BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  1


          (Without Reference to File)

          CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
          AB  
          650 (Low)


          As Amended  August 31, 2016


          Majority vote


           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |ASSEMBLY:  |      |               |SENATE: |27-7  |(August 31,      |
          |           |      |               |        |      |2016)            |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
          |           |      |               |        |      |                 |
           -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
                 (vote not relevant)


           ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |COMMITTEE VOTE: |9-2  |(August 31,     |RECOMMENDATION:   |concur     |
          |                |     |2016)           |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
          |                |     |                |                  |           |
           ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
          Trans.




          Original Committee Reference:  G.O.










                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  2


          SUMMARY:  Prohibits cities and counties from creating additional  
          rules and regulations on taxicab transportation services, as  
          specified, and states the intent of the Legislature that the  
          regulation of taxicab transportation services and taxicab  
          drivers be consolidated with other modes of for-hire  
          transportation regulated by the state.


          The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of the bill  
          and instead:


          1)Sunset the existing authority of every city and county, except  
            for the city and county of San Francisco, to regulate taxicab  
            transportation services operated within the jurisdiction of  
            the city or county upon notification from the Directory of  
            Finance to the Speaker of the Assembly and the President Pro  
            Tem of the Senate of the completion of the state  
            reorganization of transportation duties from the Public  
            Utilities Commission (CPUC) to other agencies, if taxicab  
            transportation services are included in that reorganization.


          2)Provide that taxicab transportation services and taxicab  
            drivers shall be subject to rules and regulations adopted by a  
            city or a county as those rules and regulations existed on  
            July 1, 2016, except for in the city and county of San  
            Francisco, with the following exceptions:


             a)   Prohibit service charges, fees, or assessments levied on  
               a taxicab company from exceeding the amount annually  
               required per taxi vehicle as of July 1, 2016, and prohibits  
               new or additional service charges, fees, or assessments  
               from being created.


             b)   Prohibit fees for the issuance of taxi driver permits  
               from exceeding $75 annually.


             c)   Prohibit a city or county from limiting or prohibiting  








                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  3


               prearranged trips, originated through dispatch, an Internet  
               Web site, or online application, by licensed taxicabs.


             d)   Authorize a city or county to limit the number of  
               taxicab companies or vehicles that use taxi stand areas,  
               pick up passengers at airports, or pick up street hails.


             e)   Authorize a city or county to set a maximum fare  
               structure for taxicab transportation services, with maximum  
               fares not lower than the fares existing on July 1, 2016,  
               and the ability for a taxicab transportation service to  
               offer fares lower than the maximum fare structure.


             f)   Prohibit a city or county from regulating the type of  
               device used by a taxicab company to calculate fares,  
               including the use of global positioning system metering,  
               require taxicab companies to disclose fares, fees, or rates  
               to the customer before the customer accepts the ride, and  
               authorize a taxicab company to disclose fares, fees, or  
               rates on its Internet Web site or cellular telephone  
               application.


             g)   Require local rules and regulations adopted prior to  
               July 1, 2016, ensuring adequate service levels to all areas  
               of a city or county's jurisdiction and promoting the use of  
               taxicab transportation services by individuals covered  
               under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to remain  
               in effect.


          3)State the intent of the Legislature as the following:  that  
            the regulation of taxicab transportation services be  
            modernized in order for taxicabs to better compete with all  
            for-hire modes of transportation; that taxicab regulation be  
            moved from local authorities to one state agency coinciding  
            with the Governor's reorganization of transportation; that  
            duties and responsibilities for the regulation of taxicab  
            transportation services be established by state departments  








                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  4


            that handle all other modes of for-hire transportation; that  
            the Governor propose the specific budget and statutory changes  
            needed to establish duties and responsibilities to the agency  
            that handles all other modes of for-hire transportation; that  
            conforming changes be made in existing law; and that a city or  
            county not impose any rule or regulation governing taxicab  
            transportation service that are inconsistent with or in  
            addition to the requirements established by state departments  
            within the agency that handles all other modes of for-hire  
            transportation.


          4)Make findings and declarations relating to the relative levels  
            of regulation between taxicab transportation services and  
            other modes of for-hire transportation.


          EXISTING LAW:  


          1)Requires every city or county to protect the public health,  
            safety, and welfare by adopting an ordinance or resolution in  
            regard to taxicab transportation services rendered in vehicles  
            designed for carrying not more than eight persons, excluding  
            the driver, which is operated within the jurisdiction of the  
            city or county.


