good morning everyone and welcome I'm the only person up here right now other
than Catalina so I'm gonna go ahead and call the meeting to order for the board
of directors meeting for February 4th 2026 for the San Bernardino County
Transportation Authority and the San Bernardino County Council of Governments
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.
So next, for the board, we are all retired up to upstairs.
For closed session, we have a public employee performance
evaluation and conference with labor negotiator.
Is there any member of the public right now
that would like to speak on the closed session item
before we adjourn to closed session?
Seeing none, thank you for your attendance.
We'll be back down as soon as possible.
This time we're gonna recess.
Hello everyone, and we're back.
We're going to go ahead and get the meeting started
at this time.
Today in close, let's see here.
So we just convened the meeting.
There's no reportable action outside of the meeting today.
I'm gonna start it off with the Pledge of Allegiance.
And this time I'd like to ask Frank Navarro
to please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
So look into flag to our republic.
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.
Thank you, sir.
Clerk, will you please call the attendants?
When I call your jurisdiction, please state your name.
Adalanto.
Ramos, present.
Appel Valley.
Archbishop.
Barstow.
Jim Silva, present.
Big Bear Lake.
Rick Herrick.
Chino.
Curtis Burton for Eunice Eloa.
Chino Hills.
Chino Hills has stepped away.
Colton.
Frank Nomaro.
Fontana.
Aquanetta Warren.
Granteras.
Bill Hussey.
Hisparia.
Josh Pullen.
Highland.
Larry McCallum.
Loma Linda.
Montclair.
John Atreyk.
Needles.
Ontario.
Rancho Cucamonga.
Redlands.
Mario Salcedo.
Rialto.
Joe Baca, present.
Sam Bernardino, not present.
29 Palms.
Dan Mintz.
Upland.
Rudy Zuniga, present.
Victorville.
Bob Ehrman.
Yuciepa.
Judy Wolsey.
Yucca Valley.
Denison here.
County Supervisors, first district, not present.
Second district.
Armadair is present.
Third district, not present.
Fourth district.
Her next.
Fifth district.
Junior present.
And our Caltrans Ex-officio representative.
Thank you.
have a quorum. Thank you. First I'd like to start off with some announcements. We
have some employee recognitions. Please join me in recognizing Casey Bland for
five years of service with the agency. Casey is a project controls manager in
the transit and rail department. Thank you for your service Casey. Are you here?
Oh there you are. And I'd also like to recognize Tim Watkins for 15 years of
service. I haven't seen him this morning is he here? There he is in the back. Hey
Tim. So Tim serves as our chief legislative and public affairs and thank
you for your dedicated service Tim and all the times you've helped me at events
I appreciate it. So calendar reminders mark your calendars for a project event
this month Friday February 20th at 11 a.m. the city of Hesperia will be
conducting a groundbreaking event for the US 395 freight mobility and safety
project phase two so I hope you can join us for that. We also have on Thursday
February 26, Move California a transit advocacy organizations having a
reception to highlight the work that SBCTA is doing on and our newest
executive director Kerry Schindler and her team in recognition of this agency
support for quality transit growth. Thank you. Good and the event will be held here
at the depot and it begins at 5.30. Once again that's February 26. Lastly today in
honor of the Transit Equity Day SBCTA is supporting free fares for all
transit systems throughout San Bernardino County. Transit Equity Day
observed on February 4th on Rosa Parks birthday celebrates the importance of
accessibility, affordability, and sustainable transportation for everyone.
So that's it for notifications and I'll ask if there's any notifications or
modifications. Support material for agenda item three and written public
comments for agenda item five were posted and distributed and that concludes my
All right thank you very much and this time we'll open it up for public comment.
Public have any comments they'd like to speak on within the board's
jurisdiction? Seeing none we'll move along to conflict of interest. Board
members if you have any conflicts please report them to the clerk. Thank you. And
informational items. We have two items on the informational item list. These are
items that are not required to vote, the receiving file items routine and
non-controversial.
So we're gonna move on to our discussion items.
This will be items three through five.
The first item, agenda item number three, SBCTA,
measure I 3.0.
Otis Greer will be presenting the item.
Or it's a cheerleader.
Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Good morning, President Denison, members of the board.
The item before you today is a recommendation
from the measure I 3.0 ad hoc committee
to consider advancing the future ordinance
an expenditure plan on to the next stage.
This plan represents a thoughtful evolution of a program
that the county has relied on over the last three decades.
The updated expenditure plan preserves the core commitments
voters expect, such as local return, taxpayer oversight,
and fiscal discipline, while modernizing structure
to reflect the evolving transportation landscape,
funding environment, and community priorities.
