product. there weres about access and accountable to lower fares. i think we can all understand the technology that clipper has. there's not a whole lot we can do about that in the short-term but we really do feel like it provides an alternative to that. there's been a lot of work that the communications department has done. a lot of advertising and signage and targeted promotions. improving the app capabilities in and of themselves and also it's interesting to node that 20% of customers use papal which is not an option on clipper and that does allow folks to be able to load value on this app. and just very quickly.

a very targeted promotion that had this rap installed on the side of the kiosk, looking at the two weeks after and two week before, there were pretty significant results that were yielded with that. so there's a lot more tune to try to get the word out about uni-mobile and the flexibility and the options that can provide for some of our customers so with that i will turn it back over to ed. >> i did want to remind you in the spirit of equity there's a lot we are already doing and we want tone sure that these are in the baseline budget. the muni programs and the discounted programs as well as some reduced fees and the payment plans that you just recently authorized for citations. there may be a few more we will bring your way. but just to reminded you of

these we have mentioned and there has been some advocacy for expanding the free muni program. i heard from the board a disinclination for expanding that program but there's a lot we have done here, probably more than any other comparable transit agency. and then we had a fair amount of public comment. it looks like we will again, regarding teaks as well as the letter from super size sore peskisupervisor peskin and fehr. so maybe some reminders and information with regard to the akar renewal. you may recall when we came to you with the taxi driver fundies bursment an bursment there fund disbursement.

and that disbursement will be starting this week for applying the a-card renewal fees for this year and next year. the one new item -- i think you may have received this information by email but just to make sure that the board of supervise ha supervise supervisors waved the fees for two years -- that when into last year for -- that the city was challenging. and just to be clear, it wasn't entirely clear to the calendar item that we do wave the medallion renewal fee for those who have purchased their medallions. so that was just some context for -- i'm sure other discussions that we will have regarding teaks that -- taxis

that i wanted to remind you or bring you up to speed on. we are close to the end of the process. we will be at the cac this thursday. as we got a number of recommendations which largely have been incorporated. and the budget will be back two weeks from today with the first proposal for you to consider for the next two fiscal years budgets. we will have an opportunity should we not get to closure on april 3rd to come back to april 17th we do have our charter deadline to get our budget shipped over to city hall, may 1. and the board of supervisors will be starting their budget hearing process soon. i know they are having some discussion, i believe at budget finance committee this week i think we are tentatively scheduled to be there first on may 17th but soon after this process, if not even before we are done, we will be going to

board hearing and in the meantime i've been keeping members of the board up to date as well. >> we do have several speakers on public comment. is that correct? >> yes, mr. chair. >> the chair: if there are any clarifying questions for the director or for the staff. director torres. >> yes, if we wish to support -- as i do, supervisor peskin, the proposal on the renewal, how do we implement that? >> so it was the desire of the board to do, that then we would change our fee table and bring that back at the april 4th meeting. we would have to find of course an expenditure reductions to offset the revenue impact from that. >> does that require a motion or merely a suggestion from the board member to the director? >> generally what we have done through these information hearing is gathered direction

from the board. and i've taken that direction and incorporated it. this wasn't -- i guess it could be done as an act but it's probably not necessary. but generally my understanding is that i take direction from the board and not from individual board members. so it would be a request from a member with a consent of the board to make any changes as we are finalize the budget. if that makes sense. >> so we focused in on several of the action items and discuss points. i think the idea is to hear from the public, and we will have a discussion as a board and try to give director risken direction so they can reformulate it can bring it back to approve at this time. >> so it doesn't require this board for a preference of what the director should do but rather wait until the final product is before us? >> yes, that's a really good way of summarizing it. we will give him direction today but we won't vote on that. but as he has on do the last time, if you recall the last

discussion we gave a bunch of guide ann on fares, for example. those have all been incorporated but staff are now coming back to us suggesting one tweak on one of those and that same process will play out again today and director risken and his staff will coming to at the next meeting and that will require action. we will have to approve the budget. >> he will come back with a resolution as to canada exactly will be required. to move from the budget where p.e.i. we may be lacking. is that correct? >> the chair: yes. >> very good. thank you. >> public comment on the budget. we will have 2 minutes please. >> 2 minutes, haasman. robert winier. >> miss haasman, welcome back. thank you for waiting through our agenda today. the floor is yours. >> we really need a 7th inning stretch in this meeting. please do move or do whatever you have to do to agree to give

