Worksession re AO 2026 16 and AO 2026 16S, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 11

Okay, we're doing other business. I guess this is it, we got 5 of us. Um, good morning everybody. Today is, um, February Friday 13th, the day before Valentine's Day, so our teams are happily dressed. And we're here to discuss AO 2026-16 and 16S, which are an ordinance of the Anchorage Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 11, Section 14 of 60 Código de Regulaciones, Chapter 11.10, regarding vehicle for hire requirements to conform code with best practice, state law, and remove obsolete requirements to encourage compliance, to increase safety, and to lower costs.

And again, we have our initial version and a substitute version. We will run the record into 11. We'll start with, um, here, just for a constant.

On the phone, Mr. Johnson?

I'm here. Hello, Mr. Rivera? Present. Do you have any other members on the phone? Okay.

We're also joined by members of Transportation Department, we have members of Department of Law, Municipal Manager's Office, our own attorneys, and the Clerk's Office. Members of both are here. So, uh, usually we would start by allowing the administration to to introduce itself and give us an introduction. Please state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Carrie Belvin.

I'm the transportation inspector, and I have Nika Lozano with me who is also with the transportation inspection division. Jessica Williams, the city municipal attorney, and Becky Wood-Pearson, municipal manager. Right, you have the floor. Okay, thank you all for coming to this and participating. So, before us here are the Municipal Code Title 11 revisions, and just to let you know a little bit about the Transportation Inspection Division.

Next slide, please. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Okay, so the Transportation Inspection Division, our mission is to ensure ensure that regulated vehicle service to the public is safe, reliable, clean, and service-oriented by administering and enforcing Title 11 Municipal Code. So some of our core services include issuing, overseeing, and revoking chauffeur licensing, permits for regulated vehicles and dispatch companies. We also inspect the regulated vehicles and monitor the chauffeurs for ordinance compliance safety. We investigate complaints and allegations of wrongdoing, and we also provide support to the Transportation Commission as well as to the Assembly for Title 11 matters.

Next slide. The TII Division has several regulated vehicle permits. One section is the vehicle for hire, which we— V-H-I-R, BFH. These permits are typically comprised of tourism companies, non-emergency medical transport companies, elderly and adult care transports, some luxury transports, and direct transports. These permits are 6-month seasonal permits or year-long permits.

The taxicab permits and taxicab dispatches, those are renewed annually, and then we also issue chauffeur licenses that are renewed every 2 years. Years. And we also provide support to the Transportation Commission. Just real quick, this is Monica's question. Yeah, can you kind of clarify the first bullet and the third bullet?

Like, do those interact with each other? Is that the drivers in those companies, or like, would somebody have a chauffeur license and not be in that first category? Okay, yes. So the vehicle-for-hire companies, the drivers, um, uh, can, can own a permit and own the companies, or they can just strictly be a staff member of the company. So it can, um, they can kind of fall on the spectrum wherever they want.

We do have several company owners and permit owners that do drive the, um, the regulated vehicles themselves, and all drivers of the regulated vehicles, um, must have a chauffeur license. Okay, yeah, so you can have both.

Okay, next slide please.

Okay, so the process about— I think it's important to understand the process that the Transportation Commission and the TI Division went through to make these updates. So over the past the Transportation Commission had 6 public meetings regarding the industry as a whole and about the Title 11 edits. So in these meetings, we have the stakeholders of the Transportation Commission, the TI Division. It was open to the public and the vehicle permit owners for taxicabs and the companies, as well as chauffeurs and We did have some members of legal at some of them. So it was kind of really a huge effort and a lot of discussion and an extensive amount of research.

And there was a lot of input and the Transportation Commission really tried to do a good job of being accessible. They had brought up topics multiple times, had lots of discussion, and they really tried to understand the issues of of the industry before making any decisions. So it was an extensive amount of work put into this. And as a result, the TC adopted many of the suggestions from these meetings and from this research and work.

Next slide.

The key changes in this big package are updating and clarifying code language Removing obsolete requirements, conforming to practice, removing code that was preempted by state law, transitioning to smart taximeters, strengthening security measures, and increasing taxicab maximum fare rate cap. And so we'll get into those a little bit more in a second. Next slide. Okay, the smart taximeter. So the smart taximeter is more cost and data effective.

Um, let me just go out and kind of describe it for you for a second. So in a taxicab right now, um, like Yellow Dispatch, they have the old meter. It's the analog meter. It has to be tied into the vehicle. It's mechanically put into the vehicle versus a smart meter.

It goes through the digital dispatch computer system, and that's done through GPS, and it's not tied into the differential and the actual the actual computer like the older system is. And so this AO requires that the taxicab dispatch systems use a smart taxi meter, and currently all the smaller dispatch systems are using these taxi cab meters now, and the Las Viela cab is the only one that is not using it. They are more efficient and predicted to improve everything for the— they have more efficient and predicted improvements for the chauffeurs, the vehicle owners, the dispatches, and the office. And it's a national movement to switch to these smart taxi meters. So the more efficient and more— the predicted improvements are when they go get— when a taxicab goes and gets their cab pack, is what they call it, and they get the meter installed, they have to go to a person that will wire this into the actual car itself.

