starting there. but now there will be the same thing and one of them may be, let's say steel and the other one may be a chef steel and they will have the only section to work, and then in the third competitor, and again, it could be all of the same guy, depending on how it shakes out in the bid and we are offering that opportunity as well. but presumably, as the other team approaches that joint, they will go to another expansion joint and that is where the other contractor can start off. >> that is down around line 20, 21, and works east to there, to the end. >> we always knew that area was going to lag behind any way, but that is because the buttress had to be behind zone four, that is always lagging behind. >> so, part of the theory about why the bid came in so high, obviously part of it is just demand in the economy.

>> market environment. >> part of it was the premiums being added in because of the uncertainty about how it was going to play out. >> there was all set in the competition played a huge part. >> so the smaller size is to increase the competition. >> and the web corp folks as well as our own team have been on calls with the perspective bidders and the guys who were prequalified initially and they have indicated that they are interested in bidding, as a prime not to a general but as a prime to one or more of the sections of the project. and you talked about i guess, peterson talked about irrit ating on the design of the system and has that been exhausted. >> some of that has to do with specifying that. but i don't know if you want to

add anything, but whether it is the type of welding and material, and the engineer's right now are looking at that. and we hope to have that all pulled together for the 25th. >> that is going to be done that quickly. >> we are trying to do everything that we can. and we spent a lot of time asking them why, in the process of trying to get their price to where we felt it was a reasonable and acceptable price and web corp was with them many hours and they gave us a list of what we were concerned with and both of those that we do as well. do you expect skamko to be one of the bidders? >> i believe that they indicated yes that they are interested in one or more or all three and a combined price. >> and you would be open to them being one of them? >> absolutely, if the price is where we expected. >> anything else? >> no. >> thank you, director. >> that concludes my report.

>> thank you. >> we are down to item six, public comment, and a chance for the members of the public to address you on matters that are not on today's calendar and directors, jim pat trick would like to address you. >> i have additional things to add there. number one, the west end, no thanks. i do have the hand out, which is available for you to look at. if you look at the baoel street entrance, that is the one displayed by everyone. you never see the west end entrance, why don't you see the we can end entrance? well, it is just sort of a second sister, what we are talking about specifically is this is the diagram and you see the circle part of it is the west end exit of the transbay

depot. and it has gone, major design problems. and it has a risk problem and it has a cost problem and there are some changes. what has happened given the contractors recently signed for the building. and i have a recommendation for the board. and this is what the baoel street looks like. i think that it is fantastic and does a great job. >> this is what the west end looks like, we have created a stairway elevator and it is really not very interesting. you see, with the look disappears to allow for this free standing building. this is the side view of it, if you will see, the right end, you will see this culture design, you will see a lot of ways for area for people to walk on the east end and on the west end you don't see that, it is just not there. we talked to the board several

meetings away about risk assessment, i want to do a risk assessment of the 70 foot stairway, i want you to think, dirty, crime and drugs, and homeless shelter and this is remote and there is no one there supervising what is going on in the share way. >> i want you to think about risk assessment in the elevator it is a long ride from the bottom to the top, one stair at the top and one at the bottom. and think about the bright elevators recently. supervision, what is a bright toilet. i have ride in the elevators and it is going to be high maintenance and a homeless man was recently killed by the elevator itself. they said that it could not be happened. there are risks associated with having this elevator. >> it is going to cost about 2 million dollars to build this. i suggest that we don't build

it but we continue the effect around and that will cost $1 million and it will save us $5 million, it is a nice cost savings. requirements are changed as one of the reasons for this. the new deal with the properties means that you have two properties and you use some of the exit ways between the two that is the strategic difference that happened. the easement for 50 percent of the exit ways and this shows the easement, and the easement occurs, and there are three major stairways, both buildings can use some of the ease in calculations and i have the last slide. i ask that you look at this exiting given this new environment and this agreement that is done and examine the alternative and report back to the board and i will be happy to serve in that committee at no charge as we look at this problem and you can save 5 million dollars. >> thank you.

