HomeMy WebLinkAbout23- City Clerk
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: May 7, 2009
Subject:
Appeal of the Bureau of Franchises'
denial of a Petition for Franchise Permit
for Express Transportation, dba AA
Inland Empire Cab, to operate 2
taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino
MICC Meeting Date: 5/18/09
From: Rachel Clark, City Clerk
Dept: City Clerk
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None
Recommended Motion:
Motion #1: That the hearing be closed, and that the Mayor and Common Council
uphold the Bureau of Franchises' denial of a Petition for Franchise Permit for Express
Transportation, dba AA Inland Empire Cab, to operate 2 taxicabs in the City of San
Bernardino.
Or
Motion #2: That the hearing be closed, and that the Mayor and Common Council grant
the appeal for a Petition for Franchise Permit for Express Transportation, dba AA Inland
Empire Cab to operate 2 taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino.
G\~ b.~
Signature
Contact person: Cindy Rllechh~r, RII~ Reg Mgr
phOne. 3700
Supporting data attached: Yes
Ward: All
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
NIA
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct Descri ption )
Council Notes: g~VIIfl{S L'(
fb5"() 200 q -- 137
Finance:
/I jq . 5-/'8^-oq
)
Agenda Item No. _ :23
~- /-- d1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
Subiect:
Appeal of the Bureau of Franchises' denial of a Petition for Franchise permit for Express
Transportation, dba AA Inland Empire Cab, to operate 2 taxicabs in the City of San
Bernardino.
Background:
SBMC 5.76.050 states in part, "No permit shall be granted to any carrier.. . except after a
hearing thereon.. . and until the Bureau shall have determined that the public convenience
and necessity require the operation proposed by the applicant for such permit. This
Section further states "However, the burden of establishing the existence of public
convenience and necessity shall always be borne by the applicant, and no permit shall be
issued unless there has been an affirmative showing of the existence of such public
convenience and necessity by such applicant. The foregoing provisions and requirements
shall also apply where an increase in service is requested."
Currently, San Bernardino Yellow & Bell Cab Co. is the sole provider of taxi service in
the City of San Bernardino. Yellow Cab has operated in the City since 1952 and changed
ownership in 1998 when a franchise permit was awarded to Yellow & Bell Cab Co. San
Bernardino Yellow & Bell Cab Co. is currently authorized to operate 80 taxicabs in the
City of San Bernardino. Since their initial permit was granted, the following actions have
taken place:
October 2,2002 - The Mayor and Common Council upheld the decision of the Bureau of
Franchises' to grant a permit to San Bernardino Yellow & Bell Cab to operate an
additional 25 taxicabs.
June 6, 2005 - The Mayor and Common Council approved the Bureau of Franchises'
determination that the public's convenience and necessity is served by increasing the
number of taxi cabs authorized to San Bernardino Yellow & Bell Cab from 70 vehicles to
80 vehicles.
SBMC 5.76.060B(1) limits the number of taxicabs permitted in the City to "not more
than one taxicab.. .permitted for each two thousand five hundred residents of the City..."
The population estimate from the California Department of Finance dated January 2008,
showed the city's population at 205,493. The most recent estimate dated January 1, 2009
shows a slight decrease to 203,683. Therefore, the number of taxicabs operating in the
City is limited to 82.
July 22,2008 - The City Clerk's Office received a Petition for a Franchise Permit for
Express Transportation Systems, dba AA Inland Empire Cab, to operate 25 additional
taxicabs in the City.
September 9,2008 - The Bureau of Franchises heard a presentation by Express
Transportation Systems and discussed the matter at length. Also present at the meeting
was Chris Christman, President of San Bernardino Yellow & Bell Cab.
During the discussion, Sf. Deputy City Attorney Henry Empeno advised the applicant
that based on SBMC 5.76.060B(1), only two additional taxicabs could be allowed to
operate in the City should the Bureau of Franchises approve their permit. Based on this
information, Express Transportation Systems agreed to modify their application to
request a permit allowing two taxicabs to operate in the City.
A motion was first made to deny the applicant a permit, however this motion did not
receive a second. After further discussion, a motion was made to grant Express
Transportation Systems a permit to operate two taxicabs in the City. The motion failed
on a 3-2 vote. Members in favor: Bronica Martindale and John Matley. Members
opposed: David Mlynarski, Robert Hampton, and Louella Deetz.
Minutes of the Bureau of Franchises' meeting of September 9, 2008 are attached for your
reVI ew.
It was later determined by the City Attorney's Office that per SBMC 5.76.050, input was
required from the City's engineer in the form of an oral or written report which includes
the engineer's opinion as to the existence of public convenience and necessity for the
operation proposed by the applicant. Therefore, the matter was brought back to the
Bureau to hear from City Engineer Robert Eisenbeisz; the applicant, Express
Transportation Systems, as well as the current franchise holder, San Bernardino Yellow
& Bell Cab.
April 14, 2009 - The Bureau of Franchises reconsidered the petition of Express
Transportation Systems after hearing from City Engineer Robert Eisenbeisz and another
presentation by Express Transportation Systems. In addition, Chris Christman, President
of San Bernardino Yellow & Bell Cab gave a presentation.
After a lengthy discussion, Bureau Member Matley made a motion, seconded by Bureau
Member Hampton, that the petition submitted by Express Transportation to operate 2
taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino be denied. The motion carried with Bureau
Member Martindale-Chess voting "no".
Draft minutes of the Bureau of Franchises' meeting of April 14,2009 are attached for
your reVIew.
Financial Impact:
None
2
Recommendation:
Motion #1: That the hearing be closed, and that the Mayor and Common Council
uphold the Bureau of Franchises' denial of a Petition for Franchise Permit for Express
Transportation, dba AA Inland Empire Cab, to operate 2 taxicabs in the City of San
Bernardino.
Or
Motion #2: That the hearing be closed, and that the Mayor and Common Council
grant the appeal for a Petition for Franchise Permit for Express Transportation, dba AA
Inland Empire Cab, to operate 2 taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino.
3
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
APPEAL FORM
~ffCtIVE6-G1TY GLtRF
Z609~fJ~~we ~A7z; 27
Office Use Onlv
Copies Distributed To:
o City Attorney 0 City Manager
Date:
IMPORTANT INFORMATION: All appeals to the Mayor and Common Council, Board of
Building Commissioners (BBC) and Animal Control Commission must be filed in the City
Clerk's Office.
Appellant
Name:
CCJ r3..o - C" "-A '" A '- _ J
C;;' J<. r- b.-s. ;> I K AvV .) D R,'T7"h l () ''V
S ~~n-G'7'7 ) .
Address:
~Vl.1) D~b
<:7; .
I~l Uee~L~e CA 9~ ~(:I'I '
Contact Person
Name:
---r~,R~ i
6 b~ G-e:.-:Y:Z .
Address:
"'2 00 u(.) -"""---. ~
<'~ (} _'" IT-'....!:::
~.r
f I ()e~~~ i O"P) fA ,q~ \0/ .
Fax: rq.;)) 369- _~() if '/
r --
E-mail: .T.r3L-..1!frb7.L~;JM-c:.A1.5cMJi...!.1Ie..C0;1..-1
Day Phone: (E'fdc'f) ~;). ~- C{ 2- 1.- L-
Evening Phone: r:-7 /1..{) 1f gg- i I YS~
Affected Property Address:
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN #):
Whose Decision Are You Appealing:
rb uv ~ of ~/tYv(.I-f; j @
~ j/t.-f/ O?OOl
Date of that Decision:
~oard of Building Commissioners - $75.00
ayor and Common Council - $75.00*
Planning Commission - Fee Adjusted Annually
DAnimal Control Commission - $75.00
DPolice Commission - No Charge
DOther: - No Charge
*Note: Appeals to the Mayor and Common Council can only be from the Planning Commission and Police Commission.
City of San Bernardino - City Clerk's Office - 300 N. un" Street - San Bernardino, CA 92418 - (909) 384-5002
. "',,, 'N'" .' .'. ...,..-....'...... ...........'.'
AV ALID Ai' ....AL'M{J~rINCLIID
'. .'INFQl(MATION(S,
.::....;....;-..>::(,...:-.'....-,.:.':."
.'~>::": . ;::. .
./;;.;--",
1. The action appealed:
/).,' /J" , ,- 5'
l~ 4 pe 1r1~~
2. The grounds for appeal:
p~ Sle Jh~~
3. The a,ction(s) sought:
fl.~e
~.. /h.-nl-e4A-v~
4. Any additional information:
~ ~ r.A-7~H'/"Y
AA
~\.-~N~MP/~
J~-...._~
~._.~
J; .--"
%;;.:'
. . "".
.i. .~... ....~)V~
.iiiiilI,
F:
...
3000 Date Street, Riverside CA 92507
Tel: (951)-222-2291 Fax: (951) 369-3049
April 28, 2009
Appeal to San Bernardino City Council concerning the need and necessity of another taxi
company in the City of San Bernardino. The reasons I would like to appeal the decision
of the Franchise Board are as follows:
1. I have citizens of San Bernardino that can come to the Council meeting to prove
that they have been denied service and have had very poor service from the
current company.
2. I have many signatures from the residents of San Bernardino stating that they are
in desperate need for a choice in companies.
3. I have studies done nationally concerning the effects of monopolies in taxi
companies for the city and its residents...
4. I have Senior Centers asking us to please come in and start programs with their
seniors like the programs we participate in the City of Riverside.
5. The Franchise Board felt its hands were tied with the Old Ordinance concerning
the permits and how they could take some away from the current company as they
weren't using them and transfer them to a new company. The council has the
authority to handle that.
6. I have companies that have asked us to provide services to their employees, these
companies had prior contracts with the current taxi company (BelVY ellow Cab),
but they had such horrible service that they need a choice.
7. Having competition makes companies provide better service and they have to be
accountable for their actions: Case in point: BelIN ellow Cab Co. had only 8 taxi
drivers permitted in the City of San Bernardino when we ftrst applied in the City,
After we went to the Franchise Board the first time, they began to license more
drivers, they were in direct violation of the franchise and didn't care. Now they
know that they need to follow you municipal code as we are making them be
accountable. That's why COMPETITION WORKS NOT MONOPOLIES.
8. The citizens, businessmen, seniors all need a chance to be heard. Their needs are
not being met by the current taxi company and we only want to come in and
compete.
9. They talked about losing business or their not being enough business, although in
every other city in the Inland Empire they have to compete. If a company is
treating their customers the right way, they will not lose them to another. San
Bernardino is the only city that allows a monopoly taxi company to continue. It is
truly detrimental to you city and your citizens.
Thank you,
T em Berger
General Manager
AA Inland Empire Cab Co
MINUTES
[IDOODl~u
BUREAU OF FRANCHISES
FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 14, 2009
The regular meeting of the Bureau of Franchises was called to order by Chairman Mlynarski at
2:25 p.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2009, in the Management Information Conference Room, 6th
Floor, City Hall, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Sutherland with the following being present:
Chairman Mlynarski; Bureau Members Matley, Deetz, Hampton, Martindale-Chess; Business
Registration Supervisor/Bureau Secretary Buechter, Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio.
Absent: None.
Public Comments
There were no public comments.
1. Approval of Minutes
February 13, 2007
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio stated that of the board members who were
present at the meeting on February 13, 2007, only two are still on the board. He stated
that when minutes are being considered, there is routinely an abstention listed for the
member who was not present at the previous meeting. However, if that was to be done
in this particular case, there would only be two members voting and the question would
be whether this board could ever approve these minutes. Mr. Empeiio suggested that if
Bureau Members Mlynarski and Martindale-Chess had no corrections that needed to be
made, then he would recommend that the chair entertain a motion to approve the
minutes and have all the board members vote on it.
Bureau Members Mlynarski and Martindale-Chess indicated that they had no
corrections.
Bureau Member Hampton made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member Martindale-
Chess, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of the February 13, 2007 meeting of
the Bureau of Franchises be approved as submitted in typewritten form.
04/14/09
June 10, 2008
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio stated that only two members of the board were
present at this meeting; therefore, because the bureau lacked a quorum, those two
members met as a subcommittee and heard comments made by members of the public.
He stated that since this was not an official meeting of the Bureau, he recommended
that the minutes be received and filed.
Bureau Member Matley made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member Deetz, and
unanimously carried, that the minutes of the June 10, 2008 meeting of the Bureau of
Franchises be received and filed.
September 9,2008
Bureau Member Matley made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member Hampton, and
unanimously carried, that the minutes of the September 9, 2008 meeting of the Bureau
of Franchises be approved as submitted in typewritten form.
2. Petition for Non-Emergency Medical Transportation - petition received from
Amena Medical Transportation to operate three non-emergency medical
transportation vehicles in the City of San Bernardino.
Abdulrazeq R. Kakar, Amena Medical Transportation, provided additional information
to the board members that included a brochure, photos of his vehicles, and a letter
dated February 10, 2009, from the Department of Health Care Services requesting that
he provide business tax permits/licenses for each city listed on his application. He
stated that he currently serves the cities of Fontana, Redlands, Lorna Linda, Colton,
and Rialto.
Bureau Member Madey asked Mr. Kakar how the process works and who he contracts
with.
Mr. Kakar stated that the Health Department provides him with a provider number that
is then used to bill the patient. He stated that his company provides transportation to
and from doctor's appointments for persons who are wheelchair bound, but mostly they
transport dialysis patients to the hospital.
Bureau Member Matley asked if this transportation was intended for people with
private insurance or was it strictly for those with government insurance.
Mr. Kakar stated that it was intended for people with Medi-Cal, Medi-Care, or private
insurance; however, some private insurance does not pay for medical transportation.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess asked Mr. Kakar how much he charges for private
pay.
2
04/14/09
Mr. Kakar stated that it was dependent upon the contract with each city.
Bureau Member Mlynarski stated that the board does not really have a lot of
discretionary decisions or opinions to make relative to this type of request, it was more
of an objective compliance with the State's statutes and rules dealing with insurance and
liability compensation and the ability to show proof of a good business and fmancial
stability.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empeiio stated that the City's Municipal Code contains
provisions regarding non-emergency medical transport; however, there is no State law
permitting cities to regulate non-emergency medical transportation. The City cannot
restrict or limit the number of providers for non-emergency medical transport, they can
only require them to meet certain objective criteria such as require them to have
licenses or permits required by the State such as Medi-Cal, require a minimum amount
of insurance for wheelchair . passenger transportation and dialysis transportation
vehicles, and require $2 million in combined single incident public liability and
property damage insurance.
Mr. Empeiio stated that in terms of a Medi-Cal permit, a document from the
Department of Health Care Services was submitted that shows that the applicant had
been approved as a provisional provider for a period of 12 months, effective May 31,
2007, which is why he asked the City Clerk's office to contact Mr. Kakar to see if he
had been granted an extension. Mr. Empeiio stated that a new document was provided
today that shows that as of February 10, 2009, the State Department of Health had been
receiving Mr. Kakar's billing statements and was reimbursing him under the Medi-Cal
program. Senior Deputy City Attorney Empeiio asked the City Clerk's office to
identify the current non-emergency medical transport franchise holders in the City.
Cindy Buechter, Business Registration Supervisor, stated that the City currently has six
providers that were approved by this board and licensed in the City: Goodfaith Medical
Transportation, Primary Care Medical Transportation, Good Word Medical Transport,
Sunrise Medical Transportation, Providence Medical Transportation, and Premier
Medical Transportation.
Bureau Member Matley made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member Deetz, and
unanimously carried, that the petition submitted by Amena Medical Transportation to
operate three non-emergency medical transportation vehicles in the City of San
Bernardino be approved.
3
04/14/09
3 . Petition for Additional Taxicab Service - additional information to be reviewed
regarding petition by Express Transportation Systems, AA Inland Empire Cab to
operate 25 taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino previously discussed at the
Bureau of Franchise meeting of September 9,2008.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio stated that a motion had been made on September
9, 2008, to grant the petition which failed on a 2 to 3 vote. The matter was planned to
be considered by the Mayor and Common Council at the October 20, 2008 Council
meeting when it was brought to their attention that there was an issue involving a
Municipal Code requirement that had not been completed by this Bureau.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio distributed copies of the pertinent sections of
Chapter 5.76 regarding "Taxicabs, Ambulances and Chartered Vehicles," and directed
the members of the Bureau to read the bottom of page 5-124, Section 5.76.050,
"Permit - Issuance - Hearings. Mr. Empefio stated that the entire Section was
pertinent, but in particular, in the middle of that paragraph it states, "Before granting
any such permit, the Bureau shall require its engineer or other authorized officer to
present an oral or written report which shall include his opinion as to the existence of
public convenience and necessity for the operation proposed by the applicant." Mr.
Empefio stated that in this particular case there was no report given to this Bureau
before it acted. Because of this issue, he felt it was best to come back before the
Bureau to reconsider its decision and to hear from the applicant as well as the current
franchise holder, and then have City Engineer Robert Eisenbeisz speak to the board
regarding any opinion that he may have relative to this requirement in the Municipal
Code.
Neil Evans, Attorney for the applicant, stated that he has represented many cab
companies in Southern California and it's the same kind of test or challenge that is at
issue here and that is whether to allow one company to have a monopoly or to
encourage or allow for competition. He stated that when you have one company with
no motivation to improve, monitor, or deal with service issues, there will be a decline
in demand. He stated that the real issue is that while the ordinance requires a certain
standard to be met, that standard could be met by encouraging competition because
without competition the public is not going to be properly served. Each company that
comes in causes more demand by seeking out customers, and it causes the pre-existing
company to challenge itself to work harder in terms of its ability to perform its services
and in meeting the needs of the customers. Mr. Evans stated that he felt that this
requirement of establishing public convenience and necessary is met by the standard of
competition and that is what makes the public demand and the public need increase.
Mr. Evans stated that probably the biggest problem with the way that things are
currently being done in the City of San Bernardino is the fact that it has authorized one
company to have 80 permits, and as of the last hearing that company only had 8 to 10
4
04/14/09
permits operating. He stated that there are no other cities he is aware of that allows a
permit holder to take permits and not use them.
Mr. Evans stated that the standard is no more than one cab per 2,500 residents, but
what the City has now is substantially less than that. He stated that in the prior minutes
there was discussion as to whether two additional cabs could be issued based on the
standard of one cab for every 2,500 residents, and he couldn't fathom the reason why
the City wouldn't approve at least two cabs in order to start generating some
competition.
Terri Berger, General Manager of AA Inland Empire Cab Company, stated that she
believes competition makes companies better because it makes people accountable for
how they treat their customers, how they take care of their vehicles, and how their
drivers interact with the public.
Ms. Berger stated that they plan to open a satellite office in the City of San Bernardino,
will hire staff within the City of San Bernardino, and will try to hire drivers that live in
the City of San Bernardino. She stated that she did not see any reason why they were
not allowed to operate within the City of San Bernardino because they could be
bringing in tax revenue.
Ms. Berger stated that Yellow & Bell Cab Company fell far short on the number of
driver permits that they had. She stated that a permit is important because it regulates
the drivers by making sure that they are safe drivers and that the Police Department has
done a background check.
Mr. Evans stated that he understood that the City is jurisdictional and does not regulate
the rates.
Mr. Empefio stated that the City's ordinance requires that the maximum rates for
taxicab service be established by the Mayor and Council, but it is a maximum rate and
they could charge any rate up to that amount. He noted that the Council took action
last year on a rate increase.
Mr. Evans stated that competition will not only affect the quality of service, but may
also affect the rates, and that will increase demand-as prices go down, demand goes
up. If there is no competition, the demand either goes down or is not affected by price;
therefore, they believe that allowing competition of both rates and services is also a
basis for determining public convenience and necessity.
Bureau Member Mlynarski stated that the original request by the applicant was for 25
cabs and the members of the Bureau were given the material and the criteria per the
Municipal Code of how they needed to take action as a body. He didn't want anyone to
think that they were not going to allow competition in the City of San Bernardino, or
5
04/14/09
that they were trying to withhold privileges from any particular business, because that
is not their role. Mr. Mlynarski clarified that their role is to evaluate the applications
that come before them, decide whether or not they meet certain criteria, and then pass
those recommendations on to the Mayor and Common Council.
Bill Lemann, attorney for Yellow & Bell Cab Company, stated that Yellow Cab has
been the premier provider of cab service since the 1950s, and they have had a number
of different hearings before this commission as well as the City Council over the years
regarding this issue as different people have tried to come into the community. He
stated that there are non-licensed people that do operate within the City and that is very
tough to regulate, but they can't do too much about that. He stated that about ten years
ago they agreed with the City Council that Yellow & Bell would computerize the entire
operation so that they could establish zones within the City to determine where the
phone calls are coming from, how people are being served, and whether or not there
really is a need or a necessity for more cabs. Mr. Lemann stated that Yellow & Bell
Cab Company has developed a statistical database and that Mr. Christman would be
reviewing that information with the board and could show some trends of what has
happened in the City. Mr. Lemann stated that the applicant has not shown that there is
a need or a necessity.
Chris Christman, President of Yellow & Bell Cab Company, distributed documents to
the Bureau members and reviewed statistical data for San Bernardino Yellow Cab for
the years of 2006 through March 2009, titled Network Paratransit Systems, Inc., dba;
Yellow & Bell Cab Company, 1510 West Fifth Street, San Bernardino, CA 92411.
Mr. Christman stated that they increased their permits after receiving requests from
some of their clients to expand into the high desert. They are now currently licensed
all the way to Barstow and they increased their cab permits from 70 to 80, but this took
place two years ago before the economy began to dive. He stated that the reason that it
showed they had only 8 to 10 permits is because they couldn't get their permits back
from the City. They got all their drivers permitted by the County of San Bernardino,
which they were allowed to do, and every single driver who is driving as a contractor
for their company has a San Bernardino County permit, which means that they have
passed all the tests.
Ms. Buechter stated that due to some personnel issues in the Police Department and the
section that processes the permits for the taxi drivers, which is basically the background
checks, those permits were not getting processed in a timely manner. She stated that at
the end of last summer the Police Department made some personnel changes and now
the process is running very smoothly. She stated that she ran a list prior to today' s
meeting which showed that Yellow & Bell has 61 licensed drivers. Ms. Buechter
clarified that Yellow & Bell has one permit that was issued by this board for "x"
number of vehicles and that each driver is licensed separately.
6
04/14/09
Mr. Christman stated that they took a company in 2003 and went from 56 cabs to over
100 cabs. They use state-of-the-art technology, some of which is available to no one
else because they designed it themselves. He stated that their on-time performance
parameters are better than what is demanded of any Los Angeles franchise taxi
company.
Mr. Christman stated that they are in the process of investing a great deal of money in
looking to procure CNG vehicles. He stated that they are concessioned as a cab
operator at the Ontario Airport, and within the demands of that concession, they are
going to take their airport fleet and they are going to go CNG. They have the financial
ways and the financial means to do that should they get the vehicles. A number of
those CNGs are going to be allocated for this City, and a number will end up in
Riverside, but their goal is to go 100 percent green, and the cost of that is enormous,
but they are willing to commit $1.5 million to the project.
Mr. Christman stated that they are keeping 90 cabs on the road, and in the worst of
times they had 18 vehicles that were parked because several drivers just walked away
due to the high cost of gas. He stated that their service levels are more than adequate,
and until somebody tells them that they are not doing the job and they are not serving
the public, he didn't think anybody could say they are not doing it right or they
wouldn't still be operating in the City. He asked if the City Clerk's office had received
any complaints.
Ms. Buechter stated that the City's Clerk's office had not received any complaints over
the last few years.
Larry Quiel, business owner and Vice-President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated
that he travels all over the country and uses cab services a lot and he is impressed with
some cities. He stated that local cabs need to be repaired and that he has waited for 30
to 45 minutes for a cab in this City. He stated that he could not see any reason why
they couldn't allow another cab company to come in and compete with the existing
company as it would only make business better.
