Good morning everybody and thank you for being here today.
I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order for the Board of Directors meeting
for September 3rd, 2025 for the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and the San
Bernardino Council of Governments.
So today the Board will be acting in the capacity of both entities, therefore each Board member
will be entitled to receive $100 stipend for doing business as the authority and $100
stipend for doing business as the COG.
Our first item today on the agenda is closed session.
be adjourning to closed session, have conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation.
Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the closed session agenda
before we adjourn the closed session?
I see none.
At this time we're going to recess and we will report out of closed session upon our
return.
Thank you.
Well, thank you, everybody, for waiting for us to return from closed session.
I'd like to turn it over to counsel for reporting out.
There was no reportable action taken.
all right well thank you very much so we're gonna start off first with the
Pledge of Allegiance and I'd like to ask Josh Poland if he would lead us in the
Pledge of Allegiance today all right thank you everyone so now we'll ask the
clerk to call for attendance please when I call your jurisdiction please state
your name, Adelanto, Ramos, present. Applebelly, Archbishop, Barstow, Hernandez, present.
Big Bear Lake, Rick Herrick, Chino, Unit Shiloham, Chino Hills, Colton, Fontana, Aquinetta
Warren, Grant Harris, Bill Hasse, Hisparia, Josh Pollan, Highland, Mary McCallum, Loma
Linda. Ron Daly. Montclair. John Drake. Needles. Janet Jernigan. Ontario.
Rancho Cucamonga. Redlands. Mario Saucedo. Rialto. Joe Baca.
San Bernardino. Helen Tran. 29 Palms. Dammit. Upland. Phil Velto. Victorville.
not present you Kipa Judy Woolsey Yucca Valley Rick Denison
County Supervisors first district not present second district armamenters
present third district d'enreult fourth district fifth district pocket junior
president inner Caltrans ex officio representative Caltrans can you please
say your name thank you we have a quorum excellent thank you very much so I want
I'm gonna start off with an announcement.
We have some employee recognitions today.
And first off, please help me welcome Stephanie Zama.
Is Stephanie here today?
Oh, there.
Welcome aboard, Stephanie.
Stephanie is executive assistant
in the support services department.
So welcome, thanks for joining the team.
And additionally, Ryan Graham has been promoted
to director of fund administration.
Where are you at, Ryan?
Oh, there he is, right straight in front of me.
Congratulations on your new role.
So, here's a little bit of information
on some events we've had.
So, at this time I want to take a moment
to recognize a monumentous event
that happened in this agency and the city's history
that recently took place.
Many of you have probably heard about this,
but on Saturday, 23rd, I was honored to participate
in the ribbon cutting for the Mount Vernon Avenue Bridge,
along with Mayor Tran from the beautiful city
of San Bernardino, and Supervisor Baca right over here,
what a great event, a project that stands
a true success for our region.
It was kind of overwhelming for me in many ways.
The bridge has already become a source of pride
and excitement in the San Bernardino community,
connecting neighborhoods and supporting future growth.
The event itself is a testament to outstanding partnership
attended by more than 8,000 local residents.
It was quite a sight to see.
Even with the rain, the sun broke out
and everything started to come together for a great event.
The city of San Bernardino joined SBCTA
in going above and beyond and planning a ceremony
that reflected the importance of this iconic structure
to the people of this city and the surrounding communities.
And it is truly a bridge that's bringing back neighborhoods
and communities that were separated
for quite a few years during this project.
So a wonderful thing and it was well received.
So let's not forget that Measure I played a vital role
in making this project a reality.
So to the community and the county as a whole,
thank you for supporting that.
It does make a difference and builds communities.
The Mount Vernon Bridge is another example
of how collaboration and investment
are strengthening mobility and quality of life
across San Bernardino County.
It was truly a great and historic event
and a source of pride for every agency and city.
So thank you.
SBCD is very thankful for everyone.
Big hand.
So a couple of calendar reminders.
Can I say something real fast?
I'm so sorry.
Absolutely, Ray, please.
First of all, Mayor Tran, congratulations.
And then our supervisor, I didn't realize
he has such a great voice, singing voice.
I just wanna thank Joe Baucus.
Good job, Joe.
I hope we can all take the time
and look at that event and the ceremony
because it was so well received by the community.
There was so many emotions and great stories of history
in our community and how families built around that bridge
and it was a vital piece in our community
and it's welcome to be back.
Can I just say-
Yes, Mayor Tran.
this board thank you thank you immensely on behalf of City of San Bernardino
without you guys helping us get us to finish the line we would not be able to
make that happen so thank you to this amazing board and staff thank you so I
want to remind board members that Friday September 12th is the Mobility 21
Transportation Summit at the Disneyland Hotel if you have the opportunity to
attend it's quite an event I first timer last year and I was very surprised of
of the technology that's brought forward,
the ideas that are brought forward,
and the projects that are brought forward.
Very similar to our project, the ZEMU here,
so it's technology in motion there and the ideas.
So if you'd like to attend,
contact the clerk of the board for any details
on Mobility 21, once again on the 12th of this month.
Thursday, September 25th is SBCTA's
Annual Business to Business Expo
held at the Ontario Convention Center.
Once again, this is a great opportunity
for businesses to figure out how they can better integrate
with some of the projects that we do.
We're always looking and we've brought this up many times
about local contractors and vendors that are within our area
and SBCTA would love to consider those businesses
for participation in some of the projects that we have.
So the goal is to, like I said, to connect prime
and subcontractors for future partnerships
and also enhancement on local labor,
educating prospective bidders on contracting opportunities
within SBCTA.
So staff, in addition, staff will share a brief outlook
on the state of transportation as well as a place
for small businesses to connect with opportunities
throughout your jurisdictions.
Lastly, on Saturday, September 13th,
along the weighted launch of the ZEMU,
then we just mentioned, a service on the Arrow Metrolink line
from San Bernardino to Redlands will begin.
So that's quite a long journey for us.
Once again, September 13th, hope you can make it there.
This is the first of its kind in North America,
and we're proud that this revolutionary service
begins right here in San Bernardino.
And for the first zero emissions train in North America,
I think that's quite an accomplishment for this group.
So thank you to the entire board.
With that, any agenda modifications or notices?
Support material for agenda item 39
was posted and distributed, and that concludes my notices.
All right, thank you.
So at this time, are there any members of the public
that would like to speak on any subject
within the board's jurisdiction at this time?
I have three speaker cards up here at this time.
And if there's anyone else, please provide a card.
Oh, these are for items, I'm sorry.
Anyone?
So seeing no one here.
So also conflict of interest.
Any members have a conflict they'd like to disclose.
Please submit your conflict of interest forms to the clerk.
Informational items are first items of items two through nine.
Their informational items do not require a vote.
These are receiving file items that are
routine and non-controversial.
So moving on, we're gonna go to our consent calendar.
Consent calendar items consist of 10 through 33.
Receive motions and or discussion requests from the board.
So anyone wanna speak on any of the items
from the board on these items?
A lot of moves.
All right, we have a move by Ramos, was it?
Yes.
Correctly, and the second was by Novaro.
All in favor?
aye. Opposed? Abstentions. Thank you for moving that. The consent calendar passes unanimously.
