This is the archival website for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). It is not kept up to date. Please visit the SFMTA website for current information. Taxi Advisory Council > May 14, 2012, Minutes |
|
SFMTA Taxi Services Taxi Advisory Council DRAFT MINUTES Monday, May 14, 2012 2nd Floor Atrium Conference Room One South Van Ness Avenue Ruach Graffis; John Han; Dan Hinds; Tara Housman; Richard Hybels; David Khan; Barry Korengold; Timothy Lapp; John Lazar; Tone Lee; Carl Macmurdo; William Mounsey; Athan Rebelos; Chris Sweis PRESENT: Ruach Graffis; Dan Hinds; Tara Housman; Richard Hybels; David Khan; Barry Korengold; John Lazar; Carl Macmurdo; Chris Sweis ABSENT: John Han, Timothy Lapp, William Mounsey LATE: Tone Lee, Athan Rebelos STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Christiane Hayashi 1. Call to order: Chris Sweis called the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. 2. Roll Call – The Roll Call showed a quorum was present. 3. Announcement of prohibition of sound producing devices during the meeting. 4. Approval of Minutes from April 23, 2012 (Discussion and Action) Mr. Hinds motioned to approve seconded by Ms. Housman. Minutes are approved. Public Comment Mr. Newsham said, I wrote this, no one else did. It is fiction, it is not true, I wished it were true. The next 2 paragraphs were transcribed verbatim. “Dear Ed, Sonali, especially you Malcolm, As the ultimate protest, I am resigning. During these past 3 years, I have come to know and like 100’s of cab drivers and I believe that they have liked and for a while, they trusted me. But no matter how I try to fulfill your command to take 20 million dollars from them each year and no matter how craftily I structure my proposal, they see right through them including this new one. These are not the complete idiots you, Malcolm promised me. I can no longer do your dirty work. These are perhaps the lowest paid, most disrespected workers in the city. What you have ordered me to do to them is absolutely immoral. Why 5,000 cab drivers should be used to fund the paychecks and benefits of the MTA’s other 5,000 workers while being denied those benefits themselves. I can no longer think of any excuse. This world class city of ours absolutely deserves world class service. It is and always will be impossible to have world class cab service with an abused and completely demoralized workforce. Taxi medallions should go only to taxi drivers. All money generated in the cab industry should use to improve the cab industry and the lives of the people in it. This is fair, clean, reasonable and simple. As you have seen, I am talented and very capable regulator also a person with a conscience, and the people in the cab world seem to like and respect me. Last year dozens of them signed a petition supporting me. One testified in front of the supervisors that I was the best thing that ever happened to the cab industry. I would very much like to work with these folks as my partners instead of my adversaries. If you will drop your 20 million per year demand, I will enthusiastically continue as your humble servant but I can no longer toy with the lives of the real people in this industry, even if you yourselves do not understand why I would resign in protest. I know that the city’s cab drivers will. I respect this industry and the city too much to deprive cab drivers of simple dignity in consideration that they and all human beings deserve. Sincerely, your former taxi staff. p.s. If I were a cab driver, I would be busy organizing a city-wide cab strike during America’s Cup.” Mr. Aryan said that SFMTA do not follow their regulation – MTA Resolution 09-077. He’s taken it to the court of appeals and an SFMTA said they’re not following rules because they may change it in the future. He said they are not obligated to follow their own rules. Any staff can do what they want because it’s in their own head. Mr. Gruberg comments on the make-up of the TAC members and said that it’s under-represented since there’s one member missing which was a taxi driver. He said when it comes to vote, the contribution of a single member can turn the whole body around and an absence of a driver is a matter of great concern. Any vote is not legitimate since there is more than enough time to fill that seat. Ms. (Mariana) Photiou said that the cab drivers are over-regulated and none for UBER. She said that something has to be done about this. Mr. Kim, Desoto Cab Co. expressed issues on accountability and enforcement and how it affects one’s business and how these may change the business model. He said better service and accountability