aside from the past we give them as employees. i would rather take away parking for our employees. we cannot expect them to operate out of higher lovell than we expect community members, the most vulnerable members of our community, that are having to find a way to get home from work at 2:00 in the morning, standing on market street waiting for a bus. it is challenging, and i think it is important to understand all our employees understand the challenges, and we get free consulted because our colleagues are understanding what it is likely to be a burden trying to get around after hours, so i want to make sure i convey the.

i think that is all i need to stay for now. i think we have given it another direction. good >> you have not heard from me. >> you did not mean to suggest that our service was shoddy. >> i have been there. the only thing i sense a conflict of opinion is this concept of not paying into the rainy day fund and recognizing that we are in on a horrible scenario right downow worse than any of us has ever seen, i think we have gotten unique challenges our generation has never seen, and i think it would be prudent to make sure we can sustain as much as possible,

because i do not want to make it in a harder -- any harder. my brother was out of work for a year-and-a-half. i know what it is like to suffer and to pay more. it does not feel morally right to support something like the offering funding. thank you for much. >> thank you for your thoughtful comments. ithe bagging thing --i think there should be a place holder in the event of whatever that is does not have been sufficiently for this revenue source.

all the other things are fine. i am still out somewhat of an open mind for employees. i think said points have been made -- i think points have been made about the city. i am concerned about the end of the trial. that would be a very difficult problem two years from now if we find special sources of property and they are gone. two points are raised. 1 is a college student talked about how difficult is that your

your have 60 or 78. i will look forward to the financial analysis that will come from this. i came up with about $20

million. the most controversial was extending parking nights and weekends. if that is around $10 million, the only thing we have left is our serious service costuts. it was awful. i hated to do that. i would rather have qualities service people can depend on as opposed to promising things way beyond our means. i think we need to keep up in mind. i want to say i have great faith in the project as it goes

forward no longer range. gooit would be very exciting, ad if we could go to 9 miles per hour we would be saving $7 million a year. >> can i asked about the cash fare increase? >> not too excited about that. >> can we circled back. it did not seem that was thought controversial. there was a gentle man who made a comment if we are going to have leaders were you can pay to park $8 an hour, about this not

about revenue generation. i was speechless. of course it is about revenue generation. they are there to help the businesses make revenue. there are parking meters commo,f we were to turn our backs, that is not making wise use of our resources. i think it was pretty universally accepted at the stakeholders meeting, and the thing that is going to be

interesting about sunday is those parishioners are probably going to be able to park closer than they are right now. and i think it is going to be easier. i do not want to be shy about saying we use parking meters to generate revenue, because we do in your gut -- because we do. that is part of the reason we are there. the parking policy has to sit with our goals overall, but i feel like it those who regard -- i feel like it does. i feel like there is going to peace enforcement we have not had before.

people say they are going to church. they are going to the church of yoga and to get a two-thirds. if the leaders are working on sunday we are going to have turnover on the legal spot, and we can cut our on illegal spots. everytime i see that i think about how many trips we are facilitating. that is another reason i am really interested. the other one, a citation increase to offset a court house sefee. is it up to $5 for a citation,

and is our total impact 3 million? >> here is what happened to reagan -- here is what happened. my understanding is we have passed through $1 of six. -- $1 of it. we are assuming not to have thought, so if we were to increase the citations by $2 but would be $2.4 million to close. there was a second court house the we were not aware of secure a good -- but we were not aware of. we have not assumed, so if we

were to pass through the additional $3, that will leave us even if your ego -- even. i just want to clarify i do not think we currently have indexing for parking citations, and that is something we discussed a little bit this morning. that is something i would recommend we do apart from whether we do the pass through. there was some discussion, that by not passing it through you

sometimes obscure the impact of the state legislature for the individuals. there was even discussion about indicating this it -- indicating it. there is an argument to be made in the other direction, and there is a cap, so it could not go on forever. i>> i thought we had an across- the-board index policy. >> we have not been applying anything on the parking side, because we did come to indexing. a discussion the you did not want to raise the citation.

>> before we get to what we did last year, two years ago we work closely to pass and indexing policy. five does apply to parking citations, but last year we chose not to make what was a small increase. i think the reality is it is going to be very minimal, but if we are applying indexing through fare increases, i think it is fair to apply to the parking citations, and one reason i supported the index policy is it

allows for small increase thossd what creates a promise but is all we are going to do. i think this is a much more regularized way, so i do not mind indexing the citations for indexing the fares, so that is what the policies as we are supposed to do. good >> you said there is a ceiling? >> i believe it is generally $100, so some of our citations are already of the cab region -- already at the cap, so we stop there. and >> do you have any comments at this point?

