Code Enforcement - Regular Meeting

Do you trust your code enforcement officers?

Do you know how many times the Marco Island Police Department has stopped us, inspected us, asked if someone was running a business or not on the beach? Has the Marco Island Police Department said that there's no evidence of him running a business on the beach?

I'm not aware of anything with the police department.

Has the code enforcement confirmed to you that they've not found me in violation of operating a business on the beach?

Objection, relevance.

It's directly relevant.

If it can answer that.

If it can answer. As far as I know, there was a violation on the beach.

When did that violation take place?

I'd have to look to see what the date of that is.

So you're making an allegation. But you don't know the date, the time, or the place of that allegation?

I don't have the thing in front of me right now, the violation in front of me.

Well, the violation is right here.

Exactly. Objection to the question. The violation has the date. OK.

Your Honor, the date of this violation, it says that the violation occurred on 4-7-26. OK. The picture, he said, was February 26th. So it's confusing to be all over the place and just making a big potluck dinner and hope something sticks. It is relevant because the charges for – he says on April the 7th that I made this violation.

You're examining him. Go ahead and answer the question.

that picture that was there was a picture that I had taken. I'm not saying that picture was the reason behind the violation.

No, that's not the question I asked. The question I ask is when is the date and the place that this violation took place?

He answered the question that he didn't know.

Okay, so do you typically bring a code violation case to magistrate court without that information?

Objection. Relevance, typical, is not relevant in this circumstance.

Have you ever brought a case without their violation date and the details supporting that violation date?

Sir, the question is this case. Okay, not ever done this, never done that. It's this case today, and we need to move along.

I know, but there's a lot here.

Give me a lot of time.

All right, Mr. Smith, did I make this violation on April the 7th, 2026?

Violation is on this.

I'm just asking you. Did you see me?

I don't know what date it was Did you approve this violation It's not up for me to approve that goes through I'm not code enforcement That is then why does it say?

Notice issued at direction of Community Affairs Director Dan Smith. But your testimony today is that you don't know.

Your testimony is I do the interpretation of the code and decide if there's a violation or not.

Then why does it say that you are the one that's bringing this?

Again, I'm the one that does the interpretation of the land development code.

So in your interpretation, on April the 7th, the date of violation... That's correct. How did you interpret that the Beach Cove was violated?

Based on all the evidence I brought forward.

I'm asking a direct question.

I'm giving you a direct question.

The direct answer is not based on all the evidence. You've got pictures from February to March to...

I've got to calm this down right now because he's badgering the witness. I'm not badgering the witness. I'm just asking honest questions.

This has been asked and answered... Multiple times.

We'll move on. No problem. Do you know the location that this violation took place?

No.

Are you familiar with the, or did your investigation determine whether the alleged activity occurred landward or seaward of the mean high water line?

Don't know.

So no determination was made?

No.

Did your investigation determine who owns the property where the allegation occurred?

Objection, relevance. Sustained.

Is South Beach owned by and managed by Collier County?

Relevance he testified he testified.

He did not know if But the violation says South Beach, it's what's asked so Before issuing this violation Did you determine if the city had the authority to enforce? this beach permit Violation Absolutely. Did you consult with the city attorney prior to?

Yes

And is that in writing or is there an opinion that was issued to you?

Not that I'm aware of.

Can you point to the magistrate, to the language of the Beach Code that's allegedly violated that defines what and where the violation occurred?

I think I presented that. It was in a different case. Oh, okay.

The previous. So do you have, well, we can refer to the code. The code number, Mr. Magistrate.

I thought there was a copy of it.

Maybe that was the other case. But that was on the case presented previous. It was not on the record for this case. Go ahead and go put it on the electronic display, please. Thank you.

I think we need a break here, and I'd like to consider continuing this until this afternoon. We have a ton of other people here, and I don't want one case taking up time that they need to have for their cases, too.

This is my final question, and then we can go to closing. I mean, I'm finished after this.

Let's wrap it up.

Let's just wrap this up.

Yeah, and then I do think we need to take a break after that. So something, did we find something to put on the screen?

It's on the screen. It's right there.

It's on the screen. Oh, it's okay. Yeah, it came up in mine. Never mind.

All right. So where's the language that the alleged violation that you're using to bring this case?

It's highlighted right there under A.

So beach permit required any person or business, enterprises, any type engaged in the commercial sale of goods or services, rental, leasing, abatement, or which otherwise produce recreational equipment for Can't read this for me. I can't see the end in it. So it looks like it's the end but including vessels public whatever so it's just basically any exchange of Good as your interpretation of that. That's correct But you have no testimony Or firsthand account of witnessing or establishing that any money commercially took place exchange of on the beach Okay, okay Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Smith.

Okay. I have one. Are you denying that you're operating shark fishing on the beach in Marco Island, or is it your position today that they haven't proved that you are?

Well, the issue is, in essence, both. So the issue here is they're trying to lump everything into one category. Mr. Magistrate, I am a licensed guide in Collier County. I also have a valid rental company for Collier County. I have these certificates with me if you'd like to see them. What the city of Marco Island is trying to do via Mr. Smith is lump it all into because I live on Marco Island or I fish on Marco Island, there's no restriction of me fishing on this island whatsoever. And in regards to this, so we fish in Naples, Sarasota. We fish all up and down the coast, east coast as well.

I'm talking about commercial business.

Yeah, I have no commercial business on Marco Island. I have no commercial fishing business. And that's where this whole – it's assumed. It's not – so if it's assumed, so they think, oh, he has – and even his own testimony was that, well, that's what people are saying here. Even though this is a more relaxed court, people just saying something doesn't establish that.

Are we in closing arguments?

I was just answering his question.

He was trying to answer my question. I think you've answered it the best you can. Within the scope of what I asked for. Let's go ahead and move to, if you're finished, I will allow all of the exhibits into evidence unless there's an objection. Is there an objection?

No.

Okay.

Well, there was the objection to the photograph he presented of the yoga that was sustained. So that does not get in.

Right. Right. I already had rejected that. Okay. So let's go ahead and have a closing.

Just very briefly, Your Honor, once again, the city approved by competent substantial evidence and with clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Boggs is conducting a business on Marco Island Beach without a permit as he's required to under the city's code. Mr. Boggs? One second, Your Honor.

