Punta Gorda board upholds irrigation citation despite resident’s complaint about notice

A Punta Gorda Code Enforcement Board on March 18 upheld a citation against Robert Brett Heltenstein Jr. after staff presented video showing his irrigation system running at 4:16 a.m. on Feb. 24, 2026 — a day the property was not authorized to water.

The citation (No. 10294) was issued by an AMI technician who testified the system was active at the time and location recorded. The technician identified herself on the record and submitted one video and one photo as evidence. Frank Coppinger, a city code compliance officer, handled case logistics and cost accounting for the board.

Heltenstein told the board he had not received any mailed notice about changes to the watering schedule and said the system on his property had been set to water on Tuesday and Thursday for nine years. "I never received a flyer. I never got any sort of notification about this change," he said, and asked the board to dismiss the citation. He also alleged that, after raising his concerns with the department, a city official contacted his parents — a step he characterized as an inappropriate breach of professional boundaries.

Utilities Director Tom Spencer and Code Supervisor Nick Faulkner told the panel that notice of the ordinance and subsequent changes had been published in multiple places required by law, including the newspaper, the city website, postings on water bills and social media. Spencer said the city had published the ordinance and conducted public education after the code change in October and again when state-modified restrictions took effect; he said enforcement is required under the Southwest Florida Water Management District’s modified Phase Two Water Shortage Order.

City Attorney Stephen Leskovich advised the board that the legal test before them was factual: whether watering occurred on a prohibited day. Leskovich said the law requires "reasonable notice" and noted that notice can include newspapers, social media, billing inserts and other public notices. "Ignorance of the law is not a defense," he said, while acknowledging the board could request further documentation of how the city published notice.

Board members debated whether the city’s outreach methods satisfied ‘‘reasonable notice’’ and whether issuing a citation without a prior warning was appropriate. Code staff said the department had undertaken a period of public education from October through January; Faulkner said the city elected to issue citations once the region entered modified Phase Two restrictions because the shortage was a public-safety issue for shared water supplies. Faulkner also noted that the code allows designated utility employees to be deputized to issue citations related to their duties.

After the evidentiary phase the board voted that a prima facie case had been established and, following discussion of extenuating circumstances, voted to find the citation valid. The board ordered Heltenstein to pay a $25 fine — the city code’s stated amount for a first offense — plus case costs of $11.04, due within five days of the order. The vote carried unanimously.

The board’s decision resolves the city-level citation; Heltenstein retains whatever rights he has to pursue further review under state law. Several board members urged staff to continue improving outreach methods to reach residents who do not follow social media or local news outlets, and staff said they can provide copies of publication affidavits or bill invoices to complete the record if the board requests them.

The board recessed after the vote; the meeting continued later with other enforcement matters.