about cost over runs and the moa requires ocii to pay for all the costs there are five categories in the amount of $595,000 -- $641 -- and that requires an amendment to the moa. the first category is for the design phase. as director bohee mentioned during the disillusion of redevelopment this authority was designed to a 90% level of completion. about a year later when the project was restarted this commission authorized in april of 2013 for two more submissions to caltrans so that we can get a permit to start construction. what transpired it was actually four submissions, two

additional more than budgeted and that cost was $66,841. the second category is for preconstruction costs with the transportation authority and their consultants to coordinate the specifications to new caltrans standards and coordinate the requirements from the city departments that are affected. that cost is $77,787. the next category is just the amount of the contract. the transportation authority did a public procurement and received five bids. the award to the lowest responsible bidder was in excess of $180,000 above the amount budgeted. this category alone depleted the project reserves by over 70%. the final

-- no, the next category is for cost over runs during construction from staffing and from unanticipated expenses due to a traffic signal coordination, man-made bird objects and relocating a bus stop that affected this project. these additional inspection fees and related costs make this category an additional $33,698 and the final category is for project reserves and this is the mechanism that the transportation authority is able to fund changes that happen over time. there have been change orders and costs incurred for the man-made bird objects and other tasks that were required in the demolition, removals and excavation phases where there's just not enough known about

what is beneath the ground. the project reserves also includes an amount of $100,000 to handle motor oil contaminated soils. the next slide is an aerial view from transbay block six looking westerly and as you can see on the right-hand side the folsom off ramp has been demolished and the existing -- alignment is under construction. there are two plastic soils andtrary contaminated and the one on the left is the one with the motor oil and budgeting $100,000 for the disposal. the second one contains lead and

that is subject to a future action as we are still having ongoing discussions with caltrans about its disposition. there are other considerations for this moa. the second item on this slide is for robert de and -- robs authority and we are asking for a prepayment authorized by the state department of finance to be spent at the rops 14-15a period and the second bullet point on this slide is for an update to the sbe and the work force participation. the sbe goals for this project are 50%

and the transportation authority is right there at 50%. for work force the transportation authority is usinthe city's local hire policy which is 30% level, and they are currently at 25%. s stea -- ooci and oewd will work with the contractor to ensure that the goals or levels have been met, so this concludes staff presentation. there is liz rutman from the transportation authority is here and we're happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> thank you. do you have any speaker cards? >> i have one speaker card. mr. ace washington. >> okay. >> maybe i should have been a lawyer and went to school and being educated and maybe i would be respected but i am here talking about these projects

that you're talking about. if i had the wherewithal and being a lawyer and i have briefs for that and i am looking for the right attorneys that want to go against the city and we have the right in the western edition to stop everything because redevelopment -- the first project if you don't know started in the western edition and i keep coming up here week after week and you guys ignore the western edition like it's not even there like you really don't care like you want -- and took place and don't mention anything about western edition because we know you screwed you all. you know you screwed us without vaseline and it still hurts generation after generations so let me be perfectly clear and loud in your ear and until god sees he wants to take me away i will be here and there is something -- a secret weapon is coming. i'm

not going to tell you that. you may get rid of me but there is something behind me to take place. now let's get back to all of the projects you're talking about. how in the hell can you pursue on anything when the big baby -- the western edition where you started urban renewal. you haven't took care of those obligations yet. you keep talking about obligations. your obligation to your first baby which is us. we maybe looking different color than the rest of your babies but you cannot ignore your first baby. see i went back in history and found out -- maybe that's i didn't am so apprehensive being around policemen. there was a black man in waco texas and jessie washington and took out in the streets of waco texas and hung and burned in the united

states and you all worried about the people over there but what have you done to us? what did you do to our ancestors, my uncle jessie washington was burned alive and hung in front of white folks in waigo texas and maybe that's where i got this and my ancestors are coming out. i don't know. but let's get back to this. there is a violation and if you continue with the projects the developers are going to be mad at you -- or mad at me -- i still have 25 seconds. get rid of that guy. do you know he's costing millions of dollars. get rid of him. ace on the case. okay. i have 11 seconds. but i disapprove what you're doing here and i guess in my lawsuit you it stop up everything. >> any other speakers?

