Loading...
CEB Minutes 10/24/1996 1996 Code Enforcement Board October 24, 1996 October 24, 1996 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Public Nuisance Abatement Board Naples, Florida, October 24, 1996 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Nuisance Abatement Board met on this date at 8:40 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: M. Jean Rawson Jim Allen Charles Andrew Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Louis Laforet Richard McCormick ALSO PRESENT: Ramiro Manalich, Chief Asst. County Attorney Shirley Jean McEachern, Asst. County Attorney Frank X. Kowalski, Attorney for the CEB Maria E. Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Linda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director (The following proceedings commenced, Mireya Louviere, Celia Deifik, and Jim Allen not being present.) Page 1 OCT-10-'96 THU 10:51 ID:COMPLAHCE SERVICES TEL 1'10:941 643-8345 "880 P01 I.", PUBLIC NUISANCE: ABATEMENT BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY. Ii'LORIDA aSl~lilZA Date: Ooto~.r 24, 1"~ at 8,30 o'clock A.M. Loc.tlon: Collier County Oover.nment Center, Admn. Bldg, 3rd Floor BOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OP THIS SOARI) WILL NEED A RBCOJm OP THE PROCBBDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AN%) THEREFORB MAY NEBD '1'0 DSORB THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OP THB PROCEEDINGS IS l1ADB, WHICH RECORD INCLWBS THE TBSTIMONY ANt) EVIDDCB UPON mICH THE: APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. NEITHER COLLISR COUNTY NOR THE PUBLIC NUISANCB ABATEMENT BOARD SHALL BB RESPONSISLB fOR PROVIDING THIS RBCORD. 1. ROLL <:ALL .. APPROVAL 0,. AaDnA 3. APPROVAL 01" M:J:H'D'l'IlS NIl( 4. PmlLIC: DAR:J:!mS A. ace v.. L.e Hedrich 5. NEW BUSINlilSS N/A ~f 6. OLD mmnmss N/A 7. gPOR'1'S N/A I. NBXT ~R'l':r!m DA~1l N/A , AW9QJlN NAB - '6-001 October 24, 1996 CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The Public Nuisance Abatement Board of Collier County, Florida, will come to order. Let's start with the roll call. MR. McCORMICK: Richard-- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. MR. McCORMICK: -- McCormick. MR. LAFORET: Lou Laforet. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Jean Rawson. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda, and there's not a lot on the agenda except the one public hearing. Can I have a motion to approve the agenda? MR. ANDREWS: I make a motion that we approve. MR. McCORMICK: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Been moved and seconded that we approve this morning's agenda. All in favor signify by saying aye. The only item of business before the Public Nuisance Abatement Board of Collier County this morning is one public hearing, Board of County Commissioners versus Lee Hendrick (sic). MS. McEACHERN: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Good morning, board. I'm Shirley Jean McEachern, assistant county attorney, and with me is Ramiro Manalich, the chief assistant county attorney. This is the inaugural hearing for the Nuisance Abatement Board. Perhaps, as you know this last spring, this ordinance, which is Ordinance 96-11, was enacted and passed by the Board of County Commissioners on March 12, 1996, and it became local law upon filing with the Secretary of Stat~ on March 15, 1996. The ordinance was enacted pursuant to the home rule powers granted to the Florida counties pursuant to Article 8 of the constitution of the State of Florida. It was enacted also pursuant to Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and most specifically, Chapter 823, Florida Statutes, which declares that certain places and premises are a public nuisance and that such places or premises shall be abated or enjoined pursuant to Chapter 60 of Florida Statutes. (Mr. Allen entered the boardroom.) MS. McEACHERN: As set forth in the premises of the ordinance, which you should have a copy of in your packet, recent law enforcement activities conducted by the Collier County Sheriff's Department indicates that there are premises and places within the county that are used as a site of illegal and/or nuisance activity which include, but are not limited to, the unlawful sale or delivery of controlled substances, prostitution, youth and street gang activity, gambling, illegal sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or lewd and lascivious behavior. Accordingly, the Board of County Commissioners set forth in their findings in Ordinance 96-11 and thereby declared that any such places or premises which "are used as the site of criminal, illegal, and/or nuisance activities, including but not limited to, the unlawful sale, possession, where such possession constitutes a felony and the site has previously been used on more than one occasion as a site of unlawful sale, delivery, manufacture or cultivation of any Page 2 October 24, 1996 controlled substance or delivery of controlled substances, prostitution, youth and street gang activity, gambling, illegal sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages, or lewd and lacivious behavior are a public nuisance that adversely affects the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of Collier County. Accordingly, the Board of County Commissioners in -- in Ordinance No. 96-11 have found that abating such public nuisances which result from such illegal and/or criminal activity is necessary to improve the quality of life for Collier County residents and that such abatement will safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare of Collier County. Ordinance No. 96-11 defines the public nuisance, and for purposes of our hearing today, your attention is directed to that definition section in the ordinance which is found in paragraphs A-2 and 3, which defines public nuisance as any area, location, property, place, or premises which has been used on more than two occasions within a six-month period as the site of unlawful sale or delivery, manufacture, or cultivation of any controlled substance or on one occasion as a site of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance where such possession constitutes a felony and that has previously been used on more than one occasion as the site of the unlawful delivery, manufacture, cultivation of any controlled substance. The ordinance provides that upon the making of more than two complaints within a six-month period on any particular place or premises, that the code enforcement supervisor or designee shall mail written notice of such complaint by certified mail to the owner of the place and shall provide such owner to contact the Collier County Code Enforcement Department within 14 days and that this period shall be allowed for the purpose of allowing the owner to take such good-faith measures as are appropriate to abate the nuisance. And in the event that the owner fails to take such reasonable action to abate the nuisance within the time frame set forth, that a hearing on such complaint shall be held. The ordinance further states that the sheriff's office shall assist the county attorney's office and/or the code enforcement by sharing with these offices information regarding the investigation of the complaint and assistance serving any notices required in this notice (sic). The sheriff's office shall also make available to the sheriff's staff witnesses to appear before the Nuisance Abatement Board. Therefore, in conducting these hearings the Nuisance Abatement Board may consider any evidence, including evidence of the general reputation of the place or premises, and the order of the Nuisance Abatement Board shall be based on competent and substantial evidence and must be based on a preponderance of the evidence. Ordinance 96-11 directs that after considering all the evidence, the board may declare the place to be a public nuisance and may enter an order immediately prohibiting the maintaining of the nuisance, the operating or maintaining of the premises, including the closure of the place or premises, the conduct, operation, or maintenance of any business or activity on the premises which is Page 3 October 24, 1996 conducive to such nuisance. This board may retain jurisdiction to modify its orders prior to expiration of one year effective from the date of such orders. The first case presented to you today sitting as a Nuisance Abatement Board concerns the alleged illegal drug activity, which includes possession and/or sale of illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia at the property commonly referred to as the pine Street fourplexes, but is more specifically located at 2663-A through 2669 pine Street, Naples, Florida. You will hear testimony today that the Collier County Sheriff's Department has received numerous complaints with regard to this illegal activity and, in fact, has conducted an ongoing undercover investigation of this illegal drug activity at these premises which is still under investigation. (Celia Deifik entered the boardroom.) MS. McEACHERN: You will hear the testimony of Michael Varney who has witnessed -- who has witnessed the illegal drug activity, whose very home has been utilized by the sheriff's department for its undercover operations, and who will tell you about the general reputation of the premises and how it has had a deteriorating effect on the neighborhood in the five years that Michael Varney has owned the property next door. You will also hear the testimony of undercover agents and arresting officers as to illegal drug activity emanating from the pine Street fourplexes. You will hear that in a period stretching the mandatory six-month requirement of Ordinance No. 96-11, that not two, but multiple complaints of nuisance activity has occurred. And you will hear from Dennis Mazzone, the code enforcement investigator, that the notice was served upon the owner to abate the nuisances and that the steps that the owner took included, but perhaps are not limited to, the posting of no trespass signs which have had little, if no effect upon abating the nuisance, which is the illegal drug activity at pine Street -- at the Pine Street fourplexes. (Mireya Louviere entered the boardroom.) MS. McEACHERN: Because, as the evidence will show, the nuisance, the illegal drug activity, continues and therefore continues to threaten and denigrate the public health, safety, and morals of Collier County. Are there any witness -- or any questions? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. For the record why don't we -- the three members of the board who have just come in, why don't you for the record -- let's do another roll call starting with you, Miss Deifik. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. MS. LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let the record reflect that we have a full board present here today. Now, the question was, does anybody have any questions about the county attorney's opening statement? Does everybody understand what we are doing? This is the Nuisance Abatement Board; this is our first case. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, I believe that the respondents are here represented by Attorney Vince Murphy, and I don't Page 4 October 24, 1996 know if at this point he wishes to address the board. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Murphy. MR. MURPHY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is vince Murphy. I'll be representing the property owner in this case. I guess we are a test case, so to speak, or first case. We believe the evidence will show that there has been a -- a significant cleanup of this property since my client purchased the property back almost two years ago. You'll hear testimony from a resident who has lived in the property since 1993 who will testify that the measures that have been taken by my client to clean up this property have been done in good faith and have been reasonable measures that have been taken and, in fact, have been effective in -- in cleaning up the problem that exists on pine Street. This isn't Park Shore. This isn't Pelican Bay. Mr. Hedrich is making a very concerted effort to make this affordable housing not only affordable, but very livable for the residents there. And we believe the evidence will demonstrate to you that his efforts have been very reasonable and have been quite effective. Thank you. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county calls its first witness, Michael Varney. THEREUPON, MICHAEL DAVID VARNEY, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Varney, what is your residential address? A. 2583 pine Street. . Q. Okay. Mr. Varney, if you would, I have -- this is just an exhibit. It's not evidence. We have a map here. Perhaps you could describe to the board exactly where your property is located and then where 2663-A through 266 -- 669-B is located. A. What would you like to know? Q. Oh, if you could just point out to the board where your property is located and where -- you know, where in Naples this exactly is and then where you are in location to the pine Street fourplexes. A. I have no idea by looking at this map. I have no idea by looking at this map. Q. Okay. Maybe if you could just tell -- MS. DEIPIK: Is that mike turned on? THE WITNESS: It is now. Q. Okay. Mr. Varney, could you at least tell the board where the property is located in Naples? A. Right behind Gulf Gate Plaza Q . Okay. A. -- off of pine Street, and I live right next door to these properties. Q. Okay. Mr. Varney, you can go ahead and sit down. I'm sorry. No. Mr. Varney, I'm sorry, over there. Mr. Varney, could you tell the board if you -- your residence is a house or an apartment? Page 5 October 24, 1996 A. Q. Street A. Q. correct? A. Me and the bank. Q. Okay. And when did you buy that house? A. Approximately five years ago, six years ago. Q. Okay. And could you give a description of just, you know, that -- the -- the quality of the life that was existing there at the time that you moved in in the neighborhood? A. It was a peaceful neighborhood when I moved in. I had friends that lived next door in that complex, and it was a nice, quiet neighborhood, and it's went to pieces. Q. And how has it gone to pieces? A. My house has been broken into numerous times; my car has. I've found people setting on my porch when I come home at night. I work two jobs sometimes. I come home at twelve o'clock at night, find these people setting on my porch. Q. And why do you -- why do you -- what do you think the basis is or the reason that those people are sitting there? A. Because they can buy the stuff they need right next door. Q. And what is that stuff that they need next door? A. Crack cocaine. Q. And how do you knqw that's cocaine? A. Unless they have a lot of friends -- I've seen 75 cars an hour come and go out of one apartment. Q. Okay. What else have you seen going on over there? A. I've seen money change hands -- well, like you mentioned earlier, I've had the vice narcotics officers in my house filming what goes on next door. I mean, I'm not stupid. I see money changing hands. I see people in and out of the same apartment. Q. Uh-huh. Mr. Varney, can you share with us any other things that you've actually seen over there? Have you -- have you had any conversations with the property owner about -- A. I tried. I -- I called him 30 times, which is not an exaggeration, and he never would return my phone calls. Q. Okay. A. I finally caught him over there one day, and this was in reference to the one crack cocaine apartment. He knew he had to evict him, but he needed the money, so he collected the rent money, because they had the money that day when he was there to evict him. Q. Have you had -- personally observed any arrests by the -- by any law enforcement agency over there? A. Yes. I've watched them arrest numerous people out of there, but it's a vicious circle. The same people are out on bail and back there within 24 hours. Q. Do you have any suggestions that could help to abate the problem over there? It's a home. Okay. And do you -- are you right next door to the Pine fourplexes, or is there any property between you and the There's a lot between us, but I own that lot also. Okay. And -- and you own the house that you live in; Page 6 October 24, 1996 A. Probably not legal ones. Q. Well, I won't ask you what the illegal ones are. Okay. Do you think that -- is -- is the property next door fenced? A. No, it's not. Q. Do you think that a fence would assist? A. I don't really see where it would help. Q. Is -- A. I mean, yeah, it would block the view. I wouldn't be able to see as much over there but, you know, you're not eliminating the problem. You're just hiding it. Q. Okay. Do you -- what's the is it -- can you give, like, a physical description of that property? I mean, is it picked up? Is it littered? Is it -- A. It is now with the past couple months. I mean, it never was -- there used to be a dumpster out back, which code enforcement came to them, and it was overflowing with garbage and trash. Now, part of that was the apartments; part of it was from out back. It is and it isn't now. I mean, aesthetically, yes, they've mowed the yard and picked up some of the trash. But even behind the second set of buildings, there's cars back there without license plates. The grass isn't mowed; there's trash. I pick up a garbage bag full of trash every week before I mow my lawn, beer bottles from next door that people throw on my lawn. Q. Okay. A. I mean, it gets old. Q. Okay. Have you a~tually seen people -- you stated earlier that you see, like, 75 cars an hour, I think? A. I used to count. It's like Wal-Mart during season at times over there. Q. Okay. And you and you feel that this is all as a result of drug activity going on? A. I know it is. I mean, you can't really say but I live right -- I have a picture window in my living room; my bedroom window, and the kitchen window all face this property. Q. Uh-huh. A. So even if I'm out there cooking something to eat, I can see people coming and going. Q. Have you ever been approached by anybody from the pine Street fourplexes to buy drugs? A. No, not per se to buy drugs but, you know, ride my take my dogs and run them with my bicycle and, Hey, what do you need, you know, Do you need anything, which is, you know, more or less -- Q. And what do you determine that to mean? A. Well, I know what it means. Q. Well, please tell the board. A. Would I like to buy anything. Q. Well, when you say "buy anything," what does that mean? A. Would I like to buy some crack cocaine. Q. Okay. What is -- is there a wall in the back of the property, or what's behind the property? Page 7 October 24, 1996 A. Just vacant lot. Q. And what's behind that vacant lot? A. Gulf Gate Plaza. Q. And is that vacant lot overgrown, or is it mowed? A. It was. They took a bulldozer in there and knocked down all the palmettos -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and made a fine mess back there too. Q. Okay. Do you feel that some of the people who were coming to buy these drugs are coming through that lot? A. They had a lot of homeless that used to stay there, and some of them were selling it out of the woods or getting it there and selling it out of the woods when the -- you know, when the police were watching the apartment next door. And the people living back there would come and buy it, or I would see people park in the complex next door and walk back into the woods and come back ten minutes later. Q. Okay. Is the property lit up at night? A. Just my yard. Q. But the -- A. There's, I guess, one porch light over there, and Naples Land Yacht Harbor has one mercury vapor light which is on; so it's not really well lit. Q. Okay. Do you think if it had some bright lights out there, that that would help with the problem in any way? A. It would make it more visible at night, but I don't -- you know, I don't see where that's going to help the problem. Q. Have you noticed ~ny no trespassing signs on the property? A. Yes. They posted some -- I don't know -- I guess a couple months ago. I don't even know if they're still up now. Q. Okay. And have you seen any kind of deterrent effect as a result of those no trespass signs with regard to the illegal drug activity? A. I don't think it's the no trespassing signs. It's just, like, a cycle. I mean, they arrested the guys in there I guess it's two or three months ago. They move out -- they move out wherever they go. They'll be back in a month or two, and they'll rent an apartment in there again. I've seen this happen over the past two or three years. It's just a vicious cycle. For a couple months it will be nice and quiet over there, and then the same thing will start up all over again. Q. Mr. Varney, I'm curious. When did you see the change in the neighborhood actually occur with regard to the property next door? A. Probably two or three years ago it started going downhill. Q. And do you have any idea or do you have an opinion as to why it was going downhill? Was there a change in ownership? Was there -- A. Just the quality of the residents that live next door. You know, I don't have any idea. You know, I learned today that Mr. Hedrich bought it two years ago, I guess. But I don't know who owned Page 8 October 24, 1996 it before, but he must have supervised it better, because I never saw that kind of activity there before. Q. Do you know if there's an on-site manager? A. As far as I know, there isn't. I asked Mr. Hedrich, not even monetarily, but to give me some authority so I could just walk over there and say, hey, you don't live here. Get off the property. Q. Is there anything else you'd like to tell this board with regard to the activity going on at the pine Street fourplexes next door? A. Yeah. I wish you would do something about it because, I mean, I'm just one person, but I don't feel I deserve to live like this. I bought a brand new car stereo. I had it in my car a total of one day. Q. What happened? A. Somebody from next door came over, stole it, because a friend of mine came by and saw him walking across my property and jumped out and hollered at him, but he -- my friend wasn't going to go over there with that crowd. Q. Okay. A. And the guy just took off over there and ditched it and jumped the fence and probably came back and got it later. I called the sheriff but, you know, by the -- I realize they're busy. When they respond, you know, they can't find the guy. He's already gone. Q. Okay. Is there anything else you'd like to tell the board? A. That would be about it. I hope you can do something about this. MS. McEACHERN: Mr. Murphy, do you have any questions? MR. MURPHY: No questions of this witness. MS. McEACHERN: The board? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody from the board have questions? MR. ANDREWS: Yes. I'd like to ask you just one question. When they stole -- they stole that thing out -- out of your car, did they break your car windows or break into your car, or was it unlocked? THE WITNESS: I have a Camaro with T-tops, and it was locked, but they pried the T-top up and then broke into my car. And, I mean, I even had everything screwed in, and they just pried it out, and you know, I had to replace parts of my car. My house has been broken into -- I mean, you can look in the records -- four, five times. And, you know, they'll break a window or slice a screen. I used to leave my windows open and just leave the screen there because I have a high foundation; so it's up about this high (indicating). They would slice the screen in the middle -- middle of the day and crawl in my house. MR. ANDREWS: Were they stealing any of your property, or were they just looking for -- THE WITNESS: I've had jewelry stolen, my stereos, TVs. MR. ANDREWS: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any other questions from the Page 9 October 24, 1996 board? MR. LAFORET: Mr. Varney, have you ever been threatened because of your complaints? MR. VARNEY: Not physically. I have two large dogs that run my property loose. I mean, they don't go out of my yard, but that's -- I mean, nobody comes in my yard anYmore. Physically, no, I'm -- I'm an old country boy. I don't scare real easily. I mean, nobody's threatened me physically. MR. LAFORET: I'm a city boy. Neither do I. Thank you. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairperson, Madam Chairperson, did the witness identify -- he identified the property as being next door to the vacant lot he owns. Did he identify it by address or some other way to be able to -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't think so. MS. McEACHERN: Mr. Varney, could you come back? BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. The property that you are -- that you've testified to next door to the lot, is that 2663-A through 2669 -- A. Yes, it is. Q. -- B? And in my opening statement I said that it's commonly referred to as the pine Street fourplexes, and I did give the address so -- okay. Thank you. THE WITNESS: You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Next witness. MS. McEACHERN: The county's next witness is Linda Maran. THEREUPON, LINDA MARAN, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Miss Maran, how -- are you employed? A. Yes. Q. How are you employed? A. The Collier County Sheriff's Office narcotics unit. Q. Okay. Could you pull that mike down a little bit so everyone can hear. A. (Witness complied). Q. I have another exhibit. And maybe you want to walk over and look at it for a moment, because this is the first time you've seen it, I think, because I'm going to ask you as we go through this to identify, if you can, with that for the board some of the activity that's gone on there, the particular sites, okay. And how long have you been with narcotics with the Collier County Sheriff's Department? A. Three years. Q. Three years? And before that where were you? A. I was on the road patrol in North Naples. Q. Okay. And how long have you been in law enforcement? Page 10 October 24, 1996 A. Altogether 11 years. Q. Okay. Okay. As an undercover investigator for Collier County Sheriff Department, what are your duties and responsibilities? A. To respond to calls for narcotics and also for vice. Q. Okay. Have you been involved in an undercover investigation with the property located at 2663-A through 2669-B pine Street, which we also call the Pine Street fourplexes? A. Yes. A few times I've been involved. Q. Okay. And what -- what precipitated your involvement? Were there complaints made to the sheriff's department? A. Yes, there were. Q. And these were citizen complaints? A. The majority are citizens' complaints that we get in. Q. Okay. And what was -- what were the basis of the complaints with regard to this property? A. The sale of crack cocaine at the pine Street apartments. Q. Okay. In particular were you involved in an undercover operation on February 8, 1996, at the pine Street fourplexes? A. Let me check the date on mine. Q . Okay. A. Yes, I was. Q. Could you tell us what happened on that day? A. On that day at approximately 12:24 p.m. I went to the apartment complex with an informant, and we parked on the south side of the apartment complex, and the informant left my view. We pulled in in a vehicle. We pulled in up to here (indicating). The informant left my view and walked ba~k to the back door of this apartment (indicating) where a suspected narcotics dealer was selling crack cocaine. MS. DEIFIK: What's that apartment number? THE WITNESS: That's 2669-B. A. And the informant did make a purchase of crack cocaine from outside of that apartment. Q. Okay. And how do you know that it was crack cocaine? A. Because I saw it. Q. Was it field tested? A. Yes, it was. Q. And it test -- did it test positive? A. Yes. She was patted down prior to the purchase Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and was patted down after the purchase. Q. Okay. And what occurred next? A. With that deal there? Q. Yes. A. Okay. Then we had left there and met at another location with other investigators. Q. And then what happened? A. That was -- that was it from there. That was all of my involvement. Q. Did you tell the investigators what occurred? A. Oh, yes. Page 11 October 24, 1996 Q. was the A. Q. on that A. Q. A. Walton. Q. And Mr. Walton is here today? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then do you have any knowledge as to whether or not Mr. Louisdor was convicted or if there was an adjudication in the case? A. He was convicted, yes. Q. Of A. Of sale of crack cocaine. Q. Okay. Did you participate in another undercover investigation at the Pine Street fourplexes? A. Yes, I did. Q. When was that? A. That one was the next day, February 9, 1996. Q. And was that one buy or sale, or was it more? A. That was actually two different sales with two different defendants. Q. Okay. Could you go through them for the board and explain what happened. . A. Okay. I pulled in with an informant, and I parked on the south side of the apartments again (indicating). I was approached by a black male named Keith -- or correction, Claiborn Thigpen. And he asked what I needed, and I handed him a $20 bill. I told him I needed a 20, and a 20 is the slang term for one piece of crack cocaine worth $20. And Mr. Thigpen walked over to here (indicating) and met up with another black male named Keith Lewis. Q. Uh-huh. A. And Keith Lewis retrieved a vial from his sock. Q. Uh-huh. A. Pulled out some crack cocaine, handed it to Claiborn Thigpen. Claiborn walked back to me and handed me the crack. Q. Uh-huh. And-- A. He told me to wait at my car (indicating). Q. Who told you to wait at your car? A. Claiborn did, Mr. Thigpen. Q. And then you said there was another buy that same day? A. Right. I had an informant with me, and the informant also was standing at the car and asked Claiborn Thigpen for a 20 also. He left and went over to Mr. Lewis again. Mr. Lewis walked over to a plant that was approximately in this area (indicating), retrieved a vial, handed Claiborn Thigpen the crack cocaine. Mr. Thigpen walked back over to me and handed me the crack. Q. Uh-huh. Okay. And then after you -- you made -- after And do you have any knowledge of if that -- well, who seller of the drugs? Do you know? His name was Jean Louisdor. And do you know if the sheriff's department followed up buy? Yes, he was eventually arrested. And do you know who participated in that arrest? I believe the arresting officer would have been Dean Page 12 October 24, 1996 the buys occurred, then what did you do? A. I met up with other investigators elsewhere in the county. Q. And then what happened? A. And both Claiborn Thigpen and Keith Lewis were arrested. Q. And do you have any knowledge as to whether or not that -- that that resulted in an adjudication? A. Yes. Q. And what was that? Do you know for each one? A. Both of them were convicted, and Claiborn Thigpen is doing prison time for that. Q. Okay. Were you involved in any other undercover investigation at the pine Street fourplexes? A. Yes, I was. Q. Okay. A. On April 18th. MR. MURPHY: Madam Chairman, if it will speed things up, these are recitations of the four incident reports, and we'll stipulate to the truthfulness of everything that's in those reports. That is not a matter that's being contested at all because I just -- trying to save some time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We appreciate that, Mr. Murphy. MR. McCORMICK: If you continue movement at the same pace you are, I prefer to hear the -- MS. McEACHERN: You want to hear it? It's really up to the board. We can go through -- MR. ANDREWS: How many are there? MS. McEACHERN: There 'are five. MR. ANDREWS: Five more or five all MS. McEACHERN: There's a total of five. MR. ANDREWS: I'm sorry. MS. LOUVIERE: I think it's important that we listen to them. BY MS. Q. A. night. here. Q. Right. A. And we pulled into the parking lot approximately right to here (indicating). Q. Uh-huh. A. And I stayed in the vehicle. Deputy Zanfardino got out of the vehicle and made a purchase of crack cocaine from a man named Wilgens Prenus -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- from this location (indicating), returned back to the vehicle, and we left from there. Q. Okay. And what happened after that? Do you know what happened to Wilgens Pen -- Prenus? A. Yes, he was arrested. McEACHERN: Okay. Continue, the next one. Okay. The next one was April 18th at about 10:30 at And on that occasion I was with Deputy Zanfardino, who is also Page 13 October 24, 1996 Q. And do A. He was Q. Okay. operations? A. No, I was not. Q. Okay. You heard earlier the testimony of Michael Varney who said that the undercover investigation has -- one of its locations has been from his house. Have you participated in that? A. Yes. During an undercover operation, we had sent an undercover officer in to make a purchase from the apartment complex. There was no specific place, just to pull up -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and I was at Mr. Varney's apartment. I was watching the apartment complex Q. Okay. A. -- during that. Q. Uh-huh. A. And as the -- I don't believe we used the SWAT team that day. As the investigators moved in for a search warrant, I was to direct them how many people were out there and who I saw Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and the activity prior to them arriving. Q. Uh-huh. Has the SWAT team ever participated in any of the arrests or surveillance going on at -- at the four -- at the pine Street fourplexes? A. They've -- they've conducted surveillance for us. Q. Okay. Can you give us a physical description of the property and the surrounding property? A. Okay. This -- this is pine Street right here (indicating). The first apartment complex runs north and the second one is just east of it, runs north and south. of a driveway area right here (indicating). And this is because Mr. Varney's house sits right here (indicating). Q. Okay. A. And there's a wooden fence along this side of the property (indicating). There's a large tree sitting back here (indicating) where, from my personal experience, with this buy right here (indicating), the suspect came from the tree to do the buy. And the tree does not sit on the apartment complex property. Q. Uh-huh. A. And back here (indicating) used to be heavily wooded. They cut a lot of the underbrush down Q. Uh-huh. A. -- but a lot of it has grown back. I haven't seen it recently. Q. Okay. A. And this is the parking lot right here for the Gulf Gate Plaza where the building sits approximately right here (indicating). Q. Okay. Do you have any suggestions as to what could help to abate the drug activity out there? A. There could be a landlord-tenant agreement drawn up with you know if he was adjudicated? adjudicated guilty, yes. Were you involved in any other undercover south, and There's sort not to scale Page 14 October 24, 1996 identification provided for each and every tenant that's in there. Q. Uh-huh. A. And I found that very helpful. The projects out in Immokalee -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- they have a tenant agreement that says if narcotics are found in -- in the apartment or if a tenant is in possession of any kind of a narcotic, whether convicted or not, they're automatically evicted. Q. Uh-huh. A. And I found that that's really helpful. Identification from every tenant that's going to be in each and every apartment and to set laws down that, you know, you're not to have 30 or 40 people over unless, you know -- if you're going to have a birthday party that's another thing, but just to sit out there drinking beer -- Q. Uh-huh. Have you observed any vehicles without license tags A. Yes. And-- Q. -- out there? A. -- like I say, I haven't been there in quite awhile -- Q . Okay. A. -- but the ones that I did see, Mr. Mazzone did take care of those. Q. Okay. Have you observed the no trespassing signs that the property owner put up? A. The last time I was there was the date that I did the last buy. Q. Okay. All right. And they weren't up at that time, or you don't recall? A. I don't recall. Q. Okay. Do you think that lighting at night would help? A. It would not only help the -- the people in the area, the -- the residents Q. Uh-huh. A. -- it would help us also. If we're conducting surveillance at nighttime and to see if something is still ongoing there Q. Uh-huh. A. -- it would be very helpful for us to have lights. So if we're looking through a pair of binoculars towards the site, we could see what was going on. Q. Uh-huh. Do you have any pers -- have you ever spoken with the property owner with regard to the activity going on out at the property? A. The man that I was told was the person in charge of the property I don't see in the c~urtroom here today. Q . Okay. A. The person I talked to was Norman. Q. Norman Hedrich? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Page 15 October 24, 1996 A. taking Q. problem? A. Q. And he said every time we talked to him that he was care of the problem. And from what you saw, was he taking care of the No. It was during the time I made all the buys. Okay. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. Does Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY: Yes, ma'am, I do. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURPHY: Q. Where shall I -- where shall I go? Over here. This is fine. A. Q. mobile. I just want to clarify the -- you mentioned that there was one drug buy that occurred, and the source of the individual was from the tree that -- that sits off of this property? A. Yes. That was the first buy. Q. What was your observation about that area during the time of your investigations out there, the area of the tree, if we'll call it that? A. There were quite a few people under the tree when we had first pulled up. Q. Would it be safe or accurate to characterize it as sort of a homeless gathering place? A. Those people didn ,'t all look homeless. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the people who -- whose names you listed for the board that were arrested and eventually adjudicated guilty, do you know whether they were tenants of this property? A. I don't believe any of them were, no. Q. And am I correct in saying you have not been there since April since your investigation concluded? A. Not during an undercover capacity. Just driving by, yes, I have been. Q. But you have not walked the property since -- since April the 18th, I think, was the date you indicated? A. There was one time when I did. I went to the tree, and I had driven by. Investigator Figueroa was with me, and we drove by and saw two other investigators there, and I did go back to the tree. We found a crack cocaine pipe back there. Q. But, again, that's not on this property? A. That's correct, but it's assessable (sic) through the property in question. Q. Right. But it's assessable (sic) from other properties too; is that right? A. Yes, through the woods. Q. Yes. MR. MURPHY: No further questions. Do you want this one? No. You can keep that one. I'm not very good at being Page 16 October 24, 1996 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Miss Maran, is this piece of property still under investigation for illegal drug activity; do you know? A. I'm not currently working in the Naples narcotics office. Q. Naples? A. Approximately a month and -- maybe a month to a month and a half ago. Q. Okay. And at the time that you left or right before, do you know if the property was under investigation at that time for illegal drug activity? A. Yes. We keep receiving information that narcotics are being sold out of there. Q. Receiving it from whom? A. If we talk to someone, a person who has been arrested, or someone calls in Q. Okay. A. -- to talk to us, people that live in the neighborhood. Q. Okay. I'd like to show you -- Miss Maran, could you identify the document that I just handed you? A. This is all the dispatch calls from 2663 to -- to 2669 pine Street. Q. Okay. Now, on that list I believe it mentions some welfare. What does that mean; do you know? A. That would be if ~ 911 call was received at the sheriff's office and the person hung up and they called back and the person didn't answer the phone or it was busy. Q. Okay. So that is an indication of -- of some complaints that the sheriff's office has received with regard to drug activity out on the property and other things? A. You're referring to the welfare check? Q. Well, the other activities are also on that piece of paper. A. Can you state your question again? Q. Does that -- what -- tell -- will you tell the board what that piece of paper shows? A. It shows -- it doesn't show -- oh, it does show dates here -- the calls that were received from 2663 to 2669 pine Street, and it looks like the date is going to start at 11-1 of '95 and go up to 6-21 of 96, looks like -- no, 8-22 of '96 looks like the current date. Q. Okay. When did you leave the narcotics office here in Okay. MS. McEACHERN: And I'd like to mark that as County's 1 if there aren't any objections. MR. MURPHY: No objections. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. And-- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we'll have it marked. And apparently there's no objections, so we'll introduce it into evidence as County's Exhibit 1. Page 17 October 24, 1996 MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. With the -- you know, I'd like to pass it down to the board members CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's let the court reporter mark it first. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I have -- I would like at this time, if -- if everybody doesn't mind, to take about a ten-minute break. I think that message is for me from Judge Hayes, and I need to call into the courtroom and give some -- MS. McEACHERN: Sure. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- argument over his speakerphone, and I don't think it will take but about ten minutes, and I don't want to just get up and leave, because then it probably wouldn't be fair for me to vote. So if -- if you don't mind -- and I apologize, but when the judge calls -- so let's, if you don't mind, take about a ten-minute break, and then we'll come back and resume with the testimony, and we'll get that exhibit marked. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Ten-minute break. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The board will come back to order. Again, I -- I apologize for the inconvenience. We would have had a break this morning at some point in time, but we -- just earlier than later. County attorney, you may continue with your case. MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Miss Maran, could you just summarize for us again the location of the buys that you participated in at the fourplex, pine Street fourplexes? MR. MANALICH: Excuse me. Perhaps before we move on, Exhibit 1 had just been tendered, and you wanted a complete to get that admitted into evidence; that had been done. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Exhibit 1, I believe, is admitted into evidence without objection. And if you would like to pass that through the board, you know, we'll be happy to look at it. You may go ahead with your questioning. MS. McEACHERN: I would. In fact, is it over there? (County Exhibit No.1 was marked for identification.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: You can go ahead with your questioning. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Miss Maran, I believe I asked you if you could just summarize the location of the buys that you participated in. A. Okay. The first one was right here (indicating). This was with an informant where I waited in the car approximately right here (indicating) while the informant purchased crack cocaine from the rear exterior of 2669-B. The second purchase and third purchase where I pulled up to -- between 2669 and 2669 -- correction, 2669-A, 2669-B, and Mr. Thigpen walked over to the car. I purchased crack cocaine from him. The informant that was with me gave him $20, and he Page 18 October 24, 1996 returned crack cocaine to me again. And the third purchase was where myself and Deputy Zanfardino pulled up to approximately the north side of 266 -- 2663-A, and Deputy Zanfardino purchased crack cocaine from right here (indicating) . Q. Okay. Have you observed any, quote, unquote, homeless people at the property or in the area surrounding the property or adjacent to the property? A. I -- I never personally asked them if they were homeless. They appeared to be to me, and they're generally under the tree (indicating). Q. The homeless people? A. Yes. Q. Okay. But the actual buys, do you have any knowledge if the -- if the defendants were homeless people? A. No, they were not. Q. They were not, okay. Is -- are -- do you have any personal knowledge of any other drug activity occurring on that property or emanating from it? A. Yes. There were -- there was a buy from approximately right here (indicating) and another buy from here (indicating) that involved undercover -- Q. Could you, for the court reporter -- because when this is on a transcript "here" doesn't compute well, could you just give an actual location in words to where that is? MS. DEIFIK: Is that mike turned on? I don't think it is. A. Okay. There was a buy that was between 2665-A and 2665-B that occurred between them (indicating), and there was a buy that occurred back by the tree. It appears with the drawing you have here that it occurred on the property to the southeast side of 2669-B. Q. Okay. Miss Maran, did I also ask you to compute the costs that the sheriff's department has incurred in its investigation of the drug activity out at the Pine Street fourplexes? A. Yes, you did, and I have those totals right here. Q. Could you go and give them to us? A. Okay. For the very first buy that occurred at the rear of the apartment, that was -- that was the first buy I did. That cost was $279. Q. Do you know what that represents? A. That represents all of the personnel that was involved and the currency that we used to purchase the crack cocaine with. If we did not recover that, that would also be added in. If we had to _ have any expenses, that would be added in also. Q. When you say personnel, is that based on the hourly wages; do you know? A. Right. That's a -- that's a form that we have that's it's stated this is how much a deputy will cost and a corporal and a sergeant and on down the line. Q. Okay. And will you go through the other costs that you have? Page 19 October 24, 1996 A. Okay. The other one that I have is for the second buy where Mr. Thigpen came between Apartment 2669-A and 2669-B. For each of those defendants it was $282. Q. Each? A. Each. Q. Each, okay. Any other costs? A. The last one where Deputy Zanfardino and myself were on the north side of the property where he went and purchased from 2 outside of 2663-B, that's $170. Q. Okay. Okay. Is that it? A. I also -- the other two purchases that are on the board there Q. A. office Q. Uh-huh. A. -- and I did look those costs up also. Q. And they are? A. One of them is $170. And there are two defendants in one of the buys. One defendant was charged $42, and the other was charged $87. Q. Did you total that by chance? A. No, I didn't. Q . Okay. MR. ANDREWS: That was for -- for any of the five, that would -- that figure you gave us was each; right? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. ANDREWS: That would be five at 279 apiece; right? You gave us the first two. You had the first -- first five, second five. One was 279, and one was 282. THE WITNESS: The prices that I have, the very first case was $279. The second case had two defendants in it, and each one was charged $282. So there's 282 two times. MR. ANDREWS: Oh, okay. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Could you just go through the list again on the cost? A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. Okay. $279. Okay. $282, $282 again. Okay. $170, $170 again, $42, and $87. Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: THE WITNESS: MS. LOUVIERE: all these calls point -- did -- you get to talk property? THE WITNESS: and any Did his Uh-huh. -- I went to the case files that we maintain in our Could I ask a question of you, please? Sure. During the time that all these arrests were coming in, which the list is extensive, did any point in time did you see the owner there? to the owner about the problems he was having with Other than personnel that are from the Page 20 October 24, 1996 sheriff's office and Mr. Varney that's in the audience, I've never seen any of these four people here before. MS. DEIFIK: You said you had conversations with someone named Norman Hedrich. What were those conversations? THE WITNESS: Well, he claimed he was the property manager, I believe. And we told him that we were working narcotics there. We had received many complaints, that we've made arrests there. And he said he was cleaning the property up. That was his answer to us. MS. LOUVIERE: And every time you came back -- how many times did you talk to this fellow, Norman? THE WITNESS: I personally talked to him just one time. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. THE WITNESS: I did page him with a pager that was provided by Investigator Figueroa, and I never received a call back. MS. LOUVIERE: So to the best of your knowledge, you never got -- the owner never showed up, never -- you never saw him? THE WITNESS: If this is the owner, I've never seen the owner before until today. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. Thanks. MS. McEACHERN: Mr. Murphy, do you have any questions? MR. MURPHY: No, no questions. Thank you. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: Excuse me. Did -- did anyone do a check to ascertain whether these defendants were tenants of this apartment complex? Do you have evid~nce coming in later on that issue? MS. McEACHERN: The -- the -- first of all, for purposes of finding a public nuisance for illegal drug activity, all that's required is that the drug activity is occurring on the property. They do not even have to live there. Mr. Varney testified that, you know, some of the people do live there that that are -- MS. DEIFIK: The people that she MS. McEACHERN: That she -- MS. DEIFIK: -- investigated who were arrested, do their arrest records reflect an address? MS. McEACHERN: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: And what are their addresses? THE WITNESS: The first five that I had with Mr. Louisdor, he did not live there. He lived on Bayshore. With Claiborn Thigpen, he listed his address as general delivery in Naples. Mr. Lewis listed his address as 2669 pine Street with no specific apartment number, and Wilgens Prenus listed his address as 2663 Pine Street with no specific apartment number. MS. McEACHERN: But, nevertheless, the buys that you participated in or have personal knowledge of, occurred on the premises at the pine Street fourplexesi is that correct? THE WITNESS: That's correct. MS. DEIPIK: Okay. May I ask another question? THE WITNESS: Sure. MS. DEIFIK: Did you see any of these persons go into Page 21 October 24, 1996 any of these apartments or come out of any of these apartments? THE WITNESS: No, I did not. MS. LOUVIERE: But you did state that two of the people stated -- gave you their address as living in these apartments? THE WITNESS: Yes. MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. MS. McEACHERN: Any further questions? I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. You can call your next witness. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. Mr. Murphy has requested if we take a witness out of sequence. One of his witnesses has to leave, so the county has no objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. If the county has no objection, then we're going to proceed to respondent's case. Mr. Murphy, you may take your witness out of order. MR. MURPHY: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate the county attorney's indulgence. Mr. Aristide, if you will, why don't you stand there, and I'll stand here. MR. ARISTIDE: Good morning. THEREUPON, MR. ARISTIDE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: (The dialect of this witness was very hard to understand. ) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MURPHY : Q. Mr. Aristide, where do you reside? Where do you live? A. I live on 2663-B pine Street for almost four years. Q. Would you please tell the board what the condition of the property was, oh, two years ago. A. But the place was terrible. The biggest problem was the man -- the people who live under bush. The people live under bush have a traffic in the bush. I don't know what kind. People come in, go, and back. But now the bush is destroyed. I think now -- I see now everything is okay. The place is nice place to live now, very clean. My -- is very clean, but I don't see anything wrong in this -- in the -- in the yard now. Q. In the past have you had reason to call the sheriff's department? A. Yes, I had, because so many time I cannot sleep sometime. Sometime I come from church, too many cars in the yard. I can -- I don't find place to park my car. I call police. But that I hear in my house -- at 2663-A, 2665-A and 2669 -- 69-B, that's why. This place was very bad. Bad .people live there. But that's the reason why I told the owner before unguys (phonetic) to take. I always -- I said to the owner before, you take on guard man to make rent somebody room, but try to know the place awake. That's very important because people don't wake, make wrong business. Page 22 October 24, 1996 Q. Since, let's say, June 1st of 1996, June 1st of this year this summer, have you had to call the police for any problems on the property? A. But I don't remember exactly the date because every time when I had problem, I call police. One time the owner was there, and he call the police, but I was victim also, because when the police come -- when the police was coming. But simply -- I simply go outside because I know I am -- I am straight. I go outside. The police ask me put up on the -- on the -- after a while later. But -- so that don't mean nothing for me, because I was also a police official in my country. I know the police do his job. He can do everything he want, but only if you are -- if you are right, you don't have nothing to scare. Q. SO in -- how would you describe the property today? Is it a nice place to live? A. Oh, a nice, nice place for now because some family -- but some family -- so many Spanish people live here, family, but okay. But I can tell you that you -- that was my people who live there no good. MR. MURPHY: I have no further questions. Thank you. THE WITNESS: Thank you. MR. MURPHY: Sir-- MS. LOUVIERE: Could I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Cross-examination. MS. LOUVIERE: Sorry. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Mr. Aristide, what is your occupation? A. What? Q. What do you for a living? A. Me? Q. Yeah, your job. A. Yes. I working for Pelican Bend for six years, and now I have to go to work. Only I disturb my job -- only I call my job this morning and say I will be late. After I leave here -- after I leave here, I am going to work. Q. Do you work at night or during the day? A. No, I work in the daytime, and then on the nighttime I'm very busy for the job God. Q. For the what? A. For the job of God. Q. Okay. So you spend a lot of time -- you're away from the property; right? There's a lot of time you're either at work or on your mission of God? A. God? Q. Didn't I hear him say he's -- MS. LOUVIERE: I think he said guard. THE WITNESS: God. I am Christian. MS. LOUVIERE: Oh, okay. THE WITNESS: Preacher. BY MR. MANALICH: Page 23 October 24, 1996 Q. My point is, there's a lot of time you're not at home in your apartment; right? You're either as a guard or at your other job; is that right? A. My job? Q. Much -- much of the day you are not home -- A. Yeah. Q. Correct? A. The day -- I am not home in the daytime because -- is now I don't working seven days because I have so -- I have to take care of my -- to learn something because I am a Bible student now, but I am in the church every afternoon. On Sunday I have to teach the Sunday school, because I will be a minister soon -- as soon as possible. Q. When you're not home, when you're doing these things, you can't see what's happening at the property; right? A. I can see, but at the nighttime. I cannot see what happen when I am on my job or when I am in the church. But when I come home, I see everything. Q. Are you friends with the owner of this property? A. I ask if I am friends what? Q. With the owner. A. But if I -- now I am friend everybody. Q. Okay. A. Huh, because it -- I cannot make rent to someone is my -- my enemy. That's impossible. Q. Why are you here testifying today? A. But so I see is a ,good -- a good man, a nice man. But I come in here perhaps if he has problem or not and show, because if I live here for four years, almost four years, that mean I know the I know the guy. Q. Okay. Do you disagree with the neighbor, Mr. Varney, that there are -- and say that there are no drugs at that property now? A. But -- well, I saw -- he is not well, I don't know. Where is the guy? MR. VARNEY: (Indicating). A. But I saw him sometime. Perhaps he saw me. But it -- it cannot -- it cannot -- it cannot mean better that I know him because when you are -- I am a black. But is -- is more white people. When you see the black someone, you have to follow him and know what can -- what can mean he is. If I am in the neighborhood, you know me more than I know him. Q. You heard the police and the sheriff say that they believe they have to continue investigating drug problems at this property. Do you disagree with the police that there are and say there are no drugs there? A. But anytime I see something wrong in the yard, I will call police again, because I don't like trouble. I don't leave my country for trouble. Q. And that's when you're home, right, when you see something when you're home. But you work all day; right? Page 24 October 24, 1996 Yes. MR. MANALICH: No further questions. MR. MURPHY: No redirect. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MS. LOUVIERE: I have a question, one question. You said that some apartments have nice families that live in it, but then you said that you see some apartments that have bad people. What are the number of the apartments that you think have bad people in it? THE WITNESS: Now, no bad people for now. Before the 2665 -- 2663-A, 2669-B, a long time ago 2660 -- 2667-A was bad, too, one time. But now I think I have a good family with me and good neighbor. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody else have any questions for this witness? Does anybody intend to recall him? MS. LOUVIERE: So you said now there's no problems, but yet on August 22nd, '96, there was a call from 2669 pine Street. So there is problems there. Okay. Thanks. THE WITNESS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, sir. I believe you're excused, and you can go to work. THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. MURPHY: Again, I express my appreciation to the county attorney's office for allowing us to callout of order. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. We'll go back to the county attorney's case. MS. McEACHERN: The county attorney calls Rene Figueroa. . THEREUPON, RENE FIGUEROA, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Will you please state your name and spell it for the record, please. A. Rene Figueroa, R-e-n-e, F-i-g-u-e-r-o-a. Q. And how are you employed? A. I'm an investigator with the Collier County Sheriff's Office, vice and narcotics bureau. Q. And in that employment have you kind of investigation at the pine Street 2669-B pine Street, Naples, Florida, for A. Yes, I have. Q. And could you share with the board your involvement with that undercover activity? A. I have been involved-in the investigations of that location since I came on with the vice narcotics bureau in July of 1995. Q. A. A. been involved in any fourplexes at 2663-A through illegal drug activity? Okay. And is your involvement ongoing presently? Yes, it is. Page 25 October 24, 1996 Q. It is. So the sheriff's office is continuing to receive complaints about illegal drug activity at this property? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Have you actually participated or observed any illegal drug activity and -- that have consummated in sales or buys? A. Any particular time or period or -- Q. Have you -- well, let me be more specific. Have you participated or observed any of the drug sales that Linda Maran testified to? A. Yes, I have. Q. And which ones? A. The one that Linda Maran participated in, which was on February the 8th. Q. Uh-huh. A. I was a backup officer conducting surveillance Q. Uh-huh. A. -- while the transaction was taking place. Q. Okay. Would you tell us what you saw? A. Okay. I was in a position which I could view the back of the 2669, and I was using binoculars and also photographing that area and the transaction -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- as it took place. Q. And what did you see? A. Well, I saw the undercover vehicle pull into the parking lot, which will be on the -- on the south side of the building, and the confidential informant exit the vehicle and walked towards the Apartmen t B, 29 - - 2669 - B. . And as she was approaching the bui lding , several persons approach her, and I observe a transaction took place. Q. Uh-huh. A. The confidential informant returned back to her vehicle and departed the area. Q. Okay. And do you know if that evidence was field tested? A. took Q. A. Q. today? A. I have four photographs that shows the this particular transaction when it took place. And if you'd like to view it or -- Q. Maybe you could go through and describe what each picture shows, and we -- and and we need to show them to Mr. Murphy first. A. Investigator Maran place at that time was Okay. -- for cocaine. And I believe you've told me that the purchase that was -- field tested positive brought some pictures with you Okay. MR. MURPHY: to me. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Why don' t identification purposes first. One Why don't you describe it, and then pass it we have them marked for well, I guess it would be two, Page 26 October 24, 1996 three, four, and five. MS. McEACHERN: Right. THE WITNESS: I have four photographs, and each one of them is marked. On the top right corner I have 1 through 4. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Will you have the court reporter mark those, please. I think it's 2, 3, 4, and 5 exhibits. (County Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5 were marked for identification. ) BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Okay. Mr. Figueroa, if you will go through each picture and describe what each one shows, and then pass them on to Mr. Murphy so he can look at them. A. The first photograph, Exhibit 2 -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- shows the vehicle, the undercover vehicle, pulling onto the parking lot. Exhibit 3 shows the confidential informant exiting the vehicle. Exhibit 4 shows the confidential informant approaching the back entrance to Apartment B, 2669-B. The -- Exhibit 5 shows the defendant with four individuals surrounding her, and that was when the transaction took place. Q. Okay. And that transaction took place on the property? A. Yes, it did. Q. Okay. Have you observed -- how -- how much time have you -- excuse me. You said that you've been involved in investigation with that property since 1995; is that correct? A. That's -- yes -- when I first came on to the narcotics bureau. Q. Okay. Have you observed any homeless people in the vicinity to the property? A. Several home -- homeless people directly behind the the property. Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether this drug activity involves the homeless people? A. There are several homeless people that were involved in the sales of narcotics. Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether the tenants at that property and/or their -- their guests are participating in the illegal drug activity? A. Yes, ma'am. There's no question about it. We have reports, numerous reports, that shows that. That's a fact. Q. Sales on the property? A. Yes, ma' am. Q. Okay. So it's just not the homeless people that -- A. It's not only the homeless people. They were just there to facilitate maybe further sales of narcotics. Q . Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you intend to introduce these photographs as exhibits? MS. McEACHERN: As evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Is there going to be an objection to that? Page 27 October 24, 1996 MR. MURPHY: No, ma'am. As just typical, I'm not going to object to too much in this hearing. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, for the record why don't we establish what date the pictures were taken and who took the pictures and that they adequately portray the things that we are looking at in the pictures. Can you do that for us, sir? THE WITNESS: Yes. The pictures were taken on the 8th day of February, approximately 2 -- 12:15 to 12:30 hours. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And do they -- do these pictures accurately portray what was happening on that day? THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Without objection then these pictures will be introduced as the County's Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5. And with that we can pass them through the board. Go ahead with your questions. MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Figueroa, the -- have you had any conversations with the property owner with regard to the activity going on out there? A. I met Norman one time on the property, and I expressed to him that we did have a problem with the narcotics sales on his property. Q. And what was his reaction or response? A. Well, he showed some concern at the time that -- that he wanted to help with it. Q. And has he done anything that you are aware of to abate the problem? A. No. It's not -- he has not. After that meeting I have left, myself, two messages on his recorder -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- answering machine. I have a number here, which is 947-5233, and left two voice messages for him. And he never returned my call. I then had Investigator Maran place a call to that number to leave a message, because I probably thought maybe he didn't like my voice or something. Q. Did you identify, you know, your professional A. Yes, I did. Q. -- status? A. I identify myself each time I left a message. Q. And why you were calling, did you leave that too? A. I might have left a reference to the -- to -- I can't recall that, but I -- Q. Okay. Have you been out to the property recently? A. Yes, I have. Q. Have you seen any no trespass signs? A. I have not seen it myself, no. Q. Okay. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any cross-examination? MR. MURPHY: Yes, ma'am. I always feel like I should Page 28 October 24, 1996 tell a joke when I have this in my hand. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURPHY: Q. Sir, would you please tell us specifically what complaints you've received recently about drug activity on the property? A. Recently we have received the suspected sales of crack cocaine in the twenty-six and twenty-eight hundred block of pine Street. Also I had -- we had made an arrest probably about a month ago of another individual who has fam -- family residing at that location and who has -- I personally seen at that location going there. Q. Where was he arrested? A. He was arrested in another part -- another part of the county, nothing to do with the -- on pine Street. Q. But he had a family association -- A. He does have family still living there presently. Q. Uh-huh. A. Yeah. Q. Okay. A. And he has -- he has stayed at that location. Q. But there was no arrest made on this property? A. Not recently, there has not. Q. All right. The complaint that you did reference, do you have a date when that complaint was filed, the recent complaint, the one you just mentioned? A. No, sir. This is only intelligence information that we gather on the streets and tips line, so on. Q. All right. Would you tell the board specifically which persons you believe were tenants of this property that were involved in the February and April sting operations. You indicated -- you indicated they were not all homeless people. You indicated you had knowledge that they were tenants in the property; so I'd like to know which ones you understood were tenants in the property. A. Oh, what I meant, that the other cases have shown that there are tenants living there that participated in drug activity. Q. Well, I want to know which ones. A. Well, in nineteen -- in July 1995 we conducted two search warrants at that loca -- at that location of residents living there. Re -- most recent there was a Haitian male. I believe the name is Edner Bellany (phonetic), who was living at that location, and since then has moved and been arrested by us more than one occasion. Q. When was he -- when was he arrested during the time he was a tenant there? A. I don't believe he was never arrested while he was a tenant at -- on pine Street. Q. Okay. Any other persons that you are aware of that you knew were tenants that were involved in the April and the February 1996 operations? A. I believe only Mr. Prenus, Wilgen Prenus. Q. You understood -- you understood that he was a tenant in Page 29 October 24, 1996 the property? A. Well, that's the -- he gave us the address that -- as he recited there. So I assume that he was living there. Q. Okay. A. Okay. Q. That was your assumption? A. That was my assumption, that he lived there. Q. Would you please tell the board what current investigations are now ongoing with respect to drug activity on this property. A. Okay. In the present time I had -- like I said before, I have been trying to reach Mr. Norman (sic) in order for us to have a meeting to continue to keep this pine Street area clean. And we have -- I have not been able to meet with him. I do have an ongoing investigation to still -- the sales of narcotics in that area. And until I meet with him -- and maybe we can discuss some of the things that we could do to improve his property. Q. Okay. Well, maybe it would help if you would explain what you mean by an ongoing investigation. A. Well, anytime -- once you keep -- once you receive information about the sales of narcotics or prostitution in one area, we -- once we open an investigation, we keep -- it never closes until we finish the -- the problem, we eradicate the problem. And the problem's still going on as we speak right now. Q. Okay. What -- what facts do you have that indicate that the problem is still ongoing on October the 24th of 1996 or -- I mean, we've got to deal with facts. A. Factual -- we have not made a buy there in the past, you know -- in the recent -- recently we have not made a buy, so if that's what you're getting at, no, we have not. Q. Okay. MR. MURPHY: I have no further questions. Thank you. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Figueroa, you mentioned that you had some suggestions that the property owner -- or that the sheriff's office has suggested for property owners in similar situations -- A. Yes. Q. -- that might help to abate the -- the drug activity. Do you have some of those suggestions with you today? A. Yes, I do. Q. And could you share those with us? A. Yeah. pine Street is not -- by the way, is not the only location in Collier County that have drug problems -- Q. Right. A. -- and we have met with other property owners, rental -- who have rental properties in-the county. And we have sat down and come up with recommendations that they can do to their property to improve the quality of life, you know, of the residents there and the community. And some of them will be to require prospective tenants to complete an application form which consists of names, dates, date of Page 30 October 24, 1996 birth, social security numbers, vehicle license numbers, driver's license, and so on; requiring tenants to complete a lease agreement, which I also have provided the -- the property owners with copies, blank copies, if they wish to -- as I go by in Spanish and in English, which by the way, has a clause in here that says any criminal activity that occurs within the said property will terminate the lease. Q. Uh-huh. A. So that's something that will be good for the property owner to -- to have. Q. And have property owners used that lease? A. Yes, ma'am. Q. They have. And has it helped to abate the problem? A. It has helped, yeah. Q. Okay. Have you -- have you given this particular property owner, the pine Street fourplexes, these materials? A. I have not had a chance to because, like I say, I have called him on several occasions, and I had a package all ready to give to him and discuss the situation there, and I have never had a chance to do so. Q. Well, maybe you can today. A. Yeah. Some of the other recommendations would install lighting on the property, have someone on -- on -- as a manager that can be there 24 hours a day to see that is going on on the property and can have immediate Q. Uh-huh. A. -- to their needs, removal of -- removal of debris, barriers. Probably -- probably in this particular case a chain-link fence will be a good -- would be a good idea coming around behind that empty lot which is used a lot to -- as a shortcut. Q. Uh-huh. Do you -- do you think that if they were to put a chain-link fence up, number one, you feel that would help abate the problem? A. Particularly I do because of the amount of homeless people that live on the -- on the adjacent lot in the rear of the property that use that has a shortcut. Q. Now, you've -- and you've been able to observe some of these homeless people for a period of time; right? A. Yes, I have. Q. Okay. Do you think that if a chain-link fence went up that do you think that they would tear it down? A. I don't think so. These people are not -- they will go around somewhere else, take the least path of resistance. They're not going to go through a fence. Q. Okay. But at least that would cut them off from, you know, coming back through the back way and -- A. It will be -- it will be definitely a deterrent Q . Okay. - A. -- to the criminal activity that has been going on there. Q. A. be to the premise what is -- response -- as Okay. And if it's -- nothing is done, it will come back again. Page 31 October 24, 1996 Q. Okay. Is there any other suggestion? A. Well, definitely we need to have those trespassing signs posted in a way that they will not be tore down. A lot of times property owners will post the signs too low and post them today, and then tomorrow they're gone. Q. Uh-huh. A. So they need to be properly positioned. That's all I have right now. I mean, I'm sure I can come up with other recommendations but, you know -- and all we're looking for right now, the sheriff's office and narcotics bureau specifically, is to -- to help the property owners, and at the same time they'll help us and the community. Q. Okay. Thank you. MS. DEIFIK: May I inquire, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. Go ahead. MS. DEIFIK: All right. Mr. Figueroa, have you ever written to the property owner? You said you tried to call Mr. Hedrich who had identified himself as a business manager or property manager? THE WITNESS: No. We have not -- I have not written a letter to him, no. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Do you know who owns the empty lot where the tree is that people congregate -- or I understand it was destroyed. Is the tree still there? THE WITNESS: The tree's still there, yeah. The vacant lot, I believe, was cleaned up somewhat due to the code enforcement people. MS. DEIFIK: THE WITNESS: Okay. Who owns that lot? I don't 'know the owner's name. I'm sure that MS. DEIFIK: effort to contact THE WITNESS: don't know if any MS. DEIFIK: on that lot? THE WITNESS: I don't believe so. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Previously or earlier you were asked to describe any ongoing investigation, and your responses were somewhat vague. Are there facts that you do not wish to disclose at this time? THE WITNESS: Well, anytime we have an ongoing open investigation, we don't like to discuss what our -- you know, what we're doing. MS. DEIFIK: And I don't want you to. THE WITNESS: Yeah. MS. DEIFIK: What I'm trying to ascertain, is there an ongoing investigation that you cannot disclose now because you will endanger that operation? THE WITNESS: If I give you any names like the residents that are living at that location, it will jeopardize my investigation, yes, it would. Has the sheriff's department made any the owner of that lot? I don't -- myself I don't -- I haven't. one of the other investigators have. Okay. Are there any no trespassing signs I Page 32 October 24, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: Okay. And is that the reason why you could not give more specific answers to Mr. Murphy's questions? THE WITNESS: As far as the ongoing investigation, yes. And also the information that we get, also it is vague at certain times. We get a call on the phone saying that there is drug activity going on at -- on the 2600 block of pine Street or 2800 block. That's all we get. MS. DEIFIK: All right. Can I ask you, you said several times that you had recent tips and recent information. Would that be within the last three months? THE WITNESS: That will be within the last week -- MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Thanks. THE WITNESS: -- as a matter of fact, yes. MR. McCORMICK: Mr. Figueroa, do you think, in your opinion, that a drug user could today or this week purchase drugs on that property? THE WITNESS: The only thing I could tell you, that right now I believe we have suspicion or suspicion to believe that there is one individual who's living at that location right now who is selling narcotics by using a beeper, a pager, where if I was the buyer, I will beep this person and he will leave -- he will not conduct the sale at that location. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. THE WITNESS: He will leave the property to do it. MR. McCORMICK: We know that your department and its agents or informants have purchased drugs on the property in the past year. Have you ever attempted to purchase drugs, your department, and been unsuccessful? THE WITNESS: Yes, I have. MR. McCORMICK: Have you -- have you been to that site during the daytime or been by it in observation of it? THE WITNESS: Yes. Recently I just drove by, and I seen the property. I still see a lot of vehicles parked on that property. MR. McCORMICK: What I wanted to ask was during the afternoon times, would you say, in that neighborhood are there children? Are there teens? Is it a normal residential neighborhood? THE WITNESS: During this -- right -- you mean presently? MR. McCORMICK: Anytime in the last year. THE WITNESS: Oh, in the last year? No, in the last year it was -- it was -- it was really bad. I mean, it was continuously traffic, prostitution, pros -- suspect known prostitutes, I would say, that were walking up and down on the streets, drug dealers walking on the streets. MR. McCORMICK: Like from 3 to 5 in the afternoon -- MR. FIGUEROA: All day. MR. McCORMICK: -- when school gets -- have you seen children or teenagers in that area, either in the apartments or in the general pine Street area? THE WITNESS: Okay. Pos -- about a month ago I received one call, which disturbed me, because one of the neighbors it was Page 33 October 24, 1996 an anonYmous call. That's what -- a lot of the calls that we get, by the way, are anonYmous because people are scared to come forward with their name in fear -- in fear of retaliation. But this person told me there were prostitutes and drug dealers around their kids while they were waiting for the school bus. This was around eight o'clock in the morning. So that shows me that there is fear still in the community. This is only, you know, within the last month. So I drove out there the next day around 7:30 and positioned myself in the area to -- to witness anything that was going on. And I did observe a drug dealer riding a bicycle, but it was -- he was not close to the kids at the time, okay. This particular drug dealer has been -- since been arrested by us due to that we fear that -- we had made a buy from him -- from him a week prior, and we were kind of waiting to see if we would conduct another buy. Due to the fact that this complaint came in, we went ahead and made the arrest, you know, right away, because we feared that something could happen. So it's still going on there in that location. MR. McCORMICK: Thank you. MR. LAFORET: I would like to ask counsel, the reference to "on the property" is not clear to me. I divide the property in my mind into exterior, lawn, sidewalks, parking lots, and to interior of the residences. Up to this point it's my conclusion there has been no transport of narcotics indicated from or to the inside of the residence or buyers from onto -- to -- inside the residence. In my opinion or my conclusion, all of the incidents have been on the exterior property, on the ~awn, sidewalks, parking lots, and even on public property in front of this privately-owned property. Is that a correct deduction? MS. McEACHERN: I believe Linda Maran testified to each of the locations; and, in fact, between the two buildings that you can see on that diagram there was one or two buys, I believe, right in between the two buildings. Perhaps Mr. Figueroa can explain the activity that he sees there during the day that -- BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. If I can ask you this, do you know if these apartments are air conditioned, by chance? A. I have no idea. Q. Do you know -- do you see a lot of -- during the daytime that the doors or windows are open and people are milling about outside? A. I cannot tell you anything you know, recently I have not seen a lot of people there. Q. Okay. A. You know, in the past, yes, there were suspected tenants that were selling from within the apartments. Q. Uh-huh. - A. I'm not sure if anyone here present today, any investigators have made an actual purchase from inside -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- other than in -- in, I believe, it was July 1995 when Page 34 October 24, 1996 we had Q. A. Q. A. made -- Uh-huh. -- purchases from within the residence -- Uh-huh. -- two of the apartments. MS. McEACHERN: And, Mr. Laforet, most of the buys -- or the buys that were testified to today occurred on the outside, but on the property owned by or at the four -- at the Pine Street fourplexes on the property right there, you know, on the front lawn between the two buildings, on the side. So it has been on the property. It's not the county's position that they are all -- these buys are necessarily all -- the tenants are actually doing the buys, but is -- it is a -- it is -- it is the activity that is occurring on the property. And it is the county's position that there are things that the property owner could do to abate that drug activity. And our ordinan -- ordinance -- and Statute 823.10 that says it's illegal to there is illegal drug activity occurring inside. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Laforet, I would suggest at the end of the hearing that that's something that we might want to ask our attorney for an opinion on, the definition of a public nuisance and where it can and can't take place. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, I think the ordinance states, 96-11, a public nuisance, any area, location, property, place, or premises which has been used on more than two occasions within a six-months period as the site of violation relating to prostitution or the solicitation of prostitution, sale, delivery, manufacture, cultivation of a controlled substance. So, I mean, we're talking the area here, the general area, it say -- states in the ordinance. MR. LAFORET: I agree with that. I was just trying to separate that it was on the exterior premises. There's a lot of evidence of that, but there's no evidence so far that I saw that it was conducted inside the building. MS. McEACHERN: Right. MR. LAFORET: It was all on the exterior premises. MS. McEACHERN: Well, the reports that we -- that should be in your packet of the five incidences that we're focusing you on over the last six months from February through, I believe, April or May were all that occurred outside. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. And I'm sure if I -- Mr. Figueroa, if I can ask you this, is there an increased risk to law enforcement if -- if they go in a building as opposed to being outside to make a buy? A. Yes, there is. Q. And is it more difficult to do a surveillance if the activity is occurring inside than outside? A. You would prefer to conduct a buy outside in the open so that, you know, the surveillance units will be able to see what the undercover officer is doing. Q. And have you -- you have observed or have you observed it's also based on maintain any premise on which on. It does not have to be Page 35 October 24, 1996 illegal drug activity occurring on the premises but outside the apartment complexes? A. Yes, ma' am. Q. And have you observed people coming to the apartment complexes to make buys? A. Yes, ma' am. Q. Okay. So would you say that there is a definite attraction for illegal drug activity to these premises? A. Yes. There -- there was and there possibly still is. MR. LAFORET: All right. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any further questions of this witness? MR. MURPHY: I have some recross, if you please. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Go ahead. RECROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MURPHY: Q. Okay. We -- we had a little discussion about a fellow at a bus stop. Was that fellow arrested on this property? A. I have no idea what you're talking about, sir. Q. You said you received a complaint about somebody pestering children at a bus stop, and you made an arrest of someone who was under investigation? A. Oh, okay, the children complaint. Yes, that's -- that buy with that particular person, the seller of the -- was not conducted at that location -- Q . Okay. A. -- at 2663. Q. And the beeper fellow, the fellow that is currently under investigation that resides on this property -- A. His family resides there, and I believe he -- he uses that apartment on occasions, yes. Q. But he -- he does not reside there? A. I have no idea to confirm this unless I check with the property owner to give me a list of the tenants or to tell me who lives there. And that's why I'm hoping that we sit down and get some cooperation in this matter. Q. Okay. With respect to this fellow who gets a beep and goes somewhere and makes a sale off the property, what in your opinion and in your envelope there, could the owner do to prevent that? A. Okay. Any -- there is a lease. I don't know if -- I'm not sure if the owner presently have lease agreements with the tenants. Am I asking that question or can you ask him that question? Does he have one or not? Q. Well, any person who is in an occupancy of a property has a lease, whether it's oral or written, yes. A. Yeah. Well, this written lease that we have recommended to the property owners stipulates in here that any criminal activity occurring at the location by a resident or a guest is against -- it will give you a cause to terminate that lease. Q. Okay. So -- so an owner then would have to go into court and would have to prove -- prove something that you are Page 36 October 24, 1996 presently investigating; is that right? A. You asked me -- MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I object to that line of questioning because, first of all, Mr. Figueroa is not even competent to -- that's a legal conclusion, and he's just not the right person to be asking that question. MR. MURPHY: Madam Chairman, I haven't objected to anything including the gentleman's recommendation as to what should be in a lease to help a landlord, and that, too, is a legal opinion. And I think she opened the door by asking such a question, and I'd like to pursue it. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, I only asked what suggestions the sheriff has used in the past with other property owners. It is only suggestions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we have a list of suggestions, because I have written them down. And a lease agreement and the provisions in that lease agreement, that a criminal act terminates the lease has already been testified to. And I sus -- suspect that that's probably just his opinion. But if you would refrain from questioning him about the legal -- any legal opinion that he can't get, just his opinion would be okay. MR. MURPHY: Okay. Thank you. BY MR. MURPHY: Q. In your opinion, how would the landlord get rid of a tenant who had a beeper that you suspected was being used as a vehicle for drug sales? A. Okay. Upon my report, my investigation is completed, that property owner has a right to go over to the sheriff's office and get a copy of the report. This will tell the owner that a drug -- criminal activity took place at that residence, you know. And he could use that -- this as a basis to terminate that lease. Of course, he's going to have to go through the civ -- the proper civil procedure of evicting someone, and that's -- have to go through civil court. Q. Are you familiar with the procedure to evict a tenant if there is no lease? A. I would be guessing. MS. DEIFIK: What are we doing here? Why are you asking him all these legal questions? MR. MURPHY: Well, the reason I'm asking is because the county attorney is apparently leading us to the conclusion that we should use a specific form of lease for tenants in the property. MS. DEIFIK: I don't think they're saying that at all, Mr. Murphy. MS. McEACHERN: No. The county attorney is not -- I can clarify that right now. The county attorney is not saying that the property owner has to use any particular form of lease. Our goal here is to clean up Collier County-and make it a nice place to live and to protect the public health, safety, and morals of Collier County. And Collier County is working in conjunction with the sheriff's office towards that goal, and the goal is if we know there is drug activity out there, to -- to all of us, and we're calling upon the property Page 37 October 24, 1996 owners and the citizens of Collier County to work with us and -- and not take a back seat and not be complacent and not look for excuses, but to take charge and take control and do affirmative steps to help abate drugs in Collier County and other public nuisances. MR. MURPHY: We're not adversaries then. THE WITNESS: Can I say something, please, on the record to show the record -- MS. McEACHERN: Please go ahead. THE WITNESS: The sheriff's office is not -- also is not telling the property owner -- MS. McEACHERN: That's right. THE WITNESS: -- that they have to use any particular lease or they have to follow any of my recommendations. MS. McEACHERN: Right. THE WITNESS: These are only suggested recommendations. And the lease is something that I came up on my self initiative to help the property owner with the rental properties. By no means this is something that we are forcing him to do or her to do. MS. DEIFIK: Miss -- Madam Chairman, stop me if I'm out of bounds here. Mr. Murphy, I think that we see where you're going. I would respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate in your argument to the board -- we do have two attorneys on the board, and I think we understand what legal arguments you might want to make. I'm just questioning why you're continuing to elicit legal opinions from this witness. MR. MURPHY: I'm not anYmore. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any more questions for this witness? MR. MURPHY: No, ma' am. MS. McEACHERN: I have one. FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Mr. Figueroa, do you know that if -- when Mr. Varney had testified earlier, the neighbor, that the drug activity appears to be cylical -- I don't know if I said that correctly, cyc -- cyc -- I can't say that word. Can you say it? MR. MANALICH: It comes in cycles. Q. It comes and goes. And that after there is a buy or that the -- the people there at the property know that the authorities are out there watching them, that the -- it seems to quell somewhat. Is that true, that it comes and goes? A. Yes, ma'am. Q . Okay. MS. McEACHERN: I have no further questions. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. Next witness. MS. McEACHERN: The county's next witness is Mr. Hartley. - MS. LOUVIERE: How many witnesses are there? I have an 11:30 appointment I have to be at. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Could you give us some idea? The board's getting anxious now. Of course, we said that we wanted to Page 38 October 24, 1996 hear all of this. MR. MANALICH: You asked for it. You got it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And, you know -- MS. LOUVIERE: I just have an 11:30 appointment I have to CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Some of us have other places we need to be. MR. MANALICH: Well, maybe we can make an offer of proof here as to this witness. I believe this witness is being called because it's my understanding that this particular officer had information regarding additional transactions that had occurred; is that correct? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think early on Mr. Murphy had agreed to stipulate and agree that whatever is in our packet, which incidentally you need to introduce into evidence so that we can legally read it, that he would not contest the admissibility or the veracity of whatever is in our packet here. So if he's still willing to make that stipulation based on your offer of proof, that's fine. MS. DEIFIK: Is anything from this witness in our packet? MS. McEACHERN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. What? MS. DEIFIK: Are any investigations or arrests or facts that this witness is intending to testify to included in the packet that we have received? MS. McEACHERN: Yes. So he would be further verifying what you've already heard. MR. MURPHY: I certai~ly will continue to offer to stipulate to all of the facts and the truth of the facts that are alleged in all these reports or text -- MS. DEIFIK: What is this witness's name? MS. McEACHERN: Tim Hartley. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Hartley? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Murphy, you've got a copy of the packet, the composite exhibit that the board all has, do you not? MR. MURPHY: Yes, ma'am, the one that has five incident reports attached to it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: And has -- that starts with the notice of hearing and all of that? MR. MURPHY: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you going to object to its introduction into evidence as a composite exhibit for the board to read? MR. MURPHY: Yes, ma'am. I'm going to stipulate to the entry of it and -- MS. McEACHERN: Okay. MR. MURPHY: the opin~ons stated in it and -- MR. MANALICH: In light of that stipulation, the chairman's admonition, I think we can excuse this witness. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think this would probably -- probably at this time should be marked as our composite exhibit, and I think we're now up to 6. And let's get that whole packet Page 39 October 24, 1996 introduced as the County's Exhibit 6. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. Thank you. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Hartley, you're excused. Thank you. MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The-- MS. McEACHERN: The only -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Does the court reporter have a copy of this packet? (County Exhibit No.6 was marked for identification.