You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

Austin City Council calls for fingerprint checks, fees for Uber, Lyft

The Austin City Council, after a two-hour discussion about the efficacy of various types of background checks, overwhelmingly passed a resolution Thursday night to develop requirements for fingerprint-based criminal background checks for drivers with ride-hailing services such as Uber and Lyft.

The council also took the first step toward creating a fee for such transportation network companies, similar to what the local cab companies pay.

Neither measure is final yet. The council on Thursday directed staff to draw up an ordinance with those requirements, which would likely return for a final vote in November.

Uber and Lyft, who instead perform name-based background checks on prospective drivers, have fought against fingerprint check requirements across the country, and Lyft uniformly has declined to operate in cities that mandate them.

Austin already requires cab drivers to undergo fingerprint background checks.

Representatives for Uber and Lyft maintain that requiring fingerprint checks creates “friction” that substantially reduces their stable of drivers and hurts response time for customers. They also argue that such checks disproportionately and unfairly hurt people of color by focusing on arrest records rather than convictions.

Council Member Ann Kitchen, chairwoman of the council’s Mobility Committee and a staunch advocate of fingerprint-based checks, brought a new rhetorical weapon to the debate: Mike Lesko, deputy assistant director of the Texas Department of Public Safety and someone with a deep and technical involvement in background checks. Lesko was blunt in his assessment of which approach is best.

“The very most important thing is to have proper identification so you know who you’re actually talking about,” Lesko told the council. “That can only be done with fingerprint background checks. You can’t do it with name checks. … In the law enforcement community, we have seen that criminals have a tendency to lie. I know that comes as a shock.”

Lesko said that name-based checks of the sort that Uber and Lyft use can lead to “false positives,” meaning checks that wrongly report criminal entanglements for people with common names. Worse yet, he said, are the false negatives in which a person with a dangerous background somehow slips through the check.

Lesko said that the FBI, as a test, had done both fingerprint and name-based background checks on 690,000 people. In that analysis, 11.7 percent of those found to have had a criminal history through fingerprint checks didn’t show up as a problem in the name checks.

Debbee Hancock with Uber said in an email that the study was done in 1997, long before smartphones and other technology that might have improved name-based searches.

Adam Blinick, an Uber representative, said his company employs a “thorough, rigorous (background) process, much more rigorous than has just been described” by Lesko. The company, he said, employs a third-party company to check public records for arrests and convictions, going to every location where records indicate the person has lived.

Beyond that, Blinick said, the ride-hailing companies’ operating model contributes to safety because a rider can see the driver on their smartphone, and the driver’s cumulative rating by other riders, and the whole trip is recorded via GPS tracking.

Background checks, he said, are “only one part of a security regime. We are constantly collecting information about our driver-partners. I think we sometimes lose sight of the forest for the trees when we talk about background checks.”

The background check resolution passed Thursday on a 9-2 vote, with Council Members Don Zimmerman and Ellen Troxclair opposed. The measure also instructs city staff to study both kinds of background checks and offer a recommendation about what is best for the city.

The council, in a separate motion, voted unanimously to create an annual fee on ride-hailing companies — a first since the services began operating in Austin about 16 months ago. Under that resolution, also subject to change before a final vote next month, the companies would have the choice of paying 1 percent of their local gross revenue in a year, $450 for each driver working for them or a comparable amount based on the total miles of rides provided.

Representatives of Uber and Lyft, without being specific, have said they would accept some level of regulatory fee. But what the council approved Thursday, at least in concept, would force them to reveal their income in Austin, which the companies have resisted, or pay a set fee for each driver, many of whom provide rides only part-time. Uber, for one, has claimed to have 10,000 drivers in Austin. At $450, the same fee cab companies pay each year for each driver, Uber would owe $4.5 million a year.

That quandary led Zimmerman to propose the third option, a fee based on total miles driven.

As for which approach the companies might prefer, Kitchen said they were asked this quite some time ago and “we have gotten no definitive answer.”

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Local

Judge says Houston-area bail system unfair to poor offenders

A judge rebuked Houston-area authorities for imposing a bail system that’s unfair to people arrested for lesser offenses who are detained for long periods because they’re unable to pay for their release. The ruling Friday by Chief U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal was part of a lawsuit from a single mother who was held for two days on a...
One killed in rollover crash in Southeast Austin
One killed in rollover crash in Southeast Austin

SOUTHEAST AUSTIN EMS: 1 dead in rollover crash A man believed to be in his 20s was killed Saturday in a single-vehicle rollover crash in Southeast Austin, Austin-Travis County EMS reported. Medics responded to the crash near the 4400 block of East William Cannon Drive just west of the intersection with South Pleasant Valley Road at 3:52 p.m. The man...
Nonprofit serves up plates of would-be food waste to raise awareness
Nonprofit serves up plates of would-be food waste to raise awareness

As a live band played groovy music, Anna Santucci welcomed shoppers eyeing the spread of food at her booth in the Sustainable Food Center Farmers’ Market with the same greeting: “Hi, can I make you a plate?” she’d say, as she began filling a plate with greens, fruit salad, beans, guacamole, bread and crackers. The free meals...
Even 20 years on, everyone’s still a wiener at Buda’s dachshund races
Even 20 years on, everyone’s still a wiener at Buda’s dachshund races

“On your mark, get set … go!” As the gates on a grassy field in Buda City Park opened, seven tiny wiener dogs ran as fast as their little legs would take them into the open arms of their owners. This weekend marks the 20th year that the dashing dachshunds are competing against one another for a good cause at the Buda Lions Club Country...
EMS: One person killed in rollover crash in Southeast Austin
EMS: One person killed in rollover crash in Southeast Austin

A man believed to be in his 20s was killed Saturday in a single-vehicle rollover crash in Southeast Austin, Austin-Travis County EMS reported. Medics responded to the crash near the 4400 block of East William Cannon Drive at 3:52 p.m. The man was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash. Three others were involved in the crash but refused care or...
More Stories