New rules for Findlay cab drivers cause confusion

FINDLAY — A rewrite of the city's taxicab regulations has created confusion over whether the changes were ever meant to apply to rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft. Statements made during the ordinance's first reading in January suggested the rules were broad enough to include modern rideshare drivers, but by the second reading, officials said the city has no authority to regulate them at all. Rideshare services in Ohio are regulated at the state level. The ordinance, which repeals and replaces the city's taxi‑cab chapter, first came before council on Jan. 20. During that meeting, Councilwoman Heather Kensinger, R-at-large, questioned whether the ordinance was drafted to include rideshare operators. She said, "Some of the language feels like we're targeting specifically Uber or Uber and Lyft drivers, and the language feels a little bit like it may include them," and asked directly, "Is that the intention?" Kensinger raised legal concerns, saying that attempts by other municipalities to regulate rideshare services have met with court action. In response, Law Director Rob Feighner Jr. said the ordinance's definitions had been widened. He explained that they were expanded "to try to cover everything that's out there in our modern day," adding that "anybody that's providing these types of services in the city of Findlay is going to have to go through these steps to have their license each year." Mayor Christina Muryn echoed the broader interpretation at the January meeting, saying the rewrite aimed to modernize oversight so "people that are providing such services have insurance and have proper credentials for licensing" and that the update brought the code "into the 21st century." But at the ordinance's Feb. 3 reading, the city's description shifted sharply. Shaun Mason, a Democrat, who made his second attempt at being elected to represent Findlay's 3rd Ward in 2025, was the first to question the ordinance at the meeting. During public comments, Mason urged the council to clarify the ordinance's scope. He warned that if the ordinance were interpreted to include rideshare, "it is likely unenforceable under Ohio law and exposes the city to unnecessary risk." Mason also raised concerns about language‑literacy requirements and the discretion granted to the service-safety director in approving or revoking licenses. Feighner then told council that the city has no authority over Uber or Lyft. "The city of Findlay has never enforced any regulations against… Uber," he said. "We have no right to regulate Uber. They're already under state regulation." The statement caught some council members off guard. Councilman Kevin Cullen, I-5, said, "I must be mistaken then… because the way I read it, I thought it was to cover Uber and Lyft… Thank you for clarifying." The ordinance would establish a comprehensive municipal licensing system with annual renewals, require background checks through the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation, establish medical and English proficiency standards for drivers, impose minimum insurance requirements, and require operators to maintain a business location in Hancock County. The service-safety director would also be authorized to test drivers, conduct hearings when a license is denied or revoked, and suspend or revoke licenses for unsafe practices, false statements, or lapsed insurance. The ordinance is set for a third reading and possible vote at the Feb. 17 regular meeting of council. Council will meet at 6 p.m. in the Findlay Municipal Building, 318 Dorney Plaza. All city council meetings are open to the public and livestreamed on the city's YouTube channel: Findlay Ohio.