BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 650|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 650
Author: Low (D), et al.
Amended: 8/31/16 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SENATE ENERGY, U. & C. COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/13/16
AYES: Hueso, Morrell, Cannella, Gaines, Hertzberg, Hill, Lara,
Leyva, McGuire
NO VOTE RECORDED: Pavley, Wolk
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 9-0, 6/28/16
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Gaines, Galgiani,
Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Leyva, McGuire
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-0, 8/11/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NO VOTE RECORDED: Bates, Nielsen
SUBJECT: Taxicab transportation services
SOURCE: Taxicab Paratransit Association of California
DIGEST: This bill removes some regulation of taxis, freezes
local taxi permitting fees, and allows licensed taxis to pick up
prearranged fares in any city.
ANALYSIS: Existing law requires every city or county to adopt
an ordinance or resolution to issue permits in regard to taxicab
AB 650
Page 2
transportation service and establishes minimum rules for
drivers, including testing for controlled substances.
This bill:
1)Makes the above requirements inapplicable when the Director of
the Department of Finance notifies the Speaker of the Assembly
and the President pro Tempore of the Senate of the completion
of the state reorganization of transportation duties from the
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to other
agencies, if taxicabs are included in that reorganization.
2)Establishes rules regarding regulation of taxicabs by local
governments:
a) The charges, fees and assessments levied on taxicab
companies may not exceed those in effect on July 1, 2016.
No new charges may be created.
b) Fees for the issuance of taxi driver permits shall not
exceed $75 annually.
c) Cities or counties may not limit prearranged trips by
licensed taxicabs.
d) Cities or counties may limit the number of taxicab
companies that use taxi stands, pick up passengers at
airports, or pick up street hails.
e) Cities or counties may establish maximum fare
structures. The maximum fares shall not be lower than the
fares that existed on July 1, 2016. Cities and counties
may not limit the ability of a taxicab to offer fares lower
than the maximum.
f) Cities or counties may not regulate the type of device
used by taxicabs to calculate fares.
1)Exempts the City and County of San Francisco from all the
bill's provisions.
2)Establishes legislative intent that:
a) The regulation of taxicabs should be modernized and
AB 650
Page 3
moved to one state agency that has responsibility for all
modes of for-hire transportation,
b) The Governor propose specific budget and statutory
changes to effect this intent, and
c) Local governments not impose any regulations
inconsistent with or in addition to the requirements
established by the state agency that handles all other
modes of for-hire transportation.
Comments
1)CPUC. The CPUC has the responsibility for regulating
transportation companies including Transportation Network
Companies (TNCs), such as Lyft and Uber, but excluding taxis.
Over the summer the Governor and legislators announced their
intention of moving the regulation of TNCs to the State
Transportation Agency, leading to uncertainty as to the
regulatory home for taxis. In the meantime, the taxi industry
is suffering from substantial competitive losses to TNCs, with
some estimates of revenue losses in excess of 40%.
2)Regulatory flexibility. This bill provides taxis with pricing
flexibility, subject to a maximum fare that can't be lower
than that in effect on July 1, 2016. It also limits the fees
that cities can charge taxis, freezing them at levels in
effect on July 1, 2016, and specifically limiting the annual
fee for issuing a taxi driver permit at $75.
3)Deadheading. The bill addresses the issue of deadheading, the
circumstance where a taxi takes a fare to another city but
cannot pick up a return fare, by requiring cities to allow all
prearranged trips by licensed taxis.
4)Concerns. The City of Los Angeles has raised concerns with
prior versions of the bill that established specified dollar
limits for certain fees because it would limit their ability
to fund taxi regulation enforcement programs. This version of
the bill freezes most city taxi fees at levels of July 1,
2016, which may mitigate this problem. The city is also
concerned that the bill would hurt low income communities,
which it believes receive poorer service than other parts of
the city. That concern may be misplaced because this bill
AB 650
Page 4
provides that local rules ensuring adequate service levels to
all parts of a city, or that promote the use of taxicab
service by individuals covered under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, remain in effect.
The League of California Cities opposes the bill. They
believe the cap on taxi fees and charges is arbitrary and
unnecessary, as these fees are already restricted to the cost
of providing the service. They are also concerned about the
future loss of regulatory authority as taxi regulation is
eventually transferred to a state entity.
The Sacramento Yellow Cab Co. has raised concerns with earlier
versions of the deadheading provisions of the bill. They
support language which permits taxis to take prearranged
return fares to the city in which the trip originated. The
language in this bill is broader, permitting taxis to take any
prearranged fares irrespective of the origin of the trip.
The California Airports Council was opposed to an earlier
version of the bill which deleted the requirement for
Department of Justice live scan background checks for taxi
drivers. That concern should no longer be relevant as the
bill does not impact the current local government rules
requiring background checks for taxi drivers.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
SUPPORT: (Verified8/31/16)
Taxicab Paratransit Association of California (source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/31/16)
League of California Cities
AB 650
Page 5
Prepared by:Randy Chinn / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/31/16 17:31:00
**** END ****