Think a lot of that preserves this is how big the mistake has been i was presuming there was this from a Construction Design standpoint that at this point that could be gained by reviewing that but this board knows that was a mistake from when i got back on i wasnt on the board when the decision was made it was a policy decision i presume that the board at a time was fully briefed on you can spend all the money in the world on safety it is a question really costs us a lot of money if, in fact, there is a revisit this is productive id like to know about it the board should say okay. Heres the architect and turner look in you revisit it theres a net gain possibility up i want see that. One thing to take into consideration of the curtain engineering have been done according to the criteria if we go back and redesign that costs additional costs and details many months there is additional costs for the system were late in the game to be rethinking that. Thats my thing i want to see from the architect agrees if it is a point also experience it is point less. I wouldnt character it as mistake were constructing a very Safe Building of the high levels it is costing us money but i think were going to have a building as mare are a alluded to earlier a safe heaven a place people go that knows with a degree of certainty theyre safe. Well, if it was wasnt a mistake it was a mistake in the underestimating; right . Costs are a song of a gun to get to thats right. I guess my general question is it seems like that at the delay in the complexity of the design is responsible for significant part of the costs escalation so ill wondering what accountability is in the contract of the designer to have to completed those designs at certain up to this point in time to a budget like the previous approved budget 310 million over the accrued budget what kind of accountability from the other stakeholders my sense is that we are where we are with the costs their competitive bids you wouldnt suggest we dont move forward but in translating it to the budget conversation the project is being really kind of left holding the bag and the other parties account i appreciate the extent youve negotiated i applaud that effort and i think that the contradiction seems to be going well but again, the project and prepares translation the city ultimately or other parties are ended up fully account for this even though we have strong contractors to get this design done to get it done in a way to get it built so if you can help us understand all the other wise. Thank you, director youre talking about the design team their contractually designed to the budget and we have mark and other council so mark. We you wanted the budget limit to the packages well be doing this fall updating the budget limits based on the scope of work and the escalation factors and compare to the awards eave received and determine whether it was within the budget load or not the contracts with the design team with the 6 budget was 65 percent and identified all the engineer measures within the percent. You continuing increase the fixed budget limit. It was set at values with the contract was signed back in july of 2010, i wanted to say you have to escalate it as you trade the packages we have to update it based on that. Im not sure i understand. If i could too and the other question was also on timing the timing is compounding increases in costs are there other liquidated damages with the completion. Mike you can address the legal questions please. And director there was an initial 6 budget in the amount of and top down we added the costs to the project that was that i understand. Okay. Good morning directors with respect to the fixed budget limit the obligations of the design team are relatively clear design the project plus or minus as the construction estimates are done and the trade packages are awarded that shows the fixed budget is exceeded the designer has an obligation to propose we design and value jerking items and also deduct the alternatives to bring the costs back in line with the budget that obligation is to make those proposals to tjpa theyre required to cooperate with the design team and the tjpa ultimately has the final approval on any of those upgraded design changes that is how the process works the limitation on what the designer is supposed to do hover which is proposed value engineering propose deedee ductable alternatives is not limited if 9 reason the redesign is necessary because of negligent errors acts or omissions on behalf of the design team so the process to bring the fixed the costs in line about the budget limit is an ongoing process throughout the course of design and construction and they have the obligation to redesign throughout the process but if it becomes apparent the costs overruns are because of negligence and the architect their additional ramification for the architect and those are your standard contractual remedies negligence with 4r0ib9d damages and the contract has fairly standard provisions from the design on remedies. So for a schedule status no accountability for discriminated on the contract. There is a design schedule that was part of the original contract id have to look at the details but that was when first awarded a different project and id have to go back and see if that scheduled was a, in fact changed from a button to a top detain approach im sure youre aware of well have various milestones issued for construction those dates have been pushed and have extended which to our point i believe is forced us into this time when costs have continued to escalate. Looking at the breaks down of the added costs walls added it looks like 2 and a half millions of walls adams perhaps after the hundred percent construction documents doubled the number would those are categories tied. I dont know why the design changes were made to speak to that it would have to be looked at. Those things might be worth looking at the