Good afternoon. I'd like to call to you. Order the couldn't force my special magistrate hearings for the city of Lake Alford from May 15, 2025. My name is Joe Mawani. I service the special magistrate for the city. First thing I'd like to ask you to do today, if you got your cell phone with you, please make sure that the ringers cut off so that they don't interrupt our proceedings. With regard to our proceedings, we'll take the cases in the order that they appear on the agenda. The code enforcement officer will present the case on behalf of the city. And once the city has concluded their presentation, I will then take testimony from the owner of the property, the owner for representative, or anyone else who's here who has an interest in the matter. Once I've heard all the evidence and testimony, I will then make a decision. In the event that cost or assess, the city cost or assess, those will be payable within 30 days of today's day. If you're planning on giving testimony today, you're going to come up to the microphone and speak. If you would, please take note that this time, if you raise your right hand, do I solemnly swear a firm that the testimony give today will be the truth and the whole truth. I do. All right, thank you. First action item is the approval of our March 20th, 2025 minutes. Reviewed those are an actively flexion of what transpired that day so they will be a part of the permanent record of these proceedings. With regard to the record of the proceedings, everything that's in the agenda pack that will be a part of the permanent record unless there is an objection, and I rule that it should be excluded. Our first case on the agenda case number CE 2025-0010 has been withdrawn. So the first case for hearing today is case number 2024, 0, 0, 0, 6, 5. This is property located at 1535 Ridgeback Lane. If you are the owner of that property, if you would, when you hear the address of your property, call that if you'll just come on up to the table here, please. All right, Mr. Watson, you can have a seat if you'd like. Mr. Watson, if you'll present the case on behalf of the city, please. Case number 2024-000065, located at 1534 Ridge back lane, decided for the following codes, section 106.3 declaration of the nuisance, demand for correction from the NPMC, section 1422 permit requires lay out for code of ordinances. Notice the violation with on 12, 19, 24. Inspection day was 12, 18, 24. Reinspection day is 05, 0125. Days allowed for the correction with 134 days. After the day of the violation, let's file 125 service of notice and process for soon-for-final law. Public postings that have required. Approximately 225 linear feet of six foot tall by offense is solved without permits. I'm going to get a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a approximately 225 linear feet of six foot tall by offense is solved without permits. Picture taken at the time of posting confirms fence has not been removed and it's solved in properly without permits. It does not meet setbacks for the height of offense. Approximately 225 feet of six foot tall fence is all without permits and this is the record summary. Notice to the homeowner, the permit was ready and it could have been paid for online. No fence was installed in December of 24 without permit. That was the first notice. Final notice that the fence was installed without permit and final notice, depending on action, if permit was not paid for, and inspections completed, was provided on 03 27 25. SAF recommends finds violation exists for all 30 days and $50 per day find their after awarded administrative cost of $98.88 and administrative cost to be paid within 30 days. Okay, and for clarification, for my benefit is I understand your testimony, even if the permit had been pulled the offense as installed would not meet the requirements. The permit was never paid for or picked up after several notices by the city. Okay, but I thought I understood you to testify that it did not meet setback. That is correct. So even with the permit there would still be a violation. That is correct. Okay, but at this point the only violation that you are seeking to cite property is the fact that no permit was reported. Correct. Once an opponent has pulled the inspector and go out and look at it, is his ex-foot with the parameters of a four foot fence as all of this allowed it. That was ridiculous. in the look at it, is it six foot fence within parameters of a four foot fence, as all this allowed it, that would take the left position. The building inspector is here, in required to testify. Okay. Well, since we're only on the issue of the permit, you've testified that no permit was pulled so I don't think Erbians and Ace factions right okay all right anything else from the city no okay good afternoon would you state your name for the record please my name is Chris the Burnt Aaron go nice and Mr. Gohmejier one of the owners of the property is that correct yes okay. Okay. You've heard the testimony by the code enforcement officer. What would you like for me to take into consideration today on this case? First of all, if there are, if I am fully under any violations, I would like to fully take responsibility. I'm not here to plead any case. I mean, it is my first home that I purchased at the age of 24 years old, you know, with the