Then they have to go on a drive to make sure the meter is correct. Then they have to get it certified by the dispatch. Then they come to our office. We We have to go on the drive to make sure it's correct, and then we will go ahead and seal the meter and make sure it's okay. So that's a lot of time and a lot of running around.

These meters break, and also if road conditions are bad or that a certain meter stop isn't plowed out, we can't do it. The digital SmartTaxi, when they need a rate change or when they need something done, they can just do it with an update. And it gets pushed out to everybody instantly. And in addition, the smart— the old meters, the vehicle owners have to purchase those, and they're several hundred dollars, where the SmartTaxiMeter is already embedded into the dispatch computer. So it's cleaner, more efficient, and it is way more capable of collecting data and of just all around more effective.

Yep. Thank you. What's the difference in the cost for a smart taxi meter versus one of the old meters versus the CATPAQ? Okay, so the smart taxi meter is just an application that's already in the digital dispatch system. So it's basically a matter of them— I talked to Yellow Cab, it's basically a matter of them, they said, "flipping the switch." So it's already— they are already capable and wired for that.

I did talk to one of the major national vendors, and they did say that there would not be a cost increase if Yellow Cab wanted to go with them because they already support supply the credit card terminals and stuff like that. So they already have the capability and the hardware for it. It's just a matter of shifting from the old meters to the new meters. But there's no extra hardware or anything like that. Yeah.

Is there— did Yellow Cab indicate why they haven't made this shift already? They didn't. And, you know, the Commission did a really good job of talking with Yellow Cab several times during several different meetings, and Yellow Cab did not express any— they were okay with the changes. They didn't express any reservations about it. They said it's coming, we might as well get on board now.

The old meters are about $650, so when they break or when something happens and they need to be replaced, they are pretty expensive. And Yellow Cab just asked that they have enough time to train their drivers for this transfer. So I have not heard any opposition from Yellow Cab. We've talked about it several times. They have been researching new vendors and they have not expressed any concerns about cost increases or anything like that.

And we have assured them that we would give them plenty of time to train train drivers, that we would help however we could and however we needed to do that. And I'd like to say that some of the smaller taxi dispatches are already on the smart taxi meters, and their costs are much less for dispatch stand rent. So it is— it's a feasible thing, and nationally the industry is trying to move away from those old hard meters. So it's, it's It's kind of time, and YOLO said it's time, so we're hopeful that this will be a smooth transition. Thank you.

All right, okay, next slide. Strengthening security measures. Um, so we're just going to highlight a couple of the, uh, the bigger security measures that this AO has. So, um, uh, the AMC— the first bullet point is on page 4, and what this does is this creates a swifter violation review process, provides notice to the Commission and the permittee before a scheduled Commission meeting. So this allows the process to take place as needed and not just annually, so the Commission can act sooner.

So what this does is if there is a permit owner that is really violating a lot of conditions for Title XI or criminally, has some criminal convictions or anything like that, what this does is this lets us go to the Commission and remove this permit sooner than waiting for the annual, waiting for the annual meeting.

The second bullet point This adds to instances where the TI may take enforcement and encourage compliance. So this is failing to report to the TI office where the chauffeur is operating a vehicle and also where the chauffeur is operating a vehicle under credentials that are false or not belonging to them. So the T— the TC really wanted to take a strong position that people should not be logging into other chauffeurs' accounts and driving, and that was a big deal to them. And sometimes people have expired chauffeur licenses, so they log into their BUDDYs, or they're suspended or revoked, and they log into their BUDDYs. So we were trying to limit that.

And then the encouraging compliance to report. Sometimes when we need video footage, um, and other issues that they have to come in and see us at the office. I would like to note that this section, that AMC 11.10.110(b), it looks like a very large rewrite to this section. There's actually only really two additions in this whole entire section, and that's C and D, but the section as a whole looks like it is is, um, has a lot of changes because it's reorganized. So it used to be where they'd have a lot of may, shall, may, shall, may, shall for the TI.

What we did was we grouped like items together, and this is on page, um, page 6 through 9 on the AO. So we group like items together, so all the mays are together and all the shalls are together instead of bouncing back and forth in the old language. But the only 2 new added ones are on page 7, and that's B2C and B2D. It just, it looks like it's a lot of, a lot of changes, but it's really not. It's more organizational.

And the third bullet point, 1110.150, page 10, it requires permittees and dispatchers to ensure that the chauffeurs have proper licenses and follow codes. Code. This prohibits the chauffeurs from operating, um, regulated vehicles under credentials that are false, not belonging to them. So that is in two different sections in the code. That's why it's on there twice.

I will note, Mr. McCormick, notice at 10:12. Thank you. Next slide, please.

Okay, so this is strengthening security measures continued. The first bullet point is from page 11 on the code, and this changes the audio/video footage collection from 72 hours, which is 3 days, to 5 days. This is really important for the TI office because sometimes when we get complaints, we we have to review video footage to, to validate whether the complaint is accurate or not. And sometimes it takes the customer a couple days to call in. Um, also, if it's a holiday weekend or if we get a complaint on a Friday afternoon and then we have the clock ticking over the weekend, we are not able to capture video all the time because we have to call the driver in, we have to get a hold of them.

