All right. Good afternoon, everyone. At this time, I would like to call to order the June 18,
2026 regular board meeting of North County Transit. Before we begin, members of the public who may be viewing the meeting on the NCTD YouTube page,
please note that in order to make a public comment during the meeting, you must connect to the meeting using the Zoom link provided on the agenda.
In addition, you must also register by sending an email containing your name or phone number and the agenda item on which you wish to speak to clerk at NCTD.org.
I am now going to ask our Clerk of the Board, Suheil Rodriguez, if we could take a verbal roll call.
Thank you. Madam Chair Bapatow, here. Vice Chair Sneller, here.
Board Member Martinez, here. Board Member O'Hara, present.
Board Member Garcia, here. Board Member Joyce, somewhere.
Board Member Desmond, Board Member Edson, Board Member Contreras,
present and board member Lee that completes the roll call with board
members presently absent Joyce Desmond Edson and Lee correction board member
Joyce has arrived all right thank you board member Martinez would you please
the Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
All right.
Well, that was fun.
Thank you.
We are now going to move into the safety brief
and review evacuation procedures.
Thank you.
In case of an emergency, I will dial 911.
In case of an evacuation, please take the stairs.
Do not use the elevators.
Once clear to the building, do not reenter
unless clear to do so by emergency personnel.
There are firing extinguishers and first aid kits
on each floor of the building.
There is a portable defibrillator
on the first and third floor of this building
and staff on hand trained on CPR procedures if needed.
This concludes my safety brief.
Great, thank you.
Do we have any changes to the agenda today?
We do, Madam Chair.
The attachment for consent item number eight was updated.
The revised attachment, errata sheet, and the agenda
was sent out to the board just now,
and it was posted on the website.
Perfect.
Thank you.
And moving on to general public comments, do we have any today?
We do have one member of the public to speak here in person.
I can call the name.
John Mosher.
You have three minutes.
Go ahead and press the button.
OK, I got it.
Hello, board, John.
missed you guys. Been busy this year. I came to talk, number one, about the NCD
Plus program and I see Mary's gonna give a presentation on it today so I'm glad
I'm here. I had reached out to Ed, our traffic engineer, about having another
presentation. Nicholas came last year in August and did a really great
presentation for us. So I reached out to him about a month and a half ago so I'm
not sure if he's already reached out. I know they're still setting agenda items
but that would be great if we could pull that off.
I was at a budget review meeting and they started talking about the program,
but I realized they didn't understand the depth of it.
So I'm going to recommend they show up or get that information to them.
Earlier this year, February and March, I attended the San Diego Regional Energy Academy.
USD helps put it on and some of the other energy providers.
I just want to recommend the program.
It's a really great program.
It's four weeks.
It was full days every Thursday.
And I met some leaders around the county that I would not have normally run into.
And plus the way they've got it set up, they're going to have reoccurring where we can keep getting together.
I was in a fourth cohort. They have two per year. There should be another one coming up in October.
So for your different cities, some of your climate control groups and stuff like that, some of those people were represented there.
And the new people, it's really great for them. It's a really good overview.
About two years ago, I came here and talked about a senior mobile home park overlay program,
and in San Marcos we had one of our senior parks where the owners change the rules and regs that
would allow them to switch from a senior park to all-age park sometime in the future. So I reached
out to GSMOL, Golden State Manufactured Homeowners League at state level where we work on bills and
and stuff in the Senate and assembly.
They gave me information on these programs
they'd used in the state.
I immediately went to our city council,
Deputy Mayor Mike Sonella and the group.
They were very supportive and they started the process.
Right now, what I wanna say is we're actually at the point
where on July 6th, at our planning commission meeting,
the actual overlay adjustment to our ordinance
will be heard and recommended to go to the city council.
I understand it'll get to them probably in September.
So after two years to work on this, it's almost done.
I had mentioned to you guys,
but I have a whole packet I can share with you
once we get into this.
Part of the reason I held back on some
is because there's lawsuits all around the state
trying to destroy the rent ordinances we have to protect us.
And also these mobile home park overlay programs,
but the cities are holding up against it.
Thanks.
Thank you.
I have no more speakers.
OK.
Thank you.
We are now moving on to a couple of quick protocol items
that I'd like to share.
First, I will ask board members to please hold your comments
and questions until after each agenda item has been presented.
When the time comes for board member questions or comments,
go ahead and raise your hand.
And then I'll go ahead and call on you.
And please turn on your mic and speak into your microphone
when it is your turn to speak.
This will ensure that your comments
are heard for those listening to the meeting online.
the motion to approve the
Edson to approve the minutes for the regular Board meeting on May 21, 2026.
Motion passes with Board Member Edmond absent. Okay. There are 13 items on the
consent agenda for action today. Do we have any members of the public
registered to speak on consent? No, we do not. Okay. At this time we are ending the
public registration to speak on consent items. Any board members wishing to pull
items? Chair, I would like to pull item one. Item one, okay. And we'll trail that to
the end of the agenda. Anybody else? Alrighty. Okay so may I have a motion to
approve all other items except for one. So moved Sonela. Second. Okay moved by Sonela
seconded by O'Hara. If we could please call the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Any abstain? On the motion of Vice Chair Sonela seconded by Board Member O'Hara to
approve consent items 2 to 13 motion passes and for the record board member
Edison arrived at 206 and board member Lee arrived at 208. Great, thank you.
Welcome to both. Alright, so the next item on the agenda is other business
regarding a state required public hearing to provide an update to the board
on vacancies and retention efforts. Adrienne Johnson, our Deputy Chief
People Officer, will present this item so I'll go ahead and pass it off to Ms.
Johnson.
Now, so good afternoon to the chair,
members of the board, Sean Donahue, and also Lori Winfrey.
I'd like to take a few minutes to walk you
through California Government Code section 3502.3
and what it means for us as an agency.
As part of that, I'll cover today's staff recommendation
that we have, I'll provide some background
on the legislation, and then spend time
on where we can currently,
where we currently stand with our vacancies,
along with our ongoing recruitment
and retention efforts here at NCTD.
All right.
So, with that being said,
California Government Code 3502.3
became effective January 1, 2025.
It requires that a public agency
to present the status of vacancies
and related recruitment and retention efforts
at a public hearing at least once per fiscal year
prior to the adoption of the agency's final budget,
as well as any recruitment and retention efforts,
as I mentioned earlier.
And the number of job vacancies within a single bargaining unit
meets or exceeds 20% of the total number
of authorized full-time positions.
The legislation requires that the public agency,
upon request of the effective bargaining unit, be present.
So next here, actually, is a quick snapshot
of where we were as of May 1st from a vacancy standpoint.
Overall, we're in a relatively stable position.
Across the agency, we have had just under 900
authorized full-time roles.
And of those, a little over 50 are currently vacant.
That puts us at a vacancy rate a little above 6%.
So from a workforce management perspective,
That's the level we're actively monitoring,
but we feel that it is definitely manageable,
particularly given the steps we've been taking
around recruitment and retention at NCTD.
So overall, this represents and reflects a steady progress
and a more balanced staffing environment
compared to what we've seen in prior periods.
