Loading...
PVAC Minutes 04/10/2002 RApril 10, 2002 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE APRIL 10, 2002 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Public Vehicle Advisory Committee, in and for Collier County, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:20 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Government Center, BCC Room, 3rd Floor, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bryan L. S. Pease VICE-CHAIRMAN: William J. Csogi Pat Baisley Eric Hyde Dan Shriner Allen Walburn ALSO PRESENT: Michelle Arnold, Code Enforcement Ekna Hu, Code Enforcement Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: I call the meeting of the Collier County Public Vehicle Advisory Committee to order. Could I have the roll call, please. MS. HU: Bryan Pease. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Present. MS. HU: William Csogi. MR. CSOGI: Here. MS. HU: Eric Hyde. MR. HYDE: Here. MS. HU: Patricia Baisley. MS. BAISLEY: Here. MS. HU: Allen Walburn. MR. WALBURN: Here. MS. HU: Dan Shriner. MR. SHRINER: Here. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Are there any additions or deletions to the meeting? MR. CSOGI: Yeah. I'd like to add an addition, Bryan. I talked with you on this the last workshop if we can do a formal letter of thanks to Clifford Flegal from the board for his attendance under new business. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. MS. ARNOLD: What was that? I didn't hear. MR. CSOGI: Under new business -- if we could add -- I talked with Bryan in the last workshop, if we could draft a formal letter of thanks to Clifford Flegal for his serving on the board. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'll put that under new business. Any other additions? Page 2 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: We need to add a discussion item about the IDs, whether or not we can require them to -- to charge a fee for the IDs. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can I go ahead and include that in Item 10 under discussion, resolution of background checks? Anything else? MS. ARNOLD: No. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have approval of the agenda? MR. CSOGI: I'll approve. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Approved by Mr. Csogi. Do we have a second? MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second. All those in favor? (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Do we have approval of the minutes from the January 7th meeting? MR. WALBURN: I make a motion to approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion made. Do we have a second? MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second. All those in favor, aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. First item is notices, Southwest Transportation adding V.I.P. Limo. MS. HU: That's Herman Pfeuti. I believe he purchased V.I.P. Limo if you have any questions for him. It needs to be approved or reviewed by the board according to the ordinance. Page 3 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Pfeuti, could you come forward and be sworn in, please. Either location. (The oath was administered.) MR. PFEUTI: My name is Herman Pfeuti, P-f-e-u-t-i. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And you also own Southwest Transportation? MR. PFEUTI: That is correct. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Both of these companies have been approved by the PVAC? MS. HU: Yes. V.I.P. Limo was an existing company. Southwest was also. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Mr. Palmer, do we -- what do we need to do there, just -- do we need to vote on that for approval? MR. PALMER: Yes. Whatever authorization you're giving today I would have a motion to second that and take a vote of the board. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Any questions? MS. BAISLEY: Usually we have some kind of letter from the previous owner of V.I.P. Limo indicating that he sold this company to him. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't have any paperwork at all on this. Does -- MS. HU: Neither do I. I reviewed the ordinance and to what I recall it says that the PVAC needs to be known of the changes. I know in the past we have required them to -- to turn in a letter, but I don't remember anything in the ordinance requiring that. MR. WALBURN: It would be very difficult to approve something if you didn't know it was sold. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is the seller here? MR. PFEUTI: No, they're not. They're out of town. They're not even here. Page 4 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: Perhaps we could get something submitted to the county from you showing that you purchased that company. MR. PFEUTI: Yeah. I can do it. The purchase -- I can do the purchase and sales agreement. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. And just, like, a notification letter indicating that this transaction occurred and you're providing the board with notice. And you're going to be using what name? MR. PFEUTI: I'm going to be using V.I.P. Limo. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. PFEUTI: So right now my certificate is Sarco (phonetic) Valley Trade, d/b/a Southwest Transportation, and I'm going to change to Sarco Valley Trader d/b/a V.I.P. Limo. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So you won't operate a company called Southwest Transportation any longer? MR. PFEUTI: Not really, no. I won't use the name. It's a corporate name, and I still have the corporation, but I won't use it. I will use V.I.P. Limo. MR. CSOGI: What's going on with the CTO for V.I.P. Limo then? So you're just going to have two CTOs? MS. ARNOLD: He would just have one because he's going to be using V.I.P. MR. CSOGI: I know he's going to be using one, but he purchased -- he's already got Southwest Transportation which should have a CTO; right? MS. HU: He can write a letter rendering the -- MR. CSOGI: Right. MS. HU: -- Southwest Transportation-- and I believe that's what you're going to have to do. You're going to go with just V.I.P. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. CSOGI: Right. Page 5 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: Well, is -- the name of the corporation that you're purchasing, are you changing that name? MR. PFEUTI: No, not at all. MR. PALMER: Well, then the corporate name will stay the same doing business as whatever the business will be, but as far as our records are concerned, it's the same corporation; it just has new ownership. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And we'll -- we will not have -- Southwest Transportation will not be recognized as a company of record? MR. PALMER: What will be recognized as a company of record is the same corporation by name with new owners doing business as another -- in a different name, but the corporation itself as a legal entity has not changed its name and-- MR. WALBURN: Stockholders. MR. PALMER: -- therefore, that fact will not change as certificate holder. That corporation will still hold the certificate. I'm assuming that the certificate was issued to that corporation. MR. PFEUTI: Yes, it was. That's correct. MR. WALBURN: So really all you've done is change stockholders in the corporation, so -- MR. PALMER: He's changed ownership, and he's apparently going to change the doing-buisness-as name, all of which must be notified to the county -- MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PALMER: -- in writing so that we know where we're going to stand vis-a-vie you and your present configuration. MS. ARNOLD: And whether or not you want to continue with two certifications or one. MR. PFEUTI: No. Just one. Just the Sarco Valley Trader d/b/a V.I.P. Limo. Page 6 April 10, 2002 MS. MR. subject to MS. MR. - that you that's got MR. Palmer is ARNOLD: Right. PALMER: What you -- the board could do is say that staff receiving -- ARNOLD: Right. PALMER: -- this information and confirming it, that you- thereby acknowledge receipt of the requisite information to be given to the county and delegate that to staff. WALBURN: I would make a motion to accept what Mr. recommending. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We have a motion. Does -- do we have any further discussion before second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a second? MR. CSOGI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second made. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carries. MR. PFEUTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. MR. PFEUTI: Have a good day. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you. Next item is new business. We'll start with a formal letter to thank Mr. Flegal. Bill. MR. CSOGI: Yeah. was a past board member. nice formal letter thanking him and have all the board members sign it. It would be a nice gesture. We talked about this in the workshop. He I would just like to see if we could do a Page 7 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Do -- you want all of you to sign it or the Chairman? MR. CSOGI: Whoever want -- I'm not going to make them sign it. I mean, whoever wants to sign it. MS. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. MR. CSOGI: I'll sign it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Request for approval to operate a vehicle for hire service, Carol Ann Fontaine doing business as Fantastic Limousine. Is Carol Ann here? Could you come forward and be sworn in, please. (The oath was administered.) MR. CSOGI: Mr. Palmer, I have a question on the rate schedule she handed in. She's got a rate schedule and a sign -- print. It's subject to change of gasoline prices and fuel surcharge may apply on the very bottom in fine print. MR. PALMER: Well, limousine services, can't they set their rates as they see fit? MR. CSOGI: Yeah. MR. PALMER: Therefore, if she wants to acknowledge that there may be adjustments as she goes based on fuel, I don't think that's a violation of the ordinance. MR. CSOGI: I just wanted to make sure. MR. PALMER: That would be -- may not be allowable in the case of a taxicab. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: They're set and established and not amendable by the taxicab operator, obviously. MR. CSOGI: The other question I have is you didn't include a taxicab color or scheme. I know you're going to have a limousine, but there's nothing in here on the color. Page 8 April 10, 2002 MS. FONTAINE: She told me I didn't have to. It's white. The car is white. MR. CSOGI: But you're going to keep it white as far as when you go into business? MS. FONTAINE: Yes. MS. ARNOLD: I could have Ekna just kind of summarize for you-all what is applicable and if there's anything missing so that if you have any questions we can proceed. MS. HU: She had submitted everything. The vehicles will be purchased upon approval is the only thing that she's -- you're not going to see the vehicle registrations for that reason. MR. CSOGI: Right. Also, how about the occupational license? Haven't -- haven't acquired an occupational license yet? That's pending if you get approved? MS. FONTAINE: Right. MS. HU: She filled out the application, though. MR. CSOGI: I'll make a motion we approve and if anybody else has discussion on it pending vehicle registration, insurance requirements, occupational license provided to the county. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any further discussion before I ask for a second? MR. SHRINER: Well, I see it's a super stretch, and it's going to be at a residence. I guess it's -- MS. FONTAINE: No. I'm going to be parking it at a commercial place. MR. SHRINER: Okay. It will be at another -- okay, because I thought that would be kind of large getting in and out of the driveway. That's it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a second? MR. WALBURN: I'll second. Page 9 April 10, 2002 CHAIRM PEASE: Second by Allen Walburn. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Good luck. MS. FONTAINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Next is -- I assume this is from staff, request for approval sub-certificates A, B, C. Is this all going to be done -- MS. ARNOLD: You missed -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I miss -- I'm sorry. I apologize. Joanne Vishaway doing business as JoJo's Cab. Apologize for that. If you come forward and be sworn in. (The oath was administered.) MS. HU: Joanne has turned everything in except the credit references. MS. VISHAWAY: I do have a list of credit card references. You will have some handwritten things in the application. As I haven't done any business yet, I haven't established any credit, so I took out the letter of recommendation. COURT REPORTER: Ma'am, I can barely hear you. MS. ARNOLD: Pull it down. Pull it down. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Palmer, that leg is cracking over there. MS. VISHAWAY: I brought in a letter of personal reference as well as a credit reference from a personal note I took out a few years ago. As I'm not in business yet, I don't have any references for credit. The two people that are handwritten on my list, other than Gary, offered to extend credit once business is begun. Page 10 April 10, 2002 MR. CSOGI: I've got a question on your articles of incorporation. You've got JoJo's Cab, Inc. You're just -- you're the sole officer? There's no other officers on the corporation. I don't understand Betty Massagee. MS. VISHAWAY: Yeah. She's the vice president. I believe she's listed. MR. CSOGI: She's listed on your application, but she's not listed in your articles of incorporation. Just a clerical error? MS. VISHAWAY: I believe it is, yeah. MR CSOGI: Then also on your articles of incorporation you provided you're missing six pages. MS. VISHAWAY: I am? MR. CSOGI: Yeah. MS. VISHAWAY: It came via fax, so it's very possible. MR. CSOGI: Oh, okay. COURT REPORTER: Ma'am, I can't hear you. MS. VISHAWAY: I'm sorry. It came via fax, so I will check into that. MS. HU: The only issues that I can see questionable are the credit reports. MR. CSOGI: I couldn't read the second credit report at all. It's not legible. Then the first credit report -- I don't -- I reviewed that. I don't think that had anything to do with taxi business even though what it states. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is the original more legible? MS. ARNOLD: No. We got the same copy. MS. HU: It's the same thing. MR. CSOGI: How many vehicles do you intend to purchase? It's not listed here. MS. VISHAWAY: To start out we'll start with two. That's the plan. Page 11 April 10, 2002 MR. MS. MR. didn't see MS. Navy blue. CSOGI: Two taxis? VISHAWAY: Yes, sir. CSOGI: And then the colors for them, is that in here? I that. VISHAWAY: It's shaded in a light blue. The color will be MR. CSOGI: That's right. MS. VISHAWAY: Yes. MR. CSOGI: Yeah. That's right. for fictitious name for JoJo's Cab, Inc.? With the silver letters? Do you have proof of filing MS. VISHAWAY: I believe it was in the corporation paperwork. MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But you're supposed to -- MR. SHRINER: Is that there? MR. CSOGI: That's articles of incorporation. MR. SHRINER: Excuse me. Okay. MR. CSOGI: It should be a display listing that you had to put in the newspaper saying you're a fictitious name. Did you do that? MS. VISHAWAY: No. I did not do that personally. I, unfortunately, assumed the lawyers would do that, so I didn't take care of it. MR. CSOGI: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do I have a motion? MR. SHRINER: I'll make a motion to approve it with the recommendations of the fictitious name, if that would work. MR. CSOGI: Well, we've got a second page of the credit report that's not legible. I've got a list here. She has a credit reference, but it's from a personal friend. It's supposed to be two business -- two financial institution credit references. Page 12 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: No. The ordinance requires one financial institution. MR. CSOGI: One financial. So it's -- we're also missing the seven-- six pages of the articles of incorporation. There's one -- I'm sure she has them, but there's one here in our packet, proof of filing for fictitious name, and then the usual stuff; vehicle registration, insurance upon approval. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does the maker of the motion accept -- MR. CSOGI: There's a lot of stuff there. CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- the additional items as part of their motion? MR. SHRINER: Yes. That's what I was saying. If everybody understands what that -- she has done the corporation. She's done everything. It still looks like it could pass. I understand the credit, but it's not related to the vehicles, as you said, so -- MR. CSOGI: Well, the first is not. The second page is not legible for the other-- the vice president of the corporation. It's not legible. MR. SHRINER: Does the vice president have the same criteria as the owner? MS. HU: Yes. MR. CSOGI: Everybody on the CTO does. MS. ARNOLD: Ms. Vishaway, do you have a copy of that other page, because we made a couple requests for it? MS. VISHAWAY: What I gave you came through on the fax machine; that's the only copy I had. I didn't even make a copy for myself. MR. PALMER: I hope this business operates its business better than it applies for the certificate. This is inexcusable. MR. CSOGI: Right. Page 13 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, the next question is, do we want staff making the determination based on the credit reference? MR. PALMER: Well, for example, there's a question about the corporate vice president. That depends on whether or not this corporation can change its corporate vice president with some kind of a resolution or whether it requires an amendment to its articles of incorporation. That would depend on the -- on the particular case. We don't know the answer to that question. There seems to be a thing about, well, our lawyers are handling it. All we're hearing here is about perry and responsibility to somebody else and not taking responsibility for the fact that this is a half-baked application. MR. CSOGI: Right. MS. BAISLEY: We are missing the rest of the pages of the articles of incorporation, also, so we really don't know what they really say. This is just a copy. MR. CSOGI: I did look at them last night on line, and the other person is not listed in there, so the articles of incorporation do need to be amended or redone. MR. PALMER: Well, the -- well, the question is sometimes a corporation can change its vice president simply by doing some action and others require an amendment to the articles. We don't know what the case is here. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: You know, this was just a mistake. I'm sorry. An oversight. It may be more important than that. We're talking about who's responsible here. MR. WALBURN: I agree with what Mr. Palmer is saying and make an exception to one application throws the door open for every application to be accepted, and I make a motion to deny until all the criteria is met. Page 14 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I have a motion on the floor. Do you want to rescind that motion, or do you want to follow through with it? MR. SHRINER: Well, I'm glad for the discussion, and I will rescind it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. MR. WALBURN: I make the motion that until the proper credentials and paperwork is submitted we deny the application. MR. CSOGI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. And are we saying it will come up before us at the next public meeting? MR. WALBURN: That's the applicant's decision. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, it will be our decision if-- you know -- MS. ARNOLD: If we have a completed application, then we can bring it back at your next meeting. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. If you would get with staff after the meeting and review all of the issues and concerns that the PVAC had so that on the next presentation everything will be in order, it will make things better for you. MS. VISHAWAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Does staff want to explain "request for approval of sub-certificate"? MS. HU: Sure. That's just a requisite that we added to the ordinance. Page 15 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: And is this something that we -- I know that, you know, two of the three companies that are on this -- this committee A and B, so I'm looking for guidance on the procedure for that, Mr. Palmer. MR. PALMER: Well, the only thing would be that the person who would be directly benefitted by the requested application would have to abstain from voting on that application and that if the approval of that application will benefit that company, the representative of that company merely has to announce his posture and abstain from voting on that matter. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. MR. PALMER: If it's a conflict-of-interest issue you're driving at? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. MR. PALMER: That's the point of the procedure. Just announce why you're not voting, that you're a beneficiary of this action if it's approved and, therefore, you're not going to vote on it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So we should take these individually? MR. PALMER: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. A is Excel Destination Management Services for Transportation by Excel. I have to abstain that. MR. PALMER: You have a personal interest in that business? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes. MR. PALMER: And you would be benefited by that action if approved? CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. PALMER: Fine. CHAIRMAN PEASE: item? Yes. Does the vice chair then take over this Page 16 April 1 O, 2002 do. MR. PALMER: Yes. The vice chairman can chair this item. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. That's Mr. Csogi. MR. CSOGI: Do we have any discussion on this item? (No response.) MR. CSOGI: Does everybody understand what's going on? I I need a sub-certificate. MS. BAISLEY: We all understand. MR. CSOGI: I make a motion we approve. MS. BAISLEY: I'll second that motion. MR. CSOGI: All in favor. (Unanimous response with Chairman Pease abstaining.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Item B, Yellow Cab of Naples for airport connection. MS. BAISLEY: And I need to abstain from voting on that. MR. PALMER: You're affiliated with that company-- MS. BAISLEY: Yes. MR. PALMER: -- for the record? MS. BAISLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have a motion for approval? MR. HYDE: I make a motion we approve. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion by Eric Hyde. Do we have a second? MR. WALBURN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second by Allen Walburn. All those in favor say aye. (Unanimous response with Ms. Baisley abstaining.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Page 17 April 10, 2002 Item C, Checker Cab of Naples for black car by Checkers or someone from Checker Cab here? Okay. Do we have a motion for approval of Checker Cab? MR. HYDE: I make a motion we approve. I assume this is the same as the other two. It falls in the same category. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. WALBURN: I'll second it again. CHAIRMAN PEASE: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried. All three companies have given checks to the county for that, or were any of them pending approval? MS. HU: They were pending approval. Well, they all were, but they -- they all gave me a check, but I couldn't process it until this process. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All right. Item 7, hearing A through F. Does staff want to bring everybody up to speed on this, please? MS. ARNOLD: Go ahead. MS. HU: We sent out a certified letter on the 1st. I got the green cards back. I provided packets of each individual case a copy of the process. I gave you a copy of the complaint, to begin with, then a copy of the letter we sent out, and then a copy of the green card that we got back. MS. ARNOLD: Just --just for clarification these items are on the agenda because of advertising violations. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All -- all of them? MS. HU: In the phone book, yes. Page 18 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: A through F? MS. HU: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. MR. PALMER: I just got a note here from the clerk that representative in regard to Captive -- Captiva Limousine service is late and is going to attend the meeting and probably arrive about ten o'clock. You're not in a position to decide any of these cases on the merits today because there's insufficient notice to each respondent. You can discuss these cases -- discuss. You can discuss process and how you want to proceed, but you cannot decide any of these cases as -- as being a violation today because of deficiencies in process. MR. CSOGI: Was that a -- a number of days that has not passed yet? MR. PALMER: Yes. In order to have a hearing -- preliminary to a hearing on the merits -- MR. CSOGI: Twenty days? MR. PALMER: -- the notice must be 20 days. Hearings for discussion preliminary allowing a person to come in and sort of nip it in the bud, it's ten days. Half of these things didn't receive any notice, and anyone that did receive notice, the best is a seven-day notice. So that is even for discussion; however, if Captiva Limousine shows up here he, in effect, waives the notice if-- unless he objects to it, in which case he can have his say and explain is situation. You may decide to nol pros the case, dismiss the case, or give staff direction, but you're not in a position to decide any of these cases on a finding of violation today. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So if we were to have a special meeting for these items we would have to start the process over and do a second mailing? MR. PALMER: Well, yes. And this is a curable violation. You can give these people notice that they have got a certain amount Page 19 April 10, 2002 of time to come in, a date certain or a certain time from the receipt of the notice to come in and get certificated, in which case it's cured. If they don't do that, then the violation pends, and if you find a violation that would be retroactive to the time that they should have come in to correct the problem, like the Code Enforcement Board, that is that it can tolling at a 25-per-day rate. But they should be given some reasonable time to cure because it's a curable violation. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I don't know that that's the complaint -- I don't think the complaint was no permit. Mr. Csogi, since this was your item, do you want to briefly -- MR. PALMER: The complaint is advertising without providing the service; therefore, if you come in and get certificated to provide the service, the two get to come together. So it's curable to the extent that you can come in and cure the deficiency, and that is not having the Collier County certification. MR. CSOGI: Her -- Ekna's letter clearly states that. It's on the second-to-last paragraph. It's been seven days. Has anybody on here obtained a CTO in the seven days that you've done the mailing? MS. HU: No. I only spoke with A-1 Cadillac Cab, and they said they're going to be in to get an application. Although they're just listed, they're not advertising, so really they shouldn't even be heard. And I did speak to them. He called me, and he let me know that they're just listed. It's a new owner of A-1 Cadillac Cab to begin. He didn't know that he was being listed in the Yellow Pages, but it's just a listing, and it's not an advertisement. MR. CSOGI: It's just a line listing and not a -- well, it's advertising if it's listed. MS. ARNOLD: It's not -- right, it's not a full page or an ad. MS. HU: I called the Yellow Pages, and they told me that they list everyone just as well as they list residential numbers. Page 20 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Unless they ask not to be listed, so it's not something -- it's not a paid ad. MS. HU: Unless it's a paid ad, then they're advertising in Collier County; otherwise, they're just listing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Nor is it something the owner did to accomplish. Which-- which businesses were those? MS. ARNOLD: That was D. MR. CSOGI: A-1 Cadillac, D. MS. HU: A-1 Cadillac Cab and-- and the rest of the list I didn't list because I -- they were listed. MR. PALMER: Actually, I think, though, the tenet of this ordinance is, if somebody just puts a name and a phone number, like a listing in the black pages, that's not what we're talking about. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. MR. PALMER: We're talking about somebody who tells the reader of the ad that -- or implies or states that that person is providing service in Collier County. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: And if that's the case then they must be certificated in Collier County. MR. CSOGI: Be it an ad or a business card or whatnot. MR. PALMER: Whatever. And it tells a prospective customer that I am providing taxicab and/or limousine service in Collier County. If that's the case, then they must be certificated to be able to lawfully provide that service in Collier County. MR. CSOGI: Is -- the way the ordinance reads is it 20 days from the notice that they receive it, or is it 20 days from the mailing? MR. PALMER: No. Twenty days of receipt because otherwise you can mail it and they could get it on the nineth day or the sixth day. You're at the mercy of the -- of the -- of the delivery service. Page 21 April 10, 2002 MS. BAISLEY: MR. PALMER: you want to fit. MS. HU: If you look at in your ordinance, on page 32 the ordinance reads -- and this is according to violators that need to be asked to appear-- it says (as read): "Whenever possible the alleged violator will be provided written notice of violation at least ten days before the proceedings will be addressed by the PVAC." MR. PALMER: Right. But that is not a hearing on the merits, and that "whenever possible," that could have been better worded. That really means in a non-emergency case. Obviously, there are certain things you can do summarily like the lapse of insurance. But if it's not health, safety, or welfare or an immediate problem such as insurance -- and I think there were a couple other things here -- then you go through the process. And this ten-day notice in that provision is a notice basically to address the board, but it is not a notice of a hearing on the merits of the case where you can find the evidence presented, I find that you have violated the ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Csogi. MR. CSOGI: Well, I think we should -- I'll make a motion, then, we have a hearing date in 30 days and we redo the mailings. That should give us sufficient time for the people to appear at the hearing date. MS. BAISELY: I think when the mailings are redone they shouldn't just say, "Taxi service in Collier County." It should be more broad as to transportation services because a lot of these are going to limousine companies -- MR. CSOGI: Right. -- that are not providing taxi service. Whatever the respective service is. Obviously, MR. CSOGI: Yeah. That should-- CHAIRMAN PEASE: So we're going to resend. Page 22 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: Yeah. And I see that two of these things weren't forwarded, weren't received. There's been no service to anybody because they don't even have a proper forwarding address on two of these notices. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. MS. HU: As for Abel's Sweet Jam N Limo, that's Averil Alvarez. I did contact them. I faxed him over a copy of the letter. They never called back, but I did speak to a person. MS. ARNOLD: Tom, I've got a question about the notification or the certified letter process. You made reference to the Code Enforcement Board and our processes. The rules and regs as it applies to that is not as you described it. It's based on the mailing. MR. PALMER: Well, that may be. It's not based on the receipt. That wasn't my point. My point was that you often give a time to cure and you say, "If you don't get this cured within a certain period of time, then upon conviction for violation of ordinance it will toll from the time that you failed to cure by a date certain." That was my point. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. PALMER: When we have curable violations, the object is -- is to get the thing in compliance, not to assess fines. So you give them a reasonable time to cure the problem, and then you say if you don't get the problem cured by that time and if we find you're in violation, the violation will commence from the date -- the drop-dead date on the specified time to cure. That was my point. MS. ARNOLD: that we place -- send MR. PALMER: MS. ARNOLD: question. Okay. Then my question is for the request is out another mailing -- Yes. And the board establish a time -- Let me ask my question. Let me ask my Is the notice that we're sending out a notice of hearing, or Page 23 April 10, 2002 are we sending out another notice of violation giving them time to cure? MR. PALMER: I would-- I would do that. I would give them a time to cure and tell them if they don't cure, the matter will be brought before the board for a hearing on violation on a specified date, and if they find a violation it will commence on the drop-dead date of the -- of the stated time to cure. CHAIRMAN PEASE: They've -- they've had that. By this first notice they've -- they've already been put on notice that it's -- they've got time to cure. Now, I think the next step should be a notice of a hearing. MR. CSOGI: Either that or we could put in the same letter we could give them 30 days to cure it; otherwise, on that 30th date they will have to appear in front of a hearing if they -- if the county -- MR. PALMER: The problem with it is is this notice does not give a drop-dead date of a time to cure. MR. WALBURN: Well, couldn't -- couldn't the second letter -- second sending reference the first letter saying that effective the date of your receipt you're in noncompliance and that fines will be assessed retroactively if you don't make the proper adjustments to your business? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Or appear before the hearing. MR. WALBURN: Appear before the hearing, but in the meantime don't sit and wait. You need to correct the situation. MR. PALMER: Well, how -- when's the next meeting of the board? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, I think what we're suggesting here is -- is a meeting in 30 days, a special meeting. MR. PALMER: Well, what I would do -- I'm just recommending and you can take this for what it's worth -- send out a Page 24 April 10, 2002 notice and give them a time to cure such as ten days after receipt of the notice. MS. ARNOLD: I have a problem -- I have a problem with that because when we send things certified mail people choose whether or not they want to pick up their mail, and if they never pick it up then we never have an effective date. MR. PALMER: Well, there are other ways to send notice. MS. ARNOLD: Yes, but -- but we've been advised that we should send it certified. MR. PALMER: But that's not the only way to send it. If you have to publish it in the newspaper or you have to have it served by a sheriff or whatever. That is not the only way to do it. If people are going to try to avoid service of process, you do it another way. But the normal thing is is you give a time a person to cure not from the date that something is mailed-- although it can be that legally, it normally is a time from the time you receive it so, "Oh, I'm on notice. I've got to do something. I've got ten days from the time I know I've got to do it." Mailing leaves the person -- and 20 days mail is plenty. But I just got served a case up in Collier County's office where it was served down to the sheriffs four weeks ago, and it got served seven days before the scheduled hearing. Now, that puts the respondent at the mercy of whatever service that is that's doing it. If it sits on somebody's desk for three weeks, that's three weeks of lack of notice because somebody left a file on somebody's desk. So they ought to give them a reasonable time to cure. Ten days seems reasonable enough to me, although, that you could do whatever you want to do. And say you've got ten days to do that. If you don't do it, this matter is going to be brought to the board, and if they find a violation the board, if it chooses to do so, can have the violation commence as of the date -- your drop-dead date to cure, Page 25 April 10, 2002 which means if they find it could effectively be retroactively to a specified date. MR. WALBURN: Isn't the -- isn't the defendant or in this case the violator, aren't they responsible to collect their certified mail, and if they don't collect it at the -- at the -- MR. PALMER: No. That's an interesting thing, but there is no legal obligation to assist process servers in serving you. MR. WALBURN: I'm talking about certified mail. If you're -- if you're noticed to certified mail at your registered address -- MR. PALMER: Yeah. MR. WALBURN: -- and you choose not to pick it up simply because you're trying to avoid the process, don't you waive your rights to due process at that point simply by refusing to accept -- MR. PALMER: I'm not aware of any case law that says that. MR. WALBURN: It's my understanding in some actions that I've been involved in in the past refusal to accept a certified letter doesn't forego the sender's responsibilities. MR. PALMER: Well, that -- that -- I've never heard that because the argument is, well, who did it? Some five-year-old kid? Who is it? Did the responsible party reject the thing, or did the next- door neighbor because they were on vacation? You run into these factual issues. And I know people have made monumental efforts avoiding service of process, and the Court's attitude is, "Hey, that's part of the game." Unbelievably. MR. WALBURN: On the other hand, we still drag them in here. If they don't -- we've made every opportunity to give them due process and if the choose to -- MR. PALMER: Well, what you try to do -- if they won't accept service, then you go -- if necessary, get it served by a sheriff or private process server or-- and in one case I think you can even Page 26 April 10, 2002 publish in the paper. If you've got to go to that extreme, like, if they've moved to Michigan and you can't find them, for example, there are ways to get service. MR. WALBURN: But, I mean, isn't -- isn't each-- each entity, aren't they required to -- MR. PALMER: What they are required, as I recall, to keep us apprised of a valid mailing address. MR. WALBURN: Exactly. MR. PALMER: And, therefore, that could be an independent violation of this ordinance apart from whatever it is you're noticing about, but one way or the other you've still got to get service on them of a notice of a hearing because you can't have a hearing without at least one means or another of the law considers to be constructive notice of the hearing. But that could be an independent violation for failure to keep us apprised of a valid then current mailing address. I believe that's another independent violation of this ordinance. MR. WALBURN: I would think so. MR. SHRINER: Most of these have been licensed by the Collier County in recent -- in other years. It seems to me, just in my thinking, on January 31st of this year they gave them self notice by not keeping their license current. And I understand what you mean about giving them more days and all, and now we're going to have all this, but to me that gave them the notice right there. They gave them self notice by not paying. MR. PALMER: Well, I -- they are charged with knowledge of this ordinance, but that's different issue than an issue of notice of a potentiality that they are going to be -- have a hearing before this board -- MR. SHRINER: Yes, sir. MR. PALMER: -- and possibly be fined. Page 27 April 10, 2002 MR. SHRINER: Yes, sir. But they did give them self notice on January 31st this year. All of them did give themself notice. I mean, they knew-- MR. PALMER: They are -- they are charged with what's in this ordinance and, therefore, they're charged the knowledge that if they have an ad in any publication -- MR. SHRINER: Yes, sir. MR. PALMER: -- that implies they are providing a service in Collier County on the one hand. On the other hand, they're not actively certificated in Collier County; they're on notice that they are in violation of the ordinance. However, that's a different thing than a notice that says the county is enforcing this against you or is -- or is proposing to enforce this against you. MR. SHRINER: Yes. Everybody -- I think they understand that and I'm trying to understand this too. But I'm saying if you called someone in March, which I think some of these people were called, they knew their licenses were out, but they still were accepting runs or they were still answering the phone under that company name, and to me that was a violation. Now, if it takes 30 days to get them to a hearing, I understand. MR. PALMER: That could be an independent violation. If they're doing the business, it could be not only the fact that they're doing it without -- with an ad in the paper, but they're actually performing the service in Collier County without the certificate. That's another independent violation. MR. SHRINER: That's a very important violation. That's the one we want to look at more than somebody bought their business and they can't get it out of the phone book until September of this year. MR. PALMER: Exactly. Exactly. That's -- that's a more active violation. Page 28 April 10, 2002 MR. SHRINER: I'll let it go, but I think in both cases they -- they could have sent it out certified or by sheriff's issue, and they -- they could do it now, and I think the violation's already occurred, and they don't deserve any more time. I mean, they're taking money out of the industry. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's not -- that's not the issue. It's a safety issue in terms of not knowing if they have insurance, not knowing if they have all the information that the other suppliers, the other providers do. MR. SHRINER: Other people do. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The chair -- I guess the chair would like to make a motion. MR. PALMER: Well, let me -- let me explain something on that. That is not a curable offense. That is something that's -- that's when you do it it's happened and if you do it once and you're caught doing it it's not curable. It's because it's -- it's a snapshot in time, and it's a violation. These things about the notice they're curable if, in fact -- it's a violation to do it, but it's curable, in fact, you can come in and get your certificate. But the cases you've talked about every time you come down and provide a service in Collier County without a certificate in Collier County, each one of those is an independent noncurable violation. MR. SHRINER: MR. PALMER: Yes, sir. Therefore, there's no need to give them a right cure on something like that. Those violations are subject to proof before this board that that violation, in fact, did occur as -- as charged. That's a matter of proof, but that's not a curable violation, so you don't need any notice about that kind of a violation. MR. WALBURN: Just seems to me each applicant should have fiduciary responsibility to maintain contact with this board since we're duly appointed to regulate it. Page 29 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: They do. They've got a responsibility to keep us apprised of changes in business, of changes in ownership and other matters, and changes of mailing addresses so that we have a right to contact them. MR. WALBURN: Right. MR. PALMER: Now, if we send a notice to an old mailing address and it's rejected, we have an argument that that is valid service because they did not give us a then current mailing address. But even with that said, you've got -- you've got an obligation to try to find their current mailing address. In other words, it doesn't cure the violation of the failure to notice, but it does not cure also a due diligence and trying to actually do your best to get notice to the respondent to a hearing. The cases -- the case law of Florida is that even if they've got an obligation to give you a mailing address, that does not mean that's all you do and you don't make an effort to find out what their current mailing address, because you may be able to find it out by making a phone call or some other way. Some other certificate -- if they're in another county, they may have an occupational license that has the correct address. In other words, you can't just say, "Well, I mailed it to their old mailing address, and that's all I've got to do." That's not true in the due process context. But it is true in a violation that you failed to give us -- notify us of your current address. That is a violation and can be independently held to be a violation, but those are the not the same thing. MR. WALBURN: I'm just trying to streamline the process of getting notice to the people. I mean, it seems to me a telephone call saying -- you know, we sent you a certified letter, it came back. You didn't respond to the certified letter. Consider this written -- or excuse me -- verbal. And I just don't see -- I don't see the need -- Page 30 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: I understand and I -- I -- I don't like these rules any more than you. I think we -- to call people up -- you've got to give written notice of a hearing. MR. WALBURN: I understand that. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. We -- we're dealing with two different things. We've sent out a notice of violation notifying them that we believe they're in violation, but the only thing that we failed to do in that notice is to give them an opportunity to cure the violation. Right. I think they -- they still have an opportunity to MR. PALMER: MS. ARNOLD: cure. MR. PALMER: MS. ARNOLD: Any time. They've been put on notice now that they are in violation because they have advertisement that they are operating and doing business in Collier County. We -- we verified that by calling all of these companies and they, in fact, noted and provided us a quote for service in Collier County. MR. PALMER: Those are questions of proof. You say you think you've got the proof to be able to prove a violation. MS. ARNOLD: We'll send a -- I don't know whether or not it would be helpful to send another notice stating the same exact thing when they have every opportunity to call us and question, why can't we get an extension or whatever. But if you feel that that's what we should do, we will send it again. The only problem is that I don't believe that then they would have sufficient notice of the hearing if you're saying within 30 days that we will schedule another hearing because each -- if we're going to wait until they actually have receipt of the notice of violation, it will depend on that receipt. One person can get it in 5 days; another person it may take as many as 30 days. So we won't be able to bring Page 31 April 10, 2002 all of these things back to you with sufficient notice of a public hearing in 30 days. CHAIRMAN PEASE: What -- what if the chair proposes this motion, that we send a certified letter giving them ten days to cure? MR. PALMER: Ten days from the date of receipt of the letter? CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. PALMER: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: From date of receipt. And put a notice in the paper at the same time to prevent any further delay in terms of the certified letter process. Notify them that there will be a hearing within 45 days of today for those that do not cure the violation. MR. PALMER: No. We need -- we need a date certain on the hearing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So whatever 45 days from today is. Today's April 10th, so that would be May 25th as long as it's not Memorial Day. MS. HU: Calendar days? Business days? MS. ARNOLD: I think what -- I think what we would have to do is take 10 days from the date that we put the notice in the paper and -- and set a date for the hearing, you know, 30 days from that date. Because if we -- if it takes us until next Monday to get a notice in the paper, we've got to run it for 10 full days, and then 10 days after that is -- or 30 days after that full 1 O-day period he would be able to have a hearing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But 45 days from today would be a sufficient time line for this hearing? MS. ARNOLD: No. MR. PALMER: But, Michelle, what did you say about ten days -- I'm sorry. You don't have to publish the thing ten times in the paper. MS. ARNOLD: No. It has to be ten days -- Page 32 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: At least ten days prior to the hearing. MS. ARNOLD: -- prior to. MR. PALMER: Right. Of now there was -- was one of these outfits a Miami outfit? MS. HU: Yes. Gatsby Limo. That's from Miami, and all the others are from Fort Myers, and I don't know if they get the Naples Daily News. MS. ARNOLD: It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. MR. PALMER: Well, have we made any effort to try to find out if these outfits are still in business and if they are where they are located? MS. HU: I called each one, and either they answered with a machine -- most of them were answering machines. Some just answered as, "Hello, please leave a message." Others answered with the company name. MR. PALMER: Well, it sounds like they're still in business then, and undoubtedly they have a mailing address, so if we find the mailing address we can probably get service on them. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, we sent-- We have mailing addresses for them because MS. ARNOLD: we sent them notices. MR. PALMER: Well, they're not current because one of them says, "Forwarding Date Expired." MS. HU: The mailing -- MR. PALMER: Abel's Sweet Jam N Limo, forwarding date expired. MS. HU: Mailing addresses that I took were the ones that Bill Csogi provided, and I also looked it up in the corporations. MR. PALMER: Yeah. MS. HU: And that was the address they had listed. Page 33 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: their -- MR. MR. MR. MR. agent not MR. mail That -- that 15th Avenue, Miami is shown as CSOGI: Registered agent of the corporation. PALMER: Registered agent for the corporation? CSOGI: Correct. PALMER: Well, it's a violation of law for a registered to be availabe to accept service. CSOGI: Correct. That's why I put it in there so we can it to the proper person. MR. PALMER: That's why you have registered agents. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: And there's another one here that had a forward expired. MS. HU: Abel's Sweet Jam N Limo which is the person who I spoke to and I faxed a copy of the letter. Those I believe are the only tWO. MR. PALMER: Oh, they did fax a copy of the letter? MS. HU: I faxed a copy of the letter. I spoke to a human being. MR. PALMER: Well, did you get anything back in writing? MS. HU: No. I asked them to at least call me back, and I never got a response, but I did speak to someone. They are aware. MR. PALMER: Gatsby Limousine Service, forwarding order expired. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's the Miami company. MS. ARNOLD: There are two Miami companies. One is Abel and the other is Gatsby. MR. PALMER: MS. ARNOLD: MR. PALMER: not? Do you know if that's their address? Well, I mean, the addresses were Miami. Do you know whether this is a good address or Page 34 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: We -- Ekna just indicated that she checked their corporation information. MS. HU: I know for a fact that Abel's is not the correct address, but I already have obtained the correct address. MR. PALMER: Why don't we send service on the registered agent? MR. CSOGI: Gatsby's, when I looked it up -- the Gatsby's was not an active corporation. MR. PALMER: They're out of business? MR. CSOGI: They're out of business. There's no -- but when we call up the telephone number, they're in business. So they have no active corporation even though they're doing business as. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PALMER: You mean, as far as the corporate record's in Tallahassee concerned, it's an inactive corporation? MR. CSOGI: Correct. MR. PALMER: Well, why don't we notify the people over in Miami? This is a business that probably doesn't have insurance. And I would think that the City of Miami or whoever -- they're obviously -- we're assuming they're certificated someplace. If not, then they're just out there as a wild company without even an active corporate existence. Let's contact the Miami authorities. MR. CSOGI: Michelle, I've got a quick question for you. Would it streamline the process if we have everybody served by a sheriff's department? MR. PALMER: That's expensive. MR. WALBURN: Very expensive and time consuming. I mean MR. PALMER: That's the last resort. Page 35 April 10, 2002 MR. WALBURN: -- six or eight trips to someone's residence or place of business to serve them. MR. CSOGI: They charge per trip. MR. WALBURN: I think we should put the burden on the applicant at the time of application and we shouldn't go through the process. MR. PALMER: We can put the burden on keeping us advised. We cannot have them waive their due process rights to service. MR. WALBURN: I understand that, but what I'm saying, I think it's inappropriate for this board or the county to chase people down. MR. PALMER: I do too, but that's the law. MR. WALBURN: Is it really? MR. PALMER: You cannot -- you cannot waive rights to service. You cannot sign away your rights to service. It's a game. Some people are masters at avoiding service for years. MR. WALBURN: I understand. MR. PALMER: And the court's say -- their attitude is, "Well, that's the way the game is played." It's exasperating as all get out. Sometimes the hoops you've got to jump through. For example, the county has condemnation suits. People are all over the place. You'd be amazed at how much effort we've got to try to track down somebody in some little town in Ohio. MR. WALBURN: Well, I can see that, but these people come to the county and -- and request the ability to operate. MR. PALMER: I understand that. The fact of the matter is it's -- it's a question of the notice of the hearing. Now, we could always publish, and publication if done properly is notice to them irrespective of whether they actually get it or not. MR. WALBURN: Right. Page 36 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: So you can always publish by -- by notice by publication if you have to, and oftentimes you do, and then the law does not require that they actually got the notice. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The chair recognizes Bill Csogi. MR. CSOGI: If that's the case, then I'll recommend that we do that. Otherwise, we collect a bunch of money for these CTOs, so the county must have the money for these CTOs in a fund; therefore, I understand that the sheriffs department is expensive, but if we serve them with the sheriffs department, then add that fee on to whatever the hearing date is because apparently it gets referred over to Code Enforcement after our hearing date. Or can we impose -- MR. PALMER: No. Well, you can refer to Code Enforcement, or this board has the right to actually sit as a quasi-judicial board too. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: And depending on -- actually, my opinion is it's depending on the nature of the violation, what forum is the more -- let's say appropriate forum based on the subject matter that you're talking about. MR. CSOGI: So, I mean, we're going to eventually recoup the money anyway. It'll streamline the process, and/or we can just put it in the paper from what Tom's telling us. MS. ARNOLD: Well, I just want to make a point of clarification with respect to the money. We don't get that money in my budget. It goes in the General Fund. MR. CSOGI: Okay. MS. ARNOLD: And it's -- it's partly the funds that we acquire gets off-- shifted for the salaries that we're paying people because we're processing work all through. So it's not a matter of-- okay, we've got $250 there to hire a process server to serve somebody. So you can't really look at it that way. It will cost a lot of money, and I think it would probably be more effective to do the -- the notification Page 37 April 10, 2002 in the paper. We're -- we're going to be meeting the legal notice requirement, and that costs a lot of money, too, but I think we'll at least won't be chasing people around Miami and wherever -- what other jurisdictions there are because it's not always easy for the process servers to find. MR. PALMER: Well, no. I think that we could probably do a -- an ad that would list a number of people in it. MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PALMER: We wouldn't have to have a separate ad for each one. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PALMER: So we could list ten companies in one advertisement saying, "You hereby are notified that there's a hearing before this board" on a stated time and place and if you don't -- for violation of the ordinance, "and if you don't appear, we'll handle the matter in your absence." CHAIRMAN PEASE: Chair recognizes Eric Hyde. MR. HYDE: Yeah. I -- I think this has gone on and I agree with everyone that we definitely should make a motion that we set an ad in the paper and have staff set the criteria specifically with the date and/or with counsel input so that we've got it covered as to when the actual thing runs, that it runs for the ten days prior to. That there is a meeting then set 30 days after that to allow them in order to fulfill the obligation and to make everything correct. That's basically what we're trying to do is to get these people in line. MR. PALMER: Exactly. MR. HYDE: Not to penalize them. We're just trying to make sure that everything is documented and that the responsible parties are taken care of. I think at that point then we can set a date, announce when it is, and then get with the board. And then the board Page 38 April 10, 2002 comes together, and whether they come or they don't, at least then we've given them substantial time in order to make amends. MR. PALMER: And as to an active corporation, we ought to be able to serve the registered agent. Now, as to an inactive corporation, if it's not there, they don't give a darn about anything usually, but an active corporation does care that its registered agent is abiding by the law. MR. HYDE: Additionally, I think that we should inform what other -- if they are located in Dade or in Broward County -- that these individuals are not active in their statute or in their articles of incorporation that these may be at issue in their own behalf. If we're aware of it, we should at least advise them. MR. PALMER: Yes. I think if I were in Dade County and I was the equivalent of a PVAC I would be very interested in knowing that information. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do we have -- MR. WALBURN: Can I ask one question? What -- what obligation does an out-of-county business have to pay an assessment that this board or this county may level against them? I mean, does Collier County have to sue these people in civil court to recoup the fines that are assessed? I mean, if they just decide they're going to quit coming to Collier County to do pick ups and, say, they have a $25-a-day fine and-- MR. PALMER: I don't know what all we have to do to actually do a monetary recovery, but what you could do is while any of those things are pending they are not eligible for any certification -- future certification by Collier County. They're, like, barred. MR. WALBURN: Exactly. MR. PALMER: And, therefore, if they want to come into the county-- now enforcement of these kinds of things is difficult, sometimes time consuming and sometimes not worth -- from an Page 39 April 10, 2002 economic viewpoint, not worth the effort. But sometimes people want to come back and do things right, and then they're up against it, aren't they? MR. WALBURN: That's a valid point. That's what I want to hear. What -- what mechanism is there to encourage these people to comply? MR. PALMER: Well, if they come back-- if they would want to come in here in a year from now and get certificated for whatever reason -- MR. WALBURN: And they've got all these -- MR. PALMER: -- the board can say, "Look, you've got outstanding fines that you haven't done and everything's got to be made right." CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Do we have a motion? MR. HYDE: I thought I made one. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It sounded discussion like. Can you make it in a motion? MR. HYDE: Okay. I'm making a motion that we instruct staff to set up an ad in the paper listing all of the individuals that are on this sheet, all the way A through F, with a hearing date with specific guidelines. MS. HU: Can we omit D just because they're just listed? They're not really a violation. MR. HYDE: That's fine. That we then also inform the other counties of anyone who has articles of incorporation that are not up to date or that are not active corporations. And, hopefully, they would be would do the same back to us if they are aware of something that someone is doing in our area, and then hold a hearing subsequent to that with an actual call-to-action date in the ad and review the matter and then take enforcement upon that after we find out if they come in or they don't and handle the situation accordingly. Page 40 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Well, before the motion is considered further, we do have, I think, Captiva Limousine Service -- a representative here. Because he's one of the names that were making the motion for, so if we can resolve any issue today. MR. PALMER: Would you like to address the board, if that's what the chair would like to do? CHAIRMAN PEASE: That would be fine. If you want to step forward and be sworn in, please. (The oath was administered.) MR. RAJKOVIC: R-a-j-k-o-v-i-c, Douglas. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. And the violation that was associated with Captiva Limousine Service to recap, staff, was -- MS. ARNOLD: Paid ad in the Yellow Pages providing service in Collier County without being certificated. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And is there a reason you're not certificated? MR. RAJKOVIC: Well, let's see. When I placed the ad, I wasn't aware that I needed to be licensed. And because I started my business last year in January and then -- I don't know, somehow somebody from Yellow Pages called me, and I realized, okay, maybe I should be in the Yellow Pages, but -- so I put the ad in, and then I was told I needed a license. And -- but in the meantime, my ad was already out. I really wasn't getting any calls. So then I came in to find out about a license, and it was $400. And we have one car, and most of my business is not even -- I don't have any business here. So I said, "Well, let me wait and see if I get any calls." And I rarely get a call. I'm usually too high and people think I'm too far away, and it really hasn't worked out for me. So I don't know what to do about the ad, but I have to rethink about whether I really -- I have done some business here by bringing people Page 41 April 10, 2002 from Fort Myers to, like, Fifth Avenue and some of the hotels and that, but as far as any business from here I really haven't had any. So I have to rethink whether I should do this or not. I feel that -- I also feel, to let you know since I'm here, that $400 for a license is really high for somebody that has one car when I know people that have 12 and 15 cars pay the same fee. I know they pay -- I think they paid $50 a car. Is that what it is? But, you know, the upfront fees, maybe that's why some of the people are doing this because for somebody like me an upfront fee of $400 is pretty high. I mean, you got to do some business to recoup some of that. So it's -- that's my thinking. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't know what you wanted to do, but I don't know if I want to run the ad again and apply for a license. If I do decide on doing business, I will apply for a license. MR. CSOGI: Well, I think -- I think you have to let us know today if you're going to do business -- continue to do business in Collier County or not. You can't think at a later date. That's why you were brought here today. If you're going to continue to do business in Collier County, you have to obtain a CTO. If you bring people from Fort Myers Airport to Naples and drop them off, that's okay; you don't need a CTO for that. MR. RAJKOVIC: That's what I'm saying is I haven't had any business to -- MS. ARNOLD: If-- if you do get a call from Collier County, what you'll have to do is refuse service. MR. PALMER: Tell them you cannot pick up in Collier County. MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. RAJKOVIC: Well, I don't want to do that because I haven't done that, but I have referred-- when people tell me, "You're Page 42 April 10, 2002 too high" or whatever, I referred people to other limo companies if-- you know, they were interested in doing business with me. MR. PALMER: That's not a violation. What we're talking about is this. If you get a call, you've got two choices, either get certificated or promise this board that if you get a call for a pickup in Collier County you refuse that service because you say, "I'm not authorized to pick up passengers in Collier County." MS. ARNOLD: Right. MR. PALMER: It's one or the other. MR. RAJKOVIC: It's kind of bad for my business to say, "I'm not authorized to pick up in Collier County." MR. WALBURN: You're not authorized. MR. RAJKOVIC: But if I hand it to somebody else it's the same thing as not taking it. MR. PALMER: It's -- the ordinance either requires you to get certificated in Collier County if you're going to do business in Collier County or when somebody calls you from Collier County to do a pickup in Collier County say, "I'm not authorized to do business in Collier County." It's one or the other. MS. BAISLEY: You can say you're not authorized to do business in Collier County. "I'm going to refer you to so and so." There's not a problem with that. MR. RAJKOVIC: I'm not trying to do business here. I'm just saying since my ad is there I don't know when it runs out in a few months. MR. WALBURN: You either have to get in compliance or either you have to refuse the business because, in essence, you're not a business in Collier County. Is that -- MR. PALMER: He's not certificated to do business in Collier County. Page 43 April 10, 2002 MR. RAJKOVIC: What I'm saying is I did refuse the business by referring it to somebody else, but -- MR. WALBURN: But you're saying that you'd like to continue with the ad and see if it's good enough for business; you want a trial period. MR. RAJKOVIC: I'm saying when the ad is over I'd like to make my decision when I have to make the -- do the next ad is I'd like to make the decision whether I'm really going to do business here or not, yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: What you said was, if the price was too high to the -- to the person you referred the business elsewhere. If-- MR. RAJKOVIC: I never got any business here 'cause my prices were always too high. People want to -- you know, for me to come all the way here at a discount doesn't -- it doesn't pay for me. CHAIRMAN PEASE: What you're not saying is that you're willing to get certified in order to do business. You're just saying, no one so far has been able to accept your price structure for Naples, which is not a valid reason either to get permitted or not be permitted. MR. CSOGI: No. What he's actually stated was the reason he's not permitted is the $450 fee. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. MR. CSOGI: Not that he's not getting customers. MR. RAJKOVIC: I said that too. MR. CSOGI: He already recognized that he needs a license in Collier County, and he's chosen not to get it. MR. WALBURN: Just forego the business. MR. RAJKOVIC: But I -- I have refused service here even if the price -- at this point since I know I'm in violation I'm saying is even if I get the business and they say $100 an hour and my price is 70, I will refer them to somebody else. I will not take the business, but for me to say, "I'm not, you know, legal here" or something is not Page 44 April 10, 2002 very good for business, but I am also thinking about getting permitted. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's not a problem. I mean, we're not permitted in Orlando International Airport. So we "say, we're not permitted at Orlando International Airport. Here is a company that is," and you give them their number. It's not a -- not a big issue. Chair recognizes -- MR. SHRINER: What we have in our situation is we do collect $400 from 60 companies or 55 companies, so we have to protect their interest as -- you understand and I understand your explanation why you got in the Yellow Pages. My question would be, too -- my question would be, when the Yellow Pages calls you this year, what do you intend to do? MR. RAJKOVIC: That's what I said, I have to re-evaluate this whole thing. I would like to get a permit here. MR. SHRINER: Well, then you have till June. MR. RAJKOVIC: At this point with one car it just wasn't -- it has not shown that it was worth -- I haven't got anything from here. A few phone calls. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct one item. We're -- we're -- we're not in the business to protect these 60 companies at all. We're in the business to protect the local citizens and by having known record of insurance on your company, having none of the proper documentation impedes that safety. So you have -- I think Tom Palmer summed it up best. You have two choices. You can today, since you wanted to come step forward and -- and have this addressed -- is to either say, "Yes, I'm going to operate in Collier County, and we're going to get the proper permits" or, "No, I'm not going to operate and I will not accept any business in Collier County." We need to know that now. Page 45 April 10, 2002 MR. RAJKOVIC: I already said I'm not going to accept any business. I mean -- you know, if you call me -- call me all you want. You'll see that I won't accept any business. MR. PALMER: Well, you better tell a customer, "I'm not presently licensed to do business in Collier County." That is not going to shock anybody's conscious, is it? MR. RAJKOVIC: Let me ask you, if I decide, you know, in a month or so to do business here and my ad appears again, what am I doing to that customer -- potential customer? He's already called me, and I said, "I'm not licensed to do business here." MR. WALBURN: But you said so far -- (Overlapping voices.) MR. PALMER: -- not presently licensed to do business here -- MR. RAJKOVIC: Well, they're not going to call back and say, "Gee, do you have a license today?" MR. PALMER: Well, look, these are not our problems. The fact of the matter is there are rules here that have to be applied. If you don't -- if you go out tomorrow and accept business in Collier County and we find out about it, you will be ineligible in the future for ever getting certificated in Collier County. MR. RAJKOVIC: You can do whatever-- I mean, I find it unfair that you're telling me that I have to make that decision today or say that I'm not presently -- what I'm telling -- what do you want me to do about the ad? If I'm not going to do business here, what would you like me to do about the ad? MR. PALMER: The ad is the ad. The thing about it is either you're not going to do business in Collier County until you get certificated -- MR. RAJKOVIC: That's what I told you; I won't. MR. PALMER: All right. Then fine, if that -- that the board may accept that as a way to settle this matter provided you abide by Page 46 April 10, 2002 that agreement and understand the consequences of violating that agreement. If found out you would not be eligible in the future to be certificated in Collier County. MR. RAJKOVIC: I will abide by any agreement that you pass on to anybody else. MR. PALMER: The agreement is that you will not accept business in Collier County, irrespective of the ad, until you are certificated in Collier County. MR. RAJKOVIC: That's fine. That's fair. MR. CSOGI: In addition, I'd like it on record as you stating you will not renew your ad for next year without getting a CTO. MR. RAJKOVIC: Right. MR. PALMER: That is an ad that implies you are -- have been provided services in Collier County. MR. CSOGI: You will not do that? MR. RAJKOVIC: Right. MR. CSOGI: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other comment? MR. WALBURN: I-- I would just like to add one other thing. If-- if ever, in fact, he comes forward that he has violated this agreement -- MR. PALMER: You mean, providing unauthorized service in Collier County? MR. WALBURN: Right. He will be held to the same standard as the rest of the complainants are in the -- MR. PALMER: Yes, there's no distinction in that regard. MR. RAJKOVIC: Let me ask you a question. There is a service, let's say, for example, Kerry International, okay? They place -- they have service everywhere. They're not licensed in every -- MR. PALMER: Now you're getting into other issues. You're getting into interstate transportation that has an entire set of rules. Page 47 April ! 0, 2002 The Greyhound Bus Company doesn't get certificated by Collier County, and so -- MS. BAISLEY: I believe that Kerry International uses certificated operators in the area. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I know for fact that they do -- they do that. MR. RAJKOVIC: So that's what I was -- in the beginning was saying I referred some of the business to other people. Okay? Now CHAIRMAN PEASE: They're acknowledging the same thing. It's not even an issue before this committee. Kerry is not an issue before this committee. MR. PALMER: Nor is referring -- MR. RAJKOVIC: My ad in the Yellow Pages is because I could get commissions as referrals. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Kerry does not have an ad in the Yellow Pages, sir; you do. MR. RAJKOVIC: I will have to look at it. I don't know if they do or not. I know they do in some other counties. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We're only in this county. Is there any other comments by this committee? MR. WALBURN: I second Eric's motion. MS. ARNOLD: Well, we have -- we have a motion from Mr. Csogi, I think, regarding this particular item; right? MR. CSOGI: Right. Okay. My motion I'll amend it, I guess, since it's been so long. I make a motion we accept this gentleman's statement that he no longer is going to do business in Collier County, refer business elsewhere, and when the phone book listing comes up. He is giving us his word that he's not going to renew the ad without obtaining CTO; otherwise, he would be in violation. Page 48 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: He will not republish an advertisement that implies he can do business in Collier County unless he is certificated, indeed, todo. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Accept that verbage? MR. CSOGI: Accept that verbage. That's my motion. MS. BAISLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second by Pat Baisley. All in favor indicate by saying aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Let's go back-- let's go back to Eric Hyde's motion which, if I'm recapping correctly, was to instruct staff to put an ad in the paper using items A through F, except now for B, and direct -- if you're willing to accept that change, Eric -- and inform other counties, bodies that are similar to our PVAC of any violators and to have at the earliest possible subsequent date for those that could-- do not come in and cure said violation. Is that a good recap of your violation? MR. HYDE: Yes. MR. PALMER: Not have the newspaper article as the only attempt. That is a default method of service. Serve the people by other means if you can. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Amend that to a certified letter and other means as needed. MR. PALMER: Then if you don't get that service, the newspaper notification will be adequate service. You've got to make an attempt. You can't say you put an ad in the paper. That is kind of like a second-tier means to notice. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Is the maker of the motion willing to accept that modification? Page 49 April 10, 2002 aye. MR. HYDE: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. CSOGI: Second. CHAIRMAN PEASE: (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: minutes. (Short recess was taken.) Do we have a second? Second by Bill Csogi. All in favor say Opposed? This PVAC will be in recess for five CHAIRMAN PEASE: I call the meeting of the Public Vehicle Advisory meeting back to order, and the next item is old business and under enforcement, Pat Baisley. MS. BAISLEY: Okay. When we wrote -- we wrote the ordinance I think we changed it to indicate that places like the Hilton Hotel would need to have a permit for their vehicle if they shuttle people to the Naples Airport, that that was no longer an exempt service, and I don't think those people have been notified because they haven't come in front of this board for a certificate. I don't think they even realize they are in violation under the new ordinance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The exemptions, Mr. Palmer, on page 4 and 5. MR. PALMER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN PEASE: My question, Mr. Palmer, would be if a hotel shuttle -- would that fall under Item B where it says (as read): "Transportation activities licensed by the Interstate Commerce Commission," would the transportation from their residence out of state, let's say, to the hotel -- MR. PALMER: Out of state? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Out of state. Page 50 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: That would not be covered here. Obviously, somebody coming in from Georgia be covered. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But -- but took the hotel shuttle from the airport to the hotel and then back to the airport -- back to their residence, is that interstate commerce? MR. PALMER: No. That's not interstate commerce. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. So there really isn't any exclusion for-- MS. BAISLEY: Under the old ordinance I believe they were excluded, but when we changed the ordinance we took that out. MR. PALMER: What we're talking about here it's limited now to transportation of the employees or members of said company or organization. MS. BAISLEY: That's correct. MR. PALMER: That used to say guests or something like that before. It was broader in application. MS. BAISLEY: I believe there are other hotels -- just using the Hilton as an example, but I believe there are other hotels that do the same thing. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I do remember in the workshops we -- we discussed that aspect. MR. PALMER: We had another provision that -- that said if it was part of, like, a package, like, come in and go through a travel agent and you buy a room at a hotel and include in that is a service. That type of service used to be exempt, didn't it, because it was part of a larger deal? That's no longer in here. So I guess applying the fact that the exemption no longer exists, maybe you ought to notify these people to get certificated. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does staff-- does staff have any way to ascertain that knowledge of who has a hotel shuttle? Page 51 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: Well, what -- what I would do is send a letter to all the hotels and -- and inform them that if they do provide any transportation services for their guests they need to get certificated with the county. MS. BAISLEY: I think that would be sufficient. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We don't need a motion to guide staff on that; correct? MR. PALMER: No. You can just assume that they -- they have been informed. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All right. Any other enforcement items from the committee other than those that are already listed in the agenda? MS. BAISLEY: No. MR. CSOGI: Bryan, I don't think this is under the same thing, but how about -- there's a ton of buses going around for assisted living communities, and a lot of the people aren't disadvantaged or handicapped, but they take them shopping and everywhere. Is that under -- should she be mailing a letter to those, or are they exempt? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Well, Item E of page 5 says that (as read): "Vehicles limited providing transportation services for the transportation disadvantaged." MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But these aren't disadvantaged. These -- these are just a -- a service that the home provides. MS. BAISLEY: But we're talking about buses, and we don't regulate buses. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But those are -- those are mini-coach weight, but they're not mini-coach capacity. MR. CSOGI: Right. And we -- we amended the bylaws where it used to say up to 14 passengers. Now there's no limit. MR. PALMER: Are those available to, like, paying customers who want to avail themselves of that service? Page 52 April 10, 2002 MR. CSOGI: No. No. MR. PALMER: So they're not like a common carrier? MR. CSOGI: No. No. No. It's just part of the package. MR. PALMER: We're interested in people who basically solicit customers who have a right to say, "Yes, I'd like to avail myself of your service and pay you a fee." MR. CSOGI: But the hotels don't do that. We're talking about free shuttle service that the hotel might provide down to Fifth Avenue for shopping for the people that stay at their hotel. MR. PALMER: And it's not -- it's not a fee-paid thing. It's just sort of part of the deal? MR. CSOGI: Well, that's -- isn't that what we're requiring? MS. ARNOLD: Well, we would have to specify in a letter to the hotels if it's a paid -- paid service; right? CHAIRMAN PEASE: No. Not necessarily because doesn't -- the ordinance doesn't specify whether it's paid or unpaid. If they're not an employee, if they're a guest, they would be in violation of the ordinance. MR. CSOGI: That's why I'm saying, what about nursing homes? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Nursing homes you get into -- I think you get into the vehicle capacity, or am I wrong there? MR. HYDE: I thought they were regulated by -- MS. ARNOLD: The exemption is if it's regulated by someone else, and they wouldn't have to be certificated by us. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I know we checked on the -- on the children's day care, but I don't know that -- has there ever been any discussion in terms of senior care? MS. ARNOLD: No, not that I'm aware of. MS. BAISLEY: No. How many people do these buses hold? You're saying they're not -- Page 53 April 10, 2002 MR. WALBURN: They're usually 24-passenger the little mini -- minivans. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Regular 25-passenger mini-coaches? MR. HYDE: Brighton Gardens and the Marriott's -- MR. WALBURN: Lely Palms. There's a lot of them. MR. HYDE: If I'm not mistaken, I thought that they were -- I may be mistaken -- I thought they were regulated under DOT? MS. ARNOLD: They could be. We could check. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Palmer, does DOT supersede this county if these mini-coaches, 25-passenger vehicles fall under that? MR. PALMER: In all probability any -- any outfit that's -- that's -- that's authorized by a federal agency in all probability supersedes and is exclusive to the federal agency. Although there are instances where you could superimpose little things on top of federal permit requirements, depends on the specific case, and there's a whole myriad of these things. For example, the fact that you've got a federal permit does not mean that there isn't some local jurisdiction around the edges. In other instances the federal jurisdiction is totally preemptive, and if they meet the federal standards, that's it. The government has nothing to say -- the local government has nothing to say about it, and there's all kinds of shades of gray here. You have to look at each one of these cases. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. I would be in favor of at least directing staff to investigate senior-care facilities and the jurisdiction on the vehicles. MR. PALMER: What we're interested in to find if somebody is seeing to it that these are good vehicles with proper insurance. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. MR. PALMER: Is some governmental entity doing that kind of a thing? We don't want just these wildcards out there. Page 54 April 10, 2002 MS. BAISLEY: MR. PALMER: CHAIRMAN PEASE: ordinance. MR. CSOGI: Right. MS. BAISLEY: But there are some nursing facilities that use regular vehicles, a town car or a Cadillac to transport -- MR. PALMER: Is it available only to their customers? Yes. See, they're not open to the general public. That doesn't matter according to our MR. PALMER: Well, I know that the -- that there -- that the applicant -- but the question and scope of the application is one thing, and then there are exceptions from that scope. I don't think that we're in the business of regulating things that are available to a limited class of people for no extra charge such as these hotel things. I'm not sure of that. We're interested in people that would make themselves available, like, a common carrier the people who have a right to ask the business and pay a charge. I'd have to look at it in some detail, but we're essentially a -- we're regulating common carriers here and things that are available to the general world and not to limited classes of people, such as the patients at a -- at a child-care facility or something, because they're not holding themselves out to the world as having a service available. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I think we found that the child-care laws covered the aspect of the vehicle. I think what the PVAC committee -- if I'm hearing it properly -- is they're also expressing concern in two areas. One is hotel shuttles that the safety of the guests is being met by the same standards that other carriers are required to provide, and also whether DOT or other-- and different organizations, the government, ensures that insurance and the other safety aspects for senior-care facilities are being met. And if they are, that's great, we don't have to deal with it. Page 55 April 10, 2002 MS. BAISLEY: MR. PALMER: employees? MR. PALMER: If we're -- if there's this unregulated area here that nobody's doing it and we kind of do it by default because we're interesting in seeing to it that when people being carried around vehicles that their -- that their -- the vehicles are adequate and at least somebody's looking the vehicles are adequate and the insurance is in place. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So let's direct staff, if you could, prior to our next meeting investigate those two areas. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. MR. HYDE: Make one other note. I know that there are specific individuals that are operating a, quote, unquote, charter service that runs from Immokalee to a -- to a specific hotel or hotels that drops off employees, and then there is a fee that's paid by these employees to this individual or to this company, whatever, and then they drop them back up in Immokalee. Now, I don't believe that those individuals -- I mean, they're operating as a charter service from what I can see, but that they're regulated. It's almost like a staff leasing kind of thing, but it's not staff leasing. It's strictly transportation. MR. PALMER: It may come under the exception on B, the top of page 6, if it's limited to the employees. MS. BAISLEY: But it's not-- it's not like the hotel providing that service. It's an individual out in Immokalee who picks up six or seven people and charges them $30 a head to go to a particular hotel. CHAIRMAN PEASE: In his own vehicle? In his own vehicle is what you're saying; right? Oh, it's not a company transporting its MR. HYDE: No, sir. MR. PALMER: My offhand impression is that sounds like it should be regulated by Collier County. Page 56 April 10, 2002 MS. BAISLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Could you please provide any information you have to staff for that? MR. HYDE: Absolutely. MR. PALMER: These hybrids -- these little in-between companies are problematic as to where they fit. MR. HYDE: This is -- this happens to be a mini-bus that used to be a bus from Collier or Lee County. MR. PALMER: Do you know whether or not it's franchised by Collier County or ran any kind of permit? MR. HYDE: No. This is one individual that drives in in the morning at eight o'clock, leaves at five o'clock. There are 20 or 15 people that get on. They pay him a fee. He drives back out up to Immokalee. He gets his cash. That's how it works. MR. PALMER: That sounds like it's pretty squarely certificated entity. MR. WALBURN: Just an entrepreneur. He knows everybody that's got to go to work, and he furnishes the means to get them there. MR. PALMER: Yeah. MR. HYDE: But there should be an insurance issue and compliance. MR. PALMER: For all we know the only insurance he's got is state-required insurance. It's also possible he doesn't have the proper motor vehicle operator's license to do what he's doing, which is essentially transporting people for a fee. He may have, for all we know, just an ordinary operator's permit. MR. HYDE: Correct. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. So if you could give that information, if you haven't already, to staff. Any other enforcement items that are not on this list? Page 57 April 10, 2002 MR. CSOGI: Very quick question for Tom. That would only pertain if you charge a fee. If it was free, we would have no way to oversee that? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yes, we would. We still -- still would unless the hotel owned the vehicle and were transporting those guests. MR. CSOGI: Okay. Well, there's another shuttle that goes from Immokalee to Naples on a daily basis. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's for free? MR. CSOGI: That's for free. MR. WALBURN: Talking about the casino shuttle. MR. CSOGI: Something like that, yeah. So would they be in violation? Would they have to conform? They have little buses and big buses. MR. PALMER: Yeah. MS. ARNOLD: That might be a hard one for us. MR. PALMER: They're not holding themselves out to the public. They're holding themselves out to, what, people who want to gamble at this facility; right? Got a little free transportation. MS. ARNOLD: I think that there may be some jurisdictional questions about whether or not we have any jurisdiction over the Indian Reservation. MR. PALMER: Oh. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Even if it's a Fort Myers company that's doing the service? MS. ARNOLD: I don't know about that. I don't know who's doing the service. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's for the casino more than it's a Fort Myers company. MR. HYDE: But they're picking up in Collier County and transporting from a specific location in Collier County, coming in, Page 58 April 10, 2002 picking up passengers. For a fee or not fee, you shouldn't be able to pick up. You can drop off, but you can't pick up. That was the way I remember it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: The company is not owned by the Seminole Tribe that I'm aware of. MS. ARNOLD: Well, pass that on. We'll confer with legal counsel on that. MS. BAISLEY: We're getting into the issue of a bus here we're talking about again. We're not talking about a van or -- MR. CSOGI: Some of them are small. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's the same-size vehicle as the nursing homes. MS. BAISLEY: A mini-bus that holds 24 people. Are we going to start regulating those, because otherwise there's a lot of people that are in violation by not having permits? CHAIRMAN PEASE: We took the -- MR. CSOGI: We took 14 people out. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We took the 14 people out, but we did not require those vehicles to get stickered. MS. BAISLEY: How are we going to require a 24-passenger bus if someone else is doing it? CHAIRMAN PEASE: They still have to have a permit. MR. HYDE: That's the issue. CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's kind of the question. We're a new territory with a new ordinance, and we're kind of establishing ground here. MS. BAISLEY: You mean, somebody like a transportation company that just had buses still is going to have to have a permit here but not have to pay $50 decal for their buses? Is that what you're saying? CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's a great question. Page 59 April 10, 2002 MS. BAISLEY: Because there are a few bus companies that operate here that that's all they have is buses, and they no longer have Collier County permits. CHAIRMAN PEASE: But I think what we said was if they didn't fall under DOT -- if they fell under DOT, DOT would take precedent. Those bus companies would fall under DOT therefore would not need a permit from us or any certification. MS. BAISLEY: Doesn't this bus company running to Immokalee fall under DOT? MR. CSOGI: What's the size that DOT takes over? CHAIRMAN PEASE: Over 14. MR. CSOGI: Is it weight or is it passengers? CHAIRMAN PEASE: And weight of vehicle. Could very well be that they fall under DOT even though they're not doing inter -- charter work. Well, they may be doing charter work too. MR. CSOGI: Okay. Need to check on it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Any other enforcement? Let's go to old business. I'm sorry. Let's go to complaint report, Item 9, Jack Bridenthal complaint list. Jack, do you want to come forward? it? MR. BRIDENTHAL: CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you want me now or after you discuss Let's -- let's do now. Let's give you five minutes now and then if-- if-- we'll close then the public comment after the PVAC have any questions for you. MR. BRIDENTHAL: All right. Okay. I guess for the last seven years I've been considered the biggest complainer, but I also feel that operating nothing but taxis I've been the one that's been affected the most and had an analyst work this all up before we started. They said we'd make $25,000 the first year. At the end of the first year, we probably lost twenty-five. At about that time we started Page 60 April 10, 2002 reanalyzing and finding out that all these what we call gypsy -- even though they have sedan permits. I did a conservative estimate on it. I figured in the last seven years with eight cars running taking 100 a day off, real taxis, that kept out to 1.7 million overall, not just us. And that's a very conservative estimate. There was probably for a long time 15 of them instead of 8. And for seven years we filed complaints continuously, had nothing but lip service both from Code Enforcement, the PVAC in the past. And these are not my complaints because I'm inside most of the time. They're from drivers to me to Code Enforcement. Really affects the morale because the drivers see they make a complaint. Two months later they see the same car doing the same thing. And it's taking money out of their pocket and mine. I feel Code Enforcement, sheriffs department has never been taught what the old or new ordinances are. There are Code Enforcement people on the road seven days a week that could be looking into these as they leave a red-tag complaint they could see a cab and check it out. Tom has said a lot of times there's no teeth in the ordinance as far as grabbing them. I always thought that a sworn complaint, which we had in the past, is the same as a -- you turn in a sworn complaint into the sheriffs department, they send it to the State's Attorney as to whether they file charges. It should be a sworn complaint is enough for Code Enforcement to file charges. We've paid a lot of money in the last seven years for permits that we feel are to protect and enforce and have had zero out of it. Six, seven thousand dollars for nothing. Marco, really no complaints about because we don't get down there, but if you call a cab in Marco you will get an unmarked car because there isn't a marked car in Marco. It's just one of the minor things. And as far as enforcement doing anything, one time four new permits -- I changed ours on a car Page 61 April 10, 2002 and made sure it had bald tires on it and unplugged one headlight and sent it to Code Enforcement and immediately got a sticker. This is not what our permit fees are for. They're to keep these cars safe and to keep the public safe. One last thing, I'd ask that you reopen subcertificate on black cars by Checker. Ten of the last 13 complaints are against them being used as cabs. I think there's 20 total complaints in the black cars only been out about six months. They are bidding on cab fares over the radio. They're working all over town to pick up flags, a lot at the bus. The only place they don't go is the airport because the Airport Authority knows the ordinance well enough to throw them out. If you don't have a marked car with a cab light meter, you don't sit in the airport line. But bus, Fifth Avenue, Third Street, Gulfgate, Coastland Mall, they're all over. There's -- I think there's eight of them alone. I think -- I don't know -- I think the PVAC should set up some sort of a letter and let the county commission know that Code Enforcement hasn't done their job for seven years, and we're about to come after them. You know, the developers get a permit, environmental suit. They cancel the permit, then the developer sue them. This is a perfect example of the same type of thing. They passed an ordinance. They revised an ordinance. They revise it again, and we're getting nothing out of it. You guys put in an awful lot of work every year on this stuff, and we get nothing. We get shorted, screwed, whatever kind of word you want to use. I think probably at one point seven million, being conservative, I would say in seven years we've probably lost close to $1 million, half of that would have been the drivers. So say half a million dollars in the last seven years it could have been. We could have expanded or other companies could have stayed in the business. Page 62 April 10, 2002 There's probably been ten come in and went out since I came in, and I've only made it the first few years by being able to feed a little more money into it each year. But you've got -- Accent went out, City's about broke. I can't think of all the different ones that have been here and left. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. BRIDENTHAL: CHAIRMAN PEASE: Mr. Bridenthal? Gentleman's time has expired. Thank you. Does the PVAC have any questions for MS. BAISLEY: I think if there -- I don't have questions for Jack but for the committee. If I think if there are black cars running around with taxi meters in them, obviously, they are in violation and should be -- MR. BRIDENTHAL: No meters. MS. BAISLEY: There's no meters in them? MR. BRIDENTHAL: No. Just working flags and attempting to pick up flags which is not on a chartered car. Not allowed -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: You need to come -- MR. PALMER: They're functioning as a taxicab in disguise. They're essentially transporting people in a taxicab at reduced rates without meters and so forth. MR. BRIDENTHAL: Yes, sir. And the ordinance says they're only to take reservations started. MR. PALMER: They're not to split their rate out so they effectively directly compete with taxicabs. MR. BRIDENTHAL: Even if the rate's the same, they're not allowed to pick up taxicab fare, Fifth Avenue flags. MR. PALMER: Well, that's -- that's what I'm saying, they're not allowed to operate under taxicab fares. MR. BRIDENTHAL: Right. Page 63 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: And that strikes me as a -- as a factual matter to be a rather simple thing to prove. MR. BRIDENTHAL: It's a very obvious violation when you see one of them sitting at the bus station or three of them and they don't have a name or who they're waiting for. MR. PALMER: That would be my violation that that kind of a violation would not be a problem of proof. MR. BRIDENTHAL: It's been seven years and not necessarily the black car but lots of cardboard signs in the windows. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions for Jack from the PVAC? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: I'll close the portion of public comment. I don't want to compromise anything that staff may be doing in regards to enforcement on that, so prefer if any -- you have any comment you not talk about any ongoing stings or anything like that. MS. ARNOLD: With all due respect, I understand Mr. Bridenthal thinks that this has been going on for seven years, but not until recently has he turned in any complaints with regards to any of these activities. We have received a letter indicating the taxi or the vehicles with their tag numbers, and we are currently investigating those particular vehicles. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It's important that we not -- we not discuss this much further because this could come before us in a hearing format. It's -- public comment is closed, Jack. MR. WALBURN: Michelle, when somebody makes a complaint, do you require signed signature of the complaint? Who's making the complaint? MS. ARNOLD: We don't require it anymore. We -- we accept written statements. They can now with adjustment in the ordinance leave an oral complaint. Previously -- Page 64 April 10, 2002 MR. WALBURN: You act on anonymous complaints the same as a written complaint? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. WALBURN: A signed complaint? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. MR. PALMER: That's because it puts us on just notice of to maybe conduct an investigation, and then we would proceed from there, but any evidence presented to the board on the merits of a violation would have to be evidence garnered by the investigatory process. CHAIRMAN PEASE: And, Allen, to bring you up to speed too, the workshop process, which you weren't a part of because you weren't on the committee at that time, the Code Enforcement wanted the ability for a guest in a vehicle to be able to call in to county Code Enforcement of a problem while they're in the car with use of cell phone, which is why -- it used to be a sworn complaint. MR. WALBURN: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: We wanted the accuser, you know, to be up front about it, but with that scenario we felt it was worthy of consideration from a safety standpoint. MR. WALBURN: In that particular aspect, I can understand it, but like this gentleman here, if he has a valid complaint whether it's to -- to upgrade the industry or just to be vindictive against a competitor, I think-- I think a sworn statement or at least a signed statement giving the staff some direction as to where to go both to investigate the complaint, but also to corroborate the witness's stow or substantiate the story. I just -- I think it's time consuming for them to be running around every time somebody calls in and says, "Well, we just saw a taxi pick up on Fifth Avenue." MR. PALMER: Well, certainly the more -- the more the complainant can assist us with specifics, details, writing, and so forth. Page 65 April 10, 2002 The question is is whether or not the information given to staff by whatever method is sufficient in their mind to feel that it warrants the triggering of an investigative effort. If it's obviously a flake phone call by somebody that -- you know, then they may say this is just a joke, but if it looks like it's got some substance to it, then depending on priorities and staff time, the staff can elect to do what it wants to do to follow up on what the caller whomever alleges is being done wrong. MR. WALBURN: Just -- just not to pound on this gentleman, but if he came in here with a stack of complaints dated seven years and we looked over at these folks and they have not taken any action, I can be sympathetic to him. But if he's got seven years' worth of phone calls to them with no substantiation I can understand how these people are not running around chasing their tails every day trying to get to the bottom of the story. I mean, there just has to be a paper trail somehow so everybody can -- chain-of-custody type of thing. MR. PALMER: Of course, it doesn't help to say, "I've been complaining for seven years," that generalized statement, because what does that mean? MR. WALBURN: Exactly. MR. PALMER: That means to each of us something else. MR. WALBURN: Exactly. MR. PALMER: The question is, what did the ordinance say? What were the specifics? Did, in fact, he brought hard and fast evidence, that should have triggered an investigation that was just blown off or what? That's -- those are the kinds of factual issues here. MR. WALBURN: And it gets down to he said, she said. MR. PALMER: We know that we've had problems over the years, and we've admitted it freely on a number of occasions that Page 66 April 10, 2002 we'd like to get more cooperation out of the sheriffs office on these matters. But the sheriff has his priorities, too, and he's going to give us the time and attention that he, in his discretion, wishes. If we had our druthers, we would have a deputy sheriff assigned at our beck and call, but we don't. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Chair recognizes Dan. I did see a few months ago from USA Taxi a MR. SHRINER: complaint dating '94. MS. ARNOLD: MR. SHRINER: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SHRINER: MS. ARNOLD: MR. SHRINER: '96. '96. Okay. I have it right here. Oh, you have it? Okay. '96? Yes. Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Any other discussion on this item? MR. CSOGI: Well, we're discussing Jack's comments, I guess, aren't we? CHAIRMAN PEASE: That's right. MR. CSOGI: I've got just a couple quick things. We did spend a lot of time last year redoing the ordinance so everything that Jack said we took that into account this year. This is our first step into the hearing process and getting the industry regulated. I don't think you were at the last workshop when we had the sheriff-- we had the Naples City Police there, so we did let them know the process, and they are looking for that now, and we are, I think, still in the process of contacting the sheriff's department. So we are a step closer in that aspect into the city limits. And into your comment about sending the vehicle up with the bald tires, I don't think that happened this year because this year we have a new ordinance in here about inspection of the vehicles, requiring the vehicles to be up to code. So we are -- Page 67 April 10, 2002 it is -- we are moving forward even though I understand the way things are in the past, but I think we are moving forward. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I want to follow up with that. I appreciate your comments, Bill, on that and just to let you know, we've taken an approach where the first -- last year we focused on getting teeth into the ordinance. We heard from staff that we've got a problem here, the ordinance they didn't feel like gave us -- gave them the authority they needed. Fine. We went through a long process. We have a new ordinance. Now, this year we're focused very strongly on enforcement. To my knowledge, we haven't had a hearing in -- in -- by this group for an extended period of time. So your -- we're starting to see this develop, and it's going to take a little bit of time to continue to -- to foster that, but I think you're gonna -- you're to be pleased by the end of the year with the process. And I think there's going to be more accountability and more effort in that. MR. PALMER: As Michelle can tell you, the vast majority -- unbelievably vast majority of complaints are resolved summarily by the person that's responding to the complaint doing what the person is supposed to do. It's futile if you're violating an ordinance to think that you're going to get before this board and blow smoke in your face and you're not going to find -- see the violation. So unless the person really in good faith believes he's not violated the ordinance, it's just swimming upstream to say I'm going to come in here and I'm going to try to fight the facts and convince this board that I didn't violate an ordinance that I violated. So the vast majority of people, if they've got any common sense and business sense at all, realize they've been caught red-handed, and they're going to do what's right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Staff, for the record, you are currently investigating all of his complaints? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Page 68 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: Properly? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. With respect to Mr. Palmer's statements, I think if someone does take the time to write us a letter and submit a complaint and sign it, we -- we should return the favor and follow up with that individual to let them know what has been done once a resolution or conclusion's been made on that investigation. So that's something that we will do upon completion of our investigation. MR. PALMER: There's no question that the more specific and detailed a complaint is the more superficial credibility it has right out of the blocks. Somebody's taken the time to write a letter and explain what happened when, where, and how. This person has got something rather than some off-the-wall phone call that somebody had about five drinks at some bar one night and has a complaint about the taxicab across the street and everything in between. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Any other questions or comments about Jack Bridenthal's complaint list? MS. ARNOLD: I just -- I just request that page -- the complainant be patient with us because we do have to collect all the pertinent information. We can't just act mainly on a complaint. We have to actually witness some of this activity. MS. HU: I would like to let the complainant know that -- he'll be happy to know that one of his complaints was taken care of that same day, the Naples Taxi gold Lincoln, and I got the license plate for it. I called him in, and he came in that same day and got the sticker for it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Good. That's what we want to have happen. Great. Next item is Dan Shriner business card list. You'd like to talk about that? MR. SHRINER: I believe I had those at one of the workshops if you can read it. I believe staff or Code Enforcement called at least Page 69 April 10, 2002 two of them, and they answered the phone with their business, or how did they answer the phone? MS. HU: They answered their phone with their name. "This is Terry" or "This is Ekna," but it doesn't say, "Terry the Taxi." They don't answer by "Terry the Taxi." MR. SHRINER: Did you -- did you try to inquire any service from them? Did you try to get them to run a call for you, or was it just -- MS. HU: No. I just -- I called, and I said it was a wrong number, but I -- I think the main thing that I was focused in when I called was what they answered by. CHAIRMAN PEASE: I -- I think we need to go maybe a step further, but I'm reluctant to talk a lot about what you may choose to do, but I think further investigation may be in order on that. MS. ARNOLD: Well, the question is, what is required of them because I think there was two questions. Are they doing business with another name under a certificate with the county and, if so, then do they need to get a subcertificate? And the other question was -- you know, how -- how do we verify that? So we do need to do a little bit more in terms of soliciting service to verify whether or not they will provide that service for us under that name. MR. PALMER: One of the things that's seeming important to me is under what insurance policy are they covered would answer a lot of these questions. MS. HU: They're vehicles from-- I mean, the business card has the company name and then their name. They're covered under the company's insurance. MR. PALMER: insurance? MS. ARNOLD: They are covered under the large company's I think we need to do a little bit more on this one. Page 70 April 10, 2002 MR. CSOGI: Right. We're assuming that. What they have -- they have a CTO's name on the top in small print, and then they've got their d/b/a name, so they're operating like a subcertificate. MR. PALMER: They are? MR. CSOGI: That's what it likes looks. I don't know. That's MR. PALMER: This is kind of a grey area. If, in fact, they're covered and they're on a general policy of the large company, it sounds like they are a part of a large company. CHAIRMAN PEASE: This is the page, Mr. Palmer, that we're referencing. Under discussion section. MR. SHRINER: I apologize for that copying on that, but I think also the phone number and maybe where that phone would be. That's not really a registered phone number for USA or for Checker. Those are personal cell phones. I don't know if that's a problem or not, but they're certainly another entity there they're starting another business under the -- under the main business it would look to me. MR. CSOGI: Right. In other words, if they call in, they should have to call in the main number if they're working under their CTO. It's a subcertificate. They should have to provide a separate number which is a permanent number on this. MR. SHRINER: They're answering the phone, and this one says, "Terry," but this one says, "Rick," and it should be, "Checker Cab, this is Terry" or "this is Rick." I mean, something to that effect. But they're using personal phones -- cell phones, I'm pretty sure, and it's just a question. I'm -- it's up to you people to decide. I don't want it to be five years from now and you've got 20 of these out there, and they're little sub-companies. MS. ARNOLD: Tom, do they have to provide us with all the phone numbers, for example, that is listed for that company that one can call and -- and get picked up or -- Page 71 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: Yes. I think that's relevant information, directly relevant information. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It may be relevant, but I don't know that it's part of the ordinance to provide that, nor do we -- MR. PALMER: I'm not saying that's dispositive of anybody's status, but we have a right to know whether a person has one, two, or four phone numbers. MR. SHRINER: You lose control if you don't, and that's what I'm saying. Rick or Terry, if next year they decide to leave the Checker Cab and just go out on their own, they have their cards distributed; they could do that. Not that any of them would, but it gives them that possibility that they could extend themselves out, quit paying Checker or USA. I assume they're paying for something here and just go on their own and not even have a license, but they'd have the cell phone, and they did business with these people for a few years, and the people just call them. I mean, they would just -- if they like them, they're going to call them whether they're licensed or not. MR. PALMER: Well, they've got to be licensed -- either licensed directly or working for somebody that is certificated. It looks like Airport Services is a part of Checker Cab. MR. SHRINER: I would think so. MR. PALMER: And it probably comes under Checker Cab's certificate, but if this guy breaks away and becomes an independent contractor, then he's obviously got to be independently certificated quite apart from Checker Cab. MR. SHRINER: That's true, but what I'm -- that's what I'm saying, but you're setting yourself up. Maybe he'll never do that, but you're setting yourself up in a situation where he's building a clientele under Checker Cab, and he can take it with him. Thirty years ago I saw an insurance guy come into a company, he took half the Page 72 April 10, 2002 insurance business when he started a new one. I'm not against it or for it. It's common, but -- MR. PALMER: Well, of course. MR. SHRINER: Should it become a part of this? I'm saying, should we control that7 MR. PALMER: If he should break away from Checker Cab whereby he's not under Checker Cab's insurance protection or driving a vehicle acknowledged to be a vehicle being operated by or through Checker Cab, then he would have to be independently certificated as if Checker Cab had no relationship to him whatsoever. But it may well be that in the present configuration he is under Checker Cab's insurance and his vehicles are acknowledged by Checker Cab as being working for Checker Cab. MR. SHRINER: Right. MR. PALMER: In which case it looks like he is part of Checker Cab. Those are the things we're really interested in. MR. CSOGI: Yeah. But the question that Michelle has was not whether he's a part or not, whether he has to get a subcertificate because he's calling himself a different name. Can he call himself "Terry the Taxi" and still be under their CTO? MR. PALMER: Well, I'd have to look at the criteria of where you draw the line between a sub-certificated business. I'm not sure that -- that this thing here is dispositive of the question. It looks like he's Terry the Taxi working for Checker Cab. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: That may well be the case. If he's -- if Checker Cab acknowledges that this guy's got five vehicles that are working for Checker Cab and are insured by Checker Cab, it doesn't appear to me, offhand, that a subcertificate is required. But I would require a little more analysis. We're interested in insurance coverage and Page 73 April 10, 2002 making sure that all these vehicles are -- are being acknowledged by some insured and certificated entity. MR. CSOGI: Then I've got a question. Why did a couple companies come before the board this morning if they don't need a subcertificate? MR. PALMER: Well, people have -- because there are certain things where people come in and they get a subcertificate for their own benefit because they want to do something specific apart that's not authorized by the general certificate. And I don't know -- I have to look. Nobody's asked me about this specific whether or not this, in fact, is a subcertificate case or it isn't. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. SHRINER: Mr. Palmer, I don't-- MR. PALMER: Normally we did these things because somebody wants to be considered a separate entity for the insurance protection purposes or things of that nature. MR. CSOGI: Right. MR. PALMER: I think the burden of proof on somebody coming in for a subcertificate is on the applicant to prove that they qualified for the subcertificate as I remember. In other words, you've got to actually show that you are qualified to get a subcertificate; otherwise, you stay certificated with the larger entity. MR. SHRINER: To extend on the Terry Taxi, it sounds like (inaudible), and I don't mean to be, but I have their -- and USA didn't give me this -- I have their agreement that Terry has with the company. MR. PALMER: Okay. MR. SHRINER: And I can read it or you can look at it, but they quite remove themselves from Terry in this. Let me just hand it to you. I do have a copy. This is the third page. Page 74 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: What we need to do is I need to get a request for legal services from staff and the backup material so I can give an opinion as to whether or not I think this is a subcertificate or not. Now, the thing about it is, if you don't come in and apply and get a subcertificate, you are not a subcertificated certificate, are you? This doesn't happen by default or an action. You come in, affirmatively convince this board you qualify, and you get it. If you don't, then you're part of the whole mix and-- and if what you're doing is a violation that can only be accomplished through a subcertificate, you're in violation because you haven't got the subcertificate you need to do what you want to do, and that's the way you analyze this problem. MR. SHRINER: Well, I think this is the reason for that particular card, and it's on their third page of their-- of their agreement (as read)' "Driver is free to perform all or part of his or her taxi services independently of owner's dispatch system or contractual agreement. Driver further acknowledges that as an independent business person free from authority and control of the owner, he or she is not covered by workmen's comp insurance provided by the owner." But it -- MR. PALMER: Now workers' comp is a different issue. MR. SHRINER: Well, it is. MR. PALMER: The question is whether or not they're covered by liability insurance of Checker Cab. MR. SHRINER: I'm just saying that they're the owner dispatching system contractual agreements. They're totally independent of the Checker Cab. MR. PALMER: They're independent of some of a -- of some kind of a informational flow system. It doesn't-- I don't know that they're independent of regulation or responsibility to Checker Cab. Page 75 April 10, 2002 That's a different thing. I ought to take a look at this. I can't render an opinion on this sitting here right now. MR. SHRINER: Above that, though (as read): "Owner and driver further acknowledge that driver is not a subcontractor and that the driver is not required to perform any work for the owner." MR. PALMER: I don't know. Where are you reading? MR. SHRINER: Just above where I was. MR. PALMER: What subsection is it? Six -- you've got some things marked out in yellow, and I haven't found where you're reading. MR. SHRINER: MR. PALMER: I'm on page 3, and it's -- it's not-- I don't have page 3. I have page 1, a cut-off page 2, and a signature page. Oh, page 3 marked at the top. Okay. Where is it? Where is it in here? MR. SHRINER: It's down about one, two, three, four, five, six, seven lines. It starts in and it says (as read): "Owner driver acknowledges that the driver is not a subcontractor, that the driver is not required to perform any service or work for the owner." MS. BAISLEY: But under our current ordinance -- excuse me -- it indicates that the operator, the person with CTO, is to keep records of what each vehicle is on every day. I'm wondering if Checker Cab, in this instance, has records of what Terry the Taxi has done every day? MR. PALMER: Very good question, and does Checker Cab acknowledge that this vehicle is under the Checker Cab umbrella? Every vehicle out there on the street has to be accounted for either directly as a certificate holder or directly related and acknowledged by a certificate holder. MS. BAISLEY: But it sounds like, from this agreement, that Terry the Taxi is paying X amount of dollars every week to Checker Cab to have a permit. Page 76 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: at it. MS. BAISLEY: what they're doing. It may be. It may be. We'll have to take a look But I'm not so sure Checker Cab is aware of MR. PALMER: These things are fact specific, and we have to take a look at it and get the facts and find out whether or not this is an illegal operation and whether or not they need a subcertificate or not. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Have you provided this information to staff, this copy that you have? MR. SHRINER: I just found this yesterday. It was gave to me months ago, and I just -- I just found it yesterday in some stuff that was -- CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Could you give staff a copy of that to help them in their investigation, please, after the meeting? MR. PALMER: Because it could be that what's going on here could be a violation by Checker Cab. I don't know that it is, but it could be. MR. SHRINER: I was -- I would just sum this up by saying that it looks like the owner put this out to the drivers. They signed it. The driver went under this interpretation. With the interpretation of this, I would get my own cards and have my own phones and all. It looks like you could just operate a business. I guess he's getting compensation from the owner. MR. PALMER: Well, it starts out, the first "whereas" clause is (as read): "Old -- or hold certificate of public convenience necessity on the account of Collier County." That's talking -- so it looks like this whole thing is being done under the auspices of the certificate of Checker Cab in the first sentence, so we'll take a look at it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Yeah. If you could-- Mr. Palmer, if you could review the document before our next meeting -- MR. PALMER: Oh, sure. Page 77 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- and give us an opinion on that. Also staff can do further investigation on that item. MS. ARNOLD: Could we -- could we get a copy of that agreement? MR. SHRINER: It's coming your way now, I think. Here's the rest of it, or I'll get it to you after the meeting. He suggested after the meeting. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Either way. MR. SHRINER: There it goes. There's three pieces of it. MR. PALMER: This sounds like a matter that could be easily resolved one way or the other. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Next item, Bill, I think we've already covered that, but if not, let me know. MR. CSOGI: We've already covered it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. So we go on to discussion resolution on background checks and IDs. Staff. MS. HU: According to IDs I requested a resolution -- well, not requested a resolution, but we need to have some type of verbage in order to be able to charge a fee for the IDs. We don't have anything. MR. PALMER: We'll have to go back to the Board of County Commissioners with a resolution adopting a fee, which we can do. It's a one-page resolution, I envision. Get it on their next consent agenda. With your permission and instruction to staff, I can draft a resolution. And it's under Section 142-52 of the ordinance. That is these fees are -- are adopted by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Do you need a motion with an amount from us? MR. PALMER: If you want to specify an amount that will be applicable for the acquisition of each ID, that would be fine because Page 78 April 10, 2002 that would be in the resolution with the Board of County Commissioners to establish a quantified figure of money. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Does staff have any suggestions or any other discussion from staff on -- because it also mentions background checks, so I assume you have something related to that? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We would have to determine who the fee -- if we charge it to the driver or if it's something that we're going to be adding to our fees for the vehicles. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. We had that discussion in the workshop. We determined it was to the driver because the driver could take that to any company and work. The company doesn't own that. The driver has possession of that. MS. ARNOLD: And we are the ones that are going to be taking -- doing the background checks rather than have the drivers do it themselves. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. MR. PALMER: Well, let's -- let's be specific. Anybody can pay this $25 fee. The point is it's imputed to a particular driver, to the credit of a human being, whether he pays the check or a company does it for him or whether his Aunt Minnie does it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Right. MR. PALMER: The fact is the credit is attributable to a specific human being who's the face on the ID. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. MR. PALMER: Irrespective of who pays it. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Thank you for that clarification. Bill. MR. CSOGI: Is everything in place if we set a fee where we can do background checks and do the IDs? Has that all been resolved and we've got a set figure? MS. ARNOLD: We -- we have a site that we can get information off of that we formalized the connection. How we're Page 79 April 10, 2002 going to be paying -- yeah. There's a site. We could do -- we'll get assessed so much for-- you know, getting seven are more background checks, and it's a different price if we get fewer, so we'll have to determine how we're going to do that. MR. CSOGI: And the ID is they're all set up where we can take the pictures and do the IDs right now. We're all set up for that? MS. HU: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So the only thing we're waiting for is a price and appropriate documentation. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. We actually have to have the board authorize us to charge that fee. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Can -- do you have a range right now of those costs so that this committee can go ahead and get this started with the appropriate amount? MR. CSOGI: What's the minimum for one background check? MS. ARNOLD: It's $15 per one background check minimum. If it's -- if we're getting one at a time, I think so it's 25. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. So if we took as 25 and any additional charges in terms of the laminating and-- MS. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN PEASE: -- are you thinking that $30 would be sufficient? MS. ARNOLD: MR. PALMER: here? I'm confused. Uh-huh. Are we mixing IDs and background checks CHAIRMAN PEASE: They're -- they're -- they're actually together. You can't get an ID without a background check. MR. PALMER: Yeah. But there should be a charge for the ID, $25 or something, a piece of tangible thing; it's plastic with your face on it. That's one charge, and some other charge for one, two, three, four, five, or ten concurrently issued background checks. Page 80 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: So then they can have the option to bring their own background check in if they don't want to have it through the county? MR. PALMER: Well, that's a different issue. The question is, if the county is going to do the work, it may be $25 for the first and $15 for each additional to run concurrently. I don't know what the figures are, but let's be specific about it so we don't get into arguments with people about what the proper fee is. MS. ARNOLD: Right. I think, Tom, that that's something that we will have to discuss, but there needs to be, then, two fees, one for background check and one for the ID. You're right. MR. PALMER: As a matter of fact, there may be a separate charge for that. I lose my ID and I want to come in in midyear and get a replacement; it's 25 bucks or whatever it is. MS. ARNOLD: So we will have to include both fees in the resolution. MR. PALMER: And one of them sounds like it'll be a sliding scale. If it's one background check, it's $25. If it's two concurrently, it's 25 plus 15. If it's three, it's 25 plus 15 plus 10. If it's more than 10, it's $15 apiece. I don't know what it is, but it's probably not going to be a flat rate. CHAIRMAN PEASE: It can be a flat rate. MR. PALMER: It can be? Okay. Fine. MS. ARNOLD: I think that's what would be better because -- MR. WALBURN: I agree. MS. ARNOLD: -- you're never going to know when -- whether or not we're going to have ten to do at one time or one, you know. CHAIRMAN PEASE: So let's go with the -- let's figure $25 is appropriate for that; that's the maximum that it's going to cost. And then you said the maximum for the picture ID is $5 a replacement? MS. ARNOLD: Is that what our cost is? Page 81 April 10, 2002 MS. HU' It doesn't say anything. MS. ARNOLD: No. No. How much does it cost us? MS. HU: It would average -- it's hard to say here. MS. ARNOLD' Well, we'll have to -- do you guys have to establish -- we have to bring the resolution back to this board; right? MR. PALMER: Well, if-- if you were specific, the board-- if we knew the fees and the board said, I -- we approve the fees, they could delegate to you the work of getting the resolution of the Board of County Commissioners. MS. ARNOLD: Okay. I was -- MR. PALMER: Only the chairman would sign it, that is, the transmittal slip, but if we don't know the fees, if it's better that this board set them rather than say, "Whatever staff says is fine with us." That's kind of a loose delegation. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I would say $25 for the background check and $10 for the ID. If it's anything different than that, we will bring it back to the board members so that they're advised of the fees. MR. WALBURN: And $10 for a duplicate -- duplicate if one's lost also? MS. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN PEASE: MR. SHRINER: date? MS. ARNOLD: MR. SHRINER: MS. ARNOLD: Do we have-- Do these expire? Do they have an expiration Annual. Oh, annually? Isn't that what it is? CHAIRMAN PEASE: We talked about not going calendar-- I'm sorry. I don't mean to talk over. Go ahead. MS. HU: That's what it says in the ordinance. It doesn't have a set date as to -- from the 1 st of January to the next. Page 82 April 10, 2002 CHAIRMAN PEASE: At the last workshop, I recommended it not be calendar year because there's too much with the vehicles to do that calendar year. Give them some time. So if this gets approved by the county commission and let's say that date is May, then it would expire every year in May, and that gives them time to do it. MR. PALMER: I don't recall that IDs expire. It seems to me ID's good for as long as it holds together. MS. HU: It's says an annual renewal. MR. PALMER: Oh, it is annual renewed? MS. HU: That's what it says. MR. PALMER: Oh, okay. Whatever it says. But I know when I drove a taxicab my ID was as good as long as I could keep it together. MS. BAISLEY: Wouldn't it be annual renewal from when the actual ID was issued? Because you're going to have to be hiring drivers all year long. MS. HU: Right. MR. WALBURN: That's what you want. You don't want everybody flooding in here to get a license. CHAIRMAN PEASE: One at a time, please. MR. CSOGI: The reason -- the reason -- the reason it's annual is because we're going to be getting the annual update of the background check. Something could have happened in the past year that we don't know about, so you don't want it to be an open ID. So each -- each specific ID will have a life of a MR. PALMER: year. MS. ARNOLD: MR. PALMER: Right. If it starts in July, it'll go from July to July. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Correct. Do we have a motion? MR. CSOGI: Do we need a motion? Page 83 April 10, 2002 MR. WALBURN: I'll make a motion that we accept the background check fee as $25, the license -- actual physical issuance of the license will be $10, and any subsequent duplicates would be $10 each, and it would run from the time -- MR. PALMER: Instruct staff to proceed and get the matter before the Board of County Commissioners for its approval. CHAIRMAN PEASE: At the earliest -- MR. WALBURN: The license would be issued-- would be valid from one day -- of one year from the date it was issued. MR. PALMER: I can get something for them in a couple of days on that. Not a problem. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Let me just get clarification before I ask for a second. In his motion if somebody comes in in August to start work, then theirs would come in August. It wouldn't be a set date. That's okay; right? MS. ARNOLD: Right. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Do we have a second? MR. CSOGI: Second. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Second. MS. ARNOLD: The only -- the only set date we have in the ordinance is for the renewal for your certificates. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. (Unanimous response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN PEASE: Motion carried. Is this a separate item, resolution for Section 142-567 MS. HU: Where is that? It is. 142.56 is a transfer of certificate or permit prohibited. CHAIRMAN PEASE: What page is that? Page 84 April 10, 2002 MR. PALMER: We're on page 31 of the ordinance. MS. HU: I believe it was mentioned in the last workshop, and I don't exactly remember. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Does staff want to remove this from the agenda? MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know why it's on there. It's from the last workshop. MR. PALMER: What are they asking the board to do? I don't know. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. We'll continue. Announcements, presentation of Sunshine Law meeting for May 1st or May 6th. MS. ARNOLD: Yeah. That -- that is something that the county attorney's office is being -- scheduling for advisory board members. So anyone that's interested in attending any of the -- either one of those meetings you can. They are -- the May 1st meeting is from 2:30 to four o'clock. That's a Wednesday. And the May 6 meeting is from 9:30 to eleven o'clock. And that's to address all of the Sunshine Law requirements, notification requirements, you know, what -- what the advisory boards are required to do under that law. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Where is that held? MS. ARNOLD: The meetings are going to be held -- is it the boardroom? Yes. In the boardroom. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Here? Not at your -- MS. ARNOLD: Yes. Yes. Here. MR. CSOGI: And that time on the first, I'm sorry. MS. ARNOLD: The first one is 2:30, and that's May 1st. And the second one is 9:30 a.m. on May 6th. CHAIRMAN PEASE: These are optional? MS. ARNOLD: We -- they want all board members to attend either one of them. CHAIRMAN PEASE: Okay. Page 85 April 10, 2002 MS. ARNOLD: And if you can provide e-mail notice or notice to us to let us know so that we can pass the information on to the board -- you know, the county attorney's office, they need to have an idea of attendance. MS. HU: By the 19th, please. CHAIRMAN PEASE: All right. Any other questions? Comments? Just one -- one note under announcements. I wanted to mention that two weeks ago the county commission reviewed this committee, and Commissioner Coletta said some -- some very nice words about this committee, about the work it does, about how hard this committee works, and the fact that most, if not all, the people on this committee are business people, and the time that is dedicated to that he was very appreciative of. And I wanted to share that with everyone on the committee and thank you personally for all your help. The next meeting is July 2002, and I call the meeting adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 11:43 p.m. PUBLIC VEHICLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BRYAN L. S. PEASE, CHAIRMAN Page 86 April 10, 2002 TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CAROLYN J. FORD, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 87