order the cler has given me permission to start so we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all I think everybody here here oh I'm sorry go ahead and sit down for a second I'll swear you in in just a second everybody I think you're all here on the hickory tree case right so you all know why we're here and who I am so I'll dispense with my own introduction and we'll go ahead and get right to that case since you're the only parties's present and now if everybody who's going to offer me test uh testimony today will stand up and raise your right hand I will swear everybody in at once gentlemen anybody testifying do you all swear affirm the testimony you give today is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you and we are here on the city's motion good afternoon your honor Jack morgon for the city uh here on two matters before you coming back to you if uh just to refresh let do let's limit it to the first one and then we'll let you talk in the first one I'll give the respondent opportunity to address your motion and then we'll we'll come back to the second one yeah not not a problem at all so just to catch you up and refresh you probably uh remember case was originally heard before you back in 2022 with regard to um operations on the property without the proper permitting and so forth finding of non-compliance was made with the time to come into compliance in November of that year uh order imposing fine and lean was recorded in January of 2023 and later that spring uh I believe in April uh we appeared do you have that order for me yes just want I just want to have that I would want to see that that order I have a copy has one see that's what I was looking for thank you the order to which I referred was uh dated the 29th of December 20 22 signed by you uh I believe that's the 16th of December but then uh certified mailed on the 29th of December recorded uh on January 10th of 2023 and that was the order imposing Fin and lean that was arising out of the fail the finding of non-compliance and then moving forward into April I believe it was April of last year we came before you on a on a motion to amend the findings of fact in order increasing the fine from the $100 day fine which is currently running asking that it be increased to $250 per day reason for that motion was because property had not been brought into compliance that although the city understands there were different Avenues in which the respondant could pursue compliance one such Avenue uh would be to cease operations until such time as the comprehensive plan and Zoning uh could be amended if possible in order to get the permits to then continue uh the respondent uh elected to pursue the changes to the comprehensive plan and Zoning in order to them get ostensibly the the permits to operate and was unsuccessful in that endeavor we appeared before you in April and you by your order on at that time I think was dated in May I've got a copy here have it you have it yes sir um your order stated that uh that you were confident that the respondent would diligently propertly advance and resolve its land use matters before the council and uh ruling uh reserving ruling um until such time uh the land use matters have not been resolved with the city by August 16th matter be placed on the regular hearing agenda and so forth um matters not been resolved uh there is a mediation which you'll hear I'm sure from from uh Council for the respondant uh I think a an entire day was spent I think there's another uh resumption of that mediation scheduled for Monday but I want to emphasize uh the mediation and the case and the global issues being addressed are really outside of what's before us here today which is to say there's no doubt that a violation was found and compliance hasn't been met certainly the city is receiving pressure from the community in part because of the operation of the business and the affectation to neighboring properties and so forth and so the city is seeking to pursue respectfully but diligently on attaining compliance or at least doing everything in the City's power legally to achieve compliance which is the goal and the objective of Code Enforcement as you know not to punish but to seek compliance for the community and so um the the matter has not been resolved the business continues to operate now there's really only so much that the city can do at this point to incentivize incentivize the respondent to comply and within the the letter of the law the only thing that we can do at this stage on this matter is to increase because this is not a repeat violation on this matter this is a first time case before your honor is to seek to amend that fine from 100 to $250 per day in our motion we actually are trying to be somewhat reasonable and take a prospective view to say that if the court is if if your honor is inclined to grant our motion that that fine would take effect on March 1st of this year year if in fact you were willing to increase the fine prospectively not to go back but to go forward perspectively to help further incentivize the ceasing of the operations of the business or find alternate location for that business until such time if ever that the comprehensive plan can be amended and the zoning uh amended for then permits to be applied for and and achieved if that's even possible the fact that it hasn't been uh successful suggests to the city that the they need another solution and the solution that we identify is the ceasing of the operation of the business so that's in short what this motion seeks to address is what we argued back almost a year ago um I know you're going to hear from Council about uh prior Communications with the city uh you're going to hear about uh uh you know what was said in Planning by people that may or may not were not authorized in our opinion going back almost two years on on this problem but the point that we want to emphasize before you here today your honor is that at some point very shortly after this all came about the respondent was made aware clearly made aware that they didn't have the proper permitting to operate and we took the case forward in the proper procedure before you heard the case and they were found in violation and they still have not taken corrective measures they've tried to work it other ways and that's their prerogative But ultimately we see no other alternative but to increase this fine that's our that's our position I do have updated photographs that I can present to you through officer house who took the photographs if you need to see them unless somebody is going to tell me that they've come into compliance I will take everybody's word that there is still a violation out there okay that that is our position that we we we we understand that um it may be financially more advantageous to continue the operation of the business than to than to uh worry about the fine at the current level but we're seeking to up that fine to further incentivize the uh the response to come to compliance or find alternate location thank you Council and I I'll warn you ahead of time and I don't know what your planning on presenting but if you're planning on presenting why you think some other board got it wrong I have no authority over that yeah for the record Brent Spain theak in Spain 1809 Edgewater Drive Orlando Florida on behalf of hickory tree industrial LLC and I'm not here to argue a different board the city council got anything wrong but I am here to assert my client's rights that potentially this proceeding should not have transpired due to multiple legal principles including a stopple among several others and since we didn't have uh the last hearing back in gosh I guess it was May of 2023 was a little hurried I only had heard about it a few days beforehand we had a packet that that time that got handed out but some of this is from that packet there are some additional documents I think are beneficial for a complete record so if I can approach has Council seen it y yes I am and they're all public records everything in here is a public record 20 exhibits I understand excuse I can I can I can understand Council wants to make every argument for his client I'm anticipating that this in its entirety is irrelevant to the scope of our motion there's no facts in dispute here we are where we are there's been multiple chances to be heard before the magistrate the initial hearing and then again at the hearing back in the spring of last year and the only thing that's changed is our request to amend that order to increase the fine that's it and there's been there will not be any presentation of compliance so I think that the issue is very narrow and a 20page tab tabulated submitt uh I would I would anticipate is going to be vastly irrelevant okay so let me let me state state the objection and tell me stay St close tell me if I'm stating the objection the hearing the objection what you mean to to tell me that your position is that the only relevant documents for me to consider today is one unless somebody tells me the property is in compliance is there a violation has my order been complied with and if my order has not been complied with should I increase the fine and you're saying there's really the only thing relevant to that is the state of the property and the orders that I've entered in the past that's correct and the factors that go into the the assessment or level of a fine in Code Enforcement which of course in part relates to the compliance and cooperation of the respondent as you are well advised I understand the objection and I will I will accept the documentation because we are uh we are not bound by formal rules rules of civil procedure here um so I will allow it but I not by allowing it indicating that it is relevant to the proceeding or that it will weigh into my decision but I will allow the council to present his case understood but did just touch upon that Council just mentioned that some of what goes into your decision- making on whether to increase the fine is the efforts to which the property owner has gone to and so for both of your benefits that probably I don't know because I haven't heard respondents arguments yet but the thing that at this point I know I'm interested in is why has my order not been complied with and I know the last time we were here the reason why was you were working through the city's processes and if I understand the situation correctly now and I'm happy to be corrected the city's processes have been exhausted and now we're looking to Legal processes to try to to try to challenge what's the the decisions that have been made yeah that's that's partly accurate but the the fact is the story has been told uh omitting facts throughout this process including just as recently as last week and email corresponds with the city attorney they continue to rep repeat this false narrative about what has transpired in this case and that's why I just want to walk through the binder I'm not here to reargue the November 9th hearing before the city commission but I think this binder is directly re relevant to both motions before you because they're making an allegation there's $41,000 in fines when the city itself in a written communication that's in here it's not me making it up said no qu code enforcement proceedings would be brought until the city council hearings were concluded they didn't conclude until November 9th they should have never brought it to you back in August of 2022 and when you walk through this binder you'll see my client was doing everything the city asked him to do even though the city planner who took over the case gave him legally incorrect information about what application he had to file and the city council refused to have the second hearing on the on the application and as soon as our firm got hired and did a public records request miraculously we get an email to Joe ther saying which application do you want to be heard the first one or the second one well that's weird because when we walk through this you'll see that they told my client in February of 2022 that you had to go under the second application you had to ask for I3 which is legally wrong under the city's code my client can't be I3 because it's a 5 acre minimum it's a 2.6 acre track and we end up going through that process and now they're trying to utilize that delay to say oh we have to foreclose on $41,000 etc etc yes yes jck sorry jay I understand the council wishes to make arguments about their unsuccessful efforts through the city council again this is a very limited I I I understand but we've we've we've had a lot of hearings go you know I'm going to let it in I understand the objection if you want to make a standing objection to the relevant I'll accept the standing objection yeah just so the record's clear my client has a due process right and again the motion is not a motion just to increase the fine I like to it says a notice of hearing and renewed motion for an amended findings of fact and in order increasing the find and part of our my presentation today is that the orig original findings of fact never should have been entered because the city based on its statements to my client is essentially a stopped and now they're trying to foreclose on the property so if we walk through this and this is some of what opposing Council mentioned is in the summer of 2021 and Mr Wright can attest to it if need be he came in and met with the city planning staff Jesse