California 2017-2018 Regular Session Status: Enacted

AB 939 — Local government: taxicab transportation services.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 472, Statutes of 2018.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  4. ✓
    Passed Senate
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2017. Enacted.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 70% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 9 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) Existing law, commencing on January 1, 2019, requires every city or county in which a taxicab is substantially located to adopt an ordinance or resolution in regard to taxicab transportation service and requires each city or county to provide for a policy for entry into the business of providing taxicab transportation service, the establishment or registration of rates for the provision of taxicab transportation service, and a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program for drivers. Existing law similarly authorizes the City and County of San Francisco, regardless of whether or not a taxicab company is substantially located within that city and county. Existing law prohibits a city or county from requiring a taxicab company or driver to comply with specified local regulations, unless that taxicab company or driver is substantially located within that city or county. Existing law prohibits a taxicab company or a taxicab driver from operating within a county unless the company and driver are substantially located in at least one city within that county or the unincorporated area of that county. Existing law authorizes a permitted taxicab company to arrange prearranged trips anywhere within the county in which it has obtained a permit. This bill would, instead, require each city or county in which a taxicab company is substantially located to adopt an ordinance or resolution in regards to taxicab transportation service, that includes provisions for a permitting program for taxicab drivers, and would provide that it is unlawful to operate a taxicab company without a valid permit to operate issued by each city or county in which the taxicab company is substantially located. The bill would remove the prohibition on a taxicab company or a taxicab driver from operating within a county unless the company and driver are substantially located in at least one city within that county or the unincorporated area of that county. The bill would authorize a taxicab company permitted by a city or a county to arrange prearranged trips anywhere within that county. The bill would define "permitted taxicab company" for these purposes to mean a taxicab service provider that obtains all necessary permits required by these provisions, and to include a taxicab driver if a taxicab company consists of only one driver. (2) Existing law requires a permitted taxicab company to comply with certain requirements, including that it be subject to an annual inspection by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. This bill would, instead, require a permitted taxicab company to be subject to an annual inspection by the city or county in which it is substantially located, at a facility that is certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence or a facility registered with the Bureau of Automotive Repair. (3) Existing law deems a city or county in which a taxicab company operates as a city or county in which a taxicab company driver is substantially located if the city or county enacts a resolution of intention to enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement or join a joint powers authority, or to enter into an agreement with a transit agency, for the purpose of regulating or administering taxicab companies. This bill would, instead, authorize a city or county to enter into an agreement with another city or county to form a joint powers authority, or to enter into an agreement with a transit agency, for the purpose of regulating or administering taxicab companies and taxicab drivers, as applicable, that are substantially located within the jurisdictional boundaries of that entity. (4) Existing law defines the term "substantially located" for these purposes to mean that the taxicab company has a primary business address within that jurisdiction, or that trips originating within that jurisdiction account for the largest share of the company's total number of trips within the county within the past year, and determined every 5 years thereafter. Existing law requires a taxicab company to collect specified data in order to determine what jurisdiction that company is substantially located in. This bill would modify the test to specify that a taxicab company is substantially located within a city or county if that company has a primary business address within the jurisdiction of that entity, or if the total number of prearranged and nonprearranged trips that originate within that city's or county's jurisdiction account for the largest share of the taxicab company's total number of trips within each county where the taxicab company operated over the previous calendar year, as determined annually. The bill would establish a modified test for a taxicab company that initiates taxicab operations after January 1, 2019, in a county in which that company had not previously operated, by providing that for the first year of its operation the taxicab company is substantially located only in the jurisdiction in which it has a primary business address, and from that point forward would provide that the general substantially located test described above applies to determine whether the taxicab company is substantially located in a jurisdiction. The bill would make conforming changes to that effect. The bill would require a taxicab company that changes from being substantially located in one city or county to another to notify the new city or county 6 months before making that change. (5) By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 472, Statutes of 2018.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4:30 p.m.

  4. Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 80. Noes 0.).

  5. From committee: That the Senate amendments be concurred in. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (August 30).

  6. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 6786.)

  7. Re-referred to Com. on C. & C. pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.2.

  8. In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 30 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.

  9. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 5887.).

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  12. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  13. From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

  14. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 26). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  16. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on T. & H.

  17. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on T. & H. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 20).

  18. Re-referred to Coms. on GOV. & F. and T. & H.

  19. Re-referred to Com. on RLS. pursuant to Senate Rule 29.10(c).

  20. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  21. Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  22. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  23. Ordered to second reading.

  24. From inactive file.

  25. Ordered to inactive file at the request of Senator McGuire.

  26. Ordered to third reading.

  27. From Consent Calendar.

  28. Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.

  29. From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8 and ordered to consent calendar.

  30. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (July 12). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  31. Referred to Com. on E. & C.A.

  32. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  33. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 1830.)

  34. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  35. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (May 26).

  36. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  37. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (March 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  38. Referred to Com. on E. & R.

  39. From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.

  40. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Low · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Low

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 939 LOW Concurrence in Senate Amendments

Passed 80 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 58000
Democratic 16000
Republican 6000
Total 80000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Harper — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Ting — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Cunningham — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Wood — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Salas — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Rivas — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Levine — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gray — Yea
Low — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Chau — Yea
Baker — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chu — Yea
Cooper — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Weber — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

With recommendation: That Senate amendments be concurred in.

