Transcripts For SFGTV Transbay Joint Powers Authority 91015 20150915

Lands fiscal year budget is making a statement that the board thinks if you look at the renderings the project budget is going to this house is humongous and remain at 1. 899. I think all thats what i look at just the of the public discussion on the render to tell you the story you previous item is an accurate reflection of the boards understanding of our budget took the top floor off the situation and of course i defer duncan street august of last to the board and what you would like to do, but i would year you took the whole top recommend adopting the fiscal year budget. You think theres no other floor off i watched the video so way to do it but go on the i want to remind you of duncan record for adopting this as the next years budget based on the august 2014 there was a monster 1. 899 number . You can continue to do one house proposed similar to this month interim budgets which are you took the top floor off i was based on last years interim budget or you can adopt a impressed as you can see today they have no support for anybody budget for the entire fiscal year. Its the boards i talked to and discretion to choose. It doesnt look like anyone thank you dr requester. Else is bothered by the discrepancy but at least were on the record that it is a discrepancy. I think thats important because i dont want it to look later on like the im not sure exactly what board was not being cognizant of the changes we have had. I think the process is once we have a real budget with theyre proposing but it the these negotiations then we would make the amendments that are needed. Thats right. Discretionary review submittal in november, if we get a im made modifications to the Program Budget in november, then this would automatically lines and this risks the change, right . We would take a look at Foundation Failure and eliminate what the updated cash flow for the remainder of the fiscal the code violation for light year was and if there were categories that needed to be increased we could go ahead and actual light into my living room do that at that time. Typically we would have done this is what i propose for the budget amendments throughout first floor if you look at the the year as the need arose but we certainly could prepare it in november. Well, all right. Is there area bottom the building a grade a motion for approval . A 3 foot setback and a notch on motion. Motion and a second. Roll call. The office the floor above that first and second and no members of the public waiting to address you on that item, key, aye. Director riskin, 3 foot setback and a notch out of master Bedroom Terrace and at aye. Nuru, aye. Five eyes and the top floor another 3 foot the budget is approved. Setback authorizing web and it indicates that there will extend all the way across a 3 core obayashi joint venture to execute a trade work foot setback in a terrace below. Subcontract with concrete north as the responsible bidder those are the only changes i submitting the lowest indicated that will make the responsive thereby increasing impacts on 74a harper street authorized direct costs. Mark will report on this item. Reduce the reduction reduce the this trade package is eliminate the code violation for concrete toping slabs, concrete light and ventilation to the on the bus deck and seismic living room and minimize the joints for the transit center. Risk for Foundation Failure thank you. Thank you. With that, the public sorry pretty basic work. This is one of the most critical packages two imaginations for project at this point and thats why were coming to be awarded at sponsor. Thanks just quickly the issues this is this time and well be using some of the contingencies in the reserves to award it what you say tonight and if we because we dont have enough budget in the trade packages to award it. So we received a may 7th, we had 7 qualified can so the one of the concrete suggestions in the dr request bidders, we received 3 bidders ranging to 32 Million Dollars, so this is the second floor you all s were significantly above our budget and the gngc saw that as well the 3 feet estimate. We did share with the board some of the reasons setback lightwell we are behind that at the july board providing and providing a meeting. We did ask the setback right here cutting a contractor to extend their to chunk out of may or may not end of september. Their bid bedroom to the extent we received any actual suggestions from the dr request we did our best to accommodate those within the perimeters i am want to run expires 30 days after bid opening. It came in at 30 introduce a few things in terms Million Dollars and uron came of the setback under the memorandum i believe that what in at 32 Million Dollars. Even though they are above our that is talking about for a budget, they are come ted different Zoning District for rh1 d if so in the Zoning District were in rh1471 duncan competitive and within 10 percent of each other. As we shared with you at the had a party room we have a july Board Meeting, the difference between the estimate kitchen and it is the living our budget and the bids was attributed to some of the scope space like comparing apples and in the trade packages and not oranges and i also think that you can see from the project weve done accounted for, the estimate and a lot to address light and air Market Conditions and logistics. What i think you may be hearing so were recommending that when you hear privacy and when someone across the street is pub this package be awarded to u talking about loiltd someone concrete north for 27,677,000, maybe losing their view this project is designed to provide we believe the s are alignment to the properties that competitive and this is a are effected by a new houses and schedule critical package. Recommendation is to award it the property is designed to e by utilizing 11 Million Dollars from the budget for the multiply others verify. Remaining trade packages, the budget for the remaining trade with that, the public hearing portions is closed. Packages is 11. 6 million commissioner richards. Dollars, utilizing 6 million so can i ask a procedural dollars of program reserves which are currently 8. 45 question two Building Permits or Million Dollars and utilizing one permit. Staff please. The current construction there are two briment a contingency which is 34 Million Dollars. After the award the demolition permit and i want to remaining balances would be talk about the Building Permit 614,000 in the funded budget first ill be honest with you, we have for the remaining trade packages, 1. 5 Million Dollars a 2015 appraisal by the dr in the program reserves and requester against 2014 standard 23. 3 Million Dollars for the that is worse construction contingency. You know you, you are have an any questions . Do we know why four of the inflated market under the 7 rr prequalified bidders did numbers on the demolition not snit a . Department my thought your permit appraisal for 2014 we sat here last week and did a water permit for Howard Street luxury submit a bid condos 2,000 per foot your let plea ask steve appraisal is 2,000 per square feet i cant support demolishing humphries. Yeah, im not sure i can this house it didnt reach the tell you right at the moment exactly why they did not bid criteria and when i tell you when see this ill see the board the project. They were all engaged earlier and the four of supervisors and try to change 317 im going to make a motion bidders during the bid phrase we were aware well prior to bi to deny the demolition permit. Dday that they were not going second. To be bidding the project for a commissioner antonini. Well, i disagree i looked at variety of reasons. We do both the appraisals the extensive outreach efforts to appraisal that was done last keep the bidders engaged but it year was done by a certified is not unusual to have several public appraisal by the first bidders drop out before the Republic Bank banks are phase. I dont recall the conservative that is supplying what their lend their money exact reasons why they did drop. Based on the appraisal i had one this issue has come up several times so i think you done on my house it was can expect to be asked why if conservative memo son bought a not all bidders submitted a house done the street and i know bid, so im curious as to why the value on my place was much we dont have the answer to that at this Board Meeting. It more conservative it is one. 704 comes up every single time, we have asked every single time we have the rfp process reviewed how we can have as many of our and everything acknowledges the prices have religion even though qualified bidders so we get the the lower barrier it is far best price. I feel like were a broken record on this issue above the barrier and thats and we should be able to reach out when people arent bidding staffs position and my guess, of during the rfp process and find course, im voting against the out exactly what those reasons measure to not allow the are. I think we have records for demolition it is a wide lot 40 the reasons. I know theres feet widest youre paying for communication between web core, the size of the lot you can we just dont have them with us build a house of this size with right now, supervisor kim. I think we will have the details with us. Notifications ill agree to but i think we should always have that information at these make an inappropriate house and meetings. One of the things that i big enough with 4 bedrooms on the upper floor it make sense a notice over and over again, we master and bedrooms for the see these overs are the other three children and youve got factors included for them to be the appropriated bathrooms and things and thats on the middle higher, a large project consumes much of the bidders floor and then youve got the capacity and limiting its living room and dining room and the other spaces on the upper opportunity, inefficiencies and low productivity rates and perceived increased risk of floor and down below a garage large public works projects. The Square Footage is sometimes this is a large project. I a little bit overstayed i agree think we can start getting our with 45 hundred it maybe less estimators to realize its a than that in accident old days large project. And the same with you talked about square thing about the risk, its a footage you dont count public project. That really shouldnt be, thats really not bathrooms or hallways and did a reason to say thats why they