City Special Magistrate for Code Enforcement, I'll be presiding in today's hearings, which will get underway in just a few minutes. Before we start calling the cases, we do have some preliminary matters to attend to. Let me first get the officers to identify themselves on the record, and we'll take the roll. Code Compliance Manager Danny Ron. Assistant Fire Marshal Samuel Schaller. Code Compliance Supervisor Mark Gibson. Code Compliance Administrative Supervisor Renee Kearney. Code Compliance Supervisor Todd Mead. Hearing Clerk Jessica Cotterman. Code Compliance Coordinator Tyler Russell. Code Compliance Officer Janice Pulasik. Code Compliance Officer Tina Pagan. Code Compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. Code Compliance Officer Joel Taylor. That'll be it, sir. All right, very good. At this time, let me ask everyone who's able to do so, stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me, if you would please rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. You may be seated. And at this time, let me just place on the record the following statement. I have received no ex parte communications regarding any of the cases on today's agenda. I have not discussed the substance or merits of any pending compliance or fire safety matter with city staff, code enforcement officers, property owners, or any other interested persons outside of the formal hearing process. I am prepared to hear and decide these matters solely on the evidence and arguments presented on the record today. And I have the minutes from last month's meeting. Are there any objections to the approval of the agenda and minutes from last month? Without objection, those are approved. Are there any other announcements that need to be placed on the record at this time, including withdrawn cases? Yes, Your Honor, there is. We'd like to withdraw case DEL 26077, case number DEL 26081, case number DEL 26082, case number DEL 26086, case number DEL 26084 A&B, fire 059-26084. Fire case number DEL 260-260-260-260-260, and fire case number DEL 260-260-260-260. All right. Very good. Thank you. And that brings us to what looks like 17 cases, including the three lean reduction cases. Let me get the officers and witnesses who are present sworn in at this time. If all of you who expect to give testimony in any of tonight's hearings, any of you who are expected to give testimony, Tommy, if you'd please raise your right hands for me, please. You swear, or from the testimony he'll give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, sir. Very good. And with those preliminary matters out of the way, we can begin calling the cases. Sir, before we begin, I just noticed there was an error on the withdrawal case. It should be DEL 26-083 instead of 86 for 3510 Patron Avenue. The number is 26-what? It'll be 26-083 instead of 086. All right. Very good. Okay. And we begin calling the cases. Your Honor, our first case will be DEL 26028. That's 927 Lauren Drive. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is a City of Deltona versus April Brockman and Lauren Drive Land Trust. Number 927-124-26 and Go Coastal, LLC. This case was brought to the Special Magistrate on September 22, 2026 and was given until August 21, 2026 to come into compliance. The property did not come into compliance by that day. The property was observed to have come into compliance on Tuesday, September 8, 2026. The property accrued a fine of $1,700 for a period of 17 days of noncompliance. The City is requesting that the fine of $1,700 be imposed to the property for the days of noncompliance. All right. Is there anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. So, I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence, and based on the exhibits and the testimony, we're going to enter an order imposing a lien and fine of $1,700 for 17 days of noncompliance following the compliance date of 8-21-2026 and ending on September 8, 2026 when compliance was achieved. Is there anything else the City needs on this case? No, Your Honor. No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26051. I'm just going to go with the parcel number. It's 8108-01010010 Avenue East. Your Honor, this is a Massey case. The City of Deltona v. Alpert-Roghe Estates. The address is listed here as AV-East Paper, Deltona, Florida 32725. This is a case for a fence installed to file the permit. It was ruled on August 26, 2026 that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $250 per day since September 26 of 2026. As of today, sir, the property has accrued a total fine of $8,250 over 33 days. The City requests the fine to continue at $250 per day until the property has come into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the Co-Compliance Department. All right. Very good. Is there anyone here for the property owner? No, sir. All right. So, I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. We're going to enter an order imposing the fine and lien. The accrued fine to date is $8,250, collecting 33 days at $250 per day, and that fine will continue to run at that rate until the property has been deemed compliant by the City. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, sir. Thank you. Okay, Your Honor. Our next case will be DEL 26053 A&B, and that's 820 Deltona Boulevard. Good afternoon, sir. I am Code Compliance Officer Thomas Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona versus Oaksville Property, Deltona, LLC. The parcel ID number is 803-614-000020. It was ruled on August 26, 2026, that a property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $100 per violation per day since September 26, 2026. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $6,600 over 33 days. The City requests the fine continue at $100 per day or per violation per day, and the property has been brought into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Officer Ruddy, is there anyone here for the property owner? There is not. I'll receive the City's exhibits. In this time, based on the testimony and the exhibits, I will oppose the interim order opposing the fine and lien. We, on this property, has accrued a total fine to date of $6,600 over 33 days of noncompliance at $100 per day per violation, and that fine will continue to run at that rate until the City deems the property in compliance. That fine, therefore, will continue to approve at $100 per day per violation. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, sir. There's not. Right? Y'all, our next case will be DEL 26056, and that's 2265 Revington Road. Hello again. I am Code Compliance Officer Thomas Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Eliana M. Orbegozo. The property ID number is 813-058-05-0060. It was ruled on August 26, 2026, that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $100 per day since September 26, 2026. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $3,300 over 33 days. The City requests the fine continue at $100 per day until the property has been brought into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Officer Ruddy, is there anyone here for the property owner? No, there is not. So I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence at this time. Based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'm going to enter the court opposing fine and lien, and the fine to date is accrued in the amount of $3,300 at the rate of $100 per day. That fine will continue to run at that rate until the City has deemed the property to be in compliance. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, sir. Your honor, our next case will be DEL 26057. That's 2985 Kiesler Street. Hello. I am Code Compliance Officer Thomas Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Ralph and Dorothy Campbell. The parcel ID number is 813-032-110-150. It was ruled on August 26, 2026, that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner did not come into compliance within those 30 days, and the property has been receiving a fine of $100 per day since September 26, 2026. As of today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a fine of $3,300 over 33 days. The City requests the fine continue at $100 per day until the property has been brought into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Officer Ruddy, is there anyone here for the property owner? No, there is not, sir. All right. I'll receive the City's exhibited evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I'll enter an order of imposing fine and lien in the amount to date of $3,300 at $100 per day for 33 days of noncompliance. That fine will continue to accrue at that same rate until the City has deemed the property to be fully in compliance. Is there anything else the City needs in this case? No, sir. Y'all, our next case will be DEL 26058 A&B, and that's 2289 Revington Road. Hello. I am Code Compliance Officer Thomas Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Antonio Salas, Jr. The parcel ID number is 813-058-050-100. It was ruled on August 26, 2026 that the property owner was given 30 days to come into compliance. The property owner came into compliance for violation A. Permit number BLDR 26-2800 was issued. No fine will be enforced on this violation. The property owner did not come into compliance for violation B within those 30 days, and the property has been given a fine of $250 per day since September 26, 2026. As for today, the property has not reached compliance and has accrued a total fine of $8,250 over 33 days. Yes, permit number BLDR 26-2646 has been applied for but is still in under review status. It was denied for multiple reasons and needs to be resubmitted. The City requests the fine continue at $250 per day until the property has been brought into compliance, and the compliance has been verified by the Code Compliance Officer. Thank you. Thank you. Officer Ruddy, is there anyone here for the property owner? Yes, sir. The property owner is here. All right. And let me hear from the property owner. Who do I have? My name is Antonio Salas. Mr. Salas, the City has presented testimony and evidence that the fact that one violation has been corrected and brought into compliance, thereby avoiding the imposition of fines, and the other one involving the permit required for the closed patio continues non-compliant. Did you want to respond to that? Yes, sir. First, let me ask, do you have any questions for the officer, Ruddy? No. I have been trying, I've been paying money that I don't even have. I'm 100% disabled veteran. And I've been borrowing money to pay an engineer that's come to my home since August, and I submitted the papers that these guys gave me, and it cost me close to $10,000 already. And they keep on saying that they haven't done their job, and I don't know what more to do. So I've been contacting these people. I call them. I text them. I try to, you know, tell them, hey, I need help. This thing has put a lot of strain on myself and my family, and I'm dealing with a lot of stuff, you know, that I have to deal with, you know, from the military also. And I think this is ridiculous that these people, I've been giving them the papers, and they've been doing these diagrams, and they come into my house and walk around everywhere and everything else. And then they send me the paper after I pay them the next $4,000, and I'm still going in circles. Okay. Well, I just made a little mess on my desk. All right. Well, so you're still in the permitting process, and you're trying to get the permit for the patio? Yeah. I've been doing the thing with the patio. I've given them already. First, they told me that the papers were not signed or stamped. Immediately, I went home. I texted the guy, you know, and these people dragged their feet, dragged their feet, and I told them, listen, every day they're going to be charging me $250,000. And it's like, it doesn't matter to them. And then they told me, well, we're working on it. We're working on it. Then I said, where's the things for the house? This was all supposed to be done together. You gave me a price, and all of a sudden, now it went up another $4,000 and change. And I just got the paper last week, last week since September, since September. And they told me, this should satisfy the city of Deltona. Well, it didn't satisfy anybody. And like I said, all it's done is put a lot of stress on me, and I deal with a lot of stuff, you know, as it is. And it's done a lot of things for my family, too. It's broken my family up. This thing has messed up my whole life, even more than I thought it was going to, and this is ridiculous. I've been here 27 years. I never had a problem with the city, ever, until now. Mr. Ellis, I'm going to apologize. I'm going to have to take about a five-minute recess here, and we'll resume. I spilled coffee all over my papers. I just have to clean this up for a second. Otherwise, I can't get anything done. So give me about five minutes. I apologize to everyone. I will be back in just a few minutes. Well, I've got to sit down, man. My foot, I burned my foot. Folks, can you hear me? Yes, sir. All right. So I apologize to everyone, and Mr. Salas, I apologize for interrupting you. I had to take care of a minor emergency here with my spilled coffee, which was unfortunately over all my papers and everything. But I am straightened out and squared away and ready to go. And, Mr. Salas, let me come back to you. You were in the middle of telling me about the difficulties you've encountered getting the permit for the patio. And let me ask you to go ahead and pick up. And, again, I apologize. Well, what I did was I was told that I had to get an engineer. So my brother-in-law, he helped me, you know, find one. And they come to the house, and then they made it, you know, they charged me a certain amount of money. And then when I brought the papers to the city, they told me it wasn't complete. Then they said it wasn't signed, it wasn't stamped, and then it didn't even include the enclosures and the patio. And I called these people up, and I told them, you know, I said, you guys are supposed to do this, this, and this. I sent you the papers that the courts gave to me. And so then all of a sudden I had to come up with another $4,000 and change to get this guy to come to my house again and did exactly what the other guy did, nothing. And I'm almost in debt right now up to close to $10,000. And then I brought the papers again to the city, and they said that they were not satisfactory either. And I don't know what to do. I don't know what to do. You know, I sent the papers again to this engineer guy, and I'm just waiting for a response. And I called them, and they don't pick it up. Well, Mr. Salas, in regard to the permit conditions and the issues of the permits, I'm really not involved in that. So that's through the building department typically. So what we have here is one compliant violation, one noncompliant. It sounds like you're working to bring the video into compliance and have run into some difficulties getting the permit. Do you have any idea how close to getting that permit you are or no? I don't have the slightest idea. I don't know about much about anything about this, what's going on with this thing. Okay. And let me ask Officer Ruddy, if you would, can you tell me again what the accrued fine is and the daily that's continuing to run? I think that was $250,000, and the accrued was – you can go ahead and remind me. I lost my note of this. Yeah, it was $8,250 at $250,000 a day. Okay, so, Mr. Salas, what I'm going to do – well, let me ask Officer Ruddy, do you have anything else you wanted to add or any questions for Mr. Salas? No, sir, not at this time. All right, so, I'm going to receive the city's exhibits and evidence, and based on the testimony from both parties, one, I'm finding that violation A is in compliance. There's no dispute about that. Two, that violation B remains noncompliant. Despite Mr. Salas' efforts and expenditures, that violation does continue, and that patio still needs to be permitted. So, I am going to enter the order imposing the fine, which has accrued in the amount of $8,250 at $250 per day and will continue to accrue at that rate until the city has deemed that property to be fully in compliance. Mr. Salas, what I would encourage you to do is what you – continue doing what you're doing to get that patio into compliance, and once that's done, we can – you can come back and seek to have the lien reduced, and we can have a hearing on that. It sounds like you've run into some difficulties, and that may be something I can consider in that context, but at the moment, there's really nothing I can do with that. I'm sympathetic, but the property does need to be brought into compliance in accordance with the previously standard order of finding violation, and so consistent with that, we do need to – Excuse me, Yarn. To continue right at this point. Yeah. He's left. He left, sir. Who's left? He's left the chambers. Oh, all right. Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but I guess I made my ruling then. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, sir. Okay, Yarn, our next case will be fire. Fire 044-2026, that's 1,000, Integra Mist Way. Evening, Your Honor. Evening. My name's Assistant Fire Marshal Sam Schaller. This is City of Deltona v. Integra Mist LP. Parcel ID number is 810-706-000055. This is a Massey case. This was initially a case for violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Code, Section 42186. Adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, as adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Specific to following violations. Violation A, NFPA 1, Fire Code, Chapter 13.1.8. All fire protection systems devices shall be maintained in a reliable operating condition, shall be replaced or repaired, were defective or recalled. Violation B, NFPA 1, Fire Code, Chapter 13.1.9. Whenever impairments, critical deficiencies, or non-critical deficiencies are identified in water-based fire protection systems maintained in accordance with NFPA 25, they shall be corrected in a time frame approved by the AHJ. Violation C, NFPA 1, Fire Code, Chapter 13.1.6. Tailed records documenting all systems, equipment, testing, and maintenance shall be kept by the property owner, and shall be made available upon request for review by the AHJ. Corrective action for the violations was as follows. Violation A, contact fire alarm service provider. Correct the deficiencies noted in the December 11th, 2025 Fire Alarm Inspection Maintenance Report in Buildings 2, 7, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 20. And to correct the deficiencies notated in the September 10th, 2025 Backflow Inspection Maintenance Report, Building 7. Violation B, contact your fire sprinkler system service provider. Correct the outstanding deficiencies of the fire sprinkler system in Buildings 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20. And Violation C, provide copies of semi-annual fire sprinkler inspection maintenance reports for Buildings 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 20. It was ruled on August 26, 2026. Property owner was given 30 days to comply. The property owner did come into compliance with Violation C within the allotted time frame. However, they did not come into compliance with Violation B until October 6, 2026 for a total of 11 days past the compliance deadline. With a fine of $200 per day for a total fine for Violation B of $2,200 until they came into compliance on the 6th. Violation A did not come into compliance in those 30 days, has been receiving a fine of $200 per day since September 26, 2026. As of today's date, Violation A has accrued a fine of $6,600 over 33 days. Today's date, Violation A is still not in compliance. In closing, City would like to request the one-time fine for Violation B of $2,200 due to the fact that compliance was achieved 11 days after the deadline. Would also like to request the fine of $200 per day for Violation A continue. Until such time, property owners notify the City of compliance and compliance is verified by a fire safety inspector. Very good. Your Honor, and if I could just zoom in a little bit on Violation A. So, Violation A, they did correct the deficiencies in almost every single building. The only exception is Building 13. I'm going to speak honestly. They were in a way misled by a sprinkler contractor that they could remove some devices that they actually couldn't. They're in the process of repairing it, but as of right now, Violation A, there still is a deficiency with Building 13. So, Violation A would still not be in compliance for that portion of it, but the rest of the violation was corrected. Just for a little bit of clarification on how much is outstanding. Okay. All right. Well, that's – well, it's unfortunate they're that close. I guess that's something that we might look at down the road in a lean reduction setting. At the moment, though, it's the City's position that they are not compliant. That's the Violation A if I'm outstanding, correct? Correct, Your Honor. Yeah. All right. And is there anyone here for the property owner? Yes, sir. Do I have to push a button here? No, I turned it on for you. You just lean into that mic. I was told by Fernando, our maintenance supervisor there, that the tamper switch was fixed today, and he just sent me pictures of it. So, I don't know if that will suffice with, like, proof that they're done. We'd need something from the sprinkler contractor that they're functional. So, that you actually have to go and inspect it again? They'll have to give us a report. Yes, ma'am, or a work order just showing they tested it and that it does work. Okay. So, can you repeat that so I can relay that? We would need a report or a work order from a sprinkler contractor or alarm contractor showing that they tested it and that it does work. And to clarify, then, that was the – because I got an email this morning from the owner, the tamper switches. That was the tamper switch that we were waiting on? Yes, ma'am, building 13. Okay. So, we need a report or work order that it was completed and tested. Yes, ma'am. By the sprinkler company. I'm just going to see if they emailed me that, if you don't mind. Would you mind if I texted him really quick to see if I could get my hands on that, if they left them? I don't know if they left them something there. I wasn't – I'll leave that up to the magistrate if he wants to stay up here while we wait. Let me get your name again. I know we met last time. Of course, my name is Lauren, L-A-U-R-E-N, Hendry, H-E-N, like Nancy, D, like David, R-Y. You're the manager? I'm the regional – I was the regional manager for that property. We no longer manage that property for them, but we were managing at the time, which is why I'm here again. Okay. All right. And this issue involving the tamper switch, that's the Building 13 issue that remains outstanding? Yes. It was completed today by Summit Fire – I have to look at the pictures – Summit Fire and Security. Okay. All right. And it sounds like the city needs to review that, inspect that, in order to deem that issue compliant, assuming – and hopefully it is compliant. What is it that you wanted to get via the text? I was just trying to get – I was just trying to see if Summit had left something there saying they completed and tested it, but all the maintenance supervisor had was a picture. They didn't – he said they didn't leave him anything. Oh, okay. I don't know why they wouldn't, but – Let's do this, as the city's going to need to look at it anyway to inspect it anyway to deem it compliant. It sounds like, from what you're telling me, that if it's not in compliance yet, it will be shortly, given the work that's been done there. At least that's your understanding? It's – he said it was all – yes, he said it was all fixed. But all he has is the pictures. They didn't leave him anything, he said. Okay. Well, we'll leave it to the city to inspect that and make that determination. Hopefully that is all wrapped up and done. So what I'm going to do is I'll receive the city's exhibits based on this testimony and the exhibits. I'll find first that violation C was timely brought into compliance. There's no fine for that. Violation B remained noncompliant for 11 days after the compliance date and accrued a fine of $2,200. So I'll enter the order imposing fine and lien in that amount. And as to violation A, also the violation remained and noncompliant through today's date. Hopefully it's – or about to be compliant, but has been accruing for 33 days a fine of $200 per day, which is totaled up to $6,600. I'll enter the order imposing fine and lien for that as well. So the total for the two to date would be $8,800, with that fine on violation A continuing to accrue at $200 per day. Now, my understanding is that that violation was substantially brought into compliance by today's date and may be compliant if what you've been told about the tamper switch is true. I think, therefore, that once this is fully in compliance, this might be an appropriate case to review in a lien reduction setting, but we'll have to take that up in another day. Did you have any questions, Ms. Hendry? Yeah, I do. I have – I know with the first one, I believe it was violation B, we had – we were working with Dynafire at the time, and they had ordered the parts to – or maybe it was A, I can't remember, to be honest now. They had ordered the parts to get that fixed and could not – said – could not get the parts until I believe it was the day that you were coming back to inspect, which was why we were behind in those days. So I don't know if there's any – and he said that he had called you, the name – his name is Chad