Item five executive directors report. I would like to thank the board for their guidance and leadership this year which was critical to our critical to our achievements. I would like to thank our student advisory committee. As we wrap up, we can reflect on pride with what we accomplished together. We reopened the Transit Center after an independent review. We recommissioned the entire facility, and we worked with transit operators to fully operate the bus plaza and deck. We wanted to ensure a smooth opening for commuters and the general public. We have been operating for six months, and we have put the experience of the transit riders and public as number one. We provided a world class facility. We are seeing tens of thousands of people every day at the Transit Center. The janitorial security and park programming staff are in hand every day providing a welcoming presence to the public. As we operate my charge is to be nimble to the needs to everyone who uses the Transit Center and provide the best service to the public possible. In 2019 we reached 75 of the retail spaces at the Transit Center with the nationwide challenge of filling retail storefronts. We continued to on board new tenants such as on site dental which opened in november. Sf fit mess, very eye sf fitness. We are working closely with the other 15 tenants to open as soon as possible. I am happy to report progress on plans to improve the way finding at the Transit Center. Before you is approval of a service contract. They will lead the effort in partnership with the commission. I would like to thank them for providing the initial funding toward the effort for a study to best enhance our way finding at the Transit Center. There will be another 100,000 for the effort that is really important. Phase two on the downtown extension. This was a significant achievement when we secured full environmental clearance. We have contacted senator scott weiner and Assembly Members and the bay area caucus to express our support for the Bay Area Program and request inclusion of funds to facilitate the downtown extension program. I believe the Transit Center is an International Model for development in Northern California for highspeed rail and essential element for accomplishing the second transbay rail crossing and ideal candidate for the revenue program. We are funding for the 2020 transit and ticp for phase two for the transit program. It is part of the sd1 program. I look forward to working with our partners on phase 2 in 2020 including m. T. C. , caltrain and city and county of San Francisco. They are concluding the findings this morning on delivery of phase two. 2020 will see a renewed commitment to the public. I look forward to working with all of you. Before you is the Quarterly Financial report. I would like to invite Christine Falvey to provide you an overview of the market. She will be followed by the team to conclude the presentation for the findings of the peer review from last month and respond to any questions you might have. Good morning. I wanted to give you a quick holiday on the holiday bazaar. We are partnering with off the grid who are transforming the center and plaza to a welcoming holiday scene for downtown and the transit riders and the residents visiting. These are a few quick photos. We are doing a lot of marketing to get more foot traffic. It is growing now that we are closer to the holidays and a lot of pickup about the bazaar. More and more people are frequenting the retail shops and the dining and the bar. You can see the pictures in the grand hall, if you havent been already. There is a snug bar that is very popular every time i walk by. The retail booths of artists and makers. It helps people shop local, activates the space and makes the Transit Center a destination for people. We are also partnering with boston property. Off the grid was busy decorating and activating the plaza as well. It is a sight to see with a stage, live music, bars, food, all supporting the local workers and makers. I wanted to give you that quick update. It started november 29 through december 24. 21 retail booths could use our shoppers. We want to be done every year. They will be making changes out there since they opened noticing the trends out there. I encourage you to come and go to the website to learn about the hours. I am here to answer any questions. Just one quick addition. Brb is activating the park with winter fest with free events for the public with holiday photos and crafts. That is all free to public. That starts december 19th. We will start promoting that now. I would like to ask fs scta for the peer review. John. John fisher from wsb. Good morning, directors. I believe i was before you last month and presented the final recommendations. I was saved by the bell from maybe your questions. I am happy to summarize, but i went through them up to the very end. We had the fire alarm. I want to make sure that i can answer any of your questions. I appreciate everyones input into this process. We have had engagement with many of you and your colleagues and other agencies that strengthened our final recommendations and also put a dose of reality into what we started out as our mission of strengthening the funding and finance and delivery for the project which is critical for not only the San Francisco bay but the mega region. I am happy to take any questions you might have. Comments . Thank you so much. I really appreciate all of the work that went into that report, and i am sorry that we were cut off by the bell. We lost a little bit of continuity. I worry that staff when they dont hear back from us immediately think that it is through lack of interest, which is not in this situation. Thank you so much for all of the work. I really do agree with the recommendations in the report. I think speaking also with my caltrain board hat on, gtx is important to us all. The working group or Steering Committee to keep everybody involved and make sure all parties are represented in those discussions is a really