director ricken guidance regarding the taxi renewal fees, because it needs to come from you. and it needs to be unified voice. this is not a revenue neutral item. this is not cost recovery. it's just devastating to our budgets. and a way that you could afford this and many other things, would be if you made it so all passes had to make a ding at the fair box. as it is, many people don't ever bring their card out, their lifeline card, whatever. and they give the driver a hard time if he ever dares to ask. so if you are going to have all-door boarding and if you are going to ask drivers not to ask passengers for the fare, please

have it so that it has to make an audible sound when they are coming on for all of the different card you use. and please, please either wave or substantially reduce this taxi medallion holder renewal fee. by the way, the a-card, the waiver of the a-card for the next two years is only for drivers who are 60 and above. i made it to 59 and a half and so i'm missing it. so please, i would rather be spending that money on my chemotherapy rather than this. thank you. >> the chair: thank you very much, miss haasman, mr. weiner. >> he will be followed by robert and rachel hideen. >> my concerns are i think the medallions areterrible.

i think they are medieval and a burden on the taxi drivers. it's almost as bad as a tea tax. i think of the boston tea party. the second thing, is i think it's important that those cards register on the bus when people are boarding. sometimes i have a very difficult time making the card register. at one point i thought that i had used up all my benefits for my clipper card. and it wasn't the case. that should be more efficient. and thirdly, do not raise the fares. i believe -- and i recall that one of the conditions for increased fares was that the service had to be more efficient. that the buses had to arrive on time. the arrival times had to be

better. and that, i believe is written in proposition aa, if i recall. from 1999. so those are the suggestions i have. i don't believe the burden should fall on the passengers. i think we have not gotten good service. i don't care what the polls say. you know if our service is so good, i dread to think what the worst services are. thank you. >> the chair: thank you very much, mr. josena. welcome back. thank you, board members i too would like to ask you either to reduce or wave the medallion fee for all medallion holders. you know sub dividing groups is not a very good thing. and quite frankly, i have

another problem. i want you to sell my medallion 2, 3, 4 years ago but unfortunately, there was a little jerry mandering in the list of how medallions were sold and all of a sudden it was a priority on people who because medallions that would never stated but was put into action, including different ratios of -- i think it was seven medallions or because medallions to three medallions of non-because medallions and there was never any public discussion about that. so it's up to you guys to give us faith on the honesty and straightforwardness of the mta. thank you.

>> the chair: thank you. check check rachel hide enfollowed by conseka and mcmerdo. >> good afternoon, director. my name is rachel heidan from the director of san francisco transit riders you should have seen our items but i want to call out the speck items. first we have the version of the additional transit needs that he walked through. in particular we want to see funding for expanding lrb service and opening in the sub bay and funding for the staff position as well as the training and of course we support funding for any service equity needs. four our public transit system to compete with automobiles and tncs and also appropriately serve our growing population we need to be increasing service not just holding the line so we strongly encourage the use of funds to not only support the

operating budget but to further expand neighborhood service, evening service and in particular late night service which is unacceptably sparse. >> we are supportive of the long overdo day pass but we would like to see it as a function. and we would like to see the differential decrease thousand we prefer it not exist at all. and lastly its really encouraging to see that they are considering fare increases that don't follow the indexing policy in an effort to encourage transit use but if you do move forward with increasing the cash differential up to $3 we request that you extend the 90 minute transfer to two hours which is common among other major transit agencies including new york, washington, dc, portland and boston. thank you for your time. >> the chair: thank you. mr. fonseca. please. >> the clerk: followed by carlo

mcmerdo. >> good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to speak again for the record on marcello fonseca with yellow cab. full-time driver for 29 years and hopefully i will make it to 30. as i said last time it's always very hard to come up here and not show emotions. we as an industry -- you've heard it many, many times we are struggling. so as i once again ask you to reconsider this outrageous $1,200 medallion renewal fee, it still is in your budget for the neck two years, i urge you to -- not to be so oblivious to our struggles. director tours thank you for being sympathetic to our cause and strug.

