tv Police Commission 10715 SFGTV October 10, 2015 7:25pm-10:01pm PDT
allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> >> president loftus, i would like to call roll. president loftus, commissioner turman, commissioner mazzucco is excused. commissioner hwang, commissioner mall era, we have gregory suhr >> thank you and welcome to october 7, 2015, police commission
meeting. we have been dark for a few weeks. >> item one. adoption of the minutes action july 22nd, august 5th, august 19th, september 2nd, september 9th, september 16th. >> colleagues you have these in your packet. >> i move for adoption. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? motion passes unanimously. >> next item. >> item two consent calendar. police commission report of disciplinary actions third quarter 2015. >> on the consent calendar.
i'm going to focus on the police commission report for the third quarter. any questions on this report? do i have a motion? >> i move to accept the report. >> second? >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? item 3, public comment the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or occ personnel. under police commission rules of order during public comment, neither police or occ nor commissioners are required to respond to
questions. public speaker: my name is herb ert weiner. the law is absolutely -- why can't pedestrians and other automobiles. it's crazy. laws have to equally apply to everyone. now, i have a riddle for the bicyclist. suppose they yield and go to the red light. some drivers, the light is green and he has the right-of-way and he kills him. a lawsuit maybe filed but it doesn't make sense if you are dead. you can't collect posthumously. the other thing, this is crazy. if i am a pedestrian and a car hits me,
that is equally wrong. it has to apply to everyone and actually the bicyclist are actually putting themselves at risk for this idaho law. i don't know where it came from. i wish it would go back under a rock. i would hope the police are caught in a dilemma because they are caught between political forces. this is clearly a wrong headed idea and i wish to file my protest. thank you. >> thank you, sir. that matter is before the board of supervisors currently. thank you. good evening, next speaker. public speaker: you are
unbelieve avenlt -- board of supervisors want to we can't do it without help from the public. somebody knows something. i'm with you, but let's go to another topic. i get jetlag. i flew back from boston today. i was at the police commission in boston. commission evans. they call him a commissioner. they don't call him a police chief. congratulations. i heard you got married. i hear everything out here. we have a lot of things going on in san francisco. our homicide, where are we
now? 41? about that. i could be wrong. boston 64. new york 144, philadelphia 311, but the good things, a lot of good things are going on. teresa, i'm not really a bad guy. yes, teresa, i'm not really that way. >> you have to address your comments to the whole group. >> huh? >> address it to all of us. not anyone individual. >> go ahead. ms. brown. it's on you. >> next speaker? public speaker: hi. my name is paula brown. i would live to use the
again, my name is paula brown. i'm here concerning my son who was murdered august 14, 2006 , to a semi automatic gun. 30 rounds of bullets left inside my son. until this day there is no closure. i am seeking justice and seeking we implement a place for these flyers like these can be in a permanent place. i have to go out in front of city hall to scream and holler concerning my son. it doesn't feel good doing that. i again had to corner another mayor, ed lee to talk to me and he slammed the door in my face. that's really hurt my feelings. under the circumstances -- it's been 9 years. i have never done anything to him.
it says here, paul hennessy says that he's arranged meetings through him to meet with ed lee. paul hen sonhas never arranged a meeting. the reason why i came to mayor ed lee is because i happened to be in front of the building. mr. hennessy wasn't very good at saying why are you here? who invited you? i don't like being lied on. that's another thing. i'm a mother who is grieving for her son and i wouldn't lie on nobody. i don't want anybody lying on me. it's not that i hate mr. whatever his name is. i don't think he should have said that in the newspapers when it was a lie. i never did that. i never said that.
now, what i will say is gave in news som said he knows who killed my son. the d. a. knows who killed my son. what are we going to do about that. i also fight with other mothers and father. this is what i'm left with. he's in a casket. we need new venues. not the pictures. put it at the bus stop so they can see who they murdered. maybe the crimes will stop then. >> thank you, ms. brown. >> is there any information regarding -- there is a tip line.
thank you, ms. brown. >> next speaker? public speaker: yes. how do you do this? my name is chandler, the mother of yalani regarding a homicide. i would like to acknowledge and thank the board of supervisors for bringing the initiative concerning the reward. i'm truly thankful for london breed acknowledging that. the mother, the hebrew nation is out there protesting and there was not a program established concerning the rewards. because she see's us constantly out there. there were two hebrew boys murdered january 9th. this is the result. we are not out there to form a fashion, but we
would definitely like to see the results concerning these african american children. the next item i want to bring to the table. i spoke with chief suhr, i received a ticket a few weeks ago saying that i did not stop at a stop sign which wasn't true. the police officer did falsify the document by inventing a street that me and my daughter, 24 was no where around. i'm asking you to look at the ticket and investigate the police officer and find out why did he falsify this information and i'm looking forward to going forward and making sure that this particular homicide is definitely solved so we can go forth and continue to fight for these african american children and thanking the hebrew nation to understand and paulette brown being here. no other organization has come to fight for this initiative for the
reward. no organization, none of the religious institutions. it's basically been the hebrew mothers and paulette brown. i also want to speak in regards to the request to speak with the mayor or meet the mayor. we have sent in e-mails and made phone calls and knocked on doors and have not been able to meet with the mayor of san francisco. we choose to meet with the mayor himself as they have acknowledged katie steinle who was murdered at the whaufr. it's sad not to acknowledge all of these homicide. thank you very much. >> there is an officer looking into the matters of complaint. he's there to help you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.