In this case your honor At the beginning day of this hearing the The burden of proof rests solely on the city There is At the conclusion where we are now I That same burden remains entirely with the city. I don't have a burden to prove my innocence. The city must prove every essential element alleged in the violation through competent, substantial evidence. Florida, again, as we discussed, recognizes hearsay may be admitted in administrative proceedings, but it shall not be sufficient in itself to support findings. The Florida Appellate Court have consistently held that hearsay alone is not competent substantial evidence. If any element of the city's case depends only on hearsay, assumptions, or speculation without independent competent evidence, the city's burden has not been met. The record reflects I asked questions regarding the alleged commercial transaction. The location of the violation, there was no answer. I don't know was the answer. The city's investigation was based strictly on a website with incomplete information of a beach that doesn't exist. In essence, it was a typo that was trying to be used to be the basis for this violation. Those questions were asked because it relates to the element the city is required to prove. The city was required to prove its case with evidence, not a conclusion nor an assumption. They allege a commercial violation, but where is that evidence of a competent, substantial evidence identifying a customer, a payment, and a transaction itself? When I asked the witness, he said that I don't know, or I don't know their name, and I don't know the amount. If the city alleged the ordinance applies at this location in question, where is the competent substantial evidence establishing that exact location? The investigation of that and the factual basis of that ordinance, it's not there. The evidence also established the city never determined where that the alleged conduct occurred, landward or seaward of the mean high water line. No survey, no jurisdiction determination was made, no investigation. Is it on Collier County or is it on, most importantly, the sovereign land held by the state of Florida? Florida law recognizes the significance of the Maine high water line as a boundary between privately owned uplands and state sovereign lands. Whether or not that ultimately affects the city's authority in this case, the city still bore the burden of establishing why its ordinance applied to this precise location. Respectfully, the record reflects that it failed to do so. The case must be decided on evidence in this hearing, not assumptions, not interferences unsupported by evidence, and not conclusions without proof, and certainly not based on a conversation that was had, but we don't have a name. We don't have anyone to cross-examine. Anyone can say anything, and that's the basis. He said, someone told me, and he said, and I paid an amount of money, but there is no way to cross-examine that to find the validity of that. And that's very important because that's the whole crutch of the case is someone told me that's hearsay. Our justice system requires that the government meet its burden before a citizen is found in violation. And that burden exists to protect every citizen equally. For each essential element of this case, where is the competent, substantial evidence in the record proving that element? Marco Island has every right to enforce its ordinances. But with that authority comes equal important responsibility The responsibility to prove that every element before a citizen is found in violation. It protects all of us. It protects me today. It keeps someone from saying, well, I heard that, and then it becomes a matter and a basis to prove a violation without the benefit of cross-examining them. Even the code enforcement officers, Your Honor, stopped me dozens of times. Many of them are in this room now. They talk to people fishing with us to make sure they have their fishing license. They ask all of these questions, and not one time did they return a violation.

May I continue, sir? No, I'm making an objection, so no, you can't. My objection is he's arguing facts that are not in the evidence. None of what he just said is in evidence.

I'll let him finish.

Your Honor, Mr. Smith testified himself. Well, somebody's got to put a stop to it, paraphrasing it, that all this going on. And it's an indication that it's because of political pressure, not because of a violation. And so it's important that we take that. Forget this isn't a political room. This is still a court. And in court, in magistrate hearings, you still have to prove a violation occurred. He has not done that. And therefore, I'm asking you and requesting that the alleged violation be dismissed and that a judgment be entered into my favor. Thank you, Your Honor.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude, as a matter of law, that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances, specifically section 54-38 of the Marco Island Code. and therefore the finding is guilty. What is the recommendation of the, city as to any orders?

The city's seeking a $500 fine and $50 costs. And why a $500 fine? It's a repeat violation. He's already been, within the past five years, he's appeared before you and been found in violation of the same code.

Did we have a matrix on that? I think we did, but he was found in violation?

Correct.

Okay. It can't just be a matter that was not resolved or anything like that, but I think that's correct. So it's a one-time fine of $500 and $50 in cost, is that correct? That is correct. Sir, any comments to that? All right, nothing further on that. With that, my determination will be that that the penalty be a one-time fine of $500 and $50 in prosecution costs. Thank you. And that's all for that case. And let's take a break. It's 1221. Can we be back at 1230? Got enough time? We have a lot of people here. Let's come back at 1230. 1230. with the code officer. Always.

Okay, now he's about to testify, ma'am. I am. Okay, we're ready to go?

Okay, are we ready to come back on the record?

Laura, we ready? Which case is it, Keith? Letter V. V as in Victor or B as in Boyd?

V as in Victor.

Thank you.

All right. Jim, you good?

Albina LLC. Is somebody here for that case?

No, they're not. We have a police officer waiting to testify.

Oh, okay.

Magistrate Keith Richter, Code of Force from Marco Island. This is a noise violation. The date is 5-1-2026. Officer Huffmeister responded to a noise complaint, a valid noise complaint. I'll show you the CAD entry. She subsequently issued a citation to the violator.

I'm looking at the time. It looks like it's 4.05, 4.21 AM. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

That's the time of the alleged violation? Yes, sir.

She issued a citation to the violator. Code enforcement issued a notice of violation to the homeowner.

Looks like it's a repeat violation that's alleged.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Notice of hearing. Certified mail. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. That's all I have unless you want to hear from the officer.

Okay, let's hear from the officer.

Good afternoon. My name is Officer Catherine Hoffmeister with the Markle Island Police Department. So on the date of the violation, May 1, 2026, I did respond to 180 Bonita Court. I made contact with the initial complainant, who advised that he did not want contact in person. He just wanted us to take a measurement from 50 feet from the property line. His property was canal facing. We responded to 180 Bonita Court, measured 50 feet from the property line. It was plainly audible. We did take a decibel reading as well. It was 41 decibels. We made contact with the occupants. How many decibels? It was 41 decibels as measured. This was during the time in which plainly audible was the measure for the noise ordinance.

Either one is a measure.

Correct. Yes, sir. So a violation was issued to the occupants. I would like to clarify the time of the violation. On the CAT entry, the time 4.05 a.m. was actually the time the report was created. The violation did occur at 10.08 p.m. Oh, okay. That is a clarification I just wanted to make. So the citation was written at 10.33 for the noise violation.

10.08 p.m. Let's see, the ordinance says after 10? Yes, sir, it's plainly audible after 10 p.m. That's correct. And you personally listened and measured off the distance, is that correct?

That's correct, yes, sir.

Do you have any training on noise violations? The law does recognize plainly audible to a police officer, but, you know, don't have any hearing impairments or anything like that was no sir yes I did I did hear it plainly audible I do have training through my field training program through the city of Marco Island as well for noise violations okay yeah that training is important I wasn't sure that's what level the training was given or given to everybody So I do want to put that in the record.

Yes, sir. I also have history as a code enforcement administrator as well for the city of Marco Island. So additional training there as well.

All right. Thank you. OK. Thank you, sir. Anything else to present?

Nothing further from the city, no.

Based upon the testimony and the other evidence given in the case today, I find that, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times, and especially the time after 10 o'clock PM that we testified to. I conclude, as a matter of law, that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the noise ordinance of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

The city is asking for a $500 fine and $50 lost.

$500 because it's a repeat? Because it's a repeat. Yes, sir. What evidence do we have of the repeat?

I have the five-year here.

Okay. Let's put that up.

This was warning versus violation. Last month this same address was before you with the same violation, noise violation.

The same type of violation but a different incident, is that correct?

Yes, sir. Okay.

