Columbus, Georgia

TAXICAB COMMISSION

October 2, 2002







A meeting of the Taxicab Commission was held on Wednesday , October 2, 2002 in

the City Manager?s Conference Room, Sixth Floor, Government Center, Columbus,

Georgia.



MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wallace Archie, Mr. James Brooks, Mr Mark Oropeza,

Mr. Gerald Ludwig, and Ms. Diane Quick



MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Charles D. Pattillo, Mr. Darren Phillips and Lt. Julius

Ross.



GUESTS: Mr. Lorien ?Chip? Chappell, Chattahoochee

Taxi Association

Mr. Henry Frazier, Yellow Cab Company

Mr. Virgil Smith, Chattahoochee Taxi Association.







This meeting was called to order at 3:16 p.m.



MINUTES:



The minutes of the monthly meeting, which was held on September 4, 2002 were

approved as presented.





RECOGNITION OF SPEAKERS:



Chairman Archie noted the presence of a number of speakers in the meeting and

at this time, he asked Mr. Lorien ?Chip? Chappell to come forward and state his

concern.



LORIEN CHAPPELL RE: CHANGE TO TAXI ORDINANCE



Mr. Chappell came forward to state that he represents the Chattahoochee Taxi

Drivers Association. He thanked the members for the opportunity to speak

after which he congratulated the commission on two excellent proposals:



(1) Sec. 21-4 (h). Taxicab Driver Permits ?Successfully complete a



driver training course for new applicants . . . The examination may be

administered orally, and any applicant who fails three times may not take it

again for a period of 30 days? and;



(2) Sec. 21-8. (12) Duties of Drivers ). ?Each driver shall maintain in

each taxicab a suitable map or street guide of the Columbus Metropolitan

area?.



Mr. Chappell said his reason for appearing is that as a taxi driver, this

ordinance affects the livelihood of my fellow drivers. He then described the

ordinance as vague in many areas, only enforced against cab drivers , and for

the purpose of those who do not know how a cab driver makes a living. He

explained that most of us work for a company similar to sub-contractors and we

pay a service charge (A Lick) to that company. He proceeded to ask the

following questions:



(1) If our citizens need 24 hour dispatch, then why Metra does not run

24 - hours a day? (He said there is no Sunday service for Metra.)

(2) Why are taxicab companies the only ones required to ask the Chief of Police

to start a business?



Mr. Chappell reported that no other business has to go before the City Council

to get a license approved. Referring back to the service charge, he stated

that the average ? Lick? is $65.00, which is an outrageous charge. He

pointed out that of the two hundred (200) citizens who drive a cab, if you

protect me, you protect the citizens because if the high cost of operating a

cab is not placed on me; then, the citizens can ride cheaper.



? LIMITED INCOME: Addressed the matter of income, and explained that while

his income is limited, the ordinance does not limit the income of the three

(3) owners; subsequently this issue needs to be addressed.



? PERMIT DISPLAY : Noted the requirement in the ordinance to display the

permit, is a violation of federal law because the social security number is on

it. He said a privacy act statement should be furnished. He then reminded the

members that if the social security number is displayed, then it could be used

by someone unlawfully.



? INSPECTIONS: Why should I pay White?s $34.00 to check my brakes? He said

there are four different convenient locations near the government Center that

would check the brakes free of charge and issue a certificate. He pointed out

that the Police Department then checks everything I have already paid for

(except the brakes).



? VAN SERVICES OPERATING AS CABS: Shuttle services operating as cabs, they

should have the same requirements as taxicabs to get a permit to operate.



In conclusion, he said on behalf of the Taxicab Association, my fellow drivers

are tired of the ordinance being used against them; and said we need to

?straighten our ordinance up?. For example, a police officer can cite a driver

for a dirty taxicab because the perception of the matter is open to the

officer who stops you. At this time, he asked if there were questions?



Responding to Mr. Chappell request, Mr. Archie questioned the existence of the

association and its? membership, Mr. Chappell replied the Valley Taxicab

Drivers Association located in Columbus; however, Mr. Smith pointed out that

the membership is not disclosed due to the threat by cab owners to fire the

members.