sergeant, please call the next line item. it does sound like we are having some technical difficulties. >> item 4 a. reports and announcements. chief's reports. discussion. review of recent activities. presentation of the third quarter 2015 fdrb findings and recommendations and ois investigative summary. >> real quick on the comments made by the speakers of the homicide of ab real. there is an award for $250,000 and we are working with supervisor breed and the mayor's office to update and/or increase the local ordinance which allows rewards up to $100,000. i know inspector sanders who has the
quadruple case. we are actively working on that. >> with regards to recent events. we had the castro street fair saturday, a very large crowd, no incidents reported. we did have one robbery and we did discover a homicide victim over the weekend however at the very other end at golden gate park. we don't believe it is related at all and we are working on this case actively and we do believe we have some leads and i'm not at a little -- a liberty to discuss that. monday night our officers responded to a car that pinned him and through him in the air over a car and he was taken
to general hospital, a 406 which is the most alarming call any officer can care. the officer is down. fortunately the officer, i say only but bad enough suffered broken ribs and no head trauma at all. he should recover. >> did you say there was a suspect in the case ? >> yes, there is three suspects in custody. two of the suspects we would not have gotten were it not for the public as everybody fled the scene and they assisted us. thank you for that. we can't do it by ourselves. >> do you know if that case is charged? >> i do not. we will follow up on that. >> this is a business week in san francisco and president barack obama has made it that much
interesting. it's fleet week. we've been working all week on preparation. we were out on one of the ships earlier this week during preparedness training. the leadership seminar kicked off. the president arrives later on this week and will stay for about 48 hours. we will work with the secret service to provide all the protection for the president. friday night, is the bruce mahoney high school football game. very well attended at the stadium on saturday. we have the 1010 parade. also saturday morning is the graduation of our academy cadet class. the young folks in college that maybe have an interest in law enforcement we have a couple of csi kids from ll hutch study that they did during the summer, they are in that class. it's just a great group of kids, we are
now over 50 akkad cadets that have helped us out. the 1010 parade on saturday and of course the italian heritage parade sunday. blue angels, the technical navy flyers practice friday and shows are saturday and sunday. for traffic purposes if you don't need to go downtown and you can find a place to see it, that's a good idea or take public transportation. also today was walk and roll to workday. >> and school. >> it was walk and roll to school day. i was escorted by an adorable little six-year-old, sydney.
i can tell you all about sydney, she talked to me the whole way. she told me not to cross and if i walked a couple blocks, i could find swens ons ice cream. it was a great morning. really cool. on a business note. the rfp proposal for our body cameras has posted. there is a prebid conference wednesday october 14th at 10 :00 a.m. at the controllers office at 1155 market street at the large conference room where we will brief any companies interested in bidding on the contracts. as we have discussed as you all
take the policy piece down that track, the practical piece, the hardware piece, the software piece is moving down a parallel track and hopefully they will intercept it so we can engage in a pilot as we have hoped by january. and then finally the city actually i'm going to give some props to one of my fellow department heads our terrific human resources director callaghan who accepted the national association for human resources and for conviction review program. the city was the sole recitizenship i recipient award for the human resources program that go beyond good government. the reason i bring this up is i don't think anybody knew this happened. since
this was on tv, i think it's important. some people don't think these second chance things work. the history review program, the police have an unconscious bias and individuals with conviction histories are not denied opportunities to work for san francisco. all applicants who are finalist for employment in san francisco are fingerprinted and those are sent to the department of justice and review any resulting reports for conflict for the specific job the candidate is seeking. the dhr has received conviction histories of nearly 14,000 final candidates for employment in san francisco. about 1400 had conviction histories and after rigorous reviews a vast
majority were cleared from their performance and only 27 of 14,000 finalist were ultimately disqualified from employment in specific jobs they applied for which represents.002% of the total candidates fingerprinted. really cool and nice to be able to accept that. kudos for a city for a second chance program that works. >> wow. that's great. thanks for sharing that. >> that concludes my report. >> any questions for the chief? commissioner hwang? >> about the body cameras. it includes the cameras in storage cost? >> yes. >> if we were to change the
policy from 1 year retention to 2-year retention. i wonder if it would affect the bidding process at all? >> the more data we have to store, the longer we have to store, the changes to the cost dramatically. >> if one company that say the cameras are cheaper but the other ones, the cheaper storage would our policies still with considerations want one or two 2 years for the bidding process in terms of their policy? >> if another company had a better storage plan or what have you and then of course the minimum requirement is it has to be stored a year and then obviously any data that's attached to a case number whether it be civil or criminal or administrative at
