would be better if you came back next week where we're going to have a marathon hearing. i've instructed supervisor haney and supervisor safai that we're going to have a marathon on my birthday, land use hearing. [please stand by].

>> in order for us to pay invoices for these trips, they have to sign up as a city vendor? >> supervisor safai: can i just jump in? often times, our offices, we have a -- we have accounts that can be reimbursed. >> like a per diem. >> supervisor safai: we ha have expenses and all those things. if it were all on an app -- we're one of the largest employers in the city. we have 25,000 people -- >> chair peskin: 35. >> supervisor safai: sorry. 35,000 people, when you include everyone. the point is that would be a wonderful source of revenue for an industry to tap into that would be exclusive to that industry. >> that's right. that's why we're pursuing it, yet. >> chair peskin: okay. supervisor haney, any questions from miss toran? because i know we have a lot of

public comment. >> supervisor safai: can i make one last comment? >> chair peskin: and i'm going to have to find a substitute for me because i have to leave in 28 minutes. >> supervisor safai: i have three minutes. you brought up price predictablity. i think it's not the airport in general, but it's a good conversation to have. it's one of those aspects that makes the taxi market less competitive, but also, it's the knowledge of which -- accessibility, so if you're in a more remote location, and you have the ability to track when and where you're going to be picked up, that's an asset. i just wanted to point that out.

i know there's within some attempts in the past, like flywheel and all that, but if we're going to make an attempt and encourage this industry to thrive, there has to be a real step to ensure that it's not just price predictability, but it's accessibility. >> yeah. and i agree, getting on an app would be the first step. we have flywheel, but getting the industry on one or two apps that shows the supply that's near me -- >> supervisor safai: i guess my point is since you are the regulating body of this industry, couldn't you require that -- couldn't you -- couldn't the sfmta put out an r.f.p. and say this is going to be the mechanism by which this industry operates? >> well, there is a requirement for all dispatch services to affiliate with an app, so while they do, i think it's not the

experience that most taxi customers want. in terms of putting out an r.f.p. for the actual app itself -- i mean, is that a question? >> supervisor safai: i think you could also do that, but you could inquire if you're going to operate -- we're in a conversation about propping up an industry that purchased something that is losing value. we've talked about making then a vendor, we've talked about price predictability, accessibility. i think you as a regulatory agency, not just in trying to increase access to the airport, has the ability to shape this industry, but i think there needs to be more of an aggressive step to do that. that's my point. >> well, i will point out that director hayashi, who's my predecessor, did have contracts

of $6 million to do a plug and play app so that it wasn't one particular app company, but any company could plug and play, but that was something that the industry opposed. so again, needing the industry to step up and own their business, as well. the regulator -- i would say the regulator has a list of initiatives that we're working on it. it really needs to be embraced and focused on customer service. everything you said, i agree with, that the customer wants that type of experience. >> supervisor safai: and again, i apologize that i have to leave. >> chair peskin: all right. get out of here -- just kidding. miss toran, if you'd come up on

behalf of s.f.o. and address the queue question, and just pretending for a second that everybody in the industry embraced it, which is not the case, how long, given that in 2017, you're on the verge of i implementing it, and you embrace the j.f.k. advertising scheme that my staff so nicely took pictures of? >> the taxi app, if we fast tracked it, 8 months would be the fastest we could get it out system wide after testing. we had abandoned it, and we have to go out and find a new vendor now because the vendor that was going to help us with it last time is no longer under

contract, so that's something else we have to go through. if we were under contract, we could shave a couple of months off of the process. >> chair peskin: okay. close enough for government work. and the advertising? >> i would say the difference between s.f.o. and j.f.k., in my experience in using taxis, is we almost never have a queue in the taxi line. we've never had a supply issue. so once you get to the taxi zone, you can use it and go, and the people that use it like that features of it. we do have the columns painted, that say taxi zones, so i think it's more designated, when i

want a taxi, where do i go to get that taxi. >> chair peskin: okay. to be continued on coming to your airport after the board, i am going to do my own private investigation, and i will get back to you on that. before we go to public comment, i've got one piece of housekeeping to do. madam clerk, could you please read item number 3. >> clerk: item 3 is a hearing to receive a report from the san francisco public utilities commission on options for improving electric service through acquisition, construction or completion of public utilities prudent to regulation 19 -- pursuant to regulation 191.03. >> chair peskin: is there any questions from my colleagues?

