- Burbank airport example (using pdb)
- P3s
- TIFIA funds' use for these projects
Transcription:
Devin Brennan (00:11):
Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Alternative Delivery Models panel. Methods panel. We're glad to see everybody here today looking forward to having a great conversation around alternative delivery and potential benefits and things to know in connection with a couple of really interesting projects. I'm Devin Brennan. I'm a Partner at Orrick in our San Francisco office. Next to me I have Chris Wimsatt, who's Deputy Director, Chief Financial Officer at Sacramento County Department of Airports. And the next name I've got John Hatanaka, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Hollywood Burbank Airport. So people have been hearing about alternative delivery for a while now, so we won't go into an incredible level of detail about what it is, but just to set the sort of baseline about what we're talking about, it's an alternative to typical design bid build process of procurement and delivery of infrastructure. In the design bid build, you typically get an architect who will do the design.
(01:13):
You then take that design out and bid it publicly. You select the typically lowest cost bidder that's responsive to the bid, and then you go through and you build it with change orders. The alternative delivery process tries to change that model by allowing for more cooperation, more collaboration, and oftentimes focuses on things other than just low bid value, including what we call best value delivery methods. There's a number of methods that agencies use to do this design build where you combine the design and the architecture with the construction, and you use one contractor from the very beginning to deliver that. There's construction manager at risk or CMGC. There's a progressive design build where you bring someone in who collaborates from basically the very beginning of the design process in an open book fashion to try and achieve efficiencies around design, timing and things. And then that goes and stretches all the way through entities that take on maintenance risk, financing risk, or in sort of the design build, finance, operating, maintain complete P three model, essentially delivery risk, subject to revenue or availability payments. So just as kind of the background, that's what we're starting with and I want to ask John to start off and talk about the Burbank Airports replacement passenger project, which he did undertake an alternative delivery process with.
John Hatanaka (02:52):
Well, thank you, Devin. The project here at Hollywood Burbank is actually something that's been worked on for 30 something years, has been through multiple litigation. It is a safety project, if you see that slide, our current terminal is too close to the runway in terms of the FAA safety design standards. The goal of this whole project was to basically take what is operating in the southeast quadrant of the airport, our roadways, our parking, our terminal, our utilities, and move it to the northeast quadrant of the airport and meet the FAA design standards. And it is being built under a development agreement with the city of Burbank. So there are certain parameters that we are faced with that allows us only to have 14 gates, 355,000 square feet. But the basic premise of this whole project was to bring a safety project to fruition after many years that both we have now reached a point where the airlines, the public, have agreed that this project needs to move forward.
Devin Brennan (04:02):
Fantastic. And Chris, there are a number of projects that Sacramento is pursuing right now at the airport. Can you describe some of those projects including the pedestrian walkway?
Chris Wimsatt (04:11):
Yeah, sure. So in Sacramento International Airport pre COVID, we were growing at an annual rate of double digits per year, 9, 10, 11%. And in the aftermath of COVID, not only did we recover a lot faster than I think folks thought we would, myself included, we're now growing again at a rate similar to what we were pre COVID and even pre COVID. We had hit some pretty serious constraints, certainly in terms of parking, we're out of parking almost all the time, or we get close to being out of parking all the time. We've got an antiquated, consolidated rental car facility. I'm told it was the first in America. I don't know if that's true, but we need a new one of those. And so that's going to be something we've got to solve for our automated people mover system that gets from terminal B to concourse B, again, I'm told is the shortest in America.
(05:02):
I said that once and somebody else stood up and said theirs was shorter, but they're not here, so we're going to go with mine shorter. And so anyway, in order to address some of those constraints, actually this graphic right here provides an overview of the things that we're working on and chronologically, the first project that breaks ground is the pedestrian walkway, and this is a basically pedestrian walkway that connects terminal B to concourse B and runs essentially parallel to the automated people mover track. And there's about a 30.5 foot drop that needs to be facilitated from where the walkway exits terminal B and where it enters concourse B, and that will accomplish that 30 and a half foot drop with a vertical circulation hub, which is a lot of syllables for saying escalators. But another thing that vertical circulation hub is going to help us do is expand in the future into a concourse C.