the occ, that would be stored far longer than even 2 years. so that the questions really how long do we store the data that is not at issue in anyway shape or form would you keep that for the one 1 year that is the main staton filing for civil cases and administrative cases and the like and/or would you keep it for two and/or would you maybe keep it for one and keep the difference obviously indefinitely because they would have to be kept until all appeals were exhausted. >> thank you. >> commissioner dejesus? >> is this going out to bid as rfp's? >> yes. >> thank you. >> that is what this is. it's a referral for proposal for anybody to come and meet whatever the
specs are. >> for all of our twitter followers. we will be tweeting a link and maybe the chief has more information. >> i have to ask at our next meeting on body cameras for the department to break down the difference on the 1 year retention time for storage versus 2 years because what commissioner hwang is alluding to there are areas and one of those pieces is probably variable if you think about if you had to keep an extra year of storage. that should be something that does not directly affects the policy but we want to be aware of it. i think it's going to be presented at our next meeting. >> it will be in the proposal, but it literally compounds. so whatever you have for the first year for two, then the next year is four and on and on and on. the cost of
data storage over time pyramids pretty quickly. >> that date october 21st. not our meeting, the meeting about the cameras? it's the 16th. the meeting with the rfp's with the cameras. >> no that meeting is wednesday the 14. >> okay. i had a question for the chief. homicide to date? >> 39. >> where were we this time last year? >> i believe we were about in the ballpark of 35. i don't remember exactly, i'm sorry. >> okay. got it. any other questions for the chief? >> i have to remind you last year was a record low year. >> any questions for the chief? okay. sergeant please call the next line item. we need to for a presentation
shootings team and investigations team. i will talk about the firearm discharge review board and where we are with the officer involved shooting investigations. our last firearm discharge review board had convened july 1, 2015. that was the second quarter. it reconvened tuesday september 22nd and there were 4 cases the board reviewed which are oid, 315 and oid 415 and ohis 13005 and ois -- deputy chief alley and deputy chief redmond and tom were there and the acting deputy chief
was from the airport bureau. the advisement commissioners were present. director hicks and acting captain brekoni from risk management. i will give you an overview of the cases we looked at. oid occurred on the 1400-block of oakdale. this case approximately 1818 hours, uniformed officers from bayview responded to a residence on the 14-block of oakdale responding to a 911 call. voices were heard. the officers responded to investigate. they made their way to a resident and a pitbull emerged and ended up biting the officer on the hand and
buttocks. the officer fired shots at the dog and the dog expired. oid 00315 kuld july 27, 2015. fulton street between larkin and hyde. about 1844 hours the police were patrolling the area and observed what could be a narcotics transaction and began to approach the subjects involved. as they approached the suspect released the dog and the officer retreated. the officer drew his weapon and retreated until his path was blocked by a vehicle. he then fired at the
attacking dog and the dog sprintd away and recaptured by it's owner and take by animal control. that was in the policy. there were two ois reviewed by the board an officer involved shooting occurred on april 7, 2015. which has you may is right by mission station. at approximately 2:00 a.m., the officers responded to that area regarding a large fight that was occurring and said there was one subject with a gun. there were at least ten males and officers pointing one hand at the persons involved at the altercation. when the officers moved with a
clear and asked the suspect to comply with the gun. the officer fired and the suspect was hit and taken into custody. a second person involved in this altercation was also struck. this shooting was determined to be impulsive. the other officer involved shooting was ois between larkin and oh farrell streets. this occurred at approximately 2211 hours. the officers heard a series of gunfire. as they pulled up northbound
larkin, the officers got out of the vehicle and saw a subject who was on it would be the eastbound side of oh farrell shooting westbound down oh farrell. they saw another person running down the street from the line of fire. one of the officers fired at the suspect and he turned around and fled eastbound on o'farrell and apprehended after a short foot chase. two people were struck and 1 person was killed during the gun battle the officers responded to. that was determined to be
impulse. >> there were two people hit that the officer responded to. not involving the officer. they were shot on oh farrell street. the officers responded from larkin street. it was west of their position. >> thank you. those were the 4 cases reviewed and the next attentively scheduled as the holidays are coming up. tuesday december 22nd. >> no holidays for the police commissioner. >> we are scheduled for tuesday december 22nd to go with the next fdrb. >> i will give you now an overview of where we are with the officer involved
open cases. the last time i appeared was august 5, 2015. since that report, two 2 cases i just covered both of them, ois 130005 and 13007 have been presented to the frb signed off by police chief. reports prepared for the police commission. one is in editing. you have one and the other one is on its way. and all the other pieces are completed. these will be removed from the list. and since my last time i appeared, 2 cases opened. one of them if you recall occurred between the time the reports were prepared and i appeared. but officially it's now appearing. o is 15005, 15006 and you will hear about those later in closed
session. both occurred outside of the city. >> sergeant, both of these cases were from 2013, the two that were just closed? >> yes, ma'am. >> that happened about 2 years. >> yes, ma'am. >> how are we doing on timing on the ability to close cases? >> it continues to be approximately two 2 years at the current rate. >> sergeant, can you do me a favor, can you find out from regional colleagues how long it takes because i'm such a broken record on this. it seems to me now especially with the officer involved shootings and the issue of transparency and the constant justice delayed, justice denied. if you can survey if we are out of the norm because it feels like an awful long time. joe says we are getting better and i know i'm not saying this
