already $107. we have added up in the last 10 years, tens of hundreds of millions of dollars to their pocket. everything can be handled. no electronic waybills, please. >> my name is tong lee. i am a taxicab driver. drivers buying medallions are so happy. a lot of drivers regret they did not sign up to buy. all of the drivers are going to be guilty. a lot of drivers drive more than the hours you regulated. also, we are very scared and afraid of this electronic waybill to affect our job flexibility, and also a lot of

things. i would install a wire to your bank account and install a gps in your car. we would track all of your activities. i think all of the government's cars should be installed with gps and track the activity they make. a lot of government officers use their high-priced car and gasoline to go to their own personal parties. we use our own gasoline. what about wikileaks? how much damage did that make for america. all this information is good and bad also. could end up with our own weapon because some enemy knows our defense system and should sit at

our own hands. that is so scary about electronics so far. a lot of things are good. an electronic waybill -- we are not ready. i asked a lot of drivers. thank you so much. >> i am not sure what you decided. you decided to talk about electronic waybills? generally speaking, that was the intent. ok. basically, this thing has been discussed and discussed, a lot

of these details in here. i think it is time to actually do something. the change about this from 21 is pretty silly. nobody would insure a driver for 21. otherwise, i think this is about time to go forward. thank you. >> jim gillespie. >> commission director, i am the general manager at yellow cab. my comments are going to parallel the issues that are on there. with newer cars and hybrid cars, there is a lot of demand being put on the industry that costs a lot of money. the companies, the medallion holders, continued for the last

two decades. the staff of the texas division -- their salaries are funded by medallion renewal fees. burkhart dispatch renewal fees. the reason i bring this up is we now have the sale of medallions that is raising up several million dollars going to the mta. my understanding is that 20% of it is going into the texas division. it seems to be some percentage that should be designated to that. our fees have basically tripled in the last few years. our renewal fees are up to $1,200 because we are the only funding source for the texas division staff -- for the taxi

division staff. you're passing things that could be good for the industry. it does create a financial burden on us. we appreciate these several million dollars coming to the agency. some percentage of it could be directed to taxes, to relief of the fees we are paying. i would take it away and bring it back to what it used to be. thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been asked to speak on behalf of arrow cab company. let me address the electronic waybills implementation. we are not against that. however, it is a significant change, a paradigm change in the

way of reporting on waybills, both in proceeding and purpose. therefore, we think it is going to take some significant amount of time to adapt and understand how it works and how it is going to not work, possibly. we are asking for a significant window of time for implementation, sort of a beta test for some of the equipment before we are formally required to have it. for instance, pushing it to september before it is actually required. there may be legal implications. a lot of the electronic waybill information should be solely for the purpose of the taxi director, and not for the company. if there is some way to fire wall that provided for that reason, i wanted to go to the

gas and gates issue for seller'' down payment. i think it should be a set amount of time rather than and tell payment in full is made, because i forget what the reason was. it seems to me it was to serve also the purpose of addressing losses to the company caused by the sale and transfer of medallions to long-term leases and affiliate's status. this preserves -- and i out of -- am i out of time? >> i am the general manager from sf green cab and the president

of a company called affiliated taxi services. i also sit on the taxicab advisory council. i fully support this. i think it is a great thing. there is a lot of misunderstanding of the technology. the technology at green tab -- we've been using it for over a year now, fully implemented. we are using almost all of these ordinances and drafts. at this point, we are falling behind. i think that this draft as it is will bring a result. i fully support this. >> the last speaker who turned in a card is hans kim. >> i am speaking on behalf of the san francisco taxicab coalition. i have come in front of the many

times. i have criticized the agency where i think it makes mistakes. when it comes to tax the issues -- taxi issues, you have not given strong leadership in a difficult industry. we have had very strong managers dealing with these issues concerning the problems starting with the paratransit debit card project. you have handled this with great leadership in a very difficult area. one thing that you provided that i have never seen in my time in the taxi industry is a forum in which drivers and companies can talk about their issues. what has come in front of you today has been vetted through the industry over and over again, every issue. what you are seeing here is

resistance to those that have come from a legacy system, where medallions were given away to individuals. we have companies and drivers that do not want accountability. they want to be able to not drive and still get their medallion. companies want to be able to pretend medallion holders are driving. this give the tools for accountability that is not only needed for this industry to create an even playing field amongst all taxi drivers and cab companies that is long overdue. now that you have a system of buying and selling the balance, we have committed people to be in the taxi industry, it is all the more necessary to put in rules like this that create a fair and even playing field. you will always get resistance from members of this industry who want no accountability. these rules bring it. thank you. chairperson nolan: we have three

suggestions here about keeping the age of 21 instead of raising it. do you want to say why? >> i think we have heard a great deal about the situation. we are making changes in an industry that has operated largely in the same way for decades now. we are making some changes. another is this issue of electronic by bills. you have heard a couple of public, enters speak to how that process is fraught with some issues -- public commenters speak to how that process is fraught with some issues. we can easily evaluate whether you have driven under the requirements currently under law.