(05:55):
So the pedestrian walkway is kind of an exciting project because it's the first large project that's happened at Sacramento International Airport since what we refer to as the big build when concourse B and terminal B were built. It's also going to be the first project, the first airport project in America that will be financed in part with a TIFIA loan, which we are planning to close hopefully by the end of this year. I also mentioned a parking constraint. The next chronological project is a 5,500 space parking garage that we're going to build to the west of terminal B. And project budget for that is about $390 million. And that gets us part of the way to solving our long-term parking need. But it also, what it does is it allows us a little bit of flexibility, builds in some slack in terms of parking that will allow us to demo future lots for some of the other projects, which I'll get to in a second once we build the parking garage and we can park the additional people that are going to be coming through our airport.
(06:52):
And once those people have a way to get to concourse B that doesn't involve riding an automated people mover, they can walk on a walkway, then we'll be able to embark on the construction of an expansion to concourse B, which is a 250 to $300 million project to add an additional six to eight gates to the west side of concourse B. We plan to expand amenities in our terminal A as well, and ultimately we need to reroute some traffic through the airport. And so we're going to build a new terminal, a exit roadway as well as a consolidated ground transportation center between our two terminals to relocate all of our Ubers and Lyfts and shuttles to go between the two terminals. And then ultimately the final piece of the puzzle is the construction of the consolidated rental car facility, which is I think certainly in dollar terms, probably the largest, but it's also chronologically the last of the projects that we need to do. We've got to do a lot of these other things in order to facilitate. These are all kind of enabling projects that will allow us to get to the consolidated rental car facility. In total, the program is $1.3 billion right now, and it's certainly the largest capital program that our airport system has ever embarked upon, and probably one of the largest capital programs that the county has embarked on in its history as well.
Devin Brennan (08:08):
John, you chose to go with a progressive design build, and there are other models for project delivery than that. As we discussed. What made you choose progressive design build and did you consider other project delivery models for the replacement passenger terminal project?
John Hatanaka (08:27):
We did. I mean, we looked at everything from a P three to a CMAR to lump sum design, bid build, and progressive design build, and it was all done prior to COVID hitting, and p threes were cutting their infancy at that point. When you are a small medium hub, I mean there's large hub, medium hub, small hub, we're a small, and I mean small medium hub. And so you have to have a really good collaboration with your partners to see if you're going to try to do something like this. Well, the airlines were concerned, they were concerned about the loss of control. Our commission was concerned about the loss of control. They were also concerned about the cost because that goes to a third party to which they had no control. So we went through an exercise using our airport consultant, Ricondo and Associates, our financial advisor, public resource advisory group.
(09:29):
We gave them all the information and asked them to come up with all the pros and cons. And we kept the engineers out there for a reason because we wanted to focus on what essentially will be what the authority has to do to maintain its control of its major facility. They came back and every method has its pros and cons, but when you're trying to find a way to reduce your potential financial risk to cost escalation, change orders, scope growth, finding one that gets you to the best and is a worthwhile exercise, and we found that to be the progressive design build now, it's an alternative delivery method for Chris and I. We're overseen by the FAA and we get federal funds. So when you get federal funds, you need to go and get their approval in advance before you go down that road, before you award that contract, because if you do not, you will not be qualified for federal funds.
(10:33):
And we were made aware of when we were going through this that an airport in the southeastern region did not do it, do that, and they lost their federal funding. If we did not have our federal funding, we'd have another about $150 million hole in our pocket right now. So this is, it is imperative if you're going to go use an alternative delivery method, it has to have, and you have federal funds, you need to get that approval. But for us, with what we saw, the one advantage of a progressive design build was you can get a higher level of collaboration and what we call team alignment amongst all the parties. I mean, that's the authorities, airport staff, the designers, the contractors, especially your project management team. And building that collaboration together helps to identify potential cost exposures, minimize those. And actually what we are really pleased with the results is it strengthened our schedule and we are able to deliver it faster than we had originally thought. So this is what we found is the greatest advantage of a progressive design build, but it really does start with your program manager, and it starts with having your documents, your RFQs, your RFPs and your design build contract in a fashion that in synthesize collaboration and team alignment.
Devin Brennan (12:06):
Chris, how do you decide which delivery methods you use for each project? What's the way your organization, is it different than the way that your organization has delivered those projects in the past? How are you comparing the pros and cons as John did?
