All right, it's time to begin our meeting. So it's my pleasure to call the
Metrolink board of meeting to order and
First we start with our safety briefing
Good morning Chairman Chafee board of directors in the event of an evacuation
We will exit the room out the doors and we'll take the escalator down to the lobby entrance
Once we exit the building we'll turn to our right and we'll meet at the LA Metro customer service area
Just when you're evacuating, please be careful and mindful
that there may be cords and chairs in the way in briefcases
when you're exiting, so take caution on that.
In the event of a medical emergency,
we have our L.A. County Sheriff's Department
who will render aid, and we also do have an AED located
by the security desk that we can retrieve.
In the event of an earthquake, we will take cover
under the desks and wait for the rumbling to stop
to see if further evacuation is necessary.
And in the event of a run, I'm sorry, an active shooter event,
we will deploy the run-hide fight tactic.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Directors, any questions?
Seeing none, I would like to simply report on an emergency
that's ongoing in Orange County.
There are a couple of tanks of material
that have toxic materials in it that are leaking.
And one, the tanks has been contained.
one is heating up and if it explodes it'll be a mess in wide areas. So there
is an ongoing evacuation in some parts of Garden Grove in the city of Stanton
at the moment. So I checked with our CEO. None of our facilities are threatened
by that. It's some distance from any of what we have, but it is ongoing and so
we'll see if there are evacuations and it is it can if it explodes it'll be
airborne so we'll see all right with that I have a pledge of allegiance and I
wonder if director McCallin our past chair would lead us
clerk would you do a roll call please certainly director Nguyen director go
director Tettimer vice chair Bergson here director Spiegel director Vargas
director Molina second vice chair Tremblay director angler director
Barger director Najarian director Sandoval here director Solis director
Olson, Director Allen, Director O'Connor, Director Camacho,
Director McAllen, Director Wapner, Director Dutray, Director Marquez, we do
have a quorum present. Thank you Madam Clerk. Now it's time for
public comment. We did receive a couple written comments already distributed to
us. So Madam Clerk, do we have any more written comments or anyone that would like to speak?
So we did receive, as you mentioned, a number of written public comments to not cut service,
which have been sent to the board already this week. And we received a written public comment
for item 7C, which is printed out and provided for you at the dais. And we do have two requests
to speak so I will call up Brett Craig. Good morning Metrolin board and staff my
name is Brett Craig and I'm a senior traffic engineer with the city of
Riverside. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the subject that is of great
importance to our city. We've recently seen discussion of potential future cuts
to Metrolinx service that would be potentially impactful across the system.
We are aware of the scheduled public hearing on June 26 that would discuss
potential fare increases, and service reductions during peak hours and weekends, as well as
shortened routes.
Metrolink staff have been extremely helpful in answering our questions and addressing
our initial concerns.
We understand how impactful reduced ridership has been to Metrolink but remain concerned
with the potential for reductions to compound downward trims in ridership.
Not only will transit be an essential service during the Olympic Games, but Riverside is
currently preparing its 2050 general plan, and transit remains a key factor in our vision
to a sustainable future that meets our region's housing and economic needs.
In advance of recommendations being shared at the June 26th hearing, Riverside wishes
to offer its assistance and advocacy, problem solving, and developing funding strategies
to help mitigate potential cuts across the system.
Our city leadership looks forward to future discussions.
Please consider us an engaged and committed partner
towards MetroLink success.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Do we have any more speakers?
I will call up Pete Slice.
Thank you.
I spoke here last year to try and save an estimated $80
million of Metro money, actually taxpayer money,
and simultaneously make MetroLink more efficient
by dropping the Claremont Metrolink station
as part of the A-line extension.
This was initially proposed by Metro itself,
but no action was taken by Metro or Metrolink,
so Metro is relocating what will be
an unnecessary Metrolink station.
This will be one of three consecutive suburban
Metrolink stations within three miles of each other,
each with light rail also.
Really wasteful both financially and operationally,
but I won't repeat the details as they are
in the public record for my previous comment last year.
Perhaps in the future, Metrolink will fit to add stations
every mile over its entire line.
Metrolink's post-COVID recovery of around 60%
of prior ridership illustrates the failure
of the regional rail model from the previous commuter rail
model.
This lagging recovery was despite having
many more trains running.
The failed model also can be seen
by the small impact of the recent pruning of service,
many sets run with minuscule riderships.
I'm not certain of the exact fuel usage of the unique F-125
locomotives, since Metrolink is the only rail
carrier in the world that uses them,
and information is sparse.
But an estimated use of 150 gallons of diesel fuel
for a union station to a San Bernardino trip
is likely in the ballpark.
And one of the lightly used midday trips,
say of 15 passengers in the current regional model,
this would work out to burning 10 gallons of diesel fuel
per rider.
Passenger per mile fuel consumption statistics
would be even worse if multiple people are riding together
or if their ridership is not end to end.
Certainly these lightly used trips
are not good for cost efficiency,
the environment or have any impact on traffic,
which are Metrolink's normal rationale for existing.
They do hold up many vehicles waiting at the crossings
for them to pass as well as disturbing their neighborhoods
they run through, sometimes fatally,
so there are negative consequences.
Despite all the problems of these locomotives,
I see Metrolink is spending another $150 million
for 12 more.
Maybe they can be catalyzed for spare parts.
Lastly, it would be beneficial to riders of Metrolink
to bring back its social media updates
on its old X account.
Metrolink transitioned away from that account
with over 38,000 followers to an app
and a new Metrolink X customer service account,
which now has 56 followers.
Probably most are in this room, not 56,000, 56.
An app is great for the dedicated Metrolink riders,
but for the occasional riders,
and for those riding Metrolink in the future as visitors,
such as travelers in town for the Olympics or World Cup,
any app is inadequate.
For comparison, LA Metro has over 214,000 followers on X,
which can be easily accessed without having to navigate
and download a standalone app, at least for now.
Again, I'd like to submit my comments for the record.
Thank you, sir.
One more, please.
I will call up Eli Litman.
I'll make sure I got my button on.
Okay, three minutes.
Wow, I only got 30 seconds yesterday.
Hi, my name is Eli Litman.
I am the executive director for MOVE California.
We are a statewide nonprofit advocacy organization.
We have members from Humboldt County to San Diego County
from the state line to the coastline.
I went to the Metro board budget hearing yesterday
and spoke alongside 20 people concerned
about possible service cuts for Metrolink.
We launched a campaign called Save Metrolink
and a website to respond
and the response has been overwhelming.
2,500 individuals have taken actions
and 35,000 emails have been sent to the OCTA Metro,
Metrolink, and state legislative leaders.
You probably are all looking at me really annoyed right now,
I see in the faces that you got some of our emails.
Great.
There's going to be a group of volunteers out on the system
tomorrow.
Maybe you could join, 1045, walking around and talking
to riders about how we need this system.
And we're coming to the board today and to your board,
Chair Chafee at OCTA next week.
But what have we gotten in response?
Well, let me see.
Nothing, not a peep.
In fact, we have heard from OCTA
that Metrolink needs to be right-sized.
So, Chair Chafee, when the price of gas
is over $6 per gallon, you want a right-sized service
by cutting it?
You weren't saving the agencies for our kids and grandkids.
You were just creating a death spiral
at the very moment we need it most.
When we start to ration gas in a month
because of the war with Iran and people can't get to work,
are you gonna just throw up our hands as this board
and say, well, we're running,
well, running 164 trains a day was just too many.
The real issue is which one of you is working to solve it?
I look to you, have any of you had a meeting
with the Cal State Transportation Secretary
or spoken with the governor about this?
We have twice in fact.
because Metrolink is vital to the state rail plan.
And you better believe that we need you to step up.
Which one of you took the train here today?
I know Pam did.
I was on the train with Pam.
And you were creating one, yes one,
standing committee on the budget today.
No mandate on timeline or vision, no deliverables, no goals.
Are we serious here?
What I'm learning is that this agency has been hamstrung
by its own board.
We need new governments.
if the public cares more than the board,
then it's clear that the board is the issue.
It needs an independent source of funding.
We need you, this board,
to work towards a sustainable source of funding,
because if the counties aren't committed to real solutions,
then we, the voters who pay for the system
and ride in and love it, are gonna take care of it.
And we, the L.A. County voters who wrote and campaigned
and passed Measure R&M and OCTA with Measure M
to fund most of the Metrolink budget
need to stop subsidizing this lack of interest
Anything approaching real public transit service? Thank you, sir
Now we come on to our consent calendar, which are items 11 a through 11 G
Would any director like to have an item heard separately? I?
Don't see anyone wanting to pull an item
May have a motion for approval the staff recommendations
when we got to one is this
first
All right any objection abstentions seen on the consent calendar is approved
Now come to a regular calendar as a met proposed amendment to the bylaws
By Jeffrey for Gioni associate general counsel if you sir would present the amendment
And I do have some different suggestions for its structure when you come to that understood. Thank you, mr
Mmm, Jeff for Gion associate general counsel next slide, please
So, at last month's meeting, Chair Chaffee proposed re-establishing a single standing
committee dedicated to budget matters.
To do so, as you know, would require amendment to our bylaws.
We have drawn up a proposal that is before you now.
Next slide, please, Sam.
Briefly, what it would do is establish what we're calling a budget committee that is envisioned
to meet monthly on a remote basis to consider matters related to the annual fiscal year
budget.
The new budget committee would be composed,
very similar to the old executive committee,
the three officers of the board,
as well as the two immediate past chairs.
If any member is unable to serve,
they may be, the member agency may designate a replacement
so as to avoid any disenfranchisement.
The proposed amended bylaws, if approved,
would become effective on June 1st,
Allowing the new committee to meet as early as next month with that happy to take any questions or surrender the microphone to the chair
I'd like to see a little different structure. I think each agency should have the opportunity to appoint its representative
instead of just the officers that would be part of the executive committee we've got that route and so
It needs participation from our agencies with members of their choice
And so that would be how I would like to structure it and then the committee itself would select his whole chair
Very good. We can we can make those conforming changes. Yeah, okay
That's up with this board wants to do in the end a supervisor by a larger
Thank you, and I know that we've gone back and forth in this for good reason
I mean, I'm up the street, but I know people have come and we've had committee meetings at last 10 minutes. And so I understand
The fact that you know that there's been not an appetite to move forward and I appreciate
the chairs
Bringing this forward
But I would say that the success of this new arrangement is really going to hinge
Entirely on early and regular communication sharing and information between authority staff and staff from our member agencies
I know I was on the phone with Stephanie Wiggins this morning discussing this and so
Darren, the onus is really going to be on you to ensure that is taking place.
It's important to have that communication and I'm very concerned about, and I hear you
Eli loud and clear, and the silence is deafening.