>> okay, and we have rick smith. >> director harper, i'm rick smith, neighbor of the neighborhood. i am concerned about the budget increase, in particularly the prokurment challenges for the steel contract and i really appreciate the staff's diligence, such as with the value engineering and managing the time line enter twined with taking advantage of the funding opportunities as they arise with the care and attention to public safety and employee safety and especially first responder safety. and for all of the staff's presentations. i am grateful for the public out reach and the staff's time in talking with me about the public out reach programs and the ten day look ahead. for all of the details. thank you. i appreciate the board's oversight asking about the rva in concept of global

comparables clarifying funding sources and to insure that funding will be available for the futures as well as the current ones, with the use of public funds, for concerns about safety and for the details such as the success of the elevated park. for asking the architect to respond to public comments and for stealing the presentations to get the information that you need to perform the oversight. thank you. >> and that does conclude the members of the public that wanted to address you under item 6, so with that we can move into your consent calendar. >> i do have one addition for the minutes of march 25th. and that is to the item of what

fred clark and the paragraph that fred clark and pelli, which i wanted some appearance that stainless steel would not be ruled out and that they would be looking at that and looking at the possibility of curving the panels. and we received that assurance and i just like that to be made part of the minutes. >> noted. >> any others? >> i have not received any invitation that a member of the board wants to have that severed. >> we can take 7.1 and the note that you offered and 7.1 which is authorizing the executive director to execute renewal software maintenance agreement with the new world systems for the continued support of the services. >> and i do confirm that it is 4.0. >> thank you very much. >> so moved. >> second.

>> the first and the second. >> director harper? >> aye. >> lloyd? >> aye. >> metcalf? >> aye. >> reiskin? >> aye. >> that is four ayes and the consent calendar is approved. >> thank you. >> we will move into the regular calendar. >> okay. >> and the budget out look? >> item eight is the presentation of the tjpa fiscal year 2013, 14 annual budget out look. >> report on this item. >> good morning, again, directors, this is the annual budget out look under the budget policy we come to you in april with a broad overlook and in may we will bring you a draft budget for a public hearing and then in june we will bring the final budget for adoption. they will be a capitol budget and an operating budget for the temporary terminal. we will this year, as we do every year, we are taking a

slice a fiscal year slice of the capitol project of the base line budget and we will this year be based on the 1.589 currently approved budget and if there are changes to the revised budget approved at subsequent meetings, we will amend the fiscal year budget as necessary. and if necessary, to take that into consideration. we will present you with the budget that is in the form that you are used to looking at with major categories of professionalized services and the major line item will be continued construction with design completing this year in may. and you will see that line item be significantly less than it has been in previous years. right away, acquisition, we are, we obviously have all of the right-of-way in our possession, but we will be closing out the eminent domain and we have settled one of

those cases this past fiscal year and another one will be broad before you before the end of this fiscal year. and voluntary settlement and if the others are not settled then the trials will conclude in the next fiscal year. and there may be some relocation costs continued for displaced businesses and residents and so that will be reflected in the upcoming fiscal year budget. and the other major categories are just are basic administration and some reserve funds and then our small other category which is the continued legal parking. revenues we always match up those expenditures which are based on our projected cash flow, we match those up with the grant allocations that are planned to fund those and there will be a committed revenue and for the grant allocations that are already in place, planned

for those that we are continuing to seek. and if necessary, another category for revenues that we need to seek new funding for that are not currently planned. >> the operating expenditures will be the continued same expenditures, facility management is the major one, support for ac transit for the increased cost in the temporary terminal. some insurance costs, and security and parking control officers. and the temporary terminal is funded by regional measure to the revenue and a small amount of advertising revenue and rent from gray found and i am happy to answer the questions but we will be presenting you with numbers next month. >> i kind of have a just... i don't know. the thing about the other the cal trans, reading this, i

can't determine whether the cal translegal department asked us to replace cal transgeneral parking or whether it is the parking for the lawyers for cal trans. yes, it is for the lawyers they parked in the former. >> yes, they parked in the former transbay, terminal. and this is a condition as for so long as their offices in san francisco that we will provide them with replacement parking that was in the formal terminal. >> that is very interesting. >> those lawyers. >> how many parking spaces? >> we pay for about 20 spaces it is just under 7600 a month. >> you think that they would be better to us, wouldn't you? >> okay. and i actually have the exact same question when i read the report. i was wondering if that was... >> it was the employees and

that is amazing is there a team so in congress with what this project is about, and what the city's first transit policy. do we think that we have the opportunity to renegotiate that? >> a point that is raised by this board every year. the cal trans, director always seems to be absent when this question is asked. your predecessor offered to provide them with muni fast passes but i don't believe that it was taken up of. >> it was a condition of the transfer of the land, and at the time what we were getting was not worth the argument. what will need to happen is that we need state legislation to move them back to oakland to their office in oakland on west grand that is what we would need to do. >> there is not an opportunity to mode identify the agreement. >> and i don't think that it is about the money. >> the principal that we are using the funds to pay for the employee parking. and

