The record · Transcript

Council session — 2026-02-26

Transcript from the session's official auto-captions (15,820 words), shown in readable case and split into speaker turns. Speakers are AI-suggested and editor-reviewed (low confidence — auto-captions garble names); each color marks a speaker.

watch the recording

Afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Not quite yet. Still morning.

Still morning. Good afternoon. I call the meeting of the labor and workforce development committee to order. It is Thursday, February 26th at 12 p.m. Diana, will you please call the roll?

Dunphy here.

Kanal here. Novick here. Green here.

Smith here. Thank you. Today, the committee will approve the committee. Minutes for January received. And receive a presentation and public testimony on a policy proposal from councilor Novick office regarding fair transport, transparency and transportation network company take rate. Could we? Diana, please read the first item?

Item one January 16th, 2026 to January 29th, 2026. Labor and workforce development committee minutes.

The first item is the approval of the committee. Minutes for the labor and workforce development committee meeting held in January. These minutes are available online as a part of the meeting agenda. If there is no objection, the minutes will be approved by unanimous consent. No objections. Hearing no objection, the minutes are approved. Let us have our our first councilor Novick. I'm going to hand this over to you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. We're going to call.

I read it into the record, please.

Yes.

Thank you. Item two discussion on policy proposal regarding the fair transparency and the transportation network company take rate. And item three public hearing on policy proposal regarding fair transparency and transportation network. Company take rate.

Okay.

Thank you, madam mayor. Thank you, madam chair. So ten years ago, more or less. Maybe it's 11, maybe it's 12. I voted to allow uber and lyft to start operating in Portland with some misgivings. One of my concerns is that these are companies which treat their drivers as independent contractors, despite their comprehensive control over what their drivers do. And I was concerned that drivers would not would wind up not having adequate compensation or decent working conditions. And based on what we have heard from drivers over a number of months that has come to pass, the drivers make very make very little money when you account for expenses and the percentage of the total fare that the uber and lyft have, take has gone up considerably from the from the initial years. So zach ward in my office has taken a lead working in this issue, talking to the drivers. We've had conversations with uber and lyft and some other jurisdictions have tried to address the issue of fair worker compensation through. Tactics like requiring certain dollars per hour, dollars dollars per minute, dollars per mile proposals. We think that it would be more straightforward and more transparent to simply cap the amount of fares that the tnc themselves take. So we've been working on this idea. Zach's been working on this idea, and he has a presentation to share.

Where is zach? I see you, zach. Could you come up to the to the dice?

Yeah.

Please introduce yourself.

Steve Novick: Yeah. For the record, my name is zach ward, and I'm councilor Novick policy aide. And we have a brief presentation on this ordinance that we've been working on. And then we'll hopefully have a lot of good testimony from drivers to continue to speak on this issue.

And just so the committee understands, after your presentation, we're going to go directly, diana, into the public testimony before we go and do any discussion.

Yeah, okay. I think presentation is up. So our office and councilor Pirtle-guiney office are excited to daylight this ordinance and start the conversation around protections for transportation network companies or tnc drivers. This is an ordinance that's designed to limit the take rate. The tnc, like uber and lyft, can charge to ensure a fairer split with the drivers. And I'm just going to give a short presentation to set the stage on how this would work. What this is, start the conversation, and then we'll move to public testimony from the drivers to so that they can speak more eloquently than I ever could to this issue. Next slide. So to start off, what is a take rate? In short, a take rate is the percentage of a fare that is taken by a tnc company. So as you can kind of see on the receipt to the right, which to clarify is a real receipt that we've received from a lyft driver, you can kind of get the idea of what this is. So this ride cost over $100. That was what was charged to the passenger. However, the driver only received $14 in compensation. So that means that the take rate for the tnc was 84% and the driver only received 16%. So take rates like this have really evolved over the years. Back when tnc started, they limited themselves to only 10%, and that was a method of getting more drivers on the platform to help guarantee that they would make an adequate wage when they were driving. They subsequently raised it to 25% in around 2016, I believe. And then in 22, something really drastic happened. They decoupled the fares from the amount that was being charged and started turning it over to an algorithm to determine driver pay that was in the service of things like surge pricing, some of the other more opaque ways of charging passengers for a ride. And it's really led to a dramatic spike in how much the tnc are taking and how little the drivers are paid. Next slide. This is just a quote from the national employment law project in a recent study that they put out. So the results have been clear. Uber and lyft charge passengers more and pay drivers less. And both companies profits are way up. Next slide. So what exactly does this ordinance do? It implements two major changes to the city's tnc code, which is chapter 16 .4.2 40. The first is to increase fare transparency for riders and drivers, and it's going to require both riders and drivers to receive an itemized receipt from for each trip that they take on. Currently, drivers do not receive this itemized receipt, and that itemized receipt will require the take rate to be included so that everybody has a fair understanding of how much the drivers paid and how much the tnc company took. A similar law was recently passed in colorado in 24 2024. Excuse me. So it's based on that. And then more importantly, I would say it also caps the tnc take rate at 20%. So current take rates are estimated to average around 40%. And as we've seen on a number of receipts provided to us by Portland drivers, they can go way beyond that 60, 70, even 80%, which I would say is unacceptable. Next slide. So why is this important? Recent studies from the center for wage and employment dynamics put out about tnc drivers in Portland show that they, on average, make about $12 an hour, which is significantly less than portland's minimum wage of 1630 per hour and nowhere close to a living wage. In addition to that, drivers are disproportionately low income folks, people of color and immigrants, and often on the verge of homelessness. And so Portland really needs to step up and protect these communities to make sure that they don't fall into homelessness and can really thrive in our communities. Next slide. And so finally, before we turn to the drivers, what's next. So our office is currently finalizing the ordinance language. We're getting close but we're working closely with PBOT, with the city attorneys and with the drivers union to ensure all of the language is is right and the way it should be. And we intend to come back to the next labor and workforce committee in March for a formal vote. Thank you.

Zach, I have a question for you.

Yeah.

Are you working with anyone at PBOT specifically? Are they going to give give us an idea of where they are with the processing of this and what this looks like?

We are working with specific people. I've spoken quite a bit with jacob sherman and a number of other people who work on or around the tnc program at PBOT, and they're not here to give a presentation today, but we could certainly look to doing something at the next committee.

Are there any challenges that PBOT foresees in in putting this ordinance in?

There are the potential for some challenges. I think.

We can go into them after we do the testimony, but I just want to get a sense that this is something that they're on a parallel track with you all about.

Yeah. So I have been working closely with them. There are the potential for some from some challenges, mostly around the enforcement if if uber and lyft don't comply. But I will say that this method of capping the percentage that a company takes is already in effect in the city. We use it for delivery drivers like doordash and uber eats. And so kind of extending that mechanism to tnc drivers feels like something that we can do as a city.

Okay. Thank you. Diana. How many how many folks do we have signed up for testimony?

We currently have nine people signed up for testimony.

Okay. Can you call the testimony?

Sure. I'm going to call people up in groups of three. And when I call your name, come on up to the front. Or if you're online, we'll move you to a panelist. I'm just going to apologize in advance. Our timer, you can see it, but you can't hear it. So please pay attention to the visual cues of Green, yellow, and red, which you should be familiar with. So first up we've got darren campbell, then jose pedro rodriguez and seth anakin.

And thank you.

Thank you.

Spelled it out phonetically.

Good to see you, mr. Campbell.