and enforcement is needed in this industry. Mr. Rathbone would like to follow-up on Mr. Kim’s comments that there had been a tremendous emphasis on drivers. He said that we’ve gone too far (inaudible). Mr. Lembke said that all medallion holders should be treated equally and fairly regardless of how they got their medallion. He is upset that Prop-K restricts him to sell or transfer his medallion. He is upset with the decision of a person who sits on the board who voted against Pre-K selling their medallion. Mr. Healy said that money should go to the enforcement of illegal cabs and driver’s fund. He said some money should go back to the industry. He feels that it is not right that SFMTA is raising the license fees after gaining 20 million dollars from the industry. Mr. Malik said any transaction regarding owning a medallion should be done through the waiting list. He said the policy is not fair to the drivers and he’s afraid of being left out. Public comment closed. 5. General Discussion regarding Taxi Industry (Discussion only) Mr. Khan mentioned UBER’s presence that’s posing a competition with the Taxi Industry. Their “apps” may play a role in their success vs. our dispatch system. He expressed how the Taxi Industry is so divided and if this is not fixed, this industry may fail. Mr. Korengold comments on Senate Hearing; Senate is not going to change the law about recording audio in the cab. Ms. Hayashi clarified that this bill was referred to the Judiciary committee who would have a better handle in this issue since it went beyond the transportation issue. She said it may delay any legislation passed. There’s no current amendment. Mr. Korengold said California law said you cannot record people’s conversations without their consent. He also comments that the public does not have to give up their civil rights in order to take a cab. Ms. Hayashi said to check the Penal Code where the California provision exist about the restrictions in notifying people when their conversation is recorded. Richard Hybels said that he is not opposed to a button so you could turn-off the audio. He noted a lot of places where you may be recorded like muni, school bus, etc. Mr. Aryan said the cab company could benefit from it to maintain goodwill. He would like to have the same kind of panel like UBER, something color coded according to color scheme. Ms. Photiou said this is unfair competition that these new businesses keep popping out on the streets like UBER and these shouldn’t be in existence. She said since the industry is regulated, it has to be protected at the same time. Mr. Newsham comments on Barry’s statement regarding the legality of cameras and audio recording. He heard that Senators were concerned with this issue and they passed that bill on with stipulation that there would be no audio recording in Taxicabs. Mr. Kim comments on the camera issue. There have been more than 13 drivers murdered nationwide. He is open to work with people who opposes due to privacy and civil rights but want to stress that the no. 1 purpose of the camera is to save lives and is a necessity; study shows that it drastically reduces crimes on drivers. He is supportive of centralized dispatch and all kinds of technology to improve services but in disagreement that other companies benefit from this if they did not invest on such technology. Mr. Malik is in agreement with Mr. Korengold regarding audio. He said the audio should be limited. He comments that only law enforcement has the right to take the chip out watch the video. Mr. Hybels asked Mr. Malik, if an incident happened where a driver ran over a passenger, if he is willing to have us watch the video. Mr. Malik said only if you’re a law enforcement officer. Mr. Rathbone said years ago, the big controversy was about partitions now it’s about cameras. Art thinks driver should have a choice. He said he would appreciate some guidance from staff from where the lines are regarding these controversies. Mr. Lembke and Mr. Korengold discussion. Mr. Healy comments on Hansu Kim’s statement. He said for the taxicabs to be competitive with UBER, should start taking credit cards because UBER does. Maybe, something like open taxi access as discussed previously would work as a centralized dispatch system that could help the industry. Mr. Hybels asked why the open access taxi did not happen. Mr. Healy said rumors are outdoor politics or the board was going to go for it and never did. Public comment closed. 