as to how much participate could happen in the state following the energy crisis. direct access has the potential to take large commercial customers out of the pg&e portfolio, out of the cleanpowersf portfolio, so that's part of the reason why we were paying attention to it. [please stand by]

>> superviser ronen: poll >> superviser ronen: poll . . . . the next bill i wanted to comment on is assemblyman holden's bill ab813 on regionalization. you have been hearing about regionalization throughout our conversations. this bill would have established a pathway for the california independent system operator to transform its governance structure to operate as a multi-state regional transmission organization. the p.u.c. did not take a formal position on the bill. he did share our concerns on the bill with our legislators.

the trade association sported the bill, while the municipal utilities association opposed the bill. and the bill was referred to the suspense file in the senate and did not pass this year. we do expect this is a conversation that will continue with the next legislative session. on a happier note, we have senator deleon's sp100 that would accelerate the state's current renewable portfolio program to 50% by 2025 and 6 # o% by 2030 and sets a 100% clean, zero carbon, and renewable energy file for california's electric system by 2045. again, this is where san francisco's goals are faster. we would be meeting these goals 15 years earlier by 2030.

we supported the bill and it included existing large hydro power as counting toward the mandate, so that's good. this bill passed the senate and was signed by governor brown. and then the wildfire response bill, senator dodd's 901. this allows california-owned investor utilities to issue cost recovery bonds repaid by charges on customers' electric bills once they get approval from the california p.u.c. it requires the utilities to adopt wildfire mitigation plans and creates a commission to examine catastrophic wildfires associated with utility infrastructure and would levy fines on utilities that fail to adhere to fire prevention plans. the p.u.c. opposed the original plan to completely rewrite inverse condemnation, the strict liability laws for utilities, primarily due to the impact on

cities and publicly owned utilities like ours. we also lobbied in opposition of the inclusion of language from another senate bill 1088 which would have limited community choice programs the ability to own certain nongrid resources like distributed energy storage and microgrids and clean transportation structure. the language would have exposed c.c.a. rate payers for paying for redundant resources procured by the investor-owned utilities and the by the c.c.a. this language was ultimately not included in the bill. however, it did pass the senate in assembly, and is waiting the governor's signature. >> ms. hale, just to confirm.

you said that 1088 has language that corresponded to sb901? >> yes, senator dodd accepted into 901 aspects of 1088. those ultimately did not -- we opposed those. those ultimately were not included in the version that's now before the governor. >> and 1088 was in the past legislative calendar? >> a yes, it was also being considered at the same time as sb901. >> is this the full and complete list of your watch, oppose, support list? it looks like there are some -- if that was omitted, are there others that are not listed here? >> there are others that are not listed here. the p.u.c. follows hundreds of bills each session. but i am highlighting for you here are the bills that had the strongest attention from us, from our clean power sf perspective. >> are all of the bills that

would have influenced changed, or in some way affected clean power sf listed in these slides? >> the bills that had -- well, let me back up. many bills are introduced that could affect clean power sf. the bills that are the most impactful and are the unwithes that i am -- are the ones that i am highlighting here. we could certainly share perhaps with the executive director goble the universe. we may already have, but happy to have conversations with you if you would like to go deeper on the various bills we have participated on. this is intended to give you a summary of the big ticket items. >> i think it is helpful for the big ticket item, but i would ask that you share your list with our executive officer. >> happy to. >> thank you.

we are talking now about 893 on advanced procurement and that was assemblyman garcia's bill that would require procurement inned a vance. it did not make it into print until august 24, so this was a late forming action. it was originally a 3,000 megawatt carve out for just geothermal resources where load serving entities like clean power sf would be required to sign up ahead of time and advance procure for long-term commitments. it was amended to include an additional 2,000 megawatts for