that and garages so people who its something that was known to us long before it was are representing the square known to the bidder, its large and its public. Footage on the orderly homes im the question i have on the used to the lower figures that is the case being wrought up on other one, inefficiency and low this one this is in terms of the productivity rates assumed by bidder, does that have something to do with our job demolition situation when i will go with the prevail that is site or is that something that is just generic to. Submitted and acceptedcy first its lay down area, its Republic Bank secondly, theyve logistics. Theres no place for where were at is the done the stairs theyre gone and middle of downtown, theres no place to them for lay down the southeast corner is gone, area, theres no place to be able to work. Its not like theyve now cargo to what ive any other project where you have a lot of work, you can been told 16 plus square feet park your trucks, you can bring in your concrete pumps anywhere from the wall i dont any they you want to. So that difficulty was not accurately accounted for in our estimates. Have a 3 foot separation from that would make. I understand the part that mr. Harassing tons house im we have 7 bidders, we did not expect to get 7 s but we should invited my house is 3 feet from have gotten more than three the Property Line and the next bids but the fact we got three it is 3 feet from the Property Line and a detached neighborhood bids and they are close to each the setbacks are 3 feet from the other, for what its worth even line on each house that is more though our budget is off and the estimate is off. If these than accurate, however, ill propose a couple of things to bids were far off but they were help to needs needed the close to each other. Within 10 concerns the neighborhood i know percent, thats a good result. There is plenty of room to drop granted way above estimate. I two or three feet as used think we came up, rebidding excavates the present feet is 36 them is not going to give us better results and the scope is feet 10 inches in height what pretty simple. Any further discussion . Give me the height sir, if you member s of the public . Could are sorry 34. No. Yes, mr. Patrick. 34 now okay. So if we sorry, i made this comment knockoff two or three two to three feet come down to 31 or 31 before but this goes back to the joint labor agreement. I believe there are lots of to the place where some of the companies that dont pay the doctor have asked for not they highest labor rate by a matter of good policy. Our wages, our necessarily need it the loiltd company, we dont always pay with the changes youve made and the highest wages. Therefore the views and the separation we wouldnt be eligible to on from the proposals o property this because i dont want to that adequate that there make pay the highest wages. This board has made a policy that the house appear to follow the they will pay always the slope completely even more so i highest wages regardless of who they hire on this joint labor did came back easily done the agreement. Therefore we should not be surprised at the results. Other things if youll look at thank you. Our plans plan a. 21 and a. 22 thats it. Is there a motion to approve on the award . All and a. 3 those are the 3 floors youve got to bottom that an office space that be will be right. Okay, ed, our movers and seconders of the day. Incorporated for the recreation first and second, director room or made a little bit smaller i suggest taking two kim, aye. Director lee, yes. Feet off the south aspect of that and 2 feet off the i guess director riskin, aye. Vice chair nuru, aye. Harper aye, the east aspect where the thats five ayes. Smaller pop outs still remains 16 is authorizing the according what will happen you have a terrace youll have a executive director to execute terrace that is a little bit amendment 3 to the professional smaller it will have 2 feet on Services Agreement with turner the lessen the south and east it Construction Company to provide Construction Management Oversight Services by will be a nice sized terrace and increasing the maximum computation from 45,980,000 to on the top floor the setback a complete there but have to 2 57,180,000. I am here to report on feet on the area that comes off the living room minor changes that creates more operation for amendment 3, which is funded the neighborhood on that area through the soft cost savings they should be absolutely in through other portions of the program. The cmo contract questions with those things scope has 11 specific items to being done im neutrality on the deck on the top having a it. It addressed that. They trapdoor youve done it the cover anywhere from any quality rights way hover from the items to inspection, source commissioners see fit to inspections testing to eliminate the upper deck it has technical support, source quite a few of the terraces on inspections are covered by isi the different leveled that serve mostly where we reference them the same purpose as the top deck and technical touch on waterproofing experts as we it is okay with me to get rid of move forward. Background on the contract itself, the contract was that those are the main awarded in june, 2010, had a 6 suggestions i have to make a year term and it started and good project even better and you goes through june of next year know im not one of those people so we still have over, almost a that says just because my his or year left with it. The her how is it small you have to original contract amount was it is appropriate for the lot 38. 5 million and as part of the and has to have minimum impacts budget, july 2013 budget, had on the neighbors which it will 35. 8 Million Dollars and back when we make the changes and if in july we amended the contract up to the budgeted amount of it happens to be more Square Footage then you know there 45. 8 million. There have been many arent a lot of sites in eastern facilities that we have been utilizing specifically for isi San Francisco to build a and the source inspection, complete will family home so if mainly welding from fabricators there are is one in noah valley throughout the west coast. Then it should be built to the extent it can support the house originally scanska identified they were going to use 4 major being proposed so im in favor of the project and opposed in facilities and they added had a favor the demolition and ill minor one, added also see what my fellow commissioners have to say. Commissioner moore. Additional facilities on top of the problem with this those original ones to cover the workload which needed isi particular building is not necessarily it is oversized size inspection and actually an a but its under drawn sameness is fund was added that also required some inspections. That added to the costs for the completely unspectacular cmo contract. Building and it bothers me it cmo contract had additional and had show you they spending basically broken down neighborness it is our in three areas, the isi code separation this building remind inspection, which is the major me very much the state street one, then other essential work wood discussion were there was a that has been requested of turner such as an additional building after which the set of eyes and ears during the neighbors came out and asked the supervisor to have interim second shift, waterproofing Quality Assurance and controls which helped with partnering and then also, which buildings at a minimum would will come up as well is when show a sense of neighborlyness the contract is amended, recommended for an additional two years through 2018 there thats what i obtain to it is would be those extra two years personally hard for a attorney that also will be a source of additional spending by the cmo to speak about an automatic i so at this time havent seen them illustrated our making bullet points i said that to you won before thats the level of discussion you bring into the chamber that has drawings that have befores and after oh, yeah, we took the notches out by ill approve something i see in sects and a 3 dimensional to the changes youve discussed and what i hear today, i i did not see any reasonable ambulance that is represented by the architect youre aware of or represented to me the drawings changes were made in under or on the tenth of february were in september are those the changes in the drawings which ive never seen you dont have to answer that im telling you my frustration ill proposed or prepared to see a building and it didnt meet the musters you can do a building that is more than scale and bulk and fits and patterns its itself within an envelope that is more jermaine to the situation this could be designed anywhere i cant support it as it is i support the development and change but youll probably have to go braurdz and come up with Something Better i have a hard times were struggling to descend, if any, the city than thats not only done by making a super large building without adding a small inlaw unit or studio apartment somewhere in the building and the last question i recycle to get clarity about the situation if youre renters will project representative please address that. There are no renters only guests staying in the home. Airbnb. Theyre not airbnb people are saying theyre not making any money to the owners. How long have they been. I dont know that. You dont. How long have the neighbors observed the people being in there particular. Come to the microphone and give us an answer. At least a couple of months theres probably been six or eight people theyre receiving Garbage Service at the house and having parties their occupying the intersection at the top of noah at last hours doing i dont know some kind of rut july dancers there are plenty of people. Thank you. I dont want to comment but that remind me of an application nobody lives there and somebody was living there. Okay commissioner hillis. So i agree with look what commissioner moore said not tweak around the edges to make it work it is more responding to kind of taking advantage the view to the size and scale felt, you know, vanity homes in the neighborhood in you know, i think that it would be a bigger home here than whats here clearly it is a big lot can take additional size and massing there are homes up the street and people have extend into the back but i dont think this what were seeing got to go broward backward and forward im not clear about the responded we run into in a bit when more developer