Mr. Evans stated that they want those two cabs, but they are stuck with the City's
current ordinance, which he felt should contain a "use it or lose it" policy and should
build in competition in a way that's in the best interest of the public. He suggested that
they be allowed to operate two dedicated cabs with a condition that they operate those
cabs in the City of San Bernardino only, because he believes dedicated cabs are
different than multi-jurisdictional cabs. Mr. Evans stated that one thing that troubled
him was the fact that Yellow & Bell got down to eight or nine driver permits, and he
did not believe that obtaining a license from the County gave them the right to pick up
within the City of San Bernardino. He stated that no company should be allowed to
operate more than the number of cabs that they have licensed drivers to operate, and
7
04/14/09
the reason his client came back to this board is because they want to have licensed
drivers in the City of San Bernardino.
Mr. Evans stated that multi-jurisdictional cabs are all over the place and bandit cabs can
be dedicated in the City of San Bernardino and can get all the business that the other
cabs are not willing to hang around for. He stated that if you have dedicated cabs that
only work in the City of San Bernardino, those cabs are going to generate business just
because they're here. He stated that if cabs are waiting for calls when they are in
another jurisdiction, that's going to affect the demand and the quality of service.
Mr. Evans stated that in the old days, cab companies had an investment in the amount
of orders the cab driver got because they received a percentage of whatever was
collected, whereas now they charge a flat, weekly lease rate. He stated that it was his
understanding that Yellow & Bell is fairly high compared to other companies and
charges cab drivers $500 to $550 per week. He stated that as the economy tanks, the
demand for cab drivers goes up. Drivers come in every day and are being turned away
because they have no cabs due to the fact that when the economy tanks, the demand for
entry level jobs skyrockets. So even though the cab drivers are suffering on the street,
the cab companies aren't suffering because they are getting close to the same lease rate
they've always gotten.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio stated that when you look at Section 5.76.050 of
the Municipal Code, it talks about public convenience and necessity and the factors that
need to be considered. It states, "The Bureau, in determining whether or not such facts
exist, shall take into consideration the public demand for such service, the adequacy or
inadequacy of service being rendered by other carriers, the effect of such service upon
traffic, the financial responsibility of the applicant, the amount of wages to be paid to
employees, the character of equipment proposed to be furnished, and any and all other
facts which the Bureau may deem relevant."
Robert Eisenbeisz, City Engineer, stated that he was surprised to hear that it was up to
the engineer to make a finding of public convenience and necessity, which is typically
an effort that the Planning Department does for a lot of other types of applications. He
stated that his first reaction was to look at the criteria that Mr. Empefio had just
mentioned, and the one that stood out the most for him were the impacts of traffic, and
he was of the opinion that 82 cabs City-wide was not going to pose an immediate traffic
engineering issue. He stated that perhaps there may be some issues at the dispatch
location, but he didn't feel that they were going to have an impact on public
convenience and necessity.
Mr. Eisenbeisz stated that he looked at the ordinance as more of a way to control the
total number of cabs so they don't have a situation of there being too many cabs in the
City. He stated that the ordinance may not really address the question of whether the
City has enough cabs to serve the population. As a resident of the City, and more as a
8
04/14/09
consumer, Mr. Eisenbeisz stated that competition is a good thing, but obviously there
are concerns about what is the appropriate number of cabs, and whether the City is
getting good service.
Mr. Eisenbeisz stated that he thought the applicant had put together some good
information that helps answer some of those questions, although some of it is
subjective. He stated that the whole question is subjective and that it would fall back on
this board to make some of those decisions and perhaps even the City Council. He
stated that he tried to look at what he could that was objective, short of actually going
out and riding in some cabs, and he actually thought about doing that, and probably
should have done some of that, although he didn't know how scientific that would be.
He stated that he thought what they really would prefer is an objective analysis and
maybe even some testing as was mentioned. He stated that in both cases that would
provide subjective information that would be difficult to verify.
He stated that the only argument he had against the application and the biggest
compelling argument is if it were to become a public safety issue where they would
have dangerous cabs or drivers who had been driving too long, but he thought they
already had regulations in place that would address those types of safety issues. He
stated that going out of business was also raised, and they have to be sensitive to that;
however, he didn't know whether that could be shown. He stated that a decline in
revenues was certainly is a problem, but he would think that the business model would
shrink to fit that situation. He stated that he didn't think competition necessarily in and
of itself would drive someone out of business unless they are not performing. In that
regard, Mr. Eisenbeisz stated that it might be helpful if they could look at some of the
raw data that went into this as he felt that would certainly allow for more objective and
verifiable information.
Mr. Eisenbeisz stated that the competition provided a business plan and a statement, so
they've met some of the objective criteria. He stated that he didn't think that adding
two cabs was going to necessarily increase or improve the convenience or necessity, but
it certainly wouldn't hurt it. He stated that without more objective information that
they could verify, he really didn't know that he could give an opinion one way or
another on the public convenience or necessity.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio stated that in looking at the focal points in the
City of San Bernardino where most taxis are going to be found such as the train station,
the airport, bus terminals, hotels, and hospitals, etc., he asked the City Engineer to
comment on the existing traffic conditions as they relate to the existence of cabs there,
and questioned whether an increase of taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino from the
80 currently permitted to 82 would have any change on those traffic conditions.
Mr. Eisenbeisz stated that with the way the ordinance is currently limited in the number
of cabs he did not foresee any major issues at those transportation hubs. He stated that
9
04/14/09
they are working on an airport that's going to be opening up sometime this summer,
and this board is going to have to re-evaluate the way that cabs are used around those
airports.
He stated that not operating the full number of cabs could become a convenience and
necessity issue down the road, but certainly they are going to have a growing market
for this type of a service because with the Metrolink station and some of the transit
projects that are underway, and with the airport itself, he suspects they will need more
service in that area. But again, whether 82 cabs are enough, he stated that he didn't
have all the data available right now to say if that was a good number. He actually
tried to look at comparisons to other cities, but it is hard to do that because other cities
have different issues. Some cities have far less cabs per capita, but they're much
bigger cities, so then the total number is much more. He stated that there is a national
trade organization for taxi and limousine service and they have established certain
guidelines, but their guidelines are more on how to operate the business, not necessarily
what the appropriate number of cabs should be for a population. Additional cabs in
those areas have already been accounted for at the airport because they have done a
master plan there and part of the traffic generation of that airport includes some public
transportation whether it's cabs, buses, vans, shuttle services, etc., and the same is true
for the depot and some of the other major hubs. They really expect to see that type of
component in the traffic, so they don't really envision any major traffic congestion
problems as a result of the cab services.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess asked why Yellow & Bell did not lower their rates
when gas prices fell.
Mr. Christman stated that they were not asked to, and they did not propose it. He
stated that the $2.60 per mile they are now charging is in relation to and was proposed
because every single major city and county around them had already gone to $2.55 or
$2.60 per mile, and they were still at $2.40.
Mr. Christman stated the he had issues with allowing two dedicated cabs to operate in
the City. First, he asked if need and necessity had been met because the burden of
proof was on the applicant. Secondly, he stated that a dedicated cab cannot be
controlled, and if they approve two permits, they'll let the entire fleet into the City and
no one is going to stop them.
Bureau Member Mlynarski stated that this is a very interesting situation that is
obviously driven by population and cannot be controlled. He stated that at the last
meeting he did not vote in favor of granting the two cabs because he didn't think they
would be addressing the bigger issue of how the City of San Bernardino is going to
serve its constituents and the people who come into the City via its airports and the
Metrolink station.
10
04/14/09
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio stated that additional information had been
provided by the applicant as well as the City Engineer, and he advised that the board
had the authority to entertain a motion to either grant or deny the applicant. He stated
that the ordinance separates the question into two parts. The first question is whether
public needs and necessity support an increase in service from 80 to 82 cabs based on
the increase in population; and, if the answer to that question is "yes," then the second
question is whether the two cabs should be given to the existing holder of the franchise,
Yellow & Bell Cab, or should the two cabs be given to the applicant.
Mr. Empefio stated that there are provisions in the Municipal Code (Section 5.76.110)
regarding revocation, suspension or cancellation of permits, but it requires a notice of
public hearing, it requires cause, and then an opportunity for an appeal of the Bureau's
decision to the Council about whether any permits should be revoked or suspended,
basically taking away from Yellow & Bell Cab.
Bureau Member Mlynarski stated that if the Board were to take action today, would
that action proceed to the Mayor and Council.
Mr. Empefio stated that according to the City's ordinances, the board's decision is
basically a recommendation. He stated that no appeal is necessary and the Council has
to confirm, reverse or modify the board's decision.
Bureau Member Mlynarski stated that he would like to hear from the Mayor and
Council on their desire to look at the Municipal Code because some of the challenges
they have are inherent in the way the Code is written including enforcement and the
allocation of permits, and then when those permits or licenses are not used, it doesn't
say that in the Code, but obviously from the way that the business operates, there are
intricacies within this operation that have to relate to the Code section and this Code
was written a long time ago. He stated that with a growing City, in the not to distant
future with airports and things of that nature, there is going to be a real demand for cab
service-more than just two additional cabs. He stated that he would like to pose that
question to the Mayor and Council and felt the issue should go to the Legislative
Review Committee or to the Ways and Means Committee, so they could start some
dialog on what it would take to make this section of the Code a little more effective on
serving the City.
Mr. Empefio stated that in 2002, the Council upheld the decision of the Bureau of
Franchises to grant a permit to increase Yellow & Bell Cab's operation by an additional
25 cabs in the face of an application by AAA Inland Empire Cab Company to seek a
franchise in the City of San Bernardino. In 2005, the Mayor and Council approved the
Bureau's determination that public convenience and necessity is served by increasing
the number of taxicabs of Yellow & Bell from 70 to 80 vehicles. Mr. Empefio stated
that in 2002 they had the same dialog about giving the 25 new vehicles to AAA Inland
Empire Cab, and they also questioned whether Yellow & Bell Cab's 45 vehicles should
11
04/14/09
be kept or modified. He stated that there is also this issue of an existing property right
that Yellow & Bell has that cannot be modified without a noticed public hearing.
Mr. Empefio advised the Bureau that they had an existing application they needed to
deal with and they needed to make a decision whether to grant or deny the applicant.
The application could then take its course to the Mayor and Council and then they could
make a decision, and at the same time the Mayor and Council could consider the issue
of whether the existing franchise holder is doing a good job or a bad job and whether
their franchise should be considered for a suspension or revocation. They could discuss
that-they couldn't make a decision on that-but they could discuss that and then send it
back to the Bureau of Franchises to hear a proposal to suspend or revoke the franchise.
Bureau Member Madey made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member Hampton, that
the petition submitted by AA Inland Empire Cab be denied. The motion carried with
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess voting "no".
4. Adjournment
At 4:25 p.m., Bureau Member Matley made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member
Hampton, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned. The next regular
meeting of the Bureau of Franchises is scheduled at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 12,
2009, in the Management Information Conference Room located on the 6th Floor of
City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
CINDY BUECHTER
Secretary
BY~~~A.~d
Linda Sutherland
Deputy City Clerk
12
04/14/09
MINUTES
BUREAU OF FRANCHISES
FOR THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
The regular meeting of the Bureau of Franchises was called to order by Chairman Mlynarski at
2:12 p.m., Tuesday, September 9,2008, in the Management Information Conference Room, 6th
Floor, City Hall, San Bernardino, California.
Roll Call
Roll call was taken by Deputy City Clerk Sutherland with the following being present:
Chairman Mlynarski; Bureau Members Matley, Deetz, Hampton, Martindale-Chess; Business
Registration Supervisor/Bureau Secretary Buechter, Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio.
Absent: None.
Public Comments
There were no public comments.
1. Request for Taxicab Rate Increase - request submitted by San Bernardino Yellow
& Bell Cab for a modification of the flag drop and per mile rates.
Chris Christman, President, San Bernardino and Riverside Yellow & Bell Cab, stated that
their rates have been set at $2.20 per mile for three years and it has had a devastating
effect on their ability to operate. He stated that he has 60 owner/operators in his fleet,
which is just under 100 cabs, and all of his cab drivers have experienced significant
damage to their quality of life. Mr. Christman stated that the requested increase would
bring them in line with other organizations and territories in the surrounding area, and is
necessary in order for them to survive as a viable cab company.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio passed out copies of San Bernardino Municipal
Code Section 5.76.230 regarding establishment of rates, and Section 5.76.240 regarding
change in rates.
Chairman Mlynarski stated that he understood that Mr. Christman had a similar request
for a rate increase to $2.50 back in June.
Mr. Empefio explained that because there were only four appointed members on the
board at that time they could not officially meet as a board. Therefore, they met as a
subcommittee of the board to consider Mr. Christman's request and agreed to forward a
recommendation for approval to the Mayor and Council. However, under the City's
ordinances, the Bureau of Franchises has to meet and take formal action before going to
the Council so they pressed the Council members and the Mayor to consider making
09/09/08
ordinances, the Bureau of Franchises has to meet and take formal action before going to
the Council so they pressed the Council members and the Mayor to consider making
appointments to the board, or to amend the City's ordinances. Mr. Empeiio stated that
at the Legislative Review Committee a couple of Council members chose to make
appointments so the board now has five members, which is the minimum number that
can formally act, and that is why the matter is before the board today.
Mr. Christman stated that their current rate is $2.20 per mile and the breakdown is
$.22 for the first 1/10 of a mile and $2.20 each mile thereafter with a waiting time of
$24.00 per hour. He stated that their initial request for a rate increase was for $2.50
per mile, and their current request of $2.60 per mile is based, in part, upon the City of
Ontario's recent approval of $2.50 with a $2 surcharge.
Bureau Member Hampton made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member Martindale-
Chess, to approve the taxicab rate increase and that it be forwarded to the Mayor and
Common Council for approval.
2. Petition for Additional Taxicab Service - petition by Express Transportation
Systems, AA Inland Empire Cab to operate 25 taxicabs in the City of San
Bernardino
Terri Berger, General Manager of AA Inland Empire Cab Company, stated that she
has about six to seven years of experience in the taxicab industry and she wanted to
prove the public need and necessity for another taxicab company in the City of San
Bernardino. At the present time there is only one taxicab company that is licensed in
the City of San Bernardino and that would be Yellow & Bell Cab Company. She stated
that they have done extensive research within the City and have found that there is a
need for better transportation. Included in their proposal are studies that were done in
Denver and Minneapolis concerning cab company monopolies and the reasons they
have not worked. She stated that usually monopolies in a city will constitute higher
rates for the consumers, longer wait times, and sometimes poor customer service or
even no service at all, which they feel is the case in the City of San Bernardino. Ms.
Berger stated that they found that the current company has areas in the City of San
Bernardino that they have designated as "no service" areas. The taxicab drivers will
not pick up in these areas and sometimes callers are even told that they do not service
those particular areas of San Bernardino. The areas they are finding that are designated
as "no service" areas are Waterman Gardens, Little Africa, and anywhere near Base
Line and Waterman. She stated that these are low economic, minority areas which are
the people in the community that need transportation the most. They are single
mothers, seniors, and disabled persons who need a taxi because they can't afford a car,
and when they are told that a company will not pick them up, they are left with few
resources as to how they are going to get to their doctor's appointments or to the
grocery store, or anywhere else they might need to go that day.
2
09/09/08
Ms. Berger stated that they circulated a petition at the Stater Bros. market on Waterman
and Base Line, which was included in their proposal. She stated that this is a very
small sample of the number of citizens within the City of San Bernardino who are
asking for more choices in the City's taxi service. She stated that Yellow & Bell Cab
Company has been issued 82 permits for the City of San Bernardino and when she went
onto the City's website she found that only 8 of their drivers are actually permitted in
the City of San Bernardino. She stated that permitting a driver is important because it
is the basis of customer safety. When a driver is sent to the Police Department they
undergo a background check, a drug test, and they are finger printed so the citizens of
San Bernardino can be assured they are going to be picked up by someone who has had
their background checked.
Ms. Berger stated that Yellow & Bell Cab Company has close to 100 cabs on the road,
but they have promised a lot of cabs to a lot of cities, and she thinks they are spread
very thin at this point. They have been given 82 permits within the City of San
Bernardino, and if they have under 100 cabs, she wondered how they can service the
City of San Bernardino when they've already promised the Ontario Airport 35 of those
cabs and they've promised the City of Riverside 40 of those cabs. She stated that they
have a multi-million dollar contract with the County of Riverside for the Riverside
Transit Authority and are making between 75 to 100 trips per day with that contract.
That uses about 20 more of their taxicabs that are out of the San Bernardino area for the
day. Also, trips to the Veterans Administration Hospital probably take another 10 cabs
out for the rest of the day, so there isn't a lot left for the City of San Bernardino. Ms.
Berger stated that the citizens of San Bernardino are being underserved. She stated that
the entire City may only have 8 legal drivers within the City limits every day when the
population of San Bernardino constitutes having 82 taxicabs per the Municipal Code.
She stated that all the drivers who are driving within the City limits need to be
permitted with the City. She urged the members of the Bureau to vote to allow them to
help give the citizens of San Bernardino a choice for better taxi services.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Empefio passed out copies of the San Bernardino
Municipal Code regarding the pending franchise permit application.
Bureau Member Hampton asked if AA Inland Empire Cab intended to also serve
Redlands, Colton, and Riverside.
Ms. Berger stated that they would only be serving the City of San Bernardino.
Victor Caballero of Express Transportation Systems stated that the rates they are
proposing to bring to the City of San Bernardino are a $2 flag drop and $2.20 per mile,
which will be a substantial savings to the residents of San Bernardino. He stated that
Yellow & Bell Cab Company has been successful and their drivers are able to pick and
choose which business they are going to target. Unfortunately, what happens under
those circumstances is that it is difficult to get taxicab drivers to frequent the lower
income, tougher neighborhoods of a particular community. Mr. Caballero stated that
3
09/09/08
because there are only 8 drivers that are permitted in the City of San Bernardino, one
can only conclude that its citizens are being served by illegal taxicabs.
Mr. Empefio stated that back in 2002 the board received an application by AAA Inland
Empire Cab Company in Riverside requesting a franchise for taxicab services in the
City of San Bernardino. That matter went before the Bureau of Franchises and to the
City Council, and the City Council denied the application.
He asked the members of the bureau to turn their attention to Section 5.76.060 of the
San Bernardino Municipal Code. Mr. Empefio stated that the franchise that was
granted to Yellow & Bell Cab Company in 2002, allows them to have 80 vehicles
within its permit. He stated that Subsection B(I) of the City's ordinances prescribes a
limitation in the number of taxicabs that can be permitted in the City of San Bernardino
based on the City's population, and that is one taxicab per 2,500 residents of the City.
Mr. Empefio stated that as of January 1, 2008, the California Department of Finance
estimated the City of San Bernardino's population to be 205,493, and that figure was
confirmed by the City's Information Technology Department. He stated that if you
divide 205,493 by 2,500 you get 82 taxicabs that are permitted in the City that can
operate under the City's current ordinance. With Yellow & Bell Cab Company having
80 of those vehicles, that means only two vehicles could be added by this board and the
City Council.
Mr. Empefio stated that the board needs to decide, first of all, whether public
convenience and necessity requires that the level of service be increased by adding two
additional licensed vehicles in the City of San Bernardino, and whether the existing
holder of the franchise permit, YeHow & Bell Cab Company, should be given that
increase, or any part of that increase up to two additional vehicles; or secondly,
whether the applicant should be granted those two additional vehicles. He stated that
taxicabs are permitted to enter the City of San Bernardino and deliver or drop off
customers without a franchise permit, but they must have a franchise permit if they pick
up any passengers in the City.
Mr. Empefio stated that the Council would have to agree with the recommendation of
this board as to whether those two additional vehicles should be permitted and whether
the two vehicles should go to YeHow & Bell Cab Company or to AA Inland Empire
Cab Company. He stated that AA Inland Empire Cab Company was told this when
they submitted their application even though the request was for 25 vehicles.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess asked how many vehicles are currently being used in
the City of San Bernardino.
Cindy Buechter, Business Registration Supervisor, stated that the franchise is approved
to operate up to 80 vehicles in the City of San Bernardino and each driver must be
licensed and permitted. She stated that 23 drivers are currently licensed and operating
and 12 have been approved by the Department of Justice, for a total of 35.
4
09/09/08
Bureau Member Matley asked if they have ever gotten close to having 80 vehicles.
Ms. Buechter stated that she ran a report of the number of licensed drivers from 2003
forward and there is a total of 147 individuals on the list. She stated that to try to
determine how many there are at any given time would take some time because they
don't all come due on January 1 or July 1. They are due each month whenever they get
their permit, and it would be good for 12 months from that time.
Bureau Member Mlynarski stated that they are bound by certain limitations, not only by
the Municipal Code, but also by today's agenda.
Mr. Caballero stated that they would like to amend their request to two taxicabs.
Mr. Christman stated that it was becoming impossible to obtain business certificates in
a timely manner and it was taking up to six months to get a permit. He stated that
because he was unaware that the City superseded the County, he directed his cab
drivers to get permitted through the Sheriff s Department in the County of San
Bernardino. Unfortunately, that made it appear as though they didn't have any licensed
cabs in the City.
Ms. Buechter stated that Mr. Christman had provided some information that indicated
which drivers were licensed with the County and operating in the City. She stated that
there has been a holdup with the Police Department for quite some time in getting the
drivers through the permitting process and issuing them a business registration. She
stated that it was taking up to six months for the Police Department to communicate
with her as to who had been approved by the Department of Justice and she had to wait
for that information to come before she could contact the drivers to let them know that
once they were permitted they could come in and get licensed. She stated that there is a
different individual over there now and the system is working beautifully, which is the
reason for the sudden increase.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess asked what would have to be done in order for
another company to come in and get 25 vehicles.
Mr. Empeiio stated that a request would have to come before this board to revoke
Yellow & Bell Cab's permit to have up to 80 vehicles and to have that number reduced.
He stated that Municipal Code Section 5.76.110 allows for a revocation or suspension
of a permit, but the reasons and a noticed public hearing would have to be provided for
that revocation and given to Yellow & Bell Cab in order to give them an opportunity
for rebuttal.
Ms. Berger stated that when she contacted the Police Department at the end of June or
the beginning of July, they printed out a list showing that there were only 7 permits.
She thought the bureau members should know that the Ontario Airport requires their
drivers to have a County of San Bernardino permit to operate there, so some of those
County permits are probably for their airport drivers who do not generally drive in the
5
09/09/08
City of San Bernardino. She stated that she would like to go over the list of the actual
drivers who drive for Yellow & Bell Cab Company because she has extensive
knowledge of which drivers are still with the company, which drivers are no longer
with the company, and which drivers are driving for her company.
Chairman Mlynarski asked why the City did not grant a franchise to the company back
in 2002/2003.
Mr. Caballero stated that this company has new ownership and is not the applicant that
appeared before the body in 2002.
Bill Lemann, attorney for Yellow & Bell Cab Company, stated that in 2002 they had a
hearing before the Council to determine what was in the best interest of the City and
they voted in favor of one applicant and one license. He stated that the discussion was
that too many cab companies would be hard to regulate and it would be hard for cab
companies to compete because of the market they are serving, and eventually San
Bernardino would end up with no cab companies.
Bureau Member Hampton made a motion that the petition submitted by AA Inland
Empire Cab to operate 2 taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino be denied, and that the
matter be referred to the City Council. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Empeiio advised that the board had to make a determination.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member
Matley, that the petition submitted by AA Inland Empire Cab Company to operate two
(2) additional taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino be approved.
Mr. Empeiio advised that the board had to determine that public convenience and
necessity requires the additional 2 vehicles to be permitted in the City of San
Bernardino and whether Yellow & Bell Cab should be allowed those additional 2
vehicles or whether AA Inland Empire Cab should be granted the permit for the 2
vehicles.
Mr. Lemann asked Mr. Empeiio if the board needed to make its own findings with
regard to public convenience and necessity.
Mr. Empeiio stated that he considered Bureau Member Martindale's motion to be
essentially a combination of those issues that AA Inland Empire Cab Company be
granted a franchise to operate the 2 additional vehicles in the City of San Bernardino.
He stated that Mr. Lemann was right in that findings to support that had to be drafted
and adopted by this board. Mr. Empeiio stated that if the board could not articulate the
findings today, they could assign the City Attorney's office, in conjunction with the
City Clerk, to come back at the next meeting with a draft of those findings for the
board's formal review and adoption.
6
09/09/08
Chairman Mlynarski stated that through the testimony and the dialogue there was a
perceived necessity, but whether or not that necessity could be quantified to support the
increase or the granting of a franchise was being debated on the floor.
