Transcripts For SFGTV Transbay Joint Powers Authority 10815 20151018

October. Central zone we have a lot of concrete pored so the other trade contractors, mechanical, electrical and plumbing and stair and other contractors are starting to mobilize into the area so this area is having interior walls built out and electrical and plumbing trade recess still continuing on installing some of the hangers above head. And the roof level slabs are the main focus. We have slabs pored on the roof but continuing with grid lines ten and 20 and pored to grid line 50 and focused this month of october is to continue that concrete pores towards the east ends of that central zone. The eastern zone is all about structural steel. We crossed over fremont street. We had a full closure of september 2627 and get as much done we could both day and night, and were on track for a final completion of over night work on october 11 which is this saturday night. The light collum is erected and the welding will be complete shortly and while were doing that over by fremont street the concrete contractor is making good problem by beale there and the walls. The status update on the concrete level walls and the ground level concrete by zone so this is an update. We had a slide for the last year or more of below Grade Concrete and not completed and now were focusing on the ground level concrete and the walls that bring the walls up to the street level and the ground level decks take the decks across the entire project site at ground level. You can see the progress made 100 in the central zone for wall and 85 in the western zone and 17 currently in the eastern zone, and the ground level decks again the central zone is in good shape with 90 completion of those decks, and as we work up the building we have a status chart here for the decks on the bus level and level two area. Again you can seat primary focus is on the central zone and the roof level follows. The photographs of the western zone steel progress so this is up to grid line three. This is the stairs and the focus again is on the reinforcing and the concrete works on the roof trying to keep the progress going. Here is the ground level slab false work that is starting to move into the western zone so this is ongoing in the month of september with a goal to get these decks to follow behind the steel. Once the welding is complete we can move into the area safely. This is between grid lines eight and ten and this is the eastern zone with the steel erection and assembly over fremont street. This is adjacent to fremont and heres a night photo of the light column and the steel erection going on at night on fremont and this is the weekend we had to erect the large transfer girders across the street and heres the photo from september 30 where we have made a lot of progress over fremont street with a target completion here or a confirmed completion of october 11. The bus ramp project is going along well. Were working up at the bay bridge off ramp area near harrison street and concrete abutment work going on there. The photos and the notes show the progress made on the cable state bridge and were made our first pour on the bridge on september 25 and were looking towards midoctober to pour concrete over the natoma bridge and moving from under ground work to permanent work for the viaduct and the bridge. The photo here of the progress on the north side of the cable state bridge and you can see the guides are actually installed now on top of the deck and these will be the the rebar is formed around nose and cast into those and cast into place in the next months so Real Progress here. Here are photos of harrison street and the abutments and you can see the size of construction workers walking by in the photo. For the next 30 days in the western and central zone particularly in the western zone its doing the e reaction and at the central zone finishing the concrete at the roof top levels and finishinglet walls and the scallop walls and the roof top concrete work is starting to take shape. Stairs will continue also. The eastern zone and the concrete walls and the completion of the steel and the erksz recognize erection of the steel and the stem work and the concrete work above. The next 90 days it will be still mostly welding in the western zone. The steel erection will complete there in the next 30 days some time early november and the welding will continue after that and follow with the concrete deck pores after that. The stair wells will continue and the fireproofing will start soon in the central zone so new trades are coming on all the time. In the eastern zone its steel for the next 90 days and the bus ramp project will repeat for the next nine days and from that homma and the area. This slide is to point out how many contractors are mobilized to the site. We have the mechanical and electrical contractors, stair wells, fire projection contractor, ceilings and wall framing and mobilizing to the site in the next 90 days will be additional contractors, waterproofing systems, roll up doors and bollards and barriers and metal panels and site work and civil work on the ground including concrete, topping slabs and bus crash rail so the contractors on site are going exponentially up. The labor break down is on track for the percentages for the bay area. You can see the areas in San Francisco, not a change there, just increase the amount of hours. Same with the a prent hours and increased hours here and the labor break down broken throughout barrier of 3,000 separate trades persons have worked on our site since the beginning of the project and thats the construction update for september 2015. Any questions . Questions . Ed. Just ask my monthly query about the structural steel. Its still showing as june 2016. Any progress yeah, the last schedule we got from web core shows finishing the welding end of may so it is moving forward, but the schedule doesnt yet reflect it so the next month we will see if we could update that with a completion date but its going well. The fabrication now the issues are behind us so we are confident we can pull the date in. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And we will have a report on the project labor agreement. Good morning board members. Actually to add that to the question regarding steel progress theres cranes we have dates and showing progress on the west end. The first crane will leave on the west end and projecting on the east end in february so things are pulling in within the direction and i will report on the Third Quarter. Its been a quiet period which is good. Go through the administration update on the progress, apprentice trends and what we told the unions on what is upcoming or what is left. So for the next joint Administrative Committee that was held on september 17 we went through the usual construction progress, apprentice programs and veterans and identified no work stoppages and labor and good on that front and as jack arented we have the one lost time incident that happened in august on the bus ramp where the individual needs surgery on his foot but that was it. Regarding progress to date the students they are gone for the summer now. Had a very good summer with them. I think the last one for turner left actually about a few weeks ago but were looking when we start up the process back in the spring. Regarding progress for veterans a lot of good progress. The unions are all working with us to spread the word about the direct entry concept directly into apprenticeship and web core is working with them to prepare a list of veterans ready and working in the trade and that helps in the outreach and the coordination efforts and i wanted to bring up the fact there is a veterans bike ride on september 17 that has been october 17. October 17. Thank you. October 17 so not this saturday but next saturday out the los po seats on college and sponsorship and raise funds for the vets and active military organizations so i just wanted to get the word out. Its for cycling for veterans is the group thats organizing that. Progress on adults. Michael tearo reported hes working with John Oconnell to train the trainer on various elements with the multicors program and working with the San Francisco conservation corps. Their program focus on labors and cart penters and theyre expanding that as well. Charlie from the operators said theyre trying to grow more female participation. He didnt go into details and we will get update next time and thats their focus and the pipe fitters are saying theyre at an all time high for the apprentice levels at this point which is obvious for the work load around here going on currently. Apprenticeship trends breaking down with the various different areas, area east bay is still leading with 34 , and then as was reported as well in midseptember we had the one almost 1. 7 million hours. We are hitting our goals or over the goal barely and its going well, and just as the graphic that we like to show that we have an Overall Journeyman jurisdiction the apprentice goal. We continue to trend above our goal with all the apprentice which is a very good thing. And then the last thing we did present to the unions is what is left, the metal ceilings, the landscaping and signage that is still coming fortnext year so with that that ends my Third Quarter report for the pla if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you dennis. That concludes my report. Go ahead and move into the next item. Yes please. Sure. Item 6 is the Citizens Advisory Committee update. [inaudible] directors, i just want to report on two aspects of our meeting. Number one, as you know a number of us are on the Vision Zero Task force and were concerned about safety as all of you, so we had another meeting with them. I do on behalf of the committee wish to thank scott and barbara pemmerton who arrange our meetings with the particular people we request. In this case it was with commander mand ox of the San Francisco Police Department who is explaining the situation and gearing up for vision zero particularly under the Trans Bay Center and i have suggested since that will be the densest spot of traffic, transit and transport make it a model for our cities and san jose and oakland are other cities and it was impressive listening to her, but however she did mention last year and again were on course this year to have significant increases in traffic incidents and violations, and so this is a concern how we will be reducing all of that with vision zero, but a lot of that is due to speeding, violation of traffic signs or signals and turns, but those are all concerns that we have, and we appreciate very much this continuing reporting with vision zero. The last thing as i ask the at the end of each meeting is what topics or issues the members wish to discuss at future meetings, and we brought up at this time that we really like to find out how on both regional and the local level how organizations such as plan bay area or abag view the convenience and the safety to San Francisco citizens and bay area citizens visiting the area, what concerns we might have for people in the three different periods. One, when we complete the phase one in 2018. Number two or 2017 and consequently 2018 and secondly after we complete v tx and thirdly after cal high speed rail comes into the terminal so in each of the periods were interested in what the what it appears to other experts of how the citizens and visitors to our Trans Bay Center will find their convenience and safety and with that i conclude the report unless you have any questions. You seem to be assuming that those folks have been thinking about those things. I hope they have. Well, if they havent its out there. I mean if they havent were trying to wake people up to this. Yeah, i think you need to prompt them. Yes, thank you. Okay. Next item. Next item is public comment. An opportunity for the members of the public to address you on matters not on the calendar and im not aware of any member wishing to address you under this item. Yes please. Not aware of anyone. No one. All right. Seeing none you are subject to go into closed session at this time. Okay. Pursuant to the government section and i havent received any wish on the public