Municipal Code Enforcement Board on 2026-06-24 1:30 PM - Jun 24, 2026

Today's meeting of the Municipal Code Enforcement Board is called to order on June 24, 2026. Welcome, everyone. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Be seated. Agendas of today's meeting are on the wall at the entrance to chambers. Please remember to turn off your cell phones. The Municipal Code Enforcement Board consists of seven members who are appointed by the City Council. We serve voluntarily. It is this board's intention to promote, protect, and improve the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Clearwater, by providing this equitable, effective, and inexpensive method of enforcing certain codes within the city. The board considers new business items in two parts, first the violation, and then affirmative relief. Formal rules of evidence do not apply. Each site is limited to 15 minutes. The board may grant additional time. All proceedings will be conducted in a calm, civil manner. Individuals who conduct themselves otherwise will be asked to leave. If necessary, they will be escorted from chambers. Now I ask all who plan to speak to please rise and be sworn in by the clerk. Our first order of business is to review and approve the minutes of last month's meeting. May I have a motion to approve the minutes? Jasmine? Just a verbal motion. Yes. Motion to approve the minutes. Yeah, there you go. Second. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Next on the agenda are new business items. First on our agenda is item 3.1 that has been withdrawn. Second item is 3.2. Madam Secretary has asked me to have this continued. I'd like a motion to have case 64-26 continued until next month. Is that correct? Yes. All right. What's our date for next month? July 22. All right. May I have a motion to continue this case until July 22? Motion approved. No, motion. You have to make a motion. Make a motion to continue this case. Okay. It's both of them, 3.2 and 3.3. They're the same individuals. All right. Somebody give me a motion. I make a motion that 3.2, case number 64-26, and case number 6526 are continued until July 22. May I have a second? Did I hear a second? Yes. All right. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Our next case, 3.4 on the agenda, continued from April 22, 2026, case 80-26, fine respondents Andres Perez and Zoila Perez at 2021 North Betty Lane in violation of code for permits and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. I understand on this case we have people here and an interpreter involved. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? It did not appear, so we don't speak. Okay. Nobody's seeing nobody. Inspector Reese, you have the floor. Good afternoon, Co. Ford. I'm Inspector Kat Reese with the City of Clearwater. This is going to be for case 80-26 at 2021 North Betty Lane. Second here. Case is going to be for one violations permit required, section 4-203.a.1. Specifically, permit required for garage conversion to include windows, doors, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. Had multiple notices of violations that gone out. This is one of the old cases as well. Began in March 18th of 2022. Final notice was sent November 21st of 2025. Certified mail was signed December 24th of 2025. So this is going to be on Betty Lane, just south of Idlewild Drive. And this is the structure that is requiring permits. And that was the original inspection photos that were taken. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Yes, sir. Can we go back to that? Yes. Are we looking at the property in the foreground or the one over the fence? Right here, this yellow garage. Thank you. The window was installed here. This was closed off. That's fine. It looks like you're looking at the fence for a primary property. I wasn't doing anything. I knew what I was looking at there. Thank you. I do believe that was from Street View, though. Yeah, it's a weird street there. Understood. So the property owner did apply for a permit back in 2022 to come into compliance. However, it has expired as of January 2nd of 2025, which includes a lot of failed inspections. So the point of this permit is to ensure that all that work is up to code. And, you know, we've had multiple continuances on this case, try to work with the property owner when he comes and shows up to code board. And he's not here today, so we just need to move on with this. So compliance can be met by obtaining an issued permit and completing said permit with inspections. Requesting compliance by obtaining a permit on or before July 24th, 2026, and completion of the permit six months from the issuance of said permit. If the violation continues to exist, impose a fine of $150 per day each day the violation continues to exist. Any questions? Any questions from the board for Inspector Reese? Yeah. May I have a first motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24th. This is the first motion. No, first motion. First motion. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to an affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24th of 2026. If the respondent does not comply by the date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each, and each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle on such lien. We have a second. Chelsen, second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector Reese. Next on our agenda, item 3.5, case 107-26. Find respondents Hoise Louise Jones at 1834 North Washington Avenue in violation of code for exterior surfaces, and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, would you come forward, please? Sir, can you state your name and address in relation to the property for us? Yeah. I am Jose Johnson, and I am the proprietor or owner of the house. Okay. So you reside there. The address listed here is your address? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. The first question we have for you is do you admit or deny the violation? No, I admit that, yes, I have not been able to do the repairs. Okay. I have hired people to do it, and they just walk away with my money. Understood. For now, I'm sorry to mean to interrupt you. For now, what we're going to do is first we'll hear from the inspector, let him present whatever information he has, and then we'll call you back up to tell us more, okay? Sure. You're right. All right. May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Inspector Dixon, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. I'm Greg Dixon. I'm the co-compliance inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case 107-26 for 1834 North Washington Avenue. There's one violation at the property for exterior surface violation, code section 3-1502B. This case started with a courtesy notice in March of last year, and then I sent certified mail out later in the fall, and then I posted the property in January. This is the property. It's just got some exterior surface issues. There's some rotten wood, peeling paint. This is later in the fall of last year, and this is in January when I posted the property. Not much changed. The grounds have been cleaned up, but the house still needs some attention. Here's the property today, chipped and peeling paint, rotten wood on the exterior. May I ask you a question while we're looking at these pictures of this sighting? What type of sighting is that? Is that a Masonite sighting, or is that like a mineral sighting? What is that? It's green. Pardon? I don't know. It's a Masonite sighting. What it looks like, I guess. I'm not sure what it's made out of. Are we looking at fence violations, too, or could you explain what this is? No, those could just be thrown away. I'm not sure if those are from his property or the neighboring property. Is it just for the exterior of the home? Okay. So compliance can be met for the exterior by replacing any defective structural or decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, faded and peeling paint. And I would request compliance on or before August 1st or a fine of $150 per day for violation. Board, do you have any questions, Inspector, at this point? Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Jones, what can you tell us about all of this? Yeah. If you notice in the pictures, I've been trying to do the job myself to no avail. I am very slow. I did have, actually, a hernia, a double hernia surgery back in 2010. And what happened is I had a physical altercation with my ex. Mm-hmm. And he punched me right there. And he re-ruptured foot. So it's hard for me to live away. I was told by the doctor I cannot live more than 15 pounds. However, I've been doing some work as best as I can. I'm there. Sir, can you either get closer to the microphone or probably close to the mic. So we want to be able to hear you and understand you. Okay. So what happened is I did have a hernia repaired. And then I had a physical heart attack. I mean, a fight with my ex before he was taken away. And then he punched me right there. And then he re-ruptured my hernia. And I don't have money to get the surgery right now, but I'm scheduled supposedly for the 25th of July. And I'm waiting for that. I cannot lift in much weight. I was told that I could only lift 15 pounds. However, if you notice in the pictures, you will see that the peeling of the painting outside of the house, it was not as bad as the very last photo. So if you look at it, it says that's been me. I scraped, and I took all the peeling, and I've been doing the best that I can. But I'll admit that I'm very slow. Understood. I've been hiring people to do this work for me. And so far, I have had, like, three different people walk away with my money. What can you tell us about your plans to get the repairs done? I do have my friend coming over from Minnesota. I moved from Minnesota to here, from Minneapolis to here. And then he's coming over, and within the next couple weeks, with us as fast as he can. And I do have also one of the neighbors that he said that he will help me out. The truth is, I don't have much money left. I was a truck driver. I drove OTR, which is over the road, all over the country. And my boss doesn't want to get me back until I fix my hernia, because he thinks I would be a liability. So until I get my surgery, I cannot go back trucking. But I'm waiting for that, so I can make some money and continue to improve my property, because it needs quite a bit of work. It was a fix-it-up rack, and I bought it in 2014. And, of course, everybody wants to live in a beautiful home. I'm not an exception to that. And I do want to also. But I need to be in a physical, you know, optimal physical condition, too. Okay. And, yes, I am very slow. I'm sorry. I have a question, Mr. Jones. Do you think your friend that's going to come over from Missouri in the next couple weeks to help you get your house outside in condition, do you think he'll be able to do that before August 1st? I'm hoping so, because he's a competitor. Well, hoping and thinking and knowing is two different things. All I have to present to you is just his word and what he said, and I'm trusting that he has done good by me. Has he told you that he would come over? He has done good by me in the past, so I'm hoping. He was the one that actually helped me replace the window that he was broken in the side of the house. He did that, and I saw the back door. And what happens if he doesn't? What happens if he doesn't? And then I'm going to have to try to find a way to do it. I'll admit I don't have money to hire a contracting company. I have checked. It's originally expensive. I know how to do some of this work, and I've been doing it. But right now I have a physical impediment. Have you been in touch with your inspector? I did call him once. When I got the first letter, I did call him once. And then I explained to him that I don't have the ability to do all of it as fast as he wanted me to do it. He gave me 30 days. So at that point, I'll admit that all I have to do is just drop my arms and say, whatever it comes. Because I don't have the money, and I don't have the work for it. So I just do what I can. Do you have a clear understanding of what it is you need to do to get in compliance? Yeah. I did hire an electrician. And I'll admit this is a problem that I do have. I hired an electrician because my ceiling fan in the living room was not working. And then when I came back from work, and then he said that everything was done, he put the key in there. So when I turned the light on, it actually sparked and damaged my hallway and my bathroom. I don't have electricity in my living room, hallway, and bathroom. I need to hire somebody to do that. Somebody said that it will help me. I'm trusting that that will happen. And when it comes to the sighting, I'm trusting that I could actually count on these people to help me out with that. I know I can do the work. I have painted apartments and houses before for a living. Mr. Jones, we're not dealing, and I can understand your predicament with the electrical, but we're not dealing with the inside of your home right now. We're dealing with the exterior services only. I just wanted to let you know that as well as I am trusting these people that are coming to help me in the outside of the house, I do have also problems inside of the house. I mean, the house is a big responsibility, and I do understand that. However, it's only me against the whole structure at this point, and I will do my best to bring it back. I have a question, Mr. Jones. But I do believe I can. I just wanted to understand if I confirmed that I heard you correctly. Earlier you said that the pictures that were shown on the screen were not accurate and that you were scraping the paint off. Is that what I heard? If you look at the pictures before and you look at the very last picture, you will see that the shades, I mean, the patches, are bigger. The reason for that is because I actually took me a whole weekend, Friday, Saturday, to scrape everything. So you're working currently on the outside of the exterior of the home. Is Inspector Dixon. Dixon. Dixon. Have you seen the property? When was the last time you actually saw this property to confirm if Mr. Jones is working on the property itself outside? My pictures were from this morning. From this morning. Okay. All right. Thank you. So actually, it's not better if Mr. Jones is scraped off. It's different. It's different, yes. It's not better. You said it was better than what his picture showed. It's not better. I'm scraping it so I can prime it and then paint it because it has a lot of peeling. And then if I don't scrape the peeling, I cannot paint it. Yeah, it has to be primed because you scraped it off and then painted. But I haven't gotten to it. I can't lift the five-gallon. I understand that. I'm just going by what you said, though. His pictures showed it to look worse than what it is. It doesn't. It does look worse, yes, because I scraped it. So I made the patches. I made them worse, of course. But it has to be scraped off before I can actually prime it. And I already have the primer and I already have the... Were you getting it ready for your friend to come over and... Yeah. I already paid for his... You already paid for that service? Yeah, I paid. No, I'm not going to pay him. He's going to help me. But I did pay for his Greyhound bus. I'm sorry, say that again? Greyhound bus ticket. I did pay for that. You paid for his ticket over. Okay. I'm hoping that he will actually come. Is he going to do it for free? Yeah, because he has helped me. I helped them, too. Okay, good. I used to live in Minneapolis and he used to be my landlord. That'll help you. I'm hoping so. You said you paid for his ticket over. What's the date of his ticket? I'm hoping that he will come up. It will come up in two weeks. And this is going to be like the third. But did you say you bought his ticket to come? Yeah. What is the date of his ticket? I sent him money so he could get the ticket. Oh, you sent him money to buy the ticket? $128. Can you call him to confirm when he's going to come? Oh, yeah. He said that. I keep in touch with him. I know, but you keep saying you're hoping. Best not knowing. No, I did. I spoke to him only last night. So you sent him money for him to buy a ticket to come over, but you have not confirmed the date as to when your friend is going to be coming over to help you? I believe that he already purchased the ticket for the third. He already purchased it? I believe so, yeah. You believe so. Okay. I don't have something more. And are you thinking you'd like to extend the compliance date and maybe get in the next 30 days? Maybe September. We'd be okay with that. That's what I wanted to hear. All right. So, any other questions from the board? I just want to clarify. So if he scrapes, paints, the siding and the gutters and stuff, that'll take care of all of them. He places off the defective wood and outside pieces. You understand that, Mr. Johnson? I believe that I can do all the painting, but I'll admit, I don't know how to do the woodwork. So that's why I need him. I need Kevin to do that. I don't know how to do that. Now, what happens if it delays? Will you be in contact with the inspector and let him know? I'll give you questions from the board. All right. I have a second motion. I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on or before September 1, 2026. Is that what we're doing? Yes. Yes. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 a day per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next on our agenda, number 3.6, case 108-26. Fine respondents, Jugo Paz Mateos and Anahi Mejia at 405 North Highland Avenue in violation of code for exterior storage. An issue and order with compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Kasman, you have the floor. Second. Second's up, Daniel. Yep. All right. Good afternoon, board. Daniel Kasman, code enforcement inspector for the city of Clearwater. This is case number 108-26 for 405 North Highland Avenue. There's one violation here for code section 3-1502, G1, G2, and G3 for exterior storage. These are the dates of notice that violation went out with the compliance date. I also did have to post the property with the affidavit of posting. This is 405 North Highland Avenue. As you can see in this first photo, there's some concrete bags, some construction materials in the front of the porch there. Another striking thing that drew my eye to the location was a pile of pallets that was sitting out front. The person there seems to be pretty handy. There's a lot of tools outside. They were also looking to install a new driveway seam, but there was no permanent system. There was a bunch of wood, a bunch of pipes, also being outdoors. This was the day of the posting. The pallets were still there. The same items were outdoors. This was after the compliance date after the posting. The same items, again, were still outdoors. Someone did call me from the property and ask what they needed to come to compliance. I explained exactly what had to happen. But when I went back today, it was some improvement. I can see behind some makeshift fence they have that they do have piles of tires and buckets in the backyard, too. The situation up front on the porch has definitely improved, but there's still gas cans, buckets. It looks like some drywall and some laundry detergent sitting outside. And they did clean up most of the pile of pipes and wood, but they left a bunch of rebar just there adjacent to the new driveway they're putting in. Compliance were meant for the exterior storage by removing from the grounds of the property. All items not meant for outdoor use, such as pallets, pipes, construction materials, tires, buckets, and other miscellaneous items. And requesting for case number 108-26, requesting compliance on it before July 24th, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day for violation for each day the violation continues to exist. Daniel, I just have one question for you. Does the exterior surfaces cover that boarded-up window? The boarded-up window was another case. And I don't know if you noticed in many of the last pictures. They removed the board from the window. No, I didn't see that. I might have gone too fast. The truck is also kind of blocking it. All right, now I see it next to the truck. That window that you're seeing right here. That's the same window? Yes. If we go back to a previous picture, it was boarded up. But they at least removed the board, which was an easy fix. The rest of it is just putting everything else away. Okie dokie. Thank you, Dan. It also looked like in one picture there's no pavers, and then all of a sudden there's pavers, but they're not. That's being addressed by a separate case for installing a driveway with no permit. Okie dokie. Now, you mentioned you spoke to someone this morning. Did you know? It wasn't, I'm sorry, maybe I missed. It wasn't this morning. It was a few weeks back. Someone had called me, someone from the residence that claimed they lived there, and I tried to explain to them, this is what you need to come into compliance. Every construction material, everything that doesn't belong outdoors needs to be indoors. You can't have all these items outdoors. And so there was some improvement, but it's just not where it needs to be still. Not in all areas. I mean, it is improving. Any other questions from the board? Little by little. May I have a first motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move to find a respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Any carries? May I have a second motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations before July 24th, 6th. If the respondent does not, by that date, you may order $50 per day. Per violation, for each day that each violation continues to exist, it finds that these remain three months. Mr. Sechaline is filed. The city's author, I close, collect, or settle Sechaline. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much, Mr. Kassler. Our next case, item on the agenda, 3.7 is withdrawn, 3.8 is withdrawn, 3.9 is withdrawn, 3.10 is withdrawn. Item 3.11, case 113-26, find respondents William Meisner, Jr. and Megan Pettengill at 2967 Canilwick Drive North in violation of code for short-term rental and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? This is the letter. I think that's 3.1. The letter is this one. The letter is this one? Yes. All right, so I have it. Okay, good. So, for the record, we have a letter that was submitted by the owners who are not in town. On the letter, at the end of the day, the gist of the letter is that it requests a lien reduction. However, that is not apropos to the business or what we're looking at today. So, I would. I believe they're requesting a lower fine amount than what the city is requesting. I got you. Well. But I think they think that the fines have already started from the day of the violation and they're not realizing that it doesn't start until there's an order, so. Well, I would defer to counsel, but just as a general statement, in my experience, the appropriate approach, the most appropriate approach is to hear the case, make an adjudication, and if at some point the owner wants to address fines, then they can do that in a lien reduction. I think it'll be a little clearer once I give my presentation, we're not seeking running fines, we're seeking a single flat fine for something that's already been completed that can't be cured. Okay. So, she's seeking a lower single fine. Well, let's hear the case then. It'll make more sense if I get the right. Thank you. Good afternoon, board Sarah Green, Code and Finance Manager for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 113-26 for 2967 Kennelwick Drive. There is one violation here for an illegal short-term rental and a violation of the development code. A notice of violation was sent and posted on 5-4, and the certified mail came back unclaimed. The reason why this is a little different than normally when we bring short-term rental cases, we're looking towards ones that have their minimum stay, like an Airbnb, set to like seven days. So, normally what our care for that would be, you need to update your listing to be the monthly minimum compliance. In this case, this one and the next one that I'll be presenting after this, these are properties that I've had multiple complaints in from neighbors. Essentially, we've never been able to observe them having their monthly minimum set to anything but monthly. So, for all intents and purposes, when we looked at it, when the claims came in, it said monthly. However, after multiple complaints, we came through, and the evidence I have in here is that they have reviews that say people stayed for a six-night and a seven-night stay. So, that would be in violation of the short-term rental code. Ordinarily, our violations are for not having the monthly minimum set. But a second portion of the ordinance is that you cannot have evidence of overlapping stays of less than monthly. So, in this case, our evidence here is, this is our Granicus website. This is what we use to track short-term rentals. It snagged that there were two documented stays in March of 2026. And here in the stays, a little hard to see, but here it says it stayed for seven nights in March of 2026 from a Jason B. And a Valerie R. stayed for six nights in March of 2026. Now, if you see in the letter, I have spoken at length with Mrs. Pentengale. We've had previous cases where they did update the minimum listing, so she was aware of the short-term rental ordinance. However, as you see in the later one, she is not disputing the fact that she is in violation of the ordinance due to the fact that she wasn't aware that even though it wasn't advertised as a short-term rental, she still had people pay to short-term rent. So, like, on the back end, basically, someone reached out and requested to stay for a shorter term, and they allowed them to pay for it. So, that's why the reviews are there for the shorter term. It makes it really hard to track down and keep track of short-term rentals. But in this case, she does not dispute the fact that there was short-term rentals. Her request is for a lower fine amount than what the city is requesting. Hi, Inspector. Can I interrupt? Is this her first or second offense? Technically, this is a first offense, the first, but this is, I think, my fourth short-term rental complaints, but this is the first time. On this particular person? Yes, on this particular property person. So, really, technically, we've gone beyond the first offense. Well, for legal purposes, this is the first case that's made it to the court board. All right. So, there is no compliance actions taken. This is an incurable violation that happened in the past, so there is nothing to comply with. So, what the city is requesting is a one-time fine for the two documented overlapping stays in March of 2026. For the six-day and seven-day stays that are documented, we're seeking a fine of $100 a day for a total fine of $1,300. So, if the board agrees and you go to make your motion, this will be slightly different than what you normally say, because we're not asking for a recurring fine. It would be the city is requesting a one-time fine of $1,300 payable within whatever the board would like to request. Otherwise, then you would read the rest of your script. So, to clarify, she's requesting that lien be reduced? She's requesting less than $1,300 is what I gather from the letter. And what does the city say about that? We're requesting $1,300. Is that a normal amount of money that you would request from something like that? Generally speaking, for most violations, especially first time, we pick $150 a day recurring. In this case, she did reach back out. We spoke about it. She accepted fault. I thought it was fair to do $100 a day. But, obviously, the fine is ultimately up to the board to set. Mr. Salsman, can I confer with you for a second about the fines? I just want to check the reading of the statute to see if you agree with me or not. I was just perusing it as we were going over this case. Stand by, Sarah. Can I ask you a question while we're doing it? You said that this was the first time that she's been caught doing it, and so this is the first time. But has anybody ever reached out to her before about the other one? I have spoken with her multiple times over the years regarding this. How come we don't see that, but it's never been brought up here before? The first case, when this initially came through, I basically spoke with her. I gave her a compliance date that complied within the compliance date, so it never made it to a board hearing because they did voluntary comply. Oh, okay. The other times, it was more of the neighbor says they're short-term running, but I don't have any evidence of short-term running. So, unfortunately, it's a no-violation case for us if I have no evidence. Yeah, I was wondering why. That's a good question. So, this is the first one that's made it to the board. Traditionally, we are looking to prevent further short-term running, but in this case, this is a property that has been reported multiple times, and this is the evidence that we have. So, this is what we're seeking. So, if it happens again, Inspector, will it be a second offense? I believe it will be a repeat violation, yes. Okay. So, to clear my understanding on it, you had cases before, but on this property for the same thing, but it never made it to the board? Correct. All right. So, would it be fair to say that the owner of the property was informed and knew what the rules were, so to speak? I believe the misunderstanding is that she did not have the monthly minimum set to below monthly, so she thought it would be okay to have people say as long as it wasn't advertised as monthly. So, you know, there's lots of interpretations. I think this $1,300 fine should wake her up a little bit. If it happens again, it's going to be a daily rate. I'm not sure off the top of my head, but I imagine more than requesting. Hey, Sarah. Yes? I do apologize for this, because I was getting familiar with the statutes again this morning, because I haven't looked at them in a while since I'm back in business over here. But I do think we might want to consider modifying our request here. Okay. Since this is a first violation, the statute says that we have to set a fine for an amount specified in this section for each day the violation continues past the date set by the enforcement board for compliance. So they would have to set a compliance date, and then the fine would go into effect after that, since this is a first violation. So what I would recommend that we modify our request to be is to look for a declaration of violation here. Unfortunately, I don't think we can go back and look for a fine for what's already been done for those particular days at this point. So, sorry about that. Me and Mr. Salzman were just speaking about that, because he was a little bit mixed up as well. But that's what I would recommend to you at this time. So, I have a question then for Mr. Salzman. And would that mean that an appropriate action? I'm sorry. Yes. Would it, based on Mr. Matt, I'm sorry, I don't remember the last name. Matthew Minich. Based on counsel's recommendation or his origination and reading of the law there, would it be appropriate for us to continue with this or prefer not to hear it or give it back to the city and ask them to modify their request? Well, we would expect the request to be a declaration of violation so that there's established, in case there's a repeat, which can go up to $500 per day. The statute requires you to make a finding and then give it a chance for people to come in compliance. So, that's what Matt and I were talking about. All right. So, it would be appropriate for us to do a first motion and rule? Yes. The declaration of violation, they're in compliance as far as we know right now. Okay. This one. I'm ready. Page two. Is that something you've done before? We have seeked violations in the billboards found in our favor previously for cases like this, but I will defer to counsel. Okay. So, we would be making our standard declaration of violation. Counsel, we would be making our standard declaration of violation. All right. May I have that motion, please? I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Council, Mr. Salzman, do we take any further action on this in terms of assessing the fine that's been requested? No further action. Okay. And then, just for my own education, if I may, what happens at this point? Does the city bring back a request in the future for the fine? Only if there's a repeat violation. Okay. Very good. And then that could be $500 per day. The difference is on the repeat violation, if you establish the dates that they were in violation, you don't have to give them a time period to come in compliance. Excellent. So, exactly how they proposed this, if it was a repeat violation, you could have gone $500 per day for each one of those days. So, that is significant. This is basically a one-time shot. You were found in violation. You didn't, you know, you need to make sure you don't do it again. Very good. Thank you. So, if your system fines it again for that thing, then we can fine them $500 a day. Okay. All right. Well, this litigate just locked out. Yeah. Luck was shorty on their side. All right. So, I believe that that's all we're doing with this case, then. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you, Inspector Frank. I have the next one, too. Say again? I have the next one, too. Okay. I'm looking at item agenda 3.13. Has Inspector Maddox on it? Are you covering for him? 3.12, Chair. So, it is. All right. Agenda item 3.12, case 114-26. Fine Respondents Eric and Amanda Erhark at 819 Lantana Avenue in violation of code for short-term rental and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on that case? Sir, come forward, please. Sir, would you come to the podium and give us your name and address in relation to the property? One second. Were you sworn in, sir? Yes, at the beginning, yeah. Thank you. Thanks for that. Sure. Bob Burge, and I live at 814 Narcissus Avenue in Clearwater Beach. We just wanted to, kind of from a homeowner's standpoint, when we bought our property, we did our homework. We had been on the beach before. We moved into this new property. I'm going to interrupt you, sir. I'm going to interrupt you so that we can follow our standard process. Sure. Okay. What's your relation to the property? Are you a neighbor? Neighbor. Okay. Very good. What we typically do, our process, is we're going to hear from the inspector once we get your information, so on and so forth. And then once we've heard from the inspector, we'll invite you to give us additional information, and then we'll proceed. All right. Thanks. Thank you very much. Board, this is the same scenario as the last one, so seeing as how we got a declaration of violation for the last case, that's what we'll be seeking for this one as well, if we'd like to hear from the neighbor before we give that order. All right. Thank you very much. That was short and sweet. What would you like to share with us, sir? Okay. Well, thanks. Kind of from a homeowner's standpoint. So we had bought our property on Narcissus Avenue, having been in another part of the island, and saw that, you know, what short-term rentals can do. There's, you know, the good and the bad that goes with that. So we did our homework. There was no short-term rentals anywhere around where we lived. So that was a big part of our decision, and if you look at the costs involved, those are, you know, big financial decisions for families. So it wasn't long when we got in there. We could, the property behind us, you could tell what was happening there, and it's very easy to spot. I mean, people come in on a weekend, then they leave. You look at the license plates, they're from all over the place, different people, different, you know, and then the noise, the late at night. You know, if you're typically, you know, midnight on a Wednesday, it's a quiet area, but not always, and that's how the short-term rentals sometimes can pop up. So we, in talking to a variety of neighbors, people were getting very, very upset, and we had contacted the city here, and I did want to make a comment about, I think, the work that Sarah Green does is very, very commendable and very much appreciated. So she became kind of our, you know, did her job, and what we're finding on these short-term rentals, because my wife then does the inspector role of her own, these ads are placed for 30-day rentals, and there's certain days of the week for a two- or three-hour period, they change it, and guess what? It's such an in-demand that people will fill it up then, and then it's changed back to 30 days, and there's a whole game on the different sites on how they can beat the system. So, you know, from our perspective, we've met the homeowners once, and that's been two or three years ago, and I think it was, and then they got hit by the storm. So there's these, from our view, there's these violations clearly occurring, and I think just from the previous violation, I think there's a big difference on the money that's flowing on the rentals on the beach versus that last example that you had. Thousands of dollars are coming in, so I know you mentioned, when you mentioned, you know, a $500-a-day fine, it does take fines with some substance versus a fine. Hey, $130 fine, if I'm bringing in thousands of dollars a day and thousands and thousands of dollars a week, I don't care. So, but I think you also got to keep in mind the homeowners and the people around that are being impacted by these clear violations of that. And so all we're looking for is peace and quiet, and we're very thankful for this process. So that's it. Any questions? Yes, sir. Sure. How long have you been observing this? We've moved that this coming March we will have been in this property four years in March coming up, and it was pretty quick. I mean, it was within a couple months it got our attention, the different people coming in. And, you know, and again, we've got kids and grandkids. First thing they do is go to the pool, and our pools are right behind each other. And we don't mind that, and I don't mind kids playing at all, but when it's, you know, in violation of code and it's being done, and then they, you know, they're looking at ways to get around the code, and then we're even discovering what those are. And there's, you know, there's people are sending me now examples. People are doing reviews of these properties that are 30-day properties. They're doing reviews. Hey, we had a great time on Airbnb reviews. We had a great time on our three-day stay this weekend. I mean, it's, the evidence is real obvious. These are not residents. These are in violation, and they're not 30-day minimums. So we appreciate what you guys do. And any other questions? Sure. Yeah, Bob, have you been able to talk to your neighbor about this? No, because they're never there. I mean, that's the problem. Okay. So, and then we do, you know, we do, you know, you hate to be, like, creepy, but, you know, you look at the cars in the driveway, and it's just different all the time. It's very, very obvious. And then my wife went online, and she said, here's what's happening. And these are in such demand because the dollars that flow are in the thousands and thousands of dollars, that if you get on and you change the 30 days to a daily fee, people are going to come on during that, you know, they find out when the high traffic time is for Airbnb or the hundreds of other sites, and then they can beat the system. And that's what we're trying to do. Do you know if your neighbor who reps these out, he or she lives out of town or out of the state? I don't know that. I don't know that. I see a non-familist. Sarah might know that. What was your name again? The last name is Burge, B-I-R-G-E, Bob Burge. Burge. Any other questions for Mr. Burge? I have a couple for the inspector. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Again, thanks to all of you. Thank you, Mr. Burge. So when did this case first start? This is another one very similar to the last case where they've had multiple complaints over the years, but I was never able to catch it being less than monthly. This case specifically started in May, actually just a couple weeks after the previous one, which is an odd timing for two in a row, but there you go. I sent the notice, sent and posted on May 12th, and this one had four documented stays, two in April, two in March. So we're seeking a declaration. All right. Council, based on our previous one, I just want to clarify and make sure we're just doing a standard violation. Standard declaration. Declaration. And first and second motions? No. First motion. It's a motion finding in violation, but corrected prior. So it's a declaration of violation. Well, that brings the question, has it been corrected? Okay. So we're doing the same thing we did on the last case? Yes. All right. Very good. May I have a motion, please? I move to find the respondent that was in violation of the code, as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine be imposed. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day the violation continues to exist. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. All right. Next item on our agenda, 3.14, Case 116-26, Fine Respondents, Victory 888, Inc. How about case 3.13? Did I miss another one? Yes. I did. All right. Let's do 3.13. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Engel. You're welcome. Case 115-26, Fine Respondents, SCI Pelican Walk, LLC at 486 Poinsettia Avenue in violation of the code for outdoor cafe permit. An issue in order with the compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Inspector Maddox, you have the floor. Good afternoon. Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance Inspector. This is for case number 115-26 for 486 Poinsettia Avenue. This will be a little bit different than what you've heard before. This has to do with an outdoor cafe seating permit that's expired. In recent months, I've been working with a whole lot of business owners who are required to have this permit when you have seating in the right-of-way owned by the city of Clearwater for liability purposes. If somebody gets hurt, it needs to go to the owners. So this is Code Section 3-909C6 for an outdoor seating cafe permit that is expired. Notice the violation was sent and posted on April 2, 2026, compliance date by 5-6 of 2026, and the green card was not received back. This just shows that at this location, here is the seating that does, in fact, exist and requires a seating permit. This is something they do for an entire year, and as soon as about the end of September, they have to get it renewed. So this, along with about 30-odd other businesses, are getting these permits. This just shows the posting. This also shows that, as of today, that they did not have a permit. This is our Acela computer showing there's no permit yet, and it has to go through an application process with zoning. Today, I took this picture because, in the end result, you can either get a permit or remove all of this. It is still in existence. Compliance can be met for the outdoor cafe permit required by contacting the City of Clearwater Zoning at the phone number, apply for the updated or update your permit, have it successfully approved and paid for. Compliance can also be met by removing all tables and chairs and material from the City of Clearwater sidewalk right away. For 115-26 requesting compliance on or before July 24, 2026, or a fine of $50 per day for each violation that this continues to exist. The $50 is requested instead of the $150 due to the nature of the very small cost of a permit. So $50 was agreed upon. Inspector, have you been in touch with the owners about the permit? I have never gotten anyone to contact me, although I've tried. And to open the door, you had to remove this because I put it across the door so that you had to see it. And no one's called you or anything? No, and they have not contacted Zoning. That's unusual. Would that be interpreted to mean that they've not applied for a permit? I have had to weekly stay in touch with zoning to say, and there's also a spreadsheet that we communicate with, and I've said, I'm about ready to go to code board. Have you had any phone call, any activity? No. And they've been renewing year after year, but yet they didn't this year. This is something that, from my understanding, started up again to make sure that these are all in compliance and permits. And as I've been contacting every single person on the list, there's a lot of, of course, they don't want to lose their seating. And so they get right on it and get the application filled out and pay the permit, which is very minimal. And the business is open? To my understanding, yes, it is. It might be a restaurant that opens at 4 o'clock about the time I'm going home. So I don't see people there, but there's a lot of night restaurants on the beach as well. Yeah. Well, I'm sure it's still open. They would move everything back inside. That's the two different ways that you could do it. Yeah. I'm sorry, you said something about September. Once you create a permit, it's good for a year. Okay. At the end of September, they're all required to redo. Okay. So it hasn't gone in violation yet, or it's been in violation since last September? It's been in violation. I believe the last permit that was at this location was a prior restaurant. And then as they came into this location as a tenant, they never obtained a permit. So you won't comply by July 20th? Yes. Which would, in that one month, would give you time to walk in, fill out an application, and pay a fee. Gotcha. Okay. So then no matter what, if they get a permit, it's going to expire in September of this year? Is that right? Correct. Okay. Is it the same price no matter what? I don't know. Let me clarify. No. No. Okay. Sorry. There is no permit in place now. It's a new business. Did not obtain a permit. If they get a permit now, are you saying that it expires in September and they'll have to renew it then? I'm a little confused. It doesn't. It's not an expiration as such. It's more of a renewal of the current permit. Okay. The permit cost is, I believe, less than $100. It's probably $35 to $50. So it's much like a business tax receipt. You have an annual renewal. Yes. Okay. And Rebecca wants to say that. And Rebecca has something to offer? Hi. Rebecca Mulder. Not co-op. That's my answer. Assistant Director of Planning and Development. I just wanted to clarify, if you had any questions specific to the actual outdoor cafe process for getting approval through our planning department, I can clarify any of those questions specific to that process. But it is much like the business tax receipt process in which you have to get permission because it's on our right-of-way. We need to vet that there's insurance for safety purposes. We need to ensure the seating location layout is approved annually. And then there is a nominal fee that they pay associated with that. I have a question. He mentioned that that regulation itself was paused for a while, and then now it's picked up? It's always been a requirement of the city, or at least since I think the ordinance went through in 2019, somewhere in that, 2020. As a response to allow business owners in the downtown area and beach area that have the ability to utilize the right-of-way during COVID winds to provide outdoor seating or spacing, things like that. So it was adopted around that time, 2019, 2020. And so these requirements have been in place, and we've worked with the business owners over these last several years. And there's been a lot of outreach over those years to work with those business owners to ensure that they get into compliance and stay in compliance. And so we try not to have to take the business owners to code board and have given more than enough grace along the last several years. And we're getting to a place where we've set an expectation of compliance, and we're starting to look forward with that if they don't. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for the board? I have a question. Is the permit required of the tenant or the property owner? Ultimately, it's the parcel owner. I mean, the tenant would be the one applying for it. The parcel owner would be responsible for this failure. So who gets the fine? The parcel owner. And we haven't been able to get a hold of the parcel owner. Everything's been posted as required. And no, I have not received anything from the owner. Is there a requirement in the application for the permit that there be some representation that the property owner is aware of the application and that they agree to it? I don't understand. If I'm the restaurant and I apply for a permit, is there anything in the permit that requires knowledge and agreement of the property owner? I don't know. The answer is yes. The property owner has to sign on. And if I'm not mistaken, when you send notice of violation, that goes to the property owner? Yes. And if the property owner gets that and is aware of it, then with that data, they can call the tenant to discuss to handle it, correct? Correct. Okay. Ultimately, property owner's responsibility for the activities that occur at the property, regardless of whether there's a tenant or not. I'll bring all code cases against the property owner. That's the only one you can get compliance on. Right. Understood. Good. Mr. Saltzman, am I allowed to ask the name of this restaurant? Yeah, I think it was. It was in the picture. It's Soul Mediterranean, I believe. Soul Mediterranean. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I guess just when you sent the violation, did you send it to the address of the violation or the address of the owner? All violations are sent to the address of the parcel owner in Pinellas County Property Appraiser, so whatever's listed for that specific address. In this case, it's a very large building with many tenants, but it still goes to the same address for the parcel owner. So, from what I am gathering, the parcel owner did have this permit prior to this particular tenant being in there, correct? The prior tenant had a permit. The permit, to the knowledge of the owner, I don't know. I'm just stating what had happened a couple years ago from the prior tenant. That's why the seating still remained there, but the new tenant, Soul, did not obtain a permit for the outdoor seating cafe. Okay, thank you. Just to clarify, if a tenant wants to apply for a permit through the city, the owner has to give written permission on the permit, or else the tenant cannot apply. Yes, the property owner's permission has to be obtained, just like any kind of development application that you have with the city. You've got to have the property owner sign up on the owner. Any other questions? May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before July 24, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $50 per day per violation. For each day, each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. I'm next. Yes, sir. I see that. Item 3.14, Case 116-26, Fine Respondents Victory 888, Incorporated at 604 Hart Street, in violation of code for outdoor storage, an issue in order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, come forward, please. Sir, were you sworn in? No, I wasn't. Okay. Let's... If you'll just raise your right hand. Do you swear a firm to tell the truth throughout your entire testimony? I do. Thank you, sir. Can you give us your name and address in relation to the property? I'm the tenant. My landlord urged me to come in today. I told Kevin I wasn't going to, but... Could you just state your name? Chris Steiner, Christopher Steiner, and I'm the tenant. My landlord's up in New York, so... I just had a couple, two questions to get clarification on how to remedy it and make warnings. Okay, and before we go there, we're going to follow our procedure. We're going to go and hear from the inspector and let him tell us what he knows, and then we'll have you back up, sir. All right. Thank you. Inspector Maddox? Kevin Maddox, Clearwater Code Compliance. Inspector, case number 11626 for 604 Hart Street. There's one violation for 315-03B6 outdoor storage. Notice the violation was mailed. So this started in... Inspector, just a moment. What was that address you just said? 604 Hart Street. I started working with this back in January, but the first notice of violation was February 10th of 26th. Notice the violation was posted on 424 of 26, compliance date by 5-7 of 2026, and I'd been interacting with Chris, the tenant. So things had started to progress, but then failed, so it continued into a notice of violation. The green card was not received back. This is the backyard of the house. A couple different pictures from April 24th. This is the front of the house where the notice was placed. From the side of the house, there's an empty lot to the left as you're looking at the house where you can view more of this in the back. This was on the 7th of May. Nothing had changed, and it seemed to have increased in the amount that I had seen there. This is around the side, but this is in the back as of today. If I can get it to click forward. I'm just waiting on the slide to click out of it. Are these pictures from today? These two are today. Okay. I'm clicking, but I'm not getting anywhere. And that's all in the back of the house? Yes. There you go. So we're talking a junkyard here. It's filled. Is it an apartment building? I believe there's three apartments. This appears to – there's a stairwell in the back, and the tenant can tell you otherwise, but I believe there's access to the top floor, which would be the second apartment or third apartment. I just wasn't really sure how many were in there. Compliance can be met by clearing all discarded and unused materials, junk, construction. So I don't exactly know what all of it is underneath the sheets of plastic. I've been told that some of it was plants, others. But, you know, in the pictures, I can see a lot of just trash and junk that should not be in a backyard and would be considered an outdoor storage problem. Which attracts run-ups and other critters. Yes. It would invite quite a bit of problems in the area. Requesting compliance for exterior storage on or before July 24, 2026, or a fine of $150 per day for each violation that it continued to exist. As an added note, I did receive a phone call a couple days ago from the owner who's in New York, and I asked him to contact the tenant and turn on the video and see what you saw. As of today, I was on the phone with him. He didn't seem to understand what was truly going on, so I sent him the pictures that I took today in his email today, and he said he was on his way to Florida on a flight to address the issue. I don't know what he was going to do. I just know that he was due to be coming down here to handle it. Well, thank you for sending him the pictures. Questions from the board? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Inspector. Mr. Steiner, what would you like to tell us about all this? Oh, I don't want to say too much. I mean, you could see in the photo there's a shed that's built and another shed that I told Kevin yesterday that, well, I've updated him. I've been updating him about building these two sheds, possibly a third, under 100 square foot, I understand, to be in compliance without having to get a permit. And, you know, so I updated him yesterday. I had one shed built, and you could see that on the right side of the photo for today. And the other one, I have the plot laid out, and I couldn't get to building it because of technical issues. But I just had a couple questions just for clarification and wanted to know if there's a limit to the number of outdoor items that are in good working order that can be kept outside. Like, I'm mainly concerned about bicycles. They need to be covered so the lubrication doesn't rinse off in the rain, and the ball bearings for the wheels and the crankshafts so that, you know, they don't need to be repacked with grease before you ride them again. And you can strip the bearings if you don't repack them with grease if they are exposed to the rain. Understood. Those types of questions as far as what you can do when you can't do are not in our purview. Our job here is to take a look at what's been going on and make rulings on that. In terms of what you can do and what's appropriate and what's not appropriate and what's required for compliance, I would ask you to speak with your code enforcement officer about that to gain an understanding of what needs to be done and get clarity on that. And with that, you should be able to accomplish what needs to be done. Okay. Mr. Steiner, we're talking more than bicycles here. I have a bicycle. I keep it inside. But we're talking a lot more than bicycles in that yard. Right. But you've got mountains. That's why I got the sheds. Yeah. I have three sheds, and one is built, or almost built. That's the one you saw. I just haven't put the roof on it. And the back wall. Then you haven't built a shed. If you have no roof, there's no shed. The cover, why would you not put a roof on it? In a hurry to build the second shed. But like I said, I had technical problems. A drill bit broke yesterday. These sheds have holes that are misplaced, so you have to drill your own. And my drill bit broke yesterday. So I couldn't build it in a hurry to try to prepare for today's meeting and hopefully get everything squared away. But that's why I'm trying to hurry. You didn't see in the photo the other plot where I have the shed laid out or the lumber laid out. We could see that because of everything else. Oh, I'd be glad to show you, but it's not important. We haven't seen it. We'll just saw it. I guess in my case, since you can't answer my questions, I would just ask for continuance until July 24th in considering that I called again this morning to code enforcement, found there's no limit to the number of out. I'd be glad to play the recording of the code enforcement saying there's no limit to the number of outdoor items that can be covered. So I have been in a misunderstanding here with a lot of – I know there's disorganization, but I've been in a misunderstanding, and right now it is, in a state of upheaval because I was trying to build the sheds in time for approval before this meeting today. And I was also told this morning that there was a case for the code prohibiting disorderly – the term disorderly and could not provide me the code. I asked – he said he could get the code enforcement officer or inspector to get back to me on that as well as a question of the limits of the number of outdoor items. I was told yesterday by Kevin that you can have outdoor table, but this is just one example of trying to understand the code. I was told you were going to have an – Kevin told me I could have an outdoor table, just not many of them. And I would like to know if I have many bikes. Is there a limit? I asked the code enforcement officer to get back to me. Is it as to the discretion of the inspector, or is there a threshold in the code? Well, again, sir, not to interrupt you, but those issues should be addressed with both the code enforcement officer and the building permitting folks. As I said, I'm trying. It's all good data, and I don't necessarily want to cut you short. But those items are not for our review or understanding or anything else. It's our job to look at what you have there and help guide this thing in a direction so that it can get corrected for everybody. Okay? And so any questions you have about what you can have outside, how many sheds you can have, what's permitted, and what's not permitted in that entire process in terms of getting in compliance and understanding that can be gained by talking with Mr. Maddox, your code compliance officer, and then, again, the building department. So I would steer you in that direction. What the city is asking for here is they're requesting compliance on or before July 24th. The question I have for you is I think you said earlier, do you think you can get your sheds done by then and get stuff cleaned up? Is that correct? If I understand how to remedy it, because I do have the bicycles and some other items that are for outdoor use. Clearly, they're for gardening and other things outdoor, other outdoor use that I have that are in good working order, in good shape. They're clean. Got you. So in other words, you can't. Excuse me? In other words, you can't comply by July 24th. That's what you're really saying. I think you said he doesn't understand. I believe I can. I have three sheds. I would like to save the expenditure of time and money so I can understand how to not have a violation again. I just got a seven-day notice from my landlord, and he believes that I have been put in violation now, which means that if I get a second, I will not have a second seven-day notice. He can instantly evict me. And so I would like to understand the situation, or if you'd just like to give me until the 24th, and I'll do my best to understand, as I have in the past, because I never would have put things under tarps if I had any suspicion that they would have not been allowed. And I want to know if there's a limit, like I said. Did the code inspector explain that to you? Yesterday, again, I was told yesterday that there's a limit to outdoor tables I could have, and those are not covered. So I want to understand what the limit is. And, of course, it looks awful now. I don't want it this way. Yeah. Can I ask you a question? I'm in a hurry at the moment. It's an apartment building, and there's multiple people who live in it, or is it just people who live there? I'm on the top floor, so my entrance is through the back. I know it's not presentable for guests, either. That's what I don't like. Well, if there's many people who live in the apartment building, then everybody should be able to use the backyard. Is it all your stuff back there? I'm given the backyard, and the old neighbor downstairs gets to the side here. So it's all your stuff, basically. Right. And you're responsible for all of it, essentially. Correct. Okay. All right. Fair enough. How many sheds are you planning to build to cover for everything that you have? Well, I have two. I have the one that's built. I have the other one that you might have seen in the photos. I can show you the receipts. The other one is in boxes, mostly in boxes that was cropped up against the back wall of the building this morning. So there are these two boxes that come from there. Now, if I have my dimensions right with these sheds without having a permit, because there's a size, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe all that stuff you have there will fit in those sheds that you plan on putting there. So what are you going to do with the remaining of the things that won't fit in the sheds, or do you plan on putting X amount of sheds? It probably either has to, or it gets thrown away or sold, but there is a lot of empty space underneath the tarps because I'm an online merchant and I pull things out to sell and I don't reorganize. So there's a lot of space underneath the tarps. But all your sheds don't have roofs, right? Oh, yes. All your sheds, they do. A lot of people you said they did. They do. I just haven't done the first, I haven't completed the first shed, like I said. Then all your sheds don't. If you haven't completed, I may have roofs. Lord, I'm going to step in here. No, wait a minute. I'm right to ask that. I'm confused. Well, let's first say you built sheds. Do any of them have roofs? Well, they have them. I haven't assembled a single shed completely yet, as I said. Then they have the roof, but they're not assembled. Right. Okay. It'll take me about a day and a half to do a shed, to do the next shed, and then if I need the third one. That's where I was getting that. You had no shed. So three sheds. Excuse me, board. I'm going to step in here. I think we've spent enough time on this one. And in terms of our job here is, I mean, we can ask a number of questions to gain a deeper understanding, but I think we've got enough data here to make motions and rule on this and move on. We have other cases to hear, so I don't want to step on anybody's toes necessarily, but I think we can move forward. We just want clarity, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. All right. Thank you for your consideration. May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to and deaffidated in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order required to the respondent in order to correct the violations on or before July 24th. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filled, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you for coming today, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Inspector Maddox, for that one. Next case, 3.15 on our agenda, according to Madam Secretary, has been withdrawn. All right. Thank you. Number 3.16 on our agenda, case 118-26, fine respondents, Brigadoon Clearwater Homeowners Association, Inc. at 4400, Brigadoon Circle, in violation of code for exterior surfaces and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Inspector, you have the floor. Good afternoon, board. Jerry Daniels, code inspector for the city of Clearwater. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? I thought that this morning every day. Oh, so we have someone. No, this was for the, this, I believe you were here for the previous case, which has been withdrawn. Yes, 1901. All right. Excellent. Well, sir, you had to sit through all that just to find it out, but thank you for coming. I'm glad we made it interesting for you. Thank you for coming. All right. Good afternoon, board. Jerry Daniels. You will be sent something in the mail, yes. Okay, thank you. Good afternoon, board. Inspector Daniels, co-compliance officer for the city of Clearwater. Case number 118-26 for 4400, Brigadoon Drive. It's one violation at this property for exterior surfaces, 3-1502.B. The notice was sent out 4825 with a compliance date of 521-25, and the certified mail receipt came back 5-2-25. If you look in the pictures, just a lot of rotten wood around the conceivable at the pool area. Okay. These was the original pictures. This was after the compliance date. They did just get a new HOA president in February. I just found that out once I posted the property. And I talked with the property management company, and they're working on getting it fixed. Okay. So, compliance can be met for the exterior surfaces by replacing any defective structures and decorative elements of any building wall and ensure all exterior surfaces are free of mildew, rust, loose material, and fading of peeling paint. Requesting compliance on up before August 1, 2026, or a daily fine of $150 per violation if it's not in compliance. Inspector, have you spoken about your timeline with anybody at the HOA as far as your requested date? Yes. Yes. Well, like I say, when I talked to the property manager yesterday, I informed it, and she said it will be done first. Questions for me? May I have a first motion, please? I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violations on or before August 1, 2026. If the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such liens, if the city is authorized to afford or settle such liens. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Inspector. Item 3.17 has been continued. Item 3.18 has been withdrawn. Item 3.19, Case 121-26, fine respondents, Ms. Nana Zellick and Marco Zellick at 908 Evelyn Avenue in violation of code for oversized vehicle parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this case? Sir, please come forward. Sir, I believe you were sworn in, were you not? Yes. Okay. Can you give us your name and address in relation to the property? My name is Phillip, and I'm the owner of 908 Evelyn Avenue. The last name? Ms. Nana Zellick. All righty. Thank you, sir. We're going to hear from the inspector, and then we'll call you back up to see what you have to tell us. Where is the full screen? Thank you. Andrew Hobbs, Code Compliance Inspector 1, Case 121-26 for 908 Evelyn Avenue. One violation, Code Section 3.1407A4 for large commercial vehicles. Notice of violation was sent 319. It was lost in transit, so I sent it certified again on 428 as well as posted the property. The original compliance date was 422, was updated to 512. The second certified mail came back 511. This was a citizen complaint. The citizen who filed the original complaint stated that the truck had been parked on the property every night, usually after 6 p.m. Then the truck leaves early in the morning. The complainant sent pictures on these dates of the truck in the driveway overnight. Those are all listed. This is the truck in question in the driveway, May 4th, 618. We had discussed the measurements on the truck, so I had gone out and measured 84 inches from top to bottom as allowable. It was at least 100 inches from the top of the truck when I measured it. This was this morning. The truck in question is right there in the driveway, but this other large truck was there as well. Well, here's the truck that we are, the one that I measured, the one that's in question. Is that a commercial truck? Yes. Are they the same company on both trucks? They are not. The United Air Conditioning truck has been, the pictures that were provided by the neighbor, there are pictures of that truck, both trucks in the driveway. So I believe they're both owned by the property owner. Compliance can be met for violation by removing all large commercial vehicles from the property. Request compliance on the army floor, 7-7, or a fine of $150 per day each day the violation exists. Questions for the inspector? Is this for both trucks? No, this is just the two trucks were part of an original case back in December, and then the trucks disappeared. We had actually spoken in person back then. Trucks disappeared. I closed the case, and then all these emails started coming in from a neighbor. So I had to reopen the case, and then our hand was forced after that. So I hadn't seen the large truck there in quite some time, and then it just happened to be this morning. And the neighbor says primarily after 6 p.m. they're showing back up. Inspector, have you spoken with the representative here today recently? Yeah, we've spoken. Explain to him what the violation is. Yeah, I mean, we had spoken about it, and, I mean, I offered Code 4 as an option to say his piece, and he wanted to come. Okay. So. Excellent. All right. Sir, what would you like to tell us? Okay, so I am the owner. I'm not the owner, but my responsibility is the truck in the driveway. That's the forest there. The big truck is the responsibility of my brother. So we both live together, and we both do air conditioning. And the big truck, we know the whole situation started with the big truck, and we removed the big truck from the property. It just happened to be there this morning, but it's not there every day, like the inspector said. It hasn't been there for like six, seven months, since December. Last night, my brother got late with the job, so he was forced to park there just for six hours overnight, and he left by seven in the morning. So that truck, I agreed to the inspector, and we removed that truck from the property, the big truck that was there in the street. So, but the other truck is responsibility by me. So, to be able to do this job, I need transportation to work. And I don't have any other choice except to use that truck that the company gave me. And like I said, I talked to the inspector, and the truck, I pulled in all the way to my driveway. It's not in front of anybody's house. And I would just like to, inspector, to mention that I talked to the neighbors who sent the complaints, and we talked about the truck that is there every night, which is mine. And they sent a letter to the inspector that is saying that it doesn't bother them anymore after I talked to them. I appreciate that. I will tell you that our standard is, and our reference point on all of this, when we look at these things and make whatever decisions we make, is whatever's in the, our reference point is the code, the building code and the state statute and so on and so forth. And so it's our duty and obligation to follow that. I understand that your neighbors may have a problem, but that's not the standard by which we conduct our business. And while I sympathize with you about your work situation and everything else, the code is the code, and it's there for a reason, and so on and so forth. So we're bound to follow that. Okay? We have questions or comments from the board? I think it's in reference. I think their problem is size of your truck. Is that right, inspector, the overall size of it? Good afternoon. Sarah Green, code manager. The parking code does reference for between the principal structure and the right-of-way. So in this case, can you hear me? In this case, between the principal structure and the right-of-way, that would be the driveway. You're not allowed any commercial vehicle which measures an excess of 20 feet in total chassis, body length, 7 feet in total width and height. So that would be the issue. It's a commercial vehicle over 7 feet in height. So that exceeds those dimensions. Okay. You understand that, Mr. Teller? Yes, I understand. And that's why we wanted to actually measure the truck with the inspector. And the truck has not exceeded the width or either the length. It's only the height. Which, that's the reason why. And I talked to the inspector. If we would go all around Clearwater, we can find so many commercial vehicles that are higher than 7 feet. I'm not going to, I'm not, you know, starting anything, any case. But even in my neighborhood, there's been some other situations where people have trucks higher than 7 feet. And my truck and I really need to get this sold. Because I don't have any other option. We understand. But unfortunately, your case is the one that's here, not the other. Say it again? It's your case that's here. Yeah, it is my case. But I'm just trying to solve the problem, you know. But I'm saying if we... The problem is the height. Yes. So that's still... I understand. It is. Yeah, that's why... In our world, I mean, we're, as Mr. Engel said, we're bound by the violations of the height of the truck. And those, that's established and that's our reference point. And, again, while I might sympathize with you, your needs and your work situation and the fact that you don't have a solution in place, we're still bound to base our decision on what the code says. And the fact that it's now before us, that's what we do. And until that code is changed, there's a seller. We have no choice. I mean, I talked to the inspector, and I don't know if he mentioned if there's any way to make an exception for it, since the truck is not. I understand the truck, like, I'm trying to bring anything huge, and I'm trying to do something. It's one foot over. It's about eight feet up. The code is seven feet. So I want to see if there's an exception. In order to this, I would like to bring up, again, a letter that the neighbors who complained to send to the inspector for the truck. They said it doesn't bother you. Understood, and I would defer to counsel, but I don't believe that that is a valid argument for making an exception based on. And in terms of exceptions, I know inspectors have latitude in terms of whether or not they bring a case. In our experience, when inspectors have worked with various property owners in resolving issues, sometimes they will delay bringing the case. But when it's time for them to bring it, then they bring it. And unfortunately, once it's before us and it's on our agenda, it's up to us to make a ruling and deal with the case. And so any time for exceptions or doing something before it comes has now passed. And so it's our job to look at this thing and determine whether or not there's a violation there, and then, number two, make a ruling on something being done with it. And that's the position we're in as the board, and our hands are tied. We have no latitude on that. So the reason why I'm mentioning the letter from the neighbor is because, like I said, there's tons of vehicles in Clearwater Highway 7 feet. And when I say that, I talk to the inspector, and as long as there's no complaints, those vehicles are fine. In my situation, I understand the neighbor complained. And if I talk to the neighbor, if I resolve the problem with the neighbor and he doesn't complain, can we do an exception because the neighbor is... No, sir, we're beyond that. Yeah, Mr. Tone, you're not realizing. You say there's tons of others, probably are, but they're in violation too. That's true, you see. They're just not the force. They're just that big cock, yeah, you know. Exactly. Hey, see, you said you're trying to sell it, right? You said you're trying to sell the truck? No? No, you're not. The truck I use for work, it's not my truck. It's the company. And they let me use it to take it home since I don't have my own car to use it as transportation. Can they give you a shorter truck? That's a good question. No, that's a... Ask them. That's a good question. I think for our purposes, again, I understand that you're looking for an exception, but we're not in a position to do that. The case is before us, and it's like you can be driving down a fast highway where the speed limit is 60 miles an hour, everybody's doing 80. Everybody's violating, but it's probably only one or two people that get caught, but that does not eliminate the fact that everybody else is in violation. The fact is, your case is before us today, and because of that, and because it's on our agenda, we're obligated to make a ruling and make a decision. Do you need... Is it that you need more time to get maybe a different transportation coordinated? Or with your employer. Right. Well, I can, I try to do, you know, to get a difference in transportation means to me to buy another vehicle to go to Rick and that, which is not an easy, it's not a month when I will be able to put that, you know. Well, I mean, in this situation, that's your only option right now, right, unless you're able to remove the truck by July 7th. If you're not able to do that, but you are in the works of getting a transportation coordinated, then maybe as a council, we can talk about maybe extending the due date on it, right? But if you're not giving us any options on maybe some type of transportation that you can get other than the truck itself. Yeah, if you're going to look to sell it, they might want to give you more time, long story short. Yeah, right. Yeah, I definitely need more time. Does your company even know that truck is in violation? Well, they know, you don't have my choice. So, work with them, I'm thankful for them to letting me. Money-wise, I can't really do it. Is there anywhere else that he can park the truck on the property that is? Like, sometimes you can do it behind a fence that's like, you know, like if you have an RV that's so big or a boat. The truck has been parked all the way to my driveway, and it doesn't, like I said, since the length, it's not exceeding, so it's not even blocking the sidewalk. Well, again, sir, that's not the issue. The issue is your truck height, and that's what we're here to rule on. Yes. I believe Mr. Plum has a suggestion. I think we move on with a motion for 8-1-2026 for him to be having time to get something sorted out. Okay. Inspector, do you have anything else to add on everything you've heard before we motion? No. I mean, we discussed options. This was kind of like our last. I actually wanted to see if you guys could come up with something. Because, I mean, we talked about it. I'm like, can you leave it at Home Depot right there off of Druid? It's off Druid. E-bikes, whatever. Like, we talked about it, and I'm just like, I don't, I mean, the code's the code. I don't have anything else to suggest. I'm like, it is what it is when you boil it down all the way. What do you think about extending the compliance test? It's not hurting me. I mean, take the time you need. This has all gotten to this point because of the e-mails that I was getting from neighbors and the complaints. You said neighbors. Is that more than one neighbor? They were funneled through one person. Okay. But she had stated that she had talked to others, and they had mentioned it, so she became the voice. So we don't know if that's true or not. All we know is they came from one source, and potentially they were the complaints. But that's nothing we can verify or that we can take a spare. I only know what I'm told. But she did send you a letter for sending. Yeah, I have e-mails and pictures of stuff she had been sending me. She's not here, so I can't show up. But you did receive the letter, like Chelsea was saying, about rescinding. She had called me and said that he had gone down and spoke to everybody and said that it was okay. And I'm like, you know, that's great, but I can't just, you know, I can't make the truck smaller. A letter doesn't make the truck smaller. Right, it doesn't meet the standard of compliance with the code, which is our job to determine. I mean, I think he had mentioned taking air out of the tires to make it smaller. I'm like, as long as it can roll, I don't know. I'm not going to happen. I'm not going to get home, I'll take the car to the car to the car to the car, and then it's in our case. And maybe you can hide it, like, at Walmart or something, like, in the parking lot. I believe you'll create yourself a different violation for a non-operating vehicle. I have to get a smaller truck. Board, are we ready to proceed on this? All right, may I have the first motion, Mr. Engel? Oh, sure. I move to find the respondent in violation of the code as referred to and after they've been in this case. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? May I have a second motion, please? I move to enter an order requiring the respondent to correct the violation on, over 4th, July 7th, 2020. August. I mean, I'm sorry, August 7th. First. First or 7th? It's whatever date you want to pick. Let's do 7th. Yeah, that's... August 7th. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Let's see. On the 4th, August 7th, 2026, if the respondent does not comply by that date, the board may order a fine of $150 per day per violation for each day. Each violation continues to exist. If fines and fees remain unpaid, three months after such a lien is authorized to foreclose, collect... I have a second. Second. In favor? Aye. All opposed? Sir, I'm sympathetic to your case. I wish there was more we could do to help you, but our hands are... The reason I thought, I thought that you guys had more power to make any decision. We can't change the code. We can't change the code. We gave you extra time. That's all we can do to try to get straight now. Around the Clearwood and I make a complaint about every vehicle that is over 7 feet. I want each vehicle to be removed from the poverty as mine will be. That's not enough to us. That's up to the inspectors. Understood. And I understood. I understand your concern, but at the end of the day, I don't know that that will move in the direction of solving your situation there. And you're not going to do that anyway. We wish you luck. Thank you for coming to speak to us today. We understand your question. I sympathize with you. I wish there was more we could do, but we're bound by whatever the code is. If you want that changed, then I would encourage you to talk to somebody who's in a position that can change that code that offers more latitude and helps you with your situation. Talk to your company about another truck or go buy something else yourself. Have a good day. Good luck to you, sir. Appreciate you coming in. All right. Yes. Agenda Item 3.20, Case 122-26. Fine Respondents Nick Cheversian and Octavia Cheversian at 3113 San Mateo Street in violation of code for trailer parking and issue an order with a compliance deadline and fine if compliance is not met. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Inspector, you have the floor. This property is now in compliance. We're just seeking a declaration of violation. All right. Very good. Can I get a declaration? Yep. I move to find the respondent was in violation of the code as referred to in the affidavit in this case. The violation was corrected prior to today's hearing and to enter an order that no fine may impose. If the respondent repeats the violation, the board may order a fine of up to $500 for each day. The violation continues to exist. Can I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Any carries? Thank you. All right. That completes our new business items. We're going to move on to old business items. Agenda Item 4.1, Case 122-25, consider a request by Petitioners William Reese at 1390 South Hillcrest Avenue to reduce the fine regarding residential rental business tax receipt. And if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administrative costs, administration costs, and establish the date payable. The lien will refer to its original amount. Is there anyone here to speak on this? Yes, ma'am. Please come forward. Okay. Could you tell us your name and your address in relation to the property? Yes. April and Cloyd. I am William Reese's real estate agent, and I sold him the property at 1390 South Hillcrest. Okay. Is there a rental agent? No. No. I sold him the property, and then there was a different agent that handled these rentals. Okay. And when was the property purchased? Property was purchased in 2023. Mr. Reese had plans of spending the rest of his days here in Florida. Unfortunately, he had a very ill parent in Illinois that he had to go back and take care of. They passed away, unfortunately. And the property, he couldn't have two mortgages, so he decided to rent it. He consulted with the property manager, and the property manager advised that a short-term rental would make him more money and that it was legal. Mr. Reese didn't do his due diligence, which he should have done, and was not made aware of the fine. I guess there was a citation placed on the door the property manager did not let him know about. When he found out about the violation in March, they terminated their agreement, and the tenant was removed, and it hasn't been a rental since then. He was only made aware of the fine or the per diem that had been accrued three days prior to closing on his house, which I sold, which was on the 12th of June, when the closing statement came out, and there was a $10,000 excess fine. And he was very upset about that. So he's asking for leniency from March 31st to June 15th, when the house was sold, to reduce that fee. What did you say your relationship is to this gentleman again? I'm his real estate agent. We have a letter. We do have a letter. Okay, I was about to say that. Wait a second. Yes, he's in Illinois still taking care of his other parent. Just checking. To clarify for the record. I'll get up there and talk. Yes, he asked that I be here today. I'm sorry. So to clarify for the record, we have a letter that gives the approval authority to represent the owner. Yes. Okay. All right. I just want that on the record. Okay. So he's in Illinois. Yes. He purchased the property in 2023. Correct. And then he leased it out. 2025. He purchased it in 2025? No, he purchased it in 2023. He lived in the property until 2025 when his parent got ill. And I have a question. Yes. You said that he found out about it in March and had the, unless I misunderstood, and had the tenant removed? In March 31st. Yes. The tenant was removed. But he was not aware of the lien at that point? No. He was not aware of the lien until three days prior to closing when the closing statement was released by the title company. Right. I understand that part. I'm a real estate broker too. Yeah. But the question is, how did he find out that the leasing agent was doing short-term rentals? I'm not sure. If the leasing agent told him after the fact because they were getting complaints or what the situation was, I wasn't privy to that. Okay. I just know that he found out in March and that's when it was terminated. And it was not a rental since the day that he was made aware of that. Okay. Thank you. All right. So can you give us the date when he was informed, when he received notice? Do you have any idea of what? He never received any formal notice. That was apparently made aware to the property manager, which didn't relay how serious the situation was. And he just said, you know, we can't do short-term rentals, but if we get a longer-term tenant in there, it'll be fine. So they put somebody else in there for a 30-day instead of a one-to-seven. It was more of a 30-day. And then I'm not sure how he was made aware that that was not also allowed. And so March 31st is when the agreement with the property manager was terminated and the tenant was removed. Okay. And forgive my misunderstanding. I was thinking in terms of short-term rental, but this is for a residential rental. Board, I think I can give some clarification on this. I believe when these cases first came to the board, it was a combo short-term rental and lack of business tax receipt for the rental. They did comply with the short-term rental portion, but they never got their business tax receipt. So that's when the fine started was for that specifically, not for both the short-term rental and the BTR. So the fines that you're looking at today are specifically for not having a BTR. A BTR has since been applied for and approved. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So that would tell me that if that BTR is still in force or still valid, that it's in compliance. But there was a period of time where it was rented without a business tax receipt. And it's for that period of time that business tax receipt did not exist at this applying. That's correct. The fine pertains to. Okay. All righty. Joe, I wish we could get more data on exactly what occurred regarding notice, dates of notice received, and what was done to correct it. As far as the business tax receipt? Yes. What address is on file for the ownership of that property? Does anybody have the Pinellas County property? I don't know off the top of my head, but we would have been sending notice to whatever's in Pinellas County property appraiser. Notice, sorry, board. The notice was the address listed was the property address for his mailing. So all the mail went to the address listed on the agenda. So he got it first as a property matter. It looks like most of the mail was returned to me as unclaimed. I'm going through the file. Probably why he didn't get the mail is because this address. Well, he would have been, for lack of a better term, double insulated in the fact if the notices went to the property address, you've got a tenant there that did the tenant forward them, and then you also have the property manager in between that was contributing to and or creating, was a part of that violation. And so it's understandable to me how he might not have received notice. However, that does not alleviate the fact that, you know, there was a violation there. And he's aware that the violation is, in fact, and he's a very much a rule follower. He just, you know, he wants to try to get a little bit of leniency from that March 31st date until June 12th, or June 15th, rather. Understood. So he's asking the lien be reduced from $10,850 to $7,500? Correct. Well, I have a question about that before we, because I'm looking for, is the lien reduction, is that the amount, too, or is that the amount of the reduction? The $7,500 would be the reduced amount. I'm sorry? That would be $3,350. Correct, yes. So he's willing to pay the $7,500, but. He's willing to pay the $7,500? Well, he's asking if we can reduce it to whatever the March 31st date is until the June 15th date, whatever that. So the new fine would be $7,500? What's that? The new fine would be $7,500. Correct. Okay. Per this form, the desired lien reduction is $7,500, which would be the reduction from the current lien amount. So what he would be asking to pay per this would be $3,350. Okay, yes. Sorry about that. That's fine. Just wanted to clarify. The administrative costs are $1,031.20. $1,031? And 20 cents. 20 cents. Which you cannot go pull up. Right. If it's all right with the board, I'll pine on this for a minute and then look for other input. It would appear to me that, you know, I see what the administrative costs are. However, the owner has asked for a reduction to $3,350. I have no quarrel or argument with that, but I will certainly entertain discussion. The board thinks about it. I think it's reasonable. I can understand totally why the owner wouldn't know about this. Yeah, I can too. Yeah. Any comments, gentlemen? Any objections? I have no objections. Or support you. I'm sorry? Your decision or support you. I have no objections. All right. May I have a motion then to reduce the lien amount to $3,350? I put in a motion to reduce the lien amount to $3,350. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Appreciate you coming to speak with us today. I believe we have another one here. All right. Next on our agenda, Item 4.2, Case 196-17, consider a request by Petitioner's William Bassett at 301 Baker Avenue to reduce the fine regarding exterior surfaces and abandoned building. And if approved, issue an order that specifies a fine that includes administration costs and establish the date payable. The lien will revert to its original amount. Senator Warren-Hater to speak on this. Sir, please come forward. Sir, please give us your name and address. Robert Bassett, 1871 Murfield Way. You obviously are the property owner. Yep. All right. What would you like to tell us about this? I believe this case fell through the cracks. It was a very old case. I brought the property into compliance with the previous code enforcement officer who was there. Spoke with Sarah. She was lovely. Helped me out. Spoke with the new Daniel. We had an old Daniel that was in there before. He's no longer there. Apparently, what happened is he either quit or whatever happened, he stopped working there. And the case has been dormant ever since, accruing fines. At the time that it happened, the officer, Daniel, argued with me about in the back. I had the whole house painted, the whole house brought into compliance, but he argued there was what appeared to be a chip in the back of my house up under the soffit, and he said that had to be fixed, but it wasn't a chip. It was just where the wood, you know, kind of popped out a little bit. Nothing, the home is in compliance and nothing's been done to it from the day that I painted it to bring it in compliance till today. Okay, so I feel that we weren't out of compliance. We brought the home in compliance and that the fines should have never been assessed in the first place. Even in his report, the original Daniel stated he was confused about which property it was that was in compliance or wasn't in compliance, and that's in the record. Okay. So, may I ask some, thank you, sir, I appreciate that input. Sure. I want to try and clear my thinking on this. Sure. Um, is, do we have any data available about, um, compliance on this property and how long this ran and, and any data on our end on this? I can, I can give you a rundown because I looked into this. Oh, you, you're the one that looked it up. I looked into this. Excellent. Mr. Plump, you have the floor. I did, I took special interest in this because I, I requested a copy of the minutes. Sure. And you were at the hearing on that day. No, no, it was the first time I've been to a hearing, I believe. Are you Robert Bassett? I am Robert Bassett. Oh, I was at a, maybe I guess it was in 2017? Yes. Okay. And you, you confirmed the code violations at that time in the minutes. Agreed. So, I'm just going to give you the board a rundown since I've looked into this matter. So, the original order, the affidavit of non-compliance and the recorded lien in case 196-17 were entered against the William L. Bassett Trusts and Margaret J. Bassett Trusts, which remain the owners of recording with the Pinellas County Property Appraisers Office. That trust is still correct. That's the honor. The lien reduction application before the board was submitted by Robert Bassett individually. And no documentation has been provided and established that he is authorized to act on behalf of the responded trust. In addition, the application provides no competent evidence of financial hardship and presents no new evidence that would justify revisiting the board's prior findings, order, affidavit of non-compliance, and the resulting recorded lien. I would also note that board member Engel participated in the original December 20, 2017 hearing and made the motion finding the respondent trust in violation. While the official minutes and orders speak for themselves, this continued service on the board provides continuity regarding the history of this matter. I will also point out that the lien reduction application states that the application and supporting documentation are incomplete or inaccurate. The application will not be scheduled for public hearing. Based on the information before us today, I do not believe the application provides sufficient information for the board to evaluate the requested relief. Should the applicant wish to reapply, the board would expect documentation, establish an authority to act on behalf of the trust, a corrected application identifying the proper applicant, and competent evidence supporting any claim hardship. If there is no further discussion, I have a suggestion motion. Okay. Tell me what you want to suggest. My motion, I suggest, would I move that the board deny the application without prejudice. This allows the submission of a new lien reduction application in the names of the William L. Bassett Trust and Margaret J. Bassett Trust, supported by appropriate documentation, establish an authority to act on behalf of the trust, and any hardship, information, or other supporting evidence that the applicant wishes the Lord to consider. I would concur with that, simply because there's, from my perspective on this, I would like to see more data in terms of, I appreciate what you've brought to us today and your explanation and everything, and your narrative about what you've told us about the fact that that inspector is now gone, so we don't have the benefit of his data. The thing I would be interested in hearing about is specifically what the violation was originally, what was done to bring it in compliance, any data regarding, okay, is it in compliance, was it in compliance at a certain date, if so when was that, because that helps us, that would help us understand, and before we go there, I think what we're talking about here is, at the end of the day, suggesting you compile some more data, rather than argue this any further now and compile some more data that would help us in a decision, so that we're not in a, we're not necessarily ruling today. That's the, I believe that's the suggestion that Mr. Plum has made, and from my perspective. I'll just point out, there's two pages of minutes on that case, and it's quite well spelled. Okay. That it was in silence. Fair enough. That may well be the case that it was in violation. My, you know, I know that the way the system works, when a case is in violation, and it's brought before the board, and we accept that and rule on it, then the fines start accruing. My interest would be in finding out at what point were those violations corrected, were they corrected? Board, I can give some clarification on that. Board? I can give some clarification on that. This case was originally heard in 2017, and the affidavit of noncompliance was filed in February of 2018, after it wasn't corrected. Generally speaking, when violations happen like this, we don't go out and re-inspect it for a, you know, re-complying it unless we're prompted to by the property owner. In this case, in 2024, I believe it was, a previous inspector, Shelby Brown, went through the old lien list, and went through and checked some of the liens that we had occurring that were, like, long-standing, years-old ones. And this is one of the ones that she went out and re-inspected and complied out. So it was complied in, I believe, 2024, but I need to clear check on, actually, I think I have it in front of me. All right. That? October 2024 is when we complied. So the property is in compliance at this point for all the violations. That's one good piece of data. The question I have is that if it was found in compliance and then not, there wasn't anything done until 2024, I understand at that point it was ruled to be in compliance. But during that period of time, if there was an earlier point than the 2024 date where it was in compliance, then the question I have is, is it appropriate to assess fines for all of that time? Nobody knew that it was in compliance. Yeah. Generally speaking, that's why we have this lien reduction process is if someone, basically, they didn't realize they had fines occurring, whatever the reason, they have a chance to come back in, make that case before the board. But at this point, the city, the property is in compliance. The city has no objection to reducing the fines. Okay. Can you tell us when you brought it into compliance? I brought it into compliance at that time. It was, I was arguing with the officer at the time. His name was Dan, and he no longer works for you guys. But we were arguing about that little chip in the back, and it wasn't really a chip. It was painted. I brought the entire house into compliance at that time. You know, and the reason he didn't cure it was because he said that chip was up there. Then I called the city attorney at the time, which was Mr. Fuso? Did that name ring a bell to you guys? No. I have the email here where he emailed me. I mean, Mr. Flino. Huh? Flino? I mean, it's Flino. I have the email here. I don't mind trying to pull it up. I had it all pulled up for you. Robert, I think what the board's trying to tell you is just reapply for your ring. I did. Reapply. This one is not, the applicant should be the trust. And if you're the trustee or you have the legal authority to represent the trust, and Pinellas County still has the trust list of its owners, not you. So you had to show us that you have authority and interest in that property through the trust to come back. So put all that documentation into your new lien request and show your hardships. I understand what you're saying. The issue I have with that is the house is currently under contract, you know, for sale. It's being bought by, you know, a property developer, and he's going to renovate the property and flip it and sell it, you know, and I'm under contract. I understand what you're saying, but we're talking about the property, you know, not the owners of the property. The property is in compliance, and it's going to hold up the sale of the property, and we need for that to be sold. And from my perspective, it never should have been out of compliance in the first place because I did all the work to get it into compliance back at the time. So it's going to cause an undue hardship on us with monetary losses if I can't get this cured today. If you're selling the property, you must have some kind of – Yeah, I do. It's under contract. No. Okay, so you must have a power of attorney or something that shows that you can – are you the one signing the documents? No, my – it's owned by a trust, and we're going through the title company and everything, doing everything correct the way it has to be. So it's not like a cash sale where I'm giving – you don't hold the title to a house, you know. Well, we need those – the paperwork showing your connection to the trust and that you're authorized to act on behalf of it. That's the missing piece that we don't have right now. Unless you can produce that, of course, but I would think – That's what I mean. Yeah, I can't at the second right now. I don't think they're going to want to move forward without that today. What is – if I could ask, then, what is the ramifications of moving forward? How is there liability on the city by removing a violation on the property itself? What does it matter who is standing here? The house – the property has been cured. There is no violation. Why are you going to hold the lien based on who's coming here and saying it's in compliance? She said it's in compliance. What is the liability to this board? Because we have to make sure the right person is making the request. It's because if we just had some guy off the street who doesn't really have authority to act on behalf of the property owner, so. It could be anybody. Yeah, it could be me. Let's say it is. What does that matter? Where is the liability for this board to release the lien based on who's up here asking? I'm Robert Bassett. This has been in my family for 60-plus years. Can I ask a question? Sure. Mr. Salzman, or Mr. Plum, what is the – what do you show as the registered property owner on this? Is it the – I looked it up. It was Panaos County. It lists the trust. There's two trusts. Yeah. There's a William Trust and a Margaret Trust. I'm sorry, Sergeant? There's two trusts here on property appraisers. I was just looking at that. Mr. Salzman can look at it, too, if he wants. I just had it pulled up. My question is, if the name of the trust is this gentleman's name, is there an implied or implicit authorization authority for him to be able to represent the trust? The question goes to the city, whether the city has an objection for this individual to be forwarded and asked this request. He has an objection. That's the only issue here. If the city doesn't have a problem with it, then it's properly before the board. And I have a question. Are you a trustee of the trust? I'm not. My mother is. So you're not the trustee? No. My mother is. Are your mother still alive? Yeah, she's still alive. It was my grandparents' house. She needs to apply through that. Or give you the power of attorney. Yeah. Okay. We're doing all that now. Let's step back for a second. First off, you all can't be given legal advice on how this goes, okay? I let it go a little too far. Sorry. I'm sorry. That's my fault, okay? The city has to object for this matter to be improperly before you. If they don't object, then it's properly before you, and then you should consider it. This is a lean reduction for a fine that the city has on this. That's the sole issue here. We don't give advice, legal advice. If they're comfortable with having him make this request, that's fine. If they're not, then that's fine too. Then it should be continued. So, Sarah, I'll leave it up to you. We don't have the proper paperwork here necessarily to prove this guy's connection to be the right party before us to make this request. However, that's just my legal advice to you. The ultimate decision is up to you whether you want to move forward with this or not. And that is, and the board, that's separate from the board. The board should not hear this if the city doesn't believe that the proper party's in front of them. Confir with the clerk one moment. We have no objection. No objection. All right. And then I have a question. Okay. Fire away. City costs. Yes. Are there city costs at all? The clerk can provide the call administrator. The costs in this case are $1,291.20. I'd like to put it in to reduce the fines to $1,291.20. I second it. Would you? Well, okay. Wow. Fair enough. All in favor? Aye. Aye. We have some knees. Opposed. Opposed. Opposed. What were you opposed? Four, four. Four are four. Three are opposed. Is that correct? Just want to make sure. We have it. Four are four and three are against. Okay. It passes. It passes. Motion passes. Thank you all. That was, thank you, sir. Appreciate you coming to speak today. Thank you very much. All right. Okay. Moving on to other board action. Accept the affidavits of compliance as listed. Normally, we do those as a group. And so, I would entertain a motion to accept the affidavits of compliance, including number 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.1.5, and 5.1.6. May I have a motion to accept these affidavits of compliance? I move to accept the affidavits of compliance as listed. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. We have an affidavit of noncompliance. Accept the affidavit of noncompliance for respondents Brendan Ryan Buchanan at 4302 Brigadier and Circle for permits. I don't know. Say again? I was right here. Item agenda. It's at the bottom of other board action, number 5.2, right above nuisance abatement. So, can I have a motion to accept the affidavit of noncompliance? I move to accept the affidavit of noncompliance and issued an order that imposes fines and state if fines and fees remain unpaid for three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? All right. Moving on to nuisance abatement lien filings. 6.1 has been withdrawn. Number 6.2, Inspector Suddath. This is, I'm sorry, case 154-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Corniglia Enterprises LLC at 510 Brookside Drive for lot clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. There is somebody here. There is? Yeah. Okay. Well, sir, would you come forward and state your name? It's Brett Harris, 510 Brookside Drive, Clearwater, Florida. Sir, can you give us a brief on what you'd like to tell us? Sure. I'm here today not disputing the violation. I'm here to ask for a brief continuance to July to complete the compliance work. The remediation work has commenced and will be completed shortly. Okay. Thank you for that. Inspector Suddath, what would you like to say about this? Vicki Suddath with the City of Clearwater. This is for Case 154-26 at 510 Brookside Drive. This is for a nuisance abatement. There is one violation there for lot clearing. Code Section 3-1503B7B8B10B5A. Inspector, I'm going to interrupt you for a minute here. Oh, this is, I'm seeing an address of 510. All right, you're correct. I'm sorry. I was looking at the previous case. My mistake. That's okay. The notice of violation was posted at the property and it was also mailed on May 21st of 2026 with a compliance date of June 1st, 2026. The certified mail was not received back signed, so it was posted at the property. This is a picture of the posting of the property on May 20th. This is a picture of the back of the property. The property, the front of the property, another picture of the front of the property. There's a lot of debris and overgrowth. When I went out there yesterday, there was somebody at the property. I had not had any contact with anybody. I just so happened to drive by there. I saw him there. He was starting to clean up the property. The front of it was cut as of this morning, but the rest of it, what was cut is kind of left all over the place. This is what it looked like this morning, the back of it. There was a problem with the homeless there, and they had set up a camp right there on the corner, which is what that large area is. This is some of the trash that he had put out to the street. Sorry, I don't know why this thing's not moving. Nothing personal. Yeah. What am I? That's okay, though. There's a reason they call these things miracles of modern technology. There's a closer picture of the corner. And that was today's? Yeah, these are from today, this morning at 930. That's just different trash in there. There's three properties right there that interconnect with each other. One is a vacant lot, and then the back of his property, and then a strip store. There was a very large, there was a problem with homeless right there. There was a huge homeless camp. I was able to get everybody to clean up theirs, but I have no contact with this property. The mail was returned, but when I had spoken to him, he said that that's the wrong address that a property appraiser has, so I did suggest to him that he get that taken care of so he does get his mail. But anyways, that's what the violation is, is clearing all the trash and debris. I'm requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Inspector, would you care to opine on, based on what you, I believe you shot pictures today, as you were there today, care to opine on what you've seen in terms of what's been done to clean this thing up? Are you asking me what has been done? I'm asking you just to tell us what you've seen, because... Oh, he just, just the front section was the only part that has been cut. The rest of it is still exactly how he... Go to sign it. Okay. But again, you know, like I said, I talked to him yesterday. He hadn't gotten any of the mail. He hadn't been to the property until just recently when he said he saw the posting, so... Okay. I think in your request, you're requesting compliance five days after we render our order. Does the board care to discuss with the owner, since he's in the process of mitigation, he's asking for more time? Do you care to ask the property owner any questions before we make a ruling and set a time? We have an ongoing fine, right? Daily fine. No, this is just, this is just for the lot clearing. If, you know, we can't, we wouldn't do anything until after, five days after you guys signed the order anyways, which would give him another week, at least a minimum of a week, probably even a little bit longer, so... These are just nuisance abatement. You're giving the city the opportunity to go in, clean up the nuisance, and then lean the property. So this is, these are a little different, because it's not, they're not asking for a declaration of violation, and then somebody come in compliance. They're saying, look, we just gotta, we gotta do it ourselves. And it gives them a short period of time, five days before they come in, and then they take care of it, and they lean the property for the cost of what it took to, to abate the nuisance. Okay. All right. Any questions? This guy says he wants to speak. Sir? I had prepared remarks. I was just filling an order. Sir? Thank you. So, good afternoon, members of the board. My name's Brett Harris. I am the owner of the property at 510 Brookside Drive, and thank you for hearing me today. I take this violation seriously. I'm not here to dispute it. I do want to explain the timeline for the record, because it matters to what I'm asking. The property is my office. During the school year, it's on my drop-off route, so I'm there weekly and would have seen a posted notice. The mailed notice also went to the same property address, so both the posted copy and the mailed copy were sitting there at the property. I was schooled out for the summer. I lost that weekly reason to be on site, and I was traveling for a good portion of family summer travel. That's the honest reason. Both notices went unseen, not indifference, just being away. I didn't actually become aware of this until Monday, June 22nd, and the moment I did, I went straight to work. Yesterday, I was personally at the property beginning the cleanup when Vicki happened to stop by. We spoke. We walked the property together, so the city's own inspector saw firsthand that good faith remediation was already underway. As Vicki's re-inspection this morning confirmed, the front area, which was a blight and overgrown, has already been mowed. And I have a picture as well, which I can provide. It basically just reiterates that that's what's been taken care of. The remaining work is modest. In total, no more than a small trailer's worth of debris, vegetative debris, and the trash, which was deposited by that homeless encampment that's sort of at that property corner between those three properties. The homeless are actually back in the woods, which is the vacant lot, but they seem to like to deposit trash there. And that's the issue. That's what's left to be cleaned up. So I tried to get a landscaper out. Actually, last night in my conversation, I talked to Vicki multiple times yesterday. I tried to make the phone calls to get somebody out there yesterday, but on that short notice, wasn't able to. I do have a crew scheduled to come out in the next few days to complete the work. Simply remove that trash and get it out of there. And to make sure it never reoccurs, I've also reached out and arranged new landscaping crew to keep the property maintained on a regular schedule, so no matter what this season, this won't be back before the board. So I'll simply close with a request. It's just the continuance to July, a similar period of time I'd have asked for if I had seen the notice earlier, to finish the small amount of work that's already underway. I'm grateful for the board's consideration, and I'm glad to answer any questions. Thank you. Board, do you have any questions? If you have a crew coming out in the next couple of days, why do you need to? Well, I don't need that much time. It's just because that's the date that you guys set for the next one. So I'm asking for the continuance, so I don't need until July. I have them coming out in the next couple of days. Okay. So what's your connection to this company right here? I'm the owner of it, yeah. I'm the listed representative. Okay. Do you have any proof of that? Not printed with me, but I'm sure it can bring up some stuff on my phone if asked. Okay. I was just curious. Yeah. It's a sole member LLC. I'm the acting member. Are you on Sundays? Yes, on Sundays. Mr. Harris, my only question is, did you address any of this cleanup before you went on vacation? I did not. No, I was not. No, I did not. Why not? Before I went on vacation, you know, one, I don't think it was to that level of degree, and if it was, you know, I just wasn't aware of it. So, but as Vicki mentioned in our discussions yesterday, I mean, what I would like to do as a property owner there, because I think it is a real nuisance to have homeless and vagrant activity, and I just realized this morning when I was going to stop by the office to print these documents that I'm standing here, I went to Staples, I realized that my Internet cable has been cut probably by those same people, and I had security cameras back there, and now I'm realizing those have been offline for a period of time because my Internet's been cut at the location by the vagrants. So I'd like to, you know, make a formal request of the City of Clearwater Police Department to have the formal authority to trespass people off of the property in the future so that, you know, it's not a recurring incident. I have a question for perhaps Madam Secretary. I'm wondering, when we first ruled this property in violation, when was that? Maybe the inspector could tell us. When we, because typically. This is the first time this is coming. This is property that's ever been on a violation. Okay, so it's just a nuisance of payment. Right, this is a choice the City of Clearwater. I just want to make sure that if we had visited before, had this been going on a while. Okay. Well, and does the City, the City reaches out to the owner before they come in there, right? They'll look and see if there's progress being made. Yes. Absolutely. So when we cite a nuisance violation, we post the notice of violation at the property and mail it to the address on property appraiser, which case, you know, we either get response back from them at that point or we don't. We usually try and reach out to if there's numbers in utilities. But sometimes we don't make contact with the owner prior to code board. In this case, the property owner was at the property yesterday, so that's the first time we've had a chance to speak about this. Does that answer the question? I did try to reach out on my number and leave a message, but other than that, my only way to have me to post it on property. But as I had said, he had already told me the address on property appraiser. That's why he never sent it. The notice was sitting there for that same period of time where I hadn't been by to check the mail, to see the property over these last roughly 30 days, which I haven't. That's the notice. Any other comments or discussion on this? I just wanted to let you on, and I checked Sundays, and he's on there. Okay, good to know. So I guess my question is you're asking for time in the five days being given? I'm just asking for a continuance so that it can be dealt with, so that there's not a place that this makes my time today. And you asked for July 1? You asked for July 1? Sure. That's almost five days. Whatever day. If I would ask for a time period, it would be maybe 10 days. If you're going to set a date outside of the next hearing, then continuance making efforts, try to get crew out last night, it didn't happen. I'm going to have a remedy. Do you have any objections? I mean, generally speaking, the city would request that we don't continue a case like this. You know, what we brought in front of the board today is that there was a violation. We returned an affidavit that there is, in fact, a violation. So at this point, we're requesting you to rule on whether there is a violation in giving the city authority to enter onto the property and abate. Should the board wish to give more than the five days to render the time, we would have no objection. That's ultimately the board's decision. But we would request to not continue it to the next meeting. We'd like an order. That will be July 8th. Speaking to Nicole, it's 10 days. He will have, it will be at least a week and a half before we even get the order. And then we wait the five days. So I meant. So if we do the five days now, that's what I was thinking, that physically, if he gets it done within 10 days, you guys show up and there's nothing to do. I mean, typically you're going to show up, whoever you assign it to is going to show up later than that. If it's done and there's nothing for him to do, then. Once she sends us the paperwork, Nicole tells us what the date is of when we can go out and re-inspect it. If we go out there and inspect it and it's all done, then the case is just closed. If it's not done, then we will send our contractor out there to give us an estimate of what it's going to cost to clean it up. And then it goes to Sarah and it gets approved. And then the contractor will be scheduled to come out there and clean it up. Am I to glean from that then? If we render an order requesting the compliance within five days physically, it's longer than that. He has more time than that physically to get it done, which is essentially where we're going to end up. If you get it cleaned up by then, then you have the time because the wheels turn a bit slower than the five days. Let's make sure we're all speaking in the mic. Sorry. So, I mean, part of the reason for me spending my time here today with you is given I made immediate efforts when I was made aware of it of the 22nd. In my understanding, I do have a real consideration as a property owner if transients and vangrists and homeless are depositing trash on my property. You know, I don't want this issue where, you know, you guys rule on this. I'm happy to clean it up, get it fully remedied. But I don't think going forward, and this is what you kind of explained to me yesterday and I have an issue with, is the concept of once the order is issued, then, you know, you come out, you know, three months later and there happens to be, you know, trash in that corner from that one simple corner, you immediately act on it without me having any, you know, response time. That's a different issue in that what we're talking about here is there's a certain condition that the inspector has observed. If we're talking about issuing an order here that gives you, that says five days, but you end up with effectively something like ten days, you get it cleaned up, I mean, you can document that yourself. You can call the inspector and say it's in compliance, come look, I have pictures, and anything that occurs after that, I mean, at that point, I don't want to speak for our inspector, but at that point, if you're in compliance, then, I mean, the thing is done and goes away. We have no control or no predict about what happens in the future. I also did explain to him that because there is a problem with the homeless back there that he needed to get with the Clearwater Police Department and get a no trespass order for that property. Once he does that, if the homeless come back on there onto his property and the police are notified, they will come out and issue them a trespass, and if they come back, then they have the authority to arrest them. That is what I suggested to him to make sure that he does right away and to also change his address. Like, we did go over all of this, and what I had explained to him was if the property does not get cleaned up and we go out and clean it, we will have that order for the future. If it's cleaned up, though, the case is closed, and it would have to be brought back in front of the board. It's only if it's not brought into compliance by the date. Understood. All right. Any other questions? Any other discussion that we need to have? All right. I'm ready to entertain a motion. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance, and charge the respondent with reasonable costs, which will become a lien on the property. If cost, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, sir, for coming today. Item 6.3 on our agenda, Case 155-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondent's cloth management, LLC, at 1116 Amble Lane for an operative vehicle and issue an order with a compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation. If compliance is not met, Inspector Kasman. I'm present. I don't think there's anybody here. Nope. All I see is blue shirts. That's right. You like it. Good afternoon, Board. Daniel Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is case number 155-26 for 1116 Amble Lane. This is for a nuisance abatement. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1503B6 for an operative vehicle. These are the dates to notice a violation went out with a compliance date and an affidavit of posting. This is 1116 Amble Lane. It's a duplex. The other eye address is 1118 Amble Lane. I came here originally due to a bunch of exterior storage in the rear of the property. While back there, I noticed there was a boat trailer with no license plate on it. A tenant let me in the back. I guess the tenants were having a bit of a feud about one tenant's stuff all being in the rear of the property. This might be a future Code Board case, but hopefully maybe it won't get there. And I went back for my re-inspection. I also noticed there was a vehicle out front with no license plate on it. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt you. You said 1116 or 1118? 