Anderson in particular is a senior planner of the city of St Cloud they explained to him exactly what they wanted to do to operate a mobile Crusher on the property mobile Rock Crusher Mr Anderson indicated that that should not be a problem the property would need to be rezoned but he didn't see any issues because all the property surrounding it is industrial and in fact there are two cement plants adjacent to my client's property as well as a truck parking facility they specifically asked Mr Anderson if they could get started while they were going through the resoning process and Mr Anderson indicated they could where is that code enforcement was advised of that and we're made aware of that where is the statement that they can well I I'll end up getting Mr Right to attest to that meeting is it is it documented I have a binder full of documents is there is there documentation of that statement there's not written documentation of that statement Mr re can attest we going through the binder or you tell me what I'm going to be told later I'm going through the binder let's go through the binder then to get to tab one because you got to know why let's go through the binder first and then tell me what I'm going to hear later but if you want me to look at the binder let's go through the binder well you had to understand why we filed what's behind tab one so Mr Anderson indicated to my client you had to rezone to I2 in industrial so you can see behind tab one my client did that in August of 2021 that's a copy of the application if you go to tab two this is Mr Anderson in November 30th of 2021 informing my client of this schedule for the hearings so you can see pnz on 12212 City Council on 1322 and City Council on 12722 it's a typo and the email so the Planning Commission hearing held what's held on December 21st 2021 and behind tab three you can see the staff report this is the staff report for the city council meeting in January but it confirms that the plan commission recommend an approval of it the staff recommended approval it went to City Council in January of 2022 behind Tab 4 is is a summary of the minutes so the city council approved it -0 on January 13th of 2022 and then this is the first email that Loops back to that conversation I mentioned about Jesse Anderson if you go to tab five this is an email from eron sturk who is a former uh well it say Transportation manager but I knew her as a planner here with the city and you'll see down there's a red arrow pointing to it this is where the city is advising my client that hey we're not going to be able to hear you on January 27th as previously indicated we're going to have to bump it to February 10th and this is an email from the city staff itself the property owner was perfectly okay with this as code enforcement does not have an open case on the property currently as they are waiting the outcome of these hearings so my client was willing to bump the hearing from the last week of January into February because he's been told hey code enforcement is going to wait until the city council hearings run their course is that your asole argument that's part of the asole argument what what what how was your how was your client damaged by Reliance upon that statement because in the interim a code enforcement proceeding was actually brought before the City Council meetings had run their course and now they're trying to foreclose $40,000 in fines let me pause you the justifiable Reliance that I heard and maybe I I assumed the argument instead of the one you were making the justifiable Reliance part that I heard in your presentation was well he agreed to push the meeting back month so if that's the justifiable Reliance my question is is how is your client damaged to buy that justifiable Reliance how is he damaged by pushing it back a month correct that's that's my question how is he damaged because now there's been a code enforcement is did the code enforcement case result from that month of push back that he agreed to based on the statement No the statement is that code enforcement wouldn't they're awaiting the outcome of these hearings the hearing is a second city council hearing let me let me instead of making assumptions let me let you tell me what are what are the grounds for a stopple that you want me to consider well there are plenty this to me this is a textbook case of they put me walk me through the elements yeah they put they put out the welcome mat you had Jesse Anderson indicated that you could commence the operation while it's going through the resoning and land use process so they did that my client did do that they incurred the time expense in opening the business they have 23 employees they pay taxes in the city they live in the city half the employees do so they have that expense then they go through the hearing process they get up to where they are entitled to a second hearing and they're told hey we need some from the staff not my client staff hey we need some more time are you cool with that and my client says yeah I'm fine as long as there's no code enforcement proceedings it's going to be brought they confirm code enforcement's going to wait until these hearings are done and so what happens between January 13th 2022 in that email and as you go through the rest of the binder you will then see what happened is the city ends up behind tab six as the news release just confirming that they had the first reading you have behind Tab 7 another email from Aaron sturk from January 24th or in the last paragraph she again T mentions she sat outside the first meeting talked with the property owner and council member Trace I heard a lot about Rock crushing and concerns about code enforcement so my client was indicating hey I have a concern about code enforcement becoming an issue here if this is not going to go to a second hearing when it was scheduled we go to the next tab tab eight suddenly Veronica Miller who was the assistant city manager at the time who's now the the city manager who lives in the adjoining neighborhood across the street sends an email out to staff stating City council's receiving complaints about Randy wri's property I believe the current rezoning case is due to code enforcement action which is a false statement there was no open code enforcement case and she goes on to talk about the the second reading and everything else and then miraculously behind tab 9 on February 28th 2022 we have dag Marie cigara the Community Development Department planning manager who end up taking over the case from Jesse Anderson saying you can't proceed with your application we're not going to have the second hearing and you must file an application for I3 you cannot go under I2 because what the use you've proposed is not allowed under I2 so what does my client do behind tap 10 they follow dagmar's Direction City staff again so more aole and they they file the I3 application which is behind Tab 10 and it's important when they filed that they filed it on July 20th 2022 so before any code proceeding got to the got to your honor my client is doing doing exactly what city staff's telling them that they have to do and we're not going to have the hearing city council hearings until you do this so they filed that application behind tab 11 you have the DRC comments from August 3rd 2022 again before you ever heard this matter no comments from staff across the board and then on August 17th behind tab 12 you have an email between dag Marie Sagara and the code enforcement officer Miss hows because Miss how's asked hey since you're not going to be at the magistrate hearing today and this is on the final page of the exhibit essentially where does it stand and how long would it take for it to get through uh to city council you had previously mentioned November so that date of November is not lost on me because it ends up coming back in your order so you go to the next page uh next tab 13 those are the minutes that this code enforcement board hearing again something that my client was specifically told by the city planning staff this would not happen until you get through the city council hearings so it came before you I was not retained at the time Mr Wright was in the hospital with a blood infection so no one was here on behalf of the respondent and when I read those minutes and I understand minutes aren't a Verbatim transcript there's no indication that hey code enforcement had advised the property owner that we bring this case forward while his applications are going through review which they were still pending at that time my client had filed two of them one of them already gone through two public hearings it only needed a final and second reading and then he was told he had to file a new one so you enter that order hearing no evidence from my client because he's in the hospital had he been there we could have said hey look um they told us they weren't going to move forward with this here's an email had our hearing been held back in January or February when it was supposed to city council denied it it would have never ever been brought to you in the first place so then you go on behind tab 14 you can just see our our client continuing to try to apply comply with the I3 into in tab 15 that's late September 2022 and they're indicating hey you got till November because that's what dag Marie had advised Miss hows how long it would take to get through city council my client behind tab 15 had filed the supplemental information and then no second hearing no first hearing ever happens on that second application it sits dormant the entire time and then ironically when my firm gets hired in March of 2023 by Mr Wright the first thing we do is submit a public records request which is behind tab 16 on March 28th 2023 so we don't say who we're representing we just want information regarding these applications lo and behold within a week of that public records request being filed or actually two weeks an email which is behind tab 18 is sent out by Francine Sutton to Joe ther saying good afternoon Joe I was assigned as the new planner Pro new project planner for this request I wanted to confirm that the applicant is submitting an updated application what tab are you on I'm behind tab 18 okay I'm in the right Tab and it's down at the bottom there's an email from Francine Sutton yes April 13th so two weeks after our records request and before my firm has been provided the records we asked for suddenly the new project planner says what application do you want to precede under the a new one or the original one which is ironic because my client had been previously told by dag Marie cigara you had to go under I3 and then she says staff will confirm the public hearing dates I write and that's on same tab 18 at the top that's when I informed Miss Sutton that my firm is land use Council and we're going to proceed under the original application but ironically as soon as my client you know this records request is submited and suddenly there's inquiries about what's going on with this application behind tab 17 unilateral notice of hearing a motion to amend the findings of fact and increased the fine which is what brought us here back in May to which then I had just gone through all those exhibits were shown to you back in May except my public records request and at that time you said all right well where does it stand to me it's an unfortunate series of events but it's not my clients doing it's the city's failure to process the application it should have never come before you me ask question has the application been processed by the city now yeah but is the property in compliance today today the property is not in compliance why should I just not issue a new order today uh well if you wanted to issue a new order today what I would suggest is that it's a new order finding the property is not in not in compliance as we stand here today and that you will impose you will give a compliance deadline and fines will then begin to acre there because again and it ties into the other motion they're claiming my client has $41,000 in fines because the city failed to do its job and hold a hearing on an application that was pending and was complete okay we're not here on a motion for reconsideration of my order so I'm not going to enter any relief on that that's one you can take up on appeal although I think that time has passed but let me let me start short circuiting things thus far you have not made a case in my mind for a stole well in my 24 years of practice Mr and you know me but coming to code enforcement and receiving due process is not damages to your client I do not see the damage from the justifiable Reliance because what's been presented to me is well they told us that that if we'd file the application that we wouldn't have to go to code enforcement well you're going to have to file the application to get what you're looking for anyway the application is not a harm to your that's not what happened the application was pending and they said to my client we won't bring code enforcement until the city council hearings are complete I I I get that may have been said I don't know but what I'm saying is even if it was said I don't see the asole in it how is that not a stopple my client sat there for eight 18 months while the city fumbled its fingers and didn't hear the second reading on the ordinance had they done it in January of 2022 there would have been no code enforcement hearing before you but