Good morning, madam chair. Yes. For the record, my name is darren campbell. I appreciate you and the rest of the committee giving me an opportunity to speak today. I have been part of the taxi industry for a good 16 years now. During that time when uber came to town, I was the elected taxi driver representative on the private transportation advisory board at the time. Through the introduction to uber and the task force put in place to to make the rules for them, that that was changed to an advisory committee. From 2022 until 2025, I chaired that committee. The transportation advisory committee. One of the first things I did when I started sharing that committee was the creation of the fees and fares subcommittee, which was a joint committee with the taxi drivers committee. Serving on that subcommittee was three tnc drivers, a medical transportation driver, myself, and then a black car driver, town car driver. We proposed in November of 2022, 75, 25% split. We we invited uber and lyft to come be a part of that process. I saved a seat at the table to be part of that subcommittee. They never showed up. We posed quite a few questions to uber and lyft, giving them an opportunity to take part in the process, and their response was pretty much nothing. Through that process, we got to see a great deal of receipts from drivers showing. I had never seen anything quite as extreme as what was just up on the screen. We were seeing more of a 50 to 40% take from the drivers and that to me was was horrendous. When uber and lyft came to town, they promised an 80 over 20 split. And over time that eroded away with I mean, you can only call them schemes because there's all sorts of fees and, and, you know, dynamic pricing. And we looked at it as our duty to look out for, for this immigrant workforce who really didn't have a voice when they're trying to fight uber, that, that 75, 25 split passed unanimously from the subcommittee, went to our advisory committee. It passed out of the advisory committee. The only no vote was miss ford from uber, who again during that process took no part in the conversation and offered nothing. The unfortunately, just like almost everything we passed out of that advisory committee, it went to the black hole PBOT, where we've got eight years of actions that that committee has done. That's that's still not being used. But with that being said, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We'll come back on the questions afterwards.

Chair Smith, vice chair Green, members of the committee.

Could you introduce yourself, please?

My name is seth j. And I've been driving uber and lyft going on seven years now. Thank you. The last time I was before this committee, I did ask a very basic question of all of you. And the question was if your loved one, your daughter, your son came to you from work, from school, and actually they were being bullied or taken advantage of, how would you address this issue? And it seems to me that this ordinance right here addresses it for us in some regards at least. It's a lifeline. It's a lifeline we can hold on to. I had the council forward patients pass on these to you, if you don't mind taking them and flipping through the first page, you will see that right up here, right? It says the passenger payment was $169. The estimated left fee was $106. The driver payment was $45.37. If this is not wage theft, I don't know what it is I am. I'm pretty sure that nobody in this audience with a conscience no less, would say no to advancing this agenda, this ordinance, because it gives us a lifeline. You have left a number arbitrarily deleting our account. And this is where theft playing with theft. If you go to the second page again, passenger payments $139. Estimated left fees $78.57. And they paid the they paid the driver who did all the work, $49.31. Next page. It's this. It repeats itself over and over and over and over, and we cannot. This ordinance addresses the question of the bully left and uber right. They can come and stand here and tell you this is going to cost them to increase price on the on the passenger and all of that. But we have to stand up to the bully. The only language a bully understands is confronting them head on, smacking them on the nose and telling them you cannot keep taking from us. The attack rate is is just outrageous. We work our butts off, driving the rain in the sun under all conditions to draw passengers up in all locations. So please, we need this ordinance advanced. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for your for your commentary. And this this is this struggle is real and. Yeah, short of calling it wage theft, it sure appears to be grossly overcharging. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning. Hi. My name is jose pedraza dominguez. Rodriguez. Thank you.

Dominguez.

So. To all. I told you. And I'm sorry I cannot I. I am a writer of driving on an uber and live here in Portland. And I'm here today to speak about the working conditions drivers face with lyft and uber in the in the growing threat to our ability to support our families, drivers carry nearly all the costs and risks of this work. We must we must provide our own vehicle for for we pay insurance, fuel, maintenance, repairs, tires and and depreciation. We work long hours, often 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week, just to make enough to cover our our our expenses. At the same time, the company takes a very large portion of passengers pay many, many drivers reports that live on uber keep around 70 to 75% of of the fare. Drivers are left with the remaining portion. Even though we are the ones providing service on the road every single day. There is also no security and no protection for for sudden changes in the in. The pay rate can drop overnight without warnings. Drivers can be elevated by an algorithm with little explanation and almost no ability to to appeal. For many drivers, there is no side income. It is our primary income. This work fills a real need in our city by providing transportation to all hours in our neighborhoods, neighborhoods, in all weathers. We are not against a church services. These services are valuable to Portland residents. What we are asking is for fairness. I respectfully ask the city to consider this following protection as establishing a minimum standard after expenses require transparency, requiring transparency in how fares are split. Protect driver from injustice. The activation and include drivers in decisions that directly affect our livelihoods. Fair working conditions also improve public safety when drivers are not safe. When drivers are not forced to work excessive hours just to survive, roads are safer for everyone.

Thank you. Time.

Time is. That is.

I will have a discussion after this. After we listen to the other six testimony, and I may be calling you all back up to ask questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you, thank you, appreciate it. Thank you.

The next three diana.

Next up we have kiva henderson, muhammad ali, nathaniel hudson hartman.

Miss nikita, could you introduce yourself? Yes. First.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak and advocate for ourselves. My name is kiva henderson, and I've been a lyft and uber driver for since the spring of 2015. I have completed roughly 36,000 rides. Safe accident free ride since that time where essentially on the front lines providing this service during COVID, we were essential drivers to essential workers. The wear and tear and maintenance on our cars and our bodies. My hands when I wake up in the morning, I like this. They ache. They hurt through the night. I have to rub castor oil on my hands at night to relieve the pain. Driving in extreme weather conditions, the effect on the on our nervous systems. We have to stay calm, cool and collected to keep our eyes open for all manner of things. Items on the road, pedestrians, cyclists, scooters and other transit vehicles, driving and often difficult terrains. Horrible road conditions, challenging roads throughout the hills even late into the night. Getting people home safely. The care we give our passengers as close to the doors as possible for pick up and drop offs, assistance with getting groceries in and out of the cars, even to their door sometimes if needed. Helping elderly with their walkers. Walkers don't always fit in the trunk so easily. Groceries getting walk. Oftentimes, passengers need a listening ear where psychiatrists. It is degrading to get rides three and $4, no matter how short they are. No ride should be below five, seven, $10. The value is. It's our value. It's not the distance. The percentage of each. Why we receive is a sheer insult to our value. Did I have more time?

You do you have 50s?

I have 50s.

Yes, ma'am.

Oh my gosh.

If you don't have any more comments, that's fine because I heard you loud and clear.

I love my job. I value my job. Yes, I want to get paid for my value.

Thank you, thank you. Next.

Okay. My name is muhammad ali. I've been driving uber for the last ten years. I started in January 2015 and I've been driving all over oakland, Vancouver, all other cities, and sometimes I get right as far as newport, Oregon. So today I'm coming here as an uber driver and way back when I was doing in 2015, we were getting well, paid well. But recently, as the price of everything went up, our like what we take home went down. So I'm writing to respectfully request your leadership in advancing strong pay transparency protection for rideshares operate in Oregon. So it happens a passenger may be charged 100 and you may be getting like $5. I have a friend of mine here who did one of the rides, one zero $9. The passenger paid that and he was given $15 $14. He knows where he picked the house he picked it from and he knows where he dropped it. And we also, as drivers, we build this relationship with our passengers. Many drivers are increasingly concerned about the lack of clarity about how fares are calculated. We don't know how they're calculated. We just pick people, drop off. We don't know how much we are going to be earning. Passengers are often charged significant high amounts for rides, particularly during such price. Also when there is a such price. Yet drivers receive only a small percentage of the total fare. In many cases, drivers are not provided with a full breakdown of what the passenger base passes, what portion was retained by the platform. As you have seen what was shown there, and I have also copies of it. Basically, what we want is that we want to know how much every passenger base, especially now uber. If you want to know that you have to sign in, you have to go to a lot of process for you to know how how much passengers pay. Also, it has become very difficult for us to calculate the cost because when you're driving someone, you have to consider about their gas, maintenance, insurance, vehicle liberation. Also, we have to also put that there's also gross mistrust between the drivers and the platforms because we have not trust in them, because we are losing money.

Right.

And and the way we only think is that you can help us in enforcing this. We respectfully request full disclosure of the total passenger pay, what the passenger base and also how much we should earn as drivers because we are the ones who are doing this, not them. A clear breakdown of of platform fees and driver compensation transparency when it comes to the search price. We do as she said. We do a lot of essential work. Doctor's appointment, dropping, student schools, a lot of other things. So basically, as drivers, we are requesting from you to please help us enforce this law so that we can get what we deserve. Thank you, thank.

