HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 08 Proposed Changes to Springfield Municipal Code 7.330 and 7.332 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/2/2016
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Kristina Kraaz/City
Attorney’s Office
Staff Phone No: 541.746.9621
Estimated Time: 10 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Promote and Enhance
our Hometown Feel
while Focusing on
Livability and
Environmental Quality
ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED CHANGES TO SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE 7.330 AND
7.332.
ACTION
REQUESTED:
Conduct a public hearing and first reading on the following ordinance: AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTIONS 7.330 AND 7.332 REGARDING PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLE
SERVICES
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
Amend SMC 7.330 and SMC 7.332 to reflect changes made in the identical Eugene
Code provisions, EC 3.005 and EC 3.345, to allow transportation network providers
like Lyft and Uber to operate within the City and subject these services to the public
passenger vehicle company license requirements.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memo – Follow-Up on Proposed PPV Ordinance
2. Proposed Ordinance amending SMC 7.330 and SMC 7.332
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT
The City of Eugene administers and enforces the business license requirements for
public passenger vehicles for both Eugene and Springfield. Eugene recently
updated their code and license regulations to allow for transportation network
companies (TNCs) to operate in the area. For those operators to be able to conduct
business in Springfield with the license issued by Eugene, the City Council needs to
co-adopt the code amendments. There is no cost to Springfield for Eugene to
provide this service, nor does Springfield receive any license revenue.
A work session was held on April 11 to discuss this proposed ordinance and the
City of Eugene’s proposed PPV rules. Feedback was provided to the City of
Eugene regarding the sufficiency of background checks, simplifying the insurance
requirements, and simplifying the signage requirements.
In response to Council’s feedback and requests for further information on behalf of
the Council, the City of Eugene has provided additional information, which is
attached.
Adopting the proposed code amendment will have no financial impact to the City.
From the operator perspective, it is more cost effective to obtain one license and
follow one set of standards in order to operate in both cities.
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: April 25, 2016
COUNCIL
BRIEFING
MEMORANDUM
To: Gino Grimaldi
From: Kristina Schmunk Kraaz, Assistant City Attorney
Anette Spickard, Director DPW
Subject: Follow-up on Proposed PPV Ordinance
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND:
On April 11, 2015, the Council held a work session to consider adopting new public passenger
vehicle (PPV) license code provisions in order to make Springfield’s PPV code consistent with
the City of Eugene’s PPV code, as Eugene currently administers and enforces the PPV license
program for both jurisdictions.
The Council directed staff to provide specific feedback to Eugene regarding their proposed rules,
and also asked for clarification on several points. This memo contains the feedback and requests
for clarification that was forward to the City of Eugene on behalf of Council, and the City of
Eugene’s response.
Council Concern #1: Background checks – The Council was concerned with the scope and
thoroughness of the background checks. Specifically, Council is not comfortable with just using
a drivers’ license and personal contact for the checks, and would prefer fingerprinting. Council
also suggested that the same standards currently used to screen tow drivers (i.e. in terms of
disqualifying convictions) should be used for all PPV drivers.
Eugene’s Response: We appreciate the Council’s concern regarding identity
verification. We have considered adding fingerprinting to the background check process,
but decided not to add it at this time. Currently, most of jurisdictions that we reviewed
are not using fingerprinting checks for drivers. In addition, in our conversations with
TNCs regarding background checks, one primary concern is the length of time that it
will take the City to process background checks of their potential drivers; using
fingerprints to check drivers will likely increase the processing time for background
checks. That said, recognizing that the addition of fingerprinting to the City’s
background check process would enhance the City’s current process, we will be actively
monitoring this issue and could add this requirement in the future.
Council Concern #2: Insurance – The Council expressed concern with the way Eugene’s
insurance requirements for TNCs are written. They expressed support for the $2 million
requirement while transporting passengers, but suggested that Portland’s PPV insurance
requirements could be used as a model for the requirements while the app is merely on but the
driver is not transporting a passenger.