Mr. Lemann stated that the current license holder has not been given an opportunity to
comment on the public convenience and necessity. He stated that he felt it would be
important for purposes of determining what is needed and what is convenient for him to
make some comments. He stated that what they've heard so far essentially is self-
serving hearsay on the part of a lady that used to work for the company and they have
an application that attaches an unscientific set of signatures that include people without
addresses, family members of Ms. Berger, incorrect dates, no last names, etc., so for
this board to find a public convenience and necessity they need to establish the facts to
do so.
Chairman Mlynarski stated that they have an application for a new franchise and 25
taxicabs. The applicant has indicated that he would take the 2 additional taxicabs the
Municipal Code allows. There is also a consideration that Yellow & Bell Cab could
take those 2 additional vehicles as well. He stated that they need to come to some
conclusions. He stated that he agreed with Mr. Lemann that they cannot be arbitrary in
how they make a decision in this particular case knowing that this is going to go to the
Mayor and Common Council and that this dialogue is going to continue.
Mr. Empeiio stated that the ordinances of this City permit up to 82 taxicabs to operate
in the City. He stated that this board still had to make a finding of public convenience
and necessity that 2 additional vehicles should be permitted in the City of San
Bernardino. He advised the board that they didn't have to make that finding even
though the maximum could be 82. They could state that the current franchise held by
Yellow & Bell Cab Company with 80 licensed vehicles is adequate and there is no
public convenience and necessity determination the board wants to make to increase
that. On the other hand, they could find that the public convenience and necessity
requires adding the 2 additional vehicles and that either Yellow & Bell Cab be given
those 2 additional vehicles or that the applicant be given the 2 vehicles.
Bureau Member Matley stated that in their proposal the applicant had mentioned a
combination of sedans and vans designed for handicapped access. He asked what the
applicant intended to operate in the City.
Mr. Caballero stated that they would operate one sedan and one van in the City of San
Bernardino.
Mr. Empeiio asked if AA Inland Empire Cab is a corporation.
Mesfln Shawel, President of Express Transportation Systems, stated that they are a
California corporation doing business as AA Inland Empire Cab Company.
7
09/09/08
Chairman Mlynarski stated that a motion was on the floor for approval of the additional
2 taxicabs, but they were still in a quandary regarding the findings to support that.
Mr. Christman stated that the ordinance allows them to operate up to 80 vehicles, but it
is physically impossible to have all the cabs in the City at one time, but the commitment
to put those vehicles in service at any time is always there. He stated that cab
companies must respond to demand, and the number of calls has decreased drastically.
He stated that they do not refuse calls by territory because that is against the law, and
added that he has drivers that will go anywhere in the City, day or night.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess stated that she was trying to look at whether the
residents of San Bernardino are being provided adequate taxi service.
Mr. Lemann stated that when this issue came up four years ago Yellow & Bell Cab
invested $100,000 in a software system that would track every phone call. He
recommended that if the board was going to make a finding of convenience and
necessity they should get a printout of those phone calls because it would provide a
record of who called, what time they called, and where the cab goes, and that would
speak for itself.
Chairman Mlynarski asked Ms. Martindale if she made her motion based upon
necessity after reviewing the petition and hearing the testimony.
Bureau Member Martindale-Chess stated that she made her motion based on not having
one taxi service monopolize the market. She stated that her major concern is whether
the residents of San Bernardino are being served.
The motion made by Bureau Member Martindale-Chess, seconded by Bureau
Member Mattey, failed. Ayes: Bureau Members Mattey, Martindale-Chess.
Nays: Bureau Members Deetz, Hampton, Mlynarski.
Chairman Mlynarski stated that he did not feel he had enough information and statistics
to determine a necessity, whether it was to add another franchisee or to revoke a
portion of an existing franchisee. He stated that he felt the dialogue needed to continue,
and asked where this matter would go from here if a motion to formally deny the
application was not made.
Mr. Empefio stated that if there is no other action by the bureau, they could continue
the matter to the next meeting date if there were additional facts or information they
wanted to get from the applicant, from the current franchise holder, or from staff.
Alternatively, if the bureau did not wish to continue the matter for further information,
then it would go forward to the Council with a record of the board's deliberations and
the fact that the motion to approve the franchise failed on a 2 to 3 vote.
8
09/09/08
Chairman Mlynarski stated that he would like to receive a little more history as to why
the number of taxis was increased from 45 to 80 and how that relates to the current
state of affairs in the City of San Bernardino. He stated that he did not feel adding 2
cabs would really accomplish anything for the City and felt it diluted their whole
purpose, which is to make wise business decisions. He stated that he did not want to
set a precedent just for the sake of convenience.
3. Adjournment
At 3:50 p.m., Bureau Member Hampton made a motion, seconded by Bureau Member
Deetz, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned. The next regular
meeting of the Bureau of Franchises is scheduled at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, October 14,
2008, in the Management Information Conference Room located on the 6th Floor of
City Hall, 300 North "D" Street, San Bernardino, California.
CINDY BUECHTER
Secretary
By .~kJiV1~~
Linda Sutherland
Deputy City Clerk
9
09/09/08
PROPOSAL FOR TAXICAB
SERVICE FOR THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO
Ji;;~' " ,
~.,.", -;.(.." .
.'"
. "
:: ~
SUBMITTED BY
I~Jft }~~
. ,_. ,fr-"'i&'\
~~. .J:.- .:tUJ.
.._, ,'. '--.- -
)"- .,t,..-.~, }E'!." "'0<\
i~ i'il.. If.H~
- ".::~.> ~--'":""~~ <.'.~~
--I~:i ~ -~~;.],-~
,~ Jl!l..: " :}l . ),'i I
,............ . ;t;:1. -.4' .. . . '._ .-+~
. . '.,',.,.):UJ~x~t~..~
"-,.5
.__....u.:-~.
"'s;~J~
'l._..
.'........,
A"._
, --,:/1>:
....~.",J' ,
....
3000 Date Street, Riverside CA 92507
Tel: (951)-222-2291 Fax: (951) 369-3049
July 17, 2008
Ms.Cindy Buechter
City Business Manager
300N D St
San Bernardino, Ca, 92418
Dear Ms. Buechter,
The city of San Bernardino is an exciting and desirable place to live, work, raise a
family and play. The wonderful diversity of its citizenry, the continuing improvement of
the city's schools, and the variety of cultural experiences one can encounter on a daily
basis, make San Bernardino an enjoyable, unique city. It is for these reasons that AA
Inland Empire Cab seek to operate and thrive in San Bernardino and intends to continue
growing here.
In accordance with San Bernardino Municipal Code Article 1 Sec.31-3 Certificate of
Public convenience and necessity is required:
"No person shall operate, cause, permit or allow to be operated any Automobile for hire
or a taxicab upon the streets of the city without having first obtained a certificate of
public convenience and necessity from the city council. (Municipal Code, Article 1
General Provisions 5.76.060).
AA Inland Empire Cab is pleased to submit to the Board of Franchise and staff our
findings for public convenience and necessity for taxicab service in the City of San
Bernardino. We are confident that the Board of Franchise and the City Council will agree
that emergency circumstances and conditions exist that necessitate granting additional
permits for the health, welfare, and benefit of the residents of the City.
Weare respectfully requesting, for the reasons stated within, based on 20 years
experience of public service by AA Inland Empire Management team to taxi riders, the
additional taxi permits be awarded to AA Inland Empire Cab. We also invite comments
and suggestions from the City of San Bernardino to comply in maximizing these findings.
If you have any questions or need clarification please do not hesitate to call me at (626)-
893-3235.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you and to serve the San Bernardino
community.
Respectfully
Mesfm Shawel
President
~
t- ~
z
8 .
2 ~
c
LD t:<.
..,.-
l'-
r-
....::t i
r-- 0
...
o
z
b:
m
fd
~
0%
~~
00
et:U)
<C:)
~O
WUJ
alZ
~:3
C/)..J
LLW
00
~!!
(3:&
1Tt ~ 8: ~.a
. .!!
~~ ""'-.l!
".). ""-'
'!.o' - ..:_
, ~ 1'=.0: ~i:?J 1.
.,
S~L ~ ~.LL~ ~~~~~J~':;J;2:,1
. T :l;:
tl "~t a;}a~;'jC\:j~~;~~~)'f~ ~~X~H
_-~:l :,,';'.l..
~2~hL~~'2.1;
;;~.i.D ~'
.;]~.L';..
-.: ~...L, ~
(
CITY OF SRN BERNARDINO CASH:
*** CUSTOMER RECEIPT fi
Opel": JCHAV Type: DC I
Dat2~ 8/04/080B Receipt nc:
Desc~ipticn Quantitv
ir MISe ~iORT FDRN
1.0ki
CITY CLERK#747715,
Tender' detai 1
eM CHECI< - ~1 4729
Total i;endel"ed
Total paYllent
Trans date: 8/01/08 Tim~: 1
*** THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAVMENT *
"TRUSTED. QUALITY SERVICE SIN
,."........:
PETITION FOR FRANCHISE
PERMIT
CITY O~ SAN BERNARDINO
mI'l'ION ]~OR FRARCfIISE PERloIIT
I. 'ryPE OF Fl:l,l'tNCffISB l'lEQffflSTBO TAXICAB
.PRINCIPAL IS YW-D: Express Transportation Systems
AA INlAND EMPIRE CAB
ADDRESS OF. BUSINESS 3000 DATE STREET
BUSINESS PHONE
909-829-4222
NAME OF ROSINESS
RIVERSIDE
92507
STBEET
CI'l'Y
RIVERSIDE 92507
~IP CODE
951-222-2291
GlmER f S R~SInm-[CE 3000 DATE STREET
S'I'RltE'!'
CITY ZIP COm:
H~E l'HONE
II. IF FIL1NG AS PAR.l'l!l.I3~HIP~ ASSOCIAT!ON OR mUNCORPOMTE.c COMPANY, COMI~LETE Ttm
FOLLOWING IllFORMA'1'!.OM PY Lr.S'rING TiiE NMoIES OF 'L"W!: PARTNERS OR FE!lSDNS COMPRHIING
THE PAa't'NERSHIP, ASgOCIAi'XO~ OR. COl.fPANY TOG~ImR W:T.m THEIR RESPEC'rI~~ AGES HI
ADDITIOtf TO PART I.
NAME
-
1\.GE
1.
2.
3.
4.
III. CORPOAATION (IP FILING. AS COnP.cr'lll.T!ON, OOMP.LE'l'E FOr.r,OWlliG l~I!'ORMA'l'ION IN
AODI'l'ION 'l'O PARr I.)
N1lME OF CORF.O~TIO~
Express Transportation Systems
M'l'iJ o!" !NCOHroRAT!O~
April 2005
PlACE OF INCOro,'OMTION
CALIFORNIA
hUDRESS O~I PRINC~PAL PL&~ OF BUS!NESS
3000 DATE STREET
S T REF.',['
RIVERSIDE
c: I~'Y
92507
"--'}!;ii'"CC1)T~-- - ----.- - --. -..-.--
l~S C~ OF?ICEaS
~
RES!DENCE AJ?DJ!.ESS ~.':~_~
CITY
ZIP ceDE
L Mesfin Shawel 3404 Peggy Ct.
West Covina 91792
2.
J.
4.
(:F AnD IT:r.ONAt , SPACE Nr::En..~D. USE Sf.:'l''&R1\1'E SIIEE'T')
IV. VEHICLES
TYPE, . MODEL, CAPACITY AND CONDITION OF VEHICLES PROPOSED TO BEOPERA'rED UNDER
'rHIS FRANCHISE.
AA INlAND EMPIRE CAB WILL OPERATE 4 DOOR FORD CROWN V1CIDRIA SEDANS AND CHEVY AND DODGE WHEElCHAIR ACCESSIBLE VANS FOR PHYSICALLY CHAUNGED
AU VEHICLES WILL BE 0 - 4 YEARS OlD. COMPANY WILL PUT 2% OF THE FLEET SIZE ENVIRDMENTALLY mlENDLY CLEAN NATURAL GAS VEHICLES.
(IF ADDITIONAL SPACE NEEDED, USE SEPERATE SHEET)
V. INSURANCE
SCo~INSURANCECoMPANY
NAME OF INSURANCE COMPANY MY. VERNON INSURANCE COMPANY
DESCRIP'rIClN OF COVERAGE BEllRAL AND AUTOMOBILE UABlLTY COVERAGE Stooo,oDo.oo - S2,000,ooo.00 RESPEClFULLY
AUID 1212312007 -12I23I2ooB GENERAl 0411212008 - 0411212009
POLICY DATE
(INCLUDE COPY OF INSU~CE COVERAGE WITH THIS PETITION)
VI. STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
THE PETITIONER IS REQUIRED TO ATTACH A FULL STATEMENT OF HIS ~SETS AND LIABILITIES.
VII. DESCRIPTI~ OF OPERATION
IN THE SPACE PROVIDED BE'LC1N DESCRIBE THE OPERATION YOU ARE REQUESTING TO
FRANCHISE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER INFORMATION YOU FEEL WILL HELP THE FRANCHISE
BOARD MAlCE A DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO APPROVING YOUR PETITION FOR A
FRANCHISE PERMIT.
PLEASE SEE DESCRfTloN OF OPERATION ATTAeIID HEREm.
VIII. FILING PROCEDURE AND FEE
PETITION IS TO BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK, BUSINESS LICENSE DIVISION,
ATTENTION BUSINESS LICENSE SUPERVISOR, 300 NORTH "0" STREET, S~ BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNJ:A 9241.8. AT OR BEFORE THE TIME THIS PETITION IS FILED WITH THE
FRANCHISE BUREAU, THE PETITIONER SHAL~ PAY TO THE CITY OF SAN BEBNARDINO A
FILING FEE OF $500.00, PLUS $10.00 FOR EACH VEHICLE PROPOSED TO BE COVERED
BY THE PERMIT. (THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS LICENSE FEE)
PLEASE READ AND SIGN:
I CERTIFY THAT ALL STATEMENTS IN THIS PETITION ARE TRUE, ACCURATE AND COMPLE'I'E.
FALSIFICATION OF ANY STATEMENT MAY RESULT IN THE CANCELLATION OF THIS PETITION.
SIGNATURE
DATE
Express Transportation Systems
Balance Sheet
As of August 31, 2008
ASSETS
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
12599 . City National Bank
Total Checking/Savings
Total Current Assets
Fixed Assets
14000. Computer Software
14999. TAXI-CAB Purchase(Jafar Nividi
15000. Machinery and Equipment
15001 . Furniture
16300' Transportation Cab & Sedans
17000 . Accumulated Depreciation
Total Fixed Assets
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Credit Cards
18304. Office Depot
18302' CAPITAL ONE
18000 . American Express Platinum
18200 . CITIBUSINESS CREDIT CARD
18300. WELLS FARGO BANK LINE OF CREDIT
Total Credit Cards
Other Current Liabilities
18401 . Dell Business Credt-Computers
18301. CITY NATIONAL BANK-CREDIT LINE
18303 . Capital One Business Loan
23001 . Loan-Digital Dispatch Systems
18400. Dell Financial Services
20001 . LOANS FROM ANDARGACHEW SHAWEL
20002. LOAN FROM MESFIN SHAWEL
20004 . LOAN FROM MARVIN APPLEBAUM
23000 . Loan-Wells Fargo Equipment Line
23002 . US Bank
Total Other Current Liabilities
Total Current Liabilities
Total Liabilities
Equity
30000 . Opening Bal Equity
32000 . Retained Earnings
Aug 31, 08
61,810.33
61,810.33
61,810.33
1,292.96
440,000.00
143,076.91
727.31
256,471.68
-128,743.93
712,824.93
774,635.26
1,777.50
2,133.58
11 ,453.35
7,303.58
99,558.28
122,226.29
3,147.31
43,013.96
95,807.69
73,752.50
1,697.15
445,039.87
121,448.15
1,500.00
17,475.99
31,946.82
834,829.44
957,055.73
957,055.73
-59,208.32
-135,827.21
Page 1 of 2
Prepared By: Monica's Tax and Bookkeeping
Net Income
Total Equity
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Express Transportation Systems
Balance Sheet
As of August 31, 2008
Aug 31, 08
12,615.06
-182,420.47
774,635.26
Page 2 of 2
Prepared By: Monica's Tax and Bookkeeping
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP 10 R~ DATE (MMlDDIYVYV)
EXPRES9 06/23/08
PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
R.S.:I. :Insurance Brokers, :Inc. ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
CA L:ICENSE '0782244 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
2801 Bristol street '200 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.
Costa Mesa CA 92626
Phone: 714-546-6616 l'ax:714-546-4457 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC#
INSURED INSURER A scottsdale :Ins.Co.'41297 41297
INSURER B Mt. Vernon Ins. Co.
AA :Inland Empire Taxi systems INSURER C
Exgress Transportation
30 0 Date Street INSURER 0
Riverside CA 92507
INSURER E
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO AlL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
I',.."r< ~SRii POLICY NUMBER 1P8k~T(MM1DDIYY) LIMITS
LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE DATE (MMlDDIYY)
GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000
f--
B ~ COMMERCiAl GENERAl LIABILITY CL2328951A 04/12/08 04/12/09 U"IW"'~ $100,000
I CLAIMS MADE [!] OCCUR PREMISES (Ea occurence)
MED EX? (Anyone person) $ 5,000
PERSONAl & ADV INJURY $1,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE $2,000,000
-
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER. PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ :INCLUDED
I n PRO- nLOC
POLICY JECT
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT
- $ 1,000,000
A ~ ANY AUTO CAS0087083 12/23/07 12/23/08 (Ea accident)
AlL OWNED AUTOS BODIL Y INJURY
- $
SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person)
-
HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
- $
NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per aCCident)
-
- PROPERTY DAMAGE $
(Per accident)
GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONL Y - EA ACCIDENT $
R ANY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC $
AUTO ONL Y: AGG $
.
EXCESSIUMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $
tJ OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $
$
R DEDUCTIBLE $
RETENTION $ $
WORKERS COMPENSATION AND !n)R'vtIMIT'"S I jOIH-
ER
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY EL EACH ACCIDENT $
ANY PROPRIETORlPARTNERlEXECUTIVE
OFFICERlMEMBER EXCLUDED? EL DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $
If yes, describe under EL DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $
SPECIAL PROVISIONS below
Oll-fER
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES I EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT I SPECIAL PROVISIONS
CERTIFICATE HOLDER
CANCELLATION
-01 SHOULD Am OF ll-fE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPlRA110N
DATE ll-fEREOF, ll-fE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRITTEN
-
I NOTICE TO ll-fE CERllFlCATE HOLDER NAMED TO ll-fE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL
IMPOSE NO OBLIGA110N OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON ll-fE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR
REPRESENTATIVES.
A~~
.?
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION
!lY ""R''1 ,.,...,., A.. ,'" ~I
<'~'- r. "(;~"~. .J.! .':1 ~~~. .~'. 1"'\'
(::.-'=':~,.. ~y . "' :.i lLfJ'. A ......u
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATION
Taxicab Operations
AA Inland Empire Cab providing taxicab service in the Inland Empire area since 2000. AA
Inland Empire Cab has been granted licenses to provide taxicab service in the cities of
Yucaipa, Perris, Lake Ellsinore, Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Norco, Temecula,
Redland, Banning, Beaumont Grand Terrace, Calimesa, San Jacinto, Canyon Lake, Loma
Linda and City of Riverside
AA Inland Empire Cab operates from centrally located premises in the City Of Riverside at
3000 Date Street These 4,000 square foot premises include office space, a well equipped
shop for servicing of the vehicles, a driver training center, a dispatch and management
office and a parking area for the staging of AA Inland Empire Cab's taxicab fleet.
As set forth below, AA Inland Empire Cab is already fully staffed with both management
and trained employees who have a combined total of almost 100 years of experience in the
taxicab industry. AA Inland Empire Cab will provide door to door service in late model
vehicles being driven by courteous, well trained uniformed drivers.
AA Inland Empire Cab will operate its vehicles 24 hours a day, 365 days per week. AA
Inland Empire Cab will start with 25 taxicabs which will be dedicated to serving the City of
San Bernardino, as well as the neighboring Inland Empire cities in which AA Inland
Empire Cab is already licensed. AA Inland Empire Cab, based on its market study, believes
that 20 taxicabs operating during the day and 5 operating at night should adequately
service the demand and allow for quick response times. AA Inland Empire Cab owns 25
vehicles which are equipped as taxicabs. These vehicles are clean, well maintained late
model Ford Crown Victoria and Chevrolet Venture wheelchair Accessible taxicabs. AA
Inland Empire Cab is willing and able to adjust the number taxicabs being operated to
insure that it has an adequate fleet at all times to quickly respond to requests for service,
and is prepared to add additional vehicles as its business increases.
To insure that all of its vehicles are safe, clean and well maintained, all vehicles will be given
a full inspection on the premises twice daily at the start of each shift by the drivers. Each
driver will be required to complete a Pre-Shift Inspection Report prior to placing the
vehicle on the road. In addition drivers will be required to immediately report any
problems with the vehicles while they are on the road to management. AA Inland Empire
Cab maintains computerized maintenance records of all service to its vehicles.
AA Inland Empire Cab maintains a toll free telephone line, as well as numerous other local
telephone lines, for customers to call in on. All calls for service are computerized and fully
integrated with GPS systems.
Calls for taxicab service will be received by a well staffed dispatch office which, which will
inquire as the location of the passenger and any special needs the passenger may have, then
immediately assign the call to the closest open vehicle or one of the wheel chair access
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
~ ""),, D' Ii "R'-J
. .~T ;.,~ ~,,~ ~ ~ ilf\ 1 "\~.
...., ....~ ..1.-. .1.~,l. 'i
vehicles if needed. AA Inland Empire Cab has a minimum of two dispatchers and two order
takers working at all times.
AA Inland Empire Cab's dispatch center is located on at AA Inland Empire Cab's
businesses premises at 3000 Date Street in Downtown Riverside. As the dispatch center is on
premises, management is constantly and immediately accessible to handle any problems
which may arise. The dispatch room is frilly equipped with all necessary
telecommunications and computerized dispatching and mapping equipment.
AA Inland Empire Cab currently employs several experienced dispatchers and order
takers. All dispatchers must have no less than one year experience as a taxi cab driver. AA
Inland Empire Cab specifically focuses on hiring dispatches with good communications and
people skills.
AA Inland Empire Cab uses Taxi Track module allows for pick-ups and e drop offs. This
system takes a DATA database (which we use in the CSC to keep all passenger info) and
converts it into a DDS-friendly format. Call takers enter trips on an exclusive company
ride screen that is easily accessed from Call Takers screen. The company Ride screen allows
call takers to enter zone numbers to dispatch forced addresses and automatically displays
GPS based distance estimation. AA Inland Empire Cab also uses DDS Microsoft Windows
based GPS mapping software uses digital, color road map to display the location of all
vehicles in the fleet as well as addresses and landmarks. Dispatchers find information
quickly using a mouse or hot keys. All cars are color coded in reference to their current
status and location, speed and detailed vehicle information is displayed by clicking on the
unit. Dispatchers easily zoom in and out to achieve different magnification levels.
All dispatchers receive appropriate training on dispatch computer systems and software.
Additionally, dispatching experience and knowledge of dispatching and systems is a
condition of employment. Over a period of approximately a week, dispatchers are trained
on equipment, software and on the basics of dispatching procedures and techniques.
AA Inland Empire Cab drivers communicate with the dispatch system using the MDTs
installed in each vehicle. The MDTs display incoming messages, and drivers read and
transmit messages using a convenient set of function keys. The drivers Log On at the
beginning of a shift and car and driver attributes are merged for the remainder of the shift
to satisfy customer requests.
AA Inland Empire Cab goes to great lengths to insure that its drivers are courteous,
professional and well trained. Prospective taxicab drivers are given a personal interview
with the General Manager, and required to provide proof of a clean driving record. They
are also given a general aptitude test. If they pass, they are then put in a training class.
Training consists of instruction in the rules and regulations for drivers, taxicab operation
and safety, accident prevention, procedure to be followed in the event of an accident,
taxicab operation dispatch and procedure, and map book use. In addition drivers are put
through a special sensitivity program to prepare them for working with the elderly and
disabled.
