budget until we have demonstrated a fully funded project >> which we won't have by july 11th. >> no, but we won't be speaking with them until late fall until the end of december so we have time to work with our funding partners to do so. but just so the board is assured we're not going to be drawing down on the loan. >> that's what we've done through the project. the center 11 million is a policy call does the board want to increase the revenues and contingency per the recommendation of the f r a and fta. if we don't do that we have a

fully funded phase process. but it would be prudent to increase the revenues and we'll be able to identify the funds. with respect to your questions on scope. we have to identify the mitigation measures as part of the risk assessment. we can include this in the budget. the event we decide to be prudent and accept the recommendations to accept the recommendations and contingency we could defer the bus storage although they sent me a letter asking me not to do that we have an active tiger 5 application for thatful in place now we could defer elements of the park. as part of this approved budget.

and with respect to all of the d ducks we presented that in the past we have a substantial amount of d ducks. we're asked to look at the for example, the skin it's too expensive we're recommending painted aluminum. there are some savings. there were some other questions you had in between those two >> i can expand on that. there were a few things within the estimates you touched on i think i captured most of them but feel free to ask me again. one thing i think - in terms of the scope of the project and the construction you budget for phase one from the beginning of the project going forward the

"x" vacation of the structural steel enclosures and the ceilings he represented been 55 percent of the transit center. so this was also kind of seen as a critical point in the bidding of the work because we've received the bidding on the 3 larger components of that. we have two to bid but in remitting short order and beyond that scope it comprised a lot of systems and a lot of individuals packages so that's one of the reasons the cost reduction opportunities beyond those first

5 projects become more and more difficult because changing the quality of material or going with concrete floor instead of another floor incrementally in the big picture don't have a large impact. we do have a lot of alternatives within the package but the first 5 packages we're going to trigger a lot of the costs. so that's one reason as an example the ceiling underneath the throughout the transit center but at the ground level were originally g f r.c. but the design team a redesigning those to reduce the costs of that

element of construction which is about 3 hundred and 50 thousand square feet of material by 20 to 25 percent. that's the reason we changed the awning from glass to melt. in this change we're seeking to avoid an rb a impact that would have interested the system by 25 percent but ear going to decrease it by roughly 21 million from an estimate of 32 million. within those first 35 packages that's where we're taking the steps to have the design connotations but are the best opportunities to railways costs. and beyond that as we move into

the electrical the plumbing, the telecommunications systems and the sicken there's more limited opportunities to reduce costs but we're saving $500,000 not 5 or $10 million. in terms of the cost containment. in the market recovery the big component was the steel package so that i mentioned earlier that the original estimate was around $120 million but it's been increased to 1 hundred and 62. that's both the complexity of that as well as the activity in the market in the region with

google and apple and their demands was a big part of their demands and there was other elements as well. the escalation item within the contingency going forward was restoring our remaining construction. so that's not - that's escalating our stimulates it's not a separate addition of an increased level of escalation >> i'm sorry so i can understand that 54 million is the adjustment for the steel. >> no, not just the adjustment. >> i thought you had

incorporated the 206 for the steel kind of into the construction costs and everything else was above that. >> the market recovery we kept the number 55.4 was the number we included in the february update. so we've kept that categorization as it was. it was in part for the then anticipated steel but it was 55.4 was before we received the march numbers but after we had increased our engineers estimate for the work to 1 hundred and 62 million. so does that mean that the 43 of that has been spoken for? no,

but more than half of that was related to the steel. the rest was a projection on the remain competition and pricing construction. >> and what's the outstanding horrify what's left as an estimate after the 35 percent is - >> well, the 35 percent i - >> in order of - including the r va costs will be over $3 million. >> i guess that's where i'm trying to connect so we have 3 hundred million to go on the one

