HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-05 Ordinance6a
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
(REZ16-00001)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 716 NORTH DUBUQUE STREET FROM HIGH
DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY (RM -44) ZONE TO HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY/ HIGH DENSITY
MULTI -FAMILY (OHD/RM44) ZONE.
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ross Nusser, has requested historic landmark designation for the property at
716 N. Dubuque Street; and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of historic fraternity and sorority
houses; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed Historic Landmark
designation and has recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the proposed Historic Landmark
designation and has recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I HISTORIC LANDMARK APPROVAL. Property described below is hereby Rezoned from
High Density Multi -Family (RM -44) zone to Historic District Overlay/ High Density Multi -Family
(OHD/RM44) zone:
A PORTION OF LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 73, ORIGINAL TOWN OF IOWA CITY, TO THE
CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RECORDED PLAT
THEREOF. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
The North 65 feet of Lot 5 and the West 20 feet of the North 65 feet of Lot 6, Block 73,
Original Town of Iowa City. Containing approximately 6,500 square feet.
SECTION II. ZONING MAP. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized and directed to change the
zoning map of the City of Iowa City, Iowa, to conform to this amendment upon the final passage, approval
and publication of this ordinance by law.
SECTION III. CERTIFICATION AND RECORDING. Upon passage and approval of the Ordinance, the
City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify a copy of this ordinance and to record the same, at the
office of the County Recorder of Johnson County, Iowa, at the owner's expense, all as provided by law.
SECTION IV. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION V. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional. 2
SECTION VI. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
Ap oved by
City Attorney's Office �/ ��
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 04/05/2016
Vote for passage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole. NAYS: Mone. _ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration
Vote for passage:
Date published
that the
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (VAC15-00008) 6b
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE VACATING AN APPROXIMATELY 15 -FOOT -WIDE PORTION OF
HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY LOCATED ADJACENT TO CHURCHILL MEADOWS —
PART ONE (VAC15-00008).
WHEREAS, the applicant, CBD, LLC, has requested the City vacate and convey to the applicant a
portion of Herbert Hoover Highway right-of-way adjacent to Churchill Meadows — Part One; and
WHEREAS, the right-of-way of Herbert Hoover Highway in this area ranges from 135 feet to 160 feet
wide, much wider than a typical arterial street right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, vacating the requested portion will leave adequate right-of-way for public purpose; and
WHEREAS, the applicant intends to combine the 15 feet of excess right-of-way with the adjacent
residential lots; and
WHEREAS, adjacent private properties will not be affected by this vacation as sufficient right -of
way will remain; and
WHEREAS, this portion of right-of-way along Herbert Hoover Highway is not utilized for access or
circulation; and
WHEREAS, because utility lines have not been installed within this portion of right-of-way, no
circulation or provision of utilities will be affected; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed vacation and has
recommended approval of the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA:
SECTION I VACATION. The City of Iowa City hereby vacates that portion of public right-of-way
described as follows:
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION PARCEL NO 1
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN; THENCE S0003114311E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 67.21 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
S00031'43"E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY SE; THENCE S89052'36"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY, 127.00 FEET; THENCE N00°31'4311W, 15.00 FEET; THENCE N89°52'36"E, ALONG A LINE
PARALLEL WITH AND 15.00 FEET NORMALLY DISTANT NORTHERLY FROM SAID SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, 127.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PARCEL NO 2•
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 79 NORTH, RANGE 5 WEST, OF THE FIFTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN; THENCE S00031'43"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 67.21 FEET; THENCE S89°52136"W, 187.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE S00031'43"E, 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY SE; THENCE S8905213611W, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE, 681.99 FEET; THENCE N81035'33"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH -RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 101.13
FEET; THENCE N89°52'36"E. ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 15.00 FEET NORMALLY
DISTANT NORTHERLY FROM SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 781.88 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Ordinance No.
Page 2
SECTION II. REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
Ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be
invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any
section, provision or part thereof not adjudged invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
MAYOR:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
20 .
Approved by:
-Ci Attorney's
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by _
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration
Vote for passage: AYES:
Thomas, Throgmorton,
03/23/2016
that the
Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor,
Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 04/05/2016
Vote for passage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Botchway, Cole, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published
04-05-16
9
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 5, ENTITLED "BUSINESS AND LICENSE REGULATIONS,"
BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 3, ENTITLED "TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES".
WHEREAS, the Transportation Network Company (TNC) model is becoming more prevalent across
the country, and;
WHEREAS, the TNC model provides additional means of transportation for residents and visitors
throughout the City and University of Iowa campus, and;
WHEREAS, the Iowa City Downtown District and University of Iowa student organizations have
expressed strong support for allowing TNC operations in Iowa City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY,
IOWA:
The Code of Ordinances of the City of Iowa City, Iowa is hereby amended as follows:
Insert new Chapter 3.
Chapter 3 - TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter:
"Digital network" shall mean any online -enabled application, website, or system offered or used
by a transportation network company that enables a prearranged ride with a transportation
network company driver.
"Dynamic Pricing" shall mean the ability of the TNC to adjust pricing during a temporary event
where market demand has increased and the TNC desires to attract more TNC Drivers to make
themselves available to accept passengers. Dynamic Pricing shall be in effect only until the
market demand returns to normal.
"Transportation Network Company" or "TNC' shall mean an entity licensed pursuant to this
Chapter that uses a digital network to connect passengers to Transportation Network Company
Services provided by Transportation Network Company Drivers. A TNC is not deemed to own,
control, operate or manage the vehicles used by TNC Drivers, and is not a taxicab or vehicle for
hire.
"Transportation Network Company (TNC) Driver" shall mean an individual who operates a motor
vehicle that is:
(a) Owned, leased or otherwise authorized for use by the individual;
(b) Not a taxicab; and
(c) Used to provide Transportation Network Company Services.
"Transportation Network Company (TNC) License" shall mean the permission granted by the
city to operate a TNC inside the city for a period of one year commencing June 1 of each year,
renewable under the provisions of this chapter.
