing to consider a lean reduction, but
obviously I need to see a finished product because as Miss Dupage said in the earlier and Mr. Der confirmed, you know, the lean reduction comes after compliance has been achieved. >> Maybe your owner can tell us what he what he needs and we will supply it. We will deliver. If you sir can tell us,
hey, I need to to see from you one, two, three, four. Our obligation is to show it to you as a third party if you want. >> Yeah. I'm I'm not going to Yeah. I'm not going to mediate. I I I get that. I'm not a construction guy. And again, I know Mr. Pavoc indicated there's
sequencing that has to happen. And you know, I I I don't have that expertise to start uh trying to map out how this building gets finished. Uh just I don't have that. >> I have uh >> nor is it my role to do that. It's a question as to whether you want to meet with the city. And if you do,
>> we do want to meet do they want to meet >> the city? If the city wants to meet with you, they tell you no that they're, you know, that they're not going to meet um and they're going to go through formal process, that's fine, too. >> Why wouldn't they? Won't the city want the building to be finished? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. I've dealt with I don't know how many municipalities in
America. This is not the only state we live in. Yeah. I mean, this is the worst I've seen. I can't believe I'm even inventing a case. But I have a question to you, sir. 600 Corey built from scratch up. How long it took? Is that a proof to you that we can finish or is that talk?
I'm not the person to ask that question. >> All right, let's let's try to focus even. >> Yeah, Mr. D is not 600 is not part of this. >> All right. So, we're going to I'm going to wrap up I'm going to wrap up the I'm going to wrap up the hearing now. >> Okay. >> And because I sense that we're going the
wrong direction at this point and I think at this point you need to make a decision as to your next step. You've made an offer to meet with the city. M Mr. doer will get back to you or someone from his staff will get back to you. I'll take everything under advisement, the city's request to um authorize the
foreclosure of the lean and also the order directing the uh title company to release the $86,500. Um we'll reconvene. Is it August 10th and is your next hearing date? >> It is, but your honor, this is a unique
case. Um if there's a date that is more agreeable um it's just one case basically that is before you >> would you be hand would you be back on >> I will make myself available >> is there a date middle of August that and
>> and I know we've got Mr. Kenbomb from Virginia and uh Mr. Abraham and Mr. I live in Virginia 10 miles. >> I We are in Wisconsin. >> And you're in Wisconsin, right? >> And I know that in August I'm coming I'm out of the country.
>> Me too. By the way, guys, >> August, you're out. >> Yeah, we're too out of country. So, >> I'll be back. I'll be back on the third week in August available. I have two weeks period that I'm not going to have.
I'm happy to come here before or after. We could leave at the 10th then. I mean, that's >> No, I think he said he's out. So, >> not going to be here on the 10th. >> And to show he's going to be gone for a while and >> August 24th >> to show you that we will fly
international to come here. That's, you know, we show you that we want to finish. >> We We would like you to finish, too. We'd like this. Let's work. Let's do it. >> You know it. You have >> stupid. It's your schedule. Um, your honor, what date would you like? Uh,
>> you tell me what your >> The first week of August is pretty bad for me. Um, the second week being the week of the 10th, I do have flexibility towards the end of the week. The third week I have more flexibility. >> All right. And will one of the owners be
available on the third week of August? That'd be August 17th through the 21st. It would have to be >> to say it, but I got to check with the wife if she's not traveling. I know it's kind of funny, but >> Mr. D, how about the 24th? >> Monday the 24th.
>> Uh, no, I cannot. >> Cannot. >> We gave you, >> honor, we have other attorneys. I mean, I can sense >> or I could do Friday the 21st. >> No, not Friday. >> Not Friday. >> Friday. >> Okay. >> You want You want someone else to uh
handle this >> like a month from today? Whatever works, we would like this thing to move forward. Uh, one way or another. >> Yeah. A month from today would be August 10th. >> I can't I would be happy to come here. >> 17th. >> A week later. I can't. I'm not going to
be here. >> Yeah. The 17th I'm available. >> There's a planning board meeting in here on the 17th. >> What time? Uh, >> that's at 4:00. >> What date is the 17th? Ma'am, please. >> Monday. >> Monday the 17th. >> Monday. Let me try and
>> Monday at 10 the August 10th. >> No, no, no. Monday, August 17th at at 10 >> 10 a.m. >> Yeah. I mean, are are is it possible to do hearings via video conference? >> No, you don't do that. >> Oh, it has to be physical presence.
>> I can advise on my availability and owner shares. I can advise on my availability as soon as tomorrow. Your honor, we can spend another hour on this date. What about waste of time? >> And I think we're all adults. >> You said Fridays are not available at all.
>> We don't have staff here. We don't have building staff and finance. >> Got it. >> Do you want to give us your opinion and we'll uh we'll figure out in August? >> I can tell you for a fact that the week after that I can for sure. I think my
wife is just gone on that. >> Do we do uh August 24th? I think >> that will work for sure. I'm not available, but I can send >> somebody from your office. All right. And um >> 10 a.m. August 24th. >> You want to do afternoon?
>> 10:00 a.m. >> Although what about the 25th >> also work that week? >> 25th is fine. >> I can be here. The 25th >> 25th definitely works. >> All right. August 25, 10 a.m. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> All right, we'll close the hearing for now. Continue all matters pending until August 25th at 10:00 a.m. Same room. Thank you. Thank you very much, >> guys. Thank you. Hopefully, we can make it happen.
>> Thank you so much for your time.