I know that Metro in their discussions regarding the fiscal clip that we are facing when the
recommendation was made, it was not made to cut service at all.
was not the intention that is something that the Metrolink entity made on their
own so that is to be continued and we will be having that discussion but I
support this and I feel now more than ever we need to look at the fistline I
know Orange County is going through the same situation so so I will be
supporting this today with with your changes. Thank you supervisor Bartur
Thank you very much. I appreciate the the proposed revision to allow the
agencies to choose their own representatives. I think that's
important. I also want to talk a little bit and this may be a lot of semantics
but calling it budget committee suggests that it has a sort of a shorter shelf
life in terms of just a budgetary issue and I would prefer to go back to the old
committee and it recognized that it was a financial committee. It can talk about
budget but it can talk about anything that's financially relating to metro
So, again, it may be a subtle change, but I don't want that.
I would not want that committee to think it is limited to only budget or going into budget
discussions, but really anything financial at any time, which I presume the previous
committee could do as well.
So that's another thing that I think should be considered, because I don't know if the
intent was to limit it to only budgetary matters.
Once the budget is resolved, does that mean the committee essentially dissolves again,
or are we going to keep it going?
So I'd like to see, I think it needs to be reinstated
and it has to keep functioning.
I think the original intent was budget,
but we can certainly alter the subject matter jurisdiction
of the committee to make it whatever the board would like.
Appreciate that.
Director Sandoval.
I was going to just comment on the same issue.
I think while the budget committee is a step
in the right direction, I do believe it falls short
of a more comprehensive fiscal oversight needed at this time.
Obviously, we're in this situation.
I can tell you yesterday at our Budget Finance
and Audit Committee meeting, we had a number of speakers
who spoke about their concerns about the cutting of services.
There seems to be some issue of communication,
as Director Barger mentioned.
But I don't think, I think there needs to be an audit
and a finance component to this.
It can't just be focused and zeroed in on the budget.
And I think we have the opportunity to take that step.
As many of you know, the committees were cut,
I think, in September 2025.
And here we are at this moment
with real existential challenges
about our communal rail system.
And I think the way we try to address this
in a more immediate sense is to bring back a full committee
that doesn't just look exclusively at the budget,
but looks at the system in its entirety.
So that would be my recommendation for consideration,
that it not just be focused on budget,
but it'd also be focused on our finances,
as well as, and I don't, in terms of the audit, right,
the audit of the budget process,
or do we, do we,
remind me if we have a robust audit of our budget process.
Director Sandoval, we certainly do,
and then also in many cases we have member agencies
that also have an audit process at the back end of that.
So there is a lot of audit activity happening throughout it.
And of course, then at the end of the year,
we have our annual financial statement and final audit.
Thank you.
So I'd like for there to be consideration
to add those two pieces.
I think the budget committee does not make the decision.
Rather, it reviews in depth some of the issues,
and it brings it back to the board.
The board actually takes that action.
Should there be a need for an audit,
You could recommend that but the board here would actually make that decision. I
Understand that I understand committees make recommendations
So but I think that these are all interrelated
Finances the auditing of the process and the budget so I would ask that we consider that
I don't know how you could do a budget without looking at the total financial position
Thank you
Yes director
The lady with the light okay, go ahead
Be a broken record, but I will be I
Feel that we drop the committees is a little bit disengagement
We as a board need to be more engaged than one time a month and one phone call. I
also talked about more
Conversations with our directors and they may have their committees
We have our committees and how many really get engaged as a team and then the teams come together
That's what we should be doing as a board at a time when you're hearing speakers talking about their concerns and
We're not stepping up to show them that we really care. I think that's
That on our part. I think we need to be more invested than less invested. I
shared yesterday on our call that
We have the opportunity for virtual for committees. We started doing that some showed up
We don't have to use this room that could be at the Metro link this staff
I know that was an issue about the time and the commitment, but you know what?
we are
stewards of this
Metrolink system and we need to show that we care we need to be it's informed and I feel I feel a little
Disconnected by doing it one time a month. I really do I think there's there's value on
Conversations and interactions at least twice a month and then calls and whatever
We do have a I'm spoiled and Riverside
We have a very engaged director and he's probably sitting here on the call watching this
Hi, Aaron, and I
Just think we're at a time that we should be stepping up not stepping back
I think the committee process even operations. I mean we've always talked about the strikes and this and the
Interaction with BNSF and UP and other freights and there's so much going on and with LA
Games coming up and the World Cup
We should be more engaged, not less.
And so, you heard me say it before.
We were going down this path.
I wasn't in favor of singling it out and not having it.
And now I think we should be stepping up and showing
that we really care about the system.
If you don't, get off the board.
Thank you for that, Director Twombly?
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Just a question to the Chair and then a couple of concerns.
I'm not clear on what you outlined relative to the changes
That you're articulating with respect to the current board officers. I understand you have would have each County
Transportation Commission
Or recommend its own representative for this budget
Yeah, that's that's correct
Are the board officers then so it could be anybody
Any director who is part of that? I
I would like each agency because each agency participates
in its own budgeting for us here to have a representative
of choice, one of the representatives,
not somebody outside of the board,
and not necessarily limited to our chair and vice chair.
It might be a different person that the agency would prefer.
Could be, coincidentally, one of our officers on there.
OK.
And I understand it's not an ego-driven concern.
A couple of things.
Number one, the process that you are anticipating,
I think, lacks, respectfully, lacks a sense of urgency.
In terms of what we're doing, because what, in effect,
if we adopt this, you're asking the member agencies
to turn around and provide those names,
given their normal meeting schedules,
back to the board within the next 30 to 60 days.
That, to me, conveys a lack of urgency
and in approaching this.
I happen to agree with Director Spiegel on her comments.
I know, don't be too surprised.
No, I'm kidding.
But I do think that there needs to be
a far more robust answer or approach on this.
I would prefer going back to having our committees
from before, I mean I sign on both executive
audit and finance, both of which were very active and both of which covered
the scope, you know, the broader scope of what we've been talking about. So
bottom line is I don't think this is enough. I agree with Director Sandoval
and I'm concerned about the lack of urgency in establishing this
model. Finally, I have no idea what the proposed schedule of this budget
committee would be. And many of us, in fact all of us on this desk I know, have
incredibly jammed calendars. So I'm very concerned that there isn't a more
articulated process in place that's a little more urgent. I happen to agree
with the speakers and I agree with the sense of urgency. So thank you Mr. Chair.
I think if it's authorized it did require a change to the bylaws. That's
that's what's before us.
I would envision that this committee meet monthly
in between our regular board meetings.
So you have a separate look.
Otherwise, you kind of repeat yourself
if in the past the committee meetings
the same day as the board meeting.
I don't think that works.
You need some time.
And I would anticipate calling each agency right away
to their choice to serve on this committee.
understand that there's perhaps been a little bit of distance not having the
regular committee structure and that is that's unfortunate because I agree with
Director Spiegel that the communication that we have on those other committees
is a sense of urgency when we look at that even though it comes back here to
the board later so I so I agree with that but I would not want it to rest
long and then committee needs to kind of see it's self-assembled and I
participate circulating a calendar among those chosen to pick a date that works
best and there may not be a perfect date maybe it needs to meet in an evening
meeting maybe maybe it's a weekend I don't know sort of survey what what's
available. I know we're all busy and we all have heavy calendars but if there's
there's got to be a spot for it somewhere and I don't anticipate it
taking long. It's taken a while because I learned that we had to have a bylaw
change. I wanted to get this going sooner but we weren't able to till we get this
step taken. The other committees that we're talking about reinstating that can
be brought back to another board meeting if additional changes are needed to
reinstate them but that's not before us today. This is just one committee and we
do have a budget issue. I know I'm constantly doing battle with my own
agency and this would be helpful to have this ongoing conversation. It
gives a little more force to the need for financing if we have another look at
And so I need this myself to help me convince my agency to continue its funding.
And I don't know what the rest is.
I do have learned that agencies have different sources of funding to finance us here.
The big problem we have, we don't have a dedicated source of funding.
We have to go out to each of our five agencies, each of which is structured a little bit different,
A little bit of different view and then to come forward hopefully joining in a joint effort
so I
See a light down here director Najarian
Thank you just briefly
I'd like to make sure when we talk about the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee that we include not only audit
Which in many times refers to a look back as to how it's done
But a deep involvement in the budget development process. That's why we're maybe in this issue here
We have bad forecasts for several years on revenues on riderships
I think the board although we had not gotten that deep before now is the time to do that
revenue assumptions ridership
Costs that we usually just get the info from the consultant and take it at face value
Look, that's why we're in some of the problems that we have here. We've got a 15 million dollar goof on this year's budget
Which is much larger than the Metro
Reduction of the 4 million or whatever 3 million that's out there. So this new
committee should be able to get down into the weeds and challenge and understand why the
Assumptions are being made how it's being made and if we agree with it of course with the input from our member agencies because
We have a lot of that data as well
So make sure that's all in there when we talk about the scope of the review
I don't want staff to say well, no we have to take what consultants give us
We should be able to dig in and say hey pull back the curtain. Why are you making this assumption? Thank you
Thank you agree with that
Go ahead director Sandoval. I'll just be brief
Just because I want to make sure that we're clear because a number of directors
indicated the urgency
my understanding
chair that this
Committee would meet as soon as June
We're obviously here at the tail end of May
The urgency is real right part of this whole discussion is really about
the proposed cuts from both
OCTA and in Metro
So I want to make sure that we tackle this as quickly as possible
So that we're not waiting until July to have this discussion and conversation. So am I to understand that correctly?
That's my intention. I think that's just want to make sure Lord. Great. Thank you
I saw director Walker. Thank you mr. Chair. Um, doesn't I'm just for a council doesn't nurture the ability to point and ad hoc committee
for the duration of this particular budget that doesn't have to go through
bylaw correct the chair does have your authority to appoint an ad hoc committee
but that would be limited to not attaining a quorum I guess I'm just
saying that it would be more expedient they can didn't call an ad hoc with a
limited duration of this particular budget session correct he can do that he
could although it would be limited again by membership because of the quorum
requirements. Meaning you couldn't have three agencies or six votes on an ad hoc.
You can use an ad hoc pursuant to the Brown Act, though, can't you?
And that would be a committee of the whole, apparently. Under our rules,
the ad hoc, as it's been practiced previously, has been limited to not
attaining a quorum of the full board. Don, am I right about that? That's correct, an
ad hoc has to be something less than a quorum once you trigger quorum you now
have a standing committee you have a fully formal Brown Act meeting so to
avoid that you have to have less than a quorum which restricts the representation of this
board as to the ad hoc committee. You can pose an ad hoc committee meeting as you would for a
Brown Act meeting and we've seen that done before where the committee is
considered a committee in its whole which means it pretty much represents
the whole board. I'm just trying more expedient way and urgent way to put this
together. Maybe if our rules our policies and
biologists are restricted in state law maybe that's the case but I know state
law disallow an ad hoc to meet in its whole subject to the Brown Act. If the
chair decides to appoint an ad hoc in the interim before the first meeting of
the full standing committee I think the idea is that the full standing would
meet this second Friday of June so that's within the next two or three
weeks. In the meantime if the chair wants to appoint an ad hoc you have the
authority to do that but again it has to be less than a quorum of this board
and that's a requirement under our bylaws that's sort of where I started
was looking at doing a ad hoc but it turned out because of our voting
requirements that I couldn't get full representation of all the agencies if I
I went that way.