Sometimes that takes day or two. So we're asking for the 5 days just to make sure that we have enough time to secure this video footage. Sometimes the video footage, um, are for new crimes, are for just regular complaints or anything. So these are important, um, pieces of evidence that we really need. It also clarifies that both audio and video are required, not just one or the other.

This is important because when people get in the cabs, um, they— we need to hear what that, that driver is saying, right? It's against code to refuse a short trip, but if I can't hear them say that they're refusing the short trip, I really don't have anything, um, and that— and the video is kind of useless. So, or if there's some professional language or anything like that, so it really clarifies the need for both audio and visual. Um, and so this was something that the TC and the TI office really decided was important. The second bullet point, AMC 11.30.065 on page 21 of the AO, this adds the new duty to report, allowing the TI to take swifter action in specific situations where a chauffeur avoids reporting for enforcement reasons.

So this one, the chauffeur is to report within 2 days if the driver's license their status changes or they get a criminal conviction. We don't always see the drivers, um, you know, monthly or anything like that, or do records checks all the time. So this puts the onus on them to report in if they get their license suspended or their driver's license suspended or revoked, which is important, right? They shouldn't be out there driving if they don't even have a driver's license. The second portion of this is for good cause.

So sometimes drivers know that they have done something wrong, they avoid us, right? They don't report in. They try and wait out that 3 days so we can't get the, the, the video. Um, so this makes it that they have to report in, um, when they're called, uh, so that we can address a complaint, we can get the video, we can go ahead and work the process. Um, this, this is a kind of a big deal for the TI office as well.

The third bullet point, um, as the record-keeping requirement for the licenses to the dispatches, and so it's putting some ownership on the dispatch to make sure that their drivers have valid chauffeur licenses and valid driver's license. You know, we get the logs every month, but it's also their responsibility to make sure that they are hiring people and letting people drive that have the proper credentials. And the fourth bullet point, the last one, this clarifies the rules of conduct at taxicab stands. There's a lot of issues at taxicab stands, so this really lines it out that you can't cut in line and do certain things, and that there's a process in a taxicab line and rules to follow. So, and that's really needed.

We have a lot of complaints coming from the taxicab line. So hopefully this will help settle some of those down.

Okay, next slide.

Repealing AOC 11.45, the Transportation Network Companies, also known as TNCs. So a lot of people know them as Uber and Lyft, right? This chapter in Title 11 was preempted by state law which prohibits the oversight and regulation of TNCs, and that includes the TNC chauffeurs. So since we are no longer allowed to regulate them, this title, the 11.45, is no longer necessary or enforced. And so we were just going to redact, remove it.

And then the last bullet point, AMC 14.60.030, just page title, page 27, It removes the corresponding fines with those, with that chapter.

Okay, next slide. So, we're still working on a question. It might have been on a previous slide that was sort of—. Yeah, we're going to go back a little bit. Sure, sure, absolutely.

I apologize. I want to go back to the Smart Tax Meter. Absolutely. Piece. Why is this a policy choice and not an operator choice?

So what is forcing Yellow Cab— because you said they're the only ones that's not using it— to change over really accomplish? Um, we're trying to move the industry forward, and it, it could be a policy call if the Assembly chose, but we're trying to move the industry forward and Um, it— we're doing it on behalf of the drivers and the chauffeurs, not just the dispatches, and the municipal office too. Every time there is a taxicab fare increase, multiple people have to touch that card multiple ways and increase—. Let me back up. Every time there's a fare increase, it's a lot of work for a lot of people.

And every time the meter breaks or anything, that has to take those drivers back and forth from the dispatch to our office, possibly back if it didn't get calibrated right. It's expensive. It's a cost savings. And Yellow had said that they were fine with this being in here, but ultimately, I guess it could be a policy call. But it is a— it would save the municipality money.

It would save the municipality time and effort because we would no longer have to do those meter rides. And so just in May, Yellow Cab— Yellow Cab increased their fare rates, and the meter runs are about 15 minutes each, and that's if it goes well. And so we have over 200 cabs that we had to do. Several weeks of municipality time. Um, and also the driver's time and the vehicle owners that actually— because that's the cost to the vehicle owners, not to the dispatch, are those meters and stuff like that.

So it could be a dispatch policy call, um, but it affects multiple levels in the industry, not just the dispatch.

Back to where you were. Okay, um, increasing the fare rate.

Okay, increasing the maximum cap fare rate. Um, just to be clear, this is not increasing the fare, this is increasing the cap for the fare. So historically, the assembly has put a cap and then the dispatches slowly rise to it. So this increases the cap from $3 to $3. We do not anticipate that the dispatchers will go pop up to the maximum cap.

It took Yellow Cab 15 years to reach the last fare rate cap, and the fare rate has only increased 75 cents, so a total of 3 times in over 15 years, and it now sits at $3. So historically, they have been very, very conservative on their fare rate increases. And we expect that to remain the same. And it is up to the dispatch to set the fare price, the fare rate price, underneath the cap. And so this just gives them room to grow.