"Transportation Network Company (TNC) Services" shall mean transportation of a passenger
between points chosen by the passenger and prearranged with a TNC Driver through the use of
a TNC digital network. TNC Services shall begin when a TNC Driver accepts a request for
transportation received through the TNC's digital network , continue while the TNC Driver
transports the passenger in the TNC Driver's vehicle, and end when the passenger exits the
TNC Driver's vehicle. TNC Service is not a taxicab or vehicle for hire.
SECTION 2. NOT OTHER CARRIERS. TNCs or TNC Drivers are not common carriers,
contract carriers or motor carriers, nor do they provide taxicab or for -hire vehicle service.
SECTION 3. TNC LICENSE REQUIRED.
(a) A person shall not operate a TNC in Iowa City without first having obtained a license from
the City Clerk.
(b) An application for a license required under this section shall be filed with the City Clerk on
forms provided by the city and must be filed by May 1. The application shall contain the
following information:
(1) The name and business address of the applicant;
(2) Proof of authorization from the Iowa Secretary of State to conduct business in the state
of Iowa; and
(3) Proof that the TNC's third party background check provider possesses current
accreditation by the National Association of Professional Background Screeners
(NAPBS).
(c) The City Clerk shall issue a license to each applicant that meets the requirements for a TNC
set forth in this Chapter and pays an annual license fee to the City.
(d) Upon a complaint alleging a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter by a TNC driver
or a TNC filed by. any person with the City Clerk, the City Clerk, or designee, may revoke or
suspend the operating license of such holder or require the TNC to remove said TNC driver
from the system as described in this chapter with good cause shown.
(1) Good cause for the suspension or revocation of an operating license may include the following:
(a) Failure of the operating license holder to maintain any and all of the general
qualifications applicable to the initial issuance of the permit as set forth in this
chapter
(b) Obtaining an operating license by providing false information
(c) Violating any ordinance of the city which adversely affects the ability of the holder
to offer transportation network services
(d) Violating any part of this Chapter or any state or federal law.
(2) The holder shall have the right to appeal the suspension or revocation to the City Manager, or
designee within ten business days of the notice of suspension or revocation. Such appeal shall
be submitted by a letter addressed to City Manager that an appeal from the decision of the City
Clerk, or designee is desired. Upon receiving such notice of appeal, the City Manager or
designee, as soon as practical thereafter, shall conduct a hearing at which the appealing party
will be given an opportunity to present evidence and make argument in the person's behalf.
SECTION 4. FARE CHARGED FOR SERVICES.
(a) A TNC may charge a fare for the services provided to passengers; provided that, if a fare is
charged, the TNC shall disclose to passengers the fare calculation method on its website or
within the digital network The TNC shall also provide passengers with the applicable rates
being charged and the option to receive an estimated fare before the passenger enters the TNC
Driver's vehicle.
(b) If a TNC utilizes dynamic pricing through its digital network , the TNC must:
(1) Provide clear and visible indication that dynamic pricing is in effect prior to requesting a
ride;
(2) Include a feature that requires riders to confirm that they understand that dynamic
pricing will be applied before a rider can request a ride; and
(3) Provide a feature that allows a rider to request a fare estimate that includes the dynamic
pricing.
SECTION 5. IDENTIFICATION OF TNC VEHICLES AND DRIVERS. The TNC's digital
network shall display a picture of the TNC Driver, and the license plate number of the motor
vehicle utilized for providing the TNC Service before the passenger enters the TNC Driver's
vehicle.
SECTION 6. ELECTRONIC RECEIPT. Within a reasonable period of time following the
completion of a trip, a TNC shall transmit an electronic receipt to the passenger that lists:
(a) The origin and destination of the trip;
(b) The total time and distance of the trip; and
(c) An itemization of the total fare paid, if any.
SECTION 7. INSURANCE.
(a) TNCs and TNC Drivers shall comply with the automobile liability insurance requirements of
this Section 8.
(b) The following automobile liability insurance requirements shall apply during the time that a
TNC Driver is logged into the TNC's digital network and available to receive requests for
transportation but is not providing TNC Services:
(1) Automobile liability insurance that meets at least the minimum coverage requirements
per the Motor Vehicle Financial and Safety Responsibility Act, Chapter 321A of the
Code of Iowa.
(2) Automobile liability insurance in the amounts required in paragraph (1) of subsection
(b) shall be maintained by a TNC and provide coverage in the event a participating TNC
Driver's own automobile liability policy excludes coverage according to its policy terms
or does not provide coverage of at least the limits required in paragraph (1) of
subsection (b).
(c) The following automobile liability insurance requirements shall apply while a TNC Driver is
providing TNC Services:
(1) Provides primary automobile liability insurance that recognizes the TNC Driver's
provision of TNC Services;
(2) Provides automobile liability insurance of at least $1,000,000 for death, personal injury
and property damage;
(3) The coverage requirements of this subsection (c) may be satisfied by any of the
following:
(A) Automobile liability insurance maintained by the TNC Driver; or
(B) Automobile liability insurance maintained by the TNC; or
(C) Any combination of subparagraphs (A) and (B).
(d) In every instance where insurance maintained by a TNC Driver to fulfill the insurance
requirements of this Section 8 has lapsed, failed to provide the required coverage, denied a
claim for the required coverage or otherwise ceased to exist, insurance maintained by a TNC
shall provide the coverage required by this section beginning with the first dollar of a claim.
(e) Insurance required by this Section 8 may be placed with an insurer authorized to do
business in the state of Iowa or with a surplus lines insurer eligible under section 5151.3 of the
Code of Iowa.
(f) The TNC shall disclose in writing to TNC Drivers the following before they are allowed to
accept a request for TNC Services on the TNC's digital network: the insurance coverage and
limits of liability that the TNC provides while the TNC Driver uses a personal vehicle in
connection with a TNC's digital network.
SECTION B. ZERO TOLERANCE FOR, DRUG OR ALCOHOL USE.
(a) The TNC shall implement a zero tolerance policy on the use of drugs or alcohol while a TNC
Driver is providing TNC Services or is logged into the TNC's digital network but is not providing
TNC Services, and shall provide notice of this policy on its website, as well as procedures to
report a complaint about a driver with whom a passenger was matched and whom the
passenger reasonably suspects was under the influence of drugs or alcohol during the course of
the trip.