>> and i understand that. you have to go back to the ctc it is not worth opening up that document. >> where is matthew and ross when you need them? >> i do have one other question, i guess that this is what we will be looking at is just a slice of the program, but, given that it is likely we will be considering changing the over all program budget and i'm guessing the likelihood is that may effect the next fiscal year budgets and since a lot of those costs will be the steel costs that are upcoming, do we anticipate having challenges in the one slice adjusting the revenues sufficiently to cover the single year cost and in other words, do we anticipate any catch throw issues putting aside the funds for the program? >> i would not anticipate that for this upcoming year. they are planned and since we

have those in hand and even if the steel does not come in at what we had originally budgeted in the 1.589 base line budget, there should be significant... sufficient revenue from that land sale to certainly fund the upcoming physical year. >> thank you. >> and go ahead. >> so grant that there is no cash throw problem in the next fiscal year, when do we do the total budget analysis to understand how that is got to be changed? rather than the single year slice? >> we are planning to bring you the phase one revised budget by july at the latest. because we have to have an approved phase one budget to go to fitch and get our rating for tifiia and so no later than july. >> okay, i hope that we can

allocate a lot of time to understand that. >> well, i agree, i think that the board members should not make appointments that day and just stay in our meeting. >> what day in july? >> yeah, well right now, the regular board meeting day is the third, the second thursday of the month in july. if that changes we will let you know in the sufficient amount of time. >> to stay on that theme, i feel the same way, in fact, i was going to make a general sort of thing that i find it kind of scary that we have 3-year-old budget. that, you know, back for the phase one, that we would be extending essentially another year without reexamining it and i think that maybe, my suggestion is that the next meeting, that we definitely get the order and straighten in and if it is... is there like for the cities there is a legal requirement to get in a budget

by... >> is there one for us? >> remember, there is a difference between the phase one budget that we will be presenting to you and the fiscal year budget for the year which is a slice of a budget. we are bringing you the phase one budget no later than july, the revised one. and we are going to wait for the steel bids to come in. but the budget that sarah is talking about is a slice and that easily can be amended if depending on what we agree to in july so it is not an issue. so we are now in april, and there is may, june, by july we will bring you, because on april 25th we are putting out the bids for the three package and in may i am bringing you the cast notes and by the way i will give you all good news. we will be bringing you a contract for that and so remember, four packages we broken four into four packages the cast notes and the three zones and the cast notes, we are going to be bringing you a recommendation for a package

that is under the engineer's estimate and so that is good news which is slightly under $16.2 million which was the engineer's estimate and so that is great. so now we have to get the other three packages at a fair and reasonable price and that is what we hope to do by providing for more competition and then in that, in july we will bring you the final budget and then it won't be just a budget by itself it will be a company plan of how we are going to pay for it. >> but, my question was unless there is a legal requirement that the state or somebody else, but to have a budget to have sort of budget to have 2013-14 budget in place by june 30th. >> there is. >> that is why we are going and that is why we are going ahead of the horse? >> that is right. >> that is what i wanted to know. >> we first bring you the presentation and if you have any questions we come back to you with the final one, the

slice. >> for this total one phase budget we will have a chance to talk about that before the meeting in which we will have to adopt it. >> in other words, we are... >> we are going to have to it depends now as a board usually likes to and we will try and have to schedule the special meetings for that because usually the board likes to take august off. and so i will have to schedule a meeting because we have to go to fitch in july and in between the time that we get the bids from the steel package and we will get those in and we can have an informational item and a second one for adoption no later than july. >> that sounds like what we god to do. >> we don't have to do that but we can. if we can get the quorum, we could do that. or else we have, and we send it to you in advance and we have one meeting and everyone stays here and doesn't leave for other events because i don't think that there is anything more important than this

project. i am unapologetically biased that way. it will be schedule as a special meeting in between. >> between the july 11, and the august? >> no, in between, when we get the bids and then in july. so we could have two meetings in july, for example. >> yeah. >> i am taking a vacation starting the 13th. >> that is the problem. the board members are gone. >> director metcalf we will do our best. >> okay. any other questions or comments? >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> and move into item nine which is approving the draft anticipated disadvantaged business enterprise participation level program for the physical years, 13-14, through 15-16 and authorization of the relesion of the draft adpl for the 30 day public review and 45 day public