Everything is getting more expensive. The, the cars, the vehicles are more expensive. Insurance is commercial insurance, which is very pricey. The gas, all of those things are going up. What this does is this This money goes to the driver.

It does not go to the dispatch. It goes to the driver, and the driver pays their monthly dispatch stand rent. But this money goes to the driver. We have been noticing that permits have been getting turned in every year because there's just not enough money for the drivers. And so this gives them room to grow.

This is, of course, a dispatch set rate. This is just increasing the cap because we have reached the cap. Question for you, um, the dispatch sets the rate. Does that mean we could have different companies with different rates? Yes, yes.

Um, Yellow Cab just went to the $3 back in May 2025. The other smaller ones were at $3, um, earlier than Yellow was, but there's a little bit of, uh, you know, free market out there where people can decide what rate they want their dispatch to be at. Practically speaking, this gets passed in 120 days, it could go up to $6. It could. So the Assembly could decide maybe they don't want to do that, maybe they just want to do a $4 cap or a $5 cap.

That would just be a policy call by the Assembly. We were giving room to grow. I know in Seattle, the market in Seattle, they did something very progressive and they removed all cap. So the dispatchers are just allowed to use free market to decide where, um, the dispatchers decide themselves where the, uh, where the price should be. Um, I thought that was a little too progressive for our area, so we've just picked $6, but they said they could definitely adjust it down if they choose.

They also have to compete with Uber and Lyft and the other dispatches, so I think there is a little bit of a natural check in place. But yes, you're right, it is up to the dispatch what they decide to do. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] I have two questions. First was, you know, what influenced the decision, the $6 decision? Were there any data or metrics or anything that went into choosing $6?

And the second question would be, how much input or feedback do drivers have in in dispatch's process of setting fare rates. They have— the drivers have little to no input in what the dispatch does. They can request and ask, and it's kind of like going to your, you know, an employee going to an employer, "Can I get a raise?" And, you know, it's up to the employer whether or not they do it or not. So there's not a process or anything set in place for the drivers to get a vote of how much the rate is. Um, the $6, um, there was not a lot of, uh, we chose $6 just as something for room to grow.

There was not a best practice for a fare cap rate, and like I said, it's all over the, it's all over the place down in down south. Like I said, Seattle just went with no cap and said be responsible and let free market kind of drive it. So this is kind of all over the map. We just try to give a little bit of room to grow. And, you know, if somebody wants to do something less than $6, I don't think the commission or my office would have any problems with that.

Yeah. I'm sorry, we have someone who has the floor right now. Ms. Paula Davis still has the floor. Thank you. Did you hear any feedback from operators with respect to what that appropriate room for growth might be?

I've heard positive. Like I said, the drivers come in to renew chauffeur licenses, they come in to do vehicle inspections. So we have a lot of interaction with the drivers as well as the permit owners, and I've heard positive things from the drivers. I do have to explain to them they are not getting a raise to $6 a mile, that that is a cap. Yellow Cab or any of the dispatches could sit at $3 for the next 5 years if they wanted to.

We are just increasing the cap. They have been excited about it. They are hopeful.

It's a hard industry to make money in, so they would appreciate it, but I try and be respectful and let them know this is not a guarantee and it is up to the dispatch. Thank you. All right, I have myself in queue on that then. Just for basic information, we really went through this, the industry is established as owners, dispatchers, and drivers, right? So they kind of have different interests in each of the categories.

Correct. So from an audience, do we have reps of the owners here? Yes. Yes. And then we have rep from the dispatch here, and we have reps from the drivers here.

Okay. Yes, we have a driver and we have an owner. We don't have a dispatcher here. Okay, so that's helpful information for me, um, in case we have What is the process for changing rates under this code or policy, this regulation? Um, so the dispatchers would have to notify the Transportation Commission and put it out, um, publicly that they are going to give 30 days notice that they are going to raise.

So it's a 30-day notice period. Are cab drivers allowed to do surge pricing? They are not. I'm told to pause. Is playing for a representative.

Um, uh, he is the Transportation Commission chair. Thank you. So, um, we'll just note that the clerk asked if one of the people on the phone was representative of the municipality, and I think the answer is yes. Um, so anyhow, the question was, can they do surge pricing then? Probably not if it takes 30 days to get a rate change.

No, that they cannot— taxicabs cannot do surge pricing. Dispatchers. And so why not? I mean, if we're talking about the inability of the industry to compete with the, um, transportation network corporations that do surge pricing, and we're talking about the fact that we allow the dispatchers to set prices up to a— they're not even here, which is a little disconcerting to me because this is where they're set to be the ones to make these decisions. Why wouldn't we consider looking at the possibility of allowing them to truly compete?

So the dispatch is just— the only limitation is the dispatches have to fall underneath the cap, but they could— I mean, theoretically, they could say for summer months, if they wanted to, they could go up to $4 a mile instead of $3 and come back for winter or whatever.

I think they wouldn't be able to do that with this, with the old meters that they have now because you manually have to change the set. But with the smart meter, it makes it more possible to pay the PATH to be able to do that.