For example, Metro has two votes on things.
So Metro and one other agency would be all I could do,
if Metro included.
And they're a major funder.
They've got to be part of that.
Or I might have three single voting agencies represent.
I couldn't get the representation
I needed to get all the board involved in it.
So I went through that process.
And this is what we need, I think,
is where we all join in.
I want every agency represented.
And this will do it.
That's why we went this route.
So I see more lights.
Brian's been waiting the longest.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Brian.
I was blinded by my light.
It was so close.
Well, I know where I need to focus, so anyway.
Apparently the bad side or the good side?
All right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am not going to pull the I'm going to repeat everything because everybody said things,
you know, that we all have been feeling, but I'm going to make a couple of comments.
When we were doing the prior committee structure, if you recall, the first go-around, the meeting
meetings were an hour, an hour, and an hour, and then we shortened up to 45
minutes, 45 minutes, 45 minutes, and I will just say, as the chair of the
Finance and Audit and Finance Committee, I felt pressured to get us from A to Z
within that 45 minute period, but I can guarantee you that we could have
definitely gotten more into the weeds on some major issues and we didn't have
time so if we're limiting to this one committee and we can actually have a
meeting that gives us the timing so we're not rushed and you know pushing
then I think we will get a lot more out of it that's just you know in the first
place and and I think it's so important right now that we we have no choice but
focus on this. I can only say this from the perspective of Riverside County, you
know, when when we first heard about Orange County reducing their funding, you
know, most, you know, almost all the lines that Metrolink has go into Union
Station, so, you know, Orange County, okay, that's going to affect some things. It
affects one of our lines in Riverside County, but not the bulk of the system.
But then LA came in and said we're also going to reduce a little and now all of a sudden
we're talking about a permanent 40% reduction of service and you have to ask yourself wow
Riverside's willing to pay more this year because we want more service.
I'm not sure about Ventura and San Bernardino but the point is simply that when one agency
agency in our system, especially LA, has by whatever choice or reason or justification
is reducing funding, and as even the public commenters have spoken, we have no set source
of funding. It's member agencies. That's it. That's where we get our money. When one
agency pulls the plug a little bit, it has a ripple effect on every single other county.
To get into the budget process, to get a budget analysis done where we can understand what
other counties are thinking ahead of time and figure out the struggles to come up with
good solutions, I think this is an important starting point.
I think we really need to get into the weeds on it.
I would say I absolutely respect the decision that the five member agencies can appoint
a member, but I would also say this, because I think of the urgency, if we go with what
you had originally put in here, just like the old executive committee with the clause
that any member agency can swap out a member at its will, is that something we could do
and live with so that at the end of the day it is up to the member agency if they want
to swap somebody, but at least this way we already have a first meeting ready to go.
Is that something that we can legally do and is the board okay to do that?
And then the last thing I just was curious about, is this committee going to be one mandatory
in person?
Is there going to be a Zoom type structure where you could call in or not?
I wasn't quite sure how the goal of this was,
and I wanted to kind of get more clarity.
Thank you.
If I may, I think that's a good suggestion.
That is a real domain, that we start with that structure,
with the ability of an agency to choose someone else
along the line.
I think that would be fine with me when they start that way.
As to your other question, I think our legal counsel
would need to answer that.
I think that if you have this structure
and you put a clause that says unless and until a member
agency designates a different representative,
you could certainly do that.
That'll get us started right away, I think.
We still have the meeting time to consider
among that the structure of Zoom or not
was that other question you had.
So I'm not sure what the legal structure
is whether we need to have a quorum present, for example,
or whether we could all zoom, because it is a public meeting.
It would be subject to the same rules
that we would have to observe for a virtual meeting,
if it is virtual, which I believe it is envisioned to be.
That would make the attendance easier.
Mr. Del Rio.
Yes, the board would follow the traditional Brown Act
teleconferencing requirements, which
Which means every director from their remote location would provide to Michelle that location
and it would appear on the agenda.
So you could have these meetings conducted remotely as you used to done that in the past
under those traditional teleconferencing requirements.
Simply posting a location on the agenda and participating from that remote location.
So that means everyone would need to post where you are at when you take the Zoom.
We do that then there's the other issue of public comment. How would we accomplish that if we're all zoom?
Michelle would designate a
central location where the meeting would be administered where staff would participate there and the public could
participate from that location and again the public has the right to participate from whatever remote location is designated by the
particular director
So that that can be handled that way
Yes
Oh, thank you for that. You know, as a new member here and
Now I'm a little perplexed as to where we're at today, you know, we're talking about urgencies or talking about
It's hard for me to understand how we even got here but obviously we are here meant to
understand or listen to the fact that the proposed reductions for metro and
ROCTA somehow inherited now is that there's a reduction of services. I think
it's pretty premature to put out any type of messaging of that nature, and that's
happening such a short period of time. I want to point that out. What I do want to
recommend is, as was stated by Director Sandoval, is we look at issues of
forecasting. We have issues of lack of reserves. We have issues of maintenance
of operations, regardless of what we call this committee
and how we structure it, I do want to stress
that we do get into the weeds, and the only way to get
into the weeds is for us to do an internal audit.
So I just want to stress that out, and hopefully that comes
out of this committee recommendation for this vote.
Thank you.
Thank you.
That's Director Spiegel and Director MacCallo.
Yes, we're talking about these audits and everything.
Those have been around for a while.
Ari's walking at the door.
Lopner, McCallum.
We had internal on it.
We had some real serious challenges.
Right now, it's not a challenge of mishandling.
But when we keep on top of it, there's less opportunity
for things to go wrong.
One clarification, we keep doing this to Orange County and LA.
Yeah, we're not happy.
but it's not the only piece of the shortage.
We have to make sure we're not pointing fingers.
That's not a fair game to play.
There's more issues that we have to look at.
I think we need to start being more open.
I think Eli made some great points.
I think he can share some with us,
maybe individually or whatever.
I know Kathy's sitting there laughing about it,
but some of us like to think
that some of our constituents
really may have some good ideas,
and we have to be open to hearing them.
Because we've got a bigger problem than just today.
And we have to forecast and look out for future.
And I've said it before, if we're looking at service cuts,
you're putting the first nail in the coffin.
Because we still haven't recovered from COVID.
And this will going backwards rather than forwards.
So we got to figure out really what's best for the system
as a whole and long term.
And when we start going backwards,
we're gonna all pay that price,
and that's why we have to step up now.
And if you're not got the energy or desire,
maybe you need to replace yourself on this board.
And I'm not saying anybody, I'm not pointing anybody,
but the energy has to go forward.
We have to get more diligent, and not just the budget.
There's all kinds of things that go into this.
That's why I did not wanna stop the committees
at a time we were starting to decline.
I think we need to just be more aggressive
and not have the time, like you were saying,
every 45 minutes there was a new meeting
and not be cut off because of the time
when you're digging in the weeds,
you gotta have the time to dig.
And I realize it's staff time,
but you know what, I wanna keep all the staff.
And if we don't do the diligence necessary,
we're gonna start losing staff,
we're gonna start losing a lot more in this organization.
I just think we have to be willing to step forward.
I have a mixed feeling on the structure.
You know, if you've got your chair, your vice chair,
the organization has already determined
who's the succession in the lineage of chair.
So we've already chosen Bergson for being the next one,
Chafee was chosen by Orange County,
and so we've already done that.
So now, you know, I'm not sure if we really need
to spend so much time on that,
other than maybe getting those other committees operations
and, you know, other committees
so that we could all have a part in it
rather than just saying there's one single person
from the organization.
When we all play a part in the bigger picture,
I see the value of that connection.
I keep saying, we're not as connected as we were.
We come to one board meeting, we hear all this,
and as you've heard in the conversation,
some of the information isn't even right
when we come back to the board meeting.
So we need just to have the engagement.
And I think engagement happens on,
even if it's Zoom, I'm not a Zoom fan,
but it's harder to get people
because you gotta allow for travel time,
The time in the meeting, and we were talking about 30 minutes
or 15 minutes, whatever you were saying,
we can have engagement and conversation.
I like in person better, but you know,
if we're gonna get people to connect,
I don't care how we do it.
We just need to get it done, and we need to have regular,
we need to be open to hearing changes,
because there's not one answer.
One answer's not gonna fix our problem.
I mean, there may be some great pitfall
of the $30 million coming from the sky,
but what's better about next year?
We have to look at longevity and we can't just say,
fix it now.
We have to fix the problem but plan for future.
Director McKellum.
Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chair.
I'm supportive of what you're trying to do.
And in light of what Supervisor Spiegel said,
the agencies have already decided
who should represent them on this board.
And the members of this committee
need to be representatives from this board.
And so I, you know, I've caucused with my other permanent member
and decided that I'm going to be the representative.
And I'm sure the rest of the board members can do that.
And we can get this committee started.
OK.
Mr. Chair, can I just, I want to respond.
And I agree with you, Karen, 100%.
But I also feel that staff needs to step up and do their job.
We're not staffed.
We are reacting to what is brought to us.
So I agree with you 100%.
There is no question that LA County, Metro,
needs to work more collaboratively with Metrolink.
But Metrolink needs to work more collaboratively
and transparent with Metro.
It's a two-way street.
But I look to staff both at Metro as well as MetroLink
to do their job.
And if they're not doing their job,
then we've got a problem.
So I hear you, but I think our job
is to make sure that's being done.
100% and that's problematic on several levels.
We shouldn't have to micromanage.
That's what we have a director, that's what we have a CEO,
That's what we have staff to do
So I do agree with you
That's what calendar light is on. Do you have any more comments?
No, I
Forgot to turn it off
See any lights on besides mine. I
Think starting this committee with the committee structure is fine. I won't be here next year. So I might like to
Have someone that can have a longer life in my place
There I'm termed out of my super physario position, so
So I would like that option I feel it if me it's strategic
to convince my agency
to not cut so I kind of need to juggle the players a little bit and
That's why I'm looked at and the cut to speak talk about has not been approved by the OCT a board
That's a recommendation. It's gone through a committee, but it's not been decided by the board
And so I'm arguing quite the contrary and I don't know how far I'll get
so
This is helpful to me. I may use the word politically speaking
so my suggestion is the adoption by
Vice-chair Bergson here that we start the committee with our regular
accepted committee
Representation, but we allow a substitution as we go
On the agency of they may have a choice and if I can get the right choice
It will help me with my board. Oh CTA does not have a revenue issue
It's more of a policy question
with that
Do we have a motion to do anything?
