e e e e e e e e e P are you guys ready yes ma okay I thought so all right good morning and welcome to the city of St Pete Beach code enforcement special magistrate hearing for June 10th 2024 my name is Erica aello and I am the appointed special magistrate to hear today to hear today's cases before I begin I just wanted to check I believe there were some te technical difficulties prior to the hearing so if the city would like to address those and we can determine how we're going to move forward right so I think um I'm gonna ask either uh Kristen or Pete to talk more specifically about the the difficulty but I think what we're the plan is since it's been advertised we're opening it and we'll if we can get through any of the items we we will but as Pete's about to tell us uh there's um limited we have no access to certain files that we need to present yes and so good morning um Madam special magistrate Pete der code enforcement manager for the city of St Pete Beach as you just heard um the difficulty is although you've uh received the packet um that was sent maybe what 10 12 days ago um those packets we're unable to access it because of limited access to Microsoft moft Outlook and everything else in in the Microsoft Suite um the only case we can probably hear is the request or another lean reduction okay um and what about the three cases that we've got on the cases continued um do we have have any of those complied at all that we can kind of dispense with them one I think we can hear um yes and we can probably dispense with that um do we have more than one that we were able to comply without we can can okay okay well then let me go ahead and um read my opening statement so that we can get that on the record for the cases that we are able to hear and then we'll move through the the three continued cases um and we will go from there um so I am a practicing attorney licensed by the Florida bar and I am board certified in city county and local government law I 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 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 comment related to the specific case that is being heard if you wish to speak today it is necessary that you be sworn in which I will do momentarily all testimony given will be done so under oath in all cases since the city has the burden approv the city will present its case first the respondent will then be given an opportunity to refute the city's allegations formal Rules of Evidence do not apply to this proceeding however 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 June order the order will be reduced to writing and all parties will be provided with a copy so please ensure that we have your current address or email address on file 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 to solely determine whether a city code has been violated and under some circumstances to provide a reasonable time to correct the violation by whatever means are available to you please be advise 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 compant deadline if one is provided if you wish to present any evidence today please sign in before you speak at the podium and it will be necessary that I swear that you swear or affirm to tell the truth therefore at this time I will swear in 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 so sworn okay so the first case that we should be able to address um is 3A case number 202443 city of St Pete Beach versus Thomas J Dylan thei thank you special magistrate leis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement um that is 422 86th Avenue it was a 30-day extension to finish the Landscaping plan which he has so the city will be just asking for $325 in administrative cost okay is Mr Dylan here or anyone on behalf of Mr Dylan here good morning Mr Dylan morning um I agree with what Mr Cruz has said basically we agreed uh I've performed everything that the city had asked me to and and in the course of that performance some additional part of the land was Disturbed and I've I've now fixed that and sent photographs to them so um I don't I I was in violation of the the code section I just didn't know it and so I hope to spe the administrative fee and willing to pay it and I and I just confirm no fines other other than that okay perfect thank you Mr Dylan and thank you so much for working with the city to come into compliance um so I will go ahead and there will be no fines assessed with this case but the $325 in administrative cost and you will get an order to that effect do I just pay that um you'll have to get with the city on how that how that will flush out for you thank you okay moving on to case number 202 4141 city of St Pete Beach versus gentar krosus I cannot get that right I am so sorry yes special magistrate thank you good morning Mr Cruz um Louis Cruz representing the city of St P Beach code enforcement this was a 30-day extension to have the van removed or registered um the property owner did have it removed so the city will only be asking for $325 in administrative costs okay and is the respondent Mr krosus here I know he was unable to travel the last time okay um I will not I will go ahead in I will assess the $325 in administrative cost I will not assess any fines or fees with this case as well well and have an order to that effect thank you all right and moving on to case number 2024 0029 city of St Pete Beach versus Michael Martin good morning Madam magistrat r on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach uh this was a status hearing for the clean up of the bricks that were along the Waterway uh the property is compliant now we're just looking for one day violation $250 plus 325 administrative costs okay any particular reason for the one day for the violation the notice of violation went out way beginning of the year uh there was actually an amended notice of violation that went out um you know we did what we had to do to notify them we didn't hear back from them until we were here for the last hearing at the last hearing okay um anyone here on behalf of Mr Martin I know last time he retained counsel or is Mr Martin here have you spoken with him since last year uh he actually met us at the property uh I did explain to him you know that we were going to do the one-day violation along with the administrative cost but they are in compliance he actually uh did he went a little further Beyond and cleaned up a little bit more than what we asked so okay and because I believe the last time we had they had put um evidence into the record and then I had granted a continuance to a date certain so um for that purpose I'm going to accept all the evidence that was submitted into the record at the last hearing I am going to find that there is a violation for a single day I will assess a $250 a day or $250 fine for that day as well as the $325 in administrative cost and I will get the parties in order to that effect okay