because if they borrow 150,000 that would not get that loan but we are in a different situation. they are getting this loan free. if someone got the loan, the credit union will give it to them for no down payment. there is no reason to believe that any of these 225 people on the waiting liswould be unable to secure a loan for this medallion. we have seen no one turned down for a long. >> correct. >> is important to clarify -- and i want to make sure everyone understands it, the

debt service, loan payments, mortgage payments, whatever you want to call it, under this proposal is going to be roughly according to your proposal $800 a month. >> $800-$850, yes. >> the difference between what someone would get it we're stuck with the prop system, the difference between the month revenue stream to one of our long-term value drivers from this sort of the medallion, is about -- a month, because they have to pay the loan service. but the same time, unlike prop k because people drove onto the drop because they don't have any ownership in the medallion,

people in this medallion do own it. >> people think the pension is being taken away. i want to correct that perception. the system creates a way for the driver to transfer the medallion and realized the asset value. >> thank you for addressing that point. i feel a bit of kindred spirit with you today, suffering personal attacks. this is a program that was is explained like that shows that you as a staff showing respect the people will have a long time in industry. while it is tempting at some levels of the mta to reach out and take all this money we have sacrificed determine some of the revenue to create a transition program. and i appreciate your comments. those are my questions.

>> chairman nolan: director rubke. >> chairman nolan: i would like to make an amendment, item 11. >> director rubke: i would like to to make in a amendment to item 11. >> chairman nolan: second of the motion? >> if director rubke's amendment is passed, we'll get to 300 on the waiting list. >> correct. >> chairman nolan: all those in favor? passed, 11 as amended.

i would like very much to see that the revenue generated, in fact is back to this industry in a direct, definable way, such as inspectors. that is an important issue. safety is an important issue. i don't know that four more will do it. i would like to see the drivers fund get substantial increase especially like funds like ms. hyoshi was talking about. >> do we have a motion and a second? >> we do. >> on 11 as amended and on 12. >> chairman nolan: all those in favor? it is so ordered. we will take about a 10 minute break.

(break)

>> >> (gavel)

>> chairman nolan: we are back. good afternoon. we are back in session. will go at this point to the agenda. back the public comment. we have members of the public who wish to address the board? >> secretary boomer: yes, on matters within the jurisdiction of the board of directors but not on the agenda. >> chairman nolan: two minutes. >> secretary boomer: [indiscernible] >> chairman nolan: mr. malik? [sounds like] >> good afternoon. honorable chairman and directors. -- malik, longtime driver. not on the agenda.

mr. chairman, a few months ago you requested or ordered the sfmta to bring up credit card issue again. a lot of companies are charging five percent or more. forcing the drivers to accept credit card via merchant, we pay the license fee to the city. we are independent contractors. i do now you can forces to accept credit card even though the people go to the clubs and bars. ethey don't accept credit cards. they have to pay cash. the minimum is $21 dollars. if you go to the bar and order

$6-$10, you have to pay $21, and if you want another drink, you pay another $21. the same people, for $7 ride, they gave you credit card. and some people force you to accept credit card. which is very unfair. if you look at the federal law, -- you have to take a position, accept the law or not. allows the charge the minimum of 10 dollars, or allow us to have a signposted, only cash. is up to us. we lose the business. you don't. in the people don't have a credit card, we lose the business. >> marcelo fonseca, followed by

--[indiscernible] . >> good afternoon sir. >> good afternoon i want to talk again on the -- illegal operation that ms. hyoshi talk about. she talk about a lot of things i want to say. i want to urge you to go after them. they are big threat to our industry. if i listen to you mr. [indiscernible] i don't think you can look the other way. they are threatened this industry. if you don't do anything about it, this medallion treasure could become worthless. they are a major threat to the industry. they are everywhere. they do as they please.

it is not fair that we have so many rules and regulations to comply with and they roam the streets as they please. please keep the pressure on them. and to the best you can so we can survive in this industry. thank you. >> chairman nolan: speaker please. >> -- [indiscernible] >> at the last meeting, item 11.7, approved by the board, unilateral action to close [indiscernible] i was disappointed because it was based on false information. mr. heinicke, when he moved to approve this he said i understand the contractor at the full set of recourse available to him if he wants to

pursue additional compensation. there is no full set of resources. there is one. the filing of a lawsuit. i have been working on three projects: i am owed for money and work completed, some in 2010, and i'll tell you how much. this is not like information brought to you. this is accurate, verified by sfmta staff. i am old owed-- 7 million dollars right now. the only recourse is available is to file a lawsuit and that will cost me several hundred thousand dollars and that will

cost me money through my notes. i want the board to put themselves in my shoe. modern i give you my business cards and tell me what those recourses are? a small contractor paying 3.7 interest rate on -- and the only recourse is to file a lawsuit. to me what the recourse is. >> chairman nolan: next speaker. good afternoon. >> thank you for your few minutes of your time. i'm here to protest the unilateral change order 20 a contract 50; i work for synergy project management for over seven years, and the acting director of construction. we have completed over 40 s.f. projects, never have to file a claim in an owner until now. we have voluntarily gone out of

our way to perform a -- contract, 70 percent ahead of the schedule. after that director reiskin pointed out how sensitive it was for the industry. i have never seen management abuse powers as i've seen on 1250. this forum does not allow the time to review the details; i asked the board to make the decision to act parties to present the case to a neutral party for decision. we want to clarify that the only recourse is a lawsuit; we have already spent 250,000 dollars on attorney consultant

these; we would hate to spend another 200,000. synergy is performing other contracts with sfmta, and his partner with sfmta to deliver context of the community; i asked that you request reasonable mediation in this issue. >> i am the actual superintendent that built the first two phases of the subway project; i have been present every day. i want to talk to you about the unpaid inefficiency and disruption on the 1250 project; there were over 750 separate

force changes. every time we would start to dig, some unforeseen structure would block our work, we found even an entire building foundation on 4 street, buried, combine this with a six-month archaeological delays and we have major additional costs of this project that have not been addressed. all of the starting and stopping, can be chopped into little sections. the fragmentation that we experience of the base contract work had synergy on this one disruption item over the entire course. the job has been 2 million additional labor and equipment;

we put together a simple change order, to make it is easy to understand for sfmta. we compared it to the as-bid hours. mta has never taken the time to analyze, negotiator comment on the change order. it is not fair or right that management is doing that. you cannot start and stop a job over 750 times and expect workers to finish the same contract work in the same amount of time. synergy has asked over and over for an independent review of the cost and some type of resolution to be set up or third-party evaluation. >> cory lamb - followed by herbert weiner and -- [indiscernible]