(b) Upon receipt of such passenger complaint alleging a violation of the zero tolerance policy,
the TNC shall immediately suspend such TNC Driver's access to the TNC's digital network and
shall conduct an investigation into the reported incident. The suspension shall last the duration
of the investigation.
(c) The TNC shall maintain records relevant to the enforcement of this requirement for a period
of at least two (2) years from the date that a passenger complaint is received by the TNC.
SECTION 9. TNC DRIVER REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Prior to permitting an individual to act as a TNC Driver on its digital network the TNC shall:
(1) Require the individual to submit an application to the TNC, which includes
information regarding his or her address, age, driver's license, driving history, motor
vehicle registration, automobile liability insurance, and other information required by the
TNC;
(2) Conduct, or have a third party conduct, a local and national criminal background
check for each applicant that shall include:
(A) Multi-State/Multi-Jurisdiction Criminal Records Locator or other similar
commercial nationwide database with validation (primary source search); and
(B) National Sex Offender Registry database;
(3) Obtain and review a driving history research report for such individual.
(b) The TNC shall not permit an individual to act as a TNC Driver on its digital network who:
(1) Has been found guilty of or entered a plea of guilty to more than three moving
violations in the prior three-year period, or one major violation in the prior three-year
period (including, but not limited to, attempting to evade the police, reckless driving, or
driving on a suspended or revoked license);
(2) Has been convicted, within the past seven years, of driving under the influence of
drugs or alcohol, or who has been convicted at any time of fraud, sexual offenses, use of
a motor vehicle to commit a felony, a crime involving property damage, and/or theft, acts
of violence, or acts of terror;
(3) Is a match in the National Sex Offender Registry database;
(4) Does not possess a valid driver's license;
(5) Does not possess proof of registration for the motor vehicle(s) used to provide TNC
Services;
(6) Does not possess proof of automobile liability insurance for the motor vehicle(s)
used to provide TNC Services; or
(7) Is not at least 18 years of age.
(c) In the event that a TNC becomes aware of a driver being involved in criminal conduct or
driving violations or otherwise becomes ineligible to serve as a driver by virtue of no longer
meeting the criteria listed above, the TNC shall immediately terminate the driver's ability to
access the platform's application.
SECTION 10. VEHICLE SAFETY AND EMISSIONS. The TNC shall require that any motor
vehicle(s) that a TNC Driver will use to provide TNC Services meets the requirements in all
applicable state and federal laws for vehicle safety and inspections. The TNC shall require that
all vehicles are ten (10) model years old or newer (by way of example, during the calendar year
2016, the model must be the year 2006 or newer).
SECTION 11. NO STREET HAILS. A TNC Driver shall exclusively accept rides booked
through a TNC's digital network and shall not solicit or accept street hails.
SECTION 12. NO CASH TRIPS. The TNC shall adopt a policy prohibiting solicitation or
acceptance of cash payments from passengers and notify TNC Drivers of such policy. TNC
Drivers shall not solicit or accept cash payments from passengers. Any payment for TNC
Services shall be made only electronically using the TNC's digital network
SECTION 13. NO DISCRIMINATION; ACCESSIBILITY.
(a) The TNC shall adopt a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of destination, race, religion,
color, creed, gender identity, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability,
marital status or age with respect to passengers and potential passengers and notify TNC
Drivers of such policy.
(b) TNC Drivers shall comply with all applicable laws regarding non-discrimination against
passengers or potential passengers on the basis of destination, race, religion, color, creed,
gender identity, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, marital status
or age
(c) TNC Drivers shall comply with all applicable laws relating to accommodation of service
animals.
(d) A TNC shall not impose additional charges for providing services to persons with physical
disabilities because of those disabilities.
SECTION 14. RECORDS.
(a) A TNC shall maintain:
(1) individual trip records for at least one (1) year from the date each trip was provided;
and
(2) TNC Driver records at least until the one year anniversary of the date on which a
TNC Driver's activation on the TNC digital network has ended.
(b) On an annual basis, the TNC shall permit the City to audit and examine a reasonable
sample of books and records relating to TNC's performance of its obligations under this Chapter
at a mutually agreed upon third party location. The City shall provide notice of the books and
records requested for inspection in writing at least 14 days prior to the scheduled examination.
(c) Upon receipt of a duly issued subpoena, court order or warrant relating to the investigation of
a criminal matter, the TNC shall furnish the requested records to the Chief of Police within 7
days or within a longer period of time if agreed to by the parties, unless otherwise specified in a
court order or subpoena. For any non -criminal investigations conducted by the Chief of Police
in his administrative capacity, a TNC will conduct an internal investigation and shall within 7
business days, or within a longer period of time if agreed to by the parties, furnish records in
response to a written request related to the underlying complaint, in accordance with its publicly
posted privacy policies.
SECTION 15. FEES
The fee for the license shall be set by council resolution.
SECTION 16. VIOLATIONS
Any violation of this chapter shall be considered a simple misdemeanor or municipal infraction.
The fine for the simple misdemeanor shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00) and the civil
penalty for the municipal infraction shall be as provided is subsection 14-21B of this code.
Approved By
3--d 5 - (C.
City Attorney's Offino
Ordinance No.
Page
It was moved by and seconded by that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration -03/23/2016
Vote for passage: AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole,
Dickens, Mims, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 04/05/2016
Vote for passage: AYES: Botchway, Dickens, Mims, Thomas,
Throgmorton. NAYS: Cole, Taylor. ABSENT: None.
Date published
Marian Karr
From: Marian Karr
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 2:44 PM
To: 'Lynn Williams; Council
Subject: RE: Second Opposition to Uber From Moustache Cab
Thank you for your emails of March 24 and 25.
At the March 23 Council meeting the City Council expressed support of 4 potential changes to traditional taxi regulations
as follows:
1. No longer require 24/7 service
2. Background checks of drivers currently performed by the City could be amended to match the third party
background check provision in the proposed TNC ordinance.
3. The 24/7 business office currently required to ensure accessibility of records during an investigation could be
changed to 24/7 phone accessibility. In the TNC model, records are already in the hands of passengers.