and because of the technical difficulties I'm just going to assume we cannot hear item the repeat violations or the new cases is that correct yes that's correct ma'am and So based on what you just said again Pete D on behalf of the city of St Pete Beach um based on what you just said we will probably have to make an announcement okay but we can handle the lean reduction case correct okay so on the continuances do we want to bring them back on July 8th is that what right yes okay so we'll bring all these cases back on the next meeting next hearing so for purposes of the record do you want me to read the case numbers into the record or just a general overview because I will I will go ahead and get out orders on all of those to that effect I think I think we could say that all uh repeat violations and new cases listed on the agenda uh will be continued to July 8th okay so U due to the technical difficulties the item the agenda items 4 a and then 5A through F will be continue continued to the July 88th 2024 hearing at 10: a.m. uh due to the technical difficulties of the city being unable to uh present the cases um and I will send I will send orders of continuance out for that date certain and we will reconvene on July 8th 2024 to have those cases heard thank you madam special magistrate um like we discussed we can hear the the lean reduction matter lean reduction and just so you are aware can we go to the overhead please Sor for the lean reduction Adam special yes the lean reduction moving on to case number 2023 0541 city of St Pete Beach versus Wilmington Savings fund Society FSB Trustee of predium mortgage acquisition trust and as as you see on the overhead um there was a an order granting a lean reduction request issued correct I remember um miss mccan being here at the the last hearing on this yes ma'am and if you look at the overhead you will see paragraph seven that clearly says if respondent does not pay the full reduced lean amount to the city in accordance with this order then such reduction is null and void and the full amount of the lean shall be owed including but not limited to all administrative costs imposed by the lean and any daily fines that would have accured but for execution of this order so the city is requesting that that paragraph be honored and that the respondent be ordered to pay the full amount okay so then my understanding is that the the reduced fine amount was not paid within the 30 days of the order that was presented is that cor correct ma'am you're if I could add to that um it's the city's position that that we're without authority to change your order only you can modify or change your order so the fact is that they came in late we have we can't really do anything unless it's your order so we have to abide by that unless you decide otherwise okay um and so if I if you could please state your name for the record and your affiliation with the property owner before um the attorney gets up here yes Mr addition to what Mr Dickman said if you make a decision we would like it to be documented in any um future orders of course thank you great morning Madam uh special magistrate uh my name is Tyler Mesmer attorney with tusas and Associates here on behalf of Wilmington Savings fund uh and uh to add to what um the code enforcement officer said um this was a the result of um a um a uh a calendaring error on on the part of of our firm had nothing to do with our client so what we did was to air on the side of caution um when we realized that the uh that the the due date had been missed by one day what we did was we did two things um we filed a second lean reduction request application and then in paragraph five um we made a two-part two-part argument may I approach um you may please show it to the code officer first or at least the City attorney this is uh this is what be filed that's paragraph five that's the two-part argument explaining uh the uh um the basis for excusable neglect and then uh and then the fact that uh that not or this body did not find usable neglect that uh it still didn't alter this this uh this body's um 16209 2B uh factors in reducing the fine in the first place and while we appreciate for the purposes of the record if you could make if you're going to make arguments the argument needs she she just wanted you to show it to us right so I wanted to see what your name so your arguments are going to have you're going to have to plead your case to I have a copy of that from my packet thank you all right so what happened here and and uh and so we would uh so what happened here was in uh um was a uh was a was a classic case of uh excusable neglect um we we have we have and we had and have every intent to uh to honor uh this body's order uh the special Magistrate's order um what happened was uh was we misc calendered the day that it was due so um when it was one day late and uh we had it scheduled to go out for payment we realized that the order said that that it was due the the day before so we immediately filed um a second lean reduction and included in the paragraph five explanation is what I just showed everyone here um there it's a two-part argument the two-part argument is one um the courts have consistently held and it's become well established um that um a calendaring error by a law firm um is quote precisely um what excusable neglect it envisions so excusable neglect here we would respectfully submit um is a basis for um allowing us to proceed with paying the reduced amount um provided for by your honors by the the special magistrates I don't know if I should call you your honor or special magistrate whichever you prefer either way is fine I'm used to saying your honor but that's fine whatever you feel most comfortable with yeah uh what um with with your honors um April 11th order um and in fact I have my checkbook with me today um uh to to pay that amount uh we have every intention of paying that amount we did have that um we we did have uh uh every intention of paying that amount the reason the only reason we're here today is uh the gentleman who spoke before um was not amenable uh to that um so we we asked respectfully to uh to have this hearing before this body um and uh the second part of our argument is that uh is that even if even if uh your honor was not uh amendable to the uh the finding of excusable neglect um that that our our firm with with no involvement from our client obviously um Mis calendered the date um that the payment was due under your Honor's April 2024 order um it still didn't change it still didn't change the analysis uh the three-part analysis that that uh that um that uh 162.000 n2b the three factors that uh that are required uh to be considered when when uh determining the appropriate fine uh so with that in mind and and yes while we appreciate what chapter 7 I mean I'm sorry paragraph 7 said and what the gentleman before me uh cited obviously um what we're saying is uh