Chris Wimsatt (12:20):
Yeah, sure. So in the case of our projects, we've got seven distinct projects. And I mean, if you look at the list of delivery methods, almost, we we're checking almost every box for one of these projects. And so in the case of, for example, the pedestrian walkway, we're doing a construction manager at risk on that. We wanted to get what John referred to as team alignment early on by getting the design team and the general contractor in the room early. But we've got a number of projects all happening simultaneously right now. We've got dirt moving at our airport for both the terminal B parking garage and the pedestrian walkway at the same time. And so we had to keep that in mind and we had to know that we had to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And sometimes the best way to facilitate that is to offload as much of that project delivery risk as you can. So we're doing construction manager at risk for our pedestrian walkway and for our concourse expansion, we're doing design build for our parking garage. We're doing design bid build for the roadway work to include our ground transportation center. And ultimately when it gets time to deliver the consolidated rental car facility, the ball's still a little bit in the air on that, but it's going to be some iteration of a design build and or finance and or operate and or maintain.
(13:32):
The jury's kind of still out on that. But for us, certainly in terms of the garage, I mentioned that we've got a significant parking constraint that is a very low energy way to say that we've got a serious parking constraint, so we needed to deliver that quickly. The quickest way to deliver that parking garage from our perspective was with a design build method. And it also would free us up to deliver some of these other things at the same time. So part of it was timing, part of it was risk, and part of it was also certainly pricing.
Devin Brennan (14:03):
And just in comparing those three and the impact on timing versus the impact on early collaboration, have you been able to achieve what you were looking for with the construction manager at risk model for the walkway so far? Yes.
Chris Wimsatt (14:17):
Yeah, so far, and interestingly, we're a department of the county of Sacramento County, and so it doesn't really represent a constraint in what we can do. But the county had never done prior to a couple of years ago, had never done any alternative delivery methods. They'd never done a design build. They'd never done a CMAR. The first CMAR project that I'm aware of that the county did was actually for a restroom rehab in our terminal A. And so we're now pivoting from that to the second CMAR project the county's ever done, which is the pedestrian walkway, and then the very first design build project that the county's ever done will be our terminal B parking garage. But yeah, in terms of what our goals were when we set out, so far, we've been able to accomplish those goals, though we still haven't reached price certainty on all the components of the pedestrian walkway, which is actually a little teaser for a minute on TIFIA, but so far it's been successful.
Devin Brennan (15:13):
And John mentioned that he had examined p threes and that there was some element of loss of control concern about risk cost legislation. Did you also consider P three delivery for any of these projects?
Chris Wimsatt (15:24):
Yeah, we did certainly. I mean, we thought about it in an academic sense for the pedestrian walkway and for some of the other ones. But when we think about P three, from my perspective on that is I want to examine a P three delivery for something that's not in my core business. And parking is one of our most important sources of revenue. We run parking facilities, parking is part of our core business. A consolidated rental car facility is not necessarily in my core business. And that's why that has been, I think from our perspective, the most likely candidate for a P three deliver.
Devin Brennan (15:58):
And this is maybe a question for both of you. What funding and financing sources are you relying on for your project? And you mentioned the price certainty. Did the delivery method that you've chosen for the project influence your approach to how you went about financing it? And maybe start with you, John.
John Hatanaka (16:16):
Well, from the very beginning when we were looking at what we could afford, we were small and we could do and what components and what would be available to us. Over time, various sources of funds became available other than your standard airport improvement program, your passenger facility charge program, the authority actually has been saving money for a number of years, so there's a hundred million dollars worth of cash we're going to be putting directly into the project ourselves is investment as our way of showing the carries how serious we are working with them to get them the lowest cost building and new facility.
(16:59):
When the bipartisan infrastructure law program came into effect, they brought two types of grants that we have been pivotal for us in able to moving forward. So those grants have put a great stepping stone for us. What we're doing this, we started about five years ago, I guess Chris and I were starting about the same time trying to look at TIFIA to see, because it was a new program, we wanted to make it work. And because it's a surface program and airports are trying to be forced into a surface platform, there was a lot of angst and concerns and interpretations, and it was a challenge for both sides. The Build America Bureau people are working so hard to try to make it work. There's also a timing issue though their processes take longer than where we were moving. And as the progressive design build kept moving forward, we saw a gap of when this could actually make work for us versus when we needed the money to enter into the contract.