Eugene’s Response: Currently, Portland requires insurance coverage during “Period 1”
(when a driver has the app on and is looking for a passenger) with minimum liability
limits of $50,000 per person for death and injury, $100,000 per incident for death and
injury and $25,000 for property damage. We heard from both TNCs and current PPV
companies regarding insurance requirements. The proposed administrative rules do not
establish tiered insurance coverage for TNCs for two primary reasons: (1) having one
insurance requirement that applies to all PPVs, regardless of the particular “activity” that
the PPV is engaged in at the time, establishes a consistent and level playing field among
all of the PPV companies; and, (2) a non-tiered insurance coverage requirement for all
PPVs supports the goal of ensuring adequate insurance coverage whenever a driver is
working. Our research found there have been reports of tragic accidents that have
Attachment 1, Page 1 of 4
4/26/2016 Page 2
occurred during “Period 1” and the City feels it is critical for community members and
drivers that all TNCs have adequate commercial coverage during that time.
Council Concern #3: Signage – The Council would prefer that the signage requirements not be
excessive, and that perhaps the window signs that TNCs including Uber and Lyft already require
would suffice, rather than on both sides, etc.
Eugene’s Response: Thank you for this input. Our main concern is related to vehicles
being clearly marked so that passengers can easily recognize the vehicle they should
enter. The relatively small dashboard markings are helpful, but not easily visible from a
distance or at night. Clear markings also help ensure that public safety personnel or
community members who wish to submit a complaint to the City regarding a particular
vehicle can identify which company it is affiliated with.
Request for Clarification #1: Background checks – Our Council has asked for more
clarification on what jurisdictions are checked when the background checks are conducted.
Eugene-Springfield share one system, but Lane County and Florence are on difference systems,
as I understand it. Would the check be limited to Eugene-Springfield, state, and national
databases, or would convictions out of Florence and Lane County also be considered? Also,
going with point 1 above, what standards/convictions will be used to disqualify drivers from
receiving a PPV permit?
Eugene’s Response:
What are the databases that the Eugene police access during a PPV background check?
As a law enforcement agency EPD has access to the state’s Law Enforcement Date
System (LEDS). LEDS is a portal to many different databases. The databases first run
on all PPV driver applicants is Oregon DMV via a direct link to DMV and then Oregon
Computerized Criminal History Records (CCH) through LEDS. CCH record checks
show record of criminal activity in Oregon and they can contain returns indicating
criminal activity in other states. The type of return that appears on an applicant’s CCH
will dictate the next step in the background process. For example, an FBI number on
the CCH will indicate an arrest in another state and such a return will steer the
background investigation and lead to additional research we would have to use other
sources than LEDS (call the other state). Outside of the LEDS portal, EPD itself
maintains a number of databases that contain all of the documented contacts that an
individual has with local law enforcement, including law enforcement contacts where
there is an arrest but the police investigation is not yet complete. These local databases
(which you may hear referred to as RMS) are also checked as part of the background
process.
Upon what basis can the City deny a PPV license application?
Eugene Code 3.050 governs the City’s denial or revocation of a PPV license. Regarding
the basis upon which the City can deny a license, EC 3.050 states, in part:
3.050 Business Licenses - Denial or Revocation of License.
(1) The city may deny or revoke a license upon finding that:
(a) The licensee fails to meet the requirements of this code, or is
doing business in violation of this code or applicable federal,
state or county law, ordinance, rule or regulation.
(b) The applicant has provided false or misleading material
information, or has omitted disclosure of a material fact on the
application, related materials, or license.
(c) The applicant has violated a law, including a violation which
Attachment 1, Page 2 of 4
4/26/2016 Page 3
does not lead to a conviction, unless the applicant demonstrates
to the satisfaction of the city manager that the violation has no
bearing on the applicant's fitness to undertake the licensed
activity without endangering property or the public health,
safety or welfare. The city manager may consider as a basis for
denial or revocation:
1. Only those violations which would constitute felonies,
if convicted, which occurred within the preceding ten
years;
2. All other violations only if they occurred within the
preceding three years.
