i go to pg&e and i don't see any difference in paying now. if you're a family on the budget, if you sign up for the regular green program, it's not going to change your bill at all. you can sign up online or call. you'll have the peace of mind knowing you're doing your part in your household to help the environment. hya tor

[ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: the meeting will come to order. this is the september 21, 2018 special meeting of the san francisco lafco mission. the clerk of the commission is alisa somera. i would also like to thank the staff at sfgov tv, jim and charles, for today's recording. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and any documented should be submitted to the clerk. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number two. >> clerk: item 2 is the approval of the minutes of the lafco meeting of july 20, 2018 meeting. >> supervisor fewer: do the commissioners have any changes to the july 20, 2018 meeting. ? seeing none, i will open it up to members of the public. is there any public comment on item number two? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: is there a motion to approve the minutes? moved by commissioner ronen,

seconded by commissioner pollock. without objection, these minutes are approved. madam clerk, can you call item three and nine [agenda item read] [agenda item read] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have ms. barbara hail, the assistant general manager of cleanpo power. and also our executive officer, are you presenting on item number nine? oh, doing both. miss hale, thank you very much. >> thank you very much for having me. so today, i wanted to address a number of issues. hydrohe el--

source. >> large hydrois not considered renewable, so for example, the generation that we produce under our hetch hetchy program, that generation is not considered renewable for purposes of renewable portfolio standard compliance. but it is greenhouse gas free. >> supervisor ronen: right, right. >> and so it still has that value. we don't have any small hydro in our portfolios at this point. so what you see on the screen is our power content -- it the front of the power content label for the green service in 2017. and it identifies a customer's choices. you can stay with the pg&e service and receive 33%

renewable. if you take cleanpowersf service, that bumps up 10% at 43% renewable, and our supergreen content is 100% renewable. and then, the backside gives more detail about where that energy's really coming from, what kind of technologies, and it compares it to the statewide resource mix. that's the extreme right column there. and you'll see here that our green content is 43% renewable and 57% hydroelectric, together providing our customers 100% greenhouse gas free service for -- in 2017. and then, of course, our supergreen product was also 100% greenhouse gas free, was

also 100% eligible renewable. so these are products that really have some serious climate benefits, right? and last year, san francisco hosted the global climate action summit. the summit brought together, as you know, state and local governments, businesses, residents from around the -- and citizens from around the world to showcase how climate action is taking place, demonstrating local communities taking action, really turning the tide in the race against climate change and inspiring deeper national commitments in support of the paris agreement. and in honor of the summit, we thought we'd take a little time to highlight some of the activities we've pursued that have mitigated climate change. over just two years of operation, the cleanpowersf program has already provided significant greenhouse gas

footprint reduction benefits to san francisco. we're increasing the amount of renewable and carbon free energy supply to our residents and businesses. we estimate that cleanpowersf has reduced san francisco's electricity related greenhouse gas footprint by 82 metric tons. that's the same thing about removing 17,000 cars from the road for a year. our long-term goal for cleanpowersf is to eliminate greenhouse gases entirely by our supply by 2030. that target which was adopted by the board of supervisors several years ago is a full 15 years faster than the state's new target adopted by senate bill 100, and that was signed into law earlier this week by governor -- or rather last week by governor brown. so now, i'm going to turn to

outreach and communications update. are there any questions so far? okay. the p.u.c. has really played an active participate in the summit. we sponsored the green film festival screening of point of no return. we

programs. we had quite a bit of media coverage. you know, abc 7, the chronicle.

coit, sf fund cheap, and others. we had quite a bit of social media opportunities on twitter and facebook, which we're continuing, and we'll be conducting a follow up campaign showing our success and encouraging cleanpowersf sign ups in the next few weeks, so you'll be seeing more of us celebrating that. and with that, i'm going to turn to our regulatory update. >> supervisor fewer: miss hale, i have one question. when you're doing your outreach, do you have any idea about the demographics of the people that are signing up for clean energy and supergreen. for example, are we also looking at people who speak different language, socioeconomic diversity, and also ethnic data? >> yeah. so we do have some information that we'll be able to present at our next gathering with you,

when we bring some of the touches that we understand from our different campaigns. we can bring in some of the that data, and we should be able to share some of that with you. with you definitely -- just anecdotally, we can see through the snow cones event quite a bit of diversity, and of course, we have multilanguage pamphlets and information that we handout to try to make sure we are reaching communities in the languages that they're most comfortable speaking in. and certainly, our call center also directs people in various languages, so i think we're -- i think we're touching folks. we're reaching out in the right way. i can bring more statistics as to who's actually signing up in response to that, supervisor, when we meet next. >> supervisor fewer: that would be great. it's just when i'm looking at some of this, the media, linkin, salesforce, lyft, spur,

