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 assessment. i'm assuming it was

a risk assessment. we don't want to build buildings that are going to create a disproportional impact or collapse. i'm sure it's now and at the end of the process. it's almost a suggestion that up to this point we have been moving on path of designing that is going to move to progressively collapse. i want to state that for the sake of the public. >> that is not the case. we have prevented a collapse methodology from day one. >> we are all harping on this a little bit. i think the director or chairperson kim has mentioned, we are looking at cost, additional cost which added to whatever the current cost were might be approaching something like 10 percent of the cost of the building. it's a significant amount and nobody is questioning the level of

expertise and the world class credentials. it continues to be a matter of understand of how to dial that protection to the right level especially in light of director lloyd's comments that there is at some point exponential growth cost versus the benefit that you get. so, along those lines, one question is to what extent, if we were to not at the design phase but at the construction phase stage advance to what sense would we get a degree to secure safety act designation or otherwise buy down the liability, are they securing these things that we would be spending $60 million plus on?

>> let me respond to one of your questions and i will answer this question. when fred is given direction, fred clark, to incorporate the design guidance criteria that is embedded by everyone, he's taken to pencil to paper and looking at these numbers hard. the instruction he has from us is estimates to see if we can further refine them and bring them down. on the issue of the documents that are put together by dhs and fema and from a what i understand, the documents that are put together were at least post 9-1-1 and people who do build major structures, they are not put together by lay

people. so, with respect to the geography, i can't speak to that because that's not my level of expertise. i have to depend on all the experts t warriors reason and 49ers stadium are going through a very extensive security system. they don't need to bring it out to the public like we do, but they are, like oklahoma and kansas city, they are. with respect to the safety act designation, the way it works, director, is once we have the design guidance criteria and approved by the board of directors, the next step is we then meet with them again in more detail, we put together and application, there is an extensive application you fill out and denny's will be helping out with that and it's

submitted. we are going to submit volumes and volumes of material and they will come in and make their first determination. they told me on first read it's the best candidate and they will get the certification and designation. in terms of liability, with the question of who is responsible if something happens to the station and after we have implemented? >> no. it was more of a design liability question. >> everybody is liable out there. you want to speak to that, bob? let me have him speak to that so we are a hundred percent clear. >> thank you, director reiskin, i'm guilty of perhaps of not explaining first the geographic relevance. when we looked at along with urs, the population of san francisco which is

around 880,000, the way they address the assessment if the population. threats don't know the physical boundary. an aggressor looks at the effect on a region, not necessarily the contract boundaries of the center. so you are probably the 4th or 5th largest metropolitan area in the united states. the icon structures and some of the places in san francisco, if i didn't clearly explain that, i apologize. secondly, the approval for the project is -- new. it's almost certification by an individual group for the evaluation based on the extent of investigation the client

makes on their own behalf. they are willing to help those that are willing to help themselves. we don't have a very very specific checklist. if you provide this extent of mitigation, this extent of explosive and protection, i wish they had a checklist but they don't. they depend on the end user developer. following fema, 452 guidelines which are their bible and hiring world class professionals where they look at the other federal buildings such as court houses where they impose the infrastructure protection documents and they evaluate subjectively and uniquely each project from the suit ability of these standards. i have worked on a great number of federal buildings and i can

appreciate the interest of the board of directors from wanting to know the design is reasonable. the safety act is by federal partners grant to us because they are the agency granting to you the opportunity to have reduced liability. so, although in fact we think that in many cases these federal standards are important for protective design measures with certification and designation, we are working with their bible. can i guarantee you a vital part of my anatomy that they can grant this? no one in this room or from the federal level can. the investments that you are making