File Number: 131217
|Printable PDF Format|
|File Number: 131217||File Type: Ordinance||Status: Withdrawn|
|Version: 0||Reference:||Control: Transportation & Aviation Committee|
|Requester: NONE||Cost:||Final Action: 12/11/2013|
|Sunset Provision: No||Effective Date:||Expiration Date:|
|Registered Lobbyist:||None Listed|
|Acting Body||Date||Agenda Item||Action||Sent To||Due Date||Returned||Pass/Fail|
|Transportation & Aviation Committee||12/11/2013||2A||Withdrawn||P|
|REPORT:||During consideration of changes to the agenda, the foregoing proposed ordinance was withdrawn at the request of the Prime Sponsor Commissioner Edmonson.|
|Office of the Chairperson||12/10/2013||Withdrawals||12/11/2013|
|Transportation & Aviation Committee||11/13/2013||1F3||Deferred||12/11/2013||P|
|REPORT:||Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. At Chairman Moss’ request, Mr. Joe Mora, Division Director, Transportation Regulatory/Business Affairs Division, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), provided an overview of the foregoing ordinance. He noted this ordinance amends the definition of luxury limousine sedans to include eco-friendly luxury vehicles; eliminates the one-hour prearranged reservation requirement; and provides for digital dispatch software in place of a central dispatching company. It also defines digital dispatch software as technology that connects a passenger to a duty, licensed for-hire limousine via advanced reservation through a mobile phone text, computer e-mail or web based reservation and other similar technologies; eliminates the requirement that limousines shall be solely owned or leased by a for-hire license holder; provides for luxury limousine sedan license holders to operate more than one vehicle per license; eliminates the current restriction on the number of luxury sedan licenses currently allowed in the marketplace; amends the requirement for minimum limousine rates; and amends the vehicle age requirements. Chairman Moss noted it was necessary that speakers fill out a speaker’s card on each item in order to ensure an opportunity to address all items. Pursuant to Chairman Moss’ request, Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber read Rule 6.05 regarding decorum into the record. Chairman Moss asked the Sergeant at Arms to make sure decorum was maintained in the Commission Chambers and to escort out of chambers those individuals who violated the rule. Chairman Moss opened the public hearing for persons wishing to speak in connection with this ordinance, and the following persons appeared in support: 1. Ms. Rachel Holt, Regional General Manager, Uber Technologies-East Coast Division, 1920 N. St NW, Washington, D.C 2. Mr. Brian May, 235 Catalonia Avenue, Coral Gables, representing Uber Technologies, expressed appreciation to Commissioner Edmonson for bringing this ordinance forward. 3. Mr. Manny Sarmiento, President/CEO, Doral Chamber of Commerce, 8181 NW 36 Street. 4. Mr. Laguerre Leone Sainneus, taxicab driver, 16151 NE 18 Place. 5. Mr. Jean Claude Tema, taxicab driver, 74 NW 69 Street, spoke in support of this ordinance (1F3), but opposed Agenda Items 1F1, 1F2, 1F4 and 1F5. 6. Mr. Esau Mardy, taxicab driver, 14911 NE 9 Court. 7. Mr. Kurt Vantuyn, 2511 Tigertail Avenue. 8. Mr. Gustavo Chacon, limousine driver, 1051 NW 18 Avenue. 9. Mr. Joanel Ceremy, 12930 NW 21 Ave, spoke through certified Haitian interpreter Fabie Bodek in support of this ordinance. 10. Mr. Luckenson Mompremier, business owner/taxicab driver, 17215 NW 12 Court. 11. Ms. Eva Etienne, 15210 NW 10 Court, spoke through certified Haitian interpreter Fabie Bodek in support of this ordinance. 12. Mr. Raymond Francois, Administrator for New Vision Taxi Drivers Association, 11970 NE 16th Avenue. 13. Mr. Ernst Derizier, 830 NW 143 Street, spoke through certified Haitian interpreter Fabie Bodek in support of this ordinance. 14. Mr. Jonathan Addison, entrepreneur/user of Uber, 3250 NE 1 Ave, spoke of his experiences as a taxicab passenger in MDC; supported this ordinance and Uber to provide customer service that was paramount to their business model. 15. Mr. Jose Dominguez, taxicab driver, 485 NW 135 Street, supported this ordinance, Black Cabs and Uber Technologies to increase competition. 16. Mr. Miguel Lantigua, taxicab driver, 12304 SW 122 Street. 17. Mr. Bill Talbert, President/CEO, Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB), 701 Brickell Avenue, spoke in support on behalf of 14 business groups and several Chambers of Commerce listed in the memorandum he provided. 18. Ms. Patty Arias, Managing Director of the Latin Chamber of Commerce of U.S.A. (Camacol). 19. Ms. Alyce Robertson, Executive Director, Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA), 200 S. Biscayne Blvd, spoke in support of Uber Technology and submitted for the record two resolutions passed by the DDA (see exhibits). 20. Mr. Jose Montero, 320 W. 53 Terrace, spoke in support through interpreter Mr. Jon Ocampo, 5700 SW 127 Ave. 21. Ms. Ramona Hall, 1051 NW 14 Street, spoke in support of this ordinance and presented a video produced by CBS4 News entitled “taxicab reflections” (played at 4:28 p.m.) 22. Mr. David Cardenas, 1441 Brickell Avenue, supported this ordinance and presented a video on Uber Technology (played at 4:36 p.m.) 23. Mr. Jackson Rip Holmes, 915 Palermo Avenue, Coral Gables. 24. Mr. Tim Gomez, 235 Catalonia Ave, spoke in support of this ordinance and presented a video about Uber Technology (played at 5:22 p.m.) 25. Mr. Jack Smith, owner, Jack Smith Enterprise Inc., 1751 NW 191 Street, Miami Gardens. 26. Mr. Al Dotson, Attorney, 1450 Brickell Avenue, noted the taxicab industry did not go out of business when Uber was introduced in New York, Chicago, Atlantic, or other major cities. He urged the Board to support this ordinance, and not succumb to the scare tactics. 27. Mr. Raymond Cruz, 1301 SW 135 Court, spoke through interpreter Jon Ocampo, 5700 SW 127 Ave, in support of this ordinance. 28. Mr. Avelino Paula, 13201 SW 192 Terrace. The following individuals appeared in opposition: 1. Ms. Lorraine Celestino Wilde, retired taxicab driver/owner/operator of 37 luxury sedan permits with Go Executive Car, Inc., 221 W. Oakland Park Blvd. 2. Mr. Sanford (Sandy) Bohrer, 701 Brickell Ave, opposed this ordinance and suggested the County issue only a few licenses to the current framework until the market was tested before adding more. 3. Mr. Abraham Brejt, 3685 SW 18 Terrace, retired taxicab driver/current operator, questioned the need to change the definition of limousines and Passenger Motor Carriers in order for the industry to progress and use ‘e-hail’ software. 4. Ms. Anna Kaplan, 1270 NE 174 Street, employee of Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Quality Assurance Health Care and a daughter of a taxicab driver. 5. Mr. Jean Claude Desile, Taxicab driver, 315 NW 99 Street. 6. Mr. Les Eisenberg, 3600 NW 37 Court, representing the taxicab industry, presented a video on Uber’s shocking rates, by TV’s King 5 Jesse Jones in Seattle, Washington (played at 3:06 p.m.). 7. Mr. Neil Goodman, former limousine driver/current operator of 47 permits, 3780 NE 207 Terrace. 8. Mr. Terry Eisenberg, 3600 NW 37 Court. 9. Mr. Ram Haskell, taxicab driver, 284 Taylor Street, Hollywood. 10. Mr. Syed Quadri, taxicab driver, 7946 Highsmith Court, Lake Worth, opposed this ordinance and urged the Committee to consider the taxicab industry’s proposed reform for the industry. 11. Mr. Rudy Gonzalez Jr., owner/USA Taxi, 3620 NW 22 Avenue. 12. Mr. Patrick O’Neill, 4141 N. Miami Ave. 13. Ms. Mercedes Gonzalez-Arango, representing Transportation Sunshine Inc. and various taxicab permit holders, 4218 SW 9 Street. 14. Mr. Boris Shvartsman, President, Central Cabs, 251 E. 174 Street, Sunny Isles. 15. Mr. Frank Hernandez, 3111 NW 27 Avenue. 16. Mr. Jack Joseph Russell, Medallion Owner/retired cab driver, 9850 SW 88 Drive. 17. Ms. Shayna Stenchever, daughter of a cab driver/medallion owner, 6547 Via Trento, Del Rey Beach, opposed this ordinance and Uber, but supported the ordinances proposed by Commissioners Zapata and Moss. 18. Ms. Lynn O’Quendo, daughter of a cab driver, 1101 NE 191Street, opposed Agenda Items 1F1, 1F2, 1F3 and 1F4, but supported Commissioner Zapata’s proposed ordinance in Agenda Item 1F5. 19. Mr. Jose O’Quendo, 1101 NE 191 Street. 20. Mr. Mohamed Khan, 13701 SW 90th Avenue. 21. Mr. Jerry Moskowitz, 2284 NW 36 Street. 22. Mr. Bogdan Kukharsky, 353 W 47 Street, Miami Beach, opposed this ordinance, noting it would erode the value of the taxi medallion. 23. Mr. Geoffrey Radlein, taxi driver/medallion holder, 21226 SW 197 Place, opposed this ordinance, but supported newer technology like Hail-O, E-taxi, which worked with the taxicab drivers without disrupting the industry; noted this legislation would produce unintended consequences like a gypsy cab service. 24. Mr. Antonio Guerrier, medallion owner, 17945 NE 19 Ave, opposed this ordinance, but thanked the Commissioners for supporting the taxicab industry. 25. Mr. Alex Zagruzny, 16400 Collins Avenue, representing Miller’s Transportation Credit Union. 26. Mr. Akhtar Kamal, 1865 W. Flagler Street, taxicab driver and medallion owner/operator, expressed concern that this ordinance would erode the value of the taxi medallion. 27. Mr. Diego Feliciano, President, South Florida Taxicab Association, 3111 NW 27 Ave, noted his concern was Uber charged $85 per day for a lease, plus 20 percent of the drivers’ income and tips. 28. Ms. Lauren Mayer, 6820 SW 129 Terrace, Manager of Miami Meter Company, opposed this ordinance but supported the technology proposed by Speaker Lorne Wray. 29. Mr. Reinaldo Rodriguez, medallion owner, 9520 SW 148 Place. 30. Mr. Lorne Andrade Wray, 11825 Island Lakes Lane, Boca Raton, business owner/ strategic partner, Taxi Magic and Sedan Magic, opposed this ordinance and Uber; noted several lawsuits were filed against Uber for its practices providing a demand service at taxicab rates versus a limousine service with pre-arranged services. 31. Ms. Odalys Verdin, Medallion Owner, 6470 West 22 Ct, Hialeah. 32. Mr. Joseph Bessard, representative of American Association for Taxicabs, 6700 NW 27 Avenue, opposed this ordinance and noted it violated Title 49, Section 131.01(d) of the Code prohibiting discrimination of the industry. 33. Mr. Niaz Mohammed, taxicab driver, 17922 SW 145 Ave. 34. Mr. Austin Cohen, 1420 NE 163 Street, NMB. 35. Mr. Silvio Fontes, representing Verifone Inc., 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. 36. Ms. Orlie Jedwab, 199 NW 79 Street, opposed this ordinance and Uber, noting Miami had different transportation needs than NYC, Washington DC, and Los Angeles; noted she worked with Verifone, Inc. to integrate its Hail-O system into taxicab vehicles; however, it had fewer resources than Uber (a multimillion dollar company) had to promote its services. 37. Mr. Paul Phanor, 1620 NW 120 Street, North Miami. 38. Madame Renita Holmes, 350 NW 4 (Labrae) Street, expressed appreciation to Commissioner Edmonson for bringing this ordinance forward and for her good intentions, but felt this ordinance would have bad consequences. 39. Mr. Arie Nir, retired taxicab driver/ medallion owner, 3670 N. Park Road, Hollywood. 40. Mr. Herb Woods, President, Wireless Edge International, a taxicab dispatch technology supplier, 135 Michael Cowpland Dr. Ottawa, Canada, opposed this ordinance and noted he would consider investing in the Ambassador Cabs Program if the environment was stable; urged the Board to consider the history and consequences of deregulation. 41. Mr. Roberto Puente, 927 NE 199 Street, NMB. 42. Mr. Rogelio Lofri, taxi driver, 5803 W. 28 Avenue, Hialeah. Chairman Moss closed the public hearing after no other persons appeared to speak. Commissioner Bovo expressed appreciation to all who participated in this hearing. He asked if this ordinance would in any way jeopardize safety or the security of passengers, as some speakers had said, and would it change the Code requirements for chauffeurs or cabdrivers. Mr. Joe Mora, Division Director, RER Department, noted the passage of this ordinance would not reduce passenger security or change the current requirements set forth in the Code requiring luxury limousine sedan vehicles to be licensed, insured and inspected. He also noted that drivers would still be required to obtain a chauffeur registration and be vetted by the RER Department. Commissioner Bovo asked whether the passage of this ordinance would have an impact on the value of the taxi medallions. He also asked if the value of taxi medallions had increased or decreased in other cities that used a taxi medallion system when Uber Technology or similar technology was introduced there. Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez noted he was unaware if this ordinance or Uber would impact the value of the taxicab medallions. Commissioner Edmonson said she believed the value of the taxi medallions had increased in the City of Chicago after Uber was introduced there. Mr. Mora noted staff reached out to New York City (NYC) and he could only say that the value of the medallions had not decreased when Uber was introduced there; however, pointed out that NYC has an open, competitive For-hire transportation system that allows an unlimited number of luxury black sedans, permitted by law. Commissioner Bovo noted some speakers had stated or shown videos that revealed Uber’s prices had increased during peak times and special events. He expressed concern that Uber could charge higher prices during a catastrophic event such as a hurricane. Ms. Theresa Therilus, Legal Advisor for the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), advised that the State’s anti-price gouging laws would take effect during a catastrophic event and those laws are regulated by the Attorney General’s Office, not the County. Commissioner Bovo asked if there was a correlation between price variations and weekends, peak hours and/or economic conditions. Ms. Therilus noted prices vary or surge in other counties for different reasons, and are based on demand, peak hours, holidays or big events, but Uber notifies its customers of any price changes or surges. In response to Commissioner Bovo’s question whether a price variation could be applied to the taxicab industry at this time, Ms. Therilus said “no.” Mr. Mora added that the taxicab rates were set and regulated by the County. Commissioner Bovo asked whether the daily vehicle lease rate charged by a medallion owner was included in the agreement between the medallion owner and the taxicab driver, and was that contract subject to a review and approval by the County. Mr. Mora affirmed that the rate was included in the contract; however, noted the County was prohibited by State law from regulating the lease prices charged by medallion holders. He also noted the contract is reviewed by the County to ensure that certain criterion in the Code was met, such as the contract’s term and expiration date. Mr. Mora indicated that the County recently introduced legislation in Tallassee urging the Legislature to allow the County to regulate the medallion lease prices. Mr. Mora concurred with Chairman Moss’ statement that even if the County wanted to enact changes to the lease prices, at this point in time it could not because the rates were governed by State law. Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez noted State law expressly precludes the County from regulating the medallion lease prices; however, the County regulates certain terms and conditions within the chauffeur’s agreement such as: the term of the agreement, a ‘90-day notice’ termination clause; full name and address of the passenger service company; the itemized compensation paid by the chauffer/operator of the vehicle; name of the party responsible for obtaining the required insurance and operating permit; and terms and conditions for handling/returning the chauffeur’s security deposit. Commissioner Bovo asked if it was fair to assume that the County played no role in the contractual agreement between the medallion owner and the driver and that the contract included the fuel and vehicle maintenance costs. Mr. Mora noted the contract could include those conditions, but the County only regulated specific criteria required by Code. Commissioner Bovo inquired whether the standard lease charged by a medallion holder was approximately $70 per day. Mr. Diego Feliciano, representative of South Florida Taxicab Association, reappeared before the Committee and noted a taxicab vehicle could be leased in different ways, but typically it cost between $65 and $85 per shift for a driver to lease a vehicle owned by a company or another person. He also noted most drivers owned their vehicles and leased the license, which generally cost between $380 and $450 per week and included license renewal, insurance and maintenance costs and the radio dispatching dues. He said that insurance had skyrocketed in cost over the last year, and that approximately $80 to $125 of the lease was for insurance costs. Commissioner Bovo pointed out that prices fluctuate for a number of reasons, and that sometimes consumers choose to pay more for luxury, such as using the managed lane on Interstate 95 during peak hours. He agreed the County should be at the forefront of modern technology, but said he was not totally convinced that Uber would be a success here or that competition would impact the value of the medallions. Commissioner Bovo noted it was apparent at this hearing that competition was not feared by most people in the taxicab industry and felt it should not be hampered by legislation. He said he would support forwarding this ordinance without any amendments to the full Board of County Commissioners for a discussion. Commissioner Barreiro noted he totally supported innovative technology, Uber Technology, and particularly E-hail applications for improving competition. Regarding For-hire luxury limousines/executive cars, Commissioner Barreiro noted he supported eliminating the one-hour advanced reservation requirement, but opposed fluctuating rates and felt the rates charged by a for-hire luxury limousine sedan should be higher than taxicab rates. He also opposed the issuance of an unlimited number of for-hire luxury limousine sedan licenses until the matter was studied further. He suggested the Board pass the portion of the ordinance requiring utilization of an e-hail application, and maintain the existing cap of 635 executive cars until such time a need for more vehicles was determined. Chairman Moss expressed appreciation to all who participated in this meeting and to those who conducted themselves in a respectable manner. He said he fully supported digital dispatch technology, but felt the County should be allowed to regulate the dispatch application companies to ensure transparency, fair competition and enforcement in the process. He commented that consumers should be able to differentiate between the fares of luxury limousines/black sedans and the fares of taxicabs. Chairman Moss pointed out that this ordinance required the minimum rate charged by a luxury limousine to be twice the minimum rate charged by a taxicab for the first 1/6th of a mile, but it did not regulate the fare thereafter. He expressed concern that a limousine chauffeur could charge less than a taxicab charged for the duration of the trip and felt a luxury limousine ride should cost more than a taxicab ride. He said that besides protecting the consumer and allowing competition in the industry, the County Commission was also responsible for ensuring the taxicab drivers earned a decent income. Chairman Moss also noted he supported eliminating the one-hour advanced reservation requirement for executive cars, but opposed the open-ended entry provision allowing the issuance of an unlimited number of for-hire vehicle licenses, which could flood the market. He said he preferred to limit the number until the market was studied more to see if a demand existed to expand the number of licenses. Chairman Moss pointed out that Miami was a suburban community with different transit needs than NYC or Washington D.C. He also noted he did not believe that competition would destroy the taxicab industry; and believed there was a way to fashion a ‘world class’ for-hire transportation system that benefitted all stakeholders, with a minimal impact to the taxicab drivers. Chairman Moss said he could not support this ordinance as written, but could embrace digital dispatch technology for the future with some regulation. Commissioner Bovo noted he would like to hear from the sponsor of this ordinance before offering an amendment. Commissioner Edmonson, sponsor of the ordinance, noted she believed the concerns and requests for more public input were addressed since today’s hearing was the second major public hearing conducted on this matter. She also noted she believed this ordinance would not erode the value of the medallions because the requirements that chauffeurs be licensed, insured and their vehicles be inspected would still remain and be regulated by the County. She pointed out that page 19, Section 31-604 of this ordinance required that the fare calculation method, the applicable rates charged and the option for an estimated fare be made available prior to the customer booking a vehicle. In addition, she noted this ordinance did not regard one particular company (Uber), but only proposed e-hail digital dispatch technology. She suggested this ordinance be forwarded to the County Commission, without a recommendation for a discussion, and that she be allowed to come back with an amended item providing for a cap on the number of for-hire licenses and a minimum rate charged beyond the first 1/6th of a mile. Chairman Moss expressed concern with the Committee forwarding this ordinance as written, without the benefit of discussing some amendments that addressed his concerns. He said he still believed there was a way to embrace innovative technology and provide him assurance that the digital dispatch companies would be regulated. Commissioner Edmonson proffered an amendment to set a cap of 300 for the number of luxury limousine sedan for-hire licenses issued. Commissioner Barreiro suggested the ordinance be amended to approve utilization of e-hail applications and strike the language regarding the number of vehicles and minimum fares until such time the Board had more information to address the cap and fares. Commissioner Bovo noted one of the concerns expressed was that the ordinance allowed for an unlimited number of vehicles. He asked Assistant County Attorney Sanchez to read into the record the amendment he proffered to limit the number of vehicles and engage only licensed chauffeurs with five years of experience. Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez read for the record, the amendment proffered by Commissioner Bovo as follows: -to delete the provisions providing for an open entry; -to insert language providing that five-year limousine and taxicab chauffeurs would be eligible for one luxury sedan license in the year 2014 , limiting it to one year; -to insert language that provided for one vehicle for each for-hire luxury sedan issued; and -to insert language providing that luxury limousine licenses issued in year 2014 would not be transferable. Responding to Chairman Moss inquiry regarding what this language represented in terms of the number of vehicles allowed, Assistant County Attorney Sanchez noted it would allow for the issuance of approximately 4,000 licensed vehicles. Commissioner Bovo noted he would be amenable to an open process but with a cap set on the number of vehicles allowed, and that it only apply to licensed chauffeurs that had experience in this industry. Commissioner Edmonson suggested setting the cap at 3,000 since the County currently had approximately 2,200 licensed luxury vehicles. She also suggested setting the minimum fare at $12, regardless of the length of the trip, and issuing limousine licenses for the first six months to chauffeurs who were currently licensed in Miami-Dade, before allowing others to enter the market. Chairman Moss noted a cap of 3,000 was unacceptable to him, but he would agree to a cap of 200 or 300. Commissioner Barreiro noted he preferred to address the cap at a later time when the Board had more information, but would support Chairman Moss suggestion for an additional 200 to 300, if necessary. Commissioner Edmonson noted the reason she requested this ordinance be forwarded with no recommendation was so that she could come back with a set cap; however, she suggested this ordinance be