to you because we are waiting for the d. a.. >> it's interesting that our last two ois occurred in the county. those will both be the criminal investigation and d. a. review will be in that county. >> if you can find out. maybe i'm just overall concerned and somehow we are outliers and we can look into it more deeply. >> sorry, eye -- i have to back up here. i will do that. >> thank you. >> okay. so, for summary of the current open ois cases, there are 13 right now. they are in review with the district attorney of san francisco and we are waiting charging decisions in these cases and
the corresponding sf p.d. administrative pulls. we have one investigation being the officers of san mateo and waiting for information from san mateo and corresponding administrative investigation is tolling in that case. we have one that you will hear a little bit later today under investigation by the san mateo department. active investigation. year by year, at this point we have 2 cases, again 13005 and 13007 that have closed. it will disappear from these list as an open case. two remain open from 2013. that's a 003 and 008. the oldest 003 occurred march
15, 2013. we have currently 7 open cases from 2014 along with the d. a. waiting charging decision. so you have a list there. >> sergeant, can i ask you a question because you said something as many times as we have this conversation. you say while we are waiting and these cases are being evaluated by the district attorney, you in your internal affairs cannot dough an investigation into any policy violations or anything that would happen? >> technically no. we just can't finish it. we can't conclude it until that last piece. >> it doesn't come to us. it could end up needing a hearing. there are tolls and you have done your investigation or that ultimately the resolution of the
administrative side. >> right and you have seen how it's worked out where we are able to get the final declination letter and usually ready to plug in these last pieces and we get it finished in a matter of weeks. all the interviews are done. the tolling applies to really -- >> the statute of limitations. >> right. >> in 2014 we have 7 cases open waiting charging decision. 2015, there are three 3 cases with the san francisco district attorney's office waiting to charging decision. one 1 case with the san mateo county, district attorney waiting to charging decision and 1 case active criminal investigation
in san mateo. that's where we are at. >> great. any questions? commissioner hwang. if it's inappropriate let me know. one issue we are discussing are body cameras is officers giving voluntary statements post shootings. what impact would you see if the officers were to invoke and not give voluntary statements. how would that impact your investigation and i know that's slightly different but i wonder how it might impact. >> i'm going to stop here looking at the city attorney because that matter is not agendaize tonight. i have asked sergeant and commander chaplain and i'm going to ask
someone here to discuss this when it's agendaized. i don't think we can talk about that now. i'm looking at the attorney. >> to the extent, it relates to the officer involved shooting so you can answer but if it's about the body cameras, it has to be agendaized. >> to para phrase how we might state the process? >> your investigation. you have the officers statements? >> i think just real quick, the biggest way that it would really affect the administrative investigation is i can see big problems with getting closure on the criminal investigation. i will get everything in a compelled
statement i would get the statement but i wouldn't be able tro provide that to the criminal investigation. that would be something they wouldn't be privilege to, they wouldn't have access to. for the criminal investigators, to get the information that i would have by a compelled interview; they would have to find some other way. we don't have that process. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions for sergeant crudeo? >> i was going to ask for clarification, whether they are involved or not you can compel them but time wise you can't get it quicker? >> no. in a criminal investigation, that officer just like everybody else has every right to invoke his rights. in an investigation the officer doesn't. i would order the officer under
the threat of terms -- termination would have him provide that information. but that information capital be -- cannot be used against the officer. anything acquired in that manner and i would have to order the officer to answer, i can't, i can't provide that to the criminal prosecutor. so they are going to have to get to that information in a completely different manner. >> if it's voluntary, it's different. >> yes. if it's different. that's how the process works. our process now is they confer with their attorney and determine what their best course of action is and typically they provide a voluntary statement to the criminal investigator and then there is
a subsequent statement. our criminal investigators don't get but it's made to ia. >> vice-president turman? >> you answered my question. i was going to ask for the voluntary of the statement. since i have this moment, i'm going to ask another question and deputy city attorney cabrera will tell me if i'm off topic. so i noticed on the coverage of the daily picture. does one have to have it -- >> i'm certain it's not on the agenda. i'm going to exercise my rights. sergeant crudeo, thank you very much for your presentation. thank you. >> okay. sergeant please call the next line item. >> item 4b.
occ directors report. >> review of recent activities. >> good evening president loftus, commissioners, members of the public. occ is in riverside attending the conference. the national association civilian oversight of law enforcement. she will be back on friday. the report will wait until the next police commission meeting. she will give it. thank you very much. >> okay. any questions for ms. franco? okay. thank you. >> next line item. item 4c, commission reports and commission presidents report. >> colleagues, i have two things to discuss. we have our next body camera community meeting on the 21. the third wednesday when we have the community meeting at 6 :00 p.m.