to address you on the item. They have the opportunity to do now or we can go ahead and cl. Okay the tjpa meeting is back in session and we will report on closed session. In conference with Real Property negotiators for 75 natoma and addresses on howard for sale of same. There is no action to report. Next item please. Item 12 is a presentation on the Phase One Program budget update. And we have staff to report on this item. Good morning directors. This is a budget update on our progress on finalizing the update of the budget. It includes a status of the remaining Construction Trade packages and scope to be awarded and on thegoing discussions with mtc on the cost results for phase one. It includes results of the Risk Assessment that we under dwlt took and update on the funding picture and discussions with mtc and the city and s fta for the funding picture and go over the next steps between now and november. The board is awarded approximately 128 billion in direct Construction Costs. This includes the issuance of a change order we did early this month for the installation of the column covers and close up panels. We noted at the last meeting we needed to do that in order to maintain the current construction schedule so that was issued earlier this month. This is a listing of the remaining scopes that need to be award. We have 130 million to be awarded which we wish to award once the budget is approved. In order to maintain the current schedule and minimize impact toss the ongoing construction activities were utilizing some of the construction contingencies and issuing change orders for the advance work of the design build packages. We issued a change order for the 1. 9 million for the metal ceilings and install some of them before the concrete is pored. This way we dont have to come back with a bond and lose efficiencies. Were in the process of a change order [inaudible] low audio and when the glass floors awarded and go into fabrication and minimize delays. For the landscaping package we asked the two lowest bidders to extend to november. They agreed to do that. We reached out to the lowest bidder and if theyre willing to submit some of their submittals for review and the contract so we can review them before awards and once we award them we can procure them. They refused to do because of the unfortunate when the award is done and we will reach out once again once we have that information. For the package and the signage and the overhead system we have all the documents ready to go. Once the budget is revised we can award them. We will continue working with [inaudible] to identify steps we can take for the schedule and delay impacts or delays to construction. This is a snapshot of the draft budget as being recommended. We need 157 million for construction. That includes the 130 million to award the remaining trade packages. 3. 5 million for the bus [inaudible] and [inaudible] for the fees and the bonding. We need 9. 14 for soft costs and based on the assessment we did in march and we updated as we received bids we need to replenish the contingency by 80 million to reach the confidence level based on that model. It would seem to me that the Construction Costs, the ttc construction differential, the delta on that showed as a percentage. The cmgc costs shouldnt be too divergent from the percentage on there because theyre into a lower percentage; right . Yes. And yet the revised budget has 12 increase in ttc construction, but a 24 increase in cmgc cost which the opposite of what i would think . It includes the cost for sub[inaudible] performance bond and the cmgc fee so its three components. Yeah, i understand. But why wouldnt it percentage wise at least reflect what the Construction Cost different ecial for for all three items . Thats what i dont understand why its double. You have a 20 increase in the ttc construction but you have to add the bus ramp to those percentages which includes the bus ramp. It includes the utility relocation. Theyre all under that. Yeah, but the bus ramp has been always in there; right . U at and the utility relocation has been in there and the only thing that changed with the scope of work is the ttc construction and the bus storage so i just cant see why theres a big differential in the costs. You dont see it because this is showing budget as of october 15 but the rus ramp is in fact higher than the original budget for the bus ramp by 15 million so that factors into the nurkzed cost. We can do a break down of the numbers and get back to you. Yeah, i would like to see why the costs are going up at a greater rate than everything else. Okay. And so this brings the total to 247 million based on the 30 . And the next section, the soft costs. Whats the difference in Construction Management there and Construction Management above the line in construction . You mean preconstruction . Construction management. You have construction soft cost. Yes. Thats different than Construction Management gc cost and those are different people . Im sorry. Turner. Turner is soft cost only . Yes, there is no Construction Management in the direction cost. So that is just gc and turner is down here in management. Yeah. Okay. That answers it. As reported last month the draft results much the mtc it cost review noted the project needed additional range of funded needed over the 247 being recommended. The mtc costs recommends results in the increase between 295 million to two 491 million versus our recommendation of 247 based on the 30 model. The [inaudible] review took two approaches to come up with the range. They did a cost approach and a risk approach. The cost approach was derived by applying 30 for the trade packages that were not awarded since june. A 5 contingency on the soft costs as well as 180 contingency on the ip network and the bus Storage Facility because we havent received the bids for them for the cost. Its also assumed that the current contingency at the time was sufficient to manage the existing work. On the risk approach the performed bottoms risk analysis using the monte carlo and came up with the 244 number over and above the 247 that were