deferred to the next committee meeting for her to bring back an amended item containing a cap and a minimum fare amount. In response to her inquiry, Assistant County Attorney Sanchez noted another public hearing would not be required if this ordinance was deferred. It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing ordinance be deferred to the December 11, 2013 Transportation and Aviation Committee (TAC) meeting. This motion was seconded by Chairman Moss, followed by more discussion. Commissioner Barreiro noted he was inclined to support a motion to move this ordinance forward with an amendment to delete the language regarding the number of vehicles and minimum fares because he was concerned about the public’s perception that the Committee did not support digital dispatch technology. However, he noted he would support a deferral if necessary. He said he preferred not to debate this issue too long, and pointed out that the sponsor could always bring back a separate ordinance containing the numbers. Chairman Moss noted the purpose of the committee process was for the Committee to review the issues and vote them up or down or forward the item without a recommendation. He said he was not willing to move this ordinance forward without a full debate on the proposed amendments. He reiterated that he was supportive of digital dispatch technology in Miami-Dade County, but would not support an unregulated process. Commissioner Bovo asked for clarification on the amendment proffered by Commissioner Barreiro. Commissioner Barreiro explained that his motion was to forward the portion of the ordinance approving e-hail applications, eliminate the one-hour reservation requirement, and to exclude the portion regarding the number of vehicles allowed and the minimum fares, which meant the existing regulations for fares and number of vehicles would remain. At the request of Commissioner Bovo, Chairman Moss permitted a representative of Uber to come forward and address the amendment, and whether the numbers would impact the business model and applications. Ms. Rachel Holt, Representative for Uber Technologies, 1920 End Street NW, Washington DC, 20036, noted it was important to understand how other cities and markets had performed where Uber was operating. She noted, currently, NYC had 40,000 for-hire black sedan vehicles; Los Angeles had 20,000 vehicles and Washington DC, which was similar in size to Miami-Dade County (MDC), had 8,000 vehicles. She noted only MDC capped its sedans at 625, compared to other cities where Uber was operating. Commissioner Bovo pointed out the number of sedans in MDC was substantially less than the number in Washington DC, which was similar in size to MDC. He asked if 200 to 300 additional cars would impact the model. Ms. Holt noted the demand for the for-hire black sedans and the number of trips increased tremendously when Uber entered the market. She also noted Miami’s demand surpassed any market she had seen before, and said it did not make sense to think that it would shrink the growth of one industry. Commissioner Bovo noted he could support allowing the Sponsor to come back with an amended item that contained a cap and a minimum fare. Chairman Moss reiterated that Washington DC was nothing like Miami, but the nation’s capital consisted of several government buildings and much more traffic. Commissioner Bovo noted he supported Commissioner Barreiro’s motion to move the portion approving e-hail digital dispatch technology forward and allow the Committee to debate the numbers later, which meant the current regulations for licenses, insurance and fares would remain the same with a cap of 625 vehicles. Following further comments by Commissioner Edmonson, it was moved by Commissioner Barreiro that the foregoing ordinance be forwarded to the County Commissioners with amendments to delete the language providing for an open ended entry and the minimum fares. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Bovo. Assistant County Attorney Sanchez read the proffered amendment as follows: -to delete all the amendments to section 31.603 dealing with the distribution of luxury limousine sedan licenses; to delete the amendments to section 31.604 dealing with limousine rates; and to delete the changes to Section 31.602(f), limiting the number of licenses that may be operated under each luxury limousine sedan, which in essence would remove all of the overstrikes and underlines made by this ordinance and keeps the existing language as prior to this ordinance. Chairman Moss noted he could not support this motion because it did not address his concerns for regulating the dispatch application companies. Commissioner Barreiro asked if this motion would amend the title of the ordinance as well, to which Assistant County Attorney Sanchez responded that the title of the ordinance could not be amended. Discussion ensued among members of the Committee and staff regarding why the title of this ordinance could not be amended to reflect the intent of Commissioner Barreiro’s motion. Assistant County Attorney Sanchez explained that no process existed at this point to change the ordinance title. Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber explained that the issue was the manner in which this ordinance was advertised for a first reading and this public hearing. Following further discussion and a phone call made by Assistant County Attorney Libhaber to verify with the County Attorney whether the title of the ordinance could be amended, Commissioner Barreiro concurred with Chairman Moss that the issues needed to be dealt with at committee level, and withdrew his motion. Commissioner Bovo withdrew his second. It was moved by Commissioner Bovo that the foregoing proposed ordinance be deferred to the December 11th Transportation and Aviation Committee meeting for the sponsor to bring back an item amending the minimum fare and providing a cap on the number of for-hire luxury vehicle licenses issued. The motion was seconded by Chairman Moss, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 3-0; (Commissioner Monestime was absent). Assistant County Attorney Sanchez noted for the record that he conferred with the County Attorney, who supported his argument and explanation for why the title of the ordinance could not be redacted. Hearing no further discussion, the Committee proceeded to consider the next Agenda Item.|
|County Attorney||10/3/2013||Referred||Transportation & Aviation Committee||12/11/2013|
|Board of County Commissioners||9/24/2013||2A2||Presented|
|REPORT:||Commissioner Edmonson expressed appreciation to Commissioner Moss for calling this Committee of the Whole Workshop to allow the public to be heard on these separate but related issues. She noted that taxicab’s and limousine (limo) services in other metropolitan cities utilized E-hail dispatch services; she pointed out these dispatch services were currently being utilized in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and many other cities as well. Commissioner Edmonson said E-hail dispatch served thousands of customers in those cities as well as created jobs and noted the foregoing legislation was not regarding one particular company, but was concerning consumer service and the state of the taxicab and limo industry. She pointed out there should never be the perception that the county would attack new businesses, limit competition nor revise rules to benefit any incumbent businesses. Commissioner Edmonson noted that she concurred with the opinion of another law maker in another metropolitan city, she believed the current industry has had years to perfect their business model however they have allowed their domination to benefit themselves with outdated cars and poor service. During a trip to Washington D.C. and New York she noted that used the E-hail service, the drivers were first class and the service was exceptional; this was a valuable service at a fair price and the business model was excellent. As a first class community Miami-Dade County needed to be open to changing and evolving with new technology. Commissioner Edmonson noted the main points and elements of the foregoing legislation: • A minimum impact to existing regulations pertaining to chauffer’s registration vehicle title requirements and license, they should and will continue to be regulated by Miami-Dade County. • The use of technology essential to maximize efficiency, digital dispatch has become the standard around the world. • Luxury limousines will still be prearranged but there will no longer be a minimum time frame, this allows limos to be more efficient and make more trips per day earning more revenue. Reduction of minimum fare is being reduced to two times the minimum fare of a taxi. • The limit of 626 licenses is being removed, removal of this cap is necessary to create more opportunities for chauffeurs in Miami-Dade County. This would also allow current entrepreneurs to expand and to adequately supply the market expansion that results when you make high quality transportation more accessible. • In an effort to benefit individual drivers and limo services the maximum age of 2 years to be placed into service will be increased to four years and the maximum age to operate of 5 years will be increased to 6 years. A small change will have a great benefit to drivers and companies managing vehicle costs. • The County will continue to determine vehicle types and vehicle color. Commissioner Edmonson concluded that this proposal worked with existing regulations to expand opportunities in the limo market, enable job creation, making it more enjoyable and easier for residents and visitor to travel around Miami-Dade County. Commissioner Edmonson noted innovative technology was encouraged and she looked forward to hearing more from the public and the industry regarding the new pending legislation. Commissioner Heyman acknowledged and expressed appreciation to The Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau (GMCVB) and its partners for their concern regarding hospitality services and the transportation of tourists. She noted reform of legislation to vehicles for hire was long overdue and that she was in support of removing the one hour wait restriction. Commissioner Heyman expressed her concern regarding accountability for license holders. Although the limos and high end cars had not been the subject of many complaints, the one hour wait restriction was problematic. She noted that she was in support of putting an E-hail dispatch system in place, pointing out that when she used E-hail applications (apps) in other cities, sometimes she received a satisfactory experience and sometimes she did not. Commissioner Heyman noted that the language of the proposed legislation allowed any individual driver to be dispatched by the E-hail system; she noted for accountability purposes, rather than dispatching an individual driver, the E-hail dispatch should only dispatch companies that are properly licensed by the county with good track records. She inquired whether this component could be written into the foregoing proposed legislation. Commissioner Edmonson pointed out that all drivers had to be certified by Miami-Dade County as well as completing a training course for new drivers. She noted nothing in the legislation prevented drivers from working with the E-hail companies. She further noted that all of Commissioner Heyman’s concerns were already addressed within the legislation. County Mayor Gimenez pointed out that only a limited number of limousines operated in Miami-Dade County, however all limousines were not owned by a company some were owned by individuals. Commissioner Heyman inquired if this legislation included digital dispatch E-hail service options for existing limousine companies versus individuals that owned limousines; and how digital dispatch complaints would be handled. Mr. Joe Mora, Division Director, Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Passenger Transportation Regulatory Division, explained that if a driver has booked a reservation with a passenger and the driver decides to not honor that reservation or if the passenger makes a complaint, a citation for refusal of service could be issued to the driver. He noted the enforcement was handled and citations were issued by the RER department. Responding