SR 11-14-2017 7A
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: November 14, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Transportation Planning
Subject: Introduction for First Reading of Ordinances Extending the Taxicab
Franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxi Owners’ Association, Metro Cab,
Taxi! Taxi! and Yellow Cab for one year; Extending City Taxi Cab Driver
permit expiration dates to December 31, 2018; and adopting a resolution
setting reduced taxicab driver permit fees
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached
ordinances 1) extending the franchises of Bell Cab, Independent Taxi Owners’
Association, Metro Cab, Taxi! Taxi!, and Yellow Cab for one year; 2) extending City Taxi
Cab Driver permit expiration dates to December 31, 2018; and 3) adopting a resolution
setting reduced taxicab driver permit fees.
Executive Summary
The City’s taxicab franchise system, established in March 2011 and renewed from time
to time, is currently set to expire on December 31, 2017. The taxi industry has been in
decline in recent years concurrent with the rise of Transportation Network Companies
(TNCs) such as Uber and Lyft across the country. California State Assembly Members
have been proposing revised taxicab regulations during recent sessions in response to
these challenges. The most recent iteration, AB 1069, was signed by the Governor on
October 13, 2017. While some AB 1069 regulations will take effect on January 1, 2018,
the most impactful changes will not take effect until January 1, 2019. Most notably, by
January 1, 2019, taxicab permitting will move from the current patchwork of various
local requirements to a countywide system that only requires taxicab drivers and
companies to obtain a permit in the jurisdictions that they are “substantially located.” A
number of implementation questions remain to be resolved with the new regulations,
including the interpretation of the “substantially located” requirement and which
agencies will assume the role of countywide taxicab regulation. Staff will work with
2 of 9
surrounding jurisdictions and agencies and provide Council with an update on AB 1069
implementation by July 2018.
In the meantime, staff is recommending 1) a one-year extension of the original five-year
franchise, which expires on December 31, 2017; and 2) extension of all existing City
Taxi Cab Driver Permits until the end of 2018. The extensions, through December 31,
2018, will coincide with the implementation of AB1069. Since approval of AB1069 was
unknown at the time of the staff report preparation, staff went through the process of
seeking input from the taxicab companies regarding the franchise regulations. Staff
received requests from all five taxicab companies to reduce the annual vehicle franchise
fee and eliminate the per vehicle business license fee as well as other changes. Given
the pending change to the whole regulatory system, Staff recommends the continuation
of all regulations for the remaining one-year franchise period but requests a reduction in
taxicab driver’s permit application and renewal fees.
Background
On July 28, 2009, the City Council established the taxicab franchise to regulate taxicab
transportation services operated within the City, including practices for licensing the
taxicab businesses, rates, and mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing. On
October 12, 2010, the Council granted franchises to five taxicab companies. The
original franchise was granted for five years through December 31, 2015.
On November 24, 2015, Council modified and extended the existing franchise
agreements for two years to December 31, 2017 for all five taxicab companies, and
maintained the number of authorized vehicles at 300. Council granted taxicab
companies the ability to “park” a taxicab, which allows the taxicab company to remove
the vehicle from its insurance plan, saving the company money during slower periods.
On October 10, 2016, Taxi! Taxi! submitted a request to reduce the number of taxicab
vehicles authorized to operate. Section 5(f) of the taxicab franchise agreement allows a
franchisee to request a reduction in the size of their fleet if the “public convenience and
necessity no longer requires Grantee to furnish taxicab services with the number of
vehicles authorized under this franchise”. On October 31, 2016, the four remaining
3 of 9
taxicab companies, Bell Cab, ITOA, Metro Cab, and Yellow Cab (i.e., the “Taxicab
Coalition”) submitted requests to reduce the number of vehicles. At its December 6,
2016 meeting, the Council approved the taxicab companies’ request and reduced the
number of authorized vehicles from 300 to 199.
