to leave the equipment under the ground. and every time it's been asked -- that you've asked what that would mean to mr. funge, i feel that the explanation unintentionally has been ambiguous because we don't quite understand -- maybe people in the room don't understand -- what the machine looks like. it's on the site for the sfmta. so, mr. funge has explained that this is a 300-foot, meaning a football length field piece of equipment. but, in fact, the piece that we've suggested leaving under the ground is only about about 15 feet deep. it's a train, 300 feet long, a train, that's pushing a disk. you can see here this disk is much larger in circumference than this train. this disk, which is cutting the dirt, gets stuck in the ground. and all over the world the same company, which has provided the demonstration for the sfmta site -- there is a democrat owe there beautifully done to show

you how this all works -- that company, most of those 41 different sites in the world are leaving this disk under the ground. * all we're asking in north beach, to not interfere with the successful neighborhood church, residents, businesses adjacent to pagoda palace, is to write into the lease with the pagoda the possibility, should it become possible to do this in the future when the machines arrive in north beach, to leave this disk, not the train 300 feet long, but just this 15-foot disk in the ground. and that's how it's done in many places around the world. thank you so much. >> thank you, mr. bruno. anyone else care to address the board on this subject? if not, okay. members, questions, comments? >> let me speak to that, mr. reiskin, the comment about leaving the disk in. is this something we looked at, considered, would that be a viable possibility to try to build something like that into it at this point? *

>> the answer is yes and yes, it is something that we looked at i believe originally as part of the project and then as part of the review that we undertook this past summer, it was on the list of options that we presented to you in december. it is doable, it is viable, that there are with that option, with the current option, with what we're proposing, there are various pros and cons. the the win/win i think that president chiu mentioned, dovetails this project with the pagoda project. it leaves our current contract kind of more intact in terms of the residual value of the tunnel boring machine staying with the contractor. but yes, absolutely, leaving them in the ground is possible. it could be done. that's something we evaluated and came forward recommending what we're recommending today. i will note that at, not the

january community meeting in north beach, but one that we had in december when there was, albeit very informal straw poll of the people there, there was support for the -- the greatest support was for this option or for leaving the tunnel boring machines in the ground in chinatown. the current plan of removing them on columbus avenue and the plan for leaving them in the ground under columbus avenue was received virtually no support at that meeting. so, to the extent that that informal poll was representative of community sentiment, that's just a data point for you. i also want to add, and i didn't state it in my opening that you've heard from 4 or 5 people who are suggesting we do other things, that there's been fairly strong community support from a number of individuals and organizations in writing for this option. so, just another data point to

get a sense of where the other community sentiment is. >> what we're doing today, does that preclude the possibility of leaving that disk in there? >> we would be entering into a lease and we would immediately start constructing the shaft. in order for us to have the shaft built in time for the machines to get there, we need to start that. our original plan was to start that work in january of this year. so, we're already behind on that. so, before we start impacting the critical path, that is not a decision that would be made in a year. it's a decision we'd be making now to move forward with the demolition and the excavation to build the shaft. >> director big nan. >> if we could discuss the funding. i don't remember if it was in open session or closed session -- was it in closed session? can we discuss that very briefly? i know that the number you gave us versus the number that seems to be perceived by the public were different. so, if we could just briefly go

through the funding and where it is going that would be great. >> i think the confusion on the total amount was just a mad matter of ating the components of the 1.15 -- and .15. it is .15 million and [speaker not understood]. * 9.15 again, those are both not to exceed numbers. so, that's kind of a worst case fiscal impact. what we're proposing right now, the costs won't be -- need to be for the most part budgeted or paid for until next fiscal year, the following fiscal year. * so, at that time we'll have more kind of specific -- we'll have a better understanding of exactly what the costs are and where we'd be budgeting them. but as one of the speakers said and what we said in the report, we'll be looking primarily at reserves. we approved a budget with a certain expectation of where our ending fund balance would be as we're trying to increase it back up to a healthier

level. and it was that commitment that was the basis, at least in part, for the strong credit ratings that we received. so, we don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. however, since the mv ta budget was approved by you last spring, * the health of the economy for the last fiscal year and then based on the controller's six-month report for this fiscal year is projecting more general fund transfer that will come into the mta that is not budgeted that will just add to that fund balance. so, we believe even if we had to fully fund this from our reserves, we'd be able to do so in a way that would still keep us on track with the ending fund balance projection that you all had approved. and that's all to initially front the money, if you will, once these payments are due. we will be working with the fta to secure their approval for

consideration of use of contingency. another public speaker indicated to the extent we have contingency in the project to refund the city for that amount. you know, we believe certainly the $6 million of our costs extending the tunnel is fully part of the project and we hope would be eligible for that reimbursement, but that's something that even if the fta were to approve it in concept at this point, it really wouldn't be until they had a sense of where we are relative to contingency. they wouldn't want us to draw down contingent is towards that. but towards the end of the project we may. we hope in the end to get that money refunded, but that's currently the plan for our funding this. >> commissioners, any other questions? director bridges? >> my question was along the same lines. i understood from the meeting director reiskin had planned he would go back to the fta for reimbursement on this wrote et and request it at the end. >> that's correct.