to Commissioner Heyman’s inquiry whether there was a cap on the number of limo’s operating in Miami-Dade County, Mr. Mora noted that the luxury sedan category was a closed category and there was a cap on this category of vehicles. Commissioner Heyman inquired whether the cap was based on a formula when making a proposal to the commission. Mr. Mora responded to Commissioner Heyman’s inquiry noting that currently RER was working with the Limousine Advisory Group to develop a growth formula. Mayor Gimenez pointed out that the ordinance Commissioner Edmonson was proposing was free market, however, he reiterated that not every permit holder had a large company, some permit holders were individuals and there was a limit; this ordinance would remove that limit and allow the free market to dictate what was needed. Responding to Commissioner Heyman’s inquiry regarding whether the amount 626 referred to the amount of vehicles or the amount of companies, Mr. Mora noted that the number 626 referred to the amount of vehicles, one vehicle and one license. Commissioner Monestime noted that shortly after being elected he attempted to bring reform to the taxi cab industry however, some of the companies resisted. Most of the objectives were actually aimed at providing greater satisfaction to the customer, noting that he realized it would be in the best interested of everyone if the companies and drivers met to discuss solutions to their problems. Commissioner Monestime concluded that any industry where management did not have a good relationship with laborers, the customers would pay the price in terms of receiving poor service. He also noted that Miami-Dade County depended upon tourism and could not afford to offer poor customer service. He pointed out that more needed to be done to bring about real reform to this industry; he suggested having more workshops in an effort to bring about that reform. Commissioner Monestime expressed his concern regarding the portion of the ordinance which lifted the $70 minimum per trip on luxury sedans, which required luxury sedans charge twice as much as a taxi would charge for the fraction of a mile. He noted his concern was that he was unclear about where the fraction of the mile would begin, whether it was a tenth of a mile or a third of a mile or half of a mile. Responding to Commissioner Monestime’s concern regarding where a fraction of a mile began, Commissioner Edmonson noted it was the same fraction of a mile that taxi cabs began their trips with currently. She suggested this portion of the ordinance be amended to add a minimum fare that drivers can charge. Commissioner Monestime expressed his next concern, he inquired about the entry age of taxis, and why the ordinance would allow an entry age for a limousine that was older than a taxi. Commissioner Edmonson responded to Commissioner Monestime's inquiry, noting that this would allow some of the drivers to buy older model cars for work to perhaps go into their own business and be self-sufficient. She noted that many of the drivers paid approximately $500 to $700 a week to operate someone else’s taxi. She also pointed out that many of the taxi drivers actually made less than the amount it costs them to operate the taxi. Commissioner Monestime inquired about the findings of the RER Department staff’s research of the E-hail system in other cities. He pointed out the different issues and concerns he had heard from other cities and drivers using this system. He asked if anyone could elaborate on these findings. Mr. Mora explained that The Uber application (app) has been used in New York for a number of years. He noted another E-hail company that operates in New York with the limousine industry has not had any issues. He pointed out that once the Taxi Limousine Commission decided to look at these app’s for taxi cabs this was where the legal actions seemed to occur, however the app the taxis in New York used was currently a pilot program. He noted a few challenges existed with E-hail services in the state of California and they had recently passed new legislation to correct some issues. Commissioner Edmonson noted with any major industry or company, there was always a chance of a lawsuit being filed against them. Commissioner Monestime noted one other concern brought to his attention by drivers was currently only 626 limousines were operating in Miami-Dade County, with the new legislation any number of limousines could operate within the county. He noted the drivers inquired about the likelihood of one individual or company monopolizing the industry and preventing the drivers from having access to the open market that the ordinance is intending on creating. Mr. Mora responded to Commissioner Monestime’s inquiry noting because it is an open market any one can apply for a license; the proposed ordinance was structured for one operating permit with the option to add multiple vehicles under that operating permit. Commissioner Monestime expressed further concern noting that as the owner of a small business he was aware of what it meant to be independent, as well as to try to develop your business and make it grow; although he felt this particular item and the spirit of it provided for that, he still had more questions regarding the legislation. He stated that he had inquired about the amount of complaints the RER Department had received regarding how drivers served their customers and had not found the level of satisfaction to be high. Commissioner Jordan asked for clarification of the Medallion system. She asked RER staff to come forward to explain how the medallion process works. Mr. Mora explained that the medallion program was established in 1998. A medallion was an operating permit and the Board created regulatory reform in an effort to foster an owner/driver system within the industry. He noted because the luxury sedan was a closed category, only a specific amount of medallions were issued, therefore the value of the medallions had increased significantly over the years. He further noted that the luxury sedans was a closed category and the other categories (super stretch limos, and antique collectibles) were an open category and a license could be issued at any time to operate, therefore the value was not extremely high. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding the value of a license permit and the value of a medallion, Mr. Mora responded the fee for a license permit was $625 from the county, on the open market the fee could be range from $15,000 to $25,000 for luxury sedans; he explained that medallions from the county were obtained via a series of lotteries, however if purchased from an individual owner the fee for the medallion averaged at approximately $325,000. Mr. Mora stated that the lotteries allowed the drivers to enter the lottery and receive the medallions at a low reasonable rate, the last lottery held in 2012 ten licenses were issued at a fee of $5,000, four of which were for senior drivers and six for veterans. Commissioner Edmonson inquired whether New York City currently utilized a medallion system and if so what was the value of their medallions. Mr. Mora responded to Commissioner Edmonson’s inquiry noting a fleet type medallion was worth approximately $1,000,000 and an owner/driver’s medallion was worth approximately $600,000. Responding to Commissioner Edmonson’s inquiry regarding whether the value of medallions had increased or decreased in New York, Mayor Gimenez explained that he spoke to the individual in charge of regulating the taxi industry in New York City who informed him that they had not seen a decrease in the value of medallions but an increase of the value. Commissioner Jordan noted it was her intention to put on the record how the medallion system operated. She noted that when she began to receive visits from drivers and other industry people regarding this issue she was totally on one side, the side of the current system; however upon learning more about the new proposals she noted she was in the middle now due to subsequent visits from the taxi industry as well as visitors from the E-hails representatives which made her realize the serious problems the current system had with drivers getting opportunities. Commissioner Jordan said that leasing medallions for $500 or more a week and drivers working 16 to 18 hours a day to pay for these leases was deplorable. She pointed out that she had even seen a copy of a lease where the driver had a lease that had an open date for the lease, the lease amount was missing and there was not any close date listed, however signatures were on this lease; also she pointed out that the name of the insurance holder was not the driver and she had been informed that some companies paid for their auto insurance, which covered the passengers but did not cover the drivers. Commissioner Jordan further noted drivers leasing taxis were also required to pay to paint the vehicle, to pay for gas, to pay for maintenance and repairs, and the cost of a lease went up if the vehicle needed inspection. She noted the commission had not heard about these problems, clearly these issues all presented difficulties and hardships on drivers. Drivers needed to have some type of equity in this process and not have owners of the vehicles pass these costs on to them; Commissioner Jordan said upon asking company owners about these issues she was told that paying for these things were cost prohibitive. She noted the Board needed to look into these situations and allow drivers more opportunities in an effort to get them to provide efficient and effective customer service. Commissioner Jordan questioned whether any restrictions applied to the number of sedans necessary to meet the demands of the residents. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s question, Commissioner Edmonson responded that this legislation did not address the number of sedans. Commissioner Jordan further inquired what was the benefit of allowing a digital system yet limit the number of taxis serving the customers. Mayor Gimenez responded that the market should dictate how many taxis we have on the road. He noted the Board needed to protect the customers through rates, but a system has been established which uses a set number found by using a formula. He noted he was unsure if that was the same system used in other cities and that the medallions were worth so much due to the limit on them. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding whether using the new system will cost more than current limo services, Mayor Gimenez noted that he believed the new limo services would cost less than the current service, depending upon the ride, the current fee is $70, the new service would have a fee of less than $70 for shorter rides. He pointed out there should be added language to the legislation that establishes a minimum fare depending upon the vehicle, which would be consistent with other cities. Commissioner Jordan inquired whether it was possible to adopt digital dispatch within the current regulated industry and implement the necessary improvements to provide for better service throughout the industry. With regards to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry Commissioner Edmonson responded this would be a different type of application (app) company and her legislation only pertained to a certain class of vehicles. Commissioner Jordan noted she was concerned with ensuring improvements of the existing taxi cab system. Mayor Gimenez pointed out that apps to hail taxi cabs already existed and that other cities are currently using these apps to hail taxis. In response to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding how many law suits had been filed, Mayor Gimenez noted that he was unaware of the amount of law suits filed and Commissioner Edmonson pointed out that anyone could file a lawsuit and Miami-Dade County had over 2,200 law suits filed against it in 2012. However that doesn’t mean that all 2,200 suits were lost. Commissioner Jordan inquired how would the county hold a digital dispatch company accountable, she noted there were a number of other companies that provided digital dispatch and noted this should be opened for competitive bidding. Commissioner Edmonson noted this was open to all digital dispatch company, this would