one of the things that economists consider all the time is how much value can really capture, how much you can load on to the price of the company -- of the property with a different mechanisms. we would have to study that in further detail, the ability and well of a city to do that. it takes quite a while for us to get to where we are. >> that is very well-put. from our perspective, it is about the mechanism. specifically, the timing of the mechanism. those things from the development community have changed quite a bit out of boom and bust cycles effectively. it is dynamic, but something worth further study. chair kim: any other comments or questions? we havone >> we have one membere public who would like to comment on this item. >> hello, again. briefly, i come to london, so

everything you said is true. in some extreme cases, we are actually charging developers up to $50 a square foot just because they're close to transit. i want to tell you a big difference in europe. it is in engineering. nobody would consider digging a $2.5 billion hole in the ground in europe. that would not happen. cross-rail, that is started, boring machines. so going from one end of london to another -- [unintelligible] the contract for the tunnels is just over $1 billion. so you really need to go back and rethink about how you're doing dtx. in closing, i will give you a reference. you can google it right now. peter chamley -- he is the best tunnel designer in the world,

end of discussion. if you need references, i believe he is in new york working on the subway. the best reference you're probably going to get is from seattle in what he did for the alaska in sky way. thank you. chair kim: thank you. any other public comment? >> none that i am aware of. chair kim: thank you shatila for the presentation before the sake of the public, we did introduce the mayor's office along with my office, and supervisor olague did introduce the transit center district plan to the full board this previous tuesday. i know that we have a very full board agenda and schedule, but that land use in the full board, but we're working to ensure that this plan comes before land use on monday, july 16, and then it will come to the full board for the first reading on july 24 and for a final vote on july 31. we do encourage members of the public to come out and speak at

the land use committee if you'd like to give your feedback then. >> thank you. chair kim: can we move to our next item, please? >> item 10, approving the operating assistance proposal dated may 25, 20 fell -- 2012, and the resolution of project compliance for the allocation of regional measured two funds in an amount not to exceed $4,088,691 for the transbay transit center program. >> directors, each of our founding partners of different procedures for requesting and receiving an allocation. mtc requested two funds in an amount not to that we submit materials, including a resolution approved by our board. so both this item in the next are for mtc allocation. this is for the operating funds for the temporary terminal. these are rm2 funds, and they

are escalated each year. at this time, they are up to just over $4 million. we will submit the resolution and operating assistance proposal to mtc. they had actually already seen it and have a calendar for next month. as the year goes on, we invoice mtc for our operating expenditures. i am happy to answer any questions. chair kim: thank you. any questions? >> we have no members of the public that want to address you on this item that i am aware of the motion to approve. >> second. chair kim: ok. director lloyd: aye. vice chair metcalf: aye. director reiskin: aye. director ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. item 10 is approved. item 11, approving the updated initial project report dated june 14, 2012, and a resolution

of project plans for the allocation of regional measure 1/ab 1171 bridge toll funds in the amount of $73,700,000 for the transbay transit center program. >> this is our second submission to mtc. this is for capital funds. it will be either ab 1171 bridge toll funds or a combination including regional measure 1/ab. it has various pieces of the scope, including continuation of design on the transit center in the bus ramp. the structural consultant, which is contacted on your agenda today. continuation of the pre- construction services. it will allow us, in combination with the fra funds to certified the contract was awarded later in the year. the total allocation would be

$73.7 million. this is also calendar for this month, it contingent on your approval today. director reiskin: two quick questions. you have a table that shows the needs of the projects and then the amount of bridge tolls going for those. the balance of that, is that fully funded? the balance of those needs? >> yes. for instance, on the pale, the balances would be a combination -- some of this would be ac-the transit funded. some would be funded by the transportation authority of san francisco county. the below grade structure balance would be funded by fra, as well as on the web course side, the balance would be largely fra. for the warranty phase, i am not

sure without looking. that may be the subject of a future allocation a kress -- request of the ta. director reiskin: ok, and how did we size the request, and when do we anticipate the next one? >> we look at our commitment schedule and when we need to certify contracts, and that is how we go about sizing the allocation requests. the below grade structure contract, even though $90 million is not going to be spent anywhere near in the next year or so, we need to be able to start sizing the whole amount. that is how we go about sizing. looking ahead to cash flows, we have been in discussions with mtc. we think the next bridge toll request would possibly be before the end of this calendar year. director reiskin: ok, thank you. chair kim: any other questions?