we'll be working with them before the end to try to get these accepted as legitimate project costs and then to the extent we achieve that, then they'd be eligible for funding to the extent there's funds left over. since that's not something we can control -- >> i understand. >> what we can tell you now is how we would fund it now. we certainly hope in the end to be able to get this money refunded back into the city to the mta. >> what is good about this, it's based on cpi which is good in this environment. >> it has all not to exceed values. so, if the owner's construction costs go up $3 million, we're still capped at 1.15. if he ends up at a million dollars to remove the shaft and backfill,v our liability is still capped at 400,000. >> that is correct, and that's good. >> anything? >> no. >> [speaker not understood]. if not, is there a motion on the recommendation before us? >> p motion to approved. >> second. >> further suction?

all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed no? the ayes have it. one thing, director reiskin about the meeting on the 22nd being interrupted, it seems like it might be a good idea to have an information meeting. not a policy discussion since that's pretty much been set. but maybe go back to the community and answer specific questions about what people are anticipating what's going to happen, if we can do that. >> absolutely. we've been working to significantly improve the way we're communicating with the north beach community in particular and are doing so through many different channels, through e-mail and otherwise. we are supporting part of a position in the economic development office, somebody who is in part focused on working just with the north beach community. so, we're happy to continue that and make sure that any kind of unanswered questions to the extent there are any are answered. some of the things that are coming up are things that have

been answered in some cases. for five years ago, in some cases in the last six months. but we absolutely want to continue our commitment to communicating with the community and in particular working with the -- any businesses or residents that might be impacted. >> those three that were mentioned here and the others. thank you. i'd like to -- it took many people to get us to this day, i certainly want to say a very special thanks to john funge and his staff for the outstanding work. i know it's a huge challenge in a very short period of time. so, thank you, mr. funge, and your staff for all the great work. >> i want to note as i think the board president did, alicia john baptiste came on the first day of her assignment was getting this job done. she was able to pull together not just the mta staff, but from our real estate folks and finance and construction and engineering, but the planning department, the attorneys, and everybody to make this happen. and then our cfo/chief real estate negotiator, [speaker not

understood] was the one who was kind of working around the clock to get this deal done in a way that was responsible for the city and good for the mta. so, i want to acknowledge them. >> a great sacrifice missing our all-day retreat to do this. >> [speaker not understood]. >> okay, thank you. next item. >> item 12, amending transportation code sections 1109, 1110 and 1116 to establish the rights of current ramp medallion holders under the recently adopted medallion transfer program, to provide the lease of ramp taxi medallions returned to the sfmta, and to make other non-substantive changes. >> so, mr. chair, this item is meant to kind of catch up the ramp taxi program with the various steps of medallion reform we've taken over the past couple of years and to really provide a transition path for the ramp medallion holders. it's been informed in part by

the authorizations you've given us to provide incentives for ramp medallion or ramp service performance which have been effective. but also have helped us show where there's significant unevenness in ramp service. we also have a number of the medallion holders who are looking and perhaps deserving of a pathway out. so, this proposal that's before you that was subject to some town hall meetings that benefit from some town hall meeting, that benefit from our accessible service folks working within the taxi and accessible services division to develop is our proposal. and jarvis murry, who is the -- who is here for director hayashi who is on travel this week, is here to take you through some of the specifics of the legislation that we're proposing. >> good afternoon [speaker not

understood]. >> good afternoon, directors. director reiskin. this item before you is simply a matter of amending the transportation code to provide an opportunity to lease and grant medallions directly to companies and also to clarify some issues with our ramp medallion holders. as you have already approved in some previous legislation, we are looking at giving our medallion holders the opportunity to purchase medallions for $150,000 for the top 200 people who are on our waiting list. we have 100 grant medallions. those 100 grant medallion holders are within the top 200 on our waiting list. so, what's going to happen is they'll all have the opportunity to purchase a half price medallion at $102,000 each. but when that occurs, those ramp medallions will come back to the city. and what we want to do is allow those grant medallions to keep operating to service our wheelchair clientele. so, what we're proposing is --

