Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Local transportation provider says Modesto licensing rules conflict with state law, requests follow-up

2307881 · January 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A transportation entrepreneur told the council that Modesto’s nonemergency medical transportation licensing rules duplicate earlier regulations and may not comply with a cited California welfare code, and asked for a meeting with city attorneys to discuss bringing providers to the area.

A speaker seeking to start nonemergency wheelchair and gurney-van services told the Modesto City Council during public comment on Jan. 28 that the city's licensing rules for nonemergency medical transportation do not align with state law and are preventing providers from operating in Modesto.

Steve Horn, who identified himself as a provider interested in offering wheelchair and gurney-van transport, said the city's ordinance duplicates unnecessary requirements and cited "Welfare and Institution Code 14136" as the statute he believes governs the field. He asked to meet with the city attorney or to place the issue on a future agenda for discussion.

Horn said the existing local ordinance dates to the late 1970s or early 1980s, when nonemergency medical transport was new and rules were shaped by ambulance interests. He said that today those rules make it hard to recruit providers, contributing to gaps in Medi-Cal transportation for beneficiaries in the area.

"With your current regulations, the only way that I would do it is I would have to exclude the city of Modesto, because of the regulations and ordinance that you guys have in place to license and regulate nonemergency medical transportation companies," Horn said.

City staff took the speaker's contact information and told him staff would follow up.

No council action on the matter was recorded at the meeting; the speaker requested a follow-up meeting with the city attorney or placement on a future agenda so the council and staff can review ordinance language and state code.