hand we're looking at this in addition to escalation which is again, it seems high. and then given on the other hand, limited opportunities for scope production or v e we have a fair amount of money going to additional program wide i'm having trouble with those >> yeah, the design and program wide campuses a number of thing an adjustment for the construction management oversight budget that's part of that. there's a component of that that is associated with the extent of the current bidding schedule and

there's a portion of that that is associated with potential legal expenses as we move both a dr p process. and so there's a number of factors with that including the design services we've mentioned the impact of the r d v design but we have additional issues that may arise that may require services from an architect or outside consultant above and beyond what's been budgeted. and the market recovery that's relative to say 3 hundred million of the remaining

construction confidence am i wrong that seems pretty high? >> again, the market recovery doesn't apply to the - >> part of the steel. >> and if we look in total at the total scope of construction including the steel and the enclosures, the bus ramps, there's if you include the steel in there it's on the order of $6 million of construction yet to be constructed. and this market recovery as i mentioned is due in large part to the steel so it's on the $6 million scope it should be evaluated. i guess when it comes back we can - >> on the remaining packages we

will have more. >> okay director. >> just on the revenue question. how much of the 110 could potentially be used for phase two if we didn't want to address the issue in phase one? >> certainly the transit center district plan revenues that are planned for the park the one grant funding those are for specific two-phase one elements of construction. the land sales, prop k possibly could be fundable >> thank you. director >> all right. so picking up and turning to the revenue side. i don't understand the open space fees. what's changed that there's

28.5 million more? >> well, the transit center district plan was not part of the project. but the transit center dissecting district plan who adopted the implementation plan that was adopted in conjunction with the plan did include $37 million - identified $37 million that could be applied to the park. >> okay. >> so - >> okay so that's not brand new it's since the last time, we adopted the budget. the increased land sales. i have a lot certain about the total project deficit including phase two and i know we've got

to get phase one done first, by were parcels specifically allocated to phase one and phase two or just a shared pot so all this money could be otherwise going to phase two? >> when we put the budget together we had identified the separate phases but on phase two we're actively working on that but it doesn't make sense to put that into phase two. we need a boarder plan but there was an original allocation for properties for phase one and two but what's happened is the agencies are recommending we put out to bid all our remaining parcels because the real estate

market is doing well. so things have changed. >> this is definitely a good time to sell land but whether the proceeds go into the bank for phase one or two. >> the agreement we entered into with caltrans specifically stated that the property transfer was the for the purpose of building bus operations and have it done by 2018 or there's a terms in the deed they get whatever's left in the trust fund account. so if you can comment but we use the funding for bus operations is that not correct? >> i'm assume you were never planning on spending the money

for the purpose loud. i'm trying to a understand that accident land sales that could have been allowed how much is shifted? >> if you look at the revenue side that speaks to targeting new revenues i think we had about $10 million identified we would have otherwise used inform phase two but we have remaining an excess of $180 million. it's the money from the land sales 10 million >> okay. >> there is potentially more upside than 53 million from the economy in the high price of land right now.

what are the - i could not bet this continues to 2017 how soon are you going to sell the rest of the land >> just to back up to your original question there was a never a phase one or two that parcel goes here or there. and so the amount would be available for the last two years and whatever couldn't be used for phase one would be used for phase 2. there's a potential for more than $53 million we're using the

conservative amount from our consultants update which is the 53 million but certainly, if we're all right about where the market t is right now there is no more potential >> i have the opportunity to sell those are earlier. >> we're in the process of finishing block 5. >> and that's all the land you have left and we only have block 4 and those are constrained die to timing if we could sell them earlier but maybe the contractor won't be ready for them. but parcel f is next to the bus ramps and the other one is on

the side of the bus terminals >> okay. i guess that's it for now. >> those are ail your questions? >> any other questions from the board members? >> actually director answered is a number of my questions. i think i was happy to see some of the value engineering that was able to reduce some of the different costs of various impacts of the project including the skin of the terminal but again, i think that director ruskin had some costs for the design. despite the fact that the scope of the project has an increase in that. i want you to address that question again. despite some of the valued engineering there's been other

