with the para transit being limited to $2, some of that work for people who actually have a good heart and see the value in doing that are being disincentivized by taking the medallions away from the drivers. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker. >> [speaker not understood] mahmoud, [speaker not understood]. i'd like to speak at the last. >> who is next? >> mark gruberg. >> mr. gruberg. thank you again. mark gruberg. i'd like to echo some of the comments of the previous speakers, particularly mr. rathbone who is a manager at the company that has the most ramp taxis in the city and has the most to gain from the issuance of ramp taxi medallions to cab companies. and yet clearly recognizes the main incentive for a driver to

drive the ramp taxi, to continue driving a ramp taxi is the possibility of gaining a ramp taxi medallion. and although this legislation doesn't preclude the issuance of ramp taxi medallions to drivers in the future, it's certainly, certainly points away from it. and i would urge you very strongly. leave this door of opportunity open for drivers. too many other doors have been closed to them. i also have to say that i oppose further leasing of medallions. i know that it's in the agency's financial interest to do this, but i think that the agency's financial interests too often have been trumping the interest of drivers, the interest of companies and the interest of the public. so, i'd urge you not to do that. and lastly, let me just say on behalf of green cab that if

medallions are issued to cab companies, these ramp medallionses, i hope they're not. but if that happens, a reading of this legislation tells me that green cab will be forever precluded from getting any of them because we don't have any ramp medallions right now. we're fairly young company. we haven't taken any in, i can explain various reasons for that. but the way this is written, these ramp medallionses can only be issued to companies with an exemplary service to the wheelchair community and that would preclude our company, any other company that doesn't have ramp medallions from ever getting one. >> thank you, mr. gruberg. >> [speaker not understood], mohammed, mary mcguire. good afternoon, ms. mason. good afternoon, commissioners, heidi mason. first i want to applaud the proposal to allow all ramp medallion holders to be able to purchase the regular medallions at half price.

i believe that will be a great change and i think that will be appreciated by many people in the industry. second, i am troubled by the provisions on leasing back to the taxi companies. and if i could maybe turn your attention to page 5 of the staff memo, and this is in the penultimate paragraph that says that staff will choose companies to lease based on demonstrated performance. well, the price transportation pays, this approach may be putting the cart before the horse. i would urge you to instead put in place some standards for companies so that they -- companies have a fair opportunity to compete for those lease backs. i think that there was a bit of process that was skipped over here and i urge this commission to ask that question and to reject this proposal either in

part or in whole until the standards have been put in place. thank you. >> thank you, ms. mason. next speaker. >> mohammed, followed by mary mcguire, and bruce oka. >> good afternoon. i'd like to [speaker not understood]. i'd like to draw your attention to [speaker not understood] taxi in 1994 [speaker not understood] temporary with six medallionses. and no one knew it's worth trying. some driver stepped in and partnered with the yellow cab and invested some money and purchased vans and equipment. the incentive was that they will get their chance to get their regular medallion sooner down the road. but that didn't happen.

sometime sfmta took over the taxi industry, thing get better, too. also a -- although they continue to serve the community and put some sacrifices. for example, they kept pushing [speaker not understood] event because they [speaker not understood] costs. and they spent more [speaker not understood]. no hybrid or energy vehicle for taxi. they prioritized the [speaker not understood] customers, they go across town to pick up customer. they turn down other business, and then they spend more time to load, unload, [speaker not understood] without extra compensation. and then the sfmta put more burden on them by asking them to pick up more wheelchairs, eight wheelchairs a minimum a

month without [speaker not understood] the sacrifice they are being put into. i think the problem is because we did not recognize that this driver put a lot of sacrifice because they're waiting for one day to get their medallion. [speaker not understood], asking us to put -- push [speaker not understood]. in one hand -- >> thank you, yeah. i'll wrap real quick. they gave medallion to driver who didn't put them on the list and then punishing [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. mary mcguire followed by bruce oka and then jacob madel. >> good afternoon, ms. mcguire. good afternoon, mary mcguire, taxi driver. they are leasing the rent

medallions to the cab companies. i'm concerned about how, how this will impact the service. now, it's a current standard of 8 wheelchair pick ups a month. that is not very many. if that is the standard, would that be for each driver or each medallion? and who is responsible for maintaining the standard applied to the ramp drivers themselves or the cab companies? currently the medallion holder is responsible for that. and what incentives would the drivers have to maintain this service, if they don't have the medallion any more? if the company is just going to hire lease drivers to do these -- to drive these ramp medallions, how will the standard be maintained if they're not employees? if they're independent contractors, they're unable to enforce, enforce any employee rules. so, i think you should consider

that. and also the legislation mentions that -- about the current ramp drivers would be eligible to purchase this half price medallion, $150,000. it's not clear to me and i don't think you've ever made it clear where are these medallions going to come from? it hasn't ever -- it's just not clear to me. is it [speaker not understood] need to die and my medallion going to go back or is it part of the current batch you plan to put out? and also my favorite subject, uber side car and their ilk, the mustache cabs, how are they servicing the disabled community? and we need more taxis because that day could come and you real have i to consider that. if you go to open entry, our business is finished ferment who is going to service the disabled community? * and also, you know, [speaker not understood] actually enjoy taking cabs when that day may come when we have no more cabs. >> thank you, ms. mcguire. next speaker, please.

>> bruce oka followed by jacob madel and abner [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, mr. oka. good afternoon. i hope i haven't lost my [speaker not understood]. >> i'm sure you haven't. it's good to be back, by the way. >> glad to have you back. i've been on a long vacation [speaker not understood]. but, one of the things that i always have advocated is that we who ride the ramp taxis have a choice of companies that we take. and i want to make sure that

that is the case. i really think that we should allow as many companies that want to have ramp medallions to get a chance to get them. because i know we have a number of great ramp drivers and i know that [speaker not understood] yellow and de soto are the three biggest companies. but also every time the para transit program has conducted a trial on who is providing this service [speaker not understood]

comes out and talk every time except monday i can remember. their service is better than the others, believe it or not. and right now i use -- i don't stick to just one company. i use them all because that's what the program -- >> mr. oka, let me ask you, director bridge man has a question. >> good to see you. i'm sorry. i was unclear. are you in support of the change or not in support of the change? well, you know, if the change is going to mean that only yellow [speaker not understood] and de soto are going to get the [speaker not

understood] medallions that are turned back in, then we're for it. >> thank you. we'll make sure we clarify that as we discuss. you need to let as many companies that want these medallions and that want drivers that have the ability to do so to do so. >> thank you. >> thank you. the community would [speaker not understood]. i think that's the main thing we want to make sure that we keep the best program in the country [speaker not understood]. and we he keep it that way. >> thank you, mr. oka. good to see you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> jacob mazol, [speaker not understood], tadik mahmoud. >> good afternoon. good afternoon, commissioners, board members.

jacob mazol from san francisco taxi. for the past two or three years since and i'm sorry for my voice. i'm under the weather. but it seems to me that since the sfmta took over the taxicab regulations, no matter what sf town taxi would do, the mta managed to screw us. just like many previous legislative pieces that came out from sfmta dashes services, this one is no different. it's so vague and it's so unclear. i urge you to postpone the vote until we have a better [speaker not understood] from the taxi services of what and how they're going to do it. i just can't stand it or i

can't -- i can't take it any more to see all this vague and [speaker not understood] and unbelievable explanations or no explanations whatsoever. why they did this or that legislation or they did a certain thing. so, i urge you, unless we'll get a [speaker not understood], unless i can get a clear explanation of everything that taxi services are going to do. please do not vote [inaudible]. >> thank you, sir. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> [speaker not understood], [speaker not understood] mahmoud, peter jacobs. >> good afternoon, sir. [speaker not understood], general manager de soto cab company. i want to stay on point. to me this is about two key issues. this is about running an accessible taxi, it costs a tremendous amount of money. that's been one of the big problems so far with the program. and it also is a -- an

inconsistent service level of service for the wheelchair riders at this point. so, the whole idea here is to do something so that people who can afford to run these cabs can do so, can do them efficiently and so that people in wheelchairs can get service that's on the same scale, same quality that's the same quality as any able bode i had person would be to have. * able bodied the companies under this scenario would have to compete for the wheelchair business, wheelchair accessible taxi business. i think that's a good thing. there is nothing in this legislation that says the ramps are going to go to any specific company. it actually creates a scenario where a company might find it in their best interest to put together a great ramp program and to try to win the ramp cabs away from another company. i think that's smart. it's competition and that's what the wheelchair community is going to appreciate, it's going to bring better service

