HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-19 Ordinance6a
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 (VAC15-00008)-
ORDINANCE NO. 16-4661
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 S00°31'43"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 67.21 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING
S00`31'43"E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY SE; THENCE S89°52'36"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY, 127.00 FEET; THENCE N00°31'43"W, 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 S00031143"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, 67.21 FEET; THENCE S89°52'36"W, 187.00 FEET, TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE S00°31'43"E, 15.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
HERBERT HOOVER HIGHWAY SE; THENCE S89052'36"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE, 681.99 FEET; THENCE N81°35133"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH -RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 101.13
FEET; THENCE N89°52136"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. 16-4661
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 bylaw.
Passed and approved this 19th day of April '2016.
L
MA OR:
Approved by:
ATTEST: i�`(22ttAr� sa�n� rmCITY CL K4icift�omey's Office �/a y J��
Ordinance No. 16-4661
Page 3
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Botchway that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
First Consideration 03/23/2016
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
Voteforpassage: AYES: Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor,
Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 04/05/2016
Voteforpassage: AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton,
Botchway, Cole, Dickens. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Date published 04/28/2016
77
Prepared by: Marti Wolf, Planning Intern, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240 -
(VAC15-00007)
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE VACATING THE WATERFRONT DRIVE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY
(VAC15-00007)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Equity Ventures, has requested that the City vacate and convey to the
applicant Waterfront Drive public right-of-way running east and west between 1402 and 1411 Waterfront
Drive; and
WHERAS, the vacation is being requested to combine the surrounding parcels for uniform
redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, Waterfront Drive is not currently utilized for access or circulation by any entities besides
the adjacent properties, which have voiced support for the vacation request; and
WHEREAS, a suitable access easement will be established in lieu of the right-of-way; and
W HERAS, the Waterfront Drive right-of-way does have public water and sanitary sewer utilities; and
WHEREAS; these utilities must be relocated prior to development of structures where the Waterfront
Drive right-of-way is located; and
WHEREAS, easements for these utilities will be retained until the new utilities are constructed and
accepted by the City; and
WHEREAS, releasing the utility easements will require subsequent action by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has the reviewed the proposed vacation of
Waterfront Drive and has recommended approval of the application subject to City staff approval of a final
plat application, which must include plans for utility relocation and a plan for temporary access to Car -X
property during construction and a permanent access easement.
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 subject to the easements described above:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF SOUTHGATE ADDITION, PART 1, TO
IOWA CITY, IOWA, IN AFFORDANCE WITH THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9
AT PAGE 54 OF THE RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE; THENCE
S22°54'00"E, 50.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 3 OF SAID SOUTHGATE
ADDITION, PART 1; THENCE S67°06'00"W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE 24.88 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY, 75.16 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE ON A 125.00 FOOT RADIUS
CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 74.03 FOOT CHORD BEARS S84019'30"W;
THENCE N78027'00"W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, AND THE NORTH LINE OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF
SAID SOUTHDATE ADDITION, PART 1, A DISTANCE OF 181.93 FEET, TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SOUTH GILBERT STREET; THENCE
NORTHEASTERLY, 90.52 FEET, ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A 914.55
FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE 90.48 FOOT CHORD BEARS
N34033'42"E, TO ITS INTERSECTUION WITH THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
WATERFRONT DRIVE; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 22.90 FEET, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A 15.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY,
WHOSE 20.74 FOOT CHORD BEARS S12000'13"E; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, 72.94 FEET,
ALONG SAID NORTHLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A 183.98 FOOT RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE
NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE 72.47 FOOT CHORD BEARS S67°05'30"E, TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 1 OF SOUTHGATE ADDITION, PART 1; THENCE
S78°27'00"E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 67.22 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, 45.09 FEET,
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE ON A 75.00 RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, WHOSE
44.42 FOOT CHORD BEARS N84019'30" E' THENCE N06706'00"E, 24.88 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID WATERFRONT DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION PARCEL CONTAINS .31
Ordinance No.
Page 2
ACRE (13,454 SQUARE FEET), AND IS SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF
RECORD.
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:
a - ry-r
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 02/16/2016
Voteforpassage: AYES: Cole, Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Botchway. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 03/01/2016
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: N6ne.