seeing none, any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. and now, for public comment on item 2. i know we have a lot of public comment. and public comment, even though i know there's a lot of you, and i have to leave -- so here's the deal. i can be here for 25 more minutes. i am going to ask my staff, mr. hepner, could see if he can -- to see if he can go down the hallway and get the president of the board and see if he can assign another member so we don't lose our quorum, which is two people. normally, what we'd do in this is limit public comment to one minute, which is not okay. so i'm going to do two minutes of public comment, and if any members of this panel want to ask questions, which i'm going

to have questions, we can go beyond two minutes. >> your interest and your concern for your industry is very, very, very appreciated. we're going to need your help. i guess the biggest two points that i want to talk about are the fact that this industry, like many others, is coin operated, so if you follow the money, you know how people are going to react. >> chair peskin: that's why they all go to the airport. >> correct. what we told the m.t.a. did happen in my opinion. the pre-k medallions that are banned from the airport are all but sitting. that's 185 less medallions in the city or in circulation to serve the city and to serve the airport. in addition, he syou saw a 16%

decrease in city service because those guys are incentivized to go down and work the airport. and with the recent t.n.c. ruled that have been implemented at s.f.o., i think that is the reason for the spike that indicate toran referred to about the number of k medallions at s.f.o. making it harder has pushed folks to the convenient curb that taxis sit at. really, i'm disappointed in the fact that there's this push of financial resources and value to the fee medallions versus more of a policy to improve the industry in general and to make sure that we're improving the quality of service for all of san francisco and s.f.o. >> chair peskin: all right. here are my questions. they're not specifically related to s.f.o., but they are related to taxi industry, and

you and my father have been in my office, and we've talked about this. and i know that -- don't worry, your time is not up. >> i understand. >> chair peskin: you have foreclosed on a number of color schemes and medallions. you have been working on a number of reforms that could come out of the color schemes that are within your control specifically around centralized dispatch. how is that going? >> so we -- we're in the -- we're actually in the middle of implementing our new technology system right now. part of that technology system is a new app that will be released in approximately 45 days, and it contains a lot of the features that were just spoken about, so consumers will be able to estimate their trips and get an estimated price for their trips. we as a company will have the ability to set fixed rates from

s.f.o., so a lot of that that kate was talking about, we are implementing without the need for regulation. i am encouraging all color schemes to participate in this, as well. >> chair peskin: our next speaker, mr. bruberg was a proponent of centralized dispatch, and yellow hated it. and today, i don't think you have a choice if you're being smart and rational, but that is my opinion. you will do what you will do. as to the other items discussed in my office, could you elucidate about what they are? >> could you be more specific? >> chair peskin: we talked about centralized dispatch,

apps like flywheel -- you heard very politely from ms. toran, i'm trying to help, but if i could get more help from the industry, i could do more. could you drill down on that. >> yeah. we're willing to cooperate with the m.t.a. on any level they want. >> chair peskin: i like the idea that i could use a city taxi in the course of my job and be able to be reimbursed for it, although to be told, the clerk of the board of supervisors doesn't reimburse board members for nothing. >> we're already talking to -- we're working with the m.t.a. on the pilot program that kate discussed, and part of that is contingent on our app being released, which is going to be released shortly.

and so we -- we're already making those efforts that kate was talking about. >> chair peskin: thank you. supervisor haney, any questions for mr. suis? seeing none, i will call these out in the order that i have them. mark, nathan, who formerly was you at yellow cab. and then jacob -- >> thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you. if you will lineup to your right, my left. and by the way, i still have not found a substitute to serve

with supervisor haney, so in 20 minutes, if any member of the board of supervisors -- if another member of the board of supervisors does not show up, we are going to have to continue the balance of public comment to our meeting of june the 17, my birthday. mr. gruberg, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor peskin, supervisor haney, matt gruberg, a member of the taxi coalition which is pursuing a lawsuit against the m.t.a. and the city over these discriminatory rules that have been imposed against taxis at the airport. i realize this hearing has taken a broader scope than the report which is the subject of the hearing, but i'm going to limit my answer to the report and happy to answer any questions, as well. if you look at some of the numbers in this report, i believe that they bear much more scrutiny, and i hope that

other speakers will talk about that. but i want to talk about what's missing in the report, because it tells you that it has accomplished what it's bound to accomplish, if giving people a preference at the airport, that they're going to get more rides out of the airport, that their waiting times are going to be shorter, and they're going to make more money at the airport. this is not a zero sum game. this is a negative sum game because the number of trips out of the airport have declined and declined and declined. and what we've learned is that trips in the city have also declined 16% over the last year. so by favoring some and putting more money in the pockets of some, that means that others are being disproportionately hurt, and nothing of that is in the report. how much are drivers who can't go to the airport hurting?

