Columbus, Georgia

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

TAXICAB COMMISSION OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

July 15, 2003



MEMBERS PRESENT

Chairman Wallace Archie, Mr. Mark Oropeza, Lt. Julius Ross, Ms. Diane Quick,

Mr. David Cassell.



MEMBERS ABSENT

Mr. James Brooks.









A meeting of the Taxicab Commission was held in the Council Chambers Conference

Room, on the Plaza level, of the Government Center. Chairman Archie, noting

that a quorum was present, called the July 15, 2003 meeting to order at 12:50

p.m.



SECTION 21-2 DEFINITIONS:



Mr. Mark Oropeza asked about the definition of ?shuttle?, at which time, Lt.

Ross suggested that a definition of shuttle should be included in the proposed

ordinance. Chairman Archie pointed out that he does not believe the definition

should be listed, because we don?t deal with shuttles. Responding to questions

of Mr. Cassell regarding shuttles, the commissioners explained that the State

Public Service Commission regulates the shuttles; therefore, they are excluded

from this ordinance. Lt. Ross added that the shuttle services could get a

State license and just operate inside the City; then, they would be exempt from

this ordinance, but the State does not prevent a shuttle service from operating

in the City limits by itself.



There was some discussion regarding changing the title of this section ?Vehicle

For Hire? to just mention ?Taxicabs?, but the consensus of the committee was to

leave the title of the Section as it is currently.



SECTION 21-3 TAXICAB BUSINESS LICENSE:



Lt. Ross said that several City Officials have started using the term ?gypsy

taxi?. The gypsy taxi has been identified as a problem. He said that he

believes the definition of a gypsy taxi is someone out there just doing cab

service and not following the rules of the City. He said this has lead the

City officials to consider having some sort of minimum number of cabs or at

least cab drivers. He suggested amending Section 21-3(f) to read ?A statement

that a minimum of two drivers will be employed to handle requests for taxicab

service from the general public twenty-four (24) hours per day.? He said we

would not attempt to go back and take the license of those one-man operations

that are currently licensed, but any new company coming in would have to have

this as a minimum.



There were several minutes of discussion on this matter with several commission

members expressing their views. After some opposition was expressed, Lt. Ross

stated that he would not make a motion at this time for the amendment, but

believes the members of Council would want to see that language in the proposed

amendment. Mr. Oropeza suggested the Council has the authority to add it if

they so desire, because the final decision must be made by the Council.



Sales Tax:

Ms. Quick pointed out that Taxicab Business Owners are to pay sales tax. She

said that taxicab companies are required to pay that, but she does not believe

that any of the other taxicab owners, other than her company, is doing it.

Chairman Archie said that it is not the commission?s responsibility to oversee

taxes being paid. He said it does not need to be included in this ordinance.



Registration Information:

Lt. Ross said that he would like to have in the ordinance for registering the

change of business location and telephone number with the Police Department.

He proposed that it read, ?All changes of business location and telephone

numbers must be registered with the Police Department and inspected for

compliance?.



There was continued discussion on this matter with various commissioners

expressing their views. Chairman Archie suggested a specific time frame for

reporting changes. Lt. Ross said that he has no objections to putting in there

within 24 hours. There was a consensus of the commission to add this as a new

Section 21-3(5). Chairman Archie also suggested using ?business location

and/or telephone number?.



Revocation:

Lt. Ross pointed out that there is no mention of convictions for a taxicab

owner. He said the owners should fall under the same guidelines as the

drivers, as far as, felony records. He then asked what provisions are there to

revoke an owners license in Section 21-3 regarding convictions? He expressed

concerns in that the commission has not identified owner acts as opposed to

driver?s acts of revocation for convictions. He pointed out that there is no

criminal history background check done on an owner; it is only done on the

drivers. Ms. Quick pointed out that even if the background checks were done on

owners, if that person has convictions in another state, it would not show up,

because the system only searches for convictions in the State of Georgia.



There was continued discussion on this matter with various commission members

expressing their views. Lt. Ross suggested that Paragraph (e) be deleted;

since, it is basically the same thing as Paragraph (j). He recommended that in

Paragraph (j) to add convictions instead of commission.



SECTION 21-4 (h) TAXICAB DRIVER PERMITS:



Chairman Archie stated that the owners should do the driver-training course

before the driver applicant is sent to the Police Department to receive a

permit. He said that the commission members would be charged with providing a

test. He suggested that each member devise five questions to be presented at

the next meeting, and we would put the test together from there.



There was some discussion regarding the score from the test, at which time, it

was pointed out that the applicant must score at least 70%.



Chairman Archie briefly mentioned and showed an example of what the driver log

would look like. Lt. Ross spoke about the log sheet having a column to

indicate the time the customer was dropped off. After some additional

comments, Lt. Ross said that if the industry does not feel there is a need to

indicate the time of drop off for clarification purposes; then, he would be

fine with just the drop off location without the time. He said that he thought

that the present ordinance makes mention of the company maintaining a log. He

proposed that the drivers should call into the company, even if the call comes

in to a driver?s cell phone, to let the company know that the driver has a

pick-up.



There were continued discussions on this matter with various commission members

expressing their views. Chairman Archie said that if we start requiring

drivers to log their cell phone pick-ups; then, are we also going to require

that a flag be logged in? He advised this would not work; unless, there are

going to be additional dispatchers. Lt. Ross stated this is a benefit for the

company to maintain a log sheet.



------------------------------------------------*** ***

***----------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The commission members took a break at 2:20 p.m. and reconvened the work

session at 2:30 p.m.