Date published
that the
Prepared by: Robert Miklo, Senior Planner, 410 E. Washington Street, Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5240
(REZ16-00001)
ORDINANCE NO. 16-4662
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. Z
SECTION Vl. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passe d app 199 day of April, 2016.
OR
ATTEST:_//
CI CLETY RK
Ap rved by,/(�/
City Attorneys Office �/ /�
Ordinance No. 16-4662
Page 2
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Dickens that the
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
x
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 04/05/2016
Voteforpassage: AYES: Dickens, Mims, Taylor, Thomas,
Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration _
Vote for passage:
Date published 04/28/2016
Moved by Mims, seconded by Botchway, that the rule requiring
ordinances to be considered and voted on for passage at two
Council meetings prior to the meeting at which it is to be finally
passed be suspended, the second consideration and vote be waived
and the ordinance be voted upon for final passage at this time.
AYES: Mims, Taylor, Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole, Dickens.
NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
ORDINANCE NO. 16-4663
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 8. 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 parry 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 1-4-213 of this code.
This ordinance shall be in effect after its final passage, approval and
publication, as provided by law.
Passed and approved this 19th day of April 2016.
City -Clerk
or
Approved By
�� 3`dS (C-
City
GCity Attorney's Office
Ordinance No. 16-4663
Page 8
It was moved by Mims and seconded by Botchway
Ordinance as read be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES: NAYS:
x
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Botchway
Cole
Dickens
Mims
Taylor
Thomas
Throgmorton
First Consideration 03/23/2016
Voteforpassage: AYES: Thomas, Throgmorton, Botchway, Cole,
Dickens, Mims, Taylor. NAYS: None. ABSENT: None.
Second Consideration 04/05/2016
Voteforpassage: AYES: Botchway, Dickens, Mims, Thomas,
Throgmorton. NAYS: Cole, Taylor. ABSENT: None.
Date published 04/28/2016
that the
Marian Karr
From: Joseph Laskowski <jwl405@hotmaii.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 11:40 AM
To: Council
Subject: TNC ordinance
Concerns over TNC ordinance which amends title 5 and adds chapter 3.
First of all I want to say Iowa city shouldn't feel they have to apologize for being cautious, reasonable and skeptical. This
ordinance is obviously very important and requires careful consideration.
It has been said that we need to get it right. As it is written, this ordinance fails to do so. UBER, version 1.0, has been
operating around the world for years now. There have been many lawsuits and decisions with regards to regulations.
We have the opportunity benefit from others' experience to ensure version 2.0 is more lawful and fair.
Overall we need to reassert that we determine the laws of our community and state. We must not allow ourselves to be
dictated to by transient, non-resident interests.
I get a sense of altruistic double speak. They will not serve poor underserved neighborhoods. They have a track record of
saying one thing while doing another. They cannot be trusted to self enforce any of these policies. If they were
committed to safety and following the rules they would've been operating here by now. We are playing a dangerous
game of chicken by allowing them to dictate the rules of the game.
However, I admit there is an unmet market demand at times for cab service in the greater Iowa City area.
Language appears throughout the ordinance stating that TNCs are not a taxi cab or vehicle for hire. This may be a
technical loophole where Uber, managing the the app and determining pricing, and managing the customer feedback
system, is not a transportation company.
But Rasier LLC, one of their subsidiaries that will file the business license and manage the drivers and issue the
paychecks is in the transportation/logistics business controlling and managing the drivers and their vehicles.
We must not let them tell us what they are not. They are a vehicle for hire. They transport passengers in exchange for
payment and profit. 25% of which will leave the community.
I'll tell you what they are not.
They are not a ride share business, nothing is shared. They are not part of the peer-to-peer economy. They are a third
party that determines price and manages a feedback system which is wrought with discrimination, labor and privacy
concerns that determines whether a driver may work or not.
Under Iowa law not only should drivers be required to have a chauffeurs license but the vehicles should also have US
DOT numbers. This is required under Iowa law and federal law for interstate and intrastate commerce.
In reference to section 3 subsection B, item 3: proof that their background check provider is accredited is not proof of
effectiveness. They have had numerous cases of felons passing this background check process. They should use the
same process local transportation companies are required to use.
