and I'd like to welcome
everyone to the Transportation
Committee and joint special
meeting with the Public Works.
I'm Councilwoman Heather chair,
transportation, and I'm joined
by council members Hernandez
and Padilla. And Mr. Clark, can
you please call the roll so
that we can get started? Very
good. Okay. For transportation
committee, Council member hood
here. Councilmember Park.
Present. Okay. Council member.
Hernandez. Present. Council
member. Padilla. Present. And
Council member. Nazarian. Okay.
For Public Works Committee.
Council member. Hernandez
present. Council member.
Padilla. President and council
member. Hutt. Here. Very good.
Thank you so much, Mr. Clerk.
Today we have members. We have
six items on the Transportation
Committee agenda and three
items before both committees.
I'd also like to announce that
we will be continuing item
eight to a date to be
determined. And before we get
to the items, Madam Clerk,
please read any amendments we
have into the record. Yes,
Madam Chair, we have several
amendments. I will start with
item two. This is an amendment
from Council District one. The
amendment reads as follows. The
following instructions to the
recommendations. Request the
City Attorney, in consultation
with the Los Angeles Department
of Transportation, to report
back on any legislation the
city may support to strengthen
local jurisdiction authority to
approve, condition or regulate
autonomous vehicle operations.
The report should also include
recommendations for potential
changes to state and federal
law. The next amendment is for
item three. That's Council file
25-1481. These are
recommendations of the chair.
The recommendation reads as
follows. Adopt the motion, as
amended to add the following
instruction. Transfer slash
appropriate $100,000 from the
Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Special Fund, or
SB 1-1 fund. Number 59. Dash
five zero. Account number 50 c
z e l mission Miles Sepulveda
visioning for a safe and Active
community to the Bureau of
Street Lighting Fund number 184,
as specified below. Account
number 001010. Salaries general
$70,000. Account number 001090.
Salaries over time $30,000. The
next. The next amendment we
have is for item nine from
Council District one, and it
reads as follows. Instruct the
Los Angeles Department of
Transportation, in consultation
with the City Administrative
officer and the City Attorney,
to report back on the
feasibility of implementing a
tiered permit structure that
scales permit fees based on
operator size, including an
option for smaller operators to
pay a lower permit fee as part
of the next interaction of the
on demand Mobility Program
update. To instruct the Ladot
and CEO to provide a verbal
report in six months, and
present to the Public Works and
Transportation Committee a
status update on the on demand
mobility program, including but
not limited to, total revenue
collected per geographic
categories. Average number of
311 requests per geographic
categories. Average number of
trips per geographic and number
of scooters deployed, and three.
Instruct Ladot and CEO to
report in one year to
reevaluate the on demand
mobility program per trip fee
structure and permit fees
consistent with prop 26. And
lastly, we have an amendment
for item nine as well. From the
chair. The amendment reads as
follows. Adopt the following in
lieu of the recommendations
listed in the June 10th, 2025
LADOT report one. Find that
there is a clear public benefit
to waive the additional fee for
the equity focused Mobility
Development districts. Two.
Approve the proposed trip fee
update. See attachment to the
rules and guidelines of the
program related to the four on
demand mobility program.
Geographies based on the city
Administrative officers or
CEO's methodology, including a
$150,000 permit fee. And
instruct the CEO to report to
the Budget and Finance
Committee prior to adoption of
these recommendations, with an
analysis of the recommended
trip for update, including
authorizing the CEO to make
technical adjustments to their
analysis to meet the intent of
the committee's recommendations.
Three request the City
Attorney's Office to prepare
and present a draft ordinance
to update the trip fees and any
related items in this report.
Further requests the City
Attorney's Office to include
language to prevent
overcollection by requiring
quarterly reviews and reports
to council, and instituting
corrective measures when needed.
Corrective measures shall
include, but are not limited to,
refunds issued to operators on
a regular basis. A credit
issued toward fees imposed in
future budget cycles, or a
mid-year one time adjustment to
per trip fees for instruct
ladot with the assistance of
the City Attorney's Office and
the CEO to report with an
analysis and recommendations
for appropriate penalties to
issue an administrative
citation to any company
operating dockless scooters and
bicycles on the public right of
way without a permit, and the
financial impact to the on
demand mobility program. Five
instruct Ladot, with the
assistance of the City
Attorney's Office and the
Department of Public Works, to
report on a plan to impound,
remove, and store micromobility
devices from the public right
of way, including possible
procedures that would allow for
immediate or streamlined
removal and disposal of said
devices by Ladot transportation
investigators and six note and
file the Ladot report dated
September 15th, 2025. The CEO
report dated December 3rd, 2025,
and the City Attorney Report
and draft Ordinance dated
January 18th, 2024. Thank you
so much for reading those
amendments. Now it's time for
us to move to. May I just make
one change on one of the
amendments on spelling? Oh,
sure. So for my amendment for
item nine, instruction one,
it's next iteration, not
interaction, please. Thank you,
thank you, thank you. Now let's
move on to public comment. Mr.
clerk, can you please read the
instructions for public comment?
For those wishing to give
public comment on the items on
this agenda, you're given one
minute per item for a maximum
of two minutes. You may
register at the kiosk in the
back corner there. Additionally,
one minute for general public
comment. Thank you so much,
Andrew. Will you please conduct
public comment? Yes, Madam
Chair, as of now we have three
speakers. We have Donna
Washington, Andrew Grebner and
Alvin Fowler step up. And also
Monica Delallo. Please state
your name and the items that
you'd like to speak on. Yes.