eligible -- for federal tax credit eligible renewables. rewe lobbied against this bill. we opposed it because it would have limited our flexibility in procurement and would have increased costs for both the p.u.c. hetch hetchy power program. it would have required 2/3 vote of the senate to refer the bill to the senate that late in the session, and they did not have the support to do that, so it did not pass. it was concerning and got quite a bit of attention and press, so that's why we mention it here. and that's my rundown. thank you very much. >> superviser fewer: any comments from commissioners? are there members of the public who would like to speak on this item? >> hello, commissioners. eric brooks with san francisco

green party, our city san francisco, and californians for energy choice. so want to just get to what the sfpuc didn't discuss which is where we need to do with clean power sf, which is local buildout. we need to do extensive study work and not just study, but we need to now finally develop a plan for a county wide buildout of renewables, efficiency, and other resources so that we're not only getting 100% renewable energy, but we're getting 100% renewable energy from our local area. that is really crucial. if we don't do that, then as more and more community choice programs come online to put demand on the market, it will raise the cost of renewables so high we won't be able to participate and kill the programs. we have to build locally. another reason is long-range

transmission lines are responsible for a lot of the wildfires. if we localize all clean energy, all energy and clean energy in california, we can eventually -- it will probably take decades, get rid of the long-range transmission lines and whatever long-range lines are needed could be undergrounded at that point. it would be less expensive. so this is the big picture on this. we can't get there without a local buildout plan. and the sfpuc is not in their wheelhouse as an organization to do that. they're supposed to protect rate payers and make sure everybody gets electricity, and they need to be conservative because of that. what we need now is for lafco to lead the process of drafting a local buildout plan like the one in sydney, australia, that i emailed to you all. thanks. >> thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed.

there is no vote on this for us to vote on. so lets a move on. if my colleagues are in agreement, i would like to call out of order item number 6 please. i realize we have a lot of taxi workers in the audience and they are away from work and i want to minimize the time away from employment. before we start this discussion, lafco actually has no jurisdiction over the taxi industry or m.t.a. we are clearly -- this is clearly a fact fine finding, sort of informational meeting here today. and we welcome all public comment, of course, but we have no authority over the taxi industry. we are able actually to launch an investigation or we are also able to perhaps suggest to the board of supervisors -- >> may i call the item first before you continue?

>> an item 6 is the presentation on the san francisco municipal transportation agency's proposal to improve the health of the taxi industry. >> superviser fewer: thank you. having said that, let's call up the first speaker. we have kate toran from the director of the taxi and accessible services division. >> hi, good afternoon. or good morning as the case may be. i'm kate toran, director of taxi and accessible services for the sfmta. and thank you for putting this important topic on your agenda today. to we have the presentation? do we have the presentation? that was part of the packet. we presented the -- we provided -- >> ms. toran, hold on a second. i don't believe all of us have a copy of the print out.

it was parts of the agenda packet. >> thank you. glad i put the flash drive in my pocket and just wait for director goble to get it up and then we can launch. i always start this presentation with the importance of the taxi industry to the m.t.a. and so san francisco. the taxi industry is the only

for hire service that can offer street hail, so that you can hail directly from the street. in the taxi service there is a high level of safety requirements. there are fingerprint background check, drug and alcohol tests, there's complaint investigation, and due process, and the drivers are considered professional drivers. so when we get 311 complaints, our taxi investigators actually investigate and respond to every single complaint that we get. and there's due process for the drivers, the drivers are able to appeal before a neutral hearing officer, and we find that a very important part of our program. the taxi fleet is clean air fleet. every 95% of the vehicles are clean air vehicles. and taxis are also important part of our equity program that they provide service to seniors and people with disabilities. there are wheelchair accessible ramp taxis, and to use a taxi

does not require that one have a smartphone or a credit card. the taxis are required to serve all neighborhoods in san francisco. again, very important part of our transportation network and m.t.a.'s regulatory framework should allow the industry to innovate and compete while maintaining a core focus on safety and consumer protection. a quick snapshot of the taxi industry shows that we have 24 taxi companies currently in operation. we have eight dispatch services. there are about 1400 medallions currently in service. and almost 5,000 active taxi drivers. we're still working on the technology here. but i am going to continue talking and i hope this is okay. we have put together a taxi

timeline -- >> i have a suggestion. if you have the slides in paper form, you could just put them on the overhead. >> a we don't. >> i had mine that has my notes and chicken scratch, but i did bring the electronic version. i think the team is just working on how to project it. >> if we have the extra packet that was printed for our public seat, we could put that up on the screen. sorry. i just want everyone to be informed. sfgov, can you pull up the laptop? there we go. perfect. >> great. thank you. so i am on the third slide.

