[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
THE MEETING OF THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON JUNE 15, 2022.
GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR THE HEARINGS ARE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AND THEN WILL PRESENT THEIR CASE FOR THE REDUCTION AND THE FINE.
AND THEN THE CITY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO WHATEVER EVIDENCE THE APPLICANT PUTS ON, AND THEN THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE CITY'S TESTIMONY AFTER THAT. WE'RE GOING TO BE PUT UNDER OATH.
SO THE COURT WILL ANYBODY THAT'S GOING TO TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU. MAYBE.
[PETITION FOR RELIEF]
OKAY. OUR FIRST CASE TO BE HEARD TODAY IS CB 1989019 AT 1071 BIANCA DRIVE NORTHEAST.THE CODE SUPERVISOR VALERIE PRESENTS IS HERE TO PRESENT ALL THE CASES TODAY.
AND I GOT THE NOTICE THAT COMPLIANCE.
IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
OH, JAMES EDWARD FOGLE, 1071 BIANCA DRIVE OF A FLORIDA.
I HAVE MY LETTER OF COMPLIANCE.
THE ONE THING IS WITH THE THING WITH THE FENCE.
MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS A LUNATIC AND HE CAME AFTER ME WITH A GUN ONE DAY AND THE POLICE TOLD ME, WELL, GO PUT UP A FENCE OR PUT SOME CHICKEN WIRE FENCE UP, YOU KNOW, THE STUFF YOU PUT AROUND A GARDEN.
AND THAT'S WHEN I GOT CITED FOR THAT.
SO. I JUST KIND OF FIND THE $50 A DAY FINE TO BE QUITE EXCESSIVE, ESPECIALLY FOR SOMEBODY WHO LIVES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I KNEW WHERE.
I MEAN, I'M A ROOFER. I DON'T MAKE MUCH.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE BY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD WHENEVER IT WAS SO.
OH, YEAH. YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, BUT I GOT THE COMPLIANCE.
I TOOK CARE OF EVERYTHING ON THAT.
YOU KNOW, THE FINES A LITTLE CRAZY.
I MEAN, DOES THE PRICE OF THE PERMIT, I THINK, WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN.
100. AND I HAVE $4,000 IN FINES.
3685. DID YOU ATTEND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING? EXCUSE ME? YOU ATTEND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD HEARING WHERE THEY ESTABLISHED THE FINE? NO, IT'S LIKE I EXPLAINED TO THE ONE LADY THAT I DID GET IN TOUCH WITH AT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE WAS THAT I HAD TO GO TAKE CARE OF MY PARENTS BECAUSE MY MY MOTHER DIED. AND MY DAD, I WAS OUT OF STATE FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS DURING THE COVID AND EVERYTHING.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN IN TOWN FOR MORE THAN A MONTH.
BUT THE REASON WHY I DIDN'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT IT AT FIRST WAS MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WAS A BUILDING DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR AND HE TOLD ME I DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT.
BUT I CAN'T HAVE HIM COME IN BECAUSE HE DIED.
IT'S LIKE I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY DEFENSE ON THAT.
[00:05:04]
THE IDEA YOU'RE HERE.I TRIED TALKING TO THEM AND THEY.
TRYING TO EXPLAIN SOMETHING. YEAH.
THAT GOES TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.
ALL YOU'RE DOING WITH ME IS ASKING FOR WHATEVER THE FINE IS TO BE REDUCED.
I DON'T GET INTO WHY THE FINE WAS ORIGINALLY IMPOSED IN THE FIRST.
RIGHT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO, SO THAT'S, I'M JUST PUTTING IT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU AS TO HOW THIS THIS PROCESS OF THIS WORK.
YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD IS HAVING A HEARING ON THIS, RIGHT? NO, I WASN'T. I WAS OUT OF STATE.
I DIDN'T GET THE PAPERWORK UNTIL I GOT BACK FOUR MONTHS LATER.
CAN GET YOUR MAIL FORWARDED TO YOU OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO. AND MY WIFE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL THAT PAPERWORK MEANS.
I ALSO WORK FOR OTHER COMPANIES THAT THEY SENT US OUT OF TOWN FOR A WHILE AND.
MY WIFE TAKES CARE OF PAYING THE BILLS, BUT SHE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING LEGAL.