>> i do not. >> okay. all the comments are closed. now for the commissioners. >> i have a question. so who is responsible for all of these over runs occurring? i know we're supposed to pay for it because it's $600,000. who is responsible to make sure that they don't happen? >> much of these costs over runs were from unforeseen conditions but according to the memorandum agreement with the transportation authority occi is responsible for the costs. >> >> do we make the decisions? who is responsible for the design change and the submissions? who is responsible looking at the budget and saying there is $180,000 budget deficit? is that us or the

transportation authority? >> it is the transportation authority. they're delivering a turn key of this project and entered into the design can construction phase and that's how we're delivering this -- >> i still see we need to restore the reserves of two $36,000 for again another set of unforeseen costs to go up. >> >> yes. construction is currently about 35% complete so there is still a ways to go before it's finalized and typically you would budget -- >> so there is $600,000 -- say we decide on that. then there is another two $36,000 that reserved part of that -- almost $600,000 and what did they use the researches for additional unforeseen circumstances will we have to fill in that gap again? >> that's our obligation under the moa. >> yeah but it sounds like

we're just a blank checkbook and that's not good enough, and i don't think that's precedent for us to say yeah let's go ahead and have these cost over runs go on and on. >> commissioner. i fully understand your concern. just to add a little information and clarity. some of the cost over returns were due to as we enter into the projects we work with the ta to come up with a budget and sometimes you just don't know. for instance the $180,000 relating to the bid an estimate was provided in the original moa what we thought the construction contract would come in at. it was surprising that all bids came in higher so there were surprises but i would say that the costs were reviewed and they're appropriate and unforeseen that caltrans would

like four submissions instead of two and we were involved with the ta with it. it's typical practice that you maintain some project reserves during the project should you encounter unforeseen conditions you can deal with it at the moment. the moa currently provides for discussion with us between ta and oci under change orders so we're involved in the whole process. it's unfortunate we have a number of these unsore seen things but i want you to know we were involved with this as the discussions came up. we hope we don't require anything more for the depletion of the reserves but it's a good practice to maintain that. anything not dispeshs side retained. as refin mentioned we're still in negotiations with caltrans around the stock pile soil and that is an

additional thing we may have to come back for additional funding but we don't know that today but separate from that we hope this is sufficient to finish the project and again sometimes you don't know in an excavation project like this so i wanted to clarify that for you. >> sure. caltrans doesn't have a good history or track record of doing things on time and on budget and we see that through the last bay bridge we tried to build; right? so i don't think this is the last of it. >> that's why cal trans is not doing the reconfiguration work and we hired the ta to do that work and this issue with the soils is sort of the last issue with caltrans. the items before that were the cost over runs like the submissions -- the initial phase of getting the job ready to go but the ta is doing the work on behalf of them and not cal transs. >> they're going to go ahead and do it and how confident are we

are with sticking to what is approved today? >> i will refer to liz from the ta if she has comments about the construction and the things that we may encounter. maybe liz if you could add additional detail and where we are in construction today. >> good afternoon. i am the senior engineer for capital projects with the transportation authority. i am the project for the project during the construction phase and we're as sure as we can be given we're not finished digging so kevin talked about man-made buried projects and we found in the ground which we didn't anticipate some left over piers from when there was a bridge structure there and caltrans had cut off portions of the piers and covered a portion of it on the ramp and now we had

on remove those so when digging in the ground you don't know what you're going to find. we looked at drawings and as much information as we can but we didn't know. we can't anticipate the contaminated materials and nothing in the design or study phase that we would encounter these. we are hoping that the reserves ary plenished to get united states through because the. >> >> transportation authority isn't in a position that we can continue to work and extend costs beyond what is allowed in our memorandum agreement so if we run out of money we will stop the project and we're trying to make sure that doesn't happen because that's in nobody's best interest. i have no cause of spending your money without good cause and it's coming back to you -- >>not us. the people. >> we're a public agency just like you so we're doing this

