that connection and the more connections you make no mistake about it the more you can have a stronger power and not have to rely on money that's the people power. >> in this episode we've seen the urban farms and gardens provide more in fruits and vegetation people can have the special produce available it can be a place to give back by donating food to others and teach our children the connection to the earth and environment it's truly >>

[gavel] okay. i call this meeting of the transbay joint powers authority board of directors for june 9, 2016 to order. would you call the roll please madam secretary. >> sure. director kim. >> here. >> ed reiskin, present. >> director harper. >> here. >> director. >> here. >> mr. chair you do have a quorum. >> good timing. okay. communications please. >> there's none that i am aware of. >> okay. so next item. >> item 4 is board of directors new and old business. >> in the agenda planning what is coming up next time we're

going to have a presentation from caltrain on its status on electrification is coming in. i am also going to call for a closed session on review of board officers. it's about time that we get back into that so the way i want to do it is at least the way we do it at ac transit we do all four because it tends to go in and out and the interim executive director and general counsel and c fo and with that next item. >> item 5 is executive director's report. >> okay. >> good morning directors. the board meeting last month i reported that the responses for the rfp is due may 26 and reported the results of this meeting. we received input since then that more time is needed for the proposals together and extended to

june 17, next friday and with they will report also to you next month. for f block four on may 17 the san francisco board of supervisors took action to approve the parameters for the agreement. this was the latest action required before we proceed with the closing of that basically so i want to take that opportunity to thank the commissioners at the office of community investment and infrastructure and tiffany bohee the executive director and instrumental in securing the approval the commission and helped us with the board of supervisors. this action along with the action by the san francisco controller's office with financing is allowing us to move forward with the project and fully fund phase one so that is great news. >> in your report in the budget you say that june 10 is

the anticipated closing for f. that's tomorrow. >> yes. >> is that still in effect? >> it's the week -- two weeks from now. >> okay. >> the developer asked for a seven day extension and i think the date is june 20 if i remember correctly. >> under the purchase and sale director harper they have that right and they exercised the right and just a matter of getting the paperwork in order. >> that's standard. okay. >> following up on last month's discussion at the board meeting we met with the city attorney last week and discussed collaborations with the attorney's office. the meeting was very informative. we're going to schedule follow up meetings and scope of work and provided to the attorney's office and know the capacity and what they can help with short and long-term. they might

not have enough capacity right now. we will do a transition plan for that and i want to thank the board for that suggestion. we continue our discussions with the insurance office of proving security for the transit center. we had good meetings. we traded staffing plans and i am hoping by next month i can provide results of the discussion and recommendations to move forward for the security on the transit center. as a note ryan and i visiting the l.a. union station next week, look at the security, how it's managed there and ask about operational issues that will help us with our building. we had the mayor and welcome the delegation from china on june 7 and the staff provided an overview of the project and gave the mayor and them a look at

our system and impressed and the development and intermeadol transit development and that was successful and pleased to report that the downtown rail extension has been identified as a high performing project in the plan b area and under development with the regional strategic plan b area is a planning document for transportation investment in northern california. being designated as a high performing project is critical for the funding of the program and helps with the position to get the start and fully fund the project. this concludes my verbal report. you do have two reports before you for information quarterly financial report as well as the monthly transaction reports. >> any questions so far? okay. >> move into the next item? >> yes please.

>> item 6 is construction update. >> good morning directors, staff and the public. i am pleased to come back again to report progress on the phase one project and before i kind of get into or hand off to dennis as i do with getting into the in field in place progress i just wanted to underscore in the last month i am pleased with some of the procedural advancements that we've had. we've had some partnering sessions with core groups as well as trade partners. we've had i think productive group huddles on problem resolution and most importantly we just concluded yesterday a very significant

strong dra session dealing with some of the issues i think you were briefed on last month, so a good energy towards identifying issues, tackling issues and resolving issues in a timely matter so i just wanted underscore that. in addition to presentation of the project as mark mentioned we're progressing reaching on bringing the master [inaudible] and my concern is have operational readiness and building ready to hand over and as mark mentioned we're going to go look at union station and arctic to round out our knowledge and align the operational thinking and in the coming months we will be on boarding some of the transit operators to kind of round out our understanding of the operational needs and make sure they're aligned with what

we're building. so we're got those two objectives aligned in the next 18 months. with they will ask dennis to speak to the recent and upcoming activity and safety and labor and i will come back and give a touch on budget and concerns and contingencies. >> dra sessions. what is it again? >> i'm sorry of the dispute resolution -- >> i wanted to make sure. >> a strong collaboration between them and us working through some issues with some of the steel and mechanical contractors. better positioning us you know as i have been saying the sooner we off load or off board some subcontractors the sooner we off board risk and exposure, so this is a good step towards that endeavor to position ourselves to when they wrap up that we can --

sooner rather than later off board. >> that's because it's a mutual release of claims at this point and everybody signs off? >> non binding but also admissible. >> good. >> and we will hear the outcome of that in the next few weeks i believe. okay. dennis could -- >> good morning directors. >> good morning dennis. >> so i'm going to go through the recent activity first over the last month has been very productive. i will point out this graphic we have been using for most of this year that depicts the structural concrete progress. the dark gray has been completed and the green is what was accomplished in the last month which get us us to the edges. a lot of very good progress we're almost to being out of the structural concrete business shortly and i will show pictures to that effect. in the

western zone over the last month the focus has been getting concrete, structural concrete to allow for the follow up trades. that is almost done in the western zone and working on concrete columns, the below grade on the lower level there's a lot of partition walls for the electrical rooms and a major milestone to achieve by the end of the year and work progressed well on that area. also the map has been being continues and also the concrete masonry walls progress in the western. in the central zone now that all the structural concrete is done we have the follow up trades continuing with the upper right picture showing waterproofing that goes on the first street bridge. that's progressing to eventually remove the temporary first street bridge and one of the steps there and waterproofed there and the lower right

shows the awning continues to be installed in the central zone. in the eastern zone the structural steel and welding was completed, all the punch list items so they're off the job at this point essentially and fireproofing is following up on work progressing such as eyebrows that we talk about and the constreet on the middle deck continues as about on the eastern zone. moving on to the activity of the bus ramp and the main focus is up on harrison street and the clem min tina area and where the bus donut section happens and the cable stay framework progresses as we're getting closer to the deck pores on that. some of the pictures here. the two pictures show the pour that happened in the last month and that is behind us and the bottom

right shows -- they call it the lost deck, all of the forms go in place to pour the deck and frame four bridge structure so going to upcoming activities central zone will continue with the awning, metal panels, curtain wall installations and the painting and bus deck level waterproofing and this is building out and the anticipate of this bridge is mid-july and have a traffic switch and just a shift and traffic probably won't notice it so we can remove half of it and build up that section and do a traffic swap a few months later and get the first street bridge out of there in the next months. in the eastern zone continue this and the -- all of this continues and

continue the structural concrete here and at western end we complete this completely. we have other concrete that will happen throughout the year and partition walls and barriers and all of those will continue until october /november but the construct url concrete will done and the partial lid for f will be done in a few weeks and the bus ramp will have the cable stay deck pored and continue to do underground utilities and bridge work throughout the structure. on the safety slide i will happy to report in may there were no incidents, no lost time or recordables in the month of may and to put us over 2.3 million hours so far on the project so with they will turn it back to ron for the budget slide. >> i have one question on your -- ac transit is getting