(18:06):
So it was unfortunate, but there was some last minute requirements that they identified that we couldn't meet quick enough. So in December 23, we said, that's not going to work. We're just going to have to increase the size of our bond offering and try to continue to make applications for federal funding and the like. So that's when the program is designed to have two sets of financing. One was what we're getting now and our first tranche on the market for garbs. And later in the spring of 26, depending on how much federal funding additional we are able to achieve, we'll make the balance with the second bond financing. But congratulations to you for getting TIFIA through.
Chris Wimsatt (18:49):
Well, we haven't closed yet. Stay tuned.
Devin Brennan (18:53):
Yeah. John, you mentioned the grant funding. Did any of the grants or the other funds have consequences for the progressive design build approach? Did that interact with them at all in terms of delivery requirements or anything? Or were those pretty much more seamless than?
John Hatanaka (19:10):
It actually put less pressure as they were coming in in advance? It put less pressure on us having to go to the market sooner to meet our requirements because when you do a progressive design build, as you work toward your GMP, you are getting Component GMPs and Component GMPs make up your final GMP. But as you develop their component GMP, you are actually finalizing that contract. So it's done. So for our case, what started in, well, design Builder came on board in December of 2022. In September of 2024, all the contracts were bought out from steel to excavate. Everything has been bought out. So we have our GMP that was given to us in May. Our contracts are bought out, so we know our 1.3 billion numbers are very solid number.
Devin Brennan (20:01):
And the grants allowed you to encumber that along the way without having to have another source of financing money.
John Hatanaka (20:06):
And we can balance it out. I mean, we were also lucky two banks stood up to us and provided us a commercial paper program, which we have on the side in case those grants didn't come through. So those were very important to us. We're lucky right now because the grants have come in, we haven't had to utilize 'em just yet, but as we go forward, we know we'll be using them.
Devin Brennan (20:29):
So that's one distinct difference that just being ready with the backup funding as you have a really set progressive schedule that you're trying to meet. Yeah. Okay. And Chris, was there anything unique about your plan of finance or the projects that you're using? You mentioned the TIFIA loans.
Chris Wimsatt (20:44):
Yeah, sure. So I mean, the plan of finance for our projects includes bipartisan infrastructure. Law funds don't leave those dollars on the table. We actually don't have any a IP in our projects, and that's keeping our A IP powder dry to keep airfield projects moving along. While we're doing some of this for the consolidated rental car facility, we are planning to use the customer facility charge, which is something that you pay when you rent a car. So anybody that rented a car, thanks. But there were some constraints in state law, which governs customer facility charge. So we did have to go to the legislature and have some changes made to state law that would give us some flexibility in financing that project. We do plan to use the passenger facility charge, though unfortunately, the passenger facility charge has been stuck at $4 and 50 cents per leg each way for entirely too long.
(21:36):
But the passenger facility charge is a great tool because it's a way you can finance projects without necessarily having to hit the airline rate base. And that was one of the reasons that we decided to pursue TIFIA was we could stretch that $4 and 50 cents a little bit further if we could get a lower cost of capital. And by some fluke of circumstance, Sacramento Airport is in a rural census tract, and so we can qualify for the rural TIFIA program, which instead of being able to finance 33% of your eligible project costs, you can finance 49%. And instead of getting the 30 year treasury rate, you get half the 30 year treasury rate. The value proposition there, I think just kind of speaks for itself. And so by using the PFC funds to repay tia, we could stretch the PFC out a little bit further.
(22:19):
And then also by pairing TIFIA with other sources of financing that have some of those federal rules attached. Things like the passenger facility charge and the bipartisan infrastructure law grants, the incremental cost of compliance with some of those TIFIA by America provisions and those rules that make TIFIA kind of complex, the incremental cost of compliance was a lot lower because we were already meeting a lot of those standards through these other programs. And so I mentioned tia, we plan to use TIFIA to finance a portion of the pedestrian walkway. Because we're rural, we have, in order to qualify for the rural program, you have to have a project that's below a hundred million dollars. I think it's between 25 million and a hundred million. So of our total $140 million pedestrian walkway program, we isolated a $100 million project. It's like $99.69 million to get under that threshold. And so 49% of that, 49% of the PFC eligible part of that project is what we're planning to finance with TIFIA.