In reference to a level playing field, ifTNCs are allowed to operate with dynamic pricing then cab companies must also
be allowed to use dynamic pricing when market demand allows.
There still appears to be some concern over what constitutes adequate insurance coverage. I have spoken with an
insurance company representative and they made it very clear that using your vehicle for payment, including food
delivery and transporting passengers, is not covered under most personal, private, non commercial insurance policies. It
is still not clear if they have valid or sufficient coverage in between fares.
I am still not convinced that the flexible work schedule available through logging in and out of an app is a clear enough
distinction between working and not working. I fear that the erosion of that distinction could contribute to unsafe
conditions. Boasting that most drivers work less than 10 hours per week does not instill a sense of confidence, safety or
professionalism.
In regards to section 13 requiring them to adopt a nondiscrimination policy. Their customer feedback system is wrought
with discrimination both from the drivers and passengers. One persons choice is another person's discrimination. Drivers
can choose not to pick up certain passengers and may develop preferences for certain individuals or certain
neighborhoods. Passengers may also choose drivers. Just like Tinder, they can swipe left or swipe right.
At the end of the day after all the clever labels and innovative applications and corporate stacking of subsidiaries, they
are still giving people rides in exchange for payment. There is no other way to classify it. Uber and its subsidiaries are
responsible for follow these laws if they want to compete fairly in this market or risk an equal protection lawsuit.
They cannot contract away the law, their basic responsibilities and the fact that they are providing transportation for
payment.
I ask that we defer the third vote and schedule another work session to consider amendments to this ordinance.
Joe Laskowski
Iowa City City Council
Attention: Marian Karr
Re: Proposed Ridesharing Ordinance
April 7, 2016
Dear Members of The City Council:
I am writing to support the proposed ride sharing ordinance to allow services like Lyft and
Uber to operate in Iowa City. I know my opinions expressed in this letter are widely shared by
many of my friends and colleagues.
As a downtown resident I would be thrilled to have Iowa City catch up with the hundreds of
metropolitan areas that already allow for rideshare services. Cedar Rapids, Quad Cities, Des
Moines, Ames, and Council Bluffs, just to name a few.
Just today I heard two people walking down the sidewalk outside my apartment building who
were visiting Iowa City for Mission Creek Festival expressing their frustrations at how there is
no Uber available. By the tone of their voice, they weren't impressed. Ridesharing services are
an expectation in developed cities, and by not having it residents and guests are left wanting.
I would greatly appreciate the ability to not need my car, and thus be one of the many people
who would help decrease the amount of traffic and parked cars downtown. We need people to
be able to live in, and visit, downtown Iowa City easily. Especially with new projects like the
Chauncey building happening, we'll need all the space we can get.
Ride sharing apps will have a positive impact on our community, and I hope you will support the
proposed ordinance.
If I can provide more information or be of help to you on this issue please do not hesitate to
reach out.
Sincerely,
N
O_
[T
c
o
Will Lenzen Jr
Downtown Resident
will@cyclestudios.co
r13
Marian Karr
From:
Amy Charles <amycharlesl @gmail.com>
Sent:
Monday, April 11, 2016 12:00 AM
To:
Council
Subject:
query on Uber assaults
Dear Councillors,
I'm watching the about-face on Uber with some perplexity. Uber is regularly in the news for two things, neither
of which is delightful ridesharing service:
1. Drivers committing crimes;
2. Uber fighting unionization, living wages, drivers attempting to make the public aware of how the company
has cheated them and driven wages down past the point of sustainability -- after directing drivers to sink money
into cars.
Curious about whether the "criminal Uber driver" news was perhaps overblown, but figuring that the repeated
efforts at starting women -only ridesharing services had something to do with women's legitimate fears of being
assaulted by their drivers, I googled "sexual assault charges against Uber drivers", and got this site at the top of
the list: htty://www.whosdrivingvou.org/rideshare-incidents . Notice that there have been 17 sexual -assault
charges this year alone against Uber drivers. Not any other kind of charges, mind, just sexual assault. And these
are the incidents resulting in charges, not the incidents in which the passenger is just grateful to get out of the
car and away from the driver.