sponsored project someone lives there with the neighbors in the future there is more discussion in that generally when you have that i courage that here weve seen it when it is a developer doing it but theres not much indication that is happening here on the issue i agree our rules are odd on the rules of demolition it is a lot with a singlefamily home on top of noah street it exceeds the threshold level of if didnt were talking about a dr by demolition or you know a major expansion in the south that leads to more expansion in the back than the neighbors want or the expansion in the front you get here you have a big lot and more you can do with maam, missing on all sides so ill support sending this back and get more decision with the neighbors and project sponsor but i dont think this one is there. I agree with our sentiment i want to requirement of us of the elizabeth length of hearings i wanted to indication the continuance means putting it on another calendar. Commissioner johnson. Yeah. Thanks. I was going to ask a couple of questions i cant support that i dont feel the renderings of the plan in our documents dont reflect the plan the rerpdz that were done take down e at the end there are supervisor scott weiner so many changes to be made commissioner hillis talked about others i cant begin to say well spend time redesign the project to the question maybe to the Commission Secretary or staff i 1st district what happens with the continuance are questioning we not allowed to do that or pick a date. You can continue this matter indefinitely the only difference when you continue it inindefinite it has to be readvertised so when you put the date certain basically the advisements stay in place and track when the item is before you as part of the agenda you pick a time certain and their for the ready continue it again. The second question maybe to you or staff if we were to deny either permit today would the project sponsor cowboy come back with a substantial different project. If you deny it i dont know how it could be difficult win a years time. Can we reverse the demo. Excuse me. Allow the demo in the next hearing they cannot demo it. We generally dont approve demolition permits. We can withdraw that and continue it. It will sfurp seedy withdraw my motion. Okay. Back to the issue the continuance i want to make a motion for continuance the reason i think this needs to go back to the draurd and 8 we dont got out favorite than eight or ten weeks look at this lot we need to have conversations with the neighborhoods i dont want to hear there was a meeting nobody got to go to it i want alp opportunity not forever but alp opportunity for that discussion so i guess if is there sort of we put it out three to four months is that, too along for the noticing. It is relevant to the noticing i think the Interested Party are here and present but 2 months is something that is adequate thats entirely up to you, you the architect that is not here would have to also weigh in terms of the workload and Everything Else the building is back to square one and somewhat modify the approach. When you came up before the timing commissioner moore the reason why i was speaking without asking architect fairs because because two months is pushed into november im more thinking about the dialogue so 2 most is probably not enough time for the architect but i dont want to hear i was in brazil for two weeks at thanksgiving and i dont know whats going on. Go ahead sorry. Two months is more than enough time as long as the neighborhoods are willing to meet in good faith without long details that put us here for months as long as i know theyre on board with spending time with me well work quickly. Thank you commissioner richards. I support a continuance i was playing with the demolition to try to incorporate the house a half hour with the section 317 we may be hear months from now and supposed to say and all of a sudden it whole thing is down again, i know but part of the section 317 for all the things huffing we will have a list of people we assign and sell to the project sponsor you have to choose one introduce the appraisalers parts of that a list of approved profilerers im frustrated we have a 2014 and 2015 profiler. Commissioner antonini. Ive a few questions for project sponsor if you could come up and answer the questions please i think during our meager it was told this was a family perhaps mr. Murray relays family that is mr. Murray relay very good i heard theyre planning on occupying it they have to children possible a third on the way and they have some aging parents that will be occupying the lower floor; is that correct or not. One child possible a second on the way and, yes aging parents and the intention to occupy the house. Thank you that answers a lot of questions that have been brought up and a reason to have the elevators i was going to bring up okay. Thank you there are a couple of other things im interested in continuing this i am interested in finding a date in november or early december noted loaded with a lot of stuff not having a long hearing like last week and let me ask one the dr requesters is that late november and a or early december to work in good faith is that long enough. Commissioner in the quiz. Why donna you dont want to talk with him and based on the conversation and calendar that we have available that he need that time i will be traveling i have matched in the uk. That is amenable what do we have in december. Your dates is december 3, 10 and 13. December 10th ill make a motion to continue until december 10th. Commissioner moore. Through im sorry. Im done. In this case throwback to continue this to december 10th. Commissioner antonini. Commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner richards commissioner wu so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6 to zero. Commissioners, that places you under your under general Public Comment i have no more speaker cards is there any general Public Comment general Public Comment is closed. Meeting adjourned i call this meeting of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority meeting to order for september 10, 2015. Would you call the roll, please, madam secretary. Director kim. Kim present, lee present. Vice chair nuru, present. President and chair harper, present. Mr. Chairman, you do have a quorum. Communications . Any in particular . None that i am aware of. Board of directors new and old business. We have a lot to conduct today so its just as well. How about the executive directors report. Good morning, everyone. So i did want to report that since may when we last reported on jobs across the United States, weve added 4 states. So now we have work going on at 25 states across the United States for quite a substantial number of jobs. So i did want to report that and i think you see that there, so we added 4, now we have 25. So 11,300 jobs to date and we have copies here for you directors so were halfway there before we hit the entire country. Speaking of construction, id like to have steve give an update on where we have with our construction. Good morning, director, steve rule with turner construction, construction manager oversight for the tgpa the last reported update was in july. Since then we have had a lot of progress, a few milestones hit and one of the things over 120,000 craft hours in the last two months. You might recall that typically we run about 40,000 craft hours a month, so were up in the numbers of workers on the job. This is an update picture of the site. You can see and well talk more about the light fallen and the progression. Steel in a moment. Two milestones were met this period in july, one, we finished all the undergroundwork associated with the bus ramp and bridge project. The other is the trade package 6. 0, the blow Grade Concrete was essentially finished. They have to pickup work throughout the project filling some holes but they poured their last third lift wall on august 10 and that was ahead of where we were projecting them in september or later. Thats that milestone there. The steel, we are doing better now with the steel. All the steel is available for erection in the west end and they are working 12 hour shifts as of this week to put that up. The light column was completed and more fabrication is occurring now for the east project so less than a third is in fabrication in the east end. The overall map there you can see the layout of the steel, all that solid blue line across the top there indicates the third lift wall is being completed, were well underway with the fourth lift wall so great progress is being made in that area. This is a contingency slide. Just the major there was a couple spans, including the board awards at the last Board Meeting in july which show up on this as well as some various change orders. As far as safety, we did have a couple of recordable incidents in july and august. We had 4 actually those have been investigated and corrective measures have been put in place and web core has redoubled their efforts on safety. Its a matter of adjusting to the new trades that are coming on board and the size of the work force, the multiple shifts and were watching that closely. As i said before, over 1. 