(23:21):
And so though ultimately they won't close on the deal with us until we have price certainty below a hundred million, which I understand, and we're pretty close to that in terms of estimates. So we're still working towards that price certainty. And then in addition to the P-F-C-C-F-C, TIFIA bipartisan infrastructure law, the difference is being funded with bonds. And so the way I see it, we've got basically three rounds of financing. We closed the first one just a couple of weeks ago, and that'll fund the garage and the pedestrian walkway and the terminal exit roadway. And then the next round will fund everything else that's not the rack, and then the final round will fund the con rack.
Devin Brennan (23:58):
And so John mentioned kind of having the grants up front that carried them through to the final GMP with the construction manager at risk. You also, it is unlike Design Builder where you have the bid price upfront, you come to that a little later. It sounds like you've carried your way through that with bonds and you've got TIFIA kind of on deck. But have there been any timing concerns or anything that you have around that?
Chris Wimsatt (24:21):
We were able to get a lot of flexibility and timing by entering into an agreement for an interim lending facility. So we've got about $50 million in interim lending capacity. And so we've bridged some of our bond funds with that, and we certainly bridged a portion of our first bond deal with those funds. And that's how we've been able to get there. We also, we've got a very, very healthy cash balance. And so we in some cases even used our own cash to bridge.
Devin Brennan (24:47):
It sounds like for both projects, an important point is the interim funding that is required to carry through that initial process, which will be different than a design builder, a design bid build. Okay. Now that John, now that the airport's in the process of construction, can you talk a little bit about the benefits and any concerns that you might have or that other agencies might have as they go into this process? What lessons learned at this point that you have that you'd like to share?
John Hatanaka (25:19):
My biggest concern is how quickly this thing can move because there are a lot of other planning exercises that need to go through to prepare because what we do today in our current terminal, our policies, our procedures, they're not going to work. They have to be, your team has to be ready to move in a paradigm mindset of what I have here won't work and how am I going to do it and what am I going to create to be in there? And so in the airline Lance, we have what's called the operational readiness activation and transfer. And that process, we probably started it a month or two late after the designer was already on board. The size of the data collection that you need in order and making sure you have every party available, everyone participating. So that moves forward. That is critical because when you use a progressive design build, that schedule can be accelerated and that is where you can save money. If you're not ready to open a building, that's even worse. So the caution I have is be prepared, collect your data, get everyone involved, because collaboration goes beyond just your construction group, your project management. It's everybody who will be a user in that building.
Devin Brennan (26:40):
And in terms of the internal collaboration, I don't know how the airport is structured, but do you have a distinction generally speaking between finance and capital projects and the construction process internally, did you have to create a method of working to accommodate the progressive design build structure
John Hatanaka (26:59):
That we relied on our program manager, Jacob's project management, to help us get through that because they've had the experience to help us desi those internal structures so that everyone works more collaborative together. So that could also carry forward with the team alignment with the construction team.
Devin Brennan (27:23):
And that resulted, it sounds like, in a very accelerated process as an end,
John Hatanaka (27:27):
Every day we are learning something new.
Devin Brennan (27:30):
And Chris, is there advice that you'd give to other folks who are in your position looking at the potential alternative delivery for their projects and financing issues around that?
Chris Wimsatt (27:39):
Yeah, I would say particularly in a context where we've got multiple delivery methods going on at the same time, multiple sources of financing going into each project, getting that alignment across the entire team is really important. We've got, in our airports, we've got basically a steering committee that was set up to make almost every functional decision about these projects, whether it be a financial decision or even down to fit and finish, right? And so one thing I noticed early on is that we had to have a lot of balls in the air from a financing perspective. We had to have a lot of balls in the air at the same time because we needed to make sure that, for example, the scope that we were identifying for the bipartisan infrastructure law grants was compatible with the scope that we were using for the TIFIA loan was compatible with the scope that we're using for our PFC application.
