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 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 program reserves. it's the 692 that you see here and the $211 million in design contingency. if we were to use 3% escalation or

three and a half percent escalation and the going rate and move the delta between the 5% and the three and a half percent in program reserves that delta would be approximately $175 million. doing that the program reserves -- the total contingency would be 1.1 billion dollars which is a 40% basically contingency. i'm saying that because as we move into the risk assessment likely to use that for the escalation and move the delta in the reserves and if it goes beyond three and a half percent we will fund that and not removing it from the project cost but putting it where it belongs in the line items. this is just to give i a visual break down of the several cost elements of the project. this is based on direct costs,

not including soft costs erescalation and the line tunnels and approximately 151 amount listed here. >> >> and the tunnel stop was added as part of the environmental document to be able to accommodate the rab study and help develop the mission bay area -- mission bay to its full potential basically. this is a break down of how this estimate in comparison to mtc review. the review when looking at indirect cost said 26% was sufficient. this estimate has 26% for other costs besides

the tunnel and 54% for the tunnel and the tunnel is a higher risk item. the recommendation for escalation was 5% and mtc cost review. this estimate is 5%. the contract fee -- contractor fee and review recommended 10%. this estimate uses 15% for the tunnel and 5% for the remaining scope. we wanted to allocate where the risk where it belongs and thought in the tunnel it's more and did that. the total contingency recommended by mtc was 26%. again what i showed you was 29% based on using 5% for the escalation. if we move escalation delta between the three and 5% in the contingencies that amount would be 40% escalation contingency and added the scope that mtc recognized and the review ask us to review the productivity rates. we will do that

moving forward. this chart shows the delta in the various line items. our estimate increased the construction cost it is by $56 million from mtc reviewed and increased the total construction costs by $61 million. $5 million increased design contingency by $5 million. you will see a reduction in escalation of approximately $139 million. the mtc review had escalation of $722 million and used 5% from 2010 when the estimate was developed all the way to 2024. since our estimate was developed in current 2016 our escalation started 5% from that time to 2026. what this shows is

the escalation between that time was less than 5%. it's in the three and a half percent range. the cpi index labor costs and material costs between 2010 and 2016 is less than 5% and what you see here. the program costs were increased by $163 million because i wanted to refresh the soft costs and the program costs. i use that for program wide and increased by $163 million. again mtc didn't review the costs but just accepted our numbers and $86 million in total program costs as a whole. this is a comparison. it's not an apples to apples comparison but wanted to show you how our estimate is compared to mtc's. for the

delivery part we figured out what is the best successful way to differ the dtx and this is a road map to deliver the project and we are able to bring the transit center in 2025. as i mentioned we expect to finish the environmental work and decision in december of this year. between now and a year from now we're able to finish the design, bring it entirely to 30% and then we can also between now and a year from now we're able to complete and develop a funding plan with the region to figure out all the funding sources that we have, when we need them to fully fund the estimate that we have, and between now and a year from now select the delivery methods to deliver the project. between july 2017 and end of 2019 we

can work on securing the funding and funding agreements with our partners, local level, regional and federal level and during that time frame we're able to acquire the right-of-way that needs to build the phase two. we're able to finish the complete 100% documents between july of 2017 and july 2019 so we will have buildable documents. if we do that we can have advance construction contract in july 2018 to do utility relocation work and for the mining or the tunneling work to begin. based on the schedule the tunneling work will be advertiseed in july 2019 and awarded in december 2019 and looked at other scopes besides this scope to put out a separate contract for flexibility. in

this chart you will see the bart connector, the train extension and the ibf facility awarded at a later date and meet construction date and awarded in december of 2020 and advertised in july 2020. based on this -- based on the seven year construction schedule we were able to start construction in december 2018 and end in december 2025. this is based on design build procurement method. if we go to design build likely to shorten it by six or nine months but this hinges on us being able to get the funding that we need when we need it and including the funding for the right-of-way to be completed on time and this is a road map to get there and bring trains to the tran itd center in the short evaluate time possible.

