We're a safety briefing by our Chief, our Frank Castellan, our Chief Executive Officer for Safety, Security, and Compliance.
Frank, you're on.
Good morning, Chair McCallum, committee members.
In the event of a fire alarm activation, we will exit the building and stage downstairs in front of a Metro customer service and wait for the all clear.
If we have an earthquake, we are going to drop, take cover, shelter in place, wait until the shaking stops, and make a determination if we will evacuate the building at that point.
The first aid situation arises. I will be your first aid provider. I will ask Miss Pena to contact Metro security
provide EMS or whatever support is needed and in the event of an active attacker
We always tell you to run a high fight that concludes this morning safety briefing
Thank You Frank
Next order of business is a Pledge of Allegiance. Please join me
Roll call
I share chafee
second by share Burksen
director Tremblay
here director Najarian
Chair McCallan here. We do have a quorum present
Thank you very much
Public comment. Do we have any public comment?
We do have a member of the public wishing to speak. I'll go ahead and call Elena Garza up
Alana you have three minutes. I
Recently had the opportunity to travel to the Redlands to analyze the aro line
The experience was incredible, and together with my rides on the modernized bi-levels,
a learning experience. I found the luggage racks and hooks to hand clothing very helpful.
Abundant USB chargers, a one-to-one ratio of seats to chargers, and a silent interior
enabled me to charge my phone and listen to audio through headphones. Cameras recorded the interior
of the Carriages for Safety and Security.
And I also liked a full fare inspection performed
at all stations.
I would like to suggest potentially collecting public
input on the arrow line, for example,
through the rider community or surveys to see what improvements
or knowledge from the arrow line could be applied
to the main lines.
I also wanted to mention that I noticed some transfer-related maps at stations which indicate
the transfers which can be made to different transport services.
Due to the importance of first mile, last mile connections, I believe that making these
available on the Metrolink website could be a significant improvement to the customer
experience. I also noticed wheelchair ramps at stations which are accessible
to enter the cab cars. They are currently not marked, though, so I don't really see
too many people in wheelchairs taking Metrolink, but labeling these ramps could
and marketing the more highlighting the accessibility of Metrolink could
potentially attract a new subset of riders and increase income. There are
great connections with paratransit operators and local transport systems
which use low floor buses with ramps which could link very effectively with
the Metrolink system. Marking ramps with signs instructing wheelchair users how
to enter the cab car or at least giving information on the website would be an
excellent improvement of the customer experience because it is currently not
as clear as it could be how one could do so. Meaning how a wheelchair user could
enter the Metrolink cab cars. Thank you very much for your comments. Appreciate it.
Next we'll go on to our regular calendar, 6A's approval of the
Meeting minutes of October 13th. Is there any need to pull that item or make
any changes? If not, could I have a motion? I move approval of the minutes.
Tremblay second. We have a motion and a second. Roll call. Vice Chair Chafee. Second Vice
Chair Bergson. Yes. Director Tremblay. Yes. Chairman McAllen. Yes. That motion carried
unanimously thank you next is approval for board member travel and be presented
by Michelle Pina our board secretary good morning chair McAllen and members
of the committee next slide please this item is asking for your approval for
director O'Connor's attendance at the six scheduled California Transit
Association executive committee meetings and conferences for 2024 I would like to
to point out there was a typo in the table outlining the cost for calendar year 2023,
where the year for November 17th was erroneously listed as 207.
The amounts for these meetings will be covered by the budget.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Any questions on this item?
Seeing none, this is an action item.
Is there a motion?
We have a motion and a second.
Roll call, please.
Chair Chaffee, second Vice Chair Bergson, Director Tremblay, yes. Chair McAllen. Yes.
The motion carried unanimously. Thank you. On to our classification and
compensation plan review final report. It's a receive and file and we'll be
presented as the last hurrah of Alisa Acasparis as she's moving on to metro.
and also by Patrick Bracken and James Ritten who are seagull consultants.
Thank you. Thank you for this is your last day. This is my last day. Oh, you're going? But I'm not going back to New York because I don't like snow.