Okay. Good morning, honorable
council members. I'm Donna
Washington from film LA.
Actually, I was calling or
coming to speak about item
number eight, but I guess it's
been suspended for now. So I
will come back. Continue, I
continue I know it's been
continued. It's been continued.
Okay. I will come back when it
comes back on the agenda. Thank
you. Thank you. Please state
your name and the items you'd
like to speak on. My name is
Alvin Fowler. I'm the item I
would like to speak on is about
a handicap parking curb in
front of my house, which I
originally applied for February
18th, 2022. I have made
repeated visits to Mccusker's
office in San Pedro, spoken to
the representative of his in
the downtown office and got no
response. I'm a 100% disabled
veteran and I would appreciate
somebody telling me when, if
ever, I will receive a handicap
curb in front of my my house.
Sir, where do you where do you
live? What neighborhood or what
district? I'm. I it's
Mccusker's district and I live
in the city of of la strip in
the city of Gardena. My address
is 14313 Denver Avenue. Gardena,
California. ZIP code is 90248.
So I have copies of that
person's going to come and get
your personal information. Okay.
Thank you. All items in general
public comment three minutes.
So we have item two which is
regulation on autonomous
vehicle operators. So you're
mad that you don't have enough
local control over this. These
weird cars that run around and
have questionable safety
standards and get often cause
issues out on the roads? Very
weird. So we have items four,
five and six which are RV ban
motions from Monica Rodriguez.
City staff are please. And
Heather Hutch, the chair of
this committee. So RV bans and
other anti-homelessness stuff
does not get people housing and
does not get people services.
It does not get people off the
street, nor is it helpful to
anyone other than rich people
who don't want to see poor
people out on the streets while
they drive in their cars. So
that's pretty much what 4 or 5
and six are. So these
anti-homelessness stuff, again,
this is not the answer. And
it's anti-poor and it's
violence towards unhoused
people. So no, on 4 or 5 and
six. So let's just go to
general comment. So the again
the city really needs to
actually get with it on the
mobility plan. You know this is
your own mobility plan. This is
what the city created. And then
you decided you didn't want to
follow it. So now now that
you're required to follow it
because of measure H la, now
you're just trying to get
around repaving by doing a
different type of repaving that
doesn't actually meet the
standards from LA for a
required mobility plan
implementation, and your not
even repaving streets half the
time, just so you can avoid
having to put in some bike
lanes. That's what it that's
what it's boiling down to. Of
course, you don't even have the
money to repave the streets
since you gave it all to the
LAPD. So yeah, it's let's
implement the mobility plan.
Next up we have Monica Kiley
and Yolanda Logan. Good morning.
My name is Monica. I'm speaking
on behalf of lime on item nine.
Thank you so much for your time.
And thank you to Dottie and Cao
for putting forward reports on
this item. Lime understands the
necessity for the program to
achieve cost recovery, and we
are supportive of it. However,
as the Cao report warns, due to
prop 26, the city must avoid
over or under collecting fees
and recommends annual
monitoring to stay in
compliance. Lime supports this
and urges the committee to add
a monthly or quarterly review
process to ensure collections
are on track. Additionally, we
believe that the city can
secure more stable revenue by
collecting a larger portion of
program costs upfront through
an increased annual permit fee.
This would improve
predictability for La Dottie
without relying solely on a per
trip variability for costs. We
also encourage the city to use
up to date trip estimates when
setting the fees. The report
uses fiscal year 24 data as the
basis for their calculations,
but ridership has grown
significantly, and early fiscal
year 26 volumes are up over 40%
from fiscal year 24. Since the
item was last heard at the
budget Committee, Lime has
grown our fleet by an
additional 2500 vehicles and
have continued to see high
utilization rates, increasing
the number of trips
proportionally in the city.
Calculations. Leveraging
outdated ridership numbers will
inevitably result in an
overcollection of fees, which
does not align with prop 26.
Finally, we support a structure
that keeps fees and equity
districts lower to ensure that
communities are not
disproportionately impacted by
the fee changes. Thank you for
your consideration and for your
continued partnership. Please
state your name and the items
you'd like to speak on. Kylie
Feldman on behalf of bird for
item number nine, you have one
minute. Good morning, members
of Public Works and
Transportation committees. My
name is Kylie on Birds
government partnerships team.
I'm here to offer my support
for item number nine and for
the continued progressive
Equitable Transportation
program to continue and thrive
with Ladot. Thank you to this
Council for your support of
equitable transportation for
both residents and visitors,
and for all the work this
Council has been doing to
ensure that the vital access to
sustainable, alternative
transportation options can grow
and thrive. We trust Ladot and
this Council has carefully and
thoughtfully determined the
structure needed to ensure cost
recovery and program
sustainability. That being said,
in order for this program to
grow and evolve and access and
safety, we support a stopgap
measure to ensure fees
collected do not go beyond cost
recovery and remain in
compliance with prop 26. This
ensures low cost for riders,
continued investment in the
program and support for city
staff, as well as one of the
longest standing operators in
LA. Bird is proud of our shared
history together and expanding
access to alternative,
multimodal transportation, with
80% of our riders being local
to LA, we represent not only
bird in the program today, but
also Angelenos. Thank you for
your continued collaboration
and we look forward to seeing
what you all come up with today.