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. The court reporter has marked and we will by stipulation introduce as Exhibit No. 6 for the county the packet of materials that the board all has in its possession. And I -- I believe that the respondent's attorney has also stipulated and agreed that we can read all of that and consider the police reports and incident reports in there as -- as true. MS. McEACHERN: Thank you. The county's last witness is Dennis Mazzone. THEREUPON, DENNIS MAZZONE, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon his oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Please state your name. A. My name is Dennis Mazzone. Q. And how are you employed? A. I'm employed by Collier County government as a code enforcement investigator. Q. And as a Collier County code enforcement investigator, have you been involved in the code enforcement investigation of the pine Street fourplexes? A. Which investigation? Q. The -- well, the one that we've been listening to today at -- for illegal drug activity at 2669 -- excuse me, 2663-A through 2669-B. A. Q. what A. I'm the investigator that was assigned the duties of forwarding our notice of violation and stipulation information to the property owner. Q. Okay. And did you do that? A. Yes, I did. Q. And have you had any kind -- any kind of communications, whether written or oral, with the property owner in regard to this investigation? A. No, I have not. Q. You have not had any conversations? Have you been out to the property? A. Let me clarify. The property owner being the younger Mr. Hedrich, who is not present. That's correct. And in what capacity have you been involved or how -- Page 40 October 24, 1996 Q. Hedrich? A. No, I have not. Q. Have you had any conversations with any Hedrich with -- A. Yes. Q. With whom? A. The mother of Lee Hedrich. Q. Of Lee, okay. And could you tell us what those conversations have stated? A. When I -- I had phoned, because I had got -- not gotten proper response from the notice that was not signed -- Q. Okay. A. -- I tried to communicate with Mr. Hedrich, Lee Hedrich, the son, the owner. And I got a return call from his mother, and I and in that conversation I tried to explain that we needed response from her son, a proper response -- Q. Uh-huh. A. -- in at least signing the forms. Mrs. Hedrich's reply, I believe, was that they had filled out the questionnaire that we had also attached to this notice filling in some of the spaces on the questionnaire. It was a very brief conversation, very abrupt, and -- and not very pleasant. Q. And not very pleasant? A. That's correct. Q. Okay. Have you been out to the pine Street fourplexes? A. Yes, I have. Q. When? A. September 11th. Q. Okay. For what purpose? A. To confirm what was on the questionnaire as -- one of the requests by us was to post no trespassing signs. We confirmed, and I took photographs that day of three efforts to post no-trespassing signs on that particular property. Q . Okay. MS. McEACHERN: And could as an exhibit, if you can give (County Exhibit No. 7 was Mr. Mazzone -- Yes, ma'am. -- did you take -- maybe you said this. Did you take pictures on September 11? Yes, ma'am, I did. Okay. And are they an accurate reflection of what was the property on September 11? Yes, ma'am. Theyare? Would you.tell the board what those pictures just briefly? It -- MR. MANALICH: Can you pass them to the board? (The witness complied.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let's get them introduced as Okay. Have you had any conversations with Norman or Lee you -- let's have those marked those to the court reporter. marked for identification.) Q. A. Q. those A. Q. out on A. Q. show A. A. Page 41 October 24, 1996 an exhibit first. What are they marked as? Seven? MR. ANDREWS: Seven. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any objection? MR. MURPHY: No ma'am, no objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Without objection, I'm going to have them introduced as -- in evidence. MR. MAZZONE: All the photos on that page are marked with ink as to where they were taken. I believe the two bottom photos reflect no trespassing signs posted on the vacant properties just to the east of the properties in question, and then the remainder -- the remaining three no trespassing signs are posted on the property in question. MS. McEACHERN: Okay. BY MS. McEACHERN: Q. Other than what you've testified to today, have you made any other additional efforts to contact the property owner? A. In the past, yes, ma'am. Q. I'm sorry. What? A. Not regarding this case, no, ma'am. Q. Okay. And, therefore, you have not received any kind of cooperation from the property owner either, and you have not had any contact from the property owner? A. No, ma'am, I have not. MR. MURPHY: I don't object much, but I'll object to the characterization of lack of cooperation. The witness can testify as to facts, but the board should make its own conclusions concerning what that represents. MS. McEACHERN: I withdraw the question. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think it's also leading. MS. McEACHERN: I withdraw the question. I have no further questions for Mr. Mazzone. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Murphy. MR. MURPHY: Actually I have no questions of the witness. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: MR. MAZZONE: Thank CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: more witnesses? MS. McEACHERN: No, we do not, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Was it your intent to introduce these two charts as County Exhibits 8 and 9? MS. McEACHERN: I'm sorry. Yes they are, Madam Chairman Thank you, Mr. Mazzone. you. Does the county attorney have any CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any -- MS. McEACHERN: -- as exhibits. I thought I did that at the beginning, but I guess I didn't. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, since you had several witnesses refer to them, perhaps it would be better if they were exhibits in this case. MS. McEACHERN: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there any objection to these Page 42 October 24, 1996 drawings, Mr. Murphy? MR. MURPHY: Technically I think this drawing (indicating) was never identified. I think Mr. -- Mr. Varney said that he couldn't recognize anything there. MS. McEACHERN: We can just go with the top one. MR. MURPHY: But-- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think the more testimony in terms of drug buys was the top one, the one that's -- MS. McEACHERN: Right. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: -- on the easel now. MR. MURPHY: Right. With the -- with the notation that it's not to scale, there would be no objection. MS. McEACHERN: That's okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In that case then by stipulation we'll have marked and -- as Exhibit 8, I think it is, for the county and introduce into evidence the drawing of the premises in question where the testimony is that drug sales took place. (County Exhibit No.8 was marked for identification.) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is the county going to rest? MS. McEACHERN: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Respondent. MR. MURPHY: Thank you. I call as my first witness Cleda Hedrich. MR. MURPHY: I guess technically this is my second witness, because Mr. Aristide was called out of order so THEREUPON, CLEDA HEDRICH, a witness, having been first duly sworn, upon her oath, testified as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. MURPHY: Q. Miss Hedrich, you're not the owner of the property; is that correct? A. No, my son owns the property. Q. Why isn't he here today? A. He is ill with the flu. He has a 101-degree temperature and was not able to attend. Q. You are familiar with the property, though; is that correct? A. Very familiar. I've been there frequently over the last -- since November of '95. Q. Since November of '95, have you noticed any change that has happened to the property in terms of its -- its character? A. The property -- the homeless camp, which was no more than 20 feet behind this property, was deplorable. And this took place from last November, at ~hich time I met with Dennis Mazzone and pointed out early in the morning -- I think it was 8:30 or 9 in the morning -- the homeless people who were drunk and disorderly. They were playing loud music, probably on drugs, apparently on drugs. Dennis spoke to each one of them individually, knew them by name. I said, "What do you do?" The homeless people were coming on to my Page 43 October 24, 1996 son's property, taking the hose bibs off the exterior of the property, lifting the hose and showering with their clothes on, literally showering in front of Dennis Mazzone and myself on -- trespassing on my son's property. And the water bills there were sometimes as high as $575 a month for eight units. I asked Dennis Mazzone, "What do you do in a case like this? We need help," which we did. He said, "We can send notices. They'll just move to another lot." And so I said, "What do we do? We've got people trespassing." There were no trespassing signs at that time. And he said, "Call the police." So that's what we've done. Our -- my son has police on at least three occasions, probably more. police three times, and one of the policemen here, probably be able to verify that. He tried to help busts, at least. But the actual fact is that there were between 8 to 20 people living within 20 to 30 feet of the property all the time. They would -- they used -- can I just point? They used the entrance to the back, both to the north and the south (indicating) of these fourplexes. There were women -- excuse me. There were women, two in particular, that I observed several times who went from the back vacant lot, which apparently is owned by a church. That's what Dennis Mazzone told me, owned by a church. There were not no trespassing signs on the church property at that time. But they walked through kind of using the driveway as a thoroughfare going out on pine Street, standing -- well, wandering up and down pine Street and getting picked up by cars. Now, the police were right to intercede. There needed to be interception. It was a terrible, terrible thing going on. And consequently -- well, let me just say one other thing. The vacant lot was extremely overgrown. It was just -- trees and bushes, and apparently there was no attempt to clean up that area until -- I don't think Dennis was in -- in fact, still the code enforcement officer at that time. But around May they came in, and they cleared the homeless camp. At that time everything changed in that neighborhood, everything. My son was able to get decent tenants, which he couldn't do before, because who would live there. He was victimized just like Mr. Varney was victimized; the whole neighborhood was victimized. This was going on all around. Since May he did evict the tenant -- this was the -- the bad apartment. He observed suspicious activity in 2663-A. Now, that was by lease to Edwin -- leased to Edwin Smith. He let, I guess, a lot of unauthorized occupants into that apartment, and Lee -- I call my son Lee; he evicted that unit. He couldn't evict -- perhaps if anyone was arrested from that unit because he didn't know who they were. They were just trespassing also. Anyway now I was in that apartment yesterday, 2663-A. We have a nice family living there, two children and their parents. In fact, I know of no one at pine Street now who would be any problem to the police or to Michael Varney or hopefully to my son as landlord. He did everything he could to turn this property around, called the He's met with the Dean Walton, will in one of the drug Page 44 October 24, 1996 and we do have some pictures for you. The apartments are now painted. They have a new pretty coral paint. And he's done roof repair, and he's done interior plumbing repairs. He has nice fam nice families living there. It's a clean, decent place to live. It was not prior to May. And-- Q. Let me interrupt you A. Sure. Q. -- and show you some photographs. MR. MURPHY: Let me have them marked for identification, please, as -- are we defendant or respondent -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Respondent. MR. MURPHY: -- as Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1, I guess. If it's all right with the chair, I've got a publix photo envelope that I could just use as the recipient for the composite exhibit. I mean, it's -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's fine with me. MR. MURPHY: Is that okay? MS. McEACHERN: No objection. THE WITNESS: And the date that they were taken is on that envelope. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit No.1 was marked for identification. ) BY MR. MURPHY: Q. Miss Hedrich, I'm going to show you now what's been marked as Defendant's -- Respondent's Composite Exhibit No.1 for identification and ask you if you recognize those pictures. A. Yes, I do. Q. Would you tell -- tell the board what those pictures are. A. This is prop -- this is the property, pictures that were taken on September 27, 1996, with the exception of one that was taken -- it has it written on the back of the photograph, because I wanted you to see that as well -- 9 -- September 18th of '96; so -- Q. Who took those photographs? A. I actually did myself. Q. Do those photographs accurately represent the property as you saw it on the dates indicated? A. They do and also as I saw it yesterday. Q . Okay. MR. MURPHY: I -- at this time I'd offer these -- this Composite Exhibit No. 1 into evidence. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Has the county seen these photographs? MS. McEACHERN: No. We'd like to see them. The county has no objection. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The.Composite Exhibit No.1 for respondent will be introduced into evidence, and we'll let the board look at the pictures now. Go ahead. BY MR. MURPHY: Q. Is the property today in substantially the same condition as represented in those photographs? Page 45 October 24, 1996 A. Yes, it is. I was there yesterday, and there were three doors that were open with families residing inside, which they can do now because the weather has changed, even though the units are air conditioning -- are air conditioned. But they can leave their doors open now because it's safe to do so now. It was not in May. It has been since June. We got the notice -- I think it was July 19th -- after everything had already been cleared up. MR. MURPHY: I have no further questions of the witness. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Cross-examination? MR. MANALICH: Thank you. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MANALICH: Q. Ms. Hedrich, is it your testimony that this is just all the fault of the homeless? A. No. Not totally because it's difficult to get good tenants when you have a homeless camp within 20 to 30 feet and people -- vagrants coming in taking showers on your property. When you clean up your dumpster, when you literally clean up the property with trash that's been thrown by the homeless on your property, you put it in the dumpster, and in an hour one of the homeless is actually physically inside the dumpster throwing everything out and seeing what they can use for their livelihood. It's difficult to get good tenants at that point. Q. SO your -- A. Very difficult. Q. SO you're telling .us that the only bad guys doing these things were the homeless and no -- A. No, to the contrary. 2663-A had, we believe, illegal activity. But when Dennis Mazzone called me or when I called him actually in response to a message that he had left, I told him that as far as we can see, everything is turned around at the property. We've painted. Repairs have been done. There -- there are all nice families living there. We know of nothing -- we know of no nuisance at this point to abate. I would have totally agreed with him earlier. But he said how was I -- you know, how was he going to know that. And I told him the only way I know is to call the police. We never had a copy of the police reports until -- THE WITNESS: Let's see, do we have that date, Vince? A. Anyway, we had -- we got copies of the police report before the last hearing, which was less than a week before the last hearing. We had two days in which if we wanted to do a defense packet, we could read those reports and get you 20 copies back for the last hearing. So, I mean, it's not as if the police were in touch with anyone. The number they were trying to call is, in fact, our number -- my husband's and my number. It has nothing to do with the owner of the property. We have no messages from -- from the police. Q. I'm curious. Didn't a lot of this reform occur after enforcement activity began and arrests were made and identified? Page 46 October 24, 1996 A. Certainly. No, no. We weren't notified until July 19th after it was allover. Q. What were you doing before then when the property was so terrible? Were you out there? Were you doing anything about it? A. There was an eviction, which was part of our packet. I don't know if they have it yet, two eviction notices that were from May, which were the -- the -- well, one was just a -- a tenant who was -- tended to be messy and leave things out. But the -- the suspicious activity was 2663-A and, yes, they were evicted. He had to evict Edwin Smith, who was the person who was on the lease. Q. Well, are you saying that the police need to keep an eye on everyone's property and that a property owner -- A. No . Q. -- can stand back and do nothing until the police does an investigation or arrests people? Is that what you're telling us? A. Well, I would say that if your home is being trespassed on and there's a homeless camp within 20 to 30 feet and you call the police on numerous occasions, as do the tenants, that you're doing all that you can as far as -- Q. You couldn't put up a fence to stop the trespassing? A. Well, the church is where the homeless people were. They could have perhaps put up a fence. It's a huge -- they have 5 acres of land there. I don't know if they were ever contacted. There were no trespassing signs there. The property was overgrown. I think we were as much victim in this as anyone, probably more. Q. Did you have written leases for any of these tenants? A. Yes, we do. Q. For all of them? A. I don't know if all of them, but most of them. I think Q. Now? Now you do? A. Oh, yeah, always. Q. Did you have them always? A. Always, yes. Edwin Smith we had a lease with, yes. Q. And when did you first evict someone? A. Oh, there were evictions going on, and the police can tell you. They met as well for the evictions throughout '95 or from the time he took over the property, because the problems preceded his purchase of the property right up through May. Q. Okay. You're telling us that the police have to have an active role in helping you out, but you never sat down with code enforcement, with the police, and actually tried to -- A. Our son met with them on three occasions. Q. You heard Mr. Mazzone testify that the only time he spoke with you, it was not a pleasant conversation; right? A. Well, I don't -- I d~dn't see anything terribly wrong with the conversation other than he was very angry because my son did not sign the pink slip. He didn't -- he admitted that he had the questionnaire back and that we had -- well, I don't know if he admitted that we had abated a violation. He just wanted proof of that. But he wanted that pink slip signed, and that -- he was angry Page 47 October 24, 1996 about that. Q. Now, you mentioned that your son knew that he couldn't get decent tenants because of the situation in the area. A. He did have decent tenants. Some were decent. This one gentleman who testified today has been there for four years, and he's a decent tenant. There's some nice people there. These are not -- this is not the Ritz-Carlton. These people pay between $350 a month and $357 a month. They are one-bedroom, air-conditioned apartments, and they are clean and neat. This is just the type of housing that Collier County wants. Collier County needs to -- to help enforce, of course, any of these areas that have had problems. And code enforcement did a huge job in May when they got rid of the homeless camp. It's not -- the homeless people are not poor, pathetic women with children who don't have any money. They are drug addicts, prostitutes. You would have to see them. I should have taken pictures of those to show the board. I never knew I'd be at the board. Q. Is the -- is it your testimony that your son met with code enforcement to discuss these matters for a plan? A. We met with -- when Dennis Mazzone was code enforcement officer, we met with him, yes. Q. With your son? A. Our son, my husband, and myself, yes, we did. We responded to anything that we received. We never received a lease from the police department, suggested lease. We would have been anxious to accept anything in writing that would have helped us, anything. . Q. You -- to summarize your testimony, you admit that you had a nuisance drug problem on this property until very recently, don't you? A. I admit that we evicted 2663-A where unauthorized occupants were and where it looks liked suspicious activity. We evicted them in May. I believe it was May 29th. We have the eviction notice with the police's signature on it. But our notice from Dennis Mazzone came July 19th, which was two months later almost. Q. Well, you've heard your attorney stipulate to the packet of evidence which contains at least five -- if I believe I'm correct, five arrests on this property. That's not a nuisance drug problem? A. Well, let me just say that none of them are tenants. We recognize not a name on that list, not a name. And the tree in the back of the property that they mentioned where the homeless did loiter and did hang out was not -- like I say, maybe that was within 15 feet. Q. SO is it your position -- A. But let me just please finish that one thing. Q. Keep your answer to what I asked. A. Okay. The tree belongs on the other property. It belongs to the church. I don't know if anyone contacted the church about the loitering under the tree. I just want to be specific that it was not on our property -- or my son's property. Q. SO is it your testimony that if the homeless are pedaling drugs and those drugs are being pedaled on your property, Page 48 October 24, 1996 that's not your problem and it's not a nuisance A. Oh, it's absolutely everybody's problem. It's your problem, it's the sheriff's department's problem, it's my problem, it's my attorney's problem, it is the code enforcement board's problem. We all have to work together on it. I just don't want to be a victim again or my son be a victim again of something he's already been victimized by. Q. Are you a victim if this board orders you to abate a drug problem on your property? A. Yeah, because after -- if it has already been abated, then I don't know why I'm here. I'm happy to help in any way I can, as is my son, as is my husband. Q. How often are you on this property? A. I was there yesterday. I was there the day before. I spent after 2663-A was evicted, I spent two days cleaning it up literally myself. Q. Despite the occurrences of proven arrests and convictions and despite the testimony of drug enforcement officers that there is suspicion that activity continues, it is your position today that there is no drug problem whatsoever on that property? A. Absolutely. Absolutely, that there is none that we were Q. As clean as can be? A. As far as I know. I was there yesterday. Q. Okay. No further questions. A. May I just say one other thing? If you will notice on that list of all the compl&ints, many of which came from -- from my son and from our tenants and many, I'm sure, came from Michael Varney, which is fine, let's all call. Let's get help. But would you just notice, please, that the last call was June of 21 except for one unverified call that was in August. I think it was August 21st. Now, that call was unverified. We have no idea what it was other than when my son was repairing the roof at one point. -- we don' t know what date -- there was a policeman who came to the property behind because there was a report of gunfire, and actually what it was were two transients who set off firecrackers. That's the only thing that we know that's happened since -- long before we got the report from Dennis Mazzone or the notice from Dennis Mazzone. So that's my answer. MR. MANALICH: I have nothing further. MR. MURPHY: No redirect, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Next witness. MS. LOUVIERE: I have a question of her. THE WITNESS: Oh, sorry. MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry. The biggest problem I have with your testimony is that t~is has been going on since November of 1995, okay; and then all of a sudden way back here on 9-27-'96 you painted and you did something. I mean, this has been going on. They have 29 calls on your property, 29 calls. THE WITNESS: I think there are 27. Two of them are repeats, and nine of them are unverified. But I do not -- I do not Page 49 October 24, 1996 want to pretend that there were not problems in that whole area. I think one problem for this particular fourplex is that anytime there's a problem in that area, there are no other houses there, except there is a house to the south. And Michael Varney's is -- there's vacant property all around and then is further to the north. But when they want to talk about the homeless area, they say that area, they say 2663-A pine Street, and