the cal trans, typically accepts, but the list here for the project sponsor, with the high water table and so one of the risk allocations could be if there is a leakage in the tunnel it would not be available for the train use with the performance based p3 process and they would not get the full compensation and that kind of an oversight or problem in the tunnel. the last thing is that in terms of the advantages is asset maintenance. somebody designed the bill projects and cal transadmits a good example of this and we wanted to budget problems and defer the maintenance and it can be expensive in the long run or all types of projects. and to illustrate what a p3 project looks like, we will show you the outline and what happens, at its core is that a

p3 developer, could be as many as 30 firms in a joint venture group. but the p3 developer forms a limited liability corporation ration. and the people often ask me if, a private entity will have a higher interest rate charge, and a higher cost of capitol than a public agency. and i will tell you that the procedio parkway with the short term bank construction loan with the loans, short term and long term as well as the equity by the developers and the weighted average cost of the capitol, and less than 2.5 percent. and obviously they are very competitive with the tax exempt financing. now clearly there is a repayment obligation on the part of the project sponsor and that is the upper right-hand

side to repay, i am sorry, below that to repay the stake holders to pja to flow all of the funds to pay for the payment of the p3 developer and to whoever receives the fund and allocates those funds and to the design bill contractor and as well as the main nens provider and the design contractor and the many subcontractors to it and the maintenance can be a big job and it can begin for the life of the assets and any questions about the flowchart? >> yeah, i have a question about the flowchart. >> your p3 developers and your shareholders and maybe the dividends are backwards, but what is seems to me is that what the p3 developer gets out of this, is essentially what the pjpa has in the milestone and the availability payments. >> yes, sir. >> so what you are telling us,

then, is that we can save so much money by going p3 that we can afford to put in a whole other layer of management and a whole other layer of stuff, and give the same amount of money to them, and still have money left over? and they will be willing to make a profit and pay those dividends. >> yes, but i could give you clear examples of that later on the presentation. >> i think that it would be good to move on to the funding sources. >> this is an important slide, and we understand that there are a multiple source of

funding sources. >> i have a question and, i am glad that you added in the column and i am curious as to how these numbers were formulate and so for some of the land sales i understand that this is estimation of what we estimate that we will send or solve the parcels f, and 44, but for these other numbers, how do we estimate. 350 million from the san francisco sales tax. >> i can address that. thank you.

>> the 350 is from the regional transportation plan, when we received it to be the priority for the new starts and the investment strategy for the company bay area, and the funding plan for ptx was included and included 350 million, from a sales tax, extension, or other local sources. >> each of these needs have to have a conversation but i think that the key of the local sources that makes me comfortable and as you all know, the mayor has completed a draft expenditure plan for the sales tax that does not have this number in it but the other local funding sources tbd, sure that makes sense. >> and that is correct, it could be other local or extended and that does not have to be new sales tax it could be

extended sales tax as well, i believe, right, scott? so it does not have to be the new one. >> we have modeled out the extension, and what are the assessment and we have calibrated and to put on ranges here and because we are quite sure because we are looking at future values and revenue streams. but the plans will be, and that is the range, and the range of assumptions and in terms of total funding sources. >> okay. >> and the next page.

>> a milestone payment, at the end of completion and that is analogous to a down payment and those funding sources were largely a local contributions from the ta and mtc and the golden gate bridge and some cal transfupds. there could be multiple payments halfway through or all of the final and this is the model and we followed the proceedings and the financial model. and the range for the funds for the short term cash infusions

for 1.6 and 1.7 billion dollars, and these are critical to the p3 developer and you heard brian talk about the caring costs and you can imagine the caring cost if you are a p3 developer of raising 1.6 billion for construction and with the incentive and the project delivery, and we took the balance, and look at structuring availability payments and so if you look at the next slide, we have taken the revenue streams over time and put together analysis for availability payments. and now, again i want to stress, that mild stone payments, and maybe the ability payments are not like a debt service obligation and they are performance based. and they have to earn these to get the aid and now, on the long term, availability payments in a p3 agreement,