All right. So I agree with the recommendation, $500 fine and $50 in cost of presentation.

Is anybody here for 560 South Collier?

Okay, 560 South, letter M as in Mike on your docket, 560 South Collier Boulevard.

We do have somebody here.

Good morning, mr. Magistrate. Well, I guess I should say yes. Good afternoon And my name is Gary Miller I'm code enforcement officer with the city of Marco Island Police Department the address the violation is five six zero South Collier Boulevard Which is within the municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island on March 16th 2026 I observed a code important violation of work without a permit which a violation of Marco Island code one zero five point one and six dash one one one and here are the pictures that I took on that day and See, there is a service dock that's being reconstructed I issued a notice of violation for violating sections 105.1 and 6-111, and it gave a compliance date of May 15th of 2026. And here is a picture of the notice of violation. I also issued a stop work order. And here is the posting of notice of violation of stop work order. Here is a copy of the work without a permit, which was issued by Building Services. Follow-up investigations were conducted on 5-18 and 6-8. I also looked for a building permit this morning before magistrate, and there still was not one in our system. So this reveals that the location is still in violation. I have no photo of actual work, but the work had stopped. So here is the affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. Certified mail document. A five-year history reveals no prior violations. That is all I have.

Run by me again, the second part, the permitted uses, 30-1.

The permitted uses, that was for another violation that I had written at the same time. That was compliant before the compliance date, so that is not before you today.

Okay, so it's only work without a permit. Only work without a permit. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Yes, sir?

good afternoon magistrate my name is Chris Adams I'm representing the property Marco Beach Ocean Limited which is of course the old Marco Island we did stop the work we have hired a proper contractor this was something we were trying to do in-house and we got away from us frankly so we apologize to the city we have hired a third contractor see Collier Seagate and they are filing for permits and they are nearly complete with that process What relation are you I am one of the hotel managers our general managers currently traveling abroad, so I'm representing him today Of course How dare him travel? Yeah, he thought he had this cleared up before you left. So I'll give him grief later.

Tell him I said that I don't know who he is Okay Anything else?

No, sir, that's it.

Any questions you might have?

No, thank you for your patience and for coming and for being so forthcoming.

Yeah, I appreciate that. Everybody else that's here also, the morning took longer. We have a pretty long agenda anyhow, and the morning took longer than anticipated, but we went it out, hear them out. That's what I always thought. Okay, so... What is the recommendation of the city?

So the city's seeking for $400 in total.

So you want a finding of guilt only on the one? I think you've not contested the situation, so I'll find, as a matter of fact, that the The conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to by the city. And I do conclude it's a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of that ordinance. And again, that's just to work without a permit ordinance. And therefore, the finding is guilty. So let's talk about it.

There was more than one violation, correct?

Yeah, he said it had been taken care of.

I wrote two violations on that day the two notice violations were combined into one case one of the violations was corrected before the compliance date that was the permitted use So let me revise my then we just are asking for $250 fine and $50 cost that's it Now any particular time to get the work the permit

How much have you gotten done on that?

Well, as I said, we stopped the work, but we have the new contractor. He's already sent the drawings, and my understanding is the permit should be issued very soon. I know that a request was submitted already.

So we'll give 60 days.

I'm a little concerned about having this be a 250 fine. Are you talking about one time? One time fine, yes.

Yeah. Now, with the permit still being unobtained, I'll say 60 days. I'll ask for 60 days to get the period for compliance. They get the permit within 60 days, then no additional fines. Right. But if they don't within 60 days, then $100 per day fine.

$100. Okay. All right. I want to make sure I heard that. So it would be a $250 fine, and – $50 in cost of prosecution, 60 days to obtain the permit. If the permit is not obtained within the 60-day period, a fine of $100 per day for each day thereafter would be imposed. That's what the request is.

No objection.

No objection. OK. There is a question.

60 days to obtain the permit. Compliance is obtaining the permit. Yeah.

That's a good question, by the way. Yeah. Once you obtain the permit, then usually the building permit laws take over. So 60 days to get that permit. Don't wait until the 59th day. Stuff happens. Always happens on the day of the deadline or the day before.

only want to see you again if there's a party So next up is letter S is in Sierra case 261227

That's Gonzales Yarani-Lopez. Feel free to come up closer to the microphone. It's no warmer up here, I'll tell you that. Okay, so we do have somebody here on that. Go ahead, Mr. Negra.

All right, Mr. Magistrate. John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Excuse me. Addressed to the violation is 411 Quail Drive, which is within the city of Marco Island. On May 12, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of placement of waste at curb, which is for trash cans. It's a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Following photo, it's an accurate account of what I observed that day. So Treyash Campbell's left curbside a day after pickup. All right. I subsequently issued a citation for violating Ordinance 18-36-8. As this was a third offense, two prior notice of violations were issued on September 9th of 25 and March 27th of 26. It is policy of the Code of Forcing Department after the second violation, third and fourth and subsequent violations receive a citation, not a notice of violation. Okay. This is a copied citation that was issued that day. The posting of the citation. The affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. and the certified mail documents. All right, and as I stated before, there were two prior notice violations issued in September of 25 and March of 26, constituting the third violation of the citation.

Okay, that is all I have, sir. All right.

Okay, your turn. Give your name for the record.

She's the homeowner. My name is Melissa Padron. My English is stronger, so that's why I came to help her out. So she lives on a cul-de-sac.

Are you a certified interpreter?

No, I'm just her daughter. What am I? Your stepdaughter.

That's OK. I just wanted to know for the record. For the record, I just needed to know that.

I never had to think of what I was to her.

She lives on a cul-de-sac, and everyone in that cul-de-sac, they all put their trash bins in front of her house so that I guess it's easier for the trash collector. Everyone picks up their trash containers on time, except the guy at 308. And so after the first violation, she told him, and he said, okay, I'm sorry. Second violation, she told him, he said, okay, I'm sorry. She actually spray painted on her trash containers the number of her house, 411. And so she has video cameras where she can show you that you see that her trash can is picked up on the 11th. On the morning of the 12th, they issued the violation. The only remaining container is that gentleman's at 308, and she has video of him picking it up that evening at 538 p.m. So the first question is, we can't force him, so what can we do moving forward? He obviously is not going to spray paint on his container the number of his house because she's the one getting the ticket. But just to remedy it, also moving forward, How do we handle it? And we can show you the videos here.

Do we have a means of showing a video off of the iPhone?

It's on a bigger thing. It's on her iPad. So maybe it'll show.

Okay, so let me see if it'll show.

Slide it down some.

So I just want to show you the date, 5-11, and the time. And then this is her, is this okay to put it here so you can see her picking it up?

No, it's being, yeah, that light is...

There you go.

There you go.

Is that better?

Yes.

Yes. Very good. I see two of them.

So that's her.

