The dispute escalated when the city sought to increase the fine from $100 to $250 per day for non-compliance, citing community pressure due to the business’s operations. The property owner’s attorney challenged the proceedings, invoking legal principles including estoppel, and accused the city of attempting to foreclose on the property. The attorney detailed interactions with city planning staff, alleging that the owner had adhered to the city’s recommendations and had even secured the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval. Despite the detailed presentation, council members repeatedly expressed doubts about the relevance to the decision at hand.

The argument extended to discussions about a mobile crusher on the property that lacked proper permits. The owner’s representative contended that they had not been instructed to cease operations, while the city underscored the need for compliance. A magistrate ruled to increase the fines to $250 a day starting May 1st, with a mention of limited discretion in authorizing foreclosure, which would need to go before the council for further approval.

Another issue was whether to authorize foreclosure on the property in the midst of an ongoing mediation process over the unpaid fines. While one party argued that the mediation outcome could resolve the fines, negating the need for foreclosure, the other party cited legal entitlement to request authorization. The council grappled with the potential implication of their decision on the mediation process and the statutory time frame for foreclosure authorization.

In addition to the primary dispute, the council addressed various property violations throughout St. Cloud. These included a property on Kentucky Avenue facing fines for solid waste accumulation, high grass, and unsanitary conditions, as well as a property on Pennsylvania Avenue with abandoned vehicles and unpermitted porch enclosure. Another property performed repairs and alterations without a permit, prompting the council to impose compliance fines and administrative costs. Discussions also touched on properties with unsightly conditions, abandoned vehicles, lack of active landlord business tax receipts, and repeat violations for overgrown grass and unsanitary pool conditions.

The council ordered fines and set deadlines for rectifying the violations, while also ordering payment of administrative costs where violations had been cured.