Discussion
The taxicab industry has been in a steady decline since the arrival of TNCs, including
Uber and Lyft, in 2012. From 2013 through 2016, taxicab trips in Santa Monica have
declined 68% and the gross revenue of the franchises has declined 54%. It is
estimated by the end of 2017 gross revenue will decline by 64% and total trips by 79%
since 2013. The following chart shows the decline in gross revenue and trips for each
year compared to 2013:
YEAR GROSS REVENUE DOWN SINCE
2013 YEAR TRIPS DOWN SINCE
2013
2013 $14,875,472 2013 750,555
2014 $11,355,224 24% 2014 571,037 24%
2015 $7,897,532 47% 2015 352,614 54%
2016 $6,858,816 54% 2016 238,648 68%
2017* $5,309,870* 64% 2017* 159,130 79%
A total of 199 vehicles have been authorized by Council, and currently 128 vehicles are
dedicated (providing taxicab services only in Santa Monica), of those 9 are ‘parked’ and
removed from service, and 41 provide Access Services. When taxicab vehicles provide
trips through the County’s Access program, they are not available to respond to calls in
the Santa Monica area. In August 2017, 108 (54%) of the 199 authorized vehicles
provided trips in Santa Monica.
STATUS OF AUTHORIZED VEHICLES
Company Authorized
Vehicles
Dedicated
Vehicles
Parked
Vehicles
Access
Vehicles
Vehicles
Providing
Service In
August
Bell Cab 43 3 2 0 25
4 of 9
ITOA 30 18 0 0 18
Metro Cab 43 43 7 21 10
Taxi Taxi 40 40 0 0 39
Yellow Cab 43 24 0 20 16
TOTAL 199 128 9 41 108
Since 2015, the number of calls for service responded to within 15 minutes for each
taxicab company has not changed significantly even with the reduction of authorized
vehicles and vehicles removed from service by “parking”. Taxicab franchises with
licenses in surrounding cities (Bell, ITOA, and Yellow) continue to have lower response
times than Metro Cab and Taxi! Taxi!. The following chart provides a comparison
between 2015, 2016, and 2017 year to date through August.
AVERAGE PERCENT OF CALLS
REPONDED TO WITHIN 15
MINUTES
JANUARY – AUGUST 2015,
2016 AND 2017
Company 2015 2016 2017
Bell Cab
89% 87% 87%
ITOA
90% 87% 85%
Metro Cab
94% 91% 90%
Taxi! Taxi!
93% 94% 94%
Yellow Cab
83% 80% 74%
Taxi Regulation
The taxicab industry has been hit hard by the emergence of TNCs (Uber and Lyft) as an
alternative in the vehicle for hire transportation market. For the past two years,
California Assembly Member Low has introduced bills to attempt to level the playing
field between taxicabs and TNCs. In 2015, Low introduced Assembly Bill 650 which
attempted to modernize the regulation of taxicab transportation services in order for
5 of 9
taxicabs to better compete with all for-hire modes of transportation. Governor Brown
vetoed this bill in September 2016.
In February of this year, Low introduced Assembly Bill 1069 to again modernize the
regulation of taxicab transportation services and it was signed by Governor Brown in
October. AB 1069 is effective January 1, 2018, though the bulk of its impactful changes
will not become effective until January 1, 2019. Senate Floor analysis of AB 1069 is
provided. (Attachment A)
Beginning January 1, 2018, taxicab companies and taxicab drivers are required to
collect and report trip data for 12 months in order to determine where taxicab
companies and taxicab drivers are substantially located.
Beginning January 1, 2019, AB 1069 removes the existing broad and relatively
unrestricted taxicab permitting authorities from local jurisdiction. It further requires all
local jurisdictions to permit and regulate taxicab drivers and companies that are
“substantially located” within their jurisdiction. Substantially located is defined as the
jurisdiction “where the primary business address of the company or driver is located” or
“in which trips originating in that jurisdiction account for the largest share of that
company or driver’s total number of trips within [the] county over the past year.”
AB1069 further grants permitting authority to certain joint powers authorities and transit
agencies. These grants of authorities will need further review by staff.
Even after 2019, AB 1069 still allows local jurisdictions to adopt operating requirements
unrelated to permitting or business licensing for taxicab companies and drivers,
regardless of whether such companies and drivers are substantially located within their
jurisdictions. Such authorized operating requirements include limits on the use of taxi
stands or street hails.
