A photo from inside the under-construction St. Cloud Hotel in the city’s downtown, where exterior scaffolding has been in place for the better part of three years now. (Photos/Ming Henry)
While the project is a historic preservation on paper, the work to revitalize the St. Cloud Hotel at 10th Street and New York Avenue has dragged out over the past couple years as work has slowed to a call, scaffoldings have become synonymous with the old-style architecture.
While general contractor Larry Schnapper and project manager Mateo Hodo have remained at odds with the city regarding the permit process to restore the hotel, a judge has confirmed owner Albert Leka, whose company ADMC International also oversaw the remodeling of the nearby Hunter Arms Hotel, has failed to retain a building permit.
(Tuesday update: The City of St. Cloud has reported that a building permit was issued for the project Tuesday morning.
Special Magistrate D. Andrew Smith III reaffirmed that the project must be permitted and the restoration work finished by March 6, 2027.
The St. Cloud Hotel, originally built in September 1909 was damaged by fire just a few months later. It was rebuilt but over time became weathered and sustained damage by hurricanes that have swept over the area. It was purchased in 2005 and then taken over later that year by the city due to another suspicious fire and code violations in the building.
“The city has spent several years working with the property owner,” City Communications Director Maryemma Bachelder, stated. “The city has worked with this building owner since the permit was issued to help them keep the permit active.”
In 2023 the historic monument underwent another restoration project with the goal of bringing the hotel back to what it once was, but this time, with a few modern additions. As of 2026, while changes have been made to the building, it has remained in a state of incompletion.
“We want to get this project done; we want it to look beautiful. We want to be proud of the project. The city wants a successful business paying taxes. We need a permit to do that,” Schnapper said.
As of June 17, 2025, the project representatives haven’t possessed an active building permit. In order to keep a building permit active, they must be making active progress and pass a city inspection every six months. As of this year, the City of St. Cloud is still currently awaiting the last piece of information they need to issue one: a list of subcontractors.
In January 2026 Hodo met with Smith in a hearing to discuss the stalled construction and the public safety issues that were cause for concern such as roof panels falling off, a lack of a building permit, and ensuring that the hotel met the code enforcement policy needed so that the lives of any first responders would not be in jeopardy had they needed to respond to a situation. Smith gave the project manager until March 16 to fix these concerns to avoid code enforcement fines. As of April, the property owner had not complied with the order, resulting in a fine of $1,000 a day, alongside an unpaid administrative fine of 533.03, for a total now near $80,000.
At a hearing last week, Smith created a new deadline with an incentive: if ownership and the contractors obtain the building permit by June 1 — less than a week — the fine will be reduced to $5,000 and abated until the project is complete. The March 6, 2027, completion date for the project remains in place, as Smith noted the building team’s delay in responding to the City essentially reduced the time to complete the project and avoid additional fines.
“You’ve got one big ticking clock at the back end of this, and you’ve got to get it done by then,” Smith said. “Like everybody here, I want to see the project done. I’d rather see spending money on contractors than paying fines because that’s how you get the project done.”
St. Cloud City Attorney Dan Mantzaris said he thought the $5,000 fine is not enough motivation to get owner or contraction action.
“This respondent continues to fight with the city,” he said. “We do not believe that the individual that is working on this project will get this project completed.”
While Schnapper admitted at the hearing that he failed to respond to the City’s request for more information needed to complete permitting, in the same breath he expressed frustration with the city’s process.
“We want to get this project done; we want it to look beautiful. We want to be proud of the project,” he said. “The city wants a successful business paying taxes. We need a permit to do that.”
If more time is needed to be added to this benchmark, Smith said it’d be at the discretion of both the City and the project manager.
Leka was contacted for a comment on how things would be handled moving forward but has not responded.
