PVAC Minutes 10/04/2001 ROctober 4, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF
THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 4, 2001
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Public Vehicle Advisory
Committee, in and for the Collier County, having onducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:08 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in
Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Bryan L.S. Pease
Pat Baisley Eric Hyde
William J. Csogi
ABSENT:
Clifford W. Flegal, Jr.
ALSO PRESENT:
Maria Cruz, Code Enforcement
Ekna Hu, Code Enforcement
Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Good morning. I'd like to call the
Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee to order. Just a
reminder, please -- all cell phones, radios, pagers, please make sure
they're off, and could staff-- could we call the roll, please.
MS. HU: Eric Hyde.
MR. HYDE: Here.
MS. HU: Patricia Baisley.
MS. BAISLEY: Here.
MS. HU: Bryan Pease.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Here.
MS. HU: Clifford Flegal. Let the record show Clifford is
absent. Bill Csogi.
MR. CSOGI: Here.
MS. HU: For the record, my name is Ekna Hu, code
enforcement.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have any additions or-- or--
additions or deletions to the agenda? Okay. Do we have an approval
of the agenda?
MS. BAISLEY: I'd like to make a motion that we approve the
agenda.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MR. HYDE: Second.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
favor, aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
Made by Pat Baisley.
Second by Eric Hyde. All those in
Opposed.
for August 7th, August 21st, September 6th.
for approval?
Motion carried. Approval of the minutes
Do we have a motion
Page 2
October 4, 2001
MR. CSOGI: I'll make motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion by William Csogi. Do we have
a second?
MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second by Pat Baisley. All those in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
have any public comment?
MS. HU: Yes, we do. Dan Schriner.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: We have Dan Schriner. What is it,
Shreiber?
MS. HU: Schriner.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Schriner. If you could come forward
and speak in either location, and you have five minutes, please.
MR. SCHRINER: I tell you I filled it out because I thought the
meeting would proceed before. ! would like to pass at this time.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Do we have any other public
speakers?
MS. HU: Yes. Jack Bridenthal.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: Good morning. Jack Bridenthal, USA
Taxi. It's a little too early to speak. I -- as Dan did, I expected things
to go on before we had to speak. I have -- think you've got an
excellent ordinance. Of course, the last one wasn't bad. It just wasn't
ever enforced. I think there are large losses of revenue due to
nonenforcement that should have been taken five, six years ago. I've
got complaints dating back six years nothing's ever been done about.
On page 8 1 still have an objection to rear windows operating in
Motion carried. Public comment. Do we
Page 3
October 4, 2001
power window cars. I think it's a danger, especially to the migrant
families with little kids that let them play in the backseat. I don't
want to chop some kids neck and get sued for it. We buy cars with
disabled rear windows, or if they are power windows, we disable
them on every car so that they're up and stay up. It'd be a different
thing in sedans and limos with the quality of people you have, but not
with us. That's the only thought I have on the whole ordinance. I
think it's perfect.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. Do we have any other
public comment?
MS. HU: Yes. Michael Mendel.
MR. MENDEL: Hi there. My name is Mike Mendel from A
Okay Taxi. Again, I'd like to say that I think the ordinance overall is
excellent, and we do definitely need a little support in enforcing all
the rules in here. The only thing I saw in here that I would like to
comment on is on page 3. As far as the driver-- you know, what it
means to be a driver. I'd like to see that they need a commercial
driver's license in there. It's mentioned further on in the ordinance,
but since this is a definition of what a driver is, we had a problem
with sheriffs -- talking with sheriffs and stuff on whether people
were properly licensed to drive a taxi, and there's a few people out
here in our industry that don't think that they need a commercial
license to drive so -- and we had this discussion with the sheriff, and
they went through the old ordinance and even though it's in there --
and I even showed them a few days later, they couldn't find it right
away. So I thought it would be helpful if it was in the definition of
what a driver is supposed to have.
Also, in case these gentlemen out here and ladies don't know, we
just rewrote our insurance this past month. My insurance rates just
doubled. Okay. And we're -- we're a charter company, happen to
have "taxi" in our name which we're going to change for you guys
Page 4
October 4, 2001
very shortly, because it was to our benefit if taxi doesn't show up in
our name as far as insurance rates go. We were lucky. We were able
to get rates as through a limo company who treated us as a charter
club -- charter company. But just so you guys know, anybody who's
in the taxi business, we were getting quotes anywhere from 5,000 and
$10,000 a car. Okay? Just a warning. I don't know how close you
guys are to rewrites, but just so you know.
With that in mind, there are companies that we compete against
directly on Marco Island that skirt the laws. Okay? I've talked to
people within -- within the county that, you know, if I wanted to put a
complaint in they basically told me right out that nothing was going
to be done about it, so I was basically wasting my time trying to put
in a complaint. These companies, they cut corners. They do whatever
they can to keep their cost down, and what that does is affect how we
want to run our business.
In other words, I charge $45 to go to Fort Myers, or we used to.
With this rate increase on my insurance, I have to go up to 50 bucks.
Okay? If my competitors stay below and 50 bucks isn't-- and we're
struggling. I just want to cover my cost on this insurance thing, and
$45 for our run to Fort Myers really is cutting it as close as I can. All
right. So I'm still not making a heck of a lot of money on this
running 50 bucks with my insurance increase, and with that in mind,
if you guys don't enforce these rules, you're still allowing my
competition to run at a lower cost. Okay.
It's really important that we have a level playing field here for
all companies right now. It's just real important. So we're hoping for
as much support from everybody as we can get.
Let's see. Also I'd like to add, if we could, I know there's not a
lot of companies in Collier County that are taxi companies. If we
could get a letter just as a reminder letter for these meetings, I would
have loved to have been in on the workshops and stuff to go over
Page 5
October 4, 2001
this. I was -- the last time we did it because we had just gotten into
business, and I really enjoyed myself then.
It's my fault, but I missed it, because I know a notice was in the
paper, but a complimentary letter would be wonderful. Just to
different companies just to remind us that we have meetings coming
up because I would really like to start coming to these on a steady
basis.
And, let's see, what was I going to say? Also for the east coast
on Fort Lauderdale and Miami, they're charging us for stickers to do
any type of pickup or dropoffs over there. Okay. I don't -- to my
knowledge, I don't think that we charge any of their companies any
type of fee to come over here to drop off and pick up outside of what
the fees would be at the airport for an individual thing. I know that
we only have the Naples Airport to worry about for this county, but
for Fort Lauderdale, for example, we're required to get a $50 sticker
for the year, okay, to be able to go on to those grounds whether to
drop off or pick up. It doesn't matter.
And if you're looking for a little extra revenue, I don't think it
would hurt to require that from any other company from out of
county, especially from the east coast. We have to get a special
sticker. In Miami it's even worse. We have to go -- there's a $500
charge to get electronic stuff to be put on our car, and then they
charge us to go in or out. They read the electronic -- electronic
beeper and then we get charged for either going -- any time you go
into the airport you get charged for it in or out. So -- you know, I just
-- something of a suggestion to kind of look at and say, "Hey, you
know, maybe we can level that off a little bit too." If we're -- if
they're taking advantage of us, we might as well get something from
them. We don't make an awful lot of east coast trips, and it's an
inconvenience, but it's an extra cost too, and it all goes to the bottom
line. And that's all I have. Thanks.
Page 6
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
comment?
MS. CRUZ: Yes. Good morning.
Next public speaker is Doug Wilcox.
Thank you very much. Any other public
For the record, Maria Cruz.
MR. WILCOX: Good morning. For the record, I'm Doug
Wilcox, and I'm here representing the RSW Taxi Limo Association
and, I rose to speak on this item at the last meeting, on September 6, I
think it was, last meeting. And when it came up for the discussion by
the -- the committee, I feel that my comments had been
mischaracterized, and I want to go back and hit it again.
Basically, my issue is one of duplicate permitting. We're
permitted at the airport. My organization is a group of people who
work the demand line system at the airport, about ten companies.
Now, part and parcel of that is that we have to have insurance. We
have to have photo IDs. We get inspected. One of the problems that
I'm having with this ordinance is the duplication of all that, and I
want to stop, and I want to hit it again.
This ordinance requires that everybody carry 100/300 in liability
limits. The airport requires that we carry half a million and two
million five. So we're somewhere between five and eight times
tougher on the standards at the airport than the local ordinance is
here. Now, in terms of getting a photo ID, staff is asking that we get
some sort of sworn affidavit from somebody saying that they're of
good moral character, and that'll be kept on file. Well, at the airport
you need to fill out a three-page affidavit, then the airport police
department goes through an -- an actual background check on these
people, and you see the difference here.
Now, on one hand we're going to file a piece of paper, and we've
got to go through a bureaucratic gauntlet. On the other hand, there's
actually some action taken on the other side and the standards
imposed by the airport are, again, more stringent.
Page 7
October 4, 2001
Now, I've had drivers go in to pick up their permit, and they're
arrested. They bounced a check four years ago. They're taken into
custody. Now, you're not suggesting that staff is going to do
background checks on all these affidavits coming in from-- from
drivers? It's just -- it's just part of that bureaucratic gauntlet that I --
that I resent.
In terms of inspections, this ordinance is saying we're going to
get an annual inspection once a year. Well, we get inspected every
month at the airport, every 30 days. There's a standard that's 12 times
more stringent than what the code is going to go through here.
Now, a couple of the other speakers here this morning have
raised an interesting point and that is one of enforcement. If you've
got enforcement, you need about a page and a half in this ordinance.
You need to set out what the standards are: Class D license,
commercial insurance, clean MVR for three years, clean police
record for five years, get your sticker, go into business. But if you've
got the enforcement it would make sense and then say, "All right,.
well if you're outside of that-- if you're not in compliance with the
ordinance, what are the penalties?" Forfeiture of the car or $500 fine
for the driver and $500 fine for the driver, and if the owner's the
driver pay both fines.
Now, you put a cruiser out on the street for two days a month for
the first three months and then one day a month after that, and the
buzz will get around, and your gypsy problem is over. It's solved.
And I understand that the -- the basis, the fundamental problem that
we're trying to deal with here is unlicensed gypsy cabs. Well, what
we've got here is a bunch of bureaucratic masturbation. We're going
through a lot of motion. Some people obviously feel pretty good
about it, but when the whole thing is said and done it doesn't
accomplish anything. You have the enforcement, you don't need all
of this. If you have the enforcement, a page and a half will do it.
Page 8
October 4, 2001
Now, again, what I asked for at the last meeting is an exemption.
I noticed that in this ordinance there was a whole section plagiarized
from the Lee County ordinance, and I was involved with Audrey
Vance when that ordinance was being written up there. I mean, what
am I talking about here? There -- there is a whole variety of crimes
that, you know, we don't want people driving cabs. Well, okay, fine,
let's look at them; murder, manslaughter, violation under the RICO
Statutes. Well, seriously, what are the chances that somebody who's
convicted of murder is going to be out ofjail inside of three years?
They have taxis in jail now? I don't think so. So what have you
accomplished with that section? Nothing.
And with respect to drivers filing -- filing affidavits about their
moral character, do you suppose John Gotti would have a problem
swearing out an affidavit attesting to his moral character? I don't
think so. I mean, basically we're running through a lot of stuff which
makes it more difficult and more expensive for legitimate operators
to operate legitimately, but you're not doing anything about your
gypsy cabs, because the key there is enforcement. You have it or you
don't. And, I mean, this 31-page ordinance can be 300 pages.
Without enforcement -- without the cooperation of the Collier County
Sheriff, you know, like I say, it's bureaucratic masturbation. It doesn't
accomplish a thing.
Now, when that ordinance was passed up in Lee County, I was
able to prevail upon Audrey Vance to grant us an exemption. Why?
Because we're already held to standards way higher than those asked
for in the ordinance. I'm making the same appeal to you. Be
reasonable. Be sensible. You're not accomplishing anything here
with this. You're just making us run through paperwork. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. Any other public comment?
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir. Steven Dersha.
(Inaudible audience member.)
Page 9
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Please come forward and identify
yourself.
MR. POTTER: Hi. My name is Kirk Potter. I'm with Med-
Assure, Nonemergency Transport Service. Actually, I'm horrible at
public speaking, so I wrote my comments out. I hope that I can read
them.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MR. POTTER: Okay.
You have five minutes.
Great. I have a couple copies if you
guys want to take a look at it at all. Collier County has experienced
tremendous growth over the past few years. In fact, it's the second
fastest marketing statistical area in the United States as per the
Economic Development Council. Although this is great news for
business and industry, it is not without its share of concerns, and it is
with this in mind that this document is penned.
The nonemergency transport industry has been experiencing
rapid growth in the past year. In February of 2000, there were a total
of six nonemergency vehicles servicing the Naples and Collier
County area, and on top of that there are seven facilities that also
have their own vehicles that service their own communities.
Although the summer demand is low, the demand of the
previous season insured that there was enough work to keep the
different operations running. The revenue generated through the
season would carry the different companies through the leaner
summer months. These lean months during the summer became the
hotbed in which competition is forged, and this drove the individual
companies to better themselves and to attract more customers. And
this atmosphere brings out the best in our industry and insures that
the citizens of Collier County are receiving the best services and the
best prices.