this slide shows the escalation costs based on 5% escalation. if we finish construction later it will increase by $200 million approximately. >> >> if there is a delay beyond that escalation is approximately $217 million a year. if there's a four, five year period it's more than $1 billion so the earlier we can finish the project and bring it to completion much cheaper it is. with they would like to turn it over the presentation over to scott to talk about the funding strategies that we have developed. >> hi good morning directors. the next step in the road map that mark was alluding to was to develop a viable funding plan

and a plan that includes funding sources that key get during the construction period. >> >> this took significant step forward in 2013 when planned bay area was enacted and the transportation plan that is updated every four years. in the 2013 iteration of planned bay area dtx was a federal priority for the new start program. you heard us mention it several times and in this meeting and the largest discretionary funding for this type of transit expansion and major funding for the central subway and bart to san jose and in order to access these funds you have to be designated as a regional priority in the regional plan so it's a major goal for the dtx for years and we achieved that goal in 2013. along with that designation

came other funding commitments from the region and you see here on this slide pulled directly from planned bay area from the planned bay arinvestment strategy you see the new start designation, the dtx is the highlighted and as you go along the road the first box is the gray box that says 650 million. that's the amount that mtc estimated that dtx would receive from new starts and that amount was based on the overall amount of new starts funding that the region has historically received from the nationwide new starts account, so moving to the right down that row you see additional commitments for 300 million in future bridge tolls, 557 from high speed and the amount from the sales tax extension and future prop k increase and last column is joint development. you see 100 million there. and

included as a place holder for the mello roos funds and this was finalized in 2013 but the initial draft was 2012 and several years before the mello roos district was enacted and at the time we didn't know what would be available and we knew this was a low estimate but we included today as a place holder and i'm going to run through several funding scenarios. >> >> but before i show you the first of those scenarios i want to emphasize that all of the funding sources that are listed are funding sources that have been contemplate for the dtx for many, many years. they're not things out of left field or are speculative. they're funding sources in the public discussion going back to planned yay yay in 2013 and -- bay area and before that in the environmental clearance documents for the

dtx and contemplated and light apparently charges in the document were included at 75 cents for caltrain tickets and $3 for high speed rail tickets so it was a 4-1 ratio. so when we took those initiate new starts -- i'm sorry initial planned bay area they form the the basis for the plan going forward and as we started the exercise of taking on a hard look at our existing funding plan and making sure it was all viable and attainable we started with the assumptions that mark mentioned in the timeline that he just discussed construction starting in december 2018 and 7 year period and beginning operations in december 2025 which corresponds nicely with the high speed rail plan and has trains arriving in the bay

area in 2025 and i will run you through four funding scenarios. the first one i will go through line by bien but there is only one variable and the apparently charge and -- passenger charge and you see in the gray area they're the planned bay area commitments and three categories and above the gray area are the already committed funds and fund that's project has already received and spent in some cases but in any case all of the line items above the gray area are fully committed to the dtx and the gray area is the planned bay area communities and future yet to be committed funds so starting with the first line that is our existing commitment from prop k, san francisco county sales tax. you see there it's $83 million commitment. we have spent $50 million of that to do the initial 30%

preliminary engineering and design work that mark mentioned earlier and important to note there is 33 million available in the prop k commitment that we intend to use or hoping to use to do the cost refresh that mark was describing earlier. the next two line items and the san mateo sales tax and bridge tolls were received and spent on the 30% design work and below that is called regional transportation improvement program or the rhip program. that is a state funding stream primarily of state gas taxes but mix of funding sources. this is a commitment to the program of 28 million. we received 10 million for phase one and 18 million remaining for phase two and the next two are funding sources we are familiar with at this stage. the first is the

mello roos special tax district. that was enacted and signed into percentage are designated to the transbay project and the low range and terms of net values and high amounts and will be available for phase two after we fully finish paying for phase one and we can use this for phase two and the $100 million difference between the 275 and the 375 is something that has been mentioned several times today. i think mark mentioned it seven times in the presentation and that's the $100 million we intend to serve in contingency to the phase one budget that you just approved. if we're successful coming under there will be 375 left for mes