at the salvation army crock center. that's for fellow commissioners and members of the public who are watching. that is also up on our website. that will be our last and second final meeting. for folks interested please join us at that meeting. that's in the tenderloin. and we are scheduling out the rest of the process. for everyone's planning purposes, we are dark the following week and come back on november 4th. the plan for that meeting is to allow us time to have the discussion without having action but having time to have some experts here. sergeant is going to work to walk through various issues are in the policy. but it is our recommendation and i'm interested in feedback where we don't actually vote because my sense from all of you is you want
some time to think through and ask questions. the trade off for that is that we have the meeting on the fourth and discussion but no action. certainly the public is welcome to come. given veterans day in the middle of value or, we don't have another meeting in november. it kicks up to december 2nd to actually vote on the policy. i'm interested in thoughts bortsd in discussions with the commission staff and a sense of how quickly we'll be coming off the hills of the last committee meeting. that's the thought. if there are other thoughts, i'm certainly open to this. >> commissioner hwang? >> with the rfp process? >> chief, do you want to answer that? >> the rfp process, i think you need to do your work exclusive of that
process. the contracting process is going to take as long as it takes. >> the other reason we've taken this approach is we are not on track. if they start theirs before ours, it's going to be years before we get them. what's probably going to happen again if we have this discussion on november 4th, we are able to answer questions, give some direction and we finally vote on december 2nd, that vote isn't even final yet because it has to go to the meet and confer process and it will come back to us for final adoption. i think there is a time where the process and i know sergeant is aware of where we are. >> when you were talking about this earlier, it will just depend on what
you decide. i apologize. i missed it. >> it seems everyone is comfortable with that schedule. i know i'm pushing with how fast i'm trying to move this. we'll get the issue on the draft policy and we'll have until november to do what we need to do and vote on december 2nd. we are getting the commissioners website. get excited. that's going to be coming and we will launch it and you will be able to get biographies. colleagues, any reports from you guys? okay. sergeant please call the next line item. >> item 4d, commission announcements and items identified for consideration at future meetings actions. >> colleagues, i will remind you next week, this is domestic violence
awareness month. our next items on dgo and number of certificates given to our partners. other things that are coming up in the near term? commissioner hwang? >> i think next friday october 16th t agency officers is having their scholarship dinner and i will probably attend that. i understand from supervisor jane kim's office that next tuesday at the board of supervisors meeting they maybe honoring officer patrick kwaung of the tenderloin station for a life saving event. finally on october 24th, at the square. it's been an annual event for
the last 5 years. great. anything further on that? sergeant, please call next line item? >> public comment. >> any public comment on the items that we just covered which are specific to items 4 a through d? public speaker: i got an interview for ets. when you look into this. the police department -- and i do think that at these stations need to
be as you know i don't think to have the contest in 2006 and 2009, but i do want to go ahead and start to come up -- and working with the united states and meeting because i think these injuries are happening because there are people that don't think there is love and that other things are being forgotten because some people that hang on their efforts.
average 50 homicides each year. when you wanted to know how many homicides per year, she says it's about averaging about 50. something needs to be done about it. >> thank you, ms. brown. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 5, public comment on all matters pertaining to item 7 below, closed session including public comment on vote whether to hold item 7 in closed session. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. item 6 vote on whether to hold item 7 in closed session including vote on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege. >> colleagues, i move to not disclose
-- that's the second time. we have a second? all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? motion passes. we are in closed session. >> >> commissioners, we are back on the record. for the record you do still have a quorum. >> thank you, sergeant. we are back in open session. please call the next line item. >> item 8, vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 7 held in closed session. >> move to not disclose. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed?
>> the renovation of balboa park, the oldest in the city of san francisco, and now it is the newest part in the city of san francisco. through our partnership, and because of public investment from the two thousand eight fund, we are celebrating a renewal and an awakening of this park. we have it safer, happier, more joyous. >> 3, 2, 1, [laughter] =--[applause]
>> it is a great resource for families, to have fun in the city, recreation. >> this is an amazing park. we have not revitalized it without public and private investment. the critical piece of the process of this renovation was that it was all about the community. we reached out to everyone in this community. we love this park dearly and they all had thoughts and ideas and they wanted to bring their own creativity and their personality to bear on the design. what you see is what the community wanted. these ideas all came from the residents of this community. as a result, there is a sense of ownership, pride and responsibility that goes along
with what is going to be an exciting park. >> director sartipi will not be present and director kim is running late. with that director lee. >> here. >> director. >> here. >> director. >> present. >> you have a quorum. >> and i wanted to acknowledge the tv crew manning it down there and appreciate that. next item. >> next is the communications
-- what was that under communicationss? >> i will put it under communications. if you want it somewhere else i can do that. >> there are no other communications that i'm aware of. >> okay. >> board of director's new and old business. >> we're okay. >> all right. executive director's report. >> good morning everyone. i wanted to begin by reporting that block five recently closed for one 72.$6 million. our landfill proceeds top 160 million and the ground breaking occurred this week with gallop and the company and met life and we expect to close on block eight in november and we will have exceeded over $500 million in proceeds from the sale of the parcels for the projected. i want 20d encourage everyone who hasn't taken a walk by the transit center to do so. we also offer tours. you will now see the light column, one
of the sustainable elements that will bring daylight into the center take shape. it's completely taken shape. it's really beautiful and i encourage you to do that. i will ask jack now to give the construction update. >> good morning. my name is jack adams, construction. so i will give you the construction update for the month of september. so we hit a milestone where we called for completion of the below grade structure. the package is complete. we have some punch lists to. do we will develop that list and closing out that package here shortly, and the next two milestones coming up are the strublght url steel and the above ground concrete and coming up in the next couple of months. we have a little more
detailed update on the milestone of the structural steel is on track right now to complete and welding in june of 2016, and the below grade -- i mean the above grade concrete package is on schedule to complete for next year. so here's the project status diagram showing the center level of the -- the center zone of the concrete is nearing completion. the west zone you can see the progress on the structural steel and we have that last section of the steel between grid lines four and seven as being erected as we speak and on the east end the focus has been on the light column. we're finishing the welding of that and crossing fremont street with structural steel for the last 30 days, 39. the project status contingency is updated in the remaining balance is 48.4 million.