See how she's taking it away over here? And that's on the 11th. Now I'll show you on the 12th, the gentleman here. There's the guy picking it up. See on the 12th? And here's the time. There's the date and the time. And here's the gentleman. And you'll see he's going to his house, nowhere near her house. Are you able?

So just to be clear, this is somebody else putting their garbage can in front of your house?

Everybody in the cul-de-sac, she says when she bought the house, that's what everybody was doing. They all line up their trash bins in front of her house. Right now in the cul-de-sac, solo vive, tu, ¿cuánta gente vive en el cul-de-sac ahora? ¿Cuántos latones de basura ponen ahí?

Tres latones, dos latones, porque en esa casa está dividida la mitad, son dos casas, entonces ponen dos latones más el medio, tres.

So there's always three there every week in that cul-de-sac. She picks up hers. Apparently, the second home picks up theirs in a timely fashion. This is the one guy that doesn't tend to do it. She did tell him, now I've gotten a ticket. Now I have to go to court. He obviously was not open to coming here today. So we just want to know, regardless of your ruling today, how do we not end up in court?

Is he going to pay the fine?

No, he won't even show up here. Ever since she told him, now I got a ticket and I have to go to court, she says he's been getting it on time. But for the future, she has her number.

Is that the number on? Is that what I see on the one on the right? Is that a 408?

That's her house. And she did that on purpose so that court enforcement would know that it's not her.

Yeah, but my question is, the other one is, which one?

This is hers.

I can't read that. Does that say 408?

411. 411. 411. OK. Then this is his trash bin.

It has no number on it. See the trash bin?

Yeah, the picture you put, that's his. That's that guy's. So I don't think I'm allowed to, can I spray paint his number on his trash?

We need to have you on the microphone.

Sorry, am I allowed to spray paint on his bin the number of his house, or is that his property?

How about just forbidding everyone from putting their...

It's on the street, so we can't control what they put on the street. Everyone puts, see how it's on the street? It's not on her property. That's why we're kind of in a pickle here.

That's stupid. Yeah. All right.

We called here after the first warning, and we said, it's not us. Then the second warning, we're like, we talked to the guy. And then when we got the ticket, we're like, we're going to take it to, well, the lady told us that we talked to, like, bring it to court and explain. And let's see how we can figure out how to do this.

May I see the video of the two together?

Yeah.

Didn't you have one of the front of both of those together?

That was a picture.

OK. Yeah, let me see the picture. All right, thank you. Again if you're going to say something we need you on the microphone In the video you see the two trash bins.

She's taking hers to her house and Then his remains there until the next day at 7 whatever, but she had already gotten the ticket He picked it up at 5 38 p.m. But she got the ticket at 7 21 that morning and So even though she goes to his house and is like, well, now I have a ticket, ever since she said, I'm going to court, she says that he's picked it up on time. But I don't know other than spray painting on his bin.

We can't tell you what to do here. Again, my suggestion is tell him and stop putting it in front of your house. We do.

Can we call the police or do anything like that? Like, hey, he put it in front. Can someone come?

The police enforce the law. There's no law against what's happening. This is just common courtesy.

And if you have a neighbor that's not courteous.

Unfortunately, if it were illegal to be rude, three-quarters of the earth would be in jail.

Yeah, it's just, she also, we live in Miami. We drove here for this, so...

It's not like we can say come get it or we can put it ourselves in front of his house We can we can make notes to ourselves the circumstances, okay and and and take it in consideration if we see violations in the future making sure that as best as we can but that's not perfect right officers on the street who work a midnight shift aren't going to necessarily be subject to that information right um if this is something that happens again such evidence is very helpful and very valuable rather than just calling and saying it's not us because you got to understand everybody says that's not us right right so but if you come and you say look or email the video look this is

I offered, and the girl that I spoke to who was super nice, she was like, I get you, because I go, I have the video, and I can show you, and she goes, you have to present it to the majesty, because I don't have the power to take out the ticket. That's why we came today.

And that's absolutely correct.

So in the future, though, can I email the video and say... To whose email? Who do I ask?

It depends on who wrote the ticket. Okay.

Okay. Okay, so court enforcement, remember us, 411 Quail. Go ahead.

I believe your home is a rental.

No, she uses it as a rental, but it's her primary home. I mean, not her primary home, but she's the homeowner with my dad.

Well, I know it's an inconvenience to you, but when you take your candidate, drag that one across the street, don't leave it alone.

Well, so you can ask.

She Airbnbs it, so she doesn't want to tell a client, like, hey, can you get... No, we don't live there.

This is a great conversation, but I don't think it's on the record.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, let's call for some order here. I kind of understand. I live in a cul-de-sac, too, and I have no idea whether Marco Island... prefers pick up Altogether together one place for all I know they might my question to To the city is are you willing to withdraw based upon this evidence that we had? Okay, so they're going to withdraw the case which means that I don't need to make a recommend I don't need to make a finding and But they're withdrawing the case, so it won't cost you anything. It won't cost you any cost of prosecution or anything like that. They're withdrawing the case.

If you ever ask if you got fined, tell them you got fined $1,000.

Oh, okay. All right. No, I'll tell them that it was, or she will.

Yeah, so it's... A good job showing the proof that it was somebody else. But they've withdrawn the case, so I no longer have any jurisdiction over it. Thank you, sir. And have a nice day. Thank you. Okay. Bye-bye.

All right. Next up is letter LL on your docket. Case 261453.

Unitas Funding, LLC. Is Unitas Funding here?

This is not here.

OK. No, wait a minute. That's the wrong one. Carol Seif Replicable Trust.

Right. 361 Rocky. Ms. Seif is here, yes.

Oh, OK. Thank you. Feel free to come up here if you want. Well, no, it's his turn, but sometimes it's Sometimes if you're here, it's easier for you to hear and see and look at the documents. But it's up to you. Okay, proceed.

Magistrate, John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Addressed to the violation is 361 Rock Hill Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. On May 29, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of a downed sill fence, public nuisance, and encroachment, which are violations of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Following photos of the violations are an accurate account of what I observed that day.

And you're proceeding on all three?

Correct, sir. So we have a silt fence down around the property. It's a vacant lot. This photo displays the public nuisance and the weed encroachment. The public nuisance being the dirt and silt on the sidewalk, which create a slip and fall hazard. And another picture of the weed encroachment.

So there's a sidewalk under there?

Somewhere, yeah. So I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating Ordinance 18-213, 18-36, Subsection 4, and 42-36, Subsection E, with a compliance date of June 4, 2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on June 18 and June 20, revealing that the condition still remained. These are photos substantiating it. Defense still completely down.

Mr. Nagy, did you give a due date for compliance?

June 4th, sir.

Thank you.

Okay, the subsequent paperwork was issued to the case. The notice of violation. Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. The affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. the posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents. There is no history on the property. This is the first offense for all violations.

And that is all I have, sir, and nothing else.

Anything further?

Nothing further.

Nothing else, sir. Ma'am, did you have anything that you would like to tell me? You have the right to cross-examine him also.