Thank you, thank you. Last up
we have Yolanda Logan. Please
state your name and the items
you'd like to speak on. Good
morning, I'm Yolanda Logan. I
prefer to be called Proverbs,
like the book in the Bible. And
today I'm going to be speaking
on something that I just
noticed today outside that is
posted in reference to public
works and transportation and
extreme concern, and in
reference to lane removals
during peak hours. These items
are posted outside of City Hall
on the right. As you enter the
building. The extreme concern I
have is that in the lane
removal peak hours expressed,
the expressed extreme that I
have is obstruction of ultimate
of ultimate decision making
authority being taken from
Mayor Bass's office and other
designated authorities when
items adopted are not
distributed and or presented to
Mayor Bass's office forthwith
or immediately prior to action
taken on adopted items. Now,
this that I'm speaking of has
been printed out clearly on the
documents that are posted. It
literally says there are rules
state that they do not do this.
Please wrap up your comments.
And with that being said,
particularly lane removals
during peak hours, the extreme
concern is for the safety of
the workers and also high
concern for compounded delays
for those that are riding the
busses. And the last item is
high concern for CO2 levels
that are concentrated during
high traffic times of day by
traffic delays caused by
bottlenecks of city work during
peak hours. Thank you. Next up
we have Edgar Recinos and
Shahbaz Khan. Edgar Recinos or
Shahbaz Khan. Not seeing them
in the room. Madam chair that
is concludes public comment. Is
there anyone? Is there anyone
else that wanted to speak
during public comment denial
officially closed public
comment. Let's see. Now that
we've closed, let's jump onto
our agenda. I'd like to take up
non-controversial items. Those
would be one through three. Mr.
clerk, can you please read the
items? Very good. Okay. Item
one city attorney report and
draft ordinance relative to
expanding the boundaries of
Santa Monica Highland parking
meter. Zoning Council, district
13. Item number two. Motion
Gerardo Soto Martinez. Relative
to cooperation from autonomous
vehicle operators on vehicle
operations data and adherence
to local hire and workforce
investment commitments. Item
number three motion Rodriguez
aye relative to the review and
comments for the mission miles.
Positive visioning for a safe
and active Community project in
Council District seven. Thank
you. Does any member wish to
discuss items one through three?
Seeing none? Then on item one,
I recommend we note and file
the City Attorney's report and
adopt the draft ordinance on
item two. I recommend we adopt
the motion, and on item three,
I recommend we adopt the motion
as amended to include the
Bureau of Street Services
funding transfer instructions.
Members on these items. I ask
for your vote, Mr. Clerk I
yield aye. May I say something
real quick about item two? The
really, really quickly. Thank
you. Just wanted to say that I
put this amendment forward on
item two, because it's been
really difficult to deal with
the amount of autonomous
vehicles that run through our
neighborhoods that have caused
incidences, accidents, and we
have no authority to regulate
the only body in the city that
can regulate is the airport.
And so I'm hoping that the city
attorney can provide or even
our other partners, such as the
CLA and Co, provide us with
information around potential
state legislative changes that
could be made similar to what
happens at the county. The
county Board of Supervisors has
their departments for
legislative changes that could
be made to benefit their work.
And so that's why I put this
amendment forward. Hopefully
get some of those suggestions
around what changes we could
make so that we can regulate
autonomous vehicles in this
city. So, Madam Chair, would
for item comments one second.
Oh, just comments on to you
know, I very much agree with
the sentiment of Council Member
Hernandez. It's never a good
day when we see headlines
related to the accidents that
are being caused by these
vehicles, we know. So we've
heard that their bottom line is,
you know, to be all over Los
Angeles. But there's a lot of
us, including myself, that
believe or don't like that we
don't have a human being in
there that can potentially, you
know, push an emergency button
or steer the steering wheel
when something is going wrong.
So I will definitely actually
be writing a letter to my state
leaders, as well as the Public
Utilities Commission and the
Department of Motor Vehicles,
on how irresponsible it is to
not give us more jurisdiction
as as cities to say where and
when we think these things are
appropriate to be on our
streets. Thank you very much.
Thank you members. So then, in
the case that we have an
amendment on item two, I
recommend we adopt item two as
amended amended. And you were
going to make a recommendation.
That was what I was trying to
clarify, whether it was as
amended, which you just said.
So okay. We're good there.
Shall I call the vote on that
then? Yes, please. Very good.
Okay. These are just
transportation items.
Councilmember Hutt. Yes.
Councilmember Park. Yes.
Councilmember. Hernandez. Yes.
Councilmember. Padilla. Yes.
And Councilmember Nazarian. Yes.
Those matters are approved as
noted. Thank you. Now, I'd like
to take items four through six.
Mr. clerk, can you please read
the items? Okay. Number four,
resolution. Rodriguez Lee,
relative to establishing
oversize vehicle parking
restrictions along certain
street segments of Sunland
Boulevard, Gladstone Avenue,
and Borden Avenue in Council
District seven. Item five.
Resolution. Lee Harris-dawson.
Relative to establishing
oversize vehicle restrictions
along certain street segments
of Gothic Avenue and Yolanda
Avenue in Council District 12
and item number six. Resolution
How they Lee. Relative to
establishing oversize vehicle
resolution, oversize vehicle
resolutions restrictions rather
along a certain street segment
of West 18th Street in Council
District ten. Thank you, Mr.
Clerk. Is there any discussion
on these items? No. Okay. So on
items four through six, I
recommend we adopt the
resolution. Did you want to
take Mr Bonin? No, I'll vote no.
Okay. Mr. clerk, can you please
call the roll? Very good. All
these items. Councilmember. Yes.
