Uber, Lyft look to Legislature to bypass city rules

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- While Missouri lawmakers have delayed regulating app-based car services such as Uber and Lyft, cities have imposed their own rules, taking approaches the ride-hailing companies portray as misguided and burdensome.

Those companies say legislation in the House would allow them to expand out of the state's metropolitan regions and provide resolution to disputes with city regulators.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Kirk Mathews, would require ride-hailing companies to conduct background checks on drivers, ensure vehicles are insured and provide customers with fare estimates -- steps the companies say they already take.

The proposal also would clarify the drivers are independent contractors and require the companies to pay an annual permit fee of $5,000.

The bill would replace local regulations on driver certification and background checks, he said.

A comparable Senate bill has been referred to committee, and a companion bill that outlines insurance requirements for ride-hailing companies passed Thursday in the House with a 153-1 vote.

The House gave initial approval to a similar regulatory scheme last year. But the proposal lost momentum after Kansas City in April reached an agreement with ride-hailing companies to establish a certification system for drivers.

Lyft pulled out of St. Louis after a 2014 lawsuit from the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission and since has halted its operations in Missouri, said Rodney Boyd, a lobbyist for the company.

Uber is the only such company offering rides in Missouri, with drivers limited to St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia, said Robert Kellman, Uber's Midwest public affairs manager.

Kellman said his conversations with state lawmakers have been collaborative, while Kansas City officials were unfriendly. He claimed Mayor Sly James' staff called Uber and Lyft into a meeting in April to inform them of how the city would regulate them.

"We were told that this was how it was going to be. It was not a negotiation in any way," Kellman said Monday to a House panel. "I personally have been to the mayor's office as recently as December to ask for a review of the ordinance."

James' press secretary, Michael Grimaldi, disputed Kellman's account, saying: "Negotiations continued for several weeks and often were quite contentious."

"Uber came to Kansas City and said, in effect: 'This is the only way our model works, this is the way we do it everywhere else, and this is the only way we can do it,"' Grimaldi wrote in an email. "Ultimately, we found common ground that accommodates all tech-driven, ride-hailing companies."

The ordinance Kansas City passed required Uber to pay an annual $45,000 registration fee, and it allowed drivers to work for 30 days before completing the certification process.

Although the first wave of potential Uber drivers were waiting up to 60 days for the city to process their paperwork last summer, "those days are long gone," said Jim Ready, manager of Kansas City's Regulated Industries Division.

Ready, who opposes the bill, said statewide regulations could be a good starting point, but cities also should be able to craft rules that fit the area's needs.

"Kansas City is not the same as St. Louis, let alone Springfield," he said. "The city should be able to say 'In Kansas City, it's a little bit different."'

Columbia requires drivers to pay $60 in fees, and the city conducts its own background checks and vehicle inspections.

Uber began operating in St. Louis in September after the Metropolitan Taxicab Commission issued rules requiring ride-hailing companies' drivers to submit to fingerprint-based background checks and to have a class E chauffer's license. The commission has since sued Uber, claiming its drivers aren't following those rules. A judge has ordered the two sides into mediation.

Kellman said Uber's background checks are sufficient, and fingerprint checks can lead to false positives.