Which should tell you something about Uber's screening process, no?
So I guess I have to ask you: how many such incidents will be too many for Iowa City -- and what will you do if
we pass that number? Can the City reverse course on letting Uber do its own final -say screening without getting
sued expensively?
I await your reply.
Sincerely,
Amy Charles
Iowa City
Marian Karr
From:
Joseph Laskowski <jwl405@hotmaii.com>
Sent:
Sunday, April 10, 2016 3:39 PM
To:
Council; Rockne Cole; Susan Mims; Terry Dickens; Pauline Taylor; Jim Throgmorton; John
Thomas; Kingsley Botchway
Subject:
Request for deferral of a third vote
Attachments:
Peer to peer economy has been hijacked by billionaires.docx; Request for deferral of third
vote.docx; Letter to the Editor.docx
To whom it may concern,
Please review the attached files and consider deferring the third vote on the TNC ordinance and schedule a
workshop to discuss amendments. The letter to the editor is already live on the Little Village website and
various social media, and has been sent to six other local and regional papers.
Thank you,
Joseph W. Laskowski
Peer to Peer Economy has Been Hijacked by Billionaires
The peer to peer economy is not fulfilling all of its promises. With such massive third party mediation
by companies such as UBER, the peer to peer model is morphing back to the old firm to customer paradigm. A
wolf in sheep's clothing if you will. We are all being fooled by these third party mediators, funded by
billionaire venture capitalists, into believing we are empowering ourselves and our neighbors through
participation in the peer to peer economy.
We have all bought in to this need to believe the dream that the decentralization of certain market forces
(pricing, supply, services) ought to fulfill. Meanwhile, ignoring the threat that the centralization of other
activities (branding, payment, trust) by these third parties, brings to the democratizing potential of the peer to
peer economy, leading to regulatory challenges.
UBER has framed the argument by claiming they are a software company contracting out services.
While we consider what their specific place should be in the existing regulatory framework, we should not
allow them to dictate to us how to regulate ride for hire services. There is no straight-faced way to call what
their drivers do anything other than ride for hire. This is not part of the sharing economy.
We are failing to see the problems and vulnerabilities our technological progress brings. We appear to
have a bias that enables us to internalize and under -report negative experiences, so as not to be perceived as
restricting economic freedom. The hype surrounding the perceived convenience contributes to our tendencies to
ignore negative criticism (threat of monopoly, safety and insurance concerns, privacy invasion, discrimination,
and undermining working standards). This creates a blind spot where we set aside our critical thought in the
hopes that these problems will self -correct.
Companies like UBER are failing to show leadership when it comes to self-regulation through their lack
of objectivity and enforcement. They have failed to comply with records requests, citing trade secrets. Their
claim that individuals who drive for them are independent contractors enables UBER to skirt enforcement by
saying they can't tell their drivers how to do their jobs. They can't train them. They can't force them to follow
local, state and federal laws. They can, through a faulty rating system, deactivate drivers and bring in new, less
experienced drivers. This rating system is wrought with discrimination and coercion, and fails as their only
enforcement tool.
These companies are setting a terrible example for their employees by ignoring existing local, state and
federal law, rather than working with local governments to develop new regulatory standards. They should
welcome an innovative policy discussion. They prefer manipulation and threats.
Democracy is supposed to be about equal protection under the law. Not a government for hire. This
frightening privatization of local government ought to have us asking some serious questions. Pass this
ordinance and you are only enriching the billionaire venture capitalist class. Why are we allowing these elites to
subjugate an entire class of workers to even lower standards for their perceived convenience, or participation in
21 S` century trends, or misplaced altruism? This is not a better service. This is not a greener or more efficient
service. This is not a peer to peer exchange. This will not be good for Iowa City.
UBER Has Been Welcome in Iowa City For Over a Year
In February, 2015, the Iowa City Council passed an ordinance that identified
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), like UBER, and allowed them to enter the local
market. UBER chose at that time to not operate here because they considered our safety
regulations as, "arcane and cumbersome". In the meantime, UBER has drafted a new ordinance
that would enable them to steal from local businesses while operating by a different set of rules.