Measure I 3.0 is about flexibility and accountability,
ensuring that we can maintain local streets,
invest in regional and regional mobility,
and sustain transit services across our large and diverse
county, while keeping faith with the voters who
fund this program.
Today's presentation will walk you
through the voters' opinion, key proposed changes,
the elements that remain unchanged,
as well as a path forward for the board's consideration
of a potential future ballot initiative.
So this morning, we'll begin with a presentation
from Dr. Richard Bernard, who's a partner with FM3,
who will walk you through the voters' opinion
from San Bernardino County.
Dr. Bernard?
Good morning, everyone.
I want to thank the chair, board members, staff
for inviting me here to present the results
of your recent public opinion survey.
Maybe not.
Okay, that's too quick.
All right, that's great.
All right, we'll start with the survey methodology,
put the measure in a little bit of context,
and then dive into the analysis of the results
from our testing of a measure.
We conducted the survey between November 6th
and the 16th of last year.
We interviewed a random sample of 1,020
San Bernardino County registered voters
who are likely to vote in a November, 2026 election.
For questions asked of everyone, the margin of error
is plus or minus 3.5.
In some cases, we had a very long list of questions,
and we didn't want to overwhelm your voters.
So we took a random half the sample
and asked them some questions and a random half others.
There, the margin of error is a little bit larger.
We contacted your voters by telephone, email, and text.
And it was a dual-mode survey, which
means a random portion of the respondents, 49% exactly,
took the survey on the telephone at 51% online.
We've had the privilege to conduct surveys for you
in the past.
You'll see those years.
And where there are appropriate tracking data,
I will be presenting it so you can see some trends over time.
And of course, we offered the survey
in English and Spanish, of which 7% of the respondents
opted to take the survey in Spanish.
And if some of you are very quick on math
and notice something doesn't quite equal 100%,
I blame that entirely on rounding.
Next slide.
Here you'll just see the breakdown
of what I'll call sub-areas one to eight.
We had to give numbers to each one of them.
It doesn't mean one's more important than the other,
but it will, in the second column,
you'll see what jurisdictions are included
in each respective subregions.
The third column will tell you the number of interviews
that we conducted, we oversampled some of the communities
which are less dense in terms of population
because we wanted to hear from as many people as we could
and not solely from the larger jurisdictions
but of course they are well represented.
And you'll see the margins of error and the percentages
that they will actually make up
of a likely November 2026 electorate.
Next slide.
And one more after that.
I want to start a little bit with context.
We've asked in the past, and you could see in August of 2023,
do people perceive there's a need for additional funds
for the county's transportation system, which we define
as including freeways, highways, local streets,
and public transit.
On the left-hand side is the August numbers,
of which 87% said there was a great or some need,
of which 61% said a great need, which is quite substantial.
My charge was to test a two-thirds measure,
so I'm always looking for numbers that exceed two-thirds
plus that margin of error,
to which the perception of need certainly does.
And then when we look at the more recent numbers,
Statistically they're really not distinguishable
between the August numbers of 2023.
So that understanding, there's a persistent perception
that there's at least some need for additional funds,
which is very good for someone who is supporting a measure
in which they're going to ask voters to approve.
Next slide please.
We asked this question, we hadn't asked this before,
but given the concerns about the economy,
we ask folks if over the next few months,
if they felt confident or uneasy
about meeting their living expenses.
I think it's important to put your potential request,
and I'm not trying to get ahead of the board,
but that was my charge is to at least test it,
to put their willingness to vote yes on a measure
in context of their actual bread
and butter living situations.
And you could see 48% of the respondents said
that they felt either very or somewhat confident,
and about one in every two said somewhat or very uneasy.
I will come back to this number shortly
as an analysis of level of support for the measure,
but that gives you a sense of your county voters.
Next slide, and then one more, please.
Here's the ballot question that I tested.
I worked very diligently with your legal counsel
and your staff legal counsel
to ensure that it was a legally permissible question.
No point in asking a question
that you will then come back to me and say,
it's fine for a survey,
but I'd never allow it on the ballot.
So I wanted to make sure that it was on the up and up,
as well as the fact that I was complying
with all legal requirements, and there are a number of them.
Many of you will have seen these types of questions
before either here, or I have worked
for your respective communities.
You know I will never get an award for Shakespearean prose.
I'm just trying to cobble together the board's
aspirational goals, communicated through staff
in the years that I've been working with you as well,
and the legal requirements.
So we put this question to voters.
And I want to stress, because I was charged
with testing an extension of the current Measure I,
we began by asking it within the context
without raising tax rates,
which I believe is legally permissible.