there would not have been a single $100 I asked so I asked or I'm trying to figure out what did your ient do in Reliance upon the statement that caused him harm my client continued to operate on the property and employ people and incur expenses in Reliance on that and if Council can stop the sidebar Jack I've had Council unilaterally set hearings not not clear dates on my calendar which got it to this date which I find completely unacceptable and I find it unacceptable for a municipal government in Florida to say we're not going to bring code enforcement proceedings against you until this process is completed and then they went and did it and now they're standing before you today saying we want to increase the fine and we also want to foreclose on the $40,000 of phantom fines that accured because we didn't do our job and hold the hearing that's a stopple to me they they put him on the welcome mat and they pulled it out from under his feet and when you look through the documents the next documents they asked for us to include additional property in the rezoning that's behind tab 19 and then they gave us four days in which to do it if you look at the last page of tab 19 you'll see an email from me June 20th 2023 thing is the matter to go before City Council on August 10th 2023 and then again on September 14th I did not get a response from Miss cagara until August 11th then giving me new dates and this is the harm especially when it comes to your next motion is now it's been pushed out even further than when we thought the hearing was going to be and then she asked us to add property to the rezoning and land use request that my client doesn't own and gave us four days to get the authorization we then say we'll bring that property in but we need more time so it pushes the hearing out till October and November that's another $3,000 $6,000 in acred fines on my client simply for doing what the city asked them to do by amending the application then you go to tab 20 that just shows there was the hearing on November 9th tab 21 just my presentation I'm not rearguing that and then just to negate any suggestion that somehow we're dragging our feet and delaying anything tab 22 is our special magistrate request Chapter 70 request which I know you're familiar with that process we filed it one day after getting the denial letter so the denial letter was on November 27th 2023 so that's really when the city council's decision was rendered was on November 27th so if you go back to this the representation of my client way back in February of 2022 and they said we won't bring code proceedings until the city council hearings run their course they ran their course on November 27th 2023 and again you're saying there's not a motion for rehearing before you but their motion is for you to to enter amended findings of fact and the like and I'd sit there and say look one of those facts you should amend is the fact that the city staff told them none of these proceedings will take place until the city council hearings have completed and they completed in November of 2023 that's when they completed they did not complete in August of 2022 when you heard this matter so to now sit here and say well you got to increase the fine because they just been so now that the city now that the city proceedings are complete why is your client not coming into compliance well our clients not come into compliance just yet because one it's not as simple as just flipping a switch and then you're done which the city is well aware of um it's also because we're right in the middle of a mediation process which I find highly specious because again behind tab 23 is Miss suman's mediation engagement letter which say said which is December 22nd saying mediation is going to be on January 31st 2024 right after that gets filed so again it's another instance of where my client exercises some right that then suddenly these motions get filed so they unilaterally set a hearing for January 17th to increase the fine because apparently to me it looks like because we exercise our right to invoke the magistrate process we didn't go off and Sue the city we think the case can easily be s settled so we took the easier path to try to facilitate that outside of a public hearing process to go to mediation they then the assistant City attorney then after I point out you unilaterally set this and dropped it in the mail to me instead of emailing it to me says well they'll reset it so then they don't just reset that motion which again they were going to set the motion on January 17th with mediation pending on January 31st instead of just resetting that first motion they up the Annie and say okay well we're going to move to foreclose on the lean at $441,000 of fines that have crewed which to me again falls back into the stopple argument because those fin shouldn't have started occuring until the earliest at November 27th when the city council ultimately denied the application and then behind tab 26 you've got Miss suin suggesting that this proceeding today not happen because we have mediation on March 4th City refused and then the last few tabs just go to the suggestion that somehow you have to increase the fine from $100 to $250 a day because it's having such a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighbors behind 27 is the city of St Cloud vendor information profile my client is an approved vendor for the city of St Cloud and when you you go through that exhibit the second page that's a city of St Cloud truck picking up materials on October 11th 2023 you also have the next picture is Oola County the next picture is Oola County School Board that demonstrates that our clients not as some life safety risk and harm that has to go to the maximum fine available we've been providing a valuable public service you can see the hauling tickets are in here for city of St Cloud the road base for the road right outside here is from my client's facility so it's not a situation where there's a life safety but it is a situation where there's no urgency in complying with the order I entered well because we had application pending and we were told hey run through the process you know here's I'm going to take some issue with that because you may have been told I don't know yet and I haven't heard the testimony you may have been told by a staff member well we'll hold off on Code Enforcement once code enforcement started you knew that you were going to code enforcement enement and once an order was entered it was pretty much ignored and I was lenient the last time you were here and I allowed more time for that City process to run its course and now let's run its course and when I asked the question well why hasn't my order been complied with now the response I get well it's not that easy but she knew back when I was lenient almost a year ago that I was given you time to complete that process and if it didn't complete in your favor I was going to expect my order to be complied with which the project and now I'm hearing well you shouldn't have entered the order in the first place well B it's not that you're hearing testimony it's in writing from the city I that I asked you that part that's the one part that was apparently not in writing no no no the the the part that they would not hold code enforcement hearings I do not I do not believe that being told hey we need to push back we need to push back your application so but we won't take you to code enforcement I don't believe there's just La Reliance there I think the point that we got to earlier that that where I say okay maybe there's justifiable Reliance on that is keep doing what you're doing and that's why I say I haven't heard that testimony yet but that's the one part that's not in writing the one thing that I that I'm not saying gets you to ex stopple but I don't think what you've given me so far does well I think when a city makes a statement that we will not take this action until the city council hearings are completed and the only reason the city council hearings didn't get completed is because of the city itself not my client my client can't do a notice of hearing for the city council the clerk has to put it on the agenda they have to mail the notice the and last time we were here I allowed leniency that's exactly why I allowed leniency for that process to complete and now it's understand and and I yes it is complete and that's where I'm saying when it comes to the point of the fines there's no their argument is you need to increase the fine to give them more incentive to stop we haven't not stopped we wouldn't have stopped when we have a pinning application that if it got they're ignoring my order they're not ignoring your order in the sense that they're going through the process every other jurisdiction I've worked with your honor if I were in Orange County and I want to Cod enforcement board and they said okay what what does Mr Spain need to do to bring this property into compliance he needs to ask for a special exception okay as soon as they know that special exception application is pending or the variance application let's say I built a fence in the side setback without permission hey you need to get a variance for that the moment I file that application for that and it's pending and I'm going through the process they don't bring you back into code enforcement start levying fines on you they say okay he's in the pipeline he's moving through the pipeline my client did that there's it's Undisputed he did it before there was even code enforcement but you're also telling me today we're not going to comply with your order no I'm actually not saying that I'm saying that it's not as easy as city council you haven't told me you're going to comply with it I will tell you it will probably take three to six months to comply because they don't want to comply that's not actually true they want to explore all their Avenues and I don't begrudge them that but let's be look all all three of us have done this for a very long time we all know how these things work here's the thing and it was mentioned outside of mediation so it's not something that's confidential the mobile Crusher which is all part of their Reliance because stuff is you know um stationed and set up and mobilized to the site the mobile Crusher itself just to take it apart takes over two weeks just to take it apart that's not how much time does it turn take to turn it off well that that's not what they've said it's just stop running it so then it's so what did I say though is the important thing to what did I order to OCC you ordered either bring the property fully in compliance or you're going to get fined so the fully in compliance from your order is a BTR a use certificate and some building permits so or cease operation yeah and I'm trying to explain is so the Reliance that goes with theole the Reliance is mobilizing onto the site it's set up it's an established business now one that the city itself uses and it's on their vendor list and they used after your code order was entered so the irony is not lost on me that they just used it in October a week before the city council meeting but you ask me why they can't just comply tomorrow because they'll they'll continue they won't get the notice of compliance the affid of compliance because if they turn the machine off today it would take over two weeks to take it apart then they need to move the machine then they have the materials on the property which under the highway business designation they can't have but if they if they turn off the crusher they have stopped operating business but they're they're still in violation because they have the material piles there they'd be moving towards compliance they would be potentially moving towards compliance the material piles will take probably until the machine gets turned off they're not moving towards compliance well the material piles will be there at least 3 months or more how long does it take to turn the machine off and cease Rock crushing operations well turn the machine off they could probably do it tomorrow are they going to do that I'm not the operator I have to talk to the operator about it but my point is the fact and it's these motions are interrelated and in fact I think the second one was filed just because of our objection to the first unilateral motion it to me it's egregious to file a motion when mediation is pending and they know mediation is pending and then to sit there and threaten to foreclose on the property of refines that have aced to $40,000 because they'd never had the hearing if they had the hearing in February 2022 and they told my client hey sorry you can't do it my client would have said all right well we probably need you know 90 to 120 days to relocate and I think at that time the city was said that's fine instead we're to this situation which I actually don't enjoy I don't like that my client's spending this money here today rather than spending on March 4th at mediation but to sit here and suggest that my client has thumbed his nose at anybody or the city I think is a little misplaced because we've been doing exactly what the city's asked us to do file this application not that one add this property into it okay fine move the hearing date fine all the while costing us a $100 a day well theoretically you haven't had to pay that fine yet um so before I start talking and I'm not cutting anybody off you'll both be but have you gotten through