we all inherited a system for 35 years that essentially gave the medallion to individuals to operate on their own. when we transitioned to something else, we have to respect the fact that no one had a choice in the matter in the way the system was previously. when the industry here is that we will only give you half the value of the medallion and charge a 30% fee on top of buying the medallion for $200,000, it shows you do not really respect us, our families, and the system we inherited. i am the first person to say we need to transition to a buy and sell system. i have been yelling and screaming that for years, but let's respect the industry smartly without throwing people under the bus. you're going to make $200 million. let's respect the existing medallion holders and the value that they have, and let's not

profiteer and basically charge someone 20%. it is unheard of. i have never heard of someone buying something for $300,000 and being told they will have to pay a 20% fee when they sell it again. no other city sells a medallion and gives a 20% fee. because it is perceived as if you want to profiteer on us. that is the problem. this is why this industry is upset -- no inclusion, no respect, and profiteering. thank you. [applause] >> [reading names] >> good afternoon, directors. mr. reiskin, i have a question. i do not know if you are allowed to respond. you are the director of the mta board of directors. have you ever gone to your computer and typed in a global search, the transfer fee on a

medallion in seattle or chicago or boston? have you ever done that? director reiskin: this is your time to talk to us. >> it is nothing close to 20%. the national standard is between 4% and 7%. this proposal plans to keep the profiteering status quo of 20% and act like you are bringing it down. it is ludicrous. it is crazy. if you want people to sell the medallions, they have to have some sort of incentive to do so. $150,000, $200,000 -- that is not enough money to retire on, frankly. it just will not happen. fáwhat is going to happen if you all vote on this is these old guys will hold on to this until the bitter end.

the mta is taking too much of a cut. there is no way to retire on that. what do you do when you are 70 years old and have $150,000? what if you live to be 100? finally, to the medallion holders in the room or those people on the waiting list -- put your medallion where your mouth is? you have jim gillespie from yellow cabs here, and i support what you're doing here -- tim gillespie from yellow cab -- jim gillespie from yellow cab. maybe it is time medallion holders put their medallion with their mouth is. director nolan: thank you. >> [reading names] our last speaker. director nolan: good. >> there just is so much to talk about.

this amendment is a 30-page document. it is pretty much impossible for us to have gone through this 30- page document and come up with any solution. i think you should reject this plan right now and have some town hall meetings where malcolm heinicke and director reiskin show up at the town hall meetings and listened to what the drivers are saying and their concerns. all the other plans we have discussed have included half the medallions at least going to those drivers on the list to have changed their lives. we've had no other choice. for the last 32 years, there was no other option. they have made these career choices, and you are just throwing them under the bus. as far as being assets to the city, that originated from prop. k which says taxicab permits are the property of the people and

city of san francisco and shall not be sold,, or transferred. the spirit of the statement was not to make them a revenue source for the city. it was to give them to taxi drivers and have them as a revenue source for taxi drivers. now the mta is competing with cabdriver's for the medallions themselves, who have been waiting all their lives for this promotion, and now the city wants to take that away and use it for their own revenue. the priority seems to be making revenue for the city and not fostering quality cabdrivers and encouraging cabdrivers to stay in the industry. there is not enough time to talk about this. it is why i think we need a better process than this. this was just sprung on us at the last minute. >> [reading names] director nolan: good afternoon.

>> i am a medallion holder. i have been a driver for many years. i do not get it. i do not get it at all. i do not see where the vision is with this. it seems like these are ideas that are just being thrown out there. i see nothing about any of this that has to do with customer service. it is not going to do anything for the customer that will better their service. at a time -- we are at a time where we have real competition. putting a heavier debt and charging more for a medallion just does not make any sense. from a business point of view, none of this makes any sense. shutting out the drivers that are on the list, cutting them out does not make any good sense at all, either. by adding medallions and bringing in drivers who are inexperienced, it will add to the problem we already have in

the industry. an experienced drivers. -- unexperienced drivers and a low level of service. the changing from "shall" to "may" is just an abomination. i do not know how i could look at bill, who i have known for 25 years, and who has changed his entire life to get a medallion, just to have it taken away like that. it is a shame. [applause] >> [reading names] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i always look at this as a celebration. a lot of people that had medallions that were not able to sell them or get any money for them -- now they are able to. if you take this whole deal about a lot of people who are

speaking up here are medallion holders -- when you look at the situation, medallions, when you have them, you just do not get them for free. you pay taxes on them all the time. when you purchase something, you get to have a right off on the interest that to purchase something, so i do not really see the difference in someone that is getting one for free or someone that is going to buy one because they are able to get to have that right off -- write- off. when you buy something, you have an interest write-off for it for an extended period fo time -- of time. people who have been wondering what they will do with their medallions -- now they have an opportunity to sell them and have something where they had nothing before. i think this is a good thing. i think it needs to be turned up