grace of God, that helped me with my family. Under my belief, they're with the person who contacted me that was within the company that filled the banks, told me that everything was good to go. They provided me with some documents that I do have in my email with images of documents. And I'm a lot of accounts of reading the documents that I earlier did, basically, to present them to the court, saying that the permits were good to go. And once we received a notice from the city, saying that the thanks was violation, I get contact that person once again to see if they could resolve any issues because they under him, I was under the belief that everything was good to go. I had known that the fence was taller than it was supposed to be or to have a bigger and if not, supposed to be. I would have told them not to even install it in the first place. So you contracted with a private company to install the fence for you and did it with the assumption that they do everything that they would have to do in terms of, and did it with the assumption that they would do everything that they were supposed to do in terms of pulling permits Correct before installing a fence. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Well, what the city's asking is that you be given 30 days in which to get the permit pulled That will not necessarily take care of all the problems because once the permits pulled and there's an inspection if If, a code of force from officers indicated that the fence does not meet code, then that'll be a second problem. But that's not what we're here for today. So what I'm going to do is I am going to find that, excuse me, I am going to find that there's a violation with regard to the failure to pull the permit. You'll be given 30 days to pull the permit. If it's not pulled within the 30 days, then a $50 day fine will start to run. Okay? So be mindful of that. And once you have the permit pulled, you need to be communicating with code enforcement. So they will be aware of where you are with things I'm also assessing the city's cost by the amount of ninety eight dollars and eighty eight cents and those costs are payable within thirty days of today's day okay so congratulations on being in a homeowner but this is part of what comes with it sometimes. Thank you so much. Good luck to you. All right. Thank you. You guys have a great day. All right, for take care. So, again, for the record in that case, it'll be 30 days for compliance or $50 day fine, and $98.88 in cost, assets, and payable within 30 days. The next case, shown on the agenda for property located at 260 West Interlocking Street has been withdrawn. Next case, case number CE 2025, 0, 0, 0, 1, 5 property located at 380 South Echo Drive. Anyone here on that case? Good afternoon. Mr. Watson, if you'd like to present, please. Case number CE2020-5 one, five, located at 380 South Act of the Drive, was cited for the following. Section 106.3 Declaration of Adonious and Stamaine for Correction, minimum property payments go to Section 1422 permit required from the Lake Alfred Code of Ordnance. Some Southwood was issued 11-21-22. Notice the violation initially was 11-23-22. Inspection date of 12-18-24, Reinspection date of 050-125. Days allowed for correction, 134. Appetite or violation of 50125. Service of process notice. Person of the Florida law. Public postings as required. When I entered the house was in the process of being reconstructed inside structurally plumbing, electrical work, and progress. By persons from out of state, houses were bought, side unseen, according to the workers there. No permits were issued for the any of this construction. Examples of some of the work in progress and required permits for section 1422 of the LAC. The workshop order was posted on 11, 21, 22. A contractor was hired on 3, 23, after the first contractor with drew so I closed violation number 2022-0065 and reopened. The case has CE 2020-5-0-0-0-1-5 and you contract contractor was hired and submitted for permit application on 090323 and withdrew his application on 09923. In this picture, this was taken into 9523. No work was in progress at this time. After the contract with real-is permit application, the property owner completed all the remaining construction and remodel and including structural electrical and plumbing prior to 05-0125 without permits or any required inspections. Given the extensive work done inside the house without a single inspection taken place, from the code enforcement position, I would prefer the electric and water be disconnected from the property to prevent possible fire hazard and occupation until such required permits and inspections take place. Staff recommends finding the violation exists allow 30 days and $50 per day, the award administrative cost of $100.90 to 90 cents, and administrative cost paid to be paid within 30 days. Is this my character? You're working. Is the city's building official in attendance? Yes, he is. Yes, he is. Perhaps your honor might be advantageous to have the building official provide us with detail and information as related to the building code. And what the violations of the building code may or may not be on for the property. OK. Before we get to that, I want to be sure I understand. There was testimony about a previous case, 2022. That's correct. And