Councilmember. Park. Yes.
Councilmember. Hernandez. No.
Councilmember. Padilla. Yes.
Councilmember. Nazarian. Aye.
Very good. These matters are
approved. Thank you. Now, I'd
like to take up
non-controversial item in the
joint committee. Since item A
is moved, moving to be
determined. And we'd like to
take item seven. Do any members
want to discuss item seven?
Okay. Item seven is a motion
McCosker How they relative to
applying for the city's local
allocation of the South Bay
City's Council of Governments
measure M funds for fiscal year
2026. Thank you. Is there any
discussion? Members on item
seven? Okay, then I recommend
we adopt the motion on item
seven and then eight. We're
doing it a further future
meeting. All right. For item
seven on the Transportation
committee side. Councilmember.
Yes. Councilmember. Park. Yes.
Councilmember. Hernandez. Yes.
Councilmember. Padilla. Yes.
And Councilmember Nazarian. Aye.
On the public works side,
Councilmember Hernandez. Yes.
Councilmember Padilla. Yes. And
Councilmember Hutt. Yes. That
item is approved. Thank you.
Let's move on to the last item
as part of our special joint
committee meeting today. Mr.
clerk, can you please read item
nine? Very good. This matters
continued from August 13th,
2025 and September 19th, 2025.
City Attorney Report and Draft
Ordinance Relative to amending
Los Angeles Municipal Code to
update the shared mobility
device. Trip fees paid to the
Department of Transportation
and Duty and Co reports
relative to on demand mobility
program, trip fee update and
methodology. Thank you. Okay,
welcome to the table. We'd like
a brief analysis or
presentation of the fee and
provide any commentary to go
along with that. There we go.
Good morning. I'm Allison
Willhite with the office of the
City Administrative Officer.
The report provides our
analysis and recommendation
regarding an update to the trip
fee structure for the city's on
demand mobility program. This
update is necessary because the
current trip fees were
implemented in 2021, and no
longer cover the cost to
operate this program. At this
time, current revenues are only
bringing in about 20% of the
cost needed to cover the costs
for this program. While La
Dot's proposed fee structure
would achieve that cost
recovery, the concern for our
office is that it's not
compliant with state and city
financial policies, in part
because it shifts the cost
burden of operating in the
equity focus mobility
development districts to other
geographic areas, which we seek
to address. In our new
methodology presented in the
report, we use updated data
from fiscal year 2024 and 2025,
as well as the data from the
three 1-1 request. In order to
do our analysis, we presented
our report three fee structure
options and recommend the
Partial Subsidy option, which
is projected to generate nearly
2.7 million in annual revenue
and require an estimated
254,000, in a subsidy from the
general Fund. The reason for
the subsidy is based on city
financial policy. To continue
the policy goal for the no fee
for the equity focused areas,
the City Council would first
need to find that there is a
public benefit to waiving the
fee, and then agree to that
subsidy from the general fund,
which is outlined in our
financial policy. If there's
any questions around the
amendments, I saw that there
were updates requested around
the permits. We would just like
to be able to review that
further, to understand if it
would be reasonable to increase
the permit cost or to provide
that tiered structure that was
requested. With that, I
conclude my presentation and
open up to any questions. Thank
you. I'd like to turn it over
to our Public Works Committee
chair for comments and
questions. First, thank you. I
yield I do have some questions.
I have questions for the Cao
and I have questions for Dot
and the City attorney. Thank
you. What are the determining
factors for the recommendations
to provide a 40% general
administrative slash, 60%
geographic specific work split.
For that we consulted with Dot
around how is it that they
break down the work. There's
various components of their
work, which I'll let Jarvis
with Dot to speak to. But what
we saw from that was there are
elements that are specific to
the geographic area, but there
are other elements that are
just a broader administrative
need for the program. And so
just from Dot's assessment of
their work, they they believed
that a 4060 split would be
appropriate. And thank you for
that. And can you tell us what
that split looks like in
application. Like what falls
under the 60? What falls under
the 40? Yes. So as we look at
the geographic work, because we
have geographic trip fee zones,
there's a lot of work that
relates to three on one
complaints in those areas, and
in particular as outlined in
the report and the special
operation zone in those areas,
we have far more three on one
complaints typically, which
requires us to be out there
more often in person, on the
ground, as well as in constant
contact with companies related
to the adjustments needed to to
rectify complaint issues. We
give the companies two hours to
do that and we audit the
complaint. So bear in mind
there are roughly 15,000
scooters on the right of way at
a given on a given day
throughout the city of Los
Angeles. So part of the
geography of that is looking at
the data, determining if there
are anomalies within the data,
and then going into those areas
to ensure that that we're
validating what we're seeing in
the data. On the administrative
side, we also manage day to day
processes, including special
events. I, you know, USC
football games, establishing
Geofences, establishing
geofences for marathons,
whether they're temporary or
permanent. So we do a lot of
that day to day activity,
responding to issues, whether
it's from, again, three on one
or the public or council office.
And then related to also simply
working with the companies to
ensure that we're getting the
right kind of distribution and
rebalancing within the city. So
there's a lot of that that's
involved. Great. Thank you. How
sensitive is the fee model to
changes in trip behavior in 311
requests? Well, in terms of
trip behavior, the fee model is
sensitive in the sense that if
there are more under trip fee
structure, the idea being if
there are more trips that would
require more work on our behalf,
because that would likely
engender more complaints
related to more vehicles, more
trips, things of that nature.