WHAT'S THE CITY'S? VALERIE PARSONS, CODE COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR.
MR. VOGEL, I DO HAVE A QUESTION GOING THROUGH YOUR PAPERWORK.
BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR YOU EVER FOLLOW THROUGH ON THAT.
I NEVER GOT A CALL BACK AND I NEVER GOT PAPER.
THERE ARE EMAILS IN HERE FROM.
AND I JUST I NEVER I NEVER GOT ANYTHING IN THE MAIL.
I MEAN, I DO GET MY MAIL, BUT SOMETIMES IT JUST.
BUT YEAH, I TRIED TO GO GET THAT.
THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO ME WITH THE PAPERWORK ON THAT.
SO I JUST KIND OF GAVE UP ON IT.
AT THIS TIME, THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES ARE $750.
FOUR. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GENERAL COURSE THAT THE CITY HAS PRETTY MUCH EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN DOING THIS, AS FAR AS TO PROCESS IT THROUGH THE WELL, Y'ALL GOT TO GET PAID, TOO.
WELL, IT'S NOT THAT THEY GOT TO GET PAID.
IT'S JUST THAT THAT'S PART OF THE EXPENSES THAT THE CITY.
OH, I UNDERSTAND. PROCESSING THE CLAIM.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS? NOPE, NOT AT ALL. THEN I'LL ENTER AN ORDER REDUCING IT TO $750.
NORMALLY, WE REQUIRE PAYMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THAT A PROBLEM? NO, BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T PAY WITHIN 30 DAYS, THE CURRENT FINE GETS REINSTATED.
AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THEN I'LL ENTER AN ORDER TO THAT EFFECT.
OUR NEXT CASE TO BE HEARD IS ACTUALLY ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA.
IT'S CB 165161431 FOR BRANTLEY STREET SOUTHEAST.
JOSEPH ONE. TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON.
LAST. COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD TO.
I'M JOSEPH ONE 2410 BARTLETT STREET WITH MR.
[00:10:01]
JUST. I WAS HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO FOR HIM AND ON HIS BEHALF HE GAVE ME THE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO COME FOR HIM.AND. WE WE HAVE THE IMPRESSION THAT WE WERE DONE WITH THE SITUATION BECAUSE HE WENT THERE AND PAID A FINE UNTIL HE TRIED TO SELL THE PROPERTY.
THEY TELL THEM THAT IT'S SOMETHING OTHERWISE.
I GOT THIS WHERE HE PAID THAT FINE THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE.
AND THE OTHER PAPERWORK FROM THE OTHER HEARING? NO. BUT FOR THE ONE TODAY WHEN YOU SAID YOU WERE HERE BEFORE.
BEFORE? YEAH. THIS IS THE ONE.
WE HAVE THE RELEASE OF LEAN RIGHT HERE FROM THE CITY.
I'M BACK TO REDUCE THE OTHER LANE AS WELL.
AT ONE IS FOR THE ADDITION WITH NO PERMIT.
THE FIRST ONE THAT HE'S HERE TODAY ON IS IT WAS UNDER THE OLD OWNER THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THIS GENTLEMAN, IT WAS CLOSED AND RESIDED IN HIS NAME.
SO THE FIRST CASE THAT HE CAME ON IN DECEMBER WAS THAT LIEN IN HIS NAME.
THIS ONE IS FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNER.
SO SAME VIOLATION TO BE CLARIFIED, CORRECT? YES. WHEN THE EVENT OR THE PREVIEW ARE TECHNICAL, THE PROBLEM.
THE KNICKS OWNER IS STILL LIABLE FOR IT.
CORRECT. SO WHEN A PROPERTY IS SOLD AND THERE'S A ACTIVE CASE ON IT, LEGALLY, WE HAVE TO CLOSE THAT CASE AND CITE THE NEW OWNER, BUT THAT DOESN'T RELEASE THE LIEN.
SO THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE.
THE PREVIOUS OWNER ALREADY HAD A LEAN ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN YOU PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.
SO WE HAD TO CLOSE THAT ONE AND RECITE.
OR THE SAME VIOLENCE. SO WHAT IS A VIOLATION THAN THE OTHER ONE? IT'S FOR THE SAME VIOLATION.
OKAY. SO I HAD TO COME TO THE CITY MEETING MORE OFTEN.
SO EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST.