Oh, please. My name's Carol Seip. He did the, on June 4th was supposed to be my deadline. However, I was out of town from May 6th until June 13th, so I didn't get back till then. The post office never forwarded my mail. I had a neighbor pick it up, so I didn't get my mail till the next day after I got home, and I saw your letter. I have it. Can I put it under the? Sure.

Oh, is that going to show it? So that's, it's all cleaned up.

Oh, you've cleaned it up? Yes, I had two.

Could I ask, Mr. Negrin, do you know whether or not it's been cleaned up?

I'm sorry.

Sorry, I can't substantiate that. The last time I was there was the 20th.

Can I show you? Can you see the, oh, okay. Anyway, um, yeah, the whole thing is cleaned up I can barely see that.

Could you either touch the screen to make it brighter or adjust the brightness?

What is that shadow that's the sidewalk and that little bit of green is Because the driveway was like a turnaround driveway. So there's any anonymity and On the driveway, you know what I mean?

Yeah.

And see the Truck or whatever that is parked next to it They're building a house two doors down and all the trucks are using my lot It's a park because there's really no place else to park And somebody said report him. I didn't want to report him and get him in trouble But I what it's doing is they're back pulling in when they back out they take the sand off Right with it, you know right with them pulling in and out every day and they've been on this for two years So but I did get all the grass and weeds or whatever it was that was on it off That's okay, we saw it So that's fixed.

Mr. Mr. Negra. Do you recognize what the the area of the sidewalk that's being depicted in this? It was that part of your calculus in your violation.

I

That appears to be the location Okay ma'am anything else Ma'am what about the silt fence issue was that fixed and what about the storm water issue You mean the plastic I don't know do you have to keep that up I had that up because I had the house torn down

So right now there's no active projects?

Nothing's going on. It's just that they put that up when they tore the house down.

Now that there's grass on the lot, she can feasibly remove the silt fence because grass is now covering the denuded surface that was there. But the fence either has to be taken down or has to be maintained, one or the other. It can't be just left down in that condition.

All right. So is that something I have to take down that plastic yes oh okay I didn't realize that okay And the stormwater issue Mr. Negra it was the okay all right Anything further from the city The city would just be looking for finding a fact no fines on this no fees

OK, this city is asking for a decision from me. I think he's indicated maybe no fines, but we'll get to that in a minute. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location on the dates and times testified to by the city. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. What is the penalty?

The city is just seeking a finding of fact. No fines or fees.

The city is... I'm sorry. Well, you received a finding of fact in conclusion of law.

I've got grandchildren here. I'll get it then.

Yeah. So I've given a finding of fact at conclusion of law. The good news is, is the city is not asking you to pay a fine. Or cost the prosecution, is that correct?

Or cost the prosecution, correct.

Or cost the prosecution.

Okay.

So in consideration for that, I'll go along with that. In consideration for that, get that silt fence down.

I will do that today.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Next up is M as in Mike, M as in Mike, case 260404. And it is? 1649 Piedmont Circle.

All right. Feel free to come up if you want. And by the way, you did testify, or you did raise your right hand, didn't you? Somebody didn't over in the corner. You did too? Yes. Okay. Okay. I think the person who did not left, but I wasn't sure. I knew it was in that corner. All right, Todd.

OK, John Negger, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 1649 Piedmont Circle, which is within the city of Marco Island. On February 27, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of a failed retaining wall, which is a violation of the Marco Island code. The following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed that day. This is a retaining wall in front of the home. You can see it's being held together by a ratchet strap. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 30-1009 subsection E1 the compliance date of April 27, 2026 the repair would facilitate obtaining a permit Okay, follow up inspection was conducted and multiple five multiple follow-up inspections were conducted and as of June 29th yesterday no permit has been obtained and the wall is still in the same condition In a sub the paperwork administered to the case is that follow? Nope you've gotten no permit for the repair of the wall. Oh, right The posted notice Affidavit of violation Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And certified mail documents. As far as any history on this violation at the location, there is no history. This is the initial offense. That is all I have, sir.

Thank you. Let's hear from the respondent.

Hello, Adrian Connor. My father, he's 82. He owns the house. We want to comply. We are open to giving us a deadline. That's all.

So is this something that would require a permit to then fix?

OK. So that's going to entail applying for a permit. Have you started that yet?

We have a contractor who's working at this location, but the scope of this work is not included. He will simply, however he does it, include this in the current open permit.

Just so you know, the responsibility falls on you to make sure that this is all done properly. Don't trust the contractor. Depending on what the original permit that he's working on this for for example if he's an electrician No, this is not going to be covered under that so We're in contact with him.

He knows that this Is a separate issue.

All right, so we will get a separate permit if needed Okay, so then what I will say that you need I'm gonna ask the court for 30 days for you to get the permit and You already have a contractor ready to go, so 60 days to repair.

Sounds perfectly fair.

And there'll just be an initial fine, and there'll be fines if you're not able to get those things done in time by those benchmarks and you don't communicate with us.

Just to reiterate, 30 days to obtain the permit.

We'll get into that. I'm going to repeat this in the process. I'm just telling you what we need, but go ahead.

Okay, anything else, ma'am?

Nope, we're good with that.

All right. I find, based upon the testimony and evidence presented here at the hearing today, the conditions described did exist and apparently do exist at the location and on the dates and times alleged. I think they... You testified to that yourself. I conclude as a matter of law that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. So the finding is guilty. Now on to the penalty phase is what we were just talking about. Do we have a recommendation from the city?

Yes. So $250 fine, $50 costs, 30 days to obtain the permit. 60 days to repair or $100 per day fine?

A one-time fine of $250 and $50 cost of prosecution. And then 60 days to repair, you say?

30 days to obtain the permit.

30 days?

To obtain the permit, and then 60 days to repair.

Okay. And it's not clear whether a new permit is allowed because of the scope of the work?

It's not clear that this work can be incorporated within the permit. Most likely not because unless he anticipated this happening. But I would say that you would need a new permit for this, separate and apart from whatever else he's working on. Okay.

Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. If not, $100 a day fine?

Yeah. If you don't – Jim, hold on. If you don't get it fixed within the 60 days or if it looks like you're not able to get it fixed within that 60 days, communicate with your code officer. Let him know because otherwise there will be a $100 a day fine by the 61st day of it not being repaired.

Okay?

Yes, Jim.

Is it –

Yes 60 days after the issuance of the permit because they can't start working on that and let until they get the permit So it's 30 and then 60 after that yeah, that's work done That should be enough time if something ever happens where I it becomes a problem your contractor needs to really make sure they get with code enforcement or with somebody because you don't want that $100 per day fine start to run. It's amazing how many people throughout the state of Florida that come in and they say, well, I don't understand why I have this half million dollar fine against my property. Well, that's because somebody ignored the daily fines. So don't ignore the daily fines. Get that handled. Okay, so that'll be my order. Thank you very much for coming in.

Next up is letter T as in Tom.

Okay.