You, thank you so much. Next.

Hello, hello and greetings, committee members. Great to see your beautiful faces again. I'm nathaniel hudson hartman and I'm one of thousands of essential rideshare transportation providers, like many of whom who showed up today. And thank you all for showing up. Keep showing up, please. Serving this community for nine years and I was once one of those that was losing hope. But hey uber, they just celebrated another record breaking, record breaking quarter with enough cash to buy back billions of their own stock, give lucrative ceo incentives, and lobby their way to multimillion dollar insurance breaks in states like california. But how? I hate to, you know, beat a dead horse here, but I'm going to go back to the well, I give you exhibit a, this poor passenger was fleeced for 110 bucks. Lyft took 59 of that and only gave the driver 41. And exhibit b, you've seen this. This is the screenshot heard round the world. Another $110 ride. This time, lyft pocketed $86 and throws this poor driver sitting behind us a whopping 14 same fare. Arbitrary take rate. You don't have to be james parrot or michael rice to calculate. Both drivers are earning less than minimum wage after their expenses. But lastly, I give you exhibit c when a driver is tipped, that is reflected in the earnings line but not in the passenger payment. So what this screenshot should really say is the driver was only paid 18 out of 52, but it only says 43. This is not transparency. This is fraud and exploitation. And so when the tnc and they will push back and talk about prices, as someone else mentioned, I hope you and the rest of your colleagues and everyone else watching here thinks back to these trips right here. And there are plenty more as we know where these came from and when they threaten to leave. Think of the millions of trips we give and think to yourselves, does it really make sense that they would leave all of us drivers and the passengers they are so concerned about behind? Or should they just pay us fairly and be a little bit more reasonable with their consumers and transparent? Just north of the columbia, drivers have a voice protections from wrongful deactivations fair pay standards, and way more than that, because lawmakers acted to protect workers. Yet to the south, our siblings are under the thumb of uber and lyft backed proposition 22, this lethal law of the land in the golden state that creates the illusion of a minimum wage standard, but allows the tnc algorithms to set a wage ceiling and maximize their own bottom line. And I can't say this enough. This cannot cannot happen in our state. We're spending, as you already heard, you know, up to 12 hours a week, 6 to 7, seven days behind the wheel, exhausted. Thank you. We're exhausted, barely scraping by. Many of us are like one car repair away that we can't pay for, or one false complaint away from not just working, but also sleeping in our cars, which, sorry, many, many of our community members are doing already. And we need. We need your help. Thank you for I'm losing it. Thank you for standing with us and protecting us from this harm and our consumers, our consumers, as well as from algorithmic discrimination. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony.

Next up. Sorry. Next up we have clint, helios, marissa cade, and allison ford.

Allison. Clint. And. Marissa. Is marissa here?

They're online. So we'll let clay will let clint start, and then we'll move to marissa and allison.

Hello.

My name is clint helios. I have been an uber eats and uber driver since 2017. Some of my concerns have been not just with the transparencies, but their vindictiveness that they do to us. They can deactivate us at any time for any reason. It doesn't matter. And they use an ai to do the appeal. That takes less than 30s and you're automatically denied. We need to have something in place that's going to protect us. If that happens. We also have issues with, well, me personally, I think we should be paid during what's called the phase two. We currently are not paid as soon as we hit accept, we're we were technically working for them, but we're not getting paid. And so a lot of drivers actually speed to get to their passenger in order to start getting paid. If we were getting paid during that phase two. Drivers won't be speeding less accidents will happen. It is just so much safer for everybody if we were paid during phase two.

So you don't get paid while you're going to the customer?

No.

Okay.

So as soon as we hit accept we're still not getting paid, we could drive two minutes or we could drive 30 minutes. Then when we get to the passenger, that's when we start getting paid. And so if we drive 30 minutes to them and it's only a five minute ride, we only get paid for that five minutes. Some of the other concerns is for the transparency. I do a lot of reservations. The passengers are never told how much extra they're being charged for that reservation fee. We are not told what we're going to get paid for that reservation fee until after it's done. And I have been paid anywhere from one penny to $25, and it's just completely random on whatever they charge. But you cannot find that fee in any copy of any of their paperwork.

Okay.

So I hope you guys will take a lot of that into consideration and get this passed as soon as possible. We are hurting out there, and the dangers that we face. I personally have been shot at. I mean, it's getting bad out there, so we need help.

Thank you. Thank you so much, clint.

Marissa, you can unmute and begin your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair Smith, vice chair Green and members of the committee. My name is marissa cade and I am here today representing lyft. Thank you to everyone who came here to testify today. We agree to partnering on earning standards, benefits, driver protections, and we stand ready to collaborate on these elements just as we have in Washington, california and minnesota. And we welcome additional conversations about transparency as well. Since may 2024, lyft earnings commitment guarantees drivers at least 70% of passenger fares after external fees trued up at the end of each week, rather than at the end of each ride. An independent nyu study of 47 million lyft rides found this approach leads to higher earnings and greater driver engagement. We also think it's important to share a little bit about lyft drivers. We know that 86% of lyft drivers drive fewer than 20 hours a week, 88% work or attend school in addition to driving, and that these are people who choose flexible work because if it's their lives, we're concerned that a mandated take rate maximum, while well intentioned, could harm the very drivers it aims to help. An artificial cap would likely raise prices, reduce ride volume and flood the platform, with drivers competing for fewer trips, ultimately lowering take home pay. There's also a real rider impact 35% of lyft rides in Oregon start or end in low income areas. Lower income riders are three times more likely to use lyft to get to work, and five times more likely to depend on it for job interviews and essential errands. Higher fares could price portland's most transportation vulnerable residents out of a service they rely on daily. Portland already faces the highest tnc insurance requirements in the nation, and external fees account for more than 20% of the average fare, including a 200% per ride fee increase approved just last year. Any take great proposal that ignores these costs will just fall short. Lyft shares the goal of ensuring drivers are fairly compensated, as evidenced by our 70% driver earnings commitment. We also know that setting rates is a balancing act, and rigid mandates undermine the goal, while raising prices and reducing access. So we urge a collaborative approach, and lyft is ready to have that conversation. I should add that nick johnson from lyft sends his apologies for not being able to join us today, and in his absence, I will do my best to answer questions. And for those that I can't answer, I'll be happy to follow up. Thank you.

Thank you marissa.

Alison, you can unmute and begin your testimony.

Thank you. Chair Smith, vice Green and members of the committee. For the record, my name is alison ford and I am the senior public policy manager for uber technologies in the pacific northwest. Thank you to everyone who came here to testify today. I am here to express our deep concern with the take rate proposal and the significant impact it could have on rideshare industry in Portland. We need to be very clear that a pricing mandate, like what is being suggested here, could make rideshare economically unworkable in Portland. It ignores the reality of what it costs to operate rideshare here, and the end result would be a highly expensive service with fewer earning opportunities for drivers. You are trying to help. In Portland, more than 20% of every fare is consumed by mandated insurance and city fees. Before a driver earns a dollar, the city already imposes some of the biggest per trip fees in the country, on top of a $1 million in liability insurance, $1 million of uninsured underinsured motorist coverage, a wave fee and airport charges. A take rate mandate would push the remaining costs into an unsustainable margin, resulting in higher fares, fewer trips and fewer earning opportunities for drivers. As noted, we do not need to look far to see the negative consequences of a bad earnings policy in seattle, after the fair share law was implemented, average prices of a ride increased by more than 40%. Today, it is one of the most expensive cities in the country to take an uber. Demand has declined and drivers are making less than they were before the law launched. We are committed to working with this council to find solutions that improve driver outcomes. However, we urge this council to pursue approaches that do so without making essential rideshare transportation a luxury that portlanders can no longer afford. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And that completes public testimony.

Thank you. Colleagues, we're going to go into discussion. Zach, could you come back up to the to the dais? And could I also get someone who's representing PBOT on this issue? I think I see director williams. Thank you all for coming to the dais to talk about this very important labor issue. Councilor Dunphy.