probably more and more toward the electrical recharging stuff, the hydrogen that may or may not be working for us or anybody, so is there any infrastructure that is going into the bus deck at all to support charging on the deck or is that something we will just have to cut in later when it happens? >> i am not aware of charging on the bus -- >> way back in the tony pisony days and running cables there but i guess it's not happening. >> not at the bus deck. it was anticipated at the bus storage. we studied it and not worth the effort at the time. >> yeah. >> and in bus storage if it's required. >> i don't know if it's the wrong decision. at this point we're getting to the point of looking at the different

technologies that we might be interested in. okay. >> okay. moving on to our budget slide. in the last month we've increased the expenditures by 21.9 million bringing us up to about 1.3 9 billion in terms of expenditures, and our commitments have gone up to 1.5 1.3 and with a change of delta of 5.7 million in additional commitments so as you can see commitments are slowing down and the buy out is pretty much there except for the net worth that i will talk about shortly. in terms of budget and contract time we're inching along at 1% a month. in terms of the amount placed in this month it's a little light for pacing

ourselves for timing finish so i anticipate that number to be starting to increase as we move forward. looking at our contingency costs overall contingency usage was at 2.7 million and it's about 600,000 less than we had forecasted in the last report, and the may break down of 2.6 and construction contingency and .1 million in the other tirchl use as you see in the third -- fourth row, sorry. most of it was driven by miscellaneous super structure changes, elevator refinements, minor change orders for the most part.

i think the largest one was a million dollars of additional plate frs protection above the train box just to deal with some site issues where our cover wasn't as thick as we wanted and compensated by putting additional steel there so no great surprises on that front. looking at our schedule -- >> at one time we were talking about doing a big enforcement for the train box and that is not happen. >> those with 2-foot cover it is happening and -- less than that we do it and in case someone comes in and with a jackhammer and punch through that and with the site refinement we discovered areas they're

actually less than 2 feet so we removed the concrete protection slab and replaced with steel plates -- >> a bit of a safety net so we don't have inadvertent brooch of the water approaching. >> okay. >> looking at the schedule the overall forecast each of the major strengths and holding tight but from an overall perspective looks like we slipped a bit. the transit center this shows about a five day slippage on the transit center. 12 days on the bus ramp which is a little perplexing for me because as i sit in the meetings i sense we're going to come in by december so i think some fair factor hasn't been teased out yet and i am betting that coming in by december but right now the forecast is slowing a 12 day slippage

and as expected the bus storage facility slide another month although i hear some advancement in discussion about leases terms and relative to market conditions as advanced a bit but i haven't seen anything in a written agreement yet that will allow us to move forward in the advertise and bid phase for the bus storage. >> i talked to bijan about that and in june. >> it won't make the june. >> that's right and then. >> it's august. >> there is a meeting in august. just the opposite. how does that work and it's later than you would like to see it. >> yeah, and having an operational fix of dead heading. >> with the issue of

transit staff i asked them to come up with a short and long-term plan and short term being able to operate the transit center without the bus storage for six, seven month period so that if we're not able to build the bus storage facility in due time whether we open the transit center they're able to operate. long-term if somehow the lease doesn't go through so they're working on that. i think we will be able to mitigate whatever delays we're having right now through the short term plan that ac transit is developing. >> yeah, this is tied into ac transit and mtc and get four more buses and with the transbay terminal and if they can come in and we have to understand the more we store the fewer that are available for service on a regular basis so we have to be a

little bit careful there because we want to come out with as much service as possible. >> absolutely. i think the bus deck has 37 bays, the majority but not all storage and some could come back and i don't know if they're storing on treasure island and that is an option so we're working with them and come up with a short term operational plan and we're able to open the transit center and operate while the facility is being built if we're not able to finish construction at the time. >> yeah, definitely needs some attention. i will be at the overall work flow shows some slippage as we look at the more granule view of activities

strains and the exterior to waterproofing and interior finishes are showing gains on the schedule. those are the areas that are most active right now. they're the ones that put the most acceleration to and they're the ones that we've got our sea legs on if you will since we have been ramping up on those for a while. we're seeing slippage in the mechanical electrical plumping systems and commissioning activity and some of it is to be expected. we're in the learning curve and bringing the tradeos-line so i hope to see betterment of suggest as we progress and round out those elements as well, but it does kind of amplify or punk wait a general concern for being in a position to put together the building systems and the commissioning. it's going to be a big push towards the end

another area i have been emphasizing a long time and we will continue to emphasis on and in terms of the challenges of the schedule strategic over time i think has beared some fruit. i think we refined the forecasting among the group and i am seeking to see better improvement on the monthly updates and moving closer to a complete mitigation. as you see we're still hanging out there in terms of grading the full mitigationthe next challenge is by america. it settled down a bit but remains a potential significant schedule risk and likely to continue to be a subject of dispute. the schedule risk lies with the

timely procurement and installation of building systems much to do with a lot of activity with the electrical subcontractor. last month i noted that i was pushing our team to complete and stressing the emphasis of their certification by america. i was targeting may 13 and we got the evaluation concluded and issues, some letters to the cmgc and fiiveg to one to underscore by way of certification and federal regulation that they're obligated to deliver what was bid at bid price and by america compliant. we also in that

endeavor recognize there was some irregularities or some curiosity bs the bid package listed subcontractors. we saw some submittals from other subcontractors which begged compliance about the fair act and both were pointed out and questioned to the subs and i am awaiting a response for so we can correct that one if there is an issue as we perceive it so more to come on that front. >> is this collusion that you're looking at? >> no. some of the building systems, the fire alarm, the fire management system was listed under one particular suband i am seeing submittals from a different subthat was listed for communications, so that raises some eyebrows.

we will be continuing to address that as well as insuring that certification by america is maintained. the next topic of challenge is highlighted in the past is change management and unfortunately it's pretty much all about ac transit bus deck reconfiguration. since last month i did receive some proposals from the design team to create the modified construction documents and to implement some of the options that we studied with ac transit. i asked pmpc to put together a full project cost and schedule. we got numbers for the cost estimate. we got numbers for the design. if you put in

some factors for soft costs we're bumping up against about $950 million of endeavor there so i wanted to you know put it together with clarity like a project in itself in terms of costs and schedule, and start advancing that discussion about funding sources and timelines that that will dovetail in next week we will initiate some of the transitional planning bringing the transit users shortly under the take so we fully understand the expectations of arriving and operationalizing their spaces and in that discussion i see also advancing discussions on the bus deck as well and then the lastly the bid package 1.5 procurement which is basically buying the network systems equipment that's kind of

stretched out a bit. i was opening it was out already and it's about to go out. it has been bogged down by the buy america concern and we have asked designers to ensure what is in their speck for that trade package which is primarily all the network gear as i call it, the whiz bang boxes and the racks. most of them are i believe under the waiver for micro processors so we have kind of teased through that with the designer so we can have a definitive statement in the bid package which is about to go out. we will reached out to the fta to give us some validation on that front as well, but it is a worry because of our converged network a lot of things are interlaced with this equipment so it could impact our operational readiness. we have some work arounds in mind in

terms of procurement strategies, but this one is going to take a little more study and we really need to get this one out and get that sub contractor on board. >> even if we buy a cisco server out of menlo park. >> right. >> if it's not made in america it violates the buy america or the fact that we're buying a cisco server. >> that's been the difficult thing to tease out. we went to cisco and asked them to stand up loud and proud and buy america and they didn't quite get there. too many lawyers. >> it's hard thing if you want to go all the way to taiwan. >> what ron was mentioning we have a general waiver that applies to all projects for

micro processors. we met with fta after meeting with cisco and others to confirm the products comply with that and we met with fta and information to them and confirm in fact these products do comply so when we're at bid we don't have issues and not comply or not and lose interest in the project and lose bidders so we're going to put a statement in the bid documents to ensure bidders it's compliant and waiting for confirmation on that from fta and we should be able to get them together in time. this process of trying to understand what waiver applies to what and get feedback from fta took longer than expected and why we didn't advertise the project yet and expect to advertise it next week or two. >> that pretty much concludes my update if you have any

questions. >> chair harper. >> yes. >> thank you. ron thank you for the update. i was just curious on the change management slide you have about the ac transit for the bus deck reconfiguration what is the change process -- what is the approval process for that? ? does this board or ac transit approve it? how does that work? because it's different like you're digging and find an under ground storage tank to address. this sort of an owner change so that approved by this board or the partners or both? i mean -- >> i would think once we get alignment on the scope and schedule and funding source is with the end users that we come to this board and inform you and look for approval to --

