because they have made back whenever they purchased a medallion for about twice a year. >> the new medallion holders are being asked to put in most of their income to pay off the loan. they could have been putting the money into a savings account. they can do it a lot easier than anybody else. drivers get no extra income and there are required to fulfill this requirement. i noticed on the new fines and penalties, the section for $75 for disabling security camera, there's a lot on california vehicle code that gives us the right to disable them. and the cameras, most of them don't comply with the law.

dr. the last person to turn into a speaker card -- to turn -- >> last person to turn in a speaker card. >> about the people waiting on the left of that have been largely ignored by the situation, of like to point out that they have made somewhere between $800,000 to $1 million. they are making about $3,000 a month without driving, so i have mixed feelings about it, but i don't think it is all that hair. as far as raising age, it was because the original aid was put at 60 in these meetings because of inaccurate information as to how many people will be hit on the streets.

you want to control the number of sales because of the destabilization of business if you have to many people. >> there may be some people that have not turned in cards. >> i work reflects our cabin. i want to remind the board that the pilot program was extraordinarily successful. there were no limitations or distinctions. what we were focused on was having an opportunity to have people and drivers that held the medallion over the age of 70 gracefully exit the system. there is a question to move the program forward. we believe the project was very successful and it is very reasonable to lower their raged to either six years 65, and we think there ought to be no distinction between the two.

it is a step forward and we urge you to continue that effort. >> let's make sure that we finished the public comment. it is closed. >> we are asked to approve the ordinance, and i support that. but before we vote on this, i want to ask what the objects and you had on these -- ha what is wrong with what we're doing? >> my main objection is that we have to -- we cannot measure the

quality of service by numbers. i believe we should provide service for all, and it is wrong. it doesn't make -- >> is their proposed amendment? >> let me ask a question, first. what is the value of keeping three k and post-k things separate. >> this is an interim measure, we're still waiting for the tax the advisory council to come out with the recommendation. we have beefed up the process so that we can come to our recommendations center.

in the meantime, we have a lot of eager medallion buyers, and we have run out of a medallion stock as well as there have been some people that have become disabled since the program has opened andrew want to give them an opportunity. the competing sides here, on the one hand we want to open up more opportunity for sellers and purchasers. every time we allow medallion to be transferred, the medallion will no longer be available for any other kind of long-term permanent solution to the discussions of the industry. this is intended to let off a little bit of steam to keep the pilot program going while we wait for a longer-term solution. rather than opening the door to wide, we wanted to open it a little bit without drawing any conclusions going forward as to what would be done.

this is just for the purpose of limiting the number of the die and that could be transferred to those where there is a very serious policy need and those who are driving that are over 65 years old. the pre-payment diana holders don't have a driving requirement, so there is less of a policy argument there. ultimately, what is the right policy? that is something we should look at and the long-term program. but in the short term, instead of prejudging what the outcome of the industry discussion is going to be, let's let a few more people through the door while with is that discussion. >> the worst case is that it would remove the number of medallions to be available for later sale? how many are we talking about? >> is about 300.

i would be remiss if i did not mention the financial considerations as well. if somebody were to sell them dianne, how the city would realize $37,500 in transfer fees. it is a terrible thing to say, but the way they have been circulated over the time is through death and revocation. if somebody were to pass away, it would be worth $237,500. if you're talking about the entire population, a value of $71 million and change. >> i have heard people said that we only allow pre-k to sell them, is that true?

>> that is correct, in the first iteration of the pilot program that we have only opened in the last 18 months. we're still trying to proceed with caution and i don't think 18 months of experience over the last 33 years as necessarily precedent-setting one way or the other. during the first round, those that elected the medallion older qualify were allowed to sell. others have chosen not to. >> of the clear message coming out of this that we're hearing, i think, that this board is communicative before is what we need to do is bring pilot programs to an end and have a permanent program. that you're doing the best you can to move this through, so start with that. what we should not do as incrementally make policy with a

pilot program expansion and a pilot program expansion. we need a permanent program of transferability up and running. the way we will have a program for everybody with clear rules and clear understanding. this program today is by name and intent, and pilot program. for me, the purpose of this pilot program was to see that if we sold a medallion, it would have some unforeseen effect on customer service or regulation. that, to me, was the purpose of this pilot program. guess what, the sky hasn't fallen and we know we can go ahead with this in a regimented manner and we do not have, we don't think, a real effect on customer service and there may be some benefits. there were some and that the hud

program was designed also, to let off some steam and deal with the retirement issue. it had the added benefits. but i have doubts about expanding this to 65. i think we have done the pilot program and it has served us the main goal that we were after as i understand it, to see if we can get to a permanent program of transferability to everyone. i understand staff is proposing 65 for some of the driving reasons that we have talked about, some of the disability reasons we have talked about, and to give us a little more comfort, it will work as we spend the next few months getting a permanent program on. i would not favor extending it

passed what staff is recommending. i think we need stability, we have many medallions left, we have to have a way to deal with people on the waiting list. i agree that some of the speakers that proposition k has failed. but we have an obligation to those people, as well. we take away our ability to deal with people on the waiting list. and time that we have been told to turn over every rock, he really limit our ability to recognize revenue for the citizens of san francisco. >> when is it likely they will come forward to his body with a recommendation for a permanent plan? >> are we talking a couple of months? >> i believe we can do it at the beginning of the year. and let's say february.