Over the past year the balance it gives Collier County its
service-related advantages has been burdened and stands to be
Page 10
October 4, 2001
challenged. Since March two of the companies who service Collier
County have each added a van and another company. Ours has
entered the market with two vans, and we've subsequently purchased
two more. That takes the total number of vans servicing the Collier
County area from 6 to 12, basically doubling the amount of vans in
the market.
The supply has doubled while the current seasonal demand,
especially due to current events, is expected to be lower than it has
been in the past few years. It is with this in mind that we the --
who've shown up here must object to TLC Cabulance entering the
marketplace at this time.
The entrance of another operating entity in the Collier County
area will increase the supply in the local area to a point that would be
troublesome for the industry and the serice that the Collier County
residents have come to enjoy.
We see the same scenario in Lee County. Although the prices of
the same service in Lee County tend to be somewhat cheaper than
that of Collier County, the services to the citizens in Lee County
suffer. The unabated entrance of nonemergency transport services
into that county have lowered the standard of vehicle appearance and
maintenance. It has also lowered wages to the point that it is highly
improbable that the best qualified personnel would be attracted to the
industry. These services should be protected for the citizens of
Collier County.
The nonemergency market is going through some drastic
changes, and let's protect it for the industry we've created, the
businesses that currently participate in that industry, and most
importantly for the citizens of Collier County. That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you.
MS. CRUZ: No more public speakers.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All of these topics relating to the
Page 11
October 4, 2001
ordinance will -- will be discussed. We appreciate your public
comment. We appreciate -- appreciate everyone's participation-- still
not right.
MS. BAISLEY: We know what you meant.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I quit. We're really pleased with the
turnout and your involvement and your input, and we will discuss all
these items when we get to the ordinance.
Public comment is closed and the first agenda item is requests.
Graham Transportation requesting a change in color scheme. Is
somebody from Graham Transportation here? Please step forward
and identify yourself.
MR. GRAHAM: Good morning. I'm C. C. Graham, president
Corporate Cab.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. And you want to change your
color scheme to what's pictured from what you currently have? MR. GRAHAM: Yes.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we -- do we have a list of the color
schemes of whatever the cab companies are currently?
MS. HU: All the cab companies were in existence before, and
we had to call for those, and it's -- it wasn't enough time for them to
deliver them. They've -- they're stored away.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can you move your microphone closer?
I can't hear you. I'm sorry.
MS. HU: All the taxi companies that are in existence were
opened a couple of years ago, and it wasn't enough time for them to
be called back, to be delivered. They were stored away and they
needed to be recalled and delivered to us.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. So we don't know if this color
scheme matches anybody else or is close -- similar?
MS. HU: We checked and there isn't anything in our files.
MS. CRUZ: May I see the book? If you can give me a second,
Page 12
October 4, 2001
I can review the colors that are being requested. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Thank you.
MS. CRUZ: To the best of my recollection, I would assure that
these colors are not in existence with another licensed company at
this time. So, in other words, we're not conflict with an existing
company. Is that your question?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It was, but I was looking -- I guess I was
looking for more of a definitive answer.
MR. CSOGI: Mr. Pease, I'll make a motion we approve and
give staff a week's time to -- to resolve the issue. As long as there is
no cab's color scheme like that, we'll approve it and give them some
time, and that should be sufficient for the issue. Is a week enough
time for you guys to find out --
MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir.
MR. CSOGI: -- for sure?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MS. BAISLEY: I have one question. I'd just like to know, your
existing cabs are obviously not this color. MR. GRAHAM: That's true.
MS. BAISLEY: Are you repainting those cabs to this color, or
are you just --
MR. GRAHAM: I've only had -- I've only got two older cars in
operation right now, and I'm going to be phasing them out over the
next season. So, I mean -- I mean, I don't use the name anymore
legally, and they'll be gone.
MS. BAISLEY: So he's going to have two different colors.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Two colors through April or May, you're
saying?
MR. GRAHAM: Technically, yeah.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: This came before us once before when
somebody wanted to run two colors long term, didn't it?
Page 13
October 4, 2001
MS. HU: Yes. This was from the previous meeting, and we
agreed that--
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Oh, it's the same -- same -- same agenda
item.
MS. HU: Right.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Okay. Well, we have a motion.
Is there a second to the motion?
MR. CSOGI: What -- what -- if I could ask, what color are you
now?
MR.
MR.
MR.
MR.
GRAHAM: It's a gold color.
CSOGI: White gold, white or--
GRAHAM: All gold.
CSOGI: -- just all gold.
MR. GRAHAM: All gold.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you want to modify or --
MR. CSOGI: No.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- your motion? Okay.
MS. BAISLEY: I would like to see a shorter time period as to
when those cars are changed colors rather than having two colors for
such a long time period.
MR. CSOGI: Or mandatory time period. We didn't give any --
MS. BAISLEY: Right.
MR. GRAHAM: All right. Sixty days?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's your motion.
MS. BAISLEY: You started this.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you want to modify your motion?
MR. CSOGI: I'll modify it. I'll make a motion that we approve
and give staff a week's time, seven business days, to verify there's no
other colors and give the company owner 60 days to -- MR. GRAHAM: Paint the other cars.
MR. CSOGI: Make all your cars uniform with the new color.
Page 14
October 4, 2001
MR. GRAHAM: No problem.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Do we have a second to that
motion?
MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second by Pat Baisley. All those in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Thank you.
Next item, new business review for approval to operate a charter
service, Jan Frawley, Professional Executive Charters. Is someone
from that organization here? Come forward and identify yourself,
please.
MR. MURRAY: Hi. My name is A1 Murray. I'm representing
Jan Frawley.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Thank you. Staff, I see criminal
background is -- is that crossed off or--
MS. HU: It's crossed off. I didn't cross them off until after they
fill out the paper, but it's at the very back of the packet.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So we have all the paperwork?
MS. HU: Yes.
MS. BAISLEY: I have one question. Is the 14-passenger van
that you're proposing a regular passenger van or what's referred to as
a party bus?
MR. MURRAY: It's a limousine coach.
MS. BAISLEY: A limousine coach.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is that, like, a 28-foot or 25-foot?
MR. MURRAY: Twenty-eight foot.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Make your comment, if you like.
MS. BAISLEY: No, go ahead.
Page 15
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's not -- that-- that sized vehicle
under the current ordinance isn't under our jurisdiction, but under the
new ordinance will. So you will not need stickers for that
particular --
MR. MURRAY: Well, it's my understanding if it's over 14 then
it falls under the State of Florida regulation.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions or comments? Do
we have a motion?
MR. HYDE: I'll make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion by Eric Hyde to approve. Do we
have a second?
MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second by Pat Baisley. All those in
favor say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Good luck.
MR. MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Next item, Paulo Mylla-- I hope I
pronounced that properly -- Able Transportation & Tours. Will you
come forward and identify yourself, please.
MR. MYLLA: My name is Paulo Mylla.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you.
MS. BAISLEY: You are currently licensed in Charlotte County;
is that right?
MR. MYLLA: In Lee County and Charlotte.
MS. BAISLEY: Lee and Charlotte.
MR. MYLLA: The process is rather different.
Both counties -- if you -- they only require occupational license, and
if you're serving the airports, then you have to get the airport permit.
Page 16
October 4, 2001
MR. CSOGI: Mr. Pease, I have a question. These 14-passenger
vehicles that are not currently under our bylaws or ordinance, will
these people simply just have to come back and pay the permit fee
and that's it, or they have to come with a new application?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think these are full-size vans, aren't
they? These are vans so they-- they-- they fall under--
MR. CSOGI: Like the other case, wouldn't he have to come
back in front of us with a new application, or can he simply just pay
the permit?
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
the sticker.
MS. BAISLEY:
check.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
that.
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
Should be just the sticker. Yeah. Just
I'm a little confused as to the law enforcement
Right. Maybe staff can help us with
CRUZ: I'm sorry. What was the question?
BAISLEY: On the law enforcement check on Paulo Mylla.
CRUZ: Is that on the last two pages of the packet?
BAISLEY: It's on my very last page.
CRUZ: Okay. What is the question?
BAISLEY: Well, it's saying that based on the information
provided the customer determined that none of the search results
appear to be the individual sought by the inquiry.
MS. HU: Right. But it gives you a list of different names that
are close to that name, and those are the only types of information
that they have.
MR. CSOGI: So this is just a Florida check?
MS. HU: Right.
MR. MYLLA: May I speak? I'm an alien resident, green card
holder so -- so you -- you-- if you hold this green card, you have to
go to a thorough background check, Interpol and all these federal
Page 17
October 4, 2001
agencies.
MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But as long as you were not in trouble, you
wouldn't be on here anyway; right.'?
MS. BAISLEY: But they found no criminal history just like
before that.
MR. HYDE: If he's not in the system at all --
MS. BAISLEY: I'm saying they don't find him at all.
MR. HYDE: They wouldn't because he's got a green card.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions or comment?
MR. CSOGI: I have a question for him. Since he's not in the
system at all and you have a green card and you're resident alien, for
the record, have you had any trouble in the State of Florida per our
ordinance --
MR. MYLLA: Not at all.
MR. CSOGI: -- that would disqualify you?
MR. MYLLA: Just one speeding ticket, and I went to school
and I got my points removed so ... MR. CSOGI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions, comment?
Do we have a motion?
MR. CSOGI: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion by William Csogi. Do we have
a second?
MR. HYDE: Second.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
say aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MR. MYLLA:
Second by Eric Hyde. All those in favor
Opposed.
Motion carried. Good luck.
Thank you, sir.
Page 18
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Next item is Jorge Barreto -- I hope I
said that correctly -- TLC Cabulance, Inc. Is there someone here?
Thank you. Come forward and identify yourself, please.
MR. BARRETO: My name is Jorge Barreto. I represent TLC
Cabulance.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. Just one comment for the
benefit of the public and also for you. This committee does not have
the authority to legislate or dictate the number of operators in any
given segment. We do not have the authority to -- to strictly on the
criteria of sales or profitability determine a -- a set number of
nonemergency vehicles or taxis, nor is it the county commission's
desire to control that aspect as well. So I just wanted to put that on
the record since it came up in public comment.
Is there any questions or comments? Okay. I assume that the
vehicle, when you do get the approval, meet all criteria as outlined in
the ordinance?
MR. BARRETO: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a motion?
MR. CSOGI: I've got a question on the business address.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Okay. Great.
MR. CSOGI: Is the business address going to be listed on your
application that's your home in Huntington Lake Circle? MR. BARRETO: That's correct, sir.
MR. CSOGI: And you're going to keep it -- do you have a
garage?
MR. BARRETO: I have a garage, and it's going to be just for
one vehicle. When I get -- if I get the second vehicle, I will get the -- MR. CSOGI: Is there anything in the ordinance about keeping
any of those outside the garage?
MR. HYDE: It would really pertain to the Huntington Lakes if
they have a sub charter in there and the housing code, if it allows it or
Page 19
October 4, 2001
restricts it. Other than that--
MR. CSOGI: Nothing on the county books, though?
MR. HYDE: As long as he has one vehicle.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It should be the same as a taxi; correct,
Mr. Palmer?
MR. PALMER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions, comment? Motion?
MS. BAISLEY: I will make a motion we approve the
application of TLC Cabulance, Inc.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion by Pat Baisley. Do we have a
second?
MR. HYDE: Second.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second by Eric Hyde. All those in
favor, aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Good luck. Any old
business?
MS. HU: We have one more.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Oh, we do? I'm sorry. I apologize.
William Wyte, III, Elite Transportation of Naples. Thank you. Just
one step off today. Just one.
MR. WYTE: William C. Wyte, III.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. Do we have a company
already approved under the name Elite, or is it a different -- I mean,
they are incorporated so I don't think it's an issue, but I was just
curious.
MS. HU: Right. They are Elite Limousine. I have the entire
title of the other company, if you like. It's Elite Limousine Services
of Southwest Florida, Incorporated.
Page 20
October 4, 2001
MR. CSOGI: That's the corporate name, or is that the d/b/a
name?
MS. HU: I'm sorry?
MR. CSOGI: Is that the corporate name or the d/b/a name?
MS. HU: That's the corporate name.
MR. CSOGI: Are they operating under the corporate, or do they
have a d/b/a?
MS. HU: They're operating under the corporate as far as I
know. I have no record of a d/b/a. MR. CSOGI: Okay.
MS. HU: I would like to add something. The applicant just
turned in the last of the two reference letters -- letter of reference. I
can pass it around if you'd like.
MR. HYDE: What vehicles are you looking to actually
purchase?
MR. WYTE: I'm looking at Lincoln Town Cars. Probably start
off with thinking about two.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Your business address was --
MR. WYTE: 3315 Bermuda Isle.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is that a residential area?
MR. WYTE: That is a residential. I do have a place where I
can put the car in the garage.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Questions? Comment?