          2)States that each city or county is required to provide for,  
            but is not limited to providing for, all of the following:


             a)   A policy for entry into the business of providing  
               taxicab transportation service, as specified;


             b)   The establishment or registration of rates for the  
               provision of taxicab transportation service; and,


             c)    A mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing  
               certification program.








                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  5




          3)Authorizes each city or county to levy service charges, fees,  
            or assessments in an amount sufficient to pay for the costs of  
            carrying out an ordinance or resolution adopted in regard to  
            taxicab transportation services.


          4)Authorizes each city or county to adopt additional  
            requirements for a taxicab to operate in its jurisdiction.


          5)Generally vests the CPUC with regulatory authority over  
            specified modes of for-hire transportation, including  
            passenger stage corporations, transportation network companies  
            (TNCs) and other charter-party carriers.


          AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill added the "Blue Grass  
          Stakes" to the group of stake races in Horse Racing Law which  
          are exempt from the 50-race per day limit on imported races.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS:  Existing law requires local governments to regulate  
          taxicab transportation services.  Under this requirement, cities  
          and counties can tailor their local rules and regulations to the  
          specific needs and conditions of their particular jurisdictions.  
           By contrast, other forms of for-hire transportation that  
          provide generally similar services, such as TNCs, are regulated  
          at the state level by the CPUC.  This results in uniform  
          standards statewide for those carriers and irregular standards  
          for taxicabs that vary from local jurisdiction to local  
          jurisdiction.


          In response to what the author characterizes as a "severe  
          competitive disadvantage" inflicted upon taxicabs by "patchwork"  
          local regulation, this bill would sunset the authority of cities  
          and counties to regulate taxicab transportation services and  








                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  6


          freeze those regulations as they exist on taxicabs today.  Under  
          this bill, fees for the issuance of taxi driver permits would be  
          capped, and local authorities would be prohibited from  
          regulating the pickup and drop off of prearranged taxicab trips,  
          consistent with the treatment of other forms of for-hire  
          transportation regulated at the state level.  Cities and  
          counties would still be allowed to enforce existing local  
          requirements on ensuring adequate service levels to all areas in  
          their jurisdictions and to individuals covered under the  
          Americans with Disabilities Act.


          This prohibition on local regulation would not apply to the city  
          and county of San Francisco, due to the infringement on the  
          property rights associated with their unique taxi medallion  
          system.


          In June of 2016, the Governor announced his intention to  
          transfer functions relating to the regulation of for-hire  
          transportation from the CPUC to the California State  
          Transportation Agency (CalSTA) and its constituent departments,  
          including the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and the  
          California Highway Patrol (CHP), through the Governor's  
          Reorganization Plan process (GRP).  This bill would state the  
          intent of the Legislature that the regulation of taxicab  
          transportation services be included in the GRP and that taxicabs  
          be regulated by the same state agency that regulates all other  
          forms of for-hire transportation.  Details relating to the GRP  
          have yet to be announced, although the process is expected to  
          begin in early 2017.


          Due to the uncertainty relating to the timeline of the GRP  
          process, it is unclear when CalSTA will be vested with the  
          authority and requirement to regulate for-hire transportation  
          services.  If the Governor chooses to include the transfer of  
          taxicab regulation to the state level in the GRP and its  
          subsequent policy changes, as stated in the declaration of the  
          Legislature's intent of this bill, CalSTA and its departments  
          would then have to evaluate the myriad existing local  
          regulations and requirements and adapt them into a statewide  








                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  7


          regulatory scheme, while also adopting the necessary regulations  
          needed to transfer CPUC's regulatory framework to CHP and DMV,  
          as initially proposed by the Governor.  This process could be a  
          lengthy one.  Between awaiting the completion of the GRP process  
          and the implementation of all subsequent, conforming legislative  
          and regulatory changes, the time for which taxicabs would be  
          subject only to the local regulations that existed as of July 1,  
          2016, and the exceptions set forth in this bill - with no  
          possibility of further local regulation - could be months or  
          even years.


          While the period in which taxicab regulations would be frozen  
          may be long, it may be worth it to level the playing field  
          between taxis and other modes of for-hire transportation.


          The League of California Cities has expressed strong opposition  
          to limiting taxicab transportation service regulation by local  
          authorities, as such an action restricts the ability of cities  
          and counties to address local transportation needs and cover the  
          cost of enforcement.  Additionally, while the Taxicab  
          Paratransit Association of California supports this bill, some  
          elements of the taxicab industry believe easing the geographic  
          requirements on the origin of trips will give certain taxicab  
          companies unfair advantages over others.


          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Justin Behrens / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093  FN:  
          0005044



















                                                                     AB 650


                                                                    Page  8