I got to sign off on that.
All right, so we asked this question
if they were on the phone.
They read it if they were online.
and then we said if there were an election today,
would you vote yes in favor or no to oppose?
Next slide, please.
Okay, if they said they would vote yes in favor,
we asked them is that definitely or probably yes
because we wanna know the intensity of level of support,
i.e. the percent definitely yes.
And if they said no, we asked them
is that definitely or probably no
because we wanna know the intensity of the opposition.
If they were undecided, we pushed them a little.
We said, well, would you lean yes
or would you lean no if they said they'd lean yes,
we'd put them in the yes camp, no in the no camp.
And for this particular ballot question,
4% said they were undecided.
So on the initial vote of a two-thirds measure,
that's 66.7%,
74% said they would vote yes,
either definitely, probably, or lean yes.
22% said they'd vote no and 4% said they were undecided.
You'll note on top of the bars,
there's the reminder of the margin of error,
plus or minus 3.5.
So if I were to do simple math,
I would simply look at that 74 and move it up 3.5.
That tells me that the measure at this point in the survey
is in the range of 77.5 on the high end
and 66.5 on the low end.
And I am aware that some of you are thinking,
yeah, but not everyone who's in the undecided lean
is going to go in that direction.
I am aware of that.
But for a first vote on a potential two-thirds,
where you have almost one has almost one in two
that say definitely yes, and a relatively low percentage,
only 15% that say definitely no, that's
an excellent place to start.
Typically, I see a floor on the definitely no of about 20%.
And this measure is receiving less than that.
Can we go back one slide for just one moment?
This ballot question, I just wanted to point out
because as we move on, this will be a relevant point.
You'll notice that this ballot question
has pithy little phrases
of what the money could be used for.
Of course, you have a long range
or you will have a long range plan
in terms of how one might, you'll want to spend this,
that's in your hands, but we tested a variety of things.
I'm gonna, in a moment, show you a pretty comprehensive list
of items that we tested.
If they score better, it would be my recommendation
you swap them in in this ballot question
for the ones that don't score as well
to strengthen the intensity and support for the measure,
but that doesn't change all of your plans
because all of these PIFI items are consistent
with what I understand the board's aspirational goals will be
and you folks will certify that, that's in your hands
and I know you'll make whatever you think
are the best choices.
All right, I just wanted to remind you that
as we move forward.
So if we can go to one more slide, thank you.
This question or in some form was asked
in the August 2023 survey.
And you'll notice the numbers are slightly better
kind of within the margin of error,
but there is a consistency across surveys
in terms of level of support for the,
having the sunset on Measure I be until extended by voters.
And I know you're, and this has right now,
definitive sunset.
So that's part of the goal of this research.
As you will note, as I'm showing you this data,
I am simulating an election in real time.
That's really important.
So in a moment, I'm gonna simulate education,
which I will encourage to the extent you folks
think it's appropriate to be doing,
to tell your story, and the legal counsel will keep me honest,
in a non-advocacy way, in an educational way,
which is super important.
What you do on your own time, on your own dime,
not using SPCTA resources, not in this room,
is what you do, freedom of speech.
But as a rep, with money, with resources,
you cannot advocate, you can only educate.
Next slide, please.
I wanted to give you some demographics to put in context
of who initially supports, opposes,
than is undecided in the initial ballot question
that I had just shown you moments ago.
So I took everyone in the ballot question I showed you
who said definitely probably in lean yes,
and I made them blue.
That blue bar is total yes.
The orange bar, the folks who said definitely probably
are lean no on that ballot question,
and the gray are the pure undecided.
The first slide you are seeing are the largest subregions
in terms of demographics.
The margin of error for the desert,
high desert communities and other small dense communities
while we try to oversample them is still too large for me
to give you sort of with confidence
how those respective communities will vote.
But at least in the case of the Victor Valley Subregion,
the West Valley and the East Valley,
those margin of errors are small enough
that I feel quite confident to give you some data.
And you may be asking, what are those percentages
below those nomenclatures of Victor Valley's subregion,
West Valley and East Valley?
They are the percentages of likely November voters
who will show up in the county.
That will be made up of that jurisdiction.
They're relatively large, which is why I feel more confident
about being able to present those numbers.
In all three of those subregions,
There is strong support almost at three quarters
in terms of level of support for that measure.
Next slide.
For the supervisors and their representatives who are here,
we try to slice and dice the data
in a different way in the county
and here are the supervisorial districts
and level of support.
So if your community falls in there,
at least you have some kind of sense
of where level of support is.
all strikingly high.
