[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6513062,"mediaKeyId","5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82","parentId",5079831,"title","Council sends taxi refranchising RFP back to committee after debate over alternative-fuel incentives","audioSeconds",5530,"startMs",1808000,"endMs",7338000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82&start=1808&end=7338","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82/thumbnail_1808000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6513062/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-sends-taxi-refranchising-RFP-back-to-committee-after-debate-over-alternative-fuel-incentives","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6513062-c44d960ea1971a977f483d0c29e14402/orig.mp4?Expires=1774971342&Signature=FVxmyv8nEhBMGxCK4TeS92wxL86MtSz5vo9K62ExyqTIPTV6Gl1gOQ2Y~8b9VX763kmoI-wpz0bj0OpUEfi-Fk919M3tGRLJY8ha5BAav7IjN7k8OjHqYTXhopDUfOEnBAoS-b0AGRRg3qkTLqow3aXfYk6jD0EHHkkgr1ryq0gFjDeiby1fz46Zup~lIBAv9Cv7VXo6Au-29LzBuUPp7vA-gGUeJxympCe5OkWat4CaRbllD8-QYkhPrCqWDRynJJVCGxL7TIzhcMSI-e9QYSYvo-AXC1LrAZkqvqWZkVSVdi-UtNc2CBTNJsGXaZwK0glc3cYJrsxguzLpVKrkEQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-26T14:53:58Z","article","The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 22 heard a staff presentation and many public commenters on a proposed request for proposals to refranchise taxi service in Los Angeles, then voted to refer the item back to the Transportation Committee for further work.

The Department of Transportation presented the refranchising plan, led by Frances Banerjee, general manager of the Department of Transportation, and James Okazaki, assistant general manager. The staff described key elements of the draft RFP: a requirement that franchisees install computerized dispatching and automatic trip data reporting; monetary penalties for violations; credit-card acceptance; a cap that no single operator may control more than 35 percent of the city\u0000s authorized fleet; a minimum franchise size of 70 cabs; no recommended increase in the total authorized fleet (2,303 cabs); and a five-year franchise term with potential annual extensions for up to five additional years. Staff said the refranchising is intended to improve service coverage and make performance measurable through dispatch data.

The proposal included a new service type (a shared-ride product) and sought to modernize long-standing franchise language that staff said had not been comprehensively updated in 20 to 25 years.

The hearing drew extensive public comment on alternative fuels. Several speakers urged the council to include incentives for low-emission and alternative-fuel vehicles in the RFP. Commenters who identified industry or technical roles included Rick Price (Southern California Gas Company), Cindy Sullivan (South Coast Air Quality Management District), David Haridon (representing Pickens Fuel Corp.), and Edrick Guise (Ford Motor Company). Drivers and fleet managers from American Taxi, LA Taxi and other companies described operational experience with compressed natural gas (CNG) or other low-emission vehicles; for example, driver Kevin Phillips said he had driven a natural-gas taxi \"6,000 miles a month\" without fueling or maintenance problems, while Rick Schorling, president of American Taxi in Orange County, said his company had operated a 100 percent natural-gas taxi fleet for eight months without problems.

Other public speakers warned of risks to independent owner-operators. David Shapiro, speaking on behalf of taxi drivers' interests, urged caution, saying a franchise model could continue practices that make it hard for drivers to earn a living. Former and current owner-drivers and managers raised concerns about service in peripheral areas (the transcript referenced areas A through E and specifically Area E/Harbor service) and about fare-setting, deadheading, and the value of existing shares while the RFP process runs.

Council debate focused on several contested items: whether the council should approve the RFP as drafted by the Board of Taxicab Commissioners and let the board and the department work out implementation details before awarding franchises (a position urged by the Transportation Committee chair), or whether the council should adopt amendments on the floor. Councilmember Ruth Galanter introduced amendment 10a to add incentives for alternative-fuel or ultra-low-emission vehicles (the motion was framed as fuel-neutral but designed to encourage alternative fuels), including a 5 percent allocation targeted to low-emission vehicles and other incentives (for example, waiver of certain inspection fees and other concessions described in the amendment). Other councilmembers, including those representing taxi-dependent neighborhoods, urged protections to prevent franchisees from abandoning service in harder-to-serve areas and pressed for clear criteria for any \"staging\" or flag-down privileges outside a grantee's primary service area.

