San Francisco committee forwards ordinance to raise taxi ‘gate fee’ to $110 after divided public comment

The Audit and Oversight Committee of the City and County of San Francisco on a motion forwarded an ordinance that would amend Police Code section 1137.1 to raise the allowable gate fee for full‑service taxicab companies from $91.50 to $110 and to ratify past gate fees retroactive to January 1. The committee sent the item to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation after extensive public comment and requests for further documentation.

Supporters representing full‑service companies told the committee the higher cap is needed to preserve dispatch capacity, paratransit service and other citywide operations that those companies provide. "The higher gates are needed to preserve the high levels of service to the public that are provided by the full service cab companies," said Charles Rathbone of Luxor Cab. Company proponents and counsel argued the gate cap has lagged inflation and that modestly loosening the cap will allow firms to maintain vehicles, dispatch systems and credit‑card services.

Opponents — including drivers and the United Taxicab Workers — warned the measure would shift costs onto working drivers and questioned whether drivers would see higher take‑home pay or access to health coverage. "This is a brutal assault on the San Francisco cab driver," said Mark Ruberg of United Taxi Cab Workers, who estimated the change would cost drivers about $18.50 per shift (roughly $5,000 a year) and argued the ordinance would retroactively validate alleged illegal overcharges. Others said the ordinance rewards large companies while offering no guaranteed health benefits or service improvements.

Members of the committee said they were frustrated by repeated hearings and conflicting evidence. Chair Sean Ellsburn urged proponents to provide the data behind their claims and said the committee needed the controller's office to verify economic figures before taking a final position: "We need to hear your opinions on the legislation in front of us," Ellsburn said in closing remarks. After those requests, an unnamed supervisor moved to forward the ordinance to the Board of Supervisors "without a recommendation," and the motion carried "without objection." No roll‑call vote on adoption of the ordinance was taken in committee.

The ordinance as read by the clerk would add section 1137.1 to the Police Code, provide for annual adjustments to the gate fee cap, and ratify previously charged gate fees; it cites Board Resolution No. 605‑06. The committee record shows competing claims about the distribution of any added revenue — company witnesses said funds would maintain service and infrastructure, while union and driver witnesses said companies retain the majority of gains. Several public commenters urged the taxi commission and controller to provide detailed studies on driver earnings, company costs, and the public‑service impact before the Board acts.

The Board of Supervisors will be the next body to consider the ordinance; the committee did not set a date in the hearing. The Audit and Oversight Committee adjourned after forwarding the item to the Board without a committee recommendation.