recommending. Were still unable to find out how they arrived at this number. We have our numbers on the model and on the monte carlo. We dont know how they came up with this number yet and were continuing our discussions, but that number is we havent been able to identify they arrived at that, so that number is coming from the report they issued . Yes, the draft report. They basically said we need between 48 and 244. The 48 theyre putting specific how they arrived at that number. The 244 we dont know the input they used and the mod disblel but were okay with the 48 . Yes, i have more slides that will shed light on what we recommend. Were just trying to find out the basis for the numbers. So in summary the mtc review recommends a contingency balance between 166 million to 332 million and the report says we should implement the process partners with change orders and were working on that and we hope to have something in place soon. They also asked us to consider the use of maximum price guarantee and we are having discussions with webcor on that. They asked us to veer away from the mta model and use the [inaudible] analysis. We have an objection to that. We feel that the mta model is the best for the project and used successfully nationwide on these projects and were continuing the discussion with that and they recommend that we go to the 50 confidence level versus the 30 level. Since the release of the report we have been working with staff for the funding level to satisfy the recommendation. As i suggested at the september Board Meeting we proposed mtc to hold a joint Risk Management update together so we can collectively arrive at an acceptable funding range that would be acceptable to the cost review and mtc. They were not able to [inaudible] in a cost review, so we want the to move the process forward and refreshed our cost assessment. That was done in march, and we provided the most updated information. We provided that information to mtc and had a meeting with them, a Conference Call with them and the risk manager to discuss the results. That up included the that project included the project update and the schedule and the costs since march and the bid risk for the bus Storage Facility and the ip network because both of them would not include the bid risk for them when we did the Risk Management update in march because we just received the it was most updated estimates at the time. We refreshed it and had the updated estimate and they were done by different folks than the folks for the Transit Center and [inaudible]. Mtc consultant objected us the us using the fta model in the meeting however staff agreed to look at the results and study the results and get back to us. So our proposal is basically to continue to work with mtc to come up with a range that acceptable to the cost review. These are the results of the models that we ran. It was labeled can i ask. Go ahead supervisor. I am curious i guess im a little confused about why under federal scrutiny wouldnt use a federal model. I am confused about that. What group is reviewing the project because i dont know what group has the scope or expertise in cost review of large projects at mtc. Which department is it that youre were working with the funding folks, programming folks, and they have a risk manager that have worked on the bay bridge and the issue there is the risk manager has want used the fta model before so hes relying on the monte carlo model and we were pretty strong in our reaction to them that they shouldnt be dismissing that model if they never used it before and had a three, four week period to review the risk results that we have for them to dismiss it so we had the agreement with that and we continue to tell them as far as were concerned its an fta funded project and want to use that model. We run both models ourselves and the bottom up and the monte carlo bottom up to validate the results but the way theyre running the model and looking at the Risk Assessment and calculating the risk is different than what we do, and we havent been able to figure out exactly how theyre doing it. In the meeting we had our risk manager at the meeting. They had their risk manager. We had the technical discussion about who is right and who is wrong and everybody stuck to their position so as far as were concerned were trying to arrive at a range that mtc is comfortable with using the fta model, and this is a comparison of the Risk Assessment that we did in march. The one that we did in march you will see under the 30 confidence level the additional funding need is 199. Were using 247 for the budget because we adjusted the numbers as we receive bids that were above what we assumed in the risk model and thats why we have the 247. The 50 for the march model was 261 million additional funding and the 70 was 338 million. The refresh that we did additionally started in june and completed in september shows the 30 as 257, 50 of 316 and 70 at 390. We have provided both results to mtc during the cost review and provided them the risk draft results of the rmc model which is the one we started in june and completed in refreshed again in september. These are the results that weve shared with mtc. We shared also the raw data and the input to the models so they can use that data if they wanted to rerun the model. The results of the Risk Assessment refresh shows that the 30 level we need to replenish the contingency by 90 million and we would have a total contingency in reserve of approximately 130 million. That constitutes approximately 16 of the remaining work after all exposure is account the for. If we use the 50 confidence level the contingency replenishment is approximately 149 million for a total of 189 million. That would constitute approximately 25 of the remaining work after all exposure is accounted for. This would be a snapshot of what the budget would look like if we use the 50 model. You will see the subtotal for construction stays the same. The subtotal for the soft costs will be the same at 9. 