actually fourth. glad we got that just in time. i think the schematic really helps to lay out what is a complicated industry. this taxi timeline shows that prior to 1978, medallions were freely transferable. they were managed by the sfpd and individuals could get a taxi medallion from sfpd and trade or sell on the open market. in 1978 that changed with proposition k and that established the taxi regulatory framework that was in place until 2009 when prop a superseded. so the medallion types that we have from prior to 1978 were our corporate medallions and prek medallions. they go straight down the list.

and currently 84 corporate medallions are in service and 106 prek medallions. these medallions have been held since prior to 1978. they have no driving requirement associated with them. so they have been able to collect pass uf income over the years and the estimated lifetime earnings from one of these medallions is $1.6 million per medallion. and for the largest corporation because they hold multiple, we estimate they've probably generated on average about $26 million for the largest corporate holder. when a new regulatory framework and the old medallion types going away which is the intention and the regulatory intention and on new requirements and medallion types

and different classes with different rules for different types of medallions. and after 1978 and prop k was in effect, taxi medallions were issued based on the waiting list. they were offered at no cost, but there were sweat equity involved. you had to be a driver in order to hold a medallion. you could only hold one, and you had a driving requirement. we call those post-k and sometimes they call them k, post-k medallions. >> superviser fewer: excuse me. just for clarification because i know this gets a little complicated. when we practice prop k which meant that the medallions are free, but there is a driving requirement, and you had to actually drive your taxi. >> correct. >> superviser fewer: we still had the corporate medallions and still had the prek, so now we have three different types of medallions. >> a that is correct.

stop me any time. it can be confusing. yes. currently we have 569 post-k medallions in operation. and then m.t.a., the m.t.a. umbrella broadened in 2009 and taxis joined m.t.a. and in 2010 in an extensive medallion effort reform effort was underway and the medallion sale pilot program came into effect. that is 2010. unfortunately, you can see with the timeline that's the same time that uber black started. and then in 2012 when the full medallion sale program was put in place, that is the psalm year uber x, lyft, and sidecar launched in pedestrian. so you will see -- launched in san francisco, so you will see the unfortunate timing. now we have layered in another medallion time and those are

purchase, purchased for $250,000. there were some purchased at $125,000 and that was a transition, and if we have any questions, i am happy to answer that. currently we have 560 purchased medallion holders in operation. i also want to mention we have the wheelchair accessible ramp tax cease and 42 in operation and 18,000 series me dall i don't knows, 14, a -- we have 14 in operation, and those are two color schemes. that gives us a complicated schematic here. any questions on that slide before i move on? >> what is the 8,000 series? what does it mean? 14 to lease to color schemes. >> those are leased from the m.t.a. to color schemes -- oh, and sorry, the term color schemes also is used interchangeably to mean a taxi company. those are leased directly to

taxi companies. on that is 14 medallions that are leased. they are from the m.t.a. the m.t.a. owns those medallions of the 8000 series. the m.t.a. owns themselves and they lease 14 of them to color scheme. and color schemes are taxi company. >> taxi companies, yes. >> superviser fewer: we have 24 taxi companies. but you are leasing only 14 of them. >> those are just a small handful. and that is just so you understand the full range of medallion types. but that is just a very small program at this time. why is there the 8,000 series? >> and i don't understand why the m.t.a. holds the 14 measure dall i don't knows. i kind -- the medallions. i kind of don't get it.