Moving on to discussion item number 34, trade corridor enhancement program baseline agreement
and contract with Watt EV for the Baker Boulevard and zero emission truck infrastructure project.
And Ryan Graham, thank you. It's yours. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Board. Sorry,
Mr. President and members of the board. This item seeks approval of two contracts related to an
an allocation or an approved grant for the trade corridors
enhancement program for the Baker Bridge,
sorry, Baker Boulevard Bridge
and Zero Emission Infrastructure Project.
The Baseline Agreement is a fairly standard agreement
with the CTC.
It establishes the project benefits,
scope, schedule, cost for the project as a whole.
And the second agreement is between SBCTA and WAT-EV,
which will establish the relationship
between our two entities for the implementation
of this portion of the project.
This would authorize the executive director
to approve and execute the agreement
subject to legal council, general council approval
as to form.
With that, I'll take any questions.
Thank you, Ryan.
Any board members have any questions on this item?
Comments?
Any public comment on this item?
Item number 34?
Seeing none, I'll look for someone to move the item.
Hagman moves.
and I'll call on Warren seconds.
All in favor?
All aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
The item passes in and received.
Thank you, Ryan.
Thank you.
So agenda item number 35 is the ZMU project update.
We just spoke a little bit about,
Victor Lopez will be presenting.
Yeah, good morning.
Joy Winiflor, who's actually our deputy director
to answer our programs,
has been the project manager for this project.
She's been leading our efforts
with the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority,
who would operate and maintain this email
as part of the Arrow service,
as well as leading the coordination efforts
with the Federal Railroad Administration,
who's a regulatory agency for this project,
which is actually on much-needed vacation this week.
And of course, the intent of this item was to, you know,
provide an update, as it was referenced earlier today,
that as of last Friday, we received the final regulatory
proposal that were needed to actually start
the revenue service along the Arrow corridor
using the Arrow vehicle.
So with that, of course, we would like to thank
this board for your continued commitment
to such an innovative project
that improves the quality of life to our residents
and also wanted to thank all of our staff
who have contributed to this project
and to help us reach this historic milestone.
So with that, be happy to answer any more questions.
Thank you very much.
I'll open it up to the public first.
Anyone in the public have any comments
on item number 35 in regards to the Zima?
Seeing none, the board, back to you.
Oh, yes, please.
If I may, I just want to add a couple additional details.
So it's a huge milestone to get the FRA approval.
They're very excited about it
and it was a huge milestone on Friday.
A couple items to keep in mind is that we do have a study
underway with Metrolink and Metro to deploy these vehicles
further west on the San Bernardino line.
So that's exciting and we're looking forward
to how that will work.
And also that the state of California,
CalSTA has moved forward with procuring additional Z-moves
those are currently under development. So while this is the first one, the state
has moved quickly to build on the progress that this agency made. Thank you.
More good news on the Z-News, so that's great. This is a receive and file items.
Mr. Chair, just a question. Yes, Larry. Are we going to have any kind of event or
ceremony for the start of the revenue service? So we held the event, the
ribbon-cutting essentially when the vehicle arrived. What we're doing on
Saturday is it will go into service at 1032. We'll have ambassadors out at the
stations. We'll have a giveaway and we're using social media to share the
information that it's going into revenue service. Thank you. All right any other
questions? I see none. Receive and file. Thank you. Moving on to item number 36,
hearing to consider adopting a resolution of necessity for the West
Valley Connector Project and Ramey Dewitt, sorry, I'm sorry this is a public
hearing so I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing on the RONs and
Ramey Dewitt will be presenting. Ramey, turn your microphone on please. Can you
hear me? Oh good morning board members I am Ramey Dawit, right away manager for
the West Valley Connector Project. We have for your consideration today the
adoption of one resolution of necessity in connection with additional time for
temporary construction easements required for the West Valley Connector
project. In order to adopt a subject resolution of necessity the board
must make the following four findings for the property interest needed for the
project. There we go. The four necessary findings are as follows. The public
interest and necessity require the proposed project. The project is planned
or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public
good and least private injury the real property be acquired is necessary for
the project and the offer of just compensation has been made to the
property owner sorry okay there we go the west Valley connector project is a
100% zero emission bus rapid transit system that would connect the Pomona
Montclair Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga communities with improved bus service
with ten minute headways and stops at the Pomona Transit Center Ontario
International Airport, Ontario Mills, Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station and
Victoria Gardens. Construction of the West Valley Connector is ongoing and
we've obtained possession of all parcels but due to delays in the start of
construction several TC's have expired. In order to meet our
construction schedule we need to move forward with the Ron for the parcel in
front of you today. The item on the agenda is recommendation B. Holt San
San Antonio LLC located at 624 West Holt Boulevard. The project requires a
1,404 square foot TCE for a nine-month term. As you can see on the next slide here,
as you can see on the next slide here, we have had numerous contacts with Holt San Antonio legal representatives.
The offer was made in early April, so we've been in discussions
for quite some time, even prior to the offer being made. Also, we do continue to negotiate in good faith with the property owners representatives.
Having found facts sufficient to support the four findings as support in the agenda report
We asked that the board adopt the resolutions of necessity also specifically identified in the agenda report that concludes the presentation
I'm happy to answer any questions
Thank you for the presentation at this time we'll open it up. I'm sorry
Do we have any property owners that would like to speak on this item?
See none. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing
and
At this time we can receive motions or move the item or any comment
Michael moving it and Mark has
seconding
In addition any anyone in just in general public comment on this item for the public hearing I apologize for missing that
Seeing none. Okay. We have a motion in a second all in favor. Aye opposed
Abstentions the item passes unanimously
Okay, agenda item number 37 approved policy number one three six zero two revisions and adopt resolution for fee increases fiscal year
2025-2026 and Ryan Nash and Brenner is up
Just for clarification. This is also a public hearing. Oh, I apologize. Yeah, I will open the public hearing at this time on item number 37
Good morning board president and directors this public hearing is to increase the administrative fees related to the grant of use program
notice of the public hearing was
Posted in the San Bernardino County Sun newspaper on August 15th and August 22nd
Providing the time place and date of the public hearing as well as providing public access to staff's analysis
Supporting the increase of the administrative fees for the grant of use program
Having analyzed the administrative fees for the grant of use program
the
Resolution introduces a new administrative fee for engineering review
I'd also like to point out that on table one of the resolution and page five hundred seventy-five of your
of your agenda packet the
Amendment fee in order to be consistent and conformed with the staff analysis that was posted on SPC ta's website should read
$2,500 for amendment fees
Now relating to the adoption of an updated fee and fee structure
Requires updating the policy before a sembradino County's real property policy
Most of this is to conform with the updated fee structure
also
subsequent to GPC meeting in June,
a staff identified additional change
that we're recommending to update to the policy,
where if an application is non-responsive
to SBCTA's written request for informations
for over eight weeks, it is deemed to have been abandoned.
This is in order to conserve agency resources
and keep the assumptions relating to the level of effort
in the Grant of Use program,
consistent with the fee structure that you're adopting
or considering this morning.
And other than administrative updates,
updating reference to responsible staff
to reflect the changes in the SBCTA org chart
since last time the policy was updated.
That concludes my staff report.
Thank you, Ryan.
I'll open it up for public comment at this time.
Anyone want public comment on number 37?
bringing item 37 back to the board.