for the people. we are doing it as a congestion management agency and i am sad this is having cost over runs and we are to some degree yanked around by caltrans with designs and the extra submittals but our hand was forced and they changed design standards and required information they didn't tell us about before and then you get a new set of review ares and new demand and there is nothing you can do except do it as quickly and efficiently as we can and that's the goal of finishing this project as quickly and as efficiently as we can and i am hopeful we don't find more things in the ground and this will more than cover our needs. the lead material aside and giving you back money at the end or not expending all of the money that is allotted. >> thank you. >> commissioner mondejar.

okay. is there a motion? >> i was just going to ask a question of our director. so hearing that tiffany you hear my concern of over runs and costs because this is the people's money. it's not our money. it belongs to the folks and i think you share that as you stated. maybe some of our partners that we have chosen to partner with, you know, need to understand that as well. i would love your thoughts on it. >> yeah. i too share your concern about the costs, and we are working very collaboratively with our partners at the san francisco transportation authority and their executive director tilly chang. this is an issue of such importance that both the director and i as well as maria [inaudible] kaplan of the tjpa because it's in all of

our collective process and selling the property for the transit center and for the benefit of the state and i agree it's important that our other public partner caltrans really understand that. i think you indicated they have a long track record and history that we want to make sure that they can do better and we can work better together so to that end all three directors and the respective technical staffs are working towards to make sure we're all operating with the same information and informed and have the same set of understandings and the same goals to make sure that we're move forward expeditiously so i can assure you it's risen to the highest levels and we want to make sure people are responsible. these are property tax dollars just as the ta is dealing with that and we want to spend them responsibly.

>> final question and then i will shut up so how long has this project been going on? >> hi. kevin masu ta? . from the design inseptionz? >> yeah. i am going back to the local hire policy of 25% , right. >> yes. >> and how long have we been doing this? >> [inaudible] construction start? >> september 2014. >> 14. okay. all right. so you work hard to make sure they go with those numbers? >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioner mondejar. >> [inaudible] >> okay. any motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> did you want to move it? >> oh you were asking? >> i will move. >> all right. >> is there a second? >> i will second.

>> second. please call the roll. >> commission members please announce your vote when i call your name. commissioner mondejar. >> yes. >> commissioner singh. >> yes. >> commissioner bustos. >> reluctantly yes. >> madam chair rosales is recused. i have three aye's and one recusal. >> okay. okay let -- [inaudible] >> okay. thank you commissioner. please call the next item madam secretary. >> thank you. the next order of business is 5d workshop on

the recognized obligation payment schedule for week rops 15-16a. discussion. madam director. >> thank you madam secretary. commissioners this is for discussion only. it's the second workshop. the first workshop we covered the major approved projects and the how longing obligations. now we're covering everything else which is just as robust, debt service, asset management including any loans as well as administration so that's really going to be the focus plus any changes since you last heard so with that i would like to ask leo levinson who is the deputy director for finance and administration to walk you through the presentation. >> thank you very much chair and chair rosales and commissioners. as the director mentioned this is our second workshop and i will be going through the summary of the property tax first and then the

administrative costs agency wide costs and debt service, a sed management and then the changes since the first workshop. here's the totals on the rops. you can now see the whole rops together. there's been a slight adjustment since the attachments were sent to you so it's $498 million instead of power -- $499 million and there was one postponed on the rops and not until january and reduced the total. it includes $42 million in bond proceeds and other funds and i will talk about what some of the major items are and 49.$5 million in property tax requested on this rops. so looking just to the property tax the largest amount is the debt service 24.9 million in this

rops. in the past all of it was in the january period but because we refunded our debt in those bonds -- a portion of the debt we set it up it's from the june distribution to start the balance our property tax request a little better during this time and includes that amount for the bonds and full year of debt service on the new bonds. another large property tax request is one of the housing projects in the transbay and 11.7 million. 6.3 million is the pledge from mission bay and we always draw all of the tax available from mission bay for infrastructure or housing. our administrative costs and project staff suggest 1.9 million. 1.8 million for the second repayment of the low mod loans borrow friday that housing fund back in redevelopment days to make a