project safety -- we're still tracking. we have six reportable injuries for the year to september 30. unfortunate we had one reportable injury from august that was reassigned to a lost time injury because the person with the injured foot had to have surgery and that was wasn't identified until september and it's reclosed as a loss time injury and the first for the year 2015. the period summary report just talked about the safety issues. web core does have a safety team in place and investigating all of the incidences and putting in corrective measure. they have a safety recognition program that's been well received by the workers in the field so positive reinforcement of safety and the
craft dollars completed with 50,000 worker hours in the month of september so that's a large number for workers hours last month. so the structural streel sustains in the western zone, and that's our main focus. the other contractors can't work in the area while we're erecting steel so it's all steel. there is false work towards the east end of the zone and that is ready for concrete at the ground level that will start the end of 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 26-27 and get as much done we could both day and night, and we're 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 we're 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 we're 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 here's 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 here's 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. we're 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 we're made our first pour on the bridge on september 25 and we're looking towards mid-october 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 it's 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 it's 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 that's the construction update for september 2015. any questions? >> questions? ed. >> just ask my monthly query about the structural steel. it's 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 doesn't yet reflect it so the next month we will see if we could update that with a completion date but it's 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 there's 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. it's 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 aren'ted 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 we're 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. it's for cycling for veterans is the group that's organizing that. progress on adults. michael tearo reported he's working with john o'connell to train the trainer on various elements with the multi-cors program and working with the san francisco conservation corps. their program focus on labors and cart penters and they're
expanding that as well. charlie from the operators said they're trying to grow more female participation. he didn't go into details and we will get update next time and that's their focus and the pipe fitters are saying they're 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 mid-september we had the one -- almost 1.7 million hours. we are hitting our goals or over the goal barely and it's 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
we're 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 we're 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 we're 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 haven't -- >> it's out there. >> i mean if they haven't we're 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 i'm 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 haven't 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
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 the-going 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 we're 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 don't have to come back with a bond and lose efficiencies. we're 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 they're 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 shouldn't be too divergent from the percentage on there because they're 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 it's three components. >> yeah, i understand. but why wouldn't it percentage wise at least reflect what the construction cost different ecial for for all three items? that's what i don't understand why it's 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. they're 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 can't see why there's a big differential in the costs. >> you don't 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. what's 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. >> that's different than construction management gc cost and those are different people? >> i'm 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 haven't received the bids for them for the cost. it's 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 we're recommending. we're still unable to find out how they arrived at this number. we have our numbers on the model and on the monte carlo. we don't know how they came up with this number yet and we're continuing our discussions, but that number is -- we haven't 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 they're putting specific how they arrived at that number. the 244 we don't know the input they used and the mod disblel but we're okay with the 48? >> yes, i have more slides
that will shed light on what we recommend. we're 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 we're 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 we're 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 i'm a little confused about why under federal scrutiny wouldn't use a federal model. i am confused about that. what group is reviewing the project because i don't know what group has the scope or expertise in cost review of large projects at mtc. which department is it that you're -- >> we're 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 he's relying on the monte carlo model and we were pretty strong in our reaction to them that they shouldn't 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 we're concerned it's 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 they're running the model and looking at the risk assessment and calculating the risk is different than what we do, and
we haven't been able to figure out exactly how they're 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 we're concerned we're 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. we're 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 that's 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 we've 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 don't 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. >> aren't we having jess come up -- >> (inaudible). >> at the end? okay.