So from a recruitment and retention perspective,
I just wanna spend just a moment of what we've been doing
to actively manage our workforce, starting with recruitment.
So over the last six months, several months,
we've maintained a steady pace of hiring activity.
Since the beginning of the fiscal year,
we've completed over 90 plus recruitments,
which really reflects both the level of demand
across the agency and in the effort of our teams
to put in and to keep in positions
moving throughout our pipeline.
So on the retention side,
Our approach is equally intentional.
We focused on maintaining a competitive
and well-rounded benefits package
that aligns with what we've seen
across other public agencies and public sectors
and within the transit industry as a whole.
Beyond that, we're continuing to invest in our employees
through training and development opportunities.
One example of that is our upcoming apprenticeship program
and partnership with Palomar College,
which we see as an important step in building long-term success.
So now, we've had some success overall.
There are still some structural challenges worth noting, though,
from a recruitment and HR perspective.
We're fortunate that, in that we typically attract a solid pool
of candidates, which is always a great thing.
It helps us to keep recruitment moving and forth going.
However, as many public agencies are hiring timelines can be a little longer
than what we might see in the private sector, given the additional layers
of process, compliance, and overall transparency.
So that concludes my presentation.
What questions do you have?
Great. Thank you for the presentation.
I'll first go ahead and ask for public comments.
We have no public comment.
All right.
At this time, public registration to speak on this item will end.
the board. So I'm going to go
ahead and ask for a motion.
Are there any board member
questions or comments about
this item. Okay, no just thank
you so much. Yeah, thank you I
know this is something that all
of our agencies are required to
do so appreciate the update.
And I will go ahead and ask for
a motion.
Motion to approve. Okay, motion
by Edson second seconded by
Any abstain on the motion of Board Member Edson,
seconded by Board Member O'Hara, to close the public hearing
to receive a presentation on the set of job vacancies
and recruitment and retention efforts pursuant
to California Code 3502.3.
Motion passes.
And for the record, Jim Desmond has arrived at 2.08.
It was 2.07.
I thought you were two or three, just saying.
Anyways, moving on, for the next item,
staff will provide a brief overview of the proposed fiscal
year 27 operating budget and fiscal year 27 to 31 capital
improvement program.
This was reviewed by the PATH committee,
so that's our performance administration and finance
committee, and the full board last month.
Today's staff is asking the board
to conduct the public hearing and consider
adoption of the budget and the capital improvement projects.
Ian Park Lynch, our Chief Financial Officer,
will be presenting this item.
So, Ms. Park Lynch, you have our attention.
Good afternoon, board members.
As our board chair mentioned last month on May 21st,
NCT staff presented an update on the development
of the fiscal year 2027 operating budget,
as well as the fiscal year 2027
through the 21 Capric Program.
The public hearing was set for today
to consider adoption of the operating budget
and the Capric Program as well.
We posted the full document for public review on June 3rd,
both at our website, our customer service transit centers,
as well as here at our administrator office.
And today we have only received two public comments
related to the budget.
As shown on this table and consistent to what was presented
to the board on May 21st,
staff is proposing a fiscal year 2027 operating budget balance
at $180 million, $890,000, $377.
which represents an increase of 1.17% to the budget from 2026.
Also consistent with the presentation in May,
our constrained capital improvement program
for the next fiscal year remains at $49 million, $190,000, $885.
With the majority of the funding dedicated
for the replacement of bus, CNG buses.
In this slide, we have provided an update
on a five-year forecast.
Recently, SANDAC provided revised apportionments
for federal section 5307, 37, and 5339 funding
for the next five years.
We also executed an agreement with SANDAC
to provide funding for the Youth Opportunity Pass
through 2029, which will be funded
with capital, federal congestion mitigation,
and air quality improvement program funds.
Also recently, in May of 2026,
the California Air Resources Board
voted to approve proposed amendments
to the cap and invest program,
which will significantly reduce the number
of cap and invest allowances to be dedicated
to the greenhouse gas reduction fund.
These will effectively end at the tier three programs,
which will represent a reduction in both transit
and intercity rail capital program, tier CP,
and low carbon transit operations program funding.
So our five-year forecast has been updated
to remove LC tough funding for 28 through 2031.
Overall, from what was presented back in May
to where we are today, the change in the net deficit
goes from $78.8 million to $74 million,
which is a little bit over,
close to $5 million differential
over a five year period.
The board actions that we are requesting this afternoon
are to close the public hearing on the proposed
fiscal year 2027 operating budget
and the fiscal year 2027 through 2031
capital improvement program
to adopt the proposed fiscal year 2027 operating budget,
the fiscal year 2027 through 2031 capital improvement program,
to approve the proposed fiscal year 2027 classification
and compensation schedules for both represented
and not represented employees,
to approve the proposed fiscal year 2027
cost recovery fee schedule,
and finally to approve the proposed fiscal year 2027
to 2031 service implementation plan.
and all of these documents were posted on their website
on June 3rd, and that concludes my presentation,
and I am available for any questions.
Great, thank you.
Do we have any public comments on this item?
We do not.
Okay, at this time, public registration
to speak on this item will end.
Any questions or comments from the board?
I would just like to comment, you know, again,
gratefully for all of the work that you do
to organize this, to put it together
in a way that we can all read and understand
and that the public can read and understand.
I'm, of course, disappointed by some of the funding
that was removed due to the cap
and in invest program reductions.
And I'm curious as to what kind of,
what that's really gonna mean, bottom line.
But I had pulled agenda item one
basically to ask those questions.
So I'm not sure if it's better to do it here
or to ask from the legislative perspective.
I think we can discuss it in agenda item one
at the end of the agenda.
Okay, thank you.
With that I'm happy to move approval.
Okay, I'm seeing potentially another raised hand
by Mr. Joyce, okay.
I'll second.
Just very briefly because we had our committee meeting
prior to this and again, I just wanna raise the flag
for my board member colleagues about NCDD Plus
and about thinking about where it fits
within the future of the agency.
And if we're going to be continuing to move
that type of program forward,
that I think for fiscal purposes,
we have to require partnerships
with our cities that are doing it.
And if the cities are gonna be doing
their own programs that are last mile,
then we integrate that with our NCDD Plus program.
Board Member Garcia.
I'll just piggyback on that.
I mentioned in Ms. Pita
that Escondido last night,
we're after almost two years,
it seems like we're gonna be able to get a grant
for two years to help us operate something last mile.
So then the big question is
what's gonna happen after that?
And the question that I posed to staff
is how are we going to work together with NCTD
rather than us just trying to go on something on our own?
So I totally agree with you that we need to figure out
how to work together.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Ms. Contreras?
I'll just say I really support the discussion
about NCTD Plus.
It's come up in some of the focused senior budget workshops
that I've held in the city because transportation
is a huge obstacle for seniors
And the question is, how can we expand service?
Because NCTD Plus doesn't cover all of VISTA.
And so I would love to be able to have a board discussion
about NCTD Plus and how that program, what kind of needs
it's meeting, what other needs are out there,
and what kind of partnerships we can have with our cities
and other levels of government.
Thank you.
Mr. Sinella.
Thank you.