SO IT WAS KIND OF AN OVERSIGHT.
I MEAN, THEY GET IN THE WAY OF THE ADDITION IN THE BACK.
REGARDING. THE CITY HAS NO OBJECTION TO A REDUCTION OF THE LINE FOR THE $750 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.
QUESTION. CASE THAT WAS HEARD BEFORE.
GO BACK ONE OR THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT SUPPORTED.
FACTS THAT WERE BEFORE ME AND THE PRIOR HEARING.
YES, THEY ARE. I WAS THAT THE CITY HAS DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
THIS ONE. THEY WERE COVERED IN THE PRIOR.
[00:15:02]
BUT IT'S THE SAME CASE.AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION.
THIS APPEARS TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME.
YOU'VE JUST ASSIGNED A DIFFERENT CASE NUMBER AS THERE WAS A NEW OWNER TO THE PROPERTY.
WHEN THERE IS A NEW OWNER, WE CANNOT KEEP THE EXISTING CASE OPEN BECAUSE IT IS A NEW OWNER.
WHAT NEW ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS HAVE YOU HAD OTHER THAN OPENING THE NEW CASE? THE UNDERLYING FACTS ARE IDENTICAL.
STILL THE DATA ENTRY WORK AND THE INSPECTIONS THAT ARE CONDUCTED BY THE OFFICER.
THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. WHAT WHAT ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS WERE DONE? CASE THAT WE ALREADY ENTERED AN ORDER ON VERSUS THIS ONE.
CONSIDERING THAT WE'RE NOT CONSIDERED IN THE PRIOR.
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS IS THE SAME CASE, SAME FACTS.
SAME EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR WHATEVER WORK THE CITY MAY HAVE.
AND WHEN THEY DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS A NEW OWNER TO THE PROPERTY.
CORRECT. IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS.
TWO ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THIS CASE, CORRECT? GOT A NOTICE OF A HEARING.
NOTICE THE ATTACHED. YOU HAVE THE OTHER CASE FILE HERE.
MR. BEEDLE, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UPON THIS CASE, THIS PREVIOUS CASE.
AT THE LEAN WAS ORIGINALLY ON THE PREVIOUS OWNER, MARIE LEGER.
IT WAS A NON COMPLIANCE CLOSED CASE AGAIN BECAUSE IT WAS A NEW OWNER AT THE TIME.
FINES ARE UP TO $101,000 WHEN THIS WAS CLOSED.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M ONLY ASKING FOR 750 ON THIS CASE.
LEGALLY, WE DO HAVE TO CLOSE IT AND RECITE UNDER THE NEW OWNER.
THIS WAS GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL CASE STARTED IN 2014.
[00:20:13]
SO LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT HAPPENED.AND I THINK I THINK I HAVE A HANDLE ON WHAT HAPPENED.
BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS, IS THE PRIOR OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AND YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM THAT PERSON.
AND WHAT THE CITY DID WAS THEY CLOSED OUT THE PRIOR CASE AGAINST THE PRIOR OWNER BECAUSE YOU NOW OWN THE PROPERTY AND THE VIOLATION CONTINUED BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
ALL RIGHT. IT DID NOT GET RID OF THE OTHER CASE.
THEY STARTED A NEW CASE, WHICH IS THE ONE YOU WERE HERE FOR BEFORE.
THAT WAS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CASE.
SO WHAT THE CITY'S POSITION IS, IS THAT.
THE PRIOR OWNER, AND THEN THEY HAD A SEPARATE HEARING, WHICH YOU WERE INVOLVED IN.
THEY HAD ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN BOTH CASES, BUT EVEN IF THEY WERE TOGETHER.
EVEN IF THE TWO CASES WERE BROUGHT UP TOGETHER AT THE HEARING LAST TIME.
THEY ASK FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OR HOWEVER MANY CASES THAT THERE ARE.
SO THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY MORE FINES, PER SE.
THEY JUST WANT TO BE REIMBURSED THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, WHICH IS THE $750 OR THE OLD CASE.
THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING. EXCUSE ME? THAT'S ALL THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
DOES CITY DID RECORD THE LIEN, RECORD THE LIEN FOR THE PRIOR OWNER.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY A RECORD WHEN HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
RIGHT. SO YOU TOOK TITLE ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO ANOTHER LINK.