14 million and the contingency will go up to 149 million for a total program need of 316 million. In summary we continue to believe that the revised budget based on the 30 model is sufficient at this stage of the project. We continue to propose to mtc to fund the range between the 30 and the 50 level. That 30 being 257 based on the risk results. 50 being 316. We arrive at that goal our goal is complete the project at or below the 30 confidence level. We dont believe that the 50 on the model is warranted at this time based on the information we have and the risks. They think that would be excessive. With they will turn it over to sara to talk about funding. Arent we having jess come up inaudible . At the end . Okay. Do the numbers include that . No, we dont have that. Its based on the exposure. [inaudible] low audio . Yes, jess will report on it and a work in progress. We dont have that number yet. Were doing some parallel. I mean are we exploring that . I will have jess. We will have mark good morning board. Yeah, i wanted to go ahead and address the jmp aspect of what mark presented and as a reminder lasted time we met we were really discussing timeline as much as anything else. We have indicated it would take to the First Quarter of 2016 to have a reliable number of a project this size and in midstream as it is and of course the board asked to have that information prior to the next Board Meeting which for us would have meant accelerating it to early november, and so we did a really detailed and comprehensive dive into that and of course theres issues that we investigate, not only past, present but u projections into the future for the subs that we have and we found its truly isnt feasible and provided as quickly as requested and we would like today that were given the time to do that to provide something that could be reliable and something that we could have confidence in presenting to the board. So being in the situation that we are, and being the price of the project just growing out of control what kind of guarantees can we work on to make sure were not doing this every few months as we try to finish the project . Theyre almost two really separate i think efforts director neuroy and the issues and the way theyre coming up with the data around what theyre doing and of course the recommendations that you have seen. Ours is a different approach in looking at it on a subcontractor by subcontract contractor basis and issue by issue basis for those things that happened in the past and projecting into the future so were going through a really detailed study for each of the individual tasks that will take place for the subcontractors and ultimately what were trying to do is give you something to update month by month but into the First Quarter of 2016 would be a comprehensive number of where we as a contractor would have a Comfort Level to provide you Going Forward. I guess my concern is that where we are now and the numbers that we have shuffling around. What types of guarantees can we really make sure we can finish this project because we cant keep going back and borrowing money. Were assuming so many different risks. At the end of the day its the people that will get the project done on the ground and tell us the decisions on the ground to deliver the project. Were on the ground which is i think is a good story of the project, but this escalation we have seen we havent seen it anywhere on many of our projects so i am trying to get some comfort that either a team on the ground or a different Management System on the construction piece to make sure that we can finish this project as scheduled. Yeah, so i mean i completely agree. The two things you brought up, both cost and the schedule side, so of course we have gone through the aspect relative to the buy out of each of the subcontractors and what were trying to look at there are many subs Getting Started on the project so to predict the future risk it would require on an individual subas well as a task basis for each of the suns we have a chance to go through and look at what that takes in order to give confidence where we would end up for each of them and collectively looking at what that would be on a total basis we could come back to you and give you some of that directed guidance i know youre looking for director nuru. Its a different approach of the analysis that mark was showing here and its one that is done not only internally but in conjunction with the subcontractors. I think the approaches need to be built into the risk of the models that were talking about and give us the assurance yes we can finish the project and im not familiar with the models of risk myself and i dont want to be faced with the situation now on our hands again. Agree. And thats quite honesty why were asking for the appropriate amount of time that we need to get there. Yeah, what i am afraid of since it comes out of mtc, the rlz and your reluctance to come up with something in a short frame and feeding them and you need a contingency and general contractor at this stage and 95 of everything let in contract still wont come up with a gmp. If i were mtc i would be going wait a minute if they wont do it how do we listen to mark who says we have everything under control . Well, thats a concept that wasnt contemplated in the beginning of the project director harper. Its a new one were trying to do midstream into the project so really the direction we have been given is at what point would a guarantee for the overall cost of the project be feasible . I know you said that. I understand that. I just dont understand why that is given all the contracts have been let. We have 50, 60 million in contracts to go. Seems like nothing has changed in the design and things like that and you have control of the contracts. We do. We dont have control of some of the issues that were looking at relative to design, and the task that would relate to some of the decisions that are being finalized and thats part of what were looking at Going Forward trying to quantify in some reasonable way. Which is the question i am asking you. Is there a different approach to guarantee us to finish the project for the person that is delivering the project to us . Right. Its