I just wanted to echo what my colleague from VISTA
just said, San Marcos NCTD Plus is extremely popular
and the feedback is very similar,
and so I'd even be, before we talk about
either eliminating NCTD Plus,
I would be open to doing an analysis
of perhaps we reduce fixed route
and do more NCTD Plus as an option.
I know that's probably not financially viable,
but it's something I think that's worth looking into
to be a little bit more kind of thinking outside the box
to meet the customers of the future.
And I think that our customers in San Marcos
really appreciate that door-to-door service.
Okay, I saw board member Joyce,
and then I'll go to Mr. O'Hara
because I saw his and then Ms. Edson.
We had a great conversation
and we can get just preview for it
because we talked about kind of,
And we're going to have a chance to talk about this in depth at our July meeting.
And this is kind of a preview, because it's all about the budget always.
But it's kind of like, well, what are we going to do?
Because it is a very expensive service.
And this year, we're spending a fraction of what we're going to be spending next year.
It's going to be increased by about 40% to do the same exact service in the same exact areas.
And what you brought up about, what do you do in two years?
I could tell you what you do in two years.
You start looking under the mattress
because that's what we're doing.
It was two years ago when we got our grant.
And lots of folks use it to get to the Oceanside Transit
Center to then get on all the other modes that NCTD offers.
But I've had to fight to keep it alive every couple of,
I mean, this last two years, and go to nonprofits,
which have less money.
So if we're going to be talking about offering this service
that it's very expensive in very specific places,
I think we need to talk about how we're gonna expand
that service to the cities that all want this.
Who doesn't want to be picked up at their front door
versus walking a half a mile?
But we have a big area to cover
and we have to figure out what that looks like for everybody,
like that's kind of our job.
So I just think we need to look really system-wide
when we're talking about these decisions.
and really thinking about it in the long-term.
I'll piggyback.
It's great for it.
We noticed in the usage of NCTD+,
there was quite a bit of youth usage, right?
Whether it be college age or high school age.
And this is where transportation is going.
It's going to, how do I get on my phone
and call an Uber or call a car
and have it come to my general location
where it can tell me I'm going to be down the block.
It can tell me where I'm going to go.
It doesn't have to be at a stop,
but it has to be at a location.
I don't think that has to come to their front door,
but I do think it has to.
You see it in San Francisco and Austin.
When you call an Uber or Waymo,
it tells you, meet me on this block corner.
And it's the most hip-hopping
and best-happening thing in the city, right?
You see them on every block.
And this is where the generation,
I apologize everybody here, younger than us, is going.
And so NCTD Plus starts to fit into that niche.
And so I do want to put an air of caution of,
I do think it's expensive.
I do think we need to figure out how to offset it.
But I think this is, of all the services we offer,
probably the one that's looking the most forward looking.
And we need to keep that in mind,
because that is something we don't want to get behind
if it gets too far ahead of us, is that demand customer.
which is the younger market that is gonna replace all of us.
We have an old aging population in North County,
and they're gonna age out, and as they age out,
the younger population's gonna move in.
I don't know how to say that.
I age out, right.
I'm not sure what the right term is to you.
It's happening.
Our school, you say that, you laugh about it, right?
But it's happening, right?
Our population is dropping.
Our school enrollment is dropping.
Our birth rate is dropping.
And so all these things are this group of people
who are in their 20s and 30s are gonna be the people
that fill in, and this is what they use.
And so I think NCTD Plus is a very important piece
in figuring out how to do that.
And maybe it's some sort of, to your point,
I think it's looking down the road
and what does this metamorphosize into?
It does need to change, and I think you're absolutely right.
But what does it look like, and is it a metamorphos point?
And does it have to look the same?
We also talked about, does that look the same
from city or municipality to municipality, maybe not.
That's what we're seeing in these numbers.
13% in one city, 21% in another,
almost a 10% difference in who uses it
to get to the train or the breeze.
We're seeing these vast differences
that are community specific,
just like these customers are becoming more specific,
and it's the way the world.
People are worried about,
they're taking care of the number one thing
on their phone that they can do through their app
and take care of themselves,
and that's the world they live in.
And so I think this is a service
where we reach out and do that.
more so than anywhere else in the services we provide.
So definitely, while it is expensive
and we need to work on it, I think it's a great service
and I wanna just make sure that we're not rushing
to come to a conclusion that may or may not be the right one.
Thank you so much.
I just wanted to note that this is about the budget item
and so we probably should rein in a little bit.
We will have an opportunity at the board workshop in July
to have an in-depth discussion about this.
Thank you.
I'm good, that was it.
Okay, Ms. Addison.
But I didn't get a chance to like go outside the lines.
It is about the budget, I agree.
But I just wanted to say that I look forward
to a more robust conversation
when this actually comes before us at our July meeting.
But also, correct me if I'm wrong,
but in the areas where we have adopted NCTD Plus,
we've reduced regular bus transit, correct?
Yes, in some cases we have.
In the city of San Marcos,
we reduced weekend service on the 347,
and then in the city of Vista,
we reduced the service on the, yeah.
We discontinued the Route 334 to supplement NCT plus.
So there is, without getting too ahead of the July workshop,
item, there is an intersection between the fixed drought and the NCG-D Plus microtransit
service and they're intended to complement each other.
There are instances where we see that NCG-D Plus could work better than a fixed drought
and there are instances where fixed drought does work better than NCG-D Plus.
So all things will get in depth into at the July meeting.
Well, thank you for that.
I look forward to hearing more.
Okay.
Anybody else before I make some comments?
Okay, great.
All right.
Thank you Ms. Yoon Park Lynch for all of the work that you've done and of course everyone
on the team that's really made sure that we do have a balanced budget.
I know that we've heard loud and clear that we are going to want to continue to advocate
for that flexibility with regards to funding so that we have the ability to really fund
some of the operations that we need to.
And I think the other piece, I just wanted to thank you for even reining it in further
with regards to that five-year projection.
I know that that was something that we were looking at,
but I just want to thank you even more so that we've reduced
that net deficit, which is awesome.
And I know I have full faith in you to keep doing that for us.
With regards to the conversation that was being had
for NCTD Plus, just briefly want to touch on a couple things
that I'm hoping when we do discuss it,
I won't say get into detail.
But I do think that it's, I do think we need a holistic discussion on it,
which I'm sure will be the intention of the workshop to really talk about the scope and what it looks like.
One thing I just want to say is, I know I got roped into an aging population.
But I'm just kidding.
But I did want to say that one thing that I hope that the Misfita Committee is looking at,
and of course, our marketing team in general, and just in general,
how do we change the way that folks move and the habits, right?
Because a lot of it is the way that we make,
once we make it easier for folks to get around, it'll be, I mean it was,
it's the chicken and the egg conversation that we always have, right?
I mean the infrastructure that was built a long, long, long time ago predates many
of us on here, it wasn't built for what we're at now.
And clearly we're having to make, you know, we're optimizing,
and we're changing things to fit
within the confines of what we have.
So I think as we have these conversations,
I'm hopeful that we're thinking about,
how do we help shift folks' habits
if we are looking to continue to increase options
for public transit and make sure
that people are actually utilizing it?
