Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fine Reduction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney asks magistrate to reopen withdrawn Deltona case and seek further fine reduction
Summary
An attorney told the Special Magistrate that a previously withdrawn Deltona enforcement case (DL24002) had been reduced from six figures to $6,000 and asked the magistrate to reopen it so the owner can seek a further reduction; city staff said they withdrew the item pending legal review and will bring it back to a future hearing.
An attorney representing the property owner in a withdrawn Deltona enforcement matter asked the Special Magistrate on April 22, 2026 to reopen the case and consider a deeper reduction of fines that staff had reduced administratively.
At the hearing attorney Nick Tracy said his client, a trustee‑held property referenced in DL24002 (1627 Saxton Boulevard), had paid to correct the violations and obtained an affidavit of compliance; the attorney asked the magistrate to reduce the outstanding fines further from the $6,000 figure the city recorded after earlier reductions. Tracy told the magistrate the owner "wishes to have those reduced even further" and sought an opportunity to present argument.
City compliance manager Danny Rockhold told the magistrate the case had been withdrawn from the agenda because staff needed to follow an ordinance‑based resolution process and obtain legal advice. Rockhold said the city could prepare a cost analysis and, after consultation with the city attorney, bring the fine‑reduction matter back for a hearing. The magistrate agreed that reopening and hearing the matter would require the city to be prepared with legal advice and cost figures and that, if the parties wished, the court could reset the case for the next available hearing date.
The magistrate observed that certain prosecution costs are typically not reducible and that, depending on staff's cost analysis, $6,000 may already approach the lowest feasible total; he nevertheless agreed to continue the matter so the city could present its legal and cost information. The city said it would seek legal advice and that staff could present the matter at a later hearing date.
The magistrate did not make a final ruling on reopening or further reducing the fines; instead the record shows the matter was continued so staff can prepare and provide legal advice and a cost analysis to the court.