Mr. Chairman, could I please try and recite
what where I think the board is so we have a clear,
I got my pen out a few minutes ago,
to avoid having to come back next month
and approve it and lose a month.
If we could just decide now and the board passed that,
then it could become effective June 1st.
So the new committee, the Budget Finance and Audit Committee,
perhaps, with what I would call plenary jurisdiction,
we could say that it has jurisdiction over any matter
that could be considered by the full board.
So we take the limitations off.
It starts with the executive committee membership
with a caveat that says, unless a member agency designates
Otherwise in terms of membership is that is that it?
Yes, I like it. So let's test it. May I have a motion? Um, I'll second
Any objection to any of that? All right
It passes. Thank you all for thank you discussion
as to additional committees
We might want to talk about that at our next meeting and if you want to reestablish some committee like vector Spiegel
I think is suggesting that we do we can talk about that, but it's not a gen dies for today
It's not a gen dies for today, but I'd like the gen dies for the next meeting, okay
got it
Okay, now
We have our capital budget item to be resented by Christine Wilson
Good morning, Tim. The chair chaffy and members of the board
This is item number 7B, and it's a request
to transmit the FY27 Metrolin capital budget
to the member agencies for their review and adoption.
Next slide.
Under the terms of the joint exercise of power agreement,
the authority is required to adopt a budget
for the succeeding fiscal year,
no later than June 30th of this year.
This year, the staff is bifurcating the operating
and capital portions of the proposed FY27 budget.
We have requested a continuing resolution
for the operating budget and are requesting approval
of a separate transmittal of the FY27 capital budget.
The capital budget contains two sections,
the state of good repair and new capital.
The proposed FY27 budget presented here was developed
based on the MetroLink Rehabilitation Plan, MRP,
which was created in fulfillment
of the Federal Transit Asset Management TAM requirement,
and to address the authority's SGR needs.
The FY27 target budget is presently an increase
to the state of good repair, is intended to prevent an increase
to the state of good repair backlog.
It does not address any of the backlog itself.
It is only for current things, so it's not to increase the backlog.
The new capital authorization request for 27 was identified as necessary for the safe
and efficient rail operations and business processes.
So for 27, the state of good repair budget totals 152.1 million, an increase from FY26
of 14.6 million, or 11%.
The new capital requests for FY27 is 10.9 million,
a decrease from FY26 of 7.5 million or a 41% decrease.
Next slide.
This slide shows the state of good repair request
by member agency.
Next slide.
Here is the new capital request by member agency.
Next slide.
This pie chart shows the proportion
of the entire capital program, both SGR and new capital,
requested from each member agency.
Next slide.
On this slide, you see the comparison
of each member agency's contribution
to the capital program this year compared to last year.
Your packet contained a detailed listing of the projects,
both state of good repair and new capital,
for which funding is requested in this budget.
detailed individual sheets describing the scope
of those projects were also included.
Next slide.
It is recommended that the board approve transmission
of the FY27 Metrolin capital budget
to the member agencies for their review and approval.
Upon approval of the capital budget by member agencies,
staff will provide the proposed staff,
Staff will provide, will present the FY27 capital budget
to the Scrob board of directors for the adoption
at the June 2026 meeting.
That includes my report.
May I answer any questions?
Thank you.
Do we have a question?
Director Parger.
Thank you.
On this, how much opportunity was afforded
to the member agency staff or through the MAC
to review and discuss the request is before us?
We sent this out, I believe last week.
I think that was as soon as it was completed.
But typically, isn't it discussed at MAC?
Is that normal procedure?
Because I'm told that it was rushed through,
and they didn't get an opportunity to meet and talk
about.
It was pretty recommended.
And if I could, so as we've wrestled
Director Barger with the operating budget
and its challenges, we have historically,
this is somewhat of an unprecedented action
in that we would be bifurcating the capital and the operating.
So we have been deep into the discussion
on the operating budget.
At the last board meeting, I believe, there was a request.
Well, can we move forward with a capital budget,
because that's separate from that.
So in response to this board's request
to move forward with the capital budget,
we bifurcated them and brought it.
so it has not seen its normal level of vetting
through the MAC, because we've simply,
we've made the decision to separate the two
and bring this ahead of the operating budget.
Given the challenges, wouldn't you want to be
more transparent and have it go through, Matt?
Oh, it's certainly not a lack of wanting to be transparent.
I mean, this action right here is transmitting
the capital budget to the member agencies.
If we get to the point where we have not
had adequate vetting with the member agencies,
and we may very well find ourselves in that boat,
that we will look at an adoption,
not at the June board meeting, but at a future board
meeting for the capital budget.
That is not the thing that's going to challenge.
Well, there's a lot of things that challenges.
But that's not going to be the biggest issue.
If it rolls into the month of July for approval,
that is something that certainly can be accommodated.
Because I know Metro has expressed concern about the fact
that they didn't have an opportunity
for it to go through MAC.
I don't know that the other agencies are concerned,
but I'm just echoing concerns that our agency brought up.
I would, Director Barger, I would imagine
that LA Metro staff is not alone in that concern.
We were trying to, again, trying to be responsive of our MAC,
usually meets the very first week of the month,
So the board requested that we advance capital.
We had already had to gen dies the MAC meeting.
So we're operating in a very compressed time frame.
So do you communicate with the different agencies,
executive directors, like Stephanie or anyone,
on things like this so that we don't find out
that it bypassed MAC?
There's a lot of communication with all the member agency
executives.
I am trying to recall, in this case,
if there was communication.
But what we did say is that we would be bifurcating
the capital budget, and that was communicated.
I don't think we had a chance to talk about
that it was going to make it to the MAC.
So if, and I'm just asking,
if I was to ask that it be delayed a month
so that the MAC could convene on it,
would that impact?
It does not.
We would just end up, other than we have public hearing,
it will not impact service.
The capital budget, but we have noticing requirements
for hearings and that kind of thing.
I'm getting from our board clerk this evil eye about that.
So we have some process things that we have to deal with,
but we'll deal with process things.
I don't wanna impact, I mean, I wanna know
if it's gonna have a negative impact.
What is the negative impact going to be
other than inconveniencing staff?
It doesn't even inconvenience staff.
What is a negative if it were to be continued a month
so that the MAC could convene?
I do not see a negative.
Again, we were trying to do this.
I don't want to have unintended consequences
of a continuance be something that we didn't know.
No, I don't just opinion.
I don't think it would be a problem.
Although, you know, we're late.
Usually, when we transmit the budget, especially
the capital budget, it ends up recognizing
we can't approve it until the member agencies do.
So those, what are usually two months,
allow a time for the member agencies and the MAC
to look at the capital budget and the regular budget
for that two-month period and decide
Whether they want any changes to so what I'm hearing is if it was approved today
There's still time for the Mac to review because it's got to go to the member agency. Yes, okay
Mr. Sam I saw director McCall is laying on first
Thank you very much similar concern
obviously
if we
Move forward our board meeting doesn't meet until June and we would
Have to come back in July to prove it potentially so because it hasn't gone through Mac
June is not going to happen as far as this board approving it so I agree with
The supervisor that we either send it back to Mac or we we have additional time to look at it at the member agencies
Director Sandoval I was just gonna say the same thing that Larry just said I agree more eyes
Seeing it in the different agencies MAC. I think is a good thing so so I would recommend we delay it
Continue it to the next meeting
Mr.. Chair if I could I mean it I could and
Council correct me if I'm wrong, but if staff can just pull the item from discussion
And we readjust reagendize it for our next board meeting
Then I don't know that a board action would be required because staff has pulled the item for the purposes of action
Either way, you could pull the item or just motion to for it to next month and continue
Yeah, I mean I would then move just to continue to month
Make it clean rather than the having you have to pull it back
Just under discussion so does that mean it's now going to go to the Mac
I just want to clarify, because that wasn't clear.
Certainly.
So the whole, so yes, director, it will go to the MAC.
Again, the nature of this transmittal
was we had a month, too.
So anybody that would suggest that MAC members, member
agency, they have seen this as of Friday of last week.
Now, that is not a lot of time, and this was the transmittal.
And we'd have another month before we adopted it.
But it is out there, and it is available.
Will be agendized as a formal item though on the next Mac agenda
Yes again good morning
Aero service provides diesel multiple unit
Transportation over a nine-mile corridor from San Bernardino downtown to Redlands University and approved budget is reduced
required to provide funding for this service for FY27.
This service is funded solely by SBCTA.
Next slide.
The FY27 budget for ARRO was constructed
using the current ARRO service schedule,
plus one additional round trip LAUS to Redlands,
revenue and ridership based on the newest
Sperry Capital KPMG forecast.
no fair increases, student youth discount of 50%,
and contractor increases only as contractually mandated.
Now, please note that the arrow service levels
are interdependent with Metrolinx service levels,
due to, for instance, the desire for convenient connections.
Three services scenarios are being considered for Metrolinx,
each having a distinct impact to Arrow service.
Once a final scenario is selected for Metrolink,
it is possible that we will come back
with a mid-year budget adjustment
to make any necessary adjustments to the Arrow budget.
Next slide.
Next slide.
Now, as it currently stands,
the operating revenue is 0.6 million,
a decrease from the FY26 budget of 0.1 million,
for 11.8%, total expense of 18.8 million,
an increase from the FY26 budget of 0.6 million or 3.3%,
number agency support of 18.2 million,
an increase from the FY26 budget of 0.7 million or 3.9%.
Next slide.
This slide shows the change in operating expense,
FY 24 through this FY 27 budget.
Next slide.
This slide shows operating revenues FY 24 through FY 27.
The severe drop in 26 and 27 was due to the ending
of the student adventure pass programming.
Next slide.
Next we have the capital program.
For FY27, it's proposed that a capital program only state
of good repair to be in the amount of .5 million.
This is the same amount as was requested last year.
Next slide.
This slide shows arrow capital programs from, capital programs
from FY24 through FY27 stacks up the state
of good repair and the new capital.
Next slide.
Now, this slide shows each of them separate,
The capital, the new capital separate from SGR.
Next slide.
Staff recommends the board of directors approve the
transmittal of the FY26-27 budget for aero services
to San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
for their review and adoption.
Upon SBCTA adoption, staff will provide the,
and present the final FY27 aero budget
to the SCROB Board of Directors for adoption
at the June 2026 meeting.
That concludes my report.
May I answer any questions?
Mr. Chair.
Yes, Director McMillan.
As with previous comment, our board meeting isn't until June.
Any chance of having it come back to this board in June
is not going to happen.
It'll be July.
Are you suggesting a need to this be continued as well?
I'm not sure it needs to be continued
since it's totally funded by SBCTA,
but I just wanted to make sure,
understand that we will not have it back here
for approval until at least July, if not later.
So I need to speak with Mr. Shamber, CFO,
Christine, you can chime in.
So fiscal year ends June 30.
We did not do, again, once again,
we were trying to, because Arrow was more or less ready
to proceed without the Metrolink operating budget,
we've advanced this one to this meeting.