(d) The information supplied for the review does not indicate that
the applicant has the special knowledge or skill required to
perform the licensed activity.
(e) The licensed activity or device would endanger property or the
public health or safety.
(f) A license fee or installment payment of a fee has not been made
by the due date.
Regarding EC 3.050(c), which states that “. . . .unless the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the city manager that the violation has no bearing on the applicant’s
fitness to undertake the licensed activity without endangering property or the public
health, safety or welfare.” Thus, the consideration of whether the City should certify a
PPV driver applicant that has violated the law starts with a request from the applicant.
That can occur in one of two ways. First, sometimes an applicant will include in his/her
application a narrative explaining a prior arrest/conviction. When the Eugene Police
Department (EPD) records supervisor reviews the applicant’s application form and
criminal history, the applicant’s narrative is taken into account in the decision whether
or not the applicant should be certified as a PPV driver. If the applicant did not disclose
criminal history they would fail because they omitted criminal history information (EC
3.050(1)(b)). In this situation, the EPD records supervisor would make the decision.
Second, if an applicant is denied a PPV driver certification, the applicant can appeal the
decision to a City hearings official. In that appeal hearing the applicant has the
opportunity to demonstrate to the hearings official that his/her prior arrest/conviction has
no bearing on the applicant’s fitness to be a PPV driver. In this situation, the city
hearing official would make the decision.
Request for Clarification #2: LTD – Council wants follow up information on whether LTD is
now satisfied with the amendments to the proposed PPV rules, in light of the feedback that they
previously gave to the City of Eugene.
Eugene’s Response: LTD representative were included in the original stakeholder
meetings last May and City staff followed up with LTD after receiving their feedback on
the initial rules in November, 2015. They did not submit any additional comments
during the public comment period in March. Our understanding is that they are satisfied
with the current rules, however, they do still want the issue of ADA accessible vehicles
to be addressed. We recognize this is an important issue. Our plan is to work on
addressing ADA requirements as soon as possible, through a specific process that
focuses on these issues and works with key stakeholders.
COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE:
Promote and Enhance our Hometown Feel while Focusing on Livability and Environmental
Quality;
Attachment 1, Page 3 of 4
4/26/2016 Page 4
Strengthen Public Safety by Leveraging Partnerships and Resources
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct first reading on the proposed public passenger vehicle ordinance.
N:\OneDrive for Business\City\CITYMANA\Uber\CBM 2 PPV ordinance & TNC overview.doc
Attachment 1, Page 4 of 4
ORDINANCE No. __________ (General)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 7.330
AND 7.332 REGARDING PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLE SERVICES
The City Council of the City of Springfield finds that:
WHEREAS, the City of Eugene administers public passenger vehicle company licenses
and public passenger vehicle permits on behalf of the City of Springfield;
WHEREAS, transportation network companies, such as Uber and Lyft, are a new industry
and the city seeks to develop reasonable regulations that protect public safety;
WHEREAS, transportation network companies have been operating in the city’s
jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City of Eugene has amended the Eugene Code to allow transportation
network companies in Eugene to use smart-phone applications to calculate and charge fares
under a public passenger vehicle company license and the City of Springfield has determined
that it is in the best interest of the citizens of this city to make similar amendments to the
Springfield Municipal Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing recitals, the Common Council of the City of
Springfield ordains as follows:
Section 1. Subsection 7.330 of the Springfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“7.330 Definitions.
Accessible Vehicle. Any public passenger vehicle for hire that is constructed and
equipped to meet ADA standards for the nonemergency transportation of persons in
wheelchairs, persons using other mobility aids, or with other mobility impairments.
ADA. Americans with Disabilities Act.
Business. Any business, institution, association, occupation, and calling of every kind.