MR. HYDE: I make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion by Eric Hyde to approve. Do we
have a second?
MR. CSOGI: I've got a problem with the -- with the approval
on the current ordinance. On page 21, agreed to the color schemes,
monograms, insignia--
MR. HYDE: He doesn't have a vehicle.
MR. CSOGI: I'm trying to see if it says name here. Should be
Page 21
October 4, 2001
readily distinguishable from other companies. MS. BAISLEY: It is in there somewhere.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: But -- but in this case the State of
Florida recognizes it as a different name.
MR. CSOGI: I understand that, but they both have the same
first name, and the rest of it's corporate add-on. I just think it's real
close so ...
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Palmer, do you have any comment?
MR. PALMER: I do not believe that the fact that the State of
Florida has determined in their minds that these are not similar names
in the context of corporate names is necessarily dispositive of the
question in Collier County, and it's debatable whether or not, in fact,
this is in the -- in the eye of a potential customer deceptively similar.
I do not think the fact that the State of Florida says they do in the
corporate sense necessarily answers the question before the board.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So you're saying we have -- we
have some discussion opportunity here.
MR. PALMER: I think it's -- I think it's a matter of your
judgment as to whether or not you believe that these -- these two
names are deceptively similar or could be deceptively similar in the
eyes of the consumers.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Pat, comment on that.
MS. BAISLEY: I think it could be a problem, actually, because
when somebody calls information and asked for Elite, you're going to
get the first one that pops up; right?
MR. PALMER: I could make a suggestion that might be able to
solve the problem. He's already got his corporate papers and so forth.
If he could put in his advertisements, like, in a parenthetical phrase,
"Not affiliated with Elite Transportation of Naples," or something to
that effect.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: You're talking about the other company,
Page 22
October 4, 2001
Elite --
MS. BAISLEY: Limousine.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Elite Limousine.
MR. PALMER: Yeah. Elite Limousine. In other words, he
could say, "Not affiliated with Elite Limousine Services of Southwest
Florida," would solve the problem. He's gone a long way. He's spent
money. He's got corporate papers and so forth. It seems to me that
we want to try to not have him redo all this work, and that is a
suggestion of how we might solve the problem. That's often done.
For example, you get these advertisements of companies that look
like they're federal government agencies, but they have federal -- they
have parenthetical expressions saying "Not an agency of the United
States government," to clarify that in case of ambiguity.
CHAIRMAN PEASE' Okay. Eric, do you want to modify your
motion, or do you want to leave it as stand?
MR. HYDE' I'll leave it as stand. If-- if you're going to put
two advertisements in the Yellow Pages and one says Elite
Transportation if you're doing it as a d/b/a or if you're a corporate
title, I think the state has already said that this is -- and maybe I'm a
little -- missing it -- but if the state says that you can have an Elite
Transportation or you can have Elite Limousine whatever, how he
determines how he's going to get his business and how he's going to
advertise it may be an issue for the populace, but if they're trying to
deal with him, they're going to know who they are. And I think they
are very close, but the cost to the individual to have to go back out
now and to try to rechange all of that may be difficult.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Go ahead.
MR. CSOGI: Does everybody have the current ordinance on
page 21, line 6?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: You can share off mine.
MR. CSOGI: It says (as read): "The trade name under which
Page 23
October 4, 2001
the business will operate -- the trade name under which the applicant
tends to do business shall not be deceptively similar to the trade
name." It doesn't say anything about being the same. It says similar.
I think that's what we have in the case here. It's very similar. It's not
the same, but it's similar, and that's why I have a problem with it.
MR. PALMER: Well, obviously, it could not be the same. If it
was the same, then the State of Florida would not issue this -- MR. CSOGI: Right.
MR. PALMER: The point is, it's my -- I do not believe that the
fact that the State of Florida has found it not deceptively similar --
and I think the standards are essentially the same the way they view
deceptiveness in the county. What my point is I did not think the fact
that they have found in their context it's not something similar, it's
dispositive, necessarily means this board cannot hold to the contrary.
I don't think, in other words, it's preemptive that the state
determination is a preemptive jurisdiction over this board's
determination. Certainly nothing in the ordinance implies that, and I
do not think the law implies that.
So it's a question for this board. My suggestion is putting in his
advertising "not affiliated with Elite Limousine Services of
Southwest Florida" and solve the matter.
MS. BAISLEY: Were you aware when you put your application
in that there was another company that was similar to you? MR. WYTE: No. I was not at that time.
MS. BAISLEY: Does that change your opinion?
MR. WYTE: I still believe that the companies that will be
running mine will be much different from theirs. Theirs is a
limousine company. Mine is a transportation company. I do solely
pretty much airport pickups to the hotels and so forth and so forth. I
think that by having a name similar -- there are other companies that
have similar names. For instance, there's Naples Limousine and also
Page 24
October 4, 2001
Naples Taxi, and there has been no problems differentiating in
between each one of those.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm not sure the comparison is the same,
but we have a motion. Do we have a second? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion fails for lack of a second. Bill,
where do you want to take us?
MS. BAISLEY: Pressure's on.
MR. CSOGI: Well, instead of the gentleman going back and
renewing his corporation, which I know is costly, I think-- would it
be less money to do a d/b/a and get a fictitious name under a different
name? Maybe I'll recommend that. I'm not familiar with the cost
process.
MR. PALMER: That's a very inexpensive process, a d/b/a.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. I think that would be better than
having to advertise all the time somebody else's company name.
MR. CSOGI: I think it would.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you want to put it in the form of a
motion?
MR. CSOGI: I'll put in a motion that we'll approve you if you --
if you keep your corporate name the way it is, do a d/b/a, which is a
fictitious name without the word "Elite" in it. MR. WYTE: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: May I ask for a modification of that, that
also the second -- the new name also does not --
MR. CSOGI: Be deceptively similar?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes. Thank you.
MR. CSOGI: You got it. And I'll add that the new name as per
the ordinance is not deceptively similar to any other company that
Collier County permits.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: You going to leave this up to staff to
Page 25
October 4, 2001
determine?
MR. CSOGI: Yeah. I'll leave it up to staff.
I'm confident with them.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. We have -- we have a motion.
Do we have a second?
MS. BAISLEY: I'll make a second to that motion.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
All those in favor, aye.
(Unanimous response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carries. Good luck.
MR. WYTE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Sorry I forgot you.
I see one item in old business in our-- the staff's put in our
book. I have something. Does nobody else have something? I have
no old business.
MS. HU: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other old business? Okay.
Discussion. Quarterly complaint report. Let me share with you a
little bit about what we were -- what I was trying to accomplish, and
it got diverted a little bit.
What -- what I want to do is what we've -- we've been here for a
while, and we hear in some cases that staff can't accomplish
something or they feel they don't have the power. Well, we're trying
to give them the power with the new ordinance, but one of the steps I
want to take is to get a report. I don't want to necessarily discuss it
because it could come up into a hearing situation later, but at least
that we hold staff accountable. Here's the complaints. Here's what
staff's done to this point, and here's what we're going to do, or here's
the action steps we're taking. That's the goal, not to individually talk
Okay. We have a second by Pat Baisley.
Page 26
October 4, 2001
about everyone that's ever had a complaint on them, because we'll be
here till, you know, next week doing that. But just to get an update
on a quarterly basis of where we are.
And I've talked to Mr. Palmer about that because there's issues --
if we start to talk about each one, there's issues of due process and
there's other issues, but does that -- I mean, does the committee have
a desire to have a document that would have a quarterly update of
complaints, or do they not care unless it gets to us? Because I guess
I'm getting tired of hearing people come in and saying, you know,
nothing's been done, and I'd like some accountability there. Anybody
have any objections to getting a quarterly report on that?
MR. HYDE: No.
MR. CSOGI: I like it.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. You like it. Pat?
MS. BAISLEY: I don't have an objection.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Eric?
MR. HYDE: I agree. I was actually-- when we had the open
forum, the gentleman was discussing the -- several gentlemen were
discussing the issues of enforcement, and on the old ordinance there
were some questions from staff whether the ordinance actually had
teeth that you could actually go out and do something about it and/or
actually enforce it. Then there was issues in regards to the Collier
County Sheriff's Department assisting in the enforcement of these
regulations. If we don't enforce our own regulations and we don't
have a complaint and we don't know about them or not acting on
them, then we obviously as an advisory board wouldn't be doing
justice to the community or to the commissioners to allow them to
function. So I think it's a good thing.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I -- I talked to Ekna about it, and Mr.
Palmer said we -- we don't have the authority to dictate to staff to do
that, so I'll only request that if possible -- if that document could be
Page 27
October 4, 2001
created on a quarterly basis, it would be greatly appreciated and
helpful to us. You don't by any chance have anything like that at this
point I know, because we just talked about it last week, but maybe for
the next meeting -- next quarterly, if we could get a -- just a simple
sheet that shows the name of the complainant, not in terms of who
turned it in, but who the company is, what the issue was. And it
doesn't have to be a full description, just a -- the ordinance violation
and then what action steps you've taken to that point, if that's
possible.
MS. HU: Anything's possible.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you, Ekna.
Ordinance. Let's start -- I promised Mr. Palmer I'd let him kick
it off a little bit. He -- Mr. Palmer, tell me about the changes you've
made in the ordinance from the last time we saw the draft, if you
could point those out for us if-- if there's more than one.
MR. PALMER: There was a little bit of minor housekeeping. I
don't think there was anything of substance, but I did want to make --
bring one point up, and that's this issue -- the -- many of the
violations are strictly limited to the four corners of the PVAC
ordinance, but there are other ordinances that are referenced in there
such as the sign ordinance which in some respects applies to these
vehicles that are under your jurisdiction. And then there are
independent provisions, for example, in the Land Development Code
that apply to signs on vehicles that apply in one context to taxicabs.
And the question is, if there's going to be a complaint by a third
party, does the third party always first have to come to the staff of the
PVAC in all cases, or can the third party go straightaway to the Code
Enforcement Board staff and effectively do an end run around the
PVAC staff?. That's the issue.
It is my recommendation that all matters that irrespective the
ordinance, that are covered by the ordinance -- this is not some rusty
Page 28
October 4, 2001
taxicab in the backyard. But, for example, the PVAC -- the Land
Development Code aspect about signs on taxicabs, I would
recommend that those -- all of those kinds of complaints be brought
to the PVAC staff first, and let the PVAC staff or you as a body, as
the case may be, determine whether you will prosecute the matter or
enforce the matter or in a given case refer the matter to the Code
Enforcement Board.
The selection of the forum, in my judgment, should not be left
up to the complainant. And what we have done or at least attempted
to do in the ordinance to tweak the last week is to make it clear that
all of these violations that involve the ordinance's application to
vehicles of which you have jurisdiction must come first to this body
-- this board and let you decide whether or not it will be referred to
the PVAC (sic). Otherwise, there are problems about losing control,
and I'm just -- my recommendation -- you can do what you want --
my recommendation is that's what the ordinance has been clarified
around the edges to say, and my recommendation to you is to leave it
that way, but it's up to you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: My -- my only concern about action
being taken by the PVAC is we meet quarterly. So some of these
could go on a long time. I guess if I had a choice I would prefer that
we allow staff the option, if it's a single issue, to either come before
the PVAC or it goes before the Code Enforcement Board that handles
that aspect.
MR. PALMER: Well, generally speaking, these things would
be decided by staff. It's just -- I didn't want to say that only staff
could make these -- these recommendations. That you would -- could
basically pull a case up and say, "Decide it." But in the normal
course of events whether or not something will be referred to the
PVAC (sic) or to you or to the Code Enforcement Board would be a
staff matter. Most of these matters, probably the 99 percent of these
Page 29
October 4, 2001
matters, get resolved summarily long before they're formalized into --
into a proceeding before either you or the Code Enforcement Board.
The question is if it's not resolved summarily, is it the kind of a
case that should be referred to the Code Enforcement Board? There
are certain cases that make no sense to be referred to the Code
Enforcement Board. They basically have a site specific continuing
violation jurisdiction. Their -- their enforcement of fleeting or
transitory violations doesn't work. It works with you; therefore, those
kind of judgments have to be made.
My point is I do not recommend that the complainant decide
which forum is going to hear the case, because if I was a smart
complainant I would refer to the Code Enforcement Board matters
which I know the Code Enforcement Board couldn't effectively
enforce, such as these transitory or fleeting violations. They really
can't enforce those things. That's not what they do. They lien
property, and they basically involve things like go on and on and on.
They even have a thing that they give -- they give a minimum of a
certain reasonable time to cure. They have to.
In other words, you get one bite at the apple before that board in
all instances. And it may not be that you want to have -- give
somebody a bite at the apple or to say that just because this happened
two weeks ago, it's necessarily unimportant or moot. So my point is,
is I think that this staff ought to make those judgments, or in a given
case you could pull a case up and you make the judgment. And right
now the ordinance has been clarified hopefully to provide just what I
just expressed to you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MR. CSOGI: Mr. Pease, do you have the new ordinance?
MR. PALMER: This was tweaked about three or four days ago,
so I'm not sure you've got the last word on it.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Which one are you working off of?.