We did not take an action on a continuing resolution
that authorizes continual ongoing spending
into the next fiscal year.
So we may have to figure out how we address that
and I don't have an answer for that yet.
Director McAllan, I hear what you're saying,
but we will need to figure out how we might do that.
We may very well be able to take an action
adopting our budget, the MetroLink version
of the Aero budget, pending action on the part
of SBCTA and its approval, but let me do what I can
to work with SBCTA staff to figure out
how we get this into alignment.
concerned about postponing it or only only because we run into the fiscal year
issue and we need to be off we need budget authorization to pay our bills in
July so let me do some work on that approval mr. chair got a comment okay go
ahead comment I'm reading this and it talks about de moos this also includes
emu I know we have both of the yes you're all specific on demus and not
Z moves, so I just want to make sure it's the same budget. Thank you. Okay. Thank you
By the way, we're buying three more Z moves
Second okay, and that motion is to approve transmittal. I understand it for the staff recommendation
All right any objection to that?
Seeing none it is approved and
Christine you're not done yet. I think you know next item starting to feel like the bad penny
So this is item 17, a forecast to year end.
Each year, once staff have reviewed
the actual financial results through the third quarter,
a survey is made of each cost center for each line item
to gather what that cost center believes will be spent
in the last three months of the year.
Here are the results for MetroLink.
Next slide.
Forecast operating revenue is 63.2 million
under budget by 13.7 million or 17.8%.
The farebox revenue came in at 14.8 under budget,
very close to the refreshed forecast from Sperry Capital.
Expenses are forecast at 333.7 million,
18.7 million or 5.3% under budget.
Forecasted member agency support required
is 270.4 million in surplus by 5.1 million
for 1.8% favorable to budget.
Categories significantly under budget
and the cause are as follows.
Insurance and legal under by 3.1 million.
A portion of this is better rates
and you will recall that the board requested
legal to budget enough to cover at least some level of possible settlements that might come up.
Fuel, under by 2.7 million.
Our hedge program has put us in a very favorable position.
We are currently hedged out all the way till October.
Indirect administrative, under by 2.4.
Less was spent on the items comprising overhead.
And there was also an approved change to the amount
that we assigned to capital.
It became larger.
MOW line segments is under by 2.0,
but that's a variance of only 4%.
Station maintenance, under by 2 million.
This is because plans for Union Station Common Area maintenance,
which were planned, but were deferred.
And so they never occurred.
Operations non-labor is under by 1.3 million.
And that's the result of vacancies in the,
what am I looking for?
You know the train thing that stops the trains from,
PTC, excuse me, wouldn't come.
PTC.
Okay, Christine. It's been a long morning
So it's under by 1.3 million because
PTC people are very difficult to find and so even though we needed them
It was impossible to find them and those were vacancies there and things left undone that we couldn't do
Okay
TVM maintenance revenue collection
Under by point nine million lower revenue yielded lower commission payments on ticket sales
Next slide Christine before you go into the next slide. I just want to call attention to the third bullet on this slide
There has been much said over the course of the last several months about surplus and how we have
surplus that goes out and and that
That well, what's that all about? And again, this is a year-end financial outlook of what we expect to be at the end of this
fiscal year of a surplus of 5.1 million dollars or 1.8 percent that would be quote-unquote returned back to member agencies
For the purposes of our operating budget. We will have budgeted this year within 1.8 percent of what this board adopted in the first place
I've mentioned this at least on three different occasions that we get challenged over the fact that we have surplus
but I challenge any agency to go back and look at this and have that same
result of 1.8 million on a 1.8 percent on a 300 million dollar budget. So now if
we had the 15 million dollars in unrealized fair revenue that actually
came in and it goes back to director Najarian's remark about the unrealized
fair revenue that was a whiff or an oops because of the forecasting that number
would be larger, but if we didn't have that, we would be at risk of potentially having
to go back to member agencies at the end of the year and say, we need just a little bit
more to finish our way out.
So that is the, I'll call it tension or tenuousness of how our budgeting works and how surplus
can sometimes play out in our world where you have no reserve and no dedicated revenue
stream.
Thank you, Christine.
Please continue and keep your eye on the time.
OK, yeah.
So this slide shows the variance of budget.
OK, we just over the last three years.
The large variance in 24 is the result
of the student adventure pass.
We were unsure of funds for the program, so it was not budgeted.
FY25 is off by only 3.4%.
As in 26, as we know, our forecast for revenue was too optimistic.
Next, here you see the operating expenses, budget versus actual, 24 through 26.
As you see, FY24 was under budget by 7.2%, FY25 under budget by 5.3,
and 26 is forecast to be under budget by 5.3.
Next slide.
This one had budgeted support versus actual, and as you can see,
FY 24 was under by 12.9, 25 was 5.7, and 26 is estimated to be under budget by 1.8.
A complete forecasted FY 26, MetroLink operating budget is in your packet for review.
Next, we have ARO total forecasted revenue is 544,554,000 under budget by 145,000
Total forecasted expenses are $15.6 million under budget by 2.7 or 14.5%.
Next slide.
Forecasted members surplus is 2.5 or 14.3% favorable to budget.
Major categories in expense, and you can see those, I'll just move on.
Next slide, this slide shows aero revenue budget versus actual.
I must have, okay, operating expenses for 25 and 26, FY25 was under 1.6 or 8.9% and 26
was under 2.7 or 14.5.
Next slide, here's the operating surplus that you see here, one a year compared to
The next, the reason that you see that that's so big
is because Arrow greatly benefited
from the student adventure pass.
And I want to mention that a complete forecasted
FY26 Arrow operating statement is in your packet
for your review.
Next slide.
That concludes my report.
May I answer any questions?
Director, is there any questions?
I have some questions.
Go ahead.
So, Chris, I mean, to the point that Darrin made.
It's not that there is a surplus that bothers me.
What bothers me is that that surplus
can't be used for the following year.
So I don't know what it's going to take between either Metro,
our agency, but Metro isn't dying for that money
to claw it back.
They're not going to say, you owe us money plus interest.
Metro has budgeted that money. There's a surplus money. There's got to be some
Agreement or protocol that it needs to be returned. But in this year's situation Metro is saying we're gonna cut you
Whatever it is four million four point two million. Is it four or three or four four million?
There's no reason why that surplus can't be just moved over into this fiscal year. So whatever it takes to be done
I don't have the answer for that. But it just is logic that that's how Metro
and perhaps the other agencies should work with Metrolinx.
So, you know, the board has crunched it, Metro board.
This is what we're going to pay.
It's like a refund that you, Metro doesn't really need it,
but it's certainly very important to this agency
in times where we do have a deficit.
So work it out, somehow work it out.
I think that's a good thing to do.
And if I could, Director Najarian.
So based on our records of surplus dollars
that are with Metro's name on it,
somewhere around six and a half to $7 million.
That actually sitting right now,
this is before this number here, so this is prior years,
is somewhere on the order of six to $7 million in surplus
in Metrolinx account with Metro's name on it.
There's a separate amount that we're aware of
over the last six years that has been sent back to Metro,
typically because Metro's asked, we'd like our money back,
and that's somewhere on the order of 20-something
odd million dollars, maybe a bit more.
So there is surplus dollars out there that are treated
different ways.
Yes, you said work it out, we will work it out.
20 million coming back to Metro is,
it's like if it goes back to the general fund
or some other, no, work it out, work it out.
Yes, sir, yeah.
I'm looking over at Metro here.
Sorry, work it out, Cono, yeah.
But when I kept saying that,
was told there's something in the contractual or the JPA or something that
the surplus had to be returned? No there's no such thing in our JPA with
regards to the surplus however when Stephanie was here she did put in place
a board approved policy and designated how she wanted to use those funds and
the board agreed and voted to prove that we keep the surplus and use them for
those specific areas but nothing in the JP that prevents because we have the
request from the member agencies for their for their allocations to be
returned well it seems that members on this board are saying that's stupid so
really we need to go back to our CEOs and find out why we're asking for it
back right is that what you're saying I I think you need to go each year back to
to your counties and straighten that out, yes.
Got it, Ari?
Yeah, no, I completely agree with my colleague.
We're returning the surplus back to the member agencies,
and yet we find ourselves in a deficit.
And typically, you forecast this.
And I know that I have to admit that I have concerns with KPMG
and Sperry who had forecast and were off considerably.
They're gonna be doing the forecast again
as I understand it.
So my question is if we know that there's
an anticipated deficit,
why are we required to give back
the dollars to the member agency in this case,
I'm just thinking of Metro,
when you need those dollars for the next year?
If we have surplus, and it's able to,
and again, each of it is by member agency,
we know how much that is, and we could retain that
for purposes of budgeting for a future year,
that does relieve some of the other pressure.
But it has been Director Sandoval,
the request of member agencies in many cases,
in most cases, for it to be returned.
I couldn't agree more.
What was the word that word you used, Karen?
Stupid, yeah, I think you said stupid, right?
No, it just, it seems to me that if we're anticipating
or forecasting and we rely on outside consultants
and I don't know how much that has,
I have concerns with that, right,
as opposed to staff also doing that work.
But it seems to me that it's,
we shouldn't find ourselves in this situation,
particularly when you're having to give back money every year.
That's all I'm saying.
I heard from your colleague,
something along go fix it or something to that effect we will thank you for that
thank you director McCallum thank you it is stupid as long as the agency doesn't
inflate the budget so that generates a huge surplus that you want to keep a
hold for the following year and obviously there needs to be some
control over that amount whatever it is go fix it thank you mr. Chair so when we
talk about the surplus is this I mean what is the bulk reason we have
surplus is it have to do with when trains are an old or you know we have
strikes and trains aren't moving and we're saving money on fuel and maybe
employees time or is there some other basis that has accumulated all this
money. It can be those factors, it can be vacancies in the agency, I mean again if
we're talking 1.8% or whatever that number was of the overall operating
budget, that's a very modest amount. It may be something where, one more example,
we always pay, we budget for insurance well in advance of having to actually
purchase insurance.
So if we're able to get some decent rates,
then we end up with a bit of savings on the insurance side.
So it's going to be those types of factors.
Where we may see some additional savings
is there may be some reduced fuel costs.
There's a variety of factors.
But this year in particular, it's going to be much tighter.
But those are the opposite.