project is left holding the back and extraordinarily factors that none can have controlled but something is not lynn up in terms of the accountability with the parties. So randy talk to the question about director reiskin talked about the alexander of the walls. That was the list i was referring to before clarifies the building inspection the towers add and things like that that added the bracing that was originally part of the steel package that got taken out of the steel package and into the glazing package to be able to have the glazing contractor who was proposing alternated ways of doing the w2 system basically, all the glass scombloeshz around the retail areas and the second floor and have their own coordination of the steel bracing with the structure rather than have a steel contractor provide bracing for the original design and when the design was modified not work you know lost money. But we can look at what you just indicated. Yeah. I think that building and fire code requirement are part of the final design. It is. And if it took time and costs that it is contributing to the Construction Costs worst reviewing you you know whos responsible for those costs. Yeah. I have sort of a related thing the one thing thats not mentioned in any of those course of the trial shuns bad estimating from the getgo i mean contract after contract comes in at 50 to hundred percent over the estimate is and im wondering i mean dont we have a right to previous lynching in the estimating if we now were at this point were having to find someone to the tune of 250 million if we had known two years ago when this stuff started happening it seems to me although we could have two years ago said the supermarkets nobody needs work thats the essence nobody needs the work so were having to pay a lot of money to get it that is, i think the big thing but why wasnt that actually applied to the future to the future of packages from the getgo when it was realized that was the atmosphere we were working in because it seems to me what happened is we just get along one after other oh heres another 20 and 30 million this and that that is going to continue we have a right to have for sighted from the people who is responsible for doing this i dont think that is the design i dont think is the issue except for the super safety but ill give the most egregious estimate when you have 20 to 25 foot walls to be masonry duplicate and dont realize it takes scaffolding that is bad estimating that was not a lot of money only 2 million but we had a right to know that the cost exterminates were doing that would understand when we were looking that the subcontractor might need scaffolding those sorts of things you know have gotten to me and i think weve got fine with having the deficit we have but the relayed problem were 6gd outburst so late we have that deficit weve got two or three two to three years to make up that money rather than 2 to 3 months is a problem. A couple of comments on that you know its the overhead estimate is never going to be perfect what we missed Something Like scaffolding were not afraid to say we made a mistake but the estimate that was produced in early 2014 the cost of the actual bid awards is 16 percent higher than the estimate overhead so we have packages especially recently that came in much higher and unable to identify the reasons it wasnt not a bad estimate but reflected the value of the estimates at that point in time and assumed bids would be awarded so for a variety of reasons that time has gone on longer and the Market Conditions change and our admittedly driving up prices more we would have anticipated a year ago. I guess i was going to ask i agree with both ed and director harper the question i have for i from now to trying to get the project on schedule how much room do we have to do any kind of shaking of the project or scrubbing and valued engineering to come up with a savings in terms of where we are right now. Weve gone through the multiple engineering efforts being the completion of the cd estimate we as a team identified many valuable engineering Opportunities Incorporated into the design with the bid packages that were issued for bid this year we asked for prebid engineering. When you made engineering decisions who made those decisions and how you know what stage so i said. Well, theres ultimately tjpa decision what to accept and not to accept we can propose ideas and their decision what theyre willing to accept and not the team as a whole have been good at working together and coming up with ideas as a group some are viable and some not we requested the prebid vaeshgsz it reduces the cost of the project that savings is applied against their bid and well put them in a more executive position weve had some prebid preevaporations and we also sit down with the post bidders award and again review the opportunities for jerking weve had a couple of cases with good suggestions made those have been accepted and the change orders ordered well continue to do with with the prepackages and sit down and look for opportunity we are very late in the game the design is complete and at this point it is hard to realize you know reductions in scope or vaubd engineering decision that will change the dollars. Im assuming all the bid numbers are in no way we know what those numbers are. Yes. Director nuru the only one is the panel if 2016 we dont anticipate any problems. So between now and the budget time ive heard your earlier answer i think from the scrubbing and shaking out can happen. We would like to be kept informed as you made those decisions and what options we have in making those decisions. Supervisor. I just wanted to add in my concurrence to some of the comments that were made by my colleagues i cant put as itch technical finally feedback but over the last two years it is a sentiment i had it didnt feel last week well have a finite budget weve looked at the budget to make an important promise