Victor Rodriguez?

Finally.

You can come forward if you want. He's 261201. This is a noise ordinance issued by Officer Terranova.

The officer is unavailable today. um i can offer up the information that i have and you can decide on it the owners of the house are here all right so this was a um a noise ordinance on may 9th 2026 at 12 31 a.m the address is 1402 san marco road because at a time it was issued to the violator for plainly audible In turn, code enforcement issues a notice of violation to the homeowner. Notice of hearing. Certified mail. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. and that's all I have on this. Do you want to hear from the homeowner?

I'm glad to hear from you.

My name is Jessica Gonzalez and my husband is Victor Rodriguez. It's a rental property so we mainly are not here. We have advise that there shouldn't be any noise after 9 I know it's 10 but we always say after 9 because they don't really listen but we are making an effort to see if we do anything for them not to make any noise any further So you're not saying that there was no violation Yeah, I mean, there was a violation because we did see that, you know, police was called to the house. So I guess there was a violation. It was tenants that were making the noise? Yes. It's an Airbnb rental. So we did notice. As soon as we saw the police that were there, we notified them, and they also paid their fine. But, I mean, we didn't know that they, you know, it was a recurring violation. So that's pretty much it.

They paid a fine?

Yeah, they paid the fine, both of them. I think it was two violations that they were done, and they both did. We actually, you know, we spoke to them. We told them that they needed to pay it, and everything was paid for. Okay. Yes. Anything further?

Yeah.

Well, based upon the testimony and evidence presented today, I don't think there's a question about what there was a noise violation. So that's my finding of fact and conclusion of law. What is the recommendation, finding of guilt recommendation?

The $95 fine, that's already been paid.

Well, the citation was paid by the violator, and that was $250. But in turn, code enforcement issues the notice of violation to the homeowner, and this happens to be their second noise violation. So it would be, to the homeowner, $250. That's exactly what we do.

Do you see a double jeopardy problem?

Yes, I think so.

Well, it's... No. No. $95 fine, $50 cost. I mean... They were issuing a citation for the noise.

If the citation's been paid, then I don't think we can issue anything.

I agree. Okay.

I mean, no offense, good work, but if... She said this citation has been paid, right? So I think it's moot, so I would not make a finding of fact. I guess the appropriate language would be that it would be dismissed because it has been paid. Don't let there be another violation, though.

Yes.

No, there'd be nothing. It's dismissed because, if you want to put it down, because the violation has been paid. The citation has been paid. No, you're shaking your head no, but talk to him about it. No.

I'd say.

I'm sorry. I'm just trying to wrap my head around that last one, which is impossible at this point.

Yeah, I need about another five minutes, if you guys don't mind. Seven minutes, 1.30. for your patients too. I don't see anybody else in the room. Are we expecting anybody particularly? No. All right, so.

If so, they've died of boredom.

Got frustrated with the process, I suppose.

So Mr. Magistrate, letters A through K in your docket are being removed? A through K? Correct.

I thought we did K.

We did do K. A through I are being removed.

A through I being removed. So we'll start. J and K we've done.

J and K we've done. So we're going to start with letter L is in Lima.

741 Holly Court. Correct. Ariel Latridge. Back again.

Or good afternoon. I almost did it again. Mr. Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller I'm code enforcement officer with the city of Marco Island Police Department Address the violation is 741 Holly Court, which is within your minutes municipal boundaries of the city of Marco Island on March 14th 2026 I observed a court enforcement violation work without a permit which is a violation of Marco Island code 105.1 and 6-1 1 1 here are pictures that I took on that day and And the work is for synthetic turf installation without a permit.

Now you're allowed to have synthetic turf with a permit, is that correct?

Correct. You are allowed with a permit. I issued a notice violation for violating 105.1 and 6-111, and I gave a compliance date of May 13th of 2026. And here is a photo of the NOV. I also issued a stop work order. Here is the posting of the NOV and stop work order. Here is work without a permit that was issued by the city building department. Follow-up investigations were conducted on 515 and 61. Reveal that the location is still in violation. Here is a picture that I actually took today. Here's the affidavit of violation affidavit of posting Notice the hearing Posted notice of hearing certified mail document and that is all I have Counselor isn't there isn't there a state law that now is involved with synthetic turf

I don't know if I'm imagining it. I thought I ran across something, a partial preemption or something.

No, you're right.

Hold on. I don't mean to complicate an otherwise uncomplicated issue, but.

Why not? Make this.

Hold on.

What was the date of this violation again?

March 14th.

All right. Section 125.572 Florida statute is regulation of synthetic turf. Department of Environmental Protection shall adopt minimum standards for the installation of synthetic turf on single-family residential properties one acre or less in size. Is this a single-family residence less than one acre in size?

Yes, it is. All right.

Upon the Department of Environmental Protection adopting rules pursuant to subsection four, local government may not adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution, order, rule, or policy that prohibits or is enforced to prohibit a property owner from installing synthetic turf that complies with the Department of Environmental Protection standards adopted pursuant to this section. We also may not adopt or enforce any ordinance resolution order rule or policy that regulates synthetic turf, which is inconsistent with the Department of Environmental Standards. Mr. Magistrate, I would say that we're not banning it. We're not prohibiting it. We're just saying you need a permit to do it. However, let's put this case on continuance so we can figure out what the Department of Environmental Protection's standards are. If they have not established any standards, then we'll just bring it back on the next magistrate or the next magistrate that can be properly noticed, and we'll pick it up from there.

I think that makes sense. I don't think I'd want to do something that... has been prohibited by the state, but I'm not sure, was that adopted this year?

Yeah, 2025. Oh, 25, so yeah.

All right, yeah, let's continue it for, you want to do 60 days or 30? Next one. Until the next meeting?

Well, is the next hearing within 30 days or outside of 30 days from now? It's got to be within. July 28th. Yeah, no, it's within 30 days. So it's got to be August.

Let's just make it until July 28th. Continue until July.

My problem is we can't give the proper notification. OK. So we've got to make it August.

Yeah, for the August meeting then. And you can figure that out. If you find that you're preempted, then you can always take it off the agenda. OK. OK.

Letter Q is in, no, is that right? N is in November. Okay. 260799.

This is Arthur and Deborah Mascarello and Brothers Pavers, Inc.

Correct.

OK, John Negra, court enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. The address, the violation is 444 Driftwood Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. On April 3, 2026, I observed a court enforcement violation of work without a permit, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. Following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what I observed that day. There were a walkway and a patio being installed in the back of the home without a permit, as well as a walkway being constructed on the front of the home, and a complete driveway renovation. Well, with no permit. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating Ordinance 105.1 and 6-111 for the compliance date of June 3, 2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted, and on April 22, 2026, revealed that they had obtained a permit for the work being done. All right. Paperwork administered to the case is as follows. Notice of violation. Stop work order issued. Posted notice of violation and stop work order. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents.

So you say they did get a permit?