Approval of AB1069 was not anticipated given local agency opposition. Staff has begun
to look at what the bill means for Santa Monica’s franchise based on current trip making
patterns. Preliminarily, it appears that Metro Cab and Taxi! Taxi! would be considered
6 of 9
substantially located within Santa Monica. Other taxicab companies, given their regional
reach, may not be substantially located in Santa Monica.
Staff will continue to analyze the bill, meet with other jurisdictions over the next several
months to determine how this bill will be implemented and its affect on our City’s taxicab
service. Staff will provide an update to Council on AB 1069 by July 2018 and return to
Council with any necessary changes to the taxicab franchise by November 2018.
Taxicab Franchisees – Requests
Since approval of AB1069 was unknown at the time of the staff report preparation, staff
solicited input from the five taxicab companies as part of developing the franchise
extension recommendations. The existing franchisees provided two letters, one
individual letter from TMAT Corp. (dba Taxi! Taxi!) and one joint letter from Bell Cab
Company, Inc., Independent Taxi Owners’ Association, All Yellow Taxi (dba Metro Cab),
and LA Taxi Cooperative (dba Yellow Cab Company) (Attachment B). Below is a
summary of the primary requests and responses. Given the impending substantial
change to taxicab regulation, staff is recommending continuation of current regulations
and practices until the new regulations take effect.
Taxi! Taxi! requests to increase number of authorized vehicles to 63
o Data does not support increasing the number of Taxi! Taxi! authorized
vehicles as trips are continuing to decline.
Cancel Weights and Measures Certificate
o The County of Los Angeles Department of Agricultural
Commissioner/Weights and Measures Bureau is responsible for the
regulation of taximeters. We require that taxicab vehicles have meters
and that the meter be inspected.
Reduce the annual franchise fee per vehicle and cancel the business
license fee;
o Staff recommends maintaining the current regulations and only change
the taxicab driver’s permit application fee in addition to the permit
7 of 9
renewal fee for the remaining year of the current franchise, until the
impact of the new State legislation is fully evaluated. The cost of the
taxicab driver’s permit (new or renewal) would be reduced from
$112.86 to $48 for 2018.
Cancel printed waybills and use the digital record
o In November 2015, the Taxicab Rules and Regulations were updated.
Each franchisee shall maintain waybills and make them available for
inspection for up to 1 year from the date of the trip.
No monthly reports, only on demand
o Staff recommends that the franchises continue to submit monthly
reports. Timely monthly reports allow staff to analyze data, report
findings, make recommendations and ensure administrative efficiency.
Driver Permits
In November 2015, Council approved a two-year pro-rated taxicab driver permit as
requested by the taxicab companies. Pro-rating the driver permit fees enables drivers to
pay for only the proportion of months remaining in the year at the time of application. All
two year permits expire at the end of the current franchise period on December 2017.
Consistent with the proposed one-year Franchise extensions, Staff recommends
extending the driver permit expiration date to the end of 2018. Staff also recommends
that taxicab driver’s new and renewal permit application fees be reduced to $48 and
prorated monthly based on the number of calendar months remaining until the permit
expires in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 6.49.070(e). Staff
believes that this reduction is necessary in light of the heavy competition that City
permitted taxi drivers face from Transportation Network Company drivers.
Next Steps for Taxicab Program
1. Work with county jurisdictions on the implementation strategy for AB1069
2. Provide Council with an update regarding implementation of AB1069 before July
2018, and return to Council with any necessary changes to the taxicab franchise
program by or before to November 2018.
8 of 9
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Staff anticipates revenues to decrease by approximately $16,410 in Taxi Driver Permit
Fees due to the proposed reduction in permit fees. Staff will include consideration of
budget impact with updates on the implementation of AB1069 during the FY 2018-19
Exception Based Budget.