Jamie Dunphy: Thank you. I have a couple of technical questions. I want to note that, you know, the first time I met darren, he was here in 2017 advocating for the taxis. And at that point was very the taxi industry was very clear that. The way that these tncs came into Portland was obvious to try and destroy the taxi industry, and that the rug was going to get pulled out from under these drivers. And that's exactly what has happened as these out of state, multi multi-billion dollar corporations over and over and over again continue to do to our community. I am incensed by this entire conversation. So I want to know, I want to know a little bit more about how this ordinance would be enforced. I'm interested to know what happens in terms of mediation, how we've known that uber, for example, has been particularly difficult with data information. Project greyball was absolutely a bunch of tech bros flexing their muscles in order to thumb their eye or put their thumb in the eye of the city of Portland. How do we pass this in a way that actually holds these these companies accountable? And does this have any do we have any? Does your ordinance envision anything with regard to mediation, retribution or deactivation?

Yeah. So I'll start off for the record. Zach ward with councilor Novick office. There is a lot here. I think the first thing is that we intend to hold the companies accountable, using some of the mechanisms that already exist within code. There's already a piece of the transportation code that sets up fines and fees for noncompliance. And so this piece will rely upon that. And I think that the PBOT staff can speak more to that. This ordinance does not currently include anything related to the driver's resource center or deactivation rights. I will say that our office intends to move towards those things, but we felt that working on the take rate cap was a very important first step and lifeline, as many of the drivers mentioned. So we're starting here and we'll move forward to that.

Thank you. One other question. How have other I heard that seattle I think I heard the testimony that seattle has implemented something similar. There are other cities that have started doing things like this. How has that been implemented and how has that been going?

Yeah. So it's kind of interesting. Seattle and I believe minnesota use a different mechanism. They use a per mile per minute standard of. It's like $0.70 per mile per minute, which we didn't really feel like was enforceable within Portland at this time. And then california has a completely different standard that is endorsed by uber and lyft. That does not seem to raise wages for drivers. And so we have no interest in pursuing that mechanism. It's sort of a weekly pay based on number of rides. So we never looked at that as a possibility.

Thank you. I will just note that, you know, it was very clear to me from the testimony from the representative from uber that they were promising to maintain their exorbitant profits regardless of what we we implement. I'm also very clearly seeing a pattern that is demonstrating that these companies are moving towards a situation in which the driver is irrelevant and that autonomous vehicles will be the final deaths, you know, death of this industry, that I think that I understand that the that the, the, the bureau of transportation is moving forward with some code around autonomous vehicles. I hope that it comes across with a standard that is almost impossible for anybody to meet. I really will not be able to tolerate seeing that because all that is is just killing jobs. So. Thank you. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Council president councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, chair Smith. We've heard a lot of talk in this community lately about how important economic development is to the city of Portland, and I couldn't agree more, but I think that we need to keep in mind that there is no economic development. If you don't have the purchasing power in your community. Right? Corporations are not the ones that do the purchasing in our community. They do the investing sometimes, but only if they bully us into a position that allows us to sell away the opportunities for our our working class to make a living. It's just a economics 101 fact that if you can keep more money in the pockets of those who earn a wage for a living, they will go into our communities and they will spend they will go out to dinner, they'll go out to the bar or they'll buy. They'll be able to take their family on a trip and save for a rainy day. That's what we want, and that's what we're going to be able to. That's going to be the engine of growth in this community, frankly. And so I get a little bit upset, to say the least, when I am sort of browbeat into accepting this argument that if you regulate wage standards or profit, take standards, however you want to think about it. But that's going to automatically result in an increase in cost for for consumers. You're trying to tell me, a trained economist, that that's how the market works. That tells me that you don't have a competitive market dynamic, because that's exactly what happened when these tnc companies came into this town. They did anti-competitive pricing practices subsidized by venture capital. They drove an existing industry into demise, and now they've just raised prices. And we used to call that railroad pricing you charge with the traffic can bear. So when I look at these receipts and I see that a passenger paid $169 on an arbitrary determination from an algorithm, don't tell me that it's going to cost more for consumers. It's already costing more for consumers. What we're trying to make, what we're trying to say here, is that the city has strong regulatory authority to determine the distribution of that income in our community. So, councilor Novick, I applaud you and I thank you. I think council pirtle-guiney also work is working on this as well. I think both of them, for driving this forward and making sure that this is something that I'm going to have an opportunity to vote on, because when this comes forward, I will vote yes, but we will not stop there. We will then continue the work. We we're going to get that driver center, and we're going to continue to exercise the regulatory authority that we have at our privilege. And and if if these companies want to want to walk away, they're walking away from a tremendous amount of revenue and net profit. They're not going to do that. But if they want to do that, I see I see a I see a chamber full of drivers who know how to do their jobs. There's plenty of opportunity to build another app. Right? So I'll just leave it at that.

Thank you. Councilor Green councilor Kanal.

Mitch Green: Thank you, madam chair. Thank you everyone for being here. Thank you to councilor, Novick and team, particularly zach, for working on this. Thank you to the drivers union for bringing these issues forward regularly. I'd love to continue our conversations and sit down with you again. I also want to thank marissa, kate and allison ford for being here. Marissa, I went to nyu myself. I'll ask specifically to get a copy of that study. I will personally read it, and I'm also happy to take a meeting with lyft or uber to talk about this. I am personally an infrequent lyft user. I definitely want to hear your side of this too. Having said that, I think the use of passive voice here was pretty concerning, and what I mean by that is average prices of a ride increased by more than 40%. End quote. There's no subject here. And what I mean by that is somebody raised those prices. They didn't just it didn't just happen. Right? I'm not sure if it was the uber ceo who makes $39.4 million a year in 2024 that raised it. Or the lyft ceo, who made $78.2 million in 2023. But I think it raises the question of how much is enough. And it raises the question of why would we not just look at maximizing the revenue the way that the councilor Green just explained and councilor Dunphy as well. And I should also note, I have to disagree slightly with councilor Dunphy. He noted that there's an effort to get autonomous vehicles here. I don't want the standard to be almost impossible to meet. I want it to be impossible to meet for autonomous vehicles. I want to be very clear about that. I am categorically opposed to waymo and this other. The other potential competitors here as well. But back to this proposal. At this moment, I'm very supportive of it to the degree that I'd like to co-sponsor it. I've said that behind the scenes, but not yet in public. So I do have some questions. I hope we'll make it stronger. And I have one question for nathaniel. And then the rest are for zach. Nathaniel, if it's okay with you, can I ask you to mention an example? It was exhibit c, you said that the driver was paid only $18 out of 52, but the passenger pay was 43. And I just wanted to clarify. That means that $9 was a tip on that.

$8 for the record. Right. My name is nathaniel hudson hartman. Thank you, councilor Kanal, for the question. Yeah. So to be exact, the the driver was tipped $8.60 and the earnings says $17.87. So just rounded up to 18 with a $9 tip. The passenger payment only says $42.99. And I know somebody else raised the the issue that it's very difficult to like actually like look in and see how much like the total fare is. Well, in this here there's like a little a little icon you have to click and it says tips are not included in that price.

So does that mean that the that the $18 is nine of the original 43 plus the $9 tip.

Sorry. Can you repeat the question?

Does that mean that the $18 the driver took home. Yes. Is nine of the original $43 fare plus nine of the tip?

No, it's not part of the original 43.

Okay, so it's 18 of the original 43 plus the $9 tip.

No.

I'm I'm trying to understand here because that's that if that is the case that's misleading I think is really important to note here. And I'm seeing a lot of thumbs up behind you.

So so that so that $9 tip is not included in the total passenger payment that displays there. So that is.

Included in the 18.

But it is included in the 18. Yes. Okay. So it makes it seem like a driver's being paid 18 out of 43, which is still really bad, but it really should be 18 out of 5051.

Okay. So that yeah, that is that is pretty concerning because that actually will will make it look like a higher percentage. But but nine out of 43 plus a $9 tip is concerning. So thank you for that. Yeah zach. How is the 20% cap determined? I know that in 2023 the city set a 15% cap sorry 20% cap. How is the city set a 15% cap on food delivery services. And I just wanted to ask about that, as well as how this compares to taxis. Those are the two I think comparison points I'd like to.