Well I don't blame you, but to leave us for Metro. So good morning let me do the proper good morning
chair and members of the committee. Director Burksen I am a Riverside resident
so you never know what I might be calling. Item 60 is the final report on our
classification and compensation plan review. In 2022 the board authorized us
to go out with an RFP and we came back with, we hired the Segal Company to do a
a classification compensation review and today we're going to present that to this committee
so that you can hear what we learned. I know you had some questions, Director Brooks and
I want me to respond to them at the conclusion of their presentation. Is that okay? So I'm
going to turn it over to the Segal Company. Thank you, Alyssa. Are you able to advance
the slides on your end? Great, thank you. Just introductions to start. My name is Patrick
I'm a vice president with Segal.
We are a national human resources consulting firm.
I'm joined today by James Britton,
who is the project manager on the Metrolink study.
And we have about a 10 or 11 slide deck
to walk through with you today
to brief the committee on what we were asked to do,
what we found, and then what recommendations
are being proposed.
We were engaged to at a high level conduct a classification job classification and compensation study.
What that entailed was a variety of steps around the objective of first understanding the job functions and Metrolinx and the required knowledge skills and abilities that employees have to bring to their jobs.
Then secondly, a compensation benchmarking study to help us and Metrolink better understand how
competitive the current pay system is and where any opportunities for improvement may be available.
The overarching goals in terms of both the classification review and the compensation
study were to ensure that both of those systems are accurate, that they're equitable, and that
and that they reflect market conditions.
Next slide.
When we were engaged,
we worked with the Metrolink project team
to establish some guiding principles.
I won't read through all of these,
but the main ones that really guided our work
are first and foremost,
we wanted to make sure that all of our work
was consistent with how Metrolink operates
and their organizational structure.
We also wanted to make sure that we had an eye
towards internal equity,
as well as external competitiveness.
And I'll talk a little bit more about those two principles
in a couple of slides,
but they really do help guide the work we did
and the review process that we collaborated out
with NaturalLink on.
Next slide.
Next slide.
So we wanted to provide the committee with an overview
of the entire project methodology.
This really broke down into five key project steps.
working from left to right when we were engaged,
we had some kind of getting to know you information sharing,
data requests, as well as conversations
with both the project team and some key stakeholders
within Metrolinx executive structure
to understand current strengths and weaknesses,
perception issues, or other important foundational
information for us to be able to kick off the second step,
which is the job classification analysis.
This entailed us conducting
what we call a job description questionnaire, JDQ.
Employees were invited, all employees were invited
to participate in the JDQ process.
We had a very strong response rate
and that information allowed us to conduct job analysis
and job evaluation.
We have another slide on job evaluation,
so I'll wait to go over that.
but fundamentally the goal here is to use the information
from the questionnaires to update the classification
structure as well as the corresponding job descriptions
for all Metrolink job titles.
Once we had that body of work completed,
we then moved on to the market assessment.
This is the competition benchmarking phase.
Then we use that information to help us advise Metrolink
on options for alternative salary structures.
And then we worked with Metrolinx to finalize those options
as well as calculated cost to implement scenarios
that we'll share later in the deck.
I mentioned a couple of slides ago internal equity
and how that that's one of the guiding principles
of the study.
What Siegel has developed for our public sector clients
is what we call the Siegel evaluator tool.
This is a job evaluation framework
For anyone that might be familiar with these,
this is what's called a point-factor job evaluation tool.
It is a quantitative objective tool
that uses compensable factors to evaluate job positions
and help create an internal hierarchy of positions
with regard to their worth to the organization.
And this is really valuable for organizations to have
because it's a litmus test for how jobs interrelate
both in a department, but also across the organization.
And we use this to establish that internal equity framework
to ensure that jobs are rated
relative to one another accordingly.
Next slide.
After we conducted the job classification analysis
and then the job evaluation,
we then moved on to the market assessment.
This entailed us identifying with Metrolinx Input
a group of peer employers that would be invited
to participate in the custom survey.
