The most discussion centered around a property partially owned by Mr. Paget, which had accumulated fines totaling $249,800. The fine breakdown included $73,000 for a year’s worth of penalties. The property’s estimated value of $62,000 raised concerns about the financial feasibility of resolving the fines. A representative clarified that returning the property to the city might address some fines but would not guarantee a complete resolution. Heather Williamson, who had sold her home contingent upon the closing of this property, expressed urgency, fearing homelessness if her closing date of September 24 was disrupted. The magistrate reassured her that her closing would proceed, with any sale proceeds divided to cover the city’s owed amounts.

The magistrate issued a recess to allow further discussions, emphasizing that all conversations would be recorded. Upon reconvening, the magistrate addressed the complexities of informal agreements made without legal counsel, noting these could lead to significant legal issues. The magistrate proposed reducing the fines to $176,800, with a potential further reduction if certain conditions were met, particularly if the property ownership transferred to the city before closing. This resolution aimed to balance enforcing compliance while providing a path forward for the property owner.

The meeting also addressed non-compliance hearing case number 2023-00106 concerning a property on Dorsey Avenue owned by the estate of Marie Daniels. The property was found in violation of Chapter 14, Section 14-2 during an April inspection. The magistrate had ordered compliance within 90 days, with a $75 daily fine for non-compliance. Subsequent inspections revealed no changes, and a notice of hearing was confirmed received on September 11, 2024. Officer St. recommended a fine of $4,800 for the period of non-compliance, continuing at $75 per day until compliance.

Miss Williams, participating via Zoom, asserted she had not received the initial notification but had received the September 11 certified mail. She explained her efforts to obtain construction quotes for repairs. The magistrate advised that the court typically would not consider fine reductions until the property was compliant but acknowledged Williams’ efforts and the need for legal advice regarding property rights. The fines would continue to accrue until compliance was achieved.

Another case involved Robert Johnson Painting’s property on US Highway 90 East. Officer St. detailed multiple inspections from February to September 2024, confirming significant violations, including a removed but unreplaced roof. Despite confirmed receipt of violation notices, no compliance had been achieved. The property, described as a shell without electricity, showed some improvements but was not yet compliant. The magistrate ordered the owner to correct violations within 90 days, with a $75 daily fine for further non-compliance, based on substantial evidence and multiple notices.

Additionally, a property on Leon Street, owned by Robert H. McKnight, was reported to have come into compliance, with all fines paid, leaving a zero balance.

The estate of Rosita R. Hall Blunt was also found in violation of multiple code ordinances, with a fine of $3,125 assessed, continuing at $75 per day until compliance. The estate was instructed to contact the code enforcement office for a reinspection to halt accruing fines.

In another case involving arbitration for a property on South 21st Street, Robin Padet and sister Lisa Elum discussed financial burdens and ownership complexities. Padet proposed a settlement to pay 10% of the fines if the lien could be lifted to facilitate a sale. The magistrate sought clarity on the legal arrangements and ownership standing at the time of the violation, emphasizing the importance of legal documentation in resolving property disputes.

A case on Shoemaker Drive involved a property owner expressing concern about financial burdens and potential homelessness due to accrued fines. The owner, dealing with stage four colon cancer, mentioned a scheduled home sale on October 15 and a willingness to pay a substantial fine. The city representative explained that fines are tied to the owner at the time of violations and emphasized the public safety threat posed by the property. Despite discussions of reducing fines, the city maintained its stance that fines would continue until compliance.