that a strict construction when payment was one due late as the result of of a of a calendaring error would uh with no involvement from our client would violate the coel factors um and would would impose an undue hardship now I would understand um if if uh if if a strict construction of that uh were imposed where it were shown it were shown and the gentleman before me showed that our client had every intent of violating the previous order but it was our firm here as shown by um what I just what I just showed you when you have in the file um it was simply our firm Mis calendaring the the the payment um and and it's a it's a relatively small amount uh and that's and that's all we're asking to do I mean that's why I say it's simple I mean it's it's not it's it's it's not like it's something we can't pay it's not like something we can't pay today so we're just asking to proceed with the April 11th order um and uh and and that's all I have I mean uh and if you have any questions though for me I can I can answer them um rebuttal your honor yes of course the only thing the reason this is here is because it's not that um staff is amendable or not amendable these are official orders from your honor and I don't believe the city should be put in a position of being able to say one day late's fine two day late two day late is fine three day nah you know that's just not going to work so we believe that um I I don't know that this is a um frequent uh situation that happens or not um I I certainly understand the law of excusable neglect I I get all that I'm sure you do too but I just want to make it clear that you know it's not the city that you know we believe these are your orders and we have to follow them and that if um you know if this were to become a commonplace occurrence I think there does need to be some type of penalty for having uh I if somebody abuses the the excusable neglect of Defense but I I just want to make that clear that it's it should the burden shouldn't be on the city to have to say I'm amenable to it I'm not amendable to it I mean I think these these were orders were created in this forum and they have to be either amended in this forum and just to be clear I I understand your your position completely um the only reason the only reason I thought that this could be handled informally is because it was it was one day we're not talking about uh excusable neglect that resulted in a seven-month delay or something like that like some other CA some of the some of the case law um in the second and fourth DCA have discussed you know like what would not fall within the Ambit of of excusable neglect and I would say that that this is not clearly not going to be a routine uh with our firm and and and if we came before you on another property that that our client owned and this happened again I would I would have every reason to uh uh to expect that uh that this would not that that this would not be tolerated and and so I agree with the um with the with the person who spoke before me that this could be not noted in the record we we're only asking that uh that because of it was one day late uh that sure and Mr Mesmer I don't think that the city is disagreeing with you I just I think that they the point that they were trying to make and and I don't want to put words in anyone's sou is just that you know it's an it's an order it has the gravity of law and the city doesn't have the right or the ability the authoriz to negotiate around that law whether it would just be one day an administrative thing um because if they did it for them you know the city is bound by equal protection making sure they treat everybody the same if they did it for them then they'd have to do it for everybody else right so coming back to me it I I agree with your arguments um I'm happy to let you finish but I tend to agree with you so if you'd like to get with the remainder of what you had on the record otherwise I'm prepared to make an order um I will say this just though for the record um I've had three attorneys now on behalf of your your client come before me there were misre misrepresentations made by the first attorney um which kind of put you your client in this possession in the first place so I will say this I have no problem with the excusable neglect law I have no problem with your representations today and my I will go ahead and get an order out giving you you've asked for five days in here you said you have the ability to pay here today I can pay today okay so I'm going to give you your client 3 days from the date of my order which will be drafted and given to you today to pay in full to retain the reduced lean amount if it's not done within the 3 days then it will go back to the full amount that will be um required to be paid um so it will be 3 days from today's amount from today's date um I will get that order out to you but I hope to not see you or anyone from your firm before me again in this type of a scenario um as as I uh uh we we've been through the ringer with a couple of you guys oh I I understand completely and and uh the feel the feeling is mutual not that you guys aren't aren't aren't fantastic it's just a long drive up here from Miami I bet I bet um uh but but I I really do have my checkbook here with me today so I can uh I can should I just pay the I know you said yeah get with the city on how that's going to work but the order will go out regardless just as to tie a nice little bow on it and make it clean for the record really appreciate it thank you not a problem and and just for the record also that this you know to Mr Dickman's point this is not in due course this is not a regular thing that happens so I appreciate your argument and um you know was made in good faith and so this will be a one-off that we can kind of move forward with yeah yeah and that I mean after the case is closed I just wanted to get some direction from your honor about if this were to happen in the future would you want us to handle this ex parte through your office or um but I just do feel like there should be some official documentation of of amending the order right I I don't have a problem with it being exp parte if it's if there's an agreement of the parties um but if there would be some sort of you know disagreement between the parties no stipulation as to agreement for 3 days or four days whatever uh less administrative more that kind of thing then yes we could probably bring it to a hearing so for purposes of the Future If This Were to ever happen again with you or anyone else um X parte would be fine as long as the parties are agreeable okay very good thank you thank you thank you Mr Mesmer okay and since that is all we are able to handle today unless there's been some racket change in access to Tech I don't think so okay so then the next hearing is scheduled for July 8th 2024 at 10: a.m. and we will see you all there all right thank you so much have a great day