in some ways. raising the price, and lowering the fee could be looked at even more, but it is a movement towards the right way, the right direction. we need cabs on the street. we do not have any soldiers to fight these, and i hope you support these today and we move forward immediately. thank you. director nolan: next speaker. >> emile lawrence, and he is the last person to have turned in a speaker card. sfgtv will turn it on as soon as you start talking. >> callous disregard. it is notfá just the bus system. it is taxi drivers as a whole. i heard a lot of terms hear about more taxi service, and it is not clear to me exactly what that means. full-service cap companies -- i

thought they were all full- service cab companies. there is no definition of exactly what that means. someone earlier spoke about the new york taxi commission, but he left out the commission. we no longer have a taxi commission in san francisco. the assets of new york city are sold out right and trade like stocks. if you forgot, if you go back to 1978, so do the medallions in san francisco. they traded like stocks until they were manipulated into bankruptcy. that is what happened. those are the facts. if you look it over about the medallion program in san francisco, you see 5000ñr people that drive taxis. up to 3000 on the taxi list. what do you do? you shall or may consider people

on the list. i put in 14 years of making very little money only to find out, jt &e%ei the list, you were now going to sell them to the highest bidder, but they do not even have an asset. what they have is a permit, still controlled by the mta. still money going into your checking accounts and not ours. i thank you for your time. l!x>> the last person who has turned in a speaker card. is there anyone else who wishes to speak -- director nolan: ok, ok, ok, let's go. >> when i first came up to present, i was a little bit flustered. the whole procedure today was not really clear.

i was not aware i would be speaking because i did not see it on the agenda. there is a lot i could say and a lot of folks have already said. as an industry member, as a company owner, i want to say at the very least, you should postpone this vote until next meeting. the taxi advisory council has spent countless hours getting recommendations from people who have spent decades in the industry and know what they are talking about when it comes to what the industry needs. the reason i am asking you to postpone your vote is at the very least, this is the first you have received a draft of our proposal and our assessment. at the least, have a chance to read over that period i know that will be distributed to you soon -- at the very least, have a chance to read over th -- that. i know that will be distributed to you soon.

have a chance to read that over when considering all the lives of the people in this industry. as one speaker said, you have people who want to look with you, who want to cooperate with the mta and better in the industry. you have a lot of folks who want to impart knowledge on you who want to help you out so you can make better informed decisions. i think you should take advantage of that. director nolan: ok, the public comment period will be over if there is no one else who wishes to address the board. >> does anyone else wish to speak? director nolan: go ahead. >> today, i drove my full shift, and i had a really great day. i helped a little old lady in and 'q) calves, helped a blind guy get from point a to point b. fáit is a rewarding job, and i m

kind of glad to say that i made the decision that there's really not a future in this business for your average working person. that is what this amounts to. it is a nice job to have if you need to make a little bit of money and work on other things, and ultimately, that is what i have decided to do. in a couple of years that i have been attending town hall meetings and doing whatever i can, i feel that the agency and the industry -- it is an old cliche, but it focuses mainly on the cab companies and what is good for them, what is in the interests of the regulating agency and what obviously concerns the medallion holders. the majority of the business was made up of thousands of cabdrivers who were not medallion holders. for those people, there really is no future in this business.

i have decided that while i still am at an age where i have opportunity to go do something different, that is what i have decided to do. it has been a pleasure to serve you guys and come to these meetings and everything like that, and i hope that as you go forward, you will remember that most of this industry is not being represented here i hope you will consider that as your issue. i hope you will this vote of until the next meeting. >> anyone else care to address the board? >> that is the second time she has left me off and allowed me to speak. i steady -- studyied and talk

about it and if i have not been told greatly by my passengers, thanks for the education, you can call me a liar. this is not the mere factoid. the city of constantinople made it a lot outlying -- outlining the actions of politicians to garner favor with the use of illegitimate cherry drivers -- terry drivers. what you're doing is so profoundly wrong that it is common sense that you should not be doing what you're trying to do. it should not retire the list. you're trying to retool the san

francisco taxi industry after the new york model. those are the politicians that you are enabling. some of you are recognizable as republican in what your doing. you're buying of the people who have been involved. you should not be selling medallions at all. if you miss second we believe you must sell -- mistakenly believe you must sell, the city must be -- must not be collecting money. if you mistakenly believe you should collect more than a nominal fee or putting your agency in the probable legal risk and moral doom. the problem with your men meant as other people have pointed out is it sounds as though your tweaking matters before rushing them through. please go now against the material on your desk.

>> the public hearing is now closed. members of the board, we have two amendments. any comments? will go to the amendments. the first one if you will like -- would like to restate this. >> to amend the provisions related to the transfer or turning in, surrendering of them existing medallions. this would not affect subsequent purchases. the revenue share would be 2 #-- two-thirds of the purchase price. the remainder goingñ the second amendment --