allow a competitive process within the industry. The county is not choosing a company. Mayor Gimenez further explained that the county would license the vehicle and if they are tied into one application they are allowed to, we are not in the business of choosing which app they use; allow the market to determine which application is the best app. We are open to new and open apps. Chairwoman Sosa asked for clarification noting she was in support of using the apps; she inquired whether the company Uber obtained a patent for their digital dispatch service, and if this would cause the market to be closed to other companies that provided digital dispatch services. She pointed out she wanted to make sure that competition was not limited. Commissioner Edmonson responded that she was unable to answer Chairwoman’s inquiries however she will make sure due diligence is conducted and will ensure that language was placed into this legislation that would not allow limited competition. With regards to Commissioner Jordan’s previous inquiry regarding complaints and lawsuits, Mayor Gimenez noted that the county will always maintain offices to receive complaints. He pointed out when he used an app in another city; customers had the ability to rate the service they received after each trip. He noted if you are a one star driver you may not get many customers to hire you, and the drivers were able to rate the customers as well, the higher the rating the higher the possibility of getting more customers. Commissioner Jordan commented that although a number of different apps existed the county was not choosing any particular app; however, she pointed out that she was only aware of the one entity that provided the service for the application. She noted upon inquiring how drivers would be disciplined and held accountable for complaints, she was told that a system was in place where drivers received disciplinary action which led her to believe that in addition to Miami-Dade County, some other entity was holding the drivers accountable. Mayor Gimenez responded that a complaint mechanism was in place for drivers licensed by Miami-Dade County. He noted once a driver was deemed below a certain level of service the application provider did not allow these drivers to use the app any longer. Commissioner Jordan noted that accountability was critical to this process and she wanted to ensure that the county was not relaxing on accountability. She further noted that each person will be licensed based on meeting County standards and not licensing a company to host a number of individuals. She inquired whether those individuals would apply for the application then declare that in terms of their standards when they apply for licensing through us. Mr. Mora explained that interested individuals would apply, if all requirements are met pay all the necessary fees, and then be issued an operating permit for a luxury sedan operator. He indicated that staff would hold those standards in accordance to the County code as well as the training. He also noted there was a two day training requirement for new limo drivers which had nothing to do with the application. Commissioner Jordan asked if an individual had enough money to buy their own car, could they apply for license in order to become a limo driver through this process. She also inquired whether they could handle their own promotion and advertising if they chose to do so. Mr. Mora responded to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry noting that if an individual purchased their own car, became licensed they were free to be independent, get employment through a dispatching service, or become affiliated with a limo company. Responding to Commissioner Jordan’s inquiry regarding whether the digital dispatch companies would promote their product and services to customers, Mr. Mora stated that he was unsure on whether these companies would promote its services via social media and other outlets as well. Commissioner Jordan noted that when she called for the service she received a reply stating an estimated amount of time for the cars arrival, a picture of the driver car tag number, an estimated amount for the trip and other related information. Mayor Gimenez pointed out using this application was actually safer for the drivers because it was all done electronically and no money was transferred. With regards to Commissioner Jordan’s prior inquiry regarding advertising, Commissioner Edmonson noted the legislation did allow limo companies and the application providers to advertise their services. Commissioner Barreiro noted he was in favor of using E-hail services. He stated he was leaning towards being in favor of eliminating the one hour waiting period. The issue regarding permitting and medallions he noted he was in favor using of the current structure of permitting and seeing how the market dictates it, then make a determination regarding changing the structure. Commissioner Bovo inquired whether today’s proceedings were a substitute for hearing the item at the Transportation and Aviation Committee. Chairwoman Sosa explained that the Committee of the Whole was not a public hearing; it was a meeting for us to discuss and gain knowledge of the proposed items. She noted that since these issues have created so much interest throughout the community, the sponsors of the different proposals requested allowance of public input; therefore these items will have to follow the same process and go through the committee process. Commissioner Bovo noted that the rights and benefits to the consumer were important and that competition drove prices down and opened up the market. He noted the common thread from everyone involved seemed to be competition; everyone wanted a chance to compete. Commissioner Edmonson’s legislation moved in the direction of competition. He noted that recently he was enlightened on the plight of the drivers and he was concerned about their situation and being sequestered in their vehicles for many hours in an effort to not miss a line of work. Commissioner Bovo noted that if this ordinance helps relieve some of these issues he was inclined to support these efforts. Responding to Commissioner Bovo’s inquiry regarding the implications and chances of litigation to the county, Assistant County Attorney Gerald Sanchez stated that he believed the ordinance was legally sufficient, and that he would prefer to discuss the likelihood of litigation in another forum. Commissioner Bovo stated the consumer and the drivers needed to be first and foremost here. He noted that he was in support of the legislation and this was a step in the right direction. Commissioner Bell commended Commissioner Edmonson for laying out the specifics of the legislation and eliminating the guess work. She pointed out that she felt these things should be market driven, if there are too many restrictions, it may collapse the market and cause problems. The free market thrives on competition and she noted changes have to come to this industry, embrace the changes in a way that will positively affect everyone. Commissioner Moss noted this legislation was complicated and he felt it was moving too fast and he was looking forward to hearing more from the community regarding the issues. Commissioner Moss pointed out that the Board needed to be aware that Miami-Dade County’s market was not the same as New York or Washington D.C.; he noted this was not a for hire driven community, the density was different from those communities. Commissioner Monestime noted that he paid great attention to both sides of the issues and pertinent questions came from both sides. The industry felt that an open market would not be conducive to best business practices and this proposed legislation would not be regulated properly; the drivers concerns were how would this legislation benefit them and not put them into a situation worse than their current situation. Commissioner Monestime said a driver had informed him that on more than one occasion he only made enough money to pay the lease and put gas in the vehicle. He pointed out that although the fees to become licensed were moderate he questioned how an individual driver with one permit would be able to compete with someone that had the financial resources to purchase many vehicles. Commissioner Monestime noted that with the new legislation you can have one permit with multiple vehicles and this made it possible that more than one financially affluent person could apply for these permits and dominate the industry saturating the market with vehicles. He noted his concern was supporting legislation that would create a situation where the market was unbearable due to oversaturation. Mayor Gimenez responded to Commissioner Monestime’s concerns noting that free market was the answer. He noted that the market would not be oversaturated and the market would dictate the number of vehicles. He further noted that currently drivers do not have the right to have their own vehicle and with this legislation they will have the right to have their own vehicles. He noted that with the app a driver could compete with others based on their level of service. Responding to Commissioner Monestime’s inquiry regarding the criteria of adding an additional car to the fleet of cars owned by a permit holder, Mr. Mora noted that currently a list of vehicles that were authorized to participate as luxury sedans was published on the web portal, the criteria was the make and model of the vehicle with a threshold of approximately $45,000 for a new vehicle, the costs go down for older model vehicles. Commissioner Monestime inquired whether an individual needed to have a for-hire license in order to own a permit. Mr. Mora responded that owners of permits were not required to have a for-hire license or chauffeur registration. Commissioner Monestime noted that an individual could own a permit and not have a license; he pointed out that some drivers had expressed concern that someone that did not need to have a license could hire licensed drivers or lease cars to drivers to chauffer. He noted he was contemplating that people with the financial means could come and purchase many cars and hire drivers. He reminded the Board that the drivers were looking to become entrepreneurs themselves. Mayor Gimenez noted that currently drivers could not own their own vehicles; they had to go through someone that had a medallion. Under the new legislation drivers could purchase their own vehicle go through the licensing process and would not be prohibited for not having a medallion. Commissioner Monestime stated he felt that it would be better to have a specific number of permits to issue. Responding to Commissioner Monestime’s comments regarding allowing only a specific number of permits, Mayor Gimenez noted that would be presuming that the Administration could figure a specific number to serve the market and that the Board knew better than the market. Commissioner Monestime inquired about the possibility of limiting the number of cars permit holders could have and suggested amending the ordinance. Commissioner Edmonson noted that was not open to accepting Commissioner Monestime’s suggested amendment and noted currently the limo system currently set up this way; some drivers owned their vehicle(s) and companies which hired drivers. Commissioner Monestime noted that competition was also survival of the fittest; he noted that the market was open to those that had the financial capacity to apply for permits and purchase vehicles, individual drivers with less financial capacity to compete. He drivers had informed him about companies buying doors and if the regulations that were being implemented included a way for the county to enforce these regulations. Mayor Gimenez responded that using the E-hail system was a one to one interaction with the driver, and all drivers could utilize the E-hail apps without any middle person. Commissioner Monestime inquired about enforcement and taking permits away from owners. Mayor Gimenez noted that the Board would have to determine that in terms of number of complaints, and that Commissioner Moss had legislation that discussed the issue of complaints. He further noted that app companies had their own standard that drivers had to follow. Commissioner Monestime noted in an