4. No longer require City inspections for vehicles newer than 10 years. Vehicles available for street hails would still
be inspected for color schemes, lettering, dome light, and taximeters.
Although no formal action was taken on the potential changes to traditional taxi regulations, Council has requested we
share this information with taxi companies and ask for further input. Your suggestions will be forwarded to the Council.
A meeting of staff and companies is scheduled for 413M on Thursday, March 31, here in Harvat Hall, 410 East Washington
Street. If you are unable to attend and would like to provide additional feedback please send your comments and
suggestions to me by April 5. Action on changes to traditional taxi regulations is tentatively scheduled for April 19.
Again, thank you for your suggestions, and I hope you can join us on the 31St
Marian
City Clerk I City of Iowa City
P. 319-356-5041
F. 319-356-5497
Population 67,862
Proud Home of the Iowa Hawkeyes!
From: Lynn Williams [mailto:plainsman0l@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Council
Subject: Second Opposition to Uber From Moustache Cab
Why a taxi cab costs so much and why the playing field isn't "level" against Uber.
First, all taxi cabs in Iowa City and Coralville are required to carry a one million dollar insurance policy that
generally runs $300 per month per vehicle. A fleet of 4 would cost $1,200 per month, $16,000 per year
minimum, there is a large down payment. Uber drivers can have a cheap liability insurance that costs less than
$50 per month.
Application fees for taxi cabs from each city are expensive. The driver application fee for both Iowa City and
Coralville. Coralville is $20 and Iowa City is $30, I believe. Four drivers, $120 per year.
Application for stickers for each city for the special decal to do business is $60 in Coralville and $85 in Iowa
City each year. That's $145 per vehicle, with four cabs, that's $580.
More fees just to get up and going, nothing yet for an Uber cab, and it's not over.
Background checks run through the Iowa City police department runs $15 per applicant, with four guys, that's
$60.
A driving record is also required from the DMV, that's $5.50 per driver, $22 for four people.
And it gets better. A taxi cab is required to have a meter and dome top light. That's about $500 installed per
vehicle, and with a fleet of 4, that's $2,000. And each year the meter must be calibrated, and that's roughly $50
each year. With four cabs, that's $200.
Taxi cabs are required to have vehicle inspections each year; that's another $50 or more per vehicle. A fleet of
four cabs, $200.
Business radios are also a necessity, they run about $250 each, so there's another grand. The monthly fee to run
four is about $40, that's $480 per year.
Advertising is another part of the budget. That can be well over $2,000 per year to get your name and service
listed.
Graphics and painting a vehicle so that they all look the same is expensive. To paint a cab and have graphics
printed up is $1,000 per cab, with four cabs, that's $4,000.
A lot of cab services have a dispatch office, and that can vary in price. Of course Uber just uses an app on a
smart phone and someone who doesn't have an identifying decal, placard for rates, or who didn't have to have a
police background check or driving record could show up.
All of these measures are in place to ensure a safe ride with a person who has gone through a vigorous
background check and has passed vehicle inspections to ensure accurate rates. This all adds up each year, and
with 4 drivers and 4 vehicles (the minimum for a taxi cab) the fees do add up quickly. So just to start a cab
service with 4 vehicles would be about $25,000, not including the purchase of vehicles.
Most people have smart phones or tablets in their cab that can allow them to take credit cards as payments. A
credit card processing company usually charges 3% for each transaction, but it's a price to pay for convenience.
Some dishonest drivers don't want to deal with credit cards since it would be linked to their accounts and
thereby they'd have to report that money as income. Any reputable cab service should be able to process a credit
card on the spot.
Uber drivers should be held to the exact same standards as any taxi cab service. They are picking fares up and
transporting them to a destination, same as a taxi cab service. If they don't want to abide by the same rules and
regulations as taxi cabs, then the rules should be changed for taxi cab companies so that we as a taxi company
can compete in an already overcrowded industry in Iowa City.
Mark VonStein 319-930-5566
Lynn Williams 319-400-7583
Marian Karr
From:
Lynn Williams <plainsman01@gmail.com>
Sent:
Thursday, March 24, 2016 8:40 PM
To:
Council
Subject:
Concerned cab driver against Uber
My name is Lynn Williams
I am the business partner and driver of the new cab service Moustache Cab which is currently operating out of
North Liberty and Coralville.
Both Mark Vonstein and Myself have also served with Redline Cab where I served as Chief Dispatcher, Driver
and Co Owner of Record.
My concerns against Uber doing business in the metro area are as follows:
1) We are required by city regulations to pay for our background checks through the police department and
Uber is not
2) We are required to hold a 1 Million dollar Insurance Policy that costs each driver approximately over
$300.00 a month where Uber drivers are only held to a liability policy only.
3) We have no clue as to how much they plan to charge students and residents where we have to have a
regulated meter in all vehicles.
4) We also have to have 2 way radios in each vehicle at a cost of $50.00 a month
5) Uber drivers will cause 10 times more traffic congestion through the city then there already is.
6) Uber has too many legal actions against them and have proven they do not do extensive background checks
which are to be done through the police department as we are required to do.
7) We are required by law to submit our driving records to the city in order to gain a cab permit to drive where
Uber does not.
Overall, cab companies WILL lose business because of Uber drivers just like certain companies are gouging
customers who can barely understand english.
Mark and I are very against the notion of Uber coming to the city and we will vote against this as will all cab
companies in town.
Thank you for your time
Lynn Williams
Moustache Cab Company
319-400-7583
Marian Karr
From: Perry Rassmusen <rasbo21 @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 8:43 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Taxis and Uber Taxis
Dear Marian Karr:
I'd like this letter to go to the City Council and to Chief Hargadine, if you would be so kind as to forward it to
them. Thank you.
Greetings folks:
My name is Perry Rasmussen. I've driven a taxi in Iowa City for 20 years. I've seen companies, drivers and
various legislation come and go. The current Uber debacle is just one in a long series of matters to gain the
attention of the Council. The input of owners and drivers is often solicited as changes to local code are
considered. I'm not sure why this is, because their input is almost never heeded. About a year and a half ago,
however, when owners and drivers were begging once more for common sense regulation of the taxi business,
our voices were heard. (That is to say, a lowlife driver attempted to rape someone, and this made the regulation
we had always wanted a necessity.)