Second.
The move by Hagman and second was by Joe Vada.
All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
The item passes unanimously.
And close the hearing.
Thank you.
Know your health.
So agenda item number 38, amendment to the fiscal year
2025-2026, budget for aero operations.
And it looks like Victor's up there.
Thank you, sir.
Good morning again.
The Southern California Regional Railroad Authority
operates the Metrolinx service that you see
outside of this office every day.
They also operate, as referenced earlier,
the Aeroservice, which launched October 24, 2022,
that operates between San Bernardino downtown
and the University of Redlands.
The Aeroservice is funded by SBCTA,
and the yearly budget is presented
to this board for approval.
The yearly operating budget includes a budget amount
for insurance and legal costs which are intended
to cover SCRA cost and minor claims administration
but does not include outside legal support services.
There is one active case related to the arrow service
in which SBCTA and among others SCRA
have been named as defendants
and staff recommends advocating the funds needed
and adjusting the fiscal year budget
as noted under recommendation A and B
so that outside litigation support services
can be provided.
That concludes my presentation
public comment on this item.
Item number 38, seeing none, any
questions from the board?
All in favor?
Opposed?
Abstentions?
The item passes unanimously.
Moving on to our last item for
the day, which is agenda item
number 39, goal line to Montclair
to Montclair Project cost increase and funding request.
Victor, once again, you're presenting.
Good morning again.
An update to the Gold Line Project
was provided at the last board meeting,
and the direction from the board at the last meeting
was to authorize the SBCTA president
to appoint two members to participate
in a joint EDHOT committee,
with members from the Metro Gold Line
Foothill Extension Construction Authority,
and to report back to the transit committee
for further discussion.
As requested by the board,
the transit committee received an update
on the status of the various open topics
previously discussed at the full board,
including the status of a memorandum of understanding,
the status of the CMR delivery method approvals,
and the latest cost estimate.
Based on the information provided
to the transit committee last month,
the committee provided direction on the recommendations
to be presented to the full board,
as noted under recommendation B, C, and D.
Under recommendation B, the committee provided a deadline
to conclude negotiations on the memorandum of understanding
by August 29th, with the expectation
that this board will make a final determination
as to how to proceed.
Since the transit committee meeting,
there were some further discussions
with the construction authority
regarding the barriers of issues
on the memorandum of understanding,
with the last meeting taking place yesterday morning
with staff and ad hoc members,
but we were not able to reach a resolution.
In addition, as outlined in the staff report in July,
the Construction Authority notify SBCTA
of various items and requests,
including that SBCTA provide 15.2 million
by October, 2025 of non-TIRCP state funds,
and then 130 to 229 million within the next two years.
The 15.2 million would be used to advance the project
using the construction manager at risk delivery method.
As noted in the staff report and also in July,
we requested the construction authority
to provide wind assurance that they have the authority
to use the CMR delivery method.
And last week we received the legal memorandum
from the construction authority explaining the statue
that allows them to use the CMR delivery method.
The state TRCP grant funding master agreement
also includes language that requires wind approved
by the state when awarding a construction contract
on the basis of a non-competitive negotiations,
which appears to apply to this delivery method.
So based on that, we also reached out to the state
TRC program staff to get rent concurrence
for the using the CMR delivery method on the project
in order to prevent any future issues
with the use of TRCP grant funding.
But we have not heard that written response.
That concludes my presentation since the last board meeting
and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
All right, thank you, Victor.
I appreciate that.
At this time, I'm gonna open it up for public comment.
I do have three speaker cards here today.
So I'll start off with those and first one I'll call up
will be Ed Rees.
Good morning, Mr. President, board.
I'm Claremont City Council member Ed Rees
and I'm Chair of the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority
and proud Rancho Cucamonga native.
With me this morning is agency CEO, Habib Bailein.
I'm here to let you know that we're committed
to completing the Gold Line to Montclair
and being a good partner to this agency as we do it.
Our agency was put in place by the City of California
25 years ago with the sole purpose of planning,
designing, and building this one light rail line.
While we have faced many challenges,
we have successfully completed 35 miles
and 23 stations across 12 cities.
We have overseen $3 billion in work,
on time, and on budget.
And each project was completed in close coordination
and partnership with our corridor stakeholders.
I'm especially proud to say that we have left each city
with the core, and I should say the corridor,
Overall, better than we have found it.
Over the past few months, I have personally been involved
along with several of your board members and staff
in meetings to improve the communication and cooperation
between our agencies.
We have spent hours collaborating and listening.
Through these efforts,
our agency has made substantial compromises
to enhance SBCTA's involvement and invisibility
across all project aspects from procurement and design
to construction and final acceptance,
more than any other stakeholder
in our agency's 25 year history.
We've offered this historic level involvement
because we strive to be a greater partner
because it's in our DNA.
Where we have not been able to debate
is having SBCTA oversee and approve
the authority's state mandated work.
This would affect our ability to carry out tasks
in the most cost effective and risk reduced way,
which has contributed to our proven record of success.
Finally, I'd like to conclude with some key data
highlighting the benefits of completing the project
for San Bernardino County.
About 180,000 people commute daily between the two counties.
Of these, 30,000 travel from Ontario up in Montclair
to Gold Line cities,
where 24,000 make the reverse trip.
These commuters currently not served by Metrolink
could benefit from the Gold Line.
Additionally, a recent economic study found
that every one million invested
in the project construction,
San Bernardino County would see 1.4 million return
through supply chain and spending from workers' incomes.
Every one million invested in operating
and maintaining the line,
San Bernardino County would see a return of 3.5 million.
Although these returns do not directly come to SBCTA,
they benefit the greater San Bernardino County.
These figures also exclude the direct farebox revenues
from tens of thousands of more riders
on both the Metrolink and Gold Line systems
and nearly 900 high-paying jobs
generated for the county during construction.
I will say, being raised locally in San Bernardino County
and visiting the Montclair Plaza as a team,
It has fueled my desire to advocate for Montclair
and support SBCTA as a partner.
This project will bring important economic mobility
and quality of life benefits for this county
and I truly hope that you agree
and allow the construction authority the opportunity
to deliver it for you in the coming years ahead.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
I'd like to announce the departure of Art Bishop
and our next speaker will be Bill Ruhl, Bill Ru.
We'll set the card aside, and we'll move on
with Martin Hock or Martez.
Hello, council members.
I'd like to advocate against the continuance of this project.
I think all the benefits that the chairman sort of talked
about are sort of primarily gained
by already having the interconnection at Pomona.
The key to the project sort of that duplicates
the already double tracked Metrolink load line
between Pomona and Montclair is sort of an emblematic
of a problem this board has, sort of carefully
coloring the lines doubly when it already
sort of has a solution.
We already have sort of an amazing transit corridor
that exists, and simply sort of increasing service there
would sort of do better.
If you actually want to extend the metro goal line, now
the A-line, you would do better, sir,
by having it actually cross the metro line
and be extended either to the Pomona Transit Center,
to the Tino Transit Center, or if you refer to transit north,
instead of sort of duplicating the service
in the exact same places where service already exists.
Please, as stewards of sort of public funds,
I implore you to get sort of the biggest bang for the buck,
and if you're going to sort of extend that,
if you're going to encourage the gold line to be extended,
please extend it in a new right of way,
as opposed to duplicating service that already exists,
and that you can simply improve by improving that service.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comments.
