Date: 01/18/2006
Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB06-1073
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & ENERGY
| Votes: View--> | Action Taken: |
| <none> | <none> |
01:40 PM -- House Bill 06-1073
Representative Knoedler, prime sponsor of House Bill 06-1073, explained that the bill repeals the statutory requirement that a limousine be equipped with a television, telephone, and beverages in order to be considered a luxury limousine. Representative Knoedler stated that this law is outdated.
Members of the committee asked for specific definitions of a limousine, luxury limousine, and inquired as to the market demand for limousines.
Representative Knoedler responded that he did not know the specific definition for limousines or luxury limousines. He further stated that the market is demanding more corporate service.
01:44 PM
Eugene Cookenboo, owner of Presidential Limousine and a member of the Limousine Association of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Cookenboo stated that the required amenities for luxury limousines are often a nuisance for clients. Mr. Cookenboo further stated that an individual may add a television, telephone, and beverage service to any vehicle for the sole purpose of classifying it as a luxury limousine.
01:54 PM
The committee asked whether limousines would still provide these amenities even if the language was struck from law. They also wanted to know the type of access limousines have to special events compared to taxis, and the definition of a stretched limousine. Finally, members asked if there are regulatory differences between limousines and taxi-cab vehicles.
Mr. Cookenboo responded that limousines have access to certain special events only if their clients have access. For example, if a client has a parking pass at Invesco Field for a Bronco football sporting event, then the limousine would have access to that client's parking spot. A stretched limousine is a vehicle that is manufactured by a motor company and has had a center part added to the vehicle by a coach builder. Mr. Cookenboo responded that there are regulations, such as safety and insurance requirements that distinguish limousines from taxi-cab vehicles. For example, luxury limousines are required to carry $1 million in insurance and taxi-cabs must carry $500,000 in insurance. In addition, limousines cannot pick up fares like taxis can; rather, a limousine must be pre-booked.
02:06 PM
Razza Abdekadin, driver for Yellow Cab Taxi service and events coordinator for the City of Denver, spoke in opposition to the bill and testified to the practices of some limousine drivers. Mr. Abdekadin stated that there needs to be greater oversight of limousine operators by the Colorado Public Utility Commission (PUC). Mr. Abdekadin stated that some individuals label their vehicle service as limousine service to circumvent regulations for taxi-cab vehicles and operators.
Responding to questions, Mr. Abdekadin stated that he did not know the specifics as to how often limousines are inspected, but he believes it is not on a consistent annual basis as the PUC rules require. He added that he did not know the specific penalties if a limousine is found without the required amenities.
02:18 PM
John Hafer, representing A Custom Coach, testified in support of the bill. Mr. Hafer stated that the PUC is understaffed and believes there should be a greater fee than $5.00 to enter into and operate a limousine business. Mr. Hafer supports updating old laws and rules. Mr. Hafer stated that Colorado is the only state that requires a television, telephone, and beverages be included in limousine vehicles. Mr. Hafer reiterated that clients are less concerned with these amenities as they are with reaching their destinations.
Members asked Mr. Hafer if there was an adequate way to distinguish between taxi-cab vehicles and limousine vehicles, and if the two types of vehicles should be classified together. Mr. Hafer responded that taxi-cabs are identified by the writing on their vehicles and that classifying the two types of vehicles together could confuse the public.
02:28 PM
Franci Ouzounis, owner of White Dove Limousine and a member of the Limousine Association of Colorado, testified in support of the bill. Ms. Ouzounis stated that she does not believe there is a distinction between limousines and luxury limousines. Ms. Ouzounis further stated that clients hire limousine service for privacy, not for the required amenities. Ms. Ouzounis again stated that limousine operators will serve their clients with any requested amenities.
02:32 PM
Ms. Ouzouni responded to questions about how often her vehicles are inspected, stating that they are inspected every year. She further stated that for limousine service the clients must pre-book. The PUC checks the driver's manifest which includes the date, the type of service, information on the client's destination, and credit card information. She stated that there is a fine and hearing for operators who pick up clients who have not pre-booked their service.
02:40 PM
Kyle Brown, general manager for Metro Taxi, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Brown stated that the amenities need to be present to distinguish taxi-cab vehicles from limousines. Mr. Brown testified that removing these requirements will allow competitors to enter into the limousine service business with less regulation and compete with other vehicle services, such as taxi-cabs, that have more regulation.
02:44 PM
The committee asked Mr. Brown to address the price differences between sedans, limousines, and taxi-cab vehicles, and to comment on the differences in regulations between taxi-cab service and limousine service. Mr. Brown responded that taxi-cab operators compete with sedan-type limousine service; and that removing the statutory requirements for luxury limousines allows more individuals into the service vehicle industry with less restrictions.
02:51 PM
Wayne Roberson, manager of driver operations for Yellow Cab Taxi Service, spoke in opposition to the bill. Mr. Roberson believes the bill will blur the distinction between taxi-cab vehicles and limousines. Mr. Roberson stated that although limousine operators must pre-book their clients, some drivers still solicit on the spot business.
Responding to a question, Mr. Roberson stated that he was not prepared to give a definition that distinguishes luxury limousines from other types of service vehicles. Mr. Roberson also stated that he is not against competition, but would like the playing field to be fair.
02:56 PM
Tom Hoffman, owner of Shamrock Taxi and Limo Service, testified in opposition to the bill. Mr. Hoffman stated that the main issue is being able to distinguish between the taxi-cab vehicles and limousines. Mr. Hoffman believes legislation is required to distinguish between the types of service Mr. Hoffman stated that the language of the bill may be diluting the statutes to allow individual limousine operators to operate their businesses as taxis.
The committee asked Mr. Hoffman to suggest terms that could differentiate between taxi-cab vehicles and limousine vehicles, and asked if he believed the regulations for taxi-cab vehicles and limousine vehicles should be the same. Mr. Hoffman responded he could suggest terms to distinguish between taxi-cab vehicles and limousine vehicles if he had more time. Mr. Hoffman further stated that the regulations for taxi-cab vehicles and limousines should be different and dependent on the type of regulation referenced.
03:06 PM
Brad Whittle, representing Colorado Cab Company and a member of the Limousine Association of Colorado, spoke in opposition to bill. Mr. Whittle stated that the PUC is not inspecting limousine operators regularly and that there needs to be more regulations for limousines, not less.
03:15 PM
Mr. Whittle was asked to comment on how other states distinguish taxi-cab service from limousine service and how these service vehicle industries are regulated. Mr. Whittle responded that he operates a cab company in the state of Oregon. He stated that the limousine and taxi-cab services are distinguished by minimum prices for the vehicle service. The City of Portland regulates limousine and taxi-cab service.
03:19 PM
Representative Knoedler gave his closing arguments. Representative Knoedler stated the bill simply repeals outdated requirements.
03:20 PM
Chairman Pommer took the bill off the table to allow the bill sponsor to work with interested parties in possibly coming up with a compromise amendment.
03:30 PM
The committee adjourned.