of education is also in this picture and arny duncan because it included provisions on college loan interest rates and also representatives of the industry along with la mayor, since the tifia expansion and a $500 million boost to projects of natural significance with something that la lobbied for heavily to boost the program that will implement 30 years of transit projects within ten years using low-cost federal loans which we will talk about in a few slides about the tivia program. >> the key themes, again, no fundamental changes in federal transportation policy. there is a shift to no ear marks. this is consistent with congress's opposition to ear marks that we have heard about for the last few years, there

are no ear marks under map 21. there is a significant amount of program consolidation, the highway programs have gone from 30 programs from, i am sorry from 90 programs to 60 programs. so this will help folks navigate the transportation, financing and funding world. but it doesn't eliminate some of the specific key funding programs where innovative ideas were allowed to come to fruition. for example, there is a value pricing pilot grant program which has funded the treasure island management study and the study in san francisco. the funding for this program is eliminated under map 21, the program itself is not eliminated but there is no funding set aside for the program. so that is something that we are paying attention to. and also there is a major shift from competitive discretionary

grant programs to formula-based program. under map 2 1, 93 percent of the funding is formula distribution, compared to 80 percent under safety lieu. >> you just said that the programs have been consolidated. the funding is not there but the programs still exist, so where would we make-up the money for the treasure island study? >> we actually just recently received a grant from 2012 for approximately $500,000 for the study. so that is not impacted. any programs that are in place up to september 30th of this year, will not be impacted. so the new program take shape and take effect on october one. so it does not impact our existing grants. >> on the tifia program, you will see in a couple of slides, the increase from $120 million a year to over or approximately $1 billion per year.

this was a high priority for senator boxer. and i will outline some of the specific selection criteria to focus on credit worthiness, that is the determining factor for the loans and also meet the reform which was a primary concern of representative mika who wanted to remove any impediments to expedited project delivery. he wanted to see it on a large scale complete the environmental review process within four years. >> the federal funding levels under map 21 you can see on the slide, the over all picture isn't very different under safety lieu and map 21 with some inflationary levels of

increase on this fiscal year levels. with the exception of tifia, which has gone from $120 million to $1 billion in fiscal year 14. this is a over all, this is a very big victory for transportation as a whole. since there was talk early on in the life of the bills of cutting significantly transportation funding across the country. but there are winners and losers as you will see. and some of the pedestrian oriented funding programs has been cut significantly on a federal level. and also to point out this does not... this bill does not offer any significant long term funding solutions that will help to solve the program of the highway trust fund going broke in fiscal year 2015. there are no increases to the highway... to the federal gas tax. >> it maintains existing structure. and it also maintains it beyond

of life of safety-lu. so there is senator and we will not have to face a renewal of the gas tax on the expiration of map 21. >> as far as the implementation of safety-lu in the state of california. we are looking to see about the same level of funding over all as a state. of approximately $3 and a half billion under the two programs. but, the key issue is that the funding programs are distributed. the funding is distributed differently, and there is a tug of war going on right now as we speak between the state and the regions about how that funding will be distributed. so, and i will get to that in a moment. but the issue will be discussed in detail at the ctc meeting on

september 26 and 27th in burning game. over all the proposal maintains the current level. -safetea-lu-calls for a 50/50 split for the funding sources which in the past had been funded two-thirds to the region and one-third to the state and this is primarily the surface transportation program which is the most flexible source of federal funding under the federal transportation bill. there is also a working group and maybe mark can speak to this if you have any other questions. but the working group that is working with ctc and cal tran staff and also local grups across the country. i am sorry across it is state. vta are local representatives working on this bill. working on this strategy,

rather. which will likely result in bills being introduced either to deal with funding through december for... to fund half of the year's worth of a program with 50/50 to the state and regions or to fund a year to two-thirds to the region and one-third to the state or something in between. so stay tuned. >> this conversation that is happening at the state level will also impact how the funds that you see on the screen in front of you get distributed to the metropolitan planning organizations including mtc. so you will see that the over all funding that is anticipated to the bay area under map 21, is down for the surface transportation program and also the congestion, mitigation and air quality program. this is made up for in part as... in part as you will see from what looks like to be an

increase on the transportation alternatives program. but i will aaddress that program in a second. this is a two percent set aside of the over all map 21 map to fund what is taking the place of transportation enhancements programs. and it funds, and the ta program has consolidated programs including the safe route to the schools program and recreational trails at the state level and also te eligible projects which i will get to but those can primarily fund and used to be able to fund street scape and safety and education campaigns and those two particular issues are no longer eligible under the ta program. and as i mentioned these amounts are subject to the resolution of issues between cal tran ctc and the mtos.