costs in the original timeframe so we're at the same page again fiscal wise >> i did want to say that the current numbers are the same numbers that were proposed in february. so their within 3 component there hadn't been an increased upward it's been primarily within the contingency and the construction that the increase has happened since february. in terms of the project wide costs i mentioned that includes the preconstruction services and the design services as well as more program wide soft program support costs. both of the services

preconstruction services have been implicated by the rb a. both the effort that the two teams spent in supporting the r va and on the design side in repackaging or redesigning some of the elements to incorporate the recommendations from the rb a there were additional design costs arising from the rda as well as other program changes. that contributed to the original publicity and the recommendation to provide for the additional budget going forward. with off the top of my head i don't recall within the 35 i believe it's an allowance for about 4 million and in in

addition preconstruction services and increasing that about 4 million and the time budget by about 7 and a half to 8 million we can provided you with more update on that the component of that. i know if the last couple budget presentations i having had a lot of costs in the rb a but i think that's hard for many of us to question. a lot of the safety recommendations when you're not experts. it's a he tremendous increase. but again, it's hard if for us to piece those the recommendations so we'll

probably be supporting most of those recommendations but it would be good to have a good understanding of the market reserves. a program reserves. i like the conservative but if you they've been adequately assessed in the market recovery and escalation i think that takes away from the need of the program reserves but it would be better to have a better understanding of that i want to be sure we're putting forward a program that's reasonable. >> we can provide more information on the types of risks that could be involved in the scope changes we could provided more information.

>> and beyond what you've already estimated for the market recovery. and the last comments i'll make s are fairly similar. i do think it's important, you know, to have a revenue plan and a expenditure plan. and even if in the past it's not been the practice of those board it's important to have both plans identified when approving a budget. and as he move forward i understand that those projects of this scale it's important to be able to predict most of the increases that we've seen but i do think as we have revenue increases that we don't just

increase - and i'm not saying when a this is what happens but we canned have revenue under these because we have to examine the expenditure side. that being said i know a tremendous amount of work has been done from the staff i appreciate all that work and i know there's a lot of noeshthsdz going on around the budget. i know in past months we've talked about the interest rates one of the nurses measures of cost savings but i know that's not going to happen here but i look forward to that discussion. are there any other comments from the board members open the

presentation? >> director reiskin. >> yes. i would suggest what might be helpful when the budget comes back to us in a week and a half. if not seeing the $108 million budget looks like we're past that point but looking at what an expenditure budget most closely matched would be 1.7. so if we're going to try to consider close toward a balanced budgets based on the revenues we've identified what would that reduction be $120 million - there's the easy one just logging the contingency and resolution but maybe some

secondary suggestions. i have a problem oifd that when we - i guess somewhat the timing with the rating agencies and as it related to tiff ultimately we need a budget and it's hard to figure out how to come up with another $6 million in 6 months. at least so we could see what it looks like it might be helpful to consider what a 1 had the 97 budget would look like and the board can decide the higher level budget it might be helpful to - for the board to see what

that looks like >> i think that's a good suggestion. >> director reiskin it looks like there's more than 6.7 revenue identified. >> i was doing the two figures. >> are you dount the one loan. >> it's reasonable to consume. >> it would be the 1.8 we presented in february and march. we presented that with the mitigation measures of mitigating bus schedules for example. there's not much more cost opportunities on a large-scale than that but we could show those as the other loans

identified >> okay. >> we could do that. >> that might be helpful. >> it's estimated to be about 1 hundred and something million. >> the second question is the park. so the park what is the budget for the park currently >> the total estimated costs of the park and all the things associated with it is $50 million. now - >> which 38.5 is funded by the impact fees. >> exactly. >> and we have you identified the revenues for the other 25 million? >> we have nothing specified against that expense. >> okay. thank you.