rises to some of the other buildings and structures we talk about. >> okay. let me try to address this as confidently as i can. first of all, as maria mentioned, when we were involved in the project about two years ago, we looked at the urs recommendations for security and they identified a broad range of what are considered rational and identifying threats by law enforcement and intelligence communities. these involve a series of events and many recommendations that have been identified will had been the building survive a seismic event and the emergency responder community of the occupants of the building in an enhanced position for life safety and then there is the

use of explosives, potential arsonists events or someone introducing something into air. this is from san francisco, chicago, atlanta, houston or new york. these are published expectation by our law enforcement and friends down in washington. i think the east coast has been an unfortunate target and as we work around the country, we look at geographic opportunities that represent smaller or larger, and the answer is no. we have had events in washington and new york, i don't have the opportunity and denny's mentioned that she didn't have the opportunity to grant the relief based on where the country s we don't have the opportunity to look at ourselves. the issue of cost, these wide

range of threats imply a broad range of protective design strategies. some of them involve the structure of the building, some involve the facade of the building, some involve the fire protection system of the building and some involve the air handling of the building. when you look at threat and mitigation strategy you can spend a lot of money in spending on high level of protection. urs has researched the threats what's plausible and credible and the fatalities the building could endure. to your point, director harper, you can't build a building that will sustain no damage but on the other hand it's irresponsible to design a

building without expectation to no damage. we are trying to expand on that. it was set by the civil engineers society. a standard was identified that said the building should not engage in disproportion of damage and collapse. this is a highly constructed structure of size and steel. the enhancement of this building, fredz building to a minor degree is never a minor cost. we have an awful lot of ton aj and a lot of steel. i want to ensure that you the standard for the performance is a standard by every structural engineered. we

don't want it to be disproportionate. it's an industry best practical. we have a partnership as a security consulting and engineering firm with firms like thomas setey who is with blast design and the premiere of blast designs and they have worked with the pentagon and worked with the coals, and what we did was asked the executive director to allow to us bring in best of class people to say, you know, we have this explosive event threat that's

been identified by urs, we have thomas seteyb one of the premier engineers in the world. let's look at possible damage. we like to compete with each other and bring different viewpoints to the subjects because that's our responsibility. >> bob, can i, just top to be helpful with time can you go over the budgetary recommendations. we can go through all the dooms day scenarios. but we are more interested in the fs fiscal lens of this. >> we've had a series of threats, from a budget

perspective. there are relatively and were relatively minor structural enhancement required because the building was extra ordinarily robust. as the building begins to move, the structural design of the building had to take into consideration. there were recommendations made with respect to the steel members and the cast notes in an attempt to optimize the cost. we worked with kelly adam son team and partners, we attempted to identify in the glass design of the building ways to find a means to make that glass facade

as safe as possible and material connections. for the metal facade you heard bob talked about a savings there. the engineering team in part of our guidance and part under fred's guidance are working on that metal facade, not only the wonderful ace aesthetics he proposed to you and we found ways to enhance the opportunity for the sprinkler system in the building to survive through very minor and important motivations in modifications in the way the structure is designed and we introduced a loop piping system. this was a very inexpensive solution that increased the reliability of the sprinkler system enormously. another

recommendation we made is the building is at tall enough so it wouldn't get so much pressure from the water system and they recommend and additional fire pump. on the fire alarm system, we took a look at the redundancy system of putting of multiple devices and found a way to rewire the fire alarm system using alternate panels so they would have detectors wired to each so if the loss of one would allow the fire protection system survive. not completely, the fire department can still see the fire spread. on the standpoint of situational awareness we have a very comprehensive building. >> quickly on the sprinkler and alarm, what was the cost reduction there?