After taking all of these classes, but prior to going out on the street, each new driver is
paired with another experienced driver for 6-8 hours of behind the wheel training, where
the driver is given personal guidance in using the taxicab, the radio, the meter, interact with
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
/l 11';:::< .~. ~1'!"" ft, 1'\'-r
,.",,:v.T ,-'i' ,~ H J.,y. . ,\. 1."".1
~ ......--=.,..~.~....~I. .~~ "'.J
customers, fill out paperwork and other taxicab activities. The experienced driver must find
the trainee understands the procedures for a proper and complete vehicle check out
inspection; has good general knowledge of radio procedures and codes; has the ability to
use and understand meter during the ride and post shift readings; has adequate knowledge
of the service area to enable timely service of orders and correct transport of fares; knows
how to use a Thomas Brothers map guide; demonstrates courtesy and a professional
attitude; has good physical appearance, grooming and hygiene; understands how to
complete a trip sheet; and appears ready to operate the cab without further supervision.
All complaints against drivers are given immediate and careful investigation. Drivers are
interviewed, and if found to have been in violation of any taxicab rules and regulations,
company rule, or guilty of insensitivity or discourtesy towards customers, talked to at length
regarding the inappropriate nature of their conduct and what AA Inland Empire Cab
expects from them instead. Drivers may also be required to retake driver training. In
addition as noted above, AA Inland Empire Cab has developed its own special sensitivity
training program which is given to all drivers and which offending drivers may be required
to take again.
AA Inland Empire contracted with an outside consultant and authorized laboratory to
provide regular drug testing of all employees and drivers. AA Inland Empire Cab schedule
pre employment/lease/permitting driver drug and alcohol testing and enroll all current
drivers in a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program as
mandated by California Government Code Section 53075.5. AA Inland Empire Cab will
ensure both annual and random testing of the drivers.
AA Inland Empire currently employed road supervisors, who are in the field on a constant
basis monitoring the performance of its taxicab drivers, and assisting in the event of
breakdowns or accidents.
AA Inland Empire Cab already has in place a marketing team to actively bring the message
to the citizens of San Bernardino that they now have a new choice in taxicab service. In
addition to advertising in local yellow page directories, this team will distribute business
cards and pens with AA Inland Empire Cab's name and toll-free number on them
throughout the community. AA Inland Empire Cab will also distribute fliers and napkins in
bars, taverns and clubs reminding people not to drive and drink and to call for a taxicab
instead. AA Inland Empire Cab may also distribute promotional and discount coupons in
promotional mailers and I or supermarket check out receipts.
AA Inland Empire Cab makes a special effort to serve the handicapped and elderly. AA
Inland Empire Cab is aware that the City of San Bernardino has many medical facilities
and that many of those who utilize taxicab transportation in the city are senior citizens or
disabled. In order to properly serve these patrons, AA Inland Empire Cab will operate
three wheelchair accessible vans which are specially outfitted with ramps and other
equipment to accommodate wheel chair and other disabled passengers.
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
T/\XICAB
j~,.. ~.l..~~l ft.,\ ~J
~ ",-,",.fJ~JL...."~.i. 'U
In addition, all drivers are given special sensitivity training. These classes provide specific
instruction on serving passengers who use mobility aids, passengers who are wheelchair
users, passengers who are blind and low versioned, passengers who are deaf and hard of
hearing, passengers who are speech impaired, passengers with mental disabilities, or have
AIDS, and passengers with Epilepsy. In addition the sensitivity class instructs drivers on
what is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and on how to use
language which will not offend disabled or disadvantaged customers.
AA Inland Empire Cab's on-going commitment to excellence in service is evidenced by our
strong customer orientation with special emphasis placed on the needs of people with
disabilities. We are acutely aware if the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the laws
surrounding this act. We operate within the Act and train our employees, subcontractors,
and independent contractors to do so as well. As a part of their initial training program and
orientation, all employees and operating personnel receive specific training in the areas of
human and passenger relations with particular emphasis placed on knowledge of and
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
AA Inland Empire Cab constantly monitors and reviews driver's waybills and dispatch
records to insure that it has adequate staff and vehicles available and that it maintains
quick response rates. The company also has a complaint system in place to insure that all
customers are satisfied with the service they receive (discussed infra). Complaints are
promptly and thoroughly investigated and resolved to the satisfaction of the customer.
AA Inland Empire Cab offers discounts and special fares where allowed by the applicable
licensing jurisdiction. AA Inland Empire Cab often distributes discount coupons to
encourage customers to try its service. AA Inland Empire Cab also offer discounts to senior
citizens and physically challenged individuals who must rely heavily on public
transportation.
Manae:ement
.:. Management Resource: AA Inland Empire Cab has an unmatchable management
resource from within our family of companies. Mesfin Shawel is the Chief Executive
Officer of Express Transportation Systems and is active in the overall management of
the company. He has been a major player in the southern California taxi industry for
most of his adult life and in a significant leadership role since 1989 when he became the
President of I.T.O.A. in city of Los Angeles. Mr. Shawel has been involved in a
successful operation of Paratransit projects in City of Los Angeles and participates in
Immediate Taxi program and the Los Angeles City Ride Program. He is the graduate of
Pepperdine University Paratransit Management Program and also work as a Project
Manager for ASC's contract to Western/Central Region of ASI Inc. He has been
working in the transportation' industry for twenty-four years and has been in
management positions since 1989.
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
TAXJIC~\B
& SJEDAN
.:. General Manager: Theresa Berger (tberger@aacabonline.com) was hired in 2008 as
General Manager of AA Inland Empire Cab. Theresa grew up in the Taxi business. Her
grandfather owned a taxi cab company. Her father was a taxi cab driver and her
mother a dispatcher. Little did she know at the time that the taxi business would be her
career? Theresa grew up in a small town in North Dakota. She graduated from Minot
High School in 1976. She then attended North Dakota State School of Science majoring
in Computer Operations. Theresa owned her own business in North Dakota for 15 years
before moving to California in 1999. Theresa became the Operations Manager for A-I
Direct Satellite Company in West Covina. She worked for them for about 3 years. She
was instrumental in building their business to being the #1 satellite company in the U.S.
She started with AA Inland Empire Taxicab in 2000 as a driver. She drove for about 6
months. At that time the company hired her to come into the office and take over as
Operations Manager. She worked side by side with the General Manager, Frank
McFadden, for 3 ~ years learning the ins and outs of the taxi business. She left AA Cab
in 2004. She then began work at Bell and Yellow Cab Co. of San Bernardino as the
Marketing Director. She brought in many business accounts which she made sure the
customers were picked up on time and well taken care of. She was successful in starting
and operating their expansion into the High Desert area. She also was a key person in
maintaining the Riverside Transit Program for about 1 ~ years.
She knows and understands the taxi business inside and out. She is a resident of San
Bernardino and understands the demographics of the city, and the needs of its residents.
She has extensive management experience and also excellent customer service skills. She
is a wonderful addition to our company, and would bring not only experience but
professionalism to your city.
.:. Our Operations Manager is Charley J. Brady (cbrady@aacabonline.com) Charley
has been an Operations Manager with AA Inland Empire Cab for the last two
years. He is an experienced professional with thorough understanding of the policies
and procedures of Vehicles inspections and PMI and also overlooking driver
operation overall.
.:. Our Training Manager is Anthony Thomson (athomson@aacabonline.com),
Anthony is our driver and employee's trainer and has been associated with
Paratransit operations in southern California for over twelve years. He has been
with our organization for over two years. Anthony has developed and implemented
the AA Inland Empire Cab training program for all Paratransit drivers and
employees, including all classroom instruction, behind the wheel training and
mobile data terminal training. He has the responsibility of tracking all training
records for DMV, CHP and for the implementation ofthe Federal Drug and Alcohol
Testing program and all related paperwork.
.:. Also available to the Express Transportation Systems management team will be, AA
Inland Empire Cab's Chief Dispatcher and Router Mr. Greg
Widgeon(gwidgeon@aacabonline.com) a seasoned Taxi and Paratransit industry
veteran who currently serves as Chief Dispatcher and Router for AA Inland Empire
Cab. Mr. Widgeon is responsible for all aspects of day-to-day operation for the
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
lJ\XICl\B
& SEDAf'J
dispatch department. He is experienced Paratransit professional with extensive
experience in dispatch and scheduling operations. His experience will give us the
ability to quickly improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the service to Taxicab
Riders.
.:. Field Services Supervisors will round out our management team for day to day
operation. The Field Services Supervisors will coordinate and handle any
emergencies, such as accidents or breakdowns to maintain continuous high quality
service to our clients. Supervise drivers for proper attire and coordinating on time
performance with dispatch. This will be accomplished by combining our GPS
capabilities of the DDS dispatch system. Road Supervisors will have full coverage
monitoring the quality of service in the field. Our Lead Field Services Supervisor is
Delano Wilson.
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
INCENTIVES PROPOSAL TO THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
p- ;g;-Y'lf7'"n1 It" N. J
~ 2)) Jil~IiJ:4 A J'
INCENTIVES PROPOSAL TO THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
From AA Inland Empire Cab
Competition between taxi companies is a positive condition for the citizens of San
Bernardino and Inland Empire. Competition produces a higher overall level of service to
the community.
AA Inland Empire Cab respectfully requests that the City allow us to compete on a
level playing field. In addition to having the opportunity to satisfy current business
demands, we would like to have the ability to compete for future businesses
One of the many benefits of allowing the taxicab permits to AA Inland Empire Cab is the
four proposed social service programs we will be willing to implement to City Of San
Bernardino.
The first program addresses the issue of driving under the influence (DUI). With the
advice of the police Department, we will target problem areas, distributing complimentary
taxi coupons to area restaurants, lounges, clubs, Bars etc. This will help the night life
business and the patrons who frequent these establishments who become intoxicated and
unable to drive.
The second program relates to senior citizens. AA Inland Empire Cab would be willing
to develop a discounted fare system within the boundaries of San Bernardino. This
program will help stretch seniors' transportation dollars, allowing them increased flexibility
and a higher quality of life.
The third program that is worth consideration is a plan that would institute a flat-rate
zone that would encompass the high-density area of Downtown San Bernardino. This could
be implemented using the same guidelines as the downtown Los Angeles flat-rate zone that
has been in existence for the past several years.
The fourth program AA Inland Empire Cab will introduce to the City Of San
Bernardino is to offer free rides to and from the Poll during Local Primary Election with
full coordination of City Of San Bernardino. By way of giving this great service not only the
city will benefit but also AA Inland Empire Cab will be closer to the citizens of San
Bernardino. Other Special services we extend to City Of San Bernardino Patrons include
10% discounts to all Senior Citizens, Wheelchair Accessible vehicles, Gold card program
custom designed for establishments serving alcohol, frequent rider program and Flat rate
within the business corridor.
Since AA Inland Empire Cab will be multi-jurisdictional company, we will have the
flexibility to transport citizens' round-trip from outlying areas. This eliminates the need to
use a second cab company to return San Bernardino residents back to the city.
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
. Q {-r e;~,~'4"" .1\11'.'''. &. ,~. ~J
~ k..>!!....J liJv,. fu.J \J
In conclusion, AA Inland Empire Cab looks forward to operate in the City Of San
Bernardino. We are confident we will prevail as the cab company of choice for the majority
of residents and businesses in City Of San Bernardino. We also look forward to having the
opportunity to bring some positive community- based programs to the citizenry, showing
our appreciation to the City of San Bernardino.
3000 Date Street Riverside, CA 92507 Tel: (909)829-4222 Fax: (951)369-3049
BELL AND YELLOW CAB
DRIVERS PERMITTED BY CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO
A. VERIFIED BY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
POLICE DEPARTMENT - MARK WYMAN
B.NO PENDING PERMITS VERIFIED BY DEBBIE
GREENLY OF SAN BERNARDINO POLICE
DEPARTMENT.
The Importance of Permits
1. When a new driver comes in to apply for a driving position the company is
required to send them for a Drug Test and then to the Police Department to obtain
a drivers permit in the city they will be driving in.
2. The police will then fingerprint the driver and run a Department of Justice
Background check. This is to assure that the driver is of good character to be
picking up the cities citizens safely.
3. Just recently a driver from Bell Cab Co. was arrested at the Greyhound Bus Depot
for an alleged rape of a customer. This driver has been employed with Bell Cab
for over a year. He does not have a San Bernardino permit although that's mainly
where he drives and picks up. This is against their Franchise agreement with the
city.
4. AA Inland Empire Cab will assure you that each and every driver will be drug
tested and will be required to obtain a permit from the police department. As you
can see only 7 drivers have had permits in your city. How can Bell and Yellow
Cab Co. have 82 permits and only 7 drivers permitted? This seems to be a danger
to your citizens.
cnme ana J:'UOlIC :sarety /-HS-LUUlS - :san tlemaramo county :Sun
Page I of5
FONTANA
Deputy shoots man as pit bulls attack
A sheriffs deputy accidentally shot and wounded
a man who was near two pit bulls that were
running at deputies Thursday, authorities said.
The 3:30 p.m. shooting occurred in the 17500
block of Pine Avenue, where San Bernardino
County sheriffs deputies were serving a search
warrant for drug sales.
As deputies approached a home where two
people were standing out front, two pit bulls
charged the deputies. In firing at one of the
dogs, a deputy hit the man near one of the dogs,
according to sheriffs spokeswoman Arden
Wiltshire.
The unidentified man, who is expected to live,
was taken to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center
in Colton.
Fontana pOlice will lead the investigation of the
officer-involved shooting. A sheriffs homicide
team will conduct its own investigation.
- stacia.glenn@
inlandnewspapers.com
Advertisement
THE SUN
SlIlllkrHi.II1ii'Ui ('OtIJ,~\,; YeH."papCI"
Subscribe today!
www.sbsun.com/subscribe
-_.-'--._----'~.,---....,;
HIGHLAND
Cabbie, 38, accused of raping passenger
A cab driver accused of raping a woman in the
back seat of his taxi posted bail Thursday.
Keith "Mark" Olando Carnes, 38, of Highland
was arrested early Wednesday on suspicion of
forcible rape.
He posted a $100,000 bail and was released
from Central Detention Center in San Bernardino.
A 32-year-old woman told San Bernardino
County sheriffs deputies she had just left a bar
on Base Line when Carnes approached and
offered her a ride, which she accepted.
Carnes then drove her to a parking lot at Base
Line and Sterling Avenue, where the alleged
assault took place. He drove the woman to her
destination atter the rape, deputies said.
Anyone with information on the case is asked to
call sheriffs detectives at (909) 425-9793.
- stacia.glenn@
inlandnewspapers.com
SAN BERNARDINO
Man faces charge of attempted murder
A 28-year-old man has been arrested in
connection with the assault of another man who
remained in critical condition late Thursday.
(800) 922-0922
.....,..,....... ~ .........."'..", ~.",
__~..rW sbsun.com/search/ci_9916953 ?IADID=Search-www.sbsun.com-www.sbsun.c... 7/18/2008
hrtp://w'" .. .
NeT
~'\I
Business License Web Search
Page 1 of 1
Printer Friendly Results
Business Name Business Owner Name Business Expiration STATUS
Address Phone Date
KEN GRABLE 1510 W 5TH ST KEN GRABLE (909)913-1180 01/31/2009 Active
BILL OUSLEY 1510 W 5TH ST BILL OUSLEY (909)984-6127 08/31/2008 Active
ROBERTO SIERRA 1510 W 5TH ST ROBERTO SIERRA (909)881-8777 02/28/2009 Active
JUAN CARLOS MARQUEZ 1510 W 5TH ST JUAN CARLOS MARQUEZ (951)315-7732 01/31/2009 Active
~ JAMES MORENO 1510 W 5TH ST JAMES MORENO (909)884-8777 01/31/2009 Active
BELL CAB COMPANY/YELLOW CAB
~ CO 1510 W 5TH ST SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT (909)884-6100 09/30/2008 Active
EDWARD & JUDY PARLAS 1510 W 5TH ST EDWARD & JUDY 09/30/2008 Active
PARLAS
GERALD THOMAS 1510 W 5TH ST GERALD THOMAS (909)884-1111 02/28/2009 Active
GALDINO CHAVEZ 1510 W 5TH ST GALDINO CHAVEZ (909)357-2937 01/31/2009 Active
Your search returned 9 results.
Powered bv Proaressive Solutions. Inc. CODvriaht 2008
https://secure.sbcity.org/websearchlDefault.aspx
6/12/2008
D U:>lUC:>:> Ll~Cll:>C VV CU ~Can;ll
Page 1 of 1
Printer Friendly Results
Business Name Business Owner Name Business Expiration STATUS
Address Phone Date
KEN GRABLE 1510 W 5TH ST KEN GRABLE (909)913-1180 01/31/2009 Active
KENNETH RAY 1510 W 5TH ST KENNETH RAY (909)639-6315 01/31/2009 Active
KENNETH FORD 1510 W 5TH ST KENNETH FORD (909)884-6100 04/30/2009 Active
BILL OUSLEY 1510 W 5TH ST BILL OUSLEY (909)984-6127 08/31/2008 Active
ROBERTO SIERRA 1510 W 5TH ST ROBERTO SIERRA (909)881-8777 02/28/2009 Active
JUAN CARLOS MARQUEZ 1510 W 5TH ST JUAN CARLOS MARQUEZ (951)315-7732 01/3112009 Active
JAMES MORENO 1510 W 5TH ST JAMES MORENO (909)884-8777 01/31/2009 Active
BELL CAB COMPANY/yELLOW CAB 1510 W 5TH ST SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT (909)884-6100 09/30/2008 Active
CO
EDWARD &. JUDY PARLAS 1510 W 5TH ST EDWARD &. JUDY 09/30/2008 Active
PARLAS
SERGIO PEREDIA 1510 W 5TH ST SERGIO PEREDIA (909)884-8777 03/31/2009 Active
GERALD THOMAS 1510 W 5TH ST GERALD THOMAS (909)884-1111 02/28/2009 Active
GALDINO CHAVEZ 1510 W 5TH ST GALDINO CHAVEZ (909)357-2937 01/31/2009 Active
Your search returned 12 results.
Powered by Progressive Solutions, Inc. Copyright 2008
https://secure.sbcity.org/websearch/Default.aspx
7/10/2008
DEMOGRAPHICS
Demographics
SECTION II
Demographics
A look at the demographic information available on San
Bernardino reveals a city that is a county seat, the second
largest community in the Inland Empire, ethnically diverse,
and one that is expanding at a modest rate by inland stan-
dards. The community is the central city of an East San
Bernardino Valley area that is growing in population and
economic power, a fact that explains why its Hospitality Lane, Inland Center and the East Highland
Avenue retail areas have done very well. San Bernardino's households have modest incomes, a fact
that reflects the City's lower housing costs, and the young age of its population.
Exh,b.1: 2-1 -PopulatJon GmV\Ah
San E3enkln:hno 2000-2006
2000
2001
2U02
2003
2004
2005
2006
2~2006
Source; CA..~-=nt otFinanct:, &5 'Repc:ats, J990.-.2006; SoUJ~ Chlitt::.nia A.ssociutK::Jn. at-C~~ 2004
Population. From 2000-2006, San Bernardino grew from 185,382 people to 201,823, a gain of 16,441
people or 8.9% in six years (Exhibit 2-1). In this same period, San Bernardino County added 107,416
people, a gain of 14.4%. From 2000-2006, the 16,441 people added in the City was the eleventh
largest increase among the 48 Inland Empire cities. In 2006, San Bernardino ranked second in size
among the inland region's communities, behind Riverside (287,820). Also in 2006, San Bernardino
was California's 18th largest City behind Glendale (206,308) and above Huntington Beach (201,1 00).
San Bernardino's market area, which is composed of San Bernardino, Colton, Fontana, Grand Terrace,
Highland, Lorna Linda, Redlands, Rialto and Yucaipa, had 851,492 people in 2006. It is forecasted to
reach 885,555 people by 2010 and move on to 989,261 in 2020 and 1,085,415 in 2030 (Exhibit 2-2).
Exl-..l::>l1: 2- 2 -Populab<:>t1 For-ecast:
San Be-nk:l."Ci.,-..o M..3r1<:et A."C.::l. 2000-2030
2000
=
2010
2015
2020
=
2mO
East SB Vall~: Colton. Fonhmu.. GnUlu TerT".1C4;:, Highland, Lon'1u Linda, Rt:dlands. Riultu, San Bemwdino. Yucuipu
Source: Southern CalifOrnia Association otGovenunents. 2004
San Bernardino
Page 7
Demographics
Income. In 2005, the City's total personal income was estimated at $3.21 billion, fifth highest among
the 48 Inland Empire cities, behind Moreno Valley ($3.26 billion) (Exhibit 2-3). Ontario was the next
highest ($3.02 billion). At the per capita income level applicable to the East San Bernardino Valley
area in 2005 ($20,526), the City's merchants are competing in a market place with 851,492 people and
$17.5 billion in total income. That regional market was the reason for San Bernardino's relatively
strong retail sales performance in 2005 (see section V). In 2005, the City's median income was
$38,470.
Ethnicity. Ethnically,
San Bernardino's largest
group was the 55.9% of
residents who classify
themselves as Hispanic
(Exhibit 2-4). This was
up from 47.5% in 1990
and above the 44.0% in
San Bernardino County.
The next largest group
were the 18.3% who
were White in 2005.
This was down from
28.9% in 1990 and about
half the share in San
Bernardino County (39.3%). African-American residents made up 17.2% ofthe City in 2005, up from
16.0% in 1990. That was double the 8.6% share in the county. Some 5.6% of San Bernardino's resi-
dents were estimated to be Asian or Pacific Islanders in 2005. This was up from 4.4% in 1990. The
rate was 5.4% for San Bernardino County. In 2005, San Bernardino was home to 1,250 Native Ameri-
cans (0.6%). They represented 16.3% of San Bernardino County's 7,682 Native Americans.
Asian & Pacific
11,187
5.6%
Black
34,304 _____
17.2%
White
36,470
18.3%
Exhibit 2 3 ToLll Spl! Ilelabl.. Illcomp (mIIIIOIlS)
IIlLlIlel Empl'" Top 10 of 4[':; Cltll'S 2005
Riverside
R Cucamonga
Corona
Moreno Vly
San Bdno
Ontario
Fontana
Mwrieta
Temecula
Upland
&uce: US G:n5us!beau. Eccncn-ics &Politics, Inc.
Exhibit 2-4.-Ethrllc Distribution
San Benurdino & San Benurdillo Colalty. 2005
San Bemardino
Other
4,941
2.5%
Native American
1,250
0.6%
San Bemardino County
Other
[ 43,673
2.3%
Native American
r 7,682
0.4%
D Hispanic
.' ~ 823,682
.... . . 44.0%
Asian & Pacific
101,980
5.4%
Black
160,292
8.6%
r
\ Hispanic
'- 111,652
55.9%
White
736,126 J
39.3%
~: Cimsus, Public Uiw94-17IEl:hnici1y Files; a.JiIania o"partrr.ent afFinance, I::B~ CCnsuItDw. us G,n;us Bureau
San Bernardino
Page 8
Demographics
Education. San Bernardino education levels largely reflect those of the Inland Empire. In 2000,
11.6% of the City's adults had either a bachelor's or advanced degree. That level was somewhat be-
low the share of the adult population in either San Bernardino (15.9%) or Riverside (16.6%) counties.
The rates were higher in the coastal counties: Los Angeles (24.9%), San Diego (29.6%) or Orange
(30.8%) counties (Exhibit 2-5). Some 60.6% of the City's adults stopped their educations at high
school or less schooling. That was above San Bernardino (50.8%) or Riverside (49.7%) counties.
Employers thus find a large workforce seeking blue-collar jobs.
Exhbit 2-5.-College Graduate or High School/Less
San Benlardlllo & Southenl Cahfonlla. 2000
60.6%
II
, I
I
I
. College Graduales 0 High School or Less
50.8%
Ii
I
I
49.7%
48.9%
37.3%
SanBermrdim
SB ilirty
Riv Carty
La;~lesCo. Orange Co.
SanDiegoCo.
Source: 2000 Census
Age. San Bernardino is a very young city with an estimated 60.2% of its residents under 35 in 2005.