good idea, and i look forward to what that can accomplish. Thank you again. Thank you. I have more comments than questions. The presentation was good. I read the report. Thank you for that. Over the last year we have had the benefit of both the review you have done as well as the work that was done at the vice chairs request. We have had great advice from both reviews that have happened for how to move the program forward. What i took was the need for stronger project Delivery Organization and what we can do to bolster the team working on the project. Some of that is in your recommendations as well. What i took away from your report was the need to make the case for the project, and that is essential in moving it forward. We need to make sure that it is important for caltrain and highspeed rail in the state and on a National Level as well. I look back on my time on this board and weep spent a we spent a lot of time with finishing the Transit Center and dealing with the issues we have had in operations. As i look to 2020 and you can closeout 2019 for us, i am interested in having the world get into the gtx issues and questions and be out front part of advocating for the project. This is going to be important and there is nobody else to do it. It is the entity that has to be the driving force, and we have had a lot of recommendations with great partners and thank you, tilley, for commissioning this study. I think now we have to mandate to get trains to the sales force Transit Center. I am excited to start on this and have this entity play that important leadership role in getting that program going. Thank you. Thank you, john for coming back. I hope there is not a fire drill this time so that we have a chance to have a conversation. S. F. C. T. A. And the panel for the work and there is no question about the importance to Northern California. I have a number of clarifying questions, many i raised on september 3rd are are not quite clear to me where we are going. I agree with my colleagues we need to move forward but i would like to see it move faster and the big question that is or barrier was addressed in the peer review and i will get to that in my comments and questions. I am curiouser from the curious, what does success mean . It wasnt defined. It wasnt. Youationed that in our meet you raised that in our meeting. Success means Different Things to different people. We had a Diverse Panel that was one of our outcomes or hope for outcome was setting up the framework to realize trains into the Transit Center sooner or on a schedule predictable with a funding plan that is credible and supported at every local, state and federal level. To me that would be success. Success for the panel is getting the train to downtown regardless of budget or schedule . Getting the train downtown . The case studies sited had nothing to do with budget or schedule. Correct. That was one. It is confusing for me. That was a reason to look at the case studies of the projects that went over budget, longer than expected which mega projects do. Those case studies inform the panel. The panel was very clear onsetting affordability limit and phasing the project to meet that limit. That was a departure from the other mega projects we looked at. Going to the phasing part then, my reading of the detailed report, not just the power point, i think the implied phasing is building whatever tunnel structures are needed to get whatever trains are first and whoever doesnt have money comes second . Is that what that meant or building the tunnel as you have money regardless of operability . No, we spent time looking at that with the staff and prior work done to date. I think that we didnt see it as the panels place to make recommendations around phasing. The refresh both on the cost side but also on the funding and feasibility side, i think that we may be subjecte punted of. The panel cited the need for a clear definition from the operators, both operating criteria and longterm commitment and timing. I dont think those are defined. Those need to be reigned in. It is tough to phase a tunnel. You are not going to build half a tunnel. The elements and the projects around fourth and king and the 22nd street station all play part of the longterm view at that 4dtx as well as the longer term view of the second crossing, which was clearly part of the planning process, our panel felt. Excuse me. If i may add. The basic concept we are intending to implement is what is the minimum part of the project that can be done none satisfying the needs of caltrain and highspeed rail that can get the trains to the station as soon as possible . So we are not specifically setting a number of what that should be, it is really more of making sure that it is going to operate the way that it needs to operate and so in a way it is just some aspects that can wait. They are not needed on the first day. That is the concept we are following. I appreciate that clarification. The report didnt say that. I am curious. It didnt say that in the report. We want the minimum structures to achieve operability rather than looking at phasing without any comment about operability or anything. Billed half a tunnel, one mile of tunnel . Say what you said in the report, and when you say argue for transparency. What is going on here . Whatever the refresh is, why didnt the report just say what you just said . That was their decision. We moved to implementation. The devil is in the details that is in the implementation that is the direction we are taking. We have been working with the staff to do just that. The first order of business. Yes, it may be that there is not much that can be deferred. We dont know that yet. We want to explore the possibilities and implications. Operability is important and that was not in the report. It was strange for me. If we provide the leadership, we have to get a train or something. It doesnt make sense to build part of a tunnel and have it dead end. Absolutely. I was curious about that. Thank you for the clarification. The