to them. the one concern i do have is the $1500 a month for the medallion. i'm not sure how that's going to work out. i think we need to go into it with an open mind, the cotv of acquiring the vehicles and maintaining the vehicles continues to go up. and the drivers spend a lot of money on fuel. so, what i'm concerned about is in order for me as a cab company to make this worth the time for the driver and not to have the public subsidize this service, i need to have -- be able to [speaker not understood] cabs to drive at a discount and that medallion fee will affect that. >> thanks, sir. next speaker. tariq mahmoud followed by peter jacobs. >> mr. mahmoud. good afternoon, directors. so, we go to the town hall meeting. the point of the meeting is to tell the people what mta wants to do and what people tell them

what's the best way to do it. but when we go there, we just listen to lines. and if anybody try to go right or left, we have a tendency to scream on that person. would you believe that two, three line we talked about the ramp, just saying the people were on the waiting list, they are getting these medallions. now, the question is these medallions which are coming back, ramp medallions, who is going to hold them? how long they going to hold them? the drivers who are going to drive them, they need to have ramp training, too. why they are going to get ramp training if they are not going to be permanent on that one? nobody ask this question. it's a quite cumbersome issue, but nobody want to discuss in a meeting, town hall meeting, but they don't talk like that. they start 360 degree about over cab, about something else. we are there for ramp taxi issue.

nobody is talking properly. we've been begging meeting, town hall meetings, nothing but a scam and a fraud. steeriously, i ask 6, 7 times could we get to the subject, please? mr. reiskin [speaker not understood]. now, the question is these medallions, who [speaker not understood] after they come back? will they be permanent or not? could they be given to some companies? which companies? there is a company i just was talking to different people. arrow said they are willing to give [speaker not understood] to people who will drive them and they will give them health care. i never heard of health care. [speaker not understood]. please listen to these people. forget about yellow, let's say de soto. >> thank you. next person.

>> peter jacobs. last speaker card on this matter. >> mr. jacobs. peter jacobs. thank you. i think this proposal could be a great thing. i think it has a lot of potential. by having the companies control the medallion directly we can do a lot of exciting thing. we can have an employee-employer relationship. we can enforce people going to and picking up rides and providing good service. but i want to echo some of the things people mentioned. specifically incentivizing the drivers to do -- to want to drive these cars and to do a great job. we have tried to submit proposals to [speaker not understood] several times that outline how we can provide all the drivers with health care. i think that would be a really nice deal for drivers who have families who need to get some kind of security and deserve to have it. and we've never received any kind of response from her whatsoever.

so, i like the proposal. i think it needs to be fleshed out. and also it has to do -- i want to touch on the issue of investment from the companies that have currently controlled the medallionses. we already have a loyal clientele at arrow checker. we have invested money for advertising, we invested money in the cars, we invested money in the drivers. and to all of a sudden have all of the rent medallions we have jeopardized, it's very difficult to continue to make plans, continue to operate as a business when we have very little security as at any time we can lose [speaker not understood]. i think before this kind of thing is voted on we need to have some assurances and reassure the industry that things are going to continue as stated. >> thank you, sir. anyone else care to address the board on this matter?

seeing none, okay, public comment hearing is closed. members of the board? director heinicke. >> i have a question for staff. i wanted to make sure this is kind of the first piece of the ramp program development. my understanding is this is really to address the concern of the folks who have a ramp medallion now and how those folks interact with the way -- with the changes we made to the transfer program. >> so, correct. so, the ramp medallion holders did not have a transferrable permit, so, this is trying to create a path for them to move into that kind of transferrable permit environment. but it was also driven by the desire to improve the service that's for ramp taxi customers

which as i mentioned has been quite uneven. our staff report said, as speakers said, there are some excellent ramp taxi drivers in the city who had outstanding records. but as ms. mcguire mentioned, even a threshold of 8 pick ups per month which is, frankly, pretty low, we had many drivers that are not meeting that very low threshold. so, we're really trying to address both the situation of the current ramp medallion holders, but also a way to improve service which as a few other speakers suggested could probably be better managed by the companies because we also see quite a bit of variation in the performance by companies and it seems like the companies that are committed to providing good ramp service can do so, that they get good medallion holders, good drivers and they're able to provide that service. that's not consistent across the board. so, what we're really trying to address both in this are accessible services, staff.