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 9001
Democratic 3000
Total 12001
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Holden — Yea
Kamlager-Dove — Yea
Low — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading AB939 Low By McGuire

Passed 39 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34001
Democratic 5000
Total 39001
% of votes cast 98%0%0%3%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Beall — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Monning — Yea
Delgado — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Fuller — Yea
Galgiani — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Chang — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Allen — Yea
De León — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Pan — Yea
Roth — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 10001
Democratic 2000
Total 12001
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Wieckowski — Not Voting
Galgiani — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Allen — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Roth — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

AB 939 LOW Assembly Third Reading

Passed 77 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 55002
Democratic 16000
Republican 6001
Total 77003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Acosta — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
Low — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Ting — Yea
Cooley — Yea
Cooper — Yea
Eggman — Not Voting
Cunningham — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Burke — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Levine — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Chau — Not Voting
Chiu — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Gloria — Yea
Harper — Yea
Rubio — Yea
Salas — Yea
Chu — Yea
Holden — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Gray — Yea
Baker — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Chávez — Yea
Kiley — Yea
Mayes — Yea
Medina — Yea
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
O'Donnell — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Voepel — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Cristina Garcia — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Travis Allen — Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Not Voting
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Democratic 5000
Republican 1000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bloom — Yea
Brough — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Gray — Yea
Gonzalez Fletcher — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Obernolte — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

labor transportation
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 939 do?
(1) Existing law, commencing on January 1, 2019, requires every city or county in which a taxicab is substantially located to adopt an ordinance or resolution in regard to taxicab transportation service and requires each city or county to provide for a policy for entry into the business of providing taxicab transportation service, the establishment or registration of rates for the provision of taxicab transportation service, and a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program for drivers. Existing law similarly authorizes the City and County of San Francisco, regardless of whether or not a taxicab company is substantially located within that city and county. Existing law prohibits a city or county from requiring a taxicab company or driver to comply with specified local regulations, unless that taxicab company or driver is substantially located within that city or county. Existing law prohibits a taxicab company or a taxicab driver from operating within a county unless the company and driver are substantially located in at least one city within that county or the unincorporated area of that county. Existing law authorizes a permitted taxicab company to arrange prearranged trips anywhere within the county in which it has obtained a permit. This bill would, instead, require each city or county in which a taxicab company is substantially located to adopt an ordinance or resolution in regards to taxicab transportation service, that includes provisions for a permitting program for taxicab drivers, and would provide that it is unlawful to operate a taxicab company without a valid permit to operate issued by each city or county in which the taxicab company is substantially located. The bill would remove the prohibition on a taxicab company or a taxicab driver from operating within a county unless the company and driver are substantially located in at least one city within that county or the unincorporated area of that county. The bill would authorize a taxicab company permitted by a city or a county to arrange prearranged trips anywhere within that county. The bill would define "permitted taxicab company" for these purposes to mean a taxicab service provider that obtains all necessary permits required by these provisions, and to include a taxicab driver if a taxicab company consists of only one driver. (2) Existing law requires a permitted taxicab company to comply with certain requirements, including that it be subject to an annual inspection by the Bureau of Automotive Repair. This bill would, instead, require a permitted taxicab company to be subject to an annual inspection by the city or county in which it is substantially located, at a facility that is certified by the National Institute for Automotive Service Excellence or a facility registered with the Bureau of Automotive Repair. (3) Existing law deems a city or county in which a taxicab company operates as a city or county in which a taxicab company driver is substantially located if the city or county enacts a resolution of intention to enter into a joint exercise of powers agreement or join a joint powers authority, or to enter into an agreement with a transit agency, for the purpose of regulating or administering taxicab companies. This bill would, instead, authorize a city or county to enter into an agreement with another city or county to form a joint powers authority, or to enter into an agreement with a transit agency, for the purpose of regulating or administering taxicab companies and taxicab drivers, as applicable, that are substantially located within the jurisdictional boundaries of that entity. (4) Existing law defines the term "substantially located" for these purposes to mean that the taxicab company has a primary business address within that jurisdiction, or that trips originating within that jurisdiction account for the largest share of the company's total number of trips within the county within the past year, and determined every 5 years thereafter. Existing law requires a taxicab company to collect specified data in order to determine what jurisdiction that company is substantially located in. This bill would modify the test to specify that a taxicab company is substantially located within a city or county if that company has a primary business address within the jurisdiction of that entity, or if the total number of prearranged and nonprearranged trips that originate within that city's or county's jurisdiction account for the largest share of the taxicab company's total number of trips within each county where the taxicab company operated over the previous calendar year, as determined annually. The bill would establish a modified test for a taxicab company that initiates taxicab operations after January 1, 2019, in a county in which that company had not previously operated, by providing that for the first year of its operation the taxicab company is substantially located only in the jurisdiction in which it has a primary business address, and from that point forward would provide that the general substantially located test described above applies to determine whether the taxicab company is substantially located in a jurisdiction. The bill would make conforming changes to that effect. The bill would require a taxicab company that changes from being substantially located in one city or county to another to notify the new city or county 6 months before making that change. (5) By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 939?
AB 939 is sponsored by Low.
What is the current status of AB 939?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced February 16, 2017. Enacted.
Where can I track AB 939?
Track AB 939 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 939

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 939

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →