won't be available for phase 1 construction. the other revenue sources that we've identified as potential funding strategy for the adjustment in the phase budget would be to increase the loan amount. we are beginning the dialogue with it to make those adjustments. that potentially could result in as much as $97 million in additional revenue to the program. sales tax that the programmed out in future years to phase 1, that would result in about $15 million in phase 1 funding. we have a pending grant through the one bay area grant program to fund pedestrian area for bikes just

over $10 million and we are ranked highly in that process and expect to hear something later in this spring with the success of that grant. also potentially accelerating grants from phase 2, likely through a no interest loan from one of our partners. the phase the can't be developed until actual phase 1. because of the restrictions of the use of land sale revenues, we are looking at this to construct only a relatively small portion of a half million dollars which would leave the bulk of revenue in excess of a million dollars

in phase 2 and what we look to pursue in prs, tiger and other grant programs on the security side of things to further balance the program. when we bring a budget update and budget recommendations we've also bring you a picture of the potential revenue opportunities. >> director, metcalf. >> director metcalf, thank you for the great presentation. bob, sorry i should know this, wlaets the what's the source of repayment for the loan? >> tax increment from the redevelopment areas. >> okay. the thing i think we need to be careful of is not robbing from phase 2 in order

to pay for phase 1. whenever there is a flexible funding source that we think could be to phase 2 and use for phase 1, decrease the likelihood of getting the dtx done. of the revenue sources you have laid out i'm unclear of where you fall into that category. we have to be careful. taking from phase 2, although you say it's a small amount, $10 million, is that already for the first phase? >> that was programmed out in fiscal year 34. it's unlikely available for phase 2 as well. >> okay. that's a relative

small amount. the tiffa loan? >> there are two components to the tiff a -- loan. when we entered into agreement with the department of transportation, the interest rate was locked in at a rate that we thought at that time was very attractive rate for the p g a, but as interest rate has declined, it's now below. so if we were to, if did i tive ya grease agrees to the new market, we are paying less interest in order to borrow greater amount. the second coverage is the

ratio that they use in calculating the loan amount for which we can be authorized. the original coverage ratio was set at 3 times the coverage of the repayment with some of the land sales, transactions now being concluded. there is a little bit more certainty from the revenue of that tax increment and from the second component alone is to request a reduction in the ratio from 3 to 2-and-a-half. >> the only dollar amount we are looking $3 to 2-and-a-half. >> the only dollar amount we are looking at is 10-and-a-half million from landfills. we can go for other pots if the city would be applying for other things that maybe munis needs

or a dpw needs. at the end of the day, we have to stay on schedule because every time we delay or any delay is about 2-and-a-half million in administrative alone and we have to build the station to get the trains in. we have to be helpful so city can be helpful. we are trying to recognize the realities of the needs of the city and try to go to our pots first. we don't have to do that. with your support we are going to prs and tiger spots and make the transbay a priority. it's a call . >> dr. harper? >> i understand the risk for the design guidance criteria,

that this is what you have to do. we are mainly doing this on the advice of the risk and vulnerability of the assessment which is a reliability conscious here? >> there are several factors that play into risk and vulnerability in the process. the first is that we are following a fema dhs for the assessment of what are called design basis for both natural and potential man-made threats that could impact the transit center. so we are following a federally established set of guidelines. the second component there is that it is from our assessment is kind of the standard of practice, the standard of care for a facility of our nature. and then the

third component that you touched upon from a reliability perspective, is that through this prospect and the document of this process, we do intend to apply for a safety act certification, the safety act was passed in 2002 and it's a federal program again to evaluate the design of systems and facilities to document the kind of again the standard of care being taken in their design from a threat perspective and make recommendations for the liability and insurance that those facilities should carry after certifying that adequate care has been taken in the design and establishing the limits of liability, the safety act caps the liability of the

agency in the event of an incident to those in insured levels. >> and we are meeting the recommendation up to a hundred percent of the recommendation? >> yes. up to this point we are recommending whether there are elements that can be reasonably fulfilled in phase 2, we are doing that but the guidance from the security team and our experts that have reviewed the material, all the recommendations they have made they believe the t gpa should implement over time. >> there is a lot of qualitative ideas on to what the whole thing is i'm sure. what i would like to be careful

if not being in a situation when it comes to something like metal fatigue and things, it's an exponential thing. sometimes, for 50 percent of the cost, you can achieve 85 percent of the benefit because as you try get up towards a standard that's very difficult, it just really -- i would just be interested in knowing if we might not be in a case where if we backed off from a hundred percent to something that i will phrase as more realistic, but i don't know, but in terms of something that could save us a lot of money, it would be interesting to know because you can safety yourself to death. and i don't want to be in a situation where we are -- and i don't know where these people are coming from. i don't know how much, what they are