1116 is the official address, but it's a duplex with two addresses. Got it. One is 1116. One is 1118. Okay. Thank you. This vehicle, a sedan with no license plate on it. I also noticed the boat was still in the rear of the property. I posted the property that same day. When I went back, I noticed the car had been turned around but still had no license plate on it. The boat was still in the rear. And when I went back today, the car was still there with no license plate on it and the boat in the rear. So compliance meant for an operative vehicle by displaying a license plate with current tag on every vehicle, ensuring that all vehicles are physically operable or by removing an operative vehicle from the premises. I'm requesting for this one compliance on it before five days from the date the board renders its order. Daniel, can I see a picture of the front and back of that car again? Yeah. It's black. Oh, it's black and white. The front is white. It's got a different color scheme on the front. When it was the original day I went and looked at it, it was spun around the other way. But it looks like it's the same vehicle, same sticker, same make and model. Exactly. I got you. Any questions? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order if car is authorized to foreclose collection. I have a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. Case 6.4 on our agenda. Case 156-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Teal Crest Properties, LLC, at 1002 North Garden Avenue for lot clearing. An issue order with the compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Maddox? Good afternoon, Board Kevin Maddox, Code Compliance Dispector. City of Clearwater, case number 15626. This is a nuisance abatement for 1002 North Garden Avenue. One violation for Section 1503B7B8 and B5A, lot clearing overgrowth right of way and accumulation of debris and trash. Notice the violation was mailed and posted on 518-26, compliance date by 528. The green card was received signed. I still posted the property on 518, shown here. At the back of the property, you can see a pile of homeless encampment trash. This is 528. It has got a little bit better. Probably the mowing was still happening, but the trash and homeless camp remained. This was this morning. The property with the trash still remaining. Compliance can be met for cutting all grass and vegetation to include the curb line sidewalk and continuing to maintain it, removing all trash and debris, and continuing trying to get this homeless encampment out. Recommendation for this case, 156-26, requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Inspector, has this case been before us before? To my knowledge, no. I've only been in this area since last July. Okay. It just looks familiar. Well, along Garden Road, there are a lot of lots that are empty and look familiar. And they're small, they're deep, they're weird. Yeah. It's up there close to, parallel by the Pinellas Trail. There's a lot of vacant properties up there. Yes. And they're up around that. They seem to be waiting for a mysterious buyer. I don't know. Yeah. Understood. All right. I wonder who that could be. Any other questions? No. May I have a motion, please? I move to enter. Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Sorry. It's okay. I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city's authorized to propose collector's settles of lien. May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Carries. Next case is item 6.5 on our agenda. Case 157-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Mark G. Montgomery at 1206 North Garden Avenue for light clearing and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Spectre Maddox? I am here again. Kevin Maddox, code compliance inspector. Case number 157-26, a nuisance abatement for 1206 North Garden. One violation of 1503 B7B8B5A, overgrowth, right-of-way overgrowth, and accumulation of debris and trash. A notice of violation was mailed and posted on May 18th with a compliance date of 5-28-26. The green card was not received. This is the property with the posting. The grass, as you can see, is long. Again, on 5-18. 5-28, the grass is longer. On 6-24 this morning, it's longer. It seems that time of year. Compliance can be met, lot clearing, by cutting all grass and vegetation, removing all trash and debris and keeping it clean. For this case, recommendation 157-26, requesting compliance five days after the board renders its order. Questions from the board? May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order of finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violation within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with the reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. If cost fines and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to foreclose, collect, or settle such lien. May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Motion carries. Next case, item agenda 6.6, case 158-26, accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents Matt Allen, 1260 Wellington, LLC, at 1260 Wellington Drive for an operative vehicle, and issue an order with compliance deadline and authorize the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Jensen? Good afternoon. This should only take about 35 or 40 minutes. Can you shorten it up a bit for us? This is for 1260 Wellington. The actual address itself doesn't exist anymore, so it's a parcel number. It's a nuisance abatement. That's case 158-26. I'm Dave Jensen, code inspector with the city of Clearwater. Just have one violation for 3-1503-B6 for inoperative vehicles. These are the dates for the posting and the mailings. Certified mail came back on delivery. However, I have spoken with the owner. He uses an out-of-state address for the property, but he is local. He originally told me that he was buying the vehicles and waiting for titles as he had bought them at auction. I've got a complaint from a neighbor, however, that he found Facebook postings where the vehicles are being posted. So, it looks like this owner is buying the vehicles and then reselling them. I was able to go on Facebook and see the ads myself. These are the vehicles on the date of the original violation. None of them have license plates on them. Again, the owner of the property did tell me when I spoke to him that he didn't have titles for the vehicles yet. This is 5-15. Vehicles are still on the property after the compliance date. Again, on 6-8, vehicles are still there. A couple have been moved. Again, this was today. Vehicles are still present. No plates on the vehicles. There are a couple other things that are not public nuisance that we wouldn't have fall under here. There's the grass, parking, and storage in a residential area, which we don't allow. However, if we get the order from the board and the vehicles are removed, either by the owner or by the city, that remedies the other situation. So, requesting compliance five days after the board renders this order, compliance can be met by the vehicles either being removed or being plated, but they are going to have to be removed anyway. Inspector, on our printout sheet, it says in an operative vehicle, but there's more than one, right? There's more than one, correct. Yeah, okay. Yes. So, it's, yeah, this says vehicles on its violations, even though it's on ours, it may say vehicles. Yeah, so, well, I give the bet. That's why I'm confirming. Did the owner ever state when he bought the vehicle? Because I've bought vehicles from auctions before. Well, yeah, and the last time I talked to him, he said I had asked him if he was getting anywhere with getting these things moved out of there. He said he'd only received one title so far. I've tried contacting him in the back and haven't had any luck yet. So, again, I can't stipulate to what he may or may not be doing. When you say inoperative, you mean they can't be doing it? Correct. Yeah, so our inoperative ordinance, it has to have a current registration, and it has to be displayed on the vehicle. Yeah, so even if he did have current registrations, if they're not on the vehicle, they do have to be displayed on there as well. They have no tags. But, yeah, they're just not on there. So, again, if it's flat tires, you know, again, hoods up with no engine in it or just not even having a license plate, they have to be roadworthy. Correct. When did you last speak with him? I couldn't tell you when it was I last spoke with him without having to look the case up. But, again, I just told him to make sure he'd keep in touch with me and let me know what's going on here. But I tried contacting him back and haven't had any luck with him answering the phone again. The reason I asked is I wonder if he realizes that if he doesn't do something soon, he's going to lose a little bit. Well, he does because the property was posted with the notice and then, you know, what happens. But, yeah, the notice of this hearing was gone from the property after I posted it, too. And, again, the vehicles have been moved while I've been watching it. So, you know, he or somebody has been out there moving the vehicles around that property. And he has not contacted you? No, I've called him a couple more times and not had any luck in the home of them. All right. Any other questions? May I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move to enter. Order of finding a respondent in violation of code and requiring a respondent to correct the violences within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply with the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, include an entry into the property to evade and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost, which will become a lien on the property. The cost lines and fees remain unpaid. Three months after such a lien is filed, and the city is authorized to foreclose or settle such a lien. May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. Mr. Carries? Thank you, Inspector. Last one. 6.7 on our agenda, Case 159-26. Accept the nuisance abatement lien for respondents William Lawrence Reese at 1874 Green Hill Drive for lock clearing and issued an order with a compliance deadline and authorizes the city to mitigate the violation if compliance is not met. Inspector Kasman will save the best for last. All right. Thank you for that. Ian Kasman, Code Enforcement Inspector for the City of Clearwater. This is Case 159-26 for 1874 Green Hill Drive. It's a nuisance abatement. There's one violation here for Code Section 3-1503B8 and B10 for lock clearing. These are the dates and notice of violation which is sent out with the compliance date and the updated posting. This is 1874 Green Hill Drive, and that was the posting, and this was the issue of the property. This large bush or vine or whatever you want to call it is outgrown and is taking over the roadway. I did speak with a tenant there who I tried to explain how he could remedy it. He said he would try, and the result was not where we needed it to be. There needs to be at least an 8-foot clearance above the right-of-way, and it can't go past the curb. So there needs to be some more chopping to be done for them to be in compliance. I went by this morning, and it's still... I feel like fairies are going to come out of there. It would have to be a cutout like this if you can follow the mouse at all, 8 feet high and behind the curb. Is it attached to that light? It is entwined in a way in which you'd have to completely go in there by hand with clippers to remove it. It's houses, probably hundreds of birds. You can hear them in there. Again, if it was just cleaned up a little bit to be out of the right-of-way, I'm okay with it as it is. Duke Energy has obviously not cared. They probably don't think it's doing anything wrong. But it is growing up. It's growing too wide is the problem. I mean, over the Pope. Yes. Yeah. So compliance was meant for lock clearing by trimming back bush, so there's at least an 8-foot clearance above the right-of-way and does not grow past the curb. And I'm requesting compliance on it before five days from the date the board renders its order. Questions or comments? None. May I have a motion, please? I move to enter an order finding the respondent in violation of code and requiring the respondent to correct the violations within five days of the board's written order. If the respondent does not comply within the time specified, the city may take all reasonable actions, including entry onto the property, to abate and maintain the nuisance and charge the respondent with a reasonable cost which will become a lien on the property. If costs, fines, and fees remain unpaid three months after such lien is filed, the city is authorized to propose and should select percentile quickly. May I have a second, please? Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Before we motion carries. Thank you. All right. Fair enough, and I've got a comment. I'd love to ask some questions, sir, before we adjourn. Certainly. We're also going to tell you that we're going to have at your next meeting a discussion on how to handle fine reduction. Excuse me. We've got a conversation going over here, ladies. Sorry. We're not adjourned. Mr. Salzman has the floor. No, I'm sorry. He said next time. Yeah, but everybody didn't hear. I know, but we couldn't hear. They were talking. We didn't. No, at your next meeting, we're going to have a discussion about fine reductions. I think there's some confusion as to how these are handled and what your responsibility is or role in these. We believe that. Nicole and I discuss that. Because you have to understand there's a definitive distinction between the city and this board. And so what the city wants to bring before you or what the city is comfortable with bringing before you, you're acting on basically on their request, the applicant and their request. And so we have to look at those a little differently than we did today. So we do this periodically, you know, when we see something that maybe there's some confusion we want to clarify. Yeah. Mr. Plunk? I was just trying to find out if I could ask some questions. But on the lien reduction applications, it specifically states that the information has to be true and correct. And the applicant has to have an interest in the property or it has to be in the person's property owner's name. That's where it's supposed to be. Three or four times we had today, different times when we did have authorizations and things like that. But the one time for this one, it wasn't required simply because the city said they didn't care. I'm just confused. It says when, if this application is not filled out properly, it doesn't go before us. It doesn't go to hearing. And when I read these different comments by this guy, he's bringing allegations about the inspector. And when I read the two-page minutes of that meeting, the same guy gave testimony that all the violations existed except that the other two violations were there. So, Mr. Plunk, part of what you're seeing is, like, I'm just kind of getting up to speed on everything that's going on here. I didn't even get to review all the cases before coming to this meeting. So, you know, moving forward with these type of requests and everything else, we're going to be in lockstep with, like, what we're requesting and what, you know, who's requesting and making sure we're getting the proper authority and authorizations. But that's what you were seeing a little bit today was just us kind of. That's one thing I was going to suggest is that we have the minutes from previous cases, if it's an old case, that we have the letter of authorizations. And then going forward, the board probably, I mean, we can take, everybody can have attorneys. Like, if you went through a divorce, you take your vice attorney. But then you have to decide, is that what you're going to do? And when the board has to decide, are we going to accept lien reductions without proper authorization? We have three board members. We have three board members. This is not a court. We don't use evidence. It's not for you all to judge that issue. That's the city's presentation to you. This is one of the issues. In fact, what we did here was probably improper. You cannot do individual research on a case and be part of this board. No, I requested it and everybody got it. Well, minutes. You cannot testify as you did today. That is improper. You should have. I was reading them. That is not your job. No, that is not. That is, you're the judge. You're not, you're not the prosecutor in this case. They bring the case. You judge it. If you all are doing your own investigation and looking at this, you have basically placed yourself in a position where you cannot sit in this case. That's one of the problems that we have. And that is just a mistake that we let happen. We won't let it happen again. It's not on you. It's just, we didn't, you know, it's, it's not unusual for you to have done what other people have done that over the board. We just probably shouldn't have allowed you to do it. Well, that begs the question. And that question is, is when, you know, I, I, I see this, we've been through a number of them since, since I've been on here and it's, it's good. They provide the data, but in, in particular case like this, the, the data was very one sided uh, because it only came from the property owner and my dilemma is that I want to make a fair adjudication and a fair assessment of the details. And so the question becomes how best to do that. If he's the only one that's here speaking to that, then how best, especially on an old case like this, how best, uh, do we gather data so that we can make a fair and proper evaluation so that if we have someone that's truly deserving, we can rule in their favor. If we have someone that is totally irresponsible or contending things that are not true, but we have no way to verify those. How do we, how do we, how do we evaluate that data? What the law says is that what you hear at this hearing is the only evidence that you're supposed to determine that. And one of the things we could discuss at the next meeting is what you all need to make that determination. And it may be exactly what you all have said, which is we want to see the minutes or we want to see, uh, we want to have a detailed summary, which really should be, it shouldn't be necessarily you seeing the minutes. It's probably we'll say to the city, please have this information or present this in your presentation. This is, um, this is what occurred. This is when they came in compliance. This is why there was a gap in time as if in this case, was it true? The only evidence we had was, uh, the individual saying that, well, the guy never came. No, and, and, and we had, we had support of that. One of these that fell through the cracks because we had somebody change up. Yes. Is it the obligation of the violator to contact the city when they come in compliance? A hundred percent. Yeah. Does that happen most of the time? No. Maybe not. Um, but you determine at this hearing, the competent, substantial evidence to make your decision. That doesn't have to be, it's, it's different than a, than a courtroom. And again, for those that don't know, I'm a trial lawyer, so I'm a former prosecutor. So I know how to do these cases. Um, so the evidence that is presented before you is how you make your determination. That's why I got a little concerned about evidence that is discussed. That isn't necessarily the proper way we do it. Um, there's nothing wrong with having everybody have that information. That's the correct way of doing it, but that should really be coming from, uh, Nicole or the city, um, when we have that book. Um, so we'll correct that, but I want you to say at the next meeting, this is what we need. This is how you want it. Because that's what we should be doing, making sure the cases are presented in a way that you can make a decision. Do we have to wait until the next meeting to do that? Or is, can we, is there some adjustment we can make as a standard practice that when we have a lien reduction, that we can at least get a summary of the case history on it? I think we've gotten that direction. Or again, when I say we, it's really the city. Right. Because I'm your attorney. Right. So I have to make sure, here's what happens. If an individual sues this board, I'm the one who defends the case, not the city. Understood. What I just told you is how I defend it. I need to have competent, substantial evidence for you to make a decision. Your decision can be completely wrong in everybody's eyes, but it's okay. As long as you make, as long as you base it on competent, substantial evidence. What we normally have is competent, substantial evidence. It's a presentation by the code officer. Because that's, that's everything you see. That's competent, substantial evidence. Okay. What we don't usually see is on these fine reductions. And that's because a lot of times they're just people coming to you in certain circumstances. Most of the circumstances we see is somebody selling their property. Right. And there's a, there's a lien on there. And