>> i mean indicated to ac transit they should expect to pay for this. it's up to us whether we allow it orderless. >> (inaudible). >> but they shouldn't be surprised to see a bill coming. >> if we're able to quantify the costs and more importantly quantify the impacts on the schedule and come to agreement with ac transit on the costs and live with the schedule impacts we could present that to the board for approval. >> thank you. >> okay ron. >> thank you. >> all right. go ahead and call the next item. >> yes please. >> item 7 is the citizens advisory committee update. >> bruce. >> good morning directors, chair harper, executive director director, mark zabaneh. just a bit off topic. i would like to

congratulate supervisor kim for winning your races for democratic central committee and being one of the top two vote getters for district 11 and running again in november so congratulations. back on topic i do have several items from our last citizens advisory committee meeting. we were very pleased to hear as the executive director mentioned that the dtx will be again designated as a high performing project as part of the 2017 plan bay area and positions us for the phase two project new start funding of approximately $650 million. it was also shared -- one of the other items in the staff report was a response deadline for the master lasee was extended to

june 17 and although the reasoning for that extension makes great sense it was brought out in public comment there could be a risk of the retail not being ready by the time the transit center opens. the cac looks forward to an update at a future meeting once the contract is awarded and assured to hear about the next steps and timing and associated risks. >> the next item i would like to move on to and later in the agenda for the meeting this morning we want to thank the executive director for a great comprehensive update on the project. >> >> first including the design of a tunnel stub box at the curb of seventh and townsend makes so much sense that if the decision is is made to go ahead with the current alignment of phase two and subsequently making a

decision to adopt the peninsula alignment as part of the rab study that will be incorporated and will be well positioned. a second item it was highlighted during the presentation the need for three tracks as part of the downtown extension. we had discussion regarding construction methods of seqernl mining versus boring machines and with ten you will boring machines allowing for two tracks instead of three. in either case optimizing operational efficiency and flexibility must be held as a foundational requirement and we are confident that this will be incorporated in additional analysis as part of the current study in addition to any study with the rab. next we will be interested in hearing more about the trurn back

and maintenance tracks when answered as part of the supplemental eir /eis and the concern potentially that would exacerbate the traffic conjust ion in the area and we look forward to hearing more and answer this and alternatives through the rab study. next is funding. we had a robust discussion with passenger facility charges and looks how much to charge passengers coming in or out of the terminal as part of their ticket price. this pfc will contact for a significant portion of phase two funding. a very thoughtful analysis was done comparing the pfc to the cost of taking muni, cabs or other modes of transit from fourth and king to a passengers' ultimate destination. one item we noted was the convenience factor and time saved by a passenger in addition to the

cost of being able to disembark at their ultimate destination eliminating wait time associated with the transfer again justifying and supporting this charge. next we looked at as a point of caution we looked at escalation factors of 3 to 5% in the award of bid packages versus estimates. although these are not directly tied we all know during phase one many of the contracts awarded were upward to 25, 30% over estimates. we have been assured that the project team along with mtc have taken lessons from phase one into account with phase two of the project. with this said it would be prudent to incorporate this discussion with the board at the appropriate time and last as far as this presentation we look forward to

hearing more about the various delivery models to deliver this phase of the project. this is outlined as a next steps and we look forward to the analysis and recommendation to determine which model will deliver the project at the least cost while minimizing risks. just one quick item on the construction update. i want to again we appreciate the improvement in transparency provided in the construction update. with that said it's been noted that on the schedule and in the challenges and ron just mention today a few minutes ago that the schedule has slipped by a few days and one of the biggest risks identified was commissioning so at the cac we have requested an update on commissioning at a future cac meeting so thank you for the opportunity to provide this update and i will answer any questions. >> thank you bruce. >> okay great thank you. >> next item.

>> next item is public comment an opportunity per the public to address matters not on the calendar and recs we have mr. patrick and i believe that's all. >> good morning directors. jim patrick, patrick and company san francisco. i see a gorilla in the room. i see a transit station in an east-west direction. i see a lot of time devoted to the dtx which is the arrival at the western end. i see nothing, and i want to say again i see nothing being done at the eastern end. we've conjured up this notion of bart at the east end with a tunnel down to embarcadero station. good idea. where is it

going? this board needs to say we have an idea of the future and this is phase three and phase two is dtx. where is phase three? this board hasn't mentioned nor talked or put forth ideas about phase three and i think they're fabulous opportunities there there's a lacking of leadership of where we're going so i encourage you to rethink some of the things we're doing or give the staff direction what they should do about phase three. >> >> right now we're worried about where to put the toilets and we should think of phase three beyond that and that's the board's responsibility so please think about phase three. where are we going to be ten years from now? thank you. >> thank you. >> that conclus members of the public that would to address you on the item. we can move into the consent agenda.

>> please. >> all matters are considered as routine unless pulled and considered separately however i received no indication that for any items to be severed and the items are 9.1 and 9.2 of of the minutes and a contract with professional services agreement to extend the agreement for two fiscal years from the amount listed. >> is there a motion for approval? >> so moved. >> second. >> a motion and a second. we don't need a roll call, do we on the consent? all right. it's unanimous. >> all in favor say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the consent agenda is approved. moving into the regular calendar. >> please. >> item 10 is approving the

revised baseline budget for the transbay transit center program in the amount of $2,259,400,000. >> directors i will present this item. if i can get the computer to work. >> it will. >> okay. it's been a long road and we had a lot of help from a lot of people to provide you with a budget that is sufficient to finish the transit center and open phase one and open for operations. i want to thank you first for your support in the process and the city of san francisco and mtc and helping with the interim financing that needed to be done in order to fully fund the project and recognize our c fo and work with the controller's office to get this done and a long road but i think we

have a good budget now and the aim is be at least $100 million under with the budget when done and give money back to phase two to fully fund phase one. with that -- today we're $1.3 billion and we have 57 -- $60 million to go $22 million for the ip network and $20 million for the bus facilities and 15 and a half million dollars of various scope to procure under change orders to finish the project and makes up the $60 million to go. they're low risk items. we don't expect them to impact construction costs or schedule. we will be working hard on the ip network to make sure we procure in time and not impact the transit center

completion. we've completed much work and retired significant risks. to date we extended approximately $778 million or 61% of the work. structural steel is practically done and in the close out phase of the twoject of that other contract. twin box construction, piling and that's also been done. $125 million contract that's also in the close out phases. excavation has been done also. $235 million. that's done practically closed out. [inaudible] concrete and $53 million contract. we should be done with all concrete by december of this year and close this contract out by the end of this year so this is one -- these are our highest risk elements and they're behind us. ongoing work includes the

roof top park. we hope to start placing dirt and building the park september, /eakt october this year and that will start and the sky light and ceiling systems and awning and started installation and expect to be done a year from now and current walls and installation going pretty well. ceilings we will start soon once the transit center is ready to receive that and the highest risk item is the plumbing and mechanical and [inaudible] of work so our focus is on the electrical mechanical and plumbing. the awning current ceiling systems are design build assist and total $150 million and look at them as low risk since they're designed

