When state House and Senate committees each approved a bill to legalize ridesharing in Arizona last week, the committee rooms were eerily quiet and devoid of the hype that surrounded last year’s ridesharing bills.

There were no throngs of fired-up Uber and taxi drivers. No one in the crowd wore a pink mustache and the debate on the bills lasted only minutes.

That’s because after last year’s high-profile battle, which culminated in former Gov. Jan Brewer vetoing a pro-ridesharing bill that narrowly passed out of the Legislature, lawmakers and stakeholders have moved their squabble behind closed doors.

The bills approved by the committees were only placeholder measures, shells for future legislation that legislative leaders hope will lead to a compromise that leaves all parties happy.

Ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft connect regular car owners with people who need a ride via a smart phone app. The drivers are technically acting as pirate taxis under the law and until recently were fined by the Department of Weights and Measures, which regulates taxis. But Gov. Doug Ducey has signaled to lawmakers that he wants to allow the companies to operate in Arizona legally, and lawmakers are hoping to pass legislation that defines ridesharing companies as something other than taxis.

Republican Reps. Karen Fann and David Livingston are taking the lead on the rideshare issue this year.  Fann made it clear in her House Insurance Committee on Feb. 17 that the interested parties are not done negotiating and the strike-everything amendment she was proposing to the committee was not a finished product.

Fann began the meeting by noting that the amendment is just “the vehicle bill for our Über/Lyft/taxi insurance solution we hope we will accomplish this year and put this thing to bed and not have to ever bring this back again.”

She said stakeholders agreed to put forward the amendment to buy some time and get around this week’s committee hearing deadline, and that the amendment was also necessary to ensure the vehicle bill is germane to the fix they hope to propose later.

The bill passed through her committee with little fanfare and little opposition, as did another pro-ridesharing placeholder bill in the Senate Commerce Energy and Military Committee on Feb. 16.

Both committees heard from the main stakeholders on the issue: lobbyist Don Isaacson representing State Farm Insurance and other insurance companies, Uber Phoenix general manager Steve Thompson and Total Transit CEO Mike Pinckard.

Isaacson summed up the heart of the fight, saying it boils down to how the new services are insured, and finding a way for insurers to cover the so called “insurance gap.”

Rideshare companies have commercial auto insurance coverage when a passenger is in their car, but when they are not carrying a passenger, the insurance coverage is on the driver’s personal policy, which may not cover an accident because the car was being used for commercial purposes.

“The issues that ridesharing has caused is the insurance gap caused by a rideshare driver using a personal policy and then having the effect of turning that policy off. It creates a gap that has to be dealt with,” Isaacson said.

He noted that the biggest concern from the insurance industry is “walling off the private passenger auto policy” so it doesn’t cover ridesharing. Isaacson said there are alternative types of “rider” policies that can be offered and developed to cover ridesharing.

“We all know that has to be dealt with,” Isaacson said.

Fann said she plans to bring the amended bill back to the committee once it is finished.

Livingston said he thinks the legislation is “maybe 90 percent done” and a final version should be emerging soon.