6. Report of the Council Liaison (Discussion only) a. Staff Update – Chris Hayashi updates · Local and higher government – Camera regulation · Strategic planning – 2012 – 2014 o Safety o Transit preference o Environment/Life o Relationships OBJECTIVES: · Improve security – crime, safety, collision · Collecting information b. Regulatory Reform Update c. Taxi Medallion Sales Pilot Program Update – Michael Harris Enforcement – addresses UBER question, limo drivers cited, non-driving (Post-K), broker issue Mr. Sweis asked Mr. Harris about SFPD stings. Mr. Harris said that they go out on the weekends (Friday/Saturday, 80%) to perform sting operation to include citing bandit cabs and limos. Mr. Hybels asked Mr. Harris asked if they’re going for town cars without TCP. Mr. Harris said that if they are engaging in a taxi like activity, SFMTA has authority to stop them but if not, it’s turned over to SFPD. John Lazar asked about A-card holders being apprehended. He asked if it’s illegal to be driving a town-car if you’re an A-card holder. He said UBER still using the word cab at New Orleans, UBER site and has a link to San Francisco and asked if that opens ground for a $5,000 penalty. Mr. Harris said it is illegal if they’re acting like a taxi. Ms. Hayashi said she would think about that issue. Ms. Housman asked about the 16 citations by the PD: How many officers are involved and over how long a period. Mr. Harris answered 6 – 8 officers in one shift. Mr. Hinds asked how can we get UBER off the streets. Ms. Hayashi said,” Compete them out of business.”
Ms. Hayashi said they are attempting to slip through the cracks like Side Car and explained. She said local government code allows local agencies to stop the limo and check the waybill to make sure it’s pre-arranged. Ms. Hayashi explained SFPD’s role and contrast in citation between SFPD and SFMTA. Mr. Sweis comments on UBER. He said that the consumer who used UBER does not really want to use UBER and the only reason they use UBER is because they show up. Passengers really don’t want to pay 3 or 4 times more in taking UBER. The only way we can combat UBER is to get more cabs on the road and pick-up more passengers. Mr. Korengold asked Mr. Harris about bandit cabs, regulation. He said that we need an open access taxi system to compete with UBER cab and said that Cabulous has become ineffective in some ways. Mr. Harris explained on how they are regulated. Mr. Hybels comments that we need don’t need more cabs in the road is not the situation we need a more efficient way to deliver the product. Raised a question to Ms. Hayashi, under a strategic plan goal about ride sharing, asked what it meant. Ms. Hayashi explained. Mr. Lazar said that UBER should have an ID badge. He also asked if they are paying any city tax like the cabs do? Residential tax, business tax, tourist tax, hotel tax? Ms. Graffis said she saw a new bandit cab but did not get a picture. She said it’s called UR Taxi and Limo service and will pass-on info. She also saw a Yellow Allied Taxi out in the street, it’s a black cab. Mr. Harris acknowledged. Mr. Khan said people get UBER since they can’t get a cab. Nobody shows up. Is there any way that we can get open taxi access to make sure there is no other competition taking our business. Ms. Hayashi explained that she cannot guarantee no other competition but referred to the flyer she passed out. Objective 2.3. Mr. Khan said we have to change the system. Mr. Rebelos points out that UBER is not a centralized local application. He said it’s a private enterprise that makes a profit. If the cab companies want to put their cabs in the map, they can do it. Mr. Lee comments on the SFMTA report; he said it brings a lot of positive news. Also, he is a witness that they are doing their job on the street in cracking down the town cars. He comments on the A card database. He requests SFMTA to build a database for limos and town cars. Mr. Harris explained what kind of database we have existing. Bandit and town cars are being tracked and also looking for repeat offenders. Mr. Lazar said we need a TLC (Taxi Limousine Commission). Right now, Taxicab drivers are under the SFMTA, limo drivers under the PUC. Public comment Mr. French said that cab stands in the different parts of the city will help customers and cab drivers. He’s having a hard time finding passenger at 2am on weekends. Ms. Photiou commented positively on the report. She asked who she can contact with regards to enforcement question. She also asked about compliance process and unfair business practice. Ms. Hayashi shared Eric Richholt’s personal phone no. Mr. Kim said that UBER has meter on the rides using iPhone and this is illegal; finding out ways to go after them. He mentioned the sting operation at the Airport; pulling over limos