that guaranteed that youre looking for that has gotten us to that heightened awareness of trying to find out what the end all number s right now what you see are budgets with projections and what youre asking of us is an end all guarantee number, and thats why its a much higher level of kfsdz. Its not a 30, or 50. Its 100 . Youre saying what does it take to get there and thats a very high level of confidence. Are there unforeseens that youre concerned about . Theyre always unforeseens director nuru. In this stage were out of the ground and were bid all of these i mean i am feeling there is something concerns somewhere. Yeah, i mean i think there are really unique work packages. This isnt Typical Office building or residential building wheres theres typical things that happen and cycle through. The same projects, project over project. There are unique systems that are being developed and integrated into this project kind of almost a custom design basis so it takes really a custom look at each of those for us to determine that, and what youre asking for us is to do an analysis i mean i know the risk analysis that has been taking place so far are ones they have been doing over the last several years and you asked of us to go ahead and now figure that out for ourselves relative to where we stand in the guaranteed basis and thats a unique thing to ask. Maybe just a related question. Anybodys risk analysis is based on part of existing or projected exposure. I think marks slide shows theyre accounting for some level of exposure. Are you align with the current exposure is . We certainly sit with the tjpa and go through the lists of exposure that exist and come up at this point that the risks are being analyzed and yes we contribute to providing a perspective around those risks. What were really trying to do is take a much, much more deeper detailed dive into the individual risks director reiskin and what that means to get all the way to the very end so its not as generalized on an issue by issue basis. Its more specific on a sub and task by task basis. Then i guess maybe to get to director nurus question assuming that accept that the timing just doesnt work to get a gmp in place before we adopt a budget a month from now does your i guess your speculative understanding of what that gmp might look like will it fit within this range of budget increase that the tjpa is recommending . Well, i know thats what i hear today thats part of the discussion. Is what are the levels necessary to get to that sense of confidence and obviously youre looking for higher and higher sense of confidence and a guarantee. I have seen recommendations of 30, 50, 70 level and sounds like theres continuing an investigation relative to that. Youre looking for from what i understand a guarantee at a higher level so were looking to see what it takes to be within that range and i cant really comment quite honesty at this time which of the ranges is most appropriate. After all this . After the last six months in which we have talked about nothing else about trying to figure out what the overall cost of this project is going to be . I dont think you have the resources to put to this task. That what is sounds like to me, and maybe thats a problem throughout the whole project. I would comment that what we have been asked to do is Something Different then what is contemplated within the contract. We have ramped up to go ahead and provide the right resources so in fact we can go ahead and do this but this isnt something we were asked or talked about six months ago director harper. We were asked recently to start investigating it and we have started that and looked at it in detail and we know continue to do that and we are asking for the appropriate amount of time to do that. Okay. So i just want to mention that we do need to have our budget for consideration by the board by november. Past november were looking at some other issues so we really need to bring this to november even if i guess depends on the boards direction if they want to give webcor more time but regardless we need to bring the budget to the board in november. And we need to find a way whichever budget we approve were comfortable with and bring it is project to the end. Absolutely. And at this time were hearing different percentages of different risk factors that personally i am not comfortable with. Mike can you address the board on what webcor is saying . Is this something they can provide now in november . I dont know what resources youre talking about and the differences between november and january 2016. So its a little difficult for me to speak to what webcor needs to do, but based on my understanding of where we are in the project given how far were along with being bid out we should have a certain level of certainty with the direct costs for the majority of the projected, and based on the Historical Data on the project and webcors experience on other projects one would assume they would be able to put a risk factor on those bid packages and come up with a gmp in relatively short order. What webcor has been talking to the tjpa about which is a little different from what i just suggested is going in and trying to buy out their subcontractors negotiating with them and absolute final price so getting their input and having them part of the gmp commitment so there are no issues with the subcontractors Going Forward. That process i think as webcor has stated will take some time if thats the approach they choose to go down. Great. That wouldnt be early 2016 then. No. If they go through the process of buying out the subcontractors there is no way it could be that time. Webcor says this is the plan and have it by early 2016 so thats what were being told. Sure. So what mike described is in fact true except its not entirely the case and what i mean by that we dont have to go to every subcontractors to do that. There are major ones to do that and were looking at a combination with the risk of the subcontractors and other risks we can quantify ourselves and be able to do and take that risk so thats the level of detail because yes if we did