the bulk of it Brent yeah that's I mean to me that's the bulk of it it's look I can't sit here today and tell you no the city hearing process is at its conclusion we exercise one of our legal remedies to move forward and you have the right and that's what I said the last time too you have the right do that and they have the right to continue operation at the risk of incur incurring fine you know while things work run their course understood I'm just asking for you your honor to sit there and take this factual background into consideration because they've asked you for an amended order and findings fact to sit there and say hey having heard all that and understanding that these folks were actually moving forward in good faith trying to navigate the city's problem process and bogus roadblocks were put up in my mind because the I3 can't even go on the property as it sat in the application that I'm going to take that into consideration when I sit here and say okay when should have the property truly been into compliance now it's not into compliance I understand that and say okay well now do I give them an outside compliance date uh to try to bring it into compliance moving forward now that the city council process is done and I can even I'll wrap up my thing on the foreclosure thing if you want to no no no I want to deal with that separately all right um that's really all I have because it's it's much more than just a so this statement let me do a little bit of prep work in case in case we need some time this statement from an employee of the city that if that we won't there won't be any code enforcement proceedings or or you can you can continue operations while you're moving through this process that's the one that I'm curious about and I think you're going to present testimony to me to that effect who is this employee uh it's Randy Wright the is that a current employee or a no no no who was the employee that made the statement Jesse Anderson is that an the senior planner he's no longer with the city present your present your testimony to me is this something represented it's something he represented his argument and while we're getting there and with that that point again you both have known me for a long time now and you know that I have zero patience for gamesmanship and I would not accuse either of you of gamesmanship and and I'm sorry that either of you feel like there is um but I would ask for all proceedings if it's a hearing that involves me that everybody conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism which you have both always done in front of me when I'm not in the room When I'm Not Looking I would expect the same thing and the first thing and part of the reason I'm saying this is I hear what Bren is saying but I also understand city council for the city's frustration too in receiving a 29 page bind or 29 tab binder that council is not provided ahead of time that's common courtesy too so I would ask that to the extent that any of you have creditable beefs with each other let's fix them when you're in in proceedings with me please sorry Brent go ahead that's fine I would just state that the binder got finished this morning otherwise I would have I've been out of state for the last five days which Council also knew uh Mr maner knew that I was been in Michigan I flew back at midnight on Monday up here I'm a little confused because I'll ask you questions I'm sorry the confusion I thought You' asked him about them not giving us code enforcement fines while we're going through this process that is in writing correct yeah that that's our suggestion to the was in writing tell me where to look for it the statement that Mr Wright is alluding to is behind tab five and that is the statement that code enforcement does not have an open case on the property currently as they are awaiting the outcome of these hearings I'm looking for the statement where the respondent was told that they can continue operations during the proceedings before the city council or the the planning the the zoning related proceedings yes sir that that was a veral that was given to me and Mr carello I think it was his daughter or his other son that was there when we went down and asked him I originally thought the pro project was zoned industrial like all the other property around it but it was not it was Highway business because at one time we thought about putting our office there I retired in 22 don't need an office and you know now we we have to find out it was owned Highway business he wanted to put a Crusher in there so we went to the city of St Cloud Jesse Anderson is the man that came out from behind the doors to talk to us about it told him what we were doing he's the one that actually showed us that it was zoned Highway business it has to be changed to Industrial okay well what do that process involved and he told us what we had to do and how to go through all of it and I said well this is a mobile Crusher the man has actually purchased it because the place he was going to put it at got sold out from underneath him he was looking for another place I'd like to leasing my place is he able to start this mobile Crusher while we're going through the process he says yeah it'll be no problem because everything around you contiguously is already industrial what is this person's or what was this person's position with the city I believe he was a planner you believe or you know I don't know exactly what is what is when he made that statement did you have any reason to believe that that he had the authority to give you that permission yes absolutely I did what what gave you that impression cuz he was the man that came out and told us what all we need to do and how we need to have it he was did you ask him his position I probably did and he probably told me but I'm sorry my memor is not that that well that's okay I I don't expect you have person and I don't mean to challenge you by these questions these are just questions that that help me in my processing of the ARG my wife does it all the time um was there anything else in that conversation that you'd like me to know about or any subsequent conversations you'd like me to know about I had a whole lot more faith in the city on that day because he made it it was sound this is so simple there's nothing to this process and and it wasn't at the first reading the first reading like we said was 5 to0 when when this conversation with I'm sorry what was his name again Jesse and with Mr Anderson uh occurred where was the mobile Crusher located at that point I think it was somewhere in Orlando or Apopka was not on site correct it was not on site okay I think he's answered my questions Bren if you have any questions for him you're welcome to ask them I do have one other thing too because he did ask about the crusher and we mentioned him was exactly like the same Crusher that the city of St Cloud brings in and and does their mobile crushing and takes it back out okay any questions I don't have any questions any cross and no no no cross okay I would like to make some brief comments and reply is it okay there's other witnesses to come forward which yeah anybody else Brent okay go ahead but just to sum up respon your honor and I know you probably have anticipated my my thoughts on this this is a case of seeking forgiveness instead of getting permission on the front end that's really what this boils down to we've the arguments made by the respondent council are obviously uh zealous and it's it's understandable you know that there's a good faith dispute on some of this but the fact of the matter is the respondent moved ahead without without getting the permits without getting the authorization and once it was brought to the respondent's attention Andor through Council there was a failure to come into compliance cease operation they elected to pursue one Avenue for compliance one equivocal outcome type remedy which would be to to amend the comprehensive plan and the zoning as opposed to ceasing operation until such time as per Mission prospectively could be given and so here we are a year and a half after you initially heard this case and that goes towards the compliance frankly the compliance the fact that this is a for-profit operation and the economic relevance of that was the sole request in our motion to amend was to Simply increase the fine not to change any other fact there's no dispute about the compliance properties and non-compliance it's within your discretion we understand that we'll abide by your decision of course but as to the estopp in the Reliance uh that there's been a hearsay presented to you there's no written documentation of anything that was potentially relied upon and there's been always been another path to compliance from the Inception of this entire operation which was to get approval in advance or to stop cease operation or to not start operation a until such time is authorized and that has been ignored not a mistake there was no appeal to the code enforcement orders either of them your your initial order or your order imposing a fine and lean no appeal of any of those matters and to my knowledge no appeal of the council's actions last fall denying the requests nothing and so again the city is seeking compliance that's the sole motivation and how we get there we don't we don't know it's not within the city's purview other than to move through the systems that are before us and that's why we're here okay Bren can I get you back up I have a couple questions for you just so I understand so you you all youall have a Chapter 70 here or Chapter 70 you're in Chapter 70 process right yeah we're in the Chapter 70 which you know realiz TOS our time to actually appeal the city council decision so yeah we weren't under a 30-day deadline once we filed the Chapter 70 and I don't I obviously I'm not asking you to disclose work product or anything like that so feel free if I ask a question that you can't give me a full answer to you're not going to hurt my feelings I I assume though that the that that's where you are that you are moving towards saying that you you have that this decision by the city and not allowing this to occur is damaging your client uh my professional opinion is that the mediation should actually be successful but if it's not I mean that is that is where the process goes and I expect if you started the process that that's where that's where you at least could go I could go there I've got four different staff reports from two different planners saying it complies with the code so yes I could go there whether we go there or not I I don't know and so to the and I don't I don't know that this conversation even factors into my ultimate decision but I feel compelled to for one to understand but two to make sure to try to get everybody else to understand what everybody else is arguing on where they're coming from since I kind of have to make sense of everybody's positions up here you know if let's say I were to increase the fine $150 a day and let's say if that it is to a certain extent a business decision to keep that Crusher running in spite of my order but that extra $150 does the trick and now they shut down businesses or now they shut down business well you just add that to your damages Am I Wrong well I don't know that assert proceeding allows us to seek damages so but we're not talking sir we're not talking appeal to me we're talking your Chapter 70 well the Chapter 70 is it's not a bird Harris act it's just a special magistrate act but I assume you're moving towards bird Harris that was kind of what I was alluding to earlier I assume that that's at least a possibility no I mean I'll tell you honestly we have not looked at bird Harr didn't want to I and I didn't want to make you put you in a position where you had to say more than you knew or than than you felt comfortable saying in the public but no in fact we specifically chose the the chapter 70. 