Consequently, UBER presented The City of Iowa City with an ultimatum: Approve this
ordinance or UBER will leave.
UBER has seized on the public demand and the myopic public relations campaign put
forth by their supporters. What would it say about the integrity of our City Council, who worked
so hard to develop safety standards that the local transportation companies have willingly
adopted, if they would now choose to throw those regulations aside because of an ultimatum
from UBER?
Anyone who dares question this new ordinance is labeled "anti -competition" or "anti -
innovation". To the Chamber of Commerce and the Visitors and Convention Bureaus: ask the
Marriott, The Hotel Vetro and the Sheraton what they do when guests ask about UBER. They
professionally and unapologetically order their guests a safe, reliable, and local cab. They don't
run around saying the sky is falling because we don't have UBER.
I suggest we show our leadership with an innovative and untraditional solution to this
worldwide problem, rather than giving in to an ultimatum. This is the only way to ensure a level
playing field and to avoid an equal protection lawsuit. Let us adopt a separate, less cumbersome
ordinance that simply recognizes and allows TNCs to operate and manage their apps in Iowa
City. While also recognizing that those who may choose to drive for TNCs have to comply with
all existing ride for hire regulations.
We have this opportunity to avoid repeating the problems other cities around the world
have experienced. We can avoid further legal costs and learn from their mistakes, which have
resulted in diminished safety standards, discrimination and price -gouging lawsuits, and accidents
resulting in death, just to name a few. We, the people of Iowa City, can give UBER an
ultimatum: Play by our rules. We've gotten along just fine without you.
We are a progressive city of innovation and creativity. We've arrived here through hard
work and thoughtful regulation. Not by allowing a monopolizing, labor standards wrecking,
discriminating, privacy invader write our local laws. Show some backbone. Don't apologize. And
don't be fooled.
Joseph W. Laskowski
Concerns over TNC ordinance which amends title 5 and adds chapter 3.
First of all I want to say Iowa City shouldn't feel they have to apologize for being cautious,
reasonable and skeptical. This ordinance is obviously very important and requires careful
consideration.
It has been said that we need to get it right. As it is written, this ordinance fails to do so. UBER,
version 1.0, has been operating around the world for years now. There have been many lawsuits
and decisions with regards to regulations. We have the opportunity benefit from others'
experience to ensure version 2.0 is more lawful and fair.
Overall we need to reassert that we determine the laws of our community and state. We must not
allow ourselves to be dictated to by transient, non-resident interests.
I get a sense of altruistic double speak. They will not serve poor underserved neighborhoods.
They have a track record of saying one thing while doing another. They cannot be trusted to self -
enforce any of these policies. If they were committed to safety and following the rules they
would've been operating here by now. We are playing a dangerous game of chicken by allowing
them to dictate the rules of the game.
However, I admit there is an unmet market demand at times for cab service in the greater Iowa
City area.
Language appears throughout the ordinance stating that TNCs are not a taxi cab or vehicle for
hire. This may be a technical loophole where UBER, managing the app and determining pricing,
and managing the customer feedback system, is not a transportation company. But Rasier LLC,
one of their subsidiaries that will file the business license and manage the drivers and issue the
paychecks, is in the transportation/logistics business controlling and managing the drivers and
their vehicles.
We must not let them tell us what they are not. They are a vehicle for hire. They transport
passengers in exchange for payment and profit. 25% of which will leave the community.
I'll tell you what they are not. They are not a ride share business, nothing is shared. They are not
part of the peer-to-peer economy. They are a third party that determines price and manages a
feedback system which is wrought with discrimination, labor and privacy concerns that
determines whether a driver may work or not.
Under Iowa law not only should drivers be required to have a chauffeurs license but the vehicles
should also have US DOT numbers. This is required under Iowa law and federal law for
interstate and intrastate commerce.
In reference to section 3 subsection B, item 3: proof that their background check provider is
accredited is not proof of effectiveness. They have had numerous cases of felons passing this
background check process then transporting passengers. They should use the same process local
transportation companies are required to use.
In reference to a level playing field, if TNCs are allowed to operate with dynamic pricing then
cab companies must also be allowed to use dynamic pricing when market demand allows.
