Good morning, everyone. It's my pleasure to call to order
The meeting of our Metro link board of directors
I'm going to start with our safety breathing by our chief safety and security compliance officer Hillary. Quince all Hillary
Good morning, Chairman Chafee board of directors in the event. We need to evacuate the room will be notified via the alarm system
We'll exit the room take the escalators downstairs
out the front entrance and we'll
congregate or meet in front of the Metro customer service center.
Just be mindful when you're evacuating the room,
tripping hazards, chairs, that sort of thing, bags and briefcases.
In the event of a medical emergency,
we do have our LA County Sheriff's Department who will dial 911 and render aid.
We also do have an AAD at the security desk that we'll retrieve.
In the event of an earthquake, we'll get under the desks
and wait for the rumbling to stop,
wait to see if further evacuation is necessary,
and then in the event of an active shooter,
we will deploy the Run, Hide, Fight tactic.
Thank you.
Thank you for the update and safety cautions.
We have our pledge of allegiance to be led
by our new director, Gustavo Camacho, from Pico Rivera.
Thank you. Please face our flag. Ready? Begin.
I pledge allegiance to the flag.
Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?
Certainly.
Director Nguyen?
Director Goh?
Here.
Director Tettimer?
Here.
Vice Chair Bergson?
Director Spiegel?
Here.
Director Vargas?
Director Molina?
Here.
Second Vice Chair Tremblay?
Here.
Director Engler?
Here.
Director Barger?
Director Najarian here. Director Sandoval here. Director Solis. Director Olsen.
Director Allen. Director O'Connor. Director Camacho.
Director McAllen. Director Wapner. Director Dutray. Director Marquez.
Chair Chaffee. Present. We do have a quorum present. Thank you, Madam Clerk. I'd like
to give our new director Gustavo Camacho a chance
to say a few words and introduce himself
and welcome to our board.
Well thank you very much.
It's a pleasure to be on this side of the room now.
I've been on that side of the room talking
about issues related to transportation.
I'm the mayor of the city of Pico Rivera, elected in 2009,
recently appointed by Hilda Solis.
And as president of California Country Cities
and major regional boards, as well as the city
be good. It has led some transportation projects as a small city. Thank you for joining us.
Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers? We do have some written emails, I
believe. Correct. We did receive over 100 public comments via Action Network regarding item 7A,
which are the first two pages of the printed public comments at your seat,
and we received a separate public comment from Lucas Cheng, which has also been provided to you.
An email from Californians for Electric Rail was received last night regarding 7A
and will be emailed to the board along with the other hundred public comments after the meeting.
And I have not received any requests to speak at this time.
Alright if there are no requests to speak then I will skip the usual
admonition but if there are any in the audience who would choose to speak later
please fill out the request to speak form so we may correctly identify you
for the record. Alright then let's move on then to our consent calendar which
Items 12a through 12l on the calendar and even
Was there any request to pull an item I don't see any and none from the public
All right, and I have a motion to approve
And there's a second or any objection. All right the consent calendar then is approved. We go on to a regular calendar item 7a
Presented by Tom Shambir our chief financial officer
Good morning, Chair Chafee, members of the board.
Development of the FY 27 budget has been far from typical.
There are a number of moving pieces that render us
unable to transmit a final proposed budget
to the member agencies by the mandated deadline of May 1st,
nor can we bring a budget to the board for adoption in June.
Next slide.
And next slide.
So the annual process begins in September.
Early in the process, it became evident
that our ridership and revenue forecast
for the current fiscal year, FY26, was overly optimistic.
We engaged KPMG's Sperry Capital to refresh their forecast.
The new forecast projected fair revenues
over $14 million lower than the FY26 adopted budget.
This served to reset the baseline for fair revenue
upon which we build the FY27 budget.
In early January, we received a letter from OCTA
advising us that their maximum financial support
would be limited to 10% less than their contribution
for FY26.
That amounted to a $5.2 million reduction.
In early April, we received a letter from LA Metro
advising us that they would also be limiting
their financial contribution to 3% less
than their contribution in FY26.
That equates to roughly $4.1 million reduction.
In addition to those financial constraints,
we were also faced with increasing operating costs,
much of which were based on fixed contractual increases.
After closely scrutinizing our operating expenses
to find an opportunity to reduce them,
it became clear that the savings we identified
still left us with a substantial budget gap.
The only way to cut expenses to the degree required
would be to make broad reductions in service.
Our operations team has been working closely with Alstom
to develop a reduced service scenario.
We believe we now have a scenario
that will achieve the savings necessary
to close the budget gap.
Last Friday, the member agency CEOs
requested that we evaluate two additional scenarios
of service of their choosing.
Agency staff would be convening on Monday
with members of the member agency advisory committee
to find consensus on two scenarios.
We will then need to work with Alstom
to determine whether those scenarios
achieve the sufficient cost savings required
to fill the gap.
These substantial changes in service
will also require us to re-engage KPMG Sperry
to produce another ridership revenue forecast,
or potentially three new forecasts.
That process will take roughly five and a half weeks.
Next slide.
Finance policy 1.1 allows the board
to adopt a continuing appropriation resolution
to continue funding Metrolink at FY26 levels
until a proposed budget is adopted.
Next slide.
In light of the substantial amount of work remaining to finalize the budget,
we are requesting that the board approve a request to delay transmittal of the FY27 budget
to the member agencies by the May 1st deadline and to defer adoption of the budget by this board in June.
Instead, we request that the board approve to transmit a request to the member agencies
For approval of a three-month continuing appropriations resolution funding operations through September 30 in
An amount equal to the first quarter of the FY 26 adopted budget
This will allow time for development of a balanced budget that satisfies the financial constraints before us
This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions
or members any questions
any comments
Director deuteri, yeah, first of all, I just want to make sure the arrow budget will be in
And Darren will this fiscal year my correct the three-month extensions not impact the arrow budget
Yeah, I think we can do that. I don't see why the arrow budget would be
tied up with any of this
Conversation and then the capital budget the same way will be in this fiscal budget. That's correct or July 1st
Yeah, I think we'll be able to bifurcate that yeah
I just have a comment real fast in terms of the service reductions
Indeed that takes place and we don't get the money from the state of California as a member of the SBCTA
You know same you know line is one of the the highest
Commuter line
passenger line for the system and I my understanding is about 40% of the
Riders are coming from same city County and the remaining 60% from La County and we did not ask
would you not provide a reduction of revenue services
like two other agencies you did?
So I just want to make sure, I'm going to concern first of all
that there might be one line,
I'm not going to mention the alliance right now,
I think we know what you're talking about, Darren.
One line, one of the agencies is pushing that one
of the lines do not get cut in service,
but the Samuel line, especially our county, there will be eight
to four going to San Bernardino from your station,
and we'll be cutting in for coming back from,
saying we know back to U.S.A. should be cut.
And I just think it's important that
if we're going to cut services,
all the lines should be impacted.