Page 30
October 4, 2001
MR. HYDE: 9/19.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: 9/19.
MR. PALMER: No. I'd be like -- now I think it's -- I'm not
sure. Did I send you something after that? It might have been 10/2 or
something.
MR. CSOGI: I don't have that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I only have 9/19.
MR. PALMER: But in any event, the language is -- it's just a
minor clarification. It's a couple of words and a couple of
paragraphs. I characterize it as a clarification, not a substantive
change. It was always my intention at least that -- in fact, what I just
described to you be in the ordinance, but I didn't think it was clearly
in the ordinance and left a little ambiguity that we wanted to clean up.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does that answer your question?
MR. CSOGI: No. I just want to comment on what Mr. Palmer
is saying, on what he did write, and I've got the draft of what the final
is exactly what he states, but there is a little bit of vagueness in the
very beginning on who's going to review it.
On 142.57 -- and I don't know if it's the same as what he has (as
read): "The certificate issued under the provision may be summarily
suspended, and the vehicle's decal can be removed by the staff if it is
determined by staff that such suspension is required to protect the
safety." So that's an instant thing that we can do. So if people are
going to be coming to us with instant things that for the public safety
we need to hear about them, or are we going to leave that up to staff?
You say color schemes leave up to staff, but what about the safety
items, and that's what Mr. Palmer's talking about.
MR. PALMER: No. That's slight-- that's in the ballpark, but
that isn't quite what I was saying, and that's not the provision -- the
language I'm talking about.
MR. CSOGI: Okay.
Page 31
October 4, 2001
MR. PALMER: This was to clarify in the case of safety --
MR. CSOGI: Right.
MR. PALMER: -- staff can summarily suspend a certificate.
MR. CSOGI: We're leaving that decision up to the county staff
or the county commission?
MR. PALMER: No. No. The county staff, that's because these
things require immediate and prompt attention. For example, if it
should come to their attention that somebody's insurance has expired,
they can summarily order that company that they must cease
operation until such time as the insurance is reinstated. This is a
suspension and not a revocation of a certificate, and it's to clarify that
in those two instances. One is safety and one is lack of insurance.
They can summarily, in fact, like in the context of the building
permit, they can basically put a stop work order on the activities of
the corporation or the individual proprietor.
MR. CSOGI: I understand what you're saying, but the reason I
got on this committee was -- was for the industry. I don't think -- if
we want to do something instantly, I don't think it would be very hard
for staff to contact us either by fax or phone, get something over the
phone and say, "Okay, this is the indication of the board. We're
going to immediately act on this." And maybe it'll take some
pressure off of staff, 'cause that's why we were convened here to do
this. I don't think staff should do that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, that's different than our
discussions in the workshop, Bill. The whole goal was to give them
teeth so that it didn't have to come before us. We want it solved at
that level. We don't want to hear those cases except for those that are
real problem ones.
MR. CSOGI: That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that we
have a hearing every time. I'm just saying get our consensus by
phone or by fax, and I understand what you're saying about the bigger
Page 32
October 4, 2001
cases, the bigger problems.
insurance.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
resolved?
I'm saying for instant ones like lack of
Why would we need to know that if it's
MR. CSOGI: It's not that we need to know it; it's that it's our --
it's our opinion on the matter, not staff's opinion. It's the committee's
opinion. We -- we work for the transportation industry, not the -- the
staff does not work for them. We're assigned here by the
transportation industry.
MR. PALMER: Well, I wouldn't say we work for the
transportation industry. I'd be a little careful about a statement like
that. We work for the Board of County Commissioners to protect the
public essentially. In the staff-- in the general working of things,
staff is always delegated to take summary action -- summary action
in the event of something that involves the safety of the public, such
as lack of insurance or a vehicle that's grossly out of repair. I can't
remember -- there's a two prong. I think they applied that.
I do not recommend having -- calling up this board and either
polling a board by phone, which has its own legal problems, or
convening a meeting to determine whether or not that somebody's
insurance has lapsed that you have to decide whether or not they've
got to cease their activities until they get insurance. That's a
cumbersome process. It's not required, to my knowledge, in any
other board in this county.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Staff already has that authority annually.
You don't get a sticker unless you can show proof of insurance so ...
MR. PALMER: This is a case, for example, if they should get
some notice from an insurance company, which is incidentally
required -- whether it's done or not I don't know, but they're supposed
to notify us of insurance lapses. Staff gets a letter from insurance
company says that XYZ Taxicab Company no longer has insurance.
Page 33
October 4, 2001
Staff can call up the taxicab company, and says, "You shall cease
operation until you show to us that you have reinstated insurance."
It's as simple as that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does Eric or Pat have any comment on
this?
MS. BAISLEY: So we're going to limit their authority to safety
issues?
MR. PALMER: It's already limited. The scope of the authority
on summary -- summary suspensions hasn't been changed. The
provision merely had been clarified to make it clear that staff can
summarily suspend a certificate in the limited cases that are specified.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Stays as is.
MS. BAISLEY: I don't have a problem with that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Or it changes?
MR. PALMER: That is not what I was talking about, about
cleaning up the ordinance in the other respect. It's in that general
area. I think it was probably done in the last couple of days. You
probably don't have it. I just wanted to let you know the ordinance
hopefully has clarified it, and I just wanted to let you know the way it
is and wanted to get your comment on whether we should leave it
that way, or do you want them, in any instance, to be able to go
straightaway to the Code Enforcement Board rather than come
through this staff first?
MR. CSOGI: I guess what I'm asking is what's -- what are the --
what are the provisions where it goes to staff and what is it -- where
we have a meeting? Is there a list of violations where it goes to staff
and a list where it goes to a full meeting?
MR. PALMER: They all go to staff.
MR. CSOGI: Just discretion?
MR. PALMER: Well, sometimes somebody-- sometimes
somebody will make a complaint directly to you rather than staff.
Page 34
October 4, 2001
This happens rarely, but as I recall there was one or two cases where
I read a complaint that was actually addressed to the board rather than
staff, and in most cases they go to staff. Staff either gets the problem
summarily resolved, or they can bring the matter to this board. Since
I have been with this board, I can't remember any case where you've
had a quasi-judicial hearing before the board. So it shows how rare
they are, but the question is, for example, in this thing that I just
handed Bryan this morning, that is a matter that involves taxicabs --
signs on taxicabs, but it's not in the PVAC ordinance, nor is it
referenced in the PVAC ordinance.
The question is, could somebody that brings a complaint under
that go straight away to the Code Enforcement Board without coming
to the staff of this board? And the ordinance says no. If it involves a
vehicle that's under the kind of subject matter jurisdiction that we're
involved in such as a sign, it doesn't matter what ordinance applies.
If it's against this kind of a vehicle, it's got to come through the
PVAC staff first. That's in a nutshell what the ordinance says, and
my question is, is that what you want the ordinance to say?
MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
ordinance was going to allow us that once we received a complaint,
"us" being staff, we would address that complaint by, number one,
making sure that the complaint exists, notifying the violator, allowing
time for the violator to comply if it's not a safety issue. Safety issues
will be taken care of right away by pulling the decal if it's a particular
vehicle. And if compliance is not obtained within the time the staff is
allowing this violator, then bring that individual before the board, and
then let the board decide to take a decision. You, Mr. Violator,
decided not to comply, revoke the permit, suspend the permit, then at
that time you will be taking action.
MR. PALMER: Well, now you've brought another point in
here. The ordinance as presently written would allow you, "you,"
Page 35
October 4, 2001
staff to refer that matter either to the PVAC in a quasi-judicial
context, or you could decide to send that matter to the Code
Enforcement Board. That's the point. The Code Enforcement Board
has no authority to suspend any certificates before this board. All
they have authority to do is assess fines.
MS. CRUZ: I was not referring to the Code Enforcement
Board. I was referring to this board, that is the board --
MR. PALMER: You were refer-- you said this board could
decide whether or not to refer the matter to the Code Enforcement
Board.
MS. CRUZ: I did not say that. I said, bring the violator before
this board, and then this board can make that decision whether revoke
or suspend the permit that they issue and authorize.
MR. PALMER: That -- that aspect of things hasn't changed at
all. That's totally unmoved. The question is about referrals to the
Code Enforcement Board and who can get the matter before the Code
Enforcement Board, the complainant or the staff or the PVAC.
That's the issue. And I'm saying that an astute -- if the complainant
could decide the forum, he'll decide the forum that he thinks -- he'll
do what's called forum shopping and decide the forum that he thinks
will do the least damage to him. I do not recommend that the
complainant elect the forum.
MR. CSOGI: I'm just trying to state that I'd like a uniform
forum and not leave a lot of decision which is gray right now to the --
to the -- our staff. And I -- I -- there is not a clear-- maybe I don't
have the current ordinance of what's going to be handed over to us
and what they're going to decide. I understand they're going to send
people out from what I understand, and you're going to go to this
company, and you're going to look for the violation?
MR. PALMER: They do that now. That doesn't change
anything. The only question is who is going to enforce the matter if
Page 36
October 4, 2001
it requires formal enforcement by one board or the other. All the rest
of this underlying background stuff hasn't changed one iota. Now, if
you want to say that only you can refer a matter to the Code
Enforcement Board, fine. We can put that in the ordinance. That just
slows things down that much more time.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That was not the direction of the
workshops. The direction of the workshops were to give staff the
opportunity to resolve it, and we only hear the cases that are
extremely difficult. Is there any change in that direction from Eric or
Pat?
MS. BAISLEY: No.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MS. CRUZ: Well, may I ask -- you would hear the cases that
are difficult. What about the cases the violator don't comply with
staft% --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Those are the ones we consider difficult.
MS. CRUZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. We'll take the hard ones.
MS. CRUZ: Nowadays we just got to be so specific. It's very
confusing.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. On the ordinance let's go through
the public comment once just as we -- as we received them.
Regarding page 8, rear window operating in rear of vehicles.
Question was, is it safer to have windows that don't roll up and down
or in locked and closed position?
MR. PALMER: Obviously that's the question, but the question
is, does this board want to micromanage to that extent?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right.
MR. CSOGI: I think most late-model cars have a child lockout
switch on the driver's master switch which you can lock the windows
anyway.
Page 37
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm not sure all taxis are late-model
vehicles.
MS. BAISLEY: I think problem is that most of the taxicabs that
are purchased in this county are prior police cars, and those windows
have been made inoperable when they were police cars, and that's the
way they're sold.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Should it be struck from the ordinance?
MR. PALMER: How does the ordinance read now? Does it
address this question of inoperable rear windows?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's Item 12, line 31, page 8 -- at least on
the 9/19 draft -- and it states, "The windshield side and rear window
shall operate as designed."
MR. PALMER: Well, that means they can be operable.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: The comment was that a lot of these cars
may be police vehicles where they're not operable. So the question
is, do they have to then make them operable to meet the ordinance?
The point of the public comment was that it would be even more
unsafe to make them operable.
MR. PALMER: The public comment was that they should not
ever be operable because some child may squish his fingers or
something.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's correct. He did make that
statement.
MR. PALMER: So you've got the other side of the coin here.
This is strictly a question of policy.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Pat, you're in the taxi industry.
MR. CSOGI: I got a question for Pat.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MS. BAISLEY: Yes.
MR. CSOGI: I don't know, but has any of your passengers
asked you to go through a drive-thru or an ATM machine? Wouldn't
Page 38
October 4, 2001
that happen in a taxicab, and then without operating windows --
MS. BAISLEY: To be very honest with you, I don't know how
they do that when they do that, they give it to the driver or what they
do.
MR. CSOGI: Just give it to the driver -- he's in the industry.
MR. BRIDENTHAL: They have the driver pass stuff through.
MS. BAISLEY: That's what I think.
MR. CSOGI: And give them their PIN number for the ATM
machine?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: We can't have public speaking without
being identified and then opening it back up. The court reporter can't
do their job properly. I'm sorry. We have not opened it up for public
comment.
MR. CSOGI: That's just one of my concerns.
MR. PALMER: I can point out that this -- this particular
provision was -- is a paraphrasing of an ordinance or ordinance in
some other jurisdictions, particularly Miami. When I copied this, I
just didn't give it an awful lot of thought. I thought it was a good
idea. There may be valid reasons why the back window of a vehicle
ought to operate, but that's -- that's a matter of debate.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So either way it could be a safety issue.
MS. BAISLEY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So do we want to legislate it or not?
MR. CSOGI: I think all the windows should operate.
MR. PALMER: Right now strictly applied, if somebody got a
vehicle from a resale of a police vehicle and rear windows were
decommissioned, they would have to incur the expense of getting
them operable. The question is, do you want that condition to remain
in the ordinance?
MS. BAISLEY: If somebody's windows are inoperable, they
need to fix them, even if it wasn't a prior police car, which happens
Page 39
October 4, 2001
quite often.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm neutral. I'll go with -- with whatever
the consensus is on this, and I'm not -- it's not my area of expertise.
MS. CRUZ: Does staff have input on this?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Sure. Staff can have input.
