CITY OF
City Hall - 101 N. Court Street
Minutes
TAXICAB COMMISSION MEETING
9:00 a.m.
Thursday, October 5, 2006, room 212, City Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present: Alderman Donna Kuzemchak Ramsburg, Alderman Paul
Smith, Alderman Marcia Hall, Lt. Tom Chase, Daniel Q. Mahone, William Bowie,
Jerry Wood, Rachel Depo, Eileen Farrar (recording secretary)
Item 1: Approval
of the minutes from the meeting of July 19, 2006.
Minutes were
approved as written.
Item 2: Discussion
and consideration of a request by Mr. Dan Mahone on behalf of Mr. William Bowie
and
Alderman Ramsburg stated
that a request was sent to the Commission regarding fines totaling $1,700.00
dollars regarding permit #16 of Bowie Transportation. Lt. Thomas Chase of the
Administrative agency of the police department presented information to the Commission
and stated the following remarks:
On June 30th, Permit #16
expired. This permit was not renewed with a vehicle until August 30th,
2006, Lt. Chase presented as an exhibit a documentation of the dates of fine
progression. On July 7th, 2006 an inspection certificate was received for a new
vehicle. No vehicle was placed in
service until August 30th, 2006.
Mr. Bowie came to the administrative agency on August 30th,
2006 with all of the necessary paperwork to fill this permit except the
insurance verification. The fines began
on the 7th of July and terminated on the 30th of August
when Mr. Bowie presented all documentation. The administrative agency chose not
to asses fines for the 31st of August due to a determination of good
faith effort on the part of Mr. Bowie. Mr. Bowie paid the $1,700.00 dollars in
addition to the renewal fees.
Mr. Dan Mahone
presented his case to the Commission and made the following remarks:
Mr. Mahone understood that there is
an annual fee for permit #16. Mr. Bowie
paid for this permit. Mr. Bowie paid
$500.00 and owned the permit at this time.
The permit goes with a specific car and the car that was matched with
the permit underwent some difficulty and Mr. Bowie stated that the title was
not cleared. Mr. Bowie said the title
has not been cleared and he purchased another vehicle. Mr. Mahone continued and
stated that Mr. Bowie needed to have a car to operate during this time period
and as a result was not able to make money for this company but Mr. Bowie has
fully paid for this permit and the penalties seem to be punitive and don’t have
a support because there is no indication that anyone has been harmed except Mr.
Bowie by not having a car to operate with this permit. The $1,700.00 dollars due to difficulty
having a car due to title problems seems to be no connection to any injury to
the City, just to Mr. Bowie who is not operating another car illegally. Mr. Mahone is asking for reconsideration of
the policy and in this case maybe a change in the policy.
The Commission began
discussion and the following discussion and questions were asked:
Alderman Smith to Mr. Mahone: What problems were due to the title and Mr.
Bowie stated that there was a lien against the title. Alderman Hall reviewed section 23-3c 1 and
asked about written communication to the administration agency. Mr. Mahone stated that Mr. Bowie had no
intention of withdrawing this taxicab from service. Alderman Hall stated that
section 23-30 speaks to several issues regarding if a taxicab is not actively
on the road that seem to apply. Lt.
Chase responded that Mr. Bowie effective july 7th was attempting to
match this permit to a vehicle and this did not happen until the 31st
of August. Mr. Bowie stated that he was
attempting to put a vehicle on the road utilizing that permit on the 7th
of July. According to Lt. Chase if this
had not be done the 30 day window would have started on the 1st of
July instead of the 7th. Alderman
Smith stated that certain sections of the ordinance are due to be revised at a
Mayor and Board public meeting for revising fines and consideration of a
notification section that is more clear.
Alderman Smith stated that the fines are harsh and would like to defer
ruling on this until specifics are in place in the ordinance regarding this
issue and may cause less harsh results.