Charter Vehicle. A motorized vehicle originating from the Eugene/Springfield
metropolitan area, marked with the company’s business name, operated for hire to transport a
group of seven or more persons with the fare based on a group rate rather than an individual
basis.
Club Car Service. Vehicular passenger transportation service provided by a business to
club members or by a residence home to its residents.
Courtesy Car Service. Vehicular passenger transportation service provided by a
business to its clients or customers at no cost.
Employee. Any person employed for remuneration or under any contract of hire,
written or oral, express or implied, including independent contractors. All persons who drive
public passenger vehicles, including any person who has an ownership interest in the company,
Attachment 2, Page 1 of 5
shall be considered employees of the public passenger vehicle company for purposes of sections
7.330 to 7.332.
Hailable Vehicle. A vehicle-for-hire that can be immediately summoned by a passenger
without the use of any dispatch.
Manager. Any person in charge of the operation or management of the public passenger
vehicle company, any person who can direct or control the activities and scheduling of the
company’s employees, and any person who can hire or fire the company’s employees.
Motorized Vehicle. A public passenger vehicle other than a horse-drawn carriage or a
non-motorized bike cab.
Operator. Any person who is a principal in a public passenger vehicle company. A
principal includes all owners, shareholders, partners, directors, officers and managers.
Public Passenger Vehicle. Any vehicle which is used for the transportation of
passengers for hire, including, but not limited to, shuttles, horse-drawn carriages, non-
motorized bike cabs, and taxicabs. However, the following shall not be considered public
passenger vehicles for purposes of sections 7.330 to 7.332:
(1) Vehicles, other than shuttles, operated pursuant to written authority by the
city, state or federal governments, or political subdivision thereof;
(2) Vehicles commonly known as rent-a-cars, that are rented to be driven by the
renter or agent;
(3) Courtesy car services;
(4) Tour bus services;
(5) First aid vehicle or medical transport vehicle; and
(6) Limousines.
Public Passenger Vehicle Company. Any business which operates one or more public
passenger vehicles, regardless of who owns the vehicle operated.
Public Passenger Vehicle Driver. An employee of a public passenger vehicle company
that operates a vehicle-for-hire by transporting passengers for compensation.
Shuttle. A motorized vehicle for hire that transports passengers between predetermined
destinations (e.g., motels, airport, downtown passenger station), at fixed rates on a fixed
schedule.
Taxicab. A motorized vehicle that is operated for hire by the public passenger vehicle
company, other than a shuttle, limousine, or charter.
Taximeter. A mechanical or electronic device which calculates and displays a fare.
Tour Bus. A motorized vehicle accepting individual passengers for a fare for sightseeing
or guided tours, making occasional stops at certain points of interest and returning the
passengers to their point of origin.
Attachment 2, Page 2 of 5
Transportation Network Company. A person or business that provides a digital or
software application scheduling platform or service that enables a prospective passenger to
connect to a vehicle-for-hire.
Transportation Network Driver. An employee of a transportation network company that
operates a vehicle-for-hire by transporting passengers for compensation utilizing the
Transportation Network Company’s digital or software application scheduling platform or
service.
Vehicle-for-Hire. A vehicle used for providing shared transport, which transports one or
more passengers for a fee between locations of the passengers’ choice, including, but not
limited to, all public passenger vehicles.
Vehicle-for-Hire Company. All public passenger vehicle companies and all
transportation network companies.”
Section 2. Subsection 7.332 of the Springfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“7.332 License and/or Permit Required.
(1) Licensure Requirements.
(a) No person or business may operate a public passenger vehicle or vehicle-for-hire
company without a public passenger vehicle company license; however, an unlicensed
vehicle-for-hire operating outside the jurisdictional limits of Eugene and Springfield may
deliver a fare from outside those limits to a location within the limits, and if the vehicle waits
for the person, retrieve the person for the return trip back outside the jurisdictional limits.
No unlicensed public passenger vehicle company may solicit or accept any passenger within
the city limits except as provided in this subsection.