So we would think that as you
know, as companies scale higher,
the number of devices on the
right of way as well as scale
the ridership, we expect that
there will be more activity and
work for staff to be out there
to help manage the program. And
just to, if I may, to add on to
that, though, I do want to
state that the data that we had
for both fiscal year 2024 and
2025 was for the trips and for
the 311 request, and we saw
that they were pretty
consistent. We looked at sort
of the ratio, the proportions,
and we saw that across the two
years, there was sort of a
consistency in how many
requests were coming from these
various geographic regions. So
I would interpret that to say
that it's maybe not that
sensitive to it, but not to ly
what Jarvis is saying around if
there is an increase, what that
may mean to the program cost
overall. Great. Thank you
chairman, I do thank you. I
have a few more. I'll pass it
to you. Go back. Oh, sure. Well
thank you. I have a few
questions as well. What kind of
growth do we expect with this
program between now and the
Olympics? We do expect that's a
new question that we do expect
a significant growth. We've
already discussed with the
companies, particularly the
larger ones, about the kind of
growth that they expect to meet,
the demand of what they believe
will happen for the Olympics.
And granted, the Olympics are a
little over two years away, so
we are expecting some growth.
We will get a better sense
after FIFA this summer in terms
of special event growth, but we
are expecting some growth to to
manage the demand of the
Olympics. And then are we aware
of any illegal operators that
we have currently in place to
enforce against operators who
are not permitted? I don't know
that we have any currently, but
we have had an issue with a
particular company that
operates around Cal State
Northridge that is not
permitted company. They were
they had a permit with us
before, but because they
weren't giving us the proper
data and their data was it was
bad data essentially, so we
weren't able to monitor them
properly and they weren't able
to correct it. We suspended and
eventually did not renew their
license. But we've every once
in a while we hear rumors that,
hey, this company is out here.
We I haven't checked that and
maybe the last few months, but
it's one company in particular
that hangs out around Cal State
Northridge. And then besides
full cost recovery, what are
the current challenges and
opportunities for the city with
the continuation of this
program? Well, the continue
opportunity is that it's it's
as we can see from the
ridership, and we do believe
ridership will grow. It's
clearly a last mile solution
for for many users. And so in
terms of that opportunity, we
think that that's important.
The challenge I think for us
really is, you know, not
necessarily program related,
but really more about
infrastructure, because part of
what we really feel will help
the program really stabilize is
the right kind of
infrastructure. And that would
include for us bike lanes and,
and eventually trying to
develop better parking areas
for program. And my last
question, Madam Chair, what are
the current permit fees and
other jurisdictions of similar
size to Los Angeles, like maybe
Chicago in Chicago, their trip
fee, I believe it's $250,000
for two years, so basically
$125,000 a year. But it's
really difficult to make the
comparison because it's not
truly apples to apples. And
that's because our program,
unlike many other cities, is a
citywide program. What you will
see in many other cities and
jurisdictions is it's limited.
You know, it's a downtown
program or it's a program for a
particular area of the city.
And it's not something that
it's throughout the city. Our
program is much more varied and
throughout the city. The other
issue that you will see is we
basically we're basically the
standard bearers of the program.
We're one of the largest
programs. And so when I when we
think about that, we look at
cities like smaller cities like
San Francisco, which has a
significant program. But
they're these are, I want to
say about 80,000 is a permit
fee. And then they actually
they add an additional about
the same amount, 80, 90,000 as
an infrastructure fee because
they build essentially they
build bike racks in order for
the vehicles to be locked to
because there's not enough bike
racks in the area. So they
charge that amount annually to
cover that cost per company.
Seattle has a much lower permit
fee than we do, but their
program is beginning to scale,
and so we don't know what
that's going to look like as
the years go by or as the year
goes by. But they've been a
smaller program up until
recently. And similarly with
Chicago, I believe they will be
looking at changing their fees
probably around the summer of
this year, this new fiscal year
2026, up or down that I don't
know. Okay. That's all. Thank
you. Thank you. I just have a
couple more questions. I'll
pass it to other colleagues
that might have questions. In
your proposed fee structure.
Why is the additional fee in
the equity focused zone higher
than the standard permitted
district, especially given that
equity zones are categorized as
areas with economic and
transportation disadvantages?
Yeah. No, I appreciate that
question. The reason is because
with our analysis, basing it
off of the data that we have
available for the program, this
is what that data shows us,
that the standard operating
operation zone would have a
slightly higher fee based on
the workload that is being done
there, and the workload is the
auditing, investigating,
picking up. That's what you're
talking about. Okay. Which I
understand that. But also like
if it's the the neighborhoods
that have the least access to
resources, they're probably
going to be the higher
utilizers than perhaps other
neighborhoods. So I would love
to for us to come back to that
conversation to figure it out.
But I want to pass it to my
other colleagues and go ahead.
Anybody I want to go ahead. Can
you elaborate on that? Is it
because of the assumption that
there's more use or more pickup?
Is it that they're more
scattered so requires more
staff to pick them up? I mean,
it makes no sense to me. I can
speak to the data, but I would
look, Jarvis. Yeah, tell us
what the data is showing. The
data is showing how this is
broken down here. You'll see
that percentage of the average
of 311 request in the chart on
the sixth page of the Cao
report. And that shows just the
number of 311 requests we're
getting from these different
regions. That based out by the
the average number of trips for
that region is how we got to
the fee that we present. So
with that, we're just seeing a
slightly higher amount for the
standard area. But if there is
an interest in the equity
focused zone having a lower fee,
that would just be an
additional subsidy from the
general fund. I. I want to know
more. This information is a
little bit too in the air for
me. So is it because people are
getting the scooter in one
location? And then there's more
coming out into these
communities, but there's
nowhere. So the company is
going in there to pick them up,
and it's more scattered. And
that's what requires more. Well,
I mean, I think to me why why
there is more need for for that.