Afterwards. After the contractor. They did get the permit. The homeowner did force the contractor to get a permit. Prior to that, the contractor was all well and good to do the work without the permit.

Okay.

Okay.

That is all I have, sir. There's no history also for that property. None?

No. Mr. Negra, did they get the permit after the date of compliance?

Prior to.

Prior to?

You say they got the permit prior to the date?

Prior to the compliance date, yes. But the contractor knew well, and I think we should only proceed against the contractor if he asked for my recommendation, as he knew there was a permit required.

I agree. I agree. So when we get to that point, I'll tie it in a nice, neat pattern.

OK. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, and by the way, there's nobody here to defend, and you don't have a defense packet, right?

No, sir.

Okay. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude, as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the City of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. What is the recommendation?

Recommendation is a finding of fact against the contractor only. No fines, $50 cost to prosecution.

No fines, but $50 cost. Right. Against the contractor only.

Right.

Okay, that's okay with me, and that will be the order. Everything okay with the clerk? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Next up is a letter. Q is in Quebec, case 260873.

This is Schmidt, Kim and Catherine, Bonas Bricks, Inc. What happened to O?

O was pulled off the docket. We're not there yet Oh okay I didn't know that okay so then next up is letter R's in Romeo case twenty six one one seven five Gagal Trust

Good afternoon, you might as well. Yes, sir.

Hi, who are you?

Good afternoon. My name is Anthony.

We've seen everybody but you guys, a couple of you guys today.

My name is Anthony Ferraro. I'm a code enforcement officer, Marco Island Police Department, City of Marco Island. On May 7th, 2026, wrote a notice of violation for a dilapidated broken dock which is code uh chapter 54-112 subsection h as in hotel the address of the violation is 943 north barfield drive which is in the municipal boundaries of the city of marco island um i saw uh i was actually uh notified by this by the dispatcher And I responded to the location. And I proceeded to write a notice of violation with the compliance date of June 7th, 2026. That is a copy of the notice of violation.

Okay.

The photos I'm about to present are a fair and accurate depiction of the violation which I observed that day. As you can see, it's a broken dock with a lot of loose wood that's falling into the canal. This is a copy of the notice of hearing. Notice of hearing posted. Affidavit of posting. Certified mail that went to the homeowner. Affidavit of violation. I conducted a follow-up investigation, and the most recent one was this past Friday, June 26th, and no work has been done on the doc whatsoever. I did an NRGov search this morning when I came in, and no application was applied for, for a permit. And these are photos of the pictures that I took this past Friday, a few days ago.

Okay, anything else? And that's all I have for this case. I don't see anybody here to defend. Did you receive any word from the respondents?

I did not receive any response at all, nor did I receive any defense packet.

Thank you. Okay, based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find, as a matter of fact, that the conditions described did exist at the location and do exist. on the Dates and Times testified to, I conclude as a matter of law, that the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the City of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Penalty? $150 fine, $50 costs, 30 days to obtain a permit to repair.

60 days after that to repair, to make the necessary repairs, or $100 per day?

I think that the recommendation is within the confines of 162.09 and is otherwise fair, just, and reasonable under the circumstances. So that will be my order. Okay, over there. Good, thank you. I like that thumbs up. That's very helpful. Thank you. Okay, next case.

Next up is going to be letter W as in whiskey.

Okay, Sammy's Marco LLC. Correction. That's closed compliant.

It's closed compliant? Yes, sir. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Then we're going to go to Y as in Yankee.

Resort Management and Corey Rachel King. Yes, 260614. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong one.

Yeah, no, that was the right one. That was the right one. Corey and Rachel King. 260614, 850 Palm Street. Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, yeah, 260614. Okay, got it.

John Edgar, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 850 Palm Street, which is within the city of Marco Island. February 6, 2026, I observed the code enforcement violation of no solid waste container enclosure, which is a violation of the Marco Island Municipal Code. The following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what was observed. As you can see, there's no enclosure around the dumpster, which is required. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating Ordinance 30-1012, subsection B, subsection 1, the compliance date of April 6, 2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on April 7, May 7, and June 8, which revealed the violation remained. Check again on June 29, showed no permit. Had ever had been obtained by the Association for the construction of a enclosure That's a photo from June 8 showing the violation still remains following paperwork was administered to the case and OV Okay Posted notice of violation Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. And the certified mail documents. There is no history of this property for the same offense, and like I said, no permit has been obtained as of yet, nor any application applied for for the enclosure of the dumpster.

Is this a – this must be a commercial property?

It's a condominium complex.

Okay. It's odd that they got away with not – closing that in a long time ago.

I just... We addressed it now.

Okay. Anything further?

No, sir.

I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. You say, I think you already testified, but you have not heard from the property owners.

Correct. And no application for a permit has been applied for.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist and do exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude as a matter of law, the conditions Alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty penalty $150 fine $50 costs How long to get a permit That's right.

They need a permit 30 days to get a permit

30 days to fix remediate repair Correct say 150 and 50 30 days for a permit 30 days and thereafter for Full compliance lights and if not if either of those per day how much $100 per day $100 per day fine That will be my order

Next up is letter Z is in Zulu, case 260991. Okay.

I'm looking to the clerk to make sure that I got that.

Yeah.

Okay, over there. Okay, good. Thank you.

Okay, John. I'm a code enforcement officer with the Markle Island Police Department. Addressed to the violation is 457 Tallwood Street, which is within the city of Markle Island. April 27, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of no solid waste container enclosure, which is a violation of the Markle Island Municipal Code. Following photos of the violation are an accurate account of what was taken that day. As you can see, dumpster with no enclosure at all. I subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating ordinance 30-1012, the compliance date of June 22nd, 2026. Follow-up inspection was conducted on June 23rd, which revealed that the location was still in violation. Photo from that date. As of June 29th, no permit or application was applied for by the association to obtain a permit for the installation of the enclosure. Following paperwork as administered to the case, this is the NOV. Did you move that up a little bit?

Okay.

Okay, thank you. Posted notice of violation, affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents. This location has no history regarding the same violation, and that is all I have, sir.

No defense packet. There's nobody here, by the way.

No defense packet.

Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist and do exist at the location on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged do constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. Recommendation for a penalty?

$150 fine, $50 costs, 30 days to obtain a permit, and 30 days to bring into compliance.

Otherwise, a fine in the amount of $100 per day for each day of noncompliance will be imposed. I agree with that. I think that's certainly within the confines of 162.09 Florida statutes.

So AA and, no, AA has been taken off the docket. So it brings us to BB, 2614. BB's been taken off the docket as well. Okay. CC is done or taken off the docket, one of the two. DD, 261450. Okay.

Brandon Square 3, LLC. LLC.