And one of the things we are proposing
to fix in our budget next year for FY26-27 is historically this agency budgeted for personnel,
for staff, at 100 percent of what their range was. Well, not everybody's at 100 percent
of what their range was. So we are making an adjustment to say, oh, we're going to
– so you – so we're going to – we're reducing it to 90 percent of what range is
because we – that would have been inflated to everybody. All Metrolinx staff being at
100% we're not that so that's going to create a cushion in there that needed to
be rectified so we will be doing that in that is part of our next our FY 26 27
budget so things like that that have led the surpluses in the past have been
because of practices in how we've handled the budget and we're fixing that
thank you just get a clarification I don't know if I want to go down this
rabbit hole but I'm going to so you said that 1.8% is pretty much I don't know if
you said norm the standard no no I mean director Barger we are we generally
aim to be around 5% of within the operating budget or so and this is going
to be lower than that so and this is where I may be poking the bear but so at
3% proposed by Metro became catastrophic but yet 5% is what you usually
forecast for I mean I agree with our and I'm gonna talk to Stephanie about just
roll it over but I'm just trying to understand the how 3% became this what
Eli would describe as catastrophic well so the the member agencies reductions
are a third of our overall financial challenge and I've been tried to be
really clear and transparent.
We have other areas that we own.
That 1.8% equated to $5 million, Christine, in round numbers.
So an LA Metro 3% reduction to us is $4.2 million.
That takes up almost all of that surplus,
just because, again, Metro's contributions are so great.
No, I hear you, but I'm just looking at it
from what I think is just common sense.
I mean in terms of the percentages and the impact that the letter writing and the cut
in services and all, and I was just trying to reconcile the surplus with what came
from the 3% recommendation of the cut.
Well, recognize too that that cut is from the 26 budget.
I understand, I understand, I understand.
So 27 budget went up higher, so.
Yeah, I understand.
But the bottom line is, I guess, and I'll just leave it at,
I think we do need to look at carryover, and then we need
to discuss moving forward how we prevent the type of situation
that we have today with both Orange County and Metro
and LA County from reoccurring.
Because your budget is hand in mouth, and it always has been.
And I don't know that I like it, I don't think you like it.
And then, you know, add to that the change in ridership
because you've got people on these hybrid work schedules
that are no longer taking Metrolink the way they did
pre-COVID.
So I just think that we need to strategize on that as well.
Thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Seeing no more lights on, this is a receive and file item.
And thank you for the discussion, directors.
Very, very helpful.
And thank you, Christine, for all of those items.
Okay, now we come to contract amendment
with San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.
And, Hillary, you're on.
Good morning.
So, next slide, please.
The current contract with San Bernardino Sheriff's Department
expires June 30th, 2026.
Staffs requesting the board authorize an amendment
Extending the contract expiration date to June 30th
2027 the cost to extend the period of performance for this contract for one year is four million five hundred and fifty nine
thousand two hundred and sixty nine dollars
the amendment also includes
Updates to the cost of providing law enforcement services due to increases to salary and benefits in the amount of four hundred and forty three thousand
four hundred and twenty seven dollars
through June 30th 2026
The San Bernardino Sheriff's Department
provides law enforcement services to all trains platforms facilities operating within the Metro link territory
They also are a significant role player in implementing our FIFA World Cup security operations plan protecting our infrastructure and
Ensuring public safety for tens of thousands of fans expected to participate in the World Cup events
next slide, please
so it's recommended or it's recommended that the board authorize the chief executive officer to
amend contract number SP594-23 to incorporate San Bernardino Sheriff's Department's FY26
salary increases, and the amendment will extend the contract's period of performance through
June 30th, 2027 and increase the contract authority by $5,262,696 for a new total not
to exceed amount of $16,347,995.
directors questions motion approval oh sorry go ahead thanks Hillary and first
of all I think the service we get from San Bernardino County Sheriff's
Department just like the service from LA County Sheriff's Department is
exceptionally good but I have a couple of questions on this item and the same
can I ask some similar questions on 7f with regard to this item have the as the
portion of the contract amendment attributable to FIFA security then
quantified in other words the differential attributable to FIFA
security we have not well so I wasn't able to discern it from the staff report
yeah no so we are we have not received any additional officers from Sam or I'm
sorry through the FIFA organization for San Bernardino so we are just utilizing
same staff that we currently have. We're just going to redeploy them based on
ridership volumes and security risks. Are we going to pay overtime? We will most likely and we
will track those expenses but we can work on that. So we don't know as we are
sitting here today what the amount of that differential is going to be? No we
will track it but we don't know today. We don't know presently. Correct. So on the
back end after the event is concluded we would then hopefully be able to discern
what that is. Correct. Have there been any outside funds federal or state or even
FIFA received from FIFA for event related security? We just did receive $157,000
for additional security officers and some barricades from the FEIF
organization through LASEC. And additionally, LASEC has funded the,
this is again, this is the LA County side of things, not the San Bernardino
County side of things, so this is a San Bernardino County item, but Director
Tremblay, on the LA side, the Los Angeles Sports Entertainment
Commission has funded LA County sheriffs to the tune of 30 deputies
devoted to the Metrolink system, so it is coming through federal government
through LASEC and they are funding it and they're dedicated to our service.
Then there's a separate bucket of money that we've gotten modest amount that
will provide some private security that we will be able to fund from those other organizations.
And I'm just asking the questions.
I would like to know at some point,
and I would appreciate a report back to the board,
of exactly what those costs are or have been,
and whether or not any of our agencies
have been left holding the bag for them.
Because I have the same concern relative to DELE 28.
You know I have not been a potted plant
with respect to that particular issue.
Same issue with respect to FIFA, Hilary,
and I'm not picking on you.
No, I understand.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
More questions.
I see none.
May I have a motion?
Who did?
Who did second any objection?
Seeing none, the item is approved.
Thank you.
I didn't catch.
I heard one ear and the other ear.
McCallum, I think, seconded.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Sorry, I got two first.
OK, our next item is the LA Sheriff.
And you're on again.
Thank you.
Next slide.
So the current contract with Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department expires June 30, 2026.
This contract includes two one-year options.
The first option was exercised on July 1, 2025.
Staff is requesting board authorization
to exercise option two, extending the contract
expiration date to June 30th, 2027.
Again, LASD provides law enforcement services
on Metrolink system on a day-to-day basis.
LASD also plays a significant role
in implementing our FIFA World Cup security operations plan,
protecting our infrastructure, and ensuring public safety
for tens of thousands of fans expected to participate
in the World Cup.
Next slide, please.
So it's recommended that the Board authorize
the Chief Executive Officer to amend contract number SP545-22
with Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
for law enforcement services to exercise option two
through June 30th, 2027,
and increase the contract authority
in the amount of $4,333,986,
increasing the total contract authority
from $53,816,490
to $58,150,476.
Thank you.
Director's questions.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Are these contracts scalable in that
if there is the potential for a service reduction,
can these contracts be modified?
They can.
And what I wanted to just mention on that,
so when we increased service, when
Metrolink increased service, we didn't accept or request
more law enforcement officers.
So we're still operating at the same staffing levels
with law enforcement as we have, you know,
pre-COVID and after COVID with the Metrolink reimagined.
With that being said, we were also able, I mean,
we've reduced crime down by 51% over the last year.
So, but they are scalable and if services cut, we do look at,
you know, we'll look at redeployment
and if there is any reductions that we can take.
Questions? I don't see any is, oh, no, of course.
All right, Director Segal.
We will look at any deductions we could take.
Right, reductions in service with law enforcement.
And the reason why I stated it that way is
because even though we're not,
we're reducing service operation of our trains,
we still have a requirement to secure the right-of-way.
We have a lot of trespassers, a lot of unhoused
that are along the right-of-way,
which we spend a lot of time in working with.
So, you know, we do fair enforcement, so there are a lot
of activities that even though the trains are reduced,
they're still providing those services.
You just made it sound like, well, we may or may not.
No, I apologize.
No. If it's a fair reduction, then it's a fair reduction.
And if it's fair to pay and continue, that's fine.
I just thought that was like, we may.
We will.
I had dr. Tranley. Thank You mr. Chair so Hillary I think Darren has answered
at least part of this question but with respect to this specific contract
amendment has the portion of the amendments attributable to the FIFA
event been quantified? No again not not to date however they have been in their
normal course of duties we've been attending with my is myself and our
Captain and his command staff has been attending the FIFA meetings and coordinating with LA Metro and and
Attending meetings with other stakeholders, but it hasn't been quantified yet. Okay, so this question probably should go next question should go to Darren
Darren, I understood you in your last response to say to supply information relative to
Receiptive funds from out for LA for Los Angeles
And there's a specific amount that you indicated and I'm sorry
I don't remember what that amount is.
Was that amount intended to cover
the anticipated security costs?
Yes, the-
In Toto?
Yes, they, well, yes.
The short answer is they have funded 30 deputies
for World Cup activity.
And that is what they've committed to.
So that's what we have.
And then we are gonna be able to augment
that with around $160,000
that we've also received separately for private security.
That is what we have in total.
Okay.
And, Mr. Chair, if I may,
and I know Director Wapner will look askance at me,
but at some point when the LA-28 ad hoc committee
reconvenes or is revived,
I think we've been a little dormant lately,
much to my dissatisfaction,
I would like to know for the, not FIFA anymore,
but for the LA-28 event,
Will there be separate contracts
with all of our security agencies
relative to Olympic security?
In other words, not folded into,
or buried, it's the wrong connotation.
Not contained within the larger security contracts,
but separate security contracts.
And if that's to be the case,
when is this board, when will that ad hoc committee
receive tentative numbers for security-related services
regarding LA-28?
And, in other words, and how far before that contract
or contracts is ultimately placed in front of this board.
Because it's almost here.
And we need to know ASAP.
So my request would be that that,
and I may be beyond the agenda provision
done from a Brown Act standpoint.
But I'm hoping that that information can come back
to the LA-28 ad hoc committee at the sinister.
Mr. Chair.
Second.
Move my barter.
I'll give you a second.
Too late.
OK, here you go.
We just need to count the votes now.
Any objection?
Item is approved.
Thank you.
OK, now we have the Oxnard accident car and out of service
car rehabilitation presented by DK Haw.
Good morning, board of directors.
My name is D.K. Ha, a Rolling Star Engine Manager
and a Project Delivery Team and a Project Manager
for this rehabilitation project.
I'm here to present the item G, contract number EP247-26,
Oxnard Exton Car and Auto Service Car Rehabilitation,
our recommendation to award.
I'm here with the Adorthia Cantaro,
a contract administrator for this project.
Next slide.
The authority has total 27 out of service car right now.
And some of them are because of heavy accident damage
that occurred in the past.
But most of them are because of the absolute components,
the fire damage and vandalism.
Now this project is to rehabilitate 19 of them,
return to service as soon as possible.
The other eight are being rehabilitated
by another project right now.
For this project, RFP number EP247S26
was issued on August of last year,
and we have received one proposal
in January, 2026, this year.
Next slide.
CSRA Canada was the only proposal.
The proposed cost is 16 million
for all 19 cars in this project.
These cars, especially four Oxnard extant car,
contains the hidden defects, unknown deficiency in the car.
So to address the potential for additional repairs
required due to unknown deficiency,
we, the project team, decided to include additional
contingency amount of 30%, which is 4.8 million.
And this gives a total not-to-exceed contract
amount of 21 million.
C-SPR's proposal is 10.49% lower than the independent cost
estimate, and found to be fair and reasonable.