So what I think it really is,
is if you look at the if, if,
look at that end zone, that
actually is the majority of our
trips currently. But that I
believe is picking them up. No,
the actual user trips in those
areas, even though our special
operations zones are really
about density and rules within
those zones and zone, we
actually have a lot of trips.
The reason for that you'll
often see is because, for
example, downtown is downtown,
but many of the areas
surrounding downtown actually
are end zones. So you're
crossing the jurisdictions
quite often in this particular
area. Los Angeles is built in a
way that, you know, you have
kind of wealth and lack of
wealth really adjacent to one
another. So our zones are often
next to, you know, higher
income zones, believe it or not.
And that's just kind of the
geography of the way Los
Angeles is. I'm still not
answering my question. So I
guess what I need to know is
elaborate on where people pick
up a scooter and where people
drop off scooter, and the cost
comes at the pickup. And is
that because there's not enough
drop off zones in the zones? So
therefore requires more picking
up there and then taking it
back to where they originally
picked up their scooter, you
know. And that's because that's
like a conversation we need to
have with these companies about
having more drop off stations
so that we don't have to do the
work. Right. You know, I'd have
to come back to you with that
data. We can get that kind of
data for you. I don't have it
off the top of my head today.
Well, to add some clarifying
points here, the this analysis
is done based on where trips
end, right. The change that Dot
proposed and that we followed
with our analysis. So what's
showing here are the number of
trips that ended in the
standard permitted district.
This may also be tied to if you
want to speak to a Jarvis. Just
the reason for the different
geographic areas, the
difference between the mobility
development district and the
standard operation zone or
excuse me, the standard, the
standard permanent district.
Because here's what I'm hearing
when you tell me that it costs
more in the equity communities,
it takes me back to when this
all started and the nonprofits
in my district were being asked
how we feel about the fact that
we don't have them, why the
company isn't investing in
pickup zones in those regions.
So it sounds to me like, hey, I
mean, I've been seeing a lot of
young people start to use these
in my district, and I wonder,
where did you get it? So
they're probably taking public
transportation, maybe to
downtown, richer areas where
there's work, more things to do,
get the scooter ride back home.
But you're telling me that
they're paying more once they
arrive home, so to speak, where?
Where my district is. So it
sounds like the only way we're
going to potentially be able to
lower it in the equity zones,
if the company themselves
starts to invest in zone in
locations within these these
locations, instead of only
having them in the more
affluent regions. Well, we are
trying to incentivize the
deployment and outside zones.
So the reason that's actually
one of the reasons the the
graphs are done the way that
they are, the, the the lower
income zones, the efmd, the
reason that we had it being
three currently is because we
wanted to incentivize
deployment and trips in those
zones. Right now, the way that
it's structured is we would
give you the benefit of the the
least expensive zone. So if you
came from a higher cost area to
a lower cost area, we would
give you the benefit of the
lower cost area or vice versa.
But what we determined was, you
know, again, because we're not
recovering our costs. And to be
clear, these costs go directly
to the companies. This isn't a
cost that we put on the
consumers to the company, but
in order, you know, so what we
did see is we do see a lot of
trips in those zones, but those
are actually our free zones,
and we are not getting any
revenue from those free zones.
So part of what we're trying to
do now is make a change so that
when you if you're going to end
a trip in those lower zones,
it's still going to be cheaper
for you. But if you're picking
up those zones and ending at a
higher zone, it's going to be
more expensive now than what it
used to be. So that's that's
our goal. Okay. Yeah, yeah. I
think we need to put this
structure the fees in a way
where they are also
incentivized to to have more
locations in the zones. So I
have a question. Jarvis, are
you saying that if I pick up a
scooter in Westlake and take it
to. It looks like Highland Park
in my district, that at the end
of that trip I'm going to pay
the higher fee because I'm
getting dropped off in mobility
development district. So to be
clear, we we do not manage the
fees to the customer. No, no,
no, I know I understand that
part. I want to understand the
application of the cost. Like
is it like and how if I'm
starting in a lower income
neighborhood and ending up in a
higher income neighborhood,
where the where the the the
cost is higher, does that mean
that I'm going to end up paying
the higher cost? Is that what
you said the company would pay
a higher trip fee? Yes. So
wouldn't that mean that could
prevent lower income people
from traveling to these places?
If they don't have the money to
pay the higher fee? Not
necessarily. And that's really
a question for the companies,
because we do we do not control
how they distribute their own
costs. They are a business and
they can make that
determination. I'm certain they
have algorithms for figuring
out how and where they can
charge and what, but because
they're a private business, we
do stay out of that, out of
that mechanism. So that last
sentence means that we had
nothing to do with these
numbers in these bars around
the 42 to 58, the 38, the 186.
No, those fees do come directly
to us. That's that's a charge
to the company. And so that's
what I'm asking about. Like, is
this a cost like these fees are
what we apply to the company,
correct? Correct. Yes. And
these is any of this cost
translate to the rider? Yes.
