Columbus, Georgia

TAXICAB COMMISSION



February 6, 2002





A meeting of the Taxicab Commission was held on Wednesday, February 6, 2002 in

the City Manager?s Conference Room, 6th Floor, Government Center, Columbus,

Georgia.



MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Wallace Archie, Mr. Tom Dobson, Mr. Mark Oropeza,

Lt. Julius Ross and Mr. Charles Pattillo (arrived at 3:15 p.m.)



MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. John Golden and Mr. Darren

Phillips

ALSO PRESENT: Assistant City Attorney Jaimie DeLoach.









This meeting was called to order at 3:07 p.m.





MINUTES:



Minutes of the November 7, and December 5, 2001 meetings were submitted and

approved upon adoption of a motion made by Chairman Archie and seconded by Lt.

Ross.



Chairman Archie expressed his sincere apology for not attending January?s

Meeting, which he said was due to a plumbing emergency at his home and

for that reason, he forgot the scheduled meeting.



WELCOMED ASST. CITY ATTORNEY



Chairman Archie recognized Jaimie DeLoach, Assistant City Attorney as the

guest and asked if she was conducting the meeting as a question and answer

session? At this time, Lt. Ross updated Mr. Archie on the meeting by saying

Ms. DeLoach met with the Commission members last month and during that time,

some of our concerns were addressed and resolved; for example, he reported

that he met with the owner, Mr. Harris, from EJH Shuttle Service, who

requested an explanation as to how they were in violation of the taxicab

ordinance. Lt. Ross said that after he explained the violation to him, he

agreed to suspend this type of cab-like service. At this point, Lt. Ross

advised him that if the violation re-occurs, then it would be a charge of

operating without a taxicab license.



Concluding with the update, Lt. Ross explained this slows down the need for a

special ordinance, but at the same time this issue needs to be clarified in

ordinance form. At this point, we discussed how to revise the ordinance to

define a shuttle service and Ms. Deloach recommended the following options:



1) Hear appeals and override the decision of the Chief of Police.

2) Hear the appeals and make recommendations to the City Council.

Or

3) Hear appeals and make recommendations to the Chief of Police.



She then explained by saying the final decision as to what is the best

solution, has to come from the Commission and after making the decision, the

ordinance, then has to be sponsored by a Councilor.



Seeking to establish the position of the Commission, Chairman Archie said I

did not know the extent of the power of a Commission and raised the

question, does or should a Commission have the power to overrule a police?s

decision?



Asst. City Attorney Deloach replied that you can have that authority, if the

City Council wants to give it to you. She then offered to draft an ordinance,

so that you (the commission) may request that authority, but then the

commission has to talk with Council about granting ( you) the authority;

However, she stated the way it is drafted, now, it is very unclear.



At this point, Lt. Ross requested a legal opinion as to the capability of a

board having that appeal process. He asked if this would be a conflict of

interest or a very strong position with a Commission made up of police officers

and cab drivers to hear appeals from a cab driver and to have the authority to

reverse the decision of the Chief of Police.



Again, Ms. Deloach said this is fine if Council will grant you that authority,

at which point, it is always good to have some type of appeals process

available , and since you are talking about someone?s ability to make a living,

it is to better to have more than one step available to the license holder.



There was continued discussion and varying opinions on whether the Commission

should or should not be granted the power to appeal the decision of the Chief

of Police.



Lt. Ross recommended (as a group ) to decide what we want, then when we draft

the ordinance, then we will have these other options as a possible direction of

the way they want to go. He advised the members to submit a complete package

to the members of Council for their decision.



Seeking additional clarification, Chairman Archie asked if we want to go back

into the ordinance and change the part which says the council will not hear

appeals, but Lt. Ross response was that he believes that has already been done.



At this point, Asst. City Attorney DeLoach asked if the two (2) drafts

should be given to the Secretary, but Lt. Ross advised her to keep the drafts

at this time.



Mr. Oropeza then read from his notes, Section 21.6, Paragraph 2, Denials,

dismissals, Revocations, Non - renewals and Suspensions. ? A denial,

revocation, non - renewal or suspension of a permit by the Police Chief shall

not be subject to direct appeal to the Columbus Council, but must first go

before the Columbus Taxicab Commission for a recommendation to t he Columbus

Council.?, which he said at that time we were in agreement that we wanted to

hear the appeals, and if someone did not like it, they could ?bump? it up to

Council. He said, in essence, we were setting it up.