Bill Ru, please.
I apologize, I had to step out and take a work call.
those pesky things that happen when you work for a living.
Thank you.
I am Bill Wu, I am a council member
of the city of Montclair and in full disclosure,
I am also the Secretary-Treasurer
of the Gold Line JPA.
At the last, at the meeting of the Transit Committee,
I was joined by two of my colleagues
who are unable to be here today,
but I stand with them and they stand with Montclair.
I would encourage you to continue this item,
work towards securing a good MOU that works with everybody.
Move forward with looking for additional funding.
There is a tremendous amount of economic benefit
with the gold line.
If you just look at initial expenditures,
$80.3 million in the construction phase alone,
that supports 580 jobs.
Those people have paychecks that come back
to our communities where they spend that money,
and these are good paying jobs.
There's a $45.9 million in labor income,
$112.3 million in output.
Construction of the line will also generate
15.1 million in taxes at all levels of government,
including a total of 1.7 million in San Bernardino County.
I believe we need to look at this
in terms of economics as well as moving people.
If you drive on the freeway in the morning,
the 10 freeway, the 210,
all the traffic is going to the west.
In the evening, it's going to the east.
we need to move people through this region.
With the gold line, someone can be in the city in the east,
go to Montclair, go to the parking center,
get on the train and go to a job in Pasadena or Arcadia,
not served by Metrolinx.
They then earn that income, take that paycheck back home
to San Bernardino County.
We need to look at this as a way to move people
through a region that is already very congested.
Every city will benefit from this
because we can move our people into jobs and education.
They call this the brain train.
The reason it's called the brain train is
because of all the colleges along that route.
Think of the students who will go to Cal Poly Pomona
or the University of La Vergne or APU.
And then have this education degree come back home here
to the England Empire with a degree that will allow them
to make a good income and a good wage.
I think we need to look at it that way.
I would urge you to continue this item
and let's make sure we get a good MOU
that works for everybody, thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
We have one additional speaker card, Edward Starra.
Thank you President Dennison, past President Marquez,
members of the committee.
It's a pleasure to be here to speak to you today
about the Gold Line.
I'm not gonna throw a lot of statistics at you,
although I could.
I think members of my city council
could tell you that I can speak for hours at Nauseam
about the Gold Line, the statistics,
and what it is going to do for not only the Montclair
community, but the larger surrounding areas around us.
What I'm going to talk to you about, though,
is what this is gonna do
for the Montclair community, specifically.
You might remember that back in the 60s,
Montclair Place was the regional shopping center
for the west end of San Bernardino County.
Over the course of the next decades other cities
around Montclair developed their own shopping centers.
Montclair lost that status as the regional shopping center
for the west end of San Bernardino County.
So we had to regroup.
We had to look at other alternatives
that would allow our community to continue to develop
and grow and be a important
member of the west end of
San Bernardino County and a
contributing member.
So in the early 2000s, the
Montclair City Council adopted
the North Montclair Downtown
specific plan.
That plan was specifically
centered around the promise and
the belief that the Gold Line
would arrive at the Montclair
Trans Center 2018, 2022, 2024,
2025, 2028, now we're talking about 2031.
We hold on to that promise.
The developers that have come into Montclair
continue to believe in the promise
that the Gold Line is going to arrive in Montclair.
That is the germination of the development
that we have seen in our community.
Recently, we have developed a site plan
for the Montclair Trans Center.
28 acres that are effectively nothing more
than a parking field for 1,600 vehicles.
That is not the best use of land,
so we commissioned this site plan
to determine what we could do with the Montclair Trans Center.
We're in the process of trying to acquire that land
from Caltrans so that we can pursue this specific plan.
That plan calls for the construction
of a 1,600 space parking structure
so that we can continue to park the number of vehicles
that we believe the Gold Line will generate
based on statistics by LA Metro.
The Gold Line out of Montclair will generate
approximately 6,800 daily riders,
one of the statistics that I told you I would not address,
but I am throwing that one out.
In addition to that, the LA Metro study indicated
that MetroLink itself would probably see
a ridership increase of about 5,000.
So, running parallel from Pomona to Montclair
is not gonna be an adverse situation
either for the Gold Line or for MetroLink.
In fact, it's only going to enhance them.
Los Angeles County, LA Metro, and the state
have spent $4 billion or will have spent $4 billion
when the Gold Line arrives.
Finish it up, thank you.
Sorry, thank you, appreciate it.
So, once again, last call for any public comments on the item.
Seeing none we'll go ahead and move it back to the board for any questions or comments.
Oh I apologize I'll answer your light. Okay thank you um I'm sorry I couldn't hear is it time for
our comments? Okay thank you. You know we've been looking at this thing I can say over a decade
maybe two decades and we're in the same position now as we were before. I have to start out by
saying this I don't disagree with anything that anybody has said. I think the benefits of the
The gold line coming into Montclair are incredible.
I'm not gonna argue that at all.
Frankly, while I'm concerned about the cost,
I'm not as much concerned about how much money it costs.
I'm more concerned about what's being proposed
as far as a governance model from a policy level.
You know, I think it was brought out
that the voters, when they voted for Measure I,
they supported the gold line.
I don't think they would have supported the gold line
if they knew that we were handing an open check
To the construction authority to build whatever they wanted to build at our costs and operate it any way they want to at our cost
I don't think the voters would have supported it at that point and that I appreciate you saying that you're on time and on budget
But it was your budget that you were on budget. So in this case, you're gonna set the budget and we're gonna meet that budget
I'm not quite sure the same thing's gonna is going to apply
But once again, I mean I'm unclear. I see this all the time John
I tell everybody in the world you guys have done the best job at TOD development
I've ever seen anywhere.
And the reason you were able to do that
is that you've been able to get private developers
to invest hundreds of millions of dollars
with the expectation you were going to get the gold line.
And I accept that.
And I stand steadfast in my commitment to Montclair
and making sure you get what you deserve.
But I guess this is my concern.
I've talked to Kerry about this.
I'm not sure we're going to come to an agreement with you.
But to be frank with you, even if we do,
I don't think I could support it.
And the reason for that is that when I first
got involved with the Gold Line many, many years ago,
I understand the construct of the board itself.
I don't know why you never went back to the state
to reconstruct the authority, why you play this game
of Pasadena has a seat and tomorrow they give their seat
to somebody else and somebody else and somebody else.
I guess the real concern, I was appointed
as a non-voting member of the board
and frankly I was okay with that.
I didn't want to vote.
I didn't want to vote how to spend L.A. County tax dollars.
That wasn't my business my I fully anticipated once across the counting lines things would reverse
That SPCTA would be the controlling factor. We would have all the votes. We would get a non-voting
member to LA County and
Since we're the ones responsible for the operation and taking a hundred percent of their risk. I
Would assume we'd have control of that
I don't know anybody in this room including the folks that presented to us would want to be in a position where
you're being forced to pay whatever somebody wants to expend not only capital but ongoing operations and we've talked about this before I
Don't think anyone in LA County would be
Good with us saying okay, San Bernardino County. We're gonna build something in LA County to our
Specifications and we're gonna control everything else
But but you're gonna pay the bills no matter what you set the fears
But we have to use that to pay whatever expenses are just makes no sense
I don't know anyone in good conscience could take their taxpayer money and hand it over
to another agency for 100% of control where we receive 100% of the risk and expense.