That's the only way to go.
Otherwise, yeah, you will have to figure out
the waymos of the world and all of those other things.
But it would be nice to be able to offer folks
opportunity to use something that is more frequent and more available and of
course more affordable for folks. So I'm looking forward to that dialogue. With
that let's go ahead and look for a motion for the recommended actions
unless you oh they already did oh yes thank you for the reminder. So motion by
Edson and seconded by Joyce. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
And the motion of board member Edson seconded by board member Joyce to close
the public hearing and adopt the FY 27 operating budget the FY 2731 to 30
warrants capital improvement program and approve the FY 2731 service
implementation plan motion passes. Thank you and thanks for the reminder. I think
I got carried away with the exciting discussion so our second to last item
because we'll go back to item one.
On the agenda is regarding the Senate Bill,
California Senate Bill 1098 that requires CALSTA
to convene a working group of stakeholders
on the low sand rail corridor
and generate a report with recommendations
to ensure the long-term viability of passenger
and freight rail services.
SB 1098 also requires CALSTA to present the report
to the governing boards of NCTD, MetroLink,
and the Low Sand Rail Corridor Agency.
And I believe, Ms. Dover, this is going to you.
So our Deputy Chief Operating Officer of bus will present this item and I'll go ahead and pass it off to you
Thank You chair members of the board
As was so eloquently put by our chair
Senate bill 1098 was authored by Senator Katherine Katherine Blakespear and was signed into law in September of 2024
there are multiple aspects to the bill, but one of which is
requiring the California State Transportation Agency or CalSTA to convene a working group and publish a report that's intended to
ensure the long-term and provide recommendations for the long-term
viability of passenger and freight rail services on the low sand corridor which
stretches from San Luis Obispo down to San Diego. CalSTA is here. We have Anthony
Cerna, Senior Advisor for Rail and Transit at CalSTA, who will give an
overview of the draft report. Following his presentation, any feedback submitted
by the board will be transmitted to CalSTA, published in the final report, and
and transmitted to the legislature. So I will pass it off to Anthony.
Thank you, Mary, and thank you to members of the board. As Mary mentioned, my name is Anthony
Cerna, Senior Advisor for Rayland Transit at the California State Transportation Agency,
and I've been helping to lead this effort on our end over the past few months. So if you can go to
the next slide, please. Just going to give a quick overview. I think, you know, Mary gave a great
summary of some of the requirements in the legislation and wanted to just emphasize here
that this group, which was codified in 1098, is expected to continue meeting quarterly.
We had more regular meetings at the beginning of this year in order to be responsive to
some of the requirements in the legislation as it relates to the strap report.
Moving forward, we are looking to move to a quarterly cadence to align with the Senate
subcommittee hearings on the Los Angeles resiliency, which is chaired by Senator Blake Speer.
So with that, we can go on to the next slide here.
I'm just going to give a quick overview of the structure of the report and then some
of the primary recommendations.
So next slide, please.
So this initial report required the working group to investigate four specific policy
areas, A, B, C, and D here as you see them.
And those four were investigating how we can improve maintenance and service coordination
and disruption reduction along the corridor, B, which was an investigation of if there
were any alternative management models that could improve the management of the corridor,
was any changes to statutes or funding changes or other regulatory changes that could improve
the quality, frequency and governance across the corridor. And then D, any federal funding
coordination specifically through the corridor identification development program. And I
want to just be clear here that these recommendations, the ones that we'll be summarizing, are an
incomplete list, but they are ones that I think touch on some of the areas that were
of most interest to the working group. And these all were, you know, it's in the legislation that
these recommendations or any recommendations carried in the final report are to be consensus
driven. And so, you know, if there's one area where, you know, it seems like there may have been
kind of a lack of specific content, you know, it may have been that there was not enough consensus
during the deliberations to carry it in the report. So we can go to the next slide here.
So, key sections of the report, an executive summary, the introduction and background really
set in the stage for the purpose of the working group and the kind of mandate of the working
group, a discussion of topic area A, B, C, and D. So, and the way this was structured was basically
identifying a problem question or a challenge identified through the working group and then
specific areas of recommendations that really try and hit at the kind of primary challenges and
and really move the needle there.
And then finally, any cross-cutting themes,
conclusion, and dependencies.
Wanna reiterate here that the report is on our website now.
So it is live for public comment,
but we will get to that at the end of this presentation.
Next slide, please.
So quickly, you're gonna give a quick summary
of policy recommendations for policy area A.
Next slide.
And so again, don't wanna read all this verbatim,
but we're gonna touch on the key ones here.
And so the working group identified a need
for a kind of written fleet and asset management plan
for the entire corridor.
And so, you know, I think the challenge in the corridors,
you know, there are multiple operators,
including host railroads that have
kind of differing priorities.
And so really working towards aligning
how potentially we could align our fleet
and asset management across the operators,
at least for the public agencies,
really drive those efficiencies and the economies of scale. The second one here is to review state
programs for opportunities to support state of good repair projects were feasible. The third one
here in coordination with the working group, the state and the California Coastal Commission should
develop a cooperative agreement or a memorandum of understanding to identify where streamlining
solutions for rail projects in the coastal zone can be identified. This was one where I think we
we had a lot of positive feedback from the Coastal Commission
who was in the room as well, so wanted to note that.
The fourth one here is the development potentially
of a corridor-wide playbook
that defines roles, thresholds, and timelines
when major bluff instability is detected.
We can go to the next slide.
The numbers 6, 7, and 8 here really are looking
towards reducing those trespasser strikes
and the impacts of trespasser strikes,
and so the idea of establishing
a Vision Zero Framework for Rail within the low-sand corridor
with an explicit goal of eliminating passenger—
sorry, trespasser and vehicle strikes.
Including this is the compilation maintaining a unified safety dataset
to identify and map the highest risk locations
and then implementing ongoing performance monitoring.
The other areas here are related to absolute work windows,
so really establishing a corridor-wide standard
for a consistent confirmation of work windows across.
corridor, proactively consolidating maintenance activities, and then the last one here really
related to some of the earlier ones, but leveraging to the extent possible any real,
the Rail Fleet Consortium being led by the Caltrans Division of Rail to potentially,
you know, aggregate the procurement of vehicles across the corridor and to really be able to
share and pool resources, et cetera. You can go to the next slide, please.
And then, yeah, so policy area for policy recommendations for area B. Next slide.
The primary ones here were really, again, investigating alternative management or
operations models. So the working group coalesced around using the existing
rail leadership group for strategic leadership engagement, and continuing to leverage the
low cent technical advisory committee as a staff level to really advance priorities.
Encouragement of establishing or aligning schedule changes during the same periods of the year
across the three operators, that's the Surfliner service, the Coaster service as well as the
Metrolink services up and down the corridor while still preserving flexibility for ad hoc changes.
The third one here is requiring or seeing if there was a need to regularly update the
low-sand schedule optimization study on a fixed cadence to ensure that operations across the
corridor are continuously optimized and really making that a living document. And then the last
one here is, is there a way to have a more unified voice as a corridor in negotiations
with the freight railroads? I think this is less relevant to NCTD here, but speaking in terms of
of the entire corridor really being able to leverage kind of the voice and the influence
of the state with the low stand corridor as a whole in those negotiations was one that
is – that's an area that was identified as a significant area of interest.