>> lets do the first one. comments are questions? çó>> i will start. as a lot of people have pointed out, it does follow the guidelines we said in a pilot program which did seem to work really well. i think this is a good change to this proposal. i am hap,=p&e%ei >> all those in favor of the amendment? ayes have it. so ordered. >> this is on the eventual sale of the medallion which would happen after this initial transfer after a medallion is issued for sale when it is resold by the now-purchasing owner. it would change the transfer fee down to 20%. relatively consistent with the

pilot program. chairman nolan: the ayes have it. the recommendation as amended. >> i am happy to -- i have a question and comment. >> i will go ahead and start. and want to thank everybody who came here and spoke. is always amazing to me how much we do learn in this. i hear and i appreciate your call for us to delay a vote on this but this has been looked at, this has been under way for a long time. i feel like we do have enough information. we have looked at this enough so we can make a decision today. a couple things we talked about do stick out to me. the list is such -- is such a

huge topic and i appreciate hearing from those of you who showed up today who are on the list. it is helpful to hear that point of view. i like the idea of the>& downpayment assistance from the driver's fund going toward those drivers who are on the list. i understand that we could be changing the way that we're not giving or awarding the medallions to the people on the list with no cost but instead, we're helping people to finance the purchase of those medallions, the transfer of those medallions. it is -- is a big concern ended -- a lot of us have been thinking about that a lot. can i have someone explain to me what happens with the drivers fund? i understand with the first transfer of thexd medallion what percent goes to the driver's fund. what happens going forward? what is the future of the drivers fund? >> with the three-transfers

there is 5% continues to go to the driver's fund in terms of how the fund would be used. that is something that between the mta and industry has not been determined. there was an understanding that through these various processes, people or discussing today that there would be some -- we would arrive at some consensus on how the funds would be used. that has not happened today. the funds are accumulating. >> does the fund continued to accumulate after this first round of medallion transfers? >> every retrainnsfer. [unintelligible] >> 5% would go into the fund. >> what other -- one other i had

questions on. what happens with the folks on the list is somewhat of the elephant in the room. you have talked about addressing this point at a future topic at a future time. i would urge that that time be swift because like our friend in the red sox jersey, he will have to make a decision whether he buys a medallion which he will be eligible to do very quickly if this goes according to plan because we will follow the kehl list -- k list. if he could not wait to buy one, we should craft that quickly. under this plan he will be presented with the decision to buy rather quickly. depending on what we do with that decision that we just talked about, i, too, would favor looking at the use of the drivers fund for downpayment assistance. i suppose there is a concern

that fund could be dwindled for that but it would if there was -- if it dwindled by that, it would serve the people higher on the list by virtue of going down the list for sales. that is something we should look at. that certainly is something that our friends of the credit union or financing said it would appreciate. it should be used only for people who need the downpayment assistance. i would also say that the notions of having some group that runs it, having investment- grade accounts and having input on how the fund would be managed would be wise. turning to the bigger proposal, i favor it, which i am sure comes as no surprise. transition is difficult and we heard some of the growing pains that come with transition.

this is a proposal that will move the industry forward and it is a proposal that addresses many of the concerns we have heard. not perfectly but there can never be perfect dressing of all concerns. for drivers who are on the list , this creates a plan that will expedite the opportunity to purchaseq realize the significant financial benefit of that. i think it will also create a long-term plan for financing these medallions. thanks in large part to the folks at the credit union and the fact we have set a fixed price which in my opinion is lower than what the market price would be. for drivers who are higher on the list which is the most sensitive group i suspect here, i think i heard the chairman and the director say they will address how this is going to be looked at going forward. there have been some ideas talked about here and even if there are no such ideas, this

will expedite the chance for them to get a medallion. drivers who earn the right to buy that way. some proposals had seniority on the list being the determinant and i do not think that was fair. i think folks have ordered their lives and put their names on the list, those of the folks who should get the first opportunity to buy the medallion and that is the way the director has proposed this and i agree. for the bass group that is not here which is the citizens of tho ride cabs and people would drive the streets and people who take transit, this will create a meaningful exit strategy for older and disabled drivers who we have heard for years had no reason to give up their medallions or work unsafely driving the streets or committing waybill fraud or

both. this will create a revenue source for the mta. some people decry that but there are significant financial needs of this agency including tax enforcement and other changes that will allow taxis and other cars to move about the city more freely. to get to the point that one of the speakers made about the limited impact of service, this will allow us to have a stable system in place as we proceed to the extent where believe in the room -- reform package which is how we can assess whether we have enough taxicabs on the street how to meet the demand and how to meet the dispatch needs. i favor the proposal for all those reasons and would be happy to move at. chairman nolan: as the recession

-- a second? discussion? >> i thought a lot about the idea of of postponing this. i am not convince that more time will change a lot of this. the proposal allows for areas i am concerned about. ñiit is an important item. the drivers fund is something we have not paid nearly enough attention to and we should. i am ready to call the vote. all in favor? opposed? the ayes have it. we will come by the next items. 12 and 13. >> do we go to closed session first? >> item 12 makes -- amends

sections of the san francisco transportation code and that will not read through everything that it does. item 13 amends the transportation code and establishes fines for new violations of the code regarding motor vehicles for hire. >> are you doing a presentation? >> thank you. this is the same item that was before you in june. we heard a lot of concern from the industry over not having enough time to review and preliminary concerns. at your direction, we continue the item and went out and solicit feedback and our -- we're back with the revised item incorporating as much of that feedback as we thought appropriate. i do want to suggest one change. from what we propose based on some feedback we got subsequent