It's just I don't know anyone to get a revolt for that.
So I have no problem with the cost.
I want to commit money to Montclair probably more than what we've already done.
I really think we owe it to you in Montclair to do that.
You guys are doing a credible job but I just can't do it in the governance form that's
being proposed.
I just can't do that.
So I support, I don't want to continue this anymore.
I think it's time we actually have a policy discussion
about what I don't want to see is our staff negotiating
an agreement and the agreement isn't approved
by the board anyway.
It just doesn't make any sense.
I think we need to have that discussion now,
assuming that we get everything on the MOU,
is this board okay voting for that
under this governance structure.
I don't, my personal opinion, I couldn't do it
and I don't know if any of you would want to do this either
if you look at it from your own perspective,
your own community.
I mean I'd love Rancho Cucamonga,
but if they wanted to improve Haven Avenue
and say this is what it's gonna look like,
this wasn't a cost, Ontario UPL the bills.
I mean, I'm not gonna do that.
I don't think any one of you would do that either.
So I don't support continuing this thing.
I think that we need to really make an earnest effort
of improving rail service to Montclair.
As much money as it costs, whatever we need to do,
we owe it to the community and to the private development.
And frankly, I would pay attention to the Gold Line.
think it's a great project but only if we have control of where our money's going.
Thank you for the comments. Mayor Baca, please. Yes, thank you. I'm concerned with
some of what Ellen just said too as well. I think at the last board meeting we
talked about how much say so we would have not only in terms of the amount of
dollars that we would be putting in but how much say so would we be on that
board and I don't believe that we would have any kind of authority in terms of
What even happens in the future or what happens there without any real input because we're not going to be on that board
That makes that decision yet
They're asking us to fund the additional dollars out here and I realize what Montclair wants to do
But I'm also concerned with the rest of the county and we're talking about our monies from San Bernardino County
They're going to be going to LA County and that's what I'm concerned with and what is the impact is it going to have?
Metrolink too as well because Metrolink can go into LA. I
Understand the goal line will also be there. Is it a duplicated of services? Can we expand?
I'd like to see it going all the way to Barstool. You know hey and Barstool's not here, but
If we're looking at our county and measure I and our dollars, I think that we should spend our dollars wisely
And it's not including the rest of our our county and that's what I'm concerned with right now how much
Money, we're going to be putting in and how much input we're going to have
I don't know who's going to be sitting on that board to give any kind of input in terms of the future as well
Or does it just in there and it's not going to expand further. I don't know. I'm just
Concerned with it
It's something that that we're doing already can and what effects will it have a Metro link and our customers and
Revenue that we're getting right now when people come here to this station right here and get on Metro link and go all the way to LA
I don't know or in Rialto or in Fontana
No
It runs right through our city
Why would then people have to get on there and they can just drive over and get at this new parking lot that they talked
About in Montclair and get on the goal line
Thank you mayor. Dutre. Actually. I want to give it to ray
Okay, thank you. Appreciate that
I've been on this board now for 10 years and I know a lot of you have a lot more time than I have
But I've been involved with this project the last little over a year maybe 14 months
And I'm going to say that we have made movement on trying to put together an MOU.
I just want to say thank you to our staff, Kerry, our president Rick Denison, and John DeTrey for all your hard work
on trying to move this project forward. Also the Construction Authority.
I want to thank the chairman for all your efforts and your time.
Tim Sandoval, mayor of Pomona, and also the CEO Habib for all your time, and also the city of Montclair city manager and city council.
I want to thank you for all your time and your input.
Yes, we have made some movement.
And yes, some of the concerns that I did have initially
were CMR, and I believe talking to our attorney
that we're moving forward on that CMR, if I'm not mistaken.
I know that we wanted a letter from their attorney.
You received that, but we're still moving forward on that.
Where before, it was black and white.
We weren't going to get any information.
We've gotten information.
As far as seats at the table, that's important.
We were looking at two.
I think as of yesterday or Tuesday,
we possibly would get one voting member
and one non-voting member,
and hoping in the near future
we'd have two seats at the table voting.
One of the concerns that I did have is I know
when we looked at direct build,
there was a cost to the project of about $175 million,
and we were anticipating under $100 million,
and that was a concern.
So then we switched construction
because of the goal line authority.
We went with CIMOR.
And all I'm stating, we got an estimate of 145 million
to 250.
And that was a problem or concern that I had
because I just wanted to make sure that we would limit,
when we looked at our 10 year plan,
and I threw a number out.
And again, I probably shouldn't have, but I did.
I said, okay, if we obligated ourselves
at 125 million per say, and anything above that,
it was 250 or even higher, where would we get the money?
And I got a consensus from the chairperson,
the CEO and her staff and myself and John,
that we'd go outside looking for money.
And I know we've gotten letters,
and I know I've gotten letters from Norma Torres.
She's a congresswoman, but we're not using
any federal money on this project.
So I know that we would look at different moneys
coming to us, but again, it's just not the responsibility
of SBCTA would be responsibility of both authorities
moving forward trying to obtain funding for this project,
not just on our shoulders or our backs.
The MOU has been sort of difficult because yes,
they said that they, meaning the authority,
construction authority, have 30 plus miles
that they built as far as rail, 23 stations,
but it's been all in LA County.
We are now moving into San Bernardino County
and the way we do business is different
and how they do business.
Yes, we do want control.
We wanna make sure that once we build it,
we know what the ramifications are gonna be
and our liabilities for the future years.
So again, I wanna thank the authority
because I know initially when I started this
about 14 months ago, there was no movement
on trying to work with us to work out
these issues or problems.
Are we where we need to be today?
No, we're not.
But we're getting, we're moving forward on this.
And I do believe what Mr. Alan Walker said,
he's the person that I respect, I have a lot of respect for.
And I know he's been heavily involved in this
for well over 20 years.
So I hear you Alan and I appreciate everything you say.
But we've worked so hard on this for the last 20 plus years.
I think we're getting there.
And again, I believe John's gonna recommend a suggestion.
And this time, John, take it over.
Thank you very much. I first of all want to apologize. I'm pretty sure everybody is tired of the gold line, especially with my members on the transit committee.
Obviously, as Alan brought up, this has been going on since 2004 when the current Measure I was approved. This included Redlands passenger, the double track, and Rialto, of course, gold line.
I go back to March of this year, originally it was $92 million estimate for just our
side of the county, bids came in and it was $175 million, everything got blew up from
that bid and we could talk about why that took place.
The world has changed since then, you know, we were originally back in 2018 ready to go
with this project.
We had $80 million ready to go.
Fortunately LA County side didn't have the money because of costs even though
they had a borders initiative at 1.5 billion and there was about $600
million short so we waited from 2018 where we were ready to go to basically to
today and now we're dealing with deficits again gaps again. So when I had
with a transit committee I talked about asking you well is there interest in
doing the 15 million dollars at least start the design process and then one
We'll get a better idea of what that cost is, and again, the risk factor is that we're
going to have another gap to deal with, and maybe we'll have to wait another seven years.
So what I have asked, what the committee came at at that time, was a three-prong.