there is a very, long, technical discussion, about what qualifies as a deduction from the availability payment. and the deduction could be that it is not available. and it could be that there is a lighting problem and this is thought out and detailed with the engineers and the technical staff and a precise methodology and as for the aspect in the transaction. and now, i mentioned earlier on some hard examples of transactions which have been very successful and these are all p3 bids from around the country. and the very first one, indiana, and kentucky and a bridge, a bridge is a great concept and a great project in terms of a profile for p3 and in terms of the construction

and now the indiana dot did the engineer's investments and the actual bid for the component and for the bid contract was 33 percent less than engineers estimate. and now this was a bid last year. so not during, and the actual recession, when the contractors were actually very aggressively bidding, and designed to build the contracts and the p3s as well and i mentioned again, the two projects in florida, and the 595 toll road, and the port of miami tunnel, and these are both availability payment transaction and again, once again, florida, dot made projections and the engineer's estimates and the p3 bids and the design build components were dramatically less than the engineer's estimates. and the denver fast track and the project and a similar in some ways. and similar to dtx and it is a transit project. and it is based upon the design

building of additional tracks and stations and any rail and maintenance yard and this was the procurement of the vehicles in the ongoing operations and main nens for those vehicles. and so imagine, baters trains being subject to performance based payments in terms of cleanliness and appearance in terms of p3, operating agreements. and is there a last one that was prosidio parkway and the winning developer the bid was 271 million dollars when the actual cal transestimate was close to 470 million dollars. and again, the petri developer assumes the responsibility to go out and solicit the funds and debt as well as equity and the completing before they were paid anything at all. >> now that is a brief overview

of a p3 transaction and the lies and the complex analysis. lets go to the next steps of your decisions here and again, i mentioned that this is a near shovel ready project and we will continue to work with your stake holders on the p3 and i want to emphasize that the work with the cal train and they were very engaged in looking at potential joint ventures and i want to offer that mtc and was supportive and the p3 was a very attractive way to accelerate the delivery and the lower costs of dpx and also mention that after our meeting with mtc and the ta and actually called me and suggested that they can actually work side by side with

tjpa to facilitate the analysis of a p3 option and in terms of coming back to you in the future after our additional due diligence, and again, legal, technical financial, come back to you, after with a very sophisticated business case presentation. with the very accurate and detailed qualitative and quantitative assessments. of a p3 option verses a design to build or design build. and again, i want to emphasize in terms of the financial due diligence, our job in working with you and the staff is to look for a more creative p3 options and i should say that there was no single p3 model and each p3 that i have seen is unique, and a ctc commissioner said in two years ago in the presentations that if you have seen one p3, you have seen one p3, and so we were taking all

of the input from the stake holders and working with the technical team and we are working with the lawyers and looking at the best unique set approaches and the particular project and we have a few suggestions here and we talked about, expanding the p3 scope, from the design that it finance maintained and to the design build and operate and maintain and that is an option. >> is this okay? i think that we are at the last slide. >> we are. >> and i imagine that we are at the hour point for the presentation now, i was hoping to move on to, i know that we have other folks here that wanted to speak on this item and move on to a board discussion if that is okay. >> and also, questions. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. >> and i have received the san francisco county transportation authority here as well and our deputy director, and so i know that she also, is here to

present or say a few words as well. >> and you have to address you after. >> after the board discussion. >> thank you. >> good morning, directors and the chief deputy of the transportation authority and i will be very brief, i am sure that you have an interesting discussion here. >> and we are very pleased to see the transbay joint power authority looking at alternative delivery methods that is critically important. and i understand and the method for the right project and it is for it is fought with its own opportunities and in the cal train just made the decision to do and give a different method to design, build for the electrickfiation and once you make that decision the work has started and this is a serious decision that is worth explaining and it needs to be explored looking at your cost and funding plan and because as you secure it the designs of the methods have the methods on