There still appears to be some concern over what constitutes adequate insurance coverage. I have
spoken with an insurance company representative and they made it very clear that using your
vehicle for payment, including food delivery and transporting passengers, is not covered under
most personal, private, non-commercial insurance policies. Insurance companies are paying
attention to this debate and have begun sending notices to their customers telling them they are
not covered if they drive for UBER.
I am still not convinced that the flexible work schedule available through logging in and out of
an app is a clear enough distinction between working and not working. I fear that the erosion of
that distinction could contribute to unsafe conditions. Boasting that most drivers work less than
10 hours per week does not instill a sense of confidence, safety or professionalism.
In regards to section 13 requiring them to adopt a nondiscrimination policy. Their customer
feedback system is wrought with discrimination both from the drivers and passengers. One
person's choice is another person's discrimination. Drivers can choose not to pick up certain
passengers and may develop preferences for certain individuals or certain neighborhoods.
Passengers may also choose drivers. Just like Tinder, they can swipe left or swipe right.
At the end of the day after all the clever labels and innovative applications and corporate
stacking of subsidiaries, they are still giving people rides in exchange for payment. There is no
other way to classify it. UBER and its subsidiaries are responsible for follow these laws if they
want to compete fairly in this market or risk an equal protection lawsuit.
They cannot contract away the law, their basic responsibilities and the fact that they are
providing transportation for payment.
I ask that we defer the third vote and schedule another work session to consider amendments to
this ordinance.
Joe Laskowski
."l¢lloq, Yellow Cab of Iowa City
Cab P.O. Box 428
Iowa City, IA 52244
0 mss.
Iowa carr (319) 338-9777
TO: City Council, City of Iowa City
0
o,
www.yellowcabic.com
z
From: David L. Stoddard, Managing/Member Yellow Cab of Iowa City
RE: TNC Ordinance
I understand that people in the city want Uber to operate here. Saying that, they are
directing their lobby efforts on the wrong entity. Why has none of them lobbied Uber and
asked why do you operate in other communities with sticker ordinance but not Iowa City?
Why is Uber threating to not come here unless they get their way? What other company
could get away with this? I don't like the Taxi ordinance, but I'm sure if I'd went to the City
and said unless you take these draconian laws off me I'm pulling out of the City, I'd get
laughed at.
In my last letter I included an article about Austin, TX and how they are trying to
increase the level of background checks on Uber drivers. I asked the City why we are trying
to lower our standards as others with experience with Uber are trying to increase theirs?
If the council would take five minutes and do a Google search you'd find numerous cities
and states coming back to Uber increasing the background provisions because they feel
they are lacking. Just last week Uber settled a suit in California for $10 million over their
background checks not being up to what they said they were. Now California is looking at
requiring fingerprint background checks for Uber in the whole state.
http://ww2.kged.org/news/2016/02/26/california-to-reconsider-finRerl2rint-checks-for-
uber-I t -drivers
The Atlanta Airport is also proposing to increase the background checks on Uber drivers
httD: //www.insuranceiournal.com/news/southeast/2016/03/29/40345O.htm
In Houston they have already increased to fingerprint background checks and here is
what they found.
Since Houston's ordinance went into effect, the city's fingerprint -based FBI
background checks have found driver applicants who have been charged with
murder, sexual assault, robbery and indecent exposure, among other crimes. Those
drivers had already cleared the commercial background checks used by ride -for -
hire companies, according to a city report released this month.
Nzb
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
P.O. Box 428
Iowa City, IA 52244
WA CITY (319)338-9777
www.yellowcabic.com
If safety is really a priority of the council how does gutting the regulation on Uber fit that
priority? When it's been shown over and over that Uber's "background" checks are not
sufficient. If you pass this regulation as written there will be no government oversight on
Uber. There will be no one vetting their drivers and no one inspecting the driver's car,
including Uber. I would highly recommend voting against gutting the oversight on Uber.
Regulation is already in place that allows Uber to operate and Uber has proven in other
locations they CAN operate under these regulations.
David L. Stoddard
Managing Member
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
E
Marian Karr
From: Judith Pfohl <judypfohl@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 5:42 AM
To: Council Late Handouts Distributed
Subject: Uber need same rules
I would not trust an Uber ride. —±W%�b
The following is from California papers about Uber. (Date)
Uber has agreed to pay up to $25 million to California-based prosecutors to settle a case in which the ride
sharing giant is accused of misleading consumers around the safety of its service.