So after 12-15 years of struggling, wishing, working, urging and hoping, the City of Iowa City finally got taxis
right. We've had common sense regulation of taxis for the first time really ever. It has lasted about a
year and a half. And now it's all about to be thrown away because of money.
If letting Uber Taxis into Iowa City is about money - and it is - then you're doing the right thing. If it's about
safety, well--.
Recently Uber covered up the fact it had 170 sexual assault claims against its drivers, saying there were only
five such complaints. After the story was leaked, Uber lied about the facts. After further leaks showed they
were lying, Uber was forced to backtrack again.
If Iowa City legalizes Uber taxis, no one will be able to tell whether they're being lied to or not. You'll
just have to trust them. And you see how well that works. Iowa City Uber taxis will be less safe. It will be
the customer's choice, I guess, but perhaps not a fully -informed choice given Uber's willful lack of transparency
and record of deception.
At the risk of angering legitimate taxi owners and drivers, I'd like to suggest keeping the regulation of existing
taxis the same. Because it works. If you have a problem with an existing taxi in Iowa City you can consult the
City's website and identify a driver. We're all background checked, insured, permitted, properly licensed and
photo ID'd on-line.
Uber's information is proprietary, their background checks and inspections are private, their insurance is
questionable, and their permits are inside their cell phones, so you'll just have to trust them. (See above.)
If you have a problem with an Uber Taxi, you'll need to send them an email, and hope it gets answered in a
timely manner. The police might get a quicker response, but Uber's self-interest means they will err on the side
of silence if at all possible. Have a liability issue? Email creates a very effective firewall against actually
processing your claim. And without an office in town, there's no place you can go physically for redress.
There are places like Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco and Los Angeles where taxi service is notoriously poor
and Uber fills a niche. I don't begrudge anyone using Uber in these places, as long as they're aware of the risks
involved.
So go ahead and let unregulated Uber taxis in - it'll please the Chicago crowd who want stuff cheap regardless
of the consequences for workers. And it will help the local poor get cheap rides - provided they have credit
cards, of course. And speaking of the local poor, guess who your Uber taxi drivers are likely to be? A majority
of them will be former legit taxi drivers pushed out of their old jobs.
Finally, if you must use Uber, please tip your driver cash over and above the phony built-in Uber tip, because he
isn't making enough.
Oh, and while you're at it, cut taxes on rich people. That always helps.
Sincerely-ish,
Perry A. Rasmussen
IJ
Marian Karr
From: Roger Bradley <yellowcabic@gmail.com> Late DISt[jbllted
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:47 AM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: for late Council packet
Attachments: submission.IC.Council.for.late.packet.Aprii4.2016.pdf
(Date)
Marian:
I wish to submit the attached documents to the Iowa City City Council for the late packet for the meeting of
April 5, 2016.
Thank you.
Roger
Roger E. Bradley
Manager
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
(319)541-0533
FAX 319-338-2708
vellowcabicA email. com
www.yellowcabic.com
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
P.O. Box 428
Iowa City, IA 52244
wqclqyi (319) 338-9777
www.yellowcabic.com
TO: City Council, City of Iowa City
From: David L. Stoddard, Managing/Member Yellow Cab of Iowa City
Roger Bradley, Manager Yellow Cab of Iowa City
RE: TNC Ordinance
Once again I would like to remind the council that Uber is authorized to operate in the
City of Iowa City. They have done a great job of twisting the facts and convincing the public
that it's the City that is holding them back. The only two requirements put upon Uber was
to have our police chief review a DCI criminal back ground check on the driver and have
their car inspected by the Cities maintenance department. Both of which is required of all
other taxi companies in the City.
During the council meeting on March 23rd we heard over and over again how the city
wanted to make sure of safety. We also heard how we wanted to be a progressive city and
"follow" a city like Austin. It is interesting to note that Austin is struggling with some of the
same issues with Uber currently. (see attached news article) After not having much of an
ordinance for Uber, the City has actually passed INCREASING the regulation. They want
to mandate that services like Uber and Lyft implement a more rigorous, fingerprint -based
background check of their drivers. This is even beyond what our current regulation
requires. The City of Austin obviously feels that the background checks being done by Uber
are not good enough. This is from a town that already has Uber operating in it. Why are we
trying to gut our regulation when communities that have experience with Uber are trying
to increase theirs?
Then there is the issue of chauffeurs' license. The only place Uber is following the State
requirement to have drivers have a chauffeurs' license is in Des Moines where it is also
written in the Cities ordinance. I think this should be added to the Iowa City TNC
ordinance. It is already in the taxi ordinance. This is just one more reason why the city
should register their drivers. To confirm they are following the law.
Coming back to safety, currently the regulation for vehicle inspections for Taxis and TNC
is annually or when the vehicle comes into service. The new TNC ordinance is proposing
that if the vehicle is 10 years or newer an inspection does not need to be done. I don't see
where age of vehicle should have any baring to this. A vehicle that is less then ten years old
can be in just as bad of shape as an older one. Also the proposed ordinance says "meets the
requirements in all applicable state and federal laws for vehicle safety and inspections".
U Yellow Cab of Iowa City
P.O. Box 428
Iowa City, A52244
ply (319) 338-9777
www.yellowcabic.com
Who is responsible to make sure this is being followed. I'm pretty sure Uber is not going to
have a representative inspect their drivers cars so is it the driver themselves that say they
are good. Talk about a conflict of interest.
There is another problem or question I have with the proposed TNC ordinance. Section
2 states
"NOT OTHER CARRIERS. TNCs or TNC Drivers are not common carriers, contract
carriers or motor carriers, nor do they provide taxicab or for -hire vehicle service."
If they are not a vehicle for hire then what are they? A bowling alley? This was put into the
ordinance by Uber. You have to ask yourself why. What are they trying to avoid or what
loop hole are they trying to create.
In conclusion I don't see any safety benefits being achieved by gutting an already
slimmed down ordinance. Uber is already authorized to operate here. They operate in
other cities with more stringent regulations. I would hope the council would reject the
proposed ordinance or at least take more time to examine what is happening in other cities
that had minimal regulation for TNC's. There is a reason they are asking for fingerprint
background checks.
