Columbus, Georgia

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE

TAXICAB COMMISSION OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

June 2, 2004





MEMBERS PRESENT

Chairman Wallace Archie, Mr. Mark Oropeza, Lt. Julius Ross, Mr. Robert Kidd,

Mr. James Brooks and Mr. David Cassell.



MEMBERS ABSENT

Mr. James Nash, and Ms. Diane Quick and Mr. Lorenzo Landrum.









A meeting of the Taxicab Commission was held in the Ground Floor Conference

Room of the Government Center. Chairman Archie, noted that a quorum was

present, called the June 2, 2004 meeting to order at 3:11 p.m.



Proposed Revised Ordinance:



Section 21-3.4. Registration/Inspection of Vehicles Required.

Lt. Ross pointed out that we have revised the provisions dealing with the

taxicab owners by including a criminal background check, but we are

grandfathering those owners that already have a business license. He advised

that all new owners would have to adhere to the changes with Assistant City

Attorney Jamie DeLoach deciding how to incorporate the grandfather clause.



He advised that Assistant City Attorney Jamie DeLoach is continuing to review

the ordinance with input from City Attorney Clifton Fay. He added that

Assistant City Attorney DeLoach is open to entertaining any last minute

changes. He said that we have also agreed to send the final version to City

Manager Cavezza to get his input as well, before it is submitted to the Council

for final approval. He then suggested that the commission somehow get the

information to the taxicab owners, at which time, Chairman Archie disagreed by

stating that all of the owners know that on the first Wednesday of the month

this commission meets at 3:00 p.m. He said that if they are interested in what

is going on with the taxicab business, they are welcome to come to the

meetings, because we are not doing anything in secret. Mr. Brooks also asked

that the taxicab owners have an opportunity to take a look at the proposed

revised ordinance around the same time that it is sent to the City Manager.



There was continued discussion on this matter with several commission members

expressing their views. Mr. Brooks said that he would rather hear from the

taxicab industry to at least resolve any potential conflict that may arise

before it gets to Council. He then suggested that the taxicab owners receive a

draft copy of the ordinance to see if anyone wants to respond. Lt. Ross

maintained that he would ask that the City Attorney have the ordinance finished

within the next couple of weeks and if there is anything that is found in the

ordinance; then, send it back to the commission to give the members an

opportunity to call a special meeting to discuss it and set a projected time

for the ordinance to reach the Council; hopefully by next month.



Mr. Brooks suggested that we revisit the issue regarding the inspections. He

said that the proposed revised ordinance requires air conditioning and seat

belts; then, asked if these are a part of the mechanical inspection. Mr.

Archie responded by stating that it is a part of the new ordinance. Lt. Ross

said that because of an issue last month and this was one of the things that we

wanted to change, we have a draft copy of what White?s was going to be doing.

He said that we wanted to make a definition of the taxicab safety certification

that comes from White?s Automotive because it was just mentioned in the text

and not explained in details. He then read from the draft copy, the following

statement ?Taxicab Safety Certification means the safety certification received

from a licensed garage contracted with the City certifying that the taxicab is

mechanically safe and in compliance with State laws regarding vehicle safety

including; emission control, tires, brakes, wipers, lights, safety belts and

airbags, windshields and all other factory equipment and systems operations.?

He pointed out that this definition does not specifically mention air

conditioning, but it could be changed. There was some discussion on this

matter, but no motion for amendment was made.



Mr. Archie advised that the State law does not require a fire extinguisher in

the taxicab, but we are requiring it. He then suggested that in the definition

that it mentions the City law as well as the State law. Lt. Ross explained

that we are speaking specifically about what White?s Automotive checks for,

which are the mechanics of a vehicle. Lt. Ross then continued to respond to

questions from Chairman Archie.



Section 21-3.4(c) Registration/Inspection of Vehicles Required.

In this section, Lt. Ross said that there was an issue involving ?Taxicab

Business Owners must register their taxicabs with the Police Department?.?. He

mentioned the concern, which seems to imply that the owner had to be there to

put stickers on every car; therefore Assistant City Attorney DeLoach changed

the language to read, ?The Taxicab Business Owners shall be responsible for

having the taxicabs inspected.? He explained that this would mean that a

mechanic, the contract driver or the business owner could take the vehicle to

be inspected, but ultimately, the business owner is still responsible for it.



Section 21-4(a)(4). Taxicab Driver Permits

Continuing to give an overview of changes made through the City Attorney?s

Office in response to discussion from the commission, Lt. Ross pointed out that

there was some questions regarding the written statement from a licensed

physician, which was changed to read ?Written statement dated within 30 days of

the application from a licensed physician certifying that the applicant?.?



He then pointed out that we reversed the order of 21-4(a)(5) and 21-4(a)(6) and

changed the language to read ?Proof of a valid state driver?s license?.?