Chairman Archie advised Ms. DeLoach that the Commission?s intent is to

rewrite that section regarding the revocation, and then we will submit the

complete amended Taxicab Ordinance to the Council. He thanked her for

putting forth the effort into formatting the revision.





ADVERTISEMENT ON TAXICABS;



Lt. Ross asked if it would be a violation for taxi drivers to allow

advertising on top of their cars. He said a cab driver posed the question to

him; however, he explained the way our ordinance is written, it has to be

marked properly. However, it becomes a violation when a cab is marked in such a

way to be confused with another cab. He said according to our ordinance, there

is nothing in there that says you could not advertise on a cab. He continued

to ask, if money is made from advertisement do you need a separate license to

be an advertising company. The question was then raised as to whether this

issue would conflict with the existing ordinance.



Ms. DeLoach replied the Commission has the power to regulate signs and advised

the members to find out the specifications for those types of signs, in

comparison with other national companies which Mr. Dobson volunteered to

research the information and report back to the members.



Since there were no other questions, Chairman Archie thanked Ms. DeLoach for

attending the meeting , as she said a paragraph would be drafted and given

to the Secretary. Note: Ms. DeLoach left the meeting at 3:55 p.m.)





AMENDED VERSION:



Section 21-6. Revocations, non - renewals and suspensions.



(2) Appeal from a denial, revocation, non - renewal or suspension of a permit

by the police chief shall come before the Commission which may make a

recommendation to the Police Chief to consider such action. A direct appeal

may be made to the Columbus Council within thirty days of any such

reconsideration by the Police Chief.

(The Amended paragraph was submitted to the Clerk?s Office by Assistant City

Attorney DeLoach)





CONTINUATION OF THE SHUTTLE SERVICE;



Mr. Dobson reported that the day after meeting, he called the guy from the

shuttle service and told him to contact Lt. Ross regarding this matter. He

said this person was probably unaware of any wrong doing and then suggested

that the commission send out letters informing people of the violations

according to the ordinance.



Lt. Ross response to Mr. Dobson, was the company should not have been issued a

license as a shuttle service, but pointed out since the Revenue Collection

Division is not a regulatory service, but a tax collection service, they

have met their responsibility. At such time, he said the Revenue Division has

said that in the future, when there is a request for this type of service, they

would be referred to the police Department, at that point, they would be told

the requirements of a taxi ; however, the State would issue the license.



When Mr. Archie raised the question, when was this issue discussed with Mr. ?

Lt. Ross replied was about the middle of last month, and Mr. Dobson replied

that he spoke with Mr. ??? on February 10th. He said the reason being he was

informed that two weeks ago, this same shuttle service was using a stick-on

and had rented two vans and they were still picking up at Peachtree Mall.



There was continued discussion, on the interpretation of the State Law, as it

says you have to establish ?generally a route?. The members decided that

intent has to be established in forming our own ordinance.



Referring back to the owner?s violation at EJH Shuttle Service , Lt. Ross

reported that he advised: (1) He has to have permission to pick up at

Peachtree. (2) Establish these routes and provide a letter of approval from

the businesses.





NAME CHANGING:



At this point, Lt. Ross advised the members that during the course of revising

the commission, to consider changing the name from a Taxicab Commission to a

Vehicle for Hire Commission and asked if limousine and shuttle service be

included in the revision.



Chairman Archie concurred with Lt. Ross and asked for a motion to go before

Council to change the name from a Taxicab Commission to a Vehicle for Hire

Commission. (Died for a lack of asecond).



There was continued discussion with Mr. Pattillo recommending changing the name

to Taxicab/Shuttle Commission. Mr. Archie advised the members that by doing

research and compiling information from other cities, we can find out how other

cities, for example Atlanta and Savannah handle this situation.



Lt. Ross read from the City of Savannah?s ordinance ( A copy is on file inthe

clerk?s office.)



At this time, Chairman Archie offered his support for going beyond a Taxicab

Commission, but he would like to wait until such time all the members of the

Commission are present to discuss this issue.



Chairman Archie accepted the motion from Mr. Oropeza to adjourn , which was

seconded by Mr. Pattillo at 4:30 p.m.











Gloria A. Carey

Recording Secretary