Next slide, please.
And now we're going to review policy recommendations, C, and this is any changes to state statutes,
rules, or funding, and so a number of these are, you know, related to CEQA here.
So the first one here is establishing review deadlines for agency comments and creation
of a formal conflict resolution protocol when there are kind of multiple jurisdictions
imposing conflicting requirements on a rail project, consider it making the SB 149 permanent.
That's the CEQA streamline judicial review for certain transportation related projects.
was, this is one where it essentially requires all challenges to the CEQA to be resolved
within 270 days. It was passed by the legislature on a pilot basis and so once that pilot is
over really, you know, directing the legislature or encouraging the legislature if that was
a valuable program to consider making that permanent. The third one here is requesting
Caltrans to issue statewide guidance for how passenger rail and specifically intercity rail
described and coordinated in the regional transportation plans. And then the fourth one
here requesting Caltrans to develop standardized guidance, technical guidance for how rail service
should be modeled in tribal demand models that are used in the RTPs. Go to the next slide, please.
And then the final one in policy area C here, which is consistent with a key recommendation
in the transit transformation task force, which was finalized in late 2025, which was to
modernize the Transportation Development Act by removing the Faradop Box Recovery Penalty
related to this reviewing opportunities to develop new metrics and performance measures,
as well as reviewing opportunities to update formulated funding programs to align with the
revisions to TDA reporting requirements and incentives. So again, this one is verbatim
from the Transit Transformation Task Force and wanted to reiterate that support here.
next slide please. And so the the follow the the final area here which is the federal
coordination and specifically as it relates to the corridor ID identification and development
program. Next slide please. The three here, again directing CalSTA and Caltrans to to align
state grant programs with project priorities established through the CIDP process recommend
that low-sand member agencies establish a standing interagency coordination structure,
specifically organized around stage two of the CIDP program, milestones and deliverables.
And then the third primary one here is really encouraging using the inclusion in the CIDP
as a foundation for federal advocacy. I think there was an understanding that some advocacy
advocacy may happen on an ad hoc basis, kind of agency by agency. And so, again,
And really looking to speak with one collective voice
to really move the needle
and to fight for each other's shared priorities
is kind of the intent here.
And so using the CIDP status,
which is a recognized position
within the FRA's National Passenger Rail Framework
and uses strategically an engagement
with FRA and USDOT leadership.
And then to the last slide here, I believe,
last couple of slides, next steps here,
as I mentioned, the draft report is available
for public comment, to the extent that the board here
would like to make specific feedback to the report.
We're happy to collect that either on a member
by member basis or to the extent that this board
is interested in making formal board action
as it relates to any of the recommendations in the report.
we are able to include those actions as an addendum
or as an appendix to the final report.
And then, as I mentioned here,
we would transmit the report sometime in July.
I don't think this July 8th is a hard date.
I think we're still kind of working through
all of the comments we've received so far.
And then again, here, the plan is to resume
regular quarterly meetings with meetings starting in August
for the working group here.
and with that I know I went over a ton of information so I'll pause here and happy to
take any questions or answer any additional or take any additional feedback. I really appreciate
the time to present to you all today. Thank you Anthony. Just in closing I will reiterate,
so as Anthony mentioned these were consensus recommendations among all of the,
largely all of the agencies along the low-san corridor attended the meetings, submitted their
feedback, and then CalSTA had the job of taking all of the feedback from all of the member agencies
consolidating that into consensus recommendations to submit to the
legislature. NCTD's recommendations were largely consistent with seeing a
benefit to codifying the existing processes that we already have.
NCTD is a host railroad and responsible for maintenance, dispatching, we have
shared use agreements with the freight operators and the passenger rail
operators. A lot of that is ad hoc but it's working really well and so we
shared things that we do as a host rail road to improve coordination among the
Amtrak Pacific Surfliner service metro link that comes into Oceanside and then
the freight services that operate in between the passenger rail services. One
thing that I think every single operator mentioned throughout this working group
process was that we need resources and funding is is something that's on
everybody's minds and so CalSTA obviously took that recommendation and
and has that in their back pocket.
No smoking gun there so far,
but we did share that recommendation.
We also shared that there's a benefit to NCTD
as a host railroad playing a greater role
in the management on the low sand corridor.
And so we look forward to continuing that process.
Director Edson and myself,
as well as Chief Development Officer Tracy Foster
and Government Affairs Officer Tyler Mosher
attended most of the low sand working group meetings
and shared feedback.
And then as I mentioned at the top,
any additional board feedback.
We will jot down as an entity staff
and submit that as a public comment to CalSTA
for inclusion in the final report.
So with that, we will take any questions.
Great, before we do that, any public comments today?
No, Madam Chair.
All right, at this time,
public registration to speak on this item will end.
Any board member questions or comments on this agenda item?
Madam Chair, do you mind if I jump in real quick
before we go to board member comments?
Yeah, that's Mr. Donaghy.
Thank you.
virtually. So go ahead, Mr. Johnny. First of all, just want to say thanks to Anthony for the
presentation. I think one thing that we've been talking about for a while, which is critically
important. And I think Anthony touched on it as the fact that we are the owner of a railroad
in the rest of the inner city passenger rail corridor within the state of California. BNSF
owns everything and operates everything between Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, and I think Oakland
as well. And the UP pretty much has everything else. So Union Pacific has north of Sacramento
to the Oregon state line, and also has the San Luis Obispo portion of it. And so I think
one of the things we've talked about quite a bit is what is NCTD's role in it? We're
really the only public transit agency in the state that has a controlled interest of a
major corridor like that. And I don't think we probably get the play that we deserve in
trying to forge those relationships and manage those things. And I appreciate sort of some
of those callouts in SB 1098 specifically that I think that it's very difficult for
us as an agency to have to work through another created agency by the state that has no vested
interest or no assets as it relates to heavy rail in general. So we have to facilitate
with another agency who facilitates that with the state and then they facilitate that with
two private brokers between the UP and BNSF. I think if we were able to cut some of those
pieces out of the equation and just us as really the only major public transit agency and owner
of a railroad to push forward and negotiate those deals, I think you would see significant
improvements along the corridor. You take Metrolink for example, you know their service
is largely predicated on the budgets of other transit agencies and I think you're going to see
from a letter that was already sent to the state and other issues this year, that it's very difficult
to manage inner city rail when there are sort of these tie-ins to either other public transit
agencies that are that are different along the corridor. So you've got us and you've got
MetroLink, which is really driven by OCTA, which is driven by LA Metro, and then you go further
north to there in the Bay Area. And you're just starting to see a lot of this overlap, and I think
that's where we have some of our opportunities for improvement along the corridor as it relates to
who owns the rail and who's really making decisions in those realms. And I think that's sort of
encapsulated in the 10 98 report. And I really appreciate that. I think for us as an agency,
we could really help make some significant change statewide to inner city rail based on our direct
relationship with the BNSF who we work with. And I've worked with the UP in the past on other rail
projects and so we can get some footing there. But you know, the big piece and I think was mentioned
by our deputy COO Dover is that money's key here. And I appreciate the SB 1098 initiative,
but the reality is, is without changing the way that we really think about inner city
rail from a statewide perspective and actually tie funding to it, it's going to be extremely
difficult for us to manage that. Having the tier three carve out removed from the cap and
invest plan is a huge problem for us. Was it necessarily a significant amount of money
comparative to our budget. No, probably not. But we would already lost some money that we had
planned out with low sand that we received every year to the tune of about $4 million for
resiliency infrastructure improvements or just resiliency issues in the corridor.