51 process to not increase the any aerial nature and say hey let's go to a process that pulls everybody into mediation first so then it might not be where you're going and I'm saying this I think a little bit for the city's benefit but also to to indicate to both of you where where my thought process is so you can kind of understand how I rule when I rule or why I rule how I rule when when I rule um so if respondent were to do what the city is encouraging and what frankly I would encourage any respondent in any code enforcement case do comply with the order that you've been issued by that magistrate or board the point I'm making is that if this is ends up in a Bert J Harris or similar lawsuit that you know that time that it was shut down if shut down over a wrongful denial of an application the plaintive in that case would just add that to their damages I just want to make sure that everybody I mean I don't I can't tell you guys how to do your jobs and I don't mean to I I'm not trying to throw myself into that but these are the things that I think about up here so I'm kind of just really thinking out loud maybe and and I understand that that's possibility there are other claims that could obviously be brought in light of the facts that we've uncovered through public records request and the location of where certain folks live and the like but the fact is is going down that route doesn't change the adverse result for the 23 folks that suddenly don't have a job jobs so and again it's a facility that is in fact the city transporter was there on October said I'm so glad you're finally on the city's approved vendor list it's I mean it's it's a series of unfortunate events I guess and nothing nothing more I mean it's yes it's unfortunate yes it's ironic but it really doesn't weigh into my decision making today um I am still not persuaded by the estole argument it's a mobile Crusher it was driven onto the site and turned on when permission was given and I understand their jobs but nobody has told me people were hired nobody has told me that all of these things were done because the city said if you that you can you can operate while we're going through this process as soon as a notice of violation was issued respondent was aware that for whatever reason right or wrong I now have a code enforcement case and from that point forward two years now I think around about since that notice a violation operations have continued when I entered in order operations have continued when we were here last last April and I said I'm I'm I'm I'm gonna not going to do anything with this motion because I would like for them to have the opportunity to see how that process played out when that process did not play out the way that that respondent hoped there still has been no movement to comply with my order and so I I think as Brent you surmised and I think I mentioned it too but I I think you came in expecting me to be there from one of your early statements yeah the the respondent the the respondent showing an intent or desire to comply with what I've asked is one of the main factors in you know how much of a do I ultimately impose and there is no urgency in complying with my order and I understand there are a lot of moving pieces and I don't begrudge anybody their decisions City side or respondent side but the reality is this is a business decision being made so again I'm going to try when is when is your mediation it's March 4th and you told me you told me how much time at at a minimum to would be needed to I'm not going to ask I get the switch and the truck off how much time to actually come into compliance to to cease operation to Cease the running of the of the grinder and then to start moving towards no more business activity on that site I think you said it 3 to six yes wait I mean I think a conserv estimate is 90 to 120 days three to six go ahead well because council is providing that information uh attorney man zerus is the participant in the mediation but he and I had had the conversation that during proceedings the he was advised it would be a two week time frame to shut down two weeks not not 120 days well and and and there's layers to this conversation that's kind of why why I'm speaking of it the way that I am because it's one thing to turn the truck off and it's another thing to clean the side up and it's there's a lot that goes into it and I I don't doubt that and we and we disclose that that's the two weeks to break down the crusher you still have to move it off site you have all the materials you have to then truck out you're not going to suddenly bring in trucks to haul them out one day they're they're going out every time that's where it's the 90 to 120 days the two weeks he's referring to I mentioned earlier in this hearing that was mentioned as to how long does it take to actually I can't go into the discussions the mediation so it there was more of a discussion of if you were to move that Crusher let's say to a hypothetical site somewhere else in St Cloud it would take two weeks to break that machine down so that then it could be moved and then it would take another two weeks to put it back together on that other site that's not taking into account everything else on the site that would need to be removed in order to bring the property into compliance so that's the 90 to 120 days if the mediation is not successful in March and I'm not asking you for your court strategy or anything else are there any other avenues within the city itself that you intend to pursue or is that mediation your last internal to the city Avenue for Relief to your knowledge at this point and obviously you can't be held to this but and if it's more than than you feel like comfortable disclosing by all means tell me so um uh just shooting off the top of my mind there there's the potential to do a different avenue if the city allows us to do it when they sent the denial letter they included the boilerplate language that which you're familiar with we don't we're not going to consider any other applications for the property for blah blah blah unless you meet these criteria so that potentially could be a Avenue short of litigating the November decision if mediation is unsuccessful to sit there and say hey if we were to come back with a different proposal would you guys consider it sooner than the whatever their time bar is in the city because the reality is this nobody's looking that property for Highway business it's been for sale for more than two years it's boxed in with two cement plants you're not opening a convenience store there it's not happening so yes there's probably that's the one other Avenue with the city is a different development proposal anything else either of you want me to hear I'm ready to rule no no yeah here's what I'm going to do given everything that I've heard today I am going to Grant in part the city's motion but for the start date for The increased fines and I am going to make them $250 a day and my reason for going $250 a day is not an immediate safety Hazard on that project I I the case had not been made that there was an immediate safety hazard out there anyway I don't think but but the city's use of that that yeah that that that's that's hard to overcome if that had been the basis but my reason for for it is the lack of urgency in complying with my order um but so I will order that increase but I'm going to order it to commence not March 1st like the city has asked for but May 1st that gives you time for your mediation and a little bit of time extra and it also gives time for the wind down of the operations after I mean you know what my order is today you'll get a written one but you still have the mediation but that gives time for compliance and motion towards compliance um should that mediation not be successful and hopefully it is successful anything else on that motion okay uh so next one up is a motion for authorization foreclose and I'm I'm going to this probably more for respondents benefit than than cities I think my discretion on this one is very narrow I mean typically we're looking to was there an order imposing FES entered was it recorded was it recorded more than 3 months ago and if so the statory basis for authorization to foreclose has been made so respondent just that's you're going to have to educate me a little bit of why I have more latitude than I think I do when when you present and you're going to tell me I have exactly the latitude that I think I have no I I I I certainly agree with your assessment of that of that uh uh discretion or or limited uh uh if you will but this is a this is as you know and I'm sure Council knows for the respon it's a procedural me mechanism this would still have to go before Council this is only a you know the first step would be to get your authorization there obviously would then need to be some subsequent uh appearance before Council and council's decision to move forward if if in fact Council gets asked whether or not to spend the money on it you have to ask me for permission to foreclose but you have to ask them for the money I get it so so that's that's that's where this is uh and that's uh that's the only that's the limited uh basis of the motion appear and simple it's uh something that the city's entitled to by virtue of the structure of the statute and the facts in place can I add that and just as a review the order was entered rather recorded excuse me in January of 2023 so over over a year ago good responded I'm sorry 326 38 all that stays in priority I'm not adding a new order was yeah just going forward okay while response council is appearing I I will also indicate it really ties just to my courtesy comments earlier I am sure and I hope that that these proceedings are not being used as leverage in any other proceedings that that would disappoint me to learn that that were true I I will say this even if my authority is limited and if respondents Council cannot convince me otherwise If This Were if a if a foreclosure complaint were to be filed I'm certain almost certain respondents Council would immediately file a motion to stay because of the the other pending issues arguments and and I I a judge certainly would have the authority to grant that motion and I'd be hard pressed to imagine a judge not Grant granting that motion so I I I don't know that there really is if everybody's being realistic about what a judge who has full discretion to to stop everything I I don't know what's being accomplished here well I appreciate that introduction there because I actually agree with some of that I and we've shared our views with that and it's frustrating to me that this got set when folks knew that mediation was uh taking place in fact this was served on us prior to mediation even occurring on January 31st so same reason I don't do openings at mediation because it just gets everybody off on the wrong start wrong foot but a couple things just so that it's in the record one uh I would submit again as I touched upon in the earlier argument the fact is are coming before you today for authorization to foreclose on a lean which they claim is at 41,000 something dollars which we were would respectfully say thet tales in the stopple argument which I understand you didn't accept but to me when they a applicant is simply waiting for the local government to do what it sort of obligated to do I guess we could have went and filed a red demand Amos to require them to have the hearing to sit there and then take advantage of that to justify well look how high these fines are we need to foreclose on it and it has been utilized it did get brought up to city council they haven't paid their $36,000 in fines it's like we can't pay them until we're in compliance Mr Wright could walk down there with a check today they won't take it and everybody in this room understands that so there's the estole thing I think there's also an unclean hands uh Equitable argument on why there shouldn't be a foreclosure authorized and as you've touched on I just think if the Foreclosure were authorized and for some reason they did actually pursue it although I'm fairly certain not only if there would be a motion to stay there' probably be a counter claim filed but there would be great irreparable harm to my client if the Foreclosure actually succeeded and then lo and behold my client prevails on aert petition and says you should have granted the rezoning well now the property's gone and property is unique in Florida as as we all know but getting back to your question on whether or not you have any latitude going to our favorite book to read the Florida Statutes the cure for insomnia if you look at section 162.5 sub3 which is the section that talks about this and I'm quoting after three months from the filing of any such lean which remains unpaid the enforcement board May authorize the local government body attorney to foreclose on the lean or to sue to recover a money judgment for the amount of the lean plus acrw interest it does not say that you shall or must it says you may and I'm asking you under these circumstances without inferring whether it's being used for leverage or not that there's no urgency for you to Grant this motion they could have this motion come back before you in May where you can sit there and say hey have they complied or my $250 going into effect maybe my guy's in full compliance by May 1st why would there be authorization given to foreclose well unless the fines were paid that would be why well yeah but we can't pay the fines till we're in compliance so once we're in compliance we would obviously Mr Wright indicated at the city council he would pay the fines or ask for a reduction yeah it's just the question was is once he's in compliance there's no reason to foreclose assuming that the fines are paid that was my point understood and I I stipulate to that but to your threshold point do you got the discretion I'd say the plain language of the statute gives you that because it doesn't say You must or shall do it it says you may do it so I think you do have to consider the totality of the circumstances and where we are in the process the totality of the circum the the one factor that that weighs on me on this motion is the pending mediation and so I'm going ask you guys to swap at the podium because I have question for cityone sorry jay gave me the microphone I can do that if you want Oh either one I prer you there because then I turn my neck sure um why would I authorize foreclosure when there's a pending mediation I know you're not going to get there yet but why even authorize it when there's a possib ility the whole thing gets resolved in 3 weeks I I guess the it's a rhetorical question in a in a sense because it could be asked why why would you not the city's entitled to it because it might go away the whole thing might be resolved in weeks and then the order would become uh redundant or or irrelevant if you will or moot really moot is the is the word but if I enter it if I enter it in a month or well of course two months if I could respond the case goes back two years two years now and we've already gone through today over an hour of presentation talking about things from the respondents perspective about what the city has done that they've detrimentally relied upon and they're a victim and and as they continue to operate their business this is a legally appropriate uh procedural aspect of what the city is entitled to ask for respectfully given the facts we go back to the hearing a year and a half ago and your order not complied with we have an order again entered in December of 2022 not complied with recorded in January of 2023 and the fine has been running since back in the fall 2022 and then that lean was recorded in January over a year ago so I don't think the city is is moving at warp speed on no and I'm not accusing moving at speed it's just the timing in relation to the mediation that I'm struggling with I understand this it's a relevant question I understand but it's it's simply to move the case forward in the way that we as we've done on numerous Court Enforcement cases before your honor but and so just to give you a little an example just because it's fresh in my own memory because I'm dealing with it right now too and one of the Cities I represent they are you know starting to work through their backlog of old orders that haven't you know been foreclosed and and they actually their code enforcement department did a great job they started with like 10 now they're down to like four that remain unpaid one of those four that remained unpaid when they started hearing that code enforcement was about to start asking permission to foreclose they filed a lawsuit you know deck action challenging the the code enforcement board's order sure now that probably isn't going to get very far I won't speak to it but it's you know as everybody in this room knows the avenue to appeal a code enforcement decision is appeal not deck action so they and the deck action was filed two years after after the order was entered so they probably have a problem there but that was midway through our process of the same process you outlined for me we go to code enforcement board there they have a board and then to get permission to foreclose pursuant of the statute and then we go Council to ask for the money to pay the lawyer and as soon as we that lawsuit was filed City said nope we're going to stop we're going to wait and see what happens there before we move on because for the same reason and probably it's probably why my head starts there on this motion is I know if I'm asking a judge judge we want to foreclose on this property and the defendant in the Foreclosure saying but judge we're the plaintiff and a deck action challenging this whole process judge is going to State my action so I know you guys aren't going to go out and file before the mediation so why would I give you permission before the mediation because it's part of the process and it would ultimately the relevance of it in part is that it would further incentivize a respondent to come into compliance which which feels like I'm being used as as a negotiating tactic which is what I don't want to be well that I would suggest you respectfully is not the case this is a procedural mechanism that's available to the city just like any other case we've waited over a year and we're position why why should I incentivize him any more than I've already done to comply with my order on the eve of a mediation well the mediation is is being it was continued from a a full day prior um there's been ongoing discussions by my partner City attorney maneras and Council for the respondent the city's motions here before you are well considered and they're well supported by law and fact and they're submitted in good faith but there's really no basis upon which to deny the motion it's it it meets all of the criteria if if it if it does act as as an incentive to incentivize a respondent to come into compliance which is again what the city there's the objective compliance if that can be achieved and if this is a tool that will achieve that goal then we're we're understandably going to use it if we think it's appropriate and we think the facts in the law allow us to suggest that we uh receive that authorization respectfully it's not it's not done to be obstinate or combative but it's legally sufficient ient to request is one of the issues in dispute in the mediation I I I know the mediation is not about this but I know it's all interconnected and and I probably want an answer from both of you on this question is the code enforcement findes from either of your perspectives one of the issues that would be resolved in a successful mediation my partner's been handling all of the negotiations I know from my infrequent discussions on this overall matter that the city is looking to achieve compliance and resolution well here's why I asked the question is in good faith it's not as though foreclosure doesn't doesn't doesn't really foreclosure does not encourage compliance foreclosure is when compliance has failed foreclosure is about collecting money and so that's why I'm curious if if mediation if a successful mediation resolves the issue regarding fines again I feel like it's premature here now for me to authorize it when there's a pending mediation the pending mediation being my the only thing that's gotten me there because I do still agree that I'm limited in my reasons for saying no you know this the statute says you know what what I consider without obviously uh getting direct authorization from the council or from attorney manzer if the matter were to resolve at the mediation obviously this all becomes mood well it might it might not that's my point it might not become mood if the fines aren't resolved the mediation there's still $41,000 or whatever it's run to that has to be paid I would I cannot imagine a scenario whereby that wouldn't be incorporated into the resolution of the matter based I would expect so too Bas my so my point being is that if it does not for whatever reason resolve this is this is something that the city is legally entitled to request and receive is the authorization I'll leave it at that okay thank you sir Council for respondent same question let's start there does a successful mediation resolve the fines I'll answer answer it in one word yes without going to the details it certainly is trying to put a a nice bow on everything in one Fell Swoop so yes and I don't have much more to say other than there is suggestion about health this is two years going and the mediation shouldn't be considered we could invoke that process as you know until the city council actually ruled so the city council ruled it's in the record we didn't dilly dally I didn't wait till day 30 and I I don't I don't believe that I don't believe there's been by either party I don't think there has been Deli ding to use that scientific term um but the the only time frame that I'm particularly concerned with is 3 months it's the statutory time frame and we're past that uh so I whether a client whether a respondent has drugged their feet or not on a question of authorization to foreclose it doesn't weigh it doesn't weigh on on me um the timing that I'm concerned about is 3 months but the mediation does and so I I think there's some some things I can do to get us past that date um I do not as I think you've gathered I do not accept C the stopple argument to be one that would prevent or stop me or in my own mind make me say I should not enter motion for author authorization foreclose if the statutory elements are met uh so those arguments have not prevailed upon me but the timing of this in the mediation and the not wanting code enforcement to use be used in those proceedings as a bargaining chip does weigh on me uh so why respond should I not simply enter an order authorizing foreclosure but condition that authorization and say it doesn't occur until after the mediation or even just stick with my earlier date of of May why should I not go ahead and enter that order now and just give time for that mediation to run its course well I guess that's one one card in your deck that it is and I'm asking you why shouldn't I use it yes I guess because my preference would have been that and I think it's clear is I'd prefer not even to have had to drive out here today and and and if if I and that's kind of where I'm at too though on this is if if I enter that order and then the mediation is not successful they're going to make their motion again you're going to have to drive out here again we're going to have to spend another hour going through this again when I I think I've indicated what I think I'm basing my decision on and the only hurdle that that I'm struggling with today is look I know you're not going to use any author authorization I give you until after that mediation is over so why would I not just condition my my my authorization to kick in once we're past that mediation and save everybody having to come out here again I'm sure you would I want to hear I want to hear their argument yeah well I guess my argument is you didn't hear anything from opposing Council about why you're obligated to enter it I I actually tend to agree with your stat that if you deferred it today we'd probably be out here in a few months so why not save everybody the time money and effort and enter it but don't make it effective till May 1st I would ask that any deadline be consistent with the other order so we're not chasing different deadlines but the fact is as you asked me a question at the start and said do I have the authority to deny it and I give you the statutory language that does give you the authority to deny it doesn't mean you have to but I can't be arbitrary and I'm not asking you to be arbitrary I don't think you're being arbitrary if you say hey I'm I'm not going to consider it at this point because I agree there is a mediation pending right there and again the fact is they served it on us on January 8th with the mediation on January 31st this was not served after the first day of mediation so I wasn't born under a rock and I've been doing this 24 years it was done for leverage to get my clients attention going into that mediation which is unfortunate but you know I'll leave it in your hands if you want to Grant it subject to May 1 you have the discretion if you want to agree with me that the statute says may and we'll see how all the chips fall uh maybe my client comes into compliance pays the fine then there's no need for an order at all uh you know we'd accept that yes sir just that it doesn't sound as though uh there's any harm in entering it effective May 1 and that's what I'm going to do thank you um with the caveat that obviously if there is a successful mediation that resolves the issue of the fines not just a successful mediation but one that resolves the issue of the fines that obviously that foreclosure follows you know whatever agreement the parties enter yes um understood and but come May one if there're still whatever the amount is as of May one if there are still outstanding fines my order will provide they are authorized to foreclose so if it's not resolved in the mediation or outside of the mediation or paid that authorization will kick in and and I I do accept respondent's argument that it's it's early I won't call it premature but it's early and again it's what I keep com back to I know you're not going go out and file tomorrow if I give this authorization because you have the pending mediation and I don't want to make everybody drive out here again and I think it would just be rehashing the same arguments if I did and I'm I think I'm hearing that indication from Council on both sides so that is my order on this one the authorization is conditionally given but that condition being that it does not kick in until May one and it is subject obviously to any resolution of the fines that may come in the mediation or outside of the mediation between the parties before May one anything else from either party on the no sir thank you thank you both I appreciate your professionalism um and I think do you need a minute to wind down I'm sorry okay so okay so let's let's let's get let the court reporter get wrapped up so she can what what what can we help with before as you're wrapping up so foress j e s s e Anderson a n d e r s o n right Tisha Miller m i l l e r dag marus d a g m a r i e cagara do you want to f e g a r r a and I believe f r a n c i c i n e Sutton s u t t o n okay yeah and and yeah we're going to keep on proceeding but feel free to pick up your equipment you're not disruptive case number 20231 1564 Bertha m M steel Estates owner repeat violation location of violation 1810 Kentucky Avenue St Cloud Florida good afternoon April Bennett Community compliance officer for the city of St Cloud I'm presenting this case for the property located at 1810 Kentucky Avenue at this time I would like to enter in to evidence the following items copy of the notice of violation sent by Sir certified mail posted on the property and City Hall copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearings sent by certified mail posted on the property and City Hall copy of the revised statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted on the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation Affidavit of postings evidence of mailings the code