>> do the numbers include that? >> no, we don't have that. it's based on the exposure. >> [inaudible] (low audio). >> yes, jess will report on it and a work in progress. we don't have that number yet. we're 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 there's issues that we investigate, not only past, present but u projections into the future for the subs that we have and we found it's truly isn't feasible and provided as quickly as requested and we would like today that we're 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 we're not doing this
every few months as we try to finish the project? >> they're almost two really separate i think efforts director neuroy and the issues and the way they're coming up with the data around what they're 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 we're going through a really detailed study for each of the individual tasks that will take place for the subcontractors and ultimately what we're 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 can't keep going back and borrowing money. we're assuming so many different risks. at the end of the day it's the people that will get the project done on the ground and tell us the decisions on the ground to deliver the project. we're on the ground which is i think is a good story of the project, but this escalation we have seen we haven't 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 we're 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 you're looking for director nuru. it's a different approach of the analysis that mark was showing here and it's 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 we're talking about and give us the assurance yes we can finish the project and i'm not familiar with the models of risk myself and i don't want to be faced with the situation now on our hands again. >> agree. and that's quite honesty why we're 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 won't come up with a gmp.
if i were mtc i would be going wait a minute if they won't do it how do we listen to mark who says we have everything under control? >> well, that's a concept that wasn't contemplated in the beginning of the project director harper. it's a new one we're 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 don't 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 don't have control of some of the issues that we're looking at relative to design, and the task that would relate to some of the decisions that
are being finalized and that's part of what we're 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. it's that guaranteed that you're 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 you're asking of us is an end all guarantee number, and that's why it's a much higher level of kfsdz. it's not a 30, or 50. it's 100%. you're saying what does it take to get there and that's a very high level of confidence. >> are there unforeseens that you're concerned about? >> they're always unforeseens director nuru. >> in this stage we're out of the ground and we're 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 isn't typical office building or residential building where's there's 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 you're 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 that's a unique thing to ask. >> maybe just a related
question. anybody's risk analysis is based on part of existing or projected exposure. i think mark's slide shows they're 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 we're 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 it's not as generalized on an issue by issue basis. it's more specific on a sub and task by task basis.
>> then i guess maybe to get to director nuru's question assuming that accept that the timing just doesn't 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 that's -- what i hear today that's part of the discussion. is what are the levels necessary to get to that sense of confidence and obviously you're looking for higher and higher sense of confidence and a guarantee. i have seen recommendations of 30, 50, 70% level and sounds like there's continuing an investigation relative to that.
you're looking for -- from what i understand a guarantee at a higher level so we're looking to see what it takes to be within that range and i can't 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 don't think you have the resources to put to this task. that what is sounds like to me, and maybe that's 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 isn't 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 we're looking at some other issues so we really need to bring this to november even if i guess depends on the board's 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 we're comfortable with and bring it is project to the end. >> absolutely. >> and at this time we're 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 don't know what resources you're talking about and the differences between november and january 2016. >> so it's 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 we're 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 webcor's 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 that's the approach they choose to go down. >> great. >> that wouldn't 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 that's what we're being told.
sure. >> so what mike described is in fact true except it's not entirely the case and what i mean by that we don't have to go to every subcontractors to do that. there are major ones to do that and we're 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 that's the level of detail because yes if we did it for every sub and honesty they're 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 it's our responsibility to push back and go ahead and bring up what that means from a cost perspective, and that isn't every subas mike said but yes it's 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 you're going out for a survey, and that's 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 you've 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 here's your price. now mtc the contingency is something that we have already settled, and that
would help a lot. the fact that you can't do that i think is a problem for mtc. that's my suspicion. >> i can't 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. i'm 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 wouldn't be the issue today. >> let's go on to funding. who is going to do that? >> i would say i think we can
bemoan where we are but we're where we are and i think there are significant design issues that have contributed to that and we weren't 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 there's some confidence in whatever budget that we're adopting so we don't find ourselves adopting a new budget so i understand we won't 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 they're confident that whatever the final number is, whether it's 316 or otherwise, that we have confidence that we're 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 don't know if she still is and jess and lisa what we're 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 mtc's 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 we're looking forward to engaging with them when they're done with the modeling and
answering questions that they v concurrently we met with the city controller's 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 controller's 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 up-to-date so that's 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 i'm 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 it's low to midrange depending on long-term interest rates for long-term 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 don't -- i think -- the staff doesn't 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 wouldn't advocate for putting out a debt instrument in place that would fund 500 million if we don't 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 we're solving for because there's 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 we're proposing we would fund between the 30% and
