Committees approve updated trip fees and $150,000 permit proposal for Los Angeles shared mobility program

Los Angeles' Transportation and Public Works committees on June 10 approved an update to the city's on-demand mobility fees that would raise operator permit costs and create a subsidy to keep fees lower in equity-focused mobility districts.

Lisonbee Willhait of the City Administrative Officer's office told the committees that "current revenues are only bringing in about 20% of the cost needed to cover the cost for this program," and presented three fee-structure options. The CAO recommended a partial subsidy option projected to generate nearly $2.7 million in annual revenue while requiring an estimated $254,000 in general-fund support to preserve free service in designated equity zones.

Industry representatives urged care in setting fees and in the data used. Monica DeLillo of Lime said the company supports cost recovery but warned that "calculations leveraging outdated ridership numbers will inevitably result in an over collection of fees, which does not align with Prop 26," and recommended more frequent monitoring of collections.

LA Department of Transportation staff described program workload and enforcement, saying field work and complaint response drive much of the geographic-specific cost. Staff said there are "roughly 15,000 scooters on the right of way on a given day throughout the city of Los Angeles," and explained the department's 40/60 administrative-to-geographic cost split.

Councilwoman Heather Hutt, Transportation Committee chair, proposed recommendations that include a $150,000 permit fee for operators alongside a meaningful subsidy for equity-focused mobility development districts based on the CAO's analysis. "My recommendations include a $150,000 permit fee for operators as well as a meaningful subsidy for the equity focused development districts," Hutt said during the meeting.

Committee members pressed staff on whether per-trip fees would lead companies to pass costs to riders and how the fee differences among geographic zones were calculated. LA DOT staff said the fees in the proposal are charges to the companies, not direct fares, and that how companies pass costs to riders is a business decision outside the city's fee-setting authority.

Committee members also discussed liability protections and insurance. A City Attorney representative noted the city's indemnification and insurance requirements are robust; "we had initially wanted 10,000,000 per incident ... and ultimately ... agreed to 5,000,000 per incident," the attorney's office said, citing prior council negotiation of coverage levels.

In follow-up language read into the record, the committee requested additional reports and actions: CAO and LADOT were instructed to evaluate a tiered permit structure, provide a six-month verbal status update, and report back in one year to reevaluate per-trip and permit fees; the City Attorney was asked to prepare a draft ordinance updating trip fees and to include language to prevent over-collection, quarterly reviews, and corrective measures (refunds, credits, or midyear adjustments) if necessary.

The committees voted to adopt the chair's recommendations as amended. On the Transportation Committee roll call the votes were: Hutt (yes), Park (yes), Hernandez (yes), Padilla (yes), Nazarian (aye). On the Public Works side the votes were Hernandez (yes), Padilla (yes) and Hutt (yes). The committees noted and approved the recommendations as amended.

Next steps include CAO and LADOT follow-up reporting on the selected fee structure, the City Attorney drafting the ordinance language requested by the committees, and additional monitoring to ensure compliance with state rules on fees and Proposition 26.

Provenance: item 9 read at the clerk's introduction (item reading) and discussed in detail during the CAO presentation and committee Q&A; the CAO presentation begins at the clerk reading of item 9 and the discussion continues through the committee vote.