how many drivers have left the industry? how many medallions are off the street and not serving the public because they can't go to the airport? and so on and so forth, so this report is sorely lacking, and i hope that we see a better one the next time. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. gruberg. next speaker, please. >> nathan dreary. i started this business in 1965, in graduate school at san francisco state. >> chair peskin: with jimmy steele. >> no, not jimmy steele. he was in desoto in 1965. i served as the president of yellow cab, and director of several boards.

i just have one issue to address. this word that's being bandied about here and not being freely understood, purchased. purchased. you look at the agreements and the contracts between the drivers that supposedly purchased these contracts, or medallions that they purchased, between the sfmta and the drivers and the federal credit union, and there is no evidence in my mind that anybody actually bought anything. they don't own these permits. they have no equity, they have no title in them. if you look at this very closely, at these agreements, it is very clear that the relationship between the drivers, the banks, and the sfmta is, i'm sorry to say, something that i would call sharecropper. they are sharecroppers because

they don't have any title to these permits, and they have no incentive to build on this. no encouragement to build on the future. and that was the problem that was created. it was right there in the beginning on the hayashi plan. i discussed it with her. i told her so. [inaudible] >> chair peskin: so your time is up, but i'm more than willing to discuss with city staff through to the sfmta, your comment. this is a fee title, so you are right in that regard.

i don't know if the "purchased medallions" -- because indeed, a fee was tendered to the city for a limited right -- whether or not the industry would be in a different place today, but if it you believe that we could cure this problem by giving fee title absolute if you will, as they say in the real estate business, i'm willing to have that conversation with you. so at some point, mr. drury, when you're in the city and county of san francisco and miss toran, and my staff, perhaps what i can do under the boundaries of the brown act, supervisor safai and his staff should sit down and have that meeting. i really appreciate, given your longevity in the city, your coming down and commenting

today. who was the guy running the committee when quentin kopp passed supervisor k? next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor peskin, and thank you, supervisor haney for being here. kind of difficult to find the words that are appropriate to say what i want to say.

we -- our fleet comprised of about 45% pre-k medallions, and let me tell you, supervisor peskin, that those pre-k medallions were old purchased medallions. they were all purchased before 1978 -- >> chair peskin: 1976. >> 1976, i'm sorry. these all people followed to the letter of the law, and they obtained their permit as the law allowed them. and to me what was the consequences is a scapegoat and a very unfair approach to the problem that i doubt has a

solution. about 60% of the post-k medallions were also dropped. the taxi business consists of three main components. you have ride share, you have e hailed, and you have street hailed business. if you take one of these chunks away, it results in a pretty big chunk being taken away from the drivers, and that's why i don't think we can regulate that. >> chair peskin: thank you. and i have not yet -- despite all of my attempts, succeeded in finding a supervisor to replace me. that means we've got ten minutes, and i super apologize. it means we'll continue it to

june the 17. but the less of you that speaks, the more of you will speak on june 17 unless a colleague comes and rescues me. next speaker, please. >> okay. doug, with luxor. my income's actually lowered since the last three months, and i have -- typically, before this happened, i was one of the drivers that played the bayview and the airport on sunday nights. i'd pick up stuff that was right off the highways and still do the airport at the same time, but this was a good thing. but this new thing, because i lose holding times in the pen, like, an hour but now, i can't do that as a strategy. i think the loss of income has made this industry dangerous for drivers. i've almost gotten into a fistfight with another k-driver

over a fee dispute for a ride that went to palm springs from the airport. it's not a good thing. and with all due respect to kate toran, i think we need to evaluate her leadership and power over this regulatory thing. there's major taxi stands at, like, the hyatt regency, at the up i donunion hotel. i think signs are a very basic thing. people working in the industry aren't regulating the industry. when i was a corporate chauffeur, we actually had to

