CAPTIONING MARCH 9, 2005 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ***This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the ***following meeting. It should be used for informational ***purposes only. This document has not been edited; ***therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words ***that did not translate. >>KEVIN WHITE: GOOD MORNING, AND WELCOME TO THE MARCH 9th PTC MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO YIELD TO COMMISSIONER BRIAN BLAIR, WHO WILL DO OUR INVOCATION, AND THEN WE'LL REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >>BRIAN BLAIR: DEAR GOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS DAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE AND FOR ALL OF YOUR BLESSINGS. FATHER, WE ASK THAT YOU GUIDE US TODAY WITH WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, AND UNDERSTANDING AND THAT YOU JUST GUIDE US BY YOUR GRACE. PLEASE PROTECT THE FAMILIES OF THE FOLKS HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY AND HELP US TO BE PRODUCTIVE AND DO THE BEST WE CAN EACH DAY. IN YOUR NAME, LORD, WE PRAY. AMEN. >> AMEN. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >>KEVIN WHITE: THIS MORNING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO QUICK OFF-THE-AGENDA ITEMS THAT -- ONE I SPOKE WITH MR. COX ABOUT YESTERDAY -- AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON. FIRST OF ALL, MR. COX, THIS IS -- AND PROBABLY MR. JOHNSON AS WELL ATTENDED A MEETING WITH THE TOWING ASSOCIATION LAST -- ON LAST MONTH, AND THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONCERNS WITH THE TOWING ASSOCIATION THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME RECLASSIFICATION OF TOW TRUCKS BEING CLASSIFIED AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES IN OTHER COUNTIES AND OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT CLASSIFICATION OR STATUS IS IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OR WHAT IT COULD POSSIBLY BE, AND ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THEIR QUESTIONS WAS THAT -- AS FAR AS RESPONDING TO ROTATION POLICE CALLS AND CALLS FOR SERVICE -- THAT WHEN THEY GOT A CALL, THE DRIVER HAD TO LEAVE FROM HOME, GO TO THE TOW YARD -- TO THE TOW YARD -- AND RESPOND TO THE EMERGENCY CALL, AND YOU ONLY GET 20 MINUTES, I BELIEVE IT IS, 20 TO 30 MINUTES TO RESPOND TO A ROTATION CALL BEFORE YOU'RE BUMPED AND ANOTHER TOW COMPANY IS CALLED. AND IF THAT DOES OCCUR, THEN ONCE THAT DRIVER IS TAKING THAT -- THE TOW TRUCK BACK TO THE YARD, THEN DRIVING BACK HOME, THEN GETS ANOTHER CALL, IT JUST BECOMES COST- PROHIBITIVE FOR A LOT OF DRIVERS AND MORE SO AN INCONVENIENCE FOR THE -- THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND -- AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WAITING FOR THE SERVICE, AND ALTHOUGH I REALIZE THAT WE HAVE A CITY ORDINANCE OR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PARKED WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, SOME OF THE TOW TRUCK OWNERS SAY THAT THEY HAVE EVEN ATTEMPTED TO PARK THEIR VEHICLES IN LOCAL GROCERY STORE PARKING LOTS AND/OR LOCAL SERVICE STATIONS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT THEY WERE STILL WARNED THAT THESE WERE STILL NOT COMMERCIAL SITES AND WERE IN FEAR OF VIOLATION OF BEING CITED AND/OR HAVING THEIR VEHICLES IMPOUNDED FROM THAT, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF WE HAD HAD ANY PRECEDENCE OR HAD DONE ANY RESEARCH ON THAT -- ON THAT ITEM. >>GREG COX: SIR, WE LOOKED AT THAT A LITTLE BIT YESTERDAY, AND -- WHEREAS WE HAVEN'T DONE THOROUGH RESEARCH ON IT, THERE HAS -- THERE WERE SOME PRECEDENCE WHERE COMPANIES HAD RECEIVED SOME EASEMENT FROM THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY ORDINANCE AND POSSIBLY THE COUNTY ORDINANCE ON PARKING SOME OF THESE VEHICLES AT THEIR RESIDENTS JUST FOR THE REASONS YOU MENTIONED, SO THAT THEY COULD RESPOND QUICKER, BUT AS FAR AS WE'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE, THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCES, EITHER IN THE COUNTY OR THE CITY, TO ALLOW THAT. IT JUST WAS SORT OF A -- NOT ENFORCED AS MUCH. RECENTLY -- REASONABLY RECENTLY, THAT ENFORCEMENT HAS PICKED BACK UP AGAIN, I'M ASSUMING AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE MAYOR, TO -- TO NOT ALLOW THESE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES TO PARK AT THE RESIDENT SITES. WE WOULD HAVE TO -- TO ACTUALLY PUSH TO GET A CHANGE TO THE CITY ORDINANCE AND POSSIBLY THE COUNTY ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO RESEARCH IT AND FIND OUT THE EXACT DATES, BUT I'M AFRAID THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN -- HAVE TO HAPPEN. >>KEVIN WHITE: I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE AN OVERALL THING, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY INVESTIGATE, AND -- AND MAYBE IF WE CAN STIPULATE BY -- I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THERE'S SOME SORT OF IDENTIFYING MARKER THAT CAN BE PUT ON THE PARTICULAR TOW TRUCKS THAT -- THAT DO SERVE ROTATION VERSUS THE ONES THAT -- THAT DON'T AND GIVE THEM THE ACCESSIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO -- MAYBE SOME SORT OF LAX, MAYBE IF IT'S NOT AT THE TOW TRUCK DRIVER'S HOME BUT MAYBE A VICINITY THAT IS A LIKE COMMERCIAL AREA, SUCH AS A SERVICE AREA OR SOMETHING, IF THEY COULD HAVE A LOCAL AGREEMENT THAT THEY COULD PARK WITHIN SOME REASONABLE PROXIMITY WHERE THE DRIVER COULD GET IT RATHER THAN DRIVING 25 MILES TO THE YARD AND -- AND THEN BACK. MS. FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, SIR. I THINK THE SAME DILEMMA THAT THE CHAIRMAN POSES IS SOMETHING THAT HAS PROBABLY BEEN DIRECTED TO MANY OF US. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE COUNTY SIDE, COMMISSIONER BLAIR, COMMISSIONER HAGAN, BUT THE BALANCE THERE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THAT WE'RE LOBBIED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE NOT TO HAVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN THEIR AREA, PERIOD. AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S A PUBLIC SAFETY HERE BECAUSE IF WE NEED A TOW TRUCK TO REMOVE A CAR FROM THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERSECTION THAT'S BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT, TIMING IS OF THE ESSENCE. I THINK AT THE SAME TIME OUR CONSTITUENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD BE CONCERNED BECAUSE IF WE ALLOW A CERTAIN VEHICLE AND WE TAG IT AS -- AS A WRECKER ON ROTATION, THEN A BUS DRIVER'S GOING TO WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE LATE TO PICK UP THE KIDS, SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DILEMMA, MR. COX, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO WARRANT A LITTLE BIT OF WORK. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT FINE-LINE GUIDELINES WE CAN LOOK AT TO SATISFY BOTH CODE ENFORCEMENT ON THE CITY AND THE COUNTY SIDE, AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE COUNTY, BUT I DO KNOW IN THE CITY THAT IS ONE OF THE TOP PRIORITIES IN TERMS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT. IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR WE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE HERE SERVING PTC AND THE PEOPLE WE REGULATE BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO RESPOND TO ACCIDENTS, SO IT'S GOING TO BE A BALANCE, AND I THINK WE'LL JUST GO FORWARD AND LOOK AT SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND, AT THE SAME TIME, PERHAPS TALK ABOUT IT WHEN WE GET BACK TO COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSIONERS IN THEIR MEETINGS AND SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH AS A FINE BALANCE TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH ISSUES. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: WELL, I'D CONCUR WITH ROSE. I AGREE A HUNDRED PERCENT. I KNOW WE HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED THIS SITUATION BEFORE, BUT I COULD CERTAINLY SEE WHERE IT COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE A DILEMMA, AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT TO THE FOREFRONT, KEVIN, AND, AGAIN, IF WE CAN GET SOME CLARIFICATION, THAT WOULD HELP ALL OF US. >>GREG COX: OKAY. WE'LL -- WE'LL START SOME DIALOGUE WITH THE WRECKER INDUSTRY ABOUT IT AND SEE IF MAYBE -- MAYBE THERE'S A NEGOTIATED MIDDLE GROUND SOMEWHERE WHERE IT WOULD PLEASE THE RESIDENTS AND THE INDUSTRY AND THE SAFETY CONCERNS WOULD BE RESOLVED. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO BRING UP, MR. COX, IS IT'S UNCLEAR WHERE WE ARE -- AS I WAS READING THE NEWSPAPER THIS MORNING ON OUR CURRENT FUEL CHARGE WHEN -- FOR OUR TAXICAB DRIVERS AND TOW TRUCK DRIVERS -- I MEAN, AFTER THE SKYROCKETING FUEL COSTS JUST JUMPED APPROXIMATELY 25 CENTS A GALLON AGAIN AND -- JUST WHERE WE ARE ON THAT, AND WHERE ARE WE IN THE SCOPE OF LOOKING AT THAT AGAIN? >>GREG COX: WHAT -- WHAT GENERALLY HAPPENS IS ANNUALLY WE TAKE -- WE -- WE ACTUALLY CONTINUALLY ARE LOOKING AT THE RATES STARTING WITH TAXICABS, WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CHARGE, MAXIMUM RATES ON THEIR METERS, AND THINGS USUALLY INFLUENCE SOME DISCUSSION COMING TO THE FOREFRONT ON THAT, AND THE GAS PRICES ARE GENERALLY ONE OF THE PRIMARY ONES. I WAS READING ALSO THIS MORNING WHERE THEY'RE PREDICTING HIGH RATES THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER, SO WE HAVE FAIRLY RECENTLY, WITHIN THE LAST -- I GUESS THIS YEAR OR SO -- UPPED THE TAXI RATES UP TO THE HIGHEST POINT THEY'VE EVER BEEN, 1.75 DROP, TWO CENTS A MILE, AND WE HAVE GENERALLY USED THE CENTER FOR URBAN RESEARCH ON HOW THAT STANDS TO OTHER URBAN CITIES AND COUNTIES WITH THEIR RATES AND LOOK AT THE GAS RATES AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, SO WE'RE PROBABLY HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANOTHER STUDY, ANOTHER ANALYSIS, TO SEE WHETHER THE RATES NEED TO BE ADJUSTED OR NOT. THAT HAS TO BE BALANCED WITH THEIR MARKET SATURATION OF PRICES. IF THEY CAN'T -- IF THEIR MARKET WON'T TOLERATE A HIGHER RATE FOR FEAR OF LOSING CUSTOMERS, THEN THE TAXI INDUSTRY MAY NOT WANT IT, BUT WE CERTAINLY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IT. I WAS NOTICING THAT TODAY, AND WE WILL -- WE MONITOR THAT EVERY YEAR. AS FAR AS THE WRECKER INDUSTRY, IT'S A SIMILAR SITUATION. WE SET THE MAXIMUM RATES THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CHARGE. WE CAN DO THE SAME STUDY WITH THEM, SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO YOU AS A RULE CHANGE AND THEN ADJUST THE RATES UPWARD IF NEEDED. >>KEVIN WHITE: I WAS JUST REMEMBERING IN THE PAST THAT EVERY TIME WE'VE GONE UP, THAT HAS BEEN A MAJOR CONCERN OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY, AS WELL AS THE WRECKER INDUSTRY, AND IT SEEMS THAT SINCE WE'RE AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH AND THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGEST PEAKS WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST YEAR, ONE OF THE LARGEST SPIKES, I SHOULD SAY, OVER THE LAST YEAR, IT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT BACK AGAIN, SO I WAS TRYING TO DO SOME EARLY INTERVENTION. >>GREG COX: I PROBABLY DIDN'T ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION DIRECTLY, AND THAT WAS THE SURCHARGE. AT ONE POINT -- AT ONE TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, WE ALLOWED A SURCHARGE TO BE PLACED ON TOP OF THE TAXI METER RATE. I THINK IT WAS A DOLLAR. HAD MODERATE SUCCESS WITH THAT. IT CAUSED SOME CONFUSION. SOME OF THE DRIVERS DIDN'T WANT TO CHARGE IT. THE RESULT OF ALL THAT CONFUSION WAS THAT WE ELECTED TO REMOVE THE SURCHARGE AND INSTEAD UPPED THE MAXIMUM RATE THAT THEY COULD CHARGE ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THAT WAS TO CAPTURE THAT INCREASED COST. SURCHARGE IS STILL -- SCHOOL'S STILL OUT -- OR THE JURY IS STILL ON WHETHER THAT'S GOOD OR NOT, BUT WE'RE STILL TAKING A LOOK AT THAT. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: MR. COX, WHAT WERE YOU USING THE SURCHARGE FOR? >>GREG COX: IT WAS PRIMARILY THE GAS RATES. EVERY YEAR THE TAX RATES GO UP AND DOWN, SO WE DECIDED TO PUT A RATE ON THE TAXI METER RATE. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SO IT WENT TO THE ACTUAL COMPANY? >>GREG COX: IT WENT TO THE DRIVER. >>ROSE FERLITA: JUST FROM THE STANDPOINT OF CLARIFICATION, BRIAN, THE PROBLEM THERE WAS THERE WAS AN OBJECTIVE OR SUBJECTIVE DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO CHARGE IT OR NOT. DO I WANT TO CHARGE IT AND BE MORE COMPETITIVE OR LESS COMPETITIVE THAN YOU? SO I THINK THAT CAUSED A PROBLEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE SURCHARGE WAS EFFECTIVE. I THINK MR. WHITE'S CONVERSATION HERE IS VERY TIMELY. I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN WE'RE DOING THAT, GREG, BUT I WILL TELL YOU IF I WAS ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN SITTING OUT THERE, THE COST OF LIVING IS GOING UP AND WHAT THEY TAKE HOME IS LESS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN QUICK TO RESPOND TO AN ACCOMMODATION. THEN I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE WE SERVE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT RELATIVELY SOON, DON'T YOU THINK? >>KEVIN WHITE: YES. >>BRIAN BLAIR: YEAH, IT HAS TO BE FAIR BOTH ENDS, THE CONSUMER -- >>ROSE FERLITA: YEAH. WE DON'T WANT TO BE OUTRAGEOUS IN TERMS OF WHAT WE CHARGE BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY WANT TO BE TOURIST FRIENDLY, THAT'S FOR SURE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THEY FEEL THEY'RE TAKING HOME LESS THAN THEY DID TWO, THREE, FOUR MONTHS AGO AS FAR AS TRIPS, THAT'S WHAT THE BALANCE IS. >>BRIAN BLAIR: ONE THING, ROSE, I THINK THAT THE INDUSTRY -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE AN ANALYSIS, TOURIST VERSUS LOCAL, BUT I KNOW THAT THE TAXIS ARE USED HEAVILY LOCALLY BY A LOT OF OUR OWN RESIDENTS HERE IN THE COUNTY. >>ROSE FERLITA: TRUE. >>GREG COX: WELL, WE'RE -- WE'RE BEGINNING TO -- IN THE EARLY STAGES OF STARTING ANOTHER RULE CHANGE PROCESS. WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF RULES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS -- NEXT -- PROBABLY THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS, AND WE WILL CERTAINLY ROLL THE TAXI METER RATES AND THE WRECKER RATES INTO THE CONSIDERATION IF WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT, AND THAT WILL BE -- THAT WILL BE ROLLED INTO THAT PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS A RULE CHANGE IF WE ADJUST THOSE RATES AND THE SURCHARGES. >>BRIAN BLAIR: OKAY. THANK YOU. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE REQUESTING TO SPEAK, YOU CAN COME UP AND HAVE THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> BOB VALLEE, TAMPA TAXI. I'M HERE -- YOU KNOW, I SPOKE TO MR. -- SENATOR -- MR. -- SENATOR SEBESTA A FEW WEEKS AGO. I WAS TELLING HIM ABOUT THE ONGOING INVESTIGATION GOING ON WITH THE PTC NOW, AND I EXPLAINED TO HIM IN MAY I THINK IT'S COMING UP, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. BUT WHAT I'M HERE FOR MAINLY IS THAT THE TAXICAB INDUSTRY HAD BEEN MONOPOLIZED BY YELLOW AND UNITED, AND WE NEED TO GET THE CAP OFF IT. THE CAP HAS HURT ALL THE SMALL COMPANIES. WE HAVE AN UNGODLY NUMBER OF CALLS, AND WE NEED MORE CABS FOR TAMPA TAXI, AND WE CAN'T GET THEM BECAUSE OF THE CAP. THEN THEY HAD THIS FOOLISHNESS OF THIS LOTTO-TYPE SITUATION THE LAST TIME THAT CAME UP, AND THEY HAD UNITED AND ALL THESE HERE CAB COMPANIES DOWN WHO WANTED ALL THESE PERMITS, WHICH WAS RIDICULOUS. YOU KNOW, IT WAS NOT FOR -- IF YOU GAVE ALL THOSE PERMITS OUT, THEY WOULD NEVER USE THEM. IT WAS THERE TO KEEP OUT AS MANY OF THE LITTLE GUYS AS IT POSSIBLY CAN. NOW, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO -- AND WHAT I -- I ASKED MR. COX ON THERE -- THE PTC IS FOR THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. THE PTC IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE CAB COMPANIES OR ANY OTHER COMPANIES RIGHT THERE. LET THE COMPANIES GO WHERE THEY HAVE TO GO BECAUSE BY HAVING A FREE TRADE AND NO MONOPOLY, YOU'LL FIND OUT IN THE LONG RUN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BETTER DRIVERS, BETTER PEOPLE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE LINE, AND ALSO, I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE, LIKE, YOU KNOW -- MR. COX IS DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB AND ALL, BUT SOME OF THE LAWS ARE BEING CIRCUMVENTED WITH WHAT THEY CALL THE SPECIAL ACT, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY THIS INVESTIGATION IS GOING ON, BECAUSE OF THE SPECIAL ACT, SO I'D LIKE THE COMMITTEE TO GIVE IF SOME SERIOUS THOUGHT, AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND PUT IN WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO TO GET THE CAP OFF. WITH THE CAP OFF YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THE INDUSTRY IS GOING TO BE TEN TIMES BETTER IN THE LONG RUN. MAYBE SOME THINGS IN THE BEGINNING MIGHT NOT GO RIGHT, BUT IN THE LONG RUN IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? >> I'M DANIEL STEINER, OWNER OF DSL LIMOUSINES. I JUST WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, IF THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER ALLOWING GIVING DISCOUNTS TO CUSTOMERS THAT DO NOT USE TAXIS, SINCE THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THE $40 RULE IS TO PROTECT THE CABS. I HAVE A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR TRANSPORTATION FROM PEOPLE THAT DO NOT USE CABS, AND IT WOULD BE IN THEIR CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO ALLOW COMPANIES TO GIVE DISCOUNTS TO PEOPLE. >>KEVIN WHITE: ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING OF THE -- YOU KNOW, THE LIMOUSINE COMPANIES GIVING DISCOUNTS? >> YES. I OWN A LIMOUSINE COMPANY. I AM DISALLOWED TO GIVE DISCOUNTS TO THE PUBLIC. >>KEVIN WHITE: YOUR $40-AN-HOUR RATE IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> CORRECT. THE PURPOSE OF THE $40 RULE IS TO PREVENT COMPETITION FROM LIMOUSINES TO THE CABS. IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DOES NOT USE CABS, CAN I GIVE THEM A DISCOUNT SINCE THEY'RE NOT COMPETING? I'M NOT TAKING BUSINESS FROM THE CABS. >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. JOHNSON. >>GREGG JOHNSON: I JUST POINT OUT THAT MR. STEINER IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN LITIGATION WITH THE PTC -- SO TO THE EXTENT THAT COMES INTO YOUR CONSIDERATION AS YOU'RE DISCUSSING IT. WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR -- IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT MR. STEINER IS ASKING FOR, A REQUEST FOR A DISCOUNT, I WOULD JUST REMIND YOU THAT THERE'S ALWAYS THE WAIVER PROCESS. IF HE CAN SHOW THERE'S A NEED FOR IT, THERE'S A MARKET FOR IT, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING YOU COULD CONSIDER AS A -- AS A WAIVER OF THE $40 MINIMUM RATE RULE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED TO BE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IF WE'RE IN LITIGATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >> MY QUESTION DOES NOT REFER TO THE POINT IN LITIGATION, AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR A WAIVER. >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, I THINK HE'S TELLING YOU THAT'S THE PROCEDURE TO TAKE IS TO PUT IN A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER SHOWING A HARDSHIP, AND THEN THE PTC WOULD LOOK AT IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. >> THERE IS NO HARDSHIP, AND I'M NOT INTERESTED IN A WAIVER. IT'S JUST PERMISSION TO GIVE DISCOUNTS TO PEOPLE THAT DO NOT USE CABS. THEY'RE NOT -- IT'S NOT RELATED TO THIS ISSUE. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: SIR, AS OUR CHAIRMAN HAS SAID, PROBABLY AT THIS POINT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I DON'T THINK WE'D CARE TO -- TO BELABOR THIS CONVERSATION. OUR ATTORNEY HAS SAID THERE IS SOME ONGOING LITIGATION, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE REQUESTING IT AS A SEPARATE -- AS A SEPARATE CONCERN. HOWEVER, WHAT BOTH GENTLEMEN ARE TELLING YOU IS THAT THE PROCESS TO DO THAT, IF YOU WANT THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER IT, WOULD HAVE TO BE THROUGH A WAIVER PROCESS, SO IF YOU'RE WAITING FOR A YES OR NO FROM THIS BOARD TODAY, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND BACK TO ME. >> I'M NOT ASKING FOR A WAIVER, MAYBE A RULE CHANGE IN THE CASE OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT COMPETE WITH CABS, THAT ARE NOT USING CABS IN THE FIRST PLACE. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. >> IT'S NOT A WAIVER. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. STEINER. NEXT, PLEASE. >> GEORGE VALLEE, 706 PENINSULAR STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA. I THINK A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT THIS BOARD FACES IS THAT THEY'RE MEDDLING IN PLACES WHERE THEY DON'T BELONG. FIRST OFF, THAT'S THE MARKETPLACE. SECONDLY, IT'S TELLING ME HOW TO DRESS IN MY OWN BUSINESS, TELLING ME WHAT TO CHARGE, TELLING ME HOW TO RUN MY BUSINESS. YOU WANT TO MICROANALYZE EVERYTHING. WHEN I COME BEFORE YOU FOR MORE PERMITS, YOU WANT TO LOOK AT MY FINANCIALS, YOU WANT TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING, AND THE ONLY THING YOU SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. WHEN THE BOARD REALIZES PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IS WHAT THEIR REAL CHARGE IS AND GETS OUT OF THE MARKETPLACE, THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT LESS PROBLEM IN THIS ROOM. UNTIL THAT, THERE'S GOING TO BE PROBLEM, AND THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING OF IT. THANK YOU. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PART? THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE AHEAD. CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND >>KEVIN WHITE: MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. ATTORNEY'S REPORT, MR. JOHNSON. >>GREGG JOHNSON: I DID HAVE ONE THING TO REPORT. AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF CRIMINAL CASES THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING AGAINST -- I GUESS IT'S ABOUT THREE DRIVERS AND THREE COMPANIES THAT WERE -- CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THEM CRIMINALLY RELATED TO THEIR OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE -- PERMIT. SOME OF THE CHARGES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE COURT FOR VARIOUS REASONS. HOWEVER, I WANTED TO POINT OUT ONE IN PARTICULAR TO YOU. THERE APPARENTLY WAS A RULING -- AND I HAVE ORDERED THE TRANSCRIPT, AND I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE BASIS EXACTLY OF THE RULING WAS, BUT APPARENTLY THERE WAS A RULING IN COUNTY COURT THAT SOMEHOW RELATES TO THE CAPACITY ISSUE. IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE HAD BEEN A -- IN FACT, WE'VE INITIATED IT AS A RULE CHANGE NOW, BUT THERE HAD BEEN AN OPINION BY OUR OFFICE THAT THE PTC COULD REGULATE VEHICLES THAT WERE OVER 15 PASSENGERS IF AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL MANUFACTURE THEY WERE UNDER 15 PASSENGERS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE SPECIAL ACT SAYS, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE BASIS OF THIS COURT'S RULING WAS EXACTLY BASED ON THAT, I DON'T KNOW. I'M ORDERING THE TRANSCRIPT, BUT I WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE, PERHAPS, YOU KNOW, YOU READ IT IN THE PAPER OR HEARD IT FROM, PERHAPS, AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION. WE'LL BE MEETING, I THINK, WITH THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO TRY TO GO OVER WHAT OPTIONS WE HAVE IF, INDEED, THAT IS THE CASE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR NEW BUSINESS AND OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE A HEARING FOR ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINE SERVICES, INC. MR. COX. >>GREG COX: YES, SIR. ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINE SERVICE, INC., OF ST. PETERSBURG HAS APPLIED FOR A LIMOUSINE SERVICE CERTIFICATE AND TEN LIMOUSINE VEHICLE PERMITS. MR. MICKEY VELILLA, PATRIOT LIMOUSINES AND SEDAN SERVICE, FILED A TIMELY REQUEST TO INTERVENE IN THE HEARING PROCESS. A HEARING WAS HELD. THE HEARING OFFICER, MR. PAUL MARINO, RECOMMENDED THAT THE CERTIFICATE AND NO MORE THAN EIGHT PERMITS BE APPROVED. MR. VELILLA HAS FILED A LETTER TO THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS IN A PACKAGE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH A CLIP ON IT SEPARATELY ATTACHED, AND BOTH THE RECOMMENDATION AND THIS LETTER ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE OR IN FRONT OF YOU. >>GREGG JOHNSON: MR. WHITE, BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC, COULD I MAKE A STATEMENT? >>KEVIN WHITE: YES. >>GREGG JOHNSON: WITH REGARD TO THE PACKAGE THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU BY MR. VELILLA, I SPOKE WITH THE HEARING OFFICER AND TRIED TO FIND OUT WHICH ITEMS THAT MR. VELILLA BROUGHT UP WERE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED IN THE HEARING, AND MR. MARINO IS HERE AND HE MAY WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU, BUT I THINK ITEMS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 9 ON THIS LIST WERE ITEMS THAT WERE PROBABLY NOT DISCUSSED IN THE HEARING. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN TOUCH ON THE TOPIC ITSELF, BUT I'M NOT SURE THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO BACK UP MR. VELILLA'S CLAIMS AS HE HAS IN THIS DOCUMENT. IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THOSE POINTS ARE IMPORTANT, THAT THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, THEN WE'D RECOMMEND STRONGLY THAT THE COURSE OF ACTION BE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER TO CONSIDER THEM. NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER THEM. YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD AND RULE ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS BEFORE ON THE HEARING OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THESE THINGS, THEN WE RECOMMEND YOU SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICER. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I WOULD MOVE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER. >>GREGG JOHNSON: IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. >>KEVIN WHITE: THE -- IS THE PETITIONER HERE? STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, PLEASE. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS LUKE LIROT, ADDRESS 112 EAST STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602. I'M HERE REPRESENTING ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINES, INC., AND ANITA FEWOX, WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THAT CORPORATION. WHAT WE HAD INTENDED TO DO THIS MORNING WAS SIMPLY TO ASK THIS BOARD TO RATIFY THE RECOMMENDATION GIVEN BY THE HEARING MASTER. I THINK THERE WAS A VERY ELABORATE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE. THERE'S BEEN A VERY ELABORATE APPLICATION THAT, AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY STATED DURING THE HEARING, COMPLIES WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, ALL THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, AND ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS AND EXHIBITS MAKE THE APPLICATION FULLY COMPLETE. THE ONLY OBSTACLE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST HEARING WAS THE SUBMISSION OF SOME I WOULD SAY RATHER SPURIOUS ACCUSATIONS THAT THIS IS IN SOME WAY NOT A LEGITIMATE APPLICATION. THAT'S NOT REFLECTED IN ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, AND IT HASN'T BEEN SUPPORTED BY ANY OF THE CRITICS OF THE PARTICULAR APPLICANT THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY. THERE'S BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO USE INNUENDO AND SUGGESTION AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO USE THE PROPER ADJECTIVES THAT COME TO MY MIND, BUT THERE WERE ACCUSATIONS THAT WERE SIMPLY UNWARRANTED AND UNFOUNDED, AND BASED ON THE PRESENTATION OR AT LEAST THE ATTEMPT TO INJECT THINGS INTO THE RECORD TODAY, PURSUANT TO YOUR OWN RULE 2.2.6, THE PARTIES THAT OPPOSE THE APPLICATION CAN FILE EXCEPTIONS, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE PRESENTED MORE THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THIS HEARING, SO WE'D MOVE TO STRIKE ANYTHING THAT'S IN THIS BIG PACKET. IT'S NOT RELEVANT, BUT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER THE TIMING. NOW, BASED ON THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GIVEN BY THE HEARING OFFICER, WE'VE MET ALL THE CRITERIA, AND SINCE I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES, IF YOU FEEL THAT THERE IS ANY ISSUE THAT WASN'T FULLY ADDRESSED AND FULLY SATISFIED AT THAT PRIOR HEARING, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT, WE THINK THAT THERE'S CERTAINLY A PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS THAT ATTACHES TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, AND WE WOULD CERTAINLY ASK THAT -- THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT AND RATIFY THAT AT THIS TIME. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. LIROT. LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS. >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS MICKEY VELILLA, PRESIDENT OF PATRIOT LIMOUSINE AND SEDAN. I AM THE INTERVENOR IN THIS MATTER. THE ONLY THING THAT'S ELABORATE IS THE OBFUSCATION OF TRUTH. THE THINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP IN THIS TESTIMONY -- WHICH IS WHY I PUT THE PACKAGE TOGETHER FOR YOU AND INVESTED MY OWN DOLLARS IN RECEIVING THE TRANSCRIPTS -- IS SO THAT THE COMMISSION COULD HAVE A LINE-BY-LINE AND LOOK FOR THEMSELVES WHAT WENT ON IN THIS HEARING. BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE APPLICATION THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS A FRAUD. THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. BECAUSE ONE INDIVIDUAL CANNOT GET PERMITS BECAUSE OF A CRIMINAL HISTORY, WHICH WE SEE EVERY DAY AS THEY APPLY FOR PVDLs, AND YOU -- YOU FOLKS ARE CHARGED WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC SAFETY. YOU HAVE TO MAKE THE CALL, THE CALL OF WHETHER OR NOT THIS PERSON IS GOING TO BE A SAFE PERSON TO PUT OUR KIDS IN A LIMOUSINE AT PROM SEASON. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN FROM THREE DIFFERENT COMPANIES, WHICH ARE ALL TIED TOGETHER -- AND THIS IS IN THE PACKET -- OF A ROYALTY, GEMINI, AND DYNASTY, IS A CONSTANT VIOLATION OF THE RULES AND LAWS OF THIS COUNTY IN OUR INDUSTRY. IT IS CONSTANT, IT IS CONSISTENT, AND IT IS NOT DEBATABLE. WHAT WE HAVE IS A BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND/FIANCEE, COMING UP, APPLYING FOR PERMITS -- HEY, I'M CLEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WRONG. I DON'T KNOW WHO BILL JENNINGS IS. WHO IS THIS MAN? -- IN THE HOPES THAT THE WOOL WILL BE COVERED OVER YOUR EYES. IT'S A FRAUD. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER, ALLOW GREG COX'S OFFICE TO GET INVOLVED IN THE INVESTIGATION, PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER, BRING IT BACK TO YOU, AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE A DECISION, BUT AT LEAST YOU'LL HAVE ALL THE FACTS. THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED. YOU NEED THE FACTS TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS FOR THE PEOPLE OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL CHARGED WITH, ESPECIALLY YOU FOLKS, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THAT'S WHY YOU MAKE THE BIG BUCKS, SO I'LL LEAVE IT IN YOUR HANDS. >> WE DO? >>KEVIN WHITE: OUR BIG BUCKS ARE FOOD STAMPS. >> IF YOU'VE GOT ANY EXTRA, I'LL TAKE SOME. THE REALITY IS -- AND THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE -- IS IT DOES NOT AFFECT MY BUSINESS, WHETHER OR NOT THESE PERMITS ARE GRANTED FOR DYNASTY OR ABSOLUTE, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO CALL THEMSELVES. IT DOESN'T MATTER. MY CLIENTS ARE NOT THEIR CLIENTS, BUT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, WE ALL NEED AND YOU GUYS NEED TO GET ALL THE FACTS. ONCE YOU HAVE THEM, MAKE THE DECISION, WHATEVER THE CALL IS, THE CALL IS. WE'LL ALL LIVE WITH IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, AND I APPRECIATE IT. >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. VELILLA, I WANT TO RESPOND. THE PACKET THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER THAT'S MAKING ASSUMPTIONS AND/OR CASTING ASPERSIONS THAT THIS APPLICATION OR THIS APPLICANT THAT IS APPLYING FOR THIS PERMIT FOR THE -- THE LIMOUSINE PERMITS FOR SOMEONE ELSE WHO HAS A CRIMINAL RECORD AND WHO IS NOT -- AND WHO CANNOT GET ONE. I THINK THE -- I THINK THE BASIC PREMISE THAT -- THE CHARGE OF THIS BOARD IS TO LOOK AT THE ACTUAL APPLICANT AND FIND OUT IF -- IF THAT PARTICULAR PERSON QUALIFIES OR NOT. I MEAN, I -- I -- I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR CHARGE TO GO ANY - - ANY FURTHER THAN THAT BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE -- WE DON'T KNOW THAT. I MEANT -- WE CAN MAKE ASSUMPTIONS, WE CAN -- SHE CAN HAVE A BOYFRIEND, HE CAN HAVE A GIRLFRIEND. THAT -- THAT DOESN'T -- I WON'T SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT I MEANT IF THAT'S NOT A CLEAR-CUT -- IF THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT, WE CAN'T JUMP TO THAT ASSUMPTION, AND MR. COX, IF I'M -- IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WE HAVE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ON THIS ONE FROM -- >>GREG COX: THE HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF EIGHT PERMITS, NOT THE TEN, BUT APPROVAL OF THE PACKAGE. >>KEVIN WHITE: BASED OFF OF THE APPLICANT'S -- >>GREG COX: THE HEARING THAT HE HELD. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. WITH THE BACKGROUND. COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I WANT TO HEAR AGAIN, WHAT DID OUR COUNSEL RECOMMEND? >>GREGG JOHNSON: WELL, I'M NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. WHAT I'M POINTING OUT IS WHAT YOU ARE TO CONSIDER TODAY IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, AND THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY AN EXTENSIVE HEARING. THERE'S A TRANSCRIPT OF IT. TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THE POINTS THAT MR. VELILLA IS MAKING TODAY, EITHER IN THIS PACKAGE OR VERBALLY WERE OUTSIDE OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT CONSIDER IT TODAY. IF YOU FEEL THEY'RE IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT THEY NEED FURTHER INQUIRY, THEN YOU CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE TO STATE THAT WHAT MR. LIROT SAID IS CORRECT. THERE IS A TIME LIMIT -- THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, MR. VELILLA WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE REPORT, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S DONE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY TO PRESENT NEW EVIDENCE. LIKE I SAID, NOT TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT AND SEND IT BACK FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, JUST DON'T ADDRESS THAT TODAY. >> IF I COULD ADDRESS -- >>KEVIN WHITE: NO, YOU'RE DONE. COMMISSIONER SCOTT, THEN COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>THOMAS SCOTT: WELL, COMMISSIONERS, FIRST OF ALL, I KNOW WHEN WE HAVE ZONING HEARINGS, WE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSIDER ANY NEW EVIDENCE THAT THE ZONING HEARING MASTER HAS NOT HEARD. IS THAT RIGHT, MR. COX -- MR. JOHNSON? >>GREGG JOHNSON: YES, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. >>THOMAS SCOTT: OKAY. NOW, IN THIS CASE -- I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE SAYING THAT IF -- WE SHOULD ONLY CONSIDER THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY THE HEARING OFFICER, IS THAT RIGHT? >>GREGG JOHNSON: THAT'S CORRECT. >>THOMAS SCOTT: AND IF THERE'S BEEN PRESENTED NEW INFORMATION, WE SHOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICER, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >>GREGG JOHNSON: IF YOU THINK THE NEW INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT IT WARRANTS CONSIDERATION OR IT CAUSES YOU CONCERN, THEN THAT IS ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS, OR YOU COULD GRANT OR DENY THE CERTIFICATE BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HEARING OFFICER AND WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE HEARING. >>THOMAS SCOTT: THE PROCESS ITSELF HAS BEEN OUTLINED; THAT IS, YOU HAVE A HEARING OFFICER HEAR ALL THE INFORMATION, AND THEY, AT THAT POINT, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO US. NOW I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE THAT WE FOLLOW IN OUR ZONING. THAT IS THAT WE DON'T CONSIDER ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ZONING HEARING OFFICER, AND MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS -- THE ZONING -- NOT THE ZONING -- THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION -- >>KEVIN WHITE: FOR APPROVAL. >>THOMAS SCOTT: -- FOR APPROVAL, THE EIGHT -- EIGHT CERTIFICATES, AND I'M SURE MR. COX HAS REVIEWED ALL OF THIS AND WENT THROUGH THIS PACKET AS WELL, IS THAT RIGHT? >>GREG COX: I GOT IT AND WENT THROUGH IT, YES, SIR. I DON'T MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION, THOUGH, IT'S A THE HEARING OFFICER. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND FOR DISCUSSION. >>KEVIN WHITE: AND MS. FERLITA WAS NEXT. >>ROSE FERLITA: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION -- AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SCOTT, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO AN APPEAL WE WOULD HAVE AT CITY COUNCIL AND WE WOULD NOT LOOK AT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. I'M ASSUMING AFTER READING THIS, FROM OUR INFORMATION IN THE PACKET, THAT THE HEARING OFFICER, WHEN HE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION, FELT THERE WAS NO FRAUDULENT APPLICATION OR IT WAS MISREPRESENTED, IS THAT RIGHT? OTHERWISE, OBVIOUSLY, HE WOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDING -- >> HE'S HERE. >>GREG COX: HE'S HEAR IF YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH HIM. >>KEVIN WHITE: IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD. >> YES. MR. CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS PAUL MARINO. I'M THE HEARING OFFICER THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO THE ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINE CASE. SIMPLY PUT, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU HAVE FROM ME ARE BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON THEIR PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED. A NUMBER OF VERY DIRECT QUESTIONS WERE EITHER ASKED BY ME OR BY THE INTERVENOR WITH REGARD TO OUTSIDE INTEREST OF THE -- SPECIFICALLY THE ROLE OF MR. JENNINGS, AND THEY WERE UNEQUIVOCALLY ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, THAT THERE WERE NO OUTSIDE INTERESTS IN THIS BUSINESS OTHER THAN THEIR OWN, AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'VE GOT TO GO ON THAT REPRESENTATION, UNLESS AN INTERVENOR CAN PRODUCE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ON CROSS-EXAMINATION, CAN ACTUALLY GO RIGHT TO THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS, WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. SO BASED ON THAT, I HAD TO FIND THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED. I DIDN'T THINK THAT TEN WAS ADEQUATE BECAUSE THEY ONLY INDICATED THEY HAD EIGHT VEHICLES, SO I THOUGHT EIGHT WAS ADEQUATE. BUT IF THERE -- THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS APPARENTLY STILL BEING PROPOUNDED BY THE INTERVENOR, AND IF YOU WANT TO SEND IT BACK, CAN YOU SEND IT BACK FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ON THESE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS PROPOSED -- I MEAN, I LOOKED AT THE PACKAGE BEING PRESENTED AND -- BY THE INTERVENOR, AND THAT -- THAT DO GO TO CREDIBILITY OF THE TESTIMONY IN SOME CASES. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS BECAUSE I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS SINCE ITEMS 4, 6, 7, AND 9 WERE NOT HEARD BY THE HEARING MASTER, AS OUR COUNSEL POINTED OUT, AND I WOULD LIKE TO -- BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND HONESTY AND INTEGRITY -- THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE -- THAT THAT POLICY IS FOLLOWED, AND I HAVE SOME CONCERNS, AND YOU BROUGHT UP SOME VALID CONCERNS. SOME VALID CONCERNS WERE BROUGHT UP HERE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE THIS BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER FOR YOU TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU DID NOT HEAR. >>KEN HAGAN: I'LL SECOND THAT. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION USE AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] NAY? >> NAY. >> NAY. >>KEVIN WHITE: IT'S 3-2. >>GREG COX: I COULDN'T TELL. THE VOTE WAS 3-2? >>ROSE FERLITA: 3-2. >>KEVIN WHITE: LET ME JUST STATE MY POSITION FOR THE RECORD. THE REASON THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS BECAUSE THE RULES THAT WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THE FILING OF ANY -- ANY NEW EVIDENCE, AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT -- >>THOMAS SCOTT: WELL, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT MEANS THAT AT ANY TIME ANYBODY CAN COME IN HERE AFTER THE HEARING MASTER HAS HEARD THE TESTIMONY AND THE PERSONS HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY INFORMATION TO COME UP AT A HEARING LIKE THIS, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE ALWAYS SENDING STUFF BACK. >>KEVIN WHITE: THAT'S WHY I SAID I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT. >>THOMAS SCOTT: THAT'S WHY AT THE ZONING HEARING MASTER CASE, WE ONLY HEAR EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY -- AT THE ZONING HEARING MASTER BECAUSE YOU COULD GET INTO DOING THIS STUFF, SENDING IT BACK OVER AND OVER AGAIN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >>KEVIN WHITE: YES, SIR. >> IF I MIGHT JUST ONE POINT FOR CLARIFICATION WITH REGARD TO YOUR CONCERN. THERE WAS A FORMAL OR REASONS FOR OBJECTION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FILED BY MR. VELILLA, THE INTERVENOR IN THIS CASE, SOME OF WHICH ADDRESS SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT APPARENTLY WERE PRESENTED BY THE INTERVENOR TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SO TO SOME EXTENT, THERE WAS TIMELY OBJECTIONS FILED ON A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM, AND IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THESE OR WANT ME TO ADDRESS THESE, I'LL BE GLAD TO. >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. COX. >>GREG COX: YEAH. I WOULD -- PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING HE WAS GOING TO SAY. THE INTERVENOR DID SUBMIT, ON FEBRUARY 25th, THEIR -- THEIR LETTER OF EXCEPTION AND THE INFORMATION, SO WE DID RECEIVE THAT IN A TIMELY MANNER. WHAT WAS BROUGHT IN TODAY, I'M ASSUMING, WAS JUST SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO GO UNDERNEATH THAT FOR TO YOU LOOK AT, SO IT'S NOT REAL CLEAR IN THE RULE IF SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION CAN BE BROUGHT. IT JUST SAYS THAT THE LETTER OF EXCEPTION MUST BE SUBMITTED FIVE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR, WHICH IT WAS, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH IN OUR RULE WRITING. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THAT GIVES IT A DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENT SITUATION HERE. IF -- IF THE INTERVENOR DID SUBMIT IT IN A TIMELY FASHION AND -- EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T DISCUSSED AT THE TIME BY MR. MARINO, I THINK WE HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO LISTEN TO THAT. CERTAINLY, IF WE THOUGHT THE -- THE HEARING MASTER'S DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS, THEN WE WOULD OVERRIDE IT, BUT IN THIS CASE, IF THERE IS SOME NEW EVIDENCE AND THAT IS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF LOOKING AT THIS TYPE OF AN ISSUE, THEN -- THEN I HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THE POSITION I TOOK INITIALLY BECAUSE THE TIMELINESS WAS NOT CLARIFIED TO ME IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. NOT NECESSARILY THE 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 9 AREN'T THE CASE, BUT THE ONES THAT WERE REGISTERED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WARRANT SOME FURTHER LOOKING AT, AND I THINK MR. MARINO BROUGHT UP THAT POINT AS WELL, SO NOW WHAT DO WE DO? >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO FINISH TAKING ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. >>THOMAS SCOTT: MR. CHAIRMAN. >>KEVIN WHITE: YES, COMMISSIONER. >>THOMAS SCOTT: I THINK WE CLOSED -- I THOUGHT WE WERE THROUGH WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. ONCE WE TAKE THE VOTE ON THE ISSUE. >>KEVIN WHITE: NO, WE WEREN'T CLOSED. YOU MADE THE MOTION AND WE -- >>THOMAS SCOTT: WE SHOULDN'T HAVE VOTED AND TOOK ANY MOTION UNTIL PUBLIC COMMENT WAS THROUGH WITH. >> YOUR OPINION SEEMS TO GO BACK AND FORTH, SO I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT PUBLIC COMMENT IS DESIGNED TO DO. >>THOMAS SCOTT: HE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING. YOU GOT THE CHAIR, OKAY? >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. COX -- MR. JOHNSON, WHAT DO YOU -- >>GREGG JOHNSON: THAT'S CORRECT, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING HAD ACTUALLY BEEN TERMINATED, BUT MR. SCOTT IS CORRECT, PROBABLY THE VOTE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN TAKEN. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE A VOTE TO -- TO RECONSIDER THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION, SO, YOU KNOW, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE -- >>ROSE FERLITA: IF MR. BLAIR WOULD WITHDRAW HIS MOTION -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: I WOULD WITHDRAW THE MOTION. I WOULD WAIT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIR. >>KEVIN WHITE: OKAY. IF YOU'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR WITHDRAWAL? >>KEN HAGAN: SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] AYES HAVE IT. >> MY NAME IS KLEANTHIS ANDREADAKIS -- I'M ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE GREATER TAMPA BAY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION, AND I'M ALSO A LICENSED PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. I'M THE ONE WHO PREPARED THE APPLICATION PACKET FOR ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINE. I'M WELL AWARE OF THE FACTS CONTAINED IN IT, AND I THINK THAT YOU REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IT WAS THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU. THROUGH MY PREPARATION OF THE APPLICATION PACK AND MY SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION PACKET, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT'S DESIGNED TO DEFRAUD ANYBODY, AND I REALLY -- I REALLY TAKE -- I TAKE NOTE TO THE FACT THAT THAT WORD HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT ANY PROOF, OFFERING OF PROOF, TO YOU THAT A FRAUD HAS BEEN COMMITTED UPON THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OR THE APPLICATION OR THE APPLICANT ITSELF. THE EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED. IT'S GONE THROUGH THE NORMAL PROCESS AND PROCEDURE. MR. COX HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO DO HIS JOB. YOU-ALL HAVE YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO YOUR JOB. THE HEARING MASTER DID HIS JOB. EVERYBODY HAS DONE THEIR JOB, OKAY. MR. VELILLA'S INTERVENTION IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SMOKE SCREEN DESIGNED TO GO AHEAD AND STALL THE PROCESS, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK YOU REALLY NEED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO YOU. IF THE FACTS ARE IN FRONT OF YOU AND THE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO RULE ON. AGAIN, AGREEING WITH COMMISSIONER SCOTT. YOU'RE NOT TO TAKE ANY NEW EVIDENCE. YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THE FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU AND MAKE AN EDUCATED RULING, AND JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY COMES UP AND SHOWS YOU MORE GARBAGE - - IS WHAT IT IS -- YOU KNOW, DESIGNED TO SWAY YOUR OPINION, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. YOU CAN'T TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT IN MANY OTHER FORUMS, BOTH LEGAL AND NONLEGAL, YOU KNOW, SO YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SUPPORTIVE INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE MADE, THEN THAT'S ALL IT IS IS AN ALLEGATION, AND IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT DOESN'T HOLD ANY WEIGHT. THANK YOU. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. MR. VALLEE. >> GEORGE VALLEE, 706 PENINSULAR STREET, TAMPA, FLORIDA. AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS BOARD GOING WAY TOO FAR INTO PRIVATE BUSINESS, MEDDLING TOO FAR INTO PRIVATE BUSINESS. MR. JENNINGS DOES NOT HAVE A LICENSE TO DRIVE A LIMOUSINE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. HE ISN'T GOING TO GET A LICENSE TO DRIVE A LIMOUSINE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY. HE'S NOT GOING TO DRIVE PEOPLE AROUND IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, SO IT'S A MOOT POINT. HE DOESN'T HAVE -- HE'S NOT GOING TO BE THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMPANY OR AN OFFICER IN THE COMPANY. AGAIN, IT'S A MOOT POINT. WHEN MR. -- YOU CAN'T HAVE GUILT BY ASSOCIATION, AND YOU -- AND THIS BOARD NEEDS TO STOP MEDDLING IN THE AFFAIRS OF PRIVATE BUSINESS AND JUST WORRY ABOUT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PETITION THAT HAS NOT SPOKEN? >> I'M GEORGE SOROKA WITH LONNIE'S LIMOUSINES. OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS I'VE HAD BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINES, WILLIAM JENNINGS. CURRENTLY WE HAVE -- HIM AND I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISAGREEMENT. THERE'S AN INVOICE OUT THERE FOR WORK THAT I PROVIDED TOWARDS HIS COMPANY, AND THAT BILL HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED YET, SO I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY COMPANY TO ENLIGHTEN YOU THAT I HAVE ALL THE -- THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS, THE BUSINESS DEALINGS THAT I'VE HAD HAVE BEEN WITH WILLIAM JENNINGS AT ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINES, AND I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: THAT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS. >> OUTSIDE OF THAT -- >>KEVIN WHITE: IS THAT IT? >> YES, IT IS. >>GREGG JOHNSON: MR. CHAIRMAN, AGAIN, SAME ADMONITION. I HAVEN'T READ THROUGH THE WHOLE TRANSCRIPT, SO MR. MARINO IS HERE AND HE MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT, BUT IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO ME THAT WHAT MR. SOROKA SAID IN THE HEARING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TODAY. IF IT'S IMPORTANT, YOU CAN SEND IT BACK AND HAVE IT RECONSIDERED. >>KEVIN WHITE: NO, IT'S NOT. AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MR. LIROT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO RESPOND TO WHATEVER OBJECTIONS WERE REGISTERED BY THE INTERVENOR. >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. COX? MR. JOHNSON, I'M SORRY. >>GREGG JOHNSON: THAT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN TAKE TESTIMONY. >>KEVIN WHITE: ARE YOU LOOKING TO ADD ANY TESTIMONY? >> I'M LOOKING AT ONLY TO REBUT WHAT WAS TIMELY PRESENTED TO THE BOARD. >>KEVIN WHITE: GO AHEAD. >> THERE WERE THREE -- THREE OBJECTIONS LISTED HERE. ONE WAS THE PRESIDENT OF ABSOLUTE LIMOUSINE COMPANY STATED THAT THE PROOF OF PUBLIC NECESSITY IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT DYNASTY LIMOUSINE IS OUT OF BUSINESS. THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THE COMPANY, DYNASTY, IS NOT A PROPERLY LICENSED COMPANY IN THE COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH, SO WHETHER THEY'RE IN BUSINESS OR NOT IS NOT A REASON THAT PROVES PUBLIC NECESSITY. THE PETITIONER WOULD RESPOND THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS OTHER REASONS. THAT WAS NOT, PERHAPS, EVEN CONSIDERED, AND I DON'T SEE THAT AS A CONSIDERATION THAT WAS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, THAT BECAUSE DYNASTY LIMOUSINE'S NOT IN BUSINESS THAT PUBLIC NECESSITY EXISTS. IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF, THERE ARE PAGES AND PAGES OF STATISTICAL EVIDENCE SHOWING THE INCREASE IN THE POPULATION HERE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, PINELLAS COUNTY, AND THE ENTIRE BAY AREA THAT SUPPORT THE PUBLIC NECESSITY ARGUMENT, SO SINGLING THAT OUT AND TRYING TO ATTRIBUTE THAT TO A NONPETITIONER, A NONAPPLICANT, I WOULD SUBMIT, IS IRRELEVANT. THE SECOND -- THE SECOND ALLEGATION, IT SAYS, MS. ANITA FEWOX, WHO IS THE PRINCE OF THE APPLICANT, STATED IN THE HEARING -- STATED IN THE HEARING WITH MR. PAUL MARINO THAT SHE WAS, QUOTE, INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF DYNASTY LIMOUSINE. AGAIN, WE HAVE THE CRITICISMS OF THE HISTORY WITH DYNASTY LIMOUSINE, AN ATTEMPT TO SHOW THAT DYNASTY LIMOUSINE HAD PROBLEMS, THAT DYNASTY LIMOUSINE HAD SOME PROBLEMS WITH ADVERTISING. ALL OF THIS IS PAST HISTORY AND IS IRRELEVANT AS TO THIS APPLICANT. THIS IS NOT DYNASTY LIMOUSINE THAT HAS MADE THE APPLICATION, SO THE ATTEMPT TO BOOTSTRAP YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THIS INNUENDO DOESN'T EVEN MEET THE RELAXED RULES OF EVIDENCE THAT ARE IMPOSED DURING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTS. THE THIRD IS THAT MS. FEWOX STATED AS PART OF HER FINANCIAL RECORD THAT SHE OWNS ALL OF THE VEHICLES THAT WILL BE PERMITTED, QUOTE, OUTRIGHT. THIS WAS PART OF THE HEARING THAT DEALT WITH PROBABLE PERMANENCE, AND THEN IT SAYS, IT IS THE CONTENTION THAT THE VEHICLES, AS OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING, ARE NOT FULLY PAID FOR. THERE'S AN OBLIGATION TO A COMPANY CALLED GNC CAPITAL OF DELTONA, FLORIDA. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE COMPANY HAS ANY FINANCIAL ISSUES THAT WOULD PUT IN QUESTION OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF THE COMPANY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED IN FURTHER. AND THEN HE ADDS MORE ABOUT THE SIMILARITY OF A PERSON WHO STATED THEY PREPARED THE FINANCIAL RECORDS AND THE PERSON WHO'S LISTED AS PRESIDENT OF DYNASTY LIMOUSINE. THE PERSON'S NAME IS RIOMUOTO. MR. RIOMUOTO IS A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT IN NEW YORK. WHATEVER AFFILIATION HE HAS WITH ANY OTHER COMPANY OR ANY OTHER SERVICES HE PROVIDES ARE IRRELEVANT TO ANY CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING SERVICES PROVIDED TO ABSOLUTE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU, MR. LIROT. >> SO, AGAIN, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE OBJECTIONS ARE, I THINK IT'S WITHIN YOUR PROVINCE TO EVALUATE AND WEIGH THOSE OBJECTIONS. NOT ONE OF THOSE OBJECTIONS HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO EITHER THE CHARACTER OR ANY OTHER CRITERIA RELATING TO THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >>ROSE FERLITA: SO MOVE. >>KEVIN WHITE: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] COMMISSIONERS' PLEASURE ON THIS. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I'LL GO BACK TO WHAT I ORIGINALLY SAID. THE HEARING MASTER SAID HE FILED THE MOTION IN A TIMELY MANNER AND THERE WOULD BE SOME EVIDENCE THAT HE MAY RECONSIDER. IT IS THE BOARD'S PLEASURE TO SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER IF WE HAVE ANY CONCERNS. MR. VALLEE SPOKE TO SOMETHING EARLIER THAT SAID THE ONLY NEED FOR THE PTC WAS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE CITIZENS. WELL, IF WE HAVE A THREE-TIME FELON POTENTIALLY OPERATING THIS LIMOUSINE COMPANY UNDER A POTENTIAL FRAUDULENT MANNER -- I DON'T KNOW THAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW. I JUST HAVE A CONCERN, AND MY CONCERN IS STRICTLY FOR THE PUBLIC, AND THEREFORE, IF THERE IS NEW EVIDENCE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I'M IN CONCURRENCE WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT HEARD. I'M NOT A JUDGE OR A JURY. I JUST HEAR SOMETHING, AND IF I SEE ANY RED FLAG WHATSOEVER, I'D RATHER SEND IT BACK AND NOT BE THE JUDGE. SO -- >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >>KEN HAGAN: I WANT TO SECOND THE MOTION, AND THERE'S THREE PRIMARY REASONS. WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR THIS MORNING IS THAT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, SOME OF THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN MADE PREVIOUSLY. SECONDLY, OUR COUNSEL HAS INDICATED THAT WE DO HAVE THAT OPTION TO REMAND THE APPLICATION BACK. AND THIRDLY, THE HEARING MASTER HIMSELF HAS SAID THERE ARE SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS, THAT WE HAVE THAT OPTION AND, IN MY OPINION, ALL BUT ASKED FOR IT TO BE REMANDED BACK, SO THAT'S THE REASON I'M SECONDING THE MOTION. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION -- ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR -- >>THOMAS SCOTT: MR. CHAIRMAN, LET ME SAY A COUPLE THINGS REAL QUICK. ONE IS, AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND YOURSELF -- THESE CASES COMING BACK BEFORE US TIME AND TIME AGAIN WHEN SOMEBODY COMES FORTH AND MAKES ALLEGATIONS. YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, TO ME IT APPEARS THAT MOST OF THE STUFF IS NEW EVIDENCE, YOU KNOW. AND THEN COMMISSIONER HAGAN SAID THAT THE HEARING MASTER SAID THAT THERE APPEARS TO BE SOME ISSUES. WELL, THEN, THE HEARING MASTER SHOULD HAVE TOOK THIS UNDER CONSIDERATION AT THE HEARING, AT THE TIME HE HAD THE HEARING. IF HE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT IT, AT THAT TIME HE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO DENY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SO I'M -- I'M CONCERNED HERE AS TO WHAT IS TAKING PLACE. I MEAN, OUR JOB HERE IS NOT TO REHEAR THE WHOLE THING ALL OVER AGAIN. OUR JOB IS TO BASICALLY LOOK AT THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION AND LOOK AT THE FINDING OF FACTS. IS THAT ACCURATE? >>GREGG JOHNSON: THAT'S CORRECT. >>THOMAS SCOTT: AND MAKE A DECISION. AND BEYOND THAT, WE HAVE NO OTHER ROLE. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>BRIAN BLAIR: COMMISSIONER SCOTT, IN ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK THE HEARING MASTER SAID HE DID NOT HEAR THE ENTIRE CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS A FIVE-DAY PERIOD IN WHICH THEY COULD REFILE EVIDENCE. IS THAT CORRECT? OR ADDITIONAL -- >>GREGG JOHNSON: NO. THEY CAN FILE OBJECTIONS AND -- YOU KNOW, THEY CAN FILE OBJECTIONS TO THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION, AND WHAT THOSE OBJECTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ARE REALLY COMMENT ON THE FACTS AND PERHAPS THE FINDING OF LAW, BUT NOT ANY ADDITIONAL NEW FACTS. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SO THERE IS NO NEW FACTS? >>GREGG JOHNSON: THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. IF THERE ARE ANY OBJECTIONS, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE PACKAGE THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN TODAY, IF THERE ARE NEW FACT, THEN AGAIN I WOULD SAY THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO SEND IT BACK, IF YOU THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT. I MEAN, IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN FINE. LET ME SAY SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T MIND BECAUSE I MADE A COMMENT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. MR. MARINO INDICATED TO ME THAT THE ITEMS I READ OUT TO YOU HAD EITHER NOT BEEN -- SOME OF THEM NOT BEEN ACTUALLY CONSIDERED AT ALL DURING THE HEARING, BUT SOME OF THEM WERE CONSIDERED, AND THERE JUST WERE NO FACTS PRESENTED BY THE INTERVENOR TO SUPPORT WHAT HE'S SAYING IN THIS DOCUMENT, SO I WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP WITH YOU. SO TO THE EXTENT YOU CONSIDER THERE ARE NEW FACTS, THEN AGAIN, IF YOU THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT, THEN SEND IT BACK. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. JOHNSON, I AM REALLY CONFUSED ON THIS ONE. [LAUGHTER] OBVIOUSLY, WE WEIGH HEAVILY ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING MASTER. MR. MARINO HAS SAID THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE INTRODUCED WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME. >>THOMAS SCOTT: RIGHT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO WHAT IS THE NORMAL PROCESS? IF THAT IS INTRODUCED AND IT'S RELEVANT INFORMATION AND IT -- IT COMES WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, AS A MATTER OF COURSE, MR. MARINO OR ANY OTHER HEARING MASTER WOULD WEIGH, REVIEW, AND INCLUDE THAT EVALUATION WHEN HE COMES TO US WITH A RECOMMENDATION? MY -- MY -- MY PROBLEM IS THIS. I SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER SCOTT, I SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BLAIR, AND THE ISSUE IS THAT IF -- IF INFORMATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT LATE THAT IS EITHER NOT GERMANE OR WE CANNOT LOOK AT NEW -- NEW INFORMATION, MUCH LIKE AN APPEAL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I GUESS WHERE I'M NOT CLEAR IS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PROTOCOL THAT THE HEARING MASTER FOLLOWS? IF IT IS REINTRODUCED TO HIM OR INTRODUCED TO HIM THE FIRST TIME AS NEW INFORMATION BUT WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES, IN A TIMELY FASHION AS WE HAVE DEFINED, THEN IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WARRANTS IT TO BE REMANDED TO THE HEARING MASTER FOR HIM TO REVIEW OR IT'S -- IT'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD NOT BE WEIGHED WHEN HE COMES TO A DECISION? DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? >>GREGG JOHNSON: I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >>ROSE FERLITA: I'M SO GLAD. >>GREGG JOHNSON: THE OBJECTIONS -- YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I DON'T. THE OBJECTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED TO BE FILED WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE HEARING ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMMENTS AND OBJECTION TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE LAW THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE HEARING ITSELF. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE -- IT'S NOT THE VEHICLE TO PRESENT NEW FACTS BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE ONE SIDE GIVING NEW FACTS OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING PROCESS THAT THE OTHER SIDE DOES NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT, AND THE HEARING MASTER REALLY, YOU KNOW, JUST CAN'T TAKE THAT PERSON'S WORD FOR IT, SO THE OBJECTIONS ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE COMMENT ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW THAT WERE PRESENTED. IF THEY PRESENT NEW FACTS IN THE OBJECTION OR THEY PRESENT NEW FACTS, AS THEY'VE DONE TODAY, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE, TO ME ANYWAY, THAT THEY'VE PRESENTED NEW FACTS IN THIS PACKAGE THAT YOU GOT, ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU SHOULD NOT CONSIDER THOSE TODAY. IF YOU THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT THEY MIGHT AFFECT YOUR DECISION OR YOU THINK THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, THEN YOU MAY SEND IT BACK FOR FURTHER REVIEW, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERING NEW FACTS TODAY, REGARDLESS OF WHEN THEY WERE PRESENTED. >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, MR. JOHNSON, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE CAN'T EVEN CONSIDER TO CONSIDER WHETHER THEY'RE IRRELEVANT OR NOT IF WE JUST RECEIVED THEM TODAY. THEY'RE JUST A NONCONSIDERATION. WE CAN'T EVEN CONSIDER WHETHER TO SEND THEM BACK OR NOT IF IT -- BECAUSE IT WASN'T FILED WITHIN THE TIMELINES. >>GREGG JOHNSON: NO. I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S INCORRECT. YOU CAN CONSIDER WHETHER THESE FACTS ARE OUT THERE OR AND WHETHER YOU THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT OR NOT. YOU JUST CAN'T BASE A DECISION ON WHETHER TO ACCEPT OR DENY THE APPLICATION TODAY ON THOSE FACTS. IF YOU THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT ENOUGH, IF YOU THINK THERE ARE CONCERNS RAISED WITH THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THESE NEW FACTS, THEN YOU MAY REMAND IT BACK TO THE HEARING OFFICER SO THAT HE CAN GIVE DUE PROCESS TO THE APPLICANT AND, YOU KNOW, TO THE INTERVENOR AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE NEW FACTS TO COME BACK TO YOU AGAIN. >>KEVIN WHITE: WELL, I THINK IN ALL FAIRNESS TO THE PETITIONER AND THE INTERVENOR AS WELL AND TO THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE INTERVENOR SHOULD HAVE MADE ALL RELEVANT AND PERTINENT FACTS AVAILABLE TO THE HEARING MASTER AND THIS COMMISSION IN A TIMELY FASHION. THAT WAY EVERYBODY HAS THE TIME TO MAKE A -- A -- AN INTELLIGENT, INFORMED DECISION RATHER THAN SITTING UP HERE AT THE 11th HOUR TRYING TO INTRODUCE NEW EVIDENCE AND GO BACKWARDS. YES, MR. COX. >>GREG COX: WOULD IT HELP -- IT'S A FAIRLY LONG RULE, IT'S A PARAGRAPH, BUT WOULD IT HELP TO READ THE RULE EXACTLY SO THAT YOU WOULD HEAR -- I THINK IT MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT IF I READ IT. >>KEVIN WHITE: IF YOU THINK IT WILL HELP, GO AHEAD. >>GREG COX: 2.2.6 SAYS, FOLLOWING A HEARING CONDUCTED BY A COMMITTEE OR HEARING OFFICER, THE COMMITTEE OR HEARING OFFICER, THEY SHALL FILE A WRITTEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION STAFF SHALL PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE PARTIES THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING AT THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION. THE PARTIES MAY FILE WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSION NOT LESS THAN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION. THE COMMISSION SHALL TAKE FINAL ACTION AFFIRMING, REVERSING, OR MODIFYING THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OR HEARING OFFICER, THE COMMISSION MAY REMAND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMITTEE OR HEARING OFFICER AND SET THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING WITH PROPER NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF SUCH SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC HEARING. THEREAFTER, THE COMMITTEE OR HEARING OFFICER SHALL FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT WITH THE COMMISSION FOR ITS FINAL ACTION AFFIRMING, REVERSING, OR MODIFYING THE RECOMMENDATIONS. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER HAGAN. >>KEN HAGAN: WELL, THIS IS WHAT I'VE HEARD, TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, APPARENTLY THERE ARE NEW FACTS, AND THERE'S ALSO SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT MR. JOHNSON MENTIONED PROBABLY TEN OR 15 MINUTES AGO. NOW, I SUPPORT THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK THE NEW FACTS WARRANT A REMAND, AND WE HAVE THAT OPTION. OUR ATTORNEY SAID THAT, GREG COX JUST SAID THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT APPARENTLY THERE'S ALSO SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION IN HERE. >> ASK FOR POINT OF ORDER. >>BRIAN BLAIR: IT'S LIKE AN APPEAL. >>KEN HAGAN: SO I THINK EITHER WAY YOU LOOK AT IT, WE HAVE THAT OPTION TO REMAND IT BACK. AM I MISTAKEN? >> [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER SCOTT. >>THOMAS SCOTT: THE QUESTION I HAVE -- TWO QUESTIONS REAL QUICK. ONE, IF ANYONE HAS PRESENTED OR FALSIFIED INFORMATION BEFORE THE HEARING MASTER AND BEFORE THIS BOARD, WHAT IS THE RECOURSE THAT WE HAVE AT THAT POINT? >>GREGG JOHNSON: FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU COULD CONSIDER THAT, I THINK AS -- AT THE -- YOU KNOW, IN DETERMINING THE APPLICATION ITSELF. >>THOMAS SCOTT: LET ME RESTATE IT THEN. LET ME RESTATE THE QUESTION. WE -- SAY WE VOTE TODAY ON THE HEARING MASTER'S APPLICATION AND GRANT THE COMPANY THE EIGHT CERTIFICATES. IT COMES TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FALSIFIED INFORMATION, GIVEN ERRONEOUS -- HAS NOT BEEN TRUTHFUL. WHAT ACTION DOES THE PTC HAVE? WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE AT THAT POINT? >>BRIAN BLAIR: SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER. >>GREGG JOHNSON: I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE RECOURSE FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE ACTION AGAINST THE -- THE PERMIT OR THE CERTIFICATE ITSELF FOR DOING THAT. THERE MIGHT ALSO BE SOME CRIMINAL IMPLICATIONS, ALTHOUGH IF THE TESTIMONY IS NOT GIVEN UNDER OATH -- THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF LITTLE ISSUES ABOUT THAT, BUT YOU CERTAINLY COULD BRING IT BACK, AND IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT SOMEBODY FALSIFIED THEIR STATEMENTS TO YOU AND THAT'S WHAT WAS USED TO GET THE CERTIFICATES -- >>THOMAS SCOTT: SO THERE IS RECOURSE TO TAKE AWAY THE EIGHT PERMITS ONCE WE FIND THAT THE PERSON HAS FALSIFIED OR GIVEN US INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT ACCURATE. IS THAT RIGHT? >>GREG COX: WE HAVE A CERTIFICATE RULE. 12.1.1.2 SAYS -- PERMITS OBTAINED BY INFORMATION OMITTED OR FALSELY STATED, THEN THAT WOULD CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE YOU COULD SUSPEND OR REVOKE. >>THOMAS SCOTT: SO WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO GET -- OKAY. SECOND QUESTION. WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN AND PRESENTS A PACKET LIKE THIS AND THIS IS NOT FACTS -- AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THESE ARE ACCUSATIONS, YOU KNOW, BUT WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE IF WE HAVE AN INTERVENOR WHO DELIBERATELY IS MISLEADING THE BOARD AND PRESENTED INFORMATION THAT IS NOT FACT? IS THEIR RECOURSE? >>GREGG JOHNSON: AGAIN, FROM A CRIMINAL STANDPOINT, I GUESS THERE COULD BE, ALTHOUGH IF IT'S NOT UNDER OATH, THERE'S PROBABLY PROBLEMS WITH THAT. IF THE INTERVENOR HIMSELF IS A CERTIFICATE HOLDER AND HAS TAKEN THAT KIND OF ACTION, IT'S POSSIBLE THERE COULD BE SOME ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THE INTERVENOR. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT POSITIVE ABOUT THAT. I HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT FURTHER. >>THOMAS SCOTT: I WOULD LIKE FOR TO YOU DO THAT AND LET ME KNOW. OKAY. >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, MR. LIROT HAS ALWAYS BEEN COGNIZANT OF OUR PROCESS. >> MY POINT OF ORDER IS DIRECTED TO THE COMMENTS MADE BY COMMISSIONER HAGAN, THE NEW FACTS AND NEW CONCERNS. THE RULE READ ON THE RECORD BY MR. COX SAYS IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED -- WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE -- THAT'S THE KICKER. EVERYTHING IN ANY OF THIS STUFF WAS FULLY AVAILABLE, ALL OF THE ALLEGATIONS, SO IF -- IF FOR SOME REASON SOMEBODY IS SUBMITTING SOMETHING THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT THAT HEARING, IT'S IMPROPER FOR THIS BOARD TO REMAND THE MATTER, AND I THINK JUST A SIMPLE CURSORY READING OF WHAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED WOULD SHOW THAT THERE IS NOTHING NEW THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE. >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER BLAIR. >>BRIAN BLAIR: IN ALL DUE RESPECT, MR. LIROT, I THINK THAT I'M NOT THE JUDGE OF THAT. I THINK WE SHOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE HEARING MASTER, AS I'VE -- AS THE MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR, LET HIM DETERMINE THAT, AND IF THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS, THEY'LL COME BACK AND IT WILL BE BLACK AND WHITE, AND THERE'LL BE NO WORRIES. I MEAN, WE'LL APPROVE THE MOTION OR THE APPLICATION SHOULD THIS COME BACK AFTER IT'S -- THERE SHOULD BE NO FEAR ONCE IT'S EXAMINED. I HEARD PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM A GENTLEMAN THAT PREPARED THIS AND OBVIOUSLY HAD FINANCIAL GAIN. I'D LIKE TO JUST -- AS THE HEARING MASTER IMPLIED, WE ARE ALLOWED TO -- IF WE HAVE ANY -- ANY CONCERNS AT ALL -- AGAIN, AND MY CONCERN IS FOR THE PUBLIC -- TO SEND IT BACK. IT'S A SIMPLE PROCESS, AND I'M JUST FOLLOWING -- I'M FOLLOWING PROCESS. >> CAN YOU ARTICULATE YOUR CONCERN? >>BRIAN BLAIR: WELL, YES. MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT -- SUSPICIOUS EVIDENCE -- AGAIN, I'M NOT A JUDGE OR A JURY -- THAT SOMEBODY MAY BE MANIPULATING THE SYSTEM, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. >> COULD YOU IDENTIFY THE EVIDENCE TO REFINE THE -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: SIR, I'M NOT ON -- I'M NOT ON TRIAL HERE. >> I'M NOT -- >>KEVIN WHITE: MR. LIROT, WE'RE GOING TO BE DONE WITH THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] ALL IN -- NAY. >>ROSE FERLITA: NAY. >>THOMAS SCOTT: NAY. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MAJORITY? >>GREGG JOHNSON: IT'S MAJORITY OF THE BOARD, SO MOTION FAILS. >>KEVIN WHITE: DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >>THOMAS SCOTT: I'LL MOVE THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE HEARING MASTER'S RECOMMENDATION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] NAYS? >>BRIAN BLAIR: NAY. >>THOMAS SCOTT: AND MR. COX, IF ANY EVIDENCE COMES THAT THESE DOCUMENTS -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: IT WILL BE TOO LATE. >>THOMAS SCOTT: IF ANY -- IF ANY EVIDENCE COMES BEFORE THE PTC AND BEFORE YOUR STAFF, THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED GIVEN TO THE HEARING OFFICER AND THIS BOARD, I WANT THAT BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION, PLEASE, AND AS STATED BEFORE, WE HAVE A RECOURSE TO -- TO TAKE THOSE EIGHT -- EIGHT CERTIFICATES. IT'S NEVER TOO LATE, OKAY? THANK YOU. >>GREG COX: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS IN THE APPLICATION TO SEE IF THEY'RE VALID BASED ON WHAT THE -- >>THOMAS SCOTT: NO, I'M NOT ASKING YOU -- I'M JUST SAYING IF AT SOME POINT YOU RECEIVE INFORMATION THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FALSIFIED THE APPLICATION AND PRESENTED INFORMATION THAT WAS FALSE TO THE HEARING MASTER AND TO THIS BOARD, I WANT IT BROUGHT BACK TO THIS BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION. >>GREG COX: YES, SIR. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, THE APPLICATION OF TB LIMO COMPANY, INC. MR. COX. >>GREG COX: TBLIMO.COM, TAMPA, HAS APPLIED FOR A LIMOUSINE SERVICE CERTIFICATE AND THREE LIMOUSINE PERMITS. A HEARING OFFICER HEARING WAS HELD ON FEBRUARY 18th, 2005, AND THE HEARING OFFICER, MR. SIDNEY KILGORE, HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE AND THREE LIMOUSINE PERMITS. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. IS ANYBODY HERE FROM TBLIMO.COM? DO YOU CARE TO SPEAK ON THE PETITION? >> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS [INCOMPREHENSIBLE] I'M THE OWNER OF TB LIMO, AND WE ASK FOR THE THREE PERMITS, AND WE HOPE TO GET THEM. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS? COMMISSIONERS' PLEASURE? >>THOMAS SCOTT: MOVE THE APPLICATION -- MOVE THE RECOMMENDATION. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. ALL IN FAVOR USE AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED NAY. MOTION PASSES. NEXT WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR DREAM LIMOUSINES, LLC. MR. COX. >>GREG COX: YES, SIR. DREAM LIMOUSINE, LLC, OF BRANDON HAS APPLIED FOR ONE ADDITIONAL LIMOUSINE VEHICLE PERMIT. I'VE REVIEWED THEIR APPLICATION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL PERMIT. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE ONE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR ONE MORE. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. IS SOMEONE HERE FROM DREAM? >> YES, SIR. MR. JACOB PIAZIK, I'M THE PRESIDENT AND OWNER OF DREAM LIMOUSINE AT THIS TIME. I'D JUST REQUEST FOR ANOTHER PERMIT, AND I DO HAVE ONE LITTLE SIDE NOTE, AND IT'S ALL BACK TO THE STUFF I'VE BEEN JUST SITTING HERE LISTENING, GUYS. YOU GUYS ARE CHARGED WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. YOU'RE TAKING A CHANCE. JUST REMEMBER THAT. THAT'S IT. JUST -- YOU'RE IN CHARGE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY. REVIEWING -- JUST -- THIS JUST MEANS YOU'RE SITTING ON THE SIDE LISTENING. THAT'S ALL. >>KEVIN WHITE: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION? COMMISSIONERS' PLEASURE. >>THOMAS SCOTT: MOTION -- >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM NOT SURE IF HE WAS -- I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS PERTINENT TO HIS APPLICATION, BUT THE TIMING WASN'T THE BEST, I THINK, WHEN IT CAME TO A DECISION. [LAUGHTER] ANYWAY, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. I WAS JUST TALKING OUT LOUD. >>BRIAN BLAIR: MOTION TO APPROVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR APPROVAL. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] NAYS. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. OLD -- ANY OLD -- OLD BUSINESS? >>GREG COX: SIR, WE HAVE ONE -- ONE PIECE OF OLD BUSINESS. IT'S THE PTC ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, AND THEN BEFORE I FORGET, I DO HAVE ONE OTHER OFF-AGENDA ITEM I NEED TO DISCUSS RIGHT AFTER THAT, BUT THE PTV ADVISORY COUNCIL RESOLUTION, THE COMMISSION VOTED TO PROCEED WITH THE FORMATION OF AN ADVISORY COUNCIL TO THE COMMISSION. I'VE DRAFTED A RESOLUTION THAT -- FOR EACH OF YOU TO TAKE FOR YOUR REVIEW. WITH THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, I WOULD LIKE TO PLACE THIS RESOLUTION ON THE APRIL 2005 PTC MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL. THE -- THE RESOLUTION WAS HANDED TO YOU SEPARATELY THIS MORNING. I'M JUST GOING TO QUICKLY SUMMARIZE WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S -- AND PLEASE TAKE THIS BACK WITH YOU AND DIGEST IT IF YOU WOULD, BUT IT PRETTY MUCH SAYS THAT WE WANT TO FORM A - - OR THE COMMISSION WANTS TO FORM AN ADVISORY COUNCIL THAT'S MADE UP OF MEMBERS OF THE VISITORS BUREAU, THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP, PORT AUTHORITY, THE AVIATION AUTHORITY, THE GREATER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, YBOR CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -- THAT'S WHAT THE RESOLUTION PROPOSES -- AND THEN GIVE EACH COMMISSIONER THE OPTION TO PLACE SOMEBODY THEY CHOOSE ON THE ADVISORY COUNCIL, IF YOU CHOOSE, AS AN OPTION. AND THEN THAT ADVISORY COUNCIL WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THINGS LIKE RULE CHANGES AND ISSUES FROM THE -- FROM THE PUBLIC. THEY'LL HAVE A PERSPECTIVE OF -- OF -- NOT FROM THE INDUSTRY SO MUCH BUT FOR THE CITY, THE COUNTY, AND THE PUBLIC, AND THEN YOU'LL GET A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT INPUT ON -- ON SUCH ISSUES AS THE TAXICAB CAP, WHICH OUR LAW DOES STATE THAT IF WE HAVE THIS COUNCIL, THE COMMISSION MUST RELY ON THEIR INPUT OR GET THEIR INPUT PRIOR TO ANY ADJUSTMENT TO THE CAP. SO IT'S NOT MANDATORY YOU HAVE THE COUNCIL. THE COMMISSION HAS VOTED NOT TO HAVE IT BEFORE, BUT WE'VE NOW -- YOU'VE VOTED TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH CONSIDERING IT, AND SO THIS RESOLUTION IS -- IS ACTUALLY -- PROPOSES THAT CONSIDERATION. >>KEVIN WHITE: DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO PUT THIS ON OUR NEXT MONTH'S CALENDAR. >> SO MOVE. >>ROSE FERLITA: SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. [CHORUS OF AYES] OPPOSED? COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST ONE OBSERVATION HERE, AND PERHAPS -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPROPRIATE WAY WOULD BE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. AWHILE BACK WHEN CITY COUNCIL DECIDED TO HAVE EVER WHO WOULD GIVE TESTIMONY SWORN IN FIRST, AT FIRST I THOUGHT WAS THIS NECESSARY OR NOT? I CAN TELL YOU FROM THIS BACK AND FORTH ON THE LAST ONE, I WOULD FEEL A LOT BETTER IF WE CONSIDERED AT LEAST IMPLEMENTING THAT TYPE OF THING, WHEN PEOPLE COME UP FOR TESTIMONY THEY'VE BEEN SWORN, AND OBVIOUSLY THEY KNOW THEY'RE ON THE HOT SEAT TO TELL EVERYTHING TRUTHFULLY. >>BRIAN BLAIR: GOOD POINT. >>ROSE FERLITA: SO IF OUR COUNSEL WOULD TELL US HOW TO AT LEAST GO ABOUT CONSIDERING IT. COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DO YOU-ALL DO IT ON COUNTY? >>BRIAN BLAIR: NO. I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. >>ROSE FERLITA: I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO TAKE UP A LITTLE MORE TIME. >>BRIAN BLAIR: [INAUDIBLE] >>ROSE FERLITA: YEAH. THAT KIND OF PUTS THE QUESTION BACK TO THE PETITIONER OR THE PERSON THAT'S MISREPRESENTING INFORMATION, AND I THINK IT'S VERY PRUDENT FOR US TO DO THAT, AND I REALLY THINK WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER THAT. >>BRIAN BLAIR: SECOND. >>KEVIN WHITE: I THINK IT MIGHT HOLD A LITTLE MORE WEIGHT COMPARED TO WHAT COMMISSIONER SCOTT'S CONCERNS WERE TOO, AS WELL, IF WE FOUND OUT THERE WAS ANY MISINFORMATION GIVEN AT A LATER DATE AND TIME, THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REFER BACK TO THE RECORD AND -- AND SAY THAT THE -- THE PERSON WAS UNDER OATH AT THE TIME THAT THEY GAVE WHATEVER THEIR TESTIMONY WAS, AND IT MIGHT HOLD A LITTLE MORE CREDENCE TO WHATEVER WEIGHT THE PTC MIGHT PUT DOWN ON ANY TYPE OF -- >>ROSE FERLITA: IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER BLAIR WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS A SECOND, SO I DIDN'T REALLY FORMALLY MAKE IT AS A MOTION, BUT I'D LIKE TO DO THAT THEN. >>BRIAN BLAIR: YEAH, AND I'D LIKE TO ADD, IT'S LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE A THREE-TIME FELON IN FRONT OF YOU MAYBE PLAYING GAMES, MAYBE THAT WOULD CERTAINLY -- THE FOURTH STRIKE, YOU'RE DEFINITELY GOING SOMEWHERE. >>ROSE FERLITA: UH-HUH. UH-HUH. >>KEVIN WHITE: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR AYE. [CHORUS OF AYES] THE AYES HAVE IT. >>GREGG JOHNSON: AND I'LL BRING BACK -- I'LL LOOK AT THAT ISSUE ON HOW BEST TO IMPLEMENT THAT POLICY AND BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION. >>ROSE FERLITA: THANK YOU. WHITE MR. COX, ONE OTHER ITEM? >>GREG COX: THE LAST ITEM IS NOT GOING TO TURN OUT EXACTLY AS I HAD INTENDED, BUT WE HAD -- MR. JOHN DeLELLIS WAS PROVIDED -- HE PROVIDED A WAIVER OR A REQUEST FOR OVERTURN OF DENIAL OF HIS PVDL AT THE LAST MEETING. HE GOT DETAINED AND HE COULDN'T GET HERE UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE WAS TAKEN TO DENY. HE GOT HERE RIGHT AFTER THE MEETING AND ASKED THAT THE COMMISSION PLEASE RECONSIDER -- AT LEAST GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TOWARDS HIS REQUEST TO OVERTURN THAT DENIAL. UNFORTUNATELY, MR. JOHNSON JUST REMINDED ME THAT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THIS HAS TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT HAS TO BE RENOTICED. SO WHAT I NEED TO ASK YOU TODAY IS -- IS TO AT LEAST DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE WILLING TO ALLOW ME TO BRING THIS BACK BEFORE YOU TO -- FOR RECONSIDERATION. THEN WE CAN PUBLICLY NOTICE IT AND BRING IT BACK AT PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MEETING. >>KEVIN WHITE: WHAT'S COMMISSIONERS' PLEASURE ON THIS? COMMISSIONER FERLITA. >>ROSE FERLITA: MR. CHAIRMAN -- MR. COX, THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT HERE IS HE WAS NOT HERE TO PLEAD HIS CASE, BUT THE INFORMATION IS THE SAME? >>GREG COX: INFORMATION'S THE SAME, EXACTLY. >>ROSE FERLITA: THEN I WON'T -- THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSIONER WON'T SUPPORT LISTENING TO IT AGAIN. >>GREG COX: YOU HAVE A PACKAGE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT GIVES THE HISTORY AND SO FORTH, BUT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE CONSIDERED AT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECONSIDER IT, BUT ... >>KEVIN WHITE: COMMISSIONER BLAIR, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? >>BRIAN BLAIR: I'M NOT REALLY FOLLOWING, COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING WHAT -- >>GREG COX: HE'S REQUESTING THAT YOU RECONSIDER HIS -- >>BRIAN BLAIR: OH, OKAY. >>GREG COX: -- HIS REQUEST TO OVERTURN OUR DENIAL OF HIS PUBLIC VEHICLE DRIVER'S LICENSE. >>KEVIN WHITE: DENIED IT LAST MONTH. >>GREG COX: DUE TO HIS CRIMINAL HISTORY. HE WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TO SPEAK TOWARDS IT AND THEREFORE WANTED THAT OPTION. >>BRIAN BLAIR: I COULDN'T SUPPORT THAT. >>KEVIN WHITE: OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUPPORT FOR IT, MR. COX, SO ... >>THOMAS SCOTT: [INAUDIBLE] >>KEVIN WHITE: ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE PTC? WE STAND ADJOURNED. 1