Attachments:
A. Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1069
B. Franchisee Requests
C. Bell Cab Ordinance
D. Independent Taxi Ordinance
E. Metro Cab Ordinance
F. Taxi! Taxi! Ordinance
G. Yellow Cab Ordinance
H. Ordinance Modifying SMMC Chapter 6.49
I. Fee Resolution
Prepared By: Cheryl Shavers, Senior Administrative Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Senate Floor Analysis AB 1069
B. Franchisee Requests
C. Bell Cab Ordinance
D. ITOA Ordinance
E. Metro Cab Ordinance
F. Taxi Taxi Ordinance
G. Yellow Cab Ordinance
H. Taxi Permit Ordinance
I. Taxi Fee Resolution
9 of 9
J. Powerpoint Presentation
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
AB 1069
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1069
Author: Low (D)
Amended: 9/8/17 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNANCE & FIN. COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/5/17
AYES: McGuire, Nguyen, Beall, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Lara, Moorlach
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 11-0, 7/11/17
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Atkins, McGuire, Mendoza, Morrell, Roth, Vidak,
Wieckowski, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines, Skinner
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 6-0, 8/28/17
AYES: Lara, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 5/30/17 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Local government: taxicab transportation services
SOURCE: Taxicab Paratransit Association of California
DIGEST: This bill requires cities or counties to regulate a taxicab company or
driver if the company or driver is substantially located in the jurisdiction,
beginning January 1, 2019.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/8/17 establish an effective date of January 1, 2019,
for most of the bill’s provisions, clarify the joint powers authority and transit
agency regulatory authority, establish a fine for violation of ordinances not related
to permitting, restructure the bill for clarity, and make other technical and
clarifying changes.
AB 1069
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1) Requires every city or county to adopt an ordinance or resolution to issue
permits in regard to taxicab transportation service provided in vehicles,
designed for carrying not more than nine people including the driver, which is
operated within the city or county.
2) Requires the city or county to provide policies for all of the following:
a) A policy for entry into the business of providing taxicab transportation
service that includes provisions that require a driver to be employed, or
have an offer of employment, as a taxicab driver and to be in compliance
with all requirements of state and local law in order to be issued a permit.
b) The establishment or registration of rates for the provision of taxicab
transportation service.
c) A mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program.
A test in one jurisdiction must be accepted as meeting the same requirement
in any other jurisdiction.
3) Allows a city or county to adopt additional regulations on taxicab operations.
4) Allows a city or county to levy service charges, fees, or assessments to
administer its taxicab regulatory program.
5) Limits the amount of regulatory fees that may be charged to no more than the
reasonable cost of administering the regulations.
6) Allows two or more public agencies to use their powers in common if they
sign a joint powers agreement and to create a new, separate government called
a Joint Powers Authority (JPA).
7) Requires the prospective employer of a driver who drives a specified vehicle to
obtain a report showing the driver’s current public record as recorded by the
Department of Motor Vehicles, under the “pull-notice system.”
This bill:
1) Repeals on January 1, 2019, the existing requirement for every city and county
to regulate taxicabs, except for the City and County of San Francisco.
2) Requires a city or county, except the City and County of San Francisco, to
regulate taxicab transportation service in a manner similar to existing law only
AB 1069
Page 3
if the taxicab is operated and substantially located within its jurisdiction
beginning January 1, 2019.
3) Retains existing taxi regulation law for the City and County of San Francisco.
4) Allows a city or county to issue an inspection sticker or other compliance
device to a taxicab company that complies with all of the requirements of the
bill and all applicable local ordinances. Requires a city or county to issue a
photo permit to a taxicab company or driver that similarly complies.
5) Prohibits a city or county from requiring a business license, service permit, car
inspection certification, driver permit, or compliance with taxicab regulations
for a taxicab service provider to operate, unless the provider is substantially
located in the jurisdiction or the provider does not hold any of those permits
within the county.
6) Defines “substantially located” to mean:
a) The jurisdiction where the primary business address of the provider is
located; and
b) The jurisdiction within a single county in which trips originating in that
jurisdiction account for the largest share of that company or driver’s total
number of trips over the past year and determined every five years
thereafter.
7) Provides that a taxicab service provider may be substantially located in more
than one jurisdiction.