MS. CRUZ: I think if it's a window and it's meant to operate, it
should operate. We're looking at one side of the picture. What about
if there's an accident and there's people in the back and the only way
of them getting out is that window? MR. CSOGI: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, the power window may or may not
be operational --
MS. CRUZ: But if it's a window, it should open. We have cases
where the houses -- where we go inspect houses and if that window is
not operable, it doesn't open and close, we make sure that that
property owner fixes that window.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: But that window doesn't operate on a
battery, you know, or the engine has to be running if-- for the
window to work if they're power windows.
MR. CSOGI: If they're power windows.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. Well, most cars now are at least
power windows.
MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But I just asked that question. I said most
late-model vehicles that have power windows have lockout switches.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Lockout switch may be different than a
power window switch.
MS. HU: I have input too. If, like, we request that everything
that is manufactured of the vehicle that functions and the windows
and the operating of the windows are manufactured made so they
should be able to function and if they're not motorized-- if they are
the crank type, then we ask them that they have the knob. So why
Page 40
October 4, 2001
would they have a knob if it doesn't work in that case anyway? And
also I know a lot of people get motion sickness, and if they need --
they need fresh air in order to get that motion sickness symptom
away, and they need the window to roll down.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Eric, weigh in on this.
MR. HYDE: I'm a pretty normal guy. Has anybody ever come
to you with a complaint on this?
MS. HU: Well, I have another--
MR. HYDE: I'm just asking. Have we received any complaints
one way?
MS. HU: I have complaints that relate to this, not exactly to the
window, but there are, and that's something that we don't regulate,
obviously, but there are drivers that need more hygiene and they need
to open the windows in order to breathe. MR. HYDE: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, that's a stretch.
MR. HYDE: I don't want to regulate that. I'm more concerned
with vehicles that we currently have in operation that have been
operating in this county or in RSW or anywhere else that have
already got vehicles that are running that the windows were meant
not to operate because they are police vehicles previously, and we've
had those forever, and we're now going to say, okay, if you -- if
you're going back -- or are we going to have everybody comply with
this and then those individuals now have to change. I don't see that.
MS. BAISLEY: To this point in the taxicabs they made us
comply with this. They didn't make you comply with it? He can't
speak. When my vehicles were inspected at the -- when they
inspected the meters, they also inspected the safety of the vehicles.
That was one of the items that was inspected.
MS. HU: I believe it's a state requirement, and not only that, but
there are drivers that smoke in the car and whether or not they're
Page 41
October 4, 2001
smoking at the time that there was a passenger, the smoke stays, and I
know there are people that are intolerant.
MR. HYDE: If it's -- I honestly feel that if it's a real -- if it's a
safety issue, it's on the checklist and it's something that was already
there before, I don't have a problem with that. If we're going to ask
people to go back and take noncommissioned or nonworking
windows that weren't supposed to work and now make it work, I
don't think that's the right thing to do.
MS. BAISLEY: I think it's always been in the ordinance that
they need to work.
MR. HYDE: If it has then it should stay there.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. There's one stay. I said I'm
neutral. I'll go with whatever the consensus is. Pat?
MS. BAISLEY: Leave it in.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Leave it in. Bill?
MR. CSOGI: Leave it in the way it is.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's consensus, stays in.
Next one was on page 3, commercial driver's license in the
definition. Mr. Palmer, do you have a problem?
MR. PALMER: I do not believe that this board has any right to
impose any driver's license requirements that are different, less than
or greater, than the state statutes. So if the state statute -- and I do not
-- I looked into this matter briefly about a year ago, and the state
statute and the rules are so convoluted it's almost impossible to figure
out what in the world they're talking about.
But it seems to me if the state law requires that taxicabs in
Collier County require a commercial operator's license, then that's the
case, and if they don't, not putting anything in the ordinance is not
going to require somebody to get a commercial driver's license if the
state law does not require it. So I think the matter is resolved by state
law provided somebody can figure out what the state law means. It
Page 42
October 4, 2001
talks about all these sub kind of class of licenses, a 6-D and all this
kind of thing, and it's almost impossible to tell what kind of operation
requires what kind of license unless you call somebody up that
administers it day to day and ask them if they could please try to
make sense out of it to you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: There's nowhere in the Section 142.33,
Driver's Service Standards, or elsewhere in the ordinance that states
they have to have a commercial driver's license?
MR. PALMER: No. And my opinion is we could not do that
beyond what the state law allows. This is a matter of state
preemption. The state decides what kind of people are doing, what
kind of vehicles require what kind of licenses, and I don't think we
can make it less or greater by an ordinance.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any comment or question on that issue?
MR. CSOGI: I've got some comment. What we have in there
now is that authorizes all respective driving privileges. That's real
vague.
MR. PALMER: Respective driving privilege is allowed by the
license that the person has.
MR. CSOGI: Maybe it ought to state "per State of Florida
requirements."
MR. PALMER: What page are you on?
MR. CSOGI: Page 3, line 6 on the top. Maybe it just ought to
say State of Florida requirements.
MR. PALMER: What this means -- and if you want to we can
change it -- it means that if the person is doing to a particular activity,
he must have whatever license the state law requires that authorizes
that entire scope of activities that that person is driving in.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So you wouldn't have a problem putting
the word "state" right after the word "all" so that it authorizes all state
respective driving privileges?
Page 43
October 4, 2001
MR. PALMER: No. In fact, I think we could do a little better
than that. But I will make it clear that what you're talking -- to tie
this in to state statutes.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Thank you. Okay.
The next -- the next item relating to the --
MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm sorry.
MS. CRUZ: Could I bring something to your attention, please.
Page 15, Section 142.37, Subsection A (as read): "Each driver of a
motor vehicle for hire must hold a current and valid commercial
driver's license." What does that mean?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Back to you, Mr. Palmer.
MR. PALMER: That does appear to say that, and my point
doesn't change. This is an operable revision unless the State of
Florida rules coincide with this and my assumption is, is that this was
put in here on the assumption that, in fact, this coincides with state
law.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I remember having a discussion on this
in the workshop, but we did not deem it appropriate to meet -- to
have taxi drivers meet DOT standards in terms of the driver's license.
So I think -- you know, I think the -- they're right. The public is right
and also staff is right that line 7 we ought to take commercial driver's
license out and replace it with the same verbage that's in the
definition, which is "state driving privileges."
MR. PALMER: Or we could just strike the word -- on line 7,
page 15 strike the word "commercial" because it's really clarified in
the next sentence.
MR. CSOGI: Right.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. I agree with that.
Let's just take the word "commercial" out. That will solve that. Any
other comment or question on this?
Page 44
October 4, 2001
Okay. The next major topic on ordinance was -- and if I
misrepresented the public's comment on the last time, I apologize or
anybody else on this committee did, because it wasn't our intent, but
the question is, does this committee want to allow standards that are
set by RSW to be the criteria -- to be accepted as a waiver to the
criteria when there's duplication?
MR. PALMER: Mr. Chairman, can I comment on this?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes.
MR. PALMER: This -- and it's not a waiver. It's basically a
reciprocity that -- or recognizing that somebody else's standard if met
necessarily meet our standards, but in order to come to that
conclusion you'd have to find out and then ascertain that the
insurance standards of this airport are at least as good as if not greater
than our standards, not only in the amounts of coverage but in the
scope of the coverage. We don't know for a fact -- and it may change
tomorrow -- whether or not the insurance coverage required by an
airport someplace is necessarily as inclusive as our requirements.
And the business about vehicle inspection, that's basically
saying, well, if it's okay with them, it's okay with us. That would
have to require determination as to whether or not their inspection
standards are at least equal to or greater than our inspection
standards. Only once those two determinations are made and they
don't thereafter change because of some change in the regulations at
the respective airport, do we defer to their judgments on these
matters. This is basically a delegation of this responsibility to some
other entity's judgments.
Now if, in fact, in all instances the insurance coverage and the
inspection coverage are at least as good as and remain at least as
good as ours, then you could safely use them as a dispositive
resolution of the question, but you would have to always know that
their -- that their standards are at least as good as or greater than ours
Page 45
October 4, 2001
and they continue to be that way. Otherwise, we're delegating these
things to some other entity, and the question is, you can do that if you
can prove what the things that I have just said. Otherwise you may
be talking apples and oranges.
I have no idea what the insurance coverage are up there except
the amount of coverage. That's not to say that their -- the scope of
the coverage and things that are insured against is as broad as ours,
and they may require a different kind of insurance or an insurance
that covers less events. We don't know that, have no idea about that.
I have no idea personally of the scope of the kind of things that their
vehicle inspection does.
We could find out, and if we assured ourselves that staff in
every case assures, then you could say that staff could defer those
judgments, and the only proof that they would have to give to staff is
the fact that some airport has approved this entity. If you want to do
that, you can, but as I say, in order to do that you've got to assure
yourself that their certification, their Good Housekeeping seal of
approval, in fact, proves the things that we want to be proven.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Go back to the original question.
Does this committee want to do that?
MS. BAISLEY: I don't.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Bill?
MR. CSOGI: I agree with what Mr. Palmer says hand in hand.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Eric.
MR. HYDE: Yup.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. I detest bureaucracy as much as
the next guy, but I'm with you to make it unanimous.
MR. PALMER: Let me point out that if somebody has this
insurance and the insurance that they take to the airport complies
with our rules, all they've got to do is give us a certificate of
insurance. Is that asking too much?
Page 46
October 4, 2001
MR. HYDE: Nope.
MR. PALMER: There's nothing to it. It's making a huge
mountain out of a tiny molehill in that respect. The other question is
this annual inspection. It may well be that if, in fact, they had the
vehicle inspected a month before they have it before us and we know
that the scope of the inspection done last month by an airport covers
the things we have, that's a much better case. Basically defer to their
inspection. That's of a reasonable time frame from the time. If it's
only a month or two old, it may be very valid proof that the vehicle
meets the inspection, but we'd have to know the kind of things that
they inspect and, in fact, that somebody has done the inspection. We
don't know how these things are being sloughed through up there and
who's ever doing these inspections for the airport. We don't know, in
fact, whether inspections are even being made up there.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Is there any other questions or
comments from this committee on the ordinance?
MR. CSOGI: I've got one quick question on page 4, line 1
under taxicab designation. There's a maximum number for
passengers. Is there a minimum? If someone gets a Chevy Camaro,
it can be a taxicab?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What line are you on?
MR. CSOGI: Line 1, page 4.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: And -- and your comment is --
MR. CSOGI: Is there a minimum number of seats required? In
other words, can a Mazda Miata be a taxicab? We've got maximum
number of seats. I didn't know there wanted to be a uniform in here
of a four-door sedan or a --
MS. BAISLEY: It used to say that. It used to say that it had to
be a four-door.
MR. CSOGI: Allowing at least five passengers.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I concur with four-door issue.
Page 47
October 4, 2001
I mean, I'm not sure a minimum number of passengers is the way to
go.
MR. CSOGI: It used to have four-door.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: But we sure wouldn't want people trying
to get in and out of the back seat.
MR. PALMER: We could insert the word "four door" in that
line. I believe this issue may be covered somewhere else in the
ordinance when we get down to more specifics about vehicle
standards.
MR. CSOGI: I looked. I couldn't find it.
MR. PALMER: But, in any event, we could insert the word if
you'd like, means a four-door motor vehicle.
MR. CSOGI: Right. And then one other question, Mr. Pease,
under-- and we ran into this last year. I couldn't find anything in the
ordinance on the time limit of the chair.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Tomorrow.
MR. CSOGI: We ran into it last year. We said it was a year or
two years, but I looked. I couldn't find anything on it.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there something in the regular
ordinance that covers all committees?
MR. PALMER: It covers most committees unless there's a
specific rule for a particular board. There are, for example, the
Airport Authority. That has to do with the term of the appointment of
the membership. I don't think any of these ordinance address the
question of how long an individual can remain a chairman or vice-
chairman and so forth. It doesn't get into that kind of
micromanagement.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is there a desire on the committee? Do
you have a recommendation?
MR. CSOGI: What does the county board do? Yearly?
MR. PALMER: In regard to chairmanship?
Page 48
October 4, 2001
MR. CSOGI: Correct.
MR. PALMER: I think they may be two years, two. I'm not
sure of that. It seems to me that nobody has remained a chairman
only one year.
MR. CSOGI: I don't think it's over two either.
MS. HU: Mr. Palmer, I -- I did the research in that, and the only
-- I found an ordinance, and I'm sorry I don't have either the number
or the name, but within that ordinance it covered advisory
committees. It was an ordinance written for advisory committees, and
that was specifying on the terms.
MR. PALMER: Well, the trouble with it is be careful of the
phrase "advisory committee." That phrase is used very loosely. This
board is far from an advisory committee. This is a quasi-judicial
board. An advisory committee only has -- it gives advice, and that
ordinance, although called advisory committee ordinance, includes
many things that are not technically advisory committees. It has to
do with the kind of vote by the Board of County Commissioners it
takes to appoint a member. It usually has terms of three and four
years depending -- unless the specific board has its own rule, but it's
most particularly limited to powers of removal and questions about
term limits.