one impact might likely be to the one bay area grant program since these are the funding programs that are assumed to be backing the program so that the region might need to adjust or augment some of the funds over the 4-year $48 million cycle for san francisco. >> for the chair, you just mentioned that pedestrian safety and safe routes to schools program are no longer federally funded so we are going to have to look at mtc and other sources for funding that might be state level funding for those critical pedestrian an safety or school safety programs. they are no longer funded as stand alone programs. they are now funded under this larger umbrella that funded at a 30 percent reduced level when you look at the three programs combined. now they have to compete with each other, essentially, for a limited amount of funding.

okay. and then on the transit formula side you will notice an anticipated increase to the transit formula funds to the transit operators in the bay area, this does not include the new starts program funds which essentially are the only discretionary transit funds remaining under map-21. >> on the highway program side, the major consolidation, you can see here. and maybe if you have glasses on. you can see it on your screen. essentially, it is a consolidated program structure so going from again, 90 to 30 programs. and two highlights and the national performance programs and the transit alternatives program and also shifts from the discretionary funding to formula funding. >> the programs are essentially

intact, however, they are just changed in to larger funding programs and fewer funding streams. >> on the transit side, the main take away is that we are for the most part holding steady on the transit side which is essentially a win under map-21 and that we did not see huge cuts to the transit program. one of the benefits of having a formula-based formula is that the transit operators are able to function with more certainty on the funding that is coming in, only for two years, so it will remove big bumps in state of good repairs and other discretionary funds to budget for but they are still analyzing the impacts of this

shift. but our general sense is that the shift of formula is a good thing for large, urban areas with old systems like san francisco. the fta is going to be focusing on transit safety, and also state of good repair funding programs. one of the programs that is actually decreased however is the new starts program. they are... it just did not touch of level of the obama administration's presidential proposal a couple of... i think it was a year ago. but it does reform the program to encourage projects which expand the core capacity of a existing major transit corridors. push >> the transportation alternatives program, this is the program that we briefly discussed a few moments ago, basically three pots of funding streams are combined into one

and there is a reduction of over 30 percent in the total funding available. bicycle and safety programs are no longer eligible, nor is landscaping as a stand alone project. so the landscaping is eligible, but it is not as a stand alone street scape project. cal transplans to prioritize its share of the transportation alternatives program funds for projects that are already in the transportation improvement program. this includes an $850,000 project for san francisco for pedestrian safety campaign. there was some concern initially because this project is no longer elible under the

>> i think that it is approximately $175 million loan and there is also a project in the pipeline for the project and that project will continue under the old project, the old tifia program guidelines. and just quickly, the tifia loans are government's eligible for the loans during the private contractors that are working with the government. both. >> i think that you are going to see... this is a setting of what is to come, judging by the amount of the increase to the tifia program, i think that we

are going to see a substantial growth in the innovative program in the future, transportation bills. >> project delivery stream lining a few key things that i would like to point out. this was one of the key goals of the house republicans. map-21 expands the category exclusions so that the pedestrian projects in an existing right-of-way or less than $75 million in federal funds will recognize an expedited time line, so this will bode well for some of the smaller projects in san francisco that had serious challenged because of a prolonged review face in order to get the clearance to utilize the transportation funds. establishing the criteria to complete the major projects in four years and also authorizing

program solutions for projects without changing neba. they now have delegation to administer the project. for all projects this is fta and fra, they have already been administering the environmental review. they said that in order to do the fta and fra they will need additional resources. so we are staying to as far as if they will accept the transit and rail projects and also on a related note, it will likely see the increased efforts to seek reform at the state level over the upcoming year. the state senate president stien berg has announced that one of the key priorities will be to overhaul the process, so stay tuned on that front. >> a few additional highlights

there are numerous directives under map 21 for the usdot for everything from taking shape of the regional transportation plans to highway pavement quality, the books are still getting through and we will find additional directive and how they will be implemented on the streets. there is also no tiger grant program under map-21. but there is 500 million for projects of national and regional significance. the tiger program was significant funding partner, you know, a program that funded the mission bay infrastructure projects and also the parkway. so we will have to stay tuned as far as how the $500 million will be distributed nationwide over the next two years. general effects on san francisco it could have been much worse. some of the elements of well help us advance our priorities