8) Deems a city or county to have a taxicab company or driver substantially
located within its jurisdiction if the city or county files a notice of intention to:
a) Enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement or join a JPA for the
purpose of regulating or administering taxicab companies and drivers.
b) Enter into an agreement with a transit agency for the purpose of regulating
or administering taxicab companies and drivers.
9) Allows, only, a city or county deemed as provided in 7) above to regulate
through an agreement or JPA.
10) Requires a taxicab company to do all of the following:
a) Obtain a permit in every county in which that provider is substantially
located.
AB 1069
Page 4
b) Maintain reasonable financial responsibility to conduct taxicab
transportation services.
c) Participate in the pull-notice program pursuant to existing law to regularly
check the driving records of all taxicab drivers.
d) Maintain a safety education and training program for all taxicab drivers.
e) Maintain a disabled access education and training program to instruct its
drivers on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
f) Maintain its taxicabs in a safe operating condition.
g) Provide documentation that 50 percent or more of the number of fares are
generated from within a specific jurisdiction.
h) Provide the permitting agency an address where the permitting agency can
inspect documentation required to demonstrate compliance with taxicab
regulations.
i) Provide for drug and alcohol testing and a fingerprint criminal history check
of all drivers.
11) Requires a taxicab company and driver to:
a) Collect trip data to determine in what jurisdictions each company and driver
are substantially located, beginning on January 1, 2018.
b) Provide the trip data upon the date of renewal to the jurisdictions in which
the taxicab company and driver are substantially located, beginning January
1, 2019.
12) Prohibits operation of a taxicab without a valid permit and prohibits operation
unless the company and driver are substantially located in at least one city
within the county or in the unincorporated area of the county.
13) Prohibits a taxicab company from prejudicing or providing different rates or
service on the basis of specified characteristics.
14) Establishes a fine of at least $5,000 for operating without a permit, payable to
the city or county where the violation occurs.
15) Allows any city or county to adopt an ordinance that imposes operating
requirements for taxicab companies and drivers that do not relate to permitting
or business licensing, including, but not limited to:
a) Limits on the number of taxicab service providers that may use taxistand
areas or pick up street hails within that city’s or county’s jurisdiction, and
identifies permitted providers that use taxistand areas with a window
sticker.
AB 1069
Page 5
b) Requirements on a taxicab service provider to provide services in a manner
that provides equal accessibility for all populations within a jurisdiction.
c) Other public health, safety, or welfare ordinances relating to taxicabs .
16) Imposes a fine of $100 up to $1,000 for a violation of an ordinance adopted
pursuant to 12), and prohibits those requirements from being a condition for
issuance of a permit.
17) Grants an airport operator with separate and ultimate authority to regulate
taxicab access to the airport and set access fees for taxicabs at the airport, and
provides that nothing in the bill affects the authority of a jurisdiction to
regulate taxi access or set access fees or requirements for an airport it owns or
operates.
18) Modifies requirements in existing law to specify the manner in which a city or
county may regulate fares, as follows:
a) Allows a company to set fares or charge a flat rate, but allows a city or
county to set a maximum rate.
b) Allows a company to use specified types of devices, including GPS
metering, to calculate rates.
c) Requires a company to disclose fares, fees, or rates to the customer for
prearranged trips, walkup rides, and street hails in manners specified by the
bill.
19) Adds permitted taxicab companies to the pull-notice system under current law.
20) Defines numerous terms and includes findings and declarations to support its
purpose.
Background
Taxicab Regulation. Every city or county must adopt an ordinance or resolution to
issue permits regulating taxicab transportation services operated within the city or
county. Cities typically limit the number of taxi licenses and establish fixed rates
for service, and taxi drivers must possess licenses to operate in each city and
county where they would like to pick up passengers. Cities and counties also often
have rules to ensure that taxis provide service throughout their jurisdiction and
prevent discrimination.
Transportation Network Companies. Beginning as early as 2009, a new model for
providing transportation services, known as a Transportation Network Company
AB 1069
Page 6
(TNC), allowed patrons to prearrange transportation services through an app on
their smartphone or computer. These companies, including popular services like
Uber and Lyft, allow passengers to hail drivers that use their personal vehicles to
provide transportation services.