One was to end the negotiations, finalize negotiations of August 29, as number B in
your recommendations.
Obviously, we had another meeting yesterday.
There's still some disagreements on some stuff.
I think Ray and I really pushed hard the position of this agency to protect this agency in
regards to liability, in regards to maintenance, really protect this agency's.
Number C here is to continue to place the money of the money of $37 million that still
stays in this project or with Montclair in this project.
And then lastly, I think this is important, is we direct staff, the committee's recommended
direct staff through an ad hoc committee to look at alternatives doesn't mean
it's alternatives go online but look at alternatives one we talked about maybe
we build a goal line the other ones maybe there's an enhancement on the
metric service and get get the head of ways down to a much lower amount met
goal lines every seven minutes maybe we get down to 15 minutes and then if the
magic wand maybe a rabbit comes out of the hat maybe we can still do this deal
with goal line but this project now is and I understand it's a very difficult
call position and I'm going to be realistic even though I'm wearing three or four hats.
This project is in default position, I'm quite aware, but there is still a need along the
Samuel line in this county for high-frequency service.
My city has done a lot.
I think my city for when it comes to a TOD project, we've probably done the most in this
county and probably most cities along the Samuel County line, Samuel line all the way
to Union Station and I'm very proud of.
and so we put a lot of commitment to making sure
that we do TOD projects, we do the transit, all that stuff.
Everything that California talks about,
we're hoping that we can get control of the Caltrans lot
there at our station to also develop that as well.
So what we're asking today is,
I think the refront here again is,
we can continue to go with shades a little longer
up at September 29, keep the money there at $37 million,
and then the third one, again from the committee,
to pursue these alternatives, work with staff, have an Ad Hoc Committee to do all of this,
and that's my motion moving forward. Thank you.
Thank you for your comments. Supervisor Hagman, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I've been around to watch this for a while, but this reminds
me of some other regional issues we have with neighboring counties. I know that Ray has
been really champion, and so have I, trying to figure out how to get the 71 South and
91 freeway when it goes into Riverside County.
I would love to find money and pay for it myself,
but I can't.
Okay, the 15 freeway, the toll rules as Alan brought up
going south to Riverside County.
This is something we have to figure out.
It's not just for the goal line,
but if we don't figure out how to do regional projects
with neighboring entities,
we're gonna be stuck in being in our silo
and we're gonna get all our money going inward
versus trying to figure out
what's the best way to connect it.
I wish there was a bigger body to do it.
I was at a sidebar with Alan earlier
where he was saying maybe Skagt is,
maybe Caltrans should, or something,
a regional body that could work
through multiple jurisdictions.
If you think what we're celebrating right now
is the bright line coming from a different state
into our county through multiple jurisdictions,
and that's taken some of our resources and time,
and we figured that out.
I think the proposal of the table,
yeah, we're all sick of hearing about it.
And frankly, I think, to no disrespect,
my friend Mr. Rees, but the gold line's got to figure out
how to work outside their jurisdiction as well.
It's gonna have to work with this MOU,
but I don't want to give up on the MOU
because that's a template for us to use
in later agreements that we have to figure out here.
Some, you know, we could reach out the Caltrans,
we could reach out to the other regional agencies
to try to help be part of it.
And frankly, I think if both sides said
the attorney's figured it out,
you guys should try to figure it out.
how do we have the protections that we need
to support a project?
Again, it's not the money.
I think all of us say, okay, right now,
we'll put 37 million away, and we'll figure it out.
The same way, I have my federal friends come up to me,
say, please keep this live.
We're gonna try to figure this out.
I have my state people tell me the same thing.
It's not gonna be us.
I don't think ever saying this is such a priority.
We're gonna write a $150 million check.
But there are things coming out this month.
I have my SCAG meeting coming up.
What do we have?
Larry, I don't know all runs together. Okay, but one of those things that we went over to executive committee review
Yesterday was it's a whole new error and Carrie can talk about this of how we allocate our regional funds
It's not by population anymore. It's not by it's by project need which is the first year
We're really doing this right way and it's gonna be difficult
because there's gonna be haves and haves not and I saw their initial recommendation that
The transportation authorities put together and yeah la gets a billion dollars. We're looking about what 180 riverside is looking at 30
That's how can go over well when it comes down to it, but there are opportunities there if we close the door we can never
Visualize the end result we can never stop
You know you just stop looking at that
I don't ever want to shut the door and say this is not something in the future to work at
I'm not committed spending their money yet
I'm not committed to
Signing whatever they put in front of us for the mo you but to say that we're not going to work on anymore
I think is short-sighted. We may not get there
We may never get there like we haven't for the last 20 years
But if we close that door, we'll never get there for sure
So I'm a I'm looking for a way that we can
Fortunately kick it down a little bit more let John and the committee keep working at it
Let our attorneys try to come up and look outside the area because we need these type of agreements to go through if I ever
want to get 71 to 91 fixed they want to get the 15 fixed if we want to do some
of these other projects so across jurisdictions we need to find a pathway
to do that thank you for your comment yes Bill hussy yeah thank you can you
put on attachment a the map on the overhead okay so what we're looking at
you know I agree there's both sides of the story though what we're looking at
has almost $200 million plus annual agreement of $5 million
plus, and then LA running everything
for just a little over a half a mile.
And when we had a meeting last time with everybody saying,
well, this is going to make $10 to $15 billion, well,
maybe in LA county, but not San Bernardino.
I used to take the Metrolink for three years
from here to downtown Los Angeles
when I worked at the federal prison.
And the only people who got any money
was over on Alvera Street, the end of the line.
I don't think there was anybody selling anything
or making any money from all the cities in between.
So we do have a way to get to LA,
but now we're looking at the way
for Azusa and everything else.
Now, yeah, if we just did our half mile
and let them tie into us, that'll probably be great.
But I don't know how many times
we're gonna keep on coming to the driveway.
If this has been going on for 20 years,
how many more years it's gonna keep going,
and how much more staff money we're gonna keep spending,
and everything else.
I just think it's a bad partnership with LA.
Like Mayor Baucus from Rialto, I mean we have a lot of need.
I mean, yeah, it'd be nice to see Metrolink
go out to Barstow or something else.
This is San Bernardino County.
That's what SB means San Bernardino County,
not L.A. County, and L.A. County is gonna be taking
all of our money, and we're on the line
to looking at Measure I.
We're supposed to be good stewards with our tax dollars.
We're supposed to make sure it's spent wisely.
I mean, a regular person, you wouldn't keep going
and negotiating for a house,
that's probably never gonna happen.
Like I said before, if you had a timeshare,
you wouldn't be staying at the same timeshare
because you're gonna keep raising the price.
So I think as much as money and everything it went into
and looking at it, I mean we have a bus system
that could go up there and catch on to the LA line.
But we have our own line here.
We have San Bernardino going to LA
and I think that's sufficient enough.
All that other area is just for LA County,
half a mile from Montclair to LA County.
It just doesn't, it's not feasible.
200 million dollars is no way feasible
plus the annual cost that's gonna go
and then we had a, you know, Dr. Wood, before he retired,
talk about an expert, that man knew his stuff.
Now, Carrie, you know your stuff.
And we're both told by these professionals
that this is not a good deal,
and we will be pretty much digging ourself in a hole.