Usually if a board is going to have somebody over whatever the
respective term limits are, maybe two terms of three years, it usually
requires a supermajority in some cases or unanimous votes of the
Board of County Commissioners to extend somebody beyond the
specified term limits. That's essentially the heart of that ordinance. I
do not believe that ordinance has anything to do about how long
somebody will remain a chairman of any of these boards, advisory --
advisory or otherwise.
MS. HU: Can I ask a question then? I -- I know this
committee's name is Public Vehicle Advisory Committee.
Page 49
October 4, 2001
MR. PALMER: Yeah.
MS. HU: Should they change their name then?
MR. PALMER: No. There are all kinds of committees that
have the word "advisory" in them, and they -- they're all kinds of
things. If a board has a lot of little powers, even they're -- although
they're not exercised, they are there for something other than an
advisory committee. And an advisory committee only has the power
to give advice, and if it must be in a process, it's mandatory for
somebody to get from the staff to the Board of County
Commissioners. That fact itself, even though it only gives advice,
means it's something other than an advisory committee because it's in
necessarily a continuum.
Very, very few boards in Collier County are limited to a scope
of powers in a context that they are really purely an advisory
committee. And this has a lot of ramifications about reporting to the
state about such things as the ethics of what you can do and the kind
of gifts you can take. There are differences between purely advisory
committees and things that are something but an advisory committee
plus something else. These are highly technical matters, and there
are dozens if not hundreds of rules on commission of ethics of what
distinguishes a given board from an advisory committee and
something that's other than an advisory committee. This board is
miles away from being an advisory board.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: But we have the ability to set in the
ordinance time frames for chair?
MR. PALMER: Sure you do.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you have a recommendation?
MR. CSOGI: It's twofold. I'd say two years, but I'd say the
chair can be reappointed if it's the consensus of the committee. In
other words, it isn't ended at two years if the committee wants him
again. I say he can go again, but I'd say every two years it ought to
Page 50
October 4, 2001
be up. That's my recommendation.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I'm going to be neutral.
I certainly don't want to be, you know, like the mayor of Chicago,
there till I die.
MR. PALMER: What a lot of boards do is they appoint the
chairman vice-chairman, and secretary, if there's a secretary -- there
often is -- on an annual basis. Usually the first meeting in October or
the first meeting after the first of October they'll select this person.
Normally they don't have any term limit on the chairman, but they
can change it every year.
Now, you could do that or you could say that, the chair --
chairman's term will normally be not to exceed two years unless
extended by some supermajority of the board. That may be the way
to handle that problem if you want to have a quasi term limit or a
waivable term limit for the chairmanship. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Pat?
MS. BAISLEY: I don't have a problem with putting a -- the
same limits that he wants to put on it, two years.
MR. PALMER: Unless extended by, what, unanimous vote or
supermajority vote. That would be one more than three, require four.
What's -- what's your pleasure? Be whatever you like.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I just assumed a majority.
MS. BAISLEY: A majority is fine with me.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: We can do majority; right?
MR. PALMER: Well, then you wouldn't need anything,
because you just keep reappointing that person every year. You
wouldn't need any provision. You would just allow the person every
year to be reappointed to the position. He might stay in it for five
years. If you're going to do it on an annual basis, you don't need to
get specific about it unless you're going to term limit it and then have
the term limit only waived by some other vote than a majority.
Page 51
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I see what he's saying. If we don't
determine a term limit, we just look at it every two years.
MR. PALMER: Or every year as the case may be. Whatever
you want to do.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Or every year. I don't have a problem
with annually looking at it, and if you guys want me to continue that's
fine. If you don't --
MR. CSOGI: I don't have a problem with annually.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: We're okay?
MS. BAISLEY: This is October.
MR. PALMER: Well, the first meeting after October.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: The new ordinance isn't in place yet. I'll
go one more year.
MR. PALMER: And the other point is, the person that's
nominated can always turn down the nomination. Nobody can be
forced to be the chairman over their own election to do so. Make a
nomination, the person can say, "I decline the nomination" and;
therefore, he basically bows out of the chairmanship.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I tried that with my regular position on
the board.
MR. PALMER: May be legally possible but not necessarily
practically possible.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm okay with October looking at it, and
if you could put verbage in if that's all right with everybody.
MR. PALMER: The first meeting in October, the first meeting
after that, because you know how this board meets, so the first
meeting after October 1 st would be November. Then you would do it
at that meeting.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Or if it's October 2nd --
MR. PALMER: Whatever, but usually it would be the first
meeting after the 1st of October is a common ordinance provision.
Page 52
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's fine. Let's do that.
And then are we -- we never know when somebody's -- I write mine
on my calendar four years from now when I come up, but we never
know as a group when somebody's term has either expired or coming
up. There's an ad, but we don't know that.
MR. PALMER: The clerk's office has this information, the
clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, and I think you can get
it very quickly just for the asking. They have basically a tickler file
of all board-- the membership expiration dates of all board members.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So all I have to do is call the
clerk's office, and we can get that for everybody?
MR. PALMER: I would think Maria can call over there and get
the right person and get it for you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
on the ordinance?
MS. HU: I do.
I'm trying to find it.
Thank you. Any other comments
I can't-- I can't find that.
I spoke to Mr. Palmer about this. It was
regarding the vehicle permits. Do you recall what page it was, Mr.
Palmer?
MR. PALMER: The -- the little tweak? I don't recall what that
was about.
MS. HU: Actually, it's something that's even in the current
ordinance. It states that you need to make an application for your
vehicle permit, which it's now been changed to decal because that's
really the meaning behind it, but it adds that thing they need to have
or fill out a written application. We don't do that. The only thing that
we do is make sure that they provide a copy of their insurance and
their registration.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So what line are you-- what line are you
talking about, what page?
MS. HU: I still need to find it, but I believe it's 142.55.
Page 53
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm sorry. I can't hear you.
MS. HU: I still need to find it exactly, but I believe it's 142.55.
It's Section B -- subsection B.
MS. CRUZ: Yeah, it is. It is that Section 142.55, Section B.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What page is that?
MS. CRUZ: That would be on page 23.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MS. CRUZ: Line 23.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MS. CRUZ: Yes.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
What-- what line?
Page 23, line 23?
Okay.
MR. PALMER: We're working under different ordinances. My
-- my page 23, line 23 doesn't say anything about that. It says vehicle
permit.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's what she's talking about. She's --
she's saying we do not require a permit application in writing each
annually; is that what you're saying?
MS. HU: Right. And I don't know if-- if you want to make it
as to we create a form so that they can fill out in order to get a decal,
or do we just want to omit this language and continue the way that we
have been operating?
MR. PALMER: Well, it doesn't say anything about an
application form. It says make application for, which essentially
means apply for.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It says each permit application -- page
25 -- I'm sorry, line 25.
MS. HU: Shall be in writing.
MR. PALMER: Each permit application shall be in writing.
Yes. This has been in the ordinance from day one.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think it does refer to the one-page form
that you send out on the annual, doesn't it?
Page 54
October 4, 2001
MS. CRUZ: No. That page that you're referring to is the
renewal application form.
MS. HU: For the certificate to operate.
MS. CRUZ: For the entire operation of the business.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So are you saying that all it needs to say
is each permit or renewal application? Is that what you're -- what are
you recommending?
MS. HU: I'm asking the board -- the committee whether or not
they want to keep that in the ordinance and us conform to it or just
omit the language and function the way that we have been by
gathering the information needed.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What language are you wanting
removed?
MS. HU: It says here that we need an application in writing
which contains the name and address of the holder. We don't have an
application in writing when they come and purchase a decal, they just
give us a copy of their insurance and the copy of the registration on
the vehicle.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So if they add a vehicle the
ordinance says you have to do the application process over? MS. HU: Correct.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you see that, Mr. Palmer?
MR. PALMER: Well, I'm confused. This sentence talks about
a certificate. The certificate holder must receive a vehicle permit.
Are we talking about a decal here?
MS. HU: Yes. Because--
MR. PALMER: We're limiting this to a decal?
MS. CRUZ: Tom, what this section is referring to is in order for
someone to register a vehicle, each individual vehicle with us, they
have to fill in an application for each vehicle.
MR. HYDE: No, they don't.
Page 55
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't know where that says that.
MS. HU: Before any motor vehicle shall operate under any
certificate, the certificate holder shall make application for and
receive from the county manager a vehicle permit, which they do.
Each permit application shall be in writing and shall contain the name
and address, et cetera, et cetera.
MR. PALMER: Why in the world wouldn't you want that
information to document that the particular vehicle has received the
permit? This seems fundamental to me. Are you going to accept oral
applications? And the other thing is, this does not require any
particular form. This can be done in a letter. It doesn't say an
application form approved by Collier County. The only way you can
prove any particular vehicle can receive this permit that's being
described here is to describe what vehicle's got the permit.
MS. HU: I'm not saying that we don't want it. I'm asking the
committee whether they want to continue that and; therefore, we will
have to change our process, or do they want to omit the language.
MR. PALMER: You shouldn't have to change the process. You
should be complying with the ordinance as it's been written for the
past ten years, which is what's in here now.
MR. CSOGI: I've got a -- I've got a question for Ekna. Are you
talking about renewals, or are you talking about new applications?
MS. HU: I'm talking about the vehicle permit --
MR. CSOGI: Just the next year -- they want to get the next one
for the next year?
MS. CRUZ: No. Every time a vehicle is added --
MR. CSOGI: Right.
MS. CRUZ: -- the -- the applicant must bring in this application
filled in, filled out with all this information.
MR. CSOGI: So you're saying what you want in there -- when
they add a vehicle, you just give them a sticker and say, "Whatever
Page 56
October 4, 2001
vehicle you got, we don't care, here's your sticker because you
already have a CTO"?
MS. BAISLEY: No. That's not what they're saying.
MS. CRUZ: For example, a Yellow Cab has numerous --
several vehicles, 30, 40, I don't know. They would have to fill out
30, 40 applications for each vehicle in addition to their renewal
application.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Why does it say -- where does it say that
it has to be for each vehicle?
MS. CRUZ: Each permit application --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, permit application --
MS. CRUZ: -- for the vehicle, talking about the vehicle permits.
MS. HU: Each vehicle receives a permit, and if that is the case
-- I understand that we -- we should have been following the
ordinance, but we have not done this process.
MR. PALMER: Well, the ridiculousness of this whole
discussion is all this information can go easily on one piece of paper.
There's no problem here if all you're talking about is describing the
vehicle that gets the permit, what number it is, what color it is, what
its number is. It's a 1985 Ford four-door. How in the world can you
even ascertain what vehicle has a permit unless you have this
information? Otherwise, people would be sliding permits from
vehicle to vehicle without your knowledge or approval. This is a no
brainer here. I don't know why we're talking about it.
MS. HU: I am just asking the board if they want to keep this;
therefore, we will abide, or do they want to remove it and the
information on the vehicle is contained in the registration.
MS. CRUZ: Just asking for clarification, Tom.
We don't mean to upset anybody.
MR. CSOGI: I'd like to keep it as long as it's -- it's for initial
application and not renewal.
Page 57
October 4, 2001
MS. HU: Initial application for each vehicle?
MR. CSOGI: Correct.
MS. BAISLEY: I think what she's trying to say is that right now
when you want an additional vehicle put on, say, in June, you want
one more vehicle put on, right now all you do is you take your
registration and proof of insurance on that particular vehicle along
with your vehicle to her, and she gives you a sticker.
MR. PALMER: That's fine as long as those two -- those
documents you described contain this information. MS. BAISLEY: Okay.
MR. PALMER: It doesn't require any particular form. All it
requires is that when something goes into a file and says vehicle
permit number XYZ-12 we know what vehicle that's been assigned
to.
MR. HYDE: Got it.
MR. PALMER: This doesn't say that it must be on an
application form approved by Collier County. It just says you got to
apply for it and you've got to give us a certain amount of information.
MR. CSOGI: Can I ask the staff a question?
Let's say they do walk in with a registration and ask for it. Do you
walk out and make sure it complies with the color scheme?
MS. HU: Definitely. We're the ones who stick the decal on the
vehicle. We don't hand the decals to the person.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Yeah. I have -- I don't think it's
an issue either.
MR. CSOGI: Leave it the way it is.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Anything else?
MS. CRUZ: Yes. We're going through the whole ordinance
review, or are we just outlining the public inputs?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: We've reviewed and viewed and re-re-
reviewed and --
Page 58
October 4, 2001
MS. CRUZ: Can we re-re-review one more time?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What-- what item? What item?
MS. HU: We have -- we have an answer for your asking
whether or not it has teeth from the prior.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. What page?
MS. CRUZ: Page 25, first of all.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MS. CRUZ: Maybe I'm not understanding this and I need some
clarification here. Talks about the certificate issued under the
provision may be summarily suspended and the vehicle --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm sorry. What -- what line, 32?
MS. CRUZ: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MS. CRUZ: Page 31.
CHAIRMAN PEASE'
court reporter.