when I initially found this house to be under construction, I put a stop word for it on it. They did stop work at that time. They did hire a contractor, but he didn't follow through. And he left the job. So then another contractor came on site and was going to pull a permit for him. And then he withdrew his permit application on, I it was 919 Okay, so and so there was never a permit or inspections done for any of the work that's been done in those house Okay, so was this I see we have a special warranty D They did 4th of 2022. So the violations that were cited in 2022 were those for actions that were taken prior to the conveyance in November or was that after the present owner took possession. That was some best of my knowledge. When the owners came down, they bought the house, sight unseen from what I understand. And they sent some people down from New Jersey to remodel the house. None of them had a license. None of them had permits. And none of them at that time spoke, English that I could communicate with. Okay. Well, and I don't know that it really matters since you close that case out. I'm just trying to identify the players. At all the point I stated that is to let you know how long this has been in progress. The city has worked with a number of contractors to try to get this house compliant. And then I drove by and I saw that the house was absolutely done and there was furniture inside the rooms. Okay. At least a chair and a bed was leaning up against the wall and there was boxes outside. This sounds appeared to be occupied without any inspections or permits. Okay, well let's go ahead now then. I just needed clarification from my own benefit. Let's go ahead and get the testimony of the building official. I am not the building official first. I'm the building inspector inspector. I'm sorry. So as Mr. Watson said, I just want to, would you please state your name for the record? Tinniti, I believe. The inspector is sitting like Alfred. And how long have you held that position with the city like Alfred? I'm you do help that position with the city like Alfred? I'm very in a half years with the city like Alfred and what What educational background do you have indoor certificates to hold that qualify you to act in that capacity? I am certified by ICC and the state of Florida as a building inspector as a commercial building inspector and as a residential building inspector Thank you. So as Mr. Watson stated, we're doing extensive work and code enforcement. Notice that there was work going on and we put a stop work water on the job and we spoke with a few of the contractors that were going to do the work on their jobs but nothing ever got inspected and down the permit has expired from the best of my knowledge the permit has expired. So was there a permit originally pulled? The permit was withdrawn by the contract. Was it a homeowner's permit or was it a permit pulled by General Contract? It was the contractor pulled on permit. And what type of permit was that? It was for redoing the foring of the structure. So a structural permit? Yes. Now, if I understand correctly, there are different types of permits. And for a job such as this, what types of permits in your professional opinion would be required? Well, I don't believe the electric was in the scope of the apartment. It was just a flooring. So there would need to be an electrical, maybe mechanical, and structural, was there any roofing work done as well or is it just a door? No, the roofing was existing. Was there a relocation of plumbing? No. Yeah. If there is relocation of plumbing, would that require a separate permit as well? If he's moving the location of plumbing, he has to immediately need a permit for plumbing. OK. And so upon your review of this file, an inspection of the property, the permits necessary for the work that is depicted in the time stamp photographs were not active in the city. Any work that was permitted was never inspected. So if it's not inspected, it can't be closed out. It can't be closed out. And if a permit is not closed out, would it expire? It expires, yes sir. And then for purposes of building code enforcement, that would be no different as them not having a permit and all correct. So if a permit is pulled, it's not inspected and it's not closed out. And it the purpose to code it. So it would be considered worked without a permit. We're performed without a permit. Well, we would have to at one point there was a permit. But yeah, I'm just trying to figure out. I guess you could say there was work done without a permit. Because it expired. Now you have no pending permit. And so now you have work that was performed with no permit. Yes. OK. I believe that's 105.1 of the photo building code. But that'd be correcting 100.1. I'll have one more. OK. But the work that was performed would require. Can you go through the photos and identify what work is being performed and what work would require a permit? So the floor is the structure of the floor. Where the Iowa is made, so I permit. Very much. The the the electrical that would be replaced through walls with the apartment. Is there a picture of the plumbing? It's hard to see. That's a plumbing drain right there. This is electrical work over here. I've got it. Go ahead. This again is a sewer connection over here. All right, so