other part of it was, you know, in the business i am in we look at structures and the building owner. Cold shell, warm shell and 10 improvements. How much did that go to the thinking of the Peer Review Panel that tgpa owns the structure and the operators do their own improvements. Cold shell, warm shell, highspeed rail or is this turnkey from tjpas perspective . How much of that went to the panels reflections andy baits and discussions . There were discussions on that. I think we highlighted that as an activity in the two year work plan to make those decisions on o and m. It will likely influence procurement and the timing of funds potentially but other sources of funds. I think it was always recognized that tgpa is the owner and operator of the center. That is the conversation that started with the operators but hasnt fully gelled to working that out. That was in addition to the design criteria and elements of the facilities but who would own them is an important question. If you are looking at the shared service between caltrain and the state entity, i think the panel looked at other models, and i think this is very unique in terms of the work done on phase 1. I think the report didnt address that other than to say that needed looked at. It is assumed tjpa is the owner and operator and worked that out and the transit is operating now and is partner and would see that structure replicated with the operatorses the facility. If that included bart someday, those were the things we talked about. Those are high level. It is another important element that needs to get done. I just want to circle back to a conversation we had to the point about transparency. As i mentioned your input shaped this and one question was the we are looking at phasing and deferring elements of high speed rail you are not really transparent about those costs down the road. We did add language. The panel added language in the final report to recommend cost benefit analysis be done by the integrated team when those decisions are made. It is not a surprise. That was a good point. I did want to circle back that we heard you and included that. Your comment about ownership is important. It goes to the next questions to the panel. Identify that someone needs to own the asset between fourth and king and the sales force center. Someone has to own it, not the esc. Some entity has though own it and some entity has to have balance sheet. Did they do that work or safe it needed sorted out . It was recognized. There was debate around the financing workshop about any entity advancing or responsible for the o and m. May need to be a grant recipient holder. Phase one the loan secured for phase one, that infrastructure exists today in tjpa. It wasnt clear the panel feet we needed to recreate that. It was more strengthening the funding and finance plan. And the project delivery options. For me it seems that the biggest barrier isnt project delivery at the moment. It is funding. How much work was done on funding. There is talk about high liability funding and low. Fta calls high reliability funding that there is no further action required by anyone. How many money do we have with no other action required by anyone . That is a question. I am not aware of any. Every piece of funding we have requires someone to do something. I guess it depending what action is needed. Action by any court or anybody. 325 million that we consider to be committed because it is programmed and the voters voted for it. There is an action required . Yes, we have the Community Facility district funding which requires selling of bonds. We have tax increment that requires selling of bonds. We consider them committed funding. They are available and we dont see the entities not providing the funding. We have 1 billion to 1. 2 billion of committed funding. Does that meet the fta definition. From past experience it does meet it. They are looking for documents that assure the money will flow pending certain requests. On the fta funding, i understand as the numbers get bigger the percentages are getting lower as the number gets bigger. Has that benefactors into a funding strategy or concept or was that deferred to the work plan to somebody else . The initial focus of panel was being clear about the aspirational funding and separating that from what is bankable. There is a lot of discussion on the passenger facility charge notion in the funding charge as not something to take to the market. Separating those from committed funds. We understood there was a lot of action to take. The panel spent more time looking at potential new sources of funds and making sure the separation of aspirational versus bankable would support and leverage future funding sources. The bay area was mentioned. That was the motion of really repositioning the project for the more regional and National Significant delivery. It was more than service between fourth and king. To be ready to be competitive in the new buckets. We are looking for reauthorization on the federal level that is highly competitive. That was recognized. I think that fta is looking at different models, the capacity project. In Sant Santa Clara they are cag the interest. California has a long history of the selfhelp and over matching the federal requirements to get projects done. It was assumed there would be multiple sources. It would be about the affordability limit or first operable segment that could lend that credibility to the financing plan that you had an arm around the cost and you werent taking that plan to aspiration align im tems that werent available at the moment. Thank you for open the door to the importance. I am curious given the nature of the projected and how it benefits the region, is there any discussion about the state Rail Authority delivering the project versus some hybrid . There was discussion. When you look at the second crossing, the only place that appears at the moment is the state rail plan. It was quickly noted the state is participating through highspeed rain.