Again, SBCTA did not provide a request,
a revenue reduction, but my understanding,
another agency who has asked for the revenue reduction
is asking to maintain 100% service on a particular line.
I think that's wrong, and it should be equitable
with all the agency involved, all the lines involved.
Thank you.
Director Spiegel I
Was taking notes to shorten this, but I'm just going to take this for what it's worth
And find it again because I closed it
Sorry
When I push my button I closed it
Okay, quite a few things from Riverside. I
understand that
20% of the 30
20 million of the 30 million is actually
Not affected by the agencies that are
Making a less contribution correct right there's only 10 10 million is from the two agencies, right?
There's the revenue reduction that that ridership that isn't materializing
There's the reductions from the two member agencies limiting their support
And then there are cost increases that are general inflationary pressure and contractual increases and that we haven't done any fair increases
That's correct, okay
And talking about what Mr. Tre was saying is that, I mean,
Riverside County has almost half of our lines cut, almost half.
That's a significant, and we were the ones that are coming to the table saying,
we're going to pay more, we want to increase, and then get slapped down.
And I said this, the words before, this is a nail in the coffin.
Because we never came back from COVID, and now we're cutting tremendously.
And I know that when Darren was on the call yesterday,
he was talking about the need to focus on our original,
you know, the commuters and focus on that.
I get that, but we were doing so well on that kicking off.
I don't know what the answer is,
but this is just, I don't know how we do this
other than just, you know, with the tin can on the street
because this will just enable it.
I mean, it would just devastate this agency.
This kind of dramatic change.
I mean, I've met with so many constituents.
You know, electric well,
we've had some people come to me and say,
well, go on electric well.
I'm saying, well, who's gonna pay for that?
That's part of our problem.
We don't have to pay.
We don't have that money to change this.
You say electric well,
we don't have the electric capability.
It's unstable to do our whole lines.
I mean, there's all these great suggestions.
But the bottom line is, is we have to go back
to the core thing is, why are we 20 million short?
I keep hearing that it's, the costs have gone up.
I am tired of hearing it.
Let's look at what costs have gone up
and where we could make a change,
rather than just say, oh, could we just
dramatically doing this?
I'm disappointed because we should have foreseen this
and started making these,
then do dramatic at the end, because it's going to really
have devastation to the agency as a whole.
And before the LA Olympics, I mean, they're expecting us to,
and LA can say it, to us to have more availability.
Well, if we're coming back to our commuter lines,
that's not gonna help with those
that are going to the games.
So we're actually doing a disservice
to one of our larger agencies.
I don't know what the answer is,
but I think we need to just roll back
and really dig into the thing, not just costs have gone up.
And we have done that.
We have looked at our operating costs
to find any projects or efforts that
could be delayed to future years.
We have limited our pay increases,
essentially no merit in this fiscal year.
It's a fixed amount.
We have cut our travel and training budget.
So we are looking at several things.
We are limiting our payroll budget this year.
We've probably not budgeted that accurately in the past,
kind of budgeting at the high end of what's possible,
rather than the realistic point where we find most of our employees
within their pay band.
So we have taken several efforts to reduce the operating cost
to minimize the impact of service.
And I hope my colleagues are looking at this as a whole because one thing that doesn't
come out openly and that is we cut service, which we're talking, you're cutting our employees
and to bring those people back is two, three, even four years before we can re-go back into
filling those positions, our crews.
So it's not just, okay, today, this year, we're going to do this.
I think we have to really consider,
and I hope you take it back to your agencies,
this is not just for next year.
I know some of the agencies want this over
for the next three or four years.
It is going to devastate, I don't know what else to say,
other than unless some magic fairy
comes and dumps 30 million.
It will never be the same, or it won't be the same
for at least probably close to a decade
in the big scheme of things,
to where we can get back even to this point.
COVID dollars are gone, the ridership's down,
fares haven't gone up.
I don't know what the answer is,
but I think we have to really, really look very carefully
before we make this next giant move
and what else can we do to avoid it
or make it softer because we're just extending the pain.
Thank you, Director Najarian.
Thank you. So first I'm not an accountant, but I've been through probably over a hundred budgets.
I can't count my agency budgets over the years. I want you to explain to us how we deal with the
fact that Metro over the past several years has received surplus money back from this agency in
the millions, significant millions of dollars, and all of a sudden we have a
crisis now when Metro says we want to reduce our input, our contribution by 4
million. I mean is this an accounting exercise that should we not have been
reimbursing that to Metro? Should we have accounted for a reserve fund for dips in
revenue? Same with I think same with Orange County and perhaps the other
agencies to I'm not that familiar with what surpluses have been returned to
them but I mean let's deal with that it makes no sense for Metro to get the
blame in large part from the public certain advocacy groups are now tuned
into this for a four million dollar reduction when last how much did we get
back last year to LA Metro have that number in front of me I'm sorry well we
should have that I mean that's a very significant issue before us when we're
talking about this. Who knows that? Someone knows it. So I mean this is this is not good
money management. The years that we got a surplus, the agency, our agency and other
agencies were more than happy to make that contribution. I'm not sure they expected
a return on that. There may have been some obligation to do so, but there also should
have been an obligation on this agency to reach out to our member agencies and say,
Hey, you know what let's keep a little bit in reserve. We're maybe forecasting ridership dips or let's keep this for a rainy day fund
I mean, I don't get that it seems like we're you're giving money back to Metro and
Everyone's upset because Metro is asking for a 3% reduction. I want answers to that because that is
Critical to this evaluation even though that's only in this scenario 10 million dollars including the Orange County
reduction of a $30 million deficit.
The other has to be some really austere cost cutting.
I'm not sure salaries of our Metro,
of our MetroLink staff is that significant,
but it's certainly, you know, with our contract,
contractors, the mini bundle contractors and principals,
you know, we need to have a discussion with them
and really highlight this.
I mean, can anyone answer that?
I'll do what I can, Director Najarian.
So a few things.
There was, I think, a compound question in there somewhere.
And I appreciate it because it is a complicated element.
Let me start with the first one.
So we informed our member agencies a couple weeks ago
that we have a total from FY25, total surplus.
And reminding everybody, we do not have a reserve.
We consult with our member agencies every year
at the end of any year about how the surplus
should be dealt with.
In FY25, we had $15 million surplus
on a $300 million operating budget.
That is a 5% being off in public budgeting.
I would go back to any of your local governments,
any of these member agencies and say,
Do you come back with a public budget at the end of the year
and say we were within 5%?
We have been, and we have worked hard
to reduce that surplus number.
We've been working for several years to do just that.
So this time when we sent out the message,
$15 million in surplus, how would you like it treated?
So nearly every agency at this point, it is send us a check.
We have asked multiple times and on occasion,
on very unique circumstances, when I need money,
we need money for seat cushions
because our seats are in crappy shape.
I said, hey, can you out of your surplus
give us $500,000 total, agency-wide?