at the airport to see if the rides are pre-arranged was effective. He raised issues that part of the problem in getting taxis on the street is an ineffective dispatch service or no dispatch service in some companies which make taxis non-competitive in this kind of market. He expressed that this issue need to be addressed to improve service. Mr. Gillespie said that statistically, our city is short of taxis compared to other major cities. He said the taxi industry should move forward with the technology; take advantage of apps available. Mr. Rathbone, Luxor Cab, said that their company has the same problem; there is a need of more cabs to go to companies that has better track record in dispatching. Mr. Lembke congratulates SFMTA for the work they’ve put in. He asked about the enforcement power of the civilians in comparison to the police; how they arrest violators. Mr. Healy said that drivers may have to be retrained periodically to get them familiar with the neighborhoods. He said that police needs a sensitivity training and in how they deal with taxi drivers and communication can also be improved. Mr. Moles, a taxi driver for 28 years said that the month of April has always been the slowest and October is the busiest time. He said there were consistent complaints in April that people could not get cabs and people get fed-up. He has a few ideas for the Town Hall Meeting for Traffic Engineers; maybe if Traffic Engineers can talk to us for some proposal on how to improve the streets/traffic. Ms. Hayashi said we will put a link in our taxi website to directly get in touch with the traffic engineer and traffic planning who would benefit from taxi drivers’ experience. Mr. Korkos said cab in business to make money unless dispatch system is improved, the manner they are doing business right now is not efficient. Suggested an incentive to companies who has better dispatching service. Mr. Reiskin stopped-by and thanked the council for their time and effort in dealing with the difficult issues with the industry. Ms. Hayashi acknowledged Mr. Reiskin as the individual responsible for the strategic plan. Public comment closed. REGULAR CALENDAR 7. TAC discussion of the staff presentation for the board (Discussion and Action) Ms. Hayashi presented and discussed her report. Mr. Rebelos comments on the report. 1. SECTION 1 - Key personnel exemption should be applied to the drivers to the waiting list. 2. SECTION 2 – Pre-K medallions should be able to sell. 3. SECTION 5 – Changes to the leasing regulation, sees negatives and positives. He said that there’s an IRS rule that the taxi driver is paying cab owner their lease fee and cab owner is not a corporation, the taxi driver has to provide the cab owner 1099 Miscellaneous every year. If the driver is paying the lease fee to a corporation, they don’t have to do that. Mr. Lazar said: 1. He comments on driving requirement of 800 hours - as drivers are getting old, hours those many hours should be reduced by the time of service they comply in the cab industry; it would benefit them and benefit the cab industry. If you’re 60-65-70 years old, doing 800 hours may be too much specially if your health is not good and reduced that time by good service you have provided in the industry. 2. On the waiting list, he’s against not selling the Pre-K medallions; he thinks it should be sold. 3. Issue of medallions to companies. He states the following: · Should be based on the 4 years and not the 4 years of the car; car gets wrecked in 2 months and you can’t replace it then that’s done. It should be a total of 4 years. · Single-shift operator permits should be given to companies so you could control the flow. Mr. Hybels asked Ms. Hayashi what happens to temporary medallions in the end of the cars life. He pointed out issues on buying used or new cars. Ms. Hayashi said since it’s an experimental program, it could end at that point. If the program is working, SFMTA can renew it. Mr. Macmurdo – comments that the staff recommendation is very fair and balanced and compassionate. He hopes that SFMTA board won’t be greedy for money. Comments: 2D – is controversial. He said that Pre-K’s really built this industry. He said 1 or 2 things could be done: To give these individuals an opportunity to sell or keep it to the end of their lives then give it to the city. Or a modified version: to have a pool of medallions limit the no. of pre-k’s by way of lottery. He said 2 years ago some of the pre-k holders weren’t given an opportunity to sell due to their age. 3B – He feels that there shouldn’t be a $7,000 fee on top of the conversion fee of $32,000 that goes to regulators/SFMTA. 