it for every sub and honesty theyre the ones that know what is coming up. They have the understanding of the concerns that might be out there and what the quantified amount is and its our responsibility to push back and go ahead and bring up what that means from a cost perspective, and that isnt every subas mike said but yes its a lot of the most significant so we have surety and pass that along to you. Well, i still think at this point and time it was your job to have enough of that kind of control that you would know, that gc would know what is out there and say i know about that sub. I know about that sub. I know what is happening on this job and i am getting the feeling youre going out for a survey, and thats my frustration, and it makes it difficult for this board to figure out what to do. We have mtc on one side over here which is saying youve got to come up with some definition on this thing otherwise apply a contingency an unheard of contingency that just makes the problem worse, and the one thing that could happen would be for you to come in and say look heres your price. Now mtc the contingency is something that we have already settled, and that would help a lot. The fact that you cant do that i think is a problem for mtc. Thats my suspicion. I cant speculate with that but director harper i would agree with you if we continued as we originally scheduled from the beginning of the job all the way through. Quite honestly things are bid documents that we received that are significantly late. Im not talking by a few months but a couple of years and that forced us to do because of the extension of the bid documents is get information just to bid it and being in the position to analyze it. If we had gotten those on time originally to what we anticipated that wouldnt be the issue today. Lets go on to funding. Who is going to do that . I would say i think we can bemoan where we are but were where we are and i think there are significant design issues that have contributed to that and we werent anticipating the gmp at this point to be fair. I think what we will want i think next month is to hear from the staff and the team that theres some confidence in whatever budget that were adopting so we dont find ourselves adopting a new budget so i understand we wont have a guarantee maximum price of 100 guarantee but i would suggest, what the board would want to hear from webcor, from turner, from the pm, from the staff as theyre confident that whatever the final number is, whether its 316 or otherwise, that we have confidence that were not going to need to change the budget again for phase one. And i know that turner is here today as well. Lisa was here. I dont know if she still is and jess and lisa what were hearing from the board loudly we need you to stand up and support what we present so we need to work closely together. The board is not asking for the final gmp but we need to hear from you jess that you have confidence and back up whatever we have as a team to present. We need to hear from both of you. Thank you. I will finish up our presentation. So as you know we have three main sources of financing to fund the ultimate phase one budget, whatever number we arrive at. The parcel land sales proceed. You have been up dated on that. Mello roos proceeds and the tax increment so we have been working with the city and mtc. Mtc engaged their Financial Advisers and we have been providing them with a lot of information, information on land sales, the projected tax increment and the updated increment forecast and the assumptions behind those. The city provided the mello roos and the projections of those. We have given the cost and Funding Sources for phase one and did that at three different budget levels that run from the 246 that we were recommending back in july along with two other higher budgets that would be within the range that mtcs cross review results show and we provided them information about our current debt, the bridge loan and the other loan. They are reviewing that information. I know they are running modeling and were looking forward to engaging with them when theyre done with the modeling and answering questions that they v concurrently we met with the city Controllers Office, ocii, planning staff to verify the assumptions that are going into they go into both the tax increment and the cfd projections but the Controllers Office is looking at it with the cfd assumptions and making sure what Building Construction schedules are feeding into the projections are accurate and keeping those uptodate so thats where we are with funding progress. Moving forward as i said we will be continuing to work with them to put a plan in place that we can come to you in november along at arriving at the final budget number that everyone has confidence is a good number. We will want to award the remaining trade packages except those that were planned for next year in any case the ip network and the bus Storage Facility. We will be working with mtc to implement the cost recommendations. We talked about the maximum price. Also setting up some type of committee or process for the Funding Partners can review change orders and we have begun working with mtc on the phase two cost review and will continue that work as well. Mark and i are happy to answer anymore questions that you may have. [inaudible] so im having problems connecting the dots just a little bit, so whether the budget is 300 million or 500 million add on with the funding plan for the increment do these main Funding Sources generate enough revenues to cover that range or is it enough to cover the low range . What is that story . 