>> those were established to provide financial stability to color schemes. what we heard before my tenure and the launch of uber and lyft is we needed to get more medallions into service quickly because there was more customer demand than supply, which we can all agree to was the case, unnautly, and that was a mechanism to get more taxis into service quickly and the color schemes made the case that because those 8000 series medallions don't have a driver associated with them, they can lease them to other drivers who may be interested in purchasing or may be interested in driving. it gives an opportunity to drivers to get a sense of what it means to operate a medallion, and the color schemes made the case that it helped them with their financial stability, so it allowed them to lease those medallions and have a range of

income opportunities to provide a better lease to their purchased medallion holders. >> what is the annual cost of the lease? >> an i think it is $700 a month right now. i am not a huge fan and we have instructed staff not to put anymore staff in operation or allow them to go into operation. and i have a developed memo on the 8000 series. we went through the various pros and cons a few years ago and i would be happy to send that

over. >> that is great. i have two more questions. do you have a sense how much the color schemes are leasing those out to drivers? >> no, but i do know we have quite a number of taxi industry members here so i am sure there is knowledge in the room. >> it is a monthly use agreement. >> an anymore questions on that side? we often get the question who benefitted from the medallion sale program. it is helpful to note that more money was made and distributed and went back to the m.t.a. so over 5,000 drivers and medallion holders benefitted from the medallion sale program.

approximately $110 million that is from medallion surrenders, the half price program. there is a lot of different elements that go into that. i am happy to answer questions if we have questions about that. m.t.a. made about $63 million through the medallion sale program. and from the 2009-2010 period. >> when you talk about benefitting from the medallion sales, you are referring to medallion holders who purchased them at any point in time selling to other drivers. selling their medallion? >> no, not necessarily. a little bit more detailed. so before 1978, a corporate or prek holder could openly transfer, but after 1978, there was no transfer allowed until the 2010 pilot program.

so what -- i am not talking about the back in the day. i am talking about from the medallion sale program, the pilot and the actual program from 2009 or 2010 forward. and that's -- i can go in and if you would like, i can go into more detail. it gets a little -- >> that is helpful to know just with that. >> superviser fewer: and what you said is that 5,600 drivers, medallion holders, benefitted by 110 million. and they -- these are the drivers and medallion holders after 2009? 2010. >> through the 2010 pilot program, through that program, that medallion sale program, the money that was generated through that program went to drivers. they may have been driving prior to 2010. and maybe i will walk through the specific categories. that might be helpful. >> superviser fewer: you are not

saying that the people who got the medallions free and the corporate medallion holders and the prek medallion holders also benefit from the sales, are you? >> yes, i am saying that. i will clarify. yes. so there is a transaction that's called a surrender. >> superviser fewer: the reason i ask that because maybe i didn't get this straight. i just want to clarify. i'm sorry, colleagues. is that you mentioned that people made $1.6 million per medallion for their prek one, and the corporate ones, the largest corporate holder made $26 million, but telling me from the medallion sales that they also benefitted financially from the medallion sales even these corporate medallion holders. >> not the corporates. only prek and postk through a

surrender transaction. >> superviser fewer: okay. >> what are they surrendering to? m.t.a.? >> the surrender transaction is called for surrender for consideration. so pre-k and post-k medallion holders. and they had the ability to surrender the medallion for consideration if there is a buyer. when the market was good, there were buyers and it was a helpful way to transition those medallions into purchase medallions, and because many of the pre-k and the post-k drivers or medallion holders at the time were at the time quite elderly, it was a way to transition them out of the industry. out of driving. and so it -- one would consider it a windfall, and i think that's a fair way to look at it at the time when there was a healthy market, again, it was a

way to transition drivers and medallion holders from the driving requirement that this post-k earned drivers had to a retirement situation. but that is how it worked. >> superviser fewer: they could surrender their medallions to sfmta? or to other drivers to buy the medallions? >> we'll come through the m.t.a. and then if there was a buyer, then somebody would buy that medallion for $250,000. so the medallion holder was able to make $200,000 and the m.t.a. $50,000. and we had -- >> so we had according to my numbers, we had 486 of these surrenders for that equals about