especially tifia and project delivery stream lining that we will see expedited nepa review and also the working to shape the next transportation bill now protecting against cuts to transit and to preserve the programs as stand alone programs and not just programs that are part of larger highway programs. making sure that ridership is a strong consideration and the formula distribution and state of good repair needs for older transit systems. and also working to institutionalize a multimodule approach to funding. >> that is the end my presentation. i think that (inaudible) would like to make a couple of comments. >> yes. we do have plans and programs

starting at 10:30, but go ahead. >> what actually deferred to you mr. gentleman, if you want to open the discussion with the committee first, i have a couple of comments that i want to make about this over all shape of the map-21 and where it leaves us. i think that it is interesting to do a very high-level birds eye view summary. we have no ear marks, no competitive awards for projects. it is all formulas back to the state. and no tiger grant program. but, the tifia program grows 700 percent and the rules are relaxed and administrators of the program at the federal level are told that you are going to have a number of weeks to make a decision on the project. and the main criteria will be the credit worthiness of the project. with your permission, whether who is eligible for this tifia

stuff, if the credit worthiness is the criteria then this is geared to interpreting the help of the private sector into infrastructure development. here is the direction that the country is taking, we are borrowing money from the future at let me see low interest rates, but your question is good too. all interest rates are low now. but we are borrowing that from the federal government but we have to repay it later. and that is our policy for investigating infrastructure in the future. so not a great picture, not a picture that really commits the country to a solid future as far as creating the new infrastructure and rehab taiting the one that we have for to facilitate the current development of the nation. that will have to change. i think, when we start discussing the success to map-21 which will come next

year. we have to start the discussion it is only a 2-year bill. the one thing that i think is hidden in all of this terminology is the fact that one of the main ways to make advantage of these tifia loans is through public, private partnerships and that those are the key or one important tool that we have at least to improving the delivery of projects. the time line for the delivery and the certainty for the delivery, it is not just borrowing the money with the federal government, it is matching that with the private investment and bringing the private sector in to help us make those projects happen on time and on a budget. and that is essentially what we pioneered with the parkway project. and i think that even though it may not be fashionable to talk about public, private partnerships in congress, that is what won agrees actually did. it begun to rely on that idea. i think that we need to have a

more open information about doing some of that delivery of large projects and see that discussion i think at the state level as well. because we are dealing with an 18 cent gas tax and i think that that is at the core of not being able to invest an infrastructure and not even to maintain what we have. you know, five cents more on the federal gas station could double the investment in transit. but there is no possibility now in congress. so any way, this i think, this bill and the shape of it is a (inaudible) of what is going to happen in the (inaudible) where we will have to talk about the delivery mechanisms absent the will to increase the revenue. that is my two cents on th. thank you. colleagues any comments or questions. we will open it up for public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> this was an information item.

so,... >> an action item. >> you are right. >> then colleagues is there a motion to move forward with the recommendations in terms of... >> the position on legislation. >> there is only one recommended watch position on the matrix. so there are no support or opposed positions recommended. >> okay, thank you. >> any... can we do that without objection? >> that will be the order. >> item number four? >> four. recommend aprolal of the revised administrative code and revised debt. >> this is the annual update and revisions of the administration code to the debt, fiscal and invest and procurement policies. only the debt and investment policies are required for annual review. but we feel that it is good practice to bring all before

this body and review any recommendations brought in by our advisors our general counsel and also by our bond council. >> basically, the revisions this year can be boiled down to five items. it is either clarification to the government code and the public utilities code, and formatting changes, punctuation, or any clarification in language that may be confusing to the reader. on page 24, we have a matrix listing out each of the different revisions and the reason behind each of the changes. on page 35, we have each of the codes and the policies and a red lined version to show you that changes are being made. i am understanding that we have a too many constraint. and instead of going through each of the revisions i would be happy to take questions that you may have. this item was presented to the cac on september 12th and was

adopted for motion. with that, i am looking for a recommendation for the approvele of the revisions to the administration code, the fiscal investment debt and procurement policies. >> thank you. colleagues any questions or comments? >> okay. is there any member of the public who would like to make public comment? seeing none. public comment is closed. >> colleagues do we have a motion to move this forward? >> can we do that without objection? >> that will be the order. >> number five. >> recommend exercising of the one year option of the professional services contract with sptj consulting with the withñí?ps7yh4iâlting with the

>> can we take that without objection? >> it them six. >> investment report for the quarter ended june 30, 2012, information. >> i'm director of finance administration, this is your fourth quarter update of the financial statements for the authorities june through 20, 12 year. we currently normally provide an internal report with the investment update. right now we are