effort to protect drivers and if a wave of affluent owners applied for permits, what was the possibility of allowing a certain percentage of permits being made available to current drivers. He said that if the Board really wanted to protect the drivers and make sure they really became independent there had to be a way that some of the permits go directly to them. Commissioner Edmonson replied that the permitting process was open to everyone who qualified. Commissioner Monestime expressed his concern noting that he was hoping that he didn’t receive any complaints in the future from individuals that were qualified for permits were overlooked. Commissioner Edmonson noted that currently when complaints were filed they were taken care of. She indicated that this new legislation needed to be changed due to certain complaints, changes could be made to the legislation if it did not work. Commissioner Monestime noted that many efforts had been made to strengthen the entrepreneur spirit, this was an opportunity to do so and that everyone would be treated fairly. He noted that he did not want the drivers to go from one bad situation to another one. Chairwoman Sosa noted that, upon requesting car service, she experienced unsanitary vehicles as well as drivers that declined to drive her because the destination was too close. She noted that all car services were not this way and it was beneficial to Miami-Dade County (MDC) to promote economic development and make MDC an attraction to the world. However if they encountered poor service that problem should be addressed. Commissioner Edmonson expressed her concern regarding having the drivers covered by auto insurance policies as well as the passengers. Chairwoman Sosa expressed concern about selecting one company to provide E-hail services. Mayor Gimenez pointed out that the administration had no intent of putting anything out to bid in terms of applications, this was allowing drivers to sign up with different application companies to be hailed and this was simply dispatching through an application. Chairwoman Sosa asked for clarification and asked if this ordinance was limited to one company or more than one company would offer this service. Commissioner Edmonson clarified that this had nothing to do with one particular company. E-hail applications allowed people to hail limo’s using their electronic devices. She reiterated there was more than one E-hail company. In response to Chairwoman Sosa’s inquiry, Mayor Gimenez noted limousine service could be requested via more than one cell phone application, and the County had certain requirements to ensure that visitors received good limousine service, including a complaint desk. Chairwoman Sosa asked whether the County Administration would be able to ensure that the public would receive the best service with the best price, and that the prices would be controlled in the event of a flooding or hurricane. Mayor Gimenez said this proposed ordinance opened the limousine service to the free market and allowed for requesting service through the use of a digital application, without specifying the type of application. He noted the existing safeguards for vehicles for-hire were still in place, including the enforcement and complaint mechanisms; insurance requirements; chauffeurs’ names and license requirements; as well as the County Commission’s determination of the penalties for complaints. Commissioner Edmonson noted she would ensure the requirements which were similar to taxicab requirements were maintained, but would include a provision that if a license holder held more than one license, that license holder would be responsible for the insurance on that particular vehicle. Responding to Chairwoman Sosa’s inquiry whether the application would also apply to taxi drivers, Commissioner Edmonson said this proposed ordinance did not address taxicabs. Commissioner Heyman inquired, and Mr. Joe Mora, Division Director, Passenger Transportation Regulatory Division, Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER), confirmed, that some of the existing 626 licenses that would be opened up for fair market and competition were a business entity, and some were individual drivers with only one car. Commissioner Heyman pointed out that the limousine industry was not experiencing the kind of problems that the Director advised the Commission had the ability to enforce. She expressed concerns that opening some of the licenses for free market might result in drivers being unable to make a legitimate income due to increased competition; and would result in reduced enforcement by the Regulatory and Economic Resources (RER) Department. Commissioner Heyman asked whether any protection would be provided for limousine businesses that adhered to the insurance and regulation requirements, upgraded their cars, and did not compete directly with the taxicabs. Mayor Gimenez said the current 600 limousine drivers were being protected by the County; however, the consumer was not protected. He noted the market, not the County, usually dictated who would succeed and who would fail. Commissioner Heyman said that she respected the Mayor’s position; however, the County did not regulate to the level it did for vehicles for-hire, restaurants or other places. She observed that perhaps for so many years, the County had overregulated this issue and had been the sole determiner of the marketing conditions. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern about making such a drastic change from regulation to opening up the market completely, when RER did not have sufficient enforcement and manpower. Responding to Commissioner Heyman’s comments about protecting existing legislation, Commissioner Edmonson said that the pre-arranged transportation requirement remained the same, except that the limousine companies would no longer have to wait one hour. She noted the companies had requested this requirement in the past. Commissioner Barreiro said he believed the reason why the County did not regulate other type of industries such as restaurants were because those were attached to real estate. He pointed out that the County regulated food vendors; however, there was not a proliferation of these vendors. Commissioner Barreiro noted he also believed a workshop for the entire for-hire industry was very important as if the standards were raised everywhere else, there would be a different industry. Mayor Gimenez advised the Commission that he had to leave at 2:15 p.m. due to a previous engagement.|
|Transportation & Aviation Committee||7/10/2013||1E1||Deferred||P|
|REPORT:||Hearing no objections, the Committee members considered Agenda Items 1E1 and 1E2 simultaneously. Chairman Moss requested that the foregoing proposed ordinances be deferred. He indicated that at his request, a Committee of the Whole meeting was scheduled to discuss the foregoing ordinances, noting these items would be referred back to committee for review, following that meeting. Hearing no questions or comments, the Committee members voted to defer the foregoing proposed ordinances to no date certain.|
|Board of County Commissioners||6/18/2013||Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing||Transportation & Aviation Committee||7/10/2013|
|Board of County Commissioners||6/18/2013||4G||Adopted on first reading||7/10/2013||P|
|REPORT:||First Assistant County Attorney Abigail Price-Williams read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and set for public hearing before the Transportation and Aviation Committee on Wednesda, July 10, 2013 at 2:00 PM.|
|County Attorney||6/10/2013||Referred||Transportation & Aviation Committee||7/10/2013|
|County Attorney||6/10/2013||Assigned||Gerald K. Sanchez||6/10/2013|
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31, ARTICLE VI OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGULATING FOR HIRE LIMOUSINES; AMENDING DEFINITIONS OF DIRECTOR, CSD, LIMOUSINE, LUXURY LIMOUSINE SEDAN AND PRE ARRANGED; DEFINING DIGITAL DISPATCH SOFTWARE AND DIGITAL DISPATCH SOFTWARE PROVIDER; REQUIRING DIGITAL DISPATCH SOFTWARE PROVIDERS TO OBTAIN A BUSINESS LICENSE, MAINTAIN A WEBSITE, AND ONLY DISPATCH PROPERLY LICENSED LIMOUSINES AND REGISTERED CHAUFFEURS; ELIMINATING REQUIREMENT THAT LIMOUSINES SHALL BE SOLELY OWNED OR LEASED BY THE FOR HIRE LICENSE HOLDER; AMENDING PROHIBITIONS REGARDING THE ADVERTISEMENT OF LIMOUSINE SERVICES; PROVIDING THAT LUXURY LIMOUSINE SEDAN LICENSE HOLDERS MAY OPERATE MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE PER LICENSE; AMENDING RULES OF OPERATION; ELIMINATING LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF LUXURY LIMOUSINE SEDAN FOR HIRE LICENSES THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR; PROVIDING THAT LIMOUSINE LICENSE HOLDERS OR DIGITAL DISPATCH SOFTWARE PROVIDERS SHALL DETERMINE LIMOUSINE RATES IN EXCESS OF MINIMUM RATES; AMENDING VEHICLE AGE REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING REQUIREMENT FOR MINIMUM LIMOUSINE RATES; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, new technologies, including limousine reservation and dispatch applications for wireless devices have been developed to permit more efficient reservation, dispatch, and utilization of for-hire limousine services; and
WHEREAS, Miami-Dade County desires to facilitate the implementation of these new technologies for the benefit of the citizens of Miami-Dade County,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Chapter 31, Article VI of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended as follows:
VEHICLES FOR HIRE
ARTICLE VI. LICENSING AND REGULATION OF FOR-HIRE LIMOUSINES
Sec. 31-601. Definitions.
For the purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
* * *
(k) CSD means the Miami-Dade County Consumer Services Department[[.]]>>, the Regulatory and Economic Resources Department or successor department.<<
(l) Director means the CSD [[director or the director’s designee.]]>>, the Regulatory and Economic Resources Department, or successor department director or designee.<<
* * *
(u) Limousine means a "luxury limousine sedan," >>a “luxury sedan,”<>or by digital dispatch software<<.
(v) Luxury limousine sedan or luxury sedan means a luxury >>vehicle including, but not limited to, an eco-friendly luxury vehicle (rated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency at more than twenty-five (25) miles per gallon or miles per gallon equivalent, combined city and highway)<<[[, non-metered vehicle]]>>,which is not a taxicab,<< of a wheelbase size smaller than a stretch limousine, as defined by >>the Regulatory and Economic Resources Department or successor department<< [[CSD]].
* * *
(bb) Pre-arranged>>,<< [[or]] pre-arrange>>, or pre-arrangement<< means a [[written or telephone]] reservation made [[at least one hour]] in advance by the person requesting service at the place of business of the for-hire license holder>>or via digital dispatch software<< for the provision of limousine service [[for a specified period of time]].
* * *
>>(mm) Digital dispatch software means a technology that connects a passenger to a duly licensed for-hire limousine via advanced reservation through a computer, mobile phone application, text, e-mail, web-based reservation or other similar software-based technologies that may be developed in the future.
(nn) Digital dispatch software provider means any business that provides digital dispatch software.<<
* * *
Sec. 31-602. For-hire limousine licenses.
(a) Prohibition against unauthorized operations. It shall be unlawful for any person to use, drive, or operate or to advertise in any newspaper, airwaves transmission, telephone directory, or other medium accessible to the public that it offers for-hire limousine services or to cause or permit any other person to use, drive, or operate any for-hire limousine vehicle upon the streets of Miami-Dade County without first obtaining a Miami-Dade County for-hire license and maintaining it current and valid pursuant to the provisions of this article.>>Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, no provision of this Article, including this subsection (a), shall require a digital dispatch software provider to obtain a for-hire license or licensure as a passenger service company in order to advertise the provision of properly licensed for-hire limousine services.