Thank you.
And if you could read slower for the
MS. CRUZ: Page 25, line 32 (as read): "The certificate issued
under this provision may be summarily suspended and the vehicle's
decal be summarily removed by staff," and then it goes on. Then at
the very bottom page 37 -- I mean. Not page 37, line 37, "The
certificate issued under this provision of this article may be revoked
or suspended by the PVAC only." I don't understand.
MR. PALMER: In other instances. In cases not described in the
first sentence is what that means.
MS. CRUZ: But it doesn't say that so --
MR. PALMER: It does. It says, "in other instances." We can
change it. We can change it to say, "except in the cases described
above," if you want to. What it means is if the -- if the first sentence
doesn't apply, the only -- unless it's those particular kinds of cases,
any suspension of an ordinance requires an action of the board and
not staff, but if you want to go ahead and add more wording I'll be
Page 59
October 4, 2001
happy to do that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think what I want to do is take a five-
minute break and come back to this issue. We've been two hours now
with the court reporter, and we're close to wrapping this up, but we're
not as close as I would have liked to have been. So let's take a five-
minute break. It's about three to eleven and we'll do -- we'll
reconvene in five.
(Short break taken.)
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Staff ready?
MS. CRUZ: Yes, I'm ready.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Call the meeting back to order.
Again, a reminder; cell phones, pagers, Nextels, please shut them off.
All right. Let's go to this item again, and I think what staff is saying
is they would like -- how do they know when they're supposed to deal
with it and when they're supposed to give it to us.
MR. PALMER: If it's a violation of subsections 3, 4, or 5 they
can handle it. If it's not a violation of that, then any suspension has to
come to you.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. I'm comfortable with that -- that
verbage. I mean, is staff-- staff looking at-- basically says you're
going to handle it if it's -- if it's a violation of safety or a violation of
3, 4 or 5 it goes to us.
MS. CRUZ: Okay.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is that -- you know. So I guess that
means are we going to start dealing with stickers -- you know, and --
MR. PALMER: We're only talking here about the suspension of
a certificate.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MR. PALMER: I do not recall since I've been with this board
for years that there's ever been a suspension of a certificate.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. Okay. So it only deals with that
Page 60
October 4, 2001
issue. Maria, what -- what else did you have? MS. CRUZ: Page 26.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Page 26, line --
MS. CRUZ: Line 21 or line 20 where it talks about disciplinary
proceedings.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right.
MS. CRUZ: I would like to see something in there about repeat
violators we have in other ordinances, and it's working quite well.
You have it in the code enforcement
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
ordinance?
MS. CRUZ: In-- yes.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
is?
then
that.
Code enforcement ordinance.
Can you summarize what that verbage
MS. CRUZ: What it is if it's the same violator, same violation
there's other penalties, stricter penalties for that individual.
MS. BAISLEY: For the same violation?
MS. CRUZ: Same violation, same violator.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I have no problem with that concept.
MR. CRUZ: I would like to put something in there that refers to
MR. CSOGI: What's our -- what's our penalty process
currently? Is it up to us?
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Palmer.
MR. PALMER: It appears it's $25 per day -- per day now.
Now, you can have a ratcheted violation, but this per-day thing may
take care of it. Many ordinances have a per-day provision, but they
don't strictly apply it. The violation continues for 20 days, they only
apply it for 5, so you get some latitude about the cumulative amount
of a penalty based on how many days. I've never seen, even though it
says, "shall -- each day shall be a separate violation," I've never seen
anybody strictly enforce that because it gets absurd in some cases as
Page 61
October 4, 2001
the amount of the cumulative fines -- but if you can -- you want to
ratchet this up to say that if it isn't cured within a certain amount of
time the fine doubles, something like that, you can do that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What's the -- what -- what is the penalty
on the other board if it's the same violation, same company?
MS. CRUZ: We could fine up to $500 per day as a repeat
violator.
MS. BAISLEY: The same violation, in what time period? A
year? Two years? Or ten years?
MS. CRUZ: There's no time frame.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Just forever. That doesn't sound good.
MS. CRUZ: If that person -- if that person's been adjudicated by
the board and the board has issued an order and has asked this person
to comply and this person doesn't, a year later, two years later this
person violates again, the same violation, we could bring that person
back before the board. There's been an adjudication already, and we
could fine him as a repeat violator.
MR. PALMER: That's true; however, ! do not believe that the
fine is ratcheted up -- it doesn't affect the fine amount. It affects the
summarity of the process on which to find a subsequent violation.
It does not say that the fines against a repeat violator are greater than
a first violator, so it kind of misses the mark. The limit of the Code
Enforcement Board, in my understanding, is $500 per day in every
case whether you violated once or a hundred times.
So with this business about the fine changing on repeat violation
is not the case. It's a question about, like, you're on probation and the
proof of showing a subsequent violation is not quite as burdensome
as if it were the first violation 'cause we know you. We know you've
done this before, and staff is just telling you it's, oh, by the way, it's
going on again. It's a question of proof, not a question of the amount
of the fine.
Page 62
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Maria, have you found code
enforcement issues -- the fine is $500 a day starting there? MS. CRUZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What do you guys usually do? I mean,
what's the -- what's the per-day fine start?
MS. CRUZ: It all -- it's determined with the gravity of the
violation.
MR. PALMER: Right. And the fact that somebody comes back
as a second or repeat violator does not automatically mean the fine is
thereafter $500 a day.
MS. CRUZ: But the board has that capability of fining that
repeat violator.
MR. PALMER: And they have the capability in the first
violator, so the fact that it's a first violator or repeat violator does not
in any way affect the discretion of the Code Enforcement Board on
what fine to impose. The fine in any case cannot exceed $500 per
day, and nothing in the statute or the ordinance says, "Oh, by the
way, if it's a repeat violator, the fine shall be ratcheted up" just
because it's a repeat violation.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I have some concerns about the
repeat violation aspect in terms of-- in terms of the gravity of the
situation, common sense prevailing.
MS. BAISLEY: We're going to cite somebody that had a
cracked windshield in 1990, and then they're found with a cracked
windshield again in 2000 is a repeat violator?
MR. PALMER: The intent of this ordinance is not to fine
people --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right.
MR. PALMER: -- it's to correct the problem.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, we still need to give them all the
teeth they can, but I don't think that's the mechanism I would prefer
Page 63
October 4, 2001
to see used.
MR. PALMER: Well, Bryan, $25 a day can add up --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right.
MR. PALMER: -- if you don't do what you're supposed to do.
MS. CRUZ: How are the fines collected? We can fine
somebody $25 per day, and this fine can accumulate forever. How
do we collect the fines?
MR. CSOGI: I would say the certificate would be suspended
until the fines are paid.
MR. PALMER: That's a good question. It's a shame that wasn't
brought up, you know, three months ago. These things are now being
thrown on the table. You can go ahead if we haven't got it in here and
say that failure to pay the fine in a certain amount of time will be
grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit or the certificate.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can we use the same mechanism they
have in code enforcement for the other -- if you have a property
violation. Can we use the same -- not a lien I'm talking about, but I'm
talking about in terms of don't they send -- isn't there a judicial
situation that happens? They send out something?
MS. CRUZ: They file a judgment against the individual's
property.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: File a judgment.
MS. CRUZ: A lien.
MR. PALMER: I haven't looked into the matter. See, the thing
about it is the Code Enforcement Board has specific statutory
authority to do that. There are no statutes, to my knowledge, about
Public Vehicle Advisory Committees, which raises the question
about whether or not this board has any power to issue judgments or
impose liens.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's the question.
MR. PALMER: It's very questionable; however, you do have
Page 64
October 4, 2001
the power -- and I don't think it's questionable -- about the suspension
or the revocation of permits or possibly the pulling of a permit on a
particular vehicle that's in violation. We could put that in here.
MS. CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion. If there's any
pending fines for a certain certificate holder, before another vehicle
permit is issued--
MR. PALMER: They don't get it renewed.
MS. CRUZ: Or the certificate is renewed.
MR. PALMER: That may be already in here. I'm not sure.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Palmer, if it's not in there, can you
come up with verbage for that?
MR. PALMER: Absolutely. I think -- if it's not in here, I'll
certainly put it in here. That is that if there are any outstanding, let's
call it fines, fees, or charges due at a time of an application for a -- a
renewal certificate.
MS. CRUZ: I would like to see renewal certificate or addition
to another-- to a vehicle.
MR. PALMER: Or to add another vehicle. In either case they
cannot do either until they bring everything up to speed. I'll be happy
to put that in there.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is that okay with everybody?
MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But what you're saying is if code
enforcement or staff on our behalf finds a problem, it's $25 a day and
it could be 365 days, they don't fix it until the next permit? There's
no maximum? There's no minimum? Every day's $25 a day? MS. CRUZ: That's what the ordinance says.
MR. PALMER: That's what it says now. And although in some
instances I can have absurd results, the question is, if it runs and it's
capped out at, say, $500, then the person just says, "Well, I'll suffer
the consequences, and I'll pay this whenever it comes around for me
to get a new or add a vehicle or X thing." We have a Code
Page 65
October 4, 2001
Enforcement Board lien that's reached about $1,200,000, don't we?
MS. CRUZ: Its foreclosed two days ago.
MR. PALMER: It's foreclosed, but that just goes to show you
whether or not a fine continues to accrue is in the hands of the
violator. Either they correct the problem or the fine runs.
MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But my question is, you're going to fail to
renew their certificate or their permit just for that vehicle the next
year? In other words, if they don't pay the fine, they don't get the
sticker for that vehicle?
I say will do no further activity until they satisfy
MS. CRUZ:
the fines.
MR. CSOGI:
Exactly. Otherwise, they could-- they could
drive the car for a year, incur the fines, get rid of the car, and then
they don't have to pay the fines on that car if it's just for the decal for
that car. It should have something to do with their CTO.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Should have to do with the entire
company --
MR. CSOGI: Right.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- and not all the fleet and not just that
particular vehicle which the violation's occurred.
MR. PALMER: Well, that's the thing is what you could do is
you could if you wanted to -- for example, if it wasn't paid within a
certain amount of time, you could actually suspend the permit on the
vehicle. That's one. Two is if that company comes in before their
next annual renewal and wants to add another vehicle, they can't add
another vehicle. And, three, when their time for the whole company
comes around the next year, they don't get any vehicle permits or any
certificates for the entire company unless these problems have been
taken care of. So it's, like, three steps.
MR. CSOGI: The fine -- fine needs to be paid for the whole
year also.
Page 66
October 4, 2001
MR. PALMER: Yes. The fine -- at the time that they come for
their renewal if it hasn't stopped, if it's continuing, they add up -- just
add up the bottom line and say, you lost $3,500, whatever it may be
on that day. Hopefully, reasonable people will correct the problem
and stop the daily accrual of the penalty.
MS. BAISLEY: What if there is -- excuse me -- what if there is
a particular case that's an ongoing thing that has gone to a hearing
stage and that hearing happens to still be going on when it's time for
somebody to renew their permit? Are they going to be able to renew
their permit until it's determined by the Court that whatever activity
needed --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, it would be the PVAC.
MR. PALMER: It would be -- it would be -- well, actually, in
that case it would be handled by staff. If staff comes in and says, we
cited you on a vehicle in July and you have not come in here and
showed us that problem -- in fact, want to put the burden on the
violator to show -- bring us so we don't have to make ten phone calls
-- let him have the burden of proof to prove that it's been done to stop
the daily accrual of the fine.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: What if they wanted to go to the
hearing? Let's say this thing happens in November, and they want --
and our next meeting is March, let's say. Well, wouldn't be -- so let's
put it in the time frame we're going to be about 60 days away at least
before we meet -- during that time she's required or whoever it is is
required to get their vehicles stickered. In effect before the person
even has a hearing, aren't we putting that in --
MR. PALMER: No. The way to handle that-- and I don't recall
how much this detail is in here, but we can put it in here. If, in fact,
there is a summary suspension of a vehicle or an entire permit, the
applicant can have an expedited appeal to the board, maybe even a
special meeting if you want to do that. In other words -- and the other
Page 67
October 4, 2001
-- or otherwise it has a prima facie validity. The assumption is that
what staff is doing is correct.
Now, on the case that you mentioned, let's assume for example
something goes on and on and on, and they come back in and say,
"Look, this is beyond circumstances beyond my control."
Hypothetically -- I can't think it applies in this case, but it happens in
Code Enforcement Board cases -- the board itself can waive a part or
all of the fines and basically do what let's call an equitable adjustment
to the bottom line. This happened a couple -- about a month ago on
the birdhouse or the house in the backyard case. There were a lot of
fines accrued on some kind of child's house in the backyard, and the
board basically waived all the fines for whatever extraneous reasons.
So these things can be taken care of, and if you like we can go
ahead and put -- and be glad to put this kind of detail in the ordinance
if it is not already in there. Be glad to do that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: ! think it should be. Also, who decides
if there's going to be a meeting on that? Is that the staff that decides
that, or is that the chair?
MR. PALMER: What normally happens is if a staff person
takes a summary action and -- that means it takes effect at the time.