And I was told that there was a question about the settlement
money from the Oxnard-Exton case.
So I want to tell you that a budget for this project
does include that settlement.
Next slide.
Therefore, it is recommended that the board authorize
CEO to award contract EP 247 as 26 to Systra for total not to exceed
authorization of 21 million 21 thousand nine hundred twenty four dollar and
sixteen cents. This amount is to rehabilitate 19 out of search rate cards
for return to revenue service. The term of this contract is effective upon
issues of the notice to proceed and continues through the acceptance of the
completed rate cards. This award is subject to the resolution of any timely
filed protest. Next slide. This concludes my report. I'm happy to answer for any
question you may have. Director Wapner. Thank you Mr. Chair. What's the timing on
this? When are we going to get the cards back? I'm sorry, can you repeat? Yeah, what's the
timing on the repairs? When are we going to get them returned? So as per this
our latest schedule, we'll be able to return all 19 auto service car back to service by
March, 2028.
And they're going to return them as they complete them, correct?
Yeah, that is correct.
Director Spiegel?
So March of 2028 is not going to help our current issue of challenging cars, correct?
Correct however our challenge is as it relates to our equipment is we have seen some vast improvement in the last three to four months with
Alstom's extra staffing that has been brought in and our effort to get parts
And material available. I'll be reporting on that during our CEOs remarks, but thank you for the team get up for me. I appreciate that
Dr. Tremblay. Yeah. Thank you. And thanks for the thanks for the report two questions
Doctor director Wapner already hit the nail on the head with the first one, but I read page two of the staff report
Which is page 165 of the packet to say that the project was 100% funded by FTA
Can you help me understand are we using settlement funds or are we using FTA funds?
This as far as I understand I probably have to defer to my calling the finance team
But that is there's a three and my policy to funding sources for this project. The first one is
member agency funded fiscal year member agency funded for the capital budget and the second one is this insurance settlement
So it's a combination of both
I will we'll need following. Yeah, no director Tremblay. So I
Justin Fournelli is approaching the podium, but the
We may have a an inaccurate statement in the board report. Yes, that's correct
There's an accurate statement in the board report the funding for this program is both the settlement funds going from the ox on accident
And then also part of state of good repair funding that comes through our normal capital budget, which is funded through FDA funds
Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. And then one last question. I know it's usually part of our protocol
But here we have one bidder and it would be approved assuming the board move forward
Unless we receive a bid protest is there any bid protest that to your knowledge that is anticipated in this matter
You can turn the CA note at this time. There is no knowledge there were letters submitted
My question is built as sort of predicated more on curiosity
Which is it's 19 coaching cabin rail car is at 21 million
so that's about an average of 1.1 million typically how much does a
Real car cabin cost if it was a brand new one
Katie you have an answer for that. It's been a long time since we bought anything brand new
Yeah, that is correct. So we have a are you a good used one?
Yeah, thank you for the questions so we have an estimate for the new or new purchase
So roughly around the three point seven million per car
So we're not too far. I mean, you know, it's only two more million right to get a new one
I was just curious. It was not as deliberative as the my colleagues, you know, so, thank you
All right
This is an action item
Moved by Tremblay
Second by McCallum. Okay any objection
Seeing none the item is approved. Thank you. Thank you
All right. Now we can talk about fuel and in mr. Chair in the interest of time
Mr. Barber can come up and speak to this
But the reason that we placed this item on the discussion calendar was if there were particularly we've heard some questions about fuel pricing
And how we have a fuel hedge and how that works and how that plays out
So that was one of the reasons just going back to the curiosity question about fuel
That was why we wanted to place this on so in the interest of time Alex if you could just maybe speak to that
Otherwise, it's our standard fuel quarterly update
Sure
Do you go ahead go ahead and give the up okay?
This is a receiving file report for the third quarter of fy26 fuel purchase program
The purpose of the fuel hedge is to minimize budget risk resulting from the purchase of fuel on the spot basis and to seek an overall
Low fuel cost in the long term while managing budget risk next slide, please
As of March 31st 2026 the authorities hedging account had a value of 4.5 million an increase of 2.2 million
from December 31st, 2025.
The authority's hedge account continues to provide relief
to the increases that we're seeing at the fuel pump.
As of today, May 22nd, the authority's hedging account
has a value of 5.5 million,
which is an additional increase of $1 million
since March 31st of 2026.
Next slide, please.
This concludes my presentation.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
And again, this was teed up, I believe, in the staff report,
But Alex what I'd like you to speak to is what do given that we operate on six month contracts
And we are three months into fuel price increases
What does our?
Our fuel consultant how do they advise as to what we might expect?
as it relates to fuel prices as we continue hedging if
The world events continue as they are
So we're currently hedged six months out, which we hold contracts through November of
2026 we will sell those contracts through the month of October
So we're sitting pretty good for the next three to three and a half months the last two months
That we have in our portfolio. They were purchased at a higher cost so we don't see as much
benefit coming from those contracts
However, prices do continue to increase,
so we are seeing benefits from even those contracts
that we've been purchasing at a higher price.
But what about the next contracts?
The next contracts are going to be very similar to the last two
months of contracts, October and November.
We're going to be purchasing those at a much higher cost.
Because we're only going out six months,
based on our current strategy, strategy one, which
within our fuel management policy.
And this is for biodiesel, isn't it?
We purchased biodiesel, yes.
But it tracks the price of regular diesel?
Yes, it does.
They're chemically identical.
And so those contracts can be interchanged
with our biodiesel, yes.
OK.
It kind of raises a question that I
wanted to ask with the increased gasoline prices,
Are we seeing any increase in our ridership?
I don't know if that's possible.
It's been negligible, Mr. Chair.
Okay.
Sorry I asked, okay.
Mr. Chair, do I have a question, if I could ask a question?
Please go ahead. Mr. Chair.
Thank you, and yes, you are on the Fuel Hedge Committee.
Thank you.
Besides that, has this been worth our time and effort
over the years as far as hedging fuel?
Absolutely, I mean, we really have seen that
within probably the last six months.
the gains that we get from this fuel hedge have been
Extraordinary and
Those gains are helping us offset
What we're paying at the pump or a gallon of gas when we look at the fuel hedge program
along with the purchasing of fuel those two
Processes should really net to zero so as our fuel hedge is gaining
Money, we're also paying a lot more in the price for fuel
So those two things should offset and so at the end of the day we should
Remain flat as far as purchasing fuel is concerned
We kind of lock in a price for the six months that we have these contracts
My last comment is basically I just want to thank staff
I want to thank our board and Tony for having the vision on trying to make adjustments. Thank you
Thank you for the report
receive and file item
Now what's going on in the legislature?
A lot I'll try to be brief
Next slide, please
Metro link chief strategy officer Paul Huber myself and Julie Neato of our government relations team just returned from Sacramento
Last evening where we participated in the annual, California Transit Association
legislative conference and over the past two days
we held meetings with Senate and Assembly offices of the Metrolink delegation as
well as the administration's undersecretary for transportation
concerning Metrolink's budget deficit for the coming year in the amount of 35
million dollars. These meetings followed outreach and meetings conducted by our
CEO Mr. Kettle over the past couple of weeks with state lawmakers and staff of
the relevant budget committees in the Senate and House in addition to the
Secretary of Transportation the governor's cabinet secretary for
transportation, and other highly placed officials
in the administration.
The purpose of these meetings has been to, first,
raise awareness in the administration
and legislature of the seriousness
of the budget challenge Metrolinx is confronting.
Secondly, and importantly, the real world impact
of service reductions that would approach 40%
of our present level of service, beginning in October
of this year, if Metrolinx projected FY26-27 budget
deficit is not funded from some source or combination
sources.
We are seeking direct state assistance to Metrolink to provide this funding to avert
this service reduction, which we are developing scenarios for with the input and participation
of our member agencies.
I am pleased to report that our message is being heard in Sacramento.
Building off the foundation laid by Mr. Kettle, we were able to secure a commitment from Assemblyman
Juan Carrillo of Palmdale, whose district is traversed by the Antelope Valley Line, to
champion our request in a letter to budget leaders to make this appropriation
for the full amount of our need. On the Senate side, we received positive
response from a number of Senate offices and we will have a Senate champion to
make the same formal request for us next week. So we will have bicameral member
members support for the entire delegation representing our jurisdiction
led by a member of each chamber. Additionally, we met again with
Transportation Undersecretary James Hacker following Mr. Kettle's meeting
with him a couple of weeks ago to again press the need for help from Cal-STA, and the message
is resonating. We have received assurances from the administration that they will work
with the legislature to try to help MetroLink. It is good that the May revision to the Governor's
proposed budget projects an additional $16.5 billion in revenue, thanks largely to AI
and related agentic economy growth industries, than was projected in the budget released
in January. However, the May revise proposes to hold the line on spending for nearly all
sectors of the state budget except for education and to generously increase the state's rainy
day fund by an additional $6.9 billion in the coming fiscal year. Of course, from our
perspective, the $35 million budget deficit we are facing, the largest one-year budget
deficit in Metrolinx history, is the very definition of a rainy day that this fund is
meant to be used for and represents a modest amount in the context of the state's overall
budget to avert the possibility of a 40% service reduction in passenger rail, in the
state's most populous region, preparing to host the world's two largest sporting events
with World Cup and the 2028 Olympics, both of which will rely on our service to successfully
execute.
We will keep you apprised of these efforts, and we will all know whether or not we receive
any help from the state by or before the end of June.
Additionally, while we're in Sacramento, we advocated with all of our transit partners
CTA with our delegation members to urge the California Air Resources Board to either delay
decision or not to approve at its May 28th meeting.
They recently released draft auction market rules I reported to you at last month's meeting,
which would boost free allowances to carbon emitting industries, causing an estimated
reduction of cap and invest revenues of $2 billion annually, which would effectively
We eliminate funding for the TIRCP and LC TOPS grant programs, which have been critical
to Metrolink to fund its capital expansion and score programs in addition to its successful
ridership expansion programs, most notably the student adventure pass.
The consensus of the industry at this juncture seems to be that CARB will adopt this new
framework for capital invest, which will have negative impacts for all of transit throughout
the state.
The sector is mobilized and advocating for CARB's reconsideration or at a minimum to
allow for more time to consider such a drastic step after barely one month's public notice.
We will keep you apprised at your next meeting of the status of this important effort.
Next slide, please.
In federal matters, when it rains, it pours.
While there is too often too much partisan gridlock at the national level, this week
affirms that when Washington wants to move, it can move.
This week saw a markup in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the Surface
Transportation Authorization Bill, titled the Build America 250 Act, successor to the
IIJA, which expires on September 30th.
We did not know as recently as a week ago whether the committee would be able to hold
this markup.
And we also saw passage from the Transportation Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee,
the Teahut approps bill, which, as you know, funds the nation's transportation system
for the coming fiscal year on a party line vote.
I will cover reauthorization first.