SO WHICH I WOULD HAVE DONE EVEN IF THIS ONE HAD COME UP ON TAX OR THE OTHER HERE.
WELL, YES. LIKE I TOLD THE LAST PERSON I PAID IN 30 DAYS FOR BUYING.
AND MY QUESTION I HAVE FOR HER, WHICH IS WHEN IS THAT DONE? WHEN IS THIS COMPLETED? NOW, I'M A REAL ESTATE BROKER.
I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ANSWER WHEN I SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL A NEW BUYER THIS IS DONE.
NOW, YOU TOLD ME THE TRANSFER FROM THE OTHER ONE TO HIM.
WOULD THAT TRANSFER TO HIM AGAIN? THERE'S NO MORE LIENS.
ONCE YOU PAY THE $750, IT TAKES CARE OF THAT SECOND LIEN THEY SIGN AND RECORD.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOMEBODY IN THE CITY STAFF SIGNS A RECORDS OF SATISFACTION.
THANK YOU. AND WE'RE GOING BACK TO ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA AT CB 18403, DASH ONE SEVEN AND 1631 TALBOT STREET SOUTHEAST.
THIS AGAIN WAS HEARD, MR. BEADLE, LAST MONTH FOR A ADDITIONAL LEAN.
A COUPLE MORE LINES WERE FOUND, SO THEY'RE HERE ON THE ADDITIONAL LIEN.
AND SHE IS AWARE THAT THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL NUISANCE VEGETATION LINES THAT ALSO HAVE TO BE PAID.
LAST. IT'S AN ADDITIONAL LEAN.
AGAIN, IT'S UNDER A PREVIOUS OWNER, BUT IT'S AN ADDITIONAL LEAN.
YEAH. LAST TIME IT SHOULD HAVE COME LAST MONTH AS WELL, BUT IT WAS MISSED.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING US AGAIN.
ALWAYS FUN FEELING LIKE NEEDS TO BE SWORN IN.
[00:25:01]
YEP. I JUST ARRIVED.RIGHT. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU.
IT WAS FUN TO FEEL LIKE I'M ON LAW AND ORDER.
BUT TODAY HERE I AM WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SHE AGAIN WAS HERE LAST MONTH UNDER THE IMPRESSION SHE WAS NEGOTIATING THE TOTAL LIENS HER AND HER PARTNER ARE IN QUITE THE SHOCK TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS STILL. QUITE A SUBSTANTIAL LEAN LEFT.
AND THAT ACTUALLY WAS STATED IN OUR LAST MEETING THAT SHE WAS INTENDING ON PAYING FOR THOSE.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THOSE WERE MISSED, BUT YEAH, WE'RE HERE TODAY EAGER TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY.
WE ARE READY TO HAVE THE PROPERTY ON THE MARKET AND LOOKING FORWARD TO HAPPY ENDING.
OBJECTION IN THE REDUCTION OF THIS LEAN WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL OF THE CITY'S OUT OF POCKET COSTS, WHICH WOULD BE THE NUISANCE LIENS, ARE PAID IN FULL ALONG WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE OF $750.
WHAT IS THE TOTAL REMAINING? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUISANCE LIENS ARE.
I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THOSE.
AND WHAT THE CITY IS BASICALLY SAYING IS THAT JUST LIKE THE LAST CASE.
IT'S THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE COST IS WHAT THEY'RE SEEKING FOR THIS CASE.
OKAY. ABSOLUTELY. SHE'S GOT A COUPLE STATEMENTS HERE.
WE'RE NOT CLEAR AS TO THE EXACT COST OF THOSE, BUT WE WILL DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE.
THIS WAS WILLIAMS. I DON'T HAVE ANY JURISDICTION.
WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT THEN.
SEVEN. I SEE ONE HERE FOR 49,000.
49,007. 46 IS WHAT WE'RE REDUCING THAT ONE TO THE 750.
WONDERFUL. AND THEN NOW THE TWO NUISANCE LIENS.
THE. AND DID YOU GIVE HIM AN AMOUNT YET? SHE'S GOT A FEW DOGS HERE.
SHE HAS SIBI 20540 AS A PAYOFF FOR TODAY'S DAY OF FOUR 4722.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE JUST DID.
AND THEN CB 2 TO 5, THREE, FOUR WITH A PAYOFF OF TODAY'S DATE AT FOUR 3129.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND MOST OF THE.