The civil lawsuit, filed in December 2014, took issue with Uber's background checks of drivers in Los Angeles
and San Francisco. Specifically, Uber billed its checks as "the gold standard" that made its service the "safest
ride on the road." However, investigations uncovered at least 25 instances in which an approved Uber driver
had serious criminal convictions, including identify theft, burglary, child sex offenses and even one murder
charge.
Uber was also accused of misleading drivers around fees for airport rides. The company began charging a $4
fee for passengers being collected from or going to California airports. Prosecutors found that the "toll" wasn't
being passed on to the airports, while it also worked at some airports were it was not authorized.
Also, my State Farm insurance has just sent a changed policy specifically exempting insurance covering
passengers if they pay me for a ride. Uber cars need to have specific insurance like a Taxi.
Judy Kohl
2229 Abbey Lane
351-1684
Marian Karr
From: Joseph Laskowski <jwl405@hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 4:28 PM
To: Rockne Cole; Terry Dickens; Pauline Taylor; Susan Mims; Jim Throgmorton; John Thomas;
Kingsley Botchway; Council
Subject: TNC Ordinance Considerations Late Handouts Distributed
Attachments: UBER third vote.docx
To whom it may concern,
LtL$�
(Date)
I am formally requesting a deferral of a third vote on the TNC ordinance and a work session to discuss
amendments.
Please review the attached document.
Thank you,
Joseph Laskowski
In reference to the TNC ordinance and my request for deferral of a third vote and a work session to
make amendments, I would first like to raise some questions. What happened to Iowa City standing up to out-
of-town corporations, like Walmart, and telling them how WE do business in OUR community? What happened
to Shop Locally? Why are we ignoring the warnings of the insurance industry? Why are we giving up and ignoring
the law? When did we start giving in to ultimatums?
I will present you with facts and court cases from across The United States involving UBER's
performance over the past six years. These cases challenge UBER's business model and include equal protection
cases, class action lawsuits, and anti-trust cases. These cases question all of UBER's claims of being a better
choice for individual transportation needs. The guidance these cases will bring could benefit Iowa City as we
move forward with constructing a new regulatory framework for these types of businesses.
On UBER's website they claim three benefits of using UBER: one, high quality service; two, a fair pricing
system; and three, easy to use and understand. I have added three more alleged benefits that have entered the
local discussion: first, employment opportunities; second, the claim that it lessens traffic; and third, the benefits
of more transportation options. I will challenge each of these claims, not with personal narratives, but by citing
court cases and examples.
Their first claim of offering a high quality service is being challenged in court. As recently as this month,
UBER has been forced to pay at least $10 million to settle allegations by California prosecutors for misleading
passengers about the quality of its driver background checks. In 2014, San Francisco and Los Angeles
prosecutors sued UBER saying that their background checks were inferior to the checks taxi drivers must
undergo. The terms of this settlement require UBER to use better background checks or pay an additional $15
million. UBER has been forced to change wording on their app, through a $28.5 million settlement, by renaming
its "safe ride fee" to a "booking fee" See Chicago Tribune article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/b usi ness/ct-uber-background-checks-settlement-20160407-story.html
Safety falls under this claim of high quality service. It was discovered that UBER's background check
failed to uncover the criminal records of 25 California drivers, including several registered sex offenders and a
convicted murderer. See Fox Business article: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2015/08/19/san-francisco-
d istrict-attorney-expands-suit-takes-issue-with-uber-background. html
Their second claim of offering fair pricing has also landed UBER in court. The most startling one may be
the anti-trust suit, No. 15-09796, recently filed in a Manhattan U.S. District court. The claim is that UBER's surge,
or dynamic pricing violates antitrust laws used to protect consumers from price manipulation. So far UBER has
been forced to pay over $60 million in settlements. See The Guardian article:
https://www.thegua rd ian.com/technology/2016/ai3r/13/u ber-lawsuits-619-million-ride-hailing-app
The third claim UBER makes on their website is that the app is easy to use and understand. I have
spoken with a local UBER driver who said the app froze up on him, preventing him from being able to indicate
that a ride had ended. He had no number to call for support and UBER ended up charging the customer over
$300 for a $5 ride.