(b) No person or business may connect, or attempt to connect, a prospective passenger
to a vehicle-for-hire by providing a digital or software application scheduling platform or
service without first obtaining a public passenger vehicle company license.
(c) Unless driving a vehicle-for-hire for a person or business that has obtained a public
passenger vehicle company license, no person may drive a vehicle-for-hire without first
obtaining a public passenger vehicle company license.
(d) No person or business required to obtain a public passenger vehicle company license
may solicit or accept any passenger within the city limits except as provided in this
subsection.
(2) No person or business required under subsection (1) of this section to obtain a
public passenger vehicle company license may operate a motorized vehicle that lacks a
public passenger vehicle permit.
(3) No person may drive a motorized vehicle-for-hire, and no vehicle-for-hire company
may hire a person as a driver, either as an employee or an independent contractor, unless
that person possesses a valid public passenger vehicle driver certification. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, a person who has applied for such a certification may drive a taxicab if the
Attachment 2, Page 3 of 5
person has obtained from the city a temporary certification; such certification shall not be
valid for more than 30 days, or until the city grants or denies the person’s application for a
public passenger vehicle driver certification, whichever is sooner.
(4) No public passenger vehicle company may locate any part of its operation in a
residential zone unless expressly authorized by the city manager or designee pursuant to
the Springfield Municipal Code or the Eugene Code.
(5) All persons and businesses required to obtain a public passenger vehicle company
license under subsection (1) of this section shall provide the city manager or designee with
written notice of the maximum rate to be charged passengers. No public passenger vehicle
company shall change its maximum rate without first providing the city manager or
designee with a minimum of 10 days advance written notice of the new rate. No public
passenger vehicle company shall charge more than the rate on file with the city. Upon
request, the city manager may exempt, by administrative order, a public passenger vehicle
company from the provisions of this section if the public passenger vehicle company does
not operate any taxicabs.
(6) The actual fare charged for each trip by a taxicab shall not exceed the higher of
either:
(a) The meter calculated rate, including authorized and posted surcharges; or
(b) The minimum fare as posted on the interior and exterior of the vehicle.
(7) The city manager or designee shall adopt rules setting standards and establishing
requirements for vehicle-for-hire companies, vehicles-for-hire, public passenger vehicle
drivers and transportation network drivers; and the issuance of licenses for companies,
permits for vehicles, and certifications and temporary certificates for drivers. Such rules shall
be consistent with this code and be designed to ensure that the public safety is protected,
the public needs are met, and the public convenience is promoted.
(8) In addition to requirements established by rule to obtain a license, each public
passenger vehicle company must designate a registered agent who may be served with any
process, notice or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon the company.
The registered agent shall be an individual or business located in Eugene or Springfield, and
must be available for service of legal process during all hours that the public passenger
vehicle company is in operation.
(9) The term for a license issued hereunder shall commence on January 1st and expire
on December 31st of the year issued. The license fee for applications received after January
1st shall be prorated on the basis of that term. An application for extension or renewal of an
existing license must be submitted by November 1st, accompanied by the required license
fee. Failure to submit the license fee with the extension or renewal application, or to pay the
same before the end of the current license term may result in the licensee being required to
submit a new application and pay an application fee. A licensee who submits an extension
or renewal application after November 1st may be assessed a penalty fee of $10.00 per day
for each day between November 1st and the date the application is submitted.”
Attachment 2, Page 4 of 5
Section 2: Except as specified herein, all other provisions of Springfield Municipal Code
remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance
is held, for any reason, invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and individual provision and such holding shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion hereof.
Section 4: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption by the Council and
approval by the Mayor.
ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Springfield this _____ day of
_______________, 2016, by a vote of _____ for and _____ against.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Springfield this _____ day of _______________, 2016.
________________________________
Christine Lundberg, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Amy Sowa, City Recorder
Attachment 2, Page 5 of 5