Committee advances updated fees and operator permits for on‑demand mobility devices

The Los Angeles City joint Transportation and Public Works committee voted to advance recommendations to update the city's mobility‑on‑demand fee structure and to direct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance. City staff said the proposal would change zone‑based per‑trip fees, require operator permits and establish subsidies for low‑income or equity areas.

Adamson Mojica, presenting for city staff, summarized the report and its options, saying, “El informe provee un anlisis y de recomendaciones en relaci a la actualizaci de la estructura de tarifas respecto al plan de movilidad a demanda.” He told the committee the analysis used FY24–25 travel data and 311 request data and that three fee structures (options A–C) were developed with maps and an approach for splitting administrative and field costs.

Why it matters: The rules will shape how private operators set prices, how the city recovers program costs and whether travel subsidies reach neighborhoods the committee labeled as equity areas. Staff estimated one option could generate roughly $17,000,000 in revenue while also calling for a general‑fund subsidy to keep fees lower in equity zones.

Committee members pressed staff on methodology and impacts. Members asked how the model allocates costs by geography, why some equity neighborhoods would see lower fees funded by subsidy, and whether higher fees in other areas would simply be passed on to riders. A public commenter, Mnica Delido, told the committee the programs 2025 volumes had risen “un 40 por 100,” urging quarterly monitoring to ensure collections and compliance.

Staff described enforcement limitations and options for device removal. They said unpermitted companies can be subject to administrative fines and that physical removal of devices from the right‑of‑way likely requires additional staffing or contracting. On data access, staff said the analysis followed where trips end and relies on company data and 311 reports; staff pledged to seek further information from operators.

The committee also discussed liability and insurance. Staff described prior negotiations over umbrella liability limits and indemnity: earlier staff had proposed higher per‑incident limits, the Council pushed for lower levels, and the final negotiated level was currently set in existing agreements; any change to minimum insurance levels would require Council action.

What the committee asked for next: committee members and staff agreed to send the recommendations, as amended, to the City Attorney to draft an ordinance updating the municipal code, to continue quarterly or periodic monitoring of fee collections, and to return with further detail on enforcement logistics, data‑sharing agreements and how subsidies would be funded.

The committee adopted the recommendations as amended and closed consideration of Item 0.9; staff noted planned follow‑up reports and implementation steps.