carry i.d. cards, and we didn't carry them, we would get fined by s.f.g.t.u. i think there is a requirement for that, and how can somebody enforce that? >> chair peskin: like i said, we've got to get into an agreement with san mateo county. next speaker. >> thank you so much for you gather all the people here

today. [please stand by]. >> the problem we have, we have a disease called cancer, and they're diagnosing with tuberculosis, and that never happened before. we work hard, and they pay us and give us our money back. this will not work, i cannot live anymore in the dark. thank you so much, sir. god bless you. >> chair peskin: thank you. i believe that supervisor fewer has finished her last meeting and will be able to attend momentarily. she just needs to get assigned by the president of the board of supervisors, supervisor norman yee.

>> -- we are disgruntled with sfmta. we cannot lie on this deficit. there is no way to get out of it. we worked hard to get to best days of our lives, but our dreams are shattered.

we are limping on. can't work longer hours. you have uber and ride share drivers. you have no pity for us. so far, you've done nothing for us. buy back the medallion and resolve the issue with us. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >>. >> yeah. so i've been concerned about supervisor fewer because her concern about the taxi drivers is really nothing. but supervisor peskin, your concern with the taxi driver's,

we've been dealing with you for over one year. i really appreciate you brought out the point and you've got a lot of courage to do that. i don't know if anybody besides you have the guts to do it. but hats off to you for doing it. if you just bring the price down, the problem is solved. the solution is very simple. return the money of the poor cab drivers. if you can't do it, bring the price down. everybody's happy, and we'll go home and salute you. so this is the concern that you have to deal with because someday you'll have to deal with this. the sooner, the better. thank you very much. have a good one.

>> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody. 30 years driver, and recently i was in the office. i talked to you about the whole situation. we look at this crowd today. the only things i see is the example that too many chiefs, no indian. it's all over -- you know, you look at the yellow cab or another company, they're all looking at their own benefits. i never pushed yellow cab, this or that. they are opportunists. they're trying to get rich off our problem. the sfmta -- i'm not talking about the person, but the problem is that you're repeating the same situation that it was the last time. she had the same movies, the same melody.

she don't say one word about -- this is about the subject, about the sale of the medallion. the whole program went through, bring the business up, and so bring the sales back, but we don't have any warning -- action or medallion sales. people like me, they are tired -- to the age, they are sick. we want to get out. even for myself, i don't look for any improvement. i want to get out. i don't want to be in here. and a lot of these people, they're sick, they cannot handle it. thank you very much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to thank you for your time. my name is matt sutter. i've been driving for 27 years. i am currently paying off this medallion that means nothing to me anymore. i don't know if you guys are

aware but in the last week, two drivers now are not getting refinanced by the bank. the bank said no. they made all their payments on time, and they will not refinance. what are we supposed to do? there is a provision in there that says that if this medallion fails, we get our principle, and we get our issue. that is all we want. you want to talk about your virtual app at the airport? where do you think the drivers are going to sit? i contacted the san mateo counties -- each jurisdiction and told them, you guys think you want to do this? i sit at the airport because i can't drive all day every day, and you want to take that away? i think you should be ashamed of yourselves. you guys are trying, though, and i want to say i appreciate your trying and thank you so much. [applause] >> so the question was asked

why the sales, why the program ended, why there's been no transfers since april 2016? the answer was finessed. the real reason is the lender stopped lending. the federal credit union said no more lending because they saw the writing on the wall, which was the program was failing. uber and lyft were making such inroads into the program that you couldn't make a transfer for $250,000. one of the agreements that they had with the m.t.a. was that no transfers would occur for less than 250,000. that's why the program stopped, and since them, sfmta has been preparing for the lawsuit that would eventually be filed against them by the federal credit union. that lawsuit was filed against them in march of 2018. they began working to prepare for that lawsuit. one of the things they have done is get a report or a -- commission that report, which

is the schaller report, which gave a backing for kate to change the industry over, do the thing and revoke 200 permits. $600 million was taken in through the program. you really have to go back and read the lawsuit because the lawsuit is a history of this whole program. it's collapsed. it's failure, and the accusation of fraud by sfmta, basically, the federal credit union said we were brought down this criminal's path. we were lied to. this was a long time -- this is why i don't believe these chambers are going to change anything. it would require the m.t.a. to