50% level which is 257 and the 316 number and the reason we're 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 wasn't issues with construction or issues in construction have been doing well actually. >> [inaudible] (low audio). >> i understand but percentage wise director nuru rec it's 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. i'm 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. that's $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 we're done with the [inaudible] box walls. we're 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 you're saying but i'm saying historically if you look where the money went it's for the high
bids. >> my point wasn't that you need to determine what range you're 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 they're solving for. >> it does, and i suspect it's 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 we're operating under. >> yes, we continue to. >> i presume that mtc never explicitly said to you in any of the discussions "look we're not funding something we're not comfortable with the contingency" that seems implicit to what they're saying if you want us to come in and help with this thing don't argue about the contingency because we have to deal with that if we're going to help you, and that's
the chicken and egg i can't figure out. i mean that's why i keep saying to some extent we don't necessarily want to argue with them too far. i agree the big number, the 544 is just out of the question. i don't 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? >> we're there. we told them -- they're 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 that's what they're 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 we're not able to resolve we need additional money and this is the minimum we need and if you bring in more that's fine. >> is it possible when we meet in november that there could be something in writing even at the staff level, and i know that's very difficult to get, but i'm envisioning the board here listening to maybe more -- less vaguely defined hopes and maybes and if we could and everything, but then you're asking us to pass a budget on that, and have a little mohammediteis about that myself. you know -- [laughter] at some point we've got to act responsibly and say "okay we've
got significant assurances on this revenue side." now the cost side i agree we're getting it down but the revenue side is the big thing and giving assurances to where we can go and do. >> i don't 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 we're bringing november. >> and that's at the pure staff level that is developed. they wouldn't have run it through their boards. >> not likely at this point. >> not likely so it's 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 that's 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 that's our budget because the thing that's beginning to eat to me that we haven't 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 that's something else that i don't 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. we're working with them to issue a change order to maintain the construction schedule but if we can't award the packages in november we need back up plans as we move forward. it's become being very difficult. >> yes, okay. yeah i mean i don't know i will talk with maria what could be agendized if something has to be done about that in november but i am certain we have to see how much because we have to have something to back that up. if we don't have something we can rely on the revenue stream in my mind to pass the budget we have to say okay if that doesn't
happen here's some ideas about what we can do, but i don't know. it's going to be a big number in any event and going to be conceptual and i don't know that the project can be adjusted to that extent at this point. >> okay. call the next item. >> next item. >> item 13 is authorizing the executive director to amend the professional services agreement with thompson coburn for this. >> motion and approval. would you call the roll please. >> director kim. >> aye. >> director lee. >> yes. >>
director reiskin? >> aye. >> director. >> aye. >> next item is approve the minutes of the meeting. >> motion and approval. pick your choice guys. >> take your choice. >> all right. no objections call the roll. >> director kim. >> aye. >> director lee. >> yes. >> director reiskin. >> yes. >> director nuru. >> aye. >> chair harper. >> aye. >> that is five aye's and the minutes are approved. that concludes your agenda for today. >> [gavel] we're adjourned. .
>> it seems like everyone in san francisco is talking about housing san francisco housing prizes are among the highest it tops anyone million dollars and rent rise unfortunately, this is not the first time housing has been in the news thought california the cost of a home has made headline the medium prices for a house in the the $207,000 in california it is more than twice that amount and the laura u bay area is higher it's more than doubled the states so while more than half of the americans can afford the medium fewer in california and quarter in the bayer and now
fewer than a 6th of san franciscans can afford it so why it housing in san francisco so go cheven condition tharz the obviously a high demand to live here the city is known for cultural diversities that attacks new residents and the credible opportunity our city diverse and will daytime committee grows jobs as a result we estimate the number of jobs is at ann an all-time 0 hive of 6 hundred thousand in the 80 the population was 6 hundred and 75 thousand now, it's grown steadily and quickly the recent estimate is 8 hundred and 40 thousand the highest in the city's history and it's not only san francisco it is greek the
bay area has $2 million for residents and jobs then in the 80 and the growth is expected to continue by the year 20403.9 million people unfortunately, our housing supply does not keep up with the demand i might not realize the majority of construction is housing that's been suspended for years due to the 2008 recession while population is increasing the housing is only increasing that i 9 percent if we don't pursues housing the cost of housing about only increase how do we plan the regional allocation identifies the total number of housing unit by affordable level to support the new residents san francisco incorporates it into the housing elements that guides
the housing policies the arena data places it in the investment plans for the growth throughout san francisco those plans developed by years of community planning laid the ground work for the construction so the city he e sets the goals in broad terms the private sectors builds market rate housing and non-built affordability housing that majority of housing in san francisco as well as throughout the country market rate houses built by private developers within guidelines of the city some below market rate you howls paid pie public and private dollars and prized to be variable to certain population housing is considered affordable if it costs less than 1/3rd the medium income for a 2 percent
householder is $70,000 this householder will have to pay no more than $7,150 to be affordable san francisco has see long applied federal, state and local money often built and nonprofit tint for individual families the news cities in california what the inclusive program requires that 10 or ottawa more units to certain blow income levels or contribute to the fund that supports the blow market rate unit almost 25 thousand have been supported by city funds and more than 6 nous thousand of the unit were built between 2000 and 2012 what you can't afford a million will home
you're not alone in response san francisco mayor ed lee has set a goal of creating thirty thousand now e-mails homes by the year 2020 most will be in outreach of the san franciscan with federal and state funds drying up the san francisco ethics commission is, taking an iv i of actually roll is providing housing across all levels we're working diligently for everyone to live here and mr. chair protect the housing semiand strengthen goals against evictions we're commented for housing needs for all san franciscans to learn more visit highwaymmission regu wednesday october 7, 2015. i would like to remind the public that the commission