>> let's be clear, we have discussed this. if we were to pass this expansion of the pilot program as you're talking about, how many medallions would be eligible for transfer? >> there are 365 medallion holders between the age of 60 and 70, 135 between the age of 65 and 70. it would be some lesser amount of that number. because we offer the opportunity to sell, some will not. the dye and represents a monthly financial benefits that some people don't want to lose. >> i can see for the benefit of serving that same retirement interest that we talked about before, people that are 65 and

over or people that of become disabled, the opportunity to further this pilot. leader recognized, and i said with some doubt either way. i want to be deferential to the staff and understand the considerations that have gone into this. beyond that, we need to recognize that this is a pilot program and that we will have, in a matter of a few meetings, a permanent program that we can implement and i would urge that we look forward to that in the limit but while the project. >> the timeline you're suggesting changes the view of this. a few months is quite a different matter. it seems to me that stability is really important. i think we're very close.

>> i want to make sure that everybody is clear. i think there are people in this industry that don't want to be here. that is very clear to me. i want those people out had to be able to buy their way out or sell their way out. i want people who are committed to the industry, committed to serving the public, because that is what i am concerned about. the people that want to get out, let them get out. and there are a number of people that can do that. i do not think that putting any lead on the console and who can buy does any good.

i would like to see a permanent program that allows whoever wants to get out to get out. >> i don't want to dwell on his point, but i agree that this was supposed to be a pilot program. you're telling me the pilot program would be in effect for a few more weeks, basically. and you will turn around and have a permanent program in place. doesn't it make sense to put through all of these changes when you're going to turn around and implement a permanent program? >> it is not looking to buy time parameter. it is when we get through the medallions that are part of the pilot program. so we have gotten through the privately sold medallions of any buyers willing to sell at this point. excuse me, and the sellers.

and we have also run out of medallions that were in the possession of the mta. we have no more to sell except that we continue, under the pilot program, we remain with the obligation of giving 25 more medallions to the list and we can sell about 25 more. we have sold about 30, and we have given away about 30. the pilot program will continue until those medallions that come to us through death or revocation meet that 60 and 60 requirement. there is no time limit. it will just continue until it runs its course. meanwhile, we have probably over 1000 taxi drivers that are eager and willing to purchase, and have no more medallions to sell.

one of the things that begin this discussion, the people that have become disabled since the pilot program opportunity closed, we want to allow those people to exit the industry before the conditions make life very difficult. >> a couple people referenced we could use 100 new cabs today are 500. what is your take all that? dodge that is a loaded question. >> if we increased demand for taxis by making them more reliable, it is a circular thing. if you call a taxi and you know what is going to arrive, you're going to leave your car at home because it is getting more and more expensive and unpleasant to try to park.

so if you can rely on that service, you will use that service. i believe that if we change the culture into one that is more of a taxi culture, we could use 500 more taxis. you can't put 500 new taxes on the street immediately, first of all. but i think we could use more, especially with america's cup coming up. i won't talk about it because it is not the agenda, but there are other options available that we can explore in the near term. >> by the way, we are in the process of looking into this more scientifically to get a precise answer. that answer will be coming back soon speech to the fact that we a permanent system for the medallions in place so that it is in place and before we start adding cabs if that is what is

going to happen which firmly believe is what is going happen. my personal view on this, i would not scream and cry if we didn't extend to the pilot program at all except maybe to drivers that have become disabled, but i understand the staff proposal is to expand to 65 and over and people that become disabled. i want to live with that on the understanding that what we need is a permanent proposal and the next few months. with that, i move it. >> my only concern is exclusion. the pre-k. if you're going to run a billy ran the first pilot, it should be run the same. the to exclude one group. >> of the thinking is that there is a lot of consideration to way. what is not putting too many medallions toward sales to quickly before we have a long-

term solution. >> you're still going to manage it, aren't you? >> no. if we open the pilot program up, anyone can sell them at allen which they currently do not have the sale writes for. they can get 80% of the revenue with the city getting 15. the argument here, to meet, and the main policy is for the pilot program approved or strongly show that selling medallions won't affect customer service. the only real policy and this i can see for expanding the pilot program is to allow drivers that a 65 and older or become disabled to get off the streets so they don't have to be risking their own and others' safety. essentially, we would be taking the medallion at some point and that would come back to the city

for a full sale value and transferring the transfer right to the holder of that. i don't see the policy impetus for it and see the financial detriment to it. >> the pre-k owners are earning in the interim. >> we have a motion on the floor, but is there a second? >> is there a second to the motion? i will second the motion. >> i have the same concern, still. >> any further discussion? i think we need a roll call on this one. [roll call vote]

that is four votes, the item is adopted. >> to me, what is persuasive is the notion that the permanent program will be back here in a very short time, so that is a very persuasive argument. >> it would be appropriate for discussion to conduct a closed session. >> second. >> a closed session.