struggles. unless a level playing field can be in the transportation market. it's hard to believe we can hang on for two more years and you're willing to charge us $1,200 for the next two years. if you really cannot wave this fee, i would like to express my support to the 4% formula. suggested by my colleague carl mcmerdo. 4% of what the medallion generates is around $250. so i urge you for your consideration, and i urge you once again to -- not to be oblivious to our struggles. thank you. >> the chair: thank you very much, mr. mcmerdo. >> the clerk: karl and mike -- who is the last speaker on this topic. >> thank you, directors.

i would like to thank sandra true fewer for their advocacy. it would be great if they could wave this fee. i came up with the 4% because traditionally the medallions brought in 30,000 a year so a $1,200 fee would be appropriate two years from now if the industry recovers or whenever it does. do i actually think -- as i mentioned earlier that -- in the not-too-distant future because the business models of the tns are not sustainable to operate at a loss you will see at a humty dumpty free-fall mode. it may well be that the taxi industry did generate billions of dollars if it recovers and it would be the way to serve the public. i know you people are volunteers and you want things to be right for the city not to have massive traffic jams and a few people

who are hugsters walking away with billions of dollars while the city suffers. we don't want two weeks from now to come back here, the taxi activists and maybe have the news media scrutinize what is going on so hopefully today -- i mentioned in the email i september earlier this morning, possibly one of the directors tours could make a motion to wave this down -- wave the fee. it would be good if you could give us some idea today, the taxi activists what are you going to do or what you are inclined to do rather than have us be the limbo the neck couple onext couple. weeks. >> the chair: thank you very much. >> once again, 2 minutes is really insufficient to discuss a $1 billion budget i would encourage to you have more time in the future. the public input from my experience has been

prettyterrible. there's been too much emphasis on revenue neutral changes and general issues. too many moving pieces. not enough detail. not enough focus on the specifics we only heard on the transit piece really today or the tradeoffs the number of positions, internal efficiencies that can balance out some of the increases. i'm still not clear on the use of the money for operating versus capital. use of the fun balance. you talked about that last time but i didn't hear clear direction and when have that will be left at 10%, 15%, somewhere in between. i'm just not clear on the balancing plan and what is in and what is not in. i would also point out that supervisor tang analyzed the staffing of the eta. there's a memo on that.

on the public website released publicly last friday the 16th shows over the last 15 years from 2003 to 2018 an increase of 695 positions at the mta or 14% increase in operating budget positions. commissioner torres will remember from his time that commissioner andy moran over there always required that when the pfc wanted to increase positions for one program that they needed to trade them off and fin positions elsewhere within the agency so there was no net increase in position count. the mta has not done so and as a result, sees that major increase in staffing and the attendent costs to hadn't handle that. the free programs are not sustainable in this underring about even though over time doesn't holding to ask we are not going to have a finale much longer. >> the chair: thank you.

mr. ruberg. welcome. >> thank you, directors. mark ruberg and i would like to thank you for accommodations that you have made thus far door the taxi industry and what i hope is a willing tons consider furtherer accommodations. and again, the medallion holder fee, the adjustments in the colour scheme fee which i talked about last evening and i sent an email on that. and also on the a-card fees which has been mentioned, is a waiver only for older drivers and that is coming out of the dedicated driver fund. so that's not really something that is coming from the mta as part of its budget. but i did want to go back to another item which is the taxi zone fees that you charge which amount to thousands of dollars

for setting up a taxi stand. and depending on the size of it, anywhere from 500 plus to $1,000 plus a year to maintain that stand. and these stands are a benefit to the public. they put taxis in places where teaks are neede -- taxis are needed and used. they are a left certainly to the city and to the environment because they take the taxis out of circumstancelation o circumstancelatio out -- circulation on the streets. they are of tremendous benefit to the drivers and i think it's in everybody's interest, for a waiver of these fees so we can have a significant expansion of the number of taxi stands in san francisco. this is in everybody's best interest. so i hope you consider that. thank you. >> the chair: thank you very much, mr. gruberg as always.