Yeah. So we reached the 20% sort of split just based on conversations with folks like darren, folks like nathaniel and the drivers union, and just kind of that's just the number that we landed on. How that compares to other industries. The 15% cap is not really. It's a very different structure, just kind of based on how much the delivery app can add as a surcharge. And taxis use a completely different mechanism that doesn't really doesn't really compare very well to this. But the 20% was kind of based on speaking with some economists. I think they were mentioned parrot and reich and driver's union and folks who've served on the private for hire transportation committees, just kind of where we ended up.

Thanks. Is there a mechanism that you're proposing which will measure the impact on the the minimum wage or poverty level earnings? Meaning how will we know from this process? Or is there a mechanism anticipated to determine if we're actually ensuring that drivers are paid more than minimum wage or enough to live off of?

That is a very good question, and something that I think that we can work on. I would say that the first thing is that one of the pieces of this is really trying to dig into and find and gain more data from the tnc companies. There are notoriously kind of cagey with this sort of stuff. So receiving more information about the take rates, about fares and tips and actual payments to the drivers will, I think, allow us to calculate better numbers, especially once we can compare those to things like how much gas costs, how much the average maintenance bill is. And so I think that's something that can be calculated. And I would turn to my, my PBOT colleagues to better answer that question.

Thanks for being here.

Thank you. Director williams. Can you add anything else to that?

Thank you so much. Chair Smith. Millicent williams, director of the Portland bureau of transportation. I have with me jacob sherman, who is our subject matter expert on tncs and all of the full universe of things that are available for us to discuss. And he's going to be able to help answer that question.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Councilors. For the record, jacob sherman, since councilor Novick office reached out to us two weeks ago, we've had a number of conversations, both internally as well as with the councilor Staff, about some of the proposed topics here. One of the things that we've been talking about is an opportunity to kind of improve data collection on behalf of the city that would allow us to more effectively measure some of the outcomes that you were just speaking about. Councilor Kanal, as you might be aware, the code that governs private for hire, chapter 1640 is over 125 pages long. It's very complicated. It's very redundant. We've had an interest in streamlining and improving the code for a while. We haven't had an opportunity to do that. And so we're very interested in working with councilor, Novick office and the rest of you to work through the changes that could be necessary to kind of modernize that code, while also recognizing some of it might take some time just to make sure that we're being thoughtful, that we're working working closely with the city attorneys, as well as considering kind of just the broader political considerations that you've kind of heard from uber and lyft, as well as the drivers recognizing this as a marketplace and a and a sometimes heated topic. So happy to answer other questions you have. But yes, we are looking at improving data collection as part of this.

Thanks. I guess I'll just pivot to the questions that were probably better for you both. Anyway. Do we have a and my my question should be just interpreted in the in the sense of I want to make sure that the promises we're making, we also have done enough to ensure that they can be fulfilled. I don't want this to be only the standard, but I want to understand how it'll be implemented. So I saw there's recourse included for drivers when there are five or more complaints to to. Tnc directs the city to investigate. And I'm curious about the staffing and cost association there and how we're going to cover that. We obviously have tnc fees that can can be earmarked for that. I also am curious how the 20% would how PBOT would monitor and implement the 20% cap.

Yeah. Thanks, councilor Kanal. We're actually just speaking with councilor Novick staff yesterday on that enforcement section, and we're discussing some proposed changes to perhaps lessen the impact on staffing and still meet some of the goals. So I think we're still discussing what that language could look like. And we're hoping to get that back to councilor Novick office next week or so. In terms of the second piece about enforcing the 20% take rate, if data collection processes were improved, we would, I believe councilor Novick office is assuming we would get enough data to be able to monitor some of that information digitally, and that would be kind of handled through business system analysts. We already have, you know, helping manage some of the tnc data.

Great that the answer to the second question there is very reassuring. For the first one, I, I would love to know. I think that that's the second to last paragraph in the the code about, you know, five or more drivers filing a complaint that to me, not necessarily the exact numbers there, but the act of having an investigatory mechanism that's complaint based is really vital to this whole thing, because I'm concerned about a standard that if unmet, we lack the tools to do anything about. And then we're creating. And this is not about PBOT. This is happened in some other conversations that the city that we'd be creating an unbeatable, not just unmet expectation. And so I want to make sure we have the capacity to meet it. There's a lot of other really great stuff that you're talking about on the data piece. I did want to ask about any ride that originates or terminates in Washington state, and that's new code that's being added here. And I wanted to understand why that was what the intention there was, because it I understand if we're going to say where it originates or where it terminates, but I'm concerned about the idea that like a ride has to be located in one state's jurisdiction, I guess. And normally that would be a standard of of either where it originates or where it terminates in a lot of other types of legal structures. So I'm curious why it's both and how that came to be.

There. I guess there's a couple pieces to that. Part of that comes from advice from the city attorney. Currently, when rides go to Washington, come from Washington and in Portland, or even, as I understand it, sort of pass through Washington, maybe the best route is to cross the bridge, go over and then come back down. The laws defer to washington's protections so drivers will be paid the way that that Washington currently enforces the laws. And the reason why that code was entered, to sort of defer to Washington in those instances is because they, frankly, have much stronger labor standards to protect drivers than we do at this time. I think that this ordinance is a good first step towards at least improving how much a driver is paid, but it doesn't do anything to help them in terms of deactivation, rights, protections, those sorts of things. And we're just not there yet. So I think it's best for the code to defer to Washington in those circumstances, if that makes sense.

Sure. I imagine it's a pretty rare case airport travel or something where you might want to cross through, but that's not covered in here, so it might be worth it says originates or terminates. It might just be better to say any portion of which is in Washington state, if the difference is the intention there. I can't imagine there's a million of those rides, but there's probably, you know, just to be clear, and I saw our PBOT colleagues here wanted to say something.

Yeah. Thank you. Councilor Kanal, if I may. You know, I think this is a question that we also have for the city attorney and just kind of clarifying jurisdiction in which rules are applying when and we haven't had the opportunity to speak with the city attorney on this yet, which, again, as I mentioned, this is a complicated issue and we're happy to work through this. But we're also take a note to follow up with legal on this one as well.

And it's it's also driven by not just if one is picked up and driven through Oregon and then back to Washington, but if you pick up in Washington and you end the trip in Oregon, or if you start in Oregon and you end this trip in Washington, which of the legal sets of requirements are applied? So it's it's a little bit it's not to suggest that we can't talk about it more here, but there's some complexity that's required for us to do additional work on. Thanks. Thank you for the question.

Thank you. Go ahead.

One last one and I'll defer. The last section talks about 12% for interest accrual. And I'm most of my questions about the numbers are just trying to understand it. This one I'll be clear. Why is it that low if someone's not being paid. I'm I'm concerned that that these are billion you know plus dollar corporations. I'm not sure that that's a sufficient deterrent from not paying. So I'm just curious about that piece of it. And maybe it's not about the exact number, but just trying to understand the the logic behind it.

Yeah, I believe the 12% number was something that was just suggested actually by the driver's union. I think that that specific number came from then in terms of the actual thing that the tnc would be required to pay. That would also include the fee structure that currently exists in code, which I believe is $5,000 per infraction or something like that. So it's not that they would be paying nothing, but there is fairly significant fees or penalties, I guess, attached to those infractions as well.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you zach. Thank you. Counselor. Before we go to councilor Novick, I have a quick question along these same lines. When I was listening to the testimony, they talked about something that called phase two. Are we able to put language in so that they would begin to get paid at the point that they accept the call?

I would say that using this structure that doesn't quite work, because it has to do with if we were doing a per mile per minute structure where the driver was paid $0.70 for every mile traveled or every minute on the ride, then we could potentially expand out to the when they're going to pick up a passenger. But the way that this is structured, it has to do with just the total amount that is charged and the percentage that the rider or the driver automatically gets from that bucket. And so it's it's that's not really necessary for doing it this way.

Okay. But they brought it up and said that it was it was a big deal.

So it's a business practice more so than something that we as the city could legislate through code or policy. That's something that.