Honestly, I—. We haven't looked into it, but I don't see— I can't think of a reason off the top of my head why they couldn't do like a surge pricing other than the fact that they have to get the notice. Right. And so, I mean, I don't love the idea of not being able to have a predictable rate from a cab. I know how much it costs to go from my house to the airport and back, and it's nice to have predictability when you can never tell with the cab companies.

Until, you know, schedule it. But it seems like if there is an issue of competitive advantage, then we should, as a policy body, be looking at how to level the playing field. And if the leveling of the playing field is allowing more flexibility, then I think it needs to be looked into in such a way that it provides a means of competition. Just my thinking, just kind of—. One more comment.

Comment. I do know that a lot of the taxicabs, um, do— they do have some contract pricing, so those would have to be set aside. And they do a lot of Medicaid, Medicare, and all that. Obviously, we would want the anchor rides kind of support that goes out there for some of the cabs and the home service cabs and all that to be kind of standard. But that could be a whole separate conversation because those are in some ways regularized.

Mr.

I'm curious about Seattle. You said they removed the cap, and I'm curious how that's going and if that's something that you're seeing more and more across the US, or if that's just kind of a one-off. So they just did it this fall, so I think it's a little too early to tell, and I, I believe they are the first ones to to do it. I just kind of linked into that group this fall at a conference, and that's where I learned all that. And so I'm kind of following them as well.

And so hopefully, like, by next year I'll be able to report back on how that experiment went. So, but as far as I know, they are the first ones to really do that. And they are— they also put into code that they are moving out of the the old hard meters and into the smart meters, which will allow to give us flexibility as well. Thank you. Mr. Gates.

Bobby, yeah, thank you. I just wanted to contribute to that discussion about why we have a cap on tax cap. I'm from my department of law, I think it's like, we consider that, but one of the reasons I understood the discussions in the media, politicians, in the Harvard School of Law, and so forth. It protects the right which is not an absolute privacy in that it protects the single, not business, private, short-term scenes, but it gives the single protection in terms of corporate or government and so forth, and not an absolute privacy, as in the abilities to make anonymous activities. Absolutely, once, uh, solution will be for the kids.

I totally get that, Mr. Gates, and the reality is once the primacy was stolen from the local government to be able to regulate transportation network companies by the paid corporate interests that seized from us the authority that is truly ours to provide for the security and the ability to regulate the industries that are providing services to the consumer in this town, the reality is consumer protection is out the window. And so I think that there could be a cap that's set for potential surge pricing. Anyhow, I'm not going to be here for that conversation, but it just seems like there might be another opportunity to bake in, within reason of consumer protection, some more flexibility for the people who are doing this work so they can compete and not be left behind. It's like a vicious circle to watch. They can't raise their rates, their cars are deteriorating, people don't want to use them because they don't feel like it's clean, but it's not clean because they can't make money.

They can't make money to do their business. It's just a vicious, vicious cycle that that corporation or set of corporations with our friend from Fairbanks set into the law at the state level and seized again from us the right to do this. And so I do believe that this body has some means to help provide a better opportunity for this industry that could strike a balance between that kind of clean sense of consumer protection and the ability to provide service. Because it's no consumer protection if the cabs go away and they're gone because they can't compete, and then we just have these network companies that we don't have the right to do anything about. They could have their sex offenders driving their cars.

We don't know. We can't do background checks. And so for me, I think this is a right area for review by the members. Looking forward. Probably not in time for this project because this project has been going on a long time.

So I'm going to get off my little soapbox there and say that we did have someone speak, Mr. Burke, who is a member of the Transportation Commission. It's kind of out of order because the member had the floor. We want to make sure if he had something to add to the conversation that we give him the opportunity. Mr. Burke. Yeah, hi, good morning.

Chair, thank you. I just wanted to add to this dollar cap. Um, the reason that we chose that number— Uber and Lyft legally can't share their fares with us, so, you know, we were able to look at other taxi fares across the country when we did the permit assessment. But the reason we went with the $6 cap is because anytime we asked for a cap increase we have to change the city code, and then we didn't want to have to come back to the assembly on an annual basis to do that. Um, so that's why we came up with the $6 number.

We originally floated a dollar to a $1.25, but as a commission— but then we started to talk about, do we really want to do this every single year to change the code, right? So I just wanted to be on the record, see, you know, uh, with both told that they had that question. I wanted to add another answer to it. Thank you.

So I have one more question, um, and this one's not a clarification but more of a question. I travel not insignificantly, and there are a number of communities I go to where the cab driver and the Lyft driver are the same driver. Now, we don't have that here. What's the barrier to allow our folks to kind of participate kind of in a hybrid manner? So I believe that's in state statute actually, that they are not supposed to— the TNC definition is not supposed to do the hybrid.

More protectionism. Okay, thank you. Yeah, we are trying to adhere to the state statutes. I understood it would have to, obviously. It's just again the fruit of the poison tree.

Okay, anyone else? Yeah, I think one thing we haven't covered today that I know we've gotten some communication about, and I've talked to one person who's a constituent, is the proposal essentially to either deregulate or significantly change the tourism. So for example, you hire a van, you drive around. And so I know because in our emails We have some folks who do not support the changes. I know the Transportation Commission took this up and we talked about it offline earlier.