so then you all have, as part of this, you have to adopt a philosophy as to what do you, what do you, what do you, what's your goal with this board? Right. Right. Because this board is to get compliance because your neighbors have a situation where somebody has done something that's causing them a problem. You have a hoarder. You have, I mean, you've seen all of them today. You have a hoarder. You have somebody doing short-term rentals. You have somebody, you know, doing all these things. So your job is really supposed to be able to get compliance as soon as possible so we get rid of that nuisance. Or we do things like these nuisance of basement cases where the city comes in and cleans it up so we don't have these problems in the neighborhood. So you have to decide. And the reason, honestly, and I'll just give you a couple more minutes of information. The reason that the way you've done these fine reductions in the past is when we first started doing these, sometimes they came back and said, yeah, you owe us nothing. And then we finally had the board adopt a philosophy or policy that says that, well, we're not going to go below the cost because then you're, you know, these are real costs. These are city costs. These are administrative costs that have occurred. So you took that philosophy. Now, what's the determination as to whether or not somebody should have it reduced? That is not objective. That is subjective. But for you to get to that subjective determination, we need to know what you want. I think we heard that today, what you all need. I just, the city needs to present that to you versus you guys coming up with it. So what's the best way to achieve that? Do we make a formal request or simply a verbal request? I'm certainly hearing that the board would like more substantial background on these lane reductions that come in, and I can make them happen. And it's a work in progress. So I think the next couple ones we see, we should probably have comments of this is good enough or this isn't good. Right. I'll just make one quick comment. Like when the specters show the photographs, if there's two buildings in there, they know which building they're talking about because you had to ask. I was going to ask the same thing. Which building are you talking about? And it was in the background, the yellow one. Yeah. I was looking at the foreground. Yeah. Yeah. So they got to identify better what they're showing. What we're looking at. And then also what the violations are that they're – because they've just shown photograph after photograph with no explanation of is it the roof, is it just the siding, is it the painting? We need to make sure that we don't know what they're saying. Absolutely. Happy to accept this feedback. I'm sure you can understand from our point of view, we look at this all day. Yeah. So to us, it's obvious what we're looking at. So this is great feedback. We'll make sure that we point out more clearly what the violations are. And when I complain, we're just saying we just need more information. We shouldn't investigate the case, is what you're saying. If you investigate a case, then you cannot sit as judge. So I didn't investigate the case. I simply read the notes, right? That is fine. Okay. To get a better understanding. But remember, here's the other thing we don't do, and we probably should do it. So when I handle these cases for other cities, a lot of times I'm sitting in Matthew's seat. So I'm the city attorney, so I'm prosecuting the cases. We should check to make sure that you all have not had any kind of, you know, conference with anybody affecting these, right? And we also want to make sure that any information you do have, you're sharing it. So everybody has the same information. So you're supposed to, every one of you is supposed to walk in here and base your decision on the same information. So if you've had discussions, we want to make sure that that's known. If you've looked at a document, we want to make sure everybody has that same information. But I also don't want you to do your own investigations because, you know, that's when we run into a problem. But you could be living in the same neighborhood as one of these houses. I'm sure you are. Or you may know the person, and there's nothing wrong with that. You just, hey, I've driven by this property for the last six months, and nobody's done anything. Okay? Now everybody knows that. That's good. That's fine. So we just want you to all base your decision on the same information. Can I ask a question before we adjourn really fast? Just regarding the fines that were going to be placed on that Airbnb property, is it now standard that we can't give fines, post-dated fines, basically? We'll be reviewing. Okay. On the process. Okay. Right. Now the basis behind that is the way the Florida statute reads is that, so I'm a violator. So you have brought me, and we honestly know that I've had a bunch of opportunities to fix this before I get before you. So now here I am, and guess what? The loss gives me another chance. Let's become before you because I'm presumed innocent, and you say, okay, here's a reasonable period of time. But how do you determine that reasonable period of time? Well, that's the information that the city is presenting to you. I talked to this person, and they said they would take care of it, but they haven't. Or I couldn't get in touch with the person. Why? We posted the property. We sent, we mailed it to the property. Oh, I don't come to that property. That's not the city's problem, right? Right. You own a piece of property. You're expected to know what's going on with your property. So we don't have to fine you in Hawaii. We have to just post your property. It's your responsibility. But are there mitigating circumstances? Sure, there are. So how do you deal with this? You deal with the fine because, remember, the fine is up to $250 per day. So you could really increase some of these fines depending on the issue. And number two is how much time is reasonable for compliance, right? Unless they're a health and safety issue, we'd probably look at 30 days depending on it, 10 days. It could all go on that. If it's health and safety, we ask for a shorter period of time. But those are the things that they should be presenting. The individual violator should be coming to you when they do and say, look, I need additional time because of this, this, and this. And you determine whether that's reasonable. The case that's presented to you, the competent and substantial evidence, that what you need to do is a general direction to the city, which we've heard today. What more do you need to make that finding? Because that should be the relatively easy part of the case. The easy part of the case is, yeah, the city proved up their case. We see a violation. This is the right section. Now what do you have to say as to before we tell you how much and how long? I have one last thing, if I may. And that is that you can go ahead first if you want to apply it. That's not the last thing. But on this, back to this lien reduction that you've provided data on and everything else, during discussion we had the motion was introduced to, like, to find the violation and everything. And I would have liked to have had more discussion on it. And so just as a courtesy to all of the board to make sure we get adequate discussion, because we ended up with a split ruling. Yes. And I hesitated, because I really had some other questions, and I wanted to try and gather some more data to make a fair evaluation. Because this was a very different one in that it was very one-sided from the homeowner, and it was difficult for me personally to evaluate what was really the fair thing to do. And we ended up voting before I got enough data, so I would respectfully request that before we make a motion, if it's okay with you guys as chair, I would like to make sure we've had all the discussion. I'd like to request a motion and give everybody the opportunity to speak, because this ended up being like a one-vote swing. One vote one way or the other would have accepted this or killed it, and it turned out very beneficial for the homeowner. And at the end of the day, I didn't feel right about leaving this guy with this horrendous lien when he was trying to sell a property. But we were making a decision, in my opinion, without enough data for me to make an attitude, so I would like to be able to gather enough data to make the educated decision. Well, two things. One, you control that by saying, I'm not ready to take a motion. But we had a motion in a second, and based, not to interrupt you, but based on earlier stuff, I mean, when we, I said, wait a minute, and you've indicated, I'm not blaming anybody, I'm just saying you've indicated we have a motion. Well, I mean, you could, right, okay, and I apologize. No, no, no, that's okay. No, we'll make sure that that's a little more clearer for that. The second thing I want, when you're thinking about this particular case, and maybe this is because, you know, I've been doing this so long, when the city tells me that or makes the comment that they're not objecting, okay, there's reasons behind that. And some of them are reasons based on what this individual said. It's not an unusual situation. We've had situations where somebody has come in compliance and just never knew that they were supposed to tell somebody or asked to be re-inspected or things like that. So we've seen those over there. That's not an unusual situation. And when you have an inspector who's gone, and we've had, it's been a while, but we used to have a little more turnover, the ball, it just falls through the cracks. So when you see a huge fine like that and you know what the violation is, that's not a surprising situation for somebody to come in and say, well, yeah, I did come in compliance. And I do get, I see what the city says. If the city was going, no, you didn't, or, you know, we contacted you and told you to, no. And other ones, when I hear the city go, eh, okay. That they're telling you that something happened, whether it's their fault or the other person's fault, it's, it's, they're not opposing to it. And when I look at these, again, especially for, like, my cities, I look at it as what is, what is our job? Our job is to get compliance. These fines are somewhat fictitious. You're not going to recover these fines. We recovered one big fine in all the years we did this for in excess of $400,000. Church's methodology. I wasn't going to say who was. I did. But that's the one big fine we've ever recovered, and that's because it just really didn't do anything, and it went on for a long period. And I just want to say something about this one. We did let go. Because the inspector was gone, there was just this huge amount of information we'd never have. So to me, it was kind of ridiculous to keep beating a dead horse. I just wanted to say that. Yeah, I think so. Because of that missing data. And they have, what, they have 15 minutes to present or something? Yeah. Because that happened more than passed. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we generally don't hold them to that. I think it's a courtesy. I suggested not long ago that we limit people to five minutes. But at the end of the day, if we're trying to gather data and understand, is that really a, I don't know. You gave people as much time as they needed. And you didn't, you know, it was a long meeting, but you gave everybody their ability to do this. And remember, that's the other part of this. You're giving individuals the opportunity for residents to come in and say their piece. Otherwise, the city could just take them to code enforcement at the criminal courts complex, where the judge won't even give them this much time, and then they'll do a fine. I tried to keep them out of the weeds, but anyway. I knew you were going to say something, but I would say one more thing, if you don't mind. You go first. You go first. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. So, I've just been kind of thinking through this in my head from, like, the city's perspective. And it's like, you know, when I'm not doing this board, I'm typically the city's development and, like, land use attorney. And, of course, with, like, land use approvals, you usually have, like, a recommendation from staff, like, for a particular development application, what we're looking for. Would it be helpful, since lien reductions aren't, like, your typical type of case, where either someone's in compliance or they're guilty or they're not guilty, would it be helpful for a lien reduction request to get, like, a recommendation from staff, maybe? You don't want to recommend anything? No? It would be helpful for this board. Yeah. That's what I'm thinking, because it's like, I mean, because it's like, well, is this something that the city supports, or is it not? And if we don't support it, why don't we support it? If we do support it, why do we? I think it just tests it. We generally have. We have asked for that in the past. But if we had that, like, in the actual item, you know, like. It would be nice to know that the city has had problems with this property or didn't have problems with the property. Right. I would say, generally speaking, before my time, the philosophy was always that the city would not want to recommend us to reduce the liens, purely because we are the ones that sought out the liens and the fines in the first place. I'm pretty sure that is the philosophy. I can't really speak to it, necessarily. It was before my time. However, if the board is looking for whether the city approves, generally speaking, we just say we don't object. To us reducing the fine, that's, you know, a little bit of a, I guess, not failed language. But it's like we don't object to reducing the fine. It means that we're okay with reducing the fine. However, I am happy to go speak with my management team about whether we're okay with basically giving a stamp of approval on the reduction. So, like, maybe like a no objection, like, statement or something. I'm just thinking out loud here because, like, the note's like, okay, well, this guy is standing up in here and wants a reduction. But how does the city go? I mean, generally speaking, the board asks whether the city objects, and we say no. However, if the board is looking for more information, then, like, you know. Well, I think you could solve the problem one way or the other. Either you have to give the board more information or you have to make a recommendation. Because the board either has to figure it out themselves or you have to help them in that. But in order to figure it out, it's time-consuming, right? Right. So, I think the more information we have behind it, then I think it will be more helpful. But if you came in and said, for example, we would like you to reduce this to $7,500 because X, Y, and Z, then the board wouldn't have to sit there and go, we have to figure out what X, Y, and Z is. You're telling them. So, that's the evidence they want to hear. Because this is, again, subjective. Yeah. Yeah, and that leads into my next point, Andy. It's like we don't have, like, unlike a development application, we don't have criteria that we're weighing the lien reduction against to determine whether or not we think it's a good idea or not. You could adopt some, and then you could, I mean, that's. I'm just thinking out loud here because it's like, well, if I'm sitting up there as a board member, like, well, how do I know whether this is good or not? Because I'm just. That's why this is the hardest thing that they do. Yeah. Because I remember when I was first doing this, like, years ago, and I was doing this with Nicole, we would just kind of do them on the back end, and these didn't even go to the board. Of course, we found out later that it's better to bring it here. Actually, we like the way you used it. I want to know how you found that out. That was after my time had changed. Are we still on TV? Yes. We're still in session. We're still in the sunshine. Let me just say real quick, though, that the whole goal is compliance, and so it's not did he, did they, what did they do, when did they do it, how did they do it. It's complied, and that's the ultimate goal. It's not to collect the money. It's not to do anything else but compliance, and so when they're here for the lien reduction, they are in compliance unless it's a stipulation agreement, and that's a whole other back. Well, part of my mindset is I'm trying to look at it and evaluate it and determine the merits of the reduction, does it merit a reduction, and I think we were today on the one because there was just so much missing data, and it's hard to wrap our head around it. But at the end of the day, regardless of the ball that got us here, the mess that got us here, it's in compliance, and that's what the ultimate goal is. I'm going to give you a compliment. A lot of the situation is very professional. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. It's an extremely good job. It's an interesting game. Do we have anything else? Yeah, we're tending to, we're either going administrative costs, and I think that's all I've ever seen, except for today somebody asked for something less, or something more than administrative costs, and we said okay. I think it just seemed to be better. That's kind of incongruent to me. I think they were confused with the numbers anyway. What are we doing? I understand what you said. If they're in compliance, we take it down to administrative costs. You take it down to whatever it is the board decides. Right, and if they're not in compliance, we're probably not going to see them up there. I don't know that we've ever seen them. It's very rare that you would see that. But, again, the whole idea of administrative costs is that the city's made whole. Right. So now the question is, in my mind, you are hearing why, what took so long, right? Right. You know, is it somebody that, I mean, we've had, after the hurricanes, you know, and we still have it, where people couldn't get contracted. Yeah. And so that was a reasonable basis. But we've also had cases and people that have come here frequently where they just come up with some excuse. Oh, I had to come and I couldn't, you know. So is that a reasonable one for you to reduce the same way as the person who's been trying? Right. You know, that's that unknown subjective part of it. I have one question regarding the reduction amounts. Is it always going to be, or are we always recommended to go as low as administration costs, or do we, as a board discussed, do we feel like they should. You just can't go below that. So when we tell you that, we tell you that's the lowest you can go. So whatever you want to do between that and the top number is up to you. We, in case, at Point had a case, no names or anything else, several months ago where I think we assessed the full $10,000 fine. Yeah. Because it was just, it was clear that the guy just didn't take care of business and didn't care. Right. And kind of thumb your nose, you know. So, you know, we've had those. And I think that, again, my point earlier was I want to gather enough data that I can make a fair evaluation. I agree as well. Because if they basically tell them the city to take a hike and not being responsible for their property, well, you know, it's not only our duty to get compliance, but in my mind, there's a certain level of responsibility that should be assessed there. Right. And that's being, to me, it's being judicious and fair. Oh, I agree. Like, look, you can't do this, you know. You're going to pay a penalty because you're not being responsible, and so next time be responsible. Right or wrong or otherwise, that's kind of my viewpoint about it. But to me, that seems fair. I agree. So are we going to schedule an outside board meeting, schedule it proper? I'm not leaving. I've just got to say. Okay. No problem to discuss. We will have it at your meeting because everything has to be done in the sunshine. All right. Anything else before we get out? I'm sorry. Well, we'll be a little more, yeah, we'll be a little more specific and get these ideas that you've talked about and get those things in place so that you can have what you need to make your decision. That's the goal here, right? Make sure that you have what you need so that you can make it, you're comfortable with the decision. All right. Good talk. One last comment I've got in May is I appreciate your due diligence on looking up that data. I think we all learned something about how best to approach that. What's that? We weren't supposed to look it up. Well, it was great, but don't do it again. I just want to acknowledge that because at the end of the day, we're trying to make a fair adjudication, and any data we can get is good. If any of these old cases, we should have all of the good case summary or something presented by the city, and I think we can get it. And welcome, Matthew. All right. Anything else before we get out? It's been an interesting experience. Going once. Going twice. We're adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. We're waiting.