We would. That's what I wanted to find out, if you could actually put something like that to address it in policy.

I would believe we would need to go back to those tnc companies, have the conversation about that practice and how we would expect the expectation to be applied for Oregon drivers.

Okay. Thank you. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Thank you, madam chair. First of all, I can't resist saying that yesterday I had a proposal before the whole council and I talked a lot and I got wiped out 11 to 1. And today I have have virtually said nothing. Zach's done all the talking and it seems like this committee is strongly with me. So maybe the rest of my term in the council, I'll just shut up and let zach talk. But a couple of points. One is I wanted to clarify that the take rate will be applied to the the fare minus the city. The city fees. So wouldn't be the total amount that the passenger pays would be the amount minus the city fees. Zach I'm not I'm not making that up. Right. That's right.

No, that is correct. So yeah.

Yeah. Another thing is that in terms of how much it would increase the wages if we had really solid information, what the take rates really are now, we'd have a more precise answer to that. I mean, for example, if we knew for a fact that now the average take rate is 40% and that translates into driver wages of $12 an hour than if it goes up, it goes down to 20%. Then that's a 33% increase in wages, which would only bring it up to $18, which is still pretty darn low, but at least to be above minimum wage. So if we had more precise information than that, would be able to give a better answer. Also. Councilor Kanal, I want to respond to your question about PBOT ability to deal with, you know, having to have a separate investigation for every five complaints. And that's something we talked to them about. And and so we realized that that's something that's going to require further puzzling through and maybe some experimentation. One thought I have on that is that if the penalties are high enough, then it doesn't take too many instances of being caught out to force the company to change its change its behavior. And I say this not entirely facetiously. I started my career enforcing the environmental laws for the federal government, and the penalty for violation of the clean water act was $25,000 per day per violation. So I tend to always think that that's a good place to start for any penalty system. We're not starting there now, but I wouldn't rule it out. So yeah, we're we're aware of the question of how many investigations does PBOT have the resources to do. We don't know how many investigations there might be, but I think that if there's a resource question, part of the way of answering it might be by having the penalties be stiff enough that it doesn't take too many investigations to bring the companies into line.

Thank you. Councilor Novick, I want to ask the question, where did darren go? Darren, could you come up here for a. So thank you. Could you introduce yourself again.

Yes, ma'am. Darren campbell.

As I was listening about the tips and how it's incorporated into the take rate, would you say it would be better to to give your tip with cash than to have it put into the system?

As a former driver, cash is king. I mean, that would be my answer from a driver perspective.

But what I'm trying to what I'm trying to prevent from if they do if this passes, let's just say this passes and there's a new software change, and it says that the only way that you can give the tip is through the software. And I just don't want I want to be able to, in this language, not have them put that in as a, as a a must do. This is the way you have to to pay the tip. Is that something that we should have in policy or.

I would say no, I think just the nature of tips is, is based on on service rendered. You know, you're rewarding, a great experience, a great driver. And and I hate to say it, but there's some bad drivers out there and you may not want to tip them. So I don't think you want to put a forced mechanism.

Not not a forced tip. I don't want them to put a forced mechanism that says that they can only give drivers a tip through, through the software, because I want people if they want to be able to pay them cash, they can pay them cash, but if they're going to be made to do something that they might retaliate and say, this is the only way that you can give us a driver. A tip is through the software that they create to meet the policy that we're putting forward.

Yeah.

Or maybe I'm overthinking this.

I think you might be overthinking it a little bit, madam chair, but I mean, I don't see anybody being able to stop somebody from slipping a fi.

Okay, honestly. Well.

We'll make sure we report it to the Portland revenue division if they're.

There you go.

Nathaniel's on top. Right. And so because they are being very in my opinion, they're they're being very petty in terms of the deactivation. And people had spoke to the deactivation. Director williams, is that something that we can put in our policy around creating some, some protocols for deactivation that doesn't just include a 32nd ai kind of thing.

Okay.

Thanks. Madam chair. Jacob sherman, for the record, you know, we have had some support services that we've provided to tnc drivers who faced some of these issues in the past. We had a lawyer kind of on contract who was providing armed services, and we worked through that attorney as well as our own staff to try and resolve some of these issues. So that's kind of current practice. I think there could be an opportunity if council wants to consider policy moves. We haven't had a lot of time to think about what those policy moves could be or how they could be structured. And I think, frankly, would need to do some research on what we think best practice might look like. And we would be happy to do that. If that's something council wants to have a conversation on.

Prior to this, we had a hearing in, in this committee and, and I had a pre meeting with, with the drivers. And that was one of the key things that many of the drivers, particularly those who are refugees, immigrants, that they were fearful of. And if you can just deactivate someone that's you're talking about their livelihood right now. And so if there is a way that we can add a little bit more structure, that you can actually talk to a human being and that there is phases and not just an automatic deactivation. If someone says that you did something wrong, I would like to be able to have a little bit more job security for for the drivers. Councilor Novick would you object to us adding something about the deactivation as a part of this or.

As, as zach said, that's an issue that we're planning planning to get to. We just wanted to bring this forward first, the take rate forward first to get the conversation started. It was a high priority for the drivers. So yes, that's on our agenda. We wanted to start this conversation first.

Director williams.

If I may. Councilor Smith, thank you, councilor Novick. I did want to acknowledge it, to get to the place that I think we need to be or would like to be as a as a city. It just requires a little bit more time for bureau to assess how we might best be able to move that type of action forward. Right now, we don't pull the lever on whether someone is activated or not activated. We aren't the the, the stage or the gate through which the tnc company has to pass to re or deactivate someone. So we would need to figure out how we can engage a stage gate process such that we have opportunities to provide the levels of support for community.

And if I had to choose one, I'd start with the money first too. So let's start with the money and see that folks can get properly paid and in a way that that is very meaningful. And that is not so dramatically different from when they originally started this, this whole new endeavor of rideshares. Yes.

If I may councilor I would actually like to answer that question. Millicent. I think we the answer to that question is simple. We protect drivers. We have robust deactivation appeals rights for all drivers in Portland to make it so we can't just get our jobs taken away without the ability to challenge that at no or low cost to them by an independent group of workers that actually know what it's like out there. And in language for folks, you know, disproportionately affected by these in our community. And of course, we're excited to move forward and collaborate on that. There's one quick thing I also just wanted to respond to in terms of something that alison and marissa both said, if I may just 30s really quickly.

Yes. Go ahead.

Just wanted to respond to this notion of flooding drivers of the market being flooded with drivers. It's already flooded. In fact, there was a big protest in seattle yesterday where you could see a big card of a screenshot of the uber and lyft app with a bunch of drivers that looked like a bunch of ants on a on a sugar cube. And uber and lyft have just been able to onboard drivers not commensurate to the demand. And so I'm really glad you brought up the idea of like, data collection. Those are the things that we just don't know. We don't know how many drivers there are. We don't know what their utilization is. So for example, if there were only active with passengers 30 minutes of an hour, that's only 50%. That's pretty low. If their utilization rate is low, why do we need to be onboarding more drivers. And so I'm excited to actually, you know, engage in some more of those conversations. Once we're able to collect that data, to make sure that we have safeguards in place to make sure that there's not too many drivers out there, we're not adding to congestion, we're not threatening public safety, particularly when we start talking about autonomous vehicles, adding even more of those into the mix. We need to make sure that there are sensible limits to the number of cars out there, because I know that aligns with our vision zero policy of trying to make sure that we're reducing traffic incidents and not too much congestion. So just wanted to add that piece in there. So thank you very much for the time.

Thank you. And hold on just a second darren. And I want to make sure also I had three things that I wanted to talk about. And this reservation fee, if there's a way that we could put some standardization on what the what the actual reservation fee will be in this language, because that is dealing with the money. I find it very odd that no one really knows what that reservation fee is across the board. Some places, like you said, a penny, and then other places it could be as high as $25. So that's a problem too, that I think, zach, that we need to also clarify when we're doing this in this. I don't know what you think about that. Councilor Novick. You're on unmute.

Sorry, I apologize, I was just distracted by a text from my mother's husband about her condition in the hospital, which turned out to be fine. Can you repeat the question?