6 million craft hours have been completed to date, were up 120,000 from last presentation. As far as in the western zone, a lot of time was spent on structural steel welding, the first couple grid lines and lines 7 to 10, that welding and decking has been completed. Also on the vehicle and bike ramps in the central zone mep is in the milds of rough in, a lot of concrete got placed, we placed our first 2 roof deck pours in the 17 section. In the eastern zone, the steel erection has been progressing but the big effort there was on the light column which now is fully err reted since you last saw the update and stands out quite notably in the project. And rebracing, we actually started in the central section, i apologize, we started removing the final braces from the project in several areas so we once the train box lid gets poured we can take out those internal braces. That was another milestone. We started removing these in the last period. And in the eastern zone we completed the third lift walls and they are well underway with the fourth lift walls working from fremont to beal street. Those lift walls are now 100 percent so we will remove those from cali in the future and we will start on other milestones including the fourth drek walls. Picture the activity in the western zone, in the upper left thats the structure steel err rektsed on one line and we are now progressing from that period to the steel over to the right you can barely see in the pictures next to the remains of the tres he will. In the upper right and lower right are the bus and bicycle ramps prepour and now poured, just note the effort that gets put into making that all fit together. Those vertical steel columns are the false work for the future cable stay bridge so its an intricate dance at best to get all that in. Stairs, central zone, concrete pour central zone and removing, some of the highlights in those pictures show that. In the eastern zone of course the steel, you see that heavy strip there in the center of that picture in the upper left, thats the expansion joint that separates the central from the eastern. We had just hung that first piece of steel of that back in july. Now weve progressed several bays and into the light column area, at the light call em. Heres some shots of the light column going up the last couple months starting with the base on the train platform level and on up through the roof deck and up to its full height and thats what it looks like now, now that its in place completely from an aerial view. Again in the eastern zone, shots of the third lift wall getting prepared there, rebracing being done, foerlgt liflt wall under fremont street and that sort of progress we will see in the next couple months as we finish up that fourth lift wall concrete as welcoming up. On the bus ramp, lots of false work in place. You can see the entire route so Howard Street has been fully decked and crossed with false work to support the construction of the cable stay bridge and further areas up all the way to 80 in the bay bridge off ramp area, just some shots of the work going up, the abuttments up at harrison street, the false work over Howard Street and a shot of the deck. As far as whats coming up, fourth lift walls in the east end is critical completing the steel erection in the west end will happen through september and early october with that being completely welded off with decking on it and stuff most likely by the end of october early november, then well be able to turn over lines 1 all the way through 24, 25 line out of 33 to the follow on trades. Continue be with mep, coordination and installation, continue with stairs, start up some of the other trades, more and more getting closer and closer to the start of the exterior wall systems, we have embeds already in place and items like that. Labor still looking great, i think were over 64 percent local out of the counties that most affect the project. Apprentices the same. And we have now had 3,000 craft people on the project, individual craft people on the project, since the start of the transit center. Happy to answer any questions. One question, you mentioned that you are making Good Progress on the structural steel, still showing about 7 months behind. Its been the fabrication issue. Web core the joint venture has been working closely with scansa, they are meeting almost every day. They are working on bringing back that completion date but we are pretty solid within the Second Quarter of next year, could be the end of the second quartder but were hoping to move it back up to april and get back on track or closer to where we were. The fabrication is doing well. I would expect the fabrication to be completed by the end of the year and that would just be those remaining 5 or 8 bays on the other side of fremont street. And does a june finish versus an april finish impact the overall price . It would significantly help the overall schedule, obviously, and what they are doing right now is try to get ahead as much as they can with deck pours obviously and preping for follow on trades in the rest of the area. The slight adjustment in the logistics and the way it that they are proceeding in the project, if we can fill in the gap in the western zone which is the plan and thats why scansa has gone overtime to do that, thats why we have done that to create more of a flow from west to east. As those areas get xwleted by the follow on trades the steel folks will be out there completing their portion. Thanks. Sure. Anyone else . Thank you, now Sarah Deboard p update us on the Quarterly Financials. Good morning, director, Sarah Deboard, these are your standard Quarterly Financial reports. This is unaudited but this is the budget actual report for the full fiscal year. We spent approximately 305 1 2 million on the capital side and on the Operations Side spent about 3. 6 million on operating expenses for the temporary terminal and contributed just over 400,000 to the operating reserve with the revenues from lease and advertising at the temporary terminal. The second report is the contract status report and because it is timely to another item on your agenda i did just want to recognize mr. Rule and turner. The Construction Management oversight contract had a 35 percent sbe goal, they are at 49 percent and 39 percent of that is disadvantaged Business Enterprise participation. The third report is the investment report. There is approximately 220 million in various trust accounts in land sales and bridge loan proceeds. The vast majority of it invested in u. S. Treasuries and commercial paper. Anything that you see that had a Maturity Date in july on the report has since been reinvested largely in treasuries or commercial paper as well. The fourth and fifth reports are the usual inception to date showing Funding Sources and expenditures over the life of the program on the capital side, does not include operations, and the final report shows the contingency draw downs. Its a summary of the same report that you get from mr. Rule each month and im happy to answer any questions. The Transbay Transit Center cost review, whos going to cover that . Thats a separate. Thats under the regular calendar. Okay. Well, thank you. That concludes my report. Next item is item 6, Advisery Committee updates and i believe ted olson is here. Ted olson, chair of cac thank you, directors, for allowing us to speak. We were very happy at our meeting this week to hear the construction progress that steve has just shared with you, especially to see that oculus coming to completion. I also wanted to particularly thank supervisor kim for her advocacy and now the fact that the cvd has been achieved. This is great progress and i think something that we can all be proud of. I also commend the team for the outreach to the community that has been representative of the entire project, but he is sfetionly for the steel crossing of the streets, how weve done it with minimal disruption. I think thats very impressive. Similarly as a result of the leadership of the project the cac is very impressed with how central subway has come to us to see how we are proceeding. I think this is particularly relevant now that supervisor wiener is proposing a master subway plan so its for the city. Also happy to learn that dpw has also visited us to learn more about the, our means of working with the community. Finally, following our october meeting following your october meeting we were very interested to resume contact with vision zero to see how the city and we can coordinate to make the project site a model for the city of safety for traffic, transit and transport. So i think theres great possibilities here and i hope that indeed we are a model and if we can do it here, the city can do it elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you, ted. Go ahead and move into your next item. Yes, please. Item 7 is Public Comment, opportunity for the member s of the public to address us on items. Jim patrick. Morning, board members, jim patrick, patrick and company, San Francisco. I make reference to an article in the newspaper recently about scott wiener talking about, quote, a second line across the bay bridge or a second tunnel. And i believe we have been grossly negligent in not looking at phase iii. We know about phase ii, we decided to do nothing about phase iii as a bay strategy for this board. Hes now making reference to what i call phase iii or you can call whatever you want, is this something under the purview of this board or are we going to wash our hands of it . If we wash our hands of phase iii, were building buildings in the way, were making decisions that will affect how phase iii ultimately is implemented if the transbay terminal is to stay in its same place, which i believe it will. So i believe phase iii should be in our thinking and in our policy decisions as we make property deals and as we go out and market the product because if there is a tunnel to the bay bridge im sorry under the bay, it will clearly bring a higher value in rental, clearly bring a higher value in retail and for some reason weve chosen to do nothing and i think we should get on the train and get phase iii rolling as a conceptual study and take the lead. Otherwise people will roll over us. Thank you. That concludes members of the public that wanted to address you under that item. With that we can go ahead and move on. Next item, please. We are scheduled to go into closed session at this time pursuant to Government Code Section 5495698 and i have not severd any indication that a member of the public wishes to address you on the items listed. They have an opportunity to do that now or we will go ahead and clear the room. The tjba board is now back in session. As to the item conference with Real Property negotiaters for the portion of state partial 75natoma, 568 howard and 7779natoma collectively parcel f to the price in terms of payment for that property there is no action to report. Next item. Your consent calendar, all matters listed are considered to be routine and there will be no single discussion of the items unless a member of the board requests and we have not received notifiation that anyone wishes an item severed. Your items are federal Advocacy Services with mnanatt, phelps and phillips and khail bers for 1 year year and additional compensation of 155 thous 500 each. We have a motion and second from director nuru, any objections . You want to call the roll . I will note no members of the public wanted to address that. With that, director kim, aye. Director lee, aye. Director riskin, aye. Vice chair nuru, aye. Chair harper aye. The consent calendar is approved. Ready to move. Regular calendar item 13 is presentation of phase i Program Budget update. Good morning, directors. Todays presentation includes an update on the phase i budget status, including the remaining work to be awarded and contingencies required. It also includes a draft, the results of a draft ntc cost review. On july 19th you made a request of mtc for partial release of quit claim deeds related to parcel f as a result of the quit claim we were asked to update the full commission on july 22 on the status of the budget. We did so at that meeting and attended a presentation. Some mtc commissioners were concerned about the level of funding for our budget with 20 percent confidence and as a result they asked mtc staff to perform a cost analysis of our revised budget and get back to them. And so this presentation will include the draft results of that. The cost analysis was completed last friday and we provided our input on monday and it was presented to the policy Allocation Commission yesterday. I have some slides from that meeting that ill share with you and well go over it. We have not had a chance to dive into the details of it but i can give you an overview today. We also, this presentation also includes Funding Options for the revised budget as well as our next steps. The board awarded to date 1,141,000, 000 of direct costs. This is a package that the cmc identified as the most critical to keep construction on schedule. With that award, the total award will become 1,106,900,000. Whats shown in yellow are changes in costs between what we presented to you in july and now. The very top one is the underrank, the top one is the most critical according to the cmgc you will see that the metal comp covers, the price went up approximately 80,000. In negotiations with the subcontractor they requested additional money to hire a Quality Control person. That was done after we completed our negotiation but we agreed to it because for this kind of work we do need a fulltime Quality Control person. For the metal ceilings the price did not really change but we issued a change order for 1. 9 Million Dollars in order to keep the metal ceiling on schedule. With the metal ceiling contractor needs to do, they need to put in the embeds before the concrete support in order to hang the ceiling versus doing it after the concrete support they would have to drill on bond so we felt compelled this would be cheaper and much better construction if we issued a change order for 1. 9 Million Dollars. They are putting in the embeds right now before they pour the concrete. The third one is the floors. We held the price for 10 Million Dollars in july, we will continue negotiating with the contractor on that. The initial request was 20 million, they brought it down to 18 and now they brought it down to 16. 8 Million Dollars. I think were very close to the final number here. For the roof top park we show the lowest was 33. 28 Million Dollars, the lowest includes 1 Million Dollars for deduct alternate. We recommended to the board to accept that deduct alternate and that would bring the price to 32 Million Dollars for the roof top mechanical electrical the initial price we received from the contractor was 27 Million Dollars. We continue to negotiate with them and the price were at right now is 22 Million Dollars, the final price will be very close to it or a little bit less. For the signage there is no change and the ip network and the art work there is no change. So the total cost to complete is sun 65 Million Dollars. We have remaining 11. 6 Million Dollars in the budget so we would need an additional 153 Million Dollars to award the additional trade packages, thats direct cost, does not include cngc this is snapshot of the total budget. You will see that we need an additional 179 Million Dollars for total construction cost. That would include the direct fee, 3. 9 Million Dollars for the bus storage and 29. 86 dollars for the cngc cost. We have the contingency 58. 5 Million Dollars for a total inaudible risk model for 30 percent confidence level. The reason we recommended the 30 percent fta confidence level, this is an fda funded project, we use the fda model on that and we base our decisions on the fact construction is 50 Percent Complete. The Foundation Work, steel and Foundation Work and excavation has been completed, field work is ongoing and the inaudible on that is quantified therefore a lot of our risk is behind us. The biggest risk is bidding risk. We dont see that as a major risk Going Forward and thats why the third percent was recommended. This is the result of the cost review by mtc again, these are draft results, we havent had a chance to sit down and talk to them. We will be doing that in the next, the remainder of this week and next week. Again, the emphasis for the cost review was when we updated them on the budget at the july 22nd meeting and so forth. The cost review took two approaches. It was for phase i and phase ii. Phase ii has not started yet but we have already given the information we have on phase ii to mtc, they will start the analysis soon. Mtc took two approaches. One was to do a cost review looking at expenditures to date and based on that project what we need forward and the other one was to review our risk analysis. For the cost for the first approach, for the cost review their findings is that the engineers estimate, that the Cost Increases were attributable to several factors. They includedest matds as one of them, complex design was another part that they listed as contributing to the increase in cost, optimistic or low escalation rate used in our budget, lack of comparative s due to improving economy, higher margins due to large number of similar projects competing for the materials and labor in the same area and they also mentioned rv as one of the factors. We did remind them that the rva costs were incorporated in our budget. The recommendations based on the cost review itself, not the risk analysis, is that we need to augment our reserves by 48 Million Dollars. We arrived at that number by aprying 30 percent contingency for the remaining work we have not awarded yet, assuming 180 percent increase in the ip Network Package and applying 5 percent contingency for the soft costs. Additionally they recommended we implement the funding partner process to implement and review change orders and we definitely can do that, we can expand our existing meeting with sfcta, we meet with sfcta on a biweekly basis to share our cost reports as well as twepbd trends. We can include mtca with that or the city. The only recommendation we want to make sure if they are involved in approving the change orders that that process itself does not increase the amount of time that we need to approve change orders so we have to work with them to make sure that the process is streamlined. The other recommendation they came up with the cost approach again was for the tbpa to look into the gmp option. Peterson is here today and he can speak to his options thus far, i know they continue to work on it and after this presentation he is available to discuss that. The second approach was to look at our Risk Management practices and to review our risk models. Their findings are that we are following best practices for Risk Management. However, they thought that the way were not quantifying some of our cost risks and thats, according to them and again we havent had a chance to sit down and talk to the risk manager, we are using the fda top down model to do our Risk Management, thats something that is used for all fta projects. Their recommendation is to use a different approach and different approach yields different results. We do both approaches but we do the bottom up approach as well as top down. We use the bottom up approach relative to top down approach thats required by fta, so their recommendation is that we use the bottom up approach and to increase the confidence level to 80 percent versus our recommended 30 percent. Their recommendation also basically says we should not be relying on the fta model, we use more robust bottom up approach, consider a contingency of higher than 50 percent. According to their analysis, and we havent had a chance to look at their analysis, their Analysis Shows we need additional reserve between 105 and 200 million. In summary the preliminary recommendation is that the 30 percent is not sufficient and they are recommending to carry between 48 Million Dollars to 248 Million Dollars in additional reserves. What that does is our current kupb 10 jipbs si is 118 Million Dollars. With their recommendation our contingency will increase to between 166 Million Dollars to 322 Million Dollars. Our remaining work to be performed is approximately 650 Million Dollars. The next step is they received something from the committee yesterday. Our next step is to continue to work with them on finishing phase ii and most importantly to continue to work with them, sfcta as well as the city to fund the outcome of the cost review and our need to fully fund the project. Moving forward i will turn this over to sarah for the next couple slides to talk about the Funding Options. Mark, i have one question. I presume that the 244 million was at the 80 percent level of confidence . 