So we're supposed to listen to our staff, our experts,
and give us direction.
I think direction was already given a long time ago.
And we could keep kicking this can down the road,
And I don't think there's gonna be unicorns and berries
and leprechauns down that road.
This is a done deal.
I mean, if we just built a half line
and say, hey, you can come and put the gold spike
on our tracks, then it could go.
But LA County's just using us.
We have a way to get to LA.
We just maintain our own track, enhance our own track.
And if the Montclair wants to get a bus service,
we have Omitrans from Omitrans could take the bus
to LA County and the people can
and they could hop on their goal line.
That's all I have, that's my opinion, thank you.
Thank you for your comments, Larry McCall.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think everyone understands my position on this issue,
but I'd like to reiterate that the costs are continuing
to go up and they will continue to go up.
Right now we don't really have a good handle
what the costs are and you know for us to commit funds to this project when we
don't know what the costs are really going to be for us I think it would be
not a good idea. I disagree with a little bit with Supervisor Hagman on an MOU
between counties because really this is an MOU between the construction
Authority and San Bernardino County. I know LA Metro is involved, they'll be operating
the line, etc., but it's really something between the Construction Authority and this
county. I'm not sure we can get to any real agreement on an MOU from what I understand.
I sympathize with John and Montclair, and I really believe they've done a great job
in terms of TOD, and I think we ought to support that, and, you know, one of my objections
to continuing with the Gold Line into this county is the fact that we will be providing
operation and maintenance for Metrolinx funds and operation and maintenance for
a gold line and I just don't think that's a good use of of our funds and that we ought to
make a decision now that we are not going to commit additional funds to this project at this time
and I would suggest that we commit these 37 million dollar funds that are in place right now
to providing more frequent service to Montclair on the Netrilink line.
I'm willing to do that because I think we ought to support additional
Transit service to Montclair, but what I'd like to see is we we provide
Say a 15-minute service all the way to Pomona to connect with gold line there. I
think the costs going through
Claremont
Are going to be exponential when they look at trying to get through that that narrow gap there
And they really I don't believe have addressed that
So, I think we ought to not commit any more funds at this point to Goldline that we commit
to using the 37 million that are set aside for it to provide additional MetroLink service
frequency to Montclair and go all the way to Pomona to connect with the Goldline.
Larry will that be your second motion then? Mr. President I was in the second
that. You're almost so same, okay. That be your second motion? Okay. Substitute, I'm
sorry. The first motion did not receive a second, or it's not a
substitute motion, it is a motion. The first motion did not receive a second.
Yeah let's get a clarification. I made a motion before everybody else spoke. No one
my motion was to do D, establish the ad hoc committee, and work with staff with the alternates.
C, which was made to keep the money they rent for right now, $37.2 million, and going to
B to the MOU is allow Ray and I and staff to go a little further with the going authority
until September 29.
I'll second that.
I'm sorry?
I'm sorry, yeah the options are that's D so BC and D so a point of order
Mary to trace so yours was as out as outlined on the agenda item. Yeah
Going difference on B. There's a deadline of August 29 move that to September 29
Allow us to negotiate a letter further. I think everybody's comments are being heard by
Members of the goal line construction authority board the directors here the office of the presence here and in the meantime
I know D staff is already working alternatives
So BC and D would be being September 29 extending that
So I understood yours as a motion originally did not get a second Daniel as it got brought up again. You second his motion
Larry had brought up another motion and
Were you seconding this one also?
No, I was seconding there was confusion on that for me seconding jobs motion
Because Larry made a motion after John made a motion that didn't receive a second
We need to finish up with Larry's motion
Can I clarify? I do not realize that he didn't get a second because we went right into discussion
No one even said is there a second?
Yeah, no one failed the motion before that where protocol should have been they should have you should have announced it said
Okay, do we not have a second then the motion fails?
Then but we went straight into conversation. Yeah, it didn't fail, but then another motion was made so we went right into discussion
So it wasn't even done correct. We sure you're correct, but we now have a second
He never had a chance to have a motion. He's never got a chance to get the second because I know and we can come back
to that if
Larry's motion either doesn't get a second or fails. I
Don't I don't know. He made a motion. I think that was wrong
Order is the point of order should have been there exactly. Is there a second? Yeah, it's just automatic when it's a discussion
That's fine, but I do I do also want to make a point of clarification about the original motion, so
the ad hoc committee mentioned in
recommendation D is
Separate from the joint ad hoc that's already been established
This is a new ad hoc to work with staff. That's true. Okay, just want to make sure we all understand. Yes
That's a point of order should have went I think now what we're doing is we're going to
Vote on the original motion because that has a second
I have a question in reference to the motion by John. What specifically is he saying is he saying?
When you look look at the board is he just saying a
B and D. Or does he also include C in that?
B B was also in that because he changed August 29th to September 29th
Yeah, I'm okay, and C is in there as well. What C is in there as well? Yeah, and a's already
Happened so so when I was following right now mayor de Trey had made the recommendation of showing on the agenda today
He followed those three items as council said also on be there was a date changed to September, correct?
So at that time there wasn't a second it moved forward through conversation
That was my error. We should have stopped it right now
I wasn't sure if he was reviewing the agenda item or if it was actually a motion. I got a point of order mr.
Mr. President, sir
Let's assume that and I have no problem the motion to second if Larry's gonna make a substitute that takes precedence over that
So we vote on the substitute first if he makes a substitute motion. That's true
But because we did this in a you know, I understand but let's assume
It's good. I mean it's not gonna make a difference then he makes a motion. They make a substitute. We vote on theirs first
I I have no problem supporting the motion in the second if Larry wants to make a substitute we vote on that
I don't know. It's gonna be the same conclusion either. Yes. Yes, this would go up first if
Does someone want to second Larry's substitute motion?
No, he was seconding the first motion that's what let's let's focus here second. Did I just hear a second for?
McCallum's motion
Can we be clear from that motion was second by tomorrow, is that correct?
I'm sorry Larry. Just a point order. Who were you identifying over there? Oh
Rick here, okay. I'm sorry his point. Okay
Mr.. President can we be clear on what the motion was from?
member larry
Yeah, I think we ought to as I said before I would what we want to do is not commit any
additional funds at this time to to
the gold line and that we
use the 37 million that
Are available and identified for that right now to to
Make more frequent service to
want Clara to support their TOD we can do that through the
Metro link through
Use of Z mu or others we need to look at that and I would
also include in that we need to establish a committee to
Work with staff to see how we can do that and and move forward with with
Supporting them their to D development. So essentially it's the same motion
With the recommendation sounds like he was suggesting an amendment to the motion
No, the part of my motion is that we not commit any additional funds to not to the gold line at this time
but otherwise it sounds like it's
What John said you're just suggesting a change to it
Is that or you know I I think it's a different motion
But you know if he wants to amend his motion to director McCallum may I get clarity on his?
Record mayor do trays recommendation included be
where
Make a determination based on the mo you do you want us to continue under your motion?
Do you want us to continue with the Mo you know, I think it's for us
So I think it's a substance. That's a substitute motion. We'll treat it as a substitute motion
just for clarification and can we just
So I'm asking be would just extend deadline of September 29
I think well what Larry's saying is to not negotiate him where am I correct Larry?