So the question was I wanted I wanted to, with this particular legislation, this first one also deal with the issue of what the standardized rate is for the reservation fee that folks are being charged. If you could make sure you deal with that as well, because that is that is taking money off of the driver's. Out of their pocketbook as well.

Well, I think that I would assume that the reservation fee is part of what the passenger pays for an individual trip. So that would be that would be covered. The driver would be getting 80% of the total amount that the passenger paid, including the reservation fee. So we should maybe we should tighten up the language to make absolutely sure that that's true.

Yeah. Because the testimony here today, they said that there was a reservation fee of one penny to 25 and there was no standardization. So they didn't know what what was the actual fee. Go ahead, darren.

I just wanted to comment on the deactivation process back in. I think it was 2016. Then commissioner Nick fish with councilor Dunphy's help, I'm sure worked with unions to to enact the tnc driver committee, which was a large group of drivers as well as technical advisors from different parts of the industry. It was through that committee that the ombudsman program was acted on, and and there was an attorney that would work with drivers who were deactivated without cause. I think the one concern there was, it just wasn't used. As much as we know that the need was there. I think that's where the driver resource center and the kind of the next phase of, of councilor Novick plan is, is, is to get those resources for drivers to be able to fight those those bad deactivations and continue to work. But we need to get to a place where those deactivations just don't happen because it's so disruptive to somebody's livelihood. And and it's unfair to them. So but I just wanted to touch on that, that there is something in place. Now we just need to get back to to having it be active.

I'd like to follow back up with you with my office on that particular piece. Thank you so much for adding that, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Madam chair, if I may, just on this topic. Is that all right? Yes, councilor. Just on on the topic of deactivation. Deactivation, I did want to mention, you know, our ombuds program was actually the inspiration for some of the labor protections that the city of seattle and the state of Washington ultimately went with themselves. I do think it's important to note, kind of, for the record, that our own PBOT staff are regulatory specialists, actually play a role of resolving many of the issues that drivers are facing when it's about permitting or other sorts of things. So we do have staff already doing some of this work, which we believe is also part of the reason the spuds program became less utilized over time. I also don't know if any representatives from uber or lyft are still on this call, but I did just want to suggest out of fairness that it is important to note there are times where it is viable to deactivate a driver. Of course, I think we've heard many instances of where that might cause undue harm, but as a regulator, we know that there are also instances where in the matter of public safety, we do need to take action. And I think thinking through what a thoughtful process is that's transparent, that's fair and balanced. We're happy to work on that. And we understand that there's issues and concerns. But I do want to mention that there are legitimate public safety issues at times to do that. Thank you.

I appreciate you mentioning that, jacob. Only thing I would add is that they if there is a circumstance where it's appropriate to deactivate a driver, there should be a fair and transparent appeals process. So a driver just doesn't get their livelihood taken away in an instant without a fair chance of review or recompense, or the right to representation.

And councilor Green, we have marissa, who is still here from uber. Is that marissa. From she left?

No, she's from lift.

Lift from lyft.

Here from lift.

Okay. I didn't know if you wanted to jump in on that marissa at all.

Well, I appreciate PBOT mentioning that there is balance needed to ensure safety, and we're happy to continue conversations about how to achieve that balance.

Okay. Thank you so much, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, madam chair. Through this discussion, you know, the the economist brain in me starts turning around and I because I've got the privilege of having drivers here test some of my assumptions. I thought I would just test some assumptions. You can let me know whether or not this is true. So if we pass this ordinance when it's ready, that's going to increase all else equal the wages, the net income of the drivers. And I suspect there's a lot of drivers who would prefer to drive fewer hours, spend a little more time with their families, maybe get a little more sleep if they had the ability to throttle back that participation. But if you earn such a low share, then you're in some sense forced to to go out more often than you want. Is that is that a true statement.

That is accurate?

I'm seeing a lot of validation to that. And so I think when we think about the ancillary benefits to regulating just the income part in terms of broader issues of public safety, specifically transportation safety, that's an important consideration. It will, you know, it would it would result in probably like less labor supply at times. But I'm also hearing that that's probably okay, because, you know, that's going to drive up the price of the ride. And that's just how the market works. And so I just wanted to make sure I was thinking about that correctly, because sometimes, you know, the the curves you draw on the whiteboard when you teach students economics doesn't always translate to the real world, but in this case, it seems like it does. And I think the last point I'll try to make is, you know, I don't know if this is within the purview of the council or the or even PBOT to try to address. But the issue of dynamic surge pricing. I understand why the companies do it because they've got they've got the market share and the pricing control to do it. But if we're worried about the cost of these rides driving consumers away, we need to remember that every time a consumer has a bad experience that sticks with them. And so if you go out to the club and you're trying to get home in a safe way and you pay $170 for that, you might not do it again. You might drive instead, actually. And then that again puts a person on the road who's increasing risk and danger into our communities precisely when we're dealing with a crisis of of it cuts against the vision zero goals. I think what we're trying to do. And so if there's conversations to be had with these tnc companies in partnership with the drivers, in partnership with the the city to rethink its pricing strategy, I think that's some low hanging fruit. You know, one could imagine a tiered pricing structure that compensates everyone for the time of use, time of day, without fleecing a consumer. We, you know, fairness also extends to the consumer as well. So I just thought I would raise these questions and I would invite anyone to comment on that. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Yes. Councilor. Novick.

This is rather a tangent, but I just wanted to respond to councilors Green comment that sometimes people work enough to reach a certain level of income, and note that I've used that before in response to the argument that if you tax rich people, they'll stop working. And my response is, well, they're used to a certain level of richness. And if you tax them all the work, all the harder, be more productive. So I just couldn't resist sliding that in there.

Thank you. I'm going to share with you some.

Zach wanted to comment on that briefly.

Zach.

Yeah, I just wanted to to mention what you were talking about. That's something that we've actually thought a lot about. Another sort of element to it is folks who need to take ubers or lifts to hospitals because, you know, they're disabled, they can't drive themselves, and it's a necessary form of transport. And I think there is some flexibility that we can add to this, maybe around the fees that the city of Portland charges or other mechanisms to to make those things more palatable so that we don't work against folks who are disabled or against vision zero goals. So I'd love to work with with you more on that.

So, zach, ever since this was put on the agenda, I've gotten a couple calls from from business people and visits and what they have said to me, and I don't know if it was to influence me or to intimidate this conversation, was that if this goes forward, that lyft in uber will just pull out of Portland. Are you concerned about that?

I think there's a degree to which I'm concerned about that, but I think it's also really important to note that one, we do have a number of companies still in the city who operate transportation services like radio cab, broadway, cab, a number of entities like that. I think it's also important to note that part of tnc companies business strategy is taking riders away from our public transit services. So I was just reading a study today that 50, I believe, 50% of folks who opt to use ubers and lyfts decided not to take the bus. And so if we return folks back to the busses, that's also not necessarily a bad thing. I think that and then, like councilor Green mentioned, we have a number of very talented folks in the driver community, and they will continue to be drivers even if the apps decide to take the greedy way out, if I would say and exit.

Well, yeah, that's a that's a nice kind of cute way to answer it. But. Before I, before I go before I go, hold on just a second. How much money do we bring in through uber and lyft into the city of Portland annually.

Through the city fee? I believe it's.

Just in general, how much do they make out of the out of the Portland metro area?

Madam chair, I don't believe we have that information.

No ballparks.

We we don't have the current most updated information. But I know PBOT does used to publish its private for hire quarterly statistics. And roughly it's around maybe 2 million trips a quarter. So maybe around somewhere between 7 or 8 million trips a year. At least it was by the end of 2025.

So that would just be a guesstimate.

Yeah, I think we could do some back of the napkin estimating that probably wouldn't pass. Councilor green's one on one econ class, but I think it could give us, you know. Councilor Smith accrued a crude estimate of potentially kind of overall profits.

So how much tax money does the city of Portland bring in from? From the rideshares.

