Sarasota — The City of SarasotaCode Compliance Special Magistrate heard a multi-hour docket of property and code complaints Oct. 30, 2025, and issued a mix of modest sanctions, continuances and follow-up deadlines. Magistrate Richard Ellis found violations in some matters, accepted corrections in others and generally favored short administrative costs or short fines over large civil penalties when respondents showed progress on cleanup or permitting.

The magistrate repeatedly followed the cityrecommendation to recover administrative costs while declining to impose the full statutory civil fines in many cases. In routine compliance matters the magistrate commonly assessed the citydocumented inspection cost of $3.90; in repeat or longstanding cases he substituted short daily fines or one-day fines instead of lengthy cumulative penalties. For example, the magistrate vacated a previously entered large order against Avara LLC and substituted a $100 fine plus $3.90 in costs; he reduced a city recommendation of $5,000 against EF Mortgage LLC to a $3,000 fine and $1,475 in costs; and he imposed a one‑day repeat‑violator fine of $500 (plus $3.90) in one truck‑yard case.

Why it matters: code‑enforcement orders affect property ownersliability, marketability of property and neighborhood conditions. The magistratedecisions here emphasize case‑by‑case mitigation for respondents who take demonstrable steps to clean up, obtain permits or otherwise cure violations, while preserving the cityauthority to resume fines if noncompliance recurs.

Key outcomes and follow-ups

- Corrections confirmed; nominal costs assessed: In multiple files where city inspections showed repairs or removal of the cited conditions, Ellis assessed only the cityinspection cost (typically $3.90) and closed the matter. That pattern applied to cases including Timothy and Sarah Miller; Ringling Professional Center (balcony work with new engineering plans due); 10 17 26 LLC (overgrowth corrected Oct. 28); Bridal Harboring South (pool repairs corrected Oct. 29) and others.

- Reduced or substituted fines where respondents moved to comply: The magistrate reduced or vacated previously larger fines in several prolonged matters after respondents documented cleanup or showed a path to correction. Notable examples: EF Mortgage LLC (foreclosure property) fine reduced to $3,000 plus $1,475 in costs; Avara LLC prior $6,600 order vacated, substituted with $100 plus $3.90 in costs; Truck Warehousing repeat violation resulted in a one‑day $500 repeat fine plus $3.90.

- Running fines and long-standing violations left active where property remains out of compliance: Where evidence showed continuing violations and no corrective plan, Ellis left running fines or daily penalties in place. For the Arevalo revocable trust the magistrate entered an $11,000 accrued fine to date, assessed $3.90 in costs and ordered a $100 per day running fine until the violations are corrected and required a respondent representative at the next hearing (Dec. 18).

- Continuances for permit corrections, demolition or cleanup schedules: Numerous matters were continued for reinspection or to allow permit processing or demolition contracts to proceed. Examples: Gregory Bann and James Russin cases were continued to Dec. 4 for permit/inspection status; multiple demolition or demo‑by‑contract matters (Mulberry LLC, Coconut Arts properties) were continued into January/February to allow contractors and permitting to finish.

"I'll not impose a fine, assess cost only for the process," Magistrate Richard Ellis said in one brief matter where city staff reported timely correction; in other cases he said shorter sanctions better protect taxpayers while still pressing for compliance.

Votes at a glance (selected cases from docket)

- City of Sarasota v. Timothy Miller & Sarah Miller — violation corrected; magistrate assessed $3.90 costs; no civil fine imposed (order entered October 30, 2025).

- City of Sarasota v. Avara LLC (case on reconsideration) — prior October 16 order vacated; substituted one‑day fine $100 plus $3.90 costs (order entered Oct. 30, 2025).

- City of Sarasota v. Don Chiu Clodie Living Trust (Case No. 202501109) — violations corrected (10/24/2025); magistrate imposed $100 fine and $3.90 costs.

- City of Sarasota v. George & Yaida Arevalo Revocable Trust (Case No. 202501011) — multiple uncorrected violations; magistrate admitted affidavit and imposed $11,000 in accrued fines to date, $3.90 costs and a $100/day running fine until corrected; representative required at next hearing (continued to Dec. 18, 2025 at 9:15 a.m.).

- City of Sarasota v. Truck Warehousing LLC (Case Nos. 202501073, 202501074) — both matters now in compliance; due to repeat status magistrate assessed one‑day repeat violator fine $500 plus $3.90 costs (order entered Oct. 30, 2025).

- City of Sarasota v. EF Mortgage LLC (Case No. 202400727) — lengthy foreclosure docket; magistrate reduced the city recommendation and imposed a $3,000 fine and $1,475 in costs (order entered Oct. 30, 2025).

- City of Sarasota v. Arevalo (see above) — running fine continued until correction; next hearing Dec. 18, 2025 at 9:15 a.m.

- City of Sarasota v. APH Tampa Bay Pavers & Brick LLC (Case No. 202501082) — vacant lot overgrowth not corrected; magistrate found a continuing violation, imposed $12,000 to date and $3.90 costs and started a $100/day running fine until corrected; continued to Dec. 4 at 1:00 p.m.

- City of Sarasota v. 2525 South Trail LLC (sign case) — after‑the‑fact sign permit application was filed and final inspection passed Oct. 30; magistrate found a violation occurred but declined to impose a fine because corrective action was completed promptly.

What to expect next

Respondents who received continuances should either (a) call code compliance to schedule reinspection after performing the corrective work or (b) appear at the next scheduled hearing. For properties with running fines the magistrate left the daily penalties in place until compliance is confirmed.

Methodology and documentation

This article is based on the special magistrate hearing transcript and the judgments, continuance dates and fine recommendations read into the record Oct. 30, 2025. All direct outcomes reported above mirror statements made on the record by the magistrate and city staff.