Claims that UBER is an excellent employment opportunity have been challenged in court as well. There
are many suits involving employee misclassification in which courts have decided that UBER drivers are in fact
employees and not independent contractors, as UBER insists. See:
httr)://www.insurancewournal.com/news/national/2015/11/24/389904. htm
Former UBER drivers describe their experience as, "like being a cab driver, only worse." They have a
poor GPS and no dispatcher to assist them. Ordinances like the one we are proposing are another risk that UBER
places on its drivers while UBER gets all the rewards. This ordinance encourages drivers to violate local, state
and federal laws, while also violating fair completion rules and basic consumer protections. This ordinance is a
direct threat to labor standards in a variety of industries.
Another claim is that having UBER cars available as a transportation option will ease traffic congestion in
Iowa City. This has been studied in many cities and found to be not true. Not only is UBER inefficient, it is unsafe.
See: htti)://www.newsusa.com/articles/article/uber-to-passengers-our-drivers-may-be-unsafe.aspx
How could adding more untrained drivers to already congested streets result in better traffic? The facts
just don't support this claim. Often what you end up with is individuals in UBER vehicles that would have
otherwise taken the bus or a taxi. See: httr)://www.streetsblog.orp/2015/07/22/ubers-own-data-reveals-it-
slows-ma n hatta n -traffic -9 -percent/
And lastly, the claim that more options will benefit consumers also raises many questions. The market
has too much supply most of the time and there is no way to meet all the demand at peak times. You could add
100 more cars and all it will do is cause confusion and congestion. See LA Times article:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-m h-has-uber-peaked-20150928-column. htm I
Imagine 1,000 drunk students crowding the Ped Mall at 2 a.m. trying to find their discretely marked
UBER car. This becomes a public health issue when cold, drunk or scared students are forced to wait for their
one -fare -at -a -time, surge price or cancellation fee charging, untrained, unprofessional UBER driver. Their system
is not as easy as they claim.
There are countless UBER driver blogs where drivers discuss avoiding drinking hotspots and drunk
college students altogether. The only drivers who appear to like the bar close business make what could be
considered predatory comments, such as drunk college students are, "the only ones stupid enough to pay for
those 3x and 4x surge charges," and, "these kids are more likely to have daddy's credit card at their disposal,
too. " Is this what we have in mind while we consider allowing this company into our community?
It defies logic that we would not take into consideration or wait for the decisions of these court cases,
and others like them, before we answer UBER's ultimatum. Why invite, encourage, and enable this illegal
activity? We must stand up to this billionaire venture capital welfare enabled business. We cannot allow them to
self -define as a separate market while they steal money and jobs from local businesses.
We need a cleaner ordinance that plainly recognizes TNC's as third party software companies
connecting drivers with passengers. We must not allow them to sneak in new rules for their drivers while we
consider how to make room for TNCs in our regulatory system. Since their drivers are independent contractors,
this ordinance need not make any mention of how to regulate those drivers. We already have laws for ride -for
hire services and we must follow the law. Those laws are there to protect the consumers, employees and the
community through a system that helps ensure professionalism and certain expectations. There is a proper way
to challenge the system and this ordinance, in its current form, only gives them a yellow light to tread in
uncertain territory. We must address these issues. This is the only way to ensure a level playing field and avoid
lawsuits.
■
Marian Karr
From: Roger Bradley <yellowcabic@gmail.com>
Late Handouts Distributed
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:47 PM
To: Council
Subject: TNC ordinance
(Date)
To the Iowa City City Council:
Since new information regarding this ordinance is continually introduced and should be addressed, I request that
the Council defer the third reading of the ordinance in order to schedule another work session for consideration
of amendments to this ordinance.
A deferment would not affect Uber's ability to begin service in Iowa City.
Thank you.
Roger E. Bradley
Roger E. Bradley
Manager
Yellow Cab of Iowa City
(319) 541-0533
FAX 319-338-2708
vellowcabic( .email.com
www.yellowcabic.com