section in violation of a copy of the deed to the property and a copy of the cost incurred if the magistrate finds the respondent inv violation in the amount of $297 180 and they are not here on August 21st while on routine Patrol supervisor how observed a cargo trailer without a current registration and accumulation of solid waste and high grass and weeds and an unsan condition at this location four photos were taken is the resid occupied yes by the respondant um by the owner's grandson okay on August 22nd I was asked to follow up on this case I per formed an inspection for myself and was able to observe a cargo trailer without current registration accumulation of solid waste High grass and weeds and an unsanitary condition seven photos were taken on August 23rd I sent out a notice of violation by certified mail posted the property in City Hall did an Affidavit of posting and took one photo on September 11th a reinspection was performed and I was able to verify that the property was not in compliance there was a cargo trailer without current a current registration tag High grass and weeds an accumulation of solid waste an unsanitary condition and nine photos were taken on September 18th a call was received from Tim seal who is the property owner's grandson who advised that his father um was living in the property and had recently passed he was working on getting the property cleaned up on September 27th I called to speak with him to advise him of the upcoming reinspection he asked for additional time and we agreed on October 6th on October 6th the reinspection was performed and I was able to verify that the grass was mowed however it was not enough to cure the violation there was an accumulation cargo trailer without current registration tag and sanitary condition and six photos were taken on October 26 A reinspection was performed and the condition of the property had not changed eight photos were taken on November 2nd a reinspection was performed and the condition of the property had not changed nine photos were taken on November 29th the reinspection was performed and the cargo trailer was removed from the property curing that violation however the there was additional accumulation that was added to the yard four photos were taken on December 18th the reinspection was performed and the condition of the property had not changed four photos were taken I'm sorry those seem to be out of oh I'm sorry I went too far on the photos those were the ones from the 18th with the additional accumulation on December 19th I sent out a statement of violation and notice a hearing by certified maale posted the property and City Hall did an Affidavit of posting and one photo was taken on January 10th this property was Ren noticed due to a clerical error I sent out a statement of violation and notice a hearing by certified mail posted the property and City Hall and did an Affidavit of posting what was that what was the date of the re notice the re notice was on January 10th on February 19th a reinspection was performed and the property was not in compliance there is accumulation High grass and weeds over a height of 8 in abandoned vehicles in the property is being kept in an unsanitary condition the reen notice was just as to the notice of hearing not as to the notice of violation correct correct it was one notice of I just want to make sure that you I just wanted to clarify that you were just Ren noticing the the issue is with the hear hearing not with the original notice of violation that's correct I didn't have a repeat on the original um notice of hearing so I had to correct that and add the um the repeat on there while we're talking about the repeat which and if it's all then it's all but without the order in front of me which which of these violations you're alleging today are repeats or all of them are repeats so my prior order was for accumulation of solid waste abandoned vehicle unsated condition in high grass and weeds correct okay it is the city's recommendation that the respondant be found in violation of repeat violations of allowing an Accu allowing accumulation of solid waste an abandoned vehicle an exterior property and an unsanitary condition High grass and weeds over a height of 8 in and not corrected by the time specified the city would recommend the respondent pay $500 a day um from the original date of the um the violation was observed which was August 21st of 23 the city would also request that the cost incurred in bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $274 70 to be paid within 7 Days of the written order by the special magistrate and that concludes my presentation and your request for Relief you asked for $274.9 to be paid for administrative cost in your statement of fees in the agenda pack or in the evidence packet you state the costs are 29780 I'm inclined to award the one based on the actual statement of fees which is the greater amount is that the correct amount uh let me just double check I may have just forgot to update that yes the cost incurred was the 29780 my error I didn't update it on my narrative happens that's why I check any have you had any communication with the respondent or the respondents the the resident at the beginning I did um the the Tim seal that I was talking to was telling me that his father had passed he was going to work on cleaning it up um I've tried to call after that um and he's not responded and he doesn't have a voicemail set up on his cell phone so I'm unable to leave a message but I have made numerous attempts to try to reach out to him to find out where he was at because I was going to allow even more time but he's just not responding at this point well based on the evidence testimony received then I'll find in favor of the city find the respondent is in repeat violation of the alleged violations order a fine in the amount of $500 per day to be imposed for each day since August 21st 2023 that those fines have remained and repeat or that those violations have remained on the subject property and order the fine to continue to run at the rate of $500 a day from today forward until all of the violations are cured will also enter into that order an award of $297 180 for the administrative cost incurred by the city in this case any else in this case thank you oh yes yes ma'am the payment of the fines and of the cost and 7 Days case number 2023-24 good afternoon Alex Miller Community compliance officer for the city of St Cloud at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the courtesy notice sent by regular mail copy of the notice of violation sent by regular mail copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail copy of the notice of violation sent by regular male posted at the property and City Hall copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation AV the Affidavit of postings evidence of mailings copy of the c section in violation and a copy of the D to the property copy of the cting curve of the magist finds a respondent in violation in the amount of $230.7 sense the respondent is not here on October 31st 2023 during routine Patrol I observed that repairs and alterations have been performed to the front porch of the duplex and there was no permit on record a courtesy notice was sent by regular mail for the owner to correct the violation within seven working days one photo was taken this is the property when they bought it and this is the picture I took after go back so there was no window it was just a screen and um go forward they put a window and sting on November 22nd a reinspection was performed and verified that there was still no application of record and the property was still in violation a notice of violation was sent by regular mail to the owner to correct the violation on December 8th I verified that the violation was not corrected and notice a violation was sent by certified mail to the owner to correct the violation on January 4th still no compliance the notice of violation was sent by regular mail to the owner posted the property in City Hall and affidavit a posting was created and one photo was taken of the posting on January 20 5th it was verified there was still no application on record a statement of violation and notice of hearing was was sent by certified mail to the owner posted the property and City Hall an affidavit posting was created and one photo of the posting was taken on February 16 and again today I verifi there's still not an application on record and the owner has not made any attempts to contact me about the case and the property is still in violation so You' heard nothing from the respondent no sir it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing repairs and alterations to be performed prior to obtaining a permit by the time specified and the city will recommend that the respondent be given until March 1st 2024 to obtain a permit or a fining the amount of $250 B assess until compliance is met the city also request that the cost incur and bring in this case before the magistrate in the amount of200 $30.7 to be paid within 7 Days of the written order by the special magistrate this concludes my presentation Bas the evidence testimony received find in favor of the city find the respondent is in violation for allowing repairs and alterations to be performed at the location without obtaining proper permits order the respondent to come into compliance honored before March 1st 2024 if not brought into compliance by that date and finding the amount of $250 per day will run until compliance is met also order the respondent to pay the administrative costs incurred by the city in the amount of $230.7 which amount will be do within 7 days from the date of my order case number 20231 1857 Kelly stransky owner location of violation 320 Pennsylvania Avenue St Cloud Florida Alex Miller again with the city of stcloud at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the notice of violation sent by regular mail copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail certifi delivered copy of the statement of violation and ERS of hearing sent by certified mail posted at the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation Affidavit of posting evidence of mailings copy of the C-sections in violation a copy of the due to the property and a copy of the cost in Cur if the magistrate F the respondent in violation in the amount of $253 180 and the respondent is not here on November 20th 2023 code enforcement received a complaint about this property having abandoned vehicles enclosing a front carport porch without a permit and running an appol AOL stre business from this location prior to obtaining a home occupational license on November 21st upon arrival I observed that several land Vehicles were at the property verifi there is no permit obtained to enclose a cardboard or porch and there was an unly condition at this location I was not able to verify that there was a business operating at this location 11 pictures were taken and a notice of violation was sent by regular mail to the owner to correct the violation is that a flat tire yes sir that was on the street is there a vehicle on the subject property uh yes so there was there was the vehicle right there um without with a flat tire and it was an expired tag and then um they had other vehicles in here with that you've answered my question it was there there the the vehicle on the street is not the only vehicle at issue no sir sorry on December 12 a reinspection was performed and verified that the violations were not corrected on December 14 I notice a violation with certified mail was sent to the owner to correct the violation and three photos were taken sorry so they removed the vehicle from the street to the property but they turned around so I couldn't verify that t was current now on January 2nd a reinspection was performed and observed that the unsightly violation was corrected but still not application on record and could not verify the vehicles were in compliance and the property was still in violation it was also verified that the certifi certified mail was received by the property owner on December 18 I tried to contact the owner by phone and I was not not able to leave a message do due to the voicemail being full and three photos were taken on January 12 another reinspection was performed and verified that the property had an unsightly condition again and still not application on record and the vehicles were still in violation what's the unsightly condition as of one two so they on on two they corrected the an condition but before they had es and stuff on is there an unslightly condition today no no on this one they corrected it okay so it had that has been cured that one but then on January 12 when I went to do a reinspection again they had an uny condition that's what I'm asking what's the current what's the current condition uh right now there's no uny condition okay so they they they they cured again the unsightly condition yes sir um okay and um I also notified that the owner um I was also notified that the owner had contacted the police department and was trying to get an extension to come in compliance again and try I tried to return the call but was unsuc unsuccessful in contacting the owner and five photos were taken on January 18 after verification of non compliance a statement of violation and notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner I posted the property in City Hall an affidavit