the total cost and cash flow and it is one of the things where the p3 approach is very attractive. and for the benefit of those watching and the board and although you you are more on this and i just want to make it clear that the public, partnership is not a... and it is just like any other delivery firm and they are there to make a profit and i know that one of the steps and i know that brian has started and you need to have a bullet proof business case and i want to be debbie downer but the numbers are very rosy in terms of when the production might start and also a lot to do with escalation costs and the project decides each year and each month because it is big dollars and so we are looking for toward to continuing to work with tjpa and we are delighted no matter what option is chosen and this is one of the signature projects in the prop k and we do want to clarify the question

about the prop k, project and so it is the 350 million, and it was assumed in the regional transportation plan and the milestones of this project achieved in that was getting designated for one of the new start is significant as is the regional high speed rail and it is not the same as having the money in the bank, it is not a business deal. and so you can actually move for toward and with that, i am very delighted, also to volunteer as much time as you need from this, and from the capitol projects to share all of those battle scars and how far it was, and very solid, two years, and two years of... from the former executive director just to make the p3 happen. >> actually i did have a question, part of the advantage of going down the route for this project is assuming that you know the environmental

reviews completed next year, and this is a shovel-ready project to go. and i was just kind of curious from the ta's perspective about the shovel readiness of the project and kind of what other steps need to be taken to get to that point. and there is no single p3 model because it depends on at what point you want to hand off the design, when i look at the funding streams that are relatively good working plan and that is the small percentage of the funding that has been secured and most for the sources on here like the new and the reauthorization and the sales tax increase and the

high speed rail signs and we have to wait until even from the year to the election years and so my reception is that it is probably going to be a two or three years until all of the money is lined up and so it may be that if there is a need to look at lower costs which is probably the case with the big project and that triggers the need to reopen the environmental we have time to deal with that and on the foregone conclusion. >> thank you. >> director metcalf? >> i want to first of all say that i am so thrilled that we are talking about the dtx, this, yeah, you can sit down and i might have a question for you. but i am really pleased that we are talking about this phase, and i hope that kind of for this and this can be a major focus of our time for the board and thank you for such a thorough overview and presentation and i feel like it lays out a bunch of things that we are going to need to delve into and talk about, from what

you presented the design build, finance, maintain option looks really appealing and the it really has turned out well, and i think that one of the san francisco examples that has gotten this city familiar and comfortable. with it. i think that it would be really great if as you just said, if the ta and the tjpa can joinly design this and the ta is the agency here that has the experience without having done one of these, and those are the big lawsuit that the ta dealt with from the cal transengineers and i expect that we will face similar issues if we go down this road and i want to understand, that. that the practice, and i think

that any way exploring the intracaseys of the p3 option is something that i want to do. in terms of the design. and itself. and it is a really good presentation, on that. and i would love to have the planning department come and present, i know that they are doing a study of their own thinking about alignment issues and options, and ultimately, we need to have, the city and cal train high speed rail, and the ta, and all agreeing about the path forward and the only way that we are going to be really be sure that we are there if we are bringing those agencies so that we can hear from all of them. i really, it is so good, to have you here. i mean that i really want to make sure that we work out the issues like in this blended system are we have compatible stock and the high speed rail and cal train going to be the same platforms or not?