>> i can give you the numbers. bob beck can do that? >> maybe we should have bob goes through the numbers. that's what i'm interested in. >> i wanted to give you the process rational so although we are looking at the protection requirement we put together a world class team of engineers. each experts in fire protection, fire alarms, communication, structural design, hvac, so as recommendations came in from urs, we could not only validate whether they were rational, we looked at the team that they were assembling and with their very specific expertise in these areas try to find the best solution to achieve a rational set of protective design standards. i will turn it back over to bob. >> thank you. >> i also want to -- i think that no one here argues that

this is not a world class proposal and i think that we are pleased to see that so much thought has been put into this. but i think the question the board is asking again and again is are we looking at the most cost-effective measures in terms of taxpayer dollars and we need to establish that with a world class system. we can't get everything we want to see, obviously we want the platinum level but given the cost increases we have to ask these questions of how we can best prioritize the dollars that we have bought take without taking away from other projects or phase 2. if we can't do that, then of course we are going to move forward with what we are being proposed to today. i just want to explain why i'm asking these questions over again. >> yeah. thank you, chair. yes, i would just add to what

maria said and what bob said that tgpa staff and programming management team in particular, i think we were at the forefront of providing the tension, the balance that you are asking about from a fiscal perspective. we understand that our mandate is to lever the project on time and on budget. so, in looking at these recommendations and prior to making any recommendations to increase the budget, tjpa staff and management team have questioned the security teams, security sme's and the design team in their desired response

to the guidance that was provided to try and drive the solutions to the most cost-effective means. we do have several hundred individual design guidance criteria here ranging in an estimated impact from 10s to secure recommendation to see if there might not be altering means and of course with the security s me's we have from to provide a

closing access to the ground level. the munis bus plaza, buses are arriving with such frequency that the bus plaza is open for vehicles to enter and pick up passengers and exit and it was suggested that when the bus plot was not in operation or only a portion of the bus plaza was in operations or in

circumstances of increased threat intelligence that we have a means to close access to the bus plaza. the design team initially estimated came up with a concept to install at the fremont street entrance to the bus plaza through our conversation with the security s m e's and the urs team and design team discussed a number of potential alternatives including while a portion of the plaza was not in operation can we just park a bus there rather than in stalling balls

there -- or to prevent threat circumstances. ultimately the recommendation we settled upon was to install the wedge type barriers that you maybe familiar with rather than retractable ball ar, barriers that are in the down position where the roadway is open where compared to other areas where we are using practical ball arred would have design to meet the performance objectives and between the fremont street front aj of the plaza would be for millions of dollars less

than the retractable bal ar. it's an example of the dialogue and that occurred >> also the gfrc, go from at an as the result of the metal >> the g f r c ceiling system from the beginning of the design were proposed to be gfrc, the gfrc has a weight of about 17 pounds per square foot and from the beginning of the design, our design criteria was that those panels should remain this place in a seismic event. that they should not come down and this is under maximum credible event for the bay area

here. that they should not come down or be displaced where they would represent a hazard in the update they designed a system to include a rebound effect if there is a blast below that it pushes the ceiling up and comes back down for if it were above that it suspends the ceiling and there were a number of recommendations made relative to impulses that the framing system that supports the gfrc, should withstand. and

that was going to have an impact on the 6-and-a-half million throughout all the systems in the building. we had previously looked at the opportunities of switching to a metal ceiling because of the complexity of the ceiling systems. there was not a significant -- we didn't see a significant or the design team didn't project a significant situation from gfrc to metal and with the potential impact with the threats of those ceilings coming down that's when we directed the design team to switch alternatives that because the metal ceilings are on the order of 2 pounds

per square foot which is a different situation if one of those metal panels come down rather than gfrc panel came down which is a different criteria. so not are we only able to avoid that impact with the ceiling systems, but the design team is going to be able to bring the cost of the ceilings system from a base design perspective down by several million additional dollars. that's a second example of the dialogue that occurred between the tjpa staff, the design team and the two sets of the security consultants. >> and the glass. can we, i actual have questions back to

the presentation. the opaque grant, the pedestrian elements. how does that help with the production cost? >> first, within our existing budget, anywhere where we can find additional funding to address anything within our current budget, a specific grand application, then it helps make other funds available that can then be used for other sources. at the time we filed the opaque grant application we were aware of the funding that the baseline budget was considering would not be available, so, the 10.2 was part of a solution of back filling the unavailability of