Now we lose cap and invest money. I think it's difficult for us to go back to the class ones and
really try to say, hey, we need another $5 million a year for operating agreements. I don't think
that's the plan. We want to try to leverage our agreements where we can and put them where they
are and part of the issue that we have is we're just from from a full perspective all the way
across the line and I'm talking from San Diego all the way to Northern California. You have all
these independent JPAs that are making decisions about policy and relevancy that they're working
through the state on and it's very difficult to get consistency across the line on that.
We're probably the one agency that can solve that because we're not working with anybody.
we own what we own. And so it gives us all the leverage to talk to UP and BNSF and really bring
some continuity to the entirety of the rail sector of the corridor while working directly with the
state with their programs to try to figure out how to manage that. I'm a big fan of rail. When it
works, I really struggle at times to see where they made a change to the cap and invest that will
probably fund at least a billion dollars a year for a rail line between Bakersfield and
somewhere outside of San Francisco, probably over the next 10 or 20 years to try to solve that
problem when a billion dollars could be used to solve public transit issues in the state. And
really with inner city rail, it is a state issue because it's the entirety of the state rail line.
So I struggled with that a little bit to think, wow, what could we do with a billion dollars a
year to really improve passenger and intercity rail within our corridors. And that's really
the best way to do it. But that's all I had. Anthony, great presentation. Thank you very much.
And Madam Chair, thank you for letting me jump in there.
Of course, thank you. Anybody have any questions or comments? And I think Ms. Contreras had raised
her hand earlier. Yeah, this is a lot of different recommendations. And I, the first thing that I
always comes to mind and we've obviously been talking about that. Is the dollar
signs? Is this more dollar signs that NCTD has to put out or is this dollar
signs that we can get? And it sounds like there's the potential to streamline and
bring some efficiencies to the entire structure which hopefully materializes
in streamlining funding for all the capital needs that we have and
operational need so I look forward to seeing how this plays out but it's
extraordinarily extensive so I would just love as a board member and for the
entire board to continue to get updates on what this looks like in the real
world because it's it's it's like I said very extensive so thank you so much for
the presentation I really appreciated getting this information mr. Desmond
Thanks, I had a question, and part of the recommendations brought up the Fairbox
recovery penalty that's going to be reinstated in 2027. So can you remind me
what that is, was, what potential penalties we might have? Yes, I will give a very
high level overview as much as I can. So in the Transportation Development Act, a
condition of one of the a condition of NCTD and any public transit agency
receiving that funding from the state is that our farebox recovery, which just
means the amount of fares that we bring in as a percentage of our total budget
has to be at a particular percentage. I'm looking at 15%? 18%? 18.8% for our services
other than prior transit, it's 10% for prior transit. So where are we? So within the
legislation, there is a formula that allows us to incorporate other sources
of revenue to meet the fare bus recovery. So for example, revenues that we get for
transit dollars, because those are dedicated sources for transit, can count
as revenues for the purpose of fare bus recovery. Remedies that we also get from,
let's say, permits or other ancillary remedies also count. It also allows us to
to exclude certain expenses when liability costs
for insurance, XCPR, so it's a very complex formula.
So with that said, even within the legal statute,
even if they waive those provisions,
we'll still be able to meet it
because we have been over 25% every year
just because of those auditions.
So there's no impact for NCP.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Ms. Martinez?
Well, I'm just going to make a comment.
I wish that this was earlier
because the time restriction on comments.
So it would be ideal if we had our workshop prior to this.
There's a lot to absorb in here
and I'd like to know what's beneficial to this agency,
what are we vulnerable to
and really have more of an understanding.
I know residents are concerned
about the CEQA streamlining judicial review.
I don't completely understand that,
but there's a lot of red flags that make people nervous,
particularly when you're going
into environmentally sensitive areas,
communities, et cetera.
So, I'm just disappointed that I feel a little bit behind
in knowing the depth of all of this.
And I really want to understand more clearly
how our agency would be impacted or vulnerable
and what the positive side would be as well.
Yeah, I can respond to that a little bit.
And I agree.
I think one of the things that we,
and CalSTA had the Herculean task of taking
all of our feedback and combining it into one report.
So I can understand the need to make sure
that the report was put together in a thorough manner.
However, that doesn't leave us with a lot of time
before the legislature needed the report back.
One of the recommendations that almost every agency
that operates on the Los Angeles Corridor
made as part of this process was it's extremely hard
to build in the coastal environment.
So one of the recommendations that we had
is there are some specific provisions
that allow CEQA streamlining for public transit projects.
Those get a little muddied when you're in the coastal zone.
And so one of the recommendations
was kind of a larger philosophical
where it provides a public transit benefit
that will then improve air quality
and other coastal and climate benefits
within the coastal zone
to have those public transit benefits
and the benefits that public transit brings
to the coastal environment to be factored in
when we're dealing with the Coastal Commission,
the CEQA streamlining provision in particular,
where it's directly within the right of way,
we are just seeking some streamlining for that process.
If it's replacing a section of rail, if it's grading,
if it's really, I won't call them minute,
but smaller infrastructure projects
that aren't these large, big double tracking,
big bridge replacements where there's gonna be dredging,
where there's gonna be really
those large environmental impacts.
The agencies aren't intending to skirt CEQA or NEBA
for those projects.
It's really just over the course of regular rail business,
we would like to seek some CEQA streamlining
through that process.
Okay, because in that summary, it wasn't specific to that.
It seemed much more broad and inclusive of all.
So, okay.
Ms. Edson?
Yes.
In full disclosure, yes, I did attend
all of these low sound working group meetings.
I've been a part of the low sound working group
since it was founded, which was years ago,
and it's ebbed and flowed.
But I, you know, coming from a coastal city,
I have similar concerns and my comments with regard to the CEQA portion were to look for ways to streamline timelines and approvals and environmental process while still respecting and without undermining the substance of the Coastal Act because we don't want to throw away the baby with the bathwater, right?
Also being on the low sand board,
having a bluff slide or bluff collapse
and having to wait two months or a month or two weeks
to get approval to do the repairs is a terrible thing.
You know, for ridership, for budget
when you're doing bus bridges and stuff.
So I see both ways.
And I do believe that streamlining the process
is the right thing to do, but the devil's in the details.
Exactly.
Thank you for saying that.
Anybody else?
OK.
Yeah, and thank you for the presentation
and for providing this to us.
And I've been relooking at some of these things
because I, too, share and echo the sentiments of Ms. Martinez
and Ms. Edson.
With regards to kind of reporting back to us,
I'm just curious, one of the biggest questions I had was,
what does that look like?