A digital dispatch software provider shall be licensed pursuant to Chapter 8A of the Code to do business in Miami-Dade County and maintain a website, which shall contain information on its method of fare calculation, the rates and fees charged and provide a customer service telephone number or e-mail address. A digital dispatch software provider may only dispatch properly licensed and permitted limousines utilizing registered chauffeurs in compliance with Chapter 31 of the Code .<<
(b) Out-of County origin exception. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prohibit discharge within Miami-Dade County of any passenger lawfully picked up in another County and lawfully transported into Miami-Dade County. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, (1) Any passenger lawfully picked up in another county, transported to, and discharged at any location within Miami-Dade County, may be picked up at the discharge location and returned to the county of origin as long as the transportation is part of a pre-arranged, round-trip fare pursuant to a written contract, the limousine has complied with all of the regulatory requirements of the other county and the county where the passenger is picked up has adopted a similar provision; and (2) A limousine from another county may pick up a passenger at either the Miami International Airport (MIA) or the [[Miami-Dade Seaport]]>>Port of Miami<< (Seaport) and transport said passenger directly to the limousine's county of origin as long as the transportation is part of a pre-arranged one-way continuous fare pursuant to a written contract, the passenger arrived at either the MIA or the Seaport, the limousine has complied with all of the regulatory requirements of the other county and the county where the passenger is picked up has adopted a similar provision. [[Pre-arranged means a written or telephone reservation made at least one hour in advance by the person requesting service at the place of business of the for-hire license holder for the provision of limousine service for a specified period of time.]] Any limousine that picks up or discharges passengers at either the MIA or the Seaport shall meet the MIA and the Seaport limousine requirements. A copy of the contract shall be in the possession of the chauffeur at all times and shall be made available to enforcement personnel upon request.
(c) Application procedures. Every initial application for a for-hire license, renewal application, transfer, or amendment to a for-hire license shall be in writing, signed and sworn to by the applicant, and shall be filed with the CSD together with an investigative and processing fee which shall be nonrefundable. If the applicant is a corporation, the form shall be signed and sworn to by the president or vice-president, and the corporate secretary shall attest such signature and affix the corporate seal. If the applicant is a partnership, the form shall be signed and sworn to by a general partner. The application shall be on a form provided by the CSD and shall contain all information required thereon, including:
(1) Sufficient information to identify the applicant, including but not limited to full legal name, and trade name, date of birth, telephone number, and residence address, of the applicant. If the applicant is a corporation, the foregoing information shall be provided for each officer, resident agent, director, and stockholder. If the applicant is a partnership, the foregoing information shall be provided for each partner. As part of such application, the applicant shall also disclose the foregoing information for any person who has any interest (legal, equitable, beneficial or otherwise) in the license. Post office box addresses will not be accepted hereunder. All corporate or partnership applicants shall be organized or qualified to do business under the laws of Florida and shall have a place of business in either Miami-Dade County, Broward County or Palm Beach County, Florida.
(2) The class or classes of transportation service which the applicant desires to furnish.
(i) Limousine service:
(a) Luxury limousine sedan;
(b) Stretch limousine;
(c) Super-stretch limousine;
(d) Ancient limousine;
(e) Antique limousine;
(f) Collectible limousine.
(3) A brief description of the kind(s) and type(s) of vehicles, seating capacity, seating arrangements, gross weight, mileage, and number of vehicles proposed to be used.
(4) The names and addresses of at least three (3) residents of the County as references.
(5) The trade name under which the applicant intends to operate and a description, where applicable, of a distinctive uniform and decorative color scheme including placement of numbers and other markings.
(6) A record and proof of all present and prior transportation business activities of the applicant during the past five (5) years.
(7) A record of all crimes to which the applicant has pled nolo contendere, pled guilty, or of which the applicant has been found guilty or been convicted, whether or not adjudication has been withheld within the five (5) years preceding the date of the application. The applicant shall have his or her fingerprints and photograph taken by the Miami-Dade Police Department. In the case of a corporate or partnership applicant, this information shall be obtained from all corporate officers and directors or partners, as the case may be. In the case of corporations, the above information shall be obtained from stockholders who own, hold or control five (5) percent or more of the corporation's issued and outstanding stock.
(8) Two (2) credit references including at least one bank where the applicant has an active account. In lieu of the second credit reference, the applicant may submit alternative written evidence of financial trustworthiness.
(9) Where applicable, the contract disclosing the terms and conditions of the proposed transfer, including amount of compensation which has been paid or is payable to the transferor and any other consideration given or to be given to the transferor in connection with the transfer of the for-hire license.
(10) A limousine management service plan which shall include:
(a) Maintenance facilities and maintenance program for the upkeep of vehicles operating under the for-hire license.
(b) A system for handling complaints, accidents and property left by a passenger in the for-hire motor vehicle.
(c) A central place of business, with a properly listed telephone for receiving all calls relating to for-hire vehicle service and where the operator will maintain the business records and daily manifests as set forth in this article.
(d) A driver training program which the applicant will utilize to ensure quality service.
(e) A proposal for submission of appropriate insurance coverage as required by section 31-608 of this article.
(11) A sworn statement signed by the applicant that all the information provided by the applicant is true and correct.
(12) Any additional information as the Director shall require to enforce the provisions of this article.
* * *
(f) Vehicles authorized to operate under a for-hire license.
(1) [[Except for luxury limousine sedans, limousines shall be solely owned or leased by the for-hire license holder.]] Under no circumstances shall a limousine license holder require a chauffeur to purchase or lease a limousine motor vehicle. This requirement shall become effective one (1) year after the adoption of this article when a new vehicle is placed into service as provided by Section 31 609(b).
(2) [[The number of vehicles authorized to operate under for-hire license are as follows:
(a) Luxury limousine sedan for-hire license holders shall operate only one vehicle per for-hire license.
(b) Stretch, super-stretch, ancient, antique, or collectible l]]>>L<
* * *
(j) Rules pertaining to change in control of the for-hire license. Except as provided in Section 31-602(n), no for hire license shall be assigned, transferred, or sold (either outright or under a conditional sales contract). Except as provided in Section 31-602(n), any change in the ownership structure of a corporation or partnership where at least five (5) percent of the shares of said corporation or at least five (5) percent of the partnership interest is assigned, sold or transferred to another shall be deemed a sale and shall immediately terminate the license and a new for-hire license application shall be filed. The for-hire transportation service may continue to operate provided that such application has been filed with the CSD within thirty (30) days of the change in accordance with Section 31 602 and be accompanied by an investigatory and processing fee.
(k) Rules of operation. For-hire license holders shall abide by all rules and regulations applicable to for-hire license holders and shall be subject to the enforcement provisions contained in this chapter and chapter 8CC of the Miami-Dade County Code. A for-hire license holder shall comply with the following regulations:
* * *
(21) A limousine for-hire license holder shall, except as provided herein, be prohibited from entering into a written agreement with an existing for-hire limousine license holder or passenger service company as defined in Article II. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a luxury sedan limousine license holder who [[has been]] >>is operating<< [[issued]] three (3) or less luxury sedan limousine>>s<< [[licenses]] may enter into a written agreement with an existing for-hire limousine license holder or passenger service company for the provision of the following services as stated in section 31-602(c)(10). Under no circumstances shall an existing for-hire limousine license holder or passenger service company require a sedan limousine license holder to purchase any services or goods others than those stated in 31-602(c)(10);
(22) Not allow a driver to solicit or pick up passengers other than by prearrangement [[through a person located at the limousine license holder's place of business]];
* * *
(n) No for-hire limousine luxury sedan license shall be assigned, sold, (either outright or under a conditional sales contract) or transferred without prior County approval. Any change in the ownership structure of a corporation or partnership where at least five (5) percent of the shares of said corporation or at least five (5) percent of the partnership interest is assigned, sold or transferred to another shall be deemed a sale for the purposes of this section. The Director is authorized to approve assignments, sales, or transfers when requested by submission of an application (which discloses the information specified in and is signed and sworn to in accordance with the requirements of subsections (c) and (d) of this section) and payment of a transfer investigative and processing fee and after an investigation and determination, based on the criteria set forth in this section. An assignee, buyer, or transferee shall not begin operating the limousine luxury sedan license during the pendency of the application approval process. If the County approves an application to assign, sell, or transfer a limousine luxury sedan license, the assignor's, seller's, or transferor's limousine luxury sedan license shall be suspended until the County reissues the limousine luxury sedan licenses to the assignee, buyer, or transferee. Provided, however, that the County shall reissue the limousine luxury sedan licenses to the assignee, buyer, or transferee at a cost not to exceed the annual, limousine luxury sedan license renewal fee.[[Any limousine luxury sedan license issued pursuant to Section 31-603(c)(ii)—(v) shall not be assigned, sold or transferred for a period of five (5) years from the date of issuance, except upon: (1) the sale of the luxury sedan license holder's business within the five-year period; (2) the sale of shares or the corporation or partnership as provided in this subsection; or (3) the transfer of all for-hire luxury sedan licenses by an individual to a person as defined in Section 31-601.]] No transfer shall be approved that results in a license holder holding or controlling more than thirty (30) percent of the total number of luxury limousine sedan licenses issued by the County. Appeals of the Director's decision shall be made pursuant to the requirements of this Chapter.
* * *
[[(q) Rules for existing for-hire limousine licenses. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, any person who converts an existing for-hire limousine license after the date of adoption of this article pursuant to Section 31-603(c)(i) and is providing luxury limousine service may lease the luxury limousine sedan license to a person who meets the requirements of Section 31-602(c) and (d), including payment of the application and investigatory fee, until such license is assigned, sold or transferred as provided in Section 31-602(n).]]
* * *
Sec. 31-603. Luxury limousine sedan for-hire limousine licenses.
(a) Rules governing the distribution of luxury limousine sedan for-hire licenses.
(i) [[Upon the effective date of this article,]]>>Effective thirty (30) days after the adoption of this ordinance, there shall be no limitation on the number of luxury limousine sedan for hire limousine licenses that may be issued administratively by the director.<< [[the director shall be authorized to issue the number of luxury limousine sedan for-hire licenses pursuant to subsections (c)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). In 2006, 2007 and 2008, the director shall be authorized to issue forty-two (42) luxury limousine sedan licenses each calendar year. The CSD director shall administratively issue such licenses pursuant to the provisions of this section.]]
(b) Method for distribution of new luxury limousine sedan for-hire licenses. [[Issuance of]] >>L<
[[(i) Random selection or lottery for new issues. A random selection or lottery process shall be conducted as determined by the director. The random selection or lottery process shall be conducted by an individual who shall not have responsibility for the enforcement of this chapter. All fees and applications must be received by the CSD no later than fifty (50) calendar days after the announcement of the lottery.