considering but i think it's worthy for us here in san francisco to take a look at and if we have the discretion to be able to back off from something that somebody else is saying, that if we have that discretion to at least look at the numbers and to see if there is maybe a significant savings from just of a minor backing off of that? >> director harper, we have about a hundred million dollars. you have not been to the last two board meetings where we have gone over this extensively. there is no fluff here. we've looked at these numbers very carefully. we have taken everything to phase 2. we changed the gfrc ceilings to metal, for example. >> i'm fine with that, there is just one particular point on this issue of looking at this

design guidance criteria >> that's what i'm referring to. >> to back off from the hundred percent all. that's all. >> i'm not sure, i'm sorry, bob. because you have presented at the last few meetings. i'm not snur we need to go through. >> i'm satisfied with that. >> the question still remabs remains from other directors. you are not the only person asking that question. what makes it's difficult is that we are hearing from one consultant and it's difficult when we don't have a third party entity to show us the analysis of this is what is necessary. >> we heard from urs as the first consultant that did the design guidance criteria, that's consult no. 1, and we had consult no. 2 along with

people like kevin dran, it's not just one consultant. maybe you can go over the list of all the people that have looked at this as well as the independent 3 rd parties that have looked at this to date. >> okay. thank you. yes, the design guidance criteria were prepared by a security team from urs corporation security division led by denny's signs and acting by repeating repealing and designing with bob with security and bob from

widely associates and kevin duran, and smoke and fire life safety issues. so we have a comprehensive team looking at the work product being parade by urs. to say a few words of director harper's questions, the team first set out to establish kind of the level of importance and the level of protection for the facility as a whole and what was defined for our project was an ise medium for level of protection. so it's not the most stringent level of security protection,

and the impacts for our project and the criteria for our project are influenced a lot by the intended design and operation of the facility that the facility is intended to be a very open facility, a transit facility where people come to it expecting to come and go without delays and so forth. so some of the security implications or origination recognize those operational needs of the facility and are addressed surveillance and other issues, but a lot of the impact as i discussed at prior meetings are really what we would call multi-hazard design guidance criteria. there are many of the recommendations are

in intended to ensure the continuity of operation of fire sprinkler systems, communication systems, power systems and emergency exiting pathways across a broad range of incidents. of course in the bay area the first thing that always comes to mind is earthquakes but also potential man-made disasters. so that's a little more background on kind of the team composition and the kind of what was established as a basic line for the standard of care. perhaps bob could answer more questions. >> if i can ask a little bit about the process because maybe i misunderstand. my understanding was that more

that dvs and u r s work together. are you saying that urs came up with the plan and dvs evaluated it? >> yes. >> they work in separate stuff? >> yeah. the work product we have is the urs work product prepared in draft form. the design team assessed what they if elt the cost impacts would be and dvs and our other sme's wait in to help facilitate that dialogue and to suggest alternative ways of addressing the concerns. bob, in addition to although he specializes in the security realm is a structural engineer as well and

can help bridge that security to design perspective and help us optimize the solutions that we are addressing, the design objective. >> whose role sit to is it to look at the fiscal -- his role is to look at the space and make sure it's secure and possible. i think there is a 3rd lens that needs to look at what is more reasonable and fiscally effective use of our dollars. i think what i'm personally hung up on is that i look at a citywide budget and so when we talk about increasing cost for the terminal and we are saying either be go to phase 2 or other grants that munis is

working on whether it's capital cost and thinking about our taxpayer dollars, it's hard to swallow this increase. so i'm constantly looking at ways that we can cut this even more. roughly a third has been through interest of our security, design increases, another third is the increase of cost construction comes when the economy is doing well. there is stlaelths very little that we can do and impact that. the why i keep asking these questions is that i want to know that we are looking at every avenue and for me to talk to the security consultants is not going to help me hear that. i think it's important to hear from neutral ones, someone looking eight from at it from a larger perspective. >> i hear what you are saying.

part of the confusion there wasn't a lot of time and we weren't able to get all the information. just so you know we were looking at it from the fiscal end and one of bob's roles was to look at it from a fiscal lens and he's worked on the world trade center. urs would recommended something and he would say there is a cheaper way to do this. the finances team were also looking at it from a cost perspective. i will let bob talk about this. it's always looked at from a financial point of view. >> if i can just add to that, we have a lot of large projects that i think are kind of --

symbolic buildings or structures here in san francisco, so we are definitely taking a very conservative approach and i look at the stadium and look at us building an arena on a pier and looking at a lot of different structures here in san francisco and i don't see the same level of rigor and when i look at new york, that has millions of people in the city, comparing to san francisco that where we have a million people in the city here in san francisco, so it's important to why when you scale it here to a terminal that is going to transit at the golden gate, at least for time being how to 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