I mean, I understand and I'm looking at,
going through all the different recommendations
and seeing, okay, there will obviously be ways for us
to understand that something's been checked off
with some of these things, with others,
it's a little bit more abstract
as to what that may look like when we get a report back
on how things are going, what success looks like
in that particular recommendation or objective.
So I'm curious as to if we have drilled down
on or if they've drilled down on that
and what that would look like when they're reporting back
to all the agencies.
Yeah, so where are some of these recommendations
cross over into state statute policy changes?
Senator Blake-Sperr has expressed
that she's interested in authoring a bill
to codify some of those in state statute.
If that ends up being the case, we
can include the updates as it relates to the recommendations
here that might be in a bill in your monthly intergovernmental
affairs report.
and we can note in there that this is related
to the SB 1098 report or it's a recommendation
of the report.
In, as Anthony mentioned, we're gonna go back
to a quarterly frequency of low stand working group meetings.
As it stands right now, board member Edson
is the board's liaison throughout those processes.
So whether it's Sean as part of his CEO update
or Director Edson as part of her board member update,
we can make sure that the contents of the discussion
at the working group meetings can be shared with the Board.
I think having, whether it's Ms. Edson or Mr. Donaghi,
whoever it might be, I think having it in a written format
would be helpful, just because that way we
have a historical context of what's happening.
If at any point we feel like we need to have a larger dialogue,
we can at least look to that history of, hey,
these are our quarterly, whatever those,
I don't want to give you homework based.
I'm sure you all will let us know when we have to,
but whatever those updates would look like,
I do think having it written and documented
will be helpful, moving forward.
Could I make a suggestion?
Of course.
If it's possible, it would be helpful to have
a standing agenda item following the quarterly meeting.
I think that would be beneficial to keep us all updated.
And as board member Edson said, it's the detail, the devil.
The details.
The devil's in the details.
that one, that I'd like to know what those details are
as they're going.
I'd like to watch that.
Thank you.
We can plan to add, I think, as of right now,
we can plan to add it as a consent item to the agenda.
However, if there's a very robust discussion
or there's something where we think
the discussion of the working group meeting
might warrant some board discussion,
we might be able to put it as information
or as another business.
But yes, we can plan to add an agenda item to the board agenda
going forward after each of the meetings.
Thank you.
would almost say if there is a possibility just to add on to that to
add it to the board member updates that get provided just maybe as like a
addendum or standalone I think sometimes what happens is some of these things
get buried and you may not necessarily have the opportunity some sometimes to
check it out so I just want to make sure that everyone gets to see it as a
standalone and that if we do have anything we'll we can then get in touch
with you all about it, so great. I know there's no vote required on this but
does anybody else have anything else before we move on? All right, perfect. So
with that we'll go ahead and move on. Thank you so much again Mr. Serna and
really appreciate it and we'll look forward to hearing back as things move
along. Thank you so much, bye-bye. All right, so we are moving back to item 1
and I believe if I'm not mistaken I'm gonna pass it off to you Ms. Dover. Yeah
I think if board member Edson would like to share anything specifically that
she'd like to hear and we have Tyler Mosher government affairs officer here
to answer any questions as well. Okay so basically I'm looking at this and and
it's saying we're being shorted these many billions of dollars in this you
know nationwide with the Build America 250 Act and that it's a big decrease
from the IIJA etc. So and then the passenger rail excess liability
insurance it talks about that and we've touched on that in the past and also the
urbanized area formula grants so for all three of those areas and also the CARB
dollars the GGRF dollars my question is what how does this impact our budget you
know are we looking at we're gaining some here we're losing some there but
what's the real cost to NCTD or potential impact NCTD? Sean I'll take a
first stab and then if you'd like to add anything. So right now the house has the
house is the only entity that has a bill in print that we can reference so
there still is a long way for this bill to go in terms of direct impacts to our
budget it's hard to say right now as we're in the very early stages but it is
helpful for us to know what is in print so far. It's looking like, based off of
the House version, that the formula funding that NCTD receives is not cut as
significantly as the discretionary programs. So by and large what we're
looking at, the dedicated funding that NCTD receives will largely remain, you
know, not as greatly impacted as the discretionary funds. When we have these
major capital projects that we typically would seek funding for. Also major bus
purchases that we could have we could need funding for in the future. Those
programs are significantly decreased and that's where you see those major a
hundred billion dollar cuts to those big rail specific programs. But in terms of
our baseline budget as it stands now with the bill that we have in print now
that still has to go through the Senate. We have seen this process in
appropriations bills in the past where the House will come out with an
appropriations bill that is very low and then the Senate comes out with a bill
that's pretty on par with what was authorized in the IIJA. So we might see
the Senate come out with a bill that has less steep cuts. I think we can expect
there will still be some cuts. But may I interrupt for a moment? With that in mind is there
anything that we can do, are there letters we can send, how can we help to
move this in the right direction? Absolutely, so Sean sits on the
Executive Committee of the American Public Transportation Associations, the
Executive Committee and their Legislative Committee, so he is very
involved with the National Association's advocacy on this bill. Tyler writes, I
don't know, 15 letters a day related to various aspects of the bill and
advocating for NCTD's priorities specifically. So we as an agency, and Sean as part of the larger
national agency, are continuing to advocate for not only what we want out of this bill, but why
it's important to the national economy, the local economies, and why maintaining these funds and
these major capital programs will be beneficial for the national economy. Yeah, if I could just
add on to that briefly. One of the problems we had a few months back was a conversation that
there was a bill that was going to be put forward to pull money from the highway trust fund
and we had conversations with Chairman Graves and Chairman Larson about what that meant. Both of
them felt like that was never going to make it through and it really hasn't made it through to
this bill. Just in my history of doing these things, anytime you're in conflict outside of your borders,
the money tends to come from there. I think that's why you're seeing the House budgets a little low.
I think the Senate's is going to creep back up, but it always usually comes in the form of capital
dollars. I think as much as we enjoyed it and appreciated it, I think the IAJA shot for the
moon a little bit and I think probably could have been scaled back some on discretionary funding
to Mary's point and I think that's what you're seeing now is the biggest hit to the agency long
term through some of these short term budgets are going to be capital related and that's
ebbed and flowed over the course of the history of public transit. You know you get a lot of
you get a lot of discretionary money you build the project and then boom you're right back
in a lull for 10 years. I would say our main goal is to protect anything formula related
because it has direct tie to some operational from a maintenance perspective, as well as
hopefully in the future some security money as well. The thing that probably concerns me the
most is the rail budget. There has been a real concerted effort over the years to continue to
lower the rail budget at all levels, whether that's discretionary money, whether that's related to
operational money. And rail just unfortunately over the years has become much more costly.
And so we're trying to find ways to solve those issues at the national level. But I would say the
help we're going to really need is if and when the time comes and the budgets don't, you know,
if the Senate budget does match the House budget, we're going to need letters of support from the
board for when we go to DC to say, hey, this is an issue. We've been pretty fortunate at the national
level. I mean everybody that we've set meetings with has let us come in the door and have conversations
with them. We've testified in front of congressional hearings when needed to smaller congressional
hearings and so we're getting the support that we need I think in a very bipartisan effort
and we just need to figure out what that number is and where they need to be and where we need to
be so that we can stabilize that. Thank you. I appreciate all of this information because
reading the report is one thing,
but hearing it again is really good.