>> they will not be able to get insurance and will not be able to drive. we moved it back to 21. chairperson nolan: is there a second on that motion to keep the age 21? all those in favor? ok. on the way bills and credit cards. >> generally, i love technology. technology is not always our friend. anytime i get a document that i have not even gone all the way through -- is enormous document. it is not a matter of i did not

have the document, but there are so many parts to this document that even i, going through it -- i am miserable comprehending why this is here. the whole issue of the credit card processing to do the back seat swipes -- i think there are some companies who are not being complaint against by their drivers who should be given the opportunity to say, "i want to do this. let me do it my way."

i know that that is not really the way this is going to go. i think electronic waybills are the way to go. whether you like it or not, that is going to happen, probably sooner than later. those are not the issues i am really dealing with. i am dealing with issues of third-parties getting the 5% or 7%. some companies are saying this should be able to charge that to drivers and keep the money to help the operation. i am listening to company heads who told me they do not have any

problem with their drivers objecting. in those instances where we do not know that the drivers are really having problems with the way they are being treated by the managers, why do we have to force a third party to do the cards for five%. -- for 5%? chairperson nolan: are you requesting a delay what you have more information? >> i have other ideas we might consider. >> you said two issues, but i heard the issue of the external charging for the credit card. but i also heard director oka

say he is ok with the way bill. director oka: that is going to happen anyway. the credit card drivers -- companies not being able to keep -- >> i apologize for jumping through your comments. when you said it would happen would you like it or not, if you ever run for lieutenant governor, we will see that in your commercials. director oka: i do not intend to run for that. >> the actual credit card fee, whether it is the owners or the drivers who are paying for it -- that is not before you today. you i did on a previous meeting. as we bring that decision and issue back before you, and how it is being administered and impending drivers -- i think we can bring that back in terms of

revisiting that decision. but that is not in the package you have before you. chairperson nolan: if we pass the package today and then come back with a report on that? >> with that, we have heard two sets of concerns. one is that there has not been time to provide input. i am always sensitive on that, but that is a reason we have continued this and send it back to the advisory council. i think there has been sufficient time for members of the industry. i am sorry about that, but we made an effort. i come back to the comment that there is a lot of important stuff we need to get moving on i think these technological updates are important to the industry. i think that are important to better the industry and make

consumers and drivers better. i would move this item. chairperson nolan: is there a second? can we do this with the understanding that directors oka's concerns will be addressed? >> that will be in the march meeting. chairperson nolan: we have a motion and a second. the ayes have it. >> item 13, approving amendments to transportation code to establish a vehicle from a parking on designated sfmta property unless such vehicle displays bella proof of payment, and to establish a citation penalty amount.

chairperson nolan: let us hear from members of the public first. >> rafael cabrera and art gonzalez. >> i am bob plant-holtz. i can to express concern about this item. i do not think all the details were made clear and specific. i suggest this process is not fair the way it is drawn up. it is my understanding that may be 30% of the operators, and maybe some other employees, either start their work shipped before transit starts or and the shift after transit and. there is no way they can get to or from their work site except by driving, whether or not they live in san francisco. a substantial percentage of the

employees have to drive. it seems unfair to charge them, when they do not have an option beyond that. from all the riding i do on transit, i have some operators say, "so and so is going to take my shift tomorrow." if you give passes to those who have an unusual work shift, what do you do when people switch shifts? there are a lot of details that make this hard to simply require everybody to pay. it is not a 9 to 5 job. it is a 24 hour cycle of work. in these situations, how can you charge some and not others? how can you charge all, when some have no alternative? i suggest this needs to be more carefully thought out and made public. >> rough idle -- rafael

cabrera. >> good afternoon, chairman nolan, board of directors. my name is rafel cabrera. i am the union president. i have some issues. if i am not mistaken, this is a continuation from the board meeting january 18, 2011. if i am not mistaken, this item is before you to vote on it. if that is the case, why is that there is a bulletin that an problem would begin. so -- so how can you -- without