based on the picture there, if that is a sewer connection, and that is a plumbing drain, and a pipe. And that is a electrical. And that is a electrical. So do you pick your other pictures? Oh, we got to let you get a little answer. The plumbing can stay as long as nothing is changed about the plumbing but if you change a coupling or a connection such as that and it needs part of it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further from this witness? From my understanding from the building of Feschel. They never received engineer drawings for the substructure on the floor. Okay. And what was the relief sought by the city? Was it how many days were compliance and what would be the per day fine? You said 30 days, $50 a day. Is that right, Mr. Watson? Correct, $50 a day. This has been going on for two years. We got a house here that's got electrical work done. Blooming work done, structural work done. I don't know. Are you living in that house right now? Nobody is in that house right now. It's uninhabited. It It does unadhabited at those times. That's why requested that the power be bold. I understand the request or why the request was made. Persuades to chapter 162, your honor, you do have the ability to take whatever measures are necessary in order to bring the property into compliance. However, extraordinary relief such as and joining a property owner from being able to have electrical or water service to a property in my opinion, maybe beyond the scope of what would be appropriate in this particular instance, however, you do have the ability on a first offense case to charge or to assess up to a $250 per day fine and given the gravity of the violations and the permits that have not been pulled and or approved by the city and the scope of work that's being performed. My recommendation would be that we or that your honor and school are assessing a higher final amount rather than and joining the property owner of which would, and my opinion be inappropriate for this particular instance. Well, I think, yeah, I don't know about that I'd want to give so far, if I were to determine that there was a violation as, uh, in joining having electrical and water service to the property although I may consider having the property remain unoccupied until it's any violations, but we're not quite there yet. Okay, anything else from the city? No, I'll get it. Okay. Good afternoon. Would you state your name for the record please? And you're the owner of the driggas and and you ma'am you're the owner of the property is that correct? I've got. You have heard the testimony of the city witnesses. What would you like for me to take into consideration today? She lives in New Jersey and she bought the house side on scene and she gave the money to someone in New Jersey to hire somebody here and get the house for her. And the first time she took the money, 50,000 dollars and people away. And then second time she asked somebody else and also give the money, $50,000 and people away. And then, second time, she asked somebody else and also, keep the money, that person, hired a contractor here. But she was not aware that he hired the contractor and then he let him go, I guess. And then, he started to do the work. And so now that she got the letter, that she found out that it was an issue with the house and she thought that the house is ready to move in. So we came in, we bought furniture and we put furniture. But we don't live here. It was just the house who come, you know, sometimes during the summer. But we contacted the contractor again. when went there, pulled the permit, and he was supposed to be here, but he was running late. So he's waiting to fix the issues with the house, so we can go to compliance. Okay. Are you currently staying in the house? No. We're just staying today tomorrow. We're leaving in one minute. Okay. All right. I'm not sure exactly what issues you're going to run into with pulling the permits going to be one thing, but the ability if the work has been completed for the building inspector to come in and inspect the work that has been done is going to present some challenges. But that speculation on my part, but I would think that trees will under the circumstances. What my inclination to do is to give you more time than the city is recommending the 30 days because I think you're going to need more than that to get a permit pulled and to resolve any of the issues. So my inclination is to give you 60 days instead of 30 but it's also my inclination to raise the daily fine so that if it's not taken care of in 60 days when the fine starts there'll be a more aggressive penalty than that which the city is seeking. So and I'm I'm also part of my order would be that the property is to remain unoccupied until all the permitting issues have been resolved because there is this potential hazard with the fact that there may be some work that has been done without a benefit of the permit that could present a hazard to your health, safety, and welfare. So what I'm going to do is I am going to find that there is a violation. You'll have 60 days to bring the property and compliance. If it's not in compliance within the 60 days, $100 day fine will start to run after the 60 days expire. I'm assessing the city's cost, $108.90. That'll be payable within 30 days of today's date. Also, my order will include that the property is to remain unoccupied until all the permitting issues and the compliance issues have been satisfied. Okay? Thank you. All right. Thank you. If you're away, I talk with the AHS. If you're away out there. Okay. Till we're over. I'll talk. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Good luck to you. All right. So for the record in that case, 2025, 0015, my order is that the owner will be given 60 days to bring the property in compliance or $100 a day behind, cost the amount of $108.90 for our assessment payable within 30 days. Property is to remain unoccupied until brought into compliance. Next is a series of cases already relating to the same address. I don't know what the best way to approach this is whether we should take all the cases. Well let's take them one by one. I prefer one by one. Okay, all right very good. First is case number 2024, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7. Again, this is property located at 1255 South Lake Shoreway. And Mr. Watson, if you'll present please. Case number 2024, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7. Located at 1255 Lakeoreway south was cited for the following violations section 106.3 declaration of a nuisance demand for correction section 108.13 structure on fit for human occupancy Section 108.1.5.9. Dangerous structure structure on premise and section 1422 from the Lake Alfred Code of Ordinance is requiring permits. Notice the violation was 031824, re-inspection was 05-01. 05-01 on that inspection. Days allowed for correction was approximately 410 days. Half-day period of violation was 05-0125 in service of notice and process pursuant to Florida law. Public postings as required. No permit poll to re-plum this unit. Structural sports appears to be removed. Commercial work requires a licensed contractor. More pictures of incorrect plumbing, the building inspector is present for any questions. Above pictures or examples of violation, prints, mpmc sections above. Contractor has submitted permit applications. From an application for repair to cabin 4, submitted on 010825 and the city replied the application had been received and determined the city required additional information the city received the required information on 05 0125 at the time of Revision's were reviewed and the contractor was noticed on 05-0725. The permit was ready to issue pending permit fees. Property remain unoccupied until permits have been issued and inspections complete. Staff recommends finding the violation exists, allowed 30 days and 50 dollars per day. Board of minutes straight across the $90.89. I'm going to straight across to be paid within 30 days. Okay, give me that again. How many days and what day let's find are you seeking? I'm sorry. Oh here it is. 30 days, $50 a day. Carl, I see one, two, three, four, five cases and one parcel ID are these separate addresses on the same parcel? They're not separate addresses or cabins within that property. They all have the same address or they all have the same parcel number. They all have the same parcel number? Correct. But same mailing address as well? Same mailing address. It's a motel. Okay, it's a motel. Correct. Okay, and so are the violations all the same for each case? I think the office is different. I think the office, the staircase in the office is different. There are three cabins or cabins involved and one office involved, which is a staircase, which is not any cap. They have submitted permits on that. And we are ready to, they were notified the district. We're ready to be here. So accept for the office, which would have been identifying in case with that be 0 0 1 1 with that be 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 that's the same address same address same as the that's the staircase going up in the office. Okay. And making was with me when we brought these violations. Okay. I may have a proposal or I may make an Oetennis motion, you're honored to consolidate certain cases. However, I don't look for property or the light to speak first before. I should have mine just for a brief test. My name is Maso Sayed. I look over the NSC got along. Since we had this realism, I've been hired and.O. General Contractor, which we still almost seven months of the time trying to find somebody to suck contract it and never nothing will happen. And now I get the new contractor at EHS, the other one who are a bliker from EHS and stuff like that. I think you're almost ready for the permits. Some of the permits are ready for issue and he has been notified. The applicant has been notified of the circumstances at the office. My opinion would be number one. The rest of the units are currently not occupied. So I mean they would be number two, but getting that that handicap ramp up to code would be That's what we got the drawing and drawing That's what it took a long time without the contract What is your relationship to the entity? So are you the president? Yes, I'm the CEO. How do I split your name? First name M-A-S-U-B-A-L-I. Last name is S-A-I-Y-B. And say, I-I-Y-B. Right. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Okay. Now I'm just going to get that so that way the director reflects who's here at attendance. And so you acknowledge that there are violations that the violations that are identified or accurate, but you just need to get a contractor and add a time to address them. That's what they did everything because the first doctor that I got, they were trying to stop them and they were trying to find anybody and keep them running on. I got somebody else now, they were getting, they were going from the storm, they were going to stop me to two guys. I'm holding. Getting them within the next few weeks, that's my wallet, and that's what I want. I do. We have had extensive conversation with the engineer, Mr. Dence Ross. Dence Ross. Yeah. And once the notice of violations went out and the notices of hearing went out, I made phone calls doing what we did, giving till April 15th, and that was about a month ago, to get his drawings in and he was still a dragon. But once notice of hearings did go out, things really got hot and we got some action. And, uh, that's where we're at. I understand. I also understand right now it's really hard to find, you know, contractors and engineers and qualified individuals to do the work. What I'd like to make our proposed zero honor is that for cases 2020-4-0-0-0-7, 2020-4-0-0-0-8, and 2024 0 0 0 9 that those three cases be consolidated into 2024 0 0 0 0 0 9. And then, so the first two, 07 and 08 would not, there would be no further consideration. And then for cases, 2020-400011 and 2020-400012, those two cases be consolidated into 000012. No further adjuvant be needed on the part of staff that those cases could be administratively closed. And we've had two cases, because we have separate mutually exclusive violations for those sets of cases. And then we could have just addressed whatever time period you would have in each of those two cases. If you don't object to that proposal, I make that already tennis motion. And that might make it also easier for purposes of entering your order. OK. And I'm listening and I'm studying. So the reason why you are proposing to take case ending in number 11, which is cabin 1. Same address, same parcel ID number and same or identical cited violations. And so we're bringing three cases for the same violations, for the same property, same address, same parcel I b. So I do not believe that pursuant to chapter 162 that you would be able to bring three separate cases for the same violations on the same property with the same mailing address. So consolidating everything into one case, it would be the same violations, there would be no change in what the cited violations would be, there would be no change in the demanded or required actions to bring the property into compliance, but it would just be applicable to all structures on the property as compared to having three separate cases with fines running concurrently. Okay. And the same for the last two cases. All right. And do we have a, so we initially had a recommendation on the first case ending in 07, a 30 days or $50 a day. Does the city wish to, well, I don't think we got to a recommendation on to the last two cases. Is the testimony, Carl, the same as the violations for the individual units? So the units with the same cited violations? Is it the same testimony on behalf of the city as far as the violation of the timing of the city's requesting to bring the property into compliance. The office would be, the cabins are currently vacant. Touchcat in the morning, excuse me. This is where the office is located. There's what the stairs did look like. Let me get over to that. You kind of caught me off board with this. I understand. I'm good with it. I mean, I'm fine. No, we're just in some of these cases understand that sometimes when you have cases with multiple units, you have separate mailing addresses or physical addresses or you have separate course like D numbers. In this particular instance, it's kind of the outlier because you have the same address and the same parcel ID. And you have all the same side of violations for each one. So I think that this is the most efficient, also legally sufficient manner in which to handle those three particular cases and the other two subsequent cases. Okay, they're drawing that I've got up here. This is the handicap ramp that was submitted on 05-01. It was initially submitted on 0825, the state of reply needed additional information. We got the straw in on the same day on Postal Property. So I mean, this is a good repair to the office that would make it safe and secure for people getting up to that door. I mean the office is a window that takes cash. They don't come into the office. They take the cash or whatever needs to be done at the step. Right now that step, this is what it looks like when I got there. It was just blocked with the mat on top of it. And that was replaced with just boards. And no handicap access. Mickey told me he says, that needs handicap access. And that's a call for the building official to make as far as permitting. And well, that's why he told me, get it, you know, you know, permit required. Can we have our building inspector come up and testify as to the building code requirement for the ADA accessibility? The only reason I ask Carl and your honor is because, as a code official, the job responsibilities are more ministerial as compared to application of specific technical codes. And so if there is a requirement, unless you admit that that is a requirement, and