This composition likely reflects the City's status in having the most affordable housing in urbanized
Southern California. In 2005, its largest population group was made up of older children and young
adults aged 10.19 (18.6%). This group was followed by their younger siblings 0-9 (17.3%). The third
largest group were their parents aged 24-34 (15.4%). In 2005, only 15.3% of San Bernardino's popu-
lation was over 55 versus 18.5% for the Inland Empire (Exhibit 2-6).
Exhibit 2-6.-Age Distnbution
San Benlardlllo & Inland Errpire, 2005
. San Bernardino 0 Inland Empire
~9
1~19
20-24
25-34
3544
4$-54
55-{)4
65-74
75&Up
Source: City rom DB Demographic Consulting; Counties rom Census Bureau's American Commlll1ity Survey
San Bernardino
Page 9
Demographics Lookup
Page 1 of 3
1\ 1; j I',', \ 0 A - r .' \ Products Downloads lcx>kups Support Contac;t
Sign In
I Search I
Get the pI'1Qqe.. numbe you're looking for
rl"<#;'4'.4~""(,,,., I Easily add missing customer phone numbers to your list.
,/1, f t< '
,;':':i~r"I'" "'~t mskj.ol'li4al phv.l: :'i:n;",r~
.... "~"'l '"'1''''''''''':''' .', ," "',i':'.'",:,
JIII"'".......,;,~~ ~,'_""~,.,..a:..",.<::r .. .-e .,._._.
Demographics Lookup I Help I Index
Enter a place, city, county or metro area name I Submit I
Year 2000 Demographics of the city
San Bernardino, California
SEX AND AGE Value Percent
Total Population 185,401 100.0%
Male 91,150 49.2%
Female 94,251 50.8%
Under 5 18,177 9.8%
5 to 9 19,896 10.7%
10 to 14 17,608 9.5%
15 to 19 15,637 8.4%
20 to 24 14,295 7.7%
25 to 34 27,300 14.7%
35 to 44 27,615 14.9%
45 to 54 18,687 10.1%
55 to 59 6,076 3.3%
60 to 64 4,844 2.6%
65 to 74 7,993 4.3%
75 to 84 5,503 3.0%
85 and up 1,770 1.0%
Over 18 120,221 64.8%
Over 18 Male 57,687 31.1%
Over 18 Female 62,534 33.7%
Over 21 111,138 59.9%
Over 62 18,102 9.8%
Over 65 15,266 8.2%
Over 65 Male 6,124 3.3%
Over 65 Female 9,142 4.9%
Median Age 27.6 n/a
RACE
I I
http://www.melissadata.comllookups/demo2000 .asp ?ident=89251 6/16/2008
Demographics Lookup
One Race 175,603 94.7%
White 83,849 45.2%
Black 30,425 16.4%
Indian 2,591 1.4%
Asian 7,772 4.2%
Asian Indian 459 0.2%
Asian Chinese 585 0.3%
Asian Filipino 1,898 1.0%
Asian Japanese 347 0.2%
Asian Korean 496 0.3%
Asian Vietnamese 1,753 0.9%
Other Asian 2,234 1.2%
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 680 0.4%
Native Hawaiian 77 0.0%
Guamanian or Chamorro 89 0.0%
Samoan 294 0.2%
Other Pacific Islander 220 0.1%
Some Other Race 50,286 27.1%
Two or more races 9,798 5.3%
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 88,022 47.5%
Mexican 71,891 38.8%
Puerto Rican 1,077 0.6%
Cuban 251 0.1%
Other Hispanic or Latino 14,803 8.0%
RELATIONSHIP
In Households 179,552 96.8%
Householder 56,330 30.4%
Spouse 25,315 13.7%
Child 68,450 36.9%
Own Child under 18 years 54,645 29.5%
Other relatives 18,159 9.8%
Other relatives under 18 years 8,188 4.4%
Nonrelatives 11,298 6.1%
Unmarried partner 4,524 2.4%
In Group Quarters 5,849 3.2%
HOUSEHOLD BY TYPE
Total Households 56,330 100.0%
Family households (families) 41,099 73.0%
Family households with children under 18 years 24,850 44.1%
Family Married Couple 25,315 44.9%
Family Married Couple with children under 18 years 14,784 26.2%
Female householder, no husband present 11,890 21.1%
Female householder with own children under 18 years 7,853 13.9%
Nonfamily households 15,231 27.0%
Nonfamily householder living alone 11,869 21.1%
Nonfamily householder living alone 65 and over 4,251 7.5%
http://www.melissadata.comllookups/dem02000.asp?ident=89251
Page 2 of3
6/1612008
Demographics Lookup
Page 3 of 3
Households with individuals under 18 years 28,198 50.1%
Households with individuals 65 years and over 11,300 20.1%
Average Household size 3.19 nja
Average family size 3.72 nja
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total Housing Units 63,535 100.0%
Occupied Housing Units 56,330 88.7%
Vacant Housing Units 7,205 11.3%
Seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 128 0.2%
Homeowner vacancy rate 6.1 nja
Rental vacancy rate 9.7 nja
HOUSING TENURE
Occupied housing units 56,330 100.0%
Owner-Occupied housing units 29,536 52.4%
Renter-Occupied housing units 26,794 47.6%
Average household size of owner-occupied units 3.25 nja
Average household size of renter-occupied units 3.12 nja
Newsletters I Articles I Bookmark I How Can We Improve? I Batch Processina I Email to Friend I Free Catalog I Forums
::6:U
http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/demo2000 .asp?ident=89251
6/16/2008
TAXICAB PETITION
SIGNED BY SAN BERNARINO
RESIDENTS
" 'f{ fl"'O
..
s- o: n~
rP 0 ~a:
I ::J
"0 ag
z CD CUI
"'
IJ ;:;: ::Je
r\ :I 0 0.3
fa ::J 3
"'. CD
,ll a. OJ
.. a' -<
::. .., OJ
rt ::J
s: a.
)-
U) :5":E g Qj :J:
G
~ g~CD 0 fir ~ -t
IJ CD"' g"O CD
e- n =r CD -. '< DI
ii _.CD ..,~o ><
.!Ct c: lit c: c:
o a ~~CD -.
- . < n
Vl~ @:J:CD DI
01 !!!. C'" OJ ..,
:J 1.0 n ii =r cr
to:J 0 01
Rl~ 3'< a. ."
..,~ "Oog
::J 01 c:
~~ ::JCD~ tD
". a.CD '< < 01 ,...
5' n 'V ~ ;:;: -.
,.).3 ("\ 9g 001 ,...
~ @ n ..,- -.
........ CD 0.0 0
'^ ~)t \N ~ .., CD :J
::J nJ 1.0 ~
~\ ~ ivJ (), Q. ~ a.tt
~.J , ii n 01 3 -.
f\ C'" ~ ;:;: n CD ::::s
~ C7 ~ at N' 01-'"
~ -. - , r- CD C'" Q
--. ~ g 01 ,...
l t::><;) \f\ !'\ ~ Q1n ::r
~ "'01 tD
...... ~ =r :::::IC'"
\.4 ~ VI 0 CD 'V
+ ~ ~ c: ii:J: n
ld -. 01 -.
CD III ~
\s) .j) ,V) '"'\ I\.- 0 @;:;:
, " c: 3C'"
~ V\ ~ .., CD CD
I::::KJ ~ CD 01 CD 0
01 ,..,.::J
r ( a. 010 -t\
CD =< en
-. 'V CD
III 0-'
~ ~ ,..,. DI
0 o 01
:J ::::s
~ 01 '<=r
~ ~ o 0
g :J c: c: m
,..,. -.
0 =r 'V
:I ~ 5' :I;; tD
~ ~ 3 S ;:or:" 01 -t
~ fa ,..,.< ::::s
~ ~ =rCD
1> rP 0 CD ,<. DI
. ...... ~ ~ m 0
~ ? III c: ...
01 CiCD CL
:J CD <
r ~ 0 :J CD -.
,..,. ,..,.-. ::::s
=r III 3
CD 0
-. g,iii'
lit U)1Il
& x Q1~
r'i" ::J 01
01
C'" ~:J
n -. 01
0 :J"O
3 01"0
-. 0
"0 a. -.
01 -. ::J
::J ,..,.
::J o 3
c '<
:::::I CD
IJ S- CD :J
Ii 0 CD"'" .~
a. a.
~ c: ~
iil CD
fir g
01
'V
"'I
i
l
z
IJ
3
It
fit
Iii
:;:,
..
2'
ft1
.-,~~ ~ ~
;r -..s' a.
D .....j ii
~\, Ul
::.
~\ ~
~-:-- r.
c.
t- rt.
G
..-- f
.c '\
c: .,~
(
:2- n
0
. ~ 3
'=::. cr :I
. CD
l:: (T\ '\ ::s
,...
~ ::J
y
IC." \j) ~
.... ,
\T\
~-
-,..\
~
'0
C
~.
..'t---;
(
~,
SJ
c
..
It
c.~, "'-"'\"'
'.-~"..,,)
(.
! a CT "'0
OJ (1)
~ nC!;
0 ~c!;
,... ::J
CD ag
r:a. 1
f c:u\
::JC:
;:; 0.3
0"
:I ::J 3
CD ~ OJ
-<
0' I>>
~ ::J
0-
Ut :f ~ OJ -:I:
G ::J~I>> -I
rtcn 0(1)<
~ =r~ St "0 (1) QI
IU CDrt
2' ()~ CD -" "< ><
~ !* 0
iiI ~c: cre:e: -.
o ::J x~CD n
......g- -" <
@ :J: CD QI
Vlij; O"I>>~ c:r
I>> _. n<=r
::J1O
~~ o (1) I>>
3 "< 0. "'a
~ ~o. "Ogg
::J I>> ~(1)~ tD
I>> ~ ,...
aCD ,,<<I>>
0'\J ~ ;:;: -.
3" 8 ,...
9 ::J o I>> -.
~ - 0
@ 0.0
(1)::J
. ~ ~1O ::s
::J ~C!:
r:a. CD
r:a. 0. 1>>3 -.
ii n n CD ::s
;:;:
1ft N" 1>>0'
1ft CD O"~ ,...
::J Stl>> ::r
VI
~ ~ ~@ tD
::J'" ::JO"
0 (1) "'\J n
e: ~:J:
to ~ I>> -.
CD n ~o ~
0 I>> rt
e: 30"
~ CDm 0
CD ~::J ~
I>> 1>>0
0.
CD =< In
~ ov CD
VI ~ QI
g 001
o ::J ::s
01 "<=r
Q. 00 m
e: e:
n ::J .-T ~
0 0 =r o'\J tD
:I ~ 30 :J:: ...
3 S '?'Q/
.-T< ::s
CD =rCD
:I 01 CD "< ' QI
,... 0 ~ 0
~ m e: ..,
01 c:cn Q.
::J CD ~ -.
0 ::J ~ ::s
rT lif3
=r 0
CD 0-
~ ......VI
cr VI
UlCD
X 1>>0.
- ~r ::J 01
--t"~ CJ::J
0" CD 01
n 3"0
0 ~"8
3
"0 0. -"
-0::J
I>> ::Jrt
::J o 3
c "< ::J CD
g CD ::J
IU CD"'"
s- o 0. 0.
"0 e:
CD CD
OJ g
en 01
t
c.fJ r:L
~. ~
~ fit
fit
V'\ ,I'
I ~
" (it
c })
0 (j'. ~
-+
~ ......."
'" f.
,.+, .
~ ~h
C!
. ,
:--. n
~ ~; 0
3
3
r CD
::J
....
~
~
)\1J
N ~
C> 0
I
c
I
."a
::L
::lI
I
z
QJ
:I
ft
:JIo
a.
a.
ii
fA
"- J
<.t\'
f\ ~
V>
'0=-':>
:5
.z:..... ~ co
~ ~ ~
'-..
--
c9 :I
V) :I
l ~ ft
::lI
....
'^~ r ~
1'\
'1)
C P ~
r. ~
~
~
if
;'
:i" :E
g.!1'
Cl)t"1"
o~
.!tc:
o ::J
_a.
(J)~
OJ _.
::JIO
m::J
I'D Cl)
.....0.
::J '
OJ OJ
am
3' n
!:l g
@
.....
::J
Cl)
a.
n
i=1'
N'
Cl)
::J
III
:E
=r
o
c:
~
Cl)
o
c:
.....
~
::J
"0
(1)
t"1"
;:;:
0"
::J
Cl)
a.
0-
.....
i"~
n~
€tt
ag
c: (II
::JC:
0.3
3
QJ
~
QJ
:J
0.
Cl)
OJ
a.
Cl)
.....
III
g
OJ
Q.
::J
o
:E
g
OJ
o
:E
OJ
::J
g.
=r
Cl)
.....
6T
x
1'i"
OJ
CT
8
3
"0
OJ
::J
-<
g
o
~
OJ
fi)
Q! iii':r:
::J l"'t' OJ
~(D <
=r -0 Cl)
Cl) -.-<
..... ~o
l"'t'c:C:
OJ-o
2:!:..-.J ~
Q :I: Cl)
CTOJ.....
n<=r
o Cl) OJ
3-<0.
"Oog
OJ c:
::J Cl) :E
-<<OJ
.-.J Cl) -.
..... l"'t'
o OJ
a.o
Cl) ::J
iiJlO
o.tt
OJ 3
n Cl)
OJ 0'
CT.....
g:.OJ
~Q
::JCT
Cl) .-.J
<:]:
~ OJ
n III
OJ -.
3 l"'t'
Cl)g-
OJ Cl)
l"'t'::J
OJ 0
=<
.-.J Cl)
0'"
o OJ
::J
-<=r
o 0
c: c:
l"'t' ...
=r --.J
3' :r:
7'OJ
l"'t'<
=rCl)
Cl)-<
... 0
~ c:
0:Cl)
Cl) ~
~.....
III 3
0-
_Ill
(J)lIl
OJ!!.
::J OJ
OJ::J
~ OJ
::J"O
OJ "0
..... 0
a. -.
-. ::J
::J l"'t'
o 3
::J Cl)
Cl) ::J
Cl) .....
0.0.
c:
Cl)
g
OJ
-I
DI
><
-.
n
DI
cr
-a
tD
....
-.
....
-.
o
::I
-.
::s
....
::r
tD
n
~
o
~
U)
DI
::s
m
tD
~
::s
DI
...
CL
-.
::s
o
~
~
~
C>
o
~)
r-- 'V
... , :L
C :a
~ i
~ z
~ If
:I
ftl
\J'\
\--.J ..-. t tv t
~ ~ IJ a.
~ I'J ~
~ Ul
~ Ul
......
~ "-
'I--
'l- vJ
G, ~
--l
F'
if':> "'\
T
~
i\) n
0
:I
:I
ftl
::a
..
~
~
~
\-"
:::-----\
~ ~
~ S' ~
o ~
~
l 'V )> 0- "'0
... a 01 I'D
S" nd:
.. 0 Ed:
I ::J ....0
"'0 o::J
Z ~ CUI
::SC
II ;::;: 0.3
:I cr
::J 3
ftl I'D l>>
a. -<
cr l>>
.... ::J
a.
S. :E ~Qj":J: -I
,..,.I'D onrOl
=r~ ,..,. <
I'D"'" =r"'O I'D m
()=r en -.-<
_0 ro .., ~o ><
~e: liTe:e: --
o ::J x~en n
...,,~ -. <
@ :J: ro m
Vl'" 0-01'"
01 ~. c:r
::JIO n<=r
lf~ o en 01
3-<0- ."
..,.?- "'Oog
::J 01 Ole: tD
01 .., ::J I'D :E
a.ro -<<01 ....
S. 8 .....,~ ;::;: --
001 ....
P ::J .... - --
@ 0.0 0
I'D ::J
)0 .., mlO ::J
~) ::J
SL1 Q. ro a.C!:
Q. 0- 013 --
c. ... n ::J
ftl ;::;: n en
us NO 010'
us ro 0-.., ....
::J g:QJ ::r
In
:E 01 n tD
""'01
=r ::JO-
0 en ....., n
e: (B:J:
iO .., 01 --
en nln ~
(<. 0 01;::;:
e: 30-
v' .., ro ro 0
en 01 en
--1-' 01 ,..,.::J -Il
~ 0- 01 0
en =< en
~ .., ....., en
In 0'" m
S- o 01
::I ::J
01 ~:::r
l4 e: 0 a:I
n ::J e:
,..,. ..,
0 0 =r ....., tD
:I :E S. ::I::
:I g 7'01 .,
,..,.< =
ftl Cl =rro
~ en -< . m
.. 0 m 0
:E Ine: .,
01 (:itll CL
::J en (B --
0 ::J .., ::J
,..,. rif3
=r
en 0- 0
.., _In
,..,. tnln
01 QJ~
X
~r ::I 01
tXI::J
0- ~ 01
n ::J"'O
0 a. ~.
3
"'0 _0 ::I
~ 01 ::J,..,.
::J o 3
0 -< ::I en
~ II S- ro ::J -a
Ii' ro"'"
0 0- 0-
~ "'0 e:
en tll '"
~ QJ S-
et 01 ~
0
6'
00.
- ..~ 1\ ^
~;J~~ v(I,~ ~OJY~cC~- I
~z: ~v. < -~ f p ~ i:-: 5S'~ ~~-~
~ rs ~.-,- :' ; J:- ~,~~ +.-E'i !
_ 4 ~ ' VJ ~.. r\-) ~?=>6 r%-;,
i ~ ~ ~ ~ l( __~t5.
)7: VI" ,,' ~" 6' t! C
\~, ~ S;~.A \~..,- '" ~
.~ V G:- ~~ 1.0" ~~"::,.,-.\.(,
~----::~ ;;~ .~ b f 1 ~ ~\~~) ~
,6 .........l -r~~'~ ~~
\ r . cr ~~l'-- (.-:f- ~ "'"~: . . ~
&'i 'D ~ - ~~ ,,;' e ~ . ' v
~ r-b\ !~.~ 5'. ~ ?~~1 ~\
~"?' ~1< - -<1~ \ \
\. U , --..~",. ~
'\' ~
if." 1 (:Yo :::-? C/'J b-
ry ~ IJ,' :{l ~ (~ :3 ?f... Sol ~.f- ~ ~ ~
\J :1 '> I}J "5 ~~3 L ~ 9 ~ i
J l'.l ~ .\:J0,,, 0 IN =~ ';;t (". , ·
~ J 'P:'\ ~(\ \):, 1-4 ~ c
l;: ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ > ><= \,
~ ;- ~ i'~ ~ ~~,
R 0 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ t;J' ~ &' ~
/
.-..1
~
D
"l
I I
I
I
,
~ ~ 7\ rf
--:> ~. ~ i
:s- rv a.
~ ') ~ f
:"'-1 (\) :I
-- (b \ ·
~
;- ~~~ ?\ f
, <:::::::....~' ~ ~
~ ~.~ r ') ·
~~
"/
..,
,\
(
.
g
:I
3
II
~
,..
i
2'
I I
I ,
I I
c
....,
?-'
~
~
~
r"
~
o
'(
"
~
C)
"1
~
'I:>
l.-)
+
-4<
~
:I
~
:I
...
:5":E Q/ Qj" :I:
st ...(1) 5 or ~
(1) M" st "C (1)
o ~ ~ ?i"<
~e: M""'O
::J Q/ e: e:
o a. x"?, (1)
..... -. ~ <
Ul Ul~ hi I (1)
Q/ _. 0" Q/ ...
::JIO n<::T
m::J 0 (1) 01
(oj) (1) 3-< 0.
...0. OM"
ffi~ "Ee:o
a.nJ ~~~
:5" n '-.J (1) ;::;:
~g ~QJ
@ a. 0
... (1) ::J
::J m 10
~ a. !:!:
n Q/ 3
a: n (1)
N 010-
~ 0"...
Ul st 01
Q/ n
M-QJ
::JO"
(1) .-.J
(i3:I:
... 01
Ul
hi -.
3M"
(1)0"
Q/ m
M-::J
01 0
=<
--.J (1)
0'"
o~
-<::T
o 0
e:e:
M- ...
::T .-.J
S' :I::
"'01
M"<
::T(1)
(1) < .
mO
Ul e:
5:(1)
(1) <
::J (1)
lit'"
03
-..Ul
(/)
01
:::I 01
~::J
... 01
::J"C
~"'8
9:s' ~~
::J.....
o 3
::J (1) ~
[! i ~( -" <::::)
M" ' I
o ) ~
~
6T
x
o'
01
0"
8
3
"E
~
g
o
"C
(1)
@
or
a
o
::J
"C
(1)
M"
;::;:
o'
::J
~
0-
...
i'''
n~
~!:!:
ag
e:UI
:::Ie:
0.3
3
01
-<!
QJ
::J
0.
~
::T
o
e:
~
(1)
o
e:
...
(1)
01
0.
(1)
...
Ul
g
01
~
::J
o
~
g
!:!!.
~
01
::J
o
.....
::T
(1)
...
-t
QI
><
-.
n
QI
c:T
-a
tD
,...
-.
,...
-.
o
::::I
-.
::::I
,...
::r
tD
n
~
o
-1\
(I)
QI
::::I
/~
~
::::I
QI
~
Q.
-.
::::I
o
C)
s
>'
'<
t<
('?
n
/-"""'".........
J
~
o ~
@
'V
..
;-
i
a.
z
.,
3
fD
(I)
fa
~
.,
~
(iJ
t
a.
(iJ
II
.....J
:r
r
,
:\
\'
~
~
J
a fl"
n~
0 ~c;-
:::J
"0 o:::J
~ CUI
:::J C
;:;: 0.3
5'
:::J ~
t!)
a. -<!
cr DI
.... :::J
a.
S' :E OIQj:I: -I
.....t!) :::J ..... 01
0(1)<
:::1'" :f"O (I) QI
(I).....
n~ t!) -. '< ><
.... ~o
~c liTcc --
o :::J X~(I) n
....g. -. <
@ :I: (I) QI
Vltil e-OI.... c-
01- n<:::J'"
:::JIO
OJ:::J 0(1)01
(j) t!) 3'<0. "V
.....?- "Ogg tD
:::J 01 01
01 .... :::J~::E ~
at!) '< 01
'V ~ ;:;: --
S' 8 ~
~ :::J 001 --
.... - 0
@ 0.0
(I):::J
~ t .... CillO =
~ :::J
t!) a.C!:
........... .......... a. a. 013 --
i1 n n(l) =
N ;:;:
0\, fit N' Ole;'
fit t!) 0-.... ~
:::J gOl ::T
UI
::E OIn tD
.....01
:::J'" :::Je-
0 (I) 'V n
C <:I:
.... (1)01 --
10 ....11) ~
(I) @;:;:
0 3e-
C
..... (l)t!) 0
11) 01(1)
.....:::J ..
01 QJ~
a. (I)
t!)
..... "V CD
II) .... QI
~ ff oQl
O:::J =
01 '<:::J'"
!=l- 00 a:I
c c
n :::J ..... .....
0 0 :::J'" 'V tD
3 ::E :::JI ~
3 ff ~QI
fa gCii =
::I 01 CD '< . QI
.... 0 Cilo ~
fl\ ::E II) C Q.
01 C:CD
:::J CD< --
~ 0 :::J CD =
..... vr.....
:::J'" o~ 0
CD
..... ....CII
liT CII
VlCD
(<( X 010.
n" :::J QI
01 CD:::J
e- CD 01
(J] n 3"0
0 01"0
rv 3 .... 0
0. -.
"0 -.:::J
QI :::J.....
:::J o 3
~ C '< :::J CD
~ ..... CD :::J
, IU 0 CD.....
\ S- o 0.0.
~ ~ "0 C
CD CD
Ql ff
fir 01
t
Q.
i
fit
fit
n
o
3
3
CD
:J
,.,.