We got it, but it's instances like that
that we have to deal with.
I think as an agency,
when we work with our member agencies,
we probably do have a little extra fluff in our budget
Because if we don't, and we're not balanced,
and we have a negative,
three quarters of the way through the year,
we get to go through five member agencies,
say, okay, we need a little bit more.
I think that has been historic, that that has happened,
and I think because of it, we put ourselves in a place like,
how do we give ourselves a little bit of cushion?
That's how we've done it.
So it's a real challenge on that part.
To your question regarding, yes,
the savings that we're finding through the process
gets us this 30 to 35 million dollars.
It is working with Alstom, particularly on crews.
They anticipate having to do,
based on some preliminary numbers,
they have about 100 crews.
Mr. Felipe gave me a heads up
if I got my numbers incorrect,
but it's right around somewhere on the order
of about 100 crews.
We're looking at a reduction of probably 25%
engineers and conductors.
We find savings there.
We find savings in fuel.
and we find savings in freight usage fees.
Those are the big places that we can find savings
in our situation.
I will remind this board, we are just a matter of a couple
months away from a new federal requirement of an increase
in our liability cap.
Our general liability cap that's something
on the order of $360 million is going to increase in 90 days.
We don't know what that is yet, but we're getting some indication of what the costs are.
Those are the things that drive us on where our budget is.
Those fixed costs are real.
The few places that we have to go to find savings, unfortunately, is service reduction.
Thus, the fact that I sent the letter to the governor and the budget committee chairs,
explaining here's our situation and for us to continue service under this optimized schedule
that provides the service that we wanted to sort of change our business model on.
We started down this path three years ago with the full support of member agency CEOs
saying we want to try to be something different.
We had it implemented, we had a rocky start,
but we said it was going to, for us to realize,
have any chance of realizing its potential,
it was gonna take three to five years.
And we will be pulling the plug on that experiment,
given where we are.
I also understand that we have fiscal cliff issues
that particularly the counties that provide operations
are wrestling with as well.
And nobody likes us, no one wants to be in this situation.
But this is where we are, and we're trying to tackle it head on.
I am calling what we're working on right now our back to the future budget, or our back
to the future schedule, because it really does take us back to our roots of purely being,
for most part, a commuter railroad, and making sure that we deliver a balanced budget.
And it is not going to get easier.
Last thing I'll say, and then I'm sure there's other board members that have other questions,
and I'll certainly Director Najari
and if I've led to something that you have a follow-up,
I want to make sure we respond to that.
The communication we have from LA Metro also says,
not only do you need to have this reduction now,
but you need to hold that reduction
for the next three years after that.
At Metrolink, because of the way we're structured
and the way we're financed,
51% of the member agency support,
member agency support right now makes up about 80%
of our operating budget, about 80%.
of that 80%, 51% of that 80 is LA Metro.
So when LA Metro tells us you're gonna hold this flat
for the next four years, this year and the next four years,
we've generally set a budget target for that period
because of Metro's 50% plus support as a member agency.
So it really does drive much of our budgeting process
when it comes to the operations.
The only proviso or caveat to that
is the Inland Empire Orange County line
because much of that service is covered
by two other member agencies, RCTC and OCTA.
So this is that point in time
where we're really wrestling with this,
trying to get ourselves somewhat reset into a new normal.
And it's all of those factors why we need this continuing
resolution to get us through this summer
and put us in a place that will be that reset in the fall.
So I think I got to all your questions, Director Najarian,
but I'm happy to answer others.
Yeah, I'll just be real brief.
With regard to the multi-year reduction of the 3%,
we also forecast a return of surplus
metro during those years? Here's the thing, I think right now we are in
completely uncharted territory. I think one of the things we're going to see
right now is we have this reduction in service right now that was
generally created because of the mechanical challenges we have. I think
we're going to see a bit of savings, but as Mr. Shamber just indicated, we have in
our budget right now, 14 million dollars, a little more than 14 million dollars in
in fair revenues that will not be realized.
So if we have expenditures,
we don't get to our expenditure target,
we have a revenue,
we're gonna, that lost revenue
is not going to hit the expenditure numbers.
So I don't know where we will be with surplus
at the end of this year,
but our surplus numbers have steadily gone down
over the last several years.
As we have tightened our belt trying to get to this,
because we believed in Metrolink Reimagined,
the optimized schedule,
we knew this was gonna be a change for us,
we committed to it,
and we tightened our belts across the board.
We still have surplus,
but somewhere in that 5% range at the end of the year is,
as someone who's been doing public budgeting for 36 years,
that's a pretty good target.
So I hope, I would expect us to be in that range.
I hope we are going to need to have some
because otherwise we won't be able
to cover the loss in revenue.
And if we do, I would recommend that we not send Metro
or our other agencies open ended requests
such as we've got this extra money here,
what do you want us to do with it?
I would make a pitch at that point
that that money should be retained to cover certain,
And I'm not sure if that's exactly,
you may have just been paraphrasing,
we've got this extra money,
we don't, you know, what do you want us to do with it?
But I think at that point, there should be a case made
as to why that should be retained due to revenue reductions,
cost increases, et cetera, that you addressed
and that Tom addressed, so.
Understood.
I would like data on the refunds we're talking about
to our agencies over the last several years,
That compares with the actual budgets and what they've actually paid and when they were getting back. I think that's important to know
If I may reflect on the 10% that has not gone before my board and no CTA
It is not a statement from the board. I think that's a heads up from the executive director
That may be what's being recommended coming to the board has not yet gone before the board
So I think some of this data if we had that
could have a different result.
Yeah, we'll get that for you.
Thank you.
I see.
Yeah, I see another light.
Yes, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
And I can certainly appreciate all the comments
that my fellow board members are making.
MetroLink in multiple counties with multiple budgets
and trying to manage, particularly at a time
when Metro is faced with real financial challenges.
We've been talking about this fiscal cliff
for several years now.
And I'm sure that this body has been very aware
of those very real challenges that Metro faced.
I have the privilege of serving as the chair of the Finance
Budget and Audit Committee.
And Metro is going to have to, is confronting it,
and will have to continue to confront this, not just
this year, but in the years ahead.
So when we say 3% to Metro, we are
saying 3% across the board for LA Metro.
This isn't just targeting Metro.
These are the realities that the Metro agency faces.
And I would imagine even your cities, even your agencies
that you serve on are faced with these very real challenges.
I know Director Spiegel said, you know,
I keep hearing about the cost, the inflation,
and things going up.
That is a reality.
When decisions get made at the federal level,
political decisions get made at the federal level,
they have an impact on every one of us.
Cost, the materials, the cost.
And Metro right now is faced with real serious challenges
for procuring federal dollars
to be able to conduct its business,
particularly with the World Cup coming
and the Olympics coming.
So I just want to contextualize it.
This is not, I mean, we're fans of Metrolink.
We're on this board.
I can tell you, in the San Gabriel Valley,
Metrolink is an important public transportation system.
And in fact, as you mentioned, Mayor Dutray,
it's one of the most traveled lines as a San Bernardino line.
So the last thing I want to do is cut.
But I want to just put it in perspective
that none of us want to take any of these steps,
but we do have responsibilities to say,
listen, if we're gonna cut the rest of our agency,
in this case Metro, we have to look
at every distribution of dollars that we put out
when we're making these types of decisions.
Like you said, Chair, that decision hasn't been finalized,
but that's what it looks like it's going.
But certainly us hearing from you certainly helps contribute to the broader discussion.
So I just want to say that.
Thank you.
Well, I think it's a healthy exercise.
It's a harsh one.
I think we need to do it.
And I think the end result will be a positive one.
Director McKellen.
Thank you very much.
Darren, I know you sent the letter to the governor and others.
Have any of our executive directors supported that or sent in follow-up?
messages, you know
Not to my knowledge, but I the
The letter was copied to the executives of the five counties five member agencies. I've not heard that there's been a
Any follow-up on on that? Well, I think each of the executive directors need to jump on board
That would help
The current reduction service will let be extended through
period until October? Yes, sir. There will be a communication starting on Monday of
next week. Again, we use the term giving whiplash to our customers of shutting
down, bringing back, reducing again. So we will be communicating that. There's a
personal video from me going out to our customers on Monday. Well, I'm
optimistic. I'm an optimist. I'm optimistic that the state will come
through. And if they do, say in June or July, how long will it take us to recover?
We have a little bit of time, but if at some point we'll hit a point of no return where
we can't unwind. And I think if we get news, I mean, I don't think any of us want to have
these conversations, at least about Alstom, who's going to have to make some really difficult
communications, but I think we have a small amount of time,
but there are noticing requirements
in all of their collective bargaining agreements
for their engineers and conductors.
So there will be notices.
We may have some attrition because people are,
these guys, guys and men and women
are going to need to look for new roles.
So they may take it upon themselves.
But I think we have a, if it's much later
than end of July, mid-August, that that train,
pardon the pun, may have left the station.
Dr. Spiegel.
One thing that wasn't addressed is,
in the cut of our service, we may lose slots
for the freight lines.
And those are gonna be hard to fight back for.
So, I mean, that's another thing,
when I was talking about the nail in the coffin.
I'm being dramatic, I realize,
but there's so many complexities.
If we lose slots, we lose crews.
I mean, all these things domino effect
that take years to come back from.
And I agree with you Ari, if I heard you correctly,
any surplus should stay in a reserve
so that we don't go back.
I don't know why we've ever given back.
I don't know why as an agency.
I think there's a disconnect between us as the board
and our leaders talking with Darren.
And I don't know if you guys have been,
and I would take responsibility for my agency.
I do get it from Aaron, but it's usually after the red flag's already been up.
And that's, that's on us.
That's, we should be making more conversations with our leaders of our agency.
So when we come to this board, we know what's going on for the full point.
Um, and just like a perfect example on the surplus, if that $360 million that you
were talking about, that's going to increase a payment that you can't go back
to all of us for after you do a surplus.
So those kind of things are exactly what you're talking about.
Should not be the cushions.
We should have had a reserve to cover something like that.
So if we've budgeted, it's in our budget.
Maybe get my head chopped off in RCTC,
but it should stay where it is in a reserve.
We'll know if it's spent.
And then the openness has got to be there for all of us
because we are representing it.
It doesn't matter what's going behind the scenes.
We're the ones voting and we are the ones
responsible for the decisions made.
And if we don't make it with all the information,
we have to own some of that.
So I'm now in an mode to really be more of an active part.
And again, I didn't say LA is making us fail.
I did recognize 2 thirds of it is other things.
I never blamed LA.
OK, I just want to make sure.
I mean, you did screw up.
I've been around too long to take things like that.
No, I understood your care. You were looking at this, though. You were you were your eyes were pointed at us
Sure back to director do tray, please
FY 25 surplus
When do you know how much surplus you have through the process
Yeah, it's six months after the end of the fiscal year
You won't know until December if it's a surplus or not
Yes, correct, I mean all the books are closed and everything correct
That's when we're not, we won't know at that time
So maybe, I think Karen hit it on the nail
We are the policy makers, not the staff members
Sometimes staff thinks they're policy makers, in my opinion
But I think it's important that once, in that surplus, if there is a surplus
Probably we should come to this board first for a conversation
If our agencies have an issue, we need that money back, we need to be aware of it as our
representative agencies, but they should come to this board first to have a discussion so
we know that.
Unfortunately, we have to wait until December to find out what the surplus this year is
just way too late to avoid service cuts.
I'll leave it there.
That's an important point and should be reviewed by this board.
All right, I think. Did I see another light?
Let me say Vice Chair.
Thanks Mr. Chair. So, uh, Darren, uh, has indicated to us that we are in uncharted territory.
So I want to make a plea from the smallest fish, uh, in this aquarium, uh, that we, uh,
We forgive the nautical theme, we don't want to run a ground
in this next fiscal year.
I think it's, first of all, I appreciate
and I acknowledge the value of the comments
from all of the directors that I've heard.
This is a good discussion to have and in particular,
I don't think there should be daylight
between our CEOs and this board.
So we need to find a way to enhance that communication
improve that communication. But on a slightly different theme, speaking on
behalf of the smallest fish, Ventura County would have at least the based on
what is going forward now would have the potential for a higher per agency cost
allocation because potentially our share of total service miles will decrease
less than other member agencies. And the reason I'm highlighting that is it is a
plea, it is a plea to Metrolinx staff that you inform our member agencies
absolutely as soon as possible. I recognize you've got a meeting next
Monday, I recognize you've got more work ahead. Frankly, I thought 90 days was too
long. I came here today prepared to argue that it shouldn't be 90 days, it should
be 30 days. I'm willing to go along with the 90 day extension. But what has to happen,
what's critically important, and I don't want to be presumptuous relative to the other member
agencies, but I know for our member agency, we need to know. We need to know what our
ballpark cost per agency is going to be. And we need to know that at the soonest. Because
if we end up transmitting a budget out on August 1 with an approval on September 30,
Well, guess what?
We're now in the second quarter of the next fiscal year
and starting to make adjustments.
So my plea to staff so that we don't run aground,
I guess I got an article theme today, what the heck,
we need to know ASAP, what that ballpark cost is gonna be.
So please, please, Darren and Tom and others,
please communicate that as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
see any other follow-up? Go ahead. Thank you, thank you, thank you again chair. I
know that we're having to react in this moment and relatively new to Metro Link
but my question is have we looked at other possible revenue streams, other
revenue sources, and I just say it because I know at LA Metro we're having
to really rethink how do we bring in new revenue.
And so as an example, with one of the recommendations
that we've made is to really rethink how we design stations
and how do we activate stations to be able to bring in
possible business revenue, much like what you see in Japan
and in Europe.
They're just stations, for the most part.
And we're not really, perhaps, really thinking about how
we design them in a way to be able to activate commerce,
particularly in high density areas,
and thinking, maybe, if you want to know,
it wouldn't make sense, but maybe not so much
as West Hollywood, right?
So my question is, have we thought about that
in terms of advertisement?
And I'm not suggesting that it's going to address
all of our fiscal challenges, but what
have we done to really think about the possible revenue
opportunities that could help us improve our current financial situation.
So director Sandoval you know we we have had a modest advertising approach we do
have a new ad agency that's joined us that's coming in with some new ideas so
we're looking at some new revenues there you're right it's not gonna fill
hard not gonna fill a 35 30 35 million dollar gap but this board a couple of
years ago did direct staff to to do a revenue a revenue raising exercise
where might we find different opportunities, which we did.
And generally, they're coming from increases in sales tax
or property tax or any number of different programs
that are out there.
We contemplated an idea of a TNC fee, like an Uber or Lyft.
But what does have to happen in that
is it's been my experience, even in this role,
but certainly my experience in past roles,
in transportation in this region is anything
that we would propose cannot compete with anything.
Any one of our five member agencies are potentially
pursuing.
So in many ways, we are a consensus-driven organization
when that, and if we don't have consensus on some
of these revenue opportunities, we don't proceed.
And so we did go through that exercise,
had some real revenue opportunity,
But it was something that's like, OK, that's
going to be taking funding out of our, potentially
it's going to compete with our pursuit
of that same kind of money.
In your case, with LA Metro, obviously
as owners of real estate, that's a very different conversation.
You know, we don't own anything, you know?
So you can't even market it for that purpose.
So we have explored it, but recognizing what we are,
there's really, the place we're going to find it
is likely going to be some sort of,
There might be some modest advertising dollars on train,
train wraps, stuff like that.
But it's going to be a small, small amount.
I think that speaks to the fact that the stations are not
owned by MetroLink.
They're rather by the cities in which they're situated,
typically.
Do we have any more comments?
All right, there's a lot of moving targets going on.
And I think the extension, and I hope
you can get it done in the additional time.
That's a lot of stuff to challenge you're getting moving targets from our agencies to to try different things
as part of the budget, so I
Support to this. I have mr.. Detroit. You've got your light on a move for approval with two changes one
that by the June board meeting that staff provide us a solid plan and draft format and
At the main meeting we get an update as part of my motion
Just for clarification, a plan of as far as the where we are with the budget okay budget services. That's the goal by our June board meeting.
I'm not saying if you can't get there I understand that but you just got to have a target date. Fair enough. We will do our best.
We'll just have an update on the agenda.
I simply add that I would like to reconvene our executive committee so we have more communication going on.
I don't see the point of reestablishing any of the other committees at this time.
We are on a trial basis, if you may recall, of six months to go forward with board meetings only without our regular committees.
I think the communication and optics are there too if we do we establish and I it's my intention to do that
as part of the communication and I think it's important that you're asking for
We because the exact security does give participation from all of our agencies
so I my intention to move forward and
See if we can't add that is in one more meeting. I know
Committee which is the five agencies
Also
Okay, thank you been moved in second is there any objection any abstentions I
Do not see any so the motion carries. Thank you for your presentation and working through this with us
Somewhere I got lost in my paperwork
We go on to 7b
Good morning
Again board, so I bring before you a request for a contract extension for our security services next slide, please
Allied universal plays a significant role ensuring the safety and security of our passengers as well as our
Infrastructure it also plays a
Large role in our security operations plan for the upcoming World Cup games the authority has had
private security services contract with allied security since
2026 the contract is a five-year term
expiring June 30th
2026 we're returning to the board to request a one-year extension extending the contract expiration date to June 30th
2027
The contract end date falls in the middle of the World Cup games
onboarding a new security contract during this time would be extremely difficult and would definitely impose
Operational and security needs next line
It's it's recommended
That the board authorize the chief executive officer to extend the contract for security services for Metro link with allied universal for one year and
Increase the contract authority from six million eighty eight thousand three hundred and sixty four dollars
To would not to exceed authority of thirty one million six hundred and seventeen thousand five hundred and thirteen dollars
I'd be happy to take any questions
Director speaker just confirming so this is only an increase of six million for the next year and
If we're cutting service is there a need for that much security or is it just protecting our stations because of all
yeah, so
Our contract security does they protect the stations they they do fair enforcement
they they do a lot of
They do train right so if we can
once we
Know the schedule I mean if we don't need that security there is obviously an opportunity to reduce security
But it's not a fixed contract, so we can't do it's not no. It's not okay. I feel better. Thank you. I'll make a motion to protect
Moved and seconded I would know one thing we're doing in Orange County
We do include a revision in our contracts that they're all subject to funding
And if there is lack of funding we have the ability to terminate
So I'm suggesting that our contracts perhaps should have a clause like that. Yes
We're gonna we're working with procurement right now on the new RFP and we will look at that putting that in there
Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any abstention any objection saying none the item is approved. Thank you. Thank you
Now we go on to 7C, which is a receiving file, our World Cup update, LNLA 28, which is challenged
by us all, and we have Michael Litchey, our Director of Special Projects.
Good morning, Chair Chaffee, Directors.
Happy to be here today to give an update on our planning efforts for the World Cup and
the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Next slide, please.
with our countdown timer, so 49 days out from the first match of the World Cup that will
take place in LA on June 12th and 812 days from the opening ceremony of the 2028 games.
So just to orient you, this is the match schedule for the eight World Cup matches that will
be taking place in Los Angeles at Sophia Stadium, which is being renamed Los Angeles Stadium
during the FIFA matches.
As you can see, it's a mix between weekday and weekend games, majority of the games are
at noon. We do have three matches though that are later in the evening starting at 6 or 7 p.m.
which requires us to run some extra trains to serve the return trips from those matches.
There'll be very limited parking around the stadium for these matches and the parking that
is available is going to be fairly expensive, $250, $300 range per space. So the current
expectation is that about 25,000 people per match will take some form of public transit to reach the
venue. Next slide please. In addition to the eight match the eight matches in Los
Angeles there are there will also be a series of fan fest and fan zones located
throughout the Southern California region. There are a there's a plan for a
fan zone and official fan zone sanctioned by FIFA and the host committee
each of the 39 days of the World Cup. This slide just highlights four of those
fan zones that are located near Metrolink stations and likely will increase
our demand or ridership demand. Each of these fan zones as opposed to the the
very expensive World Cup ticket prices are either free or very low-cost. For
example the Coliseum Fan Fest is a $10 entrance fee so we do expect that we'll
see a significant increase in ridership demand on our services to reach each of
these fanfests. Next slide. So in terms of what we're planning to service this
additional demand during the World Cup, we are looking to utilize our existing
Metrolink service wherever possible to be able to provide transportation to
and from the events. However, there is a need due to the timing of the events to
operate a number of additional special trains, particularly in the later evening
hours when our service is more limited and on Sundays on the weekends when we
we have more limited service.
So we do have a plan to operate additional service
on the lines listed above.
Basically all the lines out of LA,
except for the riverside line,
or the eight match days,
plus the two days for the LA Union Station Fan Zone.
And we have some existing service
that will help us serve other fan zones
like the One & Burbank and Coliseum.
For people going to the matches,
if you ride Metrolink,
you'll be able to transfer for free
with your Metrolink ticket
to the World Cup Enhanced Service
being operated by Metro,
which will be a direct shuttle similar to the Dodgers Express, from Union Station and
Arctic to Los Angeles State and Versailles Stadium.
And then finally, in terms of funding, there were two sources of federal funding that were
allocated for World Cup operations and security.
We have placed a request in for each of those funding sources to help supplement costs for
additional operations and security.
we are still waiting to hear a final result
of those applications,
but hope to hear that within the next week or two.
Next slide.
And moving on briefly to the Olympics.
Again, just the visual orientation of our service map
with the venues that will be hosting events
during the 2028 games.
And again, making the point that Metrolink will serve
as an important transportation option throughout the region
because of the spread of those events
throughout L.A. and Orange Counties.
Next slide, please.
And then just a few highlights
of some of the ongoing planning activities
that are underway that are detailed a bit more
in your staff report.
Just to highlight the first and the last,
we are working to finalize an MOU term sheet with LA-28
that outlines roles and responsibilities
for each of our agencies,
with one of the main provisions being that Metrolink
or its member agencies will not be expected
to fund any projects or services specific to the games
beyond our baseline services that we would otherwise operate
during summer of 2028 if the games were not occurring.
So that's very similar to language in Metro's MEU
that was just approved by their board.
And then the final bullet on this slide, funding advocacy.
We have had some developments in the last couple weeks,
one positive and one not so positive,
the positive being that there was just about $91 million
it was allocated in FTA funds for Olympics planning
to the region.
So we're going to be working with our partner agencies
to determine how that will be split between the agencies that
are providing services during the games, including Metro,
Metrolink, and Caltrans.
The less good news was that the president's initial budget
for fiscal year 27 did not include
any funding for Olympics-related transportation programs.
Despite about a $2 billion ask, a joint
between Metro, Metrolink, and Caltrans.
With that, I'll conclude my report,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Board, questions?
Yes, Director Neucherian.
Thank you for your report.
There was an item in the news recently
about the New York rail system charging $150
or something for World Cup transport.
Yes.
What are your thoughts on the pricing
and the feasibility of identifying World Cup.
Aside from those special trains that you said you're going to be running, I mean, is that
a feasible, I'm not saying $150 is the price, but if you're talking several hundred dollars
for parking and the tickets, according to my colleague here, are in the thousands of
dollars, a higher fee than we usually charge might not be out of line.
What are we thinking about that?
Yeah, Michael, what are you thinking about that?
No.
I'm not going to, yeah.
So I think this is one of those areas where we have
a trouble getting good information out of FIFA
as it relates to ticket sales and that kind of thing.
I mean, I am going off of Director Najarian.
This is one of those areas where I
think our trains are going to be very, very popular for fan
fests, because they get to Union Station.
They're going to be able to take light rail
of the Coliseum or those types of things.
The number of people that we would then
have to try to distinguish who actually have FIFA tickets
and then, because New Jersey is charging $150 a ticket
to go from New York to the stadium in New Jersey,
they have a very clear direction.
They serve the stadium, whereas we don't come anywhere near
serving.
So I don't see that being a big number in contrast
to the fan zones.
But we do we will need to provide some service how we get information though from FIFA from FIFA for ticket holders that then we could
Say, okay, you're gonna pay a
World Cup premium for a fair or whatever we would want to call it
Maybe really really difficult to implement. So we haven't explored it is the bottom line
I think just because there's other other parts to it and how would we differentiate from someone who's using a going to the
fan fest at Union Station
That happens to coincide with being able to go to a match at LA Stadium
So it's just I think there's all those moving parts. We just said we'll go with this about VIP cars or
Perhaps there's another way to distinguish those who are
Willing to pay that amount versus those that just want to get to the fan fest
And I know we're running short on time. I mean, yeah 48 days. I think it's
I think what we realized based on some data that we've gotten from Metro on our own analysis
is that we will have some usage for that, but it just wasn't.
The juice has to be worth the squeeze to try to come up with it, and it's just, it would
be a really, really small population, I think, and because of it, we didn't go any further
on that.
Now, when we get to the Olympics, we may look at a different conversation.
I'm gonna jump in I
Agree, I would love to
To ask for more money, but I just don't think we have a coordinated effort. They're already talking about that in, Virginia
We can't suddenly jump in we can make party cars and you were talking about use of the stations do parties
I mean come on. That's a lot of money
No, Caltrans
I'm half kidding, but
No, but I think there is a point to what you and director
The gerion saying is taking advantage of this opportunity
how small as it is because we're
The earlier discussion was about a decrease of like three or five million dollars, right? So any
contributions even for over eight weekends is
something, $5 is better than $0.
So $10 is better, right?
So if you amplify that and multiply that to me,
we control our destiny in terms of the revenue
that we bring in.
And so to hear that we don't want to invest
because it may not be worth the staff time,
at what point are we going to continue then
to just lean on the other member agencies
for the funding when there's a whole other piece
that I think as a board here, we can decide on,
it could be worth, it's a special event weekend,
so service, supply and demand, maybe it is the time to,
even if you increase fares by like $5, right,
something that's not as noticeable,
but something to capture the fact that there is going to be
a lot of strain and increased service for that weekend.
Director Tremblay?
So you all know that, except for those of you
who are new to the board, that I've not exactly been a potted plant regarding my concern about
LA 28 in particular. Michael, I will be really interested in seeing what the terms of that
MOU are. I think Director Roberts has a very good point. I think we should be looking at
this, specifically with respect to LA-28.
FIFA, we're too late on FIFA.
And I will tell you, I have zero confidence in FIFA,
particularly in an organization that claims to be nonprofit,
but then opens an entirely new category one ticketing tier
that no one else had known about before,
and raking in thousands and literally millions of dollars
from their fans.
The New Jersey model is instructive, isn't it?
because while Senator Schumer, with whom I have differences
of opinion on lots of policy things,
excoriated Governor Sherrill in New Jersey,
I want you to listen to a quote from Senator Schumer.
And he was talking about FIFA, but I'm
going to insert LA28 instead.
LA, quote, LA28 is the one profiting from this Olympics.
And we are expecting Los Angeles to host the majority of visitors
watching these matches.
LA-28 is taking over the entire MetLife parking lot,
i.e. Los Angeles, giving fans no option
but to take public transit,
and then turning around to tell New Jersey Transit,
i.e. Metro, Metrolink,
that they do not owe the transit agency a single dime.
That's LA-28, which I think is shameful,
and I've been a broken record on this since what,
December of 2023, I think.
So I will be really curious to see the MOU coming back,
and I will be really curious.
I think Director Roberts hits the nail on the head.
I would like to explore some revenue enhancements for LA-28,
because I don't think this burden should
fall on our member agencies.
Thank you for letting me hop off again, Mr. Chairman.
You can tell I'm not exactly ambivalent about this issue.
I think all of you, and I see Dr. Dutray as laying on,
and then we'll come back.
Well, I agree with Tony and Gloria.
Let's find a way to make revenue off of this,
and then we'll figure this out as we go.
My question is for the FIFA games.
You have security, you asked for almost a million dollars
for security.
You haven't received it yet.
What's the security for?
What type of security are you speaking at for FIFA?
I'm going to ask Hillary to come up.
It's a significant expansion in law enforcement
and other security detail throughout the system,
but go ahead.
Yeah, thank you.
So the additional security, obviously,
we're expecting a large influx of people, spectators,
passengers.
So the security is to maintain order on the trains,
because right now we don't have dedicated security
on the train.
So that was, that is in part to have that on the trains.
So the intoxicated crowd?
Exactly.
Well, then, you know, there might be some rivalry,
but we're going to increase security at stations,
you know, bag checks, that sort of thing.
So.
What about terrorism?
That's a big part of it.
And is it a federal law enforcement part?
Every week.
So we had a meeting yesterday with the FBI.
Are they providing any support services
outside of this request?
not for Metrolinx specific,
but LA County Sheriff's Department is.
And we have K-9 units with LA County Sheriff.
We have, you know, bomb detection squad.
So we do have resources and we are being supported.
Are you also in communication
with Stanley County Sheriff's Department
for our portion of the line?
Yeah, so we're communicating with all the counties.
We've had, and we're having actually meetings right now.
So but yes, we are okay. Well. I'm a nice to have the mind. It's money, so we make sure that our
Passengers and our trains are secured
But here we go again
Thank you
This is a receiving file item
Questions will be received and filed now we go on to our next item
Sure
It's also
Short because we've been talking about that already
Yes, absolutely
So hello again. I'm here to present the financial results through March 31st next slide
March ridership is well below the adopted budget as we've been experiencing, but it did exceed the refreshed forecast
Year to date ridership forecasted in the adopted but adopted budget was six point nine million for a seventy eight percent recovery
The refreshed forecast projected ridership at 5.2 million for a 58% recovery.
Actual ridership is 5.5 million for a 62% recovery.
This is under the original forecast by 1.4 million, but over the refreshed forecast by
335,000 riders.
Next slide.
As with ridership, actual fare revenue is below the adopted budget, but exceeds the refreshed forecast for the month.
Year-to-date fair revenue was budgeted at forty two point five million or a sixty nine percent recovery
The refresh forecast is thirty two point one million
Actual fair revenue is thirty two point five million or a fifty three percent recovery
We are nine point nine million under budget at four hundred and twenty eight thousand over the refreshed forecast next slide
This is a look at system-wide ridership by month note that the FY 26 ridership exceeds the FY 25
ridership in nearly every month.
The same can be said when looking at just the darker
shades within the bars, which represents
unsubsidized ridership.
Next slide.
Looking at ridership by line, you
can see all lines exceeded the refreshed forecast,
and all but two lines exceeded actual ridership from FY25.
Next slide.
System-wide fare revenues by month
show that we've exceeded FY25 fare revenues
in each of the last four months.
That is largely attributable to strong year-over-year growth
in unsubsidized fares shown in the darker shades.
Next slide.
Here are fare revenues by line.
Most lines are more or less tracking
to the refreshed forecast.
Five of the seven lines achieved year-to-date fare revenues
greater than their FY25 actuals.
This is particularly evident for the Orange County line.
Next slide.
Now for the overall financial results
through the third quarter.
Operating revenue is $47.4 million
under budget by $9 million or 16%.
Expenses are $241.6 million under budget
by $22.7 million or 8.6%.
Member agency support is currently in surplus
by $13.8 million.
I will remind you, we will continue
to see reduced fair revenue below budget
for the remainder of the year.
And also, our expenses are not all incurred evenly
throughout the year.
So we will be looking at a projection through year end
and bring that to the board in May.
So we'll have a better sense for what that surplus looks like.
Next slide.
The next three slides show the year-to-date operating
statement.
You've probably heard enough from me
and about Metrolink finances.
So I'm not going to delve into that in this presentation.
you've got that in your packet to look at at your leisure.
Next slide.
Arrow service.
This is arrow ridership by month,
compared to last year and to the original
and refreshed forecasts.
In March, ridership not only exceeded the refreshed forecast,
but it also met the original forecast.
Next slide.
Looking at fair revenues for arrow,
you can see that while revenue is below forecast,
revenues are comparable to FY 25,
despite the end to the Student Adventure Program,
which was popular with AeroRiders.
Next slide.
For the nine months of the year,
operating revenue is 381,000,
under budget by 120,000 or 24%.
Expenses are 11.2 million,
under budget by 2.5 million or 18%.
And support is 10.8 million,
under budget by 2.3 million or 17.8%.
Next slide.
That concludes my report.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Questions, directors.
I see none.
Thank you for the report and being up again.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The receiving file will be moving on then
to our next item, which is 7E, capital status report.
Raja, Vishwan, and Nathan.
Yes, good morning, Chairman and members of the board.
I'm gonna keep it short.
Next slide, please.
Next one, please.
We at Metrony are continuing to do a steady investment
of close to $45 million a year on capital investment
on our projects, on our equipment here.
This also includes SCORE program.
And as I mentioned SCORE, I'm happy to report
that we're on the cusp of major construction.
Starting very soon, we have received our supplements
from Caltrans on major construction
and that I'm hoping that we'll be coming back to this board
in a short period of time to get approval
on some major construction contracts moving forward.
Next slide please.
And we continue to invest close to $58 to $60 million
on city good repair programs across tracks,
structures and signals across our system.
And next slide please.
This is some pictures of some of the preparation work
that was conducted before the cut over
of the San Juan Creek Bridge.
And that concludes my presentation.
Thank you very much.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Questions.
I don't, again, seen as a receive and file.
Thank you for the report.
Our legislative update
Jeffrey done
Morning, church, and you've found lots of opportunities for money, right?
I'll do my best sir. Next slide, please
In state matters since our report to you last month the California Air Resources Board on Tuesday April 14th
Release changes to its proposed draft carbon market rules regulation
amended to boost free allowances for carbon-emitting industries in the energy sector, including
refineries at risk of losing business to out-of-state competitors or imposing higher costs on California
residents.
CARB cited short-term economic uncertainty caused by federal disruption, loss of federal
incentives, global events, and volatile market conditions as the reason for these proposed
changes.
This follows public reporting from the energy sector that costs stemming from the program
If left unchanged, could potentially increase gas prices at the pump by up to $1.29 per gallon.
This potentially over and above any price increase attributable to the conflict in the Middle East.
The program amendments will provide additional industry credit allowances.
These are free market participants do not have to purchase them and essentially reduces the number
of emissions credits that they do need to purchase to remain in compliance
with California's emissions reduction goals.
Thus, the expansion of credit allowances with corresponding reduction in purchase credits
is expected to significantly reduce revenues to the greenhouse gas reduction fund.
Based on current estimates confirmed with state officials, annual GGRF revenues would
decline from roughly $2 billion to about $2 billion each year through 2030.
reductions means that there would not be sufficient funding to sustain tier 3
programs under the current Cap and Invest program architecture, meaning
programs like the transit and inner-city rail capital program, TIRCP, and the low
carbon transit operations program, LC Topps, would likely receive no or very
little funding given the state's commitments to fund first-tier programs
off the top, including California high-speed rail at a billion dollars a
year and Cal Fire at $1.2 billion in the aftermath of the recent historic fires.
The IRCP and LC Top, as you know, have been critical to supporting Metrolinx capital improvements
and operating assistance, including funding its very successful student adventure pass
and discount fair programs that have significantly helped drive ridership recovery.
So, the potential loss of this funding represents a major structural shift in how or if these
programs and projects are funded moving forward. Stakeholder groups led by the
California Transit Association have begun engaging with the California Air
Resources Board and legislative offices to raise concerns about these impacts
and Metrolink is working with and through this broad industry-wide effort
to hopefully change or mitigate the impacts of the amended regulation. We
will continue to monitor developments closely including the anticipated public
hearing on the amended regulation on May 28th will keep the board informed as
more information becomes available. In other news, as you know, our CEO Mr.
Kettle has transmitted to the governor, legislative budget leaders, and the
entire MetroLink legislative delegation, assembly, and Senate, MetroLink's need
for state support to help fund our operations following the reduced funding
subsidy to MetroLink for the coming fiscal year from our two largest funding
member agencies, LA Metro and OCTA. Mr. Cuddle will be in Sacramento next week
to meet with lawmakers and state leaders to more fully articulate the operational
impacts of these funding reductions should the state not provide support or
assistance. This messaging comes after repeated calls in recent years to the
legislature and administration from Metrolink, the passenger rail sector and
the transit provider industry statewide to provide meaningful state operational
support or face real-world service reductions, which will come to fruition this year unless
the state intervenes.
Of course, we'll keep you apprised of any substantive development on this as the legislative
session and budget cycle proceeds.
Next slide, please.
In federal matters, because of the demands and uncertainty placed on federal lawmakers
by the conflict in the Middle East, there has been no action yet taken on the FY27 budget
released earlier this month by the administration
and covered in your report.
Likewise, there are widely divergent accounts of progress
or lack thereof on the movement of a surface transportation
authorization bill, which would succeed the IIJA
law set to expire September 30 of this year.
House TNI chair Sam Graves, who retires this year,
has repeatedly expressed confidence
that the committee will mark up a bill as early as April 29.
However, as of yet, no bill text has been released.
Other members have expressed optimism, too,
that a bill could pass the House floor by late May.
But also, the committee's ranking member,
Rick Larson of Washington, has indicated publicly
a growing consensus that the current law
will probably be extended until after the midterm elections,
punting consideration and authorization
of the nation's transportation priorities
for the next few years until the next Congress.
We should have significantly more clarity on this by next month's report to you.
Metrolink strategy and government affairs staff did travel to Washington, D.C.
for the American Public Transportation Association National Legislative Conference
on April 12th through 14th and did advocate directly on the hill with members
of its House delegation, our appropriators, and both California Senate offices,
its top federal priorities led by the need to fund Metrolink system security needs
for the 2028 Olympic Games.
as we shared with you last month.
This request is the most time sensitive
because of the time needed to implement system improvements
in order to have them in operation by the Olympic Games.
This funding, which is under administrative control
of the Department of Homeland Security,
which has been closed due to partisan gridlock
since February 13th with no reliable timeline to reopen,
will continue to be Metrolinx first federal funding priority
this year once DHS is reopened.
And two, as the Middle East conflict,
which is subsuming so much of the nation's attention
and resources, hopefully comes to a speedy
and successful resolution.
Metrolink will assiduously press forward
the exigent case for funding this critical priority
in the aftermath of the attacks
on the regional rail systems
leading to the Paris and Milan Olympics.
We will certainly keep the border priced.
Thank you, this concludes my presentation.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Questions?
Just real quick, I wanna make sure that this is very clear.
Jeff mentioned the letter, that letter references
the multitude of reasons that we are in need
of additional state support, not just on the reductions
that we've been targeted from the member agencies.
So I just wanted to make sure that,
because he sort of ran through that,
and we recognize this is a bigger picture issue
than those issues, the two members.
Thank you.
I might add, for Director McCollan's suggestion,
If we can do our own lobbying and support,
and perhaps staff could send each director
a list of who we should contact with some basic information
that we can put in a form letter.
I don't want a form letter.
It looks like a mailing campaign.
Rather individual letters, if we can.
But there's basic information that needs to go in.
If that would be helpful, I think it's more pressure
that all of us collectively can put on us.
It would be a better chance of getting a good result.
We're happy to coordinate with staff
of the member agencies to ensure
that the proper notice parties receive their feedback,
their input.
Thank you.
Again, this is a receive and file item,
and yes, we'll look forward to learning more next month.
All right, Mr. CEO.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Next slide, please.
So the region is hosting the WTS International Conference
Women in Transportation Seminar here in the Los Angeles region.
Metrolink is privileged to be a part of one
of the special tours.
And so Director Sandoval and I will be hosting an event
where we will be a train ride from LA Union Station
to the Pomona North Station, where I will be able to share
a little bit about what's happening at Metrolink.
And then when we get to the Pomona North Station,
with the director Sandoval show,
just talking about the coolness of the fact
that we have this multimodal station at Pomona North
where you can go from light rail to commuter rail systems
and how it's working.
So looking forward to being a part of that.
And next slide.
We had another record-breaking day.
Earth Day was April 22 and we had nearly 32,000 boardings.
was a free fare day. The last free fare day was transit equity day and you can
see from this data we had a nine point three percent increase in ridership so
we do sometimes yes free can sell and it's just a matter of exposing exposing
riders potentially to our system so they see what it can do so we're happy to
have that result and I think that concludes my report thank you mr.
Questions, thank you Mr. CEO and I'd like to thank everyone for the comments made
today they're very important and I particularly like to learn more about
the return of funds the past my own agency OCTA will be undertaking its own
budgeting process and that is where the decision will only be made as to how
much funding goes to Metrolink that's a process that's underway so the more
information I have more I can be helpful with the mentoring budget we do come to
a closed session do we need a closed session yes we do chair we'll go in a
closed session on item 11 a is described in today's agenda thank you with that
we're moving to close session thank you