from Dynafire, about the – The only – I've only ever had someone from Dynafire. I had to let them know about the code on the tamper switches, and I had someone call me and just say they had ordered the parts and asked for more time, but it was already after the first hearing. Okay. So there's no way to work on that first one since we had ordered – since it was in process? It's all out of my – it's all up to the magistrate. I guess I'd ask you – I guess I'd plead with you about it then since we – we were trying to fix it. I – you know, we did order the parts, but we can't produce the parts. It's someone else that's producing the parts for us. Right. And the way I would typically want to handle that situation, again, is through the lien reduction process where it's, I think, appropriate to look at these kinds of considerations to determine as a matter of equity and fairness based on the diligence that the owner has exercised in getting the work completed and other factors that might have, you know, caused delay beyond the owner's control to make adjustments to that fine. But in today's setting, I'm really just interested in finding out, you know, when the compliance was, how long was out of compliance. Those other issues I could look at in that different setting. And, again, from what you're saying, it sounds like that might be an appropriate thing to do. But I just assume take those issues up, you know, in that context. Understood. And what do we do from here then? Do you just send the property or the owner something again? Or am I going to have to go back and tell them to do something different besides just call you guys to come back and inspect? No, you just need to contact us once you have something that has been repaired. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So the total then would be $8,800? Correct. That's through today's date. And, again, once— With potentially a little bit more until it's inspected again. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Is there anything else the city needs on this one? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And thanks for coming in, Senator. Appreciate it. Next case. DEL 26059-2401 Dumas Drive. Good afternoon again, sir. I am Co-Compliance Officer Thomas Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Anthony Barnes. The parcel ID number is 813-045540170. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.7, which states accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, and walls, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective action for said violation is to repair or remove the fence. This case began on March 2, 2026, when a fence in disrepair was observed at this property. A notice of violation was posted on March 8, 2026, and a property owner was given until March 18, 2026 to come into compliance. In April 28, 2026, Officer 804 met with Mr. Barnes and explained the need to address the violation. As of today, the property is still in violation. The City requests 30 days, November 27, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine amount of $100 per day past this date. Thank you, sir. All right. Is there anyone here for the property owner? No, sir. All right. So, I'm going to receive the City's exhibits and evidence based on the testimony and the exhibits. I'm going to make a finding of violation with regard to the fence that is in disrepair. We're going to set a compliance date of 30 days out to November 27, 2026. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a daily fine of $100 per day on the day following that deadline and run that fine until compliance has been achieved by the repair or removal of the fence. Is there anything else that the City needs in this case? No, sir. Thank you. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26076 A&B, and that's 927 Lauren Drive. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I am Code Compliance Officer Janice Palacic. This is the City of Deltona v. April Brockman, Lauren Drive Land Trust, No. 927-124-26, and Go Coastal, LLC. Parcel ID number is 813-066-050-040. This property is being brought before the Special Magistrate for more than one violation. These violations are as follows. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 302.7, which states accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, and walls, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective action for said violation is repair or remove the structure, which is the pool enclosure. Violation B. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code, Section 302.7, which states accessory structures, including detached garages, fences, and walls, shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair. Corrective action for said violation is repair or remove the structure, which in this case is the fence. Violation A. This case originated on July 6, 2026, after a case for an unsanitary pool was closed. It was noted that the pool enclosure surrounding the pool was in disrepair and missing screens in multiple places. A door hanger was given with time to correct the violation. I then spoke with the property owner at the property while posting the notice of violation on September 15, 2026. She assured me that the enclosure would be fixed. On October 6, 2026, after not hearing from the resident regarding the screen enclosure being repaired, notice of hearing was posted to the garage door. As of today, October 22, 2026, in which I received a written email from the resident this morning, April, stating that the violation has not been corrected. Violation B. This case originated on July 6, 2026, after a case for a fence in disrepair. A door hanger was given with time to correct the violation. A notice of violation was posted to the property on September 15, 2026, after the fence was still not repaired. On October 6, 2026, notice of hearing was posted to the garage door. As of today, October 28, 2026, the property still remains in violation. The city requests 30 days, November 27, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $100 per day for each violation for a total of $200 per day past the aforementioned date. All right. So thank you. Are there, is there anyone here for the property owner? No, Your Honor. So I'm going to receive the city's exhibits and evidence at this time based on the testimony and the exhibits. I'll make a finding violation as to the two charges or violations stated in the notice, those being A, the violation A, the pool enclosure and disrepair. Violation B, being the fence in disrepair. We're going to set the compliance date for those violations out 30 days to November 27, 2026, with a daily fine of $100 per day for violation beginning to run on the next day following that deadline. Should compliance not be timely achieved, and therefore the cumulative fine would be $200 per day if both violations remain noncompliant after the deadline, is there anything else that the city needs in this case? No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26078. That's 2033 El Campo Avenue. Good evening, sir. Good evening. I'm co-compliance officer Tina Pagan. The City of Deltona v. Hooper-Steven. The parcel ID number is 813-00-429-0050. This is a violation of City of Deltona ordinance section 38-114, which states that storage of building material, commercial and industrial equipment materials, objects or waste relating to commercial or industrial uses or any equipment materials, or objects that are not incidental to a residential use, or objects that are not incidental to a residential use, shall be prohibited. Furniture outside must be designed to be placed outdoors or stored inside a cover structure. In addition, storage of materials relating to residential use, child's play toys, firewood, bush, logs, or any other material intended to be used in fireplaces or other permitted burning facilities shall be permitted only in the rear yard next to the rear wall of the home. Correction, corrective action, remove from property. This case was opened on August 22nd, 2026. I arrived on site and observed miscellaneous items on the driveway, wood panels, ladder, cooler, period. I left a door hanger with corrective action and my contact information. On September 5th, 2026, I arrived on site and observed lumber material on the driveway, posted a notice of violation for outdoor storage. On September 14th, Supervisor 805 granted Mr. Hooper an additional extension to get the property into compliance. On September 26th, 2026, I arrived on site and observed outdoor storage on the driveway. As of today, the property remains in violation with outdoor storage on the driveway. The city requests 14 days, November 11th, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $100 per day past the aforementioned date. All right. Thank you. Officer Began, is there anyone here for the property? No, sir. All right. So, I will see exhibits in evidence at this time, and based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'm going to make a fine in violation. As to the charge set forth in the notice concerning the outdoor storage of miscellaneous items or debris, we're going to set the compliance date for this violation out 14 days to November 11th, 2026, with a daily fine of $100 per day, beginning to run on the day after that deadline should compliance up the time we achieve, in which case the fine will run until the city teams the property will be fully in compliance. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, that'll be all, sir. All right. Y'all, our next case will be DEL 26079. That's 1400 Hayward Avenue. Good evening, sir. I am Co-compliance Officer Tom Ruddy. This is the City of Deltona v. Elson C. Marcel II and Scarlett Marcel. The property ID number is 813-038-360060. This is a violation of the City of Deltona ordinance section 18-5, adopting the latest edition of the International Property Maintenance Code section 304.6, which states that all exterior walls shall be free of holes, breaks, and loose or rotting materials, and maintained weatherproof and properly surface-coated where required to prevent deterioration. Corrective action for said violation is to repair the exterior walls and paint it with a proper treatment. This case began on July 21st, 2026, when the front exterior wall was observed to be in disrepair of this property. On September 1st, 2026, the property remained in violation, and a notice of violation was posted the same day on the front door. The resident was given until September 11th, 2026, to comply. On October 5th, 2026, the property remained in violation. There has been no contact from the property owners, and as of today, the property still is in violation. The City requests 30 days, November 27th, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fining amount of $100 per day past this date. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone here for the property owner? No, sir. All right. I'll receive the City's exhibits in evidence at this time based on the testimony in the exhibits. I'll make a finding of violation after the charge set forth in the notice, which concerns the disrepair, the need to maintain the exterior walls, and to make sure that there aren't any holes, breaks, or other rotten material. We're going to set the compliance date out 30 days to November 27th, 2026, and if compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a daily fine of $100 per day on the day following that deadline and run that fine until the City has deemed the property to be fully compliant by the repair of the exterior walls and the painting of those walls with a proper treatment. Is there anything else that the City needs in this case? No, sir. No, sir. Not at this time. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be DEL 26080. That's 1995 Montfort Lane. Good evening, Your Honor. Good evening. I'm Cucamites Officer Joel Taylor. This is the City of Deltona versus Picker Travis Allen and Kelly Picker Leslie Nicole. Parcel ID number is 813-049-050-120. This is a violation of the City of Deltona Ordinance Section 38-113B, Public Right-of-Way Violation. B is declared that the placement of plantings except grass and the placement of structures in the public-owned right-of-way is prohibited and is declared to be a nuisance and a violation. The City Manager or his design E or the enforcement official is authorized to remove abate plantings or structures placed in the right-of-way without prior permission. Corrective action for said violation is to remove this structure, railroad ties, landscape timbers from right-of-way immediately. This case began March 10, 2026, as a complaint reported reporting code violations with the City of Deltona. Respondent submitted for permit to keep railroad ties in place. The submission for the permit was under review, and on April 15, 2026, the Deputy Public Works Director came to the determination that the railroad ties would have to be removed. As of 10-28-2026, the violation has not been resolved. The City requests seven days, November 4, 2026, for the property to come into compliance with a fine in the amount of $50 per day past this date. All right, thank you. Officer Taylor, is there anyone here for the property office? No, sir. All right, so at this time, I'll receive the City's exhibits and evidence. Based on the testimony and the exhibits, I'll make a finding violation after the charge set forth in the notice, which concerns the placement of railroad ties or landscape timbers in the public right-of-way, which is deemed to be a nuisance. Those railroad ties will need to be removed to bring the property into compliance. We'll set the compliance date seven days out to November 4, 2026, if compliance is not achieved. By that date, we'll start running a daily fine at $50 per day and run that fine starting the day after the deadline and continuing until the City deems the property to be fully compliant. Is there anything else that the City needs in this case? No, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case will be Fire 055-2026. That's 3296 Graves Avenue. Evening again, Your Honor. Name is Assistant Fire Marshal Samuel Schaller. This will be the City of Deltona v. Mashmire Properties, 3296, Inc. Parcel ID number is 810-604-000-690. A violation of the City of Deltona ordinance, Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Codes, Section 42-186, which adopts the most recent edition of the Florida Fire Prevention Code, is adopted by the State Fire Marshal. In specific, the Florida edition of NFPA 1 Fire Code, Chapter 1.17.12.10. No construction work shall proceed until the AHJ has reviewed the plans for compliance with the applicable codes and standards and the applicable permits have been issued. Corrective action for said violations is to obtain an issued building permit for the construction of the new break room, include the walls, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical alterations. This case began on June 17, 2026, during a routine fire safety inspection. Fire Inspector Jerry Bailey observed inside the maintenance storage building that a break room had been constructed to include walls were put up, air conditioning, electrical. Upon review, permit was not issued for this new break room. Property was notified, permit was required, time to comply was given. Filed up inspections on August 6th, August 20th, August 27th. Found the break room still in place, and then as of today's date, found that there was still no permit issued for this location, and the build-out of the break room is still present. A permit was applied for on October 22nd, 2026. Yesterday morning, permitting just received a complete application package to begin the review process, but it has not been issued yet. City requests 30 days for property to come into compliance. It's a fine of the amount of $250 per day for the violation that exceeds past the aforementioned date. All right, very good. Is there anyone here for the property owner? I don't see them, Your Honor. All right. So I received the city's exhibits and evidence at this time. Based on the testimony and the exhibits, I will make a finding violation as the charge set forth in the notice, which concerns the construction of a break room without the necessary permit. We'll set the compliance date for correcting that violation 30 days out to November 27th, 2026. If compliance is not achieved by that date, we'll start running a daily fine of $250, and that fine of $250 per day will start running on the day after the deadline and continue to run until the city has deemed the property to be in full compliance. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, thank you, Your Honor. All right. Your Honor, our next case will be fire 061-226, and it's going to be 2196. I'm sorry. Correction. Case number is going to be fire 061-226-2026. Let's read. 2026. Case 061-2026. Okay. I got it straight now, Your Honor. It's going to be fire 061-2026, and that's for 2196 Howland Boulevard. Good evening again. Thank you very much. Evening. Assistant Fire Marshal Samuel Schaller, City of Deltona v. Circle K Stores, Inc. Personal ID number is 811-401-000030. It's a violation of City of Deltona Ordinance Chapter 42, Article 4, Fire Code Section 42-186, adopts the most recent edition of Florida Fire Prevention Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal, specific the Florida edition of NFPA 1 Fire Code, Chapter 1.7.12.10. No construction work shall proceed until the AHJs review the plans for compliance, applicable codes and standards, and the applicable permits have been issued. Corrective action for said violation is to obtain an issued permit for the installation of the new electrical located on the front of the building. This case began on September 22, 2026. Conducting a routine fire inspection, Inspector Jerry Bailey observed a newly installed electrical receptacle on the front of the building. Upon research, no permit had ever been issued for the electrical on the front of the building. Property is notified of the violation. However, this matter is actually a repeat of a formal case that was brought before the special magistrate, Fire 014-2025, which occurred at another property, but is owned by the same owner. So in closing, Your Honor, the property did obtain an electrical permit on October 15th. So about three weeks after we found the work without permits, they did get a permit, applied for it, and had it issued. But due to this being a repeat of Case Fire 014-2025, according to Statute 162, Section 6, the city would like to request a one-time fine of $2,400, rate of $100 per day from September 22nd to October 26th for a total of 24 days. All right, that's – is anyone here for the property, Your Honor? No, Your Honor. All right, so received the city's exhibited evidence. I'm going to make a finding of violation consistent with the evidence presented that the work – the electrical work was done without a permit and was corrected after notification of the violation and corrected 24 days after that point in time. Because this is a repeat violation, which I will also find based on the evidence of the order issued in Fire 014-2025, last year's case, we have the same violation, different property, same owner. We will find this to be a repeat violation so that we will impose the one-time fine. Notwithstanding that the property is now in compliance, we will – we will, pursuant to the statute, impose that fine for the 24 days without compliance after notice of the violation. So that fine accrued in the amount of $2,400 at $100 per day for that 24-day period. So, in addition to the finding of violation, we will impose a fine in that amount. Is there anything else the city needs in this case? No, Your Honor. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Your Honor, our next case is going to be DEL 22177-178-2123 Saxon Boulevard, and it's for a lien reduction. So, 22177 and 22178? This is the Saxon Boulevard cases? Yes, sir, Your Honor. Okay. All right. And do we have the requesting party? Sir, I don't see anybody here representing the property. Just so I'm clear, this is the lien reduction case, correct? That is correct. I'm not sure how I can do a lien reduction without the requesting party here. Do you all want to present the case, or how do you handle it when the owner doesn't appear, the requesting party doesn't appear in a reduction case? We usually hold off presenting the case unless, you know, if the owner has – we people want the owner present for a reduction. Right. Well, let's do this, and again, I'll just – the city have any objection to continuing this to the next agenda then? That's no problem, sir. We'll do that. And let's make a note that – I guess the property owner did not file a motion to continue. There's nothing in the file for that effect? No. We're okay presenting at the next hearing. Okay. All right. I just want to make a note of that. So, if they don't show up again, we might have to do something about that. But we'll put it off until next month, this time. Thank you, sir. All right. Okay. Yon, our next case will be DEL 16245. And it's the repeat of DEL 16-165 for fine reduction. Do we have the requesting party? They are on Zoom. Yes. Right. Who's here for the owner? Is this 829 Westline Avenue? I want to make sure that I have the right case. Yes. Okay. May it please the court? I apologize. I've been here for quite some time listening. Yes. And can I have your name, please? Yes. Attorney Patrice Scott. I am the counsel of record for the subject property owner. All right. I'm a Solomon Scott Lawsroom. Okay. Let me do this. Let me ask the city to start off by giving me just an overview of the situation here. I don't remember the case. And it may not have been my – I might not have heard it. And then I'm going to turn it over to you, Scott, to present the case for the reduction. As you are probably aware, in lien reduction cases in the city of Deltona, as the special magistrate, my authority, is limited to making a recommendation to the city commission, which will take final action in the matter based on the record and my recommendation. But let me ask the city if I could get just an overview, and then we'll turn it over to Ms. Scott. Okay. Good evening, Your Honor. I'm Code Compliance Officer Mark Gibson. The property owner is Jenny Tai Cho. Parcel number is 813-066-170060. The property address is 829 West Lion Avenue, Deltona, Florida, 32725. This will be a hearing for a request for lien fine reduction. This hearing will be covering case DEL 16245, a repeat of DEL 16165. This case began on May 24th, 2016, for an unsanitary pool. The property was posted with a notice of violation on May 30th, 2016, with a re-inspection date of June 20th, 2016. At the time of the re-inspection, the property was not in compliance. On July 27th, 2016, the case was brought to the special magistrate, and an order of non-compliance was issued. The case was then brought back to the special magistrate on August 24th, 2016, for non-compliance. A fine of $50 a day, effective September 29th, 2016, was imposed to run until compliance or a cap of $10,000 is met. The case was found to be in non-compliance on October 3rd, 2016, and was brought back before the special magistrate as a repeat case. On November 22nd, 2016, there has not been any communication from the property owner, and an email was received on September 3rd, 2026, from legal representation for Ms. Cho, requesting documentation for lien request reduction. Defined capped out on April 17th, 2017, at $10,000. The city's investment costs, the city's operational costs for the case, DEL 16245, repeat of DEL 16165, is $1,858.40, reflecting the administrative and operational expenses incurred by the city, including, but not limited to, code officer hours, administrative staff processing, and the city's vehicle time. The city's recommendation is, the city does not have any recommendations at this time, and requests full recovery of the $10,000 in outstanding fines owed by the property owner. All right, thank you, Officer Gibson. Let me ask Ms. Scott to go ahead and present the case for reduction. I did ask for a reduction, Your Honor. Your Honor, what I did was I presented the facts, as well as the statement of claim from my client, and I submitted it way in advance of this particular hearing so that the committee and yourself had an opportunity to review before today's hearing. But I will go ahead and present what we do have. Your Honor, your Honor, the facts are this particular case arose from the violation of the maintenance codes under Section 303.1, which requires that swimming pools be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and good repair. However, there was a hearing that was held on August 24th, 2016. There was an issue of a fine imposed of $50 per day, and there was a penalty, which was executed on August 24th, 2016, and recorded. Also, there was a notice of code violation dated October 3rd, 2016, directed correction of the same for the pool. However, I want to point out some key issues. Number one, the notice was actually addressed to 829 Westland Drive rather than the property address, which is 829 Westland Avenue, and the property owner never received the actual notice. So that's why there's been a lag of any sort of communication. It was mailed by certified mail on November 3rd, 2016, and posted at the property on November 6th, 2016. There was a hearing, and then it was recorded. There's a total amount that the city is asking for, which is capped at the $10,000 request. We are asking for a full abatement. The county, the city does have an authority to reduce the fine under Section 162.092-C, Florida Statutes. It provides an enforcement board