(ii) Separate lottery conducted by CSD. If, due to revocation, cancellation, or lapse, there are ten (10) or more luxury sedan licenses which may be issued, the CSD shall have authority to issue such licenses utilizing the procedures of this section. In such event, the applicable deadlines for submission of applications and for conduct of the lottery may be administratively determined by the director.
(iii) Conditions for participating in random selection or lottery process. All applicants shall pay a non-refundable fee to participate in each random selection or lottery process. Each application to participate in the random selection or lottery process shall be filed in accordance with Section 31-602 of this Chapter, including payment of the investigative and processing fee provided therein. In addition to the eligibility requirements found elsewhere in this Chapter, an applicant shall not be eligible to participate in the random selection or lottery process if he/she/it has, during the three (3) years prior to application, pled nolo contendere, pled guilty or been found guilty of a total of four (4) or more violations of any one or combination of the following sections of this Chapter: Section 31 602 (a); Section 31-603 (b); and/or Section 31 607(a). The CSD shall disqualify applicants who do not meet the requirements of this Chapter from participation in the lottery. The director's decision shall be final.
(iv) No luxury limousine sedan for-hire license shall be issued until the applicant has met the provisions of Section 31-602 within forty-five (45) days after the applicant has been notified of his or her selection. If the applicant believes he or she cannot meet the requirements within the 45-day period, the applicant may, prior to expiration of such 45-day period, request in writing, a reasonable extension from the CSD director. The CSD director may grant such a reasonable extension that the director finds is in the public interest.
(c) Conditions for initial issuance of luxury limousine sedan licenses:
(i) Each holder of a current and valid for-hire license to operate a limousine shall, upon application, receive one luxury limousine sedan license for each such license held. Such application shall be filed no later than forty-five (45) days after the effective date of this article. Failure to file such application within the prescribed period shall result in forfeiture of such option.
(ii) Each lessee of a current and valid for-hire limousine license as of January 1, 1999, shall, upon application and the submission of documentation requested by CSD, receive one (1) luxury limousine sedan license for each for-hire limousine license leased prior to January 1, 1999. Such application shall be filed no later than forty-five (45) days after the effective date of this article. Failure to file such application within the prescribed period shall result in forfeiture of such option.
(iii) Each person in whose name continuous intra Miami-Dade County luxury limousine service was offered prior to January 1, 1999 shall be issued one (1) luxury limousine sedan license for each for-hire luxury limousine sedan operated if the applicant: (1) submits an application which is approved by the CSD; (2) pays the applicable application investigative and processing fees: (3) provides proof of continuous, intra Miami-Dade County luxury limousine sedan service, as required herein; and (4) enters into a settlement agreement with the County, which shall, among other things, include a promise that the applicant's future limousine operations will comply with the requirements of the Code and requires the payment of a five hundred dollar ($500.00) per vehicle penalty for each year that a vehicle has been operated illegally. The settlement agreement may provide for payment of such penalty over a period of years. In order to demonstrate continuous, intra Miami-Dade County luxury limousine sedan service before January 1, 1999, the applicant shall submit, in addition to any other information required by the County, the following documents: (1) annual federal tax records relating to luxury limousine services showing the payment of taxes consistent with the provision of luxury limousine services as stated in the application; (2) a list and description of all vehicles operated, vehicle identification numbers and the years of operation; (3) annual revenues per vehicle; (4) evidence of automobile liability insurance as required by Florida Statutes for each vehicle operated; (5) the number of hours operated per year, per vehicle; (6) proof that each vehicle provided at least 240 intra Miami-Dade County trips for the 12-month calendar period prior to January 1, 1999; (7) occupational licenses for each year the applicant provided for-hire limousine service from a municipality in Miami-Dade County, Miami-Dade County, or in the absence of an occupational license from the preceding governmental entities, an occupational license from a municipality in Broward or Palm Beach Counties, or from Broward or Palm Beach Counties; (8) manifests for each trip provided by each vehicle; (9) Articles of Incorporation, if required by law; (10) fictitious name registrations, if required by law; (11) annual renewals of Articles of Incorporation and fictitious name registrations, if required by law; (12) the name, address and telephone number for all chauffeurs who drove each luxury limousine and the dates of employment; and (13) a notarized affidavit, signed under oath, that the submitted application and documents are true and genuine. The CSD shall disqualify applicants who do not meet the requirements of this chapter.
(iv) After totaling the number of for-hire luxury limousine sedan licenses issued pursuant to (c)(i), (ii) and (iii), twenty (20) percent of the total number of issued luxury limousine sedan licenses to be issued or 100 luxury limousine sedan licenses, whichever number is greater, shall be distributed through a random selection or lottery process to taxicab chauffeurs who as of January 1, 1999, were providing taxicab service in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 31 of the Code. The applicant shall be required to furnish such documentation as shall be required by the CSD.
(v) If, in the future, additional luxury limousine sedan for-hire licenses are to be issued, all applicants must meet the requirements of Section 31-602 and Section 603 and, shall be distributed as follows:
(1) Two-thirds (2/3) to holders of a current and valid limousine for-hire license; and
(2) One-third (1/3) to applicants who are not holders of current and valid limousine for-hire license.
(vi) No lottery applicant may apply for more than ten (10) luxury limousine sedan licenses.]]
[[(d)]]>>(c)<< Renewals. Additional rule for renewal of luxury limousine sedan for-hire licenses. Failure to use a for-hire license during any nine (9) month period shall be deemed abandonment and shall result in automatic revocation of the for-hire license.
[[(e)]]>>(d)<< Leasing the for-hire license. A luxury limousine sedan license shall not be leased to another party.
* * *
Sec. 31-604. [[Establishing l]]>>L<
[[Except as otherwise provided herein, the Commission shall establish minimum rates for luxury limousine sedan, stretch limousine, super-stretch limousines, antique limousines, ancient limousines and collectible limousines operating in Miami-Dade County. Such rates shall be established, altered, amended, revised, increased, or decreased in accordance with the following procedures:
(1)]]>>(a) Rates for limousines operating in Miami-Dade County shall be established by the for hire limousine license holder and/or digital dispatch software provider. Rates for limousines operating in Miami-Dade County may be calculated on the basis of time and distance, may be flat fares to airports and other point-to-point trips, or may be calculated on an hourly basis. There shall be no minimum time requirements for the usage of limousines. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a for-hire limousine may charge no less per trip than two (2) times the taximeter rate for the first fraction of a mile, as established by the Board of County Commissioners, regardless of the length of the limousine trip.<<[[The CSD, at two-year intervals or upon request of the Commission or the County Manager, shall investigate and prepare a report concerning the existing rates for luxury sedans, ancient limousines, antique limousines, collectible limousines, stretch, and super stretch limousines. Said investigation shall specify the relative changes in the consumer price index over the preceding two-year period and shall quantify what the rates would be if the currently approved minimum limousine rates were adjusted for such change. Such investigation may also consider the financial records of the industry to determine revenues or expenses when requested by the Commission or County Manager.
(2)]] >>(b) Prior to booking a vehicle, the fare calculation method, the applicable rates being charged, and the option for an estimated fare must be available to the customer.<<[[The CSD's report shall be forwarded to the County Manager who shall prepare a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.
(3)]]>>(c) Upon completion of a trip, the customer shall receive a paper or electronic receipt that lists the origination and destination of the trip, the total distance and time of the trip, and a breakdown of the total fare paid, including fees and gratuity, if any.<<[[A public hearing concerning rates shall be scheduled at which time all interested parties shall have an opportunity to be heard. The Commission shall consider the CSD's report, the County Manager's recommendation, and all evidence produced at the hearing and, by resolution, shall determine and set the appropriate rates as may be in the public interest; provided, however, limousine minimum rates shall be no less than three and one-third (31/3) times the hourly rate of taxicabs.]]
* * *
Sec. 31-609. Vehicle standards.
* * *
(b) Vehicle age limits and inspection schedules. Vehicle age limits and frequency of for-hire vehicle inspections are as follows; provided however, that the CSD may inspect a for-hire vehicle at any time:
(1) Luxury limousine sedans. No luxury limousine sedan initially placed into service shall be older than >>four (4)<< [[two (2)]] model years of age. No luxury limousine sedan that exceeds >>six (6)<< [[five (5)]] model years of age shall be inspected or operated.
(2) Stretch limousines. No stretch limousine initially placed into service shall be older than >>four (4)<< [[two (2)]] model years of age. No stretch limousine that exceeds >>six (6)<< [[five (5)]] model years of age shall be inspected or operated; provided, however, that a luxury sedan vehicle that is either a fifteen (15) or greater model year Rolls Royce, Packard or Mercedes-Benz that has been stretched a minimum of forty-two (42) inches may be operated beyond five (5) model years as long as the vehicle meets the inspection requirements of the Code.
(3) Super-stretch limousines. No super-stretch limousine initially placed into service shall be older than >>four (4)<< [[two (2)]] model years of age. No super-stretch limousine that exceeds seven (7) model years of age shall be inspected or operated; provided, however, that a luxury sedan vehicle that is either a fifteen (15) or greater model year Rolls Royce, Packard or Mercedes-Benz that has been stretched a minimum of one hundred twenty (120) inches may be operated beyond seven (7) model years as long as the vehicle meets the inspection requirements of the Code.
* * *
Sec. 31-615. Advertisement of for-hire services.
(a) No person may knowingly place or publish an advertisement in any publication which is primarily circulated, displayed, distributed, or marketed within Miami-Dade County, Florida, which advertisement identifies for-hire transportation regulated by this article, unless the advertisement includes the for-hire license number of the limousine company.
(b) For the purposes of this section, an advertisement shall be defined to include any announcement, listing, display, entry, or other statement of whatever nature or kind, and specifically to include a name and address or telephone number placed under a heading where the heading describes or encompasses any for-hire transportation regulated under this article.
[[(c) No person shall advertise a rate or fare other than the rate or fare approved pursuant to Section 31-604.]]
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word “ordinance” may be changed to “section,” “article,” or other appropriate word.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to