reduce and on the low end it's 275. similarly for the tax increment from the transbay redevelopment program and available for phase two over we fully finish paying for phase one. with the tax increment we have the challenge that it flows over many years. this exists for a 45 year period and the net present day amounts advancing to the years of construction. the difference between the between the high and low end of the line item that has to do with our intention to try to refinance the existing loan. we have ative fea loan of 171 million and financeed in 2010 when interest was higher and we intend to refinance that and if we're successful that would leave other revenues for phase two. the other difference

has to do with what we anticipate in terms of future interest rates so moving down the next four items are the bay area items that i mentioned. >> >> and the sales tax and 375 and prop k and funds from the new starts and the way that we access those funds is lining up all of the non federal funds and once you do that then the federal government will release the new starts funding through a full funding grant agreement and noted earlier we have been notified that the dtx will continually designated as a high performing project in planned bay area and important for the commitments including the new starts designation and then below that 300 million from

future bridge tolls and funds from high rail funds and mtc reiterated that and this is included and from future press releases. below that we have the yet to be committed funds and one for phase two and block four. it is the northern third of the temporary terminal so we can't sell it until it closes and we can't do that until phase one is complete and begin operations in the transit center and we're moving closing on the parcel f agreement and option to purchase block four and the funds for that and that is where the number comes from and the last line this is what we wanted to focus on today. this is the variable that changes

throughout the four scenarios. we certainly understand that in proposing a passenger facility charge, a pfc, come up with something reasonable, not just from our perspective but our board, all of the other boards and for the ticket buying public so the amounts in the 2004 document were 75 cents and $3 and 12 years ago. when we started the thought process for the updated plan and thought of the scenario for the caltrain rider if the dtx doesn't exist and if they want to get to downtown core, the financial district, the transit center, the embarcadero they could walk and time expenditure associated with that or buy a muni fare

and use the central subway and have to disembark at fourth and king to powell and disembark and to embarcadero and do it a third time or the option to buy a muni bus fare and go downtown but we thought that was a good place to start looking at what that fare would be if you took the bus. if you buy a monthly pass and divide it per day and $1.60 a trip and $2,016 and we're starting operations in. >> >> 2026 and we estimated that and came up with $2 for the caltrain surcharge and maintained that four to one ratio as i said goes back to the original 2004 environmental clearance document. a couple other arguments we would make about the reasonableness of

$8 for the high speed rail ticket if you take a flight from los angeles to san francisco four paying $4.10 fee and doesn't include getting to downtown and $8 on bart. if you take high speed rail from los angeles and get to the transit center we assuming coming from l.a. you have luggage and not likely to take a bus or walk and take a taxi or uber and $8 is a reasonable fee so we had to consider the same issue with the future tax increment. pfcs flow over many years. we thought it was reasonable to look at 35 year period and capturing pfcs and the favorable lending source is one of the federal programs that the dtx is eligible for

and tifia and familiar with that and have that for phase one and there is railroad rehabilitation and improvement program and the dtx is variable for that as well. both have 35 year repayment periods and we looked at 35 period year of casturing that and they wouldn't give that much and it's like a home equity loan. they want some cushion and give you 80% and we will advance these and get 80% but the other 20% is still collected and use the funds towards maintenance of the rail levels and the concourse and platform levels and share with caltrain and high speed rail and for the expenses

associated with the dtx so using the parameters the amount generated from pfc from these and on the low end is 865 million and high end is listed there. the difference is what we assume in terms of annual cpi. on the low end 1% and high end assumed 3% so you see that provides total funding that ranges from about 3.4 billion to 4.1 billion so on the high end we're above the number in america's estimate a moment ago. we wanted -- mark's estimate and we wanted to show you other scenarios with more cushion so in the second scenario we decided let's look at just taking today's base muni fare, not using a monthly pass but using 225 and conservative because they're $2,016 and

not going to 2020. >> >> and it's 425 and $9 and see that generates total funding that ranges from about 3.5 billion to 4 billion and it's right in the middle of the range and trending towards the lower range and we escalated that a little bit to 250 which would representative very a little escalation over ten years during this time and use 250 and $10 and produce totals of listed here and have the 3.9 billion on the lower end of the range and the final number we looked at was taking muni bus bare in