TNCs differ from traditional taxi and public transportation services in that they, (1)
provide prearranged transportation services, (2) do not own their own fleet of
vehicles, and (3) are regulated on a statewide—rather than local—basis.
Taxi Competition. This divergent regulatory scheme has created challenges for the
taxi business model. Because of local regulation on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction
basis, a single taxi driver is often charged permit fees in multiple jurisdictions.
Taxis have to take passengers where they want to go, but may be prohibited from
picking up passengers for the return trip—a problem known as “deadheading.”
Taxi drivers also face differing rate regulations from one city to the next and
prohibitions on charging variable rates to respond to market demands, and some
cities prohibit prearranged trips. TNCs, on the other hand, are a new transportation
service and are largely free of regulation, aside from the limited requirements in
state law and the regulations imposed by the PUC. Only a few cities currently
require business licenses for TNC drivers to operate there. A National Academy of
Sciences report found that this disparity in regulation is one reason taxis have seen
recent declines in trips and revenues.
The taxi industry wants to modify the state framework for local taxicab regulation
in order to ease their regulatory burden and compete more effectively with TNCs.
Comments
1) Purpose of the bill. The taxi industry has been hit hard by the emergence of
TNCs as an alternative in the for-hire transportation market. State law
mandates that every city and county in the state must regulate taxis. TNCs
provide essentially the same service, but are not regulated in each individual
city and county in the state, as is mandated by state law for taxis. As a result,
taxi drivers have to contend with regulations that put them at a disadvantage
relative to TNCs. Where TNCs can change their rates to meet demand or use
GPS-based pricing, taxis can’t. TNCs can operate without local permits, while
taxis must pay permit fees and get fingerprinted in each jurisdiction in which
they operate. In a county like Los Angeles, that includes 88 cities and the
county. AB 1069 modernizes taxi regulation to reduce the number of permits
that taxicabs need in each county to one or two permits, use GPS and new
technologies, and change their rates so that taxis can better respond to the
needs of their customers. At the same time, it ensures that passengers know
AB 1069
Page 7
the rate they have to pay before they accept the ride, includes public safety
provisions, such as mandated background checks and drug testing, and ensures
nondiscriminatory access to taxis for all Californians. AB 1069 helps bring
taxi regulation into the 21st century.
2) A bridge too far. Taxis have been regulated by cities and counties for decades,
and previous attempts to deregulate have created problems such as
discrimination, inequitable access, and price gouging. Some changes to taxi
regulation may be needed to allow taxis to better compete with TNCs, but AB
1069 makes rushed changes to a functional system that may result in lax
oversight by only allowing a few jurisdictions to regulate taxicabs and enforce
permitting requirements. Any changes should be carefully considered before
upending the tradition of local control over a local service. Alternatives, such
as directly addressing the problems of excessive rate regulation and bans on
prearranged trips, should be investigated before making fundamental changes
to taxicab regulation.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 182 (Bradford) provides that a TNC driver must only receive a business license
in the jurisdiction where he or she resides, and that this business license is valid
statewide. AB 650 (Low, 2016) would have provided greater operational
flexibility to taxis if transportation oversight responsibilities at the state level had
been transferred from CPUC to another state agency, but was vetoed by Governor
Brown with the following message:
“I am returning Assembly Bill 650 without my signature. This bill removes
significant regulation of taxicabs by cities and counties and declares the intent
of the Legislature to transfer the regulation of taxicabs to the state. This bill
fundamentally alters the long-standing regulation of taxicabs by cities and
counties and makes the determination that this responsibility should be shifted
to the state. I do not believe that such a massive change is justified.”
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Minor short-term costs, likely less than $100,000, for the Department of Motor
Vehicles to enroll additional taxicab carriers and drivers into the pull notice
program that provides employers with the driving records of its employees.
Actual costs would depend upon the volume of new drivers who do not
currently participate in the program, and all costs would be fully recovered
through fees paid by program participants. Senate Appropriations Committee
AB 1069
Page 8
staff notes that many taxicab companies currently participate in the pull notice
program on a voluntary basis. (Motor Vehicle Account)
Unknown local costs to cities and counties to update ordinances, policies,
procedures, and regulatory mechanisms that apply to the provision of taxicab
services. Any costs incurred by local agencies as a result of this bill would not
be state-reimbursable because existing law provides the authority to levy fees to
pay for the costs of carrying out an ordinance or resolution adopted in regard to
taxicab transportation services.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/11/17)
Taxicab Paratransit Association of California (source)
American Cab Inc.