$97 million and that was the pre-k and post-k medallion holders who were able to transition. >> and how they benefits from the $110 million is that they were -- okay. so confusing to me. i think my question is how did they benefit from $110 million? it is because -- >> they made the money. the money went directly to them. for that population of 486, they each earned $200,000. the large portion of that. none of them had paid $250,000. earned the free medallions and the waiting list and had the driving requirement. i'm sorry, as we get very

detailed, that does become complicated. >> it does. seems like a complicated system. go ahead. >> i think that is part of the problem we have, in fact. as we layered in new regulations and medallion types, we never cleared out or never dealt with the old and which is what we're trying to do now. >> superviser fewer: okay. >> when we look at this, who benefitted from medallion sales. does that mean that this is divided by 156 drivers? >> no. i will go through the specifics. i have a little chart i am happy to send you as'll w el. 97 million we just talked about went to the pre-k and post-k surrender program. and is a half price retransfer and for individuals on the waiting list. they were drivers waiting to earn a medallion for free from

the waiting list and then the m.t.a. instituted the purchase program and they felt very upset. you have been waiting many years and thought you were going to get it for free and just right at the top of the list and now you have to pay $250,000 for it. so what the m.t.a. did is offer as part of a transition to sell up to 200 on the waiting list at half price. . do you want this much detail? >> superviser fewer: i think detail is really important because it is very confusing. >> i recognize that. >> superviser fewer: it just shows how crazy the whole system is that in the inequity that is actually built into the system. i am so sorry that you were the messenger because it is not you. >> i understand.

>> i know you are trying to fix this problem. >> and waiting on the list and have the $250,000 and so sorry and the first 250,000 and is that how we created the $125,000? and so when we talk about purchasing the medallions after 2010, we see that we have some that are purchased at $125,000 and that was the first 200 on the list. $125,000 and that was the first $200 on the list. is that what i am hearing? >> generally right. let me answer this one and we'll move on. also, m.t.a. set up a down

payment assistance program. m.t.a. set up a down payment assistance program. when i talk about the $110 million, some of that is related to the down payment assistance program and that was $6.2 million to help drivers that wanted to purchase. that is part of it. and then also the driver's fund. there was some of the money from sales with about $5 million and that was recently dispersed to almost 5,000 drivers. that is a little bit of a high level. and different types of transactions. and different drivers benefitted in different ways depending on what the program was. >> for clarification, we read about san francisco credit union and $28 million on defaulted

loans. are we talking about the $6.2 million to get a down poiment and able to secure a loan -- a down payment and secure a loan, correct? >> yes. it provided a down payment assistance. >> was that also afforded to the people who paid $125,000 for a medallion? >> an i believe it was open to everybody. and my numbers show -- let me see. i think with ehad 250 avail themselves of that program. >> superviser fewer: thank you very much. i think it's going to get more complicated, but go ahead. >> good. we'll move on to the next slide. one i want to mention that m.t.a. is working for a number of years and as we know and the

timeline showed and the p.u.c.'s operated in pedestrian and changed the for hire industry and changed the world and is a global market and phenomenon. and we have had ongoing regulatory review, reform, and streamlined the new driver onboarding and have gone through and looked at the requirements to match what we need today and not what we needed 10, 15, 20 years ago. and reduced and eliminated fees and taxi-related fees of approximately $9.5 million. and that's been over the last three or four years. and we supported the ramp taxi program and t.n.c. rule making proceedings and committed about

36 sets of comments about the t.n.c. rule making. as part of thisover all effort to level the playing field, we engaged p.h. shawler to review the health of the taxi industry. the report was released in may of this year. we vetted the recommendations. they had three main recommendations. we vetted the recommendations with the taxi industry through taxi town hall, taxi tax force, through email and worked hard to gather extensive feedback. not going to go deep into the recommendations because we are not moving forward all of them, but i will say that there was no clear support for their recommendation out of that report and we are not moving that recommendation forward.