We drafted a survey document that was reflective
of what we call benchmark jobs, meaning job titles
that we think we can find comparables for
among the peer employer group.
And then asked them to participate in the survey
as well as then worked with those peer agencies
to clean some of their data
and then use that information to understand
the competitiveness of Metrolinx current pay structure.
There were 13 peer organizations that were identified
for the custom survey.
We also Segal purchases access to private sector data
that we use to supplement the analysis.
The peer employers are listed here
at the top of bullets are the 13 agencies.
We have a mixture of local governments
as well as transportation authorities,
both in California and nationally.
And then the published surveys
which represents the private sector data,
the three sources that we referenced are listed at the bottom.
We'll note that we received responses from 12
and or completed responses on their behalf
if they either didn't participate
or provided us with source information,
but we were able to compile information
for 12 of the 13 peer employers,
which is a very strong response rate to the custom survey.
Next slide.
Now I'll talk a little bit
about the market survey findings.
I'll just take a minute to first start
with the color coding on the slide,
because that might help the committee members
understand how we categorize market data.
When we denote a market percentage in black,
that means it's market competitive,
meaning it falls between 95% and 105%
of the average market data.
So that corridor, 95 to 105,
is that market competitive corridor.
Excuse me, corridor.
Anything in red falls below the 95%
and anything in blue falls above the 105%.
And the reason I want to use the color coding
is that can help you kind of more quickly identify
which data points are falling in the respective buckets,
below market or at market or above market.
And the top table, what we looked at
are both the custom surveys,
so those are those 12 employers.
We looked at the published data,
which is the private sector,
and then we looked at it on an overall basis.
And the way we compare the market data to Metrolink
is we take Metrolink's pay range information
for the benchmark jobs on an average basis
and compare that to the average market data.
If you look at just that the bottom row of the first table
on the overall market average basis,
what we've concluded is that at the pay range minimum
and pay range midpoint, Metrolinx pay structure
is 96 and 95% respectively of the market average.
And then at the maximum of the pay range
drops into the below market category at 93%.
So on an overall basis, comparing Metrolinx structure
to all of the market data,
we would say that at the midpoint,
again, this is just at an overall basis,
Metrolinx pay structure is right at the base
of the corridor of market competitiveness.
But of course, there's variance in the data,
especially when you look at it by peer organization
or at the benchmark job level.
For the committee's consideration,
we've shown at the bottom of this page,
the comparisons of Metrolinx pay structure
to the respective peer organizations.
And you'll see that it varies, right?
In some cases, Metrolink is more competitive
than APR and other cases less competitive,
but this helps you get a sense of the distribution
of that competitiveness finding
as you compare Metrolink to the respective peer group.
Next slide, please.
So then based on the market analysis,
the job classification analysis,
and the internal equity work that flowed from that,
we then began discussing with Metrolink,
alternative pay structure designs.
I won't spend too much time on this slide,
but the idea here of the purpose of a salary structure
is really to make sure that a range of pay
can be established for each job title.
We know that employees bring a variety of different skills
and backgrounds to their job roles,
and having a range of pay, meaning a minimum and a maximum
associated with each job,
gives organizations flexibility to acknowledge
and a reward employees that have backgrounds or experiences
or certifications that are relevant to the job role
and can be placed then accordingly in their pay range,
commensurate with that background.
Next slide.
One of our guiding principles around developing
the pay structure is to make sure that when we design it,
it gives Metrolinx options to be both market competitive.
So meaning reflective of what the market pay ranges are
for job positions, but as well as internally equitable.
And that's what that Segal evaluator tool
I talked about earlier helped to establish
is that hierarchy of authority of job titles.
The market data doesn't always tell the same story
as the internal equity alignment.
And so there has to be a reconciliation
between what the market data is saying
and what the internal equity alignment is saying
and the models that we built with Metrolink
helped Metrolink and Segal arrive at conclusions
regarding any of the differences that did exist
between market data and internal equity alignment.
Next slide.
So we did develop a new pay structure
with Metrolink's collaboration.