by the contractor and designed by the contractor. this is a snapshot of the interim budget that was approved in november. as you can see we added $165 million to our july, 2013 budget back in november. that allows us to schedule critical packages at that time and increase our contingencies and reserves. this is a list of the packages that we awarded. $97 million. at the time we increased the costs by approximately $21 million and we increased the contingency reserves by $63 million -- 62.$8 million. this is a break down of the proposed budget for approval today. the total budget is $2,259,400,000 and includes the direct construction costs. $595 million for program

softs costs and right-of-way costs and $211 million in contingencies and reserves and the rest are in [inaudible] and construction. this is another break down of the contingency reserves. we have $211 million. we're adding $168 million with this budget augmentation. this is approximately 30% of the remaining work. if we take away the -- [inaudible] to utilize and after the exposure has been accounted for and a healthy budget and again standing here working with ron we don't see why we can't finish the project and leave the $100 million untouched and this is a slide that ron shared with you.

our estimate and completion as it stands today is just over $2 billion and $5 million than the maximum we want [inaudible] of -- $159 million which is the $100 million less than the total budget. you see the red line is what we called third rail in the office. that slide we will not exceed. and then to close it out this is a history of how we adjusted the budget since approved in may 2010 after adding the train box. the totals are listed here and july of 13 we added $310 million to the budget and 104 went to increase the package costs, $95 million of the 104 went

to seal trade package open at the time and came in almost double the estimate. listed here are the amounts of the reserves. the $360 million that we've -- includes the final budget. $265 million of that went award packages that came in above budget. 14.9 million dollars went for soft costs program wide and $79 million went to the contingency and reserves and this is to give a historical break down of the funds we added to the budget since the budget was approved in may 2010. this is a short presentation. i know the board has been updated of the progress of the budget since last year so with that i conclude my presentation.

>> okay. questions directors? okay. >> no question. i just want to acknowledge the good work that the staff has done to get us to this point. we were made aware of the need for this budget adjustment about a year ago and it's been a lot of work on the revenue side to get us to this point so i appreciate it. i appreciate also the executive director mentioned i think about seven times the goal of coming in $100 million under and there is a very healthy contingency here and i know we will do what we can to support him and his team to come in 100 under so we don't have to borrow that money and it's available -- >> mention today six times too many. >> no, i think it's great so i think it's great to be at this point and happy to move approval. >> we have a motion and a second. i have just a

couple technical questions that relate to the budget. when the money comes in from the san francisco mtc financing is that going to be sequested in a separate account? >> i have refer to the c fo, sara. >> it would actually come in for payments. we would only draw down as needed so i would submit requisition requests to the controller's office when i have expenses and receiving the monies and paying them out to contractors. >> the reason i ask with san francisco we have two levels of review with expenditures going forward. one is a general advisory thing that we still need to put together probably, but the other one for the money coming in and expended they wanted direct review

authority on that that was coming out of that money. am i wrong about that? >> we're working with ben and nadia this week on the cost review committee i think is what you're referring to so the proposal is yes for costs anticipated to from the city financing they will provide pre-approval and provide them a list of funding and not to exceed amounts. they would provide approval at a quarterly meeting. that is separate from the actual draw down process and the agreement does state konz they provided that pre-approval for commitments they can't then disallow a cost for a submitted invoice, but the reimbursement process is separate. i would be submitting requisitions to nadia's office and list of costs and receiving those funds and paying them out. >> you're saying after july we're sort of whatever it is

that we're requisitioning is going through the same process just as -- so all money was equal. the reason i ask i think sometimes do we want to have -- as i perceive the deal with san francisco there was two levels of -- two criteria levels they did. one is you're spending the money that we have advanced you and the other is money from parcel f and things like that that didn't have anything to do with that, and we may have occasion to say this particular money is coming out of this pot versus this particular money is coming out of that pot, so are we going to have that capability? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. there's no change in any of our processes for handling funds. again the committee will preapprove

uses of the city financing and to specifically draw down on that financing we will submit reimbursement requests or requisition requests to the city as the funds are needed. we're not requesting the funds in advance of the commitment. >> sara maybe the question is that there's two levels of review as part of the cost committee. money that's not part of the interim financing that we're spending we would share within the change orders and they would review and concur with that. money that is being used for part of this financing they're going to review all the expenditures regardless whether change orders or not. >> right. >> those are the two levels and we're meeting with the controller's office and streamline the process and especially for the change orders. we don't want to wait for change orders and we want to process them and the meeting is how to streamline the process

with the office and mtc they're assured they see the expenditures and aware and concur with it and not impacting the project itself and delaying anything. >> my perception was with respect to the financing they wanted a high level of authority much higher than no this is not the money but that's what got my question. >> yeah, the interim financing they will review all the expenditures. the money not part of that they will review the change orders. this is the way -- >> so they will review change orders, contracts, contract amendments and any potential budget exchanges. >> yeah. >> okay. another minor thing you talk about the cost regarding the for the sales force and the fremont towers and they're going to pay for that. is that shown as income to

us? i just wanted to make sure. i probably missed it. >> technically what is going to happen instead of meeting 360 we're going to take half million dollars less from interim financing because sales force is going to reimburse us and reimburse us for the work that is approximately $100 million -- i wish -- half million dollars for doing their design, so it's reimbursed work so instead of adding half a million dollars to the budget to reflect it reducing our needs by that amount. that's all. it's just an accounting. i wanted to show as part of the budget we need to increase the design budget by half a million dollars to reflect that costs even though it's pursed fully. >> okay. so my last question is that the funding plan you mentioned the developer will pay an additional 15 million --

this is on parcel f and pay the premium to secure and assemble the 545 howard street site which is way down the road so we need to be you know cognizant of that and make sure because it won't happen right away. it's going to be and that is just between them and the 545 howard people. >> when they have final approval from the planning commission we will know what they're proposing and if that includes 524 howard and receive that amount and go to phase two. >> and the 15 million -- we're not counting on that i presume. >> i am counting on it for phase two. >> or phase three now. >> it's not part of that. >> as to the future commitments of the parcel f buyer we're recording a covenant to capture all of the items and of course we will be

watching closely and monitoring in the event we're eligible to receive additional income. >> okay. no further questions. okay. >> quick comment. i would echo the director's comment and staff's work to get us to this point. in future updates there maybe based on the correspondence from the public about the budget and scope. it might be helpful to add another slide in future updates and i am not trying to create more work and not sure which is the right slide but talking about the final budget of 2.25 million i think it's fair to say the scope with the number isn't the same where we started that the biggest addition i think is the train box for example, but there maybe another million dollars addition for ac transit's

bus deck reconfiguration. there may be other things so what i am getting at there maybe an appropriate slide here's the base scope once upon a time and here's the scope additions that have occurred over the last 20 years. that gets lost in this type of presentation where we're just focused on the numbers, but it doesn't really tell other parts of the story that the public has shared with us what we're building today isn't what we thought we were building 20 years ago and somehow that needs to be woven in here and just another slide that says you know basis of design and then additions over the last 20 years. >> okay. >> and those numbers should be total numbers, not you know 300 for this and fee for that. i mean it's simple train box is worth 450 million. ac

transit deck design -- just simple numbers to better tell a complete story rather than just the numbers. >> yeah. i will do that and i want to clarify that the number here includes the box. >> correct. but that's not where we started. >> i understand. >> where we started was more like 1.2 billion. >> and we added the train box. >> and other things happened along the way but the scope of work is different today than envisioned decades ago. >> okay. will do. >> okay. the first and a second and no members of the public to address you on that item. >> yes. >> director gee. >> aye. >> director kim. >> aye. >> ed reiskin. >> aye.