Alderman Hall stated that this issue came up at the July 19th,
meeting and the Commission became aware of this issue, however, due to the
small number of parties involved in the Taxicab industry in Frederick, they are
familiar with the Ordinance, however the discussions have involved the
ambiguity in the ordinance and all parties involved have been a part of those
discussions. Alderman Hall stated that
there should have been an active conversation with the agency during this time
or at least a paper trail of emails for the record. Alderman Smith stated that he felt he should
possibly be more aware of the facts and ask more questions. Alderman Ramsburg
stated that these cars have become commodities and are a piece of property,
that are paid for to be sold or traded if they wish. Alderman Ramsburg stated that taxicabs are a
public service and it is a problem when the citizens don’t have service. Aderman
Ramsburg stated there was a reason for the ordinance to be written and the laws
should be followed. Alderman Ramsburg
stated that at the last meeting, Alderman Smith thought the fines were
excessive and asked if in the ordinance the Commission has the ability to make
fines less severe. Ms. Rachel Depo asked
if the agency has a charging document and Lt. Chase said no and stated that the
paperwork presented was the agency’s position on how this was handled. Mr. Depo stated that the language in the
ordinance is not a “not to exceed” clause, but it states that it shall result
in a $50.00 dollars per day. Alderman Ramsburg asked Ms. Depo if they should
wait until the wording for the fines be changed and then rehear the case. Mr. Depo stated that most ordinances are not
retroactive unless they state that they specifically are. Alderman Smith wanted to determine if there
was a technical violation under the current statute. Alderman Hall stated that
this permit had expired. Lt. Chase
stated that on June 30th, this permit had expired and on August 30th,
it was renewed. Alderman Ramsburg asked
Mr. Bowie when the $100.00 renewal fee was paid. Lt. Chase stated that Mr. Bowie paid the
renewal fee when the permit was registered to the vehicle which was on August
31st. Lt. Chase stated that
under the circumstances the agency will not renew the permit until there is a
vehicle to go with the permit. Lt. Chase stated that Mr. Bowie did not have a
vehicle, so the agency did not let Mr. Bowie pay the renewal fee until there is
a vehicle. Alderman Smith asked if there
was something in the statute indicating what constitutes a timely appeal. Alderman Hall noted that in section 23-9 it
indicates that there is 10 days to file an appeal for forfeiture,but stated
that what it does not state is what an emergency situation is. Mr. Mahone stated when asked, that Section
23-9 be re-written. Mr. Mahone stated
that he felt Mr. Bowie ha complied with the statute as Section 23-9 was written
and the annual renewal was still a part of Section 23-9 and has complied
accordingly. Alderman Smith stated the section in the ordinance regarding an
appeal is not exclusive language and explained why. Alderman Smith stated that there may be a
basis for a violation through the date of the last meeting but is reluctant to
tack on more fines at the end. Alderman
Hall stated that she thought the applicant reviewed the section of the
ordinance and that under 23-9 paid attention to the part that says within 60
days because exactly on 60 days all of their information was provided to the
agency and that this implies a certain understanding of the process. Alderman
Ramsburg stated that there still needed to be written consent from the
Commission to withdraw. Alderman Hall
stated that if Alderman Smith did want to go on something that is not written,
you cannot go on discussion, then the commission cannot just on the discussion
at the last meeting. Alderman Hall felt the company was supposed to give
written notice and they did not.
Alderman Hall stated that she sided on letting the fines stand even they
may be some confusion of the language but there was no confusion of the 60
days. Alderman Hall stated that this
discussion has been going for several months and the taxicab community has been
in on all of the discussions. Alderman
Smith stated that he was not convinced that there was a technical violation.
Alderman Ramsburg stated that there was a technical violation in section 23-30
and but she realized that there was going to be discussion on these sections of
the ordinance at that evenings Mayor and Board of Alderman public evening.
Applicant
response;
Mr. Mahone stated
that there was nothing in the record to suggest that they violated section
23-30. Lt. Chase presented what he
thought was a case for section 23-9. Mr. Mahone felt the ordinance was not a
final product and that and more time was needed to it and it was a work in
progress. The ordinance should not be
used to run someone out of business. Mr.
Mahone stated that no one can say that the city was harmed by the removal of
permit #16. Mr. Mahone stated that the
$1,700.00 dollar fine cost more than the cost of the purchase of the
permit. Mr. Mahone asked the commission
to rescind the fine and work together cooperately.
Alderman Hall stated
that at the last meeting according to the minutes all of the sections in
question were discussed and all parties were present.
Alderman Smith
stated that there could be valid reasons why someone may not be able to comply
with the strict requirements of the statute and it is possible in Mr. Bowie’s
case that the statute did not take situations like Mr. Bowie’s into account.
Alderman Ramsburg
stated that she felt that there were violations in this case but was willing to
hold off on an exact amount of the fines until the Mayor and Board meeting was
completed. Alderman Hall agreed and
stated that since there were some compliance on some things ( a recognization
of the 60 days) in the code were considered
by the applicant and stated that the problems occurred with the process and
also agreed that the fine is unreasonable and should decide what the fines
should be.
Motion:
Alderman Ramsburg
moved to deny the appeal of Bowie Transportation Company with the finding that
there have been violations of Section 23-9, no information was turned into the
administrative agency for permit #16 within the 30 days and would like to defer the
amount of the fines until the next Commission meeting due to discussion of the
fines at the Mayor and Board of Alderman meeting. Seconded by Alderman
Hall. Vote 2-0 in favor. Alderman Smith
opposed. Alderman Smith was not
convinced that adequate notice was not given.
Minutes submitted by
Eileen S. Farrar