Loading...
PVAC Minutes 09/06/2001 RSeptember 6, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2 p.m. In REGULAR SESSION at the Supervisor of Elections Office Conference Room, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN: Bryan L. S. Pease Pat Baisley Eric Hyde William J. Csogi ABSENT: Tom Lugrin Clifford Flegal ALSO PRESENT: Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement Ekna Hu, Code Enforcement Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Call the meeting back to order, please. Where is my gavel? Okay. I just want to review why this item's on the agenda. Back when we had the county commissioners decide to eliminate the fuel surcharge, they tasked staff with the responsibility within one year -- I believe it was -- to report back to them to see if there was even a need to regulate taxi rates. And when that happened at that time I asked Michelle Arnold -- even though they did not ask - - the PVAC's input if we could have that courtesy, and she said we could. She also wanted our guidance as well. Just at the last workshop I was concerned about timing, and I asked Michelle, you know, "Look, if we're going to go through this exercise of the ordinance and then we do it and we submit it and a month later you turn around and you say, no, I don't think we should regulate rates, we're going to look pretty stupid, and I want this to be the right timing." So with that in mind I asked them to put this item on the agenda. I'm not asking for an up or down vote, but I would like to know the consensus of the committee, and I'll share with you on this official document that -- from my phone conversation with Clifford who asked that I relay his thoughts. I'll start with that. He commented that he was not in favor of deregulating rates. He felt that it would hurt a large number of people that need taxi service including fixed income and low income. He stated that who knows how much Mrs. Jones -- Miss Jones would have to pay to go to the doctor was $4 and now $8. That bothered him. He did say that he was not against recommending an increase in the rate but that the taxi company should do it in a proper way. All info we need be provided per the ordinance. If they don't it doesn't cut it. He said in order to get it they need to justify it and show the figures on the increases. That was his comment. Page 2 September 6, 2001 I'll start with Eric Hyde for your comment on the issue of should the rates be regulated in Collier County, direction to staff. MR. HYDE: Before I get into that, I just want to say thank you to all the people that actually came today. Sitting on this board for the last year-- year and a half, this is the first time that I can honestly say that people from the transportation industry have come. I only have a little share or a little portion of that, but I really want to applaud your decision to come and actually be part of this entire environment that we are here on. It's -- it's really interesting because now living in Naples for six years -- the ordinances in Collier County are public record. If you don't know how to get them, please ask. You can get them on the internet. You can go get a copy of it. So to sit and say, "Well, we're not sure how it was" kind of bugs me because somebody either didn't bother to look it up or just decided to show up today. So we got to make sure when we come to something that we're prepared to do it at the same point. In regards to the rate structure as it sits right now, the only change that occurred was an actual surcharge to a fuel rate that was proposed, and that was put in front of the county commissioners that did not go in front of the board or in front of the PVAC, and that was actually passed. We actually did try and communicate with the industry to find out what rates or how the rates should be adjusted. There are obvious ways to do that. People from the industry can get together and come up and say, "We would really like to have the rates relooked at." It can be done annually. It can be done every two years. It can be done any time you feel a necessity, but there's a few things that have to be done. I can't just come up and say, "Hey, listen, you know, I really think I need a $5,000 increase because I look good." It's not going to cut it. In the last ten years, the price of a 1991 Town Car went from Page 3 September 6, 2001 20,000; it's now 42,000 or whatever it is. The price that I'm paying for my insurance went from $500 to $1,500. The price of commercial space went from $100 to $2,000 showing increases, showing what the cost differentials are going to be and how it adversely affects your business. But we asked for that. What we got was, "Well, you know, gasoline costs this much, and that's just the way it is." That's not what we were looking for. I'm very, very in tune with the private enterprises and sole proprietorships. That's what this country was based on, ladies and gentlemen. That's what your tax laws are written for in case you haven't figured it out. So for the mom and pops to become the bigger ones, I understand that plight and definitely agree with a lot of that, and as you grow you become bigger if you choose to. That doesn't mean you have to. If you're comfortable in your niche, then you stay in your niche, and you provide the service that's there. Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of deregulation. I don't think it's going to help the overall populace of Collier County, though the -- from both -- both economic levels, from the lower level all the way to the top, as we have grown, our diversity in our population mix has increased. We're not just now seniors. We've also got kids. Look at the amount of school buses that came out. Mom's going to the theater, going whatever. So there is a more need or more increased demand for transportation which obviously affects all of you. The gypsy scenario I don't think is something that we can tackle without the benefit of the police department and the sheriff's department, but I don't feel that that would be helping anyone to deregulate it. And I really ask for your input to come forward more in either workshops or in the general sessions that take place every three months. Hey, bring it in and say, "By the way, these are the top four or top three or here's a cross-section. We've got six owners, and here's why we think we need an increase. This is why the rate Page 4 September 6, 2001 shouldn't be $2.40, but it should be $3.80 and let me show you why." But, ladies and gentlemen, if this ordinance has been written for the last five or six years, no one has come forward to say that. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's kind of how it happened. However, when the gas price jumped, then a couple of people said, "Oh my God, let's run to the commissioners and see what we can do," but that's a short-term fix. We're not looking for short-term fix. We're looking for it to be profitable and beneficial to the citizens of Collier County and also to the individuals that run the businesses. That's what it's about. It's got to be a win-win for everybody. So that's my input. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you for your comment future County Commissioner, Eric Hyde. Let me backtrack to Mr. Tom Palmer for a second. Do you want to make any comment on the e- mail that was distributed during the break on this.'? Do you have any comment on that? MR. PALMER: That is an e-mail that was prepared by a legal assistant in the county which was nothing more than a less-than- conclusive head count of the various jurisdictions in Collier County that do and do not regulate taxicab rates. I thought -- I'm pretty sure I gave that to staff in April. I don't know what happened to it, but it's not very helpful. The fact that some counties regulate them and some counties don't regulate them to me doesn't answer any questions or the merits of whether or not regulation of taxicab rates is a good idea or a bad idea. To me the fact that some counties do it and some counties don't doesn't answer the question of whether it's a good idea to do it or not to do. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Michelle, if you could review the record afterwards. Mr. Flegal's comments I expressed for the record. I don't want to duplicate that. Patricia Baisley. Page 5 September 6, 2001 MS. BAISLEY: There's pros and cons to deregulation and regulation of the rates. We deregulate, there's going to be people out there that are doing it for rock-bottom prices. There will be more calls than they can handle, and these little old ladies are going to be sitting on street comers from heat exhaustion waiting for a car to come get them because the rate is so cheap. I'd like to see the people in the taxicab industry, all people, come together not in this forum, in a different place, have a meeting, and see what everybody would like for the rates. When we tried to raise rates before, there was a couple people who came forth from the industry, and it was specifically tied to the gasoline price. It wasn't tied to other issues. There is a lot of other factors there now. Insurance, billing costs, a lot of things. Right, but if we could come together as an industry and present that to this board, I think that we would get farther, and I think that this board would be much more understanding and the county commissioners would be much more understanding. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does that mean you're at this time -- where are you coming from at this time? MS. BAISLEY: I would still like to see regulation of the rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Csogi. MR. CSOGI: First of all, why are you asking the question to us? Was it posed by the commissioners to ask? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No. Again, it was posed by the commissioners to staff to do it. I went to staff and said, "I think the PVAC should have the opportunity to express their opinion to staff so that can be included in the information provided by -- to the commissioners." She agreed, and I appreciated that opportunity. It's really not up to us. It's up to the staff, but she also would like to have and -- I don't want to speak for you -- but my understanding is she also wanted our guidance and suggestions. Page 6 September 6, 2001 MR. CSOGI: So when you say "staff," you're saying Michelle Arnold? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Michelle Arnold is the staff pro temp. MR. CSOGI: So we're influencing her. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Not influencing her; we're providing information to her as she prepares her report to the county commissioners. We have the opportunity to provide input. If you don't want the opportunity to provide input, you don't have to. MR. CSOGI: Well, I'd simply like to ask Michelle a question. How was the question posed to you from the commissioners since I'm hearing secondhand? MS. ARNOLD: Well, what happened after there was the discussion on the rates -- because we went through transition with a previous board that adopted the surcharge and then a new board having to look at that at a later date and not having the history, the question was raised about, you know, why does the county regulate this particular industry. And they directed staff to kind of report back to them on just the overall regulation of the industry at first and then also to give information with respect to the rates. And I thought because this particular committee is charged with reviewing applications for new businesses within the industry and looking at, as Mr. Pease said, the protection of the public at large, I thought your opinions -- because you guys know that particular industry and some of you work in the industry, it would be beneficial to report back to the board as well on the committee's perspective. MR. PALMER: Can I say something on that, Michelle? MS. ARNOLD: Sure. MR. PALMER: What happened in that area was the board wanted to take a look at the adequacy of these rates. Staff inquired -- to the best of my knowledge -- every taxicab or charter service company that it could find to try to get input, "Do you think these Page 7 September 6, 2001 rates are too low, too high, or about right?" We got almost nothing in response. Staff-- a member named Blue Wallace in his department who is an expert in utility rate regulation and knows about rates and returns and investment on rate of return on a given amount of capital -- did an analysis and came back to the board, the PVAC board, and made a recommendation for an increase in rates. That recommendation was reduced slightly by the PVAC. Then the matter was proposed to the Board of County Commissioners, and the persons that wanted the rate that was originally introduced by staff, that is the slightly higher rate, made that pitch to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners then would decide should we go with the little higher rate or the recommendation of the PVAC, and they elected to go with the lesser rate, presumably because they were not persuaded by the evidence presented that, in fact, a higher rate was necessary. So it seems like if these rates are going to be increased, they are going to have to have some evidence that warrants a conclusion that these rates are too low. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Mr. Csogi. MR. CSOGI: Because of what Ms. Arnold said and we did go through all that and one company responded back to us adequately to fill out every question we asked of everybody that we sent the survey to, because of such a poor input from the company, I find no reason to change anything and leave it the way it is especially, like Mr. Flegal says, the low incomer and people that can't afford it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. I'll -- I'll express my comment which is to me when the ordinance first came out there was a clear distinction between charter companies and taxi operators. I think that line has been blurred substantially over the years so they are much closer than they were, and I am in favor of not being in the business Page 8 September 6, 2001 of regulating rates. I believe in the free market. It works in the charter side very well, and I also think that it would work in the taxi system. You adjust your rates accordingly to the market. I lowered ours 20 percent this year based on the economy and based on the increased competition. I am in favor of it, but I also know I'm the lone gunman up here. I won't belabor it. I went through this on the workshops, and it's on the record. I think generally, Michelle, what you see is a PVAC that says they're in favor of continued regulation of the taxicab rates. Okay. Next item on the agenda is to review suggestions, and I know some may have some on that, but before we start on ours, if we could just kind of review some of the ones that were from the public comment to see if there is any input, any comment from the PVAC on that. MS. ARNOLD: Can I just say that I'm getting copies made. They're here. We're only able to get ten right now, and if you-all are interested in copies, if you could just leave your names and addresses up here with me, then if you guys want to share some of these that would be good. CHAIRMAN PEASE: One of the first suggestions that was made from the public was a pro-rated rate for at the end of the year. MR. CSOGI: I've got a question on that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Could you speak up, though, for the court reporter, please. MR. CSOGI: Application permit and renewal permit are the same thing. In other words, she was saying that she got her application permit in October, she renewed in January. She said she had to pay the same amount of money again. Are they the same Page 9 September 6, 2001 amount? MS. BAISLEY: I believe they are the same. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Renewable is the same amount? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. CSOGI: So it's the same amount? MS. ARNOLD: Renewal and application is the same. Actually, renewal is less. MR. CSOGI: Renewal's less. How much less? MS. HU: Application is $200 and renewals are 250. MR. CSOGI: How much? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It's 450 plus -- $500 in November as well as in January. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Appreciate your input, but for the court reporter's purposes we can't have an open forum. I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: I know the application fee is 200 and renewal is 250 annually. MR. CSOGI: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: So your original application to have a business is 200 and then each year you have to renew for 250. MR. CSOGI: Okay. Mr. Pease, what is that? Who sets that permit fee? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, we set that permit fee. MR. CSOGI: We do? CHAIRMAN PEASE: We do have control over permit fees. MR. CSOGI: We don't know where the money is going. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We know it's going to code enforcement. MS. ARNOLD: It goes to the general fund. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It goes to the general fund. Okay. Thank yOLI. MR. CSOGI: Code enforcement general fund? MS. ARNOLD: The code enforcement department gets credit Page 10 September 6, 2001 showing it as a revenue, but it goes back into the overall general fund for the county. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So if you're going to apply for a permit in November, you're going to pay the same amount as if you applied in January. MS. ARNOLD: The application fee is the actual processing of the paperwork and -- you know, we have to get certain background checks and credit checks and all the stuff for the new applicant. Now, the renewal fee we'll have to do verification and go through the process of getting the new decals and everything else. So that's the distinction between the two. If we were to -- MR. CSOGI: I understand -- understand the first set. It's the second set, the additional $200. MS. ARNOLD: That's for the decals and all the other processing that we have to do on an annual basis, because we do give new decals different colors every year, so that's something that we would have to contend with if we were to say yours is going to be good for a year and a half as opposed to somebody else's. MR. CSOGI: So if you say that you do the same amount of work whether it's October or January -- you do the same amount of work. That's all I wanted to know. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Anybody else have a comment on that topic, or anybody have a desire for that? Next one, minimum number of vehicles required. Does anybody have -- MR. CSOGI: That's parking in a private residence. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Actually not. This one is minimum number of vehicles, approximately five or six as a minimum to be in the transportation business. I'm anti that totally. I would like to see a small operator have a chance to grow their company like anybody Page 11 September 6, 2001 else. MR. PALMER: I also seriously question the county's authority to enact such a regulation. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Good. Regulated rates taxi charter we discussed. Sub meeting with medical transportation companies. I think we're way beyond this process for this go-around but, again, I still would encourage them to come forward with any suggestions. MS. BAISLEY: Back to charter rates. We didn't discuss charter rates. We discussed taxi rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I apologize. You're right. Relating to charter rates, I'm okay with that. I wasn't trying to skirt that. Thank you. Let me go back to that then. Does anyone have a desire to regulate charter rates? Now going -- MS. BAISLEY: I don't have a desire to do that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Being that I'm anti-taxi I'm not going to go pro-charter. Sub meeting with medical transportation, again, I would like to see their involvement, but I'm not sure this process on the time line track we're on that we can do that at this point. MR. PALMER: I have a thought --just thinking outloud with regard to the charter rates -- you just mentioned before that -- and it was attested to by one of the speakers that certain charter companies are discounting their rates or splitting their rates up so that they're directly competing with taxicabs. I would recommend that we put into the ordinance that charter companies must give to the county their rates so that if we want to do an investigation to find out that somebody's alleging that Charter Company X is splitting their rates up so they are effectively competing with taxicabs, we have the authority to get evidence to make a determination whether or not those rates are misleading or directly competitive with taxicab companies. I don't think the ordinance now presently gives us the authority to demand upon request charter service rates. Page 12 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is that public record? MR. PALMER: It would be if they're requested. The only time they would be requested is if somebody makes a complaint that Charter Company A is bifurcating and they're splitting their rates up and giving discounts and effectively operating as a taxicab. Then upon that kind of assertion then we could request the suspected charter company to provide us with their rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So it's only on a complaint basis? MR. PALMER: Yeah, or-- or a suspicion basis. It wouldn't be a general fishing expedition unless they ask all of the charter companies what their rates are. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Or annual requirement. MR. PALMER: Right. Exactly. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I believe the charter company when they come before the board they do provide what their rates are going to be, and there is a section in the ordinance -- I cannot refer to it, but there is a section in there that says they cannot charge more than what they were originally approved. MR. PALMER: How about less? CHAIRMAN PEASE: That doesn't -- that doesn't work because the rates -- this ordinance is in effect from 19 -- whatever--'95, so to say that the company can't charge any more than he charged in 1995 -- MS. CRUZ: No. If they come to the board and say they are going to charge, say, $35 from here to Fort Myers, they can't charge anyone else more than $35. MS. BAISLEY: But what we're saying is the rates they gave us when they came here for a permit maybe ten years ago are not the rates they are charging today. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. Maxi Taxi did 15, 20 years ago. You don't have a current on Maxi Taxi. Page 13 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: The issue I just addressed is not a question of charging too much it's a question of charging too little by coming in and getting a reduced rate. So I'm really in effect charging what is close to a taxicab rate for what I'm performing and this particular trip is really a taxicab service. That's the problem. I don't think now in the ordinance -- I don't recall that we can say in that case and we're suspicious of that -- we demand to see your rates -- the rates that you are currently charging, charter service company. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So they would fill out the same complaint that you would if they were running without a sticker or anything else, and you submit that to staff. MR. PALMER: Well, it would be basically somebody is alleging that Charter Service A is violating a provision of the ordinance which we have it here which does not allow that kind of splitting up of rates or discounting, whatever you want to call it, where my rates are being lowered to get service that's lower than the rates I have basically filed with staff. Is anything in here about requiring these people to notify you if they are going to change their-- MS. CRUZ: Yes. They have to come before the board. MR. PALMER: Okay. If they want to change them. MS. CRUZ: Yes. MR. PALMER: But the question is on -- these are like -- what they're doing -- is they're not doing a general -- see an opportunity to get a customer, business is slow, they basically work a deal with somebody and say, "Look, I'll essentially give you a taxicab service for a taxicab rate." And it's not a recurring thing. It doesn't happen every day of the week that kind of a case. MR. CSOGI: Kind of like I saw on Fifth Avenue a couple weeks ago about ten o'clock at night. A Town Car was there, and he had "taxi" written on cardboard on each one of his windows. That's Page 14 September 6, 2001 what we're trying to protect, the taxi drivers. MS. BAISLEY: Maria, where does it say in the ordinance that says that the charter companies have to change their rates with you? CHAIRMAN PEASE: I've never seen that. MS. CRUZ: I know it's in there. MR. PALMER: I think it is, and I can search for it. MS. CRUZ: They cannot make any changes unless they get approved by the board. MS. BAISLEY: Then everybody's in violation. MR. PALMER: No. No. It's not approved by the board I don't think. I think it's just filing with staff. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I would like you to refresh that for me and show it to me. I don't believe that's there. Hang in there with us. You've had a long day, I know. Hang in there. We'll do our best to do it one at a time. I know there's a bottle of vodka in your future. Let's -- is there anybody interested in what Mr. Palmer is recommending which is that if someone turns in a complaint on the rate violation against taxi lower than a taxi rate -- lower than taxi rate or equal to -- MR. PALMER: Or competes with. Well, it isn't even that. Close enough that it competes with taxicabs. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Anybody have a desire for that being in the new ordinance? MR. PALMER: Well, that provision's in the ordinance. The provision I'm talking about is the demand for the rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. MS. ARNOLD: Then like an annual -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: No, not an annual. MR. PALMER: Triggered by a complaint. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I personally don't have any objection to it as long as it's not used as a tool to acquire everybody's rates which I Page 15 September 6, 2001 think it could be an opening for that opportunity. MS. BAISLEY: I agree. MR. PALMER: Are the rates of a charter service company some sort of a trade secret? CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think everybody's protective of their rate. MR. PALMER: If I call up, can't I ask somebody what are your rates on the telephone, and won't they tell me? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes. MR. PALMER: Then I don't see what's secretive about these rates in the slightest. MR. HYDE: Depends on the time of year. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's true. MR. PALMER: Well, you mean -- say, if I'm going to shop around for charter services, I may call up, and they may say, "We're not going to tell you what our rates are"? MR. HYDE: No. But I'm telling you point blank if I'm looking for a limousine rate on a Friday which is in the middle of prom season versus a Friday in the middle of August, it's probably going to be a little cheaper in August than it is in the middle of prom season. MR. PALMER: Right. But won't they tell me this on the telephone if I'm shopping around for a charter service? CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's a valid point, Mr. Palmer. It's a valid point. What's the consensus of the PVAC? Do you want to include that? MR. PALMER: My only thought is, if we don't have the right to demand that, we have proof problems in the event that somebody makes an allegation that these charter service companies are doing this behavior. How do we prove it unless we do a sting? CHAIRMAN PEASE: I said what I thought. MR. CSOGI: Well, when they do fill out the application, they're Page 16 September 6, 2001 giving us their rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: One time. MR. CSOGI: That's our proof. If they're changing the rates, they can't go lower, though. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Five years from now that may not be their proof. Three years -- we're hoping this ordinance lasts many years. MS. ARNOLD: A month from now it may not be the case. MR. CSOGI: But can't the charter service companies go below their rate -- charge less than the rate they gave the county? MR. PALMER: Yes, they can, provided they don't get down to the level of competing with taxicabs. MR. CSOGI: Can they charge more? MR. PALMER: They cannot charge more than their filed rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, that's not true. They can file rates higher than the one that's on record because the one that's on record could be 15 years old. MR. PALMER: My understanding is the ordinance does not allow them to exceed the filed rates unless they refile rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can you show me that? MR. PALMER: I think it's in here. MR. HYDE: I can't find it. MR. CSOGI: I think if that's in there then that is substantial evidence to go backwards also for lowering a rate. MS. BAISLEY: And what are we going to do? Are we going to file wholesale rates, too, or just retail rates? MR. PALMER: No. We're talking retail rates, I think. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I was trying to get us out of the rate business. MS. BAISLEY: I was going to say. If you're going to file your document, what are you -- Page 17 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: I'm pretty sure that that provision is in here and has been for years, but I can't put my hands on it right now. CHAIRMAN PEASE: You want to go on until you find that? Is that all right? MR. PALMER: Sure. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Regarding the sticker on the medical vehicles, we have a procedure in place currently that if they have a complaint where they're supposed to go, the system works whether that's for taxi or charter or medical. Four people brought up enforcement issues. Hopefully we're tightening that up, but I agree I think maybe you and I can do that jointly with the tax department or something and get something rolling with that. We don't have any jurisdiction over where everybody hangs their permit, although, you know, I'm like everybody else. I got a Fort Lauderdale. I got a Miami. I got a Collier. I got a Southwest Airport. Pretty soon the driver's not going to be able to see out of it. Sedans operating as taxis, that's already in violation of the current ordinance; correct? That's an enforcement issue. All we need is somebody to make a formal complaint. Okay. MR. CSOGI: For the new ordinance. The old ordinance if they made a complaint, it didn't matter. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. We've got some new specific enforcement guidelines here which they look pretty good. Monthly meetings. MR. CSOGI: With the low input at the meetings at this point, I see no point in monthly meetings. MR. PALMER: The Chair can always call special meetings if necessary. MR. CSOGI: This is the first time. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Monthly not happening. Still quarterlies. Page 18 September 6, 2001 Object to the minimum number of vehicles, we've already addressed that. Raise the limit of vehicles allowed at the residence, and the issue is roommates versus married couples. The fact that you're married, you get one; you live together in sin, as they say, you get two. MR. PALMER: I'm not sure that's the dividing line at all, but the question is whether or not two vehicles for hire can be -- can be operated out of a single-family residence out of what's called a home occupational license. That's the issue. MR. CSOGI: Are you sure that's the issue or parking overnight? MR. PALMER: The parking overnight is another thing. The question is -- that's more detailed. This is a question of operating two vehicles for hire, either a taxicab and a charter service or two of either-or both out of a home occupation. That's the issue. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Wasn't it your original recommendation to go to two in one of the drafts at the workshop? MR. PALMER: Yeah. Because my original recommendation was that provided it did not violate a zoning law. This ordinance cannot violate a zoning law. That has to do with where you can park vehicles. But there's nothing to say that the two taxicabs that are being operated out of the single-family home might be parked in the garage all the time if they're not being operated. Who knows? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there -- does the regular zoning issue prevent two taxis outside the home overnight? MR. PALMER: No. It doesn't talk about taxicabs. It talks about vehicles and sizes, boats. This ordinance couldn't change that, but it could allow this if that does not conflict with the land-use regulation. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Let me ask a different side of that question. Are you allowed in Collier County to have two commercial vehicles parked outside your drive at your residence? MR. PALMER: You are not. This ordinance would not allow Page 19 September 6, 2001 it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. Commercial vehicles are defined in our Land Development Code, and a taxicab is not classified as a commercial vehicle by that definition. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Really? MS. ARNOLD: It's based on the size and the equipment that's on the vehicle. MR. PALMER: And to some extent lettering on the outside. MS. ARNOLD: Not even that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So you're saying the PVAC has control over that decision? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: On the number of vehicles at the residence? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PALMER: That's my presumption too. MR. HYDE: Which would also, then, be the same if a family has -- there's a husband and wife and they both share -- they both own a Town Car that is licensed and has its permits and they then also use that as not only their -- their work vehicle, but also their private vehicle that that vehicle or those vehicles would be allowed to be used or parked at their home for that reason as long as it doesn't affect -- which it doesn't-- land-use code. MR. PALMER: Then you get the issue, should the busted vehicles be driven by people who reside in that home. You get in the problem with an employee issue. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. And that is strictly prohibited by the home occupation guidelines in the Land Development Code. MR. PALMER: So they have to be operated by people who reside at that residence. MS. ARNOLD: Exactly, yes. Page 20 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE: I have -- I have no problem with going to two as long as it -- they reside in the residence and they're not, you know, a separate employee. I have no problem with that personally. Mr. Hyde? MR. HYDE: Seasonally -- because of Collier County the way that it is we are a tremendously seasonal population. So if I have someone -- my uncle comes down or father-in-law comes down, and he decides that he's going to run a business out of my home and whatever, he lives here seasonally, can he operate that vehicle because he lives here only seasonal, not full time? Does it matter? MR. PALMER: No. Occupational licenses are not limited to residents of the county. You don't have to say, "I reside in Collier County" to get an occupational license in Collier County. MS. ARNOLD: Your place of business has to be in Collier County. MR. PALMER: In this case the place of business is the home in which the company is operating in. MS. ARNOLD: Right. If you can get a home occupational license and have it qualified through the planning department, then you're fine. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Csogi, your comment on that. You have a preference? MR. CSOGI: No. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Just wanted to wake you up over there. Pat, you have a preference? MS. BAISLEY: I think we need to be pretty specific about what we're proposing. MR. HYDE: That's why I'm asking. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, the specifics are -- let me recap the specifics if I understand them. They have to be a resident in the home. Page 21 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: The operators must reside in the house. CHAIRMAN PEASE: They also have to meet all criteria of-- MR. PALMER: Home occupational licensing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Exactly. MR. PALMER: And two vehicles. You're saying not to exceed two vehicles for hire. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. We've got one neutral. We've got one that's okay with it. It's up to you two. MR. HYDE: I don't have a problem with it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Pat? MS. BAISLEY: Are we going to enforce the who is driving the other vehicle? I think that's an enforcement issue, again, because we're going to have problems there. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The only difference is instead of looking for the enforcement of more than one driver, now we're looking for more that two of the driver. Both are enforcement issues. MR. CSOGI: I think it's going to be a lot easier now that you've got IDs. If you go to the homeowner and say, "You've produce two IDs now." You can't produce two IDs, you can't have two vehicles parked here. That's one of the reasons for getting IDs. MS. BAISLEY: But a lot of people are going to say, "My wife drives that vehicle," and this woman never drives that vehicle. And somebody else comes to that house and drives that vehicle. What are we going to do about that? MR. CSOGI: We'll ask for ID numbers, who drives the vehicles, and they have to reside there. If they can't prove that, then they're in violation. MR. PALMER: I think the easiest part of the whole thing would be to prove that an employee is driving to the house in the morning, leaving some vehicle there, being left off, taking the car for the day, and either drives out in his own car or wife comes to get Page 22 September 6, 2001 him; that seems to me from a proof standpoint the easiest of the whole elements to prove. MR. CSOGI: As long as you got the ID, it should be real easy. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you say you're in favor? MR. CSOGI: As long as they're not in violation. It's easier to enforce. MS. BAISLEY: So you're suggesting that if they have two vehicles in a household that certificate holders have to produce two driver's licenses, and those are going to be the two drivers for those vehicle and they reside in that household? MR. CSOGI: Right. That's what I'm voting on. I'm merely talking about the enforcement side of it, not the two vehicles. We're saying, yeah, you have to do that already, and we were just discussing the enforcement side of it, how would we enforce it. That's a simple way to enforcement it. MR. PALMER: Neighbors are not blind. Neighbors see what's going on next door. MS. BAISLEY: So if somebody else is driving that vehicle then, obviously, they're in violation. MR. CSOGI: Right. If they're leaving it at your house overnight, they are in violation because you're in violation of the ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Pat? MS. BAISLEY: I can agree with that as long we put those specifics in there. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can we please -- we do not have microphones. The committee needs to do the function of the business, please. MS. BAISLEY: We need to make them produce some kind of evidence of who is going to be driving those vehicles and driving in that household so that when we see somebody else driving that Page 23 September 6, 2001 vehicle who is not one of those vehicles registered with the county, we can do something about it. MR. PALMER: We can put that in the ordinance and that they've got to prove that to staff before they get a certificate. We can do that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Mr. Hyde, any comment before I direct Mr. Palmer? MR. HYDE: Can I ask -- request a comment from the floor? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Actually, no, this is not open for public comment. MR. PALMER: That's at the discretion of the Chair. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. Mr. Hyde, do you have any comment before we direct Mr. Palmer to go forward? MR. HYDE: No. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Mr. Palmer, can you please make sure we have all the I's dotted and T's crossed in allowing two vehicles? MR. PALMER: That's about a five-minute job. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Thank you. The next item that was discussed was the Regional Airport Authority superseding Collier County authority. Anybody have a desire to supersede the -- I don't know if legally we can do that to begin with, but I certainly don't have an interest in seeing the airport dictate what Collier's needs. MR. PALMER: I have no idea how that would work -- how that would function. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Anybody else? All right. Next, taxicab limit. I'm assuming what they're talking about there is limited number of actual taxis in operation, a medallion system which has been -- MR. PALMER: The county has that authority and has never Page 24 September 6, 2001 even considered exercising that to this date. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And I'm not sure the consensus of the county commissioners or chamber or something of that nature. All right. And then rates being unregulated was the last comment from the public. Okay. Let's go on to -- everyone's had a chance to review this from Mr. Palmer today. MR. PALMER: I also had a handout to make a clarification in regard to this occupational license business generally, not all occupational. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Quiet, please. On the notes from the general public. MR. CSOGI: A gentleman talked about dropping off and picking up on Fifth Avenue and getting hassled. I mean, if you pull in my handicapped zoned, I don't care who are -- MR. PALMER: That's a question for the police department or the City of Naples. That sounds like a parking issue. MR. CSOGI: Right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Any other public ones that I missed? Okay. Let's talk about the ones that we do know about. MS. HU: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion which I never brought to mind, but I don't know if we decided that we're going to be -- we, as a code enforcement going to be issuing violations or notice of violations, but I think that if we will be issuing notice of violations that if there is a member of the board that has -- that is a part of the industry and has a certain amount of violations, that they should be not able to represent the industry. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So you're -- you're asking if-- should the ordinance include a provision if a member that continues to get violations that are not corrected? MS. HU: Correct. And -- or whether they are or not corrected, Page 25 September 6, 2001 they are sitting on the board, and they are representing the industry and they -- they get firsthand information so how is it that they would be able to even get to a point to get a violation.'? I think they should be limited to at least a certain number of violations before we should consider replacing that member. If they're going to be representing the industry, then they should not be violating the ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I concur that nobody on the board is superior to any of the policies that were put in place. I would say more -- I'm more in favor of it being where it's if you lose your sticker as a result of not following through with correcting any issues that come up, I would be in favor-- maybe there's already a provision in the ordinance that says that. I would be certainly in favor if we don't correct anything that's brought to our attention properly that we should be removed. I have no trouble with that. I'm not sure that just the number of infractions should dictate that. MR. PALMER: Because that's the function of the size of the company. A larger company is going to have more infractions necessarily than a small one, just as a matter of course. MS. HU: The only trouble I see with that is because the ordinance specifies what an advisory board or terms of advisory board. They have no limit as to how many times they can be reappointed to the board, and I know there's plenty of people that would like to participate in the board and have not been able to get the chance to because many of the current positions that have been taken by the board have been reelected. MS. BAISLEY: I disagree with that because both myself and Mr. Pease-- (Cell phone ringing.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: If you could remove the cell phones and pagers, please. MS. BAISLEY: Both myself and Mr. Pease, our positions were Page 26 September 6, 2001 vacant on this board within the last year or two, and both of us -- I know that Mr. Pease wasn't real in favor of being back on the board, but nobody applied. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, my letter was -- no, it's not public comment, sir. My letter specifically stated anybody -- if anybody from the transportation industry comes forward and wants to be a part of this committee they should do that, and I will step down, and not one single person -- and because I do have a feeling it should not be someone here year after year after year after year. It should be something where everyone has the opportunity to participate, but it didn't happen and so ... MR. CSOGI: It did happen. We had about ten applications the last time it came up for vote. I remember seeing the applications. We had to give our input to the county commissioners of the applications. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That was the public seat, though, not the transportation seat. MR. CSOGI: It was.* MS. BAISLEY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. My letter's part of the record. Not one single person -- MS. BAISLEY: Your letter-- MS. ARNOLD: It's a matter, I believe, of when the public notice is put out to the general public of vacancies on the board, and it shouldn't apply to just this board. It's all boards of somebody submitting their resume and their letter of interest to the county commission, and it's up to the county commissioners to select who they feel is appropriate. If there is an express interest of anyone else in the industry, I would recommend that they do pass that information on to my office and that -- so that when we do receive notices. Because I know that there's times that it's missed because you're not Page 27 September 6, 2001 watching the public notices on a regular basis. If we do have that letter of interest from you-all, I, you know, make it a point to call you to let you know that there is a vacancy on the board so that you can submit, just like anybody else would be required to. MR. PALMER: This ordinance has a peculiar-- actually, compared to most boards. First of all, this is not an advisory board; it's far-- it's powers are far above an advisory board. In some respects you're advisory only; in many respects you're definitely a quasi-judicial board. The ordinance says, "Notwithstanding any other county ordinance" -- which refers basically the ordinance generally applies to the boards term limits -- "members of the PVAC may be reappointed without term limits by simple majority of" -- essentially the Board of County Commissioners. The reason for that is we've had trouble from time to time getting qualified applicants to the board and don't want to run the risk of not having a quorum because nobody that's qualified wants to serve. Nobody's getting paid to do this. It takes quite a lot of time and effort, and the board does not want to raise the standard so high or put reappointment term limits on it that we can't have a board that's functioning. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, it's even more critical if the transportation wouldn't be represented. Now, under this new ordinance, the third person can either be a transportation person or from the general public, which means control of this committee can be -- it can be controlled by nontransportation people who may or may not know the needs of the transportation industry. So we certainly invite -- well, let's go back to the issue which Ekna brought up is, does the PVAC want to have a clause in there in addition to the fact that any one of us can be replaced based on the county commissioners, do we want a clause that states under certain circumstances due to violations that they are no longer on the board? Page 28 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: Well, let me say that any removal of any member of this board by whatever standard is a function of a decision of the Board of County Commissioners. The board has no power to remove a member of the board. The board has power to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners for whatever standards removal of a member of the board. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So let me rephrase that. Does the committee want to have language in there that under certain criteria the PVAC can recommend to the County Commissioners to remove a particular board member or person -- committee member for violations or failure to honor violations? MR. CSOGI: I have a question for you or a question for Mr. Palmer. The people that are obviously going to violate that are the people that are part of the transportation industry. The ordinance calls for the board members to be part of the transportation industry, so they have to have certificates to do that, obviously. So if they are in violation or if their certificate gets pulled because of the violation - - they didn't fix the violation -- that's something code enforcement can do. They are not a certificate holder anymore. Wouldn't that automatically mean they can't be on the board anymore? MR. PALMER: It would in that case. MR. CSOGI: So I think that takes care of itself. MR. PALMER: What she's recommending is something of a lower threshold. Revocation of a certificate is a last resort, serious matter. She's talking about the possibility of making a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for the removal of a board member with something less than the grounds for a possible revocation of a certificate. MR. CSOGI: I'm just talking outloud here. On the homeowners board that I'm on, if we're late in our dues, then our voting rights are suspended at that meeting. You can still attend and give input; you're Page 29 September 6, 2001 just not allowed to vote. I don't know how that would work here. MR. PALMER: Well, there's a general provision that no member of the board can vote on quasi-judicial matter of which they have any interest, so whether or not this violation -- assuming at that point in time a violation was going on, then it would be a question on a case-by-case basis whether or not that particular board member could vote on that board matter because there could be possible conflict issues. That does not in any way resolve the question about the threshold to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners for removal. It could be some general standard that can be recommended by staff about -- something along the line of either an extraordinary number of violations or a lack of a prompt failure (sic) to correct, some kind of a judgment standard. It wouldn't be hard and fixed. Staff knows when people are doing what they're supposed to be doing and when they're not. If people are doing what they're supposed to be doing even though they may have a lot of violations, that wouldn't strike me as basis, but if they're to sort of abuse their position on the board and get away with something that the next person, man, woman came before the board couldn't get, then you've got an abusive situation. I could describe that in plain English in the ordinance if you want something like that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Would you like to see a draft of that? I'm not opposed to looking at a draft of that. MS. BAISLEY: Yes. MR. HYDE: No problem with that. MS. ARNOLD: You're talking more of an ethical type of-- MR. PALMER: I'm talking about basically doing something that we would not tolerate from a certificated company who is not a member of the board. In other words, staff knows when somebody is basically trying to pull a fast one, swing their weight around just Page 30 September 6, 2001 because they happen to be a member of this board. If the allegation is that is happening, then the board should determine then that the fact that it's happened; that could be in and of itself a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to remove that member. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, let's look at a draft of that, Mr. Palmer. And thank you for bringing that up, Ekna. Anybody else? What format do you want to take; just comment on the pages in particular? MR. PALMER: Everything that we discussed last meeting is highlighted in dark. Nothing other than that is changed at all. The handout today is to clarify the point about occupational licenses. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Just -- it was good to read the document in whole again, and I made -- these are items that may have been discussed in previous workshops, but I just want to get clarification, page 4. MR. PALMER: Is this the sixth draft? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes, sir. From the one you e-mailed today. Lines 20 through 29, those are elsewhere in the ordinance? That's what's been struck? MR. PALMER: I believe these have been relocated. My recollection is they basically are back in the ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: If we could be sure of that. MR. PALMER: Yeah. I thought it was sort of inappropriate to put this text -- or have this text or remain in a definition. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. My next question-- comment is on page 5-E which is line 23. MS. HU: May I go back to page 4? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Page 4? Okay. MS. HU: Line 20, it says vehicle -- middle of the sentence, "Vehicle permit is affected." ! think it should be consistent with Page 31 September 6, 2001 wording above that and it should be vehicle decal. MR. PALMER: Correct, decal. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Permit's in the office. Good catch, Ekna. You want to go through -- we'll go through pages then as we go? Okay. Page 5-E, line 23, this would, in effect, as written allow the Ritz-Carlton to not have to follow any of the procedures of this committee, because shuttle service is not-- there's no description of that. There's no -- MS. BAISLEY: I think it's complimentary. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes. Complimentary shuttle service. Because as written right now they have one of the largest fleets in the county, if not the largest non-taxi fleet. Either that or we just need to define shuttle services or include that in that section, Mr. Palmer. MR. PALMER: Complimentary is -- right now it's limited. They can only provide the services to their guests. CHAIRMAN PEASE: They do that now, and they charge for that. What I'm saying is the way it's written now they would not need a single permit on a single vehicle. MR. HYDE: That's not true. We do. MR. PALMER: They have general laws that apply to vehicles. They've got to operate the vehicles under Chapter 316. They have to have safe vehicles and so forth. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But under this ordinance -- MR. PALMER: Under this ordinance these are exempted. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's exactly my point. You're exempting -- it says, "Shuttle service" -- which is exempted -- ''owned and operated directly by a hotel or motel limited to transportation services only to its guests." The Ritz owns their own vehicles. They operate it. They charge for it. They're no different than any other company in the transportation business. Page 32 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: They are different because they're not offering services to the general public. That makes them different. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't offer services to the general public. I offer it to private guests at hotels, but I'm still required to meet the criteria. MR. PALMER: You also offer it to somebody that calls you up and wants the service, don't they? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No, not necessarily. Well, in a roundabout way. MR. PALMER: You don't limit your service to people in certain hotels. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We do limit our service to companies that are going to certain resorts. MR. HYDE: No. MR. PALMER: But that doesn't mean they've got to be a resident of the resort or an occupant of the resort at the time. General law, including utility regulation, does not regulate people who provide service to a very limited class of people. This is talking about people who only provide services to people who are then resident in the respective hotel or motel. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't believe it's the intent of this PVAC -- and I may not be speaking for everybody on the committee, but I don't think PVAC wants to provide an exemption for hotels that own their own transportation. MR. PALMER: Well, then take it out. Take the provision out. MR. HYDE: Bryan, I agree with you, but I don't feel that they should be exempt from giving complimentary or charging for it. Whether it's free or not is immaterial to me. If you're supposed to be -- if you're operating a vehicle in Collier County, it needs to be licensed and regulated just like everybody else. And whether you give it for free or whether you charge for it is moot. It needs to have Page 33 September 6, 2001 the same safety standards and needs to conform to the regulations of Collier County, period. End of it. If you don't want to do that, don't. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's increased regulation but, you know -- I assume we have some hotels that do complimentary shuttle. MS. BAISLEY: The Hilton does. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't know. I don't know, but it is a little bit more under our realm, and if nobody has any objection to that -- I don't have an objection to getting rid of the exemption, the provision. Eric represents a hotel -- MR. HYDE: From my standpoint unless there is a state regulation or another county regulation that says that we shouldn't -- we should -- if we're transporting passengers and we have a safety issue or a conduct or a code issue, then -- then it should be regulated just like it's part of transportation just like everybody else. You're in business, you're supposed to do it the right way and conform to standards of the county. MR. PALMER: Well, I don't know where this provision came from. It certainly wasn't my idea. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's from the past probably. MR. PALMER: No. This is being added. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It is being added. Oh, you're right. MR. PALMER: Now shuttle service implies to me where you don't take somebody and say I'll take you down to -- you tell me where you want to go. You want to go down to the drugstore. Shuttle service seems to me to be something that's scheduled and goes from the hotel to the golf course in the morning or goes down to the mall at ten o'clock, something like that. This is not a general service. This is a service for people that want to meet up at the lobby at nine o'clock in the morning and go scuba diving, this kind of thing. And that question is do you want to regulate that? And if you do want to regulate it, you want to regulate those rates? I assume not. Page 34 September 6, 2001 So what do you want to regulate, the quality of the vehicles? CHAIRMAN PEASE: They should fall under the same criteria as everybody else in this room. Anybody have any objection to that? MS. BAISLEY: No. MR. CSOGI: I'd like to see it removed. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. There's three for removing, Mr. Palmer. MR. PALMER: We'll take it out and then F will become E. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes, sir. Next one on page 6. Anything on 5? Go ahead, Ekna. Just yell it out. MS. HU: On line 13 it says vehicles -- I'm sorry. It's talking about the vehicles that we will seat, and it states vehicle seating more than 14 passengers. So under definition for limousine it says -- MR. PALMER: What page are you on? MS. HU: Page 5. MR. PALMER: You said 6. What lines? MS. HU: Thirteen. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I hear where you're coming from, Ekna. MS. HU: The definition of a limousine which is a 20 passenger. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Where is that definition? I saw that. MS. BAISLEY: Page 2. MS. HU: It's the limousine definition. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Palmer, what she's saying -- line 18, page 2, item 2 -- actually line 20, points out that it's 20 seats on the limo. MR. PALMER: Make that 20. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But on five -- MR. PALMER: All right. Want to make that 20? Does it coincide and make that 20? Do those two then jive? Talking about the same things here? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Got a DOT issue there. DOT issue Page 35 September 6, 2001 there. MR. HYDE: Yeah. Department of Transportation regulates anything that I believe was over 14 passengers and becomes a bus, or what they're talking about is this extended Navigator thing. MR. PALMER: Then we wouldn't change the definition -- the number on line 13, because it's a jurisdictional matter by the state and it doesn't turn on 20 vehicles. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It conflicts. It conflicts with page 2. MR. PALMER: Does it? Does it, in fact, conflict? CHAIRMAN PEASE: It says it exempts vehicles seating more than 14. What we're saying is we're not going to oversee limousines that have seating capacity of more than 14. I don't think that's appropriate. MR. HYDE: I.e., the minibus which is a DOT issue. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. MR. PALMER: This -- limousine definition on two could include a vehicle of 14 passengers. It's not more than 20. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I understand, but what we're saying, then, is we're not going to oversee limousines over 14 seats as it's written right now. MS. BAISLEY: But these are saying that are licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission or any other government agency or any government. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But there's a semi-colon after passengers. You want to get rid of the semi-colon we might be okay. Don't look at me like that. MR. HYDE: I don't know semi-colon from not semi-colon. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, after 14 passengers eliminate semi-colon after 14 passengers which is an end of thought, and so it would continue and say, "Vehicle seating more than 14 passengers and transportation activities licensed by the interstate" -- well, there Page 36 September 6, 2001 may be a little modification. MR. PALMER: I don't think the two are even related, the definition of limousine. We're just saying if it has more than 20 people it's not characterized as a limousine. That has nothing to do with the number 14 on line 13 on page 5. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Let me go back, Mr. Palmer, why it went to 20. As you remember, there's a test case right now in New York where the limousine company is attempting to say that they are not regulated by the local jurisdiction because they have a bus. The bus is -- the seating capacity-- it's a limo that's a Navigator stretched beyond 14 seats, and they're classifying it as a bus, so that's why we went to 20. MR. PALMER: Well, the thing about it -- first of all, the law in that state would apply. The question would be, when you break that point and bus to some other state agency regulate you, or is there just a vacuum that you're not regulated in New York or wherever this by the county or the state. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's my impression of what we're doing right here is we're creating a loophole where they're not under any jurisdictions or held accountable to Collier County and they're also not held accountable to DOT. MS. HU: May I give just a little bit of information? As I read and checked regarding that Navigator in particular is that the American Safety Association -- I don't really know which regulates it, but they have not approved that to be a safe vehicle. So they -- they are banned in a couple counties here in Florida and other states as well just because it's just such an unsafe vehicle. CHAIRMAN PEASE: What you have -- and I know where you're headed there a little bit. There's a difference, though, between an illegal vehicle and one that the manufacturer or an association based on the manufacturer suggestions deems unsafe. To be what Page 37 September 6, 2001 they call QVM approved manufacturer, which is Ford where they say you're approved to stretch it the limit to 120 inches which limits the seating capacity. However, it's not illegal to stretch the vehicle beyond the 120 inches. It's just not deemed safe by the manufacturer to go beyond the 120 inches, therefore, the warranty is invalid. So you have -- there's a difference between what may be deemed unsafe by the manufacturer and what may be illegal. But your question and the comment is good. Does this body want to limit the number of inches on a stretch or a seating capacity for a stretch? MR. PALMER: Strikes me that that's kind of beyond the expertise of this board or any analysis anybody in this county has ever done on that issue. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. MR. CSOGI: Further ask a question on that. Since we're talking about limiting seating, what if somebody comes up and wants to put a hot tub in their trunk? How many seats is that? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I think there are provisions in the ordinance about the way the vehicle's laid out. MR. CSOGI: There is? MS. BAISLEY: They need to meet the federal standards. MR. CSOGI: So the federal standards say you can't have a hot tub? MR. PALMER: Everybody's talking about seating capacity rather than number of specific seats. MR. CSOGI: The reason I'm talking about that is there's nothing in here about seat belts. MR. PALMER: No. Seat belts are a question of state law, and if they're superimposed there's nothing this ordinance could add to or detract from that rule. That's a state law. That supersedes this ordinance like any other state law. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Where are we? Page 38 September 6, 2001 MR. HYDE: We don't have a 20-passenger in the county right now, do we? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes. A couple-- a couple. MR. PALMER: Does somebody pick up the regulation or the equivalent of this regulation on a limousine or a large stretch vehicle that exceeds seating capacity of 20 people? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No. DOT on a mini-coach, 20 to 25 -- 20 passenger or more is based on weight really, not length or type of vehicle. So there is a gap there. MR. PALMER: Well, then, the question -- I don't know all these fine lines. If the vehicle is, in fact, providing limousine service in Collier County, what difference does it make whether it's got 20, 21, 24 passengers unless at some point in time the regulatory authority of this ordinance is subsumed by some other body just because of the seating capacity. I mean, because the ordinance is written now ostensibly these people could do these things as long as they have a vehicle that seated 21 people. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Currently as it's written on page 5, any vehicle -- any limousine that seats more than 14 people is not required to meet any of the regulations or requirements that's in this ordinance. So if we eliminate that line-- MR. PALMER: That's what you might want to do. MR. HYDE: You may not want to just -- you may not want to simply go to 14 passengers. You may just want to say whatever -- I don't know how you're going to say it, the number. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Or just eliminate the line, "Vehicle seating more than 14 passengers." That's from the original ordinance. MR. PALMER: Just strike it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And we have no stretches that were that long. Let's do that. MR. PALMER: Just strike those words. Page 39 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Line 13, page 5, Bill, under exemptions we're going to strike the exemption, "Vehicle seating more than 14 passengers." MR. HYDE: You could put that in front of your house. MR. PALMER: The question, though, is what about the word -- the word "20" in line 20 on page 2. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think that's fine. MR. PALMER: You do? But does that mean if ! have a stretch limousine that seats 24, I don't have to worry about getting certificated in Collier County? CHAIRMAN PEASE: If your stretch is longer, yes, it does. MR. PALMER: Does that make sense? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No, it doesn't. MR. PALMER: It might cut just the other way. CHAIRMAN PEASE: What if we eliminate line 20 of page 2 and 217 MR. PALMER: Exactly. Why make the differentiation? CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Done deal. Anybody else on 5? MR. CSOGI: I have a question for you, and I have it in my notes from six months ago. Definitions of limos and taxis and all that. There is a horse and carriage on Fifth Avenue that charges a rate for picking up and transporting people. MR. PALMER: Not a motor vehicle. MR. CSOGI: I know that. It's a vehicle for hire. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We'd have to have a whole new set of rules for horses. MR. CSOGI: Just bringing it up as part of the public. That's my input. These guys are regulated to death, and you know -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't have a desire to regulate the horse-and-carriage business. Page 40 September 6, 2001 (General outburst from audience.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Quiet, please. MR. CSOGI: I'm just saying if they have a means of transportation for hire there should just be something in here. MR. PALMER: My suggestion is if the City of Naples has a problem then let them adopt an ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Anybody in the PVAC have a desire to go into that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Page 6, my comment is on lines 10 through 14. I think that criteria should not just be for alternate member, but for all members. As it's written now, it's just for the alternate member, but I believe it should be if you miss three consecutive meetings without being excused as a regular committee person, not just an alternate. MR. PALMER: Well, that-- you mean as a basis for recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No. I think any member whether they're an alternate or not -- MR. PALMER: I understand that's the distinction. CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- that has three unexcused absences should be automatically terminated. MS. BAISLEY: All we have to do is make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. Right. Okay. MR. CSOGI: Who excuses us now, the Chair? MS. CRUZ: The Chair. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Really? You're unexcusable, Bill. MR. CSOGI: Just checking. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can we make that change? MR. PALMER: I'll just say, "and no member." We'll just add Page 41 September 6, 2001 the words "and no member" in line 10, not limited to alternates. MR. CSOGI: Right. Limiting it to meetings or workshops? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Meetings. Meetings, not workshops, no. Hopefully we'll be out of the workshop business real quick. Anybody else on six? Seven? MS. HU: Me. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Six or seven? MS. HU: Six. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We'd be done a lot faster if you didn't keep bringing up good ideas. MS. HU: Are we -- I just want to be clear on this. Are we going to require an occupational license? MR. PALMER: This ordinance does not require an occupational license. MS. HU: The new ordinance you mean? MR. PALMER: Yeah. This one as written, there is a clarification you have to make on page 23 -- we haven't gotten there yet-- in regard to that issue. MS. HU: Then I question page 6, line 34; it says 32 through 34, "All vehicles for hire must also comply with all the applicable provisions of all county ordinances including sign ordinance and the occupational license tax ordinance." MR. PALMER: Yeah. Right. Exactly. That doesn't mean they've got an occupational license. They've got to get an occupational license if the occupational tax ordinance requires it. If it doesn't, it doesn't. MS. HU: I'm not familiar with occupational licenses; that's why I'm asking you. MR. PALMER: I'm just saying that violation of that ordinance is a violation of this ordinance, but that -- but whether or not you need an occupational license depends on the text of the occupational Page 42 September 6, 2001 license ordinance, not this one. MS. HU: Can you just brief me on what the occupational license does? MR. PALMER: The law of occupational licenses is regard to what's called sims. It's whether or not you have enough of a presence, a physical presence in Collier County to trigger the need to be taxed in Collier County. The occupational license is a tax. When people like contractors come down from Lee County, their office is in Lee County, they do jobs down here, they don't get occupational licenses because they don't have a semi-permanent place of repository of employees or equipment and supplies in Collier County. When you have this requisite sims -- and that's on a case-by-case basis -- that triggers the ability of Collier County to tax you for that presence in Collier County. MS. HU: So they will not have to have an office here in Collier County per this ordinance? MR. PALMER: People who come down from Lee County from time to time do not have to have -- all they've got to have is be able to be contacted by telephone readily with a local call from Collier County. They can have everything else up in that county including their records as long as they will bring those records down to you upon request if you request it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And we did make that modification in a workshop. Anything else on six? Seven? MS. HU: Yes. On line 40 it says, "window cranks," and I'm asking on the taxi inspections, do we have to clear whether it's a passenger window cranks also because we had a lot -- MR. CSOGI: I think you can take cranks out of there and just put "windows." That would satisfy everybody, "operating windows." CHAIRMAN PEASE: And in this day and age we're getting Page 43 September 6, 2001 less and less cranky. Okay. MR. PALMER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Eight? MR. CSOGI: I got 8 too. No. I'm 9. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Anybody on 8? Line 30, identification number. Mr. Palmer, the way it's written -- as I interpret it-- I can put on the back of my window on all my cars, "Excel Destination Management Services 03"; that's my identification number. MR. PALMER: What's your identification number? CHAIRMAN PEASE: I could put in lettering on the back of my car back window if I so wanted I think under this ordinance, "Excel Destination Management Services 03." That's my identification number of the vehicle. I would like to see that --just numerals. That's exactly right. Just numerals. MS. BAISLEY: That's what it was intended to be. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But it could be "Yellow Cab 04" or "Naples Taxi 19." MR. PALMER: I see what you're -- well, we could clarify that and limit it to numerals. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Exactly. Also under 13, line 34 1 believe Bill wanted in their factory-installed brake lights. MR. CSOGI: Yeah. Because some of these guys have cars that there's a brake light afterwards and code enforcement says doesn't work and saying it wasn't part of the car to begin with and they're getting cited for it and it's not their fault. It's stuff from the factory that they have to worry about. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Mr. Palmer, do you see that? MR. PALMER: What line? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Line 34, after turn signals it says "all brake lights"; it should be "all factory installed brake lights." Page 44 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: That raises an issue. If I have a factory- installed light and it gets smashed up and I take it out to somebody and installs it later to a local mechanic, is that a factory-installed light? MR. CSOGI: Yeah. We can put in original equipment which is, "all vehicles for hire shall be originally equipped with proper operating" -- MR. PALMER: We talk about the original equipment, the original equipment and it's replacement. MR. CSOGI: Well, original equipment means original equipment it left the factory with. MR. PALMER: What happens if it goes out of whack and I have the local mechanic take it out and put a new one in? We're talking about that. We are, aren't we? MR. CSOGI: Yeah. We're talking about that. We're not talking about added-on stuff. MR. PALMER: I know but we don't say that. The way it's written now it doesn't limit it to that factory -- you're talking about installed and/or its replacement. MR. CSOGI: Right. Right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. That's the good way. Factory installed or its replacement. That works. Page 9? MR. CSOGI: Just to clear 9 on line 18, I think we should strike through the "inspector repair and/or mechanic repair station" and put after that we should put State of Florida Department of Agricultural Motor Vehicle. That's what I was talking about at the earlier meetings. That means State of Florida Department of Agricultural Motor Repair Shop number. CHAIRMAN PEASE: This has to do with the inspection only; right? Page 45 September 6, 2001 MR. CSOGI: Inspection only completed by somebody that has that number. MR. PALMER: I'll get with you after the meeting, and give me the exact wording. I'm lost. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So long as the repair doesn't have to be made by agricultural. MR. CSOGI: Signed off by a certificated. MR. PALMER: Right now are we talking about-- we talked about this before. Are we talking about a repair station number issued by the State of Florida, or are you talking about something else? MR. CSOGI: It's the same thing. It's called the Department of Agricultural Motor Repair Shop number, MV number. It starts with the letters MV. MR. PALMER: All right. I'll get with you after the meeting. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Anything else on 9? Ten? MS. HU: I have something on 10. Line 23, the very last words, just a typo, should have an N at the end for 8. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I have a bigger little deal on that. From line 21 to 24, isn't that the same as line 35 to 41 ? And aren't those the two same things? In other words, the ID that's supposed to be in the vehicle-- also-- MR. PALMER: Lines 21 through 24? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. Wouldn't the receipt for cash payment available upon request -- should also be included on the operator's identification card? MR. PALMER: Oh, no. Now, you're really going to cloud up that card. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But it needs to be. MR. PALMER: This is talking about something a passenger can see from the backseat. Page 46 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE' Well, that's also what the other is. It says -- line 37 says, "issued by the county so that it is clearly visible to all passengers." It should be on one card, Mr. Palmer. We do not - - we do not need all these cars getting junked up with more and more stickers. MR. PALMER: Excuse me. The last time I saw this ID card it did not have the words, "Receipt for Cash Payment Available Upon Request." CHAIRMAN PEASE: I agree. My point is it should be on there with the other. That's the only thing missing that's the only thing we need. MR. PALMER: And then there's another thing, "How was your service?" CHAIRMAN PEASE: That is -- MS. HU: That is in the current. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That is the ID. MR. PALMER: All right. Whatever you want to do it's fine with me. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm suggesting we put one sentence more on that card, which isn't going to junk it up, that just says, "Receipt for Cash Payment Available Upon Request" on the same permit. MR. CSOGI' We have a lot of room on the card. CHAIRMAN PEASE' MS. BAISLEY: No. CHAIRMAN PEASE' Yeah. Anybody object to that? Oh, thank you. Thank you. Staff will do that then. Eleven? Twelve? I'm looking to you, Ekna. I have something on 12, 18 and 19. My question was affixed to the bumper. Can that -- can that be one of those -- I assume this violates a sign ordinance. Can that be like in some cities where they have a metal sign that's bracketed to the bumper? Is that in violation of a sign ordinance, because as you read this it says, Page 47 September 6, 2001 "Affixed to the bumper," and that's the first thing I thought of was an attached sign to the bumper, which isn't our intent. MS. BAISLEY: Like a little plate that holds different permits? MR. PALMER: I don't know what the sign ordinance says, but we can get around that by saying "notwithstanding anything else in the sign ordinance, this applies." CHAIRMAN PEASE: But affixed to bumper, that doesn't apply to an attachment to the car, then? Attached adhesively? MR. PALMER: Well, no, affixed could be permanently or by magnetism or whatever. It does not say "permanently affixed." CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's true; it doesn't. MR. PALMER: Whatever you want to say, we can say it. MS. BAISLEY: I think we should make it permanently affixed so we don't get into the magnet thing. Those could be switched around too easily. That's why we put stickers on in the first place. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't -- don't want to see an attachment to the bumper either. Affixed can -- I guess what we're saying is affixed is pretty vague. MR. PALMER: Affixed has been in the ordinance since day one. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Doesn't mean -- Why don't we make it permanently affixed to MS. BAISLEY: the factory bumper? MR. PALMER: Permanently affixed-- MR. CSOGI: Talking about the name, not the decal. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Company name. MS. BAISLEY: Are you talking about the name? MR. PALMER: It says trade name. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Company name. MR. CSOGI: On the front license plate and/or in an area not to exceed -- Page 48 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: It used to say anywhere behind the rear-most seat. That was the old text. It doesn't have to go on the bumper; wherever you want to put it. MS. BAISLEY: It didn't say bumper before, did it? MR. PALMER: No. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We have some people have it on the trunk. MS. BAISLEY: On the rear. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does it matter to us really where they put it? MR. CSOGI: I think it should just be uniform. CHAIRMAN PEASE: How about we stop the sentence at line 18 in total area, period. And forget about -- no, that does not cut it because it doesn't describe the location on the car. How about on the rear of the vehicle? MR. PALMER: But not in the window -- or what about that? Not in or on the window. What about that issue? CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's already addressed elsewhere in there, but it wouldn't hurt to put it in again. MR. PALMER: The way we handled this before, the stickers we talked about readily visible. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Not the stickers, trade name. MR. PALMER: Well, we're talking about the trade name. The way they handled it is to say you could put it anywhere you want except the window as long as it's clearly visible when somebody is behind the vehicle, and let the operator determine where it's going to go as long as it's not going to go in or on the window. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. I'm in favor of that. So then are you saying we can put a period after total area on line 18? MR. PALMER: No. No. That doesn't even address the question of windows. Page 49 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE: You'll write that, though? MR. PALMER: I'll clean it up. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All right. Anything else on 127 MR. CSOGI: We're going to leave bumper in it -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: No. Take bumper out. On the trunk deck. Twelve? Thirteen? Fourteen? Fifteen? MR. PALMER: Let me go back to 13. I recommend that we clarify line 11 slightly. It occurred to me that "resemble" could be cleaned up. What we're talking about here is this idea of competing with taxicab rates. I thought I'd like something along the lines of "resemble or otherwise compete with." People -- lawyers can quibble with the word "resemble." Just a --just a little tweak. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I have no problem with that. Fourteen? Fifteen? Sixteen? Seventeen? Eighteen? Nineteen? Twenty? Mr. Palmer, lines 27 through 32, you want to talk about the change? MR. PALMER: I don't actually have a copy of the change. You've got it in front of you. That is to make it clear that this ordinance does not purport to give a required occupational license beyond what is required in the Occupational License Tax Ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: in the amount has 300.000. MR. PALMER: Yup. CHAIRMAN PEASE: two? MR. HYDE: Is-- CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. HYDE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Twenty-three? Okay. Twenty-one? Line 12 has got-- Shouldn't that be a comma? Sure should. Big difference there. Chair recognizes Mr. Hyde. Okay. Anything else on 21 ? Twenty- MR. PALMER: We've got to clarify line 17. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Of page 23? MR. PALMER: Uh-huh. Right. Now the ordinance says -- I Page 50 September 6, 2001 left it out inadvertently -- it says, "Valid Collier County Occupational License for the permit year." This needs to say "if applicable" or not -- or another way you could handle it is require the occupational license -- if they have an occupational license, for example, in Lee County. In other words, if they have an applicable occupational license either in Lee County or Collier County show it to the staff. Do it either way, or you could limit it to Collier County occupational license provided it has a Collier County occupational license, and we know that some businesses come down here but don't have -- this right now implies that in every case -- every certificated company will necessarily have a Collier County occupational license which is an incorrect assumption. So how do you want to handle it? Let's assume they only have a Lee County occupational license. Do you want them to show it to staff?. MS. BAISLEY: They're not required of them to show it to us to get a certificate. It won't be. CHAIRMAN PEASE: He's saying it can be. MR. PALMER: It would be if we put it in here. It's a prerequisite to get a certificate. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm neutral. MS. HU: May I? If-- if they're not going to be having to have to get an occupational license here in Collier County, then I suppose they have to have an occupational license elsewhere. If, for example, they are doing business in Lee County, they would have to have an occupational license there. MR. PALMER: I can't imagine anybody operating in the State of Florida in this kind of business without an occupational license someplace in the State of Florida. MS. HU: So I would think that they would need to give us a copy of an occupational license wherever their office is situated so Page 51 September 6, 2001 that we can, in fact, confirm that they are not going to be doing their primary business in Collier County. I believe that's why we are not going to require occupational licenses here in Collier County; is that right? MR. PALMER: Well, a lot of businesses have occupational licenses in 10, 15, 20 counties. The question is if somebody has only a license in Lee County and they don't have sims in Collier County but they want to get certificated in Collier County, do you want to see the Lee County occupational license? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Eric says yes. Pat? MS. BAISLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Bill? That's a majority. MR. PALMER: I'll make this clear that whatever occupational license is applicable they will show it to her. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We can enforce that? MS. CRUZ: No, we can't. MR. PALMER: Why can't we? MS. CRUZ: What is the question again? MR. PALMER: If somebody comes in and has to be certificated, they show you an occupational license for a vehicle-for- hire business for some county in Florida. MS. CRUZ: We couldn't enforce that. MR. PALMER: Why couldn't you? MS. CRUZ: We can only enforce Collier County. We could care less if they have occupational -- if they're operating illegally in another county. We couldn't enforce it. MS. BAISLEY: But if they don't bring you one, they're not going to be able to get a certificate in this county. MS. CRUZ: It's not required. We're not requiring them. MR. PALMER: Then that's the question then; are we? MS. CRUZ: According to the changes, we're not going to Page 52 September 6, 2001 require them to get an occupational license in this county if they're going to be operating in another county. We just want -- MR. PALMER: No. That's not what I said. If they've got a sims in Collier County, they've got to get an occupational license in Collier County. MS. CRUZ: If they've got sims in Collier County, yes. MR. PALMER: Yes. MS. CRUZ: But if they only -- if they operate -- if their site -- if their principal location is in another county, we're not going to require them to get an occupational license in Collier County. MR. PALMER: If they don't have sims in Collier County. They may have occupational licenses in 25 counties. MS. CRUZ: Right. And we don't care if they do or not. We cannot enforce that if they fail to obtain an occupational license in another county. MR. PALMER: It's up to you. MS. CRUZ: We cannot enforce it. MR. PALMER: You can enforce it because you can say, "If you don't produce an occupational license from somewhere in Florida, you don't get a certificate from Collier County." MS. CRUZ: Is the concern whether they got an occupational license in another county or do they have a certificate to operate in Collier County? MR. PALMER: It's up to you. I cannot conceive how anybody can operate a taxicab in Florida without having an occupational license in some county. I think it would be a legal impossibility. MS. HU: I'm just asking because if somebody comes to me and "says, I want to apply for a Collier County taxi license -- certificate to operate, I already have an occupational license with Lee County, and I want to come into Collier County and do business here," how do we know they do, in fact, have an office? Do we care if they do have an Page 53 September 6, 2001 office or not? MR. PALMER: Occupational licensing cares. I don't think we make determinations necessarily, but in most cases you will know whether or not they have a situs in -- if they're operating out of a house, they obviously need a home occupational license. The only business that basically has a office in Lee County or Glades County and may come into Collier County from time to time. If they leave their vehicles in Collier County, they need a Collier County occupational license. These ought to be simple fact determinations. "What are you going to do, Mr. Applicant, are you coming down from Lee County and going back every night to Lee County or aren't you? If you're not, you need a Collier County occupational license." CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does the ordinance as written require Collier County to show -- it doesn't; right? MR. PALMER: Yes. Right now it does. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The new one? MR. PALMER: No, the existing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Why would we ask someone from outside the county to show it if we don't ask the people in the county to show it? MR. PALMER: We do ask the people in the county to show it. We do that now. It's right now the Collier County occupational license. They somehow got deleted. Now, it reads, "valid Collier County occupational license." MS. BAISLEY: Why can't it say "Occupational License, State of Florida"? MR. PALMER: That's what we're discussing. MR. HYDE: However, when we go through and people that are coming before the board, in order to operate their business, "Do you Page 54 September 6, 2001 intend on having a presence here? Is it overnight? Is it you're going to open an office with a garage and everything else?" Once you have sims, then you have to have an occupational license here in the county. If you're not and your presence is only once a day, once a month, then it's a moot issue. MS. HU: Do we need anything to prove that they are, in fact, not going to keep any vehicles here? Do they need to prove they are renting a commercial space in Lee County and prove that they are, in fact, not going to be keeping vehicles here in Collier County, I guess is my question. MR. PALMER: The thing about it -- people that are doing it right will find out whether or not they need an occupational license. They'll go to occupational license, they'll tell them what they're going to do, and they have to decide you do or you don't need an occupational license. MS. BAISLEY: Aren't they going to make a statement under oath when they apply? MR. PALMER: Actually, they do when they apply. They should know one way or the other by statement of fact I do or I do not need an occupational license in Collier County. In fact, it could be a misstatement of fact if it's wrong. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Where are we? MS. HU: Page 23. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I know that, but where are we headed? MS. BAISLEY: I think we should just change it to occupational license, leave out the county. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Eric, same thing? MR. HYDE: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Bill? MR. CSOGI: Yes. MR. PALMER: Got it. Page 55 September 6, 2001 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Twenty-five? MR. CSOGI: CHAIRMAN MR. CSOGI: CHAIRMAN MR. CSOGI: Anything else on 23? Twenty-four? Objection on 25. PEASE: Twenty-five. Go ahead, Bill. Line 28. PEASE: Okay. Got to submit a complaint to the county. It was administrator; now it's manager? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Isn't the definition of manager -- MR. PALMER: It means staff. MR. CSOGI: Code enforcement? MS. CRUZ: Yes. MR. CSOGI: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's -- actually the definition is on page 2, Bill, lines 40 through 42. MR. CSOGI: The question I got about that, too, is sworn complaint -- what if they get a call over the phone? CHAIRMAN PEASE: We went through that on the last workshop, and the flip side to that -- here's the deal. On one side we're giving people in a vehicle a number to call for a complaint; on the other side it doesn't do any good because it's not a sworn statement. It's ludicrous, but the flip side to that is that every taxi operator or charter company in the county can turn in the other one at whim just for harassment and the sworn part prevents that or minimizes that. So this is why I said I think it's a joke that we put in this thing in the back of the car any way, because if they call in a complaint, it's not sworn. So then Mr. Palmer recommended we have to get a sworn statement. MR. PALMER: I did not. I recommended that we get a sworn statement only if we want to go forward with some kind of administrative hearing that could lead to the suspension or revocation Page 56 September 6, 2001 of a permit. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Oh, so we can follow up on the -- unless it does that, then we're okay to follow up on that. MR. PALMER: That was the intent. For example, people call up all the time about complaints. They pay a fine and they admit it. They get it fixed in five days. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking about when something formalizes when somebody is really at risk, and it's also a question of proof. What you get is you get these things going on, and the complainant says, "I never said that. What are you doing this to this man for? I didn't say those things to you." MR. CSOGI: I agree with you. The reason I'm bringing this up is if they travel and are out of state, can they get a sworn statement from their home state? MS. BAISLEY: It says they can send a letter. MR. PALMER: It doesn't matter where it comes from. MS. BAISLEY: The complaint can be in the form of a letter. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Why do we need the sworn statement-- Mr. Palmer, what he's saying is in the ordinance you only need a sworn statement-- MR. PALMER: If it isn't nailed down that specifically, I will clarify that for you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. I don't know, but if you could research that. My question for staff is, Section 142.58, the biggest complaint staff has said to this committee is they can't enforce the ordinance because it doesn't give them teeth. My question for staff is, does Section 142.58 now gives you the teeth to go out and do what you need to do properly? MS. BAISLEY: How did they issue citations if they didn't have teeth to do that in this ordinance? The existing ordinance that they claim they didn't have any teeth for, how did they cite people? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I don't want to go there. I just want Page 57 September 6, 2001 to ask, this ordinance, the new one gives you the power and the authority and everything you need -- everything you need to do your job properly is in this ordinance under discipline? MS. HU: Can we answer that at recess? CHAIRMAN PEASE: You don't know? You need to confer with Michelle? MS. CRUZ: Can we get back to the board with this? CHAIRMAN PEASE: We're not going to vote on this today. There still is enough -- there's enough that we're going -- we're going to not hold a public comment on the next go-around at the next meeting, October 6, I believe it is we're going to nail this thing down. October 1 st. Thank you. All right. MR. PALMER: I want to make one clarification. This ordinance clearly states that an investigation of a violation can be instituted by a sworn complaint or upon knowledge however obtained that raises staffs suspicion that a violation has occurred or is occurring. So it doesn't take much to start an investigation about a violation. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It looks to me there's a procedure in place. Do you get that, Pat, that there is a step one, step two, step three? MR. PALMER: The question about the complaint in subparagraph A is prerequisite to initiating disciplinary proceedings. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But, you know, there's other things we can do too. I've asked -- I think I've asked for at each meeting we have I want to know the complaints that have been made and what the status is on every quarter. MS. BAISLEY: That hasn't happened. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We're going to make that part of our regular standard operating procedure starting with the October meeting. Page 58 September 6, 2001 MS. HU: But you're going to ask what the status is? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Actually, I already did that with you last month. I asked for it to be part of the agenda with -- I want to know what complaints were lodged against what companies and then what's the status. What action have you taken? The biggest problem is we haven't been able to monitor. We haven't been able to -- we haven't -- this committee has not monitored staff in the followup on that, and I want to be able to do that. I want to know these are the complaints in the last 90 days, and here's what we've done so far, and here's what's next. MS. HU: I can tell you the status right now. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't want to know right now. I want that on the agenda for the next meeting. MS. HU: We can't do anything until the PVAC tells us to do anything. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We went through that, Mr. Palmer. What they're contending is that they can't do anything on the current ordinance until PVAC tells them. MR. PALMER: Well, the fact of the matter is, you can request that kind of information, and they can say, yes, we'll give it to you, or, no, they won't. Right now you have no direct authority to demand it, but you can certainly ask for it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Here's what we're going to do then. Because of the way that staff is treating the current ordinance, then let's go ahead and we'll talk about each one and we'll give staff direction on it then if that's that what you think you have to have. I don't know if we're allowed to do that. MR. PALMER: That will be a curious thing to put into an ordinance, frankly. Normally, these things work themselves out. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm not suggesting we put it in the ordinance, because we're going to make sure that staff can work Page 59 September 6, 2001 within the parameters of the new ordinance. I'm saying on their statement that they can't do anything currently on the past ordinance. They're not able to do it without PVAC approval. But anyway, I digressed. We'll deal with the disciplinary issue then. If you can get with Michelle, see if there's any question about anything in this ordinance that you think you cannot -- you have no authority to do or work under, please get with Mr. Palmer right away so we can sew that up. MR. PALMER: Let me make a suggestion here. I recommend -- and you can take it for what it's worth -- I recommend we take the word "sworn" out and just insert the word "written." CHAIRMAN PEASE: Written? MR. PALMER: Generally people don't write written reports unless they're well founded. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'll buy that, Bill. That's line 24. MR. PALMER: Lines 24 and 26. MR. CSOGI: So it can be anonymous? MR. PALMER: Doesn't say anything about anonymous. MR. CSOGI: You have to specify time, date, place, person's name, their address, their phone number to get ahold of them. It's not here; it just says written complaint. CHAIRMAN PEASE: A letter saying Joe Blow did this. MR. PALMER: We can add that if you want. Each complaint must have name, address, or telephone number of the complaining party. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I agree. Let's go with that. MS. BAISLEY: Because you might need to contact that person to get further details. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We'll eliminate "sworn" to "written," but we'll put some parameters on written. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Page 26? Twenty-seven? Twenty-eight? Page 60 September 6, 2001 Twenty-nine? MR. PALMER: I have a suggestion here. It may be superfluous, but it won't do any harm either, to add on line 24 that the board can request assistance from the sheriffs department when deemed necessary or words to that effect. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Where is that? MR. PALMER: This is on line -- page 29 at the end of line 24 (as read): "This article may be enforced by any Collier County Enforcement Board Code Enforcement staff if the case is referred by PVAC staff to the Code Enforcement Board." Add on there also, "staff may recommend assistance from the sheriffs office in enforcing this ordinance when deemed necessary." I think that goes without saying, but I don't think it does any harm to put it in here. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Great. Any other thing on 29? Thirty? Okay. On this October 1 meeting, I don't want to rehash all of the things that we've already went through all these workshops. So the only thing we're going to focus on is the changes -- the highlighted changes from Mr. Palmer of what we discussed just now. MR. PALMER: That's all I'll highlight. In fact, that's what I've been doing all along, but that doesn't preclude the board from addressing anything it pleases. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So if the committee has any other comment or suggested modification, I'd strongly encourage you to exercise it now if we see something outrageous. MR. PALMER: I'll get this to staff by Friday afternoon, the revised ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Staff. Any other comments from staff'?. Any comments from the committee? MR. HYDE: Yeah. The only question still had -- and I'm getting from Tom, if the rates have to come back-- charter, if that was actually on there. I didn't see that on there. Page 61 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: I'm told it's not in there. I'm told the only question there is if it goes down to such a level it gets to competition. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Meeting is October 1st at what time? MS. HU: Nine o'clock in the morning, the boardroom. MR. PALMER: Do you want to express an opinion on this question about filing or not filing or leaving alone the question about charter service rates? Because right now it's just up in the air. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We can put it on the agenda for the next one. Based on -- only if there's something in the provision right now that discusses updating. MR. PALMER: I'm told that there's nothing that addresses reporting or even initially filing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't have -- I think -- I thought the general consensus was we did not want to get into rate modifications being applied to every annual or anything like that. MR. PALMER: Issue was being able to ask somebody his rates if somebody is claiming him of competing directly with taxicabs by reducing or discounting his rates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think we were open to that, ifI remember right. We were against that it had to be limited to the rate posted. MR. PALMER: Or even a filing. Apparently, they don't have to give a filing anymore. Leave that alone. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Finally, there's a complaint about charter rate being equivalent to a -- similar to a taxi rate. That could be researched. We have no trouble with that. MR. PALMER: It's really just a question of trying to investigate a case on the event triggered by some -- by that allegation. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. And we're open to having verbage that allows staff to get that information. They probably have the right to get some records. Page 62 September 6, 2001 MR. PALMER: Not expressly. I could probably put in here a matter of a couple words that would take care of that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm open to that. I think everybody is. All right. I call the meeting officially closed. Do I have a motion? MR. CSOGI: I will motion. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second? MR. PALMER: You don't need that. You can adjourn. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:55 p.m. PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRYAN L.S. PEASE, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD Page 63