Staff and commissioners acknowledged operational concerns and recommended several safeguards. DOT said it had examined senior voucher and city-ride programs and planned program changes to avoid creating administrative burdens that encourage drivers to refuse voucher passengers; DOT said a pending revision to the city ride (voucher) program would pay an increment to cover administrative processing costs and that disciplinary procedures for confirmed refusals already exist.

Legal and procedural questions also shaped debate. Council discussion noted language in the Administrative Code and the city charter about the Board of Taxicab Commissioners' role and time periods for action; council members debated whether adopting certain committee amendments on the council floor would require a supermajority (twelve votes) or a simple majority (eight votes). Councilmembers also discussed the 120 taxi authorizations (often referred to in testimony as \"120 seals\" or medallions) that had been authorized by an earlier council action and whether those authorizations were currently allocated or unallocated for the purposes of incentive language; Councilmember Pacheco sought assurances that allocations intended to benefit a specific area (Area C in the record) would not be given away if the council adopted alternate incentive language.

Rather than adopting the RFP or any amendment on final passage, the council voted to refer the entire refranchising matter back to the Transportation Committee so the committee could reconcile outstanding amendments, operational details and enforcement criteria before the RFP is issued or franchise awards are made. The referral motion was made by Chair Savornich and seconded by Councilmember Wax; the council voted 14 ayes and the matter was returned to committee.

What happens next: the Transportation Committee will reconvene to consider the array of amendments (including the proposed alternative-fuel incentives and the committee\u0000s own package). The Board of Taxicab Commissioners, DOT staff and stakeholders (drivers, operators and environmental and industry representatives) were asked to work with the committee to produce concrete criteria for staged/shared service, performance measurement, enforcement thresholds and how any fuel-incentive program would be implemented and funded.

Speakers quoted in this report are drawn from the public record at the Feb. 22 council meeting and are attributed to the roles or affiliations they gave at the time of testimony.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Regular City Council - 02/22/00","oneSentenceSummary","The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 22 heard a staff presentation and many public commenters on a proposed request for proposals to refranchise taxi service in Los Angeles, then voted to refer the item back to the Transportation Committee for further work.","taxTitle","Los Angeles City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",4025,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6513050,"Council approves purchase of Kern County site for biosolids handling; litigation ongoing",212,6494000,6706000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82&start=6494&end=6706","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82/thumbnail_6494000.jpg","/articles/6513050/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-approves-purchase-of-Kern-County-site-for-biosolids-handling-litigation-ongoing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6513050-4e983eb9a33bfe7a73d47c4150040701/orig.mp4?Expires=1774971342&Signature=N0CP8Gvjduw7gDkbrtjpNJ4oQ3vWArgy3Aoho4ZW0McIgMqwcp2UxyiwbTitAcYDznd8nQWE7KXLNLQgf1mJAX6N7DZfs6ifB8J972HVj7ZRD8dKFdp2sxNLMCWZivVX6MRgCMoNO72O7J9nWz2xsWwSuGK-QaCKICA~wbFXjXjB4KgTeegZhDpC-xBLrpsdQpSj5tatm7yU-tRTzELW0AbvxPDwuaC9BOJLHfCcNJO9U-d195T-imyJ4nbf3H5-DbsxNYNPS5dfGXn1I~Ule1C3eZTOhWr436HGVRKtmaXyJE3vzKji9oGLj-LBphLPDujb0G2lUwr7fUA3DDSj8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council on Feb. 22 approved acquisition of a property in Kern County to handle biosolids from the Hyperion treatment plant, adopting a staff recommendation and a minor amendment to the escrow payee.

A public speaker raised concerns about past planning and costs; council members asked staff and the city attorney about litigation with Kern County over an ordinance that could restrict biosolids handling on county roads. The city attorney said the city is litigating the validity of the Kern County ordinance; staff told the council that even if the county ordinance is upheld, the selected property remains usable for class A biosolids and the city would be able to use state roads (and thus would not be liable for the county road fee). Bureau of Sanitation director Judy Wilson said hauling costs to the proposed Kern County site would be about $21.50 per ton, while hauling to an alternative location in Kings County would cost roughly $28.00 per ton, a difference the department estimated at more than $1 million per year.

Councilmember discussion included a request to adjust the escrow payee: the council approved changing the check recipient to First American Title Company (escrow) rather than paying the property owner directly. The council approved the acquisition (with the escrow amendment) by a recorded vote of 13 ayes.

Speakers and staff identified next steps as continued litigation with Kern County and implementation planning; staff emphasized cost differences among alternative sites and said the chosen site remains the most economical workable option even if litigation does not resolve in the city's favor.