any further speak hers on the budget, miss booner. >> no, mr. speaker i have no more speaker cards left. >> the chair: we have a fair a.m. in front of us and if it is okay it with fellow directors i'm going to try and be a little dictatorial in organizing this so mr.-- director risken gets feedback as we are going and i will take your feedback on this organizing but i think the first set of t topics we saw and it may be better to put the slide back up was on the fares and a confirmation on a few line items and a request we revisit the day pass at 2 versus 2.5. the round trip rate. so very good. excellent. thank you so much. so the first thing i would like to do before we go to option 5a "b," is make sure that the board is generally comfortable with

all of the other options which i personally believe reflect our last discussion but i want to make sure. >> yep. >> the chair: okay. that takes us to option 5. you got that ed? great. that takes us to option 5a-b and for one of the people who was a proponent of the 2.5 rate i will say -- i will ask this question, is it our projection that 2.5 versus 2 really isn't going to make any revenue difference because we think at 2 it's going to be -- more is going to be purchased so at the end of the deities essentially the same revenue to the agency? >> that is what we are banking on. we really don't think there will be a lot of usage. chair obviously purchase means more riders but we think that cost is relatively limited because we think this is more users who are not peak time

users but people who are more using the system when there's more capacity. >> so the idea really is that it would be our resident occasional riders who may use it to go to and from work but then also because it's a pass they have already paid for may use it off peak trips when they could be deciding between utilizing other forms of transportation at that point. >> the chair: so i will turn it back to the board but that raises a question for me and i realize a lot of this is art not science but in that model, is there any concern that this will effect our monthly pass revenue that people who might have because a monthly pass otherwise will now switch to buying five-day passes and maybe the difference between 2.0 and 2.5 doesn't really matter there. >> so if i may on that. the multiplier for the monthly pass is actually really low right now. so it's really about 16 round trips a month. so we don't anticipate there

being any impact. they are really trying to capture that group of occasional riders and encourage them to utilize it maybe if they have the option. >> the chair: is there anyone who want to ask questions or comment on this particular item? >> i will comment. i think the two times -- i think you made the compelling case why two times work especially if 97% of people make two trips. i know it does make a difference. my husband is an indicationa -- occasional rider. he doesn't ride o because of the job he has. missing and having to pay again is often an incentive for him to suggest we take a taxi or something else. so i think it does make a difference. i know that people -- it makes it eas easier for people to do multiple trips if they know there's a flat fee involved, then they continue to use the service and don't go to other places and i think that's really what we want. so i think that based upon the

idea you presented to me i would have said a week ago 2.5 but what have you shown me i'm convinced that two times makes the most sense. >> the chair: rubky? >> that was basically what i was going to say only she said it better: i'm not sure about the place to ask for it. but if we can hear about adjusting the transit rider union -- testing the accumulator function?

>> and the funds that could be used for next generation and we are counting on the use of those funds for the clipper modernization that would allow us to things like an accumulator would get us flexibility today. >> if i speak to the two-hour

transfer time. i would love to hear staff's rational limiting to 90 minutes and not going to two hours. >> well, we didn't make a recommendation to go to two hours. it's been 90 minutes for a long time. long before my time here. one thing that i would note is that in some other systems, at least, the transfer is actually a transfer. so it's not, the way we use it here in our fair policy, is that it's a 90-minute unlimited use pass. or if under this recommendation be 120 minute unlimited use pass. another system it's for transfer only so it's not for return trips. it's only for transfers to other intersecting lines. when i was in new york, that was how that works. they may not necessarily be

comparable. that said, i think there's -- we have not had a chance for review. i know the initial impression from our chief transit officer was it would be a great idea but we welcome feedback from the board and we can do some more thinking and come back with a recommendation at the next meeting, if you would like. >> it does raise the question, let's say someone and hopefully buys this day pass electronically or at a kiosk, if someone does that, let me rephrase this. if someone buys a round trip, which would be the same price as the day pass, correct? under the proposal two times. >> correct. >> is their round trip going to automatically be a day pass? >> currently we don't offer a round trip. what we have in our ticket vending machines that may look like that is actually two single ride shares. >> it says round trip. you go to the machine and it