Mark-up began yesterday morning and ended at 1 a.m. this morning.
So the information you're about to get is about as fresh as it gets,
and it is appropriately high level.
We'll cover it in much more detail in your June board report.
But for now, some of the high level takeaways of the bill are, first,
it authorizes between $474 and $480 billion in spending
on the nation's federal transportation priorities
over the next five years.
That equates to about $95 billion a year.
Course authorization does not equal actual spending.
Unlike the IIJA, there is no advance appropriation provided
in this bill that was marked up.
So all the funding will have to be appropriated
by each annual appropriations bill unless advance
appropriations are amended into this bill
through the legislative process.
Speaking of which, the final bill likely will not pass
by September 30th in this election year.
It's possible, but not likely.
It's most likely that IIJA will be extended
until after the election, but this bill will serve
as a template for what passes in the next Congress,
depending on many factors, including, not the least,
the majority party in power.
Other high-level points to note are that,
at the request of the White House
and against the recommendations of the committee chair,
provisions of the Rail Safety Act
were included into the bill.
We'll more fully describe these next month,
but they include installation and maintenance of equipment
for safety purposes that will impose additional costs
on our railroad if enacted.
One of the big open questions concerning the bill is,
of the $480 billion authorized,
how much of it will the highway trust fund cover
versus how much will have to be borrowed
from the general fund,
especially if the gas tax revenues are paused,
as has been suggested by the president.
While the House may be able to pass the bill on the floor,
the Senate has been very slow in moving its bill,
which again speaks to the likelihood of a CR
with status quo funding levels until after the election,
and we'll keep you apprised.
Finally, turning to T HUD appropriations,
which as I mentioned, did pass 9-7 on a party line vote,
it is austere.
It significantly cuts public transit
and passenger rail funding compared to FY26.
Overall, 16.5 billion cut in public transit,
and a 4.6 billion 22% cut from FY26 enacted levels.
In rail, it appropriates 3.1 billion,
but transfers 5.1 billion from unobligated prior funding
to other initiatives.
This results in a net loss of 1.9 billion
just this coming year.
It also cuts Chrissy $614 million next year,
which would be a 54% cut from current level funding.
It's not all bad news, though.
The bill does provide $875 million from Olympics mobility.
It largely uses the same structure
for providing that funding that was provided this year
for Olympics, not for World Cup, but for Olympics,
which means the money goes through the MPO, which
is SCAG for us, and to the County Transportation
Commission.
Commuter Rail is a designated eligible recipient.
And like last year, our funding would be passed through
and with consideration of the commission when coming to us.
The funding structure, though, is
subject to incorporation in the Senate bill.
So it may keep this funding structure
or could potentially be amended to a different structure.
It's worth noting, too, that this
is separate from Olympic security money, for which
$1 billion was funded in the big beautiful bill passing
last year that has not been allocated.
MetroLink is very close to scheduling a meeting
with appropriate Department of Homeland Security officials
because DHS allocates the security money from the BBB
to make the case for expedited release of these funds
to enable sufficient time to secure our network
with the installation of system-wide cameras and Wi-Fi
to provide real-time monitoring and communication
with law enforcement across the network.
We'll keep you posted on that.
Finally, on the earmark front,
adding to what was shared in your report,
We're pleased to report that Senator Alex Padilla
included Metrolinx community project request
of $5 million to fund the Arroyo Seco Bridge
deck replacement project.
This project would ensure that railroad operations
crossing the Arroyo Seco Bridge can continue
at current or higher levels safely
and to ensure that it remains in a state of good prepare.
For context, each senator can submit 65 projects
for Labor, HHS, Education, Transportation, and HUD
for consideration in the final bill.
We are informed the Senator received over 1,000 submissions.
So we're very pleased that we were included.
As always, we'll keep you apprised,
and thank you very much.
I'm happy to take any questions.
Dr. Spiegel, I'll get you a light on.
You were talking about some of the state issues,
and now with the federal, it added on to this.
You know, I've been on this board for a long time,
and we haven't been asked in our counties
or our commissions to do letters.
And maybe that's something of adding another voice
from our counties and our commissions
just to show that we are paying attention
and we're supporting or asking whatever.
I think it'd be great to do an outline
and then we could just fix it up for our counties.
But what would be significant
and what would make a difference if we chimed in
and it's letters with you.
Certainly, we appreciate the support
of all of our commissions,
and certainly for the requests
that we're making for the $35 million.
I understand that we already have requests,
we have support letters from a couple of our commissions,
RCTC and SBCTA, we would appreciate it.
But the counties are a secondary.
Right.
But that has to go to different groups, so.
Certainly. That would be great.
Good suggestion, we can do that.
Oh, I can tell you, Director Spiegel,
that Chair Chaffee on his County Board of Supervisors
letterhead provided support letter
for the Metrolink request for the funding
given our financial challenges.
So, we will take the support from any direction.
I don't know about the other counties.
It's a lot easier if you start us with something.
Yes.
And just pass it along
and we can doctor it up or whatever.
We will share that with the members
the board. I think we had we did so well let's send it back out.
I missed it. I'm chair of the board so I would have signed it so it's just kick me
next time. Thank you. Thank you. All right well stand by for more. So thank you for the
report and now I see we're at CEO report. All right we are going to do rapid
fire. So new revenue streams, something that's near and dear to us right now.
We've started a more expanded partnership program with some a variety
of groups. This is the first wrap of a train we've done in some time. We
partnered with Bleecker Street Productions for the upcoming film Stop
That Train and we did a press junket at LA Union Station earlier this week. This
This is a RuPaul movie with a bunch of other stars
that are in it.
It's a comedy and is in theaters starting June 12th.
So it is a revenue raiser in recognition of writing.
All right, so that's that.
Let's go on to the next item.
Just as a recognition of some of the good work
that we've done with our partners at RCTC and SBCTA
on some awards we received, both through SCAG
as well as the California Transportation Foundation.
And it was working in partnership
with the IE Commuter, so the Ride Share,
I'll call it the Ride Share Agency of the Inland Empire.
Next slide.
We had bike day yesterday.
And am I remembering that right?
Yesterday or two days ago?
Somebody signed, don't give me a sign.
Yesterday, thank you.
May 21st, I guess it says it right there on the slide.
So again, a very successful day for us.
I was on the train yesterday,
and we had a number of bikes on the system.
So positive opportunity there.
Next slide.
This is something that we're,
we've been talking about this for some time,
contactless payments pilot on the San Bernardino line.
So starting, we do a soft launch starting June one,
and then in full implementation on June eight,
the ability to either tap your credit card
or your mobile device to be able to access our trains
at all stations on the San Bernardino line.
So if you've traveled Europe,
you're familiar with this concept.
If you've gone to Starbucks and just pay with your phone,
you're familiar with this concept.
We'll be doing this on the San Bernardino line
and we've recently submitted a request to CalSTA
for grant funds to be able to implement this
on all the six other lines on our system
in advance of the Olympics.
So you will see this if you're at our platforms
on the San Bernardino line or at LA Union Station
where you'll see the blue pylon
and being able to tap on and tap off utilizing that system.
So we're looking forward to that.
We've talked a little bit about World Cup
over the course of the day today.
Again, it's right around the corner.
We will have some special service
that we are using some surplus funds from.
So utilizing that money to provide a little additional
service for match days as well as fan zone days.
Excuse me.
And next slide.
So in our room, in our midst today,
we have a recognized rising star
by the Progressive Railroading.
It's a national publication.
Luis Carrasquero, our Deputy Chief Operating Officer.
He's the guy that's blushing very deeply
in the back right of our facility
with people pointing at him.
So Luis is a true all-star in our agency
and has been recognized, excuse me, at the national level.
Next slide.
And touched on this briefly and with all apologies
to Director Wapner who was on one of our trains
this morning and was delayed
because we had a reliability problem.
Otherwise, we have seen some great progress
in our equipment, this board will recall
that we had to reduce service due to mechanical challenges
down to 28 train sets.
When we were operating our Metrolink reimagined service,
we needed 35 train sets to do that.
And we were struggling to get to that.
We got down to 28 train sets.
I'm pleased to announce that we're at 36 available train
sets now today.
So if we wanted to go back to that, given the challenges,
we've not gone back to the prior service level
because we were concerned about giving our riders whiplash
with service levels going back and forth
until we figure out to get our financial house in order.
We are in a much better place than we were.
We only have right now, we were up to nine
or 10 locomotives that were sitting parked,
waiting on materials were down to on average four or five.
So we're continuing to make progress on that.
And of course, every day something can come up.
We had a vehicle that you all heard about.
We had a vehicle on the tracks on the San Bernardino line
earlier this week that our locomotive went through,
actually cab car, and it did so much damage
that we've had to park that equipment.
So things like that come up,
but otherwise we have made some great progress
on our equipment reliability.
So hats off to the operations team,
Alstom and our parts and materials group
for getting our house back in order
on the mechanical side.
Next slide, I believe that concludes my report,
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Thank you.
Comments from members, board members.
Yes, Director Tim?
I just have a question.
I apologize, I was not on the Wednesday briefing,
but I heard there was a talk about moving the meeting up.
Was that a one-time thing?
Thank you, Director, yes.
So our June meeting happens to coincide
with the LA Union Station fan zones
as part of the World Cup.
So we are moving our board meeting up
from a 10 o'clock start time that morning
to a nine o'clock start time that morning.
The doors open for the LA Union Station fan zone event
at 10.30.
So we thought we'd bump ourselves up an hour,
hopefully beat some of the traffic coming in
and be able to get board members
who are taking the train out to do that.
I would highly encourage board members
to take the train to come in that morning
to be a part of the event.
Rather than driving, I think you will experience
a little bit of extra activity around LA Union Station.
So parking, your designated parking spot
would still be in the parking garage,
but access around LA Union Station will be different
than what you're used to.
So I would encourage you to take the train
if you don't already do that.
One time.
One time.
It is one time, yes.
Yes.
Thank you.
Any?
I noticed this morning when my train was almost an hour late
that they were allowing folks to ride for free.
Is that something we normally do when there's a deal like that
or does he just mess up?
And he was like scanning tickets to people with tickets,
but he goes, don't get excited.
We're not going to check.
That is not something normally.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't say anything.
OK.
Yes.
I thought it was a nice gesture.
Operations, did you hear that?
Mr. Bailey, who's the deputy chief operations officer
over that side of the house, duly noted.
Thank you, Mr. Wapner.
I guess what I'm saying is I think it's a nice gesture.
It was a nice work.
You might also give it to you, Karen.
I know.
But of course, we need fair revenue.
There's that.
So yes, it's, again, the challenges
we have at this agency.
But thank you.
Other board member comments?
All right.
My comment is that staff please get our new committee set up
as fast as possible, calling everyone
to make sure that we have an agreeable date.
And since we're intending it to be virtual,
make sure that that is set up.
And I move on that quickly.
And with that, we are adjourned.
Thank you.