Special magistrate trims accrued fines for St. Cloud hotel; orders permit by month’s end to avoid lien

The City of Saint Cloud’s special magistrate on May 20 announced a conditional reduction of accrued code-enforcement fines against Saint Cloud Hotel LLC and set a firm near-term deadline for the property to obtain a building permit.

The magistrate (Mister Smith) said he would reduce the accrued penalty to $5,000 and abate that amount if the respondent secures a building permit by the end of the month. "My inclination is to reduce that fine to $5,000 with an additional contingency on it," the magistrate said, describing the abatement as temporary and subject to reinstatement if the project falls behind its completion date.

Why it matters: the case concerns repeated code violations at the Saint Cloud Hotel property at 1004 New York Avenue and a February order that required a new building permit and remediation of fire-safety issues. The city had been assessing fines at $1,000 per day; parties and the magistrate discussed an accrued amount in the neighborhood of $60,000–$75,000 before the reduction.

The city and the respondent disputed which side caused the permit delay. Respondent representative Mister Mateo told the magistrate that "their processes are making it very impossible for us to get that permit," saying the building‑department demands for a subcontractor list and registration created a catch‑22. The City, through Deputy Building Official Christina Soto, replied that the March 4 resubmittal was submitted on the wrong (non‑notarized) form and that certain trade contractors — specifically a plumbing qualifier and a drywall contractor — were not registered with the city, which prevented permit issuance. "So because they're not registered, we cannot issue the permit," Christina Soto testified.

Contractor Larry Schnapper, a state‑certified general contractor, said he had encountered portal problems and difficulty finding registered subcontractors after the project’s long delay. "It's been dragged out," Schnapper said, adding that some municipalities require subcontractor registration and that bid timing and plan approvals can complicate contractor selection.

The Fire Marshal (Mister Cox) told the hearing that the respondent had addressed most of the fire‑safety items during inspections ("good 90, 95 percent of the stuff was done") but had not implemented an agreed fire watch. The marshal and fire chief had approved two of four alternative fire‑watch options the respondent proposed, but those options had not been installed.

The magistrate framed the hearing as focused on compliance with his February order rather than the parties’ motives. He concluded that the respondent had shown meaningful effort on life‑safety measures and that the remaining holdups were narrow and remediable: registration of two subcontractors and payment for the permit. He instructed both sides that the existing fines would stop accruing as of the hearing and be held in abeyance until close of business June 1. If the permit is in hand by the end of May, the magistrate said, the accrued fine will be reduced to $5,000 and abated so it does not become a lien — but the abatement could be revoked if the respondent fails to meet the final completion date set in the February order.

The magistrate also noted prosecution costs set out in his prior order: the record shows a cost assessment of "$3,533 and 3¢" that the magistrate directed be added to the written order. The building department gave a permit fee estimate of $26,928.91; the respondent said the permit fee will be paid once funds are transferred.

The magistrate said he would circulate a written order to the parties and reminded the respondent that appeals or requests for more time would be weighed against the delay already incurred: "If you come before me between now and then and say, hey, I need 60 more days, I'm gonna remind you, remember those 60 days the permit delay took," he said.

The hearing concluded with the magistrate directing the clerk to include prosecution costs in the written order and to mail the order to the parties. The special magistrate listed next scheduled meeting date as June 17, 2026.

What happens next: The abatement depends on the permit being in hand by the end of May and on continued progress toward completion. If the permit is not issued by the stated deadline, the city said it may revert to the previously ordered fine schedule and lien posture.