Instead of the written certification stating that a driver is at least 18 years

of age.



Section 21-4(1)(c). Taxicab Driver Permit Renewals

Lt. Ross recalled that there was also some discussion regarding the comparison

in the language for Section 21-4(a)(4) which reads, ?Written statement from a

licensed physician that the applicant has no physical infirmities that would

adversely affect the applicant?s ability to drive.? to Section 21-4.1(c) which

reads ?Every fourth year after obtaining the initial Driver?s Permit, the

Driver shall submit with his application for renewal a physician?s certificate

certifying that the Driver has no disease or mental or physical infirmity that

adversely affects the Driver?s ability to drive?. He said that the language

was changed to make it sound better, which reads ?Written statement certifying?

as opposed to ?Written certification?.



Section 21-7(2). Duties of taxicab drivers.

Referring to Section 21-7. Duties of taxicab drivers ? Refusal to carry orderly

persons, Lt. Ross pointed out that there was some objection to the first

sentence, which reads ?No Driver shall refuse or neglect to convey an orderly

person upon request?? He then said the word ?convey? was the objection;

therefore, ?convey? was changed to ?transport?, which was the suggested word to

be used.



Section 21-7(11). Duties of taxicab drivers.

Lt. Ross said the last item of discussion was regarding Section 21-7(11).

Duties of taxicab drivers ? Property left in taxicab. He then read excerpts of

this section with particular emphasis on the words ?any articles of value?. He

pointed out that ?of value? was taken out, because we don?t need to assess

value.



In conclusion, Lt. Ross pointed out that these are the items that were fine

tuned after the discussion with the commission members. He suggested that we

may want to put the request through to the City Attorney to have some action

before the Council in the next couple of weeks.



Inspection Time Line:



Mr. Brooks requested a written policy of the Police Department regarding the

time inspections would start. He briefly explained an incident with the timing

factor to have inspections. Lt. Ross addressed this issue by stating that he

does not believe the issue is to have something in writing, so much as it is to

work with the people who are responsible for doing the inspections.





Inspection date:



Chairman Archie asked if a record of how many taxicabs are inspected is kept on

file, at which time, Lt. Ross said that it is dated when the decal is issued.

After this response, Chairman Archie reiterated some previous comments

regarding the implementation of the taxicab driver?s birthday as the date of

inspection. He reported the increased number of officers used at the end of

May to meet the deadline. Chairman Archie announced that he would be present

when this ordinance is listed for first reading in an effort to convince the

Council to change the date of inspection to the driver?s birthday month. Lt.

Ross once again explained his reason to continue the May 31st deadline, which

is to avoid the need for year round inspections. He then suggested month(s)

for an alphabet system for the cab companies to have the inspections done as

opposed to having the whole year for inspection. Mr. Brooks agreed with the

birthday concept because appointments are no longer being made for inspections.





Chairman Archie also suggested that the Police Department could also get rid of

the sticker every year and provide a sticker that would last for five years and

provide a tag to put on there just like what is done with the license plates.

Mr. Brooks also mentioned the time frame from January to May, which actually

gives the driver one year and five months to get a sticker. He added that he

does not believe it was set up to be this way. Lt. Ross advised that he would

revisit this issue with his supervisors.



There was additional discussion regarding the manpower needed to conduct the

inspections during the May deadline, the driver?s birthday inspection concept

and the wait time.



*** *** ***



Gas Prices:



Mr. Brooks called attention to the growing concern of the taxicab drivers

regarding the increasing gas prices. Mr. Brooks conveying the suggestion of

some of the drivers, recommended the drop fee increase from $1.50 to $2.00 for

the first one third mile is what we need to request. Chairman Archie also

suggested that the additional passenger rate be increased from $.50 to $1.00.

Mr. Cassell requested some comparison data from other cities. Mr. Brooks

recommended for discussion the increase of an additional $.30 on the mile. Lt.

Ross suggested that if the commission is proposing an increase in the fare;

then, we should be prepared to provide some comparison data.



Chairman Archie recalled that there was an article in USA Today, which had a

write up about the taxicabs, the price of gas and the increase in fares from

various cities. Chairman Archie advised that he would provide a copy of this

article to the other commission members.



There was some additional discussion on this matter with various commission

members expressing their views regarding the fluctuating cost of gas prices.

Chairman Archie asked that Recording Secretary Davis provide a copy of the USA

Today article via email to all of the members. He then asked that updated

email addresses be provided so that each member could come up with a proposal

for a rate increase to be emailed to all of the members. He stated that at the

next meeting, we could discuss the proposals and make a recommendation to the

Council.



*** *** ***



There being no further business to come before the commission. Chairman Archie

then entertained a motion for adjournment. Mr. Kidd so moved, which was

seconded by Mr. Oropeza and carried unanimously at 4:37 p.m.







By: _____________________________

Sandra T. Davis, Recording Secretary