any public comment? >> no members of the public indicated they wanted to address you on this item. chair kim: we have a motion and a second. >> -- director lloyd: aye. vice chair metcalf: aye. director reiskin: aye. director ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. 5 ayes. item 11 is approved. next item, number 12, authorizing the executive director to execute a professional services agreement with cast connex corporation to provide engineering and administrative services for architecturally exposed structural cast steel notes for the transbay transit center. >> good morning, board. just to describe this, cast steel knows the connections

between all the tubular steel members that you see in the building, and they occur at the bottom at the ground level, the middle at the bus level, and at the roof level. this is connecting tubular steel pieces together. that is what a cast node is. this shows the three different sites along the side rendering. and going to blow up, top one. what we did with this one, because it is near the very top and is not entirely visible, we look to alternatives and came up with a combination were the top part of this connection is fabricated steel, welded plates, and the only casting is the shoes a the bottom. so these items, in fact, are now repetitive, and they each way 6,300 pounds of casting, but it is a lot less than casting the

whole thing. the next level down is the three-three connection at the bus level. these are varied because the heights of the building varies, so they're very specific castings. each of these way 18,800 pounds. large pieces of steel. the lowest level is the bottom connections. this is the most simple one all along the side, we had the two major tubes coming down. the worst and most difficult ones are at the end of the building were you have a triple tubes coming in. so these ground level casting's very because they have the most loathed. between 23,000 pounds and 45,000 pounds. altogether, there are about 4 00 of these castings. this is a lot of steel.

what we're recommending is to do a first phase preparation, and it has more than the present documents. this provides a detailed testing specifications in production schedules, some bid drawings and some degree of optimization. if we can cut 10% of that steel out, that is a couple million dollars saved. i believe in saving money, but not risking anything. that first part will be delivered, those documents to get into the bid, for the steel structural package at the end of this year, and there will be delivered by the end of august. the second phase is to start preparation on the final manufacturing drawing, the ones that would go to manufacture these. this is a huge effort.

because they're not all identical. and the delivery date of that is april 2013. the third phase would be during the construction phase, and this consultant would go out to the foundries to witness the actual first castings, to get the job and a final production as fast as possible. the reason we're doing this is to start this work now so it provides much better information to the bidders said they did not put conservative price assumptions on what might or might not happen. that could put a 10% difference on how the risk is looked at. the yearly preparation will save about six months time. if we wait to do it after we are awarded the bid next year, we lose the six months. we would have at least the first

200 items ready to go to casting. cast connex is very small, about a 15-person specialized engineering company. the have been doing this for 10 years. they provide exactly the the services in this. recent experience, in the past 18 months there have been the castings for the world trade center three building in new york. transportation hub in toronto. a seismic-resistant industrial building in livingston, california. and a couple of major office buildings in canada. they are a specialist firm. the price of $1.2 million is a fixed-price contract. between the three phases, it is about 10% less than the engineer's estimate.

i would recommend approval of this contract, please. chair kim: thank you. are there any comments or questions? director reiskin: i am wondering if you have a sense of why so few bids -- i know one of the bidders did not want to conflict themselves out of construction work. >> one of them only have a couple of engineers. and if they bid on this, they would not be able to do the casting. there certainly the prime cast for the top loads. the cannot do the big ones. they have worked with cast connex before. there are other companies we could have stretched out to to do this work. director reiskin: thank you.

chair kim: any other questions? thank you. any public comment? >> i am not aware of any members who wanted to comment on this side of. chair kim: do we have a motion? we have a motion and a second. director lloyd: aye. vice chair metcalf: aye. director reiskin: aye. director ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. 5 ayes, and item 12 is approved. >> let's move to our next item. >> item 13, approving an amendment to contract 08-04- cmgc-000 authorizing webcor/obayashi as the responsible bidder, submitting the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $168,528 for tg06.2,

rounding system, and thereby increasing the authorized direct costs under the contract. >> we went through a pre- qualification process for this, and we received two bids on may 17 from a pre qualified firms. the low bid was submitted and was $21,000 above the engineer's estimate or 1.3%. the other one was 307,000, 19% above the engineers a bit. that is one choice. but it is not a certified sbe, but the middle 40% commitment for participation in their bid proposal. nearly all of this subcontract work is actually performed by

mission construction. these are all local san francisco companies who will be doing the excavation, pipe installation, and backfill work. it is the heavy work. it is a specialized firm. they have excellent experience. how they got pre-qualified, they have done jobs as big as this, and there are not many around. this is a huge footprint. they did a loop installation for two major tower buildings in las vegas. there also have been, because there's a lot of plumbing work involved, they actually have an $8.5 million contract for the sfpuc administration building here in this city. local participation, and i am very pleased that we got a company with this type of expertise.

vice chair ortiz: having to be the lowest bidder for small businesses -- do you find that when you're soliciting rfp's the small businesses, because of their size, have a difficult time being the lowest bidder compared to a bigger company? >> there are two phases. the answer to your question is, some of the contracts, the really small contracts, there is no problem. the larger ones, they really have to be -- for a small business to take on a very large contract, getting bonding for really big contract is difficult, which is why we split it up. the next item will help answer your question. vice chair ortiz: this was just in general. >> in general, we have managed to reach the targets or have

been setting. and we have been getting good local firms. but there are only a limited number. chair kim: just for clarification on this item, i noticed that there were two sub tear contractors is a part of this bid. it says they will have a minimum of 40% sbe participation. >> actually, when this bid was put together, they actually named three lower tiered. but in that commission construction and gerald avenue was in fact 35% of this, of the total contract. that was the meaningful subcontract for real work. the other, while there were over 10%, get marked down because they are really suppliers of specialist equipment. therefore, there is a marked down. it is put in by somebody else.