gives you the option and if you press the second button to the left, if i remember this correctly, it kicks out a round trip. i guess what i'm saying and i will say this is one of the things i was thinking about at 2.5, if we have someone who goes to a kiosk and buys a round trip and for the same amount of money they could have just bought a day pass. that person buys a round triplets say, goes to the ballpark, comes back after the ball game, later that night wants to go out to the deyoung and back and now they paid two round trips and they find out i could have bought a day pass for the same price ace bought my first ticket. the machine gave me the business. i'm just wondering if that's something we want to build in and something you want to look at when you look at the transfer time. because if someone buys what the machine calls a round trip for the same amount they could have bought a day pass, you may have a disgruntled customer when they figure out what they could have done. >> well, one thing we can look at is weather w is whether we ct

the machine calls a round trip. it's two separate trips. they don't really serve the same purpose. the day pass would make the whole transfer duration moot. >> correct. >> it's only applicable to single ride fares whether they're one or two at a time. people, before clipper and the new fair boxes sometimes people were accustomed to getting more than the 90 minutes. the 90 minutes has been our policy for many, many years if not decades. again, if the board wants us to contemplate a different duration, we can certainly do that if you would like us to re-evaluate the messaging on the ticket vending machines if case they might be misleading. >> so i have no -- you'd may have the case for the 2.0 and i'm fine with that. there's two messages coming out of this discussion. one is we should at least reconsider whether it makes sense to increase the transfer time to two hours or not.

i would want to hear more before we dive into that. that seems to me like a policy change not necessarily a budget change. perhaps it's an action item. i wouldn't want to slow this process down for that. but on my particular thing, 2.0 is fine but let's sure we make with this so we don't have customers thinking we charged them for a round rap and that sort of thing. i do think someone could be rubbed the wrong way or be forced to do it and i think our visitors buy round trips when they make the one exchange because they don't want to have to buy a ticket on the other end. i've been to numerous events where it's encouraged. the giant's games is something i do frequently, they tell you to do that, right. >> win thing that we're also looking to show is increase you saw the stats from targeted marketing of mini mobile.

we're looking at doing that at the ticket vending machines because we would rather have people use something electronic than the piece of paper that gets spit out of the ticket vending machine. so we might be able to catch folks then and if we have the day pass product that would be even a stronger case for folks to use the muni mobile than to fumble with a ticket vending machine. >> if someone pays enough money to buy a day pass, should the system just give them a day pass? >> it could on muni mobile but can't on clipper. it doesn't exist on clipper. >> can i talk about the two-hour thing. >> please. >> i don't think it's a bad idea. this would be a great opportunity to engage the small business community around this sort of thing. generally restaurant tables and the whole service restaurant turn every 90 minutes so if people had more time maybe they would stop in the store next dor

and buy something. it's something to think about. if you are going to change the policy it might be really helpful to talk to the merchants is see what kind of pattern on average how long people spend on the street. object maybe look at our meeters and how what duration do people put money in for that could be an interesting thing. but i think, arbitrarily choosing two hours isn't necessarily a great policy but i believe it would be a great effort to reach out to our small businesses to figure out whether or not we can help support people being in their corridors. >> ok. >> so, i believe that takes us through the sort of fares portion of our adventure. the next item that i noted was you had a chart of what is in and what is out. one of the things i noted and we'll ask others about what was out was the very last bullet item was increased work orders. maybe channeling someone who

used to sit in this chair and certainly given my experience on this board, i will say you know, given the good news that we received at least up front, i would be very concerned about some sort of, given some of the funding mechanisms that have been passed by our citizens and board of supervisors and that sort thing, i would be concerned that we're maintaining, we need to maintain a careful eye on that so i'll do this as a question. are there any increased work orders you are anticipating or is it more of a contingency that it could happen? >> we would generally -- we don't have all the of the work order information from the city but the city's costs are rising just as ours are. we certainly anticipate some incremental increase. i think we were contemplating a place holder on the order of 5% increase across the board. i know some initiatives of the city such as the change in the new financial systems have