3C – He said that the driver’s fund needs to be dispersed to the drivers for their use: for dispatch, technology, enforcing illegal operators. 4 – Small percentage being leased to companies stabilize the industry; does not object to this. 4E – He sees the economic benefits. 5 – Regarding leasing regulations, sees this effective. Suggested to Michael Harris, he said the medallion holders should be held more responsible about how their medallions are being operated. He suggests that there be an orientation for new medallion holders. 6 – He feels that this is a compassionate approach. Mr. Korengold agrees on driving requirement issue. He thinks it’s a mistake to convert driver fund to industry fund; drivers who do not have a medallion not get much from the industry except the driver fund. 4C - He questions what chances are that medallions are ever going to be taken off the road. Overall, he feels that this is not a bad proposal. He doesn’t like SFMTA selling permits and going to drivers on the list; pre-k aren’t happy with this. He said medallions should go to earned drivers. He said that there should be criteria to hold on to a medallion for at least 5 years. He has a question on how an affiliate medallion should be run. Mr. Sweis has a question on Item 3B. What is the need to pay the $32,000. He discussed the pilot program. Ms. Hayashi explains the prepayment of transfer fees. In the event that you pass-away before you had to transfer it, your heirs could transfer it. If a person has expressed that they want to transfer their medallion when they were living, yes it will be transferred. In the event that an accident occurs, heirs can transfer. Ms. Hayashi explained that the pilot program has already expired. Mr. Harris explained that when time comes that someone wants to sell, it can be sold immediately and a buyer is already set-up. Chris Hayashi’s proposal says that you can buy the right to transfer; it won’t be sold until you’re ready to sell it. Mr. Hinds followed-up on Mariana’s comments. He said the greatest threat in this industry are the people that are not being regulated: Uber cabs, illegal taxis and limos - people who are generating fraudulent labels. Overall, he said it’s a thoughtful proposal. It is important to remember that we are a company with reliable service. He believes that new applicants, people who wish to acquire a medallion, should be required to meet a high standard both with their driving record and knowledge of the city. Comments: Item 5 – He thinks that we should hold them more accountable because they are operating as a quasi-color scheme; they should be accountable for their drivers. Item 6 – Questions on New Medallions. He wanted clarification on 50% on the waiting list as unpurchased medallion and 20% to MTA. Where are the 300 Pre-K fit in to the breakdown if they weren’t sold. Ms. Hayashi explains. Mr. Hybels asked about the driver’s fund. He said no one asked on how we want it to be applied. He comments that the industry voted that MTA does not get any money from this industry so he’s curious on how it’s going to be done. Ms. Hayashi explained that the industry has not determined how it should be applied. She mentioned that it was in the agenda once. Ms. Hayashi explained that the legislature has certain powers and the advisory council’s role is to provide information and support the Board of Directors but does not necessarily mean that vote is binding. Ms. Graffis said key personnel exemptions, should not include anybody who’s in the ramp taxi list. She disagrees with Pre-K. She sees an increase in medallion that’s transferrable and once it’s transferred it is not reversible. She thinks it’s a good idea to increase & decrease the # of cabs. She recognizes that there’s a need to decrease taxi supply but does not see it helping in some dramatic issues. She said that all money is going to the MTA, still no retirement, there’s nothing to keep you from the industry, no health care, no medical, no dental, no optical, no retirement. The job of the regulators is to make sure that everybody gets taken care of in this industry and not just the permit holders. Ms. Housman objects to SFMTA regulating and getting the money and using the industry as a cash cow. Comments: 2B - comments. 2D – she likes. 3A - not sure. 3B – marvelous. 4E – agrees. 6 - this plan is better thought out (6) B2 – Medallions held by SFMTA… she feels that this should go to the waiting list because there should not be a financial incentive to SFMTA. 