>> director harper. >> aye. >> call the next item. >> please. >> next item is approve the fiscal year 2016-15 capital budget in amount not to exceed $484,920,300 and fiscal year 2016-15 not to exceed $5,187,168. >> i will be brief. this is a snapshot or one year sliens of the -- slice of the overall budget that you approved and anticipate spending this year both capital and operating. the only change since we presented the numbers in may was add just under $5 million to phase two and of course you're hearing about that every time later on in the meeting so i won't go into detail but we will work with the san francisco transportation authority to request funds for that

effort but that is the only change made to the draft budget presented to you last month. i am happy to answer any questions. >> great. >> you have one vacant position i think the budget memo said which is a senior program director. is that a position for phase two or is that the vacated position? >> the budget that's sitting there is currently vacated position. mark is capable of doing two jobs at once and could fill that with a staff person but the number is there for whatever the board and mark would like to -- >> so the budget doesn't proscribe whether the phase two effort will be lead via

professional services consultants versus a staff member. you have the ability to do either? >> the phase two budget is specifically for consultant work. we don't currently have a funding source that is specific to staff and benefits so currently all staff time and benefit time as well as all of administrative costs are allocated to phase one even though certainly there are folks that spend a certain percentage of time on phase two. if we do at some point in the future have phase two funding sources where staffing and benefits are eligible costs we could do a cost allocation plan at that point and split it out. >> so right now none of the funding sources available for phase two are not available to pay staff. >> no. and they're specific to consultant work and we could do a cost allocation plan and request that in a future funding request for phase two but at this point all staff is

covered by phase one sources. >> does that include parcel f sale and those are restricted as well? >> land sales are restricted to hard construction costs. >> i get it. >> they're used in phase one anyway. >> right. >> i guess the reason i am asking and i mentioned this to mark a while ago that this i think as the chair said last time it really needs to be the shift of the focus of the agency and develop phase two. it's a huge as we will see three or $4 billion program. at should point we shouldn't leave it just to consultants and have a senior staff person who is fully responsible for that effort and i think leaving it spread out over different

consultants ultimately won't deliver the program and if we need to do that allocation or the process i recommend that we take the steps so we have the opportunity in the future with other funding to bring on or use that position perhaps to fund a staff person to lead phase two. >> san francisco money can go to phase two, right, for staff, i would think? >> we're having discussions with the transportation authority and after the presentation on the dtx i will explain the next steps and part of the next steps we're seeking funding to achieve the next steps. i will in my discussions, follow up discussions with the transportation authority i will see if there is a way to get funding so we can have somebody full time help and manage dtx with the tjpa staff. currently the budget is consultants managing part time efforts but i agree with you director

reiskin to focus and deliver dtx as quickly as possible we need that and i will bring it up in discussions with the executive director of the transportation authority. >> okay. i will willing to support the budget as is so we can have it in place before the start of the new fiscal year but i would strongly urge that we take the steps so we create the budget space and the funding source to bring on someone to manage this program. >> i would like to point out the total budget amount shouldn't change because the vacant position is fully funded and making sure of that, but -- [laughter] >> mark. >> but yeah we could use that position for phase two if we're able to get the funding and phase one and phase two and the total budget would be the same and just as sara mentioned and reallocation and we will do that. >> thank you director

reiskin for bringing the item up about phase two. i think what would be helpful for me at a future meeting sort of a road map for what we need to do as a board to whether it's new interagency agreement or a partnership agreement to help fund and resource the team for phase two. i mean i don't think it's -- just my ignorance or naive etthat san francisco will fund it all about if there are things to get to a budget to resource the team to work on phase two what does that road map look like? who needs to be involved and consulted and what agreements need to be in place? because i don't think it can happen by itself or san francisco. thank you san francisco forgetting it started but this is a bigger -- for getting it started but this

is bigger than that and we have heard not everyone is on the same page and how do we get there and what does it look like? >> okay. i believe we have a first and a second. >> yeah we did. >> and no members of the public to address you with that. director gee. >> aye. >> director kim. >> aye. >> director reiskin. >> aye. >> vice chair nuru. >> aye. >> chair harper. >> aye. >> five aye's and item 11 is approved. call the next item? >> yes please. >> item 12 is approving the amendment number 4 to professional services agreement for turner construction company to increase the maximum comp tension from $57,180,000 to a total of $72,500,000 and extending the tomorrow of the consider for wo years to 2018. >> directors we shared the need to augment the budget as we develop our overall budget

last year we shared with you that the original budget did not account for the number of fabrication shops and number of fabrication welding that needed to get the construction seal completed. when we did the budget originally we thought we were doing fabrication at two shops and single shop. as the contractor got on board and working in earnest the work required to be done and increase the shops doing that and i think it went up to almost eight different locations at one point. that caused us to having to send the c mo at different locations to observe the

welding and approve the welding and increased the needs quite a bit and increased the budget so this budget element adds $15.3 million to the budget. extends it two years to the middle of 2018 until we close out phase one. it reduces the fee from 9% to 7%, so c mo's is our eyes and ears and we need them more than ever to keep up with construction and approvals so we're able to get going with construction. currently they're working several shifts and saturdays to be able to finish by this date so if you have any questions dennis can -- >> questions? none. a motion. >> can you give us a little more detail of what they would be doing the next two years? >> yeah, dennis. >> sure. i can run through

the presentation real -- go through some of the details. >> yes. >> i'm not going to go through the scope part because i think we're familiar with that. they're the eyes and ears to the scope. this details out the background how we get to the 15.3 million that is remaining. this tries to tell the story right here where it's we're -- the red line is what the request is. it shows you that the 46 million and this timeline shows it starts july 2013. it's really when the budget was approved and shows starting the c mo at $46 million. prior to scanz sca coming on board and tracking as expected and once the people came on board you can see the yellow line and the black lines basically shows

the spike up as the efforts for the isi which is the main driver for the additions to the contract came from and as we noticed right away it was the latter part of 2014 when scam sca was on board and the support needed for that activity starting to representation that's when we immediately noticed that this had to be modified and the red line and projected up to $72 million and went for the first in a series knowing we would have to get to that point. as we were working through an interim funding budget element we could only go in certain parts and kept moving through various cmo amendments to get to eventually the 72 million -- 75.5 million we were expecting. as we went through we have been tracking it and now we're ats

at as of end of march and have information that is tracking identical and confident we're tracking below the 72.5 million with a slight contingency going forward and ultimately the request today for the cmo amendment four gets us to the 72.5 million that we looked that we needed. where are the numbers coming from? basically you can break it down and knowing the original contract and added 7.5 million to get to the 46 million for the july 2013 budget of the remaining amount over $20 million of the remaining amount is the special inspections and mostly welding and off site inspections and the remaining -- another 6 million comes from the addition of a second and third shift of turner, the additional eyes and ears, one person at night

and one person during swing shift and weekends, additional waterproofing inspection, partnering and claims resolution support that we have added to the cmo contract add up to the 75.5 million. with the major focus -- i use this graphic to show where all these sites were, all the west coast sites, where the inspections throughout the different fabricators that were required for isi, and because once the -- once you had the actual fabrication and laid it out in the yards you needed more inspectors because of the layout of the fabrication site itself because they're multiple football field sizes and you added welders to that inspection as well so that's the break down where it came from and why