the approval of the m.t.a. board of directors. not only that how can you set it up without meeting with concern with this local? until today, i received the -- what is it called? the employee parking proposal. this is the first time i seen it. i have issues with it. not only that, i hope you have seen this -- this paperwork. they talk about 2000. we're in 2011. when they say the privilege of tree parking encourages employees to drive alone, let it be [unintelligible] 3:00 this the morning. some of us get up late at night. we got 24/7. but still the process has been violated and we demand that you

stop this nonsense. we need to meet and confirm on issues. if this is a good example that including the board has been bypassed. >> mark gonzalez. >> good afternoon, president nolan and board of directors. i agree with the previous speakers. the workers that repair the vehicles come in at all hours of the night. we prepare the cable cars and -- when the system stops at 2 or 3:00 in the morning. no way for the employees to go there. but a bigger problem yet at our contract this past practices has parking available in it. it is not a meet issue, it is contractual. we signed the contract. it is the contract they signed which they seem to do regularly and don't want to meet with us

over the things they sign in the contract, then that's a bigger problem. the signed contract that says people have parking. and then to ignore that and employees coming in all hours of the night and day that -- that don't work those hours and can't afford to live in the city. i wish the guys could live on cesar chavez and enjoy the things you presented today. they can't afford it. they live outside the city and have to commute in. it is not like they could come together and meet in one place or anything like that. they work all kind of different shifts in different areas. i wish you guys would respect that and look at that. >> thank you. next speaker. >> the last speaker on this matter. >> thank you, directors. the -- i understand that the parking comes with the -- with the union contract. if you don't honor your union contract, this is really

improper use of political process. this is not the place -- you don't say, we -- we signed our names over there but over here we're going to work it out some other way. that's just rotten. the other thing i like to point out is that -- the wording of this item is boilerplate. it is not possible to read this and know that you're talking about taking a parking place away from people. it sounds like you're trying to charge for space that is yours. that sounds reasonable. if it doesn't sound like what -- what it says, then what you have is -- is a wicked cipher with no difference between word and deed. i really am disappointed to see this kind of boilerplate put in front of the public. thank you. >> there's one more. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. thank you so much. members of the board of

directors. my name is kevin luse. i'm business representative with local number six. regarding item 13, speaking in opposition. as far as equitable treatment goes, we say if we charge the public for parking, why don't we charge the employees that provide parking to the public? as far as -- as far as the reason why they should -- public transit employees should be treated differently is they don't have a choice. as far as transit first policy, we encourage the public to utilize transit. as an employee you may not have the selection, due to the fact that you're off, off peak as it relates to your ability to travel to work. that is an exceptional and unusual circumstance as it relates -- in my mind as it

relates to transit employees in particular. in addition if you're a city employee who provides public education at unified or community college sdefwrict, you don't have to pay to park. if you're employed by the city and county of san francisco, the city doesn't seek two extract revenue from you to provide the public service. yet if you're a public transit employee, you're expected to be held to the public standard versus the other similar situations of public employees. with respect to collective bargaining agreements, i believe that the terms of the collective bargaining agreements will trump, i suggest if you haven't got an opinion from council -- counsel you seek that. and then also look for a cost-benefit analysis. if it hasn't beep done as it relates to -- been done, cost to install, implementation. the impact on adjacent neighborhoods, because you're going to have impacts on

adjacent neighborhoods as it relates it -- relates to -- >> that it? >> yes. >> i guess you have something to talk about. >> thank you, chairman knollalen. the speakers have raised a number of good points here. in fact what the m.t.a. board is being asked to vote on today is in fact a modification of -- to the transportation code, which will prohibit any nons.s.m.t.a. property on a s. is s.m.t.a. property unless it pays $55 for a violation. that's a narrow description of what we're being asked to adopt here today. i'm okay with adopting that narrow language with the very important caveat and that's that the -- the motion would be amended as such that under no

circumstances will this action by the board violate any collective bargaining agreement and is signed by the m.t.a. of the city and county of san francisco. >> second to that? >> seconded. >> discussion on the amendment? >> is there a staff reaction to that? is that acceptable to -- >> to the board. >> we're -- we're not in the business of -- of breaking contracts. >> you're just making explicit -- what we anticipate happening. >> make it explicit. >> absolutely. >> and the issues raised. >> to be a part of the motion. >> i just want to make sure that doesn't give the impression that we assume that contract will complaint to have that parking in it going forward iner. tutey, but it would always be up for renegotiation. >> assume that's correct. >> that's correct.