payment to the state and allow the city to receive the money into the housing funds. there is another pledged property tax to the tjpa. this is an estimate and the actual disbursement is what is available in june and the next amount and from the formerly state owned parcels. whatever increment we receive and housing get a net share of that. there is amount for calpers for retiree health and unfunded liability and the pension. i will talk about that in a moment but they come to 1.1 million and finally some other small items that were there, the $700,000 related to transbay, some of the asset management costs and grant match that is carried forward on the shipyard. so the largest thing on this rops -- why it's a

large total amount comes from the other funds and that includes almost $300 million that passed through our agency so it's not things that we're spending here. we're hoping to conclude the sales -- this was mentioned lasted week that these are sales that -- one of them already occurred but we need the authority on the rops. we didn't include it on this one and block nine and the other ones we hope that completed in the next rops period and provide that to the authority to complete the transit center. there are impact fees used for affordable housing for blocks one, seven and eight in transbay and finally an extraordinary item related to the sale of jessie square garage that we hope will close in this period in the summer and results in the developer paying off the bonds to construct this and paying back the city for the property

tax for the debt service and that's why there is an extra 36 million to allow for that. let's turn to the staffing and administrative items one and seven. item 1 on the rops is where we put all of the staffing and cost and benefits cost scption the support staff that is contributed from the city are also in that line. previously we had two lines for this and it proved to be simpler we changed the criteria in one and four and combine one line and that's what we did on this rops. on item 7 which previously showed the total pension liability we have a dollar amount for the first time and this 537,000. i wanted to mention calpers is going to bill us as a dollar value to bring the pension up to fully funded opposed to a percentage of payroll so in the past we had a pension percentage that risen

from eight, nine, 10, 12, 14% which really was two pieces. there was the normal cost and what it cost to fund the pension for staff and closer to nine, 10% and the extra was to bring the pension up to full funding. well, really calpers has decided and makes a lot of sense actually to split the two apart so in terms of percent of payroll it will go down to 9% but they're going to charge a dollar amount and to bring it up to full funding requires the contribution regardless of how much staff we have and estimated that for 537,000. it's going to go up -- they're phasing it in and go up over the next couple of years and then stabilize and go down hopefully. they give a discount if you pay up front and

20,000 a year and taking that option of the lump sum payment so if you combine the two together it's 5.8 million. we have an estimated annual amount of 11.5 million for administrative costs. and i'm going to go into some more information more detail as we go. these staffing costs -- this budget does allow for the 6% cola which was approved in the labor agreements that you just approved. that was just implemented and there was a three and a quarter percent of cola for staff and this accommodates that. it accommodates the pension contribution costs, the filling of vacancies and one additional staff position attorney proposed in this. you will have an opportunity by the way on thead min cost when is we bring the budget before and you the actual spending authority. this is our authority from the state to

spend and starting here and there will be a detailed discussion when we bring the budget before you in april i believe, the first commission meeting in april. so about -- it says here about 47% of this administrative budget is coming from property tax in items one and seven and the other 53% is from -- we're still using some of the taxable housing bonds for the staff costs related to housing that isn't reimbursed from other sources so while we still have that available we're using that and there are other funds as well that help support over half of the costs developer reimbursements and charge staff time to developers and we are doing that and lease revenues to support our staffing so i did show this table in the memo that was supplied to you this show

you how the cost for the prior year and not just the six months of the rops but what we're projecting at this time and we may refine the numbers when we bring the actual budget to you later but this shows a small decline in the bond proceeds. that decline in the other amount of $400,000 is related to our budgeting of how much transbay developer fees we have to support. we had funds coming in that we budgeted fully last year. this year we're spreading money over the time period we're working on those projects so we're assuming somewhat less than that in the other funds compensated for an increase property tax request and you see the addition of the 537 separated for the pension contribution for the unfunded liability for line seven. when you look at the total together it's abou