~ -.l C
\ I
,\ II
C. Ii
"
0
~
TAXI DRIVERS CHOICE
San Bernardino Taxi Drivers Have No Choice
Do you feel your lease amount is fair?
r I~
Yes ~
Would you want to switch to another taxi company if they were licensed in the city
of San Bernardino and offered you a lower lease?
rB No
Do you feel that San Bernardino residents have adequate service with only one cab
company?
r rs."C\
Yes (~
Do you feel the management at your current company (Bell and Yellow Cab Co.)
listens to th~ds of the community and its drivers?
r I( r No )
Yes V ~
Are there areas of the city that Bell and Yellow Cab Co. wont service?
r Yesr 8
Do you drive and pick up passengers in the City of San Bernardino?
rYes r@
Printed Name 'i510JJ 171~[}o.>../~ {J
-
Address J '-I bJ ~ E ~ i c.rL-J e.Jf { A G A
Phone # 009 2-' '2, 62,."0
Signatur~ )'11~~/
Date /~ &<. O~
San Bernardino Taxi Drivers Have No Choice
Do r.ou feel your lease amount is fair?
V r
Yes No
Would you want to switch to another taxi company if they were licensed in the city
of San Bernardino and offered you a lower lease?
r/y r N
es 0
Do you feel that San Bernardino residents have adequate service with only one cab
company? ,
r Y rv/N
es 0
Do you feel the management at your current company (Bell and Yellow Cab Co.)
listens to the needs of the community and its drivers?
r fV"
Yes No
Are there areas of the city that Bell and Yellow Cab Co. wont service?
f"V". Y r N
es 0
D 0 you drive and pick up passengers in t. he City of San Bernardino? ~;:-
r-~ r - - () . / ./ A-N.~' S ..').-- c~1
I v Y . N ~ ~1c-e"'.&(ftvrs . ~v<~v<?~- ~--ve4~ r-e] . /
es ~ -;;; I / $Q-vv1GL- ...)J-<,.- ~-kPj 1<'.:#
Printed Name ~.JtN( 1IJ&r'1fi?\.1
Address If?5? 6'tl~ 51- ~~ i-rJ..,1 LI:r1:2~3,5t)
Phone # Lf''J- f3 !;.~ --If?1
Signature ,AI4J________ .
Jl~
Date o-{ .--if ---of
,
MONOPOPLIES
challengmg Uenver's Taxicab Monopoly - Institute for Justice
Page 1 of 16
Challenging Denver's Taxicab Monopoly
Basic Facts About the Case
Jones et aI., v. Temmer et aI., District Court case no. 93-B-235, US Court of Appeals case no. 93-1331
The Institute represented four minority entrepreneurs who sought to start their own taxicab business in
Denver. Like every applicant before them for the previous fifty years, their application was denied by the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission. A three cab taxi oligopoly was kept firmly entrenched by laws
and regulations that effectively denied entry to all who sought to serve Denver with better taxicab service.
The Institute represented these entrepreneurs along with Reverend Oscar Tillman, Legal Redress
Chairman of the Denver NAACP, in a lawsuit challenging the application of these laws and regulations.
On August 11, 1993, the Judge ruled in favor of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and
against the Institute for Justice. The Institute appealed to the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
While the case was pending before the Tenth Circuit, the Institute and its clients testified before the
Colorado state legislature in favor of opening up the Denver taxicab monopoly. As a result of these
efforts and media coverage of the lawsuit, the Colorado state legislature enacted a law on June 2, 1994,
for the first time allowed new entrants into the Denver taxicab market. On August 1, 1995, our clients
launched Freedom Cabs, which currently employs nearly 100 individuals, and provides improved taxicab
service in the Denver market.
This case is part of the Institute's campaign to restore full constitutional protection to economic liberty,
the right of individuals to earn an honest living without arbitrary government interference.
LITIGA TION BACKGROUNDER
Introduction
On January 28, 1993, the Institute for Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of four entrepreneurs challenging
the constitutionality of the Denver taxicab oligopoly. The three-company oligopoly is maintained by the
Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the state legislature. Their regulatory regime creates an
insurmountable barrier to entry into the Denver taxicab market. Since 1947, every application to operate a
new taxicab business has been denied.
As a result, countless qualified individuals have been denied the right to earn a living in a business ideally
suited to entry-level entrepreneurs. And the general public, especially in low-income, minority
communities, suffers from inadequate, unreliable, and costly taxicab service.
The ramifications of this lawsuit extend far beyond Denver and the parties involved. Taxicabs are heavily
regulated in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, New York, Miami, Buffalo, Houston, and San
Francisco, and market entry is tightly restricted. Taxicab regulations often far exceed legitimate safety
concerns, and instead are designed to protect existing companies from competition. The barriers to entry
are entrenched and long standing. A 1974 study by the United States Department of Transportation found
that regulations restricting entry of new cabs and preventing discounting of fares cost consumers nearly
http://www.taxi-Iibrary.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
L-lli111Cllglllg UCllVCI ~ 1 i::1Xll::i10 IVIUIlUPUlY - lIlSLHure lor Jusnce
page l. ot 16
$800 million annually. Moreover, removal of these restrictions would create 38,000 new jobs in the taxi
industry. (1)
The situation remains just as bad today. These new jobs and business opportunities would offer vital hope
for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. As The New York Times recently noted, taxidriving has
for generations been recognized as a "poor man's gateway to mainstream America." (2) The current
regulatory scheme in Denver benefits only the three existing companies, their lobbyists, and their
lawyers.
This lawsuit is part of a comprehensive effort to restore judicial protection for "economic liberty" -- the
basic civil right of every American to pursue a business or profession free from arbitrary or excessive
government regulation. Economic liberty is an essential part of our nation's promise of opportunity.
The Quest For Economic Liberty
Following the Civil War, southern governments acted quickly to suppress economic opportunities for
newly emancipated slaves by heavily regulating entry into trades and businesses. The national
government, acting first through the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then through the Fourteenth
Amendment, sought to protect economic liberty among the "privileges or immunities of citizenship." (3)
But in the 1872 Slaughter-House Cases (4), the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5-4 vote essentially read the
privileges or immunities clause out of the Constitution. Since that time, states have regulated with
impunity entry into trades and professions, often for reasons unrelated to public health or safety, such as
social discrimination and protection of professional cartels.
Recently, courts have acted to restore some judicial protection for economic liberty under the due process
and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Brown v. Barry (5), for instance, a federal
court in 1989 struck down Washington, D.C.'s Jim Crow-era ban on streetcorner shoeshine stands.
The Institute for Justice challenges arbitrary regulatory barriers on behalf of people who are currently
outside the economic mainstream. Earlier this month, the District of Columbia City Council deregulated
entry into the cosmetology profession in response to an Institute for Justice lawsuit on behalf of African-
American hairbraiders. The Institute's efforts are designed to restore protection for economic liberty as a
fundamental civil right.
History And Scope Of Taxicab Regulation
Horse-drawn cabs served American cities without significant regulation through the 19th century. The
first motorized taxi-cabs appeared in America in 1897, when the Electric Carriage and Wagon Company
placed 12 electric taxicabs in service in New York City. In 1907, New York witnessed the introduction of
65 gasoline-powered automobiles equipped with taximeters. Within a year, internal combustion-driven
taxis eclipsed all other forms of taxicabs.
The birth ofthe modern taxicab in the United States occurred without restrictions on the free market; still,
those restrictions were not long in coming. Some believe today's heavy regulation of the industry in the
United States was a response to "ruinous competition" that harmed the public during the Great
Depression. To the contrary, close historical analysis indicates that, not only was there no "ruinous
competition," but the majority of taxicab regulations were already in place in the late 1920s. (6) During
the 1930s car prices and wages fell, bringing large numbers of drivers into the industry. The Federal
Trade Commission found that:
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
cnallengmg Uenver'S 1 aXlcab Monopoly - lnstltute tor Justlce
page j ot 16
. Many unemployed workers entered the taxi industry using rented cars, and as a result taxi fares,
occupancy rates, and revenues per cab declined. Pressures for restrictions on the taxi industry
came from the American Transit Association, public transit firms, the National Association of
Taxicab Owners (which passed a resolution favoring entry and minimum fare controls) and the
established taxi fleet. (7)
Entry restrictions did not even pretend to protect the "public interest," and were often couched in
explicitly anti.competitive terms. Improved safety or reduced congestion and pollution were occasionally
given as reasons, but only as after.the- fact rationalizations. In reality, regulators wanted to '" drive many
cut-throat cabs, operating without authority, from the streets' and. . . enable the organized cab fleets and
transit companies to increase their profits." (8)
There has been little change in the way taxicabs are regulated since the wave of restrictions of the 1930s.
For example, with the 1937 Haas Act, New York issued 13,566 taxicab medallions (licenses required to
operate a taxicab). Today, there are only 11,800 medallions in the city. (9) Existing medallions can be
sold to new operators, but at a price of $140,000 apiece; most aspiring entrepreneurs lack resources to
enter the profession. Similar artificially high costs of entry exist in the majority of U.S. cities. Over the
years, the taxicab industry in heavily-regulated cities (like Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Miami,
Houston, San Antonio, Buffalo, Albany, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco) has stagnated. Poor quality,
high fares, and long waiting times are now the standard in many cities where taxicab giants have taken
control of the market with the aid of regulation. Chicago and Los Angeles, where regulations forbid new
taxicab services, illustrate this clearly; in both cities, powerful monopolies have bought out the
competition and raised taxicab fares, while new competition cannot enter the market. (10)
While some cities prohibit outright new entrants to the taxicab market, others achieve the same results
while preserving the facade of open entry. Many cities like Denver and Philadelphia condition entry on a
showing of "public convenience and necessity," a standard in practice almost impossible to satisfY. A
1983 survey of 103 cities with populations of 50,000 or more found that 87 percent restricted entry in
some manner:
. 30 percent had afixed number of licenses; 9 percent had afixed ratio of licenses to population; 25
percent required a showing of public convenience and necessity to obtain a license; 6 percent had
franchise requirements; and 17 percent had minimum service standards. (11)
While safety and insurance requirements are valid, there is no reasonable basis for restricted entry. A
1984 study of taxicab regulations by the Federal Trade Commission concluded that "there is no
persuasive economic rationale" for most regulations, stating "restrictions on entry, minimum fare
controls, and restrictions on ride.sharing . . . reduce rather than increase efficiency." (12) Economists, left
and right, agree virtually unanimously and state that consumers are big losers (second only to would-be
cab owners); they pay higher fares, wait longer for a cab, and get worse service than they would with
competition. (13)
Poor, minority, and elderly consumers are hit especially hard by these regulations. (14) Members of these
groups are less likely to own cars and are more likely to live in areas that are served poorly, if at all, by
taxicabs and other forms of public transit. A study commissioned by the Urban Mass Transit
Administration determined that by every measure, low-income individuals "rely more heavily on taxicabs
than do higher income individuals."(15) As another study concluded:
. In addition to causing misallocation of resources, taxi regulations adversely affect the distribution
of income. Low-income people spend a larger percentage of their incomes on taxis than do high-
income people, and in many taxi markets, consumption o/taxi rides per capita is higher for low-
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
L-Uallengmg uenvers 1 aXIcao Monopoly - InStItute tor JustIce
Page 4 of 16
income people. As a result, [these regulations) impose a disproportionate burden on low-income
people. (16)
As Dr. Walter Williams remarks, "The[se] laws are not discriminatory in the sense that they are aimed
specifically at blacks. But they are discriminatory in the sense that they deny full opportunity for the most
disadvantaged Americans, among whom blacks are disproportionately represented." (17)
Taxicab Regulation In Denver
As common carriers, taxicabs were placed under the regulatory authority of the newly-created Colorado
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in 1913. By 1935, the PUC controlled entry into the taxicab market
and regulated the fares that taxis could charge. Every taxicab company was required to have a certificate
of public convenience and necessity issued by the PUC. Each certificate specified how many taxicabs
each company could operate.
To obtain a certificate, an applicant must demonstrate both that adequate service is not being provided
and that the existing companies cannot provide adequate service. The applicant must meet a virtually
impossible legal standard by demonstrating "substantial inadequacy" of service. There are no objective
criteria by which a new applicant can determine what must be done to demonstrate inadequacy of service.
Even if an applicant demonstrates substantially inadequate service, existing companies can easily refute
this by declaring their ability to provide additional service and asserting that the new company would
duplicate service already being provided. Existing companies hire teams of lawyers to contest
applications from new entrants. With such an impossible barrier to surmount, it is not surprising that no
new taxicab company has been allowed to start in Denver since 1947.( 18) Meanwhile, virtually all other
forms of transportation in Colorado, including luxury limousines; off-road scenic tours; charter buses;
couriers; trash haulers; transporters of sand, dirt, gravel, or road surface material; freight haulers; and
household goods movers do not have such barriers to entry.
The taxicab market in Denver consists of three companies: Yellow Cab, Zone Taxi, and Metro Taxi. All
three of these firms have origins in the 1930s. While they may be rivals in the market, they all band
together to keep new taxicab companies out of Denver. In the recent hearing on Quick Pick Cabs'
application, Yellow Cab and Zone Taxi were even represented before the PUC by the same lawyer.
In 1951, Yellow Cab took over Rocky Mountain Transportation and the Publix Cab Company and began
operations with a fleet of75 taxicabs. (19) It remained locally owned until 1976, when a partnership of
Texas businessmen purchased the company. When the Texans decided to sell the company in 1979, the
union took control of the troubled firm.(20) However, the change in ownership was not enough to make
Yellow Cab successful. In 1983, the company was riding high with gross revenues of $17 million, (21)
but by 1986, its revenues had fallen to $6.4 million with an operating loss of$2,545 and outstanding
debts totaling $800,000 (of which $500,000 were past due).(22) Revenues continued to fall in 1987,
dropping to $6 million while the net loss rose to $166,000.(23) As the Denver Post reported in 1987,
Yellow Cab executives blamed the economy for their woes, but a veteran Yellow Cab driver blamed the
company for the troubles: company committees "spend too much time smoking cigarettes, drinking
coffee, and arguing. There's too much overhead and they don't get enough work done."(24) By 1988,
Yellow Cab was on the auction block again, but this time with no takers. High debts and low revenues
finally forced the company into receivership in May 1991, where it remains today.
Metro Taxi Inc. began as the brainchild of five executives of East Coast taxicab firms; finding Denver a
prime site for their innovative marketing techniques, they purchased Ritz Cab from its local owner. Ritz
was founded in 1932; by 1985 (the year of its sale) it had a tiny fleet of only 32 taxicabs. However, the
new owners of Metro had much bigger plans for the small firm: within a year, they had increased their
http://www.taxi-Iibrary.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
cnauengmg uenvef'S 1 aXlcao Monopoly - InstItute tor JustIce
Page 5 or 16
taxicab fleet five-fold. Coupled with an aggressive marketing campaign, they began to capture a large
share of the Denver taxicab market. (25)
A taxicab company's fleet can only be expanded with the permission of the PUC; how could a newcomer
like Metro accomplish this nearly impossible task? According to Yellow Cab attorney Isaac Kaiser, the
company "cut a deal" on fleet size with Yellow and Zone.(26) Each company agreed not to oppose
applications for more taxicab permits by Zone and Metro; as a result, Zone increased its fleet from 75
taxicabs to 150, and Metro from 32 to 150 taxicabs. (27) Yellow Cab, meanwhile, has authorization for
600 taxicabs.
Tills is not the end of the story. At the same time Metro was buying out Ritz Cab, the PUC received two
applications for new taxicab companies: one from Yellow Cab drivers that wanted to form a new
company, and another from the owners of taxicab companies in Houston and Austin, Texas. Colorado
State Senator Joe Winkler suggests that the newly-created Metro colluded with Zone and Yellow Cab to
keep the new companies from obtaining a license by agreeing to raise the number of taxicabs that each
could operate, thus eliminating demand for a fourth company. Although the Texans protested the
expansion of service by Zone and Metro (because it would hurt their chances of proving a need for their
service), the PUC ruled that only current holders of permits could protest applications, and the expansion
of the fleets was approved. Meanwhile, both applications to form new taxicab companies were rejected
after the three existing companies filed protests against them.(28)
As a result, the Denver taxicab market today is an oligopoly, even as the three existing firms demonstrate
inefficient management and poor service to low-income neighborhoods. And a potential avenue for
legitimate entrepreneurial opportunity is completely and unnecessarily extinguished.
The Current Controversy
The Institute for Justice is representing four experienced drivers who grew frustrated with the inefficient
management and increasingly onerous leasing requirements of the taxicab company. Leroy Jones is
representative of the drivers wishing to start their own business. Jones drove a Yellow Cab for two years,
but left after disputes with the company over its treatment of drivers. He now earns his living as a
traveling salesman, but no longer has the income or the flexibility of hours he enjoyed as a successful
taxicab driver. An aspiring entrepreneur, Jones has formed a taxicab company that will provide a work
environment that respects drivers, encourage driver participation and ownership, and provide taxicab
service to all areas of Denver. Jones has joined forces with three other entrepreneurs and experienced
taxicab drivers, Ani Ebong, Rowland Nwankwo, and Girma Molalegne, to form Quick Pick Cabs, Inc.
Quick Pick Cabs applied to the PUC for a certificate of public convenience and necessity in summer
1992. Yellow Cab and Zone Taxi, along with 10 other transportation companies all protested the
application.
As earlier described, current PUC rules give tremendous advantage to the existing companies anytime a
potential competitor applies. The applicant must meet a virtually impossible legal standard by
demonstrating substantial inadequacy of service. But equally insurmountable are the procedures allowing
well-heeled opponents to dramatically raise the application costs through burdensome requests for
information from the applicants. In typical fashion, the protesting companies served Quick Pick Cabs
with enormously complex and demanding interrogatories soliciting information about everything from
Quick Pick Cabs' five-year advertising plan to the names of over 100 individuals currently driving a
taxicab for one of the three companies who had agreed to work for Quick Pick Cabs. On November 24,
1992, Quick Pick Cabs' application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity was summarily
denied.
http://www.taxi-Iibrary.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
Challengmg Uenver's TaxIcab Monopoly -Institute tor Justice
Page 6 of 16
The inequities and the inefficiencies of the regulated taxicab monopoly aroused even the PUC to urge
reform. In June, 1992, the PUC advocated easing entry and regulation through legislation placing
taxicabs under the doctrine of regulated competition. Under this less onerous doctrine, they would still be
regulated for safety and insurance, but applicants would have to show only that their entry would serve
the public interest. Senate Bill 9318 was recently introduced in the Colorado legislature to achieve this
reform, but similar efforts in the past have been soundly defeated by lobbyists for the taxicab companies.
The PUC regulatory regime that governs entry into the Denver taxicab business prevents Mr. Jones and
his colleagues from pursuing their chosen profession. This de facto ban on new companies regulation
bears no relation to protection of public health, safety, or welfare. All such legitimate public interests
could be served by regulations far less sweeping. In addition, no rational basis exists to regulate taxicabs
in a manner that unnecessarily destroys entry-level entrepreneurial opportunities, while permitting
regulated entry of newcomers in other transportation businesses. As a result, the regulatory regime
deprives these aspiring entrepreneurs of the opportunity, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, to pursue a trade or business.
Although decisions of the PUC have been litigated in state court before, this lawsuit is the first to
challenge the constitutionality of the PUC-created taxicab monopoly and the regulatory regime that
perpetuates it.
Conclusion
The personal impact of the de facto ban on new taxicab businesses on the lives of Leroy Jones, Ani
Ebong, Rowland Nwankwo, and Girma Molalegne is devastating. It impairs their ability to earn a good
living for themselves and for their families. It limits the opportunity to develop their considerable skills
and to work for themselves, instead of others. It destroys their dream of a brighter future. These aspiring
entrepreneurs realize there is no guarantee of success in a competitive economy, but it was only upon
encountering this ban that they realized that they would not even have a chance to compete. Until the
state's oppressive ban is removed, they will be denied one of the most basic civil rights. . . the right to
earn an honest living.
The Institute for Justice advances a rule of law under which individuals control their destinies as free and
responsible members of society. Through strategic litigation, training, and outreach, the Institute secures
greater protection for individual liberty , challenges the scope and ideology of the Regulatory Welfare
State, and illustrates and extends the benefits of freedom to those whose full enjoyment of liberty is
denied by government.
Prepared by John E. Kramer
(1) Figures from A. Webster, E. Weiner, and J. Wells, "The Role of the Taxicab in Urban
Transportation," U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1974. Dollar figure converted to 1992
dollars using the Implicit Price Deflator for the second quarter of 1992 as supplied by the U.S.
Department of Commerce.
(2) The New York Times, December 6, 1992, p. 49. (3) Clint Bolick, Unfinished Business, Pacific
Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990, Part II.
(4) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872).
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
Challengmg Uenver's TaxIcab Monopoly - InstItute tor Justtce
Page / ot 10
(5) Brown v. Barry, 710 F. Supp. 352 (D.D.C 1989).
(6) Gorman Gilbert and Robert E. Samuels, The Taxicab: An Urban Transportation Survivor, The
University of North Carolina Press, 1982, p. 149.
(7) Mark W. Frankena and Paul A. Pautler, An Economic Analysis of Taxicab Regulation, Federal Trade
Commission Bureau of Economics Staff Report, May 1984, p. 75.
(8) Id. at 79.
(9) Id. at 76-77. In fact, New York first attempted to limit the number of taxicabs in 1932 "under the
sponsorship of Mayor Jimmy Walker, but when Walker was forced to resign when it was discovered that
he had been bribed by one of the taxi companies, the attempt failed." Gilbert and Samuels, p. 70.
(10) Ross D. Eckert, "The Los Angeles Taxi Monopoly: An Economic Inquiry," 43 SouthemCalifornia
Law Review, 1970, pp. 422-424; also E.W. Kitch, M. Isaacson and D. Kasper, "The Regulation of
Taxicabs in Chicago," 14 Journal of Law and Economics, October 1971, pp. 285-350.
(11) Frankena and Pautler, p. 16, citing study by Shaw, et aI., Taxicab Regulation in U.S. Cities, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Report No. UMTA-NC-11-0011, October 1983, pp. 29-32.
(12) Id. at 65, 155.
(13) See Frankena and Pautler; Ross D. Eckert; A. Webster, et aI.; David J. Williams, "Information and
Price Determination in Taxi Markets," Quarterly Review of Economics and Business 20(4), Winter 1980,
pp. 36-43; and testimony of FTC economists William C. Macleod, Richard O. Zerbe, and John M.
Peterson before Chicago and Seattle City Councils, 1984.
(14) Clint Bolick, Unfinished Business, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1990, pp. 74-75, and
Clint Bolick, Changing Course, Civil Rights at the Crossroads, Transaction, Inc., 1988, pp. 94-95.
(15) Allred, Saltzman, and Rosenbloom, "Factors Affecting the Use of Taxicabs by Lower Income
Groups," Transportation Research Record Number 688, 1978, p. 23.
(16) Frankena and Pautler, p. 7.
(17) Walter Williams, The State Against Blacks, McGraw Hill Book Company, 1982, p. 25.
(18) Joe Winkler, Denver Post, September 13, 1985, p. 25A.
(19) Denver Post, April 17, 1984, p. 1D.
(20) Susan Goldfarb, UPI Business Profile, February 12, 1982.
(21) Denver Post, April 17, 1984,p.1D.
(22) Denver Post, January 27, 1988, p. IE.
(23) Denver Post (citing data from the PUC), June 25, 1988, p. 1D.
http://www.taxi-library.org/denver01.htm
7/15/2008
Lnauengmg uenvers I macaD MonopOlY - InstItute ror JustIce
t'age lS 01 1 ()
(24) Denver Post, December 21, 1987, p. lA.
(25) Denver Post, April 10, 1985, p. 4A; Denver Post, March 30, 1987, p. 1 C.
(26) Denver Post, April 1, 1987, p. 2C.
(27) Denver Post, September 13, 1985, p. 25A.
(28) Senator Joe Winkler (R-Castle Rock), Denver Post, September 13, 1985, p. 25A.
Institute for Justice Hails Taxicab Victory
Economic Freedom for Freedom Cabs Achieved
PRESS RELEASE: April 29, 1994
CONTACT: John Kramer (202) 457-4240
Washington, D.C. -- The Colorado legislature today gave a green light to the dreams of four aspiring
entrepreneurs who want to start their own cab company. Today's passage of Senate Bill 113 breaks up
Denver's taxicab monopoly and opens the door to new cab companies in the Mile High City for the first
time since 1947.