the company is delivering specialized equipment for this job. city source is a small local business and it is really rental equipment. but this gives people in in to getting into a big contract like this, for small companies. chair kim: thank you. director reiskin: i would commend the staff for setting a 40% goal. that is a pretty aggressive goal, and you have achieved it with a local san francisco company. that is great. same with the next company, setting it aside for sbe's. that is great. but again, only two bids on this one and two bids on the next one. i know there is a pre qualification process. is there any concern on why we're getting so few bids generally? >> things are getting is near --

and this year. that is a slight concern of mine. in specialized works, we did get more for the next one, the grounding system. we did get a few other companies. i think there was one other in this that did not pre qualify, just because their track record and their bonding capacity was so low. i mean, this is a huge footprint. it is not the normal putting a geothermal into a small office building. director reiskin: thank you. chair kim: any other comments? is there any public comment? >> no members of the public want to address you on this item. chair kim: thank you. >> motion to approve. >> second. chair kim: motion and second. director lloyd: aye. director metcalf: aye. director reiskin: aye. vice chair ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. 5 ayes, approved. chair kim: thank you.

>> item 14, approving an amendment to contract number it 08-04-gmgc-000 authorizing webcor/obayashi joint venture to award a contract, in the amount of $168,528, an increasing the authorized direct cost and increasing the authorized construction services fixed fee by $13,819.30. >> directors, we received two bids on may 17. the same closing bid, because these two contracts run together. the low bid was submitted by bass and electric -- bass electric, and it was $1,400 below the lowest estimate. the other bid was submitted by a company not in san francisco but

actually not very far away. their bid was $150,000 above or 90% above the engineer's estimate. i think because they would have to be traveling in and out to do this work, which is for the grounding system. i was very happy bass electric is a certified dbe firm, and they will be doing 100% of the work. it is they're kind of work. the company was formed in 1996 and they have been providing services throughout the city since that time. i have not found anyone who was unhappy with their work. chair kim: thank you. any questions or comments? we have a motion and second. any public comment? >> no members would like to address you on that item. director lloyd: aye. director reiskin: aye. director metcalf: aye.

vice chair ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. 5 ayes, and item 14 is approved. next item is number 15, authorizing the executive director to execute amendment number two to the professional services agreement with carneghi-blum and partners for real estate appraisal services,e agreement to five years without increasing the maximum compensation. >> i am outside counsel for the tjpa. good morning. this is a contract to extend the time of performance for appraisal services. it does not involve an appropriation of any additional money. the appraiser is providing ongoing consultation of this to attempt to settle and require right of way for the project and to appraise parties such as a portion of the 201 mission

property, to complete the assemblage of part 5 for development. and potentially deposition and trial testimony for those cases that were unable to settle. chair kim: thank you. i see that this is a contract extension for an additional three months, and carneghi has completed 60% of the contract amount. do we expect that they will wind down the remaining -- am i speaking on the wrong item? >> no, it is five years. chair kim: i think i misread that. >> the previous amendment was for three months. chair kim: ok. i am serri, the first amendment. my apologies. the second amendment is for an additional three years? >> five years. chair kim: 5 years. 3, with the option to extend to five years.

ok. just for the remaining amount of the contract, ok. thank you for that clarification. is there any other questions or comments? >> motion to approve. >> second. chair kim: any public comment? >> no public comment. director lloyd: aye. director metcalf: aye. director reiskin: aye. vice chair ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. 5 ayes, and item 15 is approved. chair kim: thank you. next item. >> item 16, approving the minutes of the april 12, 2012 meeting. this is carried over from our last meeting due to missing members and we were unable to move the minutes at that time. chair kim: thank you. we do have the approval of the minutes of the april 12, 2012 meeting. >> motion to approve. oh, i was not here.

>> vice chair ortiz: and director reiskin were not here. no members wanted to address you on that item. chair kim: we have a motion and a second. director lloyd: director metcalf: -- director lloyd: aye. director metcalf: aye. director reiskin: abstain. vice chair ortiz: abstain. chair kim: aye. we will go ahead and approve the minutes. our final item, approving the minutes of the may 10, 2012 meeting. >> moved. >> and i was here. second. no members of the public on the to addressee. director lloyd: aye. director metcalf: aye. >> ok.

>> he watched the video. i am abstaining. metcalf will abstain. director reiskin: aye. vice chair ortiz: aye. chair kim: aye. 4 ayes, a and one abstained. minutes are approved. chair kim: thank you. that was our final item. any other announcements? >> no. >> seeing none, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.