there was some support for right sizing the market, balancing the market and for the taxi program. we will get into a little bit more as i go through what the current recommendations are. but we did hear as part of that vetting process that there is strong feedback and support to open up the medallion market on who can buy and provide more direct support for the purchase holders and lower the medallion price. that as han asterisk because that requires the consent of the federal credit union. i just want to note that and note we hear a lot of comments on that so i want to ak nobling it requires the consent of the credit union. >> why? >> the san francisco credit union is an approved lender, and in the approved lender agreement there is language about the price and m.t.a. not lowering the price below any price that they have outstanding loans for.

so the focus of the medallion perform is to support the medallion holders. for the most part they have paid $250,000, some did pay $125 and still make the least amount of money. they have paid in the most and make the least. they are our biggest concern. if you have a large loan, it is estimated you are bringing home $38,000 compared to $54 those for the postk or free medallion and/or if you are a driver with no loan. and to date we had 154 closures

and there are 236 on a list to sell. there have been no medallion sales since april 2016. that is our context in which we are bringing the draft recommendations forward. so after looking at -- >> i am so sorry. on the estimated annual earnings, this is current to date? >> that is right. this is part of the pfm shaller report and they did a pro forma analysis and i am happy to get you the report so you can dig into the number, but this is current from the report released may 1 of this year. >> does the report show an uncrease or drop in the wages? >> it didn't do a temporal anl us is. no anl us is -- that was not the

analysis they did. >> if you were a postk, free medallion driver, for example, were you always making $54,000 or is that a drop in wages? >> again, we have many from the industry and will let you know from direct experience, but as the world has changed with uber and lyft and more competition in the market, i would say that they all report decreased earnings. the first recommendation is part of an effort to reduce congestion at s.f.o. which is a major trip generator and bring

more supply to the city. we are recommending on purchased medallions be allowed to pick up at s.f.o. that we see as covering multiple policy objectives. and currently the lot holds about 430 taxis and then there is more for curb space. we have situations where we have drivers waiting three, four hours for one trip. and it's not efficient to pull supply off the city streets and s.f.o. for years has been working to come up with some type of congestion management strategy. that's our first recommendation. the second is to open up the buyer market that currently is in order to buy a medallion, you have to be a driver. there is currently a driving requirement for purchase medallion holders. you can only hold one medallion. we are recommending in order to remove any friction in that side of the market, to remove the

restriction that you have to be a natural person to buy, to allow business entities to hold medallions and to allow in the recommendation at this point is up to 50 medallions to be held. that might change. we have heard feedback pro and con on that. to so the second recommendation. >> what is the driving requirement? >> it is 800 hours. >> for clarification, when you say open up the buyer market, you are going to open up more medallions. >> we are not talking about more medallions on the street, but talking about opening up who is eligible to purchase a medallion. right now the eligibility requirements are very structured and narrow, although they have changed over the last few years. we have taken steps to open it up. we want to open it up even more. >> you are meaning that the

medallions that are for sale, that if you are a current medallion holder and bought it for $250,000, that you are able now to sell it to a broader market. >> that is correct. >> but we are not producing more. >> it is not about producing more medallions or putting more on the street, correct. >> got it. and then i have one quick question is when you say only allow purchase medallions to pick up at s.f.o., we see a statistic that there are 1,458 medallions in service. but we see that by your numbers, it looks like 560 of them purchased it. so only 560 of them would be able to do the airport pickup? >> that is right. we are working with s.f.o. to make sure we have the numbers right, and they're confident that that is plenty of supply for the number of trips in and out of s.f.o. if we need to vary that, we can,

but we feel like that's the right starting point. and also, based on compliance with wheelchair pickups, we also will allow ramp taxis to pick up at s.f.o.. for one, so our wheelchair customers, tourists, travellers, get the same level of accessible services, and that's a benefit for our ramp taxis. but they have to meet their markers and their service for the prior month. that is the recommendation. >> an i thought i heard in a presentation that there are approximately 800,000 trips a month by t.n.c.s out to the airport. >> the t.n.c. is like pac-man. there are multiple ground transportation providers at s.f.o. and t.n.c.s are -- >> superviser fewer: this is why i question it if we say we only