With regard to the existing structure,
there were a couple issues that we wanted to correct.
First, from a market competitiveness perspective,
the structure on an average basis
wasn't quite aligned with at least 100%
of the market data that's out there.
And so we wanted to take the opportunity
to try to correct for some of those
market condition anomalies.
And also when you did the math on the current pay structure,
there wasn't a lot of mathematical logic
around how some of the pay grades
were arranged and we wanted to take the opportunity here
to create a more consistent pay structure.
So that's a little easier to explain to managers
and to employees how the pay structure
and the pay grades interrelate to one another.
The new structure has 18 pay grades
and a consistent 55% range spread,
which is the percentage difference
between the minimum and the maximum.
So you can think of that as like how wide is the pay range
each of the pay grades. Next slide. This is the current scale, the letter A through B.
You'll see that if you were to do the math on some of the midpoint progressions here that there was
a little bit of inconsistency and so we tried to clean that up with the new structure. You can go
to the next slide. The new structure here has 17 pay grades. That consistent pay range width,
was talking about a 55 percent, and you'll see that that traces through grades one through
the Metrolink considered adding the A and B for grade 11 for some other
slotting exercises for jobs they were considering, but then tops out of that grade 17.
So after we worked with Metrolink to devise that new page structure, got some of their feedback,
we then worked with them to develop frameworks for implementing new pay structure. There's a lot of
variables to consider, but the the the guiding principles here is that we wanted to have both
the internal equity, so the seagull evaluator scoring, be balanced with any of the market data
where possible so that the pay grade assignments for all positions could check both boxes, meaning
be it internally equitable, as well as market competitive.
We went through a bunch of different iterations
with Metrolink on options for how to devise the pay structure
as well as assign pay grades.
And Metrolink's cost estimate that they share with Segal
results in a cost of implementation.
This would be the way we think of it
as kind of implementing it on day one.
So these are changes that would happen
if the pay structure were to be adopted of $141,002.
And Metrolink has that detailed information
if the committee members were interested in seeing that.
I think that is our last slide,
so we'd be happy to take any questions.
Thank you very much.
Any questions?
Mr. Chairman.
Go ahead.
Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two questions.
One from Mr. Bracken and one for Alyssa.
And Patrick, thank you for your presentation.
Well done.
The question for you is this.
I don't remember which slide it is.
I think it's probably around slide 22 or 23.
It was the chart showing the Metrolinx structure
in terms of maximum rate.
Could you go back to that slide, please?
You asking for the one that had A through V?
I'm asking for the one that had a 93%.
No, it's like around slide 23 or 22.
I'm sorry. I don't didn't write the number on the right end. There you go. Yes, ma'am. All right. So Patrick, when you indicated on a pay range maximum 93%, you indicated that if I have your quote, correct that Metrolinx structure was quote unquote right at the corridor of the baseline.
Relative to pay range maximum. Could you elaborate on that, please? Because I'm not sure I'm clear.
Sure, I was and apologies if I misspoke about the pay range maximum. I was saying that at the 95% for the pay range midpoint, that the pay range structure is right at that lower corridor of the market competitive range. And 93 and 93% of drops below that corridor that we define as market competitors.
In other words, with the idea being that you want to be at 95% as an industry standard?
Well, no, we just define the corridor as market competitive from 95 to 105%. So there's that
there's a little wiggle room, if you will, around the 100% of the average to accommodate, you know,
some variants in the pay range. Right. Why that corridor is?
Yeah, it's the corridor for market competitiveness is that 10 percentage points from 95 to one over.
Okay and thank you for that I appreciate that and the second question I think is to Alyssa or to
Darren in our policy under wage and salary administration and I'm referring to section 2.0
um that this is a receive and file item um but it notes and I uh that that section deals with
classification and pay plan maintenance and among other things it indicates that market
adjustments to employee compensation are subject to approval by the board of directors so with
respect to the $142,000 increase both with respect to unrepresented and
represented employees are Alyssa and Darren are you intending to bring that
to the Board of Directors for approval in terms of pay maintenance? Director
Trembly the the intent will be now that we have this information you'll recall
that we do an annual when we bring the budget before the the board we have the
the salary resolution that comes along with it,
and it would be in alignment with that timeframe.