Leroy Jones, Ani Ebong, Rowland Nwankwo and Girma Molalegne first challenged Denver's taxicab
monopoly in January 1993 when they joined with the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice to file
a lawsuit against the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, which regulates taxis in the state. That
lawsuit, and the resulting media coverage, created a statewide call for the replacement of Colorado's
regulated taxi monopoly with a system of regulated competition.
Jones said he would like to be the first to apply for a permit to start his own cab company: "My partners
and I are ready to launch Freedom Cabs as soon as the legislation becomes law. Unlike the monopoly
we're replacing, all Freedom Cabs wants is the chance to compete by providing the best service. That's
what America should be all about."
"This law marks the end of business as usual in Denver's taxicab industry," said Chip Mellor, Institute for
Justice president and general counsel, who represents Jones and his partners. "The dark days of monopoly
are over. This law creates a brighter future for Colorado entrepreneurs and consumers, and a ray of hope
for those throughout America whose economic liberty is denied."
In addition to its legal challenge, the Institute for Justice spearheaded the legislation's passage
overcoming fierce opposition from organized labor, the trucking industry and many of Colorado's most
powerful lobbyists.
Colorado State Senator Bill Owens, who sponsored the senate bill, remarked, "The General Assembly
today has sent a strong message to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission that the taxi industry should
be infused with entrepreneurship and accountability to consumers. "
NOTE: The Institute for Justice can arrange interviews to facilitate your coverage. Call John Kramer at
(202) 457-4240.
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
L-nal1engmg uenver s 1 roucao lVlOnopOlY - Instltute lOr JustIce
Page') ot 16
Double Victories for Institute for Justice Taxi
Markets Opened in Denver, Cincinnati
PRESS RELEASE: January 26, 1995
CONTACT: John Kramer (202) 457-4240
Washington, D.C. -- The Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice today announced two victories for
economic liberty, the right to earn an honest living free from excessive government regulation.
The first victory came in Denver with the end of the city's 50-year-old taxi monopoly that granted
licenses to three companies and excluded all others. As a result of litigation filed by the Institute for
Justice, Freedom Cabs was today granted 50 new cab permits for this year and 50 more for next year by
the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Nearly 90 percent of cities with population of 50,000 or
greater restrict entry into taxi markets.
"The founders of Freedom Cabs embody the courage it takes to be a successful entrepreneur in America
today," said Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice. "In the face of an overwhelming
bureaucracy that was stacked against them and rich vested interests, they showed character, vision and an
unfailing self-belief that someday their company, Freedom Cabs, would be a reality. Because of their
hard work and fortitude, Freedom Cabs will for years be a shining example for all would-be
entrepreneurs that good people can fight city hall and win."
The second victory came in Cincinnati where yesterday the city council removed its cap on the number of
cabs it would allow in the city and said existing taxi companies couldn't block new entrants by stating the
new companies would hurt their business. Based on their successful Denver campaign, Leroy Jones, a co-
founder of Freedom Cabs and Institute for Justice President Chip Mellor testified before the Cincinnati
city council at the invitation of Mayor Roxanne Qualls. Jones and Mellor urged the council to create
inner-city job opportunities and improve taxi service by opening up the market to new entrepreneurs.
"Despite today's important victories, pointless government regulations still deny countless qualified
individuals nationwide the right to earn a living in occupations ideally suited to entry-level
entrepreneurs," Mellor said. "That's why the Institute for Justice will continue working with those outside
the economic mainstream to open up taxi markets as well as other entry level occupations."
The Institute for Justice advances a rule of law under which individuals control their destinies as free and
responsible members of society. Through strategic litigation, training, and outreach, the Institute secures
greater protection for individual liberty, challenges the scope and ideology of the Regulatory Welfare
State, and illustrates and extends the benefits of freedom to those whose full enjoyment of liberty is
denied by government. The Institute was founded in September 1991 by Mellor and Clint Bolick.
NOTE: The Institute for Justice can arrange interviews to facilitate your coverage. Call John Kramer at
(202) 457-4240.
Press Quotes
Institute for Justice In the Spotlight
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
vUClW::uglllg ut:IlVt:r:s 1 aXICaO lVlOnopolY - Institute tor JustIce
Page 10 of 16
Economic Liberty
"The Institute for Justice has helped break down oligopolies in Denver, Cincinnati and Indianapolis; [11
President Chip] Mellor and [Communications Director John] Kramer have now drafted legislation to do
the same thing in Boston. [T]heir proposal received one of the Pioneer Institute's much-coveted Better
Government A wards. Except for the few who've been enriched by the system, anticompetitive taxi
regulations are a disaster."
-- Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe, December 5, 1995
"Broadening opportunities, not only for blacks but for all Americans, requires efforts to repeal laws
written in the interest of incumbents that have the effect of keeping people out who can be generally
described as outsiders, discriminated-against and lacking political clout. The Washington-based Institute
for Justice is doing just that. After testimony by the institute's director, Chip Mellor, Cincinnati removed
its cap on the number of cabs allowed to operate in the city. . . .Last year, the Institute for Justice forced
the Colorado Public Utility Commission to relax taxi entry conditions in Denver, and it also assisted in
bringing suit to lift Houston's ban on jitney services."
-- Walter Williams, Cincinnati Enquirer,1995
"With the able assistance of the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, which litigates and lobbies
on behalf of economic liberty nationwide, Freedom Cabs had fought a generations-old law that
essentially kept new cab operators, notably minorities, off the streets."
-- Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, August 2, 1995
"To win their battle, Jones, Ebong and Molalegne fIrst enlisted attorneys from the Washington-based
Institute for Justice who fIled a lawsuit challenging Denver's taxicab monopoly. The institute took the
case as part of its effort to restore 'economic liberty,' the right of all Americans 'to pursue a business or
profession free from arbitrary or excessive government regulation. '"
-- Rocky Mountain News, August 2, 1995
"Leroy Jones may be Colorado's strongest advocate of deregulation, entrepreneurial ambition and a wide-
open free market."
-- Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News, 1995
"Broadening opportunities, not only for blacks but for all Americans, requires efforts to repeal laws
written in the interest of incumbents that have the effect of keeping people out who can be generally
described as outsiders, discriminated-against and lacking political clout. The Washington-based Institute
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
Lnauengmg uenver's I aXIcab Monopoly - InstItute tor JustIce
Page 11 of 16
for Justice is doing just that. After testimony by the institute's director, Chip Mellor, Cincinnati removed
its cap on the number of cabs allowed to operate in the city. . . .Last year, the Institute for Justice forced
the Colorado Public Utility Commission to relax taxi entry conditions in Denver, and it also assisted in
bringing suit to lift Houston's ban on jitney services."
-- Walter Williams, Cincinnati Enquirer, 1995
"The Institute for Justice [is comprised of] libertarian lawyers seeking judicial rulings to re-establish
economic liberty as a fundamental civil right."
-- George F. Will, Washington Post, February 5, 1995
"[Institute President Chip] Mellor argues, 'all Americans have a basic civil right to pursue a business or
profession free of arbitrary and oppressive government regulation.' He's right."
-- Linda Cagnetti, Cincinnati Enquirer, January 18, 1995
"On November 9, 1993, five small minority-owned contracting firms and three tenant management
groups, with the help of the Washington-based Institute for Justice, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia with the goal of eliminating one of the last remnants of institutional
racism: the Davis-Bacon Act."
-- Portland Observer, October 5, 1994
"In recent times, many seeking to advance the cause of civil rights have attempted to do so by passing
legislation. The Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group, is pioneering a new
civil rights strategy, using the opposite track. It is seeking to get laws that infringe upon civil rights off
the books. The particular focus is novel--they are challenging legislation that interferes with the right of
individuals to earn a living free from arbitrary and excessive regulation. So far, they have enjoyed
surprising success. Perhaps that is why they now take on their toughest opponent to date--the Davis-
Bacon Act."
-- Destiny Magazine, August 1994
"The Institute's lawyers have already made progress, with several victories under their belts, including
successful challenges to regulation of the Denver taxi cab industry and District of Columbia cosmetology
profession. With nearly 1,000 occupations regulated by the states, however, the Institute has a long way
to go."
-- Destiny Magazine, August 1994
http://www.taxi-Iibrary.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
~U~U~uoU'6 L-'~U' '" ~ .1 U"'l~alJ IV.lVUVPUIY - lU::SLllULt:: lur J USllce
Page 12 of 16
"[The Institute's lawsuit brought on behalf of four Denver would-be entrepreneurs] got so much press that
Inc. magazine did a piece on it under the heading of 'Regulated Monopolies or why four Denver cabbies
can't go into business for themselves. '"
-- Black Car News, June 1994
"The barriers to entry into the taxicab industry are in the process of being challenged and broken down all
over the country. Just recently, the Institute for Justice, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group,
challenged the restrictive taxicab market in Denver, Colorado. As a result of the challenge the Institute
engaged in on behalf of their clients in Denver, Colorado Governor Roy Romer recently signed
legislation that broke up the taxicab monopoly in that city."
-- Black Car News, June 1994
"[The four would-be entrepreneurs] first challenged Denver's taxicab monopoly in January 1993 when
they joined with the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice to file a lawsuit against the Colorado
Public Utilities Commission, which regulates taxis in the state. That lawsuit, and the resulting media
coverage, created a statewide call for the replacement of Colorado's regulated taxi monopoly with a
system of regulated competition. . . . This particular case got so much press that Inc. magazine did a piece
on it under the heading of "Regulated Monopolies or why four Denver cabbies can't go into business for
themselves. "
-- Black Car News, June 1994
"It is implicitly accepted--especially among readers of this magazine--that among the most guaranteed of
rights in America is the individual's right to attempt to earn a living in his or her chosen field of endeavor.
In fact, claims Clint Bolick, director of litigation for the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm
based in Washington, D.C., that litigates cases relating to economic liberty, "of all the rights Americans
think we have, there's no question that economic liberty is the least protected."
-- Inc., May 1994
"Last year, however, a suit was filed on behalf of aspiring taxicab entrepreneurs by the Washington-based
Institute for Justice against the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, the licensing agent in the state. The
lawsuit led to legislation that could create what the institute calls 'regulated competition.'"
-- Detroit News, May 10, 1994
"Economists have long produced learned papers on why. . .regulations aimed not at safety or health but at
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
Lhallengmg uenver's 1 aXlCao MonopOlY - Instltute ror Justlce
rage u or 1 ()
preserving someone's economic privilege, can lead to higher prices and worse service. Last year the
Washington-based Institute for Justice, an advocate for economic liberty, decided to go beyond theorizing
and filed suit against the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. The Institute and its clients lost in court,
which ruled that the state had the power to create and enforce a monopoly. But they won in the court of
public opinion. On Friday, the Colorado legislature fmally passed a law opening the door to taxi
competition for the first time since 1947."
-- San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 1994
"Meet the new civil rights activists. Their belief is that the right to earn a living free from excessive
regulation is guaranteed by the Constitution. Their lawyer is [the Institute for Justice's Vice President]
Clint Bolick."
-- Wall Street Journal, April 20, 1994
"The Institute for Justice is wedded to the idea that one of the most vital civil rights is economic liberty."
-- San Francisco Examiner, January 31, 1994
"The institute went to bat for Uqdah [its client] not just in court, but, with unabashed verve, in the media.
Uqdah's business was featured in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and ABC's '20/20.' The
board [which opposed Uqdah's efforts] wisely chose to back down."
-- San Francisco Examiner, January 31, 1994
"New ideas [in civil rights] are desperately called for. President Clinton might find some by looking just
six blocks from his house, at a small, nonprofit law center founded in 1991 called the Institute for Justice.
The Institute for Justice is wedded to the idea that one of the most vital civil rights is economic liberty."
-- San Francisco Daily Recorder, January 24, 1994
"The Institute for Justice is at it again, using the tactics of the left to pursue conservative goals. . . Until
the IF J came along, civil rights litigation was largely the province of the left. Conservatives had been
hesitant to pursue social policy through the court. But the IF J not only was willing to use legal action to
further its political goals, Mr. Mellor and Mr. Bolick stole the Left's playbook."
-- Washington Times, November 22, 1993
"If successful, the Institute for Justice's lawsuit would effectively toss out the 62-year-old law that has
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
vuau,",uoJ..llo .L/l;;U Vl;;J. ~ J. aAl\,;i1U IVIUUUl1U1Y - lH:SllLULI:: lur J U~Lll:t::
t'age 14 or lb
forced contractors working on federal projects worth more than $2,000 to pay 'prevailing' wages, which
usually are very close--or often the same--as union wages."
-- Kevin Harden, Daily Journal of Commerce, November 16, 1993
"The Institute for Justice has made a specialty of attacking other closed "good old boy" arrangements that
have kept minorities jobless."
-- John Hall, Media General News Service, November 14, 1993
"Mrs. Brazier and Mr. Cruz have joined a suit, filed in conjunction with the Institute for Justice, that
would declare Davis-Bacon unconstitutional. Their case gives civil rights leaders a fmal chance to stop
nuzzling the union bosses and show a little guts."
-- Tony Snow, Gannett News Service, December 13, 1993
"[Filing a lawsuit to break up Denver's taxicab monopoly and the resulting CBS Evening News coverage]
was a legal-political coup beyond the dreams of most litigants, and it was a measure of the clout ofa tiny
group of lawyers who in late 1991 set up the non-profit Institute for Justice in the Nation's Capitol. Wags
have taken to calling the increasingly visible institute 'bleeding-heart conservatives'."
-- Gail Diane Cox, The National Law Journal, July 26, 1993
"So give a cheer and a wink for Clint Bolick and Chip Mellor, legal gunslingers with a taste for
entrepreneurs. We also hope that Bolick and Mellor have founded a growth industry as economic
advocates. "
-- Thomas G. Donlan, Barron's National Business & Financial Weekly, July 12, 1993
"The implications [of the Institute for Justice's lawsuit to break up Denver's taxicab monopoly] reach far
beyond this city. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Transportation, regulations on taxicab
operations across the country cost passengers about $800 million every year and, says the study, if those
regulations were lifted, there would be nearly 40,000 new jobs for cabbies."
-- Bob Faw, "CBS Evening News", July 2, 1993
"Wednesday night devotions at Denver's Mount Zion Baptist Church shows the issue [of taxicab
deregulation] isn't just property rights, it's about people. The ladies of the mission service know that when
prayers end, it won't do much good to call a taxi."
http://www.taxi-library.orgldenverOl.htm
7/15/2008
Lhallengmg Uenver's TaXIcab Monopoly. instItute tor JustIce
page Dot lb
.- Bob Faw, "CBS Evening News", July 2, 1993
"[The story of the Institute for Justice's clients in Denver] is still a story of the American Dream: thus far
a dream deferred; an opportunity denied."
-- Bob Faw, "CBS Evening News", July 2, 1993
"[T]he Washington-based Institute for Justice's goals are to crack open the doors for poor entrepreneurs
whose efforts are being blocked by excessive government regulation."
-- Chuck Colson, Break Point, July 1993
"Institute for Justice [is] a public interest group fighting for something our cities desperately need more
of: economic opportunity at the grassroots."
-- Scripps Howard News Service, April 26, 1993
"The Quick Pick Four won fame and martyrdom because their cause arises from that little-visited place
where the interests of free market conservatives and civil rights activists meet. To conservative advocates
of free ( or freer) markets, the Four embody the capitalist quest for truth, justice and so forth. Yet, to civil
rights advocates they embody the age-old story of blacks versus the power establishment."
-- David Lewis, Rocky Mountain News, February 21, 1993
"Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm with a concern for economic justice, the Institute has
chosen to make Denver's cab monopoly a test case. It is an important test case, not just for economic
equity but also for citizen's dignity."
-- Robert Maynard (Syndicated Columnist), February 19, 1993
"Lawsuits generally should be discouraged, but consumers ought to cheer a case filed recently [by the
Institute for Justice] in federal court in Denver over the imbecilic restrictions Colorado imposes on the
taxicab business."
-- The Denver Post, February 7, 1993
"[T]he institute seeks enlightened application of judicial rulings that regulation must be reasonably
http://www.taxi-library.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
~Uam;l1g111g UI;;IlVt:r S 1 aXICaO IVlOnopolY - InStltute lOr JustIce
Page 16 of 16
related to the legitimate promotion of the public welfare. The institute wants to narrow judicial deference
toward government regulation that is anti-competitive both in intent and effect."
-- George F. Will (Syndicated Columnist), February 4, 1993
"The institute has already won cases in which courts have agreed with it that individuals have a civil right
to earn a living free from excessive regulation. Many of its clients are low-income minorities because
many economic regulations were passed during the Jim Crow era, in part to block minority entry into
various occupations."
-- The Wall Street Journal, February 1, 1993
"The Washington-based Institute for Justice has made a crusade out of challenging discriminatory laws
that prevent people from pursuing their trade or occupation."
-- The Wall Street Journal, December 23, 1992
Back to the
http://www.taxi-Iibrary.org/denverOl.htm
7/15/2008
pnmer InenalY verSIOn 01 an anlCle trom IJ .org
Page I of9
Private companies cannot use government power to outlaw competition, yet this is precisely what the
established taxi cartel in Minneapolis is trying to do.
In October 2006, the city removed an artificial government-imposed cap on the number of taxis
legally permitted to operate within city limits. The new ordinance increases the number of taxicabs
on the street each year until 2011, when the cap will be lifted entirely, opening the door to all taxi
businesses that are fit, willing and able to serve the public. Predictably, the city's taxi cartel is now
suing to keep out newcomers by attempting to maintain its stranglehold on the industry. The cartel's
action is the last gasp of a dinosaur that free-market reforms have made extinct.
The city was right to open the taxi market because consumers, not a self-interested cartel, should
decide how many taxicabs operate in Minneapolis. Allowing entrepreneurs to enter the taxi market
by meeting basic requirements, such as having a well-maintained, inspected vehicle and carrying
insurance, will benefit consumers and entrepreneurs alike.
The cartel's baseless lawsuit threatens consumers like Blanca Prescott-a blind, single mother of
three-while violating the civil rights of entrepreneurs like taxicab owner Luis Paucar. Simply put,
Luis has the right to earn an honest living in the occupation of his choice free from government-
enforced barriers to entry erected to protect existing companies, and consumers like Blanca should be
free to choose who provides their transportation services. That is why on May 1, 2007, the Institute
for Justice Minnesota Chapter (IJ-MN) filed legal papers to intervene in the suit brought by the taxi
cartel in order to defend the free-market reforms on behalf of Luis Paucar and Blanca Prescott.
The Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter fights for the rights of entrepreneurs to earn an honest
living free from arbitrary discrimination and consumers to choose the services that best meet their
needs. Already, IJ-MN has scored victories for economic liberty on behalf of African-style
hairbraiders, family wineries and sign-hangers.
In 2006, the city of Minneapolis opened its taxi market to competition, freeing entrepreneurs who for
decades had been shut out by the city's government-imposed taxi cartel-and giving consumers more
options than ever. Immediately after the reforms became official in 2007, the established taxicab
companies who benefited from the cartel filed suit in a desperate attempt to maintain their
stranglehold on the city's taxi market. In the recently filed lawsuit, the cartel absurdly contends that
freedom for consumers and entrepreneurs is unconstitutional.
http://ij .org/include/media _ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty/mn _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
1"..L.u..I.""".1. .I...&..I.~.I..u,.".l.J Y"".I.~.I.V1.J. V.l. t.U.J. u..I....J.~.I."" .I...I.VJ..1.1. .I.J.V.l.o
ri:l!:;c'(" Vi '7
For decades, the entrenched cartel benefited from a cap on the number of vehicles permitted to
operate a taxi within city limits. But that doesn't mean their privileged position was unchallenged. As
far back as 1984, efforts have been made to end the anticompetitive and collusive market for
transportation services in Minneapolis. Those efforts included a lawsuit by the Federal Trade
Commission and successive legislative pushes for reform during the 1990s. Yet as late as October
2006, the city was limited to 343 regular taxis and the established procedure for increasing that
number and allowing new entrepreneurs into the market lay dormant and unenforced. Compared to
cities like Boston and St. Louis that have approximately one cab for every 300 residents, the
Minneapolis market was closer to an astonishingly low one cab per 1,000 residents.
Finally, on October 12, 2006, the city broke the cartel's grip and acted to correct this injustice: The
mayor signed into law reforms to the city's taxi ordinance removing the government-imposed cap and
opening the market to entrepreneurs that are fit, willing and able to serve the public. The reforms
were finalized on March 30, 2007. In response to the passage of reform, the cartel filed suit against
the city.
Simply put, the free-market reforms adopted by the city open a market that had been closed by anti-
competitive regulation. The reforms restore freedom of choice for consumers, and they open the
door of economic opportunity to entrepreneurs and taxi drivers. They certainly do not deprive
anyone of the right to obtain a taxi license or to operate a taxi company. But, ironically, that's just
what the cartel's lawsuit attempts to do.
On May 1, 2007, the Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit
brought by the established taxi cartel. On behalf of taxicab entrepreneur Luis Paucar and consumer
Blanca Prescott, IJ-MN is intervening in the lawsuit defend the city's free market reforms against the
cartel's unfounded attack.
Luis Paucar embodies the American Dream. He came to the United States with a vision of becoming
a successful entrepreneur. Through hard work and dedication, he turned that dream into a reality.
Upon his arrival from Ecuador, he secured his status as a permanent resident and put his
entrepreneurial skills to work. While succeeding in business as a grocery store owner in south
Minneapolis, he saw an opportunity to provide affordable transportation to individuals often ignored
by the existing taxicab cartel. In particular, he sought to fill an important niche by offering
dispatchers as well as drivers that are fluent in Spanish.
In October 2003, Luis created A New Star Limousine and Taxi Service, Inc. He began the company
from a basement office near his corner grocery.
As late as the fall of 2005, no licensed taxi service company in Minneapolis offered both Spanish-
speaking dispatchers and drivers. Nonetheless, Luis was prohibited by Minneapolis' antiquated taxi
ordinance from legally operating his taxi service within city limits.
Luis tried to find a way to operate A New Star legally in Minneapolis by obtaining taxi licenses from
the cities of St. Paul and Richfield and limousine permits from the state of Minnesota. But this cluster
of licenses made it absurdly difficult for Luis to operate his business in Minneapolis.
For example, under the old Minneapolis Taxi Code, taxis licensed outside the city were permitted to
drop off passengers inside city limits, but they could not pick up those passengers or solicit any other
business in Minneapolis. Consequently, A New Star's St. Paul and Richfield taxis were forced to
"deadhead" back to their staging areas after dropping off their passengers, meaning they could not
pick up passengers on their return routes. Luis's drivers tried to pick up taxi passengers by offering a
limousine service, but the premium fares were often too costly for passengers.
http://ij .org/include/media _ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty/mn _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
pnmer Jnenmy verSIOn OJ an aITICle Horn IJ .org
rage -' OJ ';I
Additionally, the city restricted Luis's limousine service to advance-scheduled passenger pickups. Any
attempt at coordinating A New Star's taxi and limousine services was impractical for all but the most
regular customers. And if a limousine missed a scheduled passenger-pick up, it could not respond to
"street hails" much less "troll" for fares along city streets. When attempting to coordinate taxi and
limousine services, Luis regularly risked the significant economic losses associated with both taxis and
limousines "deadheading" empty back to a staging point.
Ultimately, the mix of licenses and vehicles operated by Luis, and the hope of coordinating the
services he could legally offer, was a recipe for confusion and penalties under the discriminatory taxi
code. For four years, Luis tried desperately to obtain taxi vehicle licenses for A New Star Taxi from
the city of Minneapolis and was continually frustrated by seemingly insurmountable regulatory
hurdles.
Unlike the established cartel, Luis has never asked for special favors. He merely wants the
opportunity to peacefully run his business while honestly competing for customers. Until the city
opened the market, however, Luis was unable to legally offer his much needed services.
Blanca Prescott has suffered through horrible, firsthand experiences of life in a city plagued with a
taxicab cartel. Blanca, a young, single mother of three who went completely blind due to illness at
age 20, relies on taxi service for transportation around Minneapolis. Her family cannot afford a car
and her neighborhood is too hazardous, particularly given her condition, for her to feel safe using the
city's bus service.
On June 7, 2005, hours before her daughter's graduation from Head Start, she telephoned Luis
Paucar's company, A New Star, and scheduled a multi-stop trip, involving travel to the local K-Mart
and then on to her daughter's ceremony. A New Star's driver waited in the parking lot for his blind
passenger.