(28:32):
And defining that scope is not something that our finance team is really able to do. That's something that the construction team needs to do. And so when you've got multiple hands in the pot, it's really, really important to make sure that for purposes of financing, that you break down those silos and make sure that everybody's brought in together for very much the same reason that a CMAR or a design build project is advantageous because it gets the designer and the contractor in the same room. I would also say that ensuring that your sources of financing line up with your construction method or your delivery method is also important. If I had to go back right now, if I had to rethink any of the timing that if I had to rethink any of our timing, I think this extra stress that we're all carrying around about price certainty and that a hundred million dollars for the rural TIFIA program, we probably could have bypassed a lot of that if we'd started the process a little bit later and we had price certainty in our hand when we went to the bureau. And so that's a lesson learned. And I think in terms of timing of our passenger facility charge application, we've learned now that we can do that a little bit later in the process if we want that to line up with some of the considerations for delivery method.
Devin Brennan (29:50):
What's interesting, because I've heard this elsewhere too, is that by using alternative delivery method? You really have to advance your thinking about the financing, start the financing at the same time that you're starting the capital needs analysis and the delivery method analysis, combine those, and then you may have a pause in your financing process as you move forward and maybe delay a little bit on either an application of TIFIA or something like that. But you've got to have those two in sync from the start.
Chris Wimsatt (30:17):
Yeah, I think so. That's a really good point. And I'll say that in general, there are a lot more resources available. I mean, there are a lot more pots of money available to an airport today than there were in say, 2009, 2010 when the big build was done at Sacramento International. And while I am very appreciative of those sources, I will not turn away a dollar. Certainly having all those sources does introduces a level of required sophistication into your financial planning to make sure that you can get ahead of some of these issues before they pop up. And the best way to do that, like you said, is to make sure that you're thinking about how you're going to finance these projects at the same time that the design team is thinking about what these projects are going to look like and the construction team is thinking about how they're going to deliver.
Devin Brennan (31:05):
I think that's a great place to actually stop here. So maybe I'll open up to questions from the audience about the projects, about the delivery methods, things that folks might be thinking about.
Audience Member Diana Hamilton (31:22):
Diana Hamilton Sycamore Advisors. Just curious, did any of you consider using commercial paper or any sort of construction line during your process? We do a lot of different types of infrastructure and we found them, so I'm just curious if that was part of your discussion or thought process.
John Hatanaka (31:42):
Oh, we did. I mean, have, it was one of the first stages we had because we weren't sure what our grant flow was going to be. And we knew we had a requirement and we didn't have, well, we have 1500 days of cash on hand. We still have an airport to run, and that airport takes a lot of bit of money as well. So we were very fortunate and we had issued a request through our advisor and we had a number of banks offer. They went through an analysis and we have two 100 million letter of credit available to us from two different banks. And so we were looking to probably start using those and all of a sudden, the first ATP grant, which is the terminal competitive grant, came in and it was for $30 million, way more than we thought we would get. That started a foundation for us to move forward without having to tap that commercial paper just yet. And so where we have it ready for it and when we need to, we were able to get through getting a grants, our PFC approval for the program, and then we were able to put our bond program into place this past May. So we still have that commercial paper program ready and available. We know it'll probably be used before we can do that second tranche
Audience Member Diana Hamilton (33:11):
Sacramento. Did you?
Chris Wimsatt (33:13):
Yeah. So first thing's first, 1500 days cash on hand, write that down. That's a great number. Yeah, so we did a solicitation early on to do some kind of a bridge lending capability to be able to bridge some of these sources so that we could start spending money before we necessarily knew where it was going to come from. And that's why we could have done commercial paper. And what we ended up doing instead was this interim lending facility which we're using in very much the same way. So I mean, that was kind of our thinking on it. And really our original theoretical maximum was $300 million. We're not even going to hit the 50 million, I don't think so I'll keep the 50 million in capacity, but the original plan of finance involved a deal original or a first issuance early next year, but we've pulled that back and now we've got those funds in hand now.
(34:05):
So that was sort of the limit of our thinking on it, and I think we've sort of moved past the need for that at this point, but there actually might be room to rethink that when we get to the consolidated rental car facility. And certainly when we start to think about a period of time that I'm referring to as SMF further, because all of our projects together, we call SMF Forward, when we need to think about SMF further and construction of a concourse C and potentially expanding terminal B, we might need to start thinking more expansively about those tools as well.
Audience Member Diana Hamilton (34:34):
Was yours a draw facility? I'm just curious. Yes. Did you have a use or a non-use fee?
Chris Wimsatt (34:39):
Yeah, it's a draw facility.
Devin Brennan (34:46):
Alright, see you now. No other questions. I want to thank the panel very much for presenting on this interesting topic.