Okay, all right, I guess what I would ask is
when you bring that budget to the board, Mr. Chair,
through Mr. Chair, I would ask that you focus
or you highlight for us that in the budget presentation
that this increase is subject to the presentation
made today and subject to this section 2.0
existing policy. Thank you thank you chair. Any other comments or questions
from the committee members? Thank you. Yeah I know she's gonna answer that but
I wanted to see if there were other comments. Go ahead. So you had asked
questions regarding how many people things like that. So this $140,000 there
are 15 affected employees and their increases will range between five
One of them is in excess is about 30-something percent and that has to do with the internal
equity issue because this person came on, was promoted.
I'm sorry, I'm not telling you the right thing, I'm thinking of somebody else.
It has to do with internal equity because we learned that this person through this JDQ
process where people do their job description questions was doing way above and beyond what
his job description said.
And he needed to be aligned with the correct title
and the correct pay.
So there's only one person that goes outside
of the 10% range.
13 or 30 something percent?
30. 30, okay.
Everybody else is between five and 10%.
15, okay.
That was important because I didn't know
142,000, how many people it was.
If it's two people, that's a whole different ballgame
to me than if it's 15 people.
Right. The other question, since I'd like to ask, on the one chart that shows Metrolinx
1 through 17 new structure, I think it's about 55% is the gap between lowest and highest
amounts. What was our gap on the prior range? Was it also 55% or was it some other number?
I don't recall. Patrick or James, do you have that information?
I think it's on the prior slide, the 56%.
So they were relatively about the same.
And then I guess the other thing that I'd like to just understand a little better is
determines an employee's starting point.
Do they always start out at minimum and they work their way up with yearly raises or is
there some methodology there?
I am happy to explain that 19 page document.
So I work with our recruiter, Derek Browning.
We start with the first page of the document.
It includes our current maximum, our minimum qualifications
for the position, all of the information that we need.
And then we have the candidate, what they meet, where they are.
So if the minimum qualification says three years
of management experience in operations,
and the candidate has 20 years experience,
they get credit for that.
and we go through that whole process with each candidate
that's interviewing who would make.
After that, we look at the entire agency in that grade
and do an average.
And then we look at that department in that grade
and do an average.
Then we ask the candidate what they're looking for
and we determine whether or not we can meet that
based on how many years experience they have,
what patients and other qualifications.
We fill out all the pieces of paper
and then we ship them off to Darrin.
And we say, can you please approve this?
Okay, that's it.
Okay, all right.
That was kind of my only other question.
Thank you.
And just so you know,
because this came up in the earlier,
Elisa's already is a title change,
so she's the director and she's one of our title changes.
Very good, any other comments or questions
from committee members?
Thank you, Elisa.
Thank you.
Very good.
Next, we'll go on to our January legislative update,
which is also a receive and file
presented by Jeffrey Dunn,
our Director of Government and Community Relations.
Jeff, you're up again.
All right, thank you, Chair McCallum,
members of the committee.
Next slide, please.
As noted in your report,
our community relations team is reaching back out to schools
throughout the entire network
to follow our initial outreach in 2023,
introducing our online virtual safety program,
providing best practices and safety education to students,
Attending school near or adjacent to our right of way.
Our effort this month refines and targets
the appropriate personnel at every school
in our service region.
We'll be rescinding the program to over 5,000 schools.
Additionally, we'll be asking every high school
in our region if we can locate information
regarding Metrolinx successful student adventure paths,
which allow students to ride for free at their campuses.
These efforts underscore our commitment
to this large underserved demographic
of current potential future riders
to not only introduce them to Metrolink,
but to do so within the context of safety
that is the hallmark of our service.
Briefly too, I want to touch on our CEO's ongoing engagement
with elected officials throughout the network.
Mr. Kettle was scheduled to ride the Arrow service
in Riverside and San Bernardino
with assembly majority leader,
Emerita Eloise Reyes Gomez in December.
This had to be postponed at the request of the Assemblymember,
but that will be rescheduled to another time early this year.
Mr. Kettle also met yesterday with LA Councilmember Imelda Padilla
to provide update on the exciting MetroLink activities
in the members' district along the AVL
and throughout the Valley and the network.
We will, too, be scheduling in the near future
our next byline outreach meeting for the AVL line
with elected officials and station cities.
These meetings will occur in April with dates
to be determined.
This follows the successful outreach led by our CEO
on the San Bernardino and Ventura County lines last year.
We will provide update to you as these meetings
are finalized, including invitations to board members
in whose jurisdiction the AVL line traverses.
Next slide, please.
In state matters, the big news is the 24-25 fiscal year
state budget is that in Wednesday of this week,
Governor Newsom introduced the proposed budget, and the predicted budget deficit by the Department
of Finance was almost one half smaller than the one projected by the nonpartisan Legislative
Analyst's Office just a month ago.
As had been widely reported, the LAO last month projected a potential $68 billion state
budget deficit spread over the next three fiscal years.
The Governor's budget trends that number to $38 billion instead.
This is reflective of revenue assumptions which are volatile and for which information
is continuing to be assimilated due in part to the extension of certain tax filings last
year to November.
These adjustments will continue through the first half of the fiscal year until the May
revise is issued when the state will note with much greater certainty how much it has
on the revenue side of the ledger to pass a budget by June 15.
Not coincidentally, MetroLINK will participate with the California Transit Association's
spring legislative conference and advocacy trip at that time when final budget decisions
are being made in the legislature following the release of the May revise to help secure
maximum transportation and transit resources from the final state budget to address Metrolinx
capital service and operational needs.
Despite the projected shortfall of the just released budget, the news is pretty good for
transportation and for transit particularly.
The $5.1 billion of supplemental TIRCP and zero emissions transit capital funding, any
or all of which is eligible to be flexed for operations in addition to capital funding
provided under the current budget agreement, is not proposed to be trimmed, suspended,
or eliminated as it could have been.
As a reminder of that agreement, of that $5.1 billion amount, $2.4 billion was appropriated
as a part of the current fiscal year budget.
$2 billion of TRSIP and $410 million of zero emission funding with the remaining $2 billion
of TRSIP to be appropriated in fiscal years 24-25, and $230 million of ZE funding each
year from 24-25 through 26-27.
The governor is proposing that the state delay a portion of the remaining TRSIP funding by
one fiscal year.
That means $1 billion would still be appropriated in fiscal year 24-25, this is the one that
was just released, and the remaining $1 billion would be appropriated in fiscal year 25-26.
It essentially delays half of it for one fiscal year.
This does not impact the $2 billion of tiers of funding appropriated in the current fiscal
year that we're in.
We'll provide a more comprehensive summary of this and other provisions in the state
budget as part of your February legislative report.
With respect to the Losan Senate Subcommittee on rail corridor resiliency field hearing
in San Clemente last month, I note from your report discussion that Metrolink did provide
a list of funded and unfunded score projects along the corridor to be included among any
list of priority projects the Subcommittee may assimilate to recommend for further or
future funding.
Also members of the Subcommittee did discuss, though they made no recommendation, to modify
the Losan governance board, including to add Metrolink to the Losan board.
In federal matters, regarding the reconnecting communities grant application, Metrolink has
submitted to secure federal match of nearly $45 million to go with the $54 million of
state grant funding already acquired to procure eight additional tier four locomotives, the
cleanest that are commercially available. Metrolink was able to secure a meeting just
this week with FRA Administrator Amit Bose in Washington, D.C., with MetroLink Director
of Planning Roger Diaz and Special Projects Senior Manager of Locomotive Fleet and Facilities
Michelle Stewart, who are participating in the Annual Transportation Research Board conference
in D.C. to discuss this application, among other topics.