Is that what you're saying, but you're okay with C and D
C and D you're okay with no, I'm not okay with
Leaving the funding for gold line in place at 37 million. I want to dedicate that money to providing additional
Frequent service to Montclair on metronome
But that 37 million dollars is to keep the funding there in place right now and I take that money and put to another project
That's all it is just stays there for right now until we figure out D
No
doesn't say that. I realize we're all here and the whole purpose of D is to
give it back to staff to work with ad hoc and try to work these things out. See
the 15-minute hallway works. I believe there's a presentation that staff will
be bringing back to transit committee at the end of the year. So I would ask at
least keep C and D in place the way it is from the transit committee. B, I'm
still asking for September 29 but that's you know we can have a separate boat on
be if you want I'm okay with that as well. You don't you don't you don't want us
to commit $37 million to provide a more frequent service. I think it needs to go
back to staff. I think staff needs to work on it. It needs to go to the transit
committee. We need to have discussion make sure this is going to work before we
ask this board to commit $37 to a project that may or may not work until we
get stuff from staff. Okay what I'm going to do right now is we'll go ahead and
But yes, I'm sorry, you know what?
We're not being fair to staff.
We're not providing clear direction at all.
If I were them, I wouldn't know where the heck they're going.
And that's not fair.
We have to provide more definitive, clear direction.
What I think I'm hearing, and John, is that...
This is the problem, is that last month,
it was August 29th, was the set date.
Now it's September 29th.
I want to get in the ground
and build increased frequency to Moncler.
That's all I want to do.
I want to make that happen.
I think that just delaying and delaying,
like I said, for me, the fundamental problem
isn't gonna be the stuff that we're negotiating now,
it's gonna be who's in control of the money
and the treasury of the County of San Bernardino.
So I think what I'm hearing Larry say is I'm there.
We support increased frequency in Montclair.
The $37 million should be committed to Montclair,
plus I'm willing to put as much money as we need to
to increase frequency.
But to just have staff continue negotiations on an MOU
that may not ever be approved by this board.
It's a waste of everybody's time.
So, I mean, I support what Larry wants to do.
And by the way, the other thing I wanna think about,
in the development community, you know this,
stability and assurance is more important than anything.
As we keep kicking this can,
the developers are gonna get nervous
as to what's going on, what are we doing with our money?
At least if we set clear directions saying
we are putting this money into Montclair
increase frequency the 9th got to wait a month a month to see if they're going to continue investing money. So to be fair to
the development community, I think we have to add some surety to all of this. I have my light on, I'm going to get a chance.
Can I call for the question?
So I wanted to do, do we have a confirmation on that? So far what I've got is to
from the city of Montclair.
I'm an ad hoc to look at
alternative service delivery,
improved service delivery to the city of Montclair, retain 37 million dollars for that project here and this will be an SBCTA project, is that what you're suggesting?
with the MOU discussions to not to commit
any additional funding to go online at this point
to establish the ad hoc committee to work with staff
and to dedicate this $37 million towards increasing
frequency to Montclair using Metrolinx.
Okay, I didn't want to commingle the two motions.
That's your motion.
Do we have a second on Larry McCollin's motion?
Rick Herrick is the second.
So we're gonna, that's substitute, right?
Yes.
My motion's, okay.
Mr. President, I'd like to hear what Mayor Warren
has to say as well.
She had her light on.
Yes, please, Mayor Warren, go ahead.
We're not even clear if the 37 million will be enough
or too much, and it might be something
that we can enhance the line for all of the cities down this line so I think
it's important that we do give direct action to our staff to work on this and
come back with the alternatives with understanding that August 29th came I'm
with Alan on that September 29th I don't think will make a difference for
this board I think looking at everyone's comments everyone's ready to move on
Thank you for your comments. So now we'll move on Mayor Dutree's motion. Oh, I'm
sorry. I'm getting myself confused. We will move forward with the substitute.
Yes. I stated this last meeting and that is about costs. And I know it's not
uncommon for the goal line project no different than the high-speed rail out of
Bakersfield, or wherever it's at now.
The cost overruns are going to continue.
The cost overruns, the cost of construction
is going to continue.
And that $2.5 million, $250 million or $145 million,
is not going to be what it is in 2030.
Somebody mentioned that it's being pushed back maybe to 2030.
But more importantly than that for me is this MOU.
We could have had, we've asked for voting members
on the authority in the past, if I'm not mistaken.
And we were always told no.
And now that we're talking about trying to get an agreement,
I don't care if there was one or two voting members,
the authority has many other members.
And if LA County or the authority doesn't like
what we want in San Bernardino, they're gonna outvote us.
So I just think part of our responsibility
is to use our tax dollars, the limited tax dollars
that we have, in the best interest of the entire county
of San Bernardino.
And I ache for Montclair.
I do.
I truly do.
I wished there was a way to get it all done,
but we've been dealing with this for so long
that I just hope that somehow I love item D.
really want to see that to see what other alternatives that we control and
not have to depend on an MOU with another larger entity than what we are.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? We're gonna do a roll call vote. The substitute motion just for
clarification. Approve no further negotiations with the MOU. Approve not
committing additional funding to Gold Line. Move funding to enhance frequency
service to Montclair via Metrolink or other alternatives recommended by an
established ad hoc. Any questions? Okay, when I call your jurisdiction please
state your vote. Adalanto? Ramos? No. Barstow? Barstow? Please state your vote. Yes.
Big Bear Lake? Yes. Chino? No. Chino Hills? No. Colton? Yes. Fontana? No. Grand Terrace? Yes.
Hisparia? No. Highland? Yes. Loma Linda? No. Montclair? No. Needles? Yes. Ontario? Yes.
Rancho Cucamonga.
Yes.
Redlands.
Yes.
Rialto.
Yes.
San Bernardino.
Yes.
29 Palms.
Yes.
Upland.
No.
Yucaipa.
Yes.
Yucaveli.
No.
County Supervisors, second district.
Armadares, no.
Sorry.
Third District.
Row, yes.
Fourth District.
Fifth District.
Baca, Junior, aye.
I'll read the motion.
Are there any comments from board members at this time?
Yes, Kirk, I think.
Thank you, and I'll defer to my colleague Larry
who's much more schooled up this stuff,
but South Coast AQMD just came out with a number of grants
but last week before probably unheard of again
that I think all your cities should take a look at
is like 180 million out for medium heavy duty supercharging.
There's 180 million out for EV class four, five,
and seven and eight trucks.
There may be additional dollars coming out in California.
Oh, there we go.
We got flyers in the background.
There we go, thank you.
So please pick them up.
It's unheard of amount of grant dollars.
I think it's 85%, we'll pay for it.
Plus you could stack it with other grants like from CARB
and SCAS gonna come out this month
with their 60 or 50 million.
And so, this is the once in a probably multi-generation,
you're gonna have a chance to clean up your vehicles.
It doesn't mean you have to replace your old gas fire vehicles,
but you get an EV truck and stuff for your crew.
And I think California is pushing us toward it that way.
They're working on rules that's gonna mandate
local governments to go that way anyway
in the next couple years.
So I might as well try to keep the money
in San Bernardino County
and everybody apply for as much as you can.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Any other comments?
I'll move it to the executive director please.
I do not have any comments.
All right.
Well, thank you for that.
This meeting is adjourned.