increased city costs at least in the near term and we can expect that those will be allocated across the department. i don't have concern and we would certainly be watching carefully any disproportionate shifts of cost from other city departments to the m.t.a. but we can't expect the modest cost increases generally for covering their increasing costs and maybe in some cases for some specific things we're adding. for example, we're buying a little bit more e. e.o. investigation service from the department of human resources so there are some individual ones that will increase. generally speaking, it's something we watch carefully and it was a big item when i started here many years ago and it probably wouldn't be prudent to assume zero. >> ok, so the budget we see at the meetings in april will have a place holder in there for some

assumed increased work orders? wonderful. ok. >> that's correct. >> any other comments on things that were in or out of the budget. the taxis is an issue we want to discuss and woel get to that and there were comments that cape up from supervisor fewer we may want to address. before we get do those two which is the last two category is there anything else for director riskin and his staff? perfect. so supervisor fewer raised a crossing guards which isn't a specific item before us and some of the language access issues. directors anybody want to comment further on supervisor fewer is taking comments? >> ok. and yes, and i understood her -- i really appreciated her comments and i understood her issue to be with the crossing guards, it's not that we're making an effort but we can't staff it and she was encouraging us to look at different models

that would encourage people to take those positions, is that correct? >> that's what i heard? >> are we doing that? >> not in the way that she is suggesting. >> but in some way? >> so, i just met with her recently and didn't understand this to be an issue. i just learned of this issue today so the issue identified that we have challenges filling crossing guard positions is one that i would need to do more research on. >> fair enough. i will say that you know as someone who is advocated that i want to make sure that muni sends the message that this is a family-friendly city, i would urge you to look at that issue. but i understand it's not ripe today. >> we have increase number of crossing guards recently. but we'll have to take a look at the issue. >> but i mean, certainly as we explore vision zero goals and all of that the protection of our schoolchildren and elderly in crosswalks has to be

paramount. ok. the taxi issue is the last one i have. is there anyone who dis grows that there are other issues or are there any other issues we are seeking direct board advice today? >> no. i think it's just the taxi items remaining. >> wonderful. so, if i may just to get some clarification and i might turn it over to director torres who has feelings about this and others. the a-card waiver, as i understand it, is first of all, it's not a waiver per se, we're using driver-fund money to pay the a-card fees to offset the a-card fees of a certain subset of drivers who are over a certain age, is that right? >> i don't think that's exactly right. i'm reluctant to contradict the taxi folks who understand this stuff better than i do. generally but i believe that the

way the taxi driver fund disbursement worked is that for folks who are under 60-years-old, their payment included the two years of waiver. it was for folks that were 60 and over that they had a choice of doing it two years one year or perhaps no years so i think the waiver was included. >> as opposed to taking the money? >> right. >> so i have to say i was a little confused by the age comments too. i thought we had an effective a-card waiver offset through the drivers' fund? is that something we need to ex back on? >> i was con ferring with our taxi director during the conversations so i think that's right. it is, i believe, for the current fiscal year and tractor-trailer nexthe nextfiscl year of this budget does not get addressed. so we can come back and clarify

exactly how this works. >> i think that's going to be important and i want to use the discussion and cognisant about the comments of him having direction. i want to continue the discussion and not just wait for more information. so that's partial clarification on the a-card fee. we need more information. and then again, just in the mode of questions, the medallion fees, there are perhaps over simplifying it but thro three cs of medallions, you have the k medallion and purchase medallion. we've waved the medallion renewal fee for the purchase madel yens already, correct? >> correct. >> and i believe the people who are here speaking are largely holders of k medallions not corporate pre k medallions. i gather the question and it makes sense, is to not wave the

fee for the pre k or corporate medallions but it's not something i would favor. i just wanted to make sure as a board we understand the sort of -- the dynamic that we're dealing with here. so, there's been a request and already some effort to give relief through a-card fee waivers, the fee that every taxi driver pays to get the taxi driver license and a request from the public to wave the medallion fee or reduce the madel yun fee for the k-medallion holders. with that all teed up, what guidance would you like to give our esteemed director. >> consider waving medallion renewal fees. >> how much would that cost? >> so, i think that's the next question. so let's say that we even