comment process. >> directors, we have calculated a percentage for our fta funded contracts which are the administrative type of contract and legal services that it would be planned to be awarded between october first of this year, and september 30th of 2016. with when we will run the methodology it will run into a 14.8 percent dbe for those contracts and also calculate at a small business target, although, it is not legally required by any of our grant ors and it is not something that we would report to any of the grant ors, we do want to continue to focus on small business, participation and so for, all contracts to be awarded in that time period, not just fta funded contracts. which are estimated to a total of over 394 million, we would suggest a target of 7 and a half percent for those contracts for dbe and sbe participation. and we will put this out for a

public comment. we will send it to all of our stake holders and we will be participating in the business out reach communities and public participation process to get comments, last fall or last summer we held a small roundtable of our offices in the small business advantaged business and we plan to do the same this year to get their comments on this and we will come back to you in june for final afinal approval. and although we have never received any comments that would have caused us or never received comments before, but nothing that causes us to adjust the percentage. >> how do the proposed numbers compare to the current year numbers? >> it is very interesting, the 14.8 percent is right where we are at right now, program-wide, 14 percent for the dbe for these last set of three fiscal

years. >> this is something new? >> i would call this a program wide ebe goal, it is not anything that we will report to fta because they have made it clear that they are not interested any more. but i think that it is a good threshold for us to keep in mind because we don't lose participation on all of the contracts not just those that are funded. >> the 7 and a half percent is just based on the dbe and that would probably be higher when we take these into consideration as well. how did we arrive at the 7.5. >> you can take the attachments here and walk you through the methodology and not to get too much into it, but you take your contracts that are planned to be awarded and you look at the north american classification codes associated with each of those contracts and then you look into dbe data base for dbes that are certified to do that type of work and then you look in the census bureau for the type of businesses in the 9

counties that are registered for that type of work and then you just do the proportions. >> this is a similar methodology to the fte? >> we used the same just on the broader set of contracts. >> how does that compare with our existing empirical performance. >> 7 and a half percent is much lower, since it is just the participation, it is at 20 percent for the life of the program. and 21 percent right now for these past three years and so i think that 7 and a half percent is a good target to keep in mind for dbes but i would expect it to be much higher when you consider sbes. do we not have data? it is hard to apply the same methodology to run the sbe numbers because the data bases don't use the same types of classifications. the codes are not in it. >> i understand. i don't mean to belabor this.

i think that we were surprised when the fda said that this is how we want you to do the calculation because it seemed a narrow and technical way as opposed to looking at the past performance and so we have to do that for their purposes but for the other program, i think that it is great that you guys are doing, we don't have to use their, some what limited methodology, we can just look at our own past performance and we can look at other projects in the region and i would want us to be inadvertently setting a low target, even though it is, again, it is just a target and it is not for the reporting purposes, i think that it is still important. >> sure, we can take a look at that and what we will do when we come back to you in june, we will look at the sbe percentage distinctly from the dbe percentage from the program wide contract. >> that will be great, thank you. >> anyone else? >> thank you.

>> okay. >> so, no members of the public want to address you on that item so you are looking for a motion. >> so moved. >> second. >> first and a second, director harper aye. >> lloyd, aye. >> metcalf. >> aye. >> reiskin. >> aye. >> item nine is approved and go ahead and move into item ten. >> which is approving the recommended applicants to the transbay joint pores authority. >> bev will report on this item. >> thank you, maria and directors and members of the board. we put out this, we had the cac going for six years now, and i want to acknowledge jim lacerous who has been a member has termed out it has been a member and served as at chair for the entire six years to

date. so his participation is appreciated. we had a great response to our interest for applicants this year and we had a total of 19 applications and virtually without exception, the candidates brought a wealth of experience in multiple areas of which we are looking for on our cac. if you are not familiar our cac is 15 members, and each of these 15 seats is designated to have a specific area of interest or representation including a bicycle advocate and a disabled advocate and a representative from labor, a resident of district six and almost without exception, people brought a breadth of experience to the applications. we have a total of 7

recommendations brought to you today. and including three returning members and four new members to the cac. and two of the new applicants are here today, and they would be available to speak if you would like to. and if you have any other questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> i have no questions, on the recommendation and i am happy to support it. i know at least two of the folks and they are great and would be great additions. just a question on the functioning of the cac, aside from the appointments, we don't ever kind of see or hear anything from the cac or if we do i have forgotten. are there, do they make recommendations to the tjpa? is there any... do they issue reports? is there anything that comes out that would be relevant or of interest to the board? >> well a lot of the cac has been to