And essentially it sounds like it's a policy choice to either change the regulation for that class of operators or not. And so I just wonder if you could briefly speak to—. I don't want to—. Yeah. I have a 5-page letter that I'm trying to summarize.

Okay. But yeah, maybe could you just speak to that? Yeah, so in the last slide, um, we, we, um, got— the Commission was very thoughtful in what they decided to put into the, the changes and the AAO. What they did not put into the changes in the AAO is the second bullet point, which the TC did not support removing the vehicle prior tourism subgroup from Title 11 and transfer supervision to USDOT. After multiple meetings, including with the State of Alaska, USDOT, it was not advisable for multiple reasons.

And per State DOT, their focus is on much larger vehicles. These Title 11 vehicles, which are 15 passengers or less, would fall through the cracks. They could go years before having— USDOT does a driver background check or a vehicle inspection. The vehicle inspections themselves themselves also focus on different items. Um, they're not usually super geared towards passengers.

They don't check the seat belts. They don't do some of those basic passenger safety things just because they're focused on different areas. Um, they don't do the accident tracking. So they do a regular tracking of like when a general person gets into an accident, you're supposed to report on the state website, but no one actually follows through to make sure that's repaired or anything. So the Commission, while the USDOT does a good job in their duties, this group is not their focus, this size vehicle.

And so the Commission, learning a lot of things and hearing from the industry, they felt it was appropriate to not include that change and to, and to go ahead and leave the vehicle for hires as a whole and not pull that subgroup out. They felt it was the best interest for the community, the safety, the companies themselves, and the drivers. And just to clarify, they do get vehicle inspections. They require every year, US DOT does, but no one checks them. So after a few years of not getting checked, they just put them in their glove box, and then after a few years of not getting checked, those companies may or may not follow that requirement or make the changes or repairs necessary for those.

So there's just not a lot of oversight. The other thing that— the other request was to, if they didn't pull— deregulate that subgroup of tourism vehicles, to then just kind of make a carve-out so their pricing was reduced. That was another request. The TC really wanted to focus on the policy and safety and not make recommendations regarding the fee amounts. But in addition, it also got complicated because they— this group gets the same, the same oversight as the other group.

So it would be really hard to take the tourism subgroup and reduce the price for them and not reduce the price for everybody else when everybody else is receiving the same services that they are, right? So how do we How do we lower the price for this group and not for the others when they get the same exact oversight and they use the same exact municipal resources? So that was really hard that we couldn't kind of figure out how to do that. Then there was again, there was a couple comments made about the slippery slope of, you know, we have like the direct transport vehicle hires that, you know, would they say then because they're in Anchorage and they provide 5 informational Anchorage facts, now are they a tour group? Instead of a direct transport, so now they're going under the tour group category because their driver told someone 5 informational facts about Anchorage, so now they want under the tour group category for the lower price.

So it kind of seemed like this big kind of slippery slope in a lot of ways, and we didn't know how to separate that out. It got convoluted, and it didn't seem like it was good policy or good practice, so the Commission decided to not grant that change and just leave just leave everything the same for the vehicle for hires and the pricing. And then another comment was that the vehicle for hire— Title 11 vehicle for hire subgroup was enacted well after DOT, and the municipalities still saw safety gaps in these companies that use vehicles. So that's why they put Title 11 and the vehicle for hire groups into, into that well after DOT was formed, so there was a need back then, and we believe there's still a need. I don't know if you have any further questions on that.

Yeah, I think that's helpful. I'm just trying to parse through. I think the other— can we talk a little bit about why courtesy vehicles are exempt? So obviously this ordinance doesn't do that, but I think that's, that's another point that's being raised, which is, for example, hotel shuttles. I think is one, or what is the material difference between I'm sitting in a van, I'm going from the airport to a hotel, I'm sitting in a van and I'm getting driven around so I can take photos.

That's kind of unclear to me. Okay, so courtesy vehicles are separated out in Title XI, and we do not regulate courtesy vehicles. Courtesy vehicles are like if you go to a hotel and they give you a shuttle to and from the airport, right? You're still going to stay at the hotel. Hotel, whether they have the shuttle running or not.

It's a courtesy. You do not pay for this. It's not included. Um, it's not a fee or anything like that. Uh, Title 11 regulated vehicles, they, uh, charge a fee and they have a specific purpose.

You know, they're doing the tour and all that other stuff. So they are separated out, um, as something that provides a fee and doesn't provide a fee and is kind of an optional perk, if you will. So essentially, if I was a hotel and then I said, okay, I'm offering this, this transport and I'm going to add a $10 fee to your bill, that's where it would suddenly trigger that they are regulated, essentially, even if it is an optional service. I believe so. Okay, thanks.

Yeah, and I think I just want to note, I mean, I imagine there will be discussion about this, and I think I think I, I guess one last question I have is, um, uh, the letter also really brings up that some of these things were not necessarily discussed on the record for the Transportation Commission, like this, um, DOT. But it sounds like that might have been— can you just clarify kind of who was it, the commission that met with DOT, or like what, what of these discussions happened on the record versus with the commission versus kind of staff research? Okay, yes. Um, So the Transportation Inspection Commission— I mean, the Transportation Inspection Division staff, so myself and Ika, we met with the DOT. We had a meeting with a couple of their directors about what they do, what they don't do, and then we brought that information back and we presented that to the Commission at a Commission meeting.