ONE FOR THE. THE WAS THE FIRST 181 1000.
[00:30:01]
FOR THE. OH.DOING IT IN MY HEAD. YEAH, IT'S ONE ONE.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ADDING UP IN MY HEAD NOW OR SOMETHING.
YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, EVERYONE.
THANK YOU AGAIN. ALWAYS A PLEASURE.
YOU WANT TO DO AN OFFICIAL, UM.
ORDER, MR. BEADLE? LIKE THE 30 DAYS.
I KNOW. SHE SAID SHE'LL PAY TOMORROW, BUT.
I WOULD THE. OUR LAST ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA IS CB 1836717 AT 1300 GIB, RATTLER STREET, SOUTHWEST.
AND SIR, I DO NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN.
SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO. THANK YOU. SINCE YOU WEREN'T HERE AT THE BEGINNING, I'LL GO OVER THE PROCESS FOR YOU AS THE APPLICANT, PRESENT YOUR CASE FOR THE REDUCTION AND THE CITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO WHATEVER THE CITY SAYS IN THEIR TESTIMONY.
I GUESS I ACCUMULATED THIS FINE BECAUSE OF THE GARBAGE CAN THING AT THE TIME.
I WAS GOING TO THE DUMP EVERY DAY AND I WAS JUST BRINGING MY OWN TRASH.
AND IT'S NOT LIKE I LET IT ACCUMULATE IT.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT I HAD TO PAY THAT REGARDLESS.
ONCE I FOUND THAT OUT THAT I HAD TO PAY THE FEE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I'D TAKE MY OWN TRASH OR NOT.
WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, MY HEALTH HAS HAD SOME ISSUES.
I HAD TO LEAVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT WORSE.
AND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO HAVE HANGING OVER MY WIFE'S HEAD IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO ME.
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR ME TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF NOW.
WELL, I MEAN, SO I GUESS IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS NOW.
I MEAN, I'M SURE THE CITY HAS A RECORD OF WHEN I START WHEN I WHEN I PAID THE THE BACK PAY BECAUSE I HAD, YOU KNOW, I HAD I PAID LIKE EIGHT OR $900. FOR THE BACK CHARGES THAT I OWED FOR THE SERVICE ITSELF, I GUESS.
SO I MISSED THAT DEADLINE AND.
AND AS I SAID, SOME THINGS HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY THAT JUST CAN'T PUT IT OFF ANYMORE.
I'VE GOT TO GET TAKEN CARE OF.
THESE POSITION REGARDING THIS.
LORI PARSONS, CODE COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR.
IT APPEARS HE CAME INTO COMPLIANCE ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2018.
SO HE WAS ONLY LOOKS LIKE HE WAS ONLY IN VIOLATION FOR POSSIBLY.
EIGHT OR NINE MONTHS ONCE WE TOOK THE CASE OVER.
MAN. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WOULD YOU CONSIDER JUST LET ME PAY THE 750 SINCE THERE'S REALLY NO HARM DONE HERE OTHER THAN, YOU KNOW, I WAS TAKING MY OWN TRASH.
I DIDN'T LET ANYTHING ACCUMULATE.
I WASN'T A NUISANCE TO ANY OF MY NEIGHBORS.
I DIDN'T CREATE ANY PROBLEMS FOR YOU GUYS, REALLY.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER JUST LETTING ME PAY THE 750 AND FORGET ABOUT THE 5% EXTRA? IT WOULD BE A BIG HELP FOR ME.
PROCESS. AND MAKE THAT DECISION.
THANK YOU. FIGURING OUT WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS WAS $878 AND SEVEN.
[00:35:02]
BEYOND THE 750.SO HE WAS ASKING, OH, TOTAL ASKING FOR 750 PLUS FIVE AND THE 78.
I'M DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM DROPPING.
NORMALLY THERE'S A 30 DAY TIME PERIOD TO PAY IT.
IT'S NO PROBLEM. I'LL PAY IT TODAY.
OKAY. CAN I GO IN THERE NOW AND PAY THAT? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
AS LONG AS I CAN GET THIS HANDLE TODAY.
OKAY. SO WHO DO I PAY YOU? ALL RIGHT. FIVE.
HE'S ADJOURNED AT 136.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.