Thank you
c::: � Doce�_
David L. Stoddard
Managing Member
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
Roger Bradley
Manager
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
Uber's and Lyft's Fingerprint Background Check Battleground in
Austin I Re/code
By and large, Uber and Lyft are steamrolling government opposition across the U.S.
Last summer in New York, Uber]raembarrassed Mayor Bill de Blasio by soundly defeating his bid to
cap the number of for -hire drivers in the city. In the fall, Uber and Lyft beat back the taxi industry in Las
Vegas and began offering rides there.
The latest so-called "sharing economy" battleground for the car services is in Austin, Texas, where the two
companies are wrangling with the city's government over fingerprint background checks. On Thursday, the
City Council approved the creation of a "public-private partnership" called Thumbs up!, an opt -in program
for sharing economy users ("starting with ride -share drivers and riders") who want to pass a fingerprint
background check
The way Thumbs up! works is like this: Drivers and riders (and ultimately, people on platforms like
Airbnb) can go through a fingerprint background check to verify that there isn't anything like a sexual
assault conviction in their history. Drivers would volunteer for the checks instead of the car services, the
checks are not mandatory and the city pays for them. But drivers who do opt into the program will be
allowed to pick up fares at places like the Austin -Bergstrom International Airport and during events like
Austin CityLimits and SXSW, where ride -hailing services currently aren't allowed.
In a phone interview with Re/code on Wednesday night, Austin mayor Steve Adler stressed that Thumbs
up! shouldn't worry Uber and Lyft because it is optional for drivers and "doesn't punish people for not
having something they don't already have."
"The reason we're doing this is because a number of people in the city of Austin have said they'd be safer if
they had a driver who had undergone that level background cheek," Adler said. "Without regard to whether
it's safer or not, the city council tomorrow is going to demonstrate that people have that option."
RELATED
Both Lyft and Uber gave Thumbs up! two thumbs down, characterizing the initiative as a "duplicative"
and intrusive measure in separate statements provided to Re/code. You can read both statements at the
bottom of this post.
Thumbs up! comes on the heels of an Austin City Council ordinance, gassed by a -2 vote last month,
which mandated that services like Uber and Lyft implement more rigorous, fingerprint -based background
checks of their drivers. Uber and Lyft, which say that their business models don't allow for the time
required for such checks, threatened to leave the city should the ordinance come into effect.
The December law was set go live on Feb. r, but Adler spokesperson Jason Stanford says "the effective date
was changed from Feb. r to the end of February. The Mayor intends to deal with it and the ballot initiative
at the same meeting in February. Therefore, the December initiative will never take effect."
That initial legislation was prompted by concerns over rider safety, specifically sexual assault. According to
a document provided to Re/code, in 2015 the Austin Police Department received 27 reports of unwanted
sexual contact in taxi cabs and ride -hailing services. Two took place in an "Independent Ride Share," five
happened in taxis and the remaining 20 occurred during Uber and Lyft rides. Seven assaults were
committed by transportation network company drivers.
These numbers, up from eight reports (exclusively in cabs) in 2014, prompted the Police Department and
assault victims advocacy ojganirations to recommend the more stringent background checks for drivers.
Uber and Lyft have exited cities over background check fights in the past. In San Antonio, for example, the
two companies left last March after the city passed an ordinance that required city -reviewed background
checks. Both Uber and Lyft returned in October, after San Antonio caved and made its program opt -in. It is
also worth mentioning that Uber is reportedly experimenting with fingerprint background checks of its
own.
By and large, however, ride -hailing services are incredibly popular in Austin. Though Austin law
enforcement said fingerprint background checks would be more effective, department chief Art Acevedo
voiced concerns at the meeting about the December ordinance, suggesting the disastrous effect Ube1's and
Lyft's exit could have on Austin's notoriously bad drunk -driving problem.
"We were facing a horrible choice, which is between two safety interests of dealing with drunk -driving and
the assault issue," Adler said. He said that for Thumbs up!, "We redesigned the question, and decided what
we were shooting for was to get fingerprinting of ride -share drivers at scale."
In response to the December ordinance, Uber and Lyft gathered more than 65,000 signatures for a
petition to force the City Council to adopt "common sense" ride -hailing rules. If the Council votes down the
petition, then the proposal could go to a citywide vote this coming May, similar to what happened with
Airbnb and Prop in San Francisco.
When pressed on whether the city has any leverage over Uber and Lyft, Adler spokesman Jason Stanford
reaffirmed Mayor Adler's concern about the DWI issue.
"We have a horrible drunk driving problem, and arrests have fallen since they've gotten here," Stanford
said. "But at the same time, we have other safety concerns that are our responsibility, and the mayor has
said he's not gonna choose between the two."
Then why not acquiesce to the companies' demands?
"Because they want to write their own rules," Stanford said
Here's Lyft's statement on today's Thumbs up! vote:
"We believe the city council's action should be guided by the over 65,00o Austinites who trust their
voice of disapproval will be heard. Segregating rideshare drivers into different groups, with different
economic opportunities — all without any benefit to public safety — hurts drivers, consumers and the
City of Austin. The badge proposal on the table makes it harder for the people of Austin to find a safe,
reliable and affordable ride."
And here's a statement from an Uber spokesperson:
"Austin drivers can currently pick up any rider in any part of the city at any time. Under the'incentives
program' passed today, drivers who are not fingerprinted would lose access to the busiest areas of town
and major community events. The truth is the badge program' would penalize drivers who are unable
to complete the city's duplicative background check by revoking their access to critical earning
opportunities. It would also leave riders stranded when they most need a ride. Uber continues to
oppose it."
Contact Noah KuIwIn:@nkuIwIEMAIL
JOIN THE CONVERSATION: �N
<r%ode>
THEN THERE'S THIS
MORE NEWS AND FEATURES FROM AROUND THE WEB
MORE FROM RE/CODE
Late Handouts Distributed
Marian Karr
From: Lynn Williams <plainsman0l@gmail.com> Lt l 11 I b
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 12:39 PM
To: Marian Karr (Date)
Subject: Re: Second Opposition to Uber From Moustache Cab
Hi Marian
I just now received this email so I am sorry we missed the meeting, Moustache Cab will be the new service
that is actually taking the place of RedLine Cab Service and hopefully will soon be servicing Iowa City along
with currently serving Coralville and North Liberty.