7 – agrees. Mr. Lee said 1/3 of the taxi fleet can be kept as an affiliate. The policy needs to be framed. We should keep the principle of proposition K, driver can get a medallion; same issue as a temporary medallion. Medallion is money, cab company can’t take too much money from drivers which may lead drivers to start driving town cars on the street. He said that SFMTA should make a system where we increase the cab. The proposal is good and detailed. He is supportive of this report – 90% is okay. Mr. Khan said he appreciates that the proposal took care of some of the things for drivers and medallion holders. He is concerned about medallions going to the companies; wants to eliminate the brokers. If companies are consistent then there won’t be any brokers and it’s costing a lot of money to the drivers. Mr. Korengold thinks that there should be a policy that before driver can drive a long term lease cab or affiliate cab, they should put it 2 or 3 years of gate and gas driving for company first; when people go affiliate or do a long term lease so they do not hire relatives or friends who have never driven a cab. This displaces career cab drivers that’s been doing this for a living. That’s what this policy would achieve. He thinks the medallions held by MTA from death revocation should not be sold or leased to companies; it should be issued to drivers on the list. Mr. Lazar recommends a solution to the driver’s fund; to maybe use the fund to lend to drivers who cannot afford a medallion or maybe give it to them. Mr. Macmurdo comments on proposal that got voted on: All money generated by the cab industry will be re-invested in the cab industry. He gave an example on transfer fees: about 3 years with the problem with public safety and insurance liability strategy for medallion holders, lawsuits pending on ADA. The medallion being that it’s city’s property, if we they transfer the medallion you get 20% which is $50,000 per medallion of which ¼ goes to the driver’s fund. He feels that this is money that the cab industry was able to create. Making this point since people say “look at all this money the MTA robbed from the industry”. This is money that was innovatively created. Mr. Korengold said this money came from drivers who worked for years and waiting to get their medallion. He states that this is earned and not given to them for free. Mr. Sweis comments: 1 – He hopes that the requirement hours get reduced to just have certain no. of years as they get on their career. 2 - Waiting list is great news. Public comment Mr. Aryan said it is a disaster to shrink the no. of cabs. He comments that people already bought cabs and has a few years to go but there’s no business. Decreasing no. of cabs means you’re laying off bunch of cab drivers. If is not taxed it must be spent on people who paid so money should be spent on drivers if it’s not taxed. If it’s taxed it should go to the voters and 2/3 of the voters should agree. He needs clarification maybe from a lawyer. Ms. Photiou said it is hard for her to see how the part time cab could be cost effective with all the expense; full time cab makes more sense. She said the cab companies should figure out a way to attract drivers. She asks how part time cabs get regulated and feels that it will be a mess regulating them. Directed to Barry, she said, don’t overregulate since it gets nasty and then you’re going to own me. She said she will take you take you to court and have demands. She proposed 401K. Mr. Korengold asked Ms. Photiou if she’s referring to the suggestion that before driver can drive long-term-lease or affiliate which was confirmed. Mr. Korkus comments: 1A - agrees with John on reducing requirement. 2D – thinks Pre-K should be allowed to sell. 3A – anybody who wants to sell could sell if they want to. 3B - disagrees that we should pay a conversion fee. Mr. Kim is shocked how good this report is and the proposal is brilliant. He believes that there should be a driving requirement and 800 hours which he thinks it’s reasonable and flexible. He thinks very strongly that Pre-K medallions should be able to sell their medallions. He said medallion holders should be allowed to have an opportunity to make medallions transferrable or consider purchasing a transfer right or if they don’t, it’s not transferrable. Mr. Lazar asked Mr. Kim on how can Pre-K’s can sell. He asked how he feels about the driver’s fund be allowed to purchase medallion. Mr. Kim explains that it should be based on good standing; Operators who’s not in good standing should not be able to sell their medallion. Any Pre-K medallion holder that purchased their medallion has the right to buy a transfer right, should have the right a privilege to sell. On the driver’s fund, he said