give back money to some of these drivers who were defrauded. [applause] >> clerk: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> we heard a term during 9-11, water boarding. we heard you guys won't let us drown, and by the time we're about to drown, you yank us out. kate said this system is working, they are profiting from this. p-medallion, it's not working. it's costing us $250,000. why don't you support these 170, like, medallions, which went back. they went to yellow cab. they're already making money,

and you are promoting these people. the industry needs to be reformed. they need to lower down, like, the insurance -- in our constitution, it's written that it should be a $1 million policy. but things change. you're only hurting the driver. people come here, they wait, they waste their time and come here and speak, and they are making 7............. -- $7 or $8 an hour. it's a shame that you guys over there, you have authority, like, god has power and everything, why don't you guys fix it? i'm humble, i'm begging, it's pretty bad. how can we compete with these uber, lyfts?

you can't compete -- for the past year, nobody wants to take a bus. they can get the same -- likes, they are transferred from the corner of the state to their homes for, like, 2, and why should they pay -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> thank you. i have a friend who has a medallion. he wants to refinance. guess what? the credit union tells him they cannot refinance him. why? because the other bank doesn't

want to refinance him anymore. she says okay, what's going to happen next? well, either you payoff your the medallion, or you're going to go into foreclosure. so they're going to take his medallion, and he's going to lose his job. he's going to ask what's going to happen to the remaining balance if i don't pay? he is responsible for that. how about that? he is responsible for paying $160,000 even though the bank won't release the money and takes the medallion away? is this happening in america? this is like a gangster-type thing. and the other thing is we want our money back chl those people who want their money back, they have been talking for one year,

and nothing has been done. the most important issue is with us guys, the people who purchased the medallions for $250,000, we are very, very much unfairly treated. and we just want our money back. we just might drive taxi again, but we want our money back because the sfmta failed the program. [applause] >> clerk: i apologize. vocal outburst or applause or booing is not allowed in the chamber. please use a thumbs up or a down if you do not agree. [please stand by]

... it's not worth it. please give us money back. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name it david. i'm a purchase medallion holder. i'll be the first to say that the implementation is helping us to some degree. no doubt it is helping us break even at least every month, but we need more than that.

we can't just break even. we need an income. the profit margin on this is pathetically low and far below minimum wage. i could go work at in and out tt for a lot more money, mcdonald's, anywhere, you name it. i would like to address something that when we talk about service in the outer neighborhoods and back before when we had a lot of trouble servicing those areas, we could have put those medallions out there, but that would have given almost all of us our earned medallions. so the mta, the city, they held back the medallions to make sure nobody got. you did a tremendous disservice to the people and the industry. that created the bad reputation and the lapse in service that

opened the floodgates for something like über and lyft. nobody has bought a medallion. this program is dead in the water. you guys set the price. you didn't let the market dictate the value. if you set the price, you have an obligation to make the price right to where it's at now. as far as all the improvements that are suggested, these are all things we've been suggesting for years. a couple of weekends ago the national democratic convention, we were told to go away. i have video proof of it. the golden gate bridge, we're told to go away. we still don't have a taxi stand. thank you. >> next speaker, please. it's two minutes per person, so you can't speak a second time. you had your time. i'm sorry. >> hello, i'm evelyn, i'm a taxi driver with the taxi workers

alliance. i'm really disappointed in the first page of the report where they start talking about they want to help the taxi industry innovate. they're just using this word, but nothing in this word is innovative. i believe the purchased medallion program has been a failure and support those of you who recognize that this is over. and that we need to do something to help the purchased medallion holders. the plan they've come up with, the plan that they're evaluating, has never been anything other than robbing peter to pay paul. they're helping some, or attempting to help some at the expense of others. i'd like to point out parts of the report that deserve close scrutiny. one is the change in supply. if you disregard the 73 medallions leased by yellow cab and the three that are the surviving, there is actually nine fewer purchased medallions

operating at the end of april than december. and there is a total of 36 fewer medallions operating and we would like to know why. i'm very concerned about the decline in taxi trips in the city. the 16% decline. the problem in san francisco is one of demand. we cannot just add supply to the city without increasing demand and expect people to work there and make money. it's so difficult. so thank you for having this hearing and please address the issues in the city as much as at the airport. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is... thank you for listening to our problem. everybody wants their money back or finish their problem, and if