so these are organizations actually that we judge adequately to other communities and communities that speak other languages. i just think it's one thing to give out snow cones, it's another thing to educate people and do active outreach. so passive outreach, is having materials in different languages. active outreach is having people who speak the language and are culturally sensitive to this group of people so that they fully understand it. and actually, in your presentation here, i see a huge gap in that. i just have to call that out because i'm also thinking of my own community in the richmond district also, but even the chinese speaking community that i think a lot of times, we forget that they have very, very active press presence, and that some of our ethnic media

news outlets actually, this is what people who speak different languages wholly depend on, that they are not reading any of the english press, and they are not -- and quite frankly, they don't trust sometimes some of the english press, and so they rely heavily on ethnic media. and i think it would actually be worth an investment to actually reach out to some of the ethnic media outlets to make sure they're included in press conferences and we might even put some advertisements into the -- or hold gatherings that are exclusively maybe all in one native language. so any way, just thought -- but next -- next -- the next meeting, i look forward to seeing those statistics and maybe work on something like -- report on something like that together. >> and this presentation is centered on sort of the global climate action summit piece of the outreach we were doing. when our communications

director comes to present on the statistics on what we've been doing on our outreach, you'll see that we do have a much broader look when we're talking not just about the global climate action summit, in terms of media buys in the ethnic media, in terms of our distribution of materials when we do issue press releases and have social media. that's all happening, so we'd be happy to come and bring that forward to you at the next -- next session. >> supervisor fewer: that would be great, and also see the impact of those efforts, that would be really helpful. >> right, the data piece. something to reach out. it's another to find out if we're being affected. >> supervisor fewer: it's another piece. thanks much. >> great. great. so then, on the regulatory front, i know that you've all been following what we've been doing in terms of trying to

protect the c.c.a. community interests and our rate pair interests, both the bundled customers that continue to receive service from pg&e for their supply as well as the cleanpowersf customers. the cpuc is currently considering two proposals. the first proposal was issued by the judge assigned to the proceeding on august 1. the second proposal is an alternate that was issued by one of the commissioners, and that was on august 14. so broadly speaking, the judge's proposal is better for ccas. it's a balanced proposal that draws from a detailed record in the case that was presented by various parties with different points of view. in terms of results, it's essentially neutral on the

competitiveness of the c.c.a. program. by contrast, our assessment of the alternate proposal is that it will shift cost to c.c.a. customers. the alternate proposal will deliver c.c.a.'s ability to deliver a product atloer or equal cost to take service from pg&e. we worked with the c.c.a. trade association, calc.c.a. to prepare and file comments on the judge's proposal on august 21 and on the alternate proposal on september 4. reply comments were -- on both proposals were due on the -- september 13 and provided, and we also participated in an all party -- what's called an all party meeting that was held on september 7 at the california p.u.c. where the commissioners all had an opportunity to hear from the parties on their views on the proposals that are before them.

it's expected that the p.u.c. -- they announced, on september 7, that they intend to make a decision on their -- at their meeting on september 27, and that meeting will be held in sacramento as opposed to here in san francisco, across the street at their headquarters. so through our external affairs team, the p.u.c. hass engaged with our mayor as well as the board of supervisors and other communities impacted by these pending decisions. last week, mayor breed joined the mayor's of oakland and san jose in issuing a joint press release that urged the cpua to adopt the proposal in this case. the mayor's letter urged the cpuc to make a decision that does not shift cost to customers and could

dramatically roll back the positive efforts of the local communities with respect to climate change. we also worked with state legislators to send a letter to the cpuc which has been signed by 17 assembly members. >> commissioner pollock >> any of our representatives, san francisco's representatives? >> yes. >> all of them? >> yes. >> and finally, cal c.c.a. put a full page article in the chronicle for publication. that happened on thursday that has been endorsed by more than 120 local elected officials. that was a letter that was asking the cpuc to adopt a balanced proposal that meets the requirements of state law while promoting and not destroying competition in the market. and all 11 san francisco board of supervisors members signed onto that, as well.

if anyone wants to express support for c.c.a.s with respect to this proposed decision, you can participate by sending a letter to the california p.u.c. i have found the center for climate protection's website to be a nice resource to help folks locate, you know, the right addresses and such, so i put that on the screen for folks that might be interested in following through on that. and then, this slide just gives you a print out of the article -- or excuse me, the ad that was posted in the chronicle. >> supervisor fewer: did our lafco send a letter of support? okay. thank you, ray. >> yes, thank you. i thought it would be good to give a brief update on some of the pieces of legislation that

we were paying to over this cycle, starting with senator hertzberg's sb 237 on direct access. so the direct access is a program that allows commercial energy users to contract for their power directly. it had been historically capped 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