and we're looking at this for along the future, is the opportunity to allow the mta to lease these grant medallions directly to the companies to ensure that that service will continue and to ensure that our wheelchair customers maintain priority as part of our ramp program. >> [speaker not understood]. thank you very much, mr. [speaker not understood]. members of the public care to address the board on this matter? >> yes, mr. chairman. we'll start with charles rathbone, kerry lam, and [speaker not understood]. >> i think mr. oka is going to speak in this one, right? >> we don't have a speaker card from him. [laughter] >> he doesn't need one. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. charles rathbone with electric cab. i put on the overhead a subject for you to see. it's an article from the chicago dispatcher magazine. and it shows one of their

long-time ramp taxi drivers who received many compliments from his customers being awarded a ramp taxi medallion. and i think you can see from the picture the pride and the joy in just how much that means to their whole family. i'm really concerned that as you move to your new ramp taxi program that the long-time drivers, not the medallion holders, the drivers of the cabs other than the me doll i don't -- medallion holders will be left out of the deal. i suggest that you reissue those ramp taxi permits as they get turned in by the medallion holders to these long-time drivers. * in a manner very similar to what you do with the s permits. this would be issued to drivers on a temporary basis who would

then turn around and make their deal with the cab companies. issuing the permits to these experienced and long-time drivers would serve to keep them involved and would reward their many long years of commitment. lastly, the proposed changes are an opportunity for you to rebrand the ramp taxis. i suggest you start calling them ramp and bike taxis because these large vehicles are bike friendly and can easily hold two bicycles without taking off the wheels. that way you could recognize an expanded role for ramp taxis going forward. thank you. >> thank you, mr. [speaker not understood]. next speaker. >> correspond i lam followed by [speaker not understood] and mark gruberg. >> hello. good afternoon, directors.

i've spoken previously and other meetingsing, i was a ramp taxi driver. i do work at night, so, the majority of my rides are usually not folks in wheelchairs. they're people who are out drinking and whatnot. my concern with the ramp program has to do with people using the medallion just to go to the airport and take what doesn't fit in a prius or an escape. i've had that concern for sometime now. i've addressed that with sfo people on how to handle that. what's happening is now that we have the 8,000 series and these other vehicles that are being added and i believe you're probably going to see another spike in hybrid medallions, but you do need incentivized drivers who don't have a medallion down the road for them to still service that very important community. i've given a suggestion previously, and i'm going to bring it again to you. you need to work with the para

transit coordinating council and the broker to subsidize the time and gas that is aped expended by the drivers who actually have a good heart. but it's not economically feasible to do so because the medallion -- the price of the medallion holders are being paid by the companies won't be there for ever. that's going to sunset like everything else is sunseting. and i believe if we subsidize those rides 5, $7 a ride, so, there's work being done on the front side and backside that is not being compensated for and with the para transit being limited to $2, some of that work for people who actually have a good heart and see the value in doing that are being disincentivized by taking the medallions away from the drivers. thank you. >> thank you, sir. next speaker. >> [speaker not understood] mahmoud, [speaker not understood]. i'd like to speak at the last. >> who is next? >> mark gruberg.

>> mr. gruberg. thank you again. mark gruberg. i'd like to echo some of the comments of the previous speakers, particularly mr. rathbone who is a manager at the company that has the most ramp taxis in the city and has the most to gain from the issuance of ramp taxi medallions to cab companies. and yet clearly recognizes the main incentive for a driver to drive the ramp taxi, to continue driving a ramp taxi is the possibility of gaining a ramp taxi medallion. and although this legislation doesn't preclude the issuance of ramp taxi medallions to drivers in the future, it's certainly, certainly points away from it. and i would urge you very strongly. leave this door of opportunity open for drivers. too many other doors have been

closed to them. i also have to say that i oppose further leasing of medallions. i know that it's in the agency's financial interest to do this, but i think that the agency's financial interests too often have been trumping the interest of drivers, the interest of companies and the interest of the public. so, i'd urge you not to do that. and lastly, let me just say on behalf of green cab that if medallions are issued to cab companies, these ramp medallionses, i hope they're not. but if that happens, a reading of this legislation tells me that green cab will be forever precluded from getting any of them because we don't have any ramp medallions right now. we're fairly young company. we haven't taken any in, i can explain various reasons for that. but the way this is written, these ramp medallionses can

only be issued to companies with an exemplary service to the wheelchair community and that would preclude our company, any other company that doesn't have ramp medallions from ever getting one. >> thank you, mr. gruberg. >> [speaker not understood], mohammed, mary mcguire. good afternoon, ms. mason. good afternoon, commissioners, heidi mason. first i want to applaud the proposal to allow all ramp medallion holders to be able to purchase the regular medallions at half price. i believe that will be a great change and i think that will be appreciated by many people in the industry. second, i am troubled by the provisions on leasing back to the taxi companies. and if i could maybe turn your attention to page 5 of the staff memo, and this is in the penultimate paragraph that says that staff will choose companies to lease based on demonstrated performance.