may reduce the fine imposed pursuant to the section, and that authority is vested here, Your Honor, as a special magistrate. And the statute imposes no time limitation on the exercise of this authority. Some of the factors that we want to be considered are the gravity of the violation, any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation, any previous violations committed by the violator, and each particular factor supports a substantial reduction here for this particular case. Some of the factors we would like this court to consider include the following. The gravity of the violation was very low. The violation consisted of algae and untreated water in a below-ground residential swimming pool. The city's own exhibits depicts the pool situated within an enclosed scream enclosure, and the stated concern was that there was standing water and mosquito larvae. The record does not contain any allegations of any danger, no injury to any person, no third-party complaints. There were no findings that were made that the violation was irreparable or irreversible in nature, and the condition was a maintenance nuisance, and it was fully and inexpensively curable. By comparison, an accrued fine of $10,000, approximately to 8% of the 128 just value assigned to the entire property on the tax roll with these proceedings, is disproportionate to a pool maintenance violation. B, the respondent has fully corrected the violation. The violation has been abated, and compliance has been confirmed by the city's own code compliance manager. The pool is currently clean. There's no other code compliance cases that are open against the property or the respondent. Taxes on the property are current, and there's nothing further for the respondent to do. I'd also like to mention that this particular respondent has no material history of previous violations. The only prior matter is case number DEL 16-165 itself, of which that was designated a repeat, but the respondent has no other code enforcement history with this city. Significantly, the prior special magistrate imposed a fine of only $50 per day, which is a fifth of the $250 per day maximum, then authorized under Section 162.092-A for a first violation. It also reflects the magistrate's own contemporaneous assessment that the gravity of this violation fell at the low end of the spectrum. We also would like for this court to consider equitable considerations. The city obtained an immediate abatement remedy and declined to use it. In fact, on November 22, 2016, the special magistrate expressly authorized the city to treat the pool for mosquitoes and to bill the respondent for the cost. It's a very modest cost, and had the city exercised the authority it sought and obtained, the public health concern it identified would have been eliminated in 2016 at a very nominal cost, and this application would be completely unnecessary. The city also took no enforcement action for more than nine years. The fine reached its cap on or about April 17, 2017. In the nine years and five months that followed, the record before the special magistrate reflects no re-inspection of the property, no foreclosure action, no suit to recover monetary judgment, and no communication of any kind directed to the respondent. A fine imposed under Chapter 162 is coercive in purpose and exists to compel compliance. Once that cap was reached in April of 2017, the fine ceased to solve any coercive function whatsoever. Any additional day of noncompliance carried no consequence, and the city's decision to take no step for the following nine years confirms that it perceived no ongoing hazard requiring its attention. In that posture, enforcing the full $10,000 a day is purely punitive. Actual notice never actually reached this particular respondent. After a review of the city's own exhibits, it established that at least six certified mailings addressed to the respondent at the property, dating between July 26 and December 26, were returned by U.S. Postal Service, returned, returned to sender, unclaimed, unable to afford, not deliverable, and unable to afford. Not one certified mailing was ever delivered or certified for. At the same time, the city's own case activity history identifies the owner's address, and that address is 3093 Glenridge Circle, Merritt Island, Florida, 32953. The city did not send anything to that particular address. The notice of code violation was actually addressed at 829 Westland Drive rather than 829 Westland Avenue. And as to the August 24, 2016 hearing, the hearing at which the fine now issue was imposed, the materials furnished to the respondent had no affidavit, no photograph, evidenced in posting at the property or at City Hall. And the respondent did not receive notice of notice of that hearing, was unable to appear because she received no evidence and had no opportunity to cure before the run date of September 29, 2016. Now, I'm not seeking review of the underlining orders. The time for the appeal has already run, and so we're not going to address that. But I do raise those as actual issues that bear directly on the equities of the amount now sought, which is a fine that is occurring at $10,000. We are asking that there be a reduction of the fine or in the alternative that it not to exceed $2,000. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Ms. Scott. And I do have your submission here as well in the materials, so I will read that. Is there anything else that you would like to present? No, Your Honor. All right. Right. Very, very good. Does the city have anything else on this case? Yes, Your Honor. I'd just like to state that on our record, we checked with Volusia County property appraisers, and it says on the 2014 tax roll, the mailing address at the time when we sent our information was to 829 West Line Avenue, Deltona, Florida, 32725. In other words, you're saying that the city sent the notices to the address on record in the property record card? Yes, and it stayed like that until 2017. Okay. All right. Very good. Ms. Scott, did you have anything else or any questions? We just wanted to know whether or not we would be able to find out what the order would be tonight? Well, not tonight. I should have a ruling for you fairly soon, but in these lien reduction cases, it is my practice to take the matters under advisement so that I have an opportunity to read through everything. This case was decided a long time ago, so I don't have any familiarity with the underlying enforcement action or actions. I do want to take a look at the files, and, of course, you've got a 17-page memorandum that you filed as well, which I didn't see before tonight's hearing. Again, I typically don't look at the exhibits before the hearings, but I will review it, and that's why I take these under advisement so I can take a closer look at the written materials and have a better opportunity to assess all the relevant facts and so that I can put together a written order that takes all that into account and walks through the factors that are to be evaluated in supporting any reduction that might be recommended. So I will have it for you soon, but it won't be tonight. I usually do try to get them out within about a week, so that's my intention. Sometimes they get backed up. I've got reduction orders for a number of jurisdictions, and they sometimes take a little longer than the other cases, but I will get it to you further soon. I do have one more thing that I would like to add just for the benefit of my client who was unable to be here because she's out of the country, which is why I'm here representing her. Your Honor, she did take painstaking steps. As soon as she did find out that there was a fine that was looming, she had no idea that this had actually occurred. Because contrary to what has been testified on the other side, she was not receiving notices. And she did take the financial steps to not only hire our firm, but we also conducted significant investigation on the matter. And she did remedy the pool on her own accord as well. So I do want those factors to be taken into consideration. She did what to the pool? She got it in compliance, I don't know. She got it in compliance, Your Honor, and she also was the one that took the financial burden to get it into compliance. Okay. All right. Is this a rental property? This is a property that she rents, yes. Yeah. But she, yeah, she rents it out. Okay. All right. Very good. Well, as I stated, I will take the matter under advisement. I will have a decision for you, hopefully, in about a week, and you'll get that in right. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thanks for coming in, and you're free to go. Mr. Scott, thanks a lot. I think we've got one more lien reduction. Yes, yes, you may. Thank you. I'm sorry to leave you standing there. I couldn't see you. Next case will be fire, 0032-2024. It is a lien reduction case. Good evening again, Your Honor. Good evening. Assistant Fire Marshal Sam Schaller. I've got the property owner's representative here with me as well. All right. He's come in, requested a lien reduction in this case. I apologize. I don't have a report nearly as detailed as Mr. Gibson's for the case, but, and Mr. Scott, you can correct me if I get any of the dates wrong. This was initially heard back in July of 2024. It's a work without permits case in a hair salon. We had a wall put up, some electrical, and a little bit of plumbing. It was heard before the magistrate, I believe, in July 2, 2024. The fine was then imposed on September 25, 2024, at their Massey hearing, where it was found that they weren't able to comply and didn't obtain a permit. The violation was left open for about two years, Your Honor. Once we sent out a notification to the property owner and he found out from the building department that there was the running fine on the property, he did immediately contact our office. We immediately went, met at the property, discussed what needed to be finished permitting, and then the permit was applied for within two or three days of us meeting, and then it was issued within a day or two of you applying, right? Yes, sir. Your Honor, and also, for what it's worth, Your Honor, after the July 2, 2024 hearing, we did immediately meet on site, again, three or four days after the hearing with Mr. Scott, with the business owner, with their contractor, and their engineer. We discussed everything that needed to get permitted. A permit was submitted. There were a handful of issues with the drawings that needed to be corrected. It went through a few review cycles, and then I don't want to speak to Mr. Scott's accord. There was an issue. The contractor simply fell off the face of the earth. We stopped receiving responses from the contractor in the plan review process, and then after about a year passed by, the contractor came into the building department and canceled the permit. So there definitely were numerous attempts to correct this violation, and then, again, as soon as the property owner discovered that they still had this outstanding manner, it was taken care of within a matter of days. And then I do have also a staff cost worksheet that we went with the estimated approximate staff cost that we can present, but I'm sure you may want to hear from Mr. Scott as well, his side of the story. Mr. Scott, are you ready? Okay. Yeah, thank you for the time to hear. I'm representing the property owner. I'm the property manager on site. We thought this – actually, I thought this was all being taken care of by this contractor that was hired by the young lady that owns the hair salon. And it was a – Can I get your – let me get your name. Oh, yeah, Wayne Scott. All right, Mr. Scott. Go ahead. Okay, and so we thought this was – it was over. There was nothing else going on. It was all taken care of. The contractor that the young lady from the hair salon hired, he was in there, and he was – all we knew was that he pulled a permit and was being taken care of in 2024. And then we got a notice to come in late – I think it was like November, November of 2024. But then the permit was pulled, so it was like a back and forth. And then it was like never heard anything else that the permit was pulled and was being worked on, and we just thought it was a done deal. So I had worked in the plaza, and I've seen the captain, who I appreciate his time too. And there was other things that were going on in the plaza that I would take care of as soon as he had let me know or the expectors let me know. He even said himself – he sent me an e-mail that, you know, we appreciate your work with you, Mr. Scott. You rectify things immediately. And I do. As soon as anything's found out, it's a done deal. It's done. I don't sit on it. And it was just recently that in 2026 that another tenant over there in the Bulldog Pub had called me because he was getting a permit to do his hood over, and he said, there's a permit freeze in your plaza here. And I said, why? I had no idea. So he told me there was something going on with Unit 12. I got in touch with the young lady. She didn't even know that there was something going on. She thought that the contractor had done what he was supposed to do when he was supposed to do it. So as soon as I found that out anyway, I contacted the captain, and I contacted the building department, and we immediately got together. We got the – the owner gave me the go-ahead, any resources that I needed to pay. He already invested $7,000 to get this resolved immediately to pay for the plans and what had to be done. And anyway, we took care of it. As soon as we found out about it in, like, early September of 2026, within two or three weeks, it was done. We finished it off. And again, thanks to the captain and inspectional services, we were able to get it done. So we just didn't know. It was just because the contractor was in and out. It was like we just had no idea this was going on. All right. Ms. Scott, anything else? That's really it, yeah. Let's see what – get your paperwork here. Okay. I see you've got a written submission here that has some details. I just want to make sure that you get in front of me everything you want me to consider. Are there any other facts that you want to tell me about or any of the circumstances? I'm sorry. My hammer is not so good. I'm sorry. I just want to – yeah, I see you've got a written submission here, which I will read your written request. I just want to make sure that you've had a chance to say everything that you want to say so that I'm fully informed. Yeah. I mean, the bottom line is we just didn't know. The owner didn't know that this was outstanding all this time. As soon as he found out through me, when I found out through the tenant in unit number one, he immediately took care of it. So if we knew about this right away, if the contractor that was originally in there, he was going in and out, whatever he was doing, if we knew that this was the case back in 2024, we would have taken care of it back then. It was just that we just didn't know. Okay. And that's it. And I thank the – again, I thank the captain and inspectional services because they worked with us to get it resolved very quickly. Okay, very good. So I will, as I do in all of these lead reduction cases, take the matter under advisement so I have a chance to look through all the documentation, including the file from the underlying case, and kind of get up to speed as to what happened and have a chance to go through in greater detail the written submissions that you presented as well as the testimony you've given. I do try to get these out fairly quickly. I would hope to have it to you within about a week, and you'll get an order in writing that will go through the facts and evaluate those facts against the factors to be considered in deciding whether and to what extent the fine should be reduced. Do you have any questions? No, I'm all set. All right. Does the city have anything else? No, Your Honor. Just to – every single time we did have an issue out here at this property, it was immediately addressed. It was just this one permitting issue seemed to have a – kind of a lack of better words, a communication breakdown. Right. That's helpful to know as well, and I will take all that into account. Mr. Scott, thanks for coming in. Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate your presentation. I appreciate your time. You're free to go. All right. Thanks a lot. Yeah, have a good night. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. You too. All right. Is there any other business on tonight's agenda that we need to look at? No, sir. Thanks. Well, I will get these lien reduction orders, these two out as soon as I can. It's in about a week. And with regards to the other matters, I will – if you will put some draft orders or proposed orders in the file, I'll take a look at them. I can get those turned around pretty quickly as well. If there's no further business, if there's no further business, we're adjourned, and I will see you next time. Have a good night, sir. All right. You too. Take care. Take care. Take care. Take care. Take care. Take care. Take care.