the funding. now it's a factor in a much bigger picture. >> so when you say, back filling the funds that are no longer available for phase 1, would that mean we can use some of this oh bag funding for the terminal and then later funds would be use for the bike and ped routes? >> this would be used for the bike and ped i am improvements for the terminal. what we applied for under the oh bag grant includes all the signage within and surrounding the terminal and bicycle storage facilities and bicycle ramp that connects to the lower concourse. those are the elements of phase 1 program that we were seeking to be

funding by the grant. the discretionary funds, the prs, when are applications for that due? >> i'm going to ask mary prior from our finance team to discuss that. we are in dialogue, i know with the city about tiger 5 program, but i'm not sure about the exact timeframe. >> also when we might hear about the tiffa. i know we made a request to introduce what is currently the norm and when we might know about that as well? >> later this week we'll be talking to tiffa staff and that should layout the application process. it does take some time.

with rating agencies. we'll keep the board appraised of what's going on there. the tiger and prs, they are included but not on any funding bill. >> i think scott would know and to further answer your question, chairperson came on with tiffa. one of the things we'll need to have finalized is the budget and we are working on that soon. >> scott? >> scott, community outreach manager. as mary said the pnrs is not funded in the current

year. last year congress approved through the federal government through 2013, that included funds for tiger roughly similar to what was provided last year. now that those funds have been approved we expect go t also sending applications real soon. >> right. so within a month an application should come out. >> we won't have a firm sense of the dollar amounts or the possibility off tiff ya on these discretionary funds before we have to prove the budget. >> i think that's fair. >> that's how we've been all along over the last 15 years. we don't issue contracts, we do not enter into contracts until the funds are certified.

>> i understand that. it's nice to get a sense of what we may in the future be able to obtain some of this revenue for increased budget, but it's not helpful for this board currently when we go forward and approve this budget before june. >> i have been pretty good at getting the money. i think this chance are pretty good on tiffa, the other once like pnrs, tying tiger is really a priority. we are in discussions right now with the city. >> if our project is identified as the city's top priority our chances are quite good. >> what other projects is the city considering? >> there is a harney way

project. >> that's the only other project that the mayor's office has mention today me to me in our discussions. >> one of the process points when i saw these revenue ideas in this deck, my assumption was that because of the understanding is that our advancing, the design contract to incorporate the rva stuff would result in additional expenditures and that would provide some contacts and remind us of other ideas out there. this budget discussion today was meant to be part of the discussion, the whole discussion will enter details

with a full detail with slides and look at the expenditure side as well. am i correct that this is here for context and we are not discussing the revenue and expenditure item today? >> bob, go ahead. >> you are correct, director, that these were provided for context as kind of additional component of the budget discussion that we weren't able to touch upon in prior meetings, but to provide the board with some background. in making the decision particularly as it relates to the rba, we are not committing to the budget increase at this time, but we thought it would be helpful for the directors to have some context of the types of revenue and potential amounts of revenue that we were

planning to pursue to augment the current budget. >> right. it's helpful and we are not authorizing additional expenditures. we are just laying that out. whenever the time comes when we are going to consider revising the budget on the revenue and expenditure side, we need to look at this in more detail.o that >> that's correct, director. >> back to the security discussion, i guess i want to just maybe clarify a few points in my mind and maybe make a couple suggestions. first with regard to standard such as fema, as well as the intelligence community, for a project such as this, it's also been my experience that the

folks in dhs who establish these standards are not the people who build buildings, they don't generally fund the construction of buildings and in many cases have set standards that render construction of building such a federal essential pass facilities in areas that are unbuildable. i think it's good and fine to start with fema standards, that it doesn't necessarily mean it's a realistic standard. i think it was previously, i'm sure this wasn't the intent but to clarify for the sake of the public of an implication that geography is not a factor in threat assessment. i don't think that's consistent with the current and best thinking in terms of rva's and risk