Disabled veteran urges Pinellas County to extend video retention, create fraud task force and boost Clerk outreach

Scott Jelson, a disabled veteran and homeowner, used the citizens-to-be-heard portion of the Oct. 7 Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners meeting to urge the county to take three actions he said would reduce construction‑related fraud and help victims recover.

Jelson asked the commission to extend local government video‑surveillance retention beyond the current 90 days to at least 120, and potentially 180, days. "Right now, after 90 days, vulnerable video evidence is deleted even when it could hold key information for an ongoing investigation," he said, and described a hypothetical scenario in which footage that would have proved forgery is gone before a victim discovers the fraud.

He also asked the commission to create a fraud prevention task force that would coordinate investigations and outreach across the Sheriff's Office, the Clerk of Courts, the Property Appraiser, the Contracting Licensing Board, the County Attorney’s Office, Consumer Protection, Building Services and community representatives including veterans and senior homeowners. Jelson said storm recovery after a recent hurricane had produced an influx of contractors and a spike in contractor‑related fraud. "A task force would connect the dots, coordinate investigations and close these gaps before more people are harmed," he said.

Third, Jelson urged the county to press the Clerk’s Office to better market the Clerk's fraud‑prevention alert system so homeowners and contractors know about the resource. He acknowledged the Clerk is a separate constitutional office but argued the county and Clerk should collaborate on outreach.

Numbers cited

Jelson estimated a single fraud case can cost $40,000 to $70,000 in total while extending storage costs might be "only a couple thousand dollars, maybe $10,000 at most." He said Sheriff’s Office investigators must sometimes rely on outside forensic resources when video evidence is not available, increasing time and cost.

Board response and context

The chair thanked Jelson and noted the commission's interest in prevention; no formal action or motion addressing Jelson’s requests was made on the record during the meeting. Jelson’s requests were presented as proposals for the commission’s consideration rather than as pending motions.

Ending

Jelson closed by telling commissioners the suggestions were "simple, cost effective, and achievable actions" intended to restore trust and protect homeowners; commissioners did not vote on the proposals at the Oct. 7 meeting.