-- r fare and listed here and range with a lot of cushion relative to the cost estimate listed here so to summarize the key assumptions we're using in putting the funding plan together we're assuming that we're successful working with our board, stakeholders, the public in convincing the caltrain board and the high speed rail authority board to enact the pfcs before anticipating construction start in 2019 and there is a challenge and it's seven years before beginning operations and in advance and that's the first assumption. we assumed that the planned bay area commitments are provided during the years of construction and assumed we would be successful accessing one of the federal loan programs that i mentioned and finally we want to reiterate that all of the funds that you see in the charts are available for

phase two after we fully finish paying for phase one. >> and i have one more slide directors, so to make this work and to be able to advance we listed the next steps. these are near term steps and we need to be able to fund these steps. i've had brief discussions with them on releasing some of the money committed to phase two in order to do some of the work that needs to be done and i will follow up with that discussion with them, but first step is challenge is take our design that we have right now and bring to the 30% level and accurately estimate it and accurately update the estimates as we move forward. we need to updated right-of-way estimate. we need to do some appraisals to produce that estimate because that's another high risk

variable we need to be able to define so that once we have an estimate we're sure that estimate is not going to change much. we need to update the ridership study to confirm the numbers that scott shared with you, the passengers facilities charge hinges on having accurate numbers so we need to do that and have a risk assessment and establish the contingency and reserves and used 10% for construction and 15% program wide. we need to do a [inaudible] assessment to ensure that the numbers are correct or use whatever numbers that are correct. using that information we will update the program cost estimates or update the cost estimates. we will use peer reviews. we're going to have somebody from outside also review the consultant's estimate and do a peer review to make

sure it's accurate. we. to make sure what happens in phase one doesn't happen in phase two. >> >> and we will do peer reviews on the estimate that we generate before we present it to you. we need to sit down with the region and look at the funding plan, seses what scott presented and get all the stakeholders behind us. develop a funding plan that we're all behind and the stakeholders are behind to move forward with the project and selecting a delivery method is another step and is it decide build or -- design build and there are benefits to all of them. we need to select the right one and then present a budget to adopt based on that level of criteria based on peer reviews so that will be a

budget that we can all stand behind. currently we have a 2.5 billion dollars budget and not reflective of the scope and the estimates and last but not least we will continue the close coordination our stakeholders for the rab study so that the study is successfully completed and both our project and rab study are complementary to each other. with that i would like to get some direction from the board. thank you. >> thank you. this is one of the things that i mentioned to mark when we went over this earlier this week i want the board to be more directive in terms instead of just seeing a presentation and letting staff figure out if there's a majority of the board members that said that's a good idea. let's do it so i hope my suggestion is

that we actually direct staff in accordance with the next steps. okay. that's what you say you're going to do, and we're okay with that. that's okay to do. otherwise i don't know you know whether we've got a majority of the board that says yes that's a good plan. we like those numbers and we need to do that. i have one thing that i always thought about -- two things when it comes to the bart connector. one is that every time i mention it to a bart director his or her eyes just roll. it's like so far below the radar that they don't even like me mentioning the idea tie into bart somewhere. they have so many problems and other things going on. it's not that they hate it but it's just -- so it's hard to get them to

engage on the idea of connecting into embarcadero station when they don't know how to expand into embarcadero station, so i think we ought to when it comes to planning and engineering for the bart connector i think we should be very -- the other thing in connection with the bart connector i always ask them or they ask me. okay. whose the passenger that wants get out of the terminal or into the terminal and coming off of bart or to bart? i can't imagine the passage is and from the east bay ignored bart until then. >> >> and coming from the south bay is completely ignored millbrae and everything there so i really want an idea past the profile of the passenger that gets out of there and now get to bart and why they didn't get

to bart in another manner before we get too engaged in that. maybe it's out there and i i am oblivious to that and that's just one aspect of this thing, and you mentioned p3. are you thinking of as a delivery method? >> we will share next month the studies and delivery methods and what each one of them brings benefits to the project. p3 is one of them. i would like to wait until next month to give you a comprehensive. >> i don't know about the study and in p3 you have to figure out the scope and reward for the private partner. what are you giving them besides the chance to run a railroad. >> it's on the list but we want to evaluate it anyway so it will be in the presentation we present next month on the procurement methods.

