Findlay council votes to kill taxi legislation

FINDLAY — In a rare unanimous rebuke, Findlay City Council voted 0–9 Tuesday night to reject the rewrite of the city's taxi‑cab regulations, sending the proposal back for revisions after members raised broad concerns about clarity, fairness and oversight. The vote came after weeks of confusion over the scope of the regulations — including whether they were ever intended to apply to rideshare services — and fresh criticism Tuesday about unclear language, inconsistent standards, and expanded administrative authority. Councilwoman Carol Smith, R-3, was absent from Tuesday's meeting. Councilwoman Heather Kensinger, R-at-large, who previously pressed the administration over language that appeared to reach into rideshare regulation, was again the strongest critic. She told colleagues she supports updating the decades‑old code but said the revised draft "still needs work." Kensinger said the draft still raised several red flags. It would scrap the current three‑member review board and put all licensing decisions in the hands of the service‑safety director. It also lets permit fees be changed "from time to time" without explaining how those amounts are set. The insurance section requires 10‑days' advance notice for policy changes — something she said most carriers can't provide. And one clause ties company ownership to having a valid driver's license, a rule she warned could shut out older or disabled residents who no longer drive. "I think some of the language needs some revision, and it needs to be tightened up," Kensinger said, adding that as written, the ordinance "opens the city up to a few more holes than it did before." The ordinance's path has been rocky since its introduction. At the first reading on Jan. 20, council members questioned whether the broader definitions in the rewrite were meant to apply to rideshare companies such as Uber and Lyft. Both the law director and the mayor suggested at that meeting that the city was attempting to modernize the code to cover "all" passenger‑for‑hire services. But by the second reading on Feb. 3, the city reversed course. Law Director Rob Feighner Jr. told council directly that Findlay has "no right to regulate Uber," because rideshare services operate under state authority. Several council members said that contradicted their earlier understanding of the ordinance. Shaun Mason, a Democrat who has run twice for Findlay's Ward 3 seat, most recently in 2025, was the first to publicly challenge the ordinance. During public comments on Feb. 3, Mason urged council to clarify whether the rewrite was meant to cover rideshare services and warned that any attempt to regulate Uber or Lyft would conflict with Ohio law. Mason also raised concerns about the ordinance's language‑literacy requirements and the broad discretion given to the service‑safety director. The proposed ordinance would have replaced the city's 1979 taxi‑cab rules with a much more detailed system. It added annual licensing for companies and drivers, required Ohio BCI background checks, and set new medical, vision, and English‑language standards for drivers. It also established set insurance minimums with a 10‑day notice requirement for policy changes, required companies to keep a physical business location in Hancock County, and spelled out what must be posted inside each cab. Oversight would shift from the old three‑member board to the service‑safety director, who would have broad authority over licensing, testing and discipline. The rewrite also eliminated the old bond requirement. The version council received on Tuesday made only minor tweaks in the legislation. Kensinger said she is committed to achieving a balanced rewrite: "The old code needs updated. But this one isn't ready." The next version will likely go through committee before returning for another set of council readings.