That's right. I'd have to
speculate about it. That's
directly a company question. It
could. Okay. Well one of my one
of my questions is what is our
relationship with the company
if we're not if we don't have
access to this information, can
we go and ask them these
questions? Do you all go and
ask them these questions? We we
could ask them these questions.
Yes. Well, I hope that they're
here and would love to have
that conversation because I
would like to understand more
of that part. And I know we're
running out of time, and I know
that we're asking a lot of
questions, but this really is
really important to a lot of
our communities because it is
first and last mile. I'll pass
it to my council colleague
Nazarian to ask questions, and
then I might have some more to
finish up. But thank you and I
appreciate all the questions
that are being asked on this,
and somewhat relevant, but
tangential to what we're
talking about. Something that
concerns me a great deal is
liability. And as we see what
the costs to the city are. So
by making changes here, nothing
on the liability part changes.
Correct. That's wanted for the
record. Yes. That's correct.
Okay. Because whatever
agreements that were in place
have protected the city very
well. And I want to make sure
that that is not in any way
infringed upon or changed or
potentially even watered down.
So that's one. Two. And again,
this is tangential, and I
apologize that I didn't get a
chance to talk to you before
this committee hearing. But
when we are looking at
expanding, we are looking at
potentially having a larger
presence and footprint. We're
going to expect more injuries.
We're going to expect more
events of people because of
sidewalk use or ill repaired
disrepair, street circumstances
to whatever the other issues
are. One of them also being a
big contributor. People riding
these scooters while inebriated.
So are we as a city and as a
department, looking at
opportunities, especially when
some of these trip and some of
these accidents occur later at
night when people are
inebriated. I mean, studies
have shown 25% of the injuries
come from inebriated
circumstances. Are we looking
at ways that we can reduce some
of these accidents and impacts
by having these scooters have
some kind of a test mechanism,
or has the company, the various
companies been talking about
this? What steps have we taken
to try to address this issue as
well, so that as the numbers of
usage grows, we don't expand
the number of traumatic
injuries as well. So we have
looked at some things related
to sidewalk writing and
technology related to that. We
haven't gotten to a place where
we found a scalable solution as
of yet for that type of thing.
And as it relates to inebriated
riders, that's something we can
work with the LAPD on, because
obviously we don't have the
authority to to stop a person
on a scooter while riding. But
but they would. And so I think
we could work with them to
develop what kind of policies
they think would be helpful in
that. But that's hit and miss.
So what I'm saying is, can
there be some kind of a lock
system? Exactly on the unit
itself, the scooter itself, so
that, you know, before being
able to utilize it, you need to
take that test, whether
breathalyzer or whatever it
whatever the circumstances, but
something that allows or
geofencing so that there are
protections built in to the
system. Have there been
discussions about this, to be
frank? No. So I do think we can
begin those discussions.
Obviously, the companies are
here. This will be equipment
that they would have to employ
on their devices, but we can
have the discussions with them
and to even see how that works
and find out if other cities
have something similar like
that. Again, I my intention
wasn't to blindside anyone, but
I wanted to discuss this, so I.
I'm very curious and interested
to know if they've been taking
steps, if they've done
something similar to that in
other cities. Because again, as
we increase usage, I don't want
to see a increase in our
emergency rooms either. Thank
you. Thank you so much. I have
a couple questions. Marzett I
yield, how did you did? And
then the last one will be an
easier one. But how did you
determine your initial proposed
per tree per trip fee? What
type of formula did you use? So
at the time and and it's been
quite some time. But we that
fee was developed through a
consultant process. I believe
Nelson Nygaard helped us
develop that fee at that time.
So it was a lot of work. It
actually several iterations
through the council offices, if
I recall, of those fees and
including the maps. So the maps
were also drawn by consultant.
So, you know, as we work
through and as the program
matures, it is something that,
you know, eventually,
especially as we can begin cost
recovery, that we can begin
looking again, perhaps through
a consultant in terms of
developing, do the geographies
continue to make sense as well
as do the fee structure
continue to make sense? We can
do the fee structure in-house,
but we work with a consultant
at the time to develop it.
Great. And so through that
consultant work is how you got
option A, option B and option C
for the original trip fees for
what's presented in front of us
today of like $0.24 for the
equity focused. No, no, that
was the work we did at the cows.
Okay. And so that that's not
part of the consultant work
then it doesn't build off of
that. No. We did our analysis
based on the data available to
us from Ladot. Okay. Can you
talk to me about what that data,
what that analysis looked like?
I know we talked about admin
and going out to do the, the,
the audit, but I wanted like I
want to know why equity and we
talked about but like how do we
get equity to be in the
standard permitted. Right. If
we're really talking about
equity is what I'm trying to
get to. Right. And so straight
to the point on that, that's
why a subsidy would be needed.
Yes. If you want to bring down
the equity fee. But what if you
just flip it. Well that the
unfortunately, because of the
way the data is, the truth of
how many trips are happening,
the number of three, one one
requests that we're receiving,
the number of requests that are
coming in around geofencing,
etc. it's just not the reality
of the work that's happening
through this program. And
that's because of prop 26. Or
is that just us saying that and
us that being our policy and
standard? No, no, no, no, what
this is speaking to is, you
know, based on the data we have
around trips and then also the
data we have from Dot, what it
costs for them to to do this
program, their operations and
enforcement work here. We need
it to be able to understand how
is that broken out?
Administrative leave how much
do they spend doing this work?