there's no argument one way or the other of it, but it might make the most sense to have the voting inspector come up and inform the Dias. I didn't know anything about until came in about the year because that's often Office has been like that for 65-70 years. But if I had to do it, then who do it? I'm not wrong with that. Just finding somebody to do it. And getting everything back from doing it. Okay. This obviously has been that like 60 years. The submitted plans were reviewed by the building officials. And the building officials approved the ADA compliance to the? That is correct. This is not a design for me or anything. Okay. This was a design and a requirement that MIPI- The City of Lake Alfred Building Official correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. Please continue. I apologize for interrupting. I'm just trying to- It's been like that for things to be bought the place four years ago. Ever since I think what I was told, the office has been there. They have no stress. I thought everything gets good for city. And that's what we continue until Carl came to tell me about it. That's an annual problem. One question I have for you. I submitted everything and I'm going to do that. But one question I heard on that office building, if you go to a display, everything is flat. Can I move the office entrance over there and we don't have to make the whole ramp? That's just a question I got. We can talk a lot about it. I get a question for the building officials and the building department. This is okay with me. I'm ready to do it. the pump trick becomes something again? I'm ready for it. You don't know what I would propose as far as an order, given that we cannot assess cost for cases that are going to be administratively closed is that instead of 30 days perhaps we for case 2024 0 0 0 9 provide the property owner of a 60 days to come compliance, assess costs, what were the costs per case, Carl? Ninety, 99, assess costs of $90.89, and the event the property is not in compliance, $150 per day fine. We are giving additional time and excess of what was requested. Cost will only be assessed for the one case moving forward. But the kicker is that if not brought into compliance with a then extended period of time, there will be a $150 per day fine that would be applied to the case. Get it all down. So what are you suggesting instead of 30 to make it what? 60. 60. And instead of 51.59. But yet, because the number one. It could be done in one day, but it is not a big thing. But this is our two things that we want. All right, so here's what I'm trying to figure out. So we have, why are we consolidating Cabin 1 in with the office when it appears that Cabins, all the Cabins have the same general? Yeah, and that's what I'm trying to do is cabin four, cabin five, and cabin seven, which are cases 2020-4-0-0-0-7 through nine. So those three cases would be treated as one case. And then you, isn't 20, so 0-0-0-11. I guess no, but they're not the same-sided violations. So are they all the same-sided violations for the cabins? So then it would be all four of those cases of the office separately. I apologize for that. Okay so we are consolidating cases entering Heningin, O708, O9 and 11 into one case. 11 has structure or in involve and floor trusses and sub base flooring. But it's the same side of code sections. same side of code sections, the side inviolations are the same code sections. The side and violations are the same code sections. They appear to be correct. OK. So let's put the cabins, which would be 07080911 under one case. and then the remaining case ending in 12, but the office will remain separate. Yes. and the recommendation is that in each of those two remaining cases then there'd be 60 days to comply or $150 day fine and that in each one of those cases the cost assessed would be $90.89. That's correct, Robert. Okay. For two cases. For two cases. On each case, those costs would be assessed in each case. Okay. Now, my concern then remained. What about these cabins are unoccupied at this time? I promised all the names and I told him I would go to write them so I have them with the express. Okay. I was in money but I got to care for him. Okay. What case number do you want to put? The cabins all under. Why don't we do 2020-40011? Okay. So all the cabin cases of 708 and 09 are all consolidated into case ending in 11. In those in that now consolidated case, the NL have 60 days to bring property and compliance or $150 a day fine will commence to accrue. In addition, the city's cost the amount of $90.89 for assessed and payable within 30 days. Also, those cabins will remain unoccupied until they are brought into compliance. Now under case 2024-001-2, again that case owner will be given 60 days to bring the property in compliance or $150 a day fine. to a and addition to the city's cost in that case the amount of $90.89 are assessed and payable within 30 days of today's day. How does that sound? That works for me. That will be enough time to do that. Okay, all right, very good. Thank you. All right, thank you. Okay. There's also a parking with that contract. All right. We are next hearing date, June 28th. 26. Sorry. 26. 26. Yep. I'm not sure. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. June 26th 2025. And we are adjourned. Thank you everybody.