John Negger, code enforcement officer with the Markham Island Police Department. Addressed to the violation is 236 Woodbrook Court, which is within the city of Markham Island, May 29th, 2026. I observed code enforcement violations of high grass and weeds, encroachment, and public nuisance, which are violations of the Markham Island Code. Following photos of the violations are an accurate account of what I observed. High grass in excess 15 inches. The weed encroachment. And the sediment and silt on the sidewalk creating a slip and fall hazard. Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating the ordinances 18-3610, 18-364, and 42-36E with a compliance date of June 4th, 2026. Follow-up inspections were conducted on June 8 and June 24, revealing that the location was still in violation. And as of June 24, you can see the property remains untouched. Sediment, encroachment, and high grass. The following paperwork was administered to the case. It's the notice of violation.

OK.

Posted NOV, affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing. Posted notice of hearing. and the certified mail documents. There is no history on it.

Most of these cases we have where we have no response and no compliance seem to be out of state or certainly out of the area.

Yeah, they're from Minneapolis. OK, go ahead. I do not have anything further, and there is no history on this property.

Okay. And no defense packet? No, sir. And no word from the owners, is that correct? No word. Okay. And for the record, there's nobody in the room here to defend. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence. I find that based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, the conditions described and do exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to I conclude that as a matter of law the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island the finding is guilty do we have a recommendation for a penalty yes $300 in the aggregate $50 costs so 150 150 I'm sorry. $300. I want to make sure that we put down it's $150 per violation so that somebody looks at that and doesn't think that we exceeded the $250 requirement. Okay, so there are three listed. All right, so $100 in violation.

$100 per? $100, $100, $100. I just have to, yeah.

OK. For violation, $50 cost of prosecution. How many days to get into compliance?

14 days.

Do they need a permit for this? No, sir. OK. So 14 days. With mailing, is that going to be, let's make it 21 days. Do you have an objection to that? 21 days to get into compliance. Or $100 per day for noncompliance.

Next up is EE261452. Okay.

Okay, John Negra, code enforcement officer with the Marco Island Police Department. Address of the violation is 160 Stillwater Court, which is within the city of Marco Island. On May 29, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of high grass and weeds, litter and debris, and a silt fence violation, which are violations of the Marco Island Municipal Code. The following photos of the violations are an accurate account of what I observed. This is a build site for a new home. High grass. Opposite side of the home showing the fence down.

And the pile of debris.

Subsequently issued a notice of violation for violating the ordinances 1836 10 1836 9 and 18-2 1 3 with a complaint state of June 4th 2026 Follow-up inspections were conducted on June 18th and 20th showing the violations remain The removed Remained Remain, okay.

I'm sorry big difference

The following paperwork was administered to the case. Notice of violation. Posted notice of violation. Affidavit of violation. Affidavit of posting. Notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, and the certified mail documents. There is no history for these violations at the home. Like I said, it's a new build. There is no contractor involved with this. It is a owner-builder. And that is all I have, sir.

I do not see anybody in the room to defend. Did you receive a defense packet or any information from the respondents?

No, sir.

Okay. I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist and do exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the city of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. It looks like you have three violations in one case. Is that correct?

Correct.

What's the recommendation?

$100 per violation and $50 cost.

$100 per violation. That's $300.

And 21 days to comply.

50 costs, OK, 21 days?

Yes, to comply or $100 per day.

OK, now would compliance be, well, they don't have to get a permit, right?

No, sir.

21 days to comply or $100 per day? Yes. Is that 100 total or 100 each?

$100 total.

Total, yeah. That's the same way I had interpreted the last case, but I just want to make sure that we're on the same page on that.

Question. We're doing $100 for each one, the same as case BD, right?

So $300 fine, $50 cost. Yeah, but the 21 days to comply or $100 fine is total. Oh, $100. No, it's per day. But it's total. It's not 300. It's not going to be 300, 300, 300. I forgot to ask that on the last one. I just assumed that it would be $100 for compliance. Well, there's a different face.

Good afternoon, your honor.

Hello. So next up is letter F as in Frank, F as in Frank, 261466.

My name is Edward barriers court enforcement officer for Marco Island Police Department the address of the violation 1610 O'Mara Court which is within the city of Marco Island on May 29 2026 I observed the code enforcement violation of a green swimming pool and high grass and weeds, which is a violation of Marco Island municipal code Here are the pictures that I This picture was 529, so it's been a month, so the grass is twice as high. That's the side of the house. That's the backyard. I observed a green stagnant pool with no water circulation, filtration, or any chemical treatment.

Did we cite for that also, or no?

I'm sorry?

Did we cite for the pool?

Yeah, it's on here.

It says public nuisance pool.

Yeah.

It's weeds and public nuisance pool.

Yeah, it's causing a major health hazard, major mosquito breeding harbor, and there's a lot of residents on that block that's complaining.

We're on FF? That's FF. Yeah, FF. Yeah. Okay.

1610 Almeria Court.

Yeah, okay.

That's opposed to the NOV.

This is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting.

This is the notice for hearing. It's a notice of a code violation. And the certified mail. That's all I have. I don't have any defense.

Have you heard anything from the owners, the respondents?

I personally went this morning, which is hopefully they, it's, you know, no one's done anything.

And they have not provided a defense packet or a letter or anything like that?

Not at all.

And for the record, they're not here. I don't see anybody here. All right, I'll admit the exhibits into evidence. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in this hearing, I find as a matter of fact that the conditions described did exist and do exist at the location and on the dates and times testified to. I conclude that as a matter of law, the conditions alleged constitute a violation of the ordinances of the City of Marco Island. The finding is guilty. The recommendation, we have two, violations in one case.

$150 per violation plus $50 costs. 21 days to bring into compliance or $100 per day fine.

And that's a total?

Correct. Both violations have to be in compliance.

The initial fine is $150 and $150. Cost of prosecution is $50, 21 days to comply. If not, A $100 per day total fine. Correct. Kind of like the last two. All right. Okay.

So GG is either done or taken off the docket. HH is either done or taken off the docket. We're going to go to II, 261350. Unitas Funding, LLC.

Good afternoon, Mr. Magistrate. My name is Gary Miller, Code Enforcement Officer with the City of Marco Island Police Department. The address of the violation is 201 Marco Lake Drive, which is within the municipal boundaries of the City of Marco Island. On May 21, 2026, I observed a code enforcement violation of sidewalk encroachments, which is a violation of Marco Island Code 4236-ECO. Here are pictures that I took on that day. see the tree branches are hanging down lower than the seven and a half feet required clearance for the code i issued a notice violation for violating 4236 echo and i gave a compliance date of may 28 2026 and here is a photo of the notice violation Here's a photo of the notice of violation posting. Follow-up investigations were conducted on 529, 61, and 618, which have revealed that the location is still in violation. And here's pictures from the June 18th date. Here is the affidavit of violation, affidavit of posting, notice of hearing, posted notice of hearing, certified mail document, and five-year history revealed, no prior violations, and that is all I have.

All right. The exhibits will be admitted into evidence. I do not see anybody here to defend. Have you received anything from anybody?

I have not received any contact from the homeowner.