well, the price transportation pays, this approach may be putting the cart before the horse. i would urge you to instead put in place some standards for companies so that they -- companies have a fair opportunity to compete for those lease backs. i think that there was a bit of process that was skipped over here and i urge this commission to ask that question and to reject this proposal either in part or in whole until the standards have been put in place. thank you. >> thank you, ms. mason. next speaker. >> mohammed, followed by mary mcguire, and bruce oka. >> good afternoon. i'd like to [speaker not understood]. i'd like to draw your attention

to [speaker not understood] taxi in 1994 [speaker not understood] temporary with six medallionses. and no one knew it's worth trying. some driver stepped in and partnered with the yellow cab and invested some money and purchased vans and equipment. the incentive was that they will get their chance to get their regular medallion sooner down the road. but that didn't happen. sometime sfmta took over the taxi industry, thing get better, too. also a -- although they continue to serve the community and put some sacrifices. for example, they kept pushing [speaker not understood] event because they [speaker not understood] costs. and they spent more [speaker not understood].

no hybrid or energy vehicle for taxi. they prioritized the [speaker not understood] customers, they go across town to pick up customer. they turn down other business, and then they spend more time to load, unload, [speaker not understood] without extra compensation. and then the sfmta put more burden on them by asking them to pick up more wheelchairs, eight wheelchairs a minimum a month without [speaker not understood] the sacrifice they are being put into. i think the problem is because we did not recognize that this driver put a lot of sacrifice because they're waiting for one day to get their medallion. [speaker not understood], asking us to put -- push [speaker not understood]. in one hand -- >> thank you, yeah.

i'll wrap real quick. they gave medallion to driver who didn't put them on the list and then punishing [speaker not understood]. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. mary mcguire followed by bruce oka and then jacob madel. >> good afternoon, ms. mcguire. good afternoon, mary mcguire, taxi driver. they are leasing the rent medallions to the cab companies. i'm concerned about how, how this will impact the service. now, it's a current standard of 8 wheelchair pick ups a month. that is not very many. if that is the standard, would that be for each driver or each medallion? and who is responsible for maintaining the standard applied to the ramp drivers themselves or the cab companies? currently the medallion holder is responsible for that.

and what incentives would the drivers have to maintain this service, if they don't have the medallion any more? if the company is just going to hire lease drivers to do these -- to drive these ramp medallions, how will the standard be maintained if they're not employees? if they're independent contractors, they're unable to enforce, enforce any employee rules. so, i think you should consider that. and also the legislation mentions that -- about the current ramp drivers would be eligible to purchase this half price medallion, $150,000. it's not clear to me and i don't think you've ever made it clear where are these medallions going to come from? it hasn't ever -- it's just not clear to me. is it [speaker not understood] need to die and my medallion going to go back or is it part of the current batch you plan

to put out? and also my favorite subject, uber side car and their ilk, the mustache cabs, how are they servicing the disabled community? and we need more taxis because that day could come and you real have i to consider that. if you go to open entry, our business is finished ferment who is going to service the disabled community? * and also, you know, [speaker not understood] actually enjoy taking cabs when that day may come when we have no more cabs. >> thank you, ms. mcguire. next speaker, please. >> bruce oka followed by jacob madel and abner [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, mr. oka. good afternoon. i hope i haven't lost my [speaker not understood]. >> i'm sure you haven't. it's good to be back, by

the way. >> glad to have you back. i've been on a long vacation [speaker not understood]. but, one of the things that i always have advocated is that we who ride the ramp taxis have a choice of companies that we take. and i want to make sure that that is the case. i really think that we should allow as many companies that want to have ramp medallions to get a chance to get them. because i know we have a number

of great ramp drivers and i know that [speaker not understood] yellow and de soto are the three biggest companies. but also every time the para transit program has conducted a trial on who is providing this service [speaker not understood] comes out and talk every time except monday i can remember. their service is better than the others, believe it or not. and right now i use -- i t