following the proposal reducing the fee from $1200 to $300 or something along those lines, obviously $900 per k-medallion. >> all i can tell you is total revenue from the fees is on the order of a million dollars. i don't have that broken down. k, pre k or otherwise. the reason that we had done it in the past and we're proposing this currently, no question that all of the taxi industry is facing challenges at this point due to the unregulated competition. but someone made reference we were treating different folks differently by what we're proposing. the fact is that the folks who have purchased medallions have

significant debt service payments they're making. we have a very, within the taxi industry, within the body of medallion holders, we have an uneven playing field. the thought process was given the significant ant debt burden on those purchased medallions have it makes sense to target the fee relief towards those that try to level that playing field. that was bringing value back to those purchased medallions, that's the rational. >> you made your position clear. is there anyone else? >> so that means that by making my position clear, the director is going to come back to us with a outline of the options under that request? >> we'll hear from other folks as a consensus builds but i understand your position to be that you would like to see either a waiver or a lease

reduction of the prop k medallion fees for this budget. >> the waiver would be a million bucks, right? >> it might not be that much if you didn't do it for the corporate and pre k medallions but let's call it a million bucks or close to it. >> i want to get as close to that as possible. i want to get clarification, because family is still -- i'm still concerned about crossing guards and how that fits into our commitment to vision zero. because that has an impact. if we don't have crossing guards out there, the supervisor and other supervisors have articulated, then how are we violating our vision zero commitment? by not putting sufficient guards out there? because we're talking about two million under the total cost? >> there were a number of things in our cost some of which would be matters of collective bargaining that we would need to deal with.

just to speak to maybe the staffing and add, mr. mcgwire can shed. >> can we put that off as well mr. chairman? >> the crossing guards in the budget, well i think -- >> for later discussion? >> yes is my proposal and something we revisit where we figure out the best way as a policy matter to address the staffing crossing guard shortage. mr. mcgwire, please add stuff if you have it to add. >> crossing guards are important part of our vision zero commitment. we want to especially protect your most vulnerable pedestrians which are our children and our elderly and disabled. as best i understand it, what supervisor fewer was talking

about was retaining the crossing boards we have. we have a high attrition rate for our crossing guards which makes sense considering the fact they only work 15 hours a week so it's not the kind of job that people are likely to stay and if they have other opportunities. >> she was suggesting to 20 hours? >> i think she was suggesting that if we can get 20 hours there might be benefits and maybe some collective bargaining that could change the equasion for certain. i think we'll investigate that. i think the bigger principal she's talking about of retaining our crossing guards who are terrific embassadors and safety on our streets, it's something our team is committed to and we're looking for every way we can do it. so we'll keep investigating it. >> one final question i have on the taxi issues and i realize a lot of this is coming at you fast and new. would a proposal like mr. macmurdo's be permissable.

can we set the fee to a percentage of what taxi services estimates the revenue on a annual revenue on a k medallion to be or are we limited by cost recovery principle, as i don't think we are, on how we structure this fee? >> i don't think there's anything that would stop us if doing that. it would require our staff to estimate projecting forward two years what those revenues would be. i don't think there's any impediment to doing that legally. >> ok. director torres has spoken his views on the taxi issue. are there any other directors who wish to present? >> the crossing guard. >> well, yes. absolutely. so the crossing guard issue is -- we're revisiting that. the idea here today is to give director riskin some firm guidance on the taxi issue so that taxi community knows and more importantly he and ms. boze knows so they can construct a budget. >> i appreciate the board's patients with the newest members' questions.