weve committed to our taxpayers with a hub that connects us regional and throughout the state the downtown connection is important to make that much more than a bus term as we move forward with the phase one costs my worries increase and escalate weve not meet our dowel of phase two those dollars is spent on the physical structure of a bus terminal i question a lot of the things were putting in for the architecture and design we have to act like this budget is finite we have to go make 53 really, really difficult decisions im not seeing the option prevalent to this board i would like to see to really, really reduce costs on the phase one portion i know one thing ill say that you know, i look at private developer projects all the time granted some in marginal scale i cant tell you the number of times the Planning Department and i are a disappointed by the escalating costs that was promised to the neighbors and community and the developers that have fun it budgets can build they understand the difficult decisions that need not have a phase budget i budget to take away money from but lirmd to the project before them i want to see the level of urgency and importance placed on the designs and bids placed before us. Were on soft. Mark you want to finish up . Were soft costs and the soft costs went down 2. 3 million we showed the number last month 9 million and that was the result of reductions in the fee for the c mo contract this assessment as i mentioned we did the fta on the risks moving forward weve completed so far and there is no objections to utilize the moving forward what we presented to you last month, a 40 percent and so that reduces our contingency balance to hundred and 33 million this is a chart that shows the comparison between the revised budget and youll see that the revised budget has a construction total of one billion dollars plus virus a smaller budget for the soft costs the budget has 575 million and the revised is lower and for the contingency and reserve it as 61 . Million plus the reserve is less for and that shows you a delta of 499 million as i shared with you last month the remainder possible mitigation measure moving forward without impacting the construction of Transit Center or the minimal operation is the bus storage facilitated the budget that was presented today has 19. 4 million for the bus storage and for the funding if he were to mitigate the storage for the bus storage mitigation is drops to 4 hundred plus Million Dollars and we would fund part of that cost from the sale of what is left 460 million plus those are the Funding Sources are landfills, fuming grants and the melrose and sponsoring of changes the rfp we expect to get that in october and any money will reduce our need for the other areas. The next step is basically, the order packages weve presented to you today and continue to work with the city and county of San Francisco to resolve the balance for the funding needs so well come back with the budget in september to approve the packages. Any questions. One final it occurs to me that over the course my times on the board ive been reminded often this is a regional project not a San Francisco project when we spoke about San Francisco issues its been continually remind youre working with the city and county of San Francisco on funding what about the rest of the region the regional partners. Sarah can speak to ac transit in San Mateo County weve used their funding source. Well, i would defer to director harper on the ac transit but we have a Lease Agreement in place with them that dictate a certain amount and d. C. Has given 350 million to bridge town hall projects i cant speak to tjpa but they feel it is a significant contribution aid san mateo is use for phase two and any additional contributions from san mateo i believe go to the construction we are providing an update to mtc and weve received 400 million from high speed rail grant certainly we welcome caltrain is looking at our phase two to help fund phase two only in phase one only one tenant i mean the question was not who has put in funds it seems like the strategy one funder as opposed to all the different funders to say where the proportional share coming from. I dont have that in front of me certainly the largest person is the federal government between the federal grants the local share i believe well, i wont guess the percentage off the top of my head and mtc has given a town hall amount it is larger than the amount for the project if we are looking at proportional contributions. Proportional increases so the funding plan based on. Well, the state the folks at that time, thought that was a right mix and now the outlet is the city and county of San Francisco suggesting that others be part of that conversation. The state of california will have to be by far one the largest funder they transferred 12 arcs acres and the only are cap trade money so we would apply would have applied asked other priorities that the city had thats the source of state that we could go to if this board were to ask me, too i dont know if the deadline has passed we could ask for cap trade ac transit were happy to ask them i ordered director harper to see if the prop passed if alameda if there are funding thats director harper but those are the only sources i can think of right now and its not asking city and county of San Francisco for a general Fund Contribution so much as looking for revenues that are coming in from taxes in the future. And i know we have shofltd a lot of funds we have grants and things and safety grants and things just moved to over here and ever chance we have had even though it is general money at all it is in the form of capital if it didnt have strings on that otherwise from the storage standpoint well talk about the thing thats looming we are the only significant operators for a while we are under conceptual obligations with respect to that so you know weve got a big unknown ahead of