we got to this amount from the original budget approval to today plus also adding the two years to 2018 and turner doing their part and working with the budget and reducing the fee down to 7%. does that answer the question director? >> i don't know. i had the same sort of question because what -- i mean it may be that all of this adds up to 72.seven at this point but from a timing perspective is there a $12 million bill from turner sitting in there that's unpaid? because if not as director nuru said what are they doing for the next year? supposedly the structural steel is done and are we sitting on a unpaid invoice here. >> no. we have $600 million of work that we haven't

executed yet, you know, the ceilings, all the current walls, mechanical, electrical, plumbing civil work that needs to be done. that work needs to be inspected and the quality is correctly. waterproofing -- we haven't completed that so somebody has to inspect that. somebody has to make sure it's done correctly so we need the quality assurance. >> but we always had to inspect all of those things. >> well, i think the original -- the budget that was for the cmo in 2013 was not sufficient because the budget was $45 million and the cmo contract was $38 million and up to june of this year did not have the two years to go, so the seven

and a half million dollars in the budget is not enough for two years and that's a big part why the augmentation is larger than the budget, but no we have a lot of work to do and if we want to keep up and make sure that we're providing them with inspection at the right time so they can keep up with this and working three shifts we need the manpower or the power in this case. >> so the structural steel is not the problem -- >> that's the expenditures and went from 38 -- >> yeah, i got from 38 to 57. >> that's the pay for the welding also. the 15.$3 million is for the next two years for the upcoming work. >> i would point out this is what we were told when we approved the previous increase and had pretty much the same discussion and we're increasing as much as the budget allowed

and the staff would come back once approved to fund the full increase so this is at least consistent with what we were told about, what the projection is for the need of the services. >> that's the story and they're sticking to it. >> are there any other hidden expenses that we should know? >> they're not hidden expenses. they're part of the budget -- >> we anticipated doing it anyways but -- you know -- >> yeah. that's the thing. i mean i understand i think, but don't keep going back to the structural steel welding and everything. at this stage it just seems -- so what it is that amount -- it's a lot and sort of took out of the budget for the ceilings and mechanical and everything. that went into inspecting structural steel and now we've got to replace that that we knew we were have to

inspect anyway and that seems the story. >> we had an insufficient budget and the work needs to be done. >> right. >> they're people in the field, boots on the ground keeping up with it and also help us with -- big part they're helping with analyzing change orders, analyzing any issues that we have and that is also part of these efforts. >> great. >> we were involved in the dra. they're involved in the dra. they're leading the effort there. >> right. as the graphic shows the red line we identified early on that we would need to get to a certain point and tracking exactly to that but we could only go in steps. that is part of the challenge i think of the story here but from early on we reconvened because the main driver was isi and

everything under the influence. >> >> else is known and isi. >> we knew that 72 was the number. >> as of last year we recognized we needed to 72 and part of the budget updates as we updated you on our budget needs. >> all right. okay. >> thank you. so i apologize mark and dennis for asking so my understanding if they're not any outstanding invoices and everyone has been paid then and isi is a subto turner and turner advanced part of their budget to pay for isi. that's the only way their sub can be paid without outstanding invoices? >> we have been doing an interim amendment. there's where the various stars -- >> i understand but the 23.3 million is a big number

and if there aren't outstanding invoices to anybody and turner is paying beyond the base to isi? >> no. so turner's current contract is at that level and they're near leer at that level and this is to cover the next two years. there is no one -- >> we shifted the budget because there were budgets for other work that we wind up shifting to isi. that internally happened and we sought more money for the increases. >> no, i understand that, but to director nuru's comment if there aren't any outstanding invoices to anybody somebody got paid out of somebody's budget. it's as simple as that and we're putting more gas in the gas

tank so they can continue for two more years. i understand that part but if the sub has been paid it came out of somebody's budget allocation which happens to be turner for their time on the project. that's just the way it is if nobody hasn't been paid, and that's what everyone has said so far. no one has not been paid. >> no, everyone has been paid. >> so i get that point. the other side of this just i understand it dennis in terms of the field work done by isi i just need you to say on the record or answer this question is that isi's time cards have been reconciled with the mill runs that actual happened on site? >> absolutely. we were fully reviewing time cards and ensuring they match to who is there. in fact all the time cards are included in the

monthly invoices. >> i understand that but they have to be reconciled against the actual mill runs and that isn't always the case that the tjpa project was there eight hours a day or three shifts and you you know mill by shape not by project. >> in this case we took over the majority of the factories and the only reason isi was there for our project not a matter they were working on other projects there and made it a simple review and they were for us only. >> and no other project was in the plant or in the yard or in the mill? >> not utilizing for isi. >> thank you. >> we need a motion. >> one more. i'm sorry. >> go ahead. >> and just one more follow up question. mark going back to your previous presentation

on the final revised budget when we talked about this amendment we're talking about the program wide costs for construction management at the 75.9 million budget of which is the majority of that. >> yeah, we have city services and other services on top of that. this is that line, the construction management of 75. >> thank you. >> okay. looking for a motion. approval. >> so movedded. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. >> moved and second. no members of the public wanting to address you on that item. >> director gee. >> aye. >> director kim. >> aye. >> director reiskin. >> aye. >> vice. >> aye. >> chair harper. >> aye. >> that's five aye's and approved. item 13 is a presentation on the downtown

rail extension and phase two. >> i will provide you with this presentation with help from -- once i get my computer going here. sorry i am ahead of myself here. directors this is a comprehensive presentation where we stand on the dtx. once we accomplished so far and environmental documents approved and advancing the design what work needs to be done to move forward so that we can bring the trains to the transit center as soon as possible. this is the train box level eagerly awaiting trains to arrive. [laughter] >> i thought it was the chair's wine cellar. >> so the -- this presentation will give you an overview,

talk about construction and scope and history of the budget and cost estimates to date, what efforts we have done thus far and estimates of the information we have, discuss a plan that would serve as a road map to bring in the sit sit. talks about funding strategies and what next steps we need to take in the near future and later on to make this work. i will be joined in the presentation with ms. sara wilson from the designer. she will present the construction methodology and our staff will present the funding plan. starting with an overview you know phase two will extend caltrain future high speed rail from the caltrain current terminus at fourth and king to a transit center. the extension itself is 1.3 miles and the

construction limits are approximately 2 miles. today we made much progress but we still have work to do. we issued the environmental document, the draft for public review in december received comments in february and we're addressing the comments right now and sharing the comment review with the federal transit administration, fta. we expect to finalize the environmental documents by the end of the year and recommendation from the fta this year. also significant progress on the development of the dtx. the dtx [inaudible] 30% completed but some items introduced as new scope modified scope as part of the supplemental environmental document is not 30% done and needs to be done to bring it

to 30%. the box itself -- fit out for the train box is approximately 50% complete. however we need to refresh and refine it based on changes made in phase one mainly escalators and elevators and other features to do that and received approval from the california high speed rail and caltrain on the design and gee metrics for the design and alignment of the dtx. we're doing a study right now and share the results for the procurement for phase two. we've asked them to do a study on the methods out there and what we be for tjpa what procurement method is best to procure phase two cost effective and least risk to tjpa. this study is in the draft form. we will share the results with you next month and talk about

design build and other cures and based on the funding and the status of the project and provide you with input what the best method with information that we have right now and we continue the ongoing collaboration with the rab study with the city and other stakeholders as we move forward the aim is to be close cooperative with the rab study and part of the study and drive it to a successful conclusion. i'm going to spend a little time on this slide. this is the scope of the phase two as outlined in the environmental document, supplemental environmental document that is being approved. part of the phase two is extend the train box to the east from green street to main street to accommodate the high speed train links and 400 meters. our train box is not that long so we need to do that accommodate the