they're increasing the meters or taking 10%, that is not solving the problem. and we need to have you return our money back, please, and to help us. i do have it myself. i cannot stand long there, you know. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. if anybody else would like to give public comment, please line up. >> just a bunch of questions. if consumers have grown in the habit of using über or lyft, is it actually less likely they will contact services at the airport going to added signage for taxi? what is the hourly rate of taxi

queueing at s.f.o., sounds like 90-94% of the standing volume, which they said is 376 vehicles or something? oh, and was there a search of medallions available for sale about a year before über and lyft unorthodox upswing in operations and if there has been a displacement of cabs on city streets, might that have been foreseeable? how are medallions presently being sold? >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> tom gilberty, i'm disappointed in the city, of course. i believe this is the mayor's office issue. it's been dumped in the board of supervisors' lap because the cab drivers, the taxi industry has

no place to go. kind of a neo liberal break, whatever you want to break, and then we'll take it on from there. and somewhere along the line, somebody needs some more money. these taxi drivers need more money. they need the price of their medallion back. the problem is, where is the money going to come from? it's in the city. it's fair to do it. somewhere along the line, the people that are getting shafted need to be reimbursed. and brought up to right. and that's in your lap. thank you. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. supervisor fewer has questions. can i ask the representative

from the m.t.a. to come up again. i apologize, these may have been covered before, but i would love to have a direct answer on this because this comes up a lot and i want to appreciate everybody from the industry who came. especially the couple of folks who have come to all of our board of supervisors meetings, we hear you and your urgency. and the pain that you have experienced in this process. why hasn't sfmta made a decision to reimburse the medallion holders? was that something that the board considered? it's something we hear a lot. that seems to be their central demand, either reimburse or, or you know, allow us to return the medallions and get our money back. what is sfmta's response. >> hi, kate toran. yeah, this is something we've heard as well.

and the price tag on that is $161 million. and as i mentioned earlier at the start of the presentation, earlier on in the presentation, that in the medallion sale program, most of the money went back into the taxi industry, so so you can understand the money flow. [interjections] >> please allow her to speak. >> when a medallion was surrendered for consideration, that means that the individuals pre- -- >> we understand you disagree, but -- you can thumb's down, that's fine. >> so the medallion holder, the pre-k holder or post k holder was able to surrender for consideration. the consideration was $200,000, so when that transaction happened, the holder of that program, they netted the $200,000 and the mta received

50,000 out of that. so most of the money that was generated through the medallion sale program went back into the taxi industry. $110 million. so it's not like there is a pool of money available. and these are very challenging tradeoffs. i wish i had a magic wand. i understand the frustration and the anger here. but they're very challenging policy tradeoffs. and with m.t.a. in terms of budgeting, we have to give consideration. so if we think about $161 million, what would that look like? what would that be? >> just to give you a sense of that, that would be quarter of the annual transit budget. so again, this is not something that there is just a pot of money at the m.t.a. for. most of that money went back into the taxi industry and again, we're trying to balance our work for the public.

>> help me understand this a little bit. so there are $250,000 for the medic -- medallion. and that money is still being paid to the city? but you're saying that in some cases, or all cases, there is $200,000 -- i don't understand. >> okay. so the money is not still being paid for one. but some describing a transaction, there are different types of ways the medallions have been sold. so i'm describing one type of transaction which points out, which ill lupul nates nates that most of the money went back into the taxi industry. i'm talking about a situation. so say -- i'll use myself as an example. if i was a pre-k holder, so i have my medallion, had it since

1978, and m.t.a. put in this medallion sale program and part of the reason for the program was to generate turnover on the list. so we had aging population of drivers. and so there needed to be some turnover. in any event, i'm a pre-k holder, m.t.a. put this new program in place. there is an opportunity for me to "surrender that medallion. so if i hand that over and this was allowed for pre-k and post-k medallion holders, then you can turn that into the m.t.a. the -- out of that transaction, you get $200,000 and the m.t.a. got $50,000. part of what i'm hearing in the background, there are some transactions where m.t.a. issued a new medallion and the full amount when the