So the Commission meetings, there were 6 meetings that, that educated the commissioners and the public and everybody involved kind of about the industry in general. And then there were conversations about the Title XI revisions in those meetings. And then there were also specific meetings dedicated to just Title XI revisions. So as a whole, there were 6 meetings where some of it was kind of sampled in there, and then some were just specifically about Title 11. So, um, if someone only came to 2 or 3 meetings, I could see where this might have been missed, um, but it was all presented at a meeting.

All right, thanks. Yeah, and I think, um, I'm still— I'm going to be digesting this letter, obviously, and I know there's going to be more discussion about it, but I just want to note that that's really been, at least from what I'm hearing, the biggest kind of question about what is or isn't in this ordinance. I think other members. Yeah, thanks. I kind of want to just follow up on a few things that were all brought up.

I'm struggling for one a little bit with understanding this exemption for courtesy vehicles. You say it's because they won't charge a fee, but this is really about safety, right? About making sure vehicles are inspected, drivers have criminal background checks and all that. Then, well, to say it's about the fees seems to kind of undermine that argument if we're saying, oh, we're not worried about if it's it's a hotel or parking service, but we are worried about if it's a tour operator. Um, I don't— I, I mean, I would have to go back and research why they exactly did the carve-out.

That carve-out's been in there for years, so I don't know if maybe some of you guys can throw me a lifeline on this and tell me why you guys did that. I don't, I don't really know. Um, that was, um, what I had been told by the former TI who was there before. I don't know where she got that information, but that's, um, kind of reasonable that it was a courtesy. It was not anything that the company had to do.

It was their offer just as a pleasantry. Um, and so I don't really know why the assembly did the carve-out.

Um, okay, so that's an opportunity for some legal research. Can I also kind of just—. The shade that just flowed across this room is extraordinary. Did you feel the side eye? Did you feel it?

Sorry, did somebody say something?

I'd be curious to hear more, right? So I could imagine in my mind, I mean, when we talk about what is the person paying for, if I pay a vehicle to transport me to the airport, sure, okay, I'm paying exclusively for that service. I'm going to take photos of something, I can say that I am paying for, right, that tour, that opportunity. And I understand there's different ways you can kind of parse that out, but it sort of begs this question about what is—. What are we charging for?

And the hotel, I'm sure, builds into their pricing what costs to operate that shuttle as well, so maybe you're not paying for it as an additional fee, you're paying for one or another. I did want to ask, because we've seen other jurisdictions that have carved out an exemption for tourism operators, and Fairbanks was an example we were provided. Um, I don't know how much interaction you have with them, but have you seen problems, right? Maybe, because they pretty explicitly said requirements like this don't apply to tourism operators, and has that led to safety incidents or things like that? I, I personally have not looked into the fare-based system, so I can't speak about it.

I'm sorry. Okay, and then just one more quick question. Maybe I can get answers later, but the fees, as I understand, it's like $1,450. Like, that's expensive. I understand because we have staff time and a bunch of our costs, but, um, I also get how for, you know, I mean, for a taxi that generates probably tens of thousands of dollars of revenue a year because their operations— like, that's, you know, it's certainly not nothing, but, um, when I compare that to the amount of revenue I know these seasonal tour operators generate, it's a significant portion.

Um, and I understand the desire for fairness and equity here, but is it possible to get a breakdown on how we get to that number, $1,450? I mean, how many hours, um, staff time it takes? Because it seems like quite a bit. I mean, especially for a tour operator that's just kind of walking out and doing an inspection and handling a little paperwork once a year? The Transportation Inspection Division doesn't break down hours spent on, on certain items.

There's, there's requirements. Uh, if the vehicle is above 200,000 miles, they get 2 inspections a year. If it's below, they get 1 inspection. Um, there's the chauffeur licensing, so we don't break it down staff hours like that, so I can't come up with why. I do know that over time the prices have fluctuated, right?

Um, in 2013, the, the annual for the vehicle prior specifically was, uh, $1,980. In 2017, it was $700— $1,700. And in 2018, it's 14.25, which is what it was now. So it has fluctuated over time, but I don't know what the cause, the reason, um, why they picked these certain numbers.

Is that— sorry, I don't think I understood. You mentioned that there's a differentiation between vehicles that drive over 200,000 miles a year and those that drive less. Yes, so they get a different, um, So, they drive less, how many miles are on the vehicle? So how many miles are on the vehicle determines how often they get an inspection. Oh, total mileage.

Yeah, so total mileage, right. So we don't track their mileage. So, they give— well, I mean, we do track their mileage. Um, uh, so when they come in, we, we, they do an inspection, and then when the vehicle reaches above 200,000 miles, then they get an inspection twice a year because it's getting older, things are breaking, it's kind of getting more used. So we do increase in that way.

Um, but yeah, we don't break down staff time for that stuff. You can't do it. Yes. So I have a queue, we have just a couple minutes left. Um, so I have my question feel like the purpose is transportation.