244 million extra contingency that they would recommend, additional exposure, is that at 80 percent or 50 percent . Their 50 percent. If you look at the table it shows 50 percent level, 244 million for bottom up plus register, thats where the number came from. Again, director harper, we havent had a chance to sit down and touk to them in detail to see how these numbers are arrived at but they are using a different model than the fta model. So the 244 contingency is at the 50 percent level. Thats correct. Are you planning to seek permission to go beyond this level . We plan to have additional discussions with mtc and possibly hold a joint Risk Management meeting, refresh our Risk Management. Our Risk Management meetings currently are attended by fta as well as fra, we will bring in mtc and their consultants as well as their partners. Maybe that would be best, to do a joint refresh, sit down and agree on what the range should be and then concurrently, more importantly is to work on funding whatever range we come up with. But again we just received this last friday. I understand. When do you think you would have a recommendation with regard to what the right level is . Im hoping to do it before the october Board Meeting. I just need to rally up our consultants and have discussions with mtc and with respect to the cost review recommendations, the recommendations seem on their face at least to be good recommendations. Do you have an implementation schedule for when you would put those into place . For the gmp and for the inaudible control. Funding partner oversight. We can start that any time. I need to talk to them. Its not we already have biweekly meeting with the San Francisco contract transportation authority, we share with them our change order list, potential trends, as well as our budget. We can expand that to include mtc and other partners and we can expand and provide more details, we can go over every change order. The only concern i have if theres an approval process included, i want to make sure its not slowing down the approval of change orders. Thats all. Gmp gmp will have peterson speak to it. We can do it now. We will ask web core to look into it and they are exploring it. Director riskin, having had a chance to talk with the entire tgpa team, theres been a request for an effort to go ahead and pursue the gmp route, so we were going to look to do that kind of start thinking about the strategies behind that and then try to develop those to come up with a process and ultimately a timeline. We have any sense what that timeline roughly might look like . Yeah, i mean its not normal to do this midstream, its more often do it at the very beginning of a job or sometimes closer to the end. I would say probably something in the First Quarter of next year would be a timeline that, you know, wed be able to go ahead and have discussions regarding where we stood relative to having that gmp okay. Having that what . The gmp oh, the guaranteed maximum price, okay. Why so long to were getting ready to go through an extensive review of the rest of the budget has been quite a bit of negotiations and so can it be done sooner . The risk, the way we would analyze the risk is on a trade by trade basis. I think less in the way that has been done from kind of an owners perspective because we want to be able to go through the trades to the design to date and then kind of look at the balance of what has yet to be done in their scope of work. Some trades, you know, are fairly far along and almost complete. Other trades havent even started so theres going to be kind of a different analysis that we need to do, director, nuru, relative to where they are and those that have the most work will take the most time the most time to review. Directors, we need to approve the phase i budget by november so if director nuru needs it by then we need to approve it before then. Im not sure of the likelihood of being able to get there, but knowing there is a desired deadline we can go back and look at that what efforts it would take to try to come up with Something Like that. I think its important because, you know, with the type of escalations we are seeing we need to lock the prices down as much as we can now to get a firm budget. We really need to do that. The last few months have been very rocky financially. I have a question for mark. To me, the 247 Million Dollar deficit was a number i associated with july 2015 costs and the chart you just gave indicates that theres another 13 Million Dollars or so beyond the july 15 cost. So is it now more like 260 deficit . Which slide. Im looking on page 2 here, remaining construction work to be awarded, and then you had the july 15 coming up with total to complete 153 and then current costs, total to complete 165. Yeah. The 247 includes the current costs. What we were negotiating in july so we accounted for the difference between like for the changes between the, like for the Glass Ceiling and for the other packages. We accounted for the change in our program reserves. So the 247 is a 30 percent confidence level based on the current costs. Okay, all right. I guess that just something to maybe consider going into the Risk Management workshop and i think it would be helpful to have all the various folks who seem to have opinions on the risk levels of the program in the room. It would be helpful to know to what extent having the maximum price guarantee in place, having additional of these contracts awarded, were going to award one today, possibly, and i dont know if theres more planned for october, as well as having a strengthened change management process, if that would then impact the recommendation from mtc in terms of how much additional contingency we need. I think once we have a joint Risk Management meeting to refresh i think mtc will see how the process works, they will be engaged in the process, they may have a better comfort level. I think the 244 on top of our 247 based on the remaining work that has to be completed is almost, you know, 362 is almost 50 percent of the remaining work to be completed. Thats a very high level, obviously gives us a very high confidence level that we will get there but im not sure if thats. I think director nurus point if having the maximum price guarantee in place before we adopt the budget means its less of a problem we have to solve for, that will be helpful. It also depends on what jess comes up with. If he comes up with a guaranteed maximum amount thats within these numbers, thats one thing. You want to come up with a number right now, come up with a Different Number it will all be different. Thats why it would be helpful to understand from the risk stand point how much does that help . If having that in place really knocks down the amount of contingency we need to recommend we have thats something that would be relevant for us to know and consider. Thats a very point point, director riskin. Also we have not accounted for in our Risk Management practices how the gmcc contingency is utilized. It also caps our exposure for omissions in design or additional scope, web core is responsible to resolve conflicts in the field that arent a result of design changes and so forth and they are capped there and do we have to use their fee for things not related to design or scope. Our risk analysis does not take that into account. If it were to do that, it would reduce exposure and it does not take that into account. We will discuss it at the joint meeting, i havent told them about the joint meeting, it was just something we were discussing this morning to move forward. For my knowledge, do you foresee any other major design changes as we go down to. No, i know randy is here, we dont see any design changes right now at all. We dont see you know, a lot of the bic risks are behind us. Structural steel erection is one risk that were dealing with right now. The next biggest risk would be the plumbing maps but were doing a lot of 3d modeling already with the contractors so we expect minor issues. Besides that, i dont see major risks. Let me ask again Steve Humphries to explore that. Hi, steve humprhies, web core. I agree with mark, we are nearing the completion of the buy out where weve had the significant cost overruns and so the remaining risks on the project are really getting it built and there certainly will be change orders but i dont think the risk that were looking at Going Forward are as significant as the Cost Increases we have seen here recently. I want to get on the 48 million additional contingency, what you seem to be saying is that thats also a 50 percent number but its at a different methodology. They arrived at the 48 million by taking the trade packages we have and applying the contingency to that number and also applying the contingency to the it network. It just so happens that the 48 brings us to the, consistent with the 50 percent fta model. Coincident that its 50 percent. Yeah. I mean, when i mean at some point, i dont know how successful were going to be job owning with mtc on this very long. I dont know that were, theyre going to change their mind very much this is the range it is. To me i think my sense is that Something Like accepting the 48 million additional contingency is something of a nobrainer for us because mtc is mtc yeah. Fapbd thats the low end of the range and its something that the fta has already said, well, this would be our number if we had to do it, how much more guidance do you need from this board . Maybe we should go with that low end of their range. Id like the opportunity to sit down with mtc and go through a risk review and then come back to the board. The reason i want to do that, the mtc, it was a very short period of time for mtc to do their review so they arrived at their conclusions in a 4 to 6 week period. We gave them a lot of information, director harper, a lot of packages to go through to figure out what the award amount is, how much change orders for each trade package. Its a lot of information for them to digest and on top of that the risk manager has not seen or used or known about the fta model before so he needs time to review the model, understand that and maybe through the joint cost Risk Management exercise they will be more comfortable and we can arrive at a range that is more rational, maybe, and then come to the board with whatever recommendation. My sense of this report from mtc is theres nothing in here that really changes our numbers from 247 except that one in terms of the Program Budget, a new Program Budget. What they came up with is the same information we have had all along, the same information that the report informed us is the reason we are having high s is for the following reasons so they came to the same conclusion, exempt they do have concerns about us choosing the 30 percent confidence level versus a higher confidence level and they need to understand the fta model, they dont have understanding how the fta risk model is done. What i dont understand is why cant we then take the lower range of mtc, put together finally a Program Budget and have it ready for the october meeting as a new Program Budget . We can but i think its more better for us to have another discussion with them with a joint, a Risk Management exercise so the whole region is comfortable with what were doing, moving forward with the regions understanding versus just on our own. But arent we running out of time . Let me jump to the last slide and then ill bring sarah back. Right, we cant bring a budget without commensurate funding, director. We need to have committed funding before we bring your revised budget. Sarah is going to talk about, let her talk about the funding slide. Lets go to the first slide. Okay. So this is the funding table that youve seen many times before, it shows the identified funding for the 1899 current budget and shows what the potential sources are for a new budget. Of course there would