would have the 560 doing out to s.f.o. and airport says that's adequate, but yet we have over 880,000 t.n.c.s from the airport and back, so do you see where i am getting? i don't get how we even calculate that. because it just seems like we're saying -- because we have no regulation over how many go out to the airport. so they have almost 880,000 trips out there. and we're saying it's okay that there's only 560 -- >> because right now -- >> because there aren't enough taxi -- i would love to go over that, and if you have any ideas that that is something the regulation of t.n.c.s is of vital importance, and a big concern to the taxi industry and

we'll hear that loud and clear. in my position and my understanding, i know what the taxi industry would like would be some kind of limit on t.n.c. service out at the airport. that is not something that i have jurisdiction over. but in terms of -- >> and talked about allowing taxis to pick up from the curb and t.n.c.s being in a parking lot and people would have to walk to the parking lot with the luggage and everything to do the pickup. >>ened a that is happening. that is happening. s.f.o. has started that. >> okay. we will have time to comment. okay. please fill out a comment card and we can address that during a comment. thank you very much. please continue. >> for us, even with that context if the taxis are sitting out there waiting for the few trips they get, it is not an efficient use of the resources we have. we're proposing to eliminate the 5% re-transfer fee.

so when a medallion retransfers, there is a fee. we're proposing to reduce that, again eliminating friction. this might be the only one that has no controversy associated with it. i think most everyone can agree that is a good thing. we're also recommending to balance the fleet size and the trip volumes, and this is something that was noted in the report that only 17% of medallion holders earn a financially sustainable income, and they key that at $65,000. so part of our looking at that key finding and looking at the recommendation from the report would be to move this recommendation forward, a nonrenewable of corporate and prek medallions. we have 260. and these have been in service since before 1978. and we feel that's the right thing to do. there is no driving requirement associated with those medallions, so it's been passive income. >> we have been renewing them?

>> these medallions, yes. >> they get renewed annually? >> correct. >> so during this whole time when t.n.c.s are taking over, etc., we have been renewing these corporate medallions? and how much does it cost for renewal? >> a little over $1,000 right now. >> thank you. >> okay. next slide. we are also looking to expand the ramp taxi incentive program and have grand funds to do so. we have an existing wheelchair incentive program that drivers are paid $10 per trip for wheelchair pickups for paratransit wheelchair pickups and if they do two trips in outlying neighborhoods, they get a short pass at s.f.o. so that is existing. and this is the new program that is launched and does not require any legislative changes, so we

have launched this. so that ramp taxi drivers or companies can get up to $600 per month subsidy for the purchase and ongoing operation of a wheelchair accessible vehicle. this is a very important program to us, and we really want to make sure we support this program. other areas that we're looking to improve are taxi stands, bus-only lane, taxi access to bus-only lanes, looking at left-hand return exemptions for taxis, and we're also exploring a marketing campaign. so our next steps -- and we have had -- >> one question. >> one quick question. i just want to say, thank you so much for bringing all of this to us. and i know that you are not -- you are the bearer of complicated news and not necessarily -- this is not your

policy. in the sfmta's efforts to support taxi operations, has it ever been suggested that the city purchase back the medallion and re-issue them for free? >> i just wants to -- do we do silent fingers and support. thanks. >> there would be a lot of support for that from the industry, but to put that in context is $161 million and that is not something we are recommending. i think it's about a quarter of the annual transit budget. it would just be a huge financial hit. so that is not something we are recommending. we have certainly heard that. >> $161 million. >> correct. for the buyback. >> the cost to buy back all the