This unique opportunity allowed MetroLink to directly address with the administrator the
importance of transitioning the Tier 4 locomotives as much and as soon as possible to meet the
interim emissions reduction goals of California's newly adopted in use locomotive regulation.
The most stringent in the nation by far. While locomotive zero emissions technologies development
play catch up and continue to be tested for reaching eventual FRA approval and commercial
feasibility, a process that will take years even under the most optimistic assumptions.
Our staff discussions with the administrator were broad ranging and also included future
to raise program submissions, intrusion detection,
the federal corridor ID program and the Olympics.
There will be followup with FRA on these issues
and we'll provide relevant updates
to the board as appropriate.
Regarding the Brightline West
and California High Speed Rail Grant Awards,
as indicated in your report,
for $3 billion and $3.07 billion respectively,
these are obviously very exciting
and are transformative for passenger rail in California
and for metro lane.
The High Speed Rail Award provides critical funding for the 119-mile segment construction
in the Central Valley.
And the Brightline West Award, to paraphrase our CEO, makes high-speed passenger rail service
to Las Vegas real.
We look forward to working with Brightline, California High Speed Rail, and our federal
and state partners to ensure their eventual, seamless connection to Metroline.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not include the good news of the preliminary agreement
reached among congressional leaders five days ago on the $1.6 trillion spending deal to
avert shutdown and fund the federal government for the fiscal year.
Dehut funding under the current continuing resolution expires next week on January 19.
The agreement much more closely adheres to the Senate rather than the House Appropriations
bills under consideration, which means it does not have the level of spending reductions
as might be preferred by House Majority members.
Top line numbers are, for defense, $886 billion,
just over the current fiscal year 23 figure of 858,
and non-defense spending of $772 billion,
which is almost identical to the current 771.
We're gonna keep the board apprised
as this agreement moves to conference for negotiation,
and hopefully passes.
This concludes my report.
I'm able to take questions if you have any.
Thank you, and go blue.
Amen. Any questions, comments?
Very, as usual, a very extensive report and we appreciate it.
Got to keep our eyes on all the dollars.
Some of them disappear and some of them come our way.
So we appreciate it.
This is a receiving file without objection.
That's what we'll do.
Thank you very much, Jeff.
Next, our executive officer's report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I get into the items that I raised in the last committee, I should have acknowledged
this earlier on the classification compensation study.
I want to make sure we recognize the work of Anna Ho from our staff who handles labor
relations and other things.
She stepped in on this project, as you saw in the report.
It took us a while to get it done for a couple of different reasons, and Anna was the one
that worked very closely with Segal to get the bow put on that so that it could be before
you today and to the board in January in a couple of weeks. So thank you, Anna, for your
work. Just a couple of what I announced at the last committee meeting, the December closure
went about as smooth as we could have hoped. In fact, the heavy lifting, the signal work
that was done at the throat of LA Union Station was completed a day ahead of schedule, and
We were also able to accomplish a number of other projects throughout the network where
we had contractors doing state of good repair projects on several other lines.
So we took advantage of those four days and made great use of that time.
As I also announced in our last meeting, I'm disappointed to have to announce that we will
be losing two of the chief positions here at Metrolink.
of whom just spoke. Alyssa deCaspres is going on to LA County Metro and Alyssa Cunningham
is leaving us for SEPTA, the Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. We do wish them best.
They did amazing work for us during their time here. They will certainly be missed.
I will miss them, but appreciate all of their efforts over the course of their tenure with
us at Metrolink. And my last announcement, just as a reminder that our board meeting
is at the end of January, is January 26th, it's Friday,
it will be held in Ontario, excuse me, in Ontario,
and we'll have the retreat component of it as well.
So, Mr. Chair, that concludes my comments, thank you.
Thank you very much.
Committee member comments?
Seeing none.
I forgot to mention, we also have a look,
we wanna make sure the Executive Committee
holds six round for just one moment.
We have a little going away,
and thank you for both Alisa and Alisa.
So we're done, thank you.
Yes, we will, thank you very much.
I have no additional comments other than go blue.
So we will stand adjourned.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, everybody.