Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Council overturns taxi-license denial for Daryl Fox after applicant details past convictions and recent conduct
Summary
The Pocatello City Council voted to overturn a police licensing denial and grant a taxicab license to Daryl Fox after hearing from the applicant and a police licensing officer about past convictions and disclosure on the application.
Get email alerts on the Licensing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Pocatello City Council voted to overturn a decision by police licensing and grant a taxicab license to applicant Daryl Fox after a brief hearing and roll call vote.
Daryl Fox, the applicant, told the council he had past convictions in 1998 and 2001 and said he disclosed those convictions on his taxi-license application. Mallory Bascom, Pocatello Police Licensing, told the council she had denied the application under city code 5.56.0.05(e), which requires applicants to be free of convictions for felonies or crimes of violence. Bascom summarized that Fox had a 1998 conviction for malicious injury to property (related to an altercation) and a 2001 felony burglary conviction; she said Fox disclosed the charges on the application.
Council member Mangum moved to overturn the licensing denial and grant the taxi license; Council member Cheatham seconded the motion. City clerk Aubrianna called the roll; the record shows affirmative votes from Mangum, Cheatham, Bates, Laurick, Nichols and Paulson. The motion passed and the appeal was upheld, restoring Fox's ability to obtain the taxicab license.
In remarks during questioning, council members asked Fox about his current employment and experience transporting people with disabilities. Fox said he works transporting people and medications and that he had completed probation and restitution related to his earlier convictions. Bascom said the denial was based on the municipal code standard; Fox and other witnesses noted that he had disclosed his history on the application.
The council did not attach additional conditions to the approval during the hearing. The licensing denial referenced city code 5.56.0.05(e).