medallions. excuse me. would be $161 million. >> correct. and that is just the straight up math calculation. and we're not talking about the loans and that is just doing the math. how many full price, how many half price were sold, and so that's just -- okay. you get that. >> thank you. that doesn't mean that to -- if we were to pay off the balances of the loan or anything like that. >> that is right. that is the full picture. that would be the full amount. >> an including buying back -- that is like the straight up and we sold x number at 125. we sold x number at 250. >> got it. thank you. >> you're welcome. okay. so these are hard policy trade offs. again, as you can imagine, so this is a very challenging time. i don't need to say that, and we will hear more as we walk through and hear from the

industry. and we try to balance the stakeholder engagement and very strong feelings on all sides of this. and there are no easy answers. >> definitely many, many layers. and colleagues, any questions? i would like to open it for public comment so people aren't waiting. >> did you have any other comments? >> no. i just wanted to say we're in the process of engaging the community, the industry, and we have done taxi town halls. we have heard it at taxi task force and will continue to take feedback buy email and we expect to be before the m.t.a. board late october, early november. that is our timeline. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> as a fly wheel customer, i am looking toward to hearing public comment. >> so i am going to have commissioner pollock call the names for public comment.

everybody has two minutes to speak. as she calls your name, please line up. thank you very much. >> thank you, everyone. i would just like to ask you to state your name at the podium, especially if i have mispronounced your name. i will call a number of names, and you can line up against the wall and begin. [calling of speaker names] i was just going to call and few and move through the line. please begin. >> good afternoon, members. my name is charles rathbone. in over 40 years in the taxi business, i have worked as a

driver. i have worked as a driver, as a small business owner, as a union organizer, and as a manager. i am also a prop k medallion holder. members, i have prepared a small graphic here that is rather primitive, i'm afraid. just showing the bottom half of that please. the whole thing? not showing the whole thing. i will just talk through it. the first recommendation changes the boundaries of our service area. most cabs will see our service area shrink with access to the busiest cab stands in our service area -- i feel like i am in grand central station here. anyway, i believe that this one change would have an even more disruptive effect on our business than uber and lyft have had. the proposal also calls for

revoking 200 medallions from people who obtained the permits lawfully and who have always operated in full compliance with the law. and at luxort prek medallion holders have not merely complied with the law, they have many times exceeded expectations. as just one example out of many, the prek managers and board members at luxor voluntarily initiated wheelchair accessible service in our city, even before there was an a.d.a., and despite it being an unprofitable line of business. member, i do not for a minute question the good intentions behind the proposals. there is an urgent need to ensure a fair deal for the purchase medallion holders. but shifting on to others, the cost of sfmta's own previous mistakes is not an acceptable solution. so thank you. and good day.

>> thank you. >> thank you. carl moran. m.t.a. put the city on the hook for tens of millions of dollars by violating the contract with the credit union. it tried to quash the lawsuit by the way of demure. and three weeks the ruling came out from the superior court, quote, the credit union sufficiently alleges breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. we see a lot of the, i think, lack of good faith in some of the proposals. some of them are good. i think the city will have to sell medallions and open up the market. and by the way, the people who have prop k and prek are on the surrender for compensation and we are waiting to get out and get some money. many of us planned our entire retirement years on getting a certain amount of money. it's been cut by 80%, so the culprit is that uber and lyft

are $45,000 alone in san francisco using the private cars like taxis, subsidized the massive venture capital subsidies and which is an antitrust violation and the cases are pending. it is not one driver versus others. it is a lot of divide and conquer strategy going on here. it is not in the packet, but was on the charts when we went to the town hall meetings. eliminate the driving requirement for purchase medallions. why not for the elderly and disabled people who have the other medallions? i just wore the intention to be a full-time driver and drive 35 years and the name came up and here is the yellow cabs bankruptcy and large part came from this accident in 2003. and the medallion holder tried to meet that driving requirement krached into the a.t.m. -- crashed into an a.t.m. machine and hit some customers. so there's also else going to say, but losing it and i have 10 second left, so t to going to be able to.

thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> and thank you for listening to us. i want to explain a very simple thing. what the m.t.a. did was a pyramid scheme. [please stand by]