length and phase two construction of the bus facility on top of the train box. that facility would be used to store buses for greyhound and amtrak services. currently greyhound amtrak are using the bus deck for phase one. as we move into phase two ac transit needs practically the entire bus deck to operate so we're moving greyhound and amtrak to the other bus facility and phase two includes construction of muni and bart connector which would connect the east end of the lower concourse of the transit center into the mezzanine level of the embarcadero station and connect both stations together. phase two would include fit out of the transit center for the lower concourse and the train box and mechanical electrical and plumbing and ceiling

work and platforms and escalators and elevators and ventilation systems in the train box. the construction of the dtx is based on the three track and 2/3 of it is under ground tunnel that's mined using sequential excavation methods and 1/3 is cut and cover. the structure is cut and covered and geometry from three to six tracks as you enter the transit center and there's a section on townsend street between fourth and townsend station build by phase two and end of mine tunnel and cut and cover because it's shallow in that area and the big feature of phase two is the inclusion of the tunnel stop located in the caltrain yard at fourth and king streets and serve as a connection point to allow us to further extend the

under ground, the dtx southward so we're able to maximize the potential for the mission area and utilize for development so the south subis a complement to our project. you can extend the dtx under ground without impacting the operation of the trains as phase two is built. this is a list of the some of the stoap that was added or modified by the environmental document and the extension is one of them and modifying the structures and adding the bus facility, defining alignment of the bart muni pedestrian connector and was included in the 2004 environmental document but we had various alternatives. one went to montgomery street and one went to embarcadero. this environmental document sets the alignment from the transit center along beale street

into the embarcadero. we also widen this structure as part of the supplemental environmental document and we wanted to accommodate the turn radius required for high speed rail. we modified the fourth and townsend station also and mezzanine level there and make it bigger and turn tracks at "of caltrain. as i mentioned alignment for dtx is three tracks. currently the incoming tracks from the peninsula is a two track system. as they enter the dtx will extend to three tracks. we will have three tracks through the fourth and townsend station, three tracks along the mine section on 2nd street and extend into six tracks as we enter the transit center station. the station will have three platforms and six tracks. >> so that's from the

tunnel sub box -- that is three tracks. >> yeah. currently we have two tracks and the project will extend to three tracks and before the tunnel and continue the three track system into the transit center -- >> so the new fourth and townsend. >> three tracks. >> scpawl the way to the curb there and the stub out and then two tracks and not us. >> it's to allow us or others to further extend the dtx under ground with the three track system so that will maximize the potential for the mission bay area and added grade crossings and so forth. it's to accommodate future expansion. >> okay. >> it just gives us the facility a reason to fully develop the area to the full potential. i do have a slide on the need for three tracks -- sorry, so this is a cross

section of the train box. we envision having again three platforms, two platforms used for high speed rail, one could be used for caltrain and again that we have platform heights we can interchange them and any train can use anyone they want to use and we maximized the flexibility there. okay. yeah i wanted to make sure i didn't miss this slide here and the reason we need three tracks over and above the operation approved by the federal transportation administration and caltrain and require three tracks and allow to stage two trains going into a transit center and one is leaving and vice versa and if there's inbound train using the facility it's disabled having a three track system we can bypass

it and maintain the time and operation needs, and ulc having three tracks makes it easier to use the platform interchangeably in the transit center and above all building a -- since we're building a tunnel not like a roadway or bridge and not widen it in the future so it's optimum that we provide the flexibility that we need to operate it effectively now and in the future to come. with that i'm going to turn it over to sara wilson fromman jacobs to mach about the construction methods. i do want to note that sara worked on the claremont tunnel as she's currently working with the central subway. she has a wealth of experience. >> thank you mark. good morning. i am here to talk about the construction methodologies that have been

selected for the occupants of this project. so mark went over the alignment briefly and there are certain portions of the alignment that have to be cut and cover because the excavations are large and complex or changed so much or sharo it's not practical to excavate by any other method. the mined tunnel recommended is limited primarily to 2nd street connecting to cut and cover portions of the project. one of the benefits of the mined tunnel that it will allow for -- okay. looks like i have a pointer here. that will not do it. allow for mine of each side and cut and cover and mining can proceed towards the center and a ventilation shaft in the center of the alignment and used to stage excavation up to three or four headings if need be. this means all can be proceeding

concurrently with the excavations. again these are some of the geometries in different locations in the project. the throat structure up by the trans bay structure is 350 feet wide and cut and cover and expanding from three to six track frs the station. at townsend street will be expending up to three tracks as mark said and about 80 feet wide and the sem geom gree is 55 feet wide and it's an under ground excavation and wider than it is tall and that enables us to facilitate three tracks at the shallow -- with the shallow alignment of the project. that's one of the very important reasons why sem has been selected here. so for the

cut and cover structures and deep soil mix supportive excavation is installed and as that proceeds downward internal bracing is installed. street decking is installed to facilitate live traffic as we go downward and the depths are between 40 and 85 feet and the constreet box is installed underneath all of that live traffic. so for the ground conditions here can you see the 1853 shoreline and the current shoreline. there's a lot of fill as we all know. we have been here for any time there's a lot of fill installed in san francisco bringing up the city to where it is now and the mined tunnel is in native material in rock and within the 1853 shoreline. some of the cut and cover portions are in the area where infill has been

installed and cross section of the anticipated ground conditions which is way too complex for any of the names to be actually picked up but the primary purpose is talk a bit where the mined tunnel is located so the gray material that comes up to the surface is franciscan formation and that is rock. the mined tunnel has been selected for the rock portion of the alignment as well as for a valley roughly in the middle of the mined tunnel and due to vertical exaggeration to get this on one slide it may not be evident that the valley will comprise hundreds of feet in the dtx extension alignment. a couple of turns if you're not a tunnel person like me and floor and ceiling and fancy terms here and shows the cover at the ends

of the alignment. because of the potential for variable ground within the rock serkz one of the tools that sem tunneling uses is systematic probing and economical way to assess ground conditions ahead of time and anticipated so the right tool box can be used, the right types of ground support can be pulled out of the tool box and used and customized for the ground to be mined through. decisions on what appropriate support goes in are made on a round by round basis. there is a daily meeting in the heading with the engineers and make sure everyone is on the same page. >> >> this reduces risk for structures adjacent to the alignment so we have about 3200 feet of mined tunnel on the project. the sequential

excavation method offers the best value to the owner for managing construction schedule and risk. this is a cross section from a drawing for this project, and it's intended to show some of the presupport measures and the way the support goes in and the sequencing which is inherent to sequential excavation that happens for tunneling so the drift was number one is excavated after the pipe canopy are installed above it and the dots above the tunnel and dowels can be used for presupport if need be and drift number one is excavated. steel supports and shock create supports are installed in drift one and on one side and go to the other side and number two and do the same things and presupport is installed for the whole thing. excavate out number two. put in the support appropriate for number two and lags number one by a bit and

number one and two form a foundation for the arch for number 3 and drift three in the center comes out hence the words "sequential." again here i just want to note that this geometry is ideal for this project because it's able to be wide to accommodate the three tracks. if we were to use a tbm excavation for three tracks the cross section would have to be circular and because top of rail needs to go where it needs to go the whole tunnel would be higher creating the potential to see more of a impact at the surface. you will take more ground out closer to the surface and likely more impact at the surface. this is a photo of an sem excavation, a typical one similar in itself to this project. it's a state of the art tunneling process. you