>> any other comments? i mean the thoroughness that you thought about this is great. i mean it's just really you know brings home you know the possibility that we certainly can and perhaps should just let's move into this and i was unsure really until i saw some of these things. supervisor. >> you know i appreciate the presentation. it's great to get more details on our thoughts for phase two. i think the one thing i was thinking during the presentation as much as i like getting all of the details we have several kind of parallel paths moving forward on phase two, and this presentation really didn't cover or even consider the fact that they're alternatives considered by the city today so it's great to get the work and details on phase two as we originally

configured and planned and i am not putting my weight behind one pathway or another but realistically it's hard to delve into the details when i know we're looking at tunneling and other optioning methodologies. these are not questions for today but i am curious a little bit more about sem was the only method that was offered today for our cut and cover and mine tunnel option? it's great to get the sell today and pelt like a sell but i want to know all the options and before the board and why is this the best value and not just told it's the best value option but i look forward to the continued conversation. i think there is a broader context with phase two that we need to acknowledge and not in today's presentation and

i know it's an ongoing dialogue conversation. >> ed. >> yeah. i guess i would add for the reason the agency exists and the reason we're building the building and all the funding partners have put in some cases hundreds of millions of dollars and the city has puts it own balance sheet on the line to complete the phase one is to get the trains to downtown san francisco because i think everybody in the region recognizeslet importance of doing that the regional economy and accommodate the growth in the region so i think it's great and i appreciate the chair shifting the focus of the board now to phase two because that's the ultimate prize as great as phase one project is and i appreciate the staff work for the presentation. it was very comprehensive to the technical to the financial so that is fantastic and it is what we should be doing. with

regard to the technical on the phase two i agree with supervisor kim or director kim that this is one path and it does seem -- i thought it was actually fairly compelling that based on the assumptions for this path that we're going to have to make this s curve because we're trying to connect to the adjacent to where there's an existing caltrain station that sem may be the best path forward. i think the idea of cut and cover construction in the heart of the city for a few blocks is difficult to swallow and where some of the concerns come from but based on the assumptions of the alignment, based on when you neck out to three tracks which seems like the idea you need to do that before the fourth and townsend station that's why it seems that

all leads to the conclusion it probably makes sense to do the tunneling in this way but as director kim mentioned challenging the assumptions is part of what is happening in parallel so i think actually it was acknowledged at least lately in the staff report and even the final slide. with that said i think it's appropriate that the program move forward with what i guess is the baseline assumption of the alignment. i think there is more work even what was done in the environmental to be done in terms of the impacts that would come from this approach especially because of the cut and cover, the impacts to the city. i think there is more work to be done there so i would add that into the next steps list. there may be a time depending on this alternative or parallel work that comes in the next year where we as a

region decide that we want to choose a different alignment but i think we should move forward with this work so we don't lose time because we want get to the 2025 date because in parallel encouraging high speed rail to get to the trans way transit center by 2025 based on their new business plan so i think this general direction is good. on the revenue side i appreciate the work that you all have done. it seems like in the whole report there's a lot of optimism and progressive view on budget and schedule which is good to be optimistic and aggressive. on the revenue side it does seem like we've kind of fixed the problem with the pfcs. if you strip out the pfcs you're basically back to two and a half billion dollars of revenue

for a $4 billion program so i think -- i know you have coordination with caltrain and high speed rail. i think a very specific vetting of the pfcs with the staff and the boards of those entities sooner than later would be helpful because we have kind of have one solution, one solution at different levels but it's one solution, and if we find in shorter order that the solution or the level of the solution is not going to be viable we would need to start exploring others and the same lines i would encourage you to vet the assumptions for the tax increment and mello roos with the people from the city because some of the assumptions are anticipating more than what was in i think the 2012 plan bay area plan so i think we need there is validating of the assumptions that need to be

made but overall a great presentation. we should be moving this forward whether we end up with a different alignment or not we need to keep advancing to get to 2025 so i appreciate the work on this. >> thank you. >> vice chair. >> i would agree with what director kim and reiskin have said and i thank the chair for bringing this forward now. i mean it is the next big challenge that we have to get the train to the station. there's been lots of conversations and the presentation today has been very helpful to look at whether it's the type of tunneling or what opportunities there are for funding and obviously a lot of work has happened to get all that information, but also we are looking at different alternatives, times of change, and we need to really start laying out a process that we