>> i the guy got a good direction of -- i think i got a good direction of where people are out. gjust to remind that our current budget while we are locked in in terms of the labor agreement, the other half of the workforce agreements are open, and we will be negotiating them. we have correctly assumed no concessions of any sort that the contribution they made before would be restored.

it is possible there would be a gap to close for labor recessions. >> that does not mean we resign ourselves to the fact there will not be concessions. >> thank you all for a thoughtful discussion. do we have anyone who wishes to speak? >> he asks about 10.2d, but i am not sure if he is still here,

>> i am simply speaking on the item. you may be doing that at this time. >> which one are you talking about right here? >> the item having to do with the u-turn at -- in front of ucsf. hillway -- and it was described by barry in the hall. i understand that we get rides on the other side of the street. it is difficult on the other side of the street. he would request you do not go forward with this. >> members of the board, are there any questions on the

consent calendar. >> i am waiting for public comment. >> we are not there yet. >> that was item 10.2 s. public comment -- >> is there any further discussion? moving this forward, the consent calendar is approved. >> we do have some people have turned in speaker cards. brad dushemnushem, brad nuberg >> mr. gruberg? >> okay. >> thank you. mark gruberg. i think you realize that there were a lot of cabdrivers who wanted to speak.

and -- the way that the meeting went, they were unable to do this. i hope that i reflect the sentiments of many of them. listening to these budget discussions is kind of scary for someone in our position. it makes it very clear that this agency is a very hungry animal. we're finding different -- you are finding ways to extract money from us. selling the dalliance and the direct medallion sales, single- operator permits, that have not yet been implemented and now we have this proposal to lease one- third of the fleet, to cap companies, and this is going to have a tremendous impact on taxi

drivers, with 500 medallions going to cap companies, and it means the 500 drivers will not get a medallion. this is worse than taking their money, it is robbing them of their future, of any reason to remain as a cabdriver. this will be a dead-end job for many of these people. he would be condemning them to the tender mercies of corrupt cab companies, and you are going to be selecting which companies are the winners -- and they will further dominate the industry. and it -- is wrong in so many respects, that i would ask that this be completely withdrawn, and reformulated. thank you. >> next? >> herbert weiner, for --

>> that is a highlighehter for what the cab drivers think. i have been idealizing -- the same thing that happens to us is happening to you. the demand keeps growing and you have to divide this, and we're going to go for sources of revenue, and what we have seen is, -- we would give everything to you if this is enough for a good reason. that would be fine with us. but this will not solve the problem. you have to look at the gauges

that you were working on, laziness and productivity, creativity. and we did the demonstrations, with the 600 cabs circling for the first time. if i was in your shoes i would possibly do the same thing, try to go for the bigger pie. but the thing is, with any of you laid down, and see that others are making twice as much as you, and let people walk over you, so the next step would be to keep you off our shoulders. people are ready to put 200,000 -- 1000 if they have to, the 200

should do this. to put this on the ballot and get you out. this is not the first time in the history. then it -- the american indians were destroyed and some way different groups have been destroyed and we don't want to end up like this. >> thank you, so much. you need to save money to upgrade your system or the people who pay more money to pay for the system -- you think about these own district and the system -- most of the people cannot go from union square to sunset. they walk from the tender line, to go to some kind of area -- so with every zone you only have a couple of bus stops.

they want the free passes and everything. if you lived in cambodia or bangladesh they don't have food to eat. they will look at this and tell me that we miss the turn. today, kids are very spoiled. if you feed them they will come to you every morning. the medallion is good and people need a job. if you choose a cab co. -- if you use a driver you allow them to sub-lease. this is in order to avoid the abuse of medallions. they could not least this out, with another driver to make money. this is also good for the public. this zone is very important. you have to learn about the high

spot, and we're making money on the chinatown and union square. you have a couple of bus stops and that is all. people don't mind walking three or four blocks. i want to go to sunset -- or to richmond. this is good because the kids are too fat, they gain weight in the e to good. thank you. >> david snyder? >> the is not here? >> >> good evening. >> there were no cards here. i am barry korngold. i am on the taxi advisory council. i came down here even though i know you are not talking about tax the items, but i know in the future you will talk about what

to do with medallion reform, and i wanted to say that won't -- although the industry needs regulating, and you have been given the task of regulating the industry, there is a big difference between making things fair and safe, and going into the business of the taxi business, of selling or leasing the dalliance. and when you do this for every medallion that he sell out right, this is coming from some career cab driver who has sometimes waited decades, taking all the risks of being on the road, all of the stress coming from that, there are a lot of things that i don't think any of you really understand because you have not driven a cab. this does not make you wrong, i am just trying to make you aware of that. this has been the practice of

san francisco four years, to have these medallions going to working cabdrivers. it has been thrown about that you would lease them to the companies, they will not be going to working cabdrivers. so this system has kept a lot of good drivers in the industry. i would like to think i am one of them who have stuck around because i was going to get a medallion, because the list you to a management level, with more respect. i am asking you not to do that because it will lower the quality of cabdrivers and you will have problems you are not expecting. >> thank you. >> are we ready for adjournment? we will stand adjourned until march 20. thank you all.