can see in the photos drifts one and two has been excavated and three hasn't been taken out. but this is just -- this tunneling practice this is how it looks. for those that have been in there and yeah this is how it's supposed to look. so tbms are great for certain projects. we use them at central subway with good success. if we thought they were the right answer for this project we would be 100% behind it but sem is clearly the winning choice for this project and some of the reasons are listed on the slide so we have complex, challenging, change shallow cross sections and howl need to be excavated under a busy urban environment. i mentioned the geometry a bit

and just one more point about that. it would take the biggest tbm in the world to excavate the project and sem is more attainable and realistic for the contract documents. the risk of settlement is minimized here and due to the proximity to the surface and the ability for the ground conditions to be assessed and for the support to be customized every round. if there is additional support required it's going to go in and not a surprise later due to the systematic process for sem. support is tailored to the ground conditions in real time and that is daily meeting with the engineers at the heading and review. equipment procurement is streamlined and will take a year to fabricate for the other way and sem using things

that are easier to get on site and less expensive than a tbm and the schedule can be flexible anded had things and from each end and the middle and if there is a equipment break down you're not waiting for the one piece of equipment to get back going again. that's you mark. >> well, this is just to highlight -- >> oh right, great. since i can't point to it. here we have the headings denoted with arrows here. up to four headings can be under way concurrently. >> i guess the point is we're able to excavate from four directions at least three directions so if the machine breaks down in one direction we're making progress in other directions and similar to what we done in the (inaudible)

tunnel and excavate both directions and they do two directions. it it just minimizes risk in the field in case the machine breaks down the other machine is making progress is the point that sara wanted to make. >> right. successes. this method has been used successfully in the area and as mentioned and in other areas and was a lot of fun. >> okay. this section will be about the history of the budget so in 2008 the tjpa board approved a budget of approximately $3 million

(phone ringing) sorry. $3 billion for the phase two. >> >> based on the scope of work in 2004 environmental impact statement reports included the scope included downtown extension, assumed a top down construction method where we would build the transit center in the future and excavate underneath for the train box and delivery method was based on design build and contemplated operations in 2018 at the time. this is a the alignment envisioned at the time. again it had the tracks and it wasn't modified and a structure modified per high speed rail requirements and it did not include of course the

extension. the budget was based on -- the budget was based on an estimate been in 2007. this is a break down of the estimate. it was $1.9 billion for total construction and based on a 4% escalation. right away was $163 million total program wide costs including soft costs and $553 million and we had $348 million in contingency reserves for approximately $3 billion. the construction contingency in the budget was assumed at 10% of construction costs and the program reserves was assumed to be 6% of the program costs which is the program costs you see here which

is listed here. >> >> in 2010 -- sorry, in 2010 the tjpa was success in obtaining $400 million in funding. that was really a big milestone and win for us because it allows us to build the train box as part of phase one and remove quite a bit of risk so the budget was reduced to 2.6 billion dollars but all the remaining scope besides the train box remain the same. the method was design build and operations was supposed to be in 2018 based on this budget. between that time frame as we developed the project we updated the estimate that resulted -- the elements of the project and updated the estimate and in 2010 finished documents for the downtown extension based on the information we had at the

time and 1.1 $7 billion. in 2012 the drawings were completed for the center and the costs were estimated at that time. these are direct cost estimates and don't include contingencies or reserves for construction. in 2013 we did a holistic update of the estimate to take into account the changes since the budget was approved. that estimate included removal of the tail tracks -- >> we didn't need the tail tracks anymore? >> in 2010 when high speed rail said they needed that we extended them and that's when they were removed. did i get it right? >> [inaudible] >> yes? . okay. >> [inaudible] (off mic).

>> yeah. >> okay. >> yeah, but that's -- >> so we eliminated the tail tracks not for operational purposes but for -- not that we couldn't get by operating without them but we had to extend the box and couldn't have them anymore? >> we didn't have a need for them so we could operate without them. >> we decided we could operate without the tail tracks, yeah. >> and the geometry has been approved by the dtx by the federal transportation administration and caltrain doesn't see a need for the tail tracks. >> okay. i just wanted to remember. >> okay. so this is basically a listing of what changed and in 2013 we presented the board with an updated estimate based on information we had then that included 1.5 billion dollars approximately of direct

construction costs. at that time we reduced escalation down and based on the cpi index at the time was 2.4%. the area plan used 2.2% and high speed rail used between 2% and 3% at the time so we felt we could reduce the escalation to 3% so the construction costs based on that estimate was 1.9 billion dollars. we increased the right-of-way costs by $103 million to account for some of the changes especially the train box extension required more right-of-way so that brought the right-of-way to $266 million. program wide was $418 million. and the contingency and reserves were $183 million for construction contingency and approximately 10%, 9.4%. program wide

reserves were 7% of program costs and that was our $3 billion estimate provided to you and didn't include the bart connector. the barlt connector at the time was $120 million but not included in this estimate. as you know mtc conducted a cost review for phase two in the fall of 2015 and we shared the results with you. these are the summary of the results. they looked at the construction schedule and concluded that the seven year construction schedule that we assumed in our estimates was sound. the construction mark up with the overhead we used was 26%. they concluded that was sound. for the escalation increase from 3% to 5%. under the contractor fee they recommend to increase

from 5% to 10% and recommended to increase our total contingency from 23% to 37% and noticed some of the scope was not. >> >> 27% and some of the scope was missing from the estimate and amounted to $58 million. they recommended that we include that in the estimate. the mtc cost review did not review the program wide costs or the right-of-way costs. they didn't have time to do it so their focus was on construction costs. >> what cost before the right-of-way costs? >> program wide. >> okay. >> so their focus was basically on construction costs. this is a break down of the increase in costs as a result of the mtc cost review. the escalation increased it by $433 million going from 3% to 5% adjusting the fee from 5% to

10% adding $100 million and adjusting the contingency added $93 million and the missingitem was is listed here and this is on top of the estimate at the time. mtc's assessment of the bart connector was between $120 million and $310 million so the mtc review yielded about $4 million. since that time and the budget proceeding we shifted our focus on phase two and started looking at our estimate looking at scope and starting to refresh our estimate with information that we have. since the beginning of this year we looked at the scope of the dtx. we took the scope that was 30% design and asked the designers to refresh the estimate based

on current market values on the quantities -- based on the quantities that we have. for scope it was conceptual stage, not fully developed used order of magnitude estimate based on the information we have and the market conditions that we know of. we included in the refreshed estimate all the mtc recommendations, and we used program for the program wide costs and the contingencies we used percentage based amounts but we did not have time to update the right-of-way costs. we need more time to update the right-of-way costs and part of next steps and this is a break down of the draft estimate that we have developed. again this is work in progress and started in february gathering the information together and trying to update the estimate and we wanted to give you a snapshot of where we're at. this estimate the sub-total for

construction excluding escalation is 1.7 million dollars and 5% for construction is $583 million so the total construction is $2.3 billion and that would be the expected bid amount at the time we award the project. right away we kept it at $266 million. we will update later o for program wide we used 22.5% of the total construction costs as a budget, 20 of that is for soft cost and then other costs so the total program costs excluding contingency and program reserves is $3 billion. for construction contingency we use 10% of the construction costs to set aside and that's a normal practice. for program reserves we use 15% of the total program costs $3 billion so we're saying here in the program reserve we

have 15% contingency for construction, 15% contingency for right-of-way, 15% contingency for program wide. that brings our total construction contingency and reserves to $692 million and total program costs for 3.7 billion dollars excluding the bart connector. the bart connector is $161 million. we reviewed the bart connector scope with our designers and determined that the direct cost is about $110 million and when you add escalation is listed here and total construction is $4 billion approximately and this program costs has $903 million in contingency and