be proceeds from parcel f, at least 160 million weve talked about. Transit Center District plan, those are the mela russ funds along with our surplus tax increment, those would be repayment for some sort of financing to cover the additional budget and we are still looking at sponsorship opportunities. There are of course possibilities on the operation side as well as the capital side for sponsorship and i xektd that we would be able to report more to the board in the coming months about what those opportunities may be. One question about the tax increment. I know that is a contingency of the mela russ that is pledged to the program. Is the same the case for the tax increment . I may call our Financial Advisor up, but the overall tax increment from the state parcels is divided up in several ways and i dont want to misquote percentages but there are certain path that is go to the city, the school district, some goes district, some goes to ocii. The portion that goes to tbpa goes to it alone and is far in excess of whats needed for repayment. These are some of the ideas weve thrown out for potential financing options. Could be an unsecured loan to be paid with surplus net tax increment, it would be secured, it would be subordinate or on par with tifia, also repaid with net tax increment. It could be a secured loan from one of the funders, could be repaid with the melarusse funding, that might be a more attractive perspective because it is a much shorter repayment time. The net tax increment would really be considered longterm debt. In the past mtc has, it was a completely different project, completely different purpose, completely different scale, but mtc has purchased a privately placed security from another project that was going to be repaid with future grant funds. That particular project had a cash flow issue and mtc was able to work out a Financing Solution with them. And then another option, and this is accounted for in our tifia loan, would be for any one of these funders, city, mtc, ti, somebody with strong Credit Rating and the ability to raise revenue to provide a Credit Guarantee so that tgpa could perhaps do a loan with private financing rather than a loan from the city or a loan from mtc, could perhaps go down the bridge loan type route again where we had another agreement with Goldman Saches and wells fargo. But we would be looking for some sort of Credit Guarantee from some of the funders. These are some of the ideas we have been sharing with the funders, we are of course looking for their feedback and their ideas as well but we did want to share those with you. But my understanding is you have had those put out for months now, with the city at least and some of the others, and i dont know that they are that warm on any of them. And so we can continue beating our head against the wall there if thats what it is, but what happens if, you know, the city sticks to its position that, wait a minute, no, were not prepared to do anything in the amounts that you are talking about . We have to start planing on that possibility, that the city just is not going to be there or mtc may not be there to a great extent. At some point we have to start planning for that and im afraid that well just continue this rolling in until it becomes for or that planning process gets really jep jep dietzd jeopardized because we have to plan on what we can build on the basis of committed funds. We need to do that. We cant continue out there with a begging bowl thinking that somebody is going to fill it at some point because weve been out there and it hasnt happened and we dont even have a lot of warm ogt out there as far as i can tell. I think director riskin. I did yesterday speak both to the city controller and to mtc and i dont think its the right characterization that the city has a position that its not willing or mtc to help try to find a solution. It seems that its largely a financing challenge, not a funding challenge, which is obviously much easier. In other words its really a matter of timing of the funds because we do have these funds that are pledged to the program, they just come in later than we need them. Im not sure what planning for an alternative would look like because i dont know that theres much opportunity to reduce costs at this point, unfortunately. I think were, for all the reasons we discussed previously, i think we somewhat are where we are so i think we do need to continue working with all of the Funding Partners to try to figure out ways that we can bridge this. And it has to happen soon because we need to be able to increase the budget so that we can award the remaining contracts and to meet our tifia loan commitments. So i think its the right path. I think its probably not i think its been complicated for the Funding Partners to try to understand exactly what the needs are, exactly what the future cash flows are because its estimating on Building Development and Housing Development that has not yet happened and is not yet entitled. So i think thats whats been the challenge so i dont think theres been a lack of willingness from the Funding Partners, they just havent arrived at the solution yet. But in my skuptions with them they are aware of the time pressures that we have as a board to adopt an approved budget by november or at the november meeting. I mean at some point we have to have a decision tree. We have no know at this point in time we need to know this, at this point in time we need somewhere else because this is something that is closing in on us and were playing with fire here when we talk about a construction project that were in the midst of. Its all fine, i think, but we need to discipline ourselves and say, okay, weve got to know this. Otherwise the question will come down to, okay, this is what weve got, what can we build . What can we do . How do we handle the amount of money that we actually have . And thats what im thats also a phase that we need to start toying with as well as just the other things, because i dont know where it goes if our Funding Partners, you know, continue to be confused. And i think one of our big problems is that we dont have an up to date Program Budget. That was my sense, particularly the mtc meetings, theyre not sure where the numbers are, particularly yesterday where it was okay, now we have a new kupb continue sdwrepbs si range that we havent heard about before and the city said thats new information. So we kind of have to bring these numbers down to ground in a hurry and say these are the numbers that we need and i dont necessarily hear that as really definitively were going to be doing that. The mtc risk review or cost review has definitely changed and complicated the picture. Folks were working based on one set of numbers, the 247 number, up until friday and now its a larger number. The sooner that mark and company can get that risk workshop done and get the region consensus on what the right number is, then they can finish solving for it. And i agree with mark that its important to get that consensus because the region is going to be part of, is going to be part of the solution for this, not to mention phase ii. So i think we want the regions confidence in whatever budget we adopt here at this board. Mark, by what date or sarah does that consensus have to be reached . To that end we were going to talk about next steps. As we were saying we need to adopt i got it we need to adopt a Program Budget, an updated Program Budget, by november. If we are moving beyond november we are looking at schedule delays and commensurate Cost Increases on the back end of the project. So this month, today mark will be going over the details of awarding the toping slab trade package and the importance of that trade package in the overall scheme of things. We also this month would execute a change order for metal column covers. This is work that was out as part of a trade package but the particular subcontractor that was part of that is already under contract to us so we can execute a change order with that subcontractor and save the mark up that would have been included as part of the other package. Also today ill be presenting to you the adoption of a fiscal year budget. We had done interim onemonth budgets for july, august and september, but we would go ahead and recommend that adopting a fiscal year budget today for the remainder of the fiscal year can always be maeblded amended in the future and this is what we did in 2015 for the fiscal year 14 budget when we were in the midst of updating the budged in 2013. Also on your agenda today is an amending to the Construction Management oversight contract to bring them through this fiscal year. Then in october, as weve been talking about, this month as well as into october we would continue to work with the local and regional Funding Partners to come up with a funding plan, continue to work with mtc, have the joint Risk Management workshop, et cetera, and then in november we would be coming to you with the final Program Budget and any awards that needed to be done by the end of the year. There are of course two awards that would not occur until 2016 in any case and that would be bus storage and the ip network and mark can come up if ive missed anything that he wanted to cover on this slide. I just have one other question on this. One of the things mtcs cost review said was recent s have been 179 percent over estimates. Thats my own mental thing was more like 45 percent. Really, is that accurate . Its 179 percent over . You know, i havent checked their numbers. We gave them our numbers and they sliced and diced the way they did it. I dont know how they arrived at the 179 but the fact of the matter is, you know, weve had several packages that came in more than double our budget, especially recently. So it could be. They are right. It could be. I have to see how they calculated the numbers. Again, we didnt see this presentation until yesterday morning and we didnt see the cost review until friday, last friday, so we havent had a chance to. I guess i just one question that i want to ask is are we still on schedule for 2017 . My understanding, ill bring in jess and steve here, if we were to award all the trade packages between now and november we should be able to hit the opening of december 2017 but were running very close. Yes . No . So as was mentioned earlier we have had some delays in structural Steel Manufacturing that have affected the schedule. We are currently looking for substantial completion of the bus portion