So for each ride there is the the $2 fee that we are able to collect. So if it's 2 million rides, a quarter, however much that is, we projected that in this fiscal year, based on the implementation of that additional fee, that we would bring in roughly $5 million, $8 million. Excuse me. Million. Yes. But we have yet to see how that has been collected. And if it is, in fact, at the rate that we presume that it would be or forecast that it would be councilor, I did want to address the question that you asked about the viability of the rideshare companies making different choices about their presence in this market. That is something that we will need to have a very serious conversation about. While it may be perceived as a threat or a really bad promise, it isn't something that we should fail to more exhaustively explore in terms of the impacts to any user within the system, as well as the drivers. To see a system that has matured as much as it has over the course of the past decade plus, kind of completely disappear from the scene, would have significant impacts on everyone involved. I'm not suggesting that the current way that we engage in business is necessarily the gold star in practice, but I do think it's important for us to acknowledge that the loss of the level of support, if there are 2 million rides, a quarter, what happens with that? Are we assuming that everyone is going to then begin to use transit? Are we assuming that everyone has a car to get around? How are we going to ensure that there isn't a break in our community's ability to navigate from point a to point b using the tools that are available? So I'd like.

If that threat is realized. Yes, yes. Thank you. That's that's what I was trying to kind of also have a parallel thought about as a result of this, this policy decision that we make. And if it passes what, what that was going to have on the city as a whole. We do have a scheduled item next. And I know that we're going to we're going to pass over that. But if there's any last minute thoughts that you want to add to this committee, and we can begin with you, darren, just give me 30s of any closing thoughts.

Yeah. I just want to respond to councilor Green's first comment. You know, in in June of 2024, joshua kelvin was murdered. If he was making the livable wage in which this proposal would would offer drivers, there is no way that he would have been out at midnight on Tuesday night and be available for for that gang activity that killed him and took his life. I know that almost. I'm certain all of you have met with kelly kelvin, his widow, and she's brought a different level of passion to to my involvement in private hire. But, you know, that's one thing that we can't take lightly is, is people are literally giving their lives to this industry. And that would be a difference right there.

Thank you. Next.

You're giving them a lot.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm giving them 30s.

You have something?

Any closing thoughts?

Thank you.

We love you.

I love you, too.

Thank you. You know, I just I can't say it enough. You know, we have been begging for a voice. We've been begging for our officials to stand with us and to, you know, since councilor Novick was a commissioner and even before that. So just thank you for this opportunity. And, you know, we we recognize that the ombuds program, you know, that was a need that the city identified that ombuds program. Just last thing I want to say back in 2019 recognized the need for more robust deactivation protections. And I know we both agree that it was an under-resourced, you know, outfit that had was well intended, but, you know, wasn't really able to get drivers reactivated and and potentially win them compensation and make them whole. So I think we're excited to partner together and just thank you.

Thank you. I'll let you speak last. Zach, any other comments from PBOT. Any last comments?

Sure. Thank you, madam chair. You know, I think I just want to kind of reiterate, we're happy to work with your office on labor issues, whether that be compensation, transparency, deactivation. We've also been talking over the years about a number of improvements to code that could also address some of the driver safety issues that we've heard from the committee, and we're currently working on a process to try and streamline and improve the driver experience on our committees. So we're we're very committed to that work. And so I think I just wanted to kind of close on that. And I don't know if director williams has anything she'd like to add.

Just to follow on, we are at an important moment in this conversation, and I think we have an opportunity to show up really well in the city, especially in support of the folks who've been supporting our community for so many years. The bureau stands ready to lean in to identifying meaningful solutions and having the critical conversations that will allow us to make the differences that are necessary for people to feel that they're able to both earn a living wage in this city by in the choice that they have as a career or a side opportunity. But we also want to make sure that we're showing up as partners for folks who are providing that service. So it's important that as we're having these critical conversations, that we as the regulator, have the opportunity to reach in both directions to make sure that we're bringing people together and along, and we look forward to being able to do that.

I like that. Councilor Novick.

Steve Novick: Yeah, just a couple of thoughts on the question of what about the threat that they will leave? And I agree with director williams. It's not a threat we should just dismiss lightly. However, three points. One to me, if the drivers are willing to take that risk, my instinct is to defer to their judgment. That doesn't end with that, but that's my initial instinct. Also, I know that there have been times where they have pulled out of cities. They had a fight with austin, texas some years ago, and they pulled out and a bunch of new rideshare companies popped up, and now they're back in austin, texas. So sometimes the threat leads to a short lived reality. And but also we are going to have that conversation, and I expect that uber and lyft will come back and make their case for why they become uneconomical. And I'm interested in that because I want to know what the hell their expenses are, other than their ceo salaries seems to be the primary expense of this business is the cost of the vehicle which the drivers are bearing. So I'd be academically interested in uber and lyft explaining what exactly their expenses are.

Okay, thank you, councilor Green.

Mitch Green: Thank you, madam chair. I'm also interested in the you raised the question about how much does this contribute to the economic activity, the overall net income, if you if you will, for the region? I've got my staff working on that. We have a product called implan, which is a standard economic impact analysis. And it it aggregates this stuff. And I think I think there is a naics code that gets down to this sector. And so we're working on that. I don't think we're going to get that answer before the committee meeting is over, but if it's appropriate I can email it to the council clerk and we can post it under this agenda item. That would be great. I don't know if I'm allowed to do that after the meeting has been closed, but at the minimum I could just email it to the whole committee.

Yeah. Yes, that would be perfect. Thank you. Councilor, any closing thoughts?

Yeah. Just two. I councilor Novick kind of set this up, but there are several other rideshare companies who operate in in austin and several others around the country. And if any of them would like to weigh in on this and happen to see this, we'd love to have your opinions as a part of this too. But I also wanted to mention something in response to councilor Green's point about, you know, someone out late and doing, you know, not having the option due to surge pricing. And this is why we have to be investing in transit. That is fast, frequent, you know, fareless eventually, but also has the hours of operation that allow for it to be a real option for people. That's a little outside of the scope of this particular piece of legislation at the moment. But I do think there's a conversation around where tnc fees go in general. That should include giving people an option that doesn't require payment, or at least not as high of a level of payment, and just wanted to flag that for later. Thanks.

Councilor Dunphy, do you have any closing thoughts? Thank you. Well, I want to thank everyone for coming today, and we were able to have a much more meaningful conversation because we have some things that we're going to remove from the from the agenda. But I appreciate you all staying here and talking and really walking us through what the policy could actually look like and what we have to work work towards after the policy is developed. Thank you so much. Be safe out there driving. I appreciate you more than you know. I have family members who who do this work. So I just want out of full transparency. I want to let you know that I hear you and I see you. And trust me, my family, they they tug on me as well. So I am going to close this agenda item. Diana, could you read the next agenda? You're welcome to leave. Thank you.

Item item for discussion on the Portland trail blazers, the moda center and their benefits to labor and employment sectors in Portland. Item five public hearing on the Portland trail blazers, the moda center, and their benefits to the labor and employment sector in Portland.

Thank you. So, diana, I'm referring this these two items back to my office because I'd like to bring them back at a later date as we change the new to the new committee system. And what do I have to do to take this off the agenda?

You just did it.

I just did it. Wow. Magic. I didn't know I had magic, but thank you so much. I appreciate it if we have any other things for the good of the order of this labor and workforce development committee, I am ready to to gavel out. And it's going to be well, let me just let folks know that this committee is going to have a change. We're going to be melded in council president with arts and economy. We're still going to have five folks, but we're going to have someone else that that will be chairing this. And my hope is, and I've already talked to. Councilor Elana pirtle-guiney, who will be expected to be the the chair of this committee, that we will bring these issues about uber back again. We will bring some of the issues that we worked on in regards to, to to the.

Councilor committee, the whole.

Yeah, to the committee of the whole. But no, no, no, the issue that we that we were working on last week, we were still the wage theft issue, we have to make sure that we get that back in there as well. So I'm excited about it. I appreciate you councilor Novick I hope your mom gets better. I'm praying for a a speedy recovery and and patience for you and your family and keep us keep us engaged in what's going on because you you could actually be doing something else, but you are still trying to do the work as you're taking care of your mom who's in the hospital.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you, thank you. Well, we will gavel out.