>> patients isn't the issue. you are driving the conversation and it's appreciated. >> i'm in favor exploring the solution and or a waiver of the fee. >> i would agree with that. obviously we know how the industry is suffering we need them. >> anyone else? >> i agree with that. there's a lot of logic behind this percentage basis if it's row fleck tive of wa we've done in the past. >> absolutely. >> ok. i have to admit i am intrigued by the idea. my personal preference would be if money is going to be given to relief it be given to a-card relief because that spreads more generally across the industry and helps us retain drivers and that sort of thing. i'm very sympathetic to the medallion holders but the medallion holders we're talking about, they didn't pay, they worked very hard for that medallion and it has to be recognized at all turns. if it is the case that we

already have an a-card waiver for the cycle of this budget because the driver fund, i think it's important to recognize that that is in not a full waiver, that's using money we collected out of the taxi program to move it over so it doesn't qualify completely as a waiver for me. if that is the situation, then i would be in favor of exploring something along the lines of what mr. mcmurdo proposes, i wouldn't favor a complete elimination. i think it is a license we're giving that allows people to make money. and so there should be some fee associated with it but at the same time, the economic reality is the economic reality. these things are not as valuable as they were. they're not as valuable as what people ordered their lives on and so if there's someway to pay relief especially when the numbers we're talking about i think that would be the right gesture and if we do it the way he is suggesting, it's something where the revenue could increase

back up when you lower a fee to a set number it becomes very difficult to increase that where if you do it on a percentage base along the lines of our dexing you avoid -- you create the potential for upside for the agency that parallels with the upside of the industry. >> so i think you have sort of a range of options but certainly a general direction from me to -- but a will for relief for the taxi car drivers, a-card relief, let's clarify that and on the medallions. thank you. >> ok. no one is throwing anything at me. there's no nuclear explosion

ever mr. winier in this meeting. so that's good. and this was just an information item so that brings us to the close of item 14 and the close of the meeting, correct? >> yes, did you want input on the use of some of the reserve fund? >> so -- >> no. >> so acid said that's not the feedback i want. [laughter] >> others as i said last time,l likely and the year coming close to 20% of our operating budget and reserve as compared to the board requirement for a 10% reserve. some of the ways that we'll be seeking, if you recall, we had a slight projected surplus but needs far greater than that surplus. we need to have a way to meet

the needs and some will decrease our surplus a little bit. so what we are seeking to do is identify one time uses and this is something akin to what we did last time around. find one-time uses we can use either fun balance or prop b revenues to address so that they come off of the operating budget needs so we can fit in the stuff we want to fund. based on our conversation last time when i said i wouldn't bring it down all the way to 10%, which is what the boards requirement is but something between 10 and 20 i didn't hear any ox to that and that is what i would propose likely. >> you didn't say 11 or 19? >> close to the 15 mark as we did last time. >> as i said personally last time, i would very much prefer we not go below 15 un.

[ please stand by ]

♪ >> not only did the total death on our streets from traffic collisions decrease dramatically in 2017, pedestrian deaths did as well.

since 2013, fewer pedestrians have been killed on our streets. this is really good news. you know, no one wants to see the accidents on the side of the road, no one wants to experience going to a crime scene on the road knowing your loved one has been hit by a car or sadly tragically killed. this is about bringing that number of 20 from 2017 down to zero. we don't want another death on our streets because of human error, because of anything that we can avoid. if we change our behavior, we change our roads and we do a better job here in the city and county of san francisco. >> my ask of the public, number one be aware of your surrounding, be aware of the law, be aware of the street signals and crosswalks and try to work within the laws designed to keep you safe. look at where we were and look at where we are. this vision will be a reality. >> we all have to remember that

all of us, all of us every single day, no matter how you get to work, school, wherever you go, all of us are always pedestrians. this impacts all of us. >> school starts again on monday, so i hope as you are reporting today you will encourage people to slow down, to be mindful, to recognize that you're going to have more cars on the street on monday. we're going to have more kids on bikes, more kids walking. please, be slow, be safe and be mindful. >> i just want to urge everyone at the sound of my voice to make some corrections. if you operate a motor vehicle, think about it, think about the person standing on the corner. think about how fast you're driving. think about the stop sign you're about to come to. just think. and just doing so, you'll help someone live another day. i guarantee that. i guarantee that. ♪

>> ladies and gentlemen chair call the meeting to order. can you please turnoff your electronic devices as they interfere with the electronics in the room, and can you please stand for the pledge of allegiance. [ pledge of allegiance ] >> vice president, i 'd like t call roll. >> sure. >> president turman is