of the facility at the end of 2017, very close to that right now on schedule and then the roof park is currently pushing out into early 2018. Thank you. Maybe you can educate me a little bit. Is there a regular pattern for the tjpa to get mtc cost reviews on is this like an annual thing or is this a new thing for tjpa this was a result, we had a parcel that mtc had interest in, had interest in 13 square feet of it. And when we went to the board to ask them to release that interest because it was associated with parts that were left, the board requested that we do a budget update to them. So we went and did a budget update to the full commission and as a result of the budget update they were concerned about us using a 30 percent confidence level for the risk contingency and they asked their staff to do a cost review. So its not a regular occurrence and hopefully doesnt happen again, but it was a result of us asking them to release an interest of 13 square feet. So what sparked it was their concern about the contingency in the presentation. The 30 percent confidence level that Risk Management is proposing. So you have a federal Oversight Agency that have their thoughts about contingency level so is that part of the discussion you will be having with both a federal agency as well as mtc yes, we have discussions with fta when we decided to recommend the 30 percent level. Initially fta did want a 50 percent level. We talked to them about the rationale for using 30 percent at this stage of the project, given that were 50 Percent Complete and so forth, and there is no objection to our approach. So we proceeded with the board at a 30 percent level. Now mtc is looking at it differently we will have discussions with them and arrive at a mutual solution. Who was the team at mtc that did the cost. It was a combination of ty lynn and cal traup. Ty lynn about the cost review and cal traup did the risk review. You said they took approximately 4 to 6 months . No, no, no. It was july 22nd is when the commission asked staff for the cost review, the week after we provided them all the data that we have and they have been working on it ever since. Last friday they provided us with a draft report so last friday was. Its a few weeks. Yeah, it was weeks, it was not months. I think it was like 4 weeks by the time the interim contract and so forth to the consultants. And then on the recommendation where theres approval of the change orders by the Funding Partners, what has sparked, what was the genesis for that recommendation . Where does that come from . I dont know, we havent had discussions with them to understand why they wanted i think its just because they are going to be a funding partner, they are a funding partner, they are going to be part of the solution and they wanted to see firsthand the change orders that were issuing. But this is just seeing it, this is approving. And this is our concern. Approving it means another step in the approval process that would delay the final approval so we would like them to be able to review and comment but not approve it. But we do share our change orders with the San Francisco county already so its not unusual for a cost funding partner to ask to look at change orders. My last question is at one of our Board Meetings ac transit did a presentation about the need for the bus storage site and i think we had concerns about their ability to pay for the lease if it was put into place. I wasnt clear as to how that issue was closed or not closed. My understanding is that issue, they have agreed to fund the lease. That issue i think is closed. And were, our budget assumes that the bus Storage Facility is included. Proposed budget, i should say, inaudible budget. Thank you. Thats our informational item . Yeah. It is but you do have a member of the public who wants to address you on it. Good afternoon, directors. Heres my two cents, its not necessarily what you are going to want to hear but here it goes any way. I dont think we are in a position to argue with mtc its counter productive. We should not do that. Basically go along with them, they are our partner, this is what they are telling us to do which is basically to toe the line. The second thing i want to say is that we have been in the habit of pointing a gun at someone elses head and telling them, you better cough up or else. That backfired in our faces big time. We should never ever do that again. So where does that leave us . Well, basically we know the money is coming in from all sorts of sources so what we need is a line of credit or some kind of loan thats going to get us through this very difficult period we are going through. I think its 171 million, no one wants to go there again. What i would say right now is you want to look at risk. Belaruss, last time i checked they were 30 billion dollars. You probably have the billion dollars in house there, you should be able to get half a billion out of that and i will basically leave that with you for now. Thank you. Thank you, roland. Go ahead and call your next item. Oh, another speaker . Patrick . Thank you, jim patrick with patrick and company. As i study that Financial Report and as i remember the high speed rail, the argument was whats the Business Plan . Where is your Business Plan . How is it going to work . I dont see any reference to the projected income that we should make from our tenants from the bus operators, from the train operators, and that is an asset. Presumably you have those leases in place, if i were to build a building i get a lease that enhances the value of that building. Therefore you can certainly borrow on that future revenue. I think we have discounted the revenue unless we are planning to give this structure to those tenants for nothing, i think were planning to charge something. Quite frankly i dont know what it is. I think thats an important asset we havent considered in this calculation. Thank you, mister patrick. I think that concludes member s of the public who wish to address on you that item. 14 is adoption of the fiscal year budget in an amount not to exceed 35 thundershower,341,200. The board will report on this. Good morning again, directors. This is the proposed fiscal year budget for the remainder of the fiscal year through june 30th, 2016. It would in whole replace the interim budgets that were adopted for july, august and september. It would not be in addition to those interim budgets. You do have a budget policy in place that does state that you will adopt a fiscal year budget. Typically its done before the beginning of the fiscal year. We had planned to update the Program Budget by september so we had consequently planned to do the fiscal year budget at the same time and base the fiscal year budget on the updated budget. However, as weve just been discussing, since the Program Budget will not be brought to you until the octobernovember time frame, we feel its prudent to go ahead and adopt a fiscal year budget now exactly as we did in 2015. Its based on the budget that is in place now, the 1899, and would be amended as necessary. We did this in fiscal year 14 and in that particular year there were four amendments, subsequent amendments, to the fiscal year budget, all within the budget policy. This past year, fiscal year 15, we have had three amendments to the fiscal year budget all within the budget policy, so there would not be an issue with doing the same for fiscal year 16. This proposed Capital Budget is just over 354 million. The vast majority of it is for construction, 98 percent of the budget is for what we call professional and Specialized Services and 302 million of that is for construction specifically. There are also, theres a very small amount budgeted for closing out the right of way acquisition process, a very small amount as well for administration but again the vast majority is for construction and id be happy to answer any questions but it is a balanced budget with revenue or Funding Sources, i should say, identified to cover the planned expenditures and it is just a slice, a oneyear slice, of the overall Program Budget. Questions . What is it that necessitates we do this . Why is it that we have to do this . We have a budged policy that states that you will do it and its always best practice to follow your boardapproved financial policies. And thats it . Our own policy that we we havent done this for the last few months, weve just done Monthly Budgets. Weve done Monthly Budgets, yes. Why arent we doing another Monthly Budget. For one it takes staff time to do this every month along with preparing the item for the board. We are a liplgts shortstaffed right now, we had a staff member move on to another agency so along with getting ready to produce Financial Statements and try to close the books for the year it would be one less thing to do to be adopting a Monthly Budget every month. Also in addition to just being financial best practice and following your own policy, it does serve as appropriation control for the administrative items in the budget, those items identified by italics. Most of our authorization control comes when you authorize award of a contract and we issue notices to proceed with a contract but there are certain line items that are not approved by contract so that comes through adoption of this fiscal year budget. So thats the control in there. You can make payroll if we do not do this . We can make payroll if you do. But you cant pay people if you dont do this . If we dont have budget appropriated, no, we would not be able to legally pay people. Legally pay people in september. We have a onemonth budget for september but beyond september we do not have. My problem with that is its the 1. 89 billion and weve been talking for 6 or 7 months about how that is not the number any more. You know, were depending on, you know, which week were meeting its anywhere from 250 to 400 Million Dollars short and i just dont like the idea of the board coming in and doing a document and setting a budget based upon something that theres so much of a record on is not accurate numbers. Thats my problem and id like to do something that satisfies the need without putting the board on record for going back to a budget thats over two years old and saying, well, were going to just kind of pretend that thats still a real budget when its just a budget in the sense that, yeah, thats what we did back in july 2013 that seemed to be a balanced budget for us so its still balanced. Well, sorry, i lost my train of thought. Ive really