what they mean is -- MS. LOUVIERE: You have someone that rents from you state that he knew of other people that lived there and that he gave out numbers -- THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. MS. LOUVIERE: -- 2663, 2667. I have -- I know that these people are not good people, and they're dealing out of there. THE WITNESS: They've been gone a long time ago. I have no idea if he meant even before we owned the property. But he's been there four years. But I know as of May, I will say, of no problems. MS. LOUVIERE: You have had -- we have had people from the sheriff's department say they've come onto your property on several occasions, and the only person they could talk to is to some representative that says he's the manager. THE WITNESS: That is my son, the owner, and he is there frequently. ~e -- he has been there repairing the roofs. He -- he with his repairmen have been in doing the plumbing. They have painted the building. And let -- one other thing I'd just like to say, that when he had his repairmen there with a van -- MS. LOUVIERE: Uh-huh. THE WITNESS: -- the homeless broke into his repairman's van, and they had to call the police, because the homeless were trying to get the tools out of his repairman's van. MS. LOUVIERE: Do you know that I have three pieces of rental property, and if the police -- if I received this many phone calls, I would evict all my tenants, every single one of them, and I would leave it vacant. Do you know that's what I would do? THE WITNESS: I wonder what type of property you have. I have property as well, and I don't have these property in other areas, and the reason is I don't have homeless camps like the property that my son owns. We don't have people, prostitutes, walking through our property. You probably don't your own home. We don't have drug deals that are occurring within 20 feet. MS. DEIFIK: Mrs. Hedrich. THE WITNESS: It's difficult. It really is. I'm just trying -- I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to say that it is very difficult. MS. LOUVIERE: I have had problems with tenants before, and that's what I do. You're out. THE WITNESS: Well, that'.s what was done. If you have a record -- and I wish I'd brought them; I could provide them. There were many evictions at the apartment. If there was ever a problem, the people were evicted. MS. DEIFIK: Do you know -- THE WITNESS: We don't know the names of the people on Page 50 October 24, 1996 the police report. We don't know those people, so -- MS. DEIFIK: Mrs. Hedrich -- THE WITNESS: Uh-huh. MS. DEIFIK: -- your son's name is Norman, but he goes by the nickname of Lee? THE WITNESS: His middle name is Lee. My husband's name is Norman. Right, it's one person and I refer to him as Lee. MS. DEIFIK: Have you or has your son contacted the church? THE WITNESS: No. But Dennis Mazzone says that he would. We talked to him about it in November of '95, and he said -- that was when we were complaining so much about the property. And I have called code enforcement since as well, but Dennis Mazzone said notices would be sent, but they would just be moved, that the homeless would just move to another vacant lot. MS. DEIFIK: But to your knowledge, your son has never sat down with anyone from the church and said we need to address this problem? THE WITNESS: sorry. I really MS. DEIFIK: I do not know what church it is. I'm do not know the owner. Did you do a property search to ascertain THE WITNESS: No. Because I knew that code enforcement had that information. Dennis Mazzone told me that, so I assumed that they were doing that. I thought the county -- code enforcement was the proper authority to do that, not me as a private citizen. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Yqu said there were other vacant properties that were contributing to this problem. Do you know who owns those properties? THE WITNESS: It's all the church, to my knowledge. Dennis could probably tell you, but these 5 acres (indicating), I believe, are owned by the church. The vacant lot to the north of pine Street is owned by Michael Varney, which he admitted or said -- related, and then there's another vacant property here (indicating), quite a large one, where there was another homeless camp. MS. DEIFIK: Do you know who owns that property? THE WITNESS: I do not. MS. DEIFIK: Has your son made any effort to find out who owns that property or contact -- THE WITNESS: Only to ask code enforcement, and I've called myself to ask that they be contacted. MS. DEIFIK: To your knowledge, has your -- and I feel a little uncomfortable asking you these questions, because I'm really asking you what some third parties have said to other parties; but to your knowledge, has your son spoken with or coordinated with other property owners in the area s~ch as Mr. Varney? THE WITNESS: Well, Mr. Varney has called him on frequent occasion. I've spoken to him a couple of time -- once, I think. and I think my husband has spoken with Michael Varney twice. And at the conversations he wants to buy the property. He's mentioned that several times. And also he asked if my -- if my son could use Page 51 October 24, 1996 someone to do maintenance or cut the lawn. MS. DEIFIK: That's not my question. THE WITNESS: He did not discuss the problems in the neighborhood, I don't think, with us. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Let me ask my question again. Have you or your son or anyone on your son's behalf contacted or sat down with other property owners in the area to address the problems that we're addressing today? THE WITNESS: No. We've dealt with code enforcement and the police. I mean, those were the people. We'll be happy to do so. I'm sure my son would be happy to do so. We never received anything in the mail about any of this with the leases, the recommended leases, which I'm sure my son would be more than willing to use. We never heard of them until today. MS. DEIFIK: What I'm asking, I think, is little different. What efforts have been made certainly like to see efforts made between all the future. THE WITNESS: Right, right. MR. McCORMICK: I have a question for you. Your son does not live at the property? THE WITNESS: No, he does not. MR. McCORMICK: Does he live in that neighborhood? THE WITNESS: No, he does not. He lives in Bonita Springs. MR. McCORMICK: property? THE WITNESS: Well, during this bad time, he probably -- up through May he was there probably at least once a week. When he started to do the repairs -- I mean, you have to realize that if he repaired a window, the homeless would break it the next day. It was hard to -- you know, even Dennis Mazzone said, "Don't worry about windows until the homeless are gone." But once he started doing that repair work, he was there for a good solid two to three weeks doing nothing but repairs; that was prior to receiving the notice. MR. McCORMICK: Some of the previous testimony seemed to indicate that there was a lack of representation by your son or they had difficulty finding out who was in control or contacting him. Have -- has your son or yourself ever considered having somebody live there on site who was a point of contact or -- THE WITNESS: Perhaps one of the tenants we could -- you know, we could talk to one of the tenants, or he could talk to one of the tenants. But I will say -- I will say, you know, that contacting the police and the code enforcement was the best that we knew to do. We're happy to do anything that would keep the property continuing along the lines that it is now, because it does look nice, and it is a pleasant area now. MS. DEIFIK: Mrs. Hedrich, we heard testimony earlier that your son had a pager or beeper number that he gave to some of the officers. Does-- THE WITNESS: something a in the past. I'd the property owners in How often would you say he visits that My son has no beeper, never has. Page 52 October 24, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Maybe I misunderstood. It was a phone number. All right. That phone number is your home? THE WITNESS: Apparently where they were trying to call, the 947-5233 number is my number. I was not aware of them trying to call. But that is our number, yes. And we do have -- and Dennis Mazzone is aware of it. I'm not sure if anyone else -- I'm sure code enforcement was aware of it. We have an office that's open nine to five every day; so there was no problem getting in touch with us. The address, official address for sending taxes, notices, and all that is our office address. So if anybody tried to get anything to us, there would have been no problem at all. MS. DEIFIK: But your son has a separate residence? THE WITNESS: Yes, he does. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. And he has a separate phone number? THE WITNESS: Yes, he does. MS. DEIFIK: Why would he give the officers your number? THE WITNESS: I have no idea, unless it came off a card or something. I really don't know. MS. LOUVIERE: What is your office? THE WITNESS: We are a real estate office. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. MR. KOWALSKI: Excuse me. Before we go any further -- excuse me, Mr. Allen. Madam Chairman, our court reporter is struggling mightily. And let me, if I'm not out of order, suggest to the witness that after the question is asked before an answer is made, I often suggest a deep breath or pause and then slowly go into the answer. I think even the questions are becoming a bit rushed. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. MS. McEACHERN: Mrs. Hedrich, are you an owner of the pine Street fourplexes? THE WITNESS: No, I am not. MR. ALLEN: Mrs. Hedrich, I have a question, please. THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. ALLEN: In your testimony you're saying that you'd like to work with the sheriff department and the code enforcement board. Would you be opposed to reimbursing the sheriff's department the $1300 they spent trying to clean up your property for you? THE WITNESS: Arresting the homeless people, arresting tenants that don't belong to us on our property? MR. ALLEN: No. I'm just talking about the drug-related things that occurred on your property. MS. McEACHERN: Mrs. Hedrich, you just testified it's not your property. THE WITNESS: No, no, no. When I say property, I will say -- it's my son's property.. The deed is in our son's name. We were involved in the purchase of the property in terms of advice, etc. MS. McEACHERN: But you do not own the property? THE WITNESS: No, we do not. MS. McEACHERN: Then it's not "our property"? Page 53 October 24, 1996 THE WITNESS: No, it's my son's property, and I suppose you could ask him that question. I think he would feel that the police -- especially when he was calling and trying to help, I think he would feel that the police, you know, were basically doing their job, which was, you know, with trespassers on our property. MR. ALLEN: Well, I have a problem with trespassing when it happened five times in six months. I think that's turning somebody has been turning their head. That's just how it appears to me. THE WITNESS: You might want to ask the police officers, but he was involved -- actually at one time he was to lift the dumpster top to give them some sort of a -- some sort of an indication of when something was happening. I don't know. Maybe the -- Dean Walton would know a little bit more about that. But he was trying to cooperate, let me just assure you of that, as -- or my husband and I, because we were trying to help him in the -- in the incident. MR. ALLEN: Thank you. THE WITNESS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further questions? Thank you. MS. McEACHERN: No . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further witnesses? MR. MURPHY: No, ma'am. Respondent rests. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any rebuttal? MS. McEACHERN: No, ma'am. We'd just like to make a closing statement. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let me ask you this, because this is new for this board, and .probably they don't have a clue as to what kind of remedy you want us to provide. So in your closing arguments, in your summarization of the evidence, would you please tell us what the county is looking for. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman, the county is looking for an order of abatement that the pine Street fourplexes known as 2663-A through 2669 be declared a public nuisance. The attorney for the property owner has stipulated to the evidence that's been submitted, has stipulated that it is a public nuisance. And if I may read from the ordinance, Ordinance 96-11 defines public nuisance as any area, location, property, place, or premises which has been used on more than two occasions within a six-month period as the site of the unlawful sale, delivery, manufacture, or cultivation of any controlled substance. I think one of the things that's very interesting about this ordinance and the statute on which it's based is that a conviction is not even required to have a premises declared as a public nuisance in the event that there is illegal drug activity. So all that's really needed is evidence of that act -- activity has transpired. It does not even ,have to result in a conviction. Under the ordinance as well, the county is entitled to recover the costs of the investigation, and it was unrebutted that the costs of this particular investigation was $1,312. So the order that the county is looking for is that this premises be declared a public nuisance and that the property owner, who we still have not heard Page 54 October 24, 1996 from, be ordered to abate that nuisance and that the property owner be ordered to reimburse the county for the costs that are incurred, and again, that amount is $1,312. And your -- your attorney can tell you that as set -- stated in the ordinance, it says that in the event that the Nuisance Abatement Board declares a place or premises to be a nuisance and issues an order pursuant to Section 6 of this ordinance, that the Nuisance Abatement Board shall assess against the owner of the place or premises the costs which the county and/or the sheriff have incurred in the preparation, investigation, and presentation of the case. These costs shall be due and payable ten days after the written order of the -- of the Nuisance Abatement Board has been filed. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me ask the county attorney or maybe our attorney. Assuming that the board declared this to be a public nuisance and the property owner is ordered to abate the nuisance, is there a time limit? Is there a penalty if they don't? MS. DEIFIK: And also can we direct that certain things need to be done in order to abate the nuisance, or do we leave that to the property owner to ascertain? MR. KOWALSKI: In -- in reviewing the ordinance -- and I think the county attorney is -- is intimately familiar with the ordinance and probably would be a good source of information for the board -- it -- it appears that it's written to re -- to authorize the board to require that the owner abate the nuisance, but I would hope that the county attorney's office would want to go further. I don't -- I don't know how that could be enforced, candidly. As I read the ordinance and the case law, it looks like a good-faith effort by the owner is all that this board can -- can require. And perhaps the county attorney would suggest some specific measures that could be implemented by the owner to attempt to abate the nuisance, because where I'm going with this is -- is that I feel that if the owner does act in good faith to attempt to abate the nuisance or if this board finds that the owner has already done such, that there isn't any penalty which could be applied constitutionally by this board against the owner for the failure to abate a nuisance. MS. DEIFIK: That's exactly my concern, that we need to have something specific. As I read the ordinance at the top of page 7 starting at the bottom of page 6, it says this time period shall be allowed for the purpose of allowing the owner -- excuse me. This time period shall be allowed -- I'm reading from the bottom of page 6 -- for the purpose of allowing the owner to take such good-faith measures as are appropriate to abate the nuisance. I'm very concerned about procedure here, not just for this case, but because, as Miss Rawson points out, this is our first case of this type; and I want us to proceed correctly and set some good groundwork here. I also.am concerned that if we just say, well, we want it better and someone then comes back later to us and says, well, it hasn't improved, how are we going to penalize the owner when we haven't given some specific direction. So it appears to me, unless counsel for one of the parties or the board objects, that perhaps we should at least consider in any order some specific measures that need Page 55 October 24, 1996 Mr. Murphy a recent Second District Court of Appeal decision, which the Florida Supreme Court denied cert on in which the Second DCA held that if you were to order any property which is the subject of a nuisance to be closed or shut down as one of your powers, you would surprisingly be required possibly to pay takings damage for that closure. MS. DEIFIK: I can well imagine. MR. MANALICH: And we're not asking for closure. MS. DEIFIK: But -- but we need to have -- but does anyone have page 8 and page 9 -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We don't have page 8 and 9 in our packet unfortunately. MS. DEIFIK: I don't know if there's a 10 and 11 and -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We've been probably struggling to look for that. Now, procedurally, in all fairness, we're asking you a lot of questions relating to your closing argument, and we need to give Mr. Murphy an opportunity to make his closing argument. MS. DEIFIK: Before we do that, can I just ask one other question that I think might give the board a better picture? What is code enforcement doing with regard to the adjoining properties, the church, for instance? MS. McEACHERN: Well, number one, we can only go one property at a time. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I don't think that anything is going to happen in this neighborhood unless you go all properties at one time. Can we hear what -- . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Sure. MR. McCORMICK: While he's making his way up there, for the board's benefit, there are pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 as part of this ordinance which we don't have. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Right. MR. McCORMICK: It might take time to read through before we make a final -- MS. LOUVIERE: And when we do tell them that they have -- that they can abate the situation -- the nuisance in such a manner, can we give them a time limit that it can be done by that it must be done by? MR. MANALICH: I think you can. I think typically -- and, you know, Mr. Murphy needs to weigh in here obviously with whatever viewpoints he has, but my contact with other jurisdictions indicated that their order simply required abatement to be forthwith, and there was no specific time frame. But, you know, certainly MS. DEIFIK: Well, I mean, you know, I could go out there and shoot everybody, and it will abate. But-- MR. MANALICH: In a lawf~l manner. MS. McEACHERN: Don't do that. MR. MANALICH: Mr. Varney mentioned that -- MS. LOUVIERE: I think it's important that we at least that we be allowed to give them a time so that if it doesn't get done by the certain time, then you can go and take it to the civil Page 57 October 24, 1996 court. I mean, otherwise this -- this will -- can continue forever, and they can say we're attempting it, we're attempting it, but nothing is being resolved. MR. MANALICH: I think it would be within your discretion to either order that abatement occur immediately, or if you want to prescribe a time frame, you know, we're not opposed to that either. MS. LOUVIERE: So we can say immediately and that if -- MR. MANALICH: It would be my opinion you could. Now, if you feel it's fairer to the respondents and everyone concerned to establish some specificity of steps to be taken and a time frame, I don't think that's required. But if that's the way you think it would be best handled, you know, we're not going to oppose that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Let's -- let's hear from Mr. Murphy, because we're probably getting ahead of ourselves here. And I'm sure he wants to tell us why the nuisance has already been abated. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. -- I'm sorry, Mr. Mazzone. We wanted to know about the adjoining properties. MR. MAZZONE: In the past, as Mrs. Hedrich had stated, being on their property for a prior housing case, Mrs. Hedrich did bring my attention to the problems in -- to the rear of the property, which we were aware of that there were problems stemming from the vagrant use of the vacant lots behind hers. As a result, we started and have concluded exotic removal cases on those vacant lots which are owned by the church. MS. DEIFIK: What's the name of the church? MR. MAZZONE: I don't .re -- remember the name of the church. I'm sorry. I don't have that information with me. MS. DEIFIK: Has the church been notified? MR. MAZZONE: Oh, yes. We sent a letter to the church asking them to remove all the exotics and the -- the litter and debris that resulted from the vagrant use of the property, which was -- which was considerable. And they did so. And then, of course, we have had like cases of the other owners of property adja -- or in the near vicinity of this property that was heavily wooded and used by vagrants. We had that cleared of exotics and debris also. MS. DEIFIK: Did the letter just ask them to remove exotics, or did it ask them to do something about the vagrance and drug use on their lot? MR. MAZZONE: In removing the exotics -- you see, we can only -- code enforcement can only address those ordinances that that we enforce, and that would be our 91-47, which -- which requests that -- that allows us to remove exotics. So we did ask them to remove the exotics. And under that same ordinance, we also asked them to remove litter and debris; that would be any of the housing, the Visqueen plastic, the bicycle.parts, anything that would be found as a foreign matter on that property that's not vegetation, to have it removed, in fact, stripped of everything, which they did. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Anybody have any more questions for Mr. Mazzone? Thank you. Page 58 October 24, 1996 MR. LAFORET: I'd like to ask our attorney a question. In previous cases we heard, not under this regulation, it was determined that it was only the obligation of the board to decide guilt or innocence, that we were not allowed to prescribe a correction of the deficiency. And the reason for it being given was that if we told him or the owner of a property to make certain corrections, if they didn't work, then at our direction he was given misinformation; and that could open up Pandora's box so that we were only to decide whether there is innocent (sic) or guilt or in favor or against the charges to the respondent. Counsel, I was going to say defense also. The respondent. Now, on that basis, this -- this regulation for this board is moot on a point. But on that basis, what would your advice be? MR. KOWALSKI: To the Code Enforcement Board operating under the other ordinance, my advice would be just as you stated it, because that ordinance provides that there are some very specific violations. You violated Subsections H of -- of ordinance such and such and because your fence is 6 inches too high or whatever. And-- and the ordinance further provided that it -- that if the cur -- violation is not corrected, you have enforcement powers, which would include, for example, the levying of fines. And so there was -- because of both the nature of the violation being very specific and the ordinance giving you specific enforcement powers, I think the advice of leaving it to the violator as to how to correct the violation was very prudent. We're -- we're in obviously a different ballpark here with this ordinance when you're operating as the Nuisance Abatement Board. And the two distinctions that are prominent that I see here in response to your question our, number one, you're not addressing a situation that says your fence is 6 inches too high or it's 3 feet too close to the neighbor's property line. You're talking about something that's a bit more subjective, and that is that there's activity that could constitute a nuisance. And how -- how you correct that activity, you're relating it to human behavior instead of -- instead of some physical engineering feat; it's much harder to do that. It's much harder to identify it, and it's much more difficult to identify how it should be corrected. And, furthermore, because of some of those problems, the ordinance you're working under as the Nuisance Abatement Board does not give you the same enforcement powers, where if the nuisance is not abatement -- abated you could levy fines or -- or take some specific enforcement action. And I think those are the reasons why the advice which applies to you and your Code Enforcement Board probably doesn't apply in this case when you're operating as the Nuisance Abatement Board. MR. LAFORET: a board of equi ty . fair to dictate to to comply with the as he's told to do But I -- I feel that this board should be And being a board of equity, I don't feel it's the owner of a property that he must spend $10,000 rule, and yet if he spends that money and does it and it doesn't comply with the abatement Page 59 October 24, 1996 MS. DEIFIK: Completely different situation. MR. LAFORET: -- we've penalized him right there by making him spend $10,000 to correct something, and then we turn around and tell him we don't accept it. I don't think that's equitable. MR. KOWALSKI: That's a good point, but -- but -- and I leave it to the board to decide. Is it equitable simply to order the respondent to abate a nuisance? If it is not within the power or the ability of the property owner to do that, how can he establish that he's made good-faith efforts to abate the nuisance? Then he's in the Pandora's box that you referred to before. I think the county attorney's office has done a good job with this ordinance, and obviously this is our first case, and these are some of the issues that the board is going to be struggling with, at least until the ordinance gets up and running. They're good issues to bring up, and I'm not telling the board what the proper solution is. I'm just answering as a lawyer the way I see the operation of the ordinance. MS. McEACHERN: The -- the county attorney's position is that if good-faith measures do not abate the problem, then the problem is not abated, and -- and we can come back here, or we can go to court. Again, there is a statute in which this ordinance is based that clearly declares, you know, these types of places a public nuisance, and they shall be abated. You know, with property ownership comes responsibility. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: For the record I'm Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director. My recommendation would be that since Mrs. Hedrich has -- has stated that the nuisance is already abated, that the board issue an order that -- that calls for immediate abatement, and in the event that there are more investigations or a verification from the sheriff department, then we will be able to take the case and go further with that. Also I believe that it would be appropriate for the board to order them to pay the cost of the investigation. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Thank you. MR. McCORMICK: Let me ask -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Murphy. MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much. Madam Chairman, members of the board, I -- I tend to think that Mr. Kowalski is on the right track when we're trying to figure out what we're doing here. Number one, we're not adversaries. We're friends and neighbors, and we're all hopefully working towards the same end. The notice that we received, which was dated July 19th of 1996, advised us that we were to abate a specific nuisance that was described in five specific police reports. Those were the instructions from Mr. Mazzone in his citation. It seems to me that the board has to find that a nuisance presently exists, not that a nuisance existed in February or in April, but that a nuisance presently exists in order to find the owner in violation of an instruction to abate the nuisance, because only by the nuisance continuing to exist has there been a violation. The testimony that we heard, first of all, from Page 60 October 24, 1996 Sheriff's Deputy Maran, she has not been on the property since April. The -- short people need to pull things closer to them. From -- from the other gentleman who was the other investigator on the property, he indicated that there is nothing more than a continuing investigation that is standard procedure when an area has been a hotbed of criminal activity. But, again, nothing specific concerning behavior or conduct on this property. The gentleman who was here who is a tenant and who has been a tenant testified that, yes, this was a terrible property but that -- and I'll quote him. His words were, "they are all good people now. " So I think the board's focus should not be what happened in February and what happened in May, because as a community, as a code enforcement division, property owners, the sheriff's department, a neighbor, by all of us focusing our efforts and calling the attention to the problem, we've got the problem solved for now. And and it's incumbent upon us all to stay on top of the problem, all of us together. What concerns me under this ordinance and the way that the county attorney wants to interpret this ordinance is that if it is reasonable for the owner to call the sheriff's department because he suspects some drug activity on the property, is he not lYnching himself because he now has made one of the two complaints about criminal activity. In other words, by calling the sheriff, he's creating a case against himself. And that I don't think is what this ordinance intends to do. I think what this ordinance intends to do, and I'll quote from the top of page 7, the very first line, it requires the owner to take such good-faith measures as are appropriate to abate the nuisance. We would submit to you, to these members of the board, that again, this is not Pelican Bay, but what the owner has done and what the neighbors have done, and what -- as I say again, the sheriff's department as our public servants, code enforcement as our public servants, what all of us have done is we've been able to clear out the source of the problem. We've been able to put good families in there now, because the neighborhood is not the dangerous neighborhood that it was six months ago. We would respectfully submit to you that the nuisance has been abated and that the owner, by evicting two tenants, by finding families, stable families, and putting them in the property, has done his part and that we -- we feel that there should be no citation whatsoever from this board against the owners, number one, because the nuisance doesn't exist; and, number two, because the owner is making a reasonable effort to be sure that it doesn't exist in the future. Thank you very much. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chg.irman, may we have a rebuttal? MR. LAFORET: I would like to address that, counsel, again on the pages we don't have. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We haven't seen these pages. MR. LAFORET: No. And on top of page 8 it says -- MR. KOWALSKI: Excuse me, sir, I did not receive that Page 61 October 24, 1996 either, and I still don't have it so -- MR. LAFORET: All right. I'm going to read it to you. MR. KOWALSKI: Okay. I can listen, sir. MR. MURPHY: Nor did counsel for the respondent. MR. LAFORET: The Nuisance Abatement Board shall hear nuisance cases on the part of the Code Enforcement Board agenda separate from all other code enforcement cases to the extent not in contradiction with this ordinance or other general -- law, the provisions of Collier County Ordinance No. 92-80, and that is the Code Enforcement Board, as amended or superceded from time to time shall apply to the Nuisance Abatement Board. Accordingly, the decision we were previously under not to make recommendations, but to judge, in my opinion, would be governed by previous decisions on the other board. I have no objection if the owner solicits the assistance of the nuisance abatement group and asks them: Now what should we do? What should we do first? I have no assistant (sic) in that. My objection is that we shouldn't tell everybody, direct them, do this. If it don't work, tough. MS. DEIFIK: Yeah, but -- MR. LAFORET: I don't think that's going to -- MS. DEIFIK: The way the justice system works, you need to give -- you need to have specificity. MS. LOUVIERE: I-- MR. LAFORET: Counselor, are you telling me the justice system works? MS. LOUVIERE: I did want to make one statement regarding the attorney that's representing the homeowners. He keeps -- he -- his impression is that the on -- the violation does not exist. Your argument seems to be based on that. However, we did hear from the sheriff's department today, and the sheriff's department stated that they are having an ongoing investigation because they believe that the problem continues. In addition, the packet that we accepted and that you agreed to states that there's an -- ongoing investigations indicate violations remain. MS. DEIFIK: And Mr. Varney testified that problems continue. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me -- let me do this. Let me give the ordinance to our attorney. Wasn't that a good idea. MS. McEACHERN: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MS. McEACHERN: If I could draw the board's attention also to the ordinance again on page 5, it declares a public nuisance as anyplace where this illegal activity has been going on, and there have been complaints of -- of on two occasions of the activity occurring within a six-month p~riod. And the county has met that burden. It's, in fact, been stipulated to by the other side. We have not heard from the property owner. There is nothing here from the property owner. MS. DEIFIK: I believe Mr. Murphy speaks for the property owner. Page 62 October 24, 1996 MS. McEACHERN: But he cannot testify. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that doesn't bother me either. I think basically the definition of a public nuisance has probably been met here. And I think it's even been agreed to by the other side that there have been more than one -- or two occasions it is within a six-month period. And so I don't have any problem saying that this property is a public nuisance. The problem is, what do we do about it. And there has been testimony that the property owners have made some good-faith efforts to try to abate that nuisance, and so I tend to think that Miss Sullivan's suggestion is that we order that they abate the nuisance immediately is a -- is a good one. MS. LOUVIERE: I think Miss -- Miss Sullivan's suggestion was that we make -- immediately abate the nuisance, that they pay the $1,312, and if there are any more incidents, then the sheriff's department is to proceed in this matter. I think that is what Miss Sullivan's recommendation was. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I don't think we -- I'm not sure we can tell the sheriff's department what to do. MS. LOUVIERE: Well, I -- I'm certainly not going to tell the sheriff's department what to do. I'm merely suggesting. MS. SULLIVAN: The county attorney's office can go forward at that time to circuit court. MS. DEIFIK: And what exactly are you going to accomplish when you go to circuit court? Get an injunction that's 10ing to say what? MR. MANALICH: Let me ~xplain. In talking with other jurisdictions, for example, Dade County, Pinellas, you know, St. Pete, those areas that have had these boards up and running for sometime, because of the issue that there was no clear demarcation of fine authority like you have in your other code enforcement cases, the question arose and I asked, you know, someone naively, well, gee, you know, then why are we going through this exercise. Why don't we just go directly to circuit court for an injunction. But the answer to that is, well, instead of engaging full-blown expense and costs and time of litigation in circuit court, this is intended to do -- as Mr. Murphy recognized, I think, to hopefully bring the parties together, get everybody's attention, make a finding, and hopefully administratively short of a circuit court proceeding get this thing attended to and resolved. And, quite frankly, I don't think my office, Miss Sullivan, or the sheriff's office is going to be interested in pursuing this any further if there is a working relationship with the property owner if, in fact, it's determined that .good-faith efforts have been done and have substantially, if not totally, succeeded in abating the nuisance. But the problem we have i~ that it's taken this much to get to this point, in our opinion. So we think that it's important that you enter the order, and beyond this it's going to be up to the property owner and all of the prosecuting agencies to either work together or find themselves all together in circuit court for an injunction which then if not obeyed could carry the potential of civil Page 63 October 24, 1996 contempt fines. I will tell you that I am in the process, as I said, of contacting Sarasota County, which apparently has gone and taken the cutting edge lead, and from what I am told is trying to or has, in fact, created a fine mechanism within their ordinance. We did not do that until we were absolutely comfortable that that was lawful, and we're still researching that. I mean, I hope that long-winded commentary hopefully answered your inquiry. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Miss Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: Only one more comment. The sheriff's office has stated measures they have found to be effective that are tried and true measures, and I think, you know, it's probably the responsibility of the property owner to work with them and try to work out what might be most effective for their property rather than the board trying to tell them what to do. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. I'm much more comfortable with that. Any other discussion? MR. ANDREWS: I -- I'd like to -- I would like to recommend Mrs. Sullivan's original answer to -- to this question as being -- as this being the first one, the trial thing. I'd like to eliminate the fine in this particular one. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are you talking about the fine or the costs? MR. ANDREWS: The costs. Well, it's a cost. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. ANDREWS: Or but we're transferring it to them. I I'd as soon eliminate tnat because after all this conversation and everything, we still were kind of floating in the dark, and I think that's a fair thing, is taken care of. That's number one. That was the answer. Oh, yeah. MS. LOUVIERE: I disagree because I don't believe MR. ANDREWS: All right. You have a chance to disagree. This is my idea, and I -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is this in the form of a motion? MR. ANDREWS : Yeah. MR. MURPHY: Is the floor closed, Madam Chairman, with respect to the fine or the cost issue? MR. McCORMICK: Perhaps we should make a motion whether or not we're going to find if this is a public nuisance or not and then, secondly, discuss -- if that is the case, discuss what we would propose. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: A very good idea. MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, prior to making that -- fine. First, I would suggest that Mr. Murphy be given an opportunity to address whatever matter he .was going to address. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: He wanted to address the matter of the costs, I'm sure, and I think I need to give him an opportunity to do that. MR. MANALICH: I also wanted to just add that I believe there should be some basic findings of fact, conclusions of law, and Page 64 October 24, 1996 order of the board made here that Mr. Kowalski can then prepare for you later on, but I think those should be made as part of your motion in the record, whatever your result or finding is, whether it's in favor of public nuisance or not; but I think those should be made to protect the record. With that, that's my only comment. Mr. Murphy, if he has his comment. MR. MURPHY: My only comment is that I think it's inappropriate to have a landowner pay for the criminal arrest and -- of criminals on his property. I think that's a double victimization of a landlord. It's -- it's as if you're the victim of an assault and battery, and you've got to pay for the cop to go arrest the guy that knocked you down. It's inappropriate. It's -- these investigations and the sting operations that were listed on the charge, the financial charge sheet, were in February and April. This citation was issued in -- on July the 19th. And it just seems totally inappropriate to have one citizen pay for the -- actually pay for the services that his property taxes pay for every single year. So that's the only thing I wanted to throw in there. MR. McCORMICK: Couple of comments. Regarding the fine, first of all, quickly, I -- I think that we want to take action to -- to abate the problem and that we -- we can discuss trying to set any measures that we come up with which will be towards getting the property owner to work with the sheriff's department. And we need to think about that if we're going to require the property owner to spend money on something that will abate the problem or something that is in the past. As far as whether or ~ot this site is a public nuisance, I think it's -- it's important to recognize that some things have been done in the last few months which have cleaned the place up and which have at this time given the appearance -- appearance that there's not the same nuisance, but we have to remember that these things are cyclical, and they do come around again. And there's been some -- some parts of this situation improving are due to the arrests the sheriff's department has made. Part of it is due to the code enforcement's efforts to get the church to clean up their property, and some other part is due to what the property owners have done. So it's important, I think, to recognize that this nuisance has not been abated on this property, in my opinion. It's a result of those other two factors also. And if we don't do anything to address this particular property that's before us today, then this can come -- come up again a month from now and that we need to try to do some things on site now while we have the opportunity. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. And that's also why I am very -- very pro that the owner is responsible for the $1,312, because I tend to think that money is a great motivator. MS. DEIFIK: I'd rather ~ee them -- I'd rather see that money spent hiring a security system to patrol the property. But why don't we have a motion with regard to the first item that we need. MR. LAFORET: Before the motion could I ask if the board would be amenable that we take a vote. If the vote is there has been violation, we assess the costs $1,312, but hold that cost in abeyance Page 65 October 24, 1996 for a period of three to six months to see if the nuisance continues. If it continues, then the costs would be applied. If it does not continue and there are no violations in the next three to six months, then there would -- we would know that they had to spend some money themselves to abate it. And if there's no charges, then the assessment would not be applied. MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman, may I make a motion that this board adopt a finding of fact that, indeed, violations continue to this day, and the property is a public nuisance and that that finding be based on the testimony of Mr. Varney and of Deputy Figueroa, that there are continuing incidents and opportunity for drug buys on the property and also the testimony that children in the area are at risk because of the continued activity of these factors. MS. LOUVIERE: Second that motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's been moved and seconded that we declare this property to be a public nuisance. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. ANDREWS: No . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. Andrews said no, so the vote is 5 to 1 that the property will be declared a public nuisance. Any other further discussion or motions? Well, you know, I'll make a motion that the board's order include specific findings of facts which would include the statute, and the reason for the finding is the definition of public nuisance in that two or mo~e occasions within the last six-month period there have been the unlawful sale, delivery, manufacture, or cultivation of controlled substances; further, that the property owner be ordered to abate the nuisance immediately. MS. DEIFIK: I second that motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any discussion? MS. DEIFIK: For the benefit of Miss Donovan, we have a letter here. The first motion was made by Celia Deifik and seconded by Mireya Louviere. The second motion was made by Chairman Jean Rawson and seconded by Celia Deifik. MS. LOUVIERE: I -- I like the motion. I am just very concerned about the $1,312. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I think we haven't really gotten to that yet, Mireya. I mean, that can be the subject of a separate separate motion. MS. LOUVIERE: Is that going to be a separate motion? MS. DEIFIK: I think that Jean's motion really was an amendment of mine and expanded it and asked Mr. Kowalski -- or directed Mr. Kowalski to include specifics as to the ordinance, the applicable statute, and the t~stimony that was presented here today. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: That's correct. I want to be sure that we have a proper order. MS. DEIFIK: I think what we're trying to do is first make a finding of fact and then ascertain or determine what we're going to do about it. Page 66 October 24, 1996 MS. LOUVIERE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Any further discussion on the motion? Basically that they be ordered to immediately abate the nuisance. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? (No response) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Unanimous vote. Any further discussion? Any further motions? MS. DEIFIK: I -- I would -- I don't want to state this as a motion, but -- but preparatory to making one, I would move that the board instruct the property owners to take all appropriate good-faith measures and possibly not as a directive, but as a suggestion, detail some of the items that might be done, and ask them to coordinate with the sheriff's department, with surrounding property owners, and with the Code Enforcement Board so that there are specific measures that can be measured at a later point in time, you know, the degree of -- the degree of effort, the degree of cooperativeness. MR. McCORMICK: I propose we take some of the easier ones first here. And first of all, I think that we should direct the owner, Mr. Lee Hedrichs (sic), to meet with the appropriate sheriff's department officials within a week's time. The tenant lease agreement needs to be provided at that time or sooner by the sheriff's department to the owners, and they can use that form or some similar form. And also the list of the tenants in the apartments and that personal information to be gathered at the time when they signed the lease, I think, would be e~tremely beneficial to both the owner and to the sheriff's department so they could work together. I think all three of those things need to be included and stated in our motion. And we can tackle some of the other specifics. MS. LOUVIERE: And lighting and perhaps a chain-link fence around the empty lot and -- MS. DEIFIK: They don't own the empty lot. MS. LOUVIERE: Actually around their property. I think it was suggested by the sheriff's department that that would prevent some of the people from the vacant property coming into their land. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, let me ask you this. Mr. McCormick, you made that in the form of a motion. And I think Miss Louviere is trying to amend your motion, and you know, that's up to you. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. The lighting specifically you would propose to have it improved to -- MS. LOUVIERE: Right. They have -- I think the sheriff's department recommended or suggested that they they provide additional lighting around their premises. MS. DEIFIK: I'm not cle~r, Mr. McCormick. Are you merely suggesting that they might want to do these things, or are you suggesting that we put that in an order? I thought we had agreed -- MR. McCORMICK: I suggest that we make this a part of our motion, that we say these are certain measures which need to be enacted, but are not limited. These are not the -- let's see, the Page 67 October 24, 1996 phrase was -- MR. MURPHY: Including but not limited to. MR. McCORMICK: Including but not limited to. MS. McEACHERN: If I could make a suggestion -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is it your suggestion that we put this in the order? MR. McCORMICK: I am. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Can we do that, counsel? Can we specifically order the property owner very specific things to do? MR. KOWALSKI: You know, the -- the -- in reviewing the entire ordinance now, there is no specific provision under the powers of the board, and Mr. Laforet was making this point very well earlier when I was quarreling with him. There is nothing in the ordinance which specifically authorizes the board to make specific recommendations as to what should be undertaken. It -- it -- on the contrary, the ordinance provides that the board may enter an order prohibiting the maintenance of the nuisance, the operating or maintaining of the place or the premises, or the conduct of any business or activity on the premises. But notwithstanding the fact that the ordinance doesn't give you that express authority, I think the county attorney's office has suggested that the approach that they would like to see is a remedial approach that is designed to try to bring the property into compliance. And along those lines, I think it wouldn't -- it would be lawful and up to the board, within the board's power if it so chose, to include in the motion and ultimately the order recommendations that might be pursued to establish the good faitQ of the property owner in trying to bring the property into compliance. MS. DEIFIK: That -- that's what I was saying, that good faith might be measured by the efforts in this regard, but I don't think we can order them to do those things. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. We wouldn't be opposed if you wanted to include these things as suggestions, including, but not limited to these things which may help to abate -- MS. DEIFIK: Right. And then they can come back and say, well, we looked into this, but it wouldn't work because. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Some measure of good faith. MS. DEIFIK: Right. MR. McCORMICK: As I see our problem is, the definition of abatement, and it's as difficult to define as opaque, you know. MS. LOUVIERE: Exactly. MS. DEIFIK: I looked up opaque, and that's not difficult, Richard. MR. McCORMICK: Well, what we're trying to do -- MS. DEIFIK: It's in my son's seventh-grade science book. Okay. _ MR. McCORMICK: We're trying to give some -- some additional definition for this case specific. Okay, so this is what is considered to be good-faith efforts to abate. MS. LOUVIERE: I really have -- you know, just because this is our first case, I have a -- big-time problems with this Page 68 October 24, 1996 ordinance in that we -- we are here trying to enforce this, but if people do not do what we say, we can't fine them. We can't tell them how to abate it. So basically we have this beautiful ordinance, and my hands are tied, okay. MS. DEIFIK: But can I suggest -- MS. LOUVIERE: I'm sorry, Celia. I was not finished. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MS. LOUVIERE: Thank you. So what I would like to see is, I would like to see the Sarasota ordinance. That's the one I want. That's the one Mireya Louviere would like to see. MR. MANALICH: Yeah, I understand that. And just apparently -- I was told over the phone -- I wasn't aware it existed, but I was told it was recently enacted. When this ordinance was done, this was done based on the long -- longer existing Dade -- especially, Dade County ordinance where they have used it extensively. But you're correct, and quite frankly, from the very beginning in preparing this ordinance, we identified that that was a weakness of the ordinance. I think the fine issue needs to be revisited. But until it's law -- it's determined as lawful, we were reluctant to put it in. MS. LOUVIERE: When do you think it's going to be determined whether the ordinance that's being drafted by Sarasota County will be constituted as lawful? MR. MANALICH: Well, I had asked them to give me a copy of that. And I think we then have to analyze what they have done, what their authority for it is. And, quite frankly, I think what it's going to come down to is an interpretation of constitutional home rule power for nonchartered counties, because it's not -- the fines aren't set forth in the specific piece of legislation. The items that are in the ordinance are what is set forth in Chapter 893 and specifically given to you by the statutes. MS. LOUVIERE: That's -- okay, but basically Sarasota does have right now an ordinance that has -- MR. MANALICH: That has fines. I'm informed that they do that. But, again, you know, one other thing, I understand the weakness you've observed, and I agree with it, and we had observed that early on. But the response in talking to established counties that have used this procedure, again, is that even though there were no fines, it's not a lost effort, because the idea was to have a quick, expeditious, in-comparison-relatively-inexpensive procedure through this administrative board to address these matters as opposed to full-blown litigation for injunctions in circuit court every time. MS. LOUVIERE: We're finding that even further we cannot even make recommendations to the property owner as to how he can -- he can abate this -- abate the nuisance problem, because then we get into __ into a legal matter. So basically all we can say is, yes, you have a nuisance -- we have a nuisance there, and please fix it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I think Mr. McCormick has a motion which I'm going to ask him to repeat which suggests a measure of what good faith would include the following, not limited to, and then he had a number of suggestions. You probably need to repeat those for the record and see if we have a second to your motion. Page 69 October 24, 1996 MR. McCORMICK: All right. I'll give that a try. I'll make a motion that we include as a requirement for -- or shall I say suggestion to the property that the -- the following measures will be used to measure good-faith efforts to abate the nuisance problem which we've identified. Those include meeting with the sheriff's department within the next seven days; developing a tenant lease agreement, which would include additional support for the owner to be able to evict the tenants following criminal investigations; provide to the sheriff's department a list of personal information, names and addresses, etc., on -- on your tenants; to provide accurate phone numbers of the owner, how he can be reached and who a backup contact person is; that the no trespassing signs will be maintained and will be replaced when -- when they are removed; and that the lighting is improved. I'd also suggest that the owner discuss with the sheriff's department the fencing of the backyard. I'm not going to include in this motion that that is a measurement that we are going to use equal to the others, but I would like that discussed and some agreement reached between the sheriff's department and the property owners. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Is there a second to the motion? MS. LOUVIERE: I s~cond Rick's motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded. Any further discussion? MS. DEIFIK: Yes. I have a question. Do you mean that you want the owners to gather personal information on the tenants and turn that allover to the sheriff's department or -- or did you just mean what the deputy had suggested, that the owner take steps to make sure they have all appropriate information for their own use? MR. McCORMICK: Well, let me -- let me, since you raised that question, ask Inspector Figueroa, if I may. I think he alluded to that -- that they've used that in the past. MS. DEIFIK: For the owner to use against the tenant. I don't think we want to go invading people'S privacy here. MR. FIGUEROA: What I suggested was for the property owner to -- to have that available to them for eviction process. Also it would help us if we're investigating a certain apartment, I can request from him who is legally residing at this location versus having -- normally what we encounter is 12 people in one of these apartments, and then we don't know who lives there. And if I go and call the property owner and says who is legally residing at this location, he will be able to tell me who is there at that location. MR. McCORMICK: That's clarifying. Let me restate my intent is for the owner to keep that list so that they can assist the sheriff's department if there's an ongoing investigation. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. with that amendment I would support Richard's motion. I'd like to include in matters that we would suggest to the property owner hiring a private security company to patrol at intervals or having a 24-hour resident manager or something along those lines or -- or the property owner taking steps, you know, whatever would be most economically efficient to patrol the property and be able to report to the sheriff's department what's going on and Page 70 October 24, 1996 whether there's people there that don't belong there. Somebody needs to chase them off. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, now you're asking -- Mr. -- wait, we got a motion on the floor, which has been seconded, and we're having discussion on the motion. We need to vote on the motion. Miss Deifik has just added some suggested amendments to the amendment which you can consider, Mr. McCormick, before we vote. If you want to amend your motion, then we need to amend the second. Then we need to vote. If you want to leave your motion the way it is, we'll vote on it the way it is. MR. McCORMICK: I don't really know how to phrase that or to be specific in the motion; so I would just leave it as advice from the board to the owners -- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. MR. McCORMICK: -- if that is okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we have a motion and a second on the floor. MR. ANDREWS: Just a minute. Just a minute. He didn't he didn't mention anything about a fine. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No, we haven't gotten to that, Mr. Andrews. MR. ANDREWS: Is that going to be another special one? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, that's not part of this motion. MS. LOUVIERE: We would have to make another motion if we decide to go ahead and do that. MR. McCORMICK: Well, .let's go ahead MS. LOUVIERE: But right now we have a motion and a second, and I guess -- MR. ANDREWS: Why in the hell don't you put that all in one? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, we have a motion and a second; so let's vote on the motion and the second. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed? MR. ANDREWS: No . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It's 5 to 1, Mr. Andrews being the dissenting vote -- 6 to 1. MS. LOUVIERE: We've been here too long. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. Is there any further discussion, or are there any other further motions before this board? MR. ALLEN: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. ALLEN: Mine would be that the $1,312 is a fine, but the fine be held in escrow for a period of a year. Okay, we have two sides, Hedrich saying that the problem is abated, okay; the sheriff department on the other side says it's ongoing. So I'm trying to say let's take -- my motion would say let's invoke the fine of $1,312 -- MS. DEIFIK: It's not a fine; it's costs. MR. ALLEN: Costs. Sorry. $1,312, hold those costs in escrow for a period of one year, and if nothing happens, Mr. Hedrich Page 71 October 24, 1996 receives his $1,312 back. If we have an ongoing occurrence -- MR. McCORMICK: I think that's a very good idea the way you stated it, because we don't have any authority to -- MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Moved and seconded. And before we vote on this motion, I need to know if it's legal whether or not we can hold thirteen twelve in costs in escrow, and if so, who's going to hold it? Can we do this? MR. KOWALSKI: I think that you can. There's obviously nothing covers it in the ordinance, but I think it's only appropriate to -- to read the provision in the ordinance that allows the board to impose costs to read by implication the power to provide conditions upon which that costs would be assessed. I would make two recommendations to the board, however. One is that if you do decide to proceed in that direction, with all due respect to Mr. Allen, I would prefer to see a little bit more specificity in the motion so that hopefully whether the conditions have been met or not is something that can be determined very readily without having to bring it back to the board and to determine some subjective or questionable evidentiary fact. The other thing is I read the section of the ordinance relating to costs as allowing the board only to impose costs which the county or sheriff has incurred in the preparation, investigation, and presentation of the case. And I think that the board should make a finding of fact that the $1,312 was expended in the preparation, investigation, and presentation of the case. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: My next -- my next if this motion passes, then, of course, I would ask you to put those findings of facts in such an order. But my next question is motion is that this be held in I think the word was escrow. going to hold it? MR. ANDREWS: And with or without interest? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I mean, the county's going to charge interest. MR. MANALICH: It's my understanding that there is accounts that can be segregated through the clerk and/or the finance department for that purpose. That has been done, for example, when bonds have been posted in the contractor licensing board pending appeal, things like that. So I believe that there can be a segregated -- essentially it would become -- would be almost a trust account only to be for this purpose with that condition. I believe that can be set up. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think the clerk will do it, but I think it's not without cost. MR. MANALICH: I don't know on that. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm.sure it's not without cost. MR. MANALICH: Also you have an issue of -- I don't know if you considered the interest aspect of this. I suppose it could be placed in either an interest or noninterest bearing account. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Do you have a suggestion, Miss Sullivan, before we vote on this motion? specific the Who's Page 72 October 24, 1996 MS. SULLIVAN: I'm just a little bit concerned about the way the ordinance reads under costs, although I'm nobody's attorney here. I think it speaks to the preparation of the case rather than maybe what went before. And I don't know if this part could be continued, because I'm sure that staff could probably, if you want to set a precedent here, come up with their cost of investigations and maybe -- maybe go about it in that way. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: It seems to me that the testimony that I heard from the police -- the sheriff's officers was how much it costs for a corporal, how much it costs for a sergeant, and it -- and it had to do with the criminal part and the buys and the drugs, and that's not what our attorney read us from the statute. So I have some problem with how we arrived at the thirteen twelve in making it fit into the nuisance abatement ordinance. So I know we have a motion and a second on the floor, but my suggestion would be that we table this. We can always bring this matter back when we've had some further investigation. But I have some concern about what I heard the testimony to be. MR. KOWALSKI: Madam Chairman, I share those concerns, and I suggested that or implied that when I -- when I responded to your question; so thank you for raising it more explicitly. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I'm glad we're on the same wavelength. MR. ALLEN: I'll be glad to withdraw the motions we don't have the true numbers at this point in time. have the real facts and what the factual numbers are, believe. MR. ANDREWS: I wi thdraw my second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. The motion and the second have been withdrawn. Are there any other motions to come before this board? Any further discussion? MR. MANALICH: I guess on clarification then, Madam Chairman, do you want this matter to come back on that issue to you, or are you simply saying you choose not to impose costs? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, I'll leave it to you whether to bring that matter back to us, but if you do let Mr. Murphy know so he can come make his argument. MR. MURPHY: Please, not again. That will be the third time. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: board? MR. KOWALSKI: Yes. Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Yes. MR. KOWALSKI: If it please the board, it seems to me in reading the ordinance, that at page 7, Section 5-C reads, in the event that the owner fails to respond to the notice from Collier code enforcement or fails to take reasonable action to abate the nuisance 'within the time frame set forth, then the board shall schedule a hearing, etc. And I think it would be appropriate for the board to make a finding that the owner failed to respond to the notice or since If we don't it's not fair, I Any other discussion before the Page 73 October 24, 1996 failed to take rea -- reasonable action to abate the nuisance within the time frame set forth. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: We're going back to the -- our first motion that was made? MS. DEIFIK: You mean because of the July notice? Was this heard before? Is that what you're saying? MR. KOWALSKI: No. I think the board -- the board has made a finding pursuant to its first motion that there exists a public nuisance that should be abated. But the board has not made a finding that the owner either failed to respond to the notice of violation or that the owner failed to take reasonable action to abate the nuisance. And I think those are conditions precedent to the jurisdiction of the board hearing the matter. MR. McCORMICK: Is that not in the ordinance, the part that says that the sheriff's office contacts the owner, and if it's not done within 14 days, then it comes before the board or -- MR. KOWALSKI: It goes on to read that the sheriff's office shall -- it says Collier County Code Enforcement or the attorney's office shall schedule a hearing on the complaint before the board. The sheriff's office shall assist by sharing with the offices information regarding the investigation. The sheriff's office shall also make available staff witnesses and then goes on to provide for the procedures under which the hearing would be conducted. And I think that it would be appropriate for the board to make a finding that -- that the jurisdiction has been invoked by the failure of the owner to respond to the notice or the failure to take reasonable steps to abate the nuisance, because that's the way I read and interpret the ordinance. MS. LOUVIERE: Excuse me. I'm sorry. Before we continue with this, I -- I had somewhere to be at 11:30, and it is now 12:30, and I'm going to have to excuse myself. MR. ANDREWS: Motion we adjourn anyway. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Whose motion was that? Was that yours? MR. McCORMICK: Mine probably. (Ms. Louviere exited the boardroom.) MS. DEIFIK: The first one was mine. I'm looking at this provision. I think Mr. Kowalski may be correct. I wish I had had the rest of the ordinance. But I would amend my motion to include a finding that the owner failed to take reasonable action to abate the nuisance within the time frame and, therefore, the public nuisance exists -- continues to exist. So I need a second, and Mireya just left. MR. McCORMICK: I'll second that amendment. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well-- MR. ANDREWS: I don't understand it. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: In order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Nuisance Abatement Board, I guess we have to have that finding. I mean, there -- there there have been measures taken to try to abate the nuisance, which is probably why this wasn't in the Page 74 October 24, 1996 first instance in there. Nevertheless, there's a -- there's a motion to add that finding and a second. So all in favor of adding that please signify by saying aye. All opposed? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: No. MR. ANDREWS: No . MR. LAFORET: (Raised hand) CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Oh, boy. Okay. There's three nos and one, two, three yeses -- four yeses. It's too late. The motion passes. Is that right? MR. ALLEN: (Nodded head) . CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Okay. The motion passes. That will be included in our findings of fact. MR. KOWALSKI: And who seconded that motion? MR. McCORMICK: I did. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Mr. McCormick. So if you would include that into the findings. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Are there any additional motions to come before the code? MR. McCORMICK: Just before we end can I ask the code enforcement staff to include a complete copy of the nuisance abatement order in the back of our books to always be there? MR. MANALICH: Madam Chairman, before we conclude, just ~ question, not just pertaining to this case, but any future cases also, and that is when you .have a situation like this one where an order has been entered finding a nuisance and ordering an abatement, we already somewhat at length discussed the next steps which basically are in circuit court. Is the board interested in this or other cases to have staff come back to you prior to taking the step in circuit court to discuss the situation, or do you simply want us to make our own enforcement decision on that independent of your order? CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: Well, for informational purposes we'd be happy to know what happened to our cases, but I don't think we have any power to tell you whether or not to go to the circuit court. MR. MANALICH: That -- that may be true. I-- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think our limited power is in this ordinance that we can just say it's a public nuisance, and they have to make reasonable steps to abate it, I believe, so I -- you know. MR. MANALICH: Yeah. I -- what you're saying is the next step then, I think, is out of your hands. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: I think it is. Anything else further to come before the board? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? MR. ANDREWS: Motion. MR. ALLEN: Second. CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: All right. Mr. -- Mr. Andrews made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Allen. All in favor? (All board members replied.) Page 75 October 24, 1996 ,-"- CHAIRPERSON RAWSON: The board is adjourned. 1<*1r** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:35 p.m. CODE ENFORCEM2NT BOARD '117 r ~ JEAN RA N, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEaALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara A. Donovan '- '"'---, page 76