When I think about the example that we had here, photographs, you're actually being paid to tour around to take pictures. So really the thing is the pictures, it's not the transportation, right? And so in my mind, I just— I'm having a hard time squaring this really clear divide about those things, um, because again, I guess you could do a photo tour drop-off from ship to shore, from Seward to Anchorage, which would be one thing, but if you're going from the, you know, the Manager has sleepy eyes. What's your thought? You know, I think the big challenge is simply kind of thinking about— I mean, I think both Fifield and Mr. Malley have noted that this is really a policy choice about where we draw the line and which safety functions we want to regulate, right?

And the Commission grappled with this question too, right? And where they landed was We care about regulating the same safety issues, the safety of the driver, right, the driver's driving record, whether the driver's conviction record. We look at things like whether the driver, driver who's alone We want you to be a safe driver, we want your vehicle to be safe. The Commission landed on the side of we still want— we still feel that we want to regulate that vehicle for the same reason that we regulate other vehicles. You could certainly say we think the risk is low enough that we do not want to regulate that vehicle, we draw the line somewhere else.

We grappled a bit with why do we not do that for the same thing we grapple with with vehicles that we don't. Pay for. I assume that somewhere— and we'll see what the legislative history reveals when the Incraft legal team goes through that history— I assume that at some point we may draw the line somewhere because for the same reason we don't regulate carpools, we assume that if you're not paying for a vehicle, then maybe that's what we decided to draw the line, that we weren't regulating there. But it's certainly a policy choice of just where do we draw the line as, as a municipality, where we intervene to to make sure that vehicles and drivers are safe. And I think, again, our commission and our Transportation Inspection Division looked at the, at the equities on this and said, okay, we'll support the structure that we have had in the past, that we'll be— that this function looks enough like the other functions, the same kind of vehicle, do something slightly different, but same kind of vehicle, same kind of driver, same kind of situation where you're along the passengers and we want to continue to do the same kind of checks, basic checks on vehicles and basic checks on drivers.

But again, it's a policy choice about what is— what are the risks and what are the benefits and what is the cost to the individual operator. So I think that's just what we have to chew on here in making this decision. That's why I quickly—. I think that the example of the hotels offering shuttles is what brings into relief all of these questions. He brought ridesharing with his interest in carpooling.

And I know that Enterprise, for example, does like a business carpool that you can buy into, but I'm guessing they're not regulated to go from the drop-off out at the exchange by the hospital in the valley driving into Anchorage for work. And it's got that Enterprise logo. Anyhow, I had lots of questions, but not a whole lot of time. I have another question. It doesn't need an answer right now.

I'm chewing on why do dispatch companies have unilateral control rates. I don't want an answer to that right now, but that's where my head is at because they're not here, everything's set up in the tiers that it's in, I just don't know why they're granted that authority when they're kind of parties in a business agreement with other operators. Next I have Anna. Yeah, I have two questions. One is, um, has the Commission ever contacted contemplated tiered permits, for example, differentiating between a small business and a large business?

I know that happens. That's a common way to kind of have two different scales that accounts for the fact that small businesses are doing less business by nature. Um, I, I've been with the division for 5 years and that has not come up. I can't say from prior, but to my knowledge I have— no one's discussed it and I haven't heard about that, so. Okay, yeah, thanks.

And I know that's, um, that would probably be a bigger project to look into. That's— yeah, and I do know there were discussions though about the, um, vehicle providers can charge and incorporate these fees into their prices because they, they get to decide how much their fees are, um, whereas taxicabs, they obviously don't. So, um, vehicle provider Hires do have that ability to adjust their rates as they need to. Thanks. And my other question is, um, because I know there's, there's always issues of confidentiality with business information, uh, you know, regarding tax revenue, things like that.

Is there anything currently where this information is confidential? So not their profits or anything like that, but name, mailing address, number of permits held, fees paid, whether there's been any violations? Like, do you Do you know of any issues with confidentiality there? Um, so I believe there were a lot of release, um, I think that names and addresses, and then I believe there's a portion in there where you've been asked about driver's, um, history and any, any citations by the TI office or, or criminal convictions and stuff like that. So there is a little bit in there.

And then as far as the others, we have to go with the bigger, the bigger lots. Sure. And just to be clear, I wasn't thinking so much of individual drivers and the person's name, but the company's name and the permits that they hold. Thanks. Next, I have two folks in queue before we're done.

We're going to be done here pretty soon. This is Paul today. Thank you. Can you direct me to the section of code that outlines the fee schedule? Uh, the fee schedule is for, um, the permits.

It's in 11-10-009. And how long has it been since, um, the, the vehicle for hire fee was revised? The last year I've heard you say was 2018. Is that correct? I believe so.

Okay, great. Um, thank you. That's it. Then I have Ms. Silvers closing. So I'm looking at this bit of code here that says a temporary vehicle prior permit issued for a designated period of 6 months.

Um, these small tourism businesses, are they using, uh, the 6-month or they tend to use the year? And does the 6-month have a reduced rate? So they tend— the tourism companies tend to use the 6-month, the seasonal, because they're busy in the summer. Very few of them do the year-round, very few of them have action in the winter, and the 6-month is half the price. So for the 6-month, it's $712.50.