500 million would be a tough one very difficult to cover but if its low to midrange depending on longterm Interest Rates for longterm debt is what the tax increment would finance the lower to midranges are financeable. So if it were the high range are you at what are the options . I dont i think the staff doesnt see any need for a budget recommendation at that high range and i think the contractors and other members of the team will agree on that. I think if there were still concerns from mtc or other Funding Partners i think that a financing arrangement that was perhaps along the lines of a line of credit maybe the way to go because we would only draw down what we needed. There could be some sort of back stop if we were to go towards the high range but i wouldnt advocate for putting out a debt instrument in place that would fund 500 million if we dont realistically think we need that much. So it seems that we need quickly get concurrence with mtc about what the budget number is so that we know what were solving for because theres not a lot of time between now and the next meeting and getting to an agreed upon number is a critical step to figure out how to close the gap. Yeah. And our discussions with mtc were proposing we would fund between the 30 and 50 level which is 257 and the 316 number and the reason were comfortable with that is because all the expenditures what depleted our contingency in the reserves, program reserves were bids that came in higher than budget. It wasnt issues with construction or issues in construction have been doing well actually. [inaudible] low audio . I understand but percentage wise director nuru rec its manageable within the construction tirch tirchl. We used the program reserves, 87 million to cover bids above budget. We used a significant number of the construction contingency for bids above budget and that is behind us. Im not guaranteeing anything director but looking at the picture they were above budget and it depletes the reserves and want the construction. We will have issues with construction and the 30 confidence level gives the contingency against work to be performed in the field. Thats 130 million. If you were to take the exposure it would be more than 100 million of free and clear contingency to deal with the remaining 50 of the work. Then were done with the [inaudible] box walls. Were done with the Steel Construction early next year. The remaining exposure is the mechanical, electrical plumbing and the glass floors and the glazing. The glaisessing is a bid assist and should be a final number and i realize what youre saying but im saying historically if you look where the money went its for the high bids. My point wasnt that you need to determine what range youre comfortable with. I see you did that. You need to get the Funding Partners in agreement and needs to happen quickly so they know what theyre solving for. It does, and i suspect its a little bit chicken and egg and mtc and programming staff are probably looking to their finance staff to run models and determine what is affordable, and then i think we need to make sure they understand the timeline were operating under. Yes, we continue to. I presume that mtc never explicitly said to you in any of the discussions look were not funding something were not comfortable with the contingency that seems implicit to what theyre saying if you want us to come in and help with this thing dont argue about the contingency because we have to deal with that if were going to help you, and thats the chicken and egg i cant figure out. I mean thats why i keep saying to some extent we dont necessarily want to argue with them too far. I agree the big number, the 544 is just out of the question. I dont know how that can be even modeled but the idea of they have got the 48. Fta would agree to Something Like that. We should focus on that. Stop wasting time about going back to 30 and here mtc what can we do . Are we there at that point . Were there. We told them theyre looking at a way to finance what we need and if they can do that we will ask for what we need and if something happens unforeseen you will see they have additional money if we need more. I think thats what theyre trying to do and establish the maximum set aside for the project and finance the project if we were to see something unforeseen, some claims were not able to resolve we need additional money and this is the minimum we need and if you bring in more thats fine. Is it possible when we meet in november that there could be something in writing even at the staff level, and i know thats very difficult to get, but im envisioning the board here listening to maybe more less vaguely defined hopes and maybes and if we could and everything, but then youre asking us to pass a budget on that, and have a little mohammediteis about that myself. You know [laughter] at some point weve got to act responsibly and say okay weve got significant assurances on this revenue side. Now the cost side i agree were getting it down but the revenue side is the big thing and giving assurances to where we can go and do. I dont anticipate bringing a budget for approval without a financing plan in place. That might not be signatures or sole debt or what have you but a plan that mtc and tjpa are comfortable with will be in place and what were bringing november. And thats at the pure staff level that is developed. They wouldnt have run it through their boards. Not likely at this point. Not likely so its in a form that the city and county and mtc is saying look this is something we will present to our boards. Yes. And then this board can say okay are we comfortable with seeing an agreement thats based on something that is going to be presented to the board . It would be nice to get that and to have that so that we can say okay thats our budget because the thing thats beginning to eat to me that we havent talked about is at some point and time if we have are going to have a short fall and we maybe passed this already we have to plan what to do with that fact and what happens to the project to cover the short fall . And thats Something Else that i dont know if we passed that point and mark and i talked about it and at some point when you know you have that 150 and we need something real. Director harper the november is the date to award the packages otherwise we will have a difficult time maintaining the construction schedule. Were working with them to issue a change order to maintain the construction schedule but if we cant award the packages in november we need back up plans as we move forward. Its become being very difficult