Loading...
PVAC Minutes 08/28/2000 SAugust 28, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE August 28, 2000 Met on this date at 8:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Pat Baisley William J. Csogi Eric Hyde Bryan L.S. Pease, Acting Member NOT PRESENT: Clifford W. Flegal, Jr. Thomas W. Lugrin ALSO PRESENT: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Director Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Specialist Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Page I August. 28, :7.000 8:00 A~ ~01 ~. ?~; ?R.. _ADMINISTRATIVE BU~LDINC~ THIRD FLOOR ANY P~SON WHO DECIDES TO APPF, AL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A R~CORD OF THe. PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM ~ECORD OF TH~ PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, %TA~CH RECORD INCLUDES THAT T£STIMONY AZTD EVIDENCE UPON ~ICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. zII. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS: APPKOVAL OF AGENDA: APPROVAL OP MINUTES: July 5, NEW BUSINESS: OLD BUSiNESS~ REPORTS: Taxi Fare AnalySis DISCUSSION: NEXTMEETING'DATE: october 3, 2000 2000 August 28, 2000 CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Are we all ready now?. I'd like to call the special meeting of August 28th, 2000 to order. Do we have an any additions or deletions to our agenda? Oh, we need to make roll call first, right? MS. CRUZ: Good morning. For the record, Maria Cruz, code enforcement investigator. Patricia Baisley? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Here. MS. CRUZ: Thomas Lugrin? (No response.) MS. CRUZ: Bryan Pease? MR. PEASE: Here. MS. CRUZ: William Csogi? MR. CSOGI: Here. MS. CRUZ: Eric Hyde? MR. HYDE: Here. MS. CRUZ: Let the record show that Mr. Flegal did call and advise that because of a schedule conflict, he was not going to be able to attend this meeting. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All right. Do we have any additions or deletions to this agenda? No? Okay, we move on to our approval of the agenda. Do I have an approval of this agenda? MR. PEASE: I so move. MR. CSOGI: I got a --just on the -- on point 6, it says taxi fare analysis. Actually, we're doing a fuel surcharge analysis. We're not actually discussing the rate. MR. PEASE: Although that may be tied into it. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Well, that's the rate. I'll approve -- If we could put it with that change in there MR. PEASE: MR. CSOGI: then, maybe? MR. PEASE: MR. CSOGI: MR. PEASE: I'll approve it with it fuel. Fuel rate analysis? That would be fine. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do I have a second on that? MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do we wish to approve the Page 2 August 28, 2000 minutes now, or should we hold off until the next meeting? I don't know if everybody got a chance to finish reading them or not. MR. PEASE: I reviewed them and I'm comfortable with that, if there's a second available. MR. CSOGI: I made all my comments. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do I have a second? MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: We have no new business. No old business. We move on to our reports. The taxi fare fuel analysis. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code enforcement director. The analysis was completed by the franchise and utility regulation department, and Bleu Wallace, the director, is here, and Tom Knoll, one of his employees, is also here for questions. And we'll have Bleu first get up and do an overview of what the analysis included. MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Michelle. For the record, Bleu Wallace, director of utility and franchise regulations. Normally our department regulates the rates of water, sewer, and we also oversee cable regulation. We were brought into this to assist code enforcement. And as you can see by the report, we're not making any recommendation, any hard-line recommendation. Our attempt was to provide this committee enough information and data to assist you in deciding whether or not the fuel surcharge should continue, whether an overall rate increase is warranted, and hopefully we have provided that. I think with the information we provided and also information that may be provided by the operators themselves that are represented here today, that you'll have enough information to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in their role as the public vehicle board. If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. If they're detailed, especially, having to do with tab four in the report, I'll refer you to senior fiscal analyst, Tom Knoll. One thing I -- one item I did want to mention was that when Page 3 August 28, 2000 the board adopted the $2.00 surcharge up front within the first one-tenth of a mile, the extra $2.00 was added on to the fares. It's my understanding the intent of the board was that $2.00 go to the individuals that were paying for the fuel. In some cases, it did not. The smaller companies that have -- smaller companies and large companies that have a 50/50 split or a 60/40 split, then that $2.00 was also split, and part of the revenues went to the companies. Now, Checker, that we looked at, they have a different arrangement during off season where they pay a flat rate up front per week to the company, and then all the revenues the drivers keep. Now, I understand that that changes during season where they go to a split. But for this period, the majority of the drivers that purchased the gasoline did receive the full $2.00. Not all the drivers of the smaller companies, they did not, but the majority of the drivers did. And with that, I'll open it to questions. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do we have anyone from the public that would like to speak at this time? MS. ARNOLD: We have two speakers that are signed up. First, Jack Bridenthal. And the second speaker was Russ Baisley. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Either one of them want to speak at this time? MR. BRIDENTHAL: Really we probably both thought we'd speak after the board discussed some of this stuff. But on the $2.00 that Bleu was talking about, the board knew at the time that that would be a split thing. And costs for the owners have gone up at least 50 percent, probably 100 percent in the last 10 years also. And the fact is that neither the owners or the operators have had any kind of increase in 10 years. As a temporary thing, that was good. But I think it's time to look farther down the road and set a permanent one, and not something that we'll be changing every year, because the cost of changing these meters. When you got a dozen cars, you're talking about by the time you run back and forth to Fort Myers or Miami, you're talking about $2,500 for a dozen cars. It's too much to do often. Page 4 August 28, 2000 You know, we've made the change six months ago, and if we're going to change it again, let's just change it once and try to keep it for awhile. I may want to talk again if you've got questions, but that's all I've got to say right now. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Can I ask you a question while you're up here? Have you -- since you have added the $2.00 up front in your meters, have you gotten any complaints from your customers? MR. BRIDENTHAL: Very few in the first couple weeks. Since then, no. The -- we do find a few people that would normally take a very minimum trip are walking rather than taking that trip. But no, we've had very, very little. MR. BAISLEY: I'm Russ Baisley. I'm representing Yellow Cab today. On Page 8 of tab one, you'll see Chairman Constantine: The company -- so the company is going to see money whether gas prices go up or not. There is no direct reference that says it was specifically to the drivers. As Jack Bridenthal stated, the average cost of meters, having them calibrated according to state statutes by people who are certified to do this, costs us in the neighborhood of $200 per vehicle, not 45 or 75. Because you do have to get the car to Miami or you do have to get the car to Fort Myers. It does take time. That person has to be paid. We've seen cost raises in costs to facilities. In our operation, commercial property going from 1,000, $1,100 a month in '91, '92 to $3,000 a month at this time. We've seen mechanics' cost in garages, commercial garages, go from 30 to $35 an hour in '92 to 45 to $55 an hour today. We've see freon, a significant part of our expenses for air conditioning, go from $1.00 a can in '90, '91. You can't get it right now. We're not $13 a can. Radio systems, 800 megahertz radio systems a lot of us use have been shut down by Nextel. So we had to completely replace our whole radio systems. Dispatchers, '90, '91, probably 5 to 5.50 an hour that are 9 to $10 an hour. MR. CSOGI: Mr. Baisley, if I can interrupt you one second. I hear what you're saying, and I agree that there hasn't been a rate change for many years, but today we're discussing fuel increase Page 5 August 28, 2000 only. MR. BAISLEY: Well, the rate increase covered -- it's a rate increase. MR. CSOGI: No, it's not a rate increase, it's a fuel surcharge to cover the higher price of fuel, not your operating costs. MR. BAISLEY: It was this great increase caused primarily by the fuel costs, yes. But there are other costs brought into play that impact the whole operation. MR. CSOGI: Well, I understand that. But the study that Mr. Bleu did for us was a fuel surcharge. He didn't obtain your logbooks to determine your operating expenses. He did his just to do a fuel charge rate analysis for us. And I hear what you're saying, and I agree. MR. BAISLEY: I only have a couple of other items I'd like to add. MR. CSOGI: Okay. MR. BAISLEY: It does impact the overall operation. Transmission in a Crown Victoria in '91 was about $300 wholesale. They're 650 now. Replacement motor for the same vehicle was 350 to 450 in '91; today it's $800 to $1,100. A used police car for a taxi was about $1,500; it's $3,000 today. Those costs are costs that are borne by the company. There was some concern that companies were getting some benefit, and not just the drivers. That's true, because the drivers get the calls dispatched, and the cars are maintained by the companies. So the drivers and the companies are partners. The fuel impacts all of these items. There was an example given when the rate increase was sought of the person going across the street from Goodlette Arms to Naples Shopping Center. That trip used to be like 2.65, 2.75. It's now about 4.75. Gasoline, when I presented it to the county, was the straw that broke the camel's back. That's what necessitated this change. If you have any further questions. MR. PEASE: I just have a public comment here. MR. BRIDENTHAL: I have another comment. MR. PEASE: Go ahead. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: You need to come up to the microphone. MR. BRIDENTHAL: You said this is fuel charge. There's Page 6 August 28, 2000 three different places in here that says taxi fare analysis; both in the memorandum to the chairman, in the letter to us operators, and on the agenda. It's nothing -- it's not only gasoline. Page 1, first paragraph of the memorandum. MR. CSOGI: I believe the board asked us to do the $2.00 fuel charge; have six months to review it. MR. BRIDENTHAL: The operators -- MR. PEASE: Mr. Palmer, wasn't that a fuel surcharge? It was not a rate increase, it was a fuel surcharge and they asked it to be reviewed in six months to see if the fuel surcharge needed to be extended. MR. PALMER: Well, the original ordinance was passed to recover the increase in one cost only, and that was the cost of fuel. MR. PEASE: Right. MR. PALMER: It doesn't state so in the ordinance, but the increased fuel charge was to go to the individuals that paid the fuel costs. If the company paid for the fuel, the company was to get the money. If the driver paid for the fuel, the driver was to get the money. It was not going to be a split. And I don't think it dawned on anybody or occurred to anybody that other -- anybody other than the purchaser of the fuel was going to get benefit of the surcharge. I do believe that Bleu, when he did his analysis, went beyond the increased cost of fuel. He analyzed the increased cost of fuel to find out whether or not it fit, whether or not the increase was right, too high or too low. But in that analysis, I think he also took a broader view to determine whether or not there may be some need for a general rate increase, based on the fact that it's been almost a decade since there's been any kind of general rate increase. MR. PEASE: Mr. Bridenthal, before I make a comment, did you have anything else you wanted to say? MR. BRIDENTHAL: Yeah. I know it was mentioned at the time that there was owner increases over the years, too. I don't see it real quick in here. But in this memorandum, it says taxi fare analysis and increase. Here it says taxi fare analysis, in the letter to the operators, and on the agenda it says taxi fare increase. It doesn't only deal -- supposedly your meeting today is not supposed to only be dealing with fuel. It's supposed to be Page 7 August 28, 2000 dealing with a possible permanent fare increase to benefit both operators. MR. CSOGI: Well, I think they got -- like we've changed the memorandum today, they were supposed to -- I think the other two documents were -- you were misinformed by those documents. They were supposed to specifically state what the agenda said. MR. BRIDENTHAL: Well, then what are we -- wait until October and come back again and talk about a total permanent rate increase? MR. PEASE: I think it does tie in. It dovetails in. MR. PALMER: Well, certainly. As a matter of fact, it would have been more difficult to do an analysis without taking in some general costs than it would to just try to separate the cost of fuel by itself. It seems to me that that's an efficient way to do things. When Bleu was retrieving data for the questions of the fuel analysis, he's also retrieving additional data in which he can spread over a broader analysis about whether or not general rate relief is recommended. MR. PEASE: Now I'd like to make my comment. Here's the two gentlemen that went to the county board to get this fuel tax, fuel surcharge added. And when they came up here, they pied the case for all the expenses of the ownership. And they were non-fuel related. 80 percent of the expenses were non-fuel related. It was a back-door attempt to get a rate increase for the owners. There's a method that's set up for taxi increases. I'm in the transportation side. I know your cost went up. And I know, Russ, your spouse is on this -- chairperson. So she knows the procedures to go through, and I assume you would know via her the proper channels, which is to go before the PVC. A year ago I asked the taxi operators to come forward. I know you've got expenses that have increased. Come forward, let's get this approved. It didn't happen. Instead it went around and behind this committee, directly to, and you found a way to use the fuel surcharge as a method to recoup some of the other expenses. I resent that. MR. BAISLEY: I'd like to respond to that. It has been brought up to the committee prior to your being on the committee and since you were on the committee, we've sought adjustments. There's never been a mechanism that's come back Page 8 August 28, 2000 out of the staff to address the issue. And if you go back and read through the minutes of the previous meetings of the last several years, there has been discussion. The temporary increase that was sought -- the increase that was sought was a non-meter change. It was changed to a meter change by the County Commissioners. There was no activity pending by the committee. And the committee has a history of not responding very quickly. So it went to the County Commissioners who have the power to do whatever they want to do. They are the board. I'm sorry if I offended you by you thinking I went around you. It was the only place that would act quickly. MR. PEASE: What meeting was that that the taxi operators came -- or a taxi operator came before this committee and asked for a rate increase? MR. BAISLEY: You discussed it at one point prior to that discussion. I was at a meeting personally with, I believe, C.C. Graham was there from Graham Transportation, and we asked about it. And prior to that, it's been discussed over the many years, many, many years, Bryan. There were studies done. MR. PEASE: It may have been over the years, but I'm asking one -- during my term in the last four years -- MR. BRIDENTHAL: There have been studies done. MR. PEASE: -- I'd like to know when that was done, because it certainly never happened when I was on this committee. MR. BAISLEY: I don't know. MR. PEASE: In the last four years, which I just came up for renewal, it hasn't happened, Russ. MR. BAISLEY: There has been discussion. MR. PEASE: No taxi operator has come forward and asked us to have a meeting on rate. MR. BAISLEY: There's a specific formula, whatever, there's been studies done. If you look back, there's comparisons that's been done on other cities, back when Dick Lydon was on the board. MR. PEASE: I wasn't on the committee at that point. MR. BAISLEY: It's never gotten anywhere. MR. PEASE: I wasn't on the committee at that point. MR. PALMER: Bryan, you're right. There's been general discussions around the edges. Soft discussions about maybe Page 9 August 28, 2000 there'll be a need eventually for analysis of rate increase. Nobody has ever come before this board and made a request to get the ball rolling to do an analysis for a general rate increase since I've represented this board, which has been many years. So this general discussion about maybe we'll do it some day, the ordinance provides that any taxicab operator at any meeting can come forward to make a request to get an analysis done if they believe there's a need for a general rate increase. That has never happened. MR. CSOGI: I'd like to make a recommendation, if it isn't too early, on the fuel surcharge. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Go ahead. MR. CSOGI: I read Mr. Bleu's report, and I don't know if he took this into account or not, but I have some expertise in this field also, and we'll just use a general formula. And this is probably a generous formula. We'll say taxicabs get an average 10 miles to the gallon. Probably get a little bit more. I came very close to his first rate recommendation number. I'd like to make a rate recommendation to the board: $2.10 for the first mile and .31 for each additional one-tenth mile thereafter. The reason I did the $2.10, that's up from $1.75, was because there was some discussion that sometimes the taxicabs aren't in the right area at the right time, and they may have to travel across town to pick up that fare so, therefore, they burn a little bit of gas to get there. This will give them, at 10 miles to a gallon, this will give them up to five miles away, that .35 will pay for their five miles away. In addition, the one-cent per tenth of a mile will add up to .70 per 10 miles..70 is about the addition of the fuel over the past -- since January of '99, given a 10-mile per gallon car. So we're giving them an additional .70 per 10 miles. And this will help out, like Mr. Flegal was worried about, the short -- the people that have to take short trips. And it will also help out the taxi drivers a little bit. MR. PEASE: with that? MR. CSOGI: MR. PEASE: MR. CSOGI: rate to reflect the fuel costs only. So therefore -- do you follow along that? What is your recommendation on the surcharge No, no surcharge. Eliminating the surcharge? Eliminating the surcharge and increasing the Increase the rate to $2.10 for Page 10 August 28, 2000 the first tenth of a mile and .31 for each additional tenth after that. This will give them .70 for every 10 miles. Well, .70 plus the .35. It will actually give them $1.05 for every 10 miles. Which is -- which reflects, I think, fairly the fuel increase, which is roughly .70 since January. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Well, it's not going to be that amount for every 10 miles. The first 10 miles would be that. MR. CSOGI: Right. But if you look at his report, the average trips out of Collier County are 4.5 miles. So out of 1,806 trips metered, 4.5 miles. And we're doing this for the people that take those short trips. We're not doing it for the people that take the longer trips. That's the whole reason that -- MR. PEASE: I would second that motion. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: We have some comments from the public here. MR. BAISLEY: We're doing it for the people doing the short trips. Unfortunately those people won't be served. If you go through your statistics, your data, we have the Naples taxi, meter taxi. I'd like staff to show me an insurance certificate that shows they are permitted to operate a taxi, period. You don't have a meter taxi. MR. CSOGI: Mr. Baisley, can I ask you one question -- MR. BAISLEY: Yes. MR. CSOGI: -- real quick? What company do you represent? MR. BAISLEY: Yellow Cab. MR. CSOGI: Why was your information not provided for this report? MR. BAISLEY.' Because the information requested is confidential. Privacy of the passengers riding, et cetera. We'd be glad to provide other information, but the trips, the company split, is not a matter of public discussion. MR. CSOGI: So you didn't provide any information. You felt all your information was confidential, not just the trips and the rider information. MR. BAISLEY: We've had discussion. MR. CSOGI: Okay. So you didn't provide anything because you thought it was -- MR. BAISLEY: I provided you information just a minutes ago, sir. Page 11 August 28, 2000 MR. CSOGI: Mr. Palmer, is that true, that he cannot give us his information, even though that the bylaws state that? MR. PALMER: Well, I know what the ordinance states. There are serious questions about to what extent a taxicab company has to give information. But I would think the general information, not specific to any particular trip or any particular driver, would not have any confidentiality serious claim. MR. CSOGI: How many-- MR. PALMER: General omnibus statistics about I take that many trips, the average trip, like that, that doesn't strike me as being proprietary. MR. CSOGI: Me neither. You have all the input here, but you don't want to provide any of your information. MR. BAISLEY: We have to provide information. You're choosing not to accept it. You just told me -- your committee that you're making a recommendation for a rate change. You want to do it solely on fuel, but you want to do an overall rate change. But you're not taking into consideration any other costs. So I would say if you want to do an overall rate change, let's take into -- MR. CSOGI: I'm not suggesting a rate change, considering other costs. I'm suggesting a rate change based on what the board asked to us do, based on the board implied a $2.00 surcharge based on the rising cost of fuel. They didn't impose that $2.00 surcharge on transmissions -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: The original -- MR. CSOGI: -- dispatchers and all that. MR. BAISLEY: What you just mentioned was a rate change. MR. CSOGI: For fuel surcharge. MR. BAISLEY: Right now we've got $4,000 invested in taxi meter changes, so we would have to do 4,000 trips to recoup the last exercise. If we're going to do a rate change affecting a meter, I would suggest you take a month or two, we'll provide the data needed, but you need to get some people in staff too that understand that the business and the department, the people who are doing the trips, the short trips, are not going to get served the 2.05. You call right now, you -- MR. CSOGI: You need to define that they are not going to get served at 2.05. You mean you're not going to pick them up? Page 12 August 28, 2000 I don't understand that comment. MR. BAISLEY: Well, you call all of the cab companies in the phone book, you tell them you're at Winn-Dixie in Golden Gate and you're going to Sunshine Parkway, see how many come out and get you. Come up to Wal-Mart north, call for a cab going from Wal-Mart north to 111th, a trip that goes every day, and you tell a driver that he's going to get $2.00, he's got to split with the company for that trip. He's not going to go. MR. CSOGI: But that wouldn't be your cab company. You'd pick them up. MR. BAISLEY: Well, we try. It's a difficult job to get a guy to go across town. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: The original request that was made to the operators included a lot more expenses than were fuel related. They wanted to know how much their dispatchers were paid and various other expenses that were not fuel related. MR. PEASE: But no information was supplied by Yellow. Even the length of trips or number of trips to Bleu. Did you supply any of that to Bleu, length of trip or -- MR. BAISLEY: We've had discussions. The original request from the county said that they were going to come out and look at our records. MR. PEASE: Ms. Chairperson, you have a motion and a second. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: We have another speaker. MR. BRIDENTHAL: I have another comment. Right from the minutes of the meeting where the rate increase was off, the people who are ultimately going to benefit from this prove the company and drivers would be better able to cover their costs and in theory make more money. The board knew exactly -- MR. PALMER: Well, the assumption there was that when they're talking about the companies getting money, that would be that the company spending -- was buying the fuel. When they're talking about the driver being a benefit, it was assumed that the driver would be buying the fuel. That was not to recover any cost except fuel cost increases. And if the company was going to get the money, the assumption was the company was purchasing the fuel. There was no inkling that anybody had any intentions of giving any increase here other than to recover the cost of fuel. Page t 3 August 28, 2000 In fact, the whereas clause in the ordinance states that the only reason for this is recovering increased cost of fuel. And the assumption was the rate increase would not even cover the total cost of the increase in the fuel. This business about it was going to benefit companies for increase in cost of insurance is not the case. MR. BRIDENTHAL: Chairman Constantine: "So the company's going to see money whether gas prices go up or not?" Mr. Baisley: "That's correct." MR. PALMER: That has nothing to do with the issue of granting a rate increase for the cost of fuel. That language, I don't even understand what it's talking about. The intent of this ordinance is clearly stated that it was to recover one cost, and that was the increased cost of fuel. And there was never any inkling that there was going to be a split between the driver and the company, unless the company also purchased part of that driver's fuel cost. MR. BRIDENTHAL: Okay, let's go back what they're reviewing as taxi fare analysis. It's time to talk about a total permanent increase benefitting both. County employees' pay has gone up about approximately three percent a year for the last 10 years. Cab driver or operator income has gone up zero in the last 10 years. Is that fair? You're talking about 2.10. Now, that from 1.75. Everything's gone up 100 percent in the last 10 years. So it's double -- MR. CSOGI: I agree with you. I hear what you're saying. And there's a methodology to come before this board and ask for an increase based on your cost. But today we're only discussing the fuel. MR. BRIDENTHAL: I think that's what he come up with. MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Yes. MR. WALLACE: May I make a comment, please? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Yes, you may. MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace. This may be my fault if there is a misconception or misunderstanding here. It was staff's job to review that fuel surcharge. We did that. The reason we provided all the data that we did and came up with an average trip mileage and showed all this other was to give you the data that the Page14 August 28, 2000 committee may need, if they saw fit. And it's your job, it's sure not mine, to adjust the rates looking at past consumer price indexes and the like over the past years and the like. The reason we've provided so much data is that we thought maybe if we could give you information, you may wish to, in lieu of continuing the fuel surcharge, is to grant a general rate increase. And I apologize if staff has led you in the wrong direction or the taxi operators in the wrong direction. MR. PEASE: I don't think either is the case, Bleu. I think this was good information. I think the whole premise of the fuel surcharge, the objection was that it put an unfair tax on the little old lady that needs to go to the doctor's office and the guy who's the business person that has a 30-minute trip up to RSW benefits from that at the penalty of someone who can least afford it. So I think you did, you know, a very good job in your report. I think you did exactly what staff asked you to do and I think staff was appropriately asking to you do that. So you did fine. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Why were all those other requests made for information that wasn't relative to fuel? MR. PEASE: What other requests are you talking about? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Request for salaries and -- the letter that we received, which I don't have in front of me, but there was -- MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Yes. MR. WALLACE: If I may, Bleu Wallace for the record. The initial letter that went out alerting everyone that we were going to be looking at data came from the Code Enforcement Department. And I think what they did is they went to the ordinance and they looked at everything that was going to be -- that's in there that can be reviewed, and that's what they used to draft their letter. After our staff discussed the issue with Mr. Palmer, Mr. Palmer made it very clear that my staff could not approach the taxi operators, as we do water and sewer utilities, because there's no finite rate methodology established. And that since this industry is not regulated, per se, we had to find another way. The other way that we found was to go out and find something that was not considered invasive, ask for trip logs for any seven-day period in the month of July. And I was amazed, as Page 15 August 28, 2000 everybody else was amazed, as to how much information we were able to glean from that. And that's the reason why I think everybody got their guard up when they got that first letter. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And there was a second letter that went out, informing them that Bleu's department would be coming out to discuss the information that they eventually collected. So -- and gather that information. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: We have another speaker. MR. HYDE: Can I just make a quick comment? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Yes, you may. MR. HYDE: It's interesting to sit -- and I've only been at, I believe, three meetings now. If the taxi operators have the capabilities of coming to this meeting, then Russ, if you're standing there, why don't you sit and just make a comment, I would like to have the fares adjusted or request the information, have it done? If it's been 10 years, I know my employees at the end of one year are screaming for increases and want to know when they're going to get their rate increases. So whether it's done in one year or two years or five years, however your operation wants it to be done, then I think that that needs to be taken on through the board, that you come and say hey, listen, we've got some increases and we really think that we need to do this. Whether it's one operator or another operator as a group of operators. It's not a regulated industry, as we're hearing. That situation didn't occur. Now, the person then -- and if I remember what Mr. Flegal said back at the last meeting, the person is exactly what Bryan just stated, that they -- the little old lady that needs to go to the drug store or go to the hospital or go to Publix can't get there because she can't walk that far. So what we've done is we've taken $1.75 or maybe a 2.50 rate and bumped it for her up about 4.50 now, and she's on a fixed income and she really can't afford that. And then the comment came out well, if we're only running down there for $2.65, well, we won't go; you know, some people won't pick them up because they're not making enough money. Well, we're trying to service the community as a whole, okay? And eventually all of us are going to be on fixed incomes one way or the other. And I think that it's really incumbent upon us to Page 16 August 28, 2000 make sure that we try and help the public in that vein. These people that are sitting on fixed incomes can't afford to go with a $2.00 increase over what they're paying. That's 100 percent or 200 percent increase. Now, we understand that there are operating costs that have occurred, and that's why you're still in business. But eventually somebody from your side needs to come and say hey, listen, do we want to do that? I don't feel that it's incumbent on this board to turn around and go hey, you know, these guys have been out there for a long time, we've haven't given them a rate increase in eight to 10 years, so let's just on our best part turn around and make that decision. It's -- I find that it's a little bit weird as to what I'm hearing. So that's -- MR. BAISLEY: I would like to formally request a rate restructuring -- MR. HYDE: Well-- MR. BAISLEY: -- based on the overall operation, rather than go back and rescind the current surcharge and cause an undue burden upon the industry as a whole of trying to recalibrate the meters, restructure it again and again. I would also ask you to consider that we've had virtually no complaints from the very people that you're most concerned about, the little old lady going to Publix. Those are the rates that you regulate. The people that are going to Fort Myers Airport, the people that are going to Miami, none of those people ever get charged a metered taxi rate. Every cab company in the county gives a discounted flat rate to the airport, which is significantly less than the metered rate. Because going down the road, 1-75, at 65 miles an hour is much cheaper than it is to drive from here to Gulf Gate, pick somebody up and take them out east. MR. CSOGI: Why is that? MR. BAISLEY: Why is that? MR. CSOGI: Are you talking wear and tear on the car, or fuel? MR. BAISLEY: Well, you're talking about the dispatch, receiving the call, dispatching the call. You're talking about traveling empty to get the person and then returning next trip. You take a person up to the airport at, you know, 60 miles an hour, $1.50 a mile, in theory-- MR. CSOGI: But you still have to dispatch that call and the Page 17 August 28, 2000 taxicab still has to come back -- MR. BAISLEY: Sure, you're dispatching a call for a 30 or $40 return. You're not dispatching a call for a $2.00 return. Very different costs. MR. CSOGI: But that $2.00 return's only going to take a couple of minutes versus taxicab to the airport's going to take a couple of hours. MR. BAISLEY: The concept is great if you're going to enforce it and have people really go out and pick up people who are going to go around the corner and not refuse the calls. MR. CSOGI: Who are? MR. BAISLEY: Who are licensed taxi operators in this county who routinely refuse calls, do not pick up because they are short calls. If you're going to enforce that, you're going to make everyone do the same thing. We all play on the same side of the street. Go over to Gulf Gate at 11:00 at night, take somebody home that's around the corner, that's fine. But right now in the last many years, it's not happening. You've got people every day of the week who are refusing to go to Golden Gate, take somebody from the family practice on 951 around the corner. It's like a $:3.00, $4.00 trip, it's not happening. MR. CSOGI: That's terrible. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: That's reality. MR. CSOGI: I hear that from two people of the same cab company. MR. PEASE: That's against our ordinance, right? MR. PALMER: Yes, it is. And it's an enforcement problem. Unless we put plain clothes officers out there riding taxicabs as civilians, I don't know how you're going to catch it up. But it is a violation. And if somebody -- you know, you can't cherry pick in this business. You take the good with the bad. And what it does is it leaves those people at the mercy of cab drivers, just because they consider it a short run. MR. BAISLEY: I think that that's the heart of the issue, Mr. Csogi. The problem is, we have an ordinance that's being enforced by a department whose expertise is dealing with stationary objects. Real property, licensed contractors doing things -- two things that are aren't moving down the street 24 hours a day. The expertise of this department is very good at Page 18 August 28, 2000 that level, but they don't have the staff and they'll never have the staff to be out there on the highway to see what's going on. You have a sheriff's department that has a department inside that regulates tow trucks to make sure the tow trucks have equipment on them, the drivers have licenses, that they respond to calls, those sorts of things. That's where this department belongs -- the public vehicle thing belongs, because code enforcement's not going to be out there in front of every hotel. MR. PALMER: Russ is correct. We've been trying to get the sheriff's office to cooperate and give a couple of sting operations so that people are on the alert that if they do this, they might get caught. And it's considered low priority on their scope of work, unfortunately. We've implored them time and time again. We've met with them. And I don't want to be critical about it. The fact is we cannot get them to run these operations on our behalf. MS. ARNOLD: Can I make a comment as well, that what we're talking about today, the fact that taxicab companies are not responding to a call, is not something that you'll -- you can drive by and determine. I mean, we're going to have to get phone calls from the passengers that are not being responded to. And we could possibly put the word out to the consumer that they can call our office. And we don't need to chase the cab companies down the street to determine whether or not they fail to respond to a call. And we -- the code enforcement office is in fact going to prom night every year, so those are things that we are addressing. The equipment type of things, whether or not they fail to, you know, meet the letter of the law in terms of our decals that are supposed to be on the vehicles and those types of things, that's a little bit more difficult for our department to do. Because, you know, we -- like the -- we aren't not like the sheriff~s office, we don't have the personnel out there. But some of the things that we're discussing today are things that we are capable of doing, if we inform the public that that's, you know, a part of our job to do that. MR. BAISLEY: Ma'am, you've got vehicles that have just recently been put on as taxis permitted by the county that has neither signs or top lights on the vehicles that are operating on Page 19 August 28, 2000 the road every day of the week. MS. ARNOLD: Baisley. MR. BAISLEY: MS. ARNOLD: our department to regulate. That's exactly what I just mentioned, Mr. Okay, but-- Those types of things it's more difficult for MR. BAISLEY: When a vehicle comes to your department for its initial permit, not on the road, if it's going on the road, it needs to be permitted for its initial operation. And it gets permitted as a taxi. It has no top light, no side lettering on it. This is not a difficult thing. You don't have to go down the street to check it. If it doesn't have a for hire title, it's a very simple fact, it says Class 9. I'll go through your files and I'll find a lot. I've got copies in my office. MR. PEASE: This is not the topic that the special meeting is about, Mr. Baisley-- MR. BAISLEY: That's correct. MR. PEASE: October 3rd we have a meeting that would be perfect for this discussion. MR. BAISLEY: That's fine, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I have a question. If we raised this rate to what you're recommending right now and then the operators come back in next week and want another increase, we're going to confuse the public here. We went from a $2.00 surcharge to $2.10 a mile to .31 for every tenth of a mile, and then we're going to change it again two months from now to something else? MR. CSOGI: Yeah, but we're not having meetings every week based on what the operators tell us. We had Mr. Bleu give us a very detailed report based on most of the logs. And based on that and the fuel increase, I think this is very fair, and it's very close to what they came up with. MR. PEASE: Also, Madam Chairperson, the -- again for the last four years, they've had the opportunity for every meeting we've attended they haven't done. Now that we're under a time constraint, we have an obligation to report back to the Board of Commissioners by October the 26th. Is that the date? MS. ARNOLD: It is in October. I can't recall the date. MR. PEASE: So we have a time constraint. So now at the last minute oh, well, let's delay that. There's been ample Page 20 August 28, 2000 meetings for taxi operators to attend. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: We obviously know what's going to happen here because of the comments being made. MR. HYDE: Madam Chairperson, if I understand the philosophy of what we're trying to do as far as amending this or making a recommendation to the board~ if there are issues, and obviously there is now a request for us to look at that, whether it's last minute or not, I think that we for the public's sake need to take a really hard look at taking it all into perspective. I don't think you can make a decision like that in one day. The report that was given by your office, sir, is detailed beyond compare. It's excellent. It also gives us the capability of providing the data to the board. But I think that there are other circumstances out there. An eight-year, 10-year, five-year increase as to what we haven't done before. And there are also charges to are going to affect the operators and the individual drivers in order to be recalibrated. And to have these people go out one time and put it up for $200 and have it fixed, or $75, or whatever the fee is, and then have a -- we make a recommendation, and then on the October 3rd meeting they come up and they say well, we really want to readjust this, and, oh, well now we've got to change it again and then change it again. The operating cost for the individual operators or for the companies overall could be in a devastating situation, and I don't feel that that would be prudent to the community. MR. CSOGI: Well, I don't think that on October 3rd we're going to vote on an increase. I think possibly we're going to get input and it's going to take several months from that input. MR. PEASE: It is October 3rd that it would take place. MR. PALMER: I think what the board is most concerned about on the October is whether or not the fuel charge is right or not right. It may well be that based on what you decide -- when you say the fuel charge is not broken, let's let it pend. In the meantime, we'd like to take more time and do a more thorough analysis, come back in another couple of months with a definitive req -- recommendation for a rate increase so it's a one-time change. But I think that the board -- if you recommend to the board that the surcharge is not out of whack, that it's close to reality, and it need not be changed while we study in more detail the Page 21 August 28, 2000 overall rate analysis, I think that will be -- that would found by them to be fully acceptable. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY:. It might not be the way it should actually be broken out. Maybe it shouldn't go on the front end, maybe it should go -- MR. PALMER: Well, that's design. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: -- more towards the per mileage. MR. PALMER: What you do is you decide how much you need on an average trip, and then you can figure out how to get there. You can do that by adding a front end loading or spreading it out. That's not the amount of money you were going to cover, it's a question of how are you going to recover it. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: But my problem is that we don't want to sit there and confuse the public and get the public all upset here by constantly changing our rate structure. MR. PALMER: No. So the thing about it is let's change it one time only, if it's going to be changed beyond the existing rate, and be that the perspective general rate increase. What I'm hearing today is that you're not ready to decide that because you feel you need more input. The same token, if in fact there's going to be a more thorough analysis, it behooves the taxicab companies to give us as much information as they feel they can so that you have the most data in which to make your decision, when you make your decision on the merits. So if they know that we're doing a general rate analysis and give us the information as you see fit, the more they give us, if they think it's beneficial to them to give it to you, the more we'll get and the more we'll be able to come back with real definitive data on which you can make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. PEASE: Well, I concur with Mr. Hyde, that I think that's appropriate action. My question is procedurally, if we make a different motion, do we need to vote on the motion that's out there and seconded first, and then go with an alternative, if we so chose, or if it passes? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I don't know. MR. PALMER: Was your -- was your -- was that a continuing general rate increase, or was that just an adjustment on the fuel charge analysis? Page 22 August 28, 2000 MR. CSOGI: Adjustment on the fuel charge analysis only. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: But that's going to change the meters, which in fact is going to have to be -- MR. CSOGI: I understand that. But that's what I was asked by the county. And I hear what he's saying, being sympathetic, because they're coming before us now. But I'm doing what the county asked me to do. And based on Mr. Bleu's report, I made a recommendation. MR. PALMER: I believe that Bleu's report is more than fuel costs. MR. CSOGI: I believe that. But I read his whole report -- MR. PALMER: Right. MR. CSOGI: -- and -- MR. PALMER: What I'm saying is I do not believe that the fuel cost increase justified the motion. Because they were wrapped into that cost beyond fuel cost increases. So if it went up to $2.10 for the first mile and .31, that in my estimation, based on the record, is more than is justified by just the fuel cost alone. MR. CSOGI: Yeah, but I'm not -- the only part that I'm looking at is -- MR. HYDE: Fuel. MR. CSOGI: -- fuel costs and the average trips. And I'm not taking into account any other expenses. The average trip is 4.5 miles, and I'm taking into account the fuel increase from January of '99, which was around .99 to now it's about a $1.70. MR. PALMER: I see. MR. CSOGI: And that's what my recommendation was based solely on, not the rest of the information. It was just the average trip. And that was Mr. Flagel's concern also, when they're taking the short trips. MR. PALMER: I misunderstood. Then the question is, if this went into effect and there was a general rate increase another two or three or four months, is the expense of two meter recalibrations. MR. CSOGI: I hear what you're saying. MR. BRIDENTHAL: That's what I was going to question -- MR. CSOGI: And I don't know if it's going to happen in a couple of months or if they're going to ask us to do another report on rate increase and hopefully we'll get more input this time. Page 23 August 28, 2000 MR. PALMER: Now, the board has the initiative to do a rate increase without directive from the Board of County Commissioners. This board can do a general rate analysis any time it sees fit. MR. CSOGI: We can do an increase? MR. PALMER: You can do an analysis. MR. PEASE: Analysis. MR. PALMER: All rate increases are recommendations to the Board of County -- but this board can take it upon itself and on its own initiative get staff to do -- to gather data to put together information on which you may make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. You do not have to be directed to do that from the Board of County Commissioners to get the ball rolling. MR. CSOGI: Right. How many cab companies are there in Collier County? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: There's a lot more than -- MS. ARNOLD: About seven. MR. CSOGI: Just taxicab companies? MS. ARNOLD: Taxicabs. About seven. MR. CSOGI: And we've got two gentlemen here, and one that won't give us his information, and the other -- so we've got two out of seven that want a rate increase? MR. BRIDENTHAL: Three. Checker's here. MR. CSOGI: Checker's here? We've got three out of seven. MR. BRIDENTHAL: There's a lot of cab companies. These three are probably the largest of the companies. MR. CSOGI: But only three showed up out of seven today. Well, wouldn't it make sense for the guys that take less trips to have more expenses, and they would be here? MR. BAISLEY: These are the three that will go out to Publix and pick somebody up and take them around the corner. These are the three that have -- MR. CSOGI: But you said you won't. MR. BAISLEY: No, I did not. I said that we do that. I said people will not -- MR. CSOGI: You said, I quote you, Yellow Cab routinely fails to pick up calls. MR. BAISLEY: No, I did not. Absolutely not. This is being recorded, we'll play it back. I did not say that. What I said was Page 24 August 28, 2000 that people will refuse. People refuse on a daily basis. Not our people. But if you call other cab companies, you will find that to be the case. MR. PEASE: I believe that was the -- MR. PALMER: Yeah, that's true. MR. PEASE: I don't believe there was a statement that Yellow Cab did that. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: You need to come up to the podium is you're -- MR. BRIDENTHAL: By county ordinance, the way it's written, if we get a call from Immokalee that a guy wants to go around the corner, we have to go get him. But we don't have a car available. And that's the way it's covered when they're way far away. Anything that's within reason, even if we lose money on them, we pick them up. But if the man from Immokalee calls and says he wants Yellow or USA to come out there for a $4.00 trip, by ordinance we have to do it. It's just all we can tell him is we're an hour away and we can't really handle you. If we're ordered to, we have to. That's part of Collier County. MR. PALMER: Let me say one thing: If in fact there is not an adequate response from a request to the cab companies to provide as much data as they feel is not proprietary or, you know, more or less secret business, if they're not willing to do that, then the staff isn't going to have enough information to make a recommendation, and so no rate increase. No rate increase for lack of cooperation in data from the cab companies. MS. ARNOLD: I think a part of what we ought to discuss, if that's the direction that we're going in, to doing a more thorough analysis to determine whether or not a rate increase is warranted, is determine for everyone's sake what types of information is necessary to be collected. Part of what Mr. Wallace's department tried to do in this analysis to come up with a methodology. We really don't have a defined methodology or, you know, clear guidelines as to what needs to be collected and what will be looked at in the event of a request for a rate increase, or in this case, in the event that we are asked to look at the effects of the -- you know, the company's operations with the recent fuel increases. So, I mean, I think that's something that we ought to discuss Page 25 August 28, 2000 as a body to, you know, give staff a little bit more clear guidelines, as well as the cab companies, so that we can, you know, all decide what's fair to be collected and what's not. MR. PEASE: Then it's going to be the conversion of those hard costs versus trips. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PEASE: And there's a lot to that. MR. WALLACE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Yes. MR. WALLACE: For the record, Bleu Wallace. This was -- this was a very difficult review for us to do in a short time frame. I mentioned that there's a lot of variables. There are going to be even more variables when you start comparing one cab company to another cab company. You're going to be trying to compare apples and oranges without any kind of set methodology. What my staff can do, what I would prefer, is that the onus is on the cab companies. If they want a general rate increase, they come in here and they provide you the data that you need to make that decision. If you need it further analyzed, then you give it to staff with directions on what to analyze and how you want it analyzed. But I don't want to go out knocking on the cab companies' doors just asking for anything and everything. MR. CSOGI: You shouldn't have to. MR. WALLACE: I think the cab companies should come before this body with their books, records in hand, and present it, and then have you tell the board -- or the staff what to review and what kind of an analysis and what kind of format you'd like to see it come back in. And we can do that. MR. HYDE: I think, Russ, Mr. Baisley, has already indicated, and maybe I misinterpreted, but he said that, you know, without having the private sector or the private information being disclosed, that he would provide this information. And hopefully he can do this in a quick and timely manner in order to get it back to you in order to process this information before the October 3rd meeting. I think that would also give us -- again, with the three largest cab companies being represented, that that would give us the final information that we really do need in order to make a collective decision. Page 26 August 28, 2000 CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I agree. MR. PEASE: What I see is once this thing is -- once we make a decision on the $2.00 surcharge, if we said okay, we're going to go ahead and go -- continue that, it's going to be a slow road to get any information. Because now there's no time deadline. Today they come forward and say yes, we want to give you this information, and they gave us a litany of cost increases. And, you know, if we're not going to -- we've got a motion. If we're not going to go in that direction, then my suggestion is that we would only ask for a -- the County Commissioners to do a 30-day extension to their deadline, where on October 3rd we can CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I think that would be sufficient. MR. PEASE: -- talk about everything and come back November 26th or somewhere around there, just before the Thanksgiving holiday, with all the information and go with one price. I think it makes us look stupid if we come in and do a fuel issue and then we follow it up a couple of months later. I think it's right, that it confuses the public. But I do think we have to -- if I'm not mistaken, I think we have to follow through on the second -- the motion and the second, and then either yea or nay, and then I can have the opportunity to make a different motion. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Is that what we need to do? MS. ARNOLD: Or he could withdraw. MR. PALMER: He could withdraw the motion. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. PALMER: If I understand the motion, that was going to be a further adjusted fuel charge -- fuel adjustment only. MR. CSOGI: This is a recommendation to the board, and I'm going to keep my motion that we increase it from $1.75 -- first of all, we pull off the $2.00 flat surcharge. We increase it $2.10 for the first tenth, therefore after .31 for each tenth of a mile. And I'll further make a recommendation to the board that we do what Mr. Pease says and hold off for 30 days, if we're going to -- if the board feels that we should do a rate increase review. MR. PEASE: I'm going to withdraw my second on that. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do I have a second? No second. MR. PEASE: Now, I would like to make a motion that we ask the -- I'm not sure what the procedure is to do that, but we ask Page 27 August 28, 2000 the County Commissioners for an additional 30 days from their deadline that they set of October to November where we can have the opportunity October 3rd to review further a rate adjustment which not only encompasses fuel, but with some of the costs that have went up over the eight years in which they failed to provide information to us. MR. PALMER: I'm confused. It was the board -- getting back to the board in October, was that to do an analysis to whether or not the fuel cost itself was fine, or would it come back with some kind of a general rate analysis? MR. PEASE: It was going to be on whether or not we'd extend or change or keep the -- MR. PALMER: The fuel surcharge. MR. PEASE: The fuel surcharge, right. And I think they do dovetail enough that we should ask for 30 days farther from the County Commissioners, and give us the opportunity on October 3rd. Hopefully the taxi companies will come forward with the information we need and make a decision based -- for rate based on fuel and all other expenses. MR. PALMER: Well, I don't think the board is really concerned about whether we need 30, 60, 90 days. I don't think that's an issue. I think the thing they're interested in in October is whether the fuel charge -- surcharge is broken and needs to be fixed. If you recommend to them that's not absolutely what we'd like but it's really-- it's not inequitable, let it ride until such time as we come back to you that the fuel costs are going down where that ought to be kicked off, or we come back with a general rate increase analysis, whichever occurs first. It may well be that the cost of fuel stays up and the fuel charge will stay on there and eventually get rolled into a general rate increase recommendation, which may come down the pike. But if you get back to them in October about the question of the -- whether or not the fuel surcharge is in reason, they're not concerned about whether you take 90 days or quite a long time to do the job right and come back with analysis on a general rate increase recommendation, if that's what you eventually end up doing. There's no -- time does not seem to be of the essence of anything except is the fuel charge within reason. Page 28 August 28, 2000 MR. PEASE: Except that it's another 30 days that the little senior citizen has to pay a higher price than the other. So maybe you're not -- I'm not sure if that's true or not, Mr. Palmer, in terms of time. MR. PALMER: Well, that would assume that the fuel charge, if it's going to be reduced and/or the recommendation is going to take a slug of money out of the first rate block. We don't know that. MR. PEASE: They specifically mentioned October in their minutes, I noticed that. MR. PALMER: But that was talking about coming back as to whether or not the fuel surcharge was out of whack. MR. HYDE: To review it. MR. PEASE: Right. Okay, let me go back again. I'll see if I can make this motion clear, as clear as I can. I'd like to make a motion that we request the County Commissioners to go 30 more days before we respond to the request on the fuel surcharge, so that we can have time to get information from the taxi operators at our October 3rd meeting, in which hopefully we can place -- I'm staggering here now. Let me stop talking. Period. MS. ARNOLD: So your -- your motion is to -- because there's been a formal request today from one of the taxicab operators, is for them to present information to you at your October 3rd meeting. MR. PEASE: Correct. MS. ARNOLD: And then at that meeting you'll discuss the information and possibly give staff direction as to whether or not an analysis would be needed. If staff is able to analyze that information prior to the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, the only thing that would be lacking is your formal action on a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. PEASE: So then I guess my suggestion is to do a November meeting, special meeting, in order so that we can vote. We can collect the information October 3rd, have a meeting in November, early November -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: And vote on it. MR. PEASE: -- to make a vote and then present that to the Page 29 August 28, 2000 commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I don't see why not. MR. PEASE: Staff is saying chagrin. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the board did direct staff to come back in October. Procedurally what we could do if, you know, a formal recommendation is not received from this body prior to that meeting is provide the Board of County Commissioners with information as to, you know, your recommendation that rather than make a recommendation based solely on the increase in gas costs, we need to also consider the request that was made today with respect to the overall rate change, and that we recommend that we hear the item in November after your meeting and see which way they go. The problem with that is if the board decides to just make a recommendation on the surcharge, there's a possibility that another -- you know, what you guys are afraid to have happen, there's a possibility that we'll have to increase or modify the meters again, you know, so -- MR. PEASE: That's what we're trying to avoid. MR. CSOGI.' That's what we're trying to avoid. MS. ARNOLD: Which is what you're trying to avoid. But we don't know -- we're trying to determine what the board's going to do in October, which is difficult. The possibility -- I think that you all should make a recommendation -- well, you need to do a couple things: You need to accept the report that was presented to you by the utility and franchise regulation department; you need to determine whether or not you want -- you want to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to keep or remove the surcharge; and then you also need to make a recommendation as to whether or not you're going to welcome the request that was made today regarding the overall rate of the operators. MR. PALMER: I would -- MR. HYDE: Can we do them one at a time? MR. PALMER: I'd like to make a recommendation that you inform the board on the consent agenda that the rate -- the fuel surcharge is not out of whack and should continue, and that this board is contemplating a general rate increase analysis, unless they're directed not to do so by the Board of County Commissioners. That way, if they don't act on the matter, they Page 30 August 28, 2000 accept the fuel surcharge, it pends, it continues on until such time as you get back with them in their recommendation either to change it or to roll it into a general rate increase. And if this passes on the consent agenda, they will accept it, the fuel surcharge will pend, and they will allow you to proceed as you wish in doing a general rate increase analysis. MR. PEASE: I got the impression just from hearing comments of this board that there isn't a consensus that the fuel surcharge is equitable and appropriate. MR. PALMER: It is not? MR. PEASE: That's just the general consensus. I heard three of the four state opinions. But at the same time, what I heard is that they weren't wanting to make an elimination of it until things were put in place in terms of a rate, after getting the information. MR. PALMER: Right, they don't -- one of the driving factors here is to amend the meters one time, not to adjust a fuel surcharge and then sometime later, months later, do it a third time, because of the inconvenience and the expense incurred particularly by the cab companies that own a number of taxicabs. Like Russ said, in order to do that, you've got to run a lot of runs just to recover those out-of-pocket expenses. Based on the data that I saw here, the fuel surcharge is not that far out of whack. It may not be ideal, but it is certainly not broken. MS. ARNOLD: The board can make that recommendation. I mean, you could make the recommendation that you believe the surcharge was not adequate or whatever, and then -- but in addition to that recommendation, say that you're not recommending that the board require the cab companies to make an adjustment at this time until an analysis of the entire rate information is made at a later date. Part of your recommendation can be not to change the meters today -- you know, at the board meeting. MR. PEASE: Let's see if we can try this in steps. MR. MR. MR. report. MR. CSOGI: HYDE: CSOGI: You want to first make a motion so that we -- I wrote them down. We accept his information. I make a motion that we accept Mr. Bleu's PEASE: I'll second it. Page 31 August 28, 2000 CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) MR. PEASE: That was the easy one. MR. HYDE: Okay, next one's the surcharge. MR. PEASE: Let's see if this works. I make a motion that -- MS. ARNOLD: There is a recommendation on Page 2 of the report. Maybe that will help you all. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: If you could just read it, Bryan. MR. PEASE: Boy, wouldn't that be nice. MR. BAISLEY-' There's also a statement on Page 10 that goes from Mr. Olliff that says -- MS. ARNOLD: You all need to decide whether or not you want to close the public comments. MR. CSOGI: I say we close it. MR. PEASE: Are you making a -- MR. CSOGI: I'll make a motion that we close the public hearing at this time. MR. PEASE: I'd like to hear his -- MR. CSOGI: Oh, yeah. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Let him finish here. MR. CSOGI: Yeah, I'm sorry. MR. PEASE: -- comment and then I'll second it after his comment. MR. BAISLEY: One final comment. MR. CSOGI-' Go ahead. MR. BAISLEY: Page 10. At the County Commissioners' meeting, Mr. Olliff: "1 think it does raise the bigger issue. Perhaps we need to have a regular way of reviewing these rates so that we don't end up with a situation. If six-month period make -- Mr. Carter responds: "Six-month period to make sure that we keep adjusting so we don't hit these big lumps all at once." So the County Commissioners clearly, I think, had the intention for overall reassessment. MS. ARNOLD: So are you saying that it's appropriate to review it every six months? MR. BAISLEY-' No. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. MR. BAISLEY: I think that the County Commissioners, by their statement and from being at the meeting, their intention Page 32 August 28, 2000 that was they didn't get hit broadsided as they -- a lot of people seem to think we did, but have a way of reviewing it on a timely basis. I think the looking for six months was my reason for this. MR. PEASE: There is a method for that. What they seem to think is that there was no method in place for reviewing taxicab rates; therefore, it needed to go through the commissioners, which was not true. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PEASE: There is a method in place, it just wasn't exercised for several years. I did second his motion to close the -- what is it? MR. CSOGI: Public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Public comments. MR. PEASE: Public comment. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Okay, your other motion? MR. PEASE: Can I borrow your pen? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Yes, you can. MR. PEASE: If somebody's got something better, just go ahead and say it. MS. ARNOLD: Seems like the board is leaning towards the recommendation that was made by utility franchise regulation to rescind the surcharge. But the problem that you all are having is having a meter change effective twice. So possibly what you can do is make a recommendation to rescind it, but not have the meter change effective until after a full analysis of the rate changes is made. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Their report says it is not recommending that the $2.00 surcharge be rescinded. MR. PEASE: I think I might have it. Let's try it. I recommend that we advise the County Commissioners that we feel the $2.00 fuel surcharge unduly hurts those that can least afford it; however, that we recommend the Board of County Commissioners continue with the $2.00 fuel surcharge for an additional 30 days, until additional information is obtained from taxi operators in order to properly set the taxi rates. MR. PALMER: Why limit yourself to 30 days? Why impose that kind of a burden on you? MR. PEASE: Because I think that it will drag on and on. Page 33 August 28, 2000 After watching four years of being on this committee, we have a tendency to drag things on or forget about them. MR. PALMER: No, you can instruct staff to collect data for a specific period of time, and data received after that particular time will not be regarded. Give the cab companies a specific time to respond, 25 days, 30 days. If you don't get it in by that time, forget it. But why go before the Board of County Commissioners with these kind of self-imposed time lines? All they're interested in right now is whether or not the surcharge needs to be adjusted. That's all they're concerned about. They don't care if you come back in six months, as long as you've got a definitive analysis if you're going to recommend a general rate increase and have the surcharge rolled into a rate increase. What Mr. Olliff is talking about is some perspective possible amendment to the ordinance about some kind of a three or four-year review period. He's not talking about this specific case, he's talking about the general issue. MR. PEASE: In terms of time line, I don't understand why we couldn't receive the information October 3rd. I also don't understand why we couldn't hold a meeting November, early November, to make a recommendation to the County Commissioners late November. I don't -- MR. PALMER: Well, I think you could do that, too. I don't think that this October deadline was a hard and fast you shall not fail to meet a deadline. It was something that somebody suggested. I didn't get the sense that time is of the essence here. Although, time would be of the essence if they really thought this surcharge was way out of line, was extraordinarily high, and you did not notify them of that at the earliest opportunity. But the record doesn't reflect that to be the case. MR. PEASE: "Chairman Constantine: The reason I have suggested six months is I don't think the whole oil situation is going to have shaken out by June or July, plus we have a limited schedule June, July, July and August. So just rather than rush this, then let's give them a break and we have full time to do a full review and come back to the motion to adopt the proposed ordinance with the six month. I'll second it." It was six months. It was part of the motion. MR. PALMER: Well, then you can get it on the board's Page 34 August 28, 2000 agenda within six months and tell them what you feel about the surcharge. The question about a -- anything beyond the adequacy or the inadequacy of the surcharge is not time sensitive from the board's perspective. That's all we're concerned about is the surcharge, did we get it right, is it extraordinarily high or is it too low. That's what they're interested in in October. MR. CSOGI: So we could make a motion then to say no, we don't think the surcharge is correct, but we think it should be -- the math should be done differently the way it's calculated. MR. PEASE: There's exactly what my motion is. I'll repeat my motion again, hoping for a second. PVAC feels the $2.00 fuel surcharge unduly hurts those that can least afford it. We recommend the County Commissioners maintain the $2.00 fuel surcharge an additional 30 days, until additional information is obtained from taxi operators in order to properly set the taxi rates. MR. PALMER: I'd like to clarify what you mean by why you think the surcharge inextraordinarily (sic) hurts people that can't afford it. Is that because it's front loaded? MR. PEASE: Right. MR. PALMER: Then I would say that. The board set this rate, and they're not going to want to be embarrassed by some kind of a general criticism. If there's an -- be specific about why you think it has unintended consequences, I recommend to you. MR. PEASE: That's good input. If you think I should eliminate the -- MR. PALMER: I think it's superfluous. MR. PEASE: -- opinion and just go -- MR. PALMER: I don't think it helps. MR. PEASE: Okay, I'll go ahead and change my motion to only state, we recommend the County Gommissioners maintain the $2.00 fuel surcharge an additional 30 days beyond the six months they recommended, in order for us to obtain additional taxicab operator information, in order to properly set the taxi rate. MR. PALMER: Just one comment. That assumes that you are going to have a general recommendation beyond the surcharge within 30 days. That's an assumption that your motion makes. Are you sure that you're going to be able to do that? Page 35 August 28, 2000 Otherwise, you get a glitch. The 30 days has run and you haven't made any recommendation. What happens in that circumstance? MR. PEASE: Is there any reason we can't have a meeting in November? The first -- whatever, what are we meeting, the first Tuesday? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Why can't we allow ourselves more time, like Tom is indicating, and if we accomplish it in less time -- MR. PEASE: Well, my problem is we've had -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: -- either in 60 or 90 days -- MR. PEASE: -- four years easily to get this information. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Well, I understand. MS. ARNOLD: I can -- there is no reason that we can't have a meeting in October, with the exception of, you know, finding a location for the meeting. So we can check into -- MR. PEASE: November, the first week. MS. ARNOLD: -- availability of this room and others on the -- you know, in the government complex, and then we'll inform this committee whether or not and when that is going to be. I can't -- I don't know what the availability of this room is. That's the difficult part of us setting the meeting, because this is used quite a bit. MR. PALMER: And I don't understand the question about the 30 days. If in fact Bleu could get the data together, make a recommendation to you, there is no way that this ordinance is going to be amended to roll a surcharge into a general rate, at least for of 60 days. So why are we talking about this 30-day business? The Board of County Commissioners is not concerned about that, as long as they know in October whether the surcharge is proper or improper. They don't care if you take another year to come back, as long as this thing doesn't need fixing. They haven't said that you've got to come back, if you're going to do it, in 30 more days to make a general rate increase analysis. They haven't even implied that. MR. PEASE: What's the consensus of the committee? You guys want more than 30 days? MR. CSOGI: How about we do this? How about if we make a recommendation to the board that the $2.00 surcharge is unfair because it front loads the meter; however, we further Page 36 August 28, 2000 recommend that from input from the taxicab companies, instead of dissolving the $2.00, you have us look into the rates overall, taking into account the fuel. And don't amend the surcharge until you get our report back. And let them instruct to us do it. MR. PALMER: Which they're not going to do. They're going to -- if you want to do an analysis, they're going to be pleased about that. They're not going to get into that. Bleu makes a recommendation that not only look at the question about general rate increases, but rate design. And on Page 2 and 3, he talks about a more balanced rate structure, reduce the impact on short trips, recoup operating loss through both rate components, fixed and variable, and yield compare revenues from standard AAA. In other words, he's not only saying let's take a look at whether or not a rate increase is required, but maybe we ought to take a look at the rate design as well. And that -- you might want to tell the board that is what you're thinking. Not look at whether we need more money, but if we do need more money, how should we fix the rate structure; in fact, the meter rate as to how it would be applied on a mileage basis, to give them a little bit of an idea. I think that would be informative to the board. And the board will probably say fine, go ahead. I couldn't imagine any other decision by them, frankly. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: But if we limit ourselves to 30 days -- MR. PALMER: No, why? No, no, you come back in a reasonable period of time after you've had input from the taxicab companies, staff has made a recommendation to you, you've considered the matter to make a recommendation to the board without any time frame. Sort of like with due diligence or with reasonable dispatch, but not any days put on to it. MR. PEASE: Acceptable to you? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: And we have a general understanding that we're not going to let this sit like some of our other items and we're going to accomplish something. MR. PEASE: Well, we only meet quarterly, which is why I think we should -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Well, we could can make a meeting -- Page 37 August 28, 2000 MR. PEASE: -- add a meeting for November. All right, let me try it again. We request the County Commissioners maintain the $2.00 fuel surcharge until additional information is obtained from taxi operators in order to properly set the taxi rates. MR. PALMER: Or analyze whether or not there needs to be a general rate increase, I think is more precise. To let them know that you are expanding the scope of the analysis beyond fuel cost to general rate analysis, including rate design. Is more money needed, and if so, how will it be applied to the meter. MR. PEASE: I'll try again. Is that okay with everybody? MR. HYDE: So far, yeah. MR. PEASE: All right, let's see if I got it. Motion to request the County Commissioners maintain the $2.00 fuel surcharge until a complete analyzation of taxicab rates and design is completed. MR. PALMER: Well, you don't have to put it in there, but one of the contingencies was that if the cost of gasoline fuel drops way down, you may make your recommendation just to get the surcharge off. But that's a remote contingency. MR. PEASE: I think I'm stopping with that motion. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do we have a second on that motion? MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. MR. PEASE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Aye. MR. HYDE: Aye. MR. PEASE: What about opposed? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Opposed? MR. CSOGI: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Sorry. MR. PEASE: I make a motion we have a meeting in the first available date in November that this room is available. Would that be acceptable? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Along with the October meeting. MR. PEASE: Along -- yeah, not missing the October meeting, but I'd like to go ahead and make a motion we have a November meeting. MR. CSOGI: Special meeting. Page 38 August 28, 2000 MR. PEASE: Yeah, I guess it will be a special meeting to talk just about this topic. MR. PALMER: Do you want to give Bleu some sort of a cut-off date as to when he can receive information? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: He suggested that the information be brought before the board -- MS. ARNOLD: October 3rd. MR. PEASE: October 3rd's a good date. MR. WALLACE: Bleu Wallace, for staff. I would prefer that the taxicab company deal with this committee -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Right. MR. WALLACE: -- submit the data to you. And then you tell staff what you want me to do with and what kind of format you want it back. Otherwise, I'm walking -- MR. HYDE: Great. MR. WALLACE: -- I'm walking into new ground here. I don't know that I really know what to request, because like I mentioned before, there's -- the more companies we analyze, the more variables we're going to find, and it's going to be like mixing apples and oranges and pairs. And only you with your expertise know what you're looking for. And I think that's why the taxi operators need to respond to you and then give staff direction and we'll respond as quickly as possible. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I think I agree with him. If we have a problem analyzing the data that's supplied to us, then we can go to him and ask for -- MR. WALLACE: And you have the clout, staff does not, to get the information that you need to make these decisions. MR. PEASE: October 3rd to November 3rd gives us ample time to -- if we do need a report from Bleu on something where we're not understanding it. MR. PALMER: I don't understand, though. The board is a collegial body. How is the board going to accept data from taxicab companies? The board operates through its staff. The staff requests things. Do you expect these people to actually send information to you? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Well, we're saying through the staff. Page 39 August 28, 2000 MR. PALMER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: And the staff will present it to this board on October 3rd. MR. PALMER: I see. So it's the same way. MS. ARNOLD: No, no. No, what is being recommended by Bleu, and correct me if I'm wrong, Bleu, is that at the October 3rd meeting, the taxicab companies shall present this board with information why they believe the rates should be changed. MR. PALMER: Do you mean as witnesses? MR. PEASE: I think that's what the ordinance states is supposed to happen. MR. PALMER: Well, certainly they can do that. But you're not going to have them come in here and bring in data and hand it to staff that day, are you? MS. ARNOLD: Why not? MR. PALMER: If staff needs this information in advance, it needs to analyze it. People of course can come up and make a case. In fact, a taxicab company can present something which they feel is an analysis of what kind of rates ought to be. MR. PEASE: I think Bleu has -- MR. PALMER: This is done all the time. MR. PEASE: -- said that he's found resistance, and I think that must be his reason for not wanting to go directly to those operators, because he found resistance when he attempted that the first time. MR. PALMER: Well, I understand that. But the fact of the matter is he can say that this has been directed by the board and so forth, but the way it was phrased before was like these people have actually send -- going to send these data to you as individuals. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: But can't the staff collect the data and just put it in a format that -- MR. PALMER: Well, of course. But that isn't submitting to the board, that's submitting it to you -- to staff on behalf of the board. MR. PEASE: Bleu did such a good job of putting this information together. I wonder if there would be less resistance on the second go around when they realize that it's in terms of an entire rate increase. And hopefully the three companies that are here today would also be inclined to support it and to help Page 40 August 28, 2000 encourage others to give Bleu the information he needs in order to properly recommend a rate increase, or maintain the rate. MR. PALMER: Well, it's the tenor of the letter, which I never saw before it went out, and I would have edited it. The thing to do is to tell these people that staff is doing a general rate increase analysis, it's considering increasing rates, and if you've got as much data in as you see fit. Invite it in. Don't demand it. That latter causes some defensive reaction. If these people know what's going on, and they feel that there's a rate increase in play and that they want to do it, they'll be able to get you the information they think is fair and reasonable to convince you that we need a rate increase. If they don't do it, shame on them. The bali's in their court. MR. HYDE: Tom, I think that we've already gone through this, and Russ is probably -- or the Yellow Cab is the only one -- not the only one, but the major player that really hasn't provided that information, due to some confidentiality disagreements. He's already accepted the fact that he will participate in this issue. And maybe we can have him through staff return this information in the next 10 days, specifically as directed through the correspondence, at the same window of time from the July 7th, or whatever date that was in your report, to give you that same kind of information back so that we can then determine if this works for us or not. And then hopefully we can have that information back to -- or get it back into staff in order to get it to Mr. Wallace in order to get it back to us by October 3rd so that we can take a look at it. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: But the information they gathered from the other operators only ended up being fuel related; isn't that correct? MR. WALLACE: No, in fact it was limited just to the trip logs. And we didn't see anything invasive about those. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: But I mean you didn't collect insurance -- data on insurance costs or -- MR. WALLACE: No, we did not ask for any operating cost data at all. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: So they don't have that from the Page 4t August 28, 2000 other operators as well. I can't see why the staff can't ask for all operators to submit data to them, and that data just be presented in a booklet form. MR. PALMER: Yes. I was in the taxicab business. This is not rocket science. We're talking about fuel costs, insurance costs, rental cost, you know, getting vehicles fixed up, inspections. It would not be difficult at all for any taxicab company to present very meaningful information without disclosing anything that has anything like privacy or any particular trip or individual. In fact, I bet if we got with Russ, he could get this data together in some kind Of a very meaningful representative format in a couple of days without being proprietary. MR. CSOGI: Well, of all the questions that we were asked, you know, it's insurance, annual repairs, dispatchers. MR. PEASE: Yeah, but now it's related to tax increase -- or sorry, price increase. MR. CSOGI: We didn't let them know that when we asked that, did we? MR. PEASE: I don't know who created that to know the answer to that. MS. ARNOLD: That was taken right from the ordinance. And I believe it was Mr. Flegal that put that piece of paper together. And those were all the things that we generally asked for in the first letter. And -- MR. CSOGI: Did we ask for all of these items, all 12 of them? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah, I believe we asked for those -- I mean, it wasn't written out in the exact format, but it was worded exactly how the ordinance is written. MR. PEASE: Maybe instead of asking specifics such as what is your annual insurance cost, how much has your insurance increased over the past "X" number of years. MS. ARNOLD: Okay, what we -- the language said financial and operating reports to determine operating ratios, revenues, expenses and the potential of impact of any proposed rate changes, cost to operate taxicab maintenance and repair expenses, salaries of drivers, dispatchers and supervisors, insurance costs, taxes and administrative expenses, is what we wrote in the first letter. Page 42 August 28, 2000 So if there's a question of, you know, proprietorship or, you know, disclosure information that the taxicab companies are concerned about, they need to put it in some sort of format for us so that we're not invading on anybody's privacy. So we've already asked for that information. For us to send out another letter that says exactly the same thing, I don't know what response we're going to get. So if the taxicab companies want this rate change, they need to provide somebody, whether it's us, you know, through -- to the board through us with some information so that we can look at it and see what -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I don't think a lot of the taxicab operators understood that that was for a general rate increase. I think they felt that all those questions for a fuel surcharge were not necessary. It's not necessary how much your dispatchers make if you're asking for a fuel surcharge. MR. PALMER: I think we can draft a letter that basically says we're considering a rate increase, but you have to prove the need to us. If we don't receive sufficient input in meaningful form, there'll be no rate increase, because you haven't met your burden of proof. And I think people that are responsible will do what they can in their own interest to try to get -- to convince staff and eventually the board that there's a rate increase is required and what kind of a rate design it ought to take. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: It's in their best interest. MR. PALMER: If they all lay back and drink Coca-Cola, we're not going to get data and staff's going to come back and say there's certainly no data, and not only that there's no furor for a rate increase, because nobody's responding to our letters. That's indicative that the status quo is okay and that there's no clamor for a rate increase. MS. ARNOLD: Right. And, you know, we were criticized earlier this morning with respect to us not doing anything towards getting a rate increase. And if the companies felt that this was necessary, they would have responded. MR. PEASE: If there is no response, then we can come back to your original motion, which is based on fuel only. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Right. MR. HYDE: Exactly. MR. PEASE: Okay. I make a motion we direct staff to Page 43 August 28, 2000 resend the letter, only this time make it more invitational and advise them it's based on a potential taxi rate increase. MR. HYDE: Which has been requested. MR. PEASE: Which has been requested. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All right, do we have a second on that motion? MR. HYDE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) MR. PEASE: I make a motion we have a meeting on the first Tuesday of November. Have I done that yet? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I don't know. MR. PEASE: Or the first possible date this room is available in November. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I will second it. MS. ARNOLD: While we're resending that letter, we could inform the companies that you're having a meeting on October 3rd. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: That would be-- MS. ARNOLD: I don't see why they can't get us that information by that date. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: And also be aware of a meeting so that they could come here and make comments. MR. PEASE: You may want to make that deadline before the 3rd so you can have it photocopied or whatever you need to do, maybe by the end of September. MR. CSOGI: I've got a question. A lot of these cab companies sublease these vehicles out so we're getting input from the owners. Do we want input from the operators? Because the operators that lease the vehicles pay for their own expenses. MR. PALMER: I'd recommend input from anybody that can give us meaningful input. Not limited. MR. CSOGI: How do we reach the operators and not just the cab companies? MR. PEASE: Well, if then it's the owner, if -- their operators' also talking about the increase. I would assume they would spread that information. MR. CSOGI: Not if they're just leasing their vehicle on a monthly basis -- Page 44 August 28, 2000 CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Or we can put in the letter -- MR. CSOGI: -- they don't care. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: -- to -- MR. HYDE: Copy all -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Right, notify their owner/operators if they have any. MR. CSOGI: Is there -- MS. ARNOLD: Because we don't have that information. MR. CSOGI: I understand. Is there any way we could include something in the Naples Daily News, a small thing, a small article? MR. PALMER: I'll tell you what we might do, we might get it on the government channel, talk to our IT people, you know, our television show -- MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: -- and maybe get some kind of a public service announcement on there. MR. CSOGI: The reason I brought this up, and I neglected to tell this earlier, is some of the work I do keeps me up late at night and I've talked to some taxicab drivers, and a lot of them didn't even -- don't even know about the rate increase. They didn't even know that there was going to be a $2.00 fuel surcharge added on. Because they simply lease the vehicles and stuff doesn't trickle down to them from the operators that they license the vehicles through. I'm not singling anybody out, but I did get that input from two or three different drivers that I had a casual conversation with. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Well, how could they -- I'm just confused because I don't see how they could realize it when they turn their meter on and it comes up -- MR. CSOGI: They didn't know that the issue was up for -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: -- $2.00 more than it used to. MR. CSOGI: They didn't know that the issue was up that was required to have their input on. When they leased the vehicle, the cab company that they leased it from said -- didn't tell them anything was going on. MR. PEASE: Nobody knew the fuel surcharge was going to happen. It wasn't even on the agenda. MR. CSOGI: I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking Page 45 August 28, 2000 about, I asked them, do they get input from the cab companies, based on our recommendations. And they said no, they just leased the vehicles. That's pretty much the extent of it. I'm not saying that's everybody. I'm just saying I had a few casual conversations. So that's why I wanted to put something out so we can get all of those independent guys. MR. PALMER: Another thing is, is anybody that wants to get on a mailing list, for example, anything relevant happening, they can get on a mailing list. Just call staff and say hey, when something goes out that is going to affect me, would you let me know about it. They can do that on an individual basis. MR. CSOGI: Right. So how are we going to -- MR. PALMER: Let's see about talking to the people that have the television show and see if we can't get some kind of an informational analysis out, so if anyone's watching that, they can find out that something is in the works here, and that they can call a number that's on there. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: And also put it in the letter to the operators -- MR. CSOGI: Right. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: -- that they should notify their -- MR. HYDE: If you put it into the body of the letter, your -- the people that own the cabs outright and that are leasing them out, it's in their best interest, if they want this increase passed, to get more people involved and to get them here. If the other -- if there's seven companies, three are represented and four really don't care, then you're saying that the majority of them don't. And the individual operators are the ones that are going to literally take more of the burden of it. So it would behoove the other operators to make sure that they're involved. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Exactly. MR. CSOGI: Who talks to the TV people? MR. PALMER: We can get in touch. Jean Merritt. We can get in touch with her and I think she'll be cooperative. And I can't promise, but I would think it's probably got a good possibility of happening. It's public service, it will benefit people and it's in everybody's interest to disseminate the fact that there's something in the works to as many people as possible. MR. CSOGI: I'm comfortable with that. Page 46 August 28, 2000 CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Any other motions to make? MR. PEASE: I had a motion on the table for a November meeting -- CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do I have a second? MR. PEASE: -- first available date. MR. CSOGI: Second. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Anything else? You're all done with your motions for today? MR. PEASE: By God, I hope so. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: I think that about wraps up our meeting for today. Our next scheduled meeting is October 3rd. MR. CSOGI: 9:00 a.m.? CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: What time is that meeting going to be, Maria? MS. CRUZ: 9:00. MS. ARNOLD: 9:00. MR. HYDE: Good, I can do that. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: And it's here. MS. ARNOLD: You need a motion to adjourn. MR. PEASE: We have to adjourn, or she's going to keep typing. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: Do we have a motion to adjourn? MR. HYDE: Motion to adjourn. MR. CSOGI: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: All in favor, say aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BAISLEY: We are adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:00 a.m. PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PAT BAISLEY, CHAIRPERSON Page 47 August 28, 2000 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE~ INC.~ BY CHERIE' R. LEONEl RPR Page 48