------------------------------------------------*** ***

***----------------------------------------------------



SECTION 21-8 (12) DUTIES OF DRIVERS:



There was some discussion regarding a requirement of all the taxicab drivers to

maintain a log sheet to be kept for a period of one year. The owners would

also be required to maintain the log sheets of all of their taxicab drivers for

a period of one year. Ms. Quick suggested that the drivers turn in to the

taxicab owners the log sheets to keep on file for ninety days. Chairman Archie

informed the members that his reasons for calling attention to the log sheets

was for the purpose of requiring the drivers to record pick ups, no matter

where the driver gets a passenger from either through the radio, cell phones,

or off the streets. He determined that his intentions were not to require the

drivers to turn the log sheets into the company but just to write it down and

hold on to it for two days.



There was continued discussion on this matter with various commission members

expressing their views. Chairman Archie suggested leaving the log sheet out of

the ordinance, because it is not in there now. He maintained that we should

leave it the way it is currently in the ordinance in Section 21-8 (14), which

reads, ?Logs. Each taxicab driver shall log calls received by cellular

telephones with a dispatcher and each taxicab driver shall log every other

pickup with a dispatcher including a notation of pickup times, location of

pickup and destination.?





SECTION 21-7 (2) RENEWALS:



There was a question raised regarding the cost for driver?s permit, which had

been previously left blank by the commission. Ms. Quick suggested that the

cost should remain the same as written in the current ordinance. Lt. Ross

advised that the cost was going to be raised and then suggested $10.00. He

said the Police Department would probably have to conduct a study and report

that the Council would require them to do to get the amount. He said at this

point, he believes the cost should be $10.00. Several members of the

commission also suggested an additional cost for delinquent and expired permits.



SECTION 21-4 (c) TAXICAB DRIVER PERMITS:



There was some brief discussion regarding the physicals for the taxicab

drivers. Lt. Ross said that this brings up another point about drug testing.

He said that drug testing information has been submitted to the Council in the

form of a letter. He said that we have not addressed this issue in the

ordinance before. He advised that he has spoken to City Attorney Fay about

drug testing, and came to a similar conclusion that he was suggesting that this

is something that the owner and employee has to work out for themselves. He

said that it is a great idea, but for the commission to put it in the ordinance

that an owner has to drug test the employees, there would be no way for the

Police Department to enforce it. He reported that City Attorney Fay has

advised that it is not enforceable, but they are doing some research to see if

anybody else in the industry or other cities and counties has something similar

that is enforced by the city. He said the owner has the ability to implement

drug testing and fire that driver if the driver tests positive for drugs. He

said at this point, he does not see anyway that the city could get involved in

it, and it does not need to be addressed in any way in this ordinance.



SECTION 21-11 (2) MAXIMUM RATES OF FARE:



There had been previous discussions about posting the rates on the side of the

vehicle for passengers to see before they even get into the car. Chairman

Archie suggested that he would like to see under the identification of taxis,

that the name must be on the doors, at a minimum size and the companies?

assigned number should be affixed on the two front fenders and the rear of the

taxicab.



There was some discussion regarding the positioning of the rates of fare and

identification. Chairman Archie asked if we wanted to require the taxicabs to

have the telephone numbers on them. Several members agreed this should not be

included in the ordinance as a requirement. Regarding the assigned numbers for

each taxicab and the size, this number should be located somewhere on the front

fender and rear. As far as the size, the commission agreed that it should be

no less than 3 inches in a contrasting color.



Mr. Oropeza suggested that the rate of fare should be located on the left and

right rear sides and no less than one inch in size. Chairman Archie advised

the commission members of the complete listing of items located under the rates

of fare.



SECTION 21-8 (8) DUTIES OF TAXICAB DRIVERS- DRESS CODE:

Chairman Archie asked about specific dates regarding the wearing of shorts, at

which time, he was advised that neither the current ordinance nor the proposed

ordinance stipulates a particular date for the wearing of shorts. Ms. Quick

expressed concerns regarding the dress wear of female drivers. She pointed out

there is nothing in the code regarding the length of women skirts and dresses.

Chairman Archie suggested that skirts or dresses are to be no more than two (2)

inches above the knee to be included as a separate item. There was a

suggestion to outline the minimum dress code in bullets. Ms. Quick suggested

adding ?no revealing clothing? to the list. The consensus of the commission

regarding the dress code is listed as follows:

a. shoes

b. pants to ankle length, or shorts that are no more than two (2) inches above

the knee, hemmed, belted around the waist, and pocketed

c. skirts or dresses that are no more than two (2) inches above the knee

d. shirts or blouses with either long sleeves or short sleeves

e. no ?revealing clothing?



Drivers shall be clean in dress and clean in person at all times.



Lt. Ross cautioned that this proposed ordinance would be circulated to other

department heads and everyone involved would be asked for their input. He

pointed out that some of these things in here that he has conceded to might not

be the same case with Chief Dozier. He said that Chief Dozier was still

concerned about the language regarding the appeal process, because when Chief

Dozier read this section, he thought the commission had some authority over

reversing his decision. He said that he has explained the wording in that it

was not intended for the commission to overturn a decision.



*** *** ***



Chairman Archie asked if there were any further comments regarding the proposed

ordinance, at which time, none of the commission members raised any concerns.

Chairman Archie then pointed out that these proposed amendments would be

forwarded to City Manager Cavezza and City Attorney Fay for further review.



There being no further business to come before the commission, this meeting was

adjourned at 3:35 p.m.







By: _____________________________

Sandra T. Davis, Recording Secretary