St. Pete Beach could seek restitution and a voice in the criminal case involving hundreds of toxic mothballs scattered near a threatened shorebird nesting colony, as one city commissioner pushes for the maximum possible penalties if two local business owners are convicted.
During the Aug. 25 City Commission meeting, Commissioner Jon Maldonado urged the city to take an active role in the case. He said St. Pete Beach should characterize itself as a victim and make its position known to prosecutors before the case is resolved. Maldonado stressed that the defendants are presumed innocent.
“I personally would push for the maximum sentence if these persons are found guilty, that they’re held accountable to the highest standards,” Maldonado said.
The Catalyst reached out to Maldonado for additional comment but did not receive a response.
Plaza Beach Hotel owner Rob Czyszczon and Chris Monroe, owner and manager of neighboring Chris’ Beachside Bar, were arrested in July following a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission investigation into roughly 1,500 mothballs discovered on the beach over two days in April.
Both face one felony count of commercial littering for economic gain and one misdemeanor count of attempting to take a state-listed threatened species through harassment. FWC investigators allege the mothballs were intended to deter black skimmers from nesting behind the Plaza Beach Hotel.
ALSO READ: Two charged with spreading mothballs in shorebird nesting area on St. Pete Beach
Investigators previously said they used surveillance footage, Walmart purchase records, cellphone location data and text messages to identify the two men. FWC officials also said the investigation uncovered messages they believe showed concern that the nesting birds were costing the businesses revenue.
Maldonado said the city should work through its attorneys with the State Attorney’s Office rather than wait to see how prosecutors resolve the cases. He also wants St. Pete Beach to examine restitution and sanctions that could be available if there are convictions.
“I do think that as victims, you know, characterizing the city as a victim, that we’re due restitution,” Maldonado said.
The discussion then turned to what the city could actually do.
Commissioners raised the possibility of business or liquor licenses being affected. City Attorney Ralf Brookes said liquor licenses are issued by the state, limiting the city’s direct authority, but said the city could potentially raise the issue in a victim impact statement or examine licenses and privileges it controls.
Brookes also said St. Pete Beach could seek reimbursement for costs it incurred because of the incident, including city staff involvement in the cleanup or investigation.
“If there was a cost to the city, you can ask for restitution,” Brookes said.
The commission asked Brookes to outline the remedies available to the city and bring that information back. No sanctions were imposed Aug. 25, and much of what commissioners discussed would depend on the outcome of the criminal cases.
The discussion adds another layer to an already complicated relationship between St. Pete Beach and Czyszczon.
Plaza Beach Motel and Undertow Beach Bar are separately suing the city in federal court over an ordinance restricting “Private Property” and “No Trespassing” signs along the shoreline. Czyszczon was a prominent opponent of the ordinance before commissioners approved it in June and warned publicly that litigation would follow.
The businesses argue the restrictions violate their First Amendment rights and interfere with their ability to identify private property and enforce trespassing laws. St. Pete Beach denies those claims and argues that privately owned beachfront property may still be subject to longstanding public recreational rights under Florida’s customary use doctrine.
The federal lawsuit is separate from the criminal cases.
Mayor Scott Tate acknowledged the other litigation during the Aug. 25 discussion and said he wanted to be careful about how far commissioners went publicly while separate legal matters remained pending. He nevertheless supported determining what recourse the city could have in the mothball case.
For now, that leaves the next step with the city’s attorneys: determining whether St. Pete Beach can claim a loss from the alleged crime and what it could ask prosecutors or the court to do about it.
“I think we should make sure that we understand what our rights are and the full extent that we could ask of the state attorney,” Tate said.
This content provided in partnership with StPeteCatalyst.com