posting was created and five photos were taken February 16 I verified that an condition again was corrected but still permit was not obtained and the abandom vehicles were still in violation and two photos were taken it is the city's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing abandon Vehicles work performed prior to obtaining a permit and allowing an assing condition at this location and not correcting the violations by the time specified the city will recommend that the responded be given until March 1st 2024 to correct all the violations or a fin in amount of $250 B assessed until compliance ISM the city will also request that the cting current bring is this case before the magistrate in the amount of $253 180 pay within 7even days of the written not by the special magistrate and this concludes my presentation okay so in looking at your request for Relief what's what's what's an existing violation and what's the violation that has been cured but cured after the time for compliance unsightly is cured yes uh it is but it was um cured after after the date but so I I have I I have to parse out this order a little bit because I have to I have to make the findings of fact but they're in compliance for the unsightly but then I have to give them a compliance date for the remaining so the unsightly is the only one that's in compliance yes sir okay then based on the evidence testimony presented I will find in favor of the city find the respondent is in current violation for allowing abandoned vehicles allowing the construction work to be performed to close in the carport without proper permits um and order those to be cured C by March 1 2024 if not cured by that time a find the amount of $250 per day will run until compliance is met we also find that the respondant was in violation for unslightly accumulation on the subject property find that that violation was cured prior to the hearing but it was cured after the date set the notice of violation for cure so for purposes of repeat violation in the future I am making that finding a fact uh it will order the respondent to pay the city's administrative costs in the amount of $253 180 that amount will be due within 7 days from the date of my written order thank you case number 2023 1893 SLV Investments Florida LLC owner location of violation 1406 New York Avenue St Cloud Florida good afternoon April Bennett Community compliance officer I am presenting this case for the property located at 1406 New York Avenue at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the courtesy notice sent by by regular mail to the owner of record and the registered agent copy of the notice of violation sent by regular mail to the owner of record and registered agent copy of the notice of violation sent by certified mail to the owner of record and registered agent the state copy of the statement of violation and notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the record owner of record and the registered agent copy of the PowerPoint presentation Affidavit of posting evidence and mailings code section in violation of a copy of the to the property and a copy of the cost incurred if the magistrate finds the respondent in violation in the amount of $231.67 I sent out a courtesy notice by regular mail to the owner of record and the registered agent on December 22nd I was able to verify that there was not an active landlord business tax receipt for this location I sent out a notice of violation by regular mail to the owner of record and the registered agent on January 9th I was able to verify that there still was not an active landlord business tax receipt for this location I sent out a notice of violation by certified mail to the owner of record and the registered agent on January 22nd I was able to verify that there was not an active landlord business tax receipt for this location on February 5th um I was able to verify that there was still not an active landlord business tax receipt for this location I sent out a statement of violation and notice of hearing by certified mail to the owner of record and the registered agent posted the property and City Hall did an Affidavit of posting and took one photo on February 19th I was able to verify that the landlord business tax receipt was issued on February 13th which cured the violation it is the city's recommendation that the respondant be found in violation of allowing a landlord business tax receipt to not be obtained for this property and not corrected by the time specified the city would also request the cost incurred in bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of $231.67 days of the written order by the special magistrate this concludes my presentation that that is the order I'll entered find the respondent was in violation for not paining or not having the appropriate landlord business tax receipt prior to renting the property in order the respond find that that has been brought in compliance before the hearing but after the time set the notice of violation for cure and order the respondent to pay the administrative costs the amount of $231 due within 7 days you have a question for you just out of curiosity so you said that the tenant complained yes well that was the a condition on his um decision to renew his lease or not he wanted to know if there were any code violations was so much that he complained he asked pretty much I was curious there was a landlord tenant dispute going on that was my curiosity but you answered it thank you case number 2024 d69 ciano Renee Borelli and AA lus belli owner repeat violation nelsie Adeline barelli and Samuel Cruz owner location of violation 500 Pennsylvania Avenue St Cloud Florida good afternoon Pam Neil city of St Cloud code compliance officer I am presenting this case uh this for the property located at 500 Pennsylvania Avenue at this time I would like to enter into evidence the following items copy of the statement of violation notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner and posted on the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation evidence of mailing copy of the deed to the property copy of the code section in violation copy of the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondent in violation in the amount of $269 23 and the respondent is not here thank you on January 10th 2024 while on routine Patrol I noticed the grass and weeds were high and the pool water was not clean and sanitary at this location on January 9th 19th a reinspection was performed and a property was still in violation um I took three photos it is City's recommendation that the respondent be found in a repeat violation of allowing the grass and weeds to be over the height of 8 in and the pool water not being maintained in a clean and sanitary condition at this location and to pay a fine of $500 a day starting from January 10th 2024 the day the violations were found until compliance is met the city would like to also recover the cost in bringing this case before the magistrate in the amount of 26 $269 123 to be paid within 7 Days of the written order of the magistrate as well and that concludes my presentation and my prior order was for growth of over 8 in as well as unand condition of pool yes sir yes when youall bring repeat violations it helps me a ton if you include the prior order in your packets so that I can verify then just what I'm asking so I can verify and I verify these two when I get back to the office and make sure when I enter the New Order that it does line up but just it's helpful to me to be able to look at that in the packet of what I ordered before because lots of times I remember them sometimes I don't okay um based on the evidence of test when we presented I will find in favor of the city find the respondent is in repeat by viation for grass and weeds over the height of 8 in and the pool not being maintained in its clean and sanitary manner order the respondent to pay a fine for the repeat violations in the amount of $500 per day that fine beginning to run as of January 10th 2024 the date the violation was first observed by Community compliance officer that fine will continue to run until compliance is met uh we'll also order the respondent to pay the administrative costs incurred by the city in the amount of $269 23 that amount will be due within 7 days from the date of my written order thank you case number 2024 D 186 a Terrell enterprise LLC owner vaa a Terell registered agent location of violation 309 17 Street St Cloud Florida good afternoon Pam Neo Community compliance officer I am presenting this case for the property located at 3091 17th Street at this time I would like to enter the evidence the following items a copy of the statement of violation notice of hearing sent by certified mail to the owner and posted on the property and City Hall copy of the PowerPoint presentation evidence of mailing copy of the deed to the property a copy of the code section in violation copy the cost incurred if the special magistrate finds a respondant in violation in the amount of $22.96 cents and the respondent is not here and not to making eff but this this is the one I've been looking forward to all day long cuz this is one I was curious about I want to hear the story on this one on January 18th 2024 I noticed the alteration of a driveway in the right of way at this location with no permits being obtained and I took two photos it goes all the way to 17th Street so help me on the tell me what I'm looking at um that's where's the street where's the driveway right there's the street I'm sitting in the street the driveway goes you're at the street and this is the driveway I'm looking at goes all the way to 17th Street where and you're on the curb of 17th Street yes okay and next photo so that's the driveway running this way and the street yeah I took it from yeah and so where does the rideway actually begin does the rideway begin up there where the bear the bear where that sidewalk looks like a sidewalk connects the driveway is that all right of way yes yeah on January 26th 6 2024 statement of violation a statement of violation and notice of hearing was sent by certified mail to the owner and the registered agent and posted on the property in City Hall and Affidavit of posting was completed and I took three photos there's some so see that's a better angle right there you see yeah what's the black top that's 17th Street did they put the black top or was that the black top is just I think it was already there okay yeah the issue is their their their driveway as it crosses the right way and is the only issue here the permitting that they did it without a permit yes but I also did get an email from Public Works Don Callahan and I don't think the permit he he the owner um obtain the permit but when it goes to get inspected it's not going to pass because he didn't do it right yeah so um on February 12th so was there was there there was there was a driveway previously yeah but it didn't go all the way to the street so he added all of that how did you get from driveway to Street what am I some I'm missing some piece of this this is why I was C this was just an interesting one to me it was not the normal code enforcement case so there was a driveway before but it didn't go out of the street what's the purpose of a driveway if it doesn't get out of the street that's where I'm and not that it not that it's right here or there for your for your case it's my curiosity right well they're not allowed to go all the way to the street they have to stop at a certain point they can't go into the RightWay with um without obtaining a permit without a permit right right but I have to be able to get my driveway to the street so the prior driveway didn't go all the way to the street how how would I get a car from the I'd have to drive across the grass yes Ah that's what I was that's what I that that that's the hurdle that I wasn't thinking over I got it now okay on February 12th I checked and there was still no permanent obtain but on February 19th I checked and the permit was obtained on February 16th of 2024 it is City's recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of allowing the alteration of the right of way without first obtaining a permit at this location the city would like to also recover the cost incurred in bringing this case before the special magistrate in amount of $220.62 Ms um but he was taken two different times in 22 I recognize the respondent okay I recognize the respondent oh I mean this one may have been a more innocent I mean violation they it it they may have sincerely not it might not have occurred to them that we have to get I mean we know he's a contractor he knows yeah true all right basic the EV testimony I will find in favor of the city the respondent was in violation for not obtaining the permit prior to pouring the driveway across the ride of way find the violation was cured but cured after the time set the notice of violation for cure so the respondent is responsible for the administrative cost incurred by the city in Prosecuting this case in the amount of $22.96 that amount will be due within within seven days of the date of my written order thank you anything else from the city today sure I do appreciate everybody's patience I know that person was a long one I appreciate the lawyers um I know it's no fun for anybody probably more fun for me than anybody else in the room but just be thankful you don't have a board