are very much involved in the development of this proposal and believe that, again, as informed by the incentive system that we do have in place and a number of speakers reference the importance of having incentives and we get that, it can be more expensive. so, we've tried to build those incentive in so that the best drivers who do the right thing have an appropriate level of reward for doing so. >> there isn't that coming down the pike like more kind of reforms to the ramp program,, this is kind of it right here? >> this is i think all we have currently on the table, as with, you know, the whole process of regulatory reform. we're continually looking for ways that we can improve the delivery of taxi service. so, unless there is something else that staff has kind of in the wings, this is really the -- the intent to get us over the hump with the current, the

current system that we have. >> i have two follow-up questions, if i might. first, one of the speakers i think was mentioning how when we were doing the leasing to the companies for the other medallionses we approved a few months ago there was a problem with transparency with the development of those standards and whether just overall public understanding of those standards. so, it would be nice to make sure we hear about kind of the development of those standards or that they're publicized well. i think that would obviously -- what those standards say, it would be really important. this is a more particular thing that i think director oka pointed out, which is [speaker not understood], give him credit for some comments as well. the idea that there is this idea of past performance in terms of the companies. and i think that's a good idea, but i do think it's important to make sure that we try and incentivize everyone to provide excellent service for people who use wheelchairs.

but i'm just worried about this legislation in particular, pretty specific to how if you look at the section 1110 subsection d, it doesn't really refer to a record of service to passengers in wheelchairs. i'm worried about limiting in terms of our ability to create a path for other companies that maybe aren't currently providing service to people in wheelchairs but would like to. >> yeah, i think it was a point well taken. i think it was mr. gruberg who made the comment on behalf of green cab. the intent was absolutely to look at the performance of the cab companies and to send the ability to provide the service to those who have a demonstrated performance in doing so. so, the legislation does specify that as a way to do that. i don't think it precludes the consideration of other factors. and it's something that i don't know that we had contemplated so much, but we can certainly

explore how we would deal with the situation where a cab company that has no performance history might be able to access the program and maybe there's a way that we can do that. i think it does tie back to your previous comment on the need for good defensible understandable transparent standards. we a towedthv do -- attempted to do that with the 150 permits we issued. i disagree with the characterization, but i think that process could have been a lot better and tighter and we'll certainly aim to do that as we develop the standard, as we vet the standards, share them with you for the ramp medallion distribution. * >> other directors? >> just one question, in going back to the showing that they provide exemplary service, and this is my -- i don't understand how it works exactly. is it only ramp taxis that

wheelchair users have, or do we have wheelchair users who also use nonramp taxis? it's not saying that they toshiba -- it has to be that the ramp taxi medallion holder provides a service that has a record of exemplary service to passengers who use wheelchairs. * so, i don't know if i read that, that it has to be the ramp taxis that have provided service, that the company services wheelchair users. thank you. >> well, the way that we're looking at it is for the service done by the vehicle itself. so, we're not looking at the particular driver -- for instance, right now, the requirement is that there are 8 wheelchair pick ups per month. it's not driver specific. it's vehicle specific. so, we recognize that, you know, there aren't as many pick ups in the evening so that driver won't have as many. but medallion holders responsible currently for

making sure there are at least 8 pick ups per month. right now, this responsibility would transfer to the company to ensure there are at least 8 wheelchair pick ups per month on each ramp vehicle. our wheelchair clients do also take some sedans as well. a lot of it is because they are a little bit lower to the ground, easier to get into, things like that. but our ramp vehicles, they're required to give priority to our wheelchair customers and -- you can actually strap a wheelchair in a vehicle as opposed to a sedan where you can fold the chair into the back seat and help the person into the front seat there. >> excellent, thank you. and i just want to also echo the concern that director oka brought up, that this legislation does not specifically indicate which taxi companies we would perhaps be leasing these permits to, but it does open it up for -- to the point if green cab has

no history of ramp medallions, should they still be able -- they will still be able to participate in the ramp permit program. >> well, the way that it's written, it is not as much. however, this is a starting point for us. so, what we're going to start with is who has a history of that performance. does it guarantee they'll always do well? so, it's part of the use agreement assuming they don't do as well for whatever reason. we'd be pulling those back and redistributing them to companies that do express an interest, the desire that want to service that community. >> thank you, that's all i had. >> thank you. any other directors? thank you very much. * we closed public comment. so, members, what is your pleasure? >> i do have -- >> [speaker not understood]. >> i think it is important for us to look at this as a starting point. there is a lot of work to be done on this program overall in terms