Silicon Valley Cab Company
Taxi Workers Alliance of Silicon Valley
Five individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/17)
City of Los Angeles
City of Santa Monica
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
League of California Cities
LA Metro
Riverside County Transportation Commission
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 75-1, 5/30/17
AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Travis Allen, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow,
Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Cervantes,
Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly,
Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia,
Gipson, Gloria, Gomez, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer,
Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes,
McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Obernolte,
O'Donnell, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez,
Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel,
Waldron, Weber, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Gonzalez Fletcher
AB 1069
Page 9
NO VOTE RECORDED: Chau, Chen, Choi, Eggman
Prepared by: Anton Favorini-Csorba / GOV. & F. / (916) 651-4119
9/12/17 18:57:57
**** END ****
Introduction
•Current franchise expires on December 31, 2017
•Assembly Bill 1069 signed by Governor on
October 13, 2017
Ta xi Regulation
q Assembly Bill 1069 signed by Governor Brown in October
•Limits local jurisdictions taxicab permitting authority
•Allows jurisdictions to permit and regulate drivers and companies that are
“substantially located” within their jurisdiction
•Metro Cab and Taxi! Taxi! would likely be considered “substantially
located” in SM
•Allows local jurisdictions to adopt operating requirements such as use of
taxistands or street hails
•Staff to continue analyzing bill to determine implementation and effect
on Santa Monica taxicab service
To night
Recommend:
•Extending the franchises of the 5 taxicab companies
for one year
•Extend the taxicab driver permits until December 31,
2018
•Adopt resolution setting reduced driver permit fees
Ta xi Industry
q Continues to decline
•Gross revenue down 64% since 2013
•Trips down 79% since 2013
•Council granted companies the ability to park vehicles
which saves companies money during slower periods.
•Council approved taxicab companies request to reduce
number of authorized vehicles from 300 to 199.
•Ta xicab companies providing Access Services
Ta xi Franchise Requests
•Ta xi! Taxi! requested an increase in the number of
authorized vehicles, cancellation of Weights and
Measures certificate and printed waybills and the
monthly report requirement
•Metro Cab requested to operate non-company owned
autos
•All companies requested a reduction or elimination of
the annual franchise fee and business license fee
Type of Fee Amount Recommendation
Annual Franchise Fee per Company $5,000 No Change
Annual Franchise Fee per Vehicle $1,100 No Change
Business License Tax per Vehicle $250 No Change
New/Renewal Driver Permit Fee $225.71 $48
New/Transfer Vehicle Permit Fee $129.64 No Change
Renewal Vehicle Permit Fee $59.03 No Change
Ta xi Franchise Fees
Recommendation
•Introduce for first reading ordinances extending the
franchises to the five existing companies;
•Ordinance amending SMMC Section 6.49.070 updating the
expiration of taxicab driver permits
•Adopting fee resolution setting taxicab driver permit fees
Next Steps
•Work with county jurisdictions on the
implementation strategy for AB 1069
•Provide Council with an update regarding the
implementation of AB 1069 before July 2018
•Return to Council with any necessary changes to
Franchise the by or before November 2018
Type of Fee Amount Consideration Recommendation
Annual Franchise Fee per Company $5,000 No Change No Change
Annual Franchise Fee per Vehicle $1,100 $702 –36%
reduction
No Change
Business License Tax per Vehicle $250 No Change No Change
New/Renewal Driver Permit Fee $225.71 $112.86 $48
New/Transfer Vehicle Permit Fee $129.64 No Change No Change
Renewal Vehicle Permit Fee $59.03 No Change No Change
REFERENCE –
RESOLUTION NO.
11089 (CCS); THIS
STAFF REPORT IS ALO
IN LEGISLATIVE FILE
NOS. 419-001-419-005