Responding to the concerns raised by Mr. Chappell, Mr. Brooks advised him

that the issue of dirty taxicabs has previously been addressed by the

Commission and assured Mr. Chappell that he shared some of those same

concerns.



Also, responding to the concerns of Mr. Chappell, Chairman Archie concurred

with Mr. Brooks and pointed out that (we) are working on this problem. In

regards to inspections, he said there?s not supposed to be two of the same

inspections. He said , originally, it was set for White?s to handle the

Safety inspections, and the police department would handle cosmetics. However,

in their position as law enforcement officers, you cannot tell the police they

can?t ask you to turn on your headlight, check your horn, etc. He said if they

want to waste their time, that is their business. He said we realize there is

a problem and we are trying to deal with this problem. But, I don?t see

where the Commission can tell the owners how much to charge for ?licks?. He

said the City Council has determined, as you stated, how much money you can

make; But, if you have any ?gripes? with the City Council, please take it to

the City Council. He said as a body, we increased the rates because the

drivers wanted a raise and we worked on that, but as far as the Commission

telling the City Council that you can?t tell a cab driver how much to charge,

that is not going to happen.



Mr. Chappell vehemently replied that as a commission, you can?t tell the

Police what to do, but we do have a Mayor of this City who is the Chief law

enforcement officer who can tell the Police what to do and it is time the 200

citizens are given some representation.



After more than thirty minutes of discussion with various members expressing

their views, Mr. Brooks assured Mr. Chappell that his concerns were valid and

would be addressed by the Commission. Chairman Archie, then recognized the

next speaker as being Mr. Henry Frazier:





HENRY FRAZIER ? RE: PEACHTREE MALL MEMO



Mr. Frazier appeared and stated that he was employed by Yellow Cab Company He

then passed a memorandum around the table from Debra Bailey, Peachtree Mall

Manager. He then read ? This private posted at each entrance are signs

stating solicitation and loitering I strictly prohibited. In regard to taxi

service, this means no taxi may park in the parking lot. This is considered

loitering. No taxi may cruise for fares. This is considered solicitation.?

He said this means that no taxi is allowed to park in the parking lot or you

will be cited for loitering. At such time, Mr. Frazier expressed strong

opposition for the decision by the Peachtree Mall Manager, Ms. Bailey to

prohibit taxi drivers from parking and cruising for fares, which is defined as

soliciting and loitering.



Mr. Brooks, related a prior personal experience to Mr. Frazier said that most

people don?t know that if they are on private property, but if the owner asks

that (you) leave, (you) can be charged for loitering, as this is the variance

the police has that we don?t know about and is not in our favor.



Mr. Frazier continued to voice his opposition to the letter as he pointed out

the way it is written. He said the letter implies that we are non-employees

who have no business at the mall; but this is our livelihood. He pointed out

that in another statement which he considered discrimination on their part

because it states no taxi service. He said the letter should have been worded

better; but something is not right when we can do service in Columbus,

Georgia, but not on the premises of the mall, and we are not in violation of

anything.



Responding to Mr. Frazier?s complaint , Mr. Archie explained that everything

in the letter has been brought about by cab drivers, not all but some

drivers. He pointed out that the ? lady? was subpoened to go to court and

provide records and evidence of her rules as they pertained to taxi drivers.

He said everything in the letter has been the rule, but has not been in ?black

and white?. He then related examples which led to this decision:



? Food Court ? Cab drivers are responsible for this decision due to parking

five (5) and ten (10) minutes and interfering with traffic. ( That

necessitated putting in writing we could not hinder traffic). He said as it

pertains to cab drivers, it does not hurt cab drivers, it does not state that

(you) cannot come on that property nor does it say, you cannot pick up on that

property, but it does say you cannot cruise and agree with it 100 percent,

because if one hundred (100) cabs were cruising, they could not conduct their

business. He said they did not say, that you cannot pick up, and they are in

no way depriving you of your livelihood.



At this time Chairman Archie and Mr. Frazier voiced differing opinions

regarding cruising, For clarity purposes, Mr. Brooks pointed out there is not

a problem if a customer is dropped off, but when that customer is picked up,

there is a problem. Mr. Oropeza asked if Debbie Bailey has been contacted about

this situation? Mr. Brooks replied that this problem could be resolved if the

mall would provide a designated drop off and pick up point for taxicabs.