And I would just add too, related to CAP and INVEST,
that's another area that we're watching very closely
and we're continuing to advocate for
how important those programs are
that come from the GGRF Law and Career NCT.
So, it's another focus for us too,
in addition to the federal programs
that we just talked all about.
So one thing I might recommend in this report,
it's great to have the report, but maybe there's
something that tells us this is beneficial, this is painful.
And so that we're able to not have
to try to sift through it and read the back and forth.
Yeah, I think because a lot of these are moving targets,
we try to be as even keel as possible.
but the cap and invest action was a CARB action.
However, there's a lot of pushback
from members of the legislature.
So although it's seemingly finalized,
the legislature I think is exploring all potential avenues
to try to still maintain some of those funding sources
for the transit agencies.
And so although right now it's a thumbs down,
we're hopeful that we can turn it back to a thumbs up.
Yeah, and I may go bold here for a second
and say I'm a little less worried
about the federal funding,
and I'm a lot more worried about the state funding.
Okay, is there potential for us
to write to the governor at this point
or do anything like that?
Yeah, we're going through our state lobbyists.
Yeah.
Let's ride a train up there.
And then?
All right, anyone else?
Okay, with that, Ms. Edson,
would you like to make the motion?
motion to approve okay great anyone seconding otherwise I'll just second
okay great I'll just give it to you Mr. O'Hara so miss Edson motioned by Edson
seconded by O'Hara all in favor say aye aye any opposed
any abstain on the motion of board member Edson seconded by board member
O'Hara to receive the monthly intergovernmental affairs report motion
passes all right we are moving on to the chief executive officer report
do we have anything to report out there? Yes, thank you Madam Chair. I'll make a brief.
We already talked about cap and invest so I won't beat that or the state budget up too much.
Big positive news. We did receive a grant for Buena Creek. So we're pretty excited about that.
Did send that off to a few board members to let them know that we were able to secure that and
excited for the team to move forward with that. That's been a long time coming so we are excited
for that movement. At SANDAG last Friday at the Transportation Committee meeting, we had the first
reading of the Fair Ordinance. Some decent feedback from the public. Honestly, I thought more people
might show up than they did. I think a lot of people understand where we're at and what we're
trying to do there. One thing that did come up from an MTS perspective is related to a freeze on
on some of their fare passes.
The TC group and SANDAG was very clear with them
that if the fare ordinance doesn't pass,
our agency and MTS has no ability
to make their own programs within the fare ordinance.
They still have to go through SANDAG.
So one kind of follows the other there.
So a little more to come on that.
And I know I mentioned it last month,
but I wanted to mention it again,
since we have employees in the room,
we did win an after gold award
for bus safety a few months back.
It's a big deal for our agency.
They're not easy to come by.
Essentially, they give three out every year,
depending on what ridership category you're in.
I think that speaks volumes of the work
that our teams are doing out there.
And super thankful to them.
And I'm really excited today to pack up all my son's stuff
and kick him out of my house because he graduated college.
So kudos to him.
And Madam Chair, that's all I got today,
unless anybody's got anything for me.
Madam Chair, may I add one thing that we mentioned
at the Mississippi community?
Yes, of course.
We are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Breeze service on July 1st.
So be on the lookout on our social media.
We have a couple of wrapped buses that we're excited to drop out, and
we're having a few celebrations for our employees so
we can get information out to the board.
Great, thank you.
Mr. Joyce.
Could you just expand a little bit on the transportation committee?
I wasn't able to observe it.
I know we have some members that are on it, but there was an article in the union
and there was widespread confusion about what was happening.
And I actually had, there was a statement from our mayor
in our council meeting last night
that it came out of nowhere too.
So what's the next steps with that?
There's some confusion about MTS voting or not voting.
Can you give us a little more information
because it seems pretty important
for something to happen there?
Yeah, absolutely.
That's a great question.
And I wanna give Mayor Sanchez some credit.
I thought her attempts to clarify things
that were happening from another councilor,
from another city were very well-framed.
And I thought to try to gain some clarity
on what was happening.
And I actually mentioned that to her after the meeting
that I thought that was a great springboard on her part.
MTS took action at their board meeting
the day before the transportation committee meeting
that if the fair ordinance passes,
they will freeze the current rates
for at least one or two of their fair types
that currently exist now.
Not necessarily interested in a discount program,
more of the sense that if you fall into a certain category
based on certain certifications
that people may have through the state,
and there were two or three different ones
that were mentioned,
that they would qualify for a fair freeze
under the current fair scenario that exists.
SANDAG told them, hey, that's great,
you can do your own thing, you're allowed to do that,
but you cannot do that unless the fair ordinance
is approved because the fair ordinance has language in it
that MTS and NCTD put in there specifically
that says we want the ability to manage
our own past programs outside of the greater sphere
that we're going to have to
do that. It does not affect
us at all. We have the ability
to potentially do the same
thing if and when the fair
ordinance is passed, but they
cannot do that unless the fair
ordinance is passed next month
at T.C. So this was just the
first reading of the fair
of what did MTS do?
Is NCTD doing that?
Is it part of the fair ordinance?
And the answer to that question is,
yes, they voted on something.
Yes, it's part of the fair ordinance only in the sense
that they can only do it if the fair ordinance,
the new fair ordinance is approved.
And then we will have the ability to do the same thing
on our own accord without SANDAG or MTS
intervening with that.
So that's where the confusion kind of came in
and I thought Mayor Sanchez did a great job of like,
hey, I'm kind of confused on what you're saying here,
can you walk through it?
And the staff, I think elaborated on it quite a bit
and we got to a space on what that was.
Okay, thank you, Ms. Edson.
Yes, if I might add, because I did it in that meeting,
to me, the headlines in the paper
were very sensationalized.
I was like, were they at the same meeting that I was at?
So it was interesting.
There wasn't like huge confusion.
It was just, can we get some clarification on some things?
And so that was reported as confusion,
which I think is really odd, but.
Ms. Contreras.
Not about this subject, but I think it's super exciting
that our number one and our number two Sprinter crossings
are now, they have some kind of funding.
I'm excited to see what comes out of the Wenner Creek Station.
And one of the things that I would just,
as I always ask, just for us to continue as a board
to understand where we're at and how we can continue
to be competitive for funds.
And so we can actually get to the $900 million project plus.
I mean, these are really expensive projects.
So I'm super excited about that.
Thank you, mr. Desmond just real quick congrats on the Buena Creek grant. Great job. Thanks, Shawn
All right, anybody else
And mr. Donahue that was the end of your report
Yes, thank you chair. Okay. Thank you board members have anything else to report out?
Alright seeing none. Do we have any remaining public comments?
We do not Madam Chair. All right at this time public registration to speak on remaining public comments will end
The next scheduled meeting is our board workshop on Thursday July 16th at 2 p.m
And we'll have no meetings in August and with that we are adjourned at