And then for the different
geographic regions, how did
they how much time and energy
and effort do they spend doing
this work? And so that's where
we use the data to break it out
in those different ways and
show that based on the trip
fees or excuse me, based on the
average number of trips, what
we would anticipate a necessary
fee would be to get to full
cost recovery. I understand
that, and but we are the ones
that dictate what that cost is
like. You could give me your
analysis and we could say, look,
we like these numbers, but we
suggest that you do it with
these numbers instead so that
where it costs recovery or that
when we say equity, it's
actually equity, then yes, to
be compliant with both state
and city policies, we need to
be able to justify that this is
a reasonable cost. And we
justify that by using the data
that we have in the methodology
that I presented in the report.
And then per city policy, we
know that we can't just put the
cost burden of the equity zone
onto the other areas, onto
other users. And so with that,
that's why we present from the
city's financial policies, if
there is a need or a public
benefit, the council can find
that there is that public
benefit and then waive that fee.
And in that case, we would need
to do a subsidy from the
general fund. Understood.
Either way, we can get to a
subsidy. But thank you for
explaining that to me. I want
to understand that piece. I'm
glad we could get I was able to
get my question to you clearly.
And then the last piece that I
have is what benefits would
your department have with the
authority and this ridotti?
What benefits would your
department have with the
authority to impound and remove
dockless scooters in the public
right of way? And how does that
differ from your current
operations? Thank you for that
question. The benefit would be
that it would allow us to to
move quicker to make that
removal, as well as ensuring
that we have some control over
it. Right now, we have to reach
out to other departments to
make that work, and sometimes
that would come at a cost.
Fortunately for now, we've been
able to get the companies to do
it. But our great fear is if a
company were to, for example,
just shut down and go out of
business and just leave all
their devices on the right of
way. Sure, we can chase them
down and do those things, but
the ultimate goal is for us to
get these off the streets now
in the next, you know, maybe 72
hours or this week. And right
now that would be very
difficult for us to do. And we
don't our ladot teams don't
have the authority to do that.
We'd have to try to contract
out to someone else to make
that work. It's like how we're
now dealing with a bunch of
empty newspaper boxes and you
know, I. Yes, that. Yeah. The
payphones. Yeah. No, that
sounds good. I and that's why I
think we would like to, to
figure out how we can move that.
And I know that Council member
Nazarian asked about the
liabilities, but can you just
please, for clarification for
me, two things. What
indemnification protections
does the city have under this
program? And what insurance
coverage are operators required
to carry? So I don't know. But
our indemnification is it's
actually very good. The city
attorney's drafted it. It's
incredibly strong. I don't know,
Mike. Do you want to speak to
it? Yeah, it's as you know,
it's we have a actually in the
country. Ours is the most
robust of any other
municipality. And we did that
deliberately because we knew
going in what the regulation
was going to look like, what it
had to look like in order for
these to drive safely on our
roads or be operated, because a
lot of them are not. And we
knew the liability was going to
be off the charts, and they
would always reach for that
look to do, you know, accuse us
of of their negligence. And so
we had initially wanted 10
million per incident. 10
million umbrella policy. And
the council at that time, we
had one council member who was
adamantly opposed and wanted it
to be a million, which would
have been completely inadequate.
And ultimately it was agreed.
The council president at the
time, council member, Krekorian
former council member. They
agreed to 5 million per
incident, 5 million umbrella.
And that's where it currently
is. And going forward, if we
need to change that again, if
we determine, you know, that'll
be up to the council to ask us
to do that. If we think they're
inadequate at any time. Great.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
And the assurance that Will is
that something we don't have
that would we'll need to talk
to the companies about. We
require the insurance. And as
Mike mentioned, that will be up
to the council to make any
changes related to the
insurance. So the council has
that ability to make those
changes. Understood. Thank you
for that clarity. I have no
more questions, colleagues. Any
more questions? Great. I'll
pass it back to I yield. Thank
you chair so much members.
After the several months of
meetings that we had on this
issue, I want to put forth
recommendations that capture
the issues in all of the
reports and bought some balance
to getting us to full cost
recovery. My recommendations
include $150,000 permit fee for
operators, as well as a
meaningful subsidy for the
equity focused development
districts. Based on the current
and historical record of on
demand mobility program. These
recommendations use the same
analysis as the CBO report, and
while the subsidy may require
general fund dollars to fill
any funding gaps, I believe as
a city, we're here to balance
all of our revenue streams in
the best interests of our
residents. I want to be mindful
that we that we, while we are
trying to achieve balance, we
also need to have measures in
place to protect the city from
any liability from
overcollection and have a
process in place to do so.
Lastly, I want to thank the Cao
and Dot staff that have been
working on this issue for
nearly a year. We truly
appreciate all your hard work
and look forward to moving
these recommendations. Are
there any objections to
adopting the Transportation
Committee Chair's
recommendations, as amended by
the Public Works Committee
chair members? Members? No.
Okay, then, Mr. Clerk, can you
please call the roll? Certainly.
For transportation committee.
Council member. Hutt. Yes.
Council member. Park. Yes.
Councilmember. Hernandez.
Councilmember. Padilla. Yes.
Counselor. Nazarian. Aye. And
for Public Works Committee.
Councilmember. Hernandez. Yes.
Councilmember. Padilla. Yes.
Councilmember. Hutt. Yes. Okay.
These matters are approved, as
amended, both through the Chair
of Public Works and the Chair
of Transportation. Thank you.
Mr. Clerk. Is there any
additional business before the
committee today that clears the
desk? Thank you. Committee
members and members of the
public. This meeting is
adjourned.