But while the driver was assisting Blanca back into his car for the second leg of the trip, he was cited
for operating a taxi in Minneapolis without a government-approved license. The Minneapolis police
officer ordered Blanca out of the car, had the vehicle towed and left her in the parking lot to fend for
herself. It was 5:30 p.m. and her daughter's graduation was at 6:30 p.m. No other taxis were in the
vicinity, and Blanca eventually arrived late to her daughter's graduation. Luis Paucar and his driver
spent the next six months in court battling the citation.
Blanca discovered A New Star in late 2003 after terrible service from the existing Minneapolis taxicab
cartel, including Red & White Taxi, Blue & White Taxi, and Rainbow Taxi. Wait times varied wildly
from 15 minutes to almost two hours. Sometimes taxis never came or were dispatched to the wrong
address. Drivers refused to walk Blanca to her door and even dropped her off two or more houses
down the street from her home with no help. Blanca encountered rude service and believes she was
overcharged by drivers taking unnecessarily long routes. She believes that Rainbow's poor service
was because they took her business for granted, knowing she had few options.
By contrast, her service with A New Star has been outstanding. The drivers walk her from her door,
help her in the car, walk her to her destination and speak in Spanish, which is her preference. The
dispatcher always calls if the car will be late and her wait time is usually between five and 10
minutes.
The taxi reforms enacted on October 12, 2006, and amended in minor respects on March 30, 2007,
make it possible for Luis Paucar to do business in Minneapolis and for Blanca Prescott to freely use his
http://ij .org/include/media _ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty/mn _ taxilbackgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
pnnter 1flenaJY verSIOn 01 an amCle rrom IJ .org
rage... or ';J
services. The reforms gradually eliminate the license cap by 2011 by authorizing the issuance of 45
new licenses nearly semi-annually from 2006 through 2010 and lift the cap thereafter. They replace
the old law's subjective "public-convenience-and-necessity" test-which favored existing companies-
with an objective "fit, willing and able" standard for determining the issuance of new taxi vehicle
licenses. Also, they allow entrepreneurs to apply for and receive taxi vehicle licenses together with
an application for a service company license without being required first to join an existing taxi
company, thus ending the gatekeeper power of existing companies.
The passage of taxi reform was supported by an abundance of evidence. At numerous public
hearings conducted between May and October 2006, the City Council entertained and considered
evidence and testimony from members of the public as well as experts in the fields of transportation
law, policy and economics.
Professor Jeremiah E. Fruin, PhD., of the University of Minnesota, Center for Transportation Studies,
submitted a written personal statement and presented live testimony based on peer-reviewed studies
of the taxi industry as well as the testimony and detailed studies that underpinned the 1995 reforms.
In summary, Professor Fruin testified:
. The city's restriction on the number of taxi vehicle licenses through its cap on the number of
licenses created a cartel that did not serve any legitimate public purpose.
. There was no reason to believe the city of Minneapolis was an exception to the general rule that
any legal restriction on the number of taxicabs directly causes artificially high rates, less service
and lower quality taxi service than would otherwise exist under conditions of free entry regulated
only by reasonable public health and safety requirements.
. The consensus of economists, as well as experts in the field of transportation law and economics,
showed that increasing the number of taxicab licenses results in lower taxi rates, more taxi
service, more innovative taxi service, higher quality taxi service and more consumer demand for
taxi service when combined with the enforcement of reasonable public health and safety
regulations.
. The city's restriction on the number of taxi vehicle licenses was the critical mechanism that
produces low taxi driver compensation because it tipped the balance in favor of the already-
licensed taxicab owner against the taxi driver, making taxi drivers "modern urban sharecroppers."
When taxi reform was finalized on March 30, 2007, everything changed for Luis. A New Star was
awarded 12 taxicab vehicle licenses. As a result, Luis's existing taxi and limousine service is free to
expand neighborhood taxi service throughout Minneapolis. Luis made significant investments in
infrastructure, vehicles and personnel in anticipation of applying for these taxicab vehicle licenses.
After nearly twenty-five years of struggle, entrepreneurs like Luis Paucar of A New Star Taxi are now
free to access the marketplace based solely on their fitness, willingness and ability to furnish basic
transportation services to the public. Further, consumers like Blanca Prescott are finally free to
choose among taxi companies who now must engage in genuine competition to earn their business.
Luis has finally realized the opportunity that America promises and Blanca feels liberated by the sense
of independence made possible by greater freedom of choice. The threat posed to A New Star and
Blanca from the cab cartel's lawsuit is both economic and deeply personal.
http://ij .org/include/media _ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty/mn _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
pnnter rnenaly verSIOn or an anlCle rrom IJ.org
rage ;) or ';J
The current battle is not the first over the Minneapolis taxi market-nor is the first time the taxi cartel
has sued to maintain its government-granted and unconstitutional privilege. For almost 25 years, the
Minneapolis Taxi Code has been a tug-of-war between those who want a legalized cartel and those
who believe in the entrepreneur's right to earn an honest living and the consumer's freedom to
choose. Before current reforms, the Minneapolis Taxi Code was the tattered remnant of nearly a
quarter century of legislative and legal wrangling that shows the power of the entrenched taxi cartel.
In 1984, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against the city of Minneapolis for the
anticompetitive and collusive nature of its taxicab-licensing ordinance, which was alleged to violate
antitrust laws because of the cap it placed on the number of taxicab licenses. The lawsuit alleged
that the city of Minneapolis engaged in illegal conduct that had several undesirable effects:
. Eliminating and preventing competition between competitors and potential competitors in the
operation of taxicabs in Minneapolis
. Strengthening the market power of authorized taxicab companies operating in the Minneapolis
taxicab market
. Raising, fixing, stabilizing, maintaining, or otherwise interfering or tampering with the rates
charged for taxicab service in and from Minneapolis
. Depriving interstate and intrastate consumers of taxicab services in and from Minneapolis of the
benefits of free and open competition in taxicab services
The FTC withdrew its lawsuit only after the city reformed its taxi ordinance in 1985 to raise the
number of taxicab licenses from 248 to 323 by February 1, 1986, and to include flexible licensing
regulations, which would result in as many as "an additional 25 licenses every year thereafter." In
connection with the enactment of these reforms, the FTC observed "[t]hese changes offer the
prospect of preventing the anticompetitive conduct alleged in the complaint by strongly facilitating
new entry into the Minneapolis taxicab market."
The 1985 reform ordinance was almost immediately challenged in state court by the Minneapolis
Taxicab Owners Association, the apparent forbearers of today's cartel. The city did not vigorously
contest the lawsuit, and did not oppose the continuation of a temporary restraining order barring the
implementation of the 1985 reform ordinance for nearly three years. Then, in March 1988, the city of
Minneapolis repealed the 1985 reform ordinance, reinstated a taxicab license cap, and further
imposed the limitation that no additional licenses could be issued unless "required" for the "public
convenience and necessity."
The minutes from the related March 23, 1988, committee meeting did not point to any genuine public
purpose for its reinstatement of the license cap; instead, the ordinance was described as being "in the
nature of a settlement of a lawsuit brought by the taxicab industry."
On May 11, 1988, the Minneapolis Taxicab Owners Association's lawsuit was quietly dismissed with
prejudice. Importantly, there was no consent judgment and the dismissal order does not mention
any settlement agreement.
The industry's legal threats appear to have worked-and to have carried weight years later. In 1993,
when Minneapolis' city council was debating whether to amend add a provision for the issuance of
temporary licenses without a public convenience and necessity hearing, reform efforts were strangled
http://ij.org/include/media_ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty Imn _ taxilbackgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
l-'lUlLl;;;l Ul\;.<UUl)' Vvl;:>IVll VI all atU\;.<I\;.< BVIB IJ.VIO
.1. U5'"" V V.L ./
by another apparent legal threat from the taxi industry.
A few years later, the city made another attempt at free-market reforms. During the spring and
summer of 1995, the city of Minneapolis put together a Taxi Task Force. The Taxi Committee held
hearings, considered several policy papers and wrote a report. City Council eventually passed
amendments to the Minneapolis Taxi Code that modestly liberalized the Code by making it easier for
new licenses to be issued and mandating hearings every two years to determine if more taxi licenses
would be needed. Additionally, 70 new licenses were issued and a lottery was established for the
issuance of 35 new licenses as well as the issuance of forfeited and temporary licenses.
But even these modest reforms were too much for the taxi cartel. It filed suit in an effort to reverse
them. The case was dismissed by both a trial and appellate court.
Despite the pro-free-market reforms passed in 1995, and made effective in 1996, the city still capped
the current number of renewable "regular" taxi vehicle licenses at 343. And while the Code required
the City Council to consider increasing the number of authorized licenses following a "public
convenience and necessity hearing" at least every two years, the city did not conduct such a hearing
for more than 10 years.
In essence, existing taxi companies continued to act as the gatekeepers to the Minneapolis taxi
market-until the 2006 reforms now subject to the taxi cartel's current bogus legal challenge.
Luis Paucar has the right to work for a living in the occupation of his choice free from government-
imposed barriers to entry erected to protect existing companies. This right to economic liberty is one
of the essential personal freedoms the 14th Amendment was enacted to secure.
Against this constitutional right to economic liberty, the taxicab cartel is advancing the novel theory
that its "rights" have been violated by free market reforms. But there is no constitutional right to be
protected from open market competition. Neither the cartel's right to do business nor its right to use
an existing taxi license have been taken. In short, the taxicab cartel isn't being deprived of Iicenses-
it's trying to deprive others of such licenses through its absurd lawsuit.
The cartel simply doesn't want to face new competition in what had been a comfortably non-
competitive market. And the companies who already have licenses complain that they can no longer
reap the rewards of a closed market by selling licenses for steep prices-as high as $24,000-propped
up only by the government-imposed cap. But those special privileges-which came at the cost of
freedom for consumers and entrepreneurs-amount to nothing more than corporate welfare. And
there is no constitutional right to corporate welfare.
The Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter seeks to restore constitutional protection for the right to
economic liberty-the right to earn an honest living in the occupation of one's choice free from
excessive government regulation. Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition, Inc., v. City of Minneapolis, is
the fifth case in the organization's campaign to restore economic liberty as a basic civil right under
both the Minnesota state and U.S. constitutions.
http://ij.org/include/media _ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty/mn _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
pnmer rnenmy VerSIOn or an anlCle trom IJ.org
t'age / or 'J
In Anderson v. Minnesota Board of Barber and Cosmetologist Examiners, IJ-MN freed hairbraiders
from the state of Minnesota's onerous cosmetology licensing regime. Crockett v. Minnesota
Department of Public Safety successfully stopped the government from enforcing a blanket ban on
advertising, soliciting or using the Internet to conduct lawful, direct sales of wine. Dahlen v.
Minneapolis freed sign hanging entrepreneurs from Minneapolis' discriminatory licensing regime.
In Johnson v. Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine, IJ-MN is currently challenging Minnesota's
crackdown on "horse teeth f1oaters"-entrepreneurs who level a horse's teeth.
The Institute for Justice has scored numerous additional victories for entrepreneurs and consumers
across the nation:
. Clutter v. Transportation Services Authority-In 2001, IJ defeated Nevada's Transportation
Services Authority and its entrenched limousine cartel that had stifled competition in the Las Vegas
limousine market.
. Jones v. Temmer-In 1995, IJ helped three entrepreneurs overcome Colorado's protectionist
taxicab monopoly to open Denver's first new cab company in nearly 50 years. IJ used this victory
to help break open government-sanctioned taxicab monopolies in Indianapolis and Cincinnati.
. Ricketts v. City of New York-In 1999, IJ joined commuter van entrepreneurs in a fight against
the government bus monopoly that would not allow any jitney entrepreneurs to provide service to
consumers in underserved metropolitan neighborhoods in New York City.
. Swedenburg v. Kelly- The Institute for Justice successfully waged the nation's leading legal
battle to reestablish the American ideal of economic liberty when, on May 16, 2005, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down discriminatory laws that existed only to protect the monopoly power
of large, politically connected liquor wholesalers. Vintner entrepreneurs Swedenburg and Lucas
joined wine consumers and 1) in filing this federal lawsuit as a challenge to the ban on direct
interstate wine shipments in New York. The case raised issues of Internet commerce, free trade
among the states, and regulations that hamper small businesses and the consumers they seek to
serve.
. Craigmiles v. Giles-The Institute for Justice successfully led a federal court to strike down
Tennessee's casket sales licensing scheme as unconstitutional, a decision that was upheld
unanimously in December 2002 by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and not appealed. This
marked the first federal appeals court victory for economic liberty since the New Deal.
. Armstrong v. Lunsford-The Institute for Justice opened the hairbraiding profession in
Mississippi in 2005 when the state legislature responded to this lawsuit, filed in federal court in
2004, by allowing IJ's clients to continue their entrepreneurship without obtaining a needless
government license.
. Christian Alf v. Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission-In 2004, the Institute for
Justice Arizona Chapter (IJ-AZ) persuaded Arizona bureaucrats to change their position on
requiring teenage entrepreneur Christian Alf to obtain a government Issued license for his after-
school handyman business helping local residents prevent roof rats.
. Cornwell v. California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology,.-In 1999,1) defeated
California's arbitrary cosmetology licensing requirement for African braiders.
. Diaw v. Washington State Cosmetology, Barbering, Esthetics, and Manicuring Advisory
Board-In March 2005, after being sued by the Institute for Justice Washington Chapter (IJ-WA)
just seven months earlier, state bureaucrats exempted braiders from discriminatory cosmetology
http://ij.org/include/media _functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty Imn _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
pnnter rnenOlY verSIOn 01 an artICle 1roID IJ .org
ral:51:O 0 UJ. 7
licensing requirements.
. Farmer v. Arizona Board of Cosmetology-In 2004, as a result of an IJ-AZ lawsuit, the Arizona
Legislature exempted hairbraiders from the state's outdated cosmetology scheme.
. ForSaleByOwner.com Corp. v. Zinnemann-Also in 2004, the Institute for Justice prevailed in
persuading the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to stop the state of
California's efforts to impose real estate broker licensing requirements on an informational
website.
. Franzoy v. Templemen-In April 2007, IJ represented two interior designers in successfully
challenging New Mexico's titling law, which prohibited anyone except government-licensed interior
designers from using the terms "interior design" or "interior designer." The New Mexico
Legislature amended the law doing away with the speech restriction. The Governor signed the bill
into law in April 2007.
. Gary Rissmiller v. Arizona Structural Pest Control Commission-In the fall of 2006, IJ-AZ
challenged the state's requirement that gardeners and landscape maintenance workers obtain
three separate licenses simply to kill weeds with over the counter products. As a result of this
litigation, gardeners throughout the state are now free to control weeds using products available to
the average consumer.
. Taucher v. Born-In 2003, the Institute for Justice convinced a federal court to strike down a
discriminatory regulation issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that would have
required entrepreneurs such as publishers of financial newsletters and Internet websites to register
as commodity trading advisors.
. Uqdah v. D.C. Board of Cosmetology-In 1993, Il's work in court and the court of public
opinion led the District of Columbia to eliminate a 1938 Jim Crow-era licensing law against African
halrbraiders.
. Wexler v. City of New Orleans-In 2003, the Institute for Justice successfully persuaded a
federal court to strike down an absurd ordinance that prohibited booksellers from selling books on
city sidewalks without a government issued permit.
The Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter filed its Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene in
this case, Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition, Inc., versus City of Minneapolis, on May 1, 2007, in the
U.S. Federal District Court for the District Court of Minnesota. The lead counsel for the Institute for
Justice is Nick Dranias, staff attorney with IJ-MN. He is the author of "The Land of 10,000 Lakes
Drowns Entrepreneurs in Regulations," which examines numerous government-imposed barriers to
honest enterprise that exist throughout Minnesota. The report was released in May 2006 and is
available online: . Dranias is joined by IJ-MN Executive Director Lee McGrath.
The Institute for Justice is a public interest law firm that advances a rule of law under which
individuals can control their destinies as free and responSible members of society. Through litigation,
communication and outreach, IJ secures protection for individual liberty and extends the benefits of
freedom to those whose full enjoyment is denied by government.
IJ-MN litigates under the Minnesota and federal constitutions to reinvigorate economic liberty,
preserve property rights, promote educational choice and defend the free flow of information
http://ij .org/include/media _ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty/mn _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
PUUICl lllCllUlY V~l;:'lVU V.L au a.LU'-'.L'-' HV.LU IJ.V10
... -b- -' "-'..&.. J
essential to politics and commerce. For more information, contact:
Bob Ewing
Communications Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 North Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington VA 22203-1854
bewing@ij.org
Phone: (703) 682-9320 ext. 206
Nick Dranias
Staff Attorney
Institute for Justice Minnesota Chapter
527 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1600
Minneapolis MN 55402-1330
ndranias@ij.org
Phone: (612)435-3451
In re City of Minneapolis, 105 F.T.C. 304 (1985).
Id.
In a lawsuit under case number 85-11452 in Fourth Judicial District Court (Hennepin County).
Standing Committee on Licenses & Consumer Services, Regular Meeting Minutes, March 23, 1988, at
pp. 1-2.
Former Mpls Code ~ 341.270(a), (b) (2005).
Id. 9 341.300(b)(1), (2).
Minneapolis Taxi Federation v. City of Minneapolis, 1996 WL 722091 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
Former Mpls Code ~ 341.300(b) (2005). This number does not include the 40 wheelchair accessible
vehicle licenses issued in 2002 and temporary or limited "seasonal" licenses.
Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915) (holding the right to work for a living in the common occupations
of the community is of the very essence of the freedom and opportunity secured by the 14th
Amendment).
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : ''http://www.'');
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js'
type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat.~etTracker("UA-
3478383-1 "); pageTracker._initDataO; pageTracker._ trackPageviewO;
http://ij.org/include/media_ functions.asp?path=/economic _liberty /ron _ taxi/backgrounder.h... 7/15/2008
Office of the
City Manager
Finance
August 15, 2008
Cindy Bechter
Business Registration Manager
City of San Bernardino
3400 Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92410
RE: Express Transportation, Inc.
DBA: AAlI nland Empire Cab
Dear Cindy:
I am writing this letter at the request of AAllnland Empire Cab in regard to their
effort to gain access to the City of San Bernardino market for expanded taxicab
service. This letter does not serve as a recommendation of AA/lnland Empire
Cab, but rather only as a statement regarding their level of service, should it
prove helpful in your consideration of them and the expansion of service to
multiple operators within your jurisdiction.
The City's position regarding competition through multiple taxicab operators to
meet the City's service demand has historically been that we believe the citizens
of Riverside are better served by making competition available to them as they
select a taxicab operator for their individual needs.
AA/lnland Empire Cab has been very responsive to our periodic requests for
information in regard to their franchise compliance. I have not received any
complaints from customers/citizens in the 4+ years that I have been involved with
the taxicab franchise management in regard to AAllnland Empire Cab. They are
currently in compliance with all terms of the franchise agreement and fees
required under the franchise are fully paid to date.
3900 Main Street. Riverside, CA 92522 · 951.826.5884 · fox 951.826.5683 · www.riversideca.gov
If I can be of any further assistance to you, I would be happy to discuss the
matter further. I can be reached at (951) 826-5750.
Sincerely,
f:JtAr1~
Brent Mason
Assistant Finance Director
City of Riverside, CA
1
RESOLUTION NO.
(C(Q)[PY
2
3 RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN
4 SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TO GRANT THE APPEAL FOR A PETITION
FOR A FRANCHISE PERMIT FOR EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS dba AA
5 INLAND EMPIRE CAB COMPANY TO OPERATE TWO (2) TAXICABS IN THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO.
6
7 THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
8 HEREBY FINDS AND CONCLUDES AS FOLLOWS:
9 CHRONOLOGY:
10
A.
At the September 9,2008 Bureau of Franchises meeting, a motion to grant the Petition
11 of Express Transportation Systems dba AA Inland Empire Cab Company (hereinafter "AA Inland
12 Empire Cab Company") for a Franchise Permit to operate two (2) taxicabs failed on a 2-3 vote.
13
B.
On April 14,2009, the Bureau of Franchises reconsidered the Petition for a Franchise
14 Permit for AA Inland Empire Cab Company and approved a motion to deny the Petition on a 4-1 vote.
15
c.
AA Inland Empire Cab Company filed a timely appeal of the decision ofthe Bureau of
16 Franchises to the Mayor and Council.
17
D.
On May 18, 2009, the Mayor and Council held a public hearing on the appeal filed by
18 AA Inland Empire Cab Company and received and considered the documentary evidence, testimony,
19 and arguments presented by the interested parties and the witnesses.
20 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
21 In accordance with San Bernardino Municipal Code Sections 5.76.050 and 5.76.060, and based
22 upon the documentary evidence, testimony, and arguments presented by the interested parties and the
23 witnesses, the Council adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the
24 Council's decision to grant the appeal for a Petition for a Franchise Permit for AA Inland Empire Cab
25 Company to operate two (2) taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino:
26
27
28
F:\EMPENO\Resos\AA Cab Co2.wpd
1
6-I-c~
-Jf~3
1 CONCLUSION 1:
2 Further service in the nature proposed by AA Inland Empire Cab Company is required
3 by the public convenience and necessity.
4 CONCLUSION 2:
5 There exists a public demand for an additional two (2) taxicabs and the taxicab service
6 currently being rendered is inadequate.
7 FINDINGS:
8
A.
Bell CabN ellow Cab has a Franchise Permit to operate 80 taxicabs in the City of San
9 Bernardino.
10
B.
Bell CabN ell ow Cab had only 54 drivers with current City business licenses with 16
11 more drivers who completed the DOl background check and could be issued a City business license,
12 as of the May 18, 2009 Council hearing.
13
c.
Bell CabN ellow Cab has produced slow service on numerous occasions, with several
14 witnesses waiting one hour or more for a Bell CabNellow Cab.
15
D.
Citizens complain that some Bell CabN ellow Cabs provide poor customer service, that
16 their vehicles are filthy and are not maintained properly, and that some of their drivers are rude.
17
E.
Councilmembers have received complaints from their constituents regarding the poor
18 service from Bell CabN ellow Cab.
19
20
F.
G.
Adding competition by another taxicab company will improve taxicab service in the City.
San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 5.76.060(B)(l) permits not more than one
21 taxicab for each two thousand five hundred (2,500) residents in the City.
22
H.
Based upon the most recent population estimate of the City, the maximum number of
23 taxicabs permitted is 82.
24 DECISION:
25 Based on the above Findings and Conclusions, the Council decides that (1) Further service in
26 the nature of that proposed by AA Inland Empire Cab Company is required by the public convenience
27 and necessity; (2) The Council hereby grants the appeal and grants the Petition for a Franchise Permit
28 for AA Inland Empire Cab Company-to operate two (2) taxicabs in the City of San Bernardino.
F:\EMPENO\Resos\AA Cab Co2.wpd 2
1 The Council hereby refers this matter to the Legislative Review Committee for possible review
J of the taxicab ordinance, Chapter 5.76 of the San Bernardino Municipal Code, and consider transferring
3 the duties of the Bureau of Franchises to the Police Commission.
4 /II
5 /II
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F:\EMPENO\Resos\AA Cab Co2.wpd 3
1
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
BERNARDINO ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN
SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL'S DECISION TO GRANT THE APPEAL FOR A PETITION
FOR A FRANCHISE PERMIT FOR EXPRESS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS dba AA
INLAND EMPIRE CAB COMPANY TO OPERATE TWO (2) TAXICABS IN THE CITY OF
SAN BERNARDINO.
2
3
4
5
6
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of San Bernardino at a meeting thereof, held on the _day
of , 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
7
8
9 COUNCIL MEMBERS:
10 ESTRADA
11 BAXTER
12 BRINKER
13 SHORETT
14 KELLEY
15 JOHNSON
16 MC CAMMACK
17
18
NAYS
AYES
ABSTAIN ABSENT
City Clerk
19
20
The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this _ day of
,2009.
21
22
PATRICK J. MORRIS, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
23
Approved as to form:
24
JAMES F. PENMAN
City Attorney
25
26
( f~
27
28
F:\EMPENO\Resos\AA Cab Co2.wpd
4