We are most definitely opposed to Uber starting service in this area as it will take away business from us even
though I do agree with the proposed changes to policy as the expense of having a fully staffed 24/7 office will
essentially bankrupt us at this present time till we can make our former customers aware that our services are
still available just under a different name.
We will be at the next meeting in April.
Thank you
Lynn Williams
Moustache Cab
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Marian Karr <Marian-KarrCa�iowa-city org> wrote:
Thank you for your emails of March 24 and 25.
At the March 23 Council meeting the City Council expressed support of 4 potential changes to traditional taxi
regulations as follows:
1. No longer require 24/7 service
2. Background checks of drivers currently performed by the City could be amended to match the third
party background check provision in the proposed TNC ordinance.
3. The 24/7 business office currently required to ensure accessibility of records during an investigation
could be changed to 24/7 phone accessibility. In the TNC model, records are already in the hands of
passengers.
4. No longer require City inspections for vehicles newer than 10 years. Vehicles available for street hails
would still be inspected for color schemes, lettering, dome light, and taximeters.
Although no formal action was taken on the potential changes to traditional taxi regulations, Council has
requested we share this information with taxi companies and ask for further input. Your suggestions will be
forwarded to the Council.
A meeting of staff and companies is scheduled for 4PM on Thursday, March 31, here in Harvat Hall, 410 East
Washington Street. If you are unable to attend and would like to provide additional feedback please send your
comments and suggestions to me by April 5. Action on changes to traditional taxi regulations is tentatively
scheduled for April 19.
Again, thank you for your suggestions, and I hope you can join us on the 31St
Marian
Marian K. Karr, MMC
City Clerk I City of Iowa City
P. 319-356-5041
F. 319-356-5497
Population 67,862
Proud Home of the Iowa Hawkeyes!
From: Lynn Williams [mailto:plainsman0I (c-gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 9:06 AM
To: Council
Subject: Second Opposition to Uber From Moustache Cab
Why a taxi cab costs so much and why the playing field isn't "level" against Uber.
First, all taxi cabs in Iowa City and Coralville are required to carry a one million dollar insurance policy that
generally runs $300 per month per vehicle. A fleet of 4 would cost $1,200 per month, $16,000 per year
minimum, there is a large down payment. Uber drivers can have a cheap liability insurance that costs less than
$50 per month.
Application fees for taxi cabs from each city are expensive. The driver application fee for both Iowa City and
Coralville. Coralville is $20 and Iowa City is $30,1 believe. Four drivers, $120 per year.
Application for stickers for each city for the special decal to do business is $60 in Coralville and $85 in Iowa
City each year. That's $145 per vehicle, with four cabs, that's $580.
More fees just to get up and going, nothing yet for an Uber cab, and it's not over.
Background checks run through the Iowa City police department runs $15 per applicant, with four guys, that's
$60.
A driving record is also required from the DMV, that's $5.50 per driver, $22 for four people.
And it gets better. A taxi cab is required to have a meter and dome top light. That's about $500 installed per
vehicle, and with a fleet of 4, that's $2,000. And each year the meter must be calibrated, and that's roughly $50
each year. With four cabs, that's $200.
Taxi cabs are required to have vehicle inspections each year; that's another $50 or more per vehicle. A fleet of
four cabs, $200.
Business radios are also a necessity, they run about $250 each, so there's another grand. The monthly fee to run
four is about $40, that's $480 per year.
Advertising is another part of the budget. That can be well over $2,000 per year to get your name and service
listed.
Graphics and painting a vehicle so that they all look the same is expensive. To paint a cab and have graphics
printed up is $1,000 per cab, with four cabs, that's $4,000.
A lot of cab services have a dispatch office, and that can vary in price. Of course Uber just uses an app on a
smart phone and someone who doesn't have an identifying decal, placard for rates, or who didn't have to have a
police background check or driving record could show up.
All of these measures are in place to ensure a safe ride with a person who has gone through a vigorous
background check and has passed vehicle inspections to ensure accurate rates. This all adds up each year, and
with 4 drivers and 4 vehicles (the minimum for a taxi cab) the fees do add up quickly. So just to start a cab
service with 4 vehicles would be about $25,000, not including the purchase of vehicles.
Most people have smart phones or tablets in their cab that can allow them to take credit cards as payments. A
credit card processing company usually charges 3% for each transaction, but it's a price to pay for convenience.
Some dishonest drivers don't want to deal with credit cards since it would be linked to their accounts and
thereby they'd have to report that money as income. Any reputable cab service should be able to process a credit
card on the spot.
Uber drivers should be held to the exact same standards as any taxi cab service. They are picking fares up and
transporting them to a destination, same as a taxi cab service. If they don't want to abide by the same rules and
regulations as taxi cabs, then the rules should be changed for taxi cab companies so that we as a taxi company
can compete in an already overcrowded industry in Iowa City.
Mark VonStein 319-930-5566
Lynn Williams 319-400-7583
Page 1 of 1 - TNCs take 3 — Joe Laskowski
Thank you for allowing me to address the council. My concern is agenda item 9: Transportation Network
Companies (LIBER) - Ordinance that seeks to amend title 5 and add a new chapter 3 regulating TNCs. While I must
acknowledge the two clear, tangible benefits ride -sharing companies offer, the risks, although somewhat abstract,
greatly outnumber the rewards and deserve consideration.
The first, and most noticeable benefit, is the elimination of search costs to the customer. The convenience
and ease with which a customer can get a ride is impressive. The second being the level of integration their massive
database allows. This enables ride -share companies the ability to predict demand and set prices accordingly.
The risks are many and are worth considering. The first risk is that of unfair competition. Right out of
the gate, UBER and its subsidiaries are setting a frightening example to their employees, by ignoring
regulations and showing that they don't have to follow the law. They are granted permission to compete in the
same markets, however, under a different set of rules. UBER's success is built on this strategy, and includes
many subsidiaries and a patchwork of local laws that enables it to exploit loopholes, bend regulations,
misclassify themselves and their employees, and operate in questionable legal territory. Through this illegal and
excessive market power they are given, UBER's aspirations to monopolize various markets are playing out,
threatening consumer welfare. UBER can afford to behave in such a caviler way, while they force all the risk
onto the employees.