none of this works, unless we get those details worked out. and so any way, and i am hoping that we can go into more depth. >> any other comments, director reiskin? >> i would concur with what he said and it is great to bring this forward now, and i think that with the phase one, we should shift the focus of this board to phase two, and when we reemphasize what scott noted with regard to last year's mlu, that this project extending cal train and high speed rail to the transbay center, is the top priority in the region along with the bart to san jose and i think that was, as scott said really significant as was the designation of this as a project to secure the next

round of the new starts funding and reemphasizing that the northern terminal of high speed rail will be at the transbay transit center not at fourth and king and i think that is, i think that is significant. and it was a significant statement from the region and i think that it is certainly in san francisco, in the region's best interest and we need to be working towards getting there. so, i think that obviously there is a lot that was covered in that presentation and it was great. and maybe, we want to kind of schedule forward, drilling down in to some of the areas that the director metcalf mentioned. and i think that starting even right is just at the extension of the box, and kind of understand, what that construction looks like. and that is the imminent domain required to get that space and i don't think that i realized until seeing this presentation that that extension, east or it was needed and i think that the

discussion on that will be helpful. and on the construction method. there is i know, and it has been a case for quite a long time in terms of the project approach that we have these two pretty significant, cut and one large and one smaller cut and cover, section, that i think that we would want to spend some time looking at and just understanding what the impacts of that will be obviously it can be very disruptive and these are happening right, and in some case, a pretty booming part of the downtown and another case, of the emerging part of the downtown and so we really are understanding that and but, the discussion of alignment, and i know that we are still in this presentation, presuming, you know, more or less the original alignment and i know that there has been some other thoughts about the alternative alignments and i think that is a discussion, that we should have.

the station, and the fourth and king station, your presentation included the underground station there, and i think that we need a discussion between with cal train to understand what everybody's assumptions are of what cal train service looks, or looks like post dtx and how many trains, and how much service will be at fourth and king, above ground and below ground and how much will be at the transit center. and i think that is a very significant >> there is a cutter of the process and the maybe, the bay

bridge construction that makes that cut over able to happen to the minimal destruction to the cal train which would be great. and with regard to the budget, and i think that we definitely need to dig into that and as we did recently for phase one, and but we are in a much better and earlier point to understand what some of those assumptions, and in the budget are, and i think that it is good to start about refreshing those numbers and bearing out those assumptions. and then, i guess, finally, we seem to get a pretty big focus on delivery method and particularly a specific delivery method. and we saw all of the benefits of a p3, but there was no discussion of potential down sides or trade offs and i think that maria barlow's cautions were important and it may well

be that this was ideal p3 project but i don't think that we got it really frankly very balanced presentation and on the p3 and it was just all candy and ice cream, and it is cheaper and faster and less risk. but, some of the things that would be buying, we need to pay for and we need to pay for someone to finance. we can expect that they will be in the future and we will be paying for the maintenance there and we will be paying to shift the risk and i think that we need a more balanced discussion and it sounded like six slides were just highlights of the indepth analysis and it would be great if you could share that analysis with the board and with the public..

>> this is occurring to p3 and why to design and build the incentives, and for expedited schedule and delivery and i agree that probably shifting somewhere down that. and i think that it is a big decision and i think that we should spend some time, and we should spend some time on that. you have the environmental review complete, but it is maybe up 30 percent design shovel ready and i think that is a bit, misleading and usually you have the documents done and 30 percent is where

you will be ready for the design build, and i just, i don't think, that we are quite there. and even a bigger picture and delivery and maybe the joint dlir delivery with the high speed rail and i think that when you kind of you have got tjpa extending from there downtown and then you have the high speed rail over there and three different entities kind of working and kind of in the same space for the same systems and i think that it is great. and again, i will just concur with the director metcalf that i think that it was a great presentation and to start surfacing all of these things and maybe, in each of our subsequent meetings we can drill down on one aspect of

this, and really, and there is no bigger transportation project that is more important to san francisco than getting this tunnel built and getting the train service to the transbay. and so i am happy to see it moving forward now. >> thank you, director. >> director lee? >> and so i will be respectful as possible, and i am filling in for director lloyd and so i kind of feel like i should draw my box a little bit. i do feel like i need to say a few things, at the staff level, that we met with a tjpa and we have not brought this to the board, but the staff level, there is excitement for any efforts to try and advance the dtx, because we would like to bring our trains to ttc. and that is that we