believe we understand the impacts to our eir, to impacts if we did changes what that would mean for us and still trying to meet the 2025 date. there's a lot of work and i think this board has the responsibility of guiding this process and really start looking at what options we have and what decisions we need to make so we're not all over the place and have to be transparent with the public of course so that's mine. >> mayor gee. >> i want to thank you for bringing this forward and we have to start somewhere. i wouldn't be surprised if this evolves a lot over the next months if not years but as we all agree up here the goal is to have the trains downtown, and with all the other studies and i'm not going to assume they're

done, is that while one study may say it takes more time or money and we have to base it against something and this could be that something and measure success and options so i think we're at the point to move it forward to complete everything up to 30% to really establish a baseline project, and then take it on the road to our stakeholder community and does this work? does the pfc work? does viable? is it too much? we need to validate the ridership numbers and don't spare the peer review early. it's an investment that will save everyone pain, grief and money later and do the peer reviews early to validate assumptions or mitigate the assumptions we're making so from my standpoint it's a start. this is not the end but it's

a complete picture of what could be by when and we need to move forward to test it and validate it and poke at it, throw rocks at it and take it apart and we will have something to measure and again thank you and team for bringing this forward and i hope that can move forward to at least the next step -- we have something to measure against. >> i think what we said is very important. i think taking three tracks out past fourth and townsend station is critical and apparently the rab study one of the key aspects is being competitive it's a two track system pretty much i gather. i don't know but we need to really clarify that because of course ultimately there are only two tracks going down the pinens

laso we need -- i least need to see the operational study and show why it's important to have ree tracks at fourth and townsend to do that because we know we will get three tracks into our station but if it's important then we need to know this because it's a major difference and a major thing. i think the secondary costs we have to be very cognizant even though they're not our costs they may be costs to the city and county and so we want to be comparative there as well and want to be honest as the supervisor said. be honest with what the impacts are on the comparative things because that is supposedly one of the other things that the rab study is trying to get itself hands around and the cost and rewards for this thing but i too feel this would help the whole

process i think is take the next steps that mark has said and say okay those make sense to us you know, whatever the questions are we need to start doing some of the things to revolve them so i -- resolve them and i am in support of that and presume what i hear it seems to be that this board these next steps make sense as far as can i tell. so you have your direction. >> thank you very much for your support and i want to assure all of you that as we move forward we're working closely with the rab study and make sure that the endeavors are complementary to each other. thank you. >> okay. >> you have one member of the public. >> i am sure we do. >> we are close on time and we still have closed session. >> okay. well, it may be a

short closed session. >> and i appreciate the comments that the board members made and shorten my remarks and tone them down somehow. i have great news for you. you wanted to appoint a senior program manager and no funding and we have funds laying around from prop k and isn't that wonderful? let me kill the third track once and for all. if you look in the eir scoping comment its explains how we were able to run 12, not ten, 12 trains an hour with three platform faces with the olympics. you will find that the plans for the track layout and the time table and hopefully that discussion and go to go with two tracks. the only

proviso the [inaudible] station must have four tracks and between between that with two tracks is good. looks like i only have two minutes here so the question now is mr. reiskin you're about to deliver the central subway and the tunnel for 1.7 billion dollars so how can somebody stand up in front of you and give a proposal -- [inaudible] $4 billion. it doesn't add up. okay. so in closing i would like to direct your attention to the april 26 meeting of the full transportation authority board where it was presented and -- well, actually my friend echoed the sentiments of him and in the study and make it possible to connect to the east bay on the other end but the last point

i would like to make is that the same board meeting supervisor peskin suggested that the tjpa be terminated and transfer the responsibility to the maintenance of the terminal and different entity -- [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you for what you send us from time to time. very informative. >> [inaudible] >> all right. that concludes members of the public to address you on that item so we can go ahead and move into closed session. >> yes please. >> pursuant to government section section 54956.9 and no members of the public to address you >> the tjpa board of directors meeting is back to session and announce on closed session. >> in anticipation of legal council there is no action to report. >> that concludes your

agenda for today. >> yes. >> adjourned through the chair. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. good morning, yo