After a lengthy discussion on this issue, Mr. Archie then asked Mr. Frazier,

what do you want from the Commission ? Since there was not a definite answer

from Mr. Frazier, Ms. Quick suggested to draft a letter on letterhead paper

to Ms. Bailey requesting that she work with cab drivers, maybe come up

with a taxi stand in a designated area, to which Mr. Ludwig suggested that a

Certified letter is sent to Ms. Bailey. (The members collectively agreed)



JAMES SMITH RE: THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE



Mr. James Smith appeared and asked the Taxicab Commission to address the

Police Department on the inspection of taxicab, which he said we need to state

that a taxi can be inspected from 8:00 until 5 :00 on any day of the week and

to write a letter to Peachtree Mall . He said that most of his concerns have

already been covered here today; however, he did point out one of his concerns

as being : (1) the policy to notify the Policy Department (within 48) of a

driver?s termination should be changed ; so that, it is effective on the same

day of termination because if it was turned in on Thursday, that driver would

miss a week?s work.



Mr. Brook responded to Mr. Smith by saying that he is unaware of an owner

who has written a letter to notify the Chief of Police that a driver has

changed companies and pointed out that when a driver receives a letter of

acceptance from another cab company, that same day they can work for another

company (whether or not the driver has received a letter ). He said since this

has not been a hindrance to anyone, this was a matter I did not place on the

top of my list of concerns.



Mr. Smith continued to voice his concern and said that although it has not

been done, it is there; therefore, it is legal and according to the

ordinance, it can be done and for this reason it should be deleted from the

City ordinance. (The section was read in silence.)



? $25.00 Drivers Permit (Proposal) ? Favors drivers paying $100.00

? Favors company owner paying $100.00 fee to the City for each cab on line.



In conclusion, Mr. Smith said that he is in favor of making changes for the

betterment of the community where the public can be served and the taxi drivers

and the owners can all agree .



Chairman Archie thanked all the guests for their contributions, which have

been recorded in the minutes and pointed out that whatever decision is made

by the majority of commission, it will happen. He invited everyone to come

back to the next meeting which is held @ 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday. He said many

of the issues brought up at this meeting and whatever the commission deems

necessary will be done; however, don?t expect the new ordinance to be

completed within the next 2-3 months. He said he constantly explains to the

drivers that the Commission has a place for only (one) cab driver . He pointed

out that (we) want the ordinance to be as good as it can possibly be, but

consider that we meet one hour per month which equates into 8 ? hours per year.

He assured everyone that once the proposal is completed it would be

distributed to the Cab owners and drivers. He said at this time, the

Commission would invite the drivers or whomever to attend a Work Session to

brainstorm the proposal before the final product is sent to the City Council.



Mr. Smith questioned the requirement to notify the commission two weeks in

advance of the meeting, to which Mr. Archie replied that due to the one - hour

time limit of the meeting, it would not be feasible to extend the meeting

longer.



There was a brief discussion on this matter, as Mr. Brooks concurred with

Chairman Archie and explained that due to the number of speakers, today, he did

not cover an inspection issue that he intended to bring up, but he did

distribute a copy to all members to be discussed at the next meeting. Mr.

Brooks said if we can communicate electronically, we can get many things

accomplished.



Mr. Archie pointed out an issue he planned to discuss today, but due to all of

the discussion, he said it would be brought back up at our next scheduled

meeting. ( He then read the paragraph ).





RANDOM INSPECTION FOR CERTAIN VIOLATIONS:



? Nothing in this ordinance shall prohibit the random inspection of vehicles

for hire, or the drivers of such vehicles by personnel of the Police Department

where possible violations of this ordinance or other violations of the law

regarding the condition of vehicles for hire are evident by visual

inspection.?



At this point, Mr. Ludwig made the motion to hire another administrative person

to assist Ms. Carey with the paperwork. (This motion died for a lack of a

second).







There being no further business to discuss, this meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.







Gloria Carey

Recording Secretary