It cannot be proven that these companies provide a safer service. There have been many reports of assaults,
accidents resulting in deaths and discrimination lawsuits. When pressed to release records, an UBER office in New
York City refused, citing trade secrets. By not requiring ride -share drivers to have a chauffeur's license, and working
flexible hours just by logging into an app, you are contributing to the already blurred lines between working and not
working. Traditional transportation companies require employees to check in with a dispatcher while signing out a
vehicle for a specific time. This helps to distinguish a clear time when one is working. Multiple vetting and
background checks, vehicle inspections, proper classification of these companies and their employees, along with the
deterring effect of criminal law, could provide safer outcomes.
It is also not proven that TNCs provide a cheaper service. Taking surge pricing in to account, I estimate an
over 20% increase in fares compared to local transportation companies. While TNCs may offer discounted fares
during slower periods, the savings is canceled out by the bait and switch of surge pricing. UBER is involved in
numerous lawsuits over price gouging and has been forced to pay refunds.
Another area of concern is discrimination. UBER's customer feedback system requires a driver to maintain a
minimum score or risk being deactivated. Passengers may give negative ratings to a driver based on implicit or explicit
bias. Drivers may also develop preferences for certain neighborhoods and types of passengers. Treatment of individuals
with disabilities has also become a problem. UBER disagrees that they fall under the classification of a public conveyance
and are reluctant to make accommodations. They argue that they cannot force their drivers, whom they falsely classify as
independent contractors, to provide service. The Justice Department has weighed in on this noting that a company cannot
contract away its ADA responsibilities.
UBER's use of customer data raises many privacy concerns as well. There was widespread coverage of a plan to
spy on journalists. UBER has shown a disregard for customers' privacy, including sensitive geolocation data. As a result
many people have stopped using the service and deleted the app from their phones.
Finally, what are TNC's effect on labor standards? Through an alleged independent contractor system, these
companies shift risk away from the corporations to the workers, weakening labor protections and driving down wages.
These companies often act unilaterally towards their drivers, disregarding contracts. TNCs get to enjoy all the benefits of
the independent contractor system while forcing drivers to behave like employees. Former drivers have described their
experience as, "Like being a cab driver, only worse."
We must not give license to TNCs to disregard ordinary rules. Our local economy should reflect better values. I
ask that we work towards a different solution, rather than running the risk of Iowa City becoming embroiled in their mess.
11 V
Page 1 of 1 - TNCs Take 2 — Joe Laskowski
Thank you for allowing me to address the council. My concern is agenda item 9: Transportation
Network Companies (LIBER) - Ordinance that seeks to amend title 5 and add a new chapter 3 regulating TNCs.
At the close of the last council meeting, many of you voiced support for this matter, but with concerns. One of
you said an app doesn't reinvent an industry, while another asked why we were being forced to compare apples
to oranges when it sounded like apples to apples to her. We should not ignore these questions or concerns. They
are a sign of critical thinking, healthy skepticism and concern. The issue before us is far bigger than UBER vs.
cabs. It has implications on the future of low-wage work everywhere.
Just last week, UBER was in the news again with a headline that read "LIBER Finds a Way Around
Spain's New Law." In Austin, Texas, there have been many reports of sexual assaults in ride -share vehicles.
While at the same time, UBER refused more vigorous background checks, and have threatened to leave Austin.
In New York City, they have refused to allow a review of their records, a condition for them to operate, while
citing trade secrets. They have shown time and again that they will agree to conditions only to refuse to follow
demands down the road. For LIBER, it is obvious they prefer lawsuits to regulations, fines, and settlements over
compliance with laws. Do we want this type of business in our community?
We also heard from a local university student that said she couldn't get through on the phone to any of the
local transportation providers when she needed a ride. Aside from having no way to verify this anecdotal story, I can
admit we do have an unmet demand from time to time in our market. There are also times when we have an
overabundance of available drivers on the road. All this story tells us is that demand was high at the time she called.
Under the UBER model she could be charged surge pricing (a temporary increase in the price, based on increased
demand). By allowing UBER to operate in Iowa City, we, collectively are saying that we want to give her a choice
between the inconvenience of trying to get through to one of our safe, local, regulated, and fairly priced
transportation companies or to hop in with an untrained, unregulated UBER driver and be subject to surge pricing.
Some customers may be willing, and more importantly, have the means to pay surge pricing when demand is
high. This is a major problem with the TNC model: service goes to the highest bidder. When demand is low and
UBER's pricing is low, they will be stealing customers from the local, price -controlled, 24 hour transportation
companies through a form of venture capital welfare, charging below cost because they have money from investors.
UBER's pricing is deliberately complicated and deceptive. After reviewing their pricing, a one mile trip
taking five minutes, very common downtown, should cost $3.25, but UBER has a minimum fare of $3.95 and a
cancellation fee of $5.00 that they will conveniently bill to your credit card. A potential passenger may get a low
estimate for a ride, but at the time they request the ride surge pricing may be in effect, leaving them forced with the
uncomfortable decision of accepting the inflated price or pay a cancelation fee while local companies are not allowed
to change their pricing based on demand or charge for time or cancellations. Pricing is another area that has been
recently regulated by the city for the local transportation providers. UBER is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving price gouging and have been ordered to pay refunds.
Why are you allowing a company into our city that ignores and brakes local, state, and federal laws because
they claim to be a different business? Every aspect of their business goes against what we have developed over the
years. Why do some consider questioning this comparable to anti -competition when they are playing by a
completely different set of rules? What does it say about our own efforts to regulate local businesses creating new
categories for TNCs?
We need to consider UBER's track record while we consider the broader social costs. We need to stop
repeating these lies, wishing for them to become true, while viewing this through rose colored glasses. We need to
stop worrying about keeping up with the Joneses and hold UBER and TNCs to the high standards we have all
worked so hard to develop and comply with.