What normally happens is if it is a problem and the violator, quote,
unquote, the respondent wants to have that decision, that summary
decision of staff appealed, the normal process is they can appeal to
you. And if it's time sensitive, the normal process is that you will
have an expedited hearing to decide whether or not what staff did was
appropriate, and you can amend that, affirm that, or overrule that.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay.
MR. PALMER: That's the normal process.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: How do -- how do you feel about that?
MS. BAISLEY: I'm just concerned because somebody could be
in an actual -- somebody might have had a violation that they had
Page 68
October 4, 2001
corrected, but they're still going to a hearing for some reason. Okay?
MR. PALMER: Well, that would not be -- that's conceivably
possible, but would not be fair. Obviously, the idea here is to correct
the problem, not to assess fines; therefore, if somebody corrects the
problem at issue and notifies staff in one form or another the problem
-- whatever that proof may take; that has its own issues, but staff is
satisfied that problem X has been solved -- and it was solved as of
July 27th; therefore, the fine accrual automatically ceases on July the
27th.
If somebody would come in here and say to you, "I proved to
staff that, in fact, the problem stopped, and they arbitrarily and
capriciously kept the fine running," you could come in here and say,
"Staff, why in the world did you do that?" And they would say,
"Well, it's because we were not satisfied with the amount of proof" or
"We thought we were having smoke blown in our face." That comes
down to the question of the kind of proof it requires to let staff--
convince staff that, in fact, the problem has been corrected.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. I have a problem with it being
optional on the chair's part. I think if it's an issue where they're being
fined daily and it comes up to the annual renewal time period-- I'm
not talking about an individual car. I'm just talking about the whole
fleet -- and it's a time-sensitive issue, I think it ought to be required
that this board meet to review that. Because it's -- you could put a
company out of business over a broken windshield. I don't think--
the person would have to be not thinking logically to take it to that
extreme.
MR. PALMER: Well, let's put this in context. There are very
limited instances where staff can even suspend a certificate. Under
no cases can staff ever revoke a certificate except in those limited
cases the matter-- even a suspension must come to the board. So the
only time you really need this expedited review process by the board
Page 69
October 4, 2001
is if, in fact, the suspension of a certificate needs what the respondent
believes is immediate attention and-- however, the instances where
staff has the power to summarily suspend are so limited and in all
probability the facts in those cases are going to be so clear they're not
going to turn on a question of fact. Either somebody has insurance or
they don't. Either somebody has a safe vehicle or they don't. These
matters are generally as a matter of fact quite clear, and the only time
you need almost this expedited review is on an allegation that staff
has been arbitrary and capricious, in fact, the facts don't come close
to showing that there is a factual foundation on which to exercise a
summary suspension of a certificate. But if you want to do that you
could -- you could -- usually what you do is you put the burden on
the respondent. The person that's been suspended has the burden of
applying for an appeal process expedited but require that person to
request it.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. I like that concept. How about
you, Pat? You like that?
MS. BAISLEY: Yeah.
MR. PALMER: And then that would -- if it's time sensitive, it
could -- you could trigger an expedited hearing to resolve just that
matter.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can you -- can you write it that way?
MR. PALMER: Absolutely. Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Does that help staff, teeth--
teethwise? You okay with that? What else you got?
MS. CRUZ: Page -- no. Same page, line 26. Actually, starts on
line 24 (as read): "The alleged violator will, if possible, be provided
written notice of violation prior to the proceedings can be addressed
by the PVAC." Who is providing written notice? The board, PVAC,
or staff
MR. PALMER: In 99 percent of the case it's undoubtedly staff.
Page 70
October 4, 2001
it?
MR. CRUZ: Should it say staff?.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It could be either-- any of them, couldn't
MS. CRUZ: Or either?
MR. PALMER: You can put it in there if you want to. The fact
it doesn't limit it. It's open. If we -- if we wanted to clarify every one
of these issues, we would have 20 additional words in every sentence
in this ordinance.
MS. CRUZ: These are sentences that could come back.
MR. PALMER: The alleged violator will be provided with
notice, period. It doesn't matter who he provides -- who provides
notice as long as he gets the notice if possible. And "if possible"
means that he -- we have a current mailing address so, we don't spend
days trying to find out where the alleged violator is. This is a big
problem, and that's why the word "if possible" is in there because,
otherwise, they come in and argue due process that your ordinance
required notice in fact and if you couldn't track down the thing, that
you've violated your own ordinance.
Some of this -- you could not believe the amount of time staff
spends on trying to find some change of address to some violator.
When that's all this ordinance -- that's all this provision really does is
to talk about this. But it doesn't matter who provides the notice as
long as they get the notice if possible.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Did you have some suggested verbage
you wanted to insert?
MS. CRUZ: No, sir. My comments are -- I'm done with them.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's okay. You can have comment.
MR. PALMER: Well, the thing that I don't like, I've been
getting e-mails every other day about tweaking this word and
tweaking that word, and nobody said anything about these matters
that have been recently been raised. These things could be handled
Page 71
October 4, 2001
by e-mail because than be taking up the time before this board,
because they're not substantive decisions.
MS. CRUZ: I thought we were going through the ordinance
review, and I thought this was the time to bring all these
misunderstandings --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, we've been doing this on a
monthly basis in the workshops, and I concur with him on the fact
that I wished we'd have done this a lot sooner; however, this is
something we'll have to live with for five or six years, and so it's
important that we knock out any of staff's objections, even though
they're tardy with -- to make sure that we don't have any loopholes to
staff. I don't want to ever hear staff ever say again, "We don't have
the ability to do something," because this is the time to get it done.
So if there's -- what verbage would you like to see in there, staff?.
MR. PALMER: Mr. Pease, I agree with that, but these are --
these are not substantive things we're talking about. These are just
clarifications.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'm just trying to hear what -- what she
would like to see added.
MS. CRUZ: We've covered all my -- my points, anything I
wanted to bring up.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well-- well, what-- you brought the
point up. Do you have suggested verbage change on that section?
MS. CRUZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
MS. CRUZ: I'm done.
CHAIRMAN PEASE:
So--
MS. CRUZ: I don't have any more conunents.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: You're sure?
Now you're making me mad.
I'm done.
Just clarification. It's okay. You're okay.
Thank you.
MS. CRUZ: Yes.
Page 72
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All right. Mr. Palmer, we're
running against a deadline here.
MR. PALMER: I don't have any comments except -- in the
ordinance except this comment this morning about dropoff charges in
Collier County by ordinance. I don't know that any county by
ordinance requires anybody coming in from outside to get a dropoff
charges. I think they are site-specific charges on a place like an
airport, and they're imposed by the airport, not a county.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's my understanding as well.
Okay. We're going to get this thing enacted. What do we got to
do?
MR. PALMER: What we've got to do after we get it tweaked
here is either after you see it another time or if you want to just go
forward is there's two processes. I'll have to look at it. I believe that
the board, this board, has sort of a continuing commission to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners amendments to
the ordinance from time to time. I think the thing to do is to go to the
Board of County Commissioners and get permission to advertise the
ordinance so the ordinance can be brought back before the Board of
County Commissioners for possible adoption. That would be done
on a summary agenda that they would just do it, and undoubtedly
they will do it unless there's something in the executive summary that
gets their back up, but generally speaking they'll say, fine. They'll
approve it. Then we will go ahead and have this ordinance submitted
to the newspaper, advertised, and not later than ten days get before
the Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing to adopt this
proposed ordinance.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Do you need a motion for that to
happen?
MR. PALMER: You can just-- actually, you can just instruct
staff to so proceed, if you like.
Page 73
October 4, 2001
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Is this committee ready to do
that?
MS. BAISLEY: I am.
MR. CSOGI: I am.
MR. HYDE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. We would like to address staff to
run that ad so we can have a public hearing.
MR. PALMER: No. The first thing is to get the board's
permission to run the ad, and then as soon as they do that-- and
undoubtedly they will -- then we'll get it to the newspaper, get it
scheduled for public hearing. And in due course it'll come before the
Board of County Commissioners for a public hearing, and subject to
the public input the board will do the ordinance as it sees fit, probably
pass it.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Staff okay with that?
MS. BAISLEY: Do you think that we can get this done so that
it could be in effect for the renewal of the permit in January?
MR. PALMER: Easily. Easily. Not a problem timewise.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Staff understand what the next step is?
MS. CRUZ: Could -- could you please let us know what the
process is, what the first step is from staff's viewpoint?
MR. PALMER: Sure. First step is to get an executive
summary.
MS. CRUZ: Who prepares the executive summary?
MR. PALMER: Normally the department prepares the
executive summary and, if requested, the county attorney's office will
sometimes sort of edit it. Normally the county attorney's office does
not prepare executive summaries for other departments, or we would
be doing nothing but prepare executive summaries. That goes on the
consent agenda, and the bottom line says, "Approval of this item will
authorize staff to advertise this ordinance and bring it back to the
Page 74
October 4, 2001
board for public hearing."
They approve that, and then you've got to get it in the paper with
at least ten days before the scheduled hearing, come back to the board
on the public hearing portion of their agenda. They hear it. They
have public input, and they usually adopt it, in which case it would
automatically -- in the usual case -- go into effect as soon as received
by the Secretary of State, just normally about four or five days after
the Tuesday that the board approves it. And so we can -- timewise
there's no reason to believe that this would in any way go beyond the
end of this calendar year.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Is there -- how long will it take
staff to prepare the executive summary?
MS. CRUZ: I do not know. I would have to consult with the
director of the department.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Are we talking a week?
MR. PALMER: Anybody can write it that just sits down and
writes it.
MS. CRUZ: We still need to talk to the director.
MS. HU: To get direction on the wording.
MS. CRUZ: We can get back to you sometime -- she's out of
the office today. We can get back to you sometime tomorrow and let
you know a more definite date.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Let's -- let's put it on track because, you
know, we're running against a time frame. We need to give people in
the industry the opportunity to prepare for this. And even though
we've had public hearings and we'll have other public hearings still,
we need to get this information in their hands as soon as possible,
because it does change the way they do business.
MR. PALMER: Mr. Pease, another thing you can do if you
want to is you can have the ordinance have what's called a delayed
effective date. In other words, if it passed by the board, they could
Page 75
October 4, 2001
get the ordinance and see what's in the ordinance, but it wouldn't kick
in for some other specified period of time, 30 days or something.
They're doing that right now on an amendment to the False Alarm
Ordinance, so you don't necessarily have to have the ordinance kick
in the day it's received by the Secretary of State in Tallahassee. If
you want to give the industry a little breathing space, you can have a
delayed effective date.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think that makes actually some sense,
maybe an effective date of January 1 st which would still be -- they
can't get permits before January 1st, correct, the annuals? MS. CRUZ: Right.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: So if we made it effective January 1st, it
would enact; correct?
MR. PALMER: Would that be -- would that catch up all your
problems for next year about the requirements, prerequisite
requirements for people getting renewals next calendar year? Is
January 1 going to do the job for you?
MS. CRUZ: We will be ready to renew on January 1 st.
MS. BAISLEY: Everybody's going to have to have their vehicle
inspections and their drivers all ready to be --
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. We need to get it in their hands
in November, if possible.
MR. PALMER: I think that's possible. I think we can probably
get this ordinance, if it's going to get passed by the board, probably
get passed in the month of November.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Also like to ask staff to have -- if
Michelle Arnold contact Tom Arnold -- Tom Palmer. Sorry. And
just make sure that staff and county legal are in sync in terms of this
ordinance, in terms of making sure there's no hiccoughs in-- in
implementation on stafi~s part, and if it takes an extra paragraph for
them to be happy and it doesn't hurt the purpose in any way, let's do
Page 76
October 4, 2001
it.
MR. PALMER: I don't mind doing that at all. In fact, I've done
that 50 times in the last 30 days on e-mails. My only point is, it's a
little upsetting to hear about it for the first time here this morning
when they're nothing but clarifications. They're not substantive
changes, and I have amended this thing 35 times in the last two
months.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: ! concur. I concur with what you're
saying. Let's go another 52 if we have to.
MR. PALMER: I don't mind doing that, and I would do the
executive summary -- I would volunteer to do it, but I am involved in
a very important sensitive political matter, and I haven't gotten the
time to be writing executive summaries.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. Nobody's asking you to write an
executive summary. It would -- I think it would be good for you to
look at it, though, and review it.
MR. PALMER: Be happy to. There are forms for executive
summaries. The Code Enforcement Board takes things to the Board
of County Commissioners all the time. You could take one of those
executive summaries and work from it and make sense. Normally
you can prepare an executive summary from the title and the whereas
clauses of an ordinance.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All right. Any other comments
on the ordinance? Questions?
Okay. Next meeting January 8th, 2002. Adjournment. I don't
know. I don't need a motion for that, do I?
MR. PALMER: No. You can just announce it.
CHAIRMAN PEASE: Meeting adjourned.
Page 77
October 4, 2001
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11:40 a.m.
PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
BRYAN L. S. PEASE, CHAIRMAN
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN
COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD
Page 78