it’s a fantastic way to use it. The fees that everyone pays that was based on the old Taxicab Commission should be re-assessed; maybe reduce everyone’s fees commensurately across the board. Mr. Gillespie said that all aspects were covered good. Pre-K should be allowed to sell. Compassionate for Pre-K. There’s a discrimination situation on selling. He is curious on the items on June 5th calendar. He asked if any of the items discussed goes to that calendar. Mr. Lazar directs a question to Mr. Gillespie: If he thinks that medallions issued to companies can be pulled back by the city if the economy went down instead of issuing it to people that once they have them they can’t take them back. Mr. Gillespie said that permits controlled by the MTA stabilize full service company, and gives the city opportunity to review things; that it gives them flexibility in not renewing permit if things were slow. Mr. Rathbone said the report is excellent. He is disappointed with the Pre-K’s; (inaudible). Overall, the big numbers in this plan is too heavily weighted on the purchase of medallions. He said that it makes more sense to distribute new medallions differently. Mr. Hybels asked Mr. Rathbone if he’d rather see $175 million goes to MTA rather than see people get free medallions. Mr. Rathbone said that he would rather have purchased it rather than wait 15-20 years to get it for free. Art appreciates the effort on the report and thinks it was fantastic. He said that Pre-K, Post-K, Prop-K medallions should all have the same rights. Mr. Healy 350 Pre-K’s says has a lot of compassion. Driver’s fund should be used to help people get medallions. He suggests that a percentage be given back by MTA to the driver and the industry to regulate the industry better. Mr. Malik asked about changes to leasing regulation. 8. Council Members request for information Mr. Sweis asked about the June 5th calendar. Ms. Hayashi said that it’s largely preserved to taxi matters: medallion reform, provision to the police code, responding to the Nelson Nygaard report, electronic waybills, PIM unit, credit card fees. Mr. Lazar asked about the TAC recommendations. Ms. Hayashi said it will be put on through the Board of Director’s report. She said that the chair should talk to Roberta Boomer to make time for that presentation and materials to the board is due on May 18th. Mr. Hybels asked color scheme renewal. Ms. Hayashi said that we have tried to equalize this issue but it would have to wait for the next budget cycle since this year’s budget is completed. Mr. Lee is confused with the electronic waybill and handwritten waybill. Ms. Hayashi explained the waybills. She suggests that all drivers be required to carry a notebook for logging. Mr. Macmurdo asked about the proposal and submittal of materials due May 18 for June 5 meeting. Ms. Hayashi explained. She said the 3 remaining TAC meetings are as follows: 1 meeting date in June and 2 meeting dates in July. She suggests developing company standards as a topic for the TAC meeting; how companies are ranked, building criteria, etc. Mr. Hinds suggests a continuation of advisory body. Mr. Sweis explained that this was already voted and would talk to Ed Reiskin if this is possible. Mr. Hinds said to recommend the structure of the advisory body that reports directly to the SFMTA board regularly. He said the advisory body should be structured and should have an input and advice on recommendations. Mr. Korengold agrees with the discussion and should have a value to this body. He said it is valuable to have an industry body. Mr. Khan agrees with Mr. Hinds. He expressed that meeting is a waste of time. Ms. Hayashi confirmed that meeting is June 11th. She explained that this isn’t a waste of time since there’s a lot of important industry discussion, a lot of opportunities for communication that have been helpful, and don’t believe that it’s true the SFMTA is not paying any attention. It may be true to get through secretary to get to the SFMTA board. Mr. Sweis said it was waste of time since most of the information discussed at TAC meeting is also discussed at Town Hall Meetings. Mr. Korengold agrees that this can be a more productive use of time but it hasn’t been a waste of time since we hear each other’s opinion. Mr. Sweis recommended the continuation of the TAC be discussed on June 11 meeting in favor. Everyone in favor.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned by standing vote at 4:46 pm.
June 11, 2012 1:00pm 2nd Floor Atrium Conference Room One South Van Ness Avenue
|
©2000-2013 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. All rights reserved. |
311