Speakers quoted here are taken from the Feb. 22 public record and are attributed to the roles or affiliations they gave at the hearing.","The council approved a staff recommendation to buy a property in Kern County for biosolids disposal/handling, noting litigation with Kern County but saying the site can be used even if the county ordinance survives. The measure passed with amendments to the payment routing.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6513054,"Council refers proposal for independent Rampart inquiry to Public Safety Committee after divided debate",2829,3731000,6560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82&start=3731&end=6560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5079831-8d99dc752500b33fbfaaa418a35d7b82/thumbnail_3731000.jpg","/articles/6513054/Los-Angeles-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Council-refers-proposal-for-independent-Rampart-inquiry-to-Public-Safety-Committee-after-divided-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6513054-9265533832e29e5f3833663f00e6bb3d/orig.mp4?Expires=1774971342&Signature=OVgyi1CJGo4RdC90lZgpgLsRVZcGQ8SbMkPKK9so~gRqU8sV-v6~RoUpTJQsK6nGndnPJ~9d9N3aZ9d94KJLKWr4zcvwUyg04qf6IwiJv2ZfcP0prPQDsHmWX5imm2AJ8Aj5J6sO8vDHu9egSr3FR5bPF3peX9cTWCqQOJL23vXlRd8emoMX4uk1HIW-QeWtEh-6Y1WuB6BbLydpVLJzciuh1rXb-wVumVJLytd0n3bE6FyC81AsVcT6WjoFOJa9m7QS3XBIXmqiyJdRPh3k4fo1VIDeDySCJO34P1h0wdauY9t3TQVm~QW4hhpD7qp5gA99yeEGXnq20T0tu-OsJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Los Angeles City Council on Feb. 22 considered competing proposals on whether to create an independent outside inquiry into the Rampart-area police scandal and how any such review should be constituted.

Councilmember Wax moved that the council adopt the concept of an independent outside inquiry and refer it to the Public Safety Committee for 30 days so that the committee could formulate details (appointments, membership, scope). Wax argued that an outside panel of jurists, legal scholars, clergy and criminal justice experts was necessary to restore public confidence and to examine issues that an internal investigation could not reach, including potential involvement by outside agencies such as the district attorney.

Public comment included support for an outside review. Leonard Shapiro said the independent review was necessary and questioned why it took the council so long to reach that conclusion. Several councilmembers expressed broad agreement that civilian oversight and an independent review were needed, but they differed on whether to act now or first let the newly resourced Police Commission and inspector general proceed.

Councilmember Misakowski urged caution and asked the council to let existing charter-mandated mechanisms (the Police Commission and the inspector general) take the first step. Misakowski noted that the voters had enacted Proposition F (the police commission reforms) and that the commission had already begun seeking outside experts as part of its review; she recommended sending the matter to the Public Safety Committee without adopting the independent-inquiry concept on the floor so the committee could work out whether additional outside action was necessary and avoid creating overlapping, competing panels.

Other councilmembers urged a prompt, visible response to restore community trust. Councilmembers and public speakers pointed to the American Civil Liberties Union and the Police Protective League informing the council that both organizations supported some form of outside review.

After debate and a vote on a procedural motion, the council voted 8 ayes and 6 noes to send the matter to the Public Safety Committee under the Misakowski approach (refer to committee without adopting the independent-inquiry concept on the floor). The council\u0000s action sends the question to the Public Safety Committee for the committee to define scope, appointing authority and membership, and to coordinate with the Police Commission, the inspector general, and any ongoing board of inquiry and criminal investigations.

What happens next: The Public Safety Committee will take up the matter and consider whether a separate independent panel is needed in addition to the Police Commission and the inspector general, who have been funded and directed to work on related reviews. Committee members were instructed to return with proposed scope, membership and timelines for any additional outside review mechanisms.

The transcript shows substantial council agreement on the need for independent civilian oversight: the disagreement concerned timing and structure (use existing charter bodies plus outside experts vs. creating a separately established independent commission immediately). The vote to refer to committee preserves both paths while giving the Police Commission and inspector general additional time to continue their work.","Councilmembers debated a motion to approve the concept of an independent outside inquiry into the Rampart police scandal. After significant public comment and lengthy council discussion, the City Council voted to send the matter to the Public Safety Committee for further work rather than adopting the independent-inquiry concept on the floor.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council sends taxi refranchising RFP back to committee after debate over alternative-fuel incentives

Council approves purchase of Kern County site for biosolids handling; litigation ongoing

Council refers proposal for independent Rampart inquiry to Public Safety Committee after divided debate