You're never getting 90% support for any measure.
You all folks know that.
These are very strong numbers.
Next slide, please.
Remember, I showed you in the context slides,
the percentage of folks who feel confident or uneasy
about meeting their expenses over the next few months.
I wanted to look at their level of support
because some of you, or maybe all of you,
are certainly concerned about your constituents.
And how do tax measures impact their bread and butter
daily lives when many of us, including myself,
are worried about cost of living issues
and for some folks, whether they can find a job or not?
So what was interesting for me, and I suspect for you,
is that those folks who felt either somewhat or very
uneasy strongly supported this measure as well.
And you may scratch your head and say, why is that?
Well, I have some hypotheses.
We didn't ask them in the survey,
like, I know you're struggling, but why are you
supporting this?
But the measure talks about supporting job creation.
It also, some of the arguments are, well,
if I can get from point A to point B in the east
to the West Valley in shorter periods of time,
maybe I'll extend my job search.
Right now, I'm saying, well, I'm not going as far
as this amount because traffic is crazy.
But maybe if we're able to improve traffic
by investing even more money,
I realize you're just extending the tax,
but you folks know that you'll be able to bond
to finish more jobs quicker.
And so this may be some of the reasons why.
I have seen this in other counties as well,
so I don't want you to think you're the only county
and this is a fluke.
I think it's a real finding.
Next slide, please.
And then finally, you'll recall I asked
whether they even thought there was a need
for additional funds for the transportation system
in San Bernardino County, which I defined
as highways, freeways, local roads, and public transit.
The more I perceive there is a need,
the more likely I am to support the measure.
this really calls for outreach and communication,
legally permissible outreach and communication
to at least inform them so that voters can be educated
when they go into the ballot,
how they vote is certainly up to them.
Next slide please.
So you'll recall I mentioned that we test some
pithy little phrases on how the money could be spent.
So on this slide and then subsequent slides,
but please don't turn it yet,
There are three slides.
We gave them a list of 24 items that we randomized,
so there's no bias effect from hearing one thing first
and everyone hearing the last thing last.
We gave them a scale of one to seven,
where one is not at all important
and seven is very important.
And we asked the question,
regardless of whether you support the measure or not,
how important would it be to include this in the measure?
The dark blue, I've combined the sixes and sevens,
which is very important.
The bright blue is somewhat important, which is 5.
The very light gray is neutral.
It's the in between 1 and 7, which is 4.
So it's not important, and it's not not important.
Sorry about the double negative.
And then the orange are the folks
who said not too important or not at all important.
And that sliver of gray, which the dark one at the end,
hard to see, are people who didn't know.
And for people who really need some statistics,
I've put the means of those scores on the right-hand side,
but I'm gonna talk to the everyday person
who's interested in that percentage of very important.
I've lined them up in terms of the ranking
of very important.
Eight of these items are in the 70s
in terms of a very important to include.
And you'll notice, and these are consistent by the way
with your past surveys, roads tops the list,
particularly potholes, repairing potholes,
keeping local roads in good conditions are the top.
Statistically, also important are traffic congestion.
So it's the freeways, traffic congestion,
roads in general, note supporting local jobs
that I mentioned before is up there.
And you'll see at the end creating local jobs.
That's where we were testing it in different frames.
I have seen in some geographies where supporting does better
than creating, and I wanted to make sure
that that is consistent with your community.
As we go down the list, the next slide please,
on the bottom of the slide I wanna focus
on a little bit of different kinds of infrastructure,
the issues of bridges and overpasses, which score well.
We're now into the mid-60s, but that's, you know,
if you got data back that 65% of your community
wanted something, you would take notice of it.
and that is strong.
And then the last slide of this section, please.
This is the first time that we see anything related
to transit come up, and we tested a bunch of transit.
These are the top scoring items,
and this is consistent with your past research,
and every transportation agency that I have worked for
in probably the last 23 years,
this has been the number one item,
keeping students, senior, disabled,
and veteran transit fares low.
I see this in San Luis Obispo County.
I see this in Fresno County.
I see this in Riverside County.
I see this in L.A. County.
I see this in Orange County.
You're very unique and special,
but in this area you are not.
That is the number one item folks care about
with relate, as it relates to transit.
Next slide.
And now I want to present in the following slide, please.
a series of what I'll call educational statements.
We randomized them and we asked them after each one,
tell me if it would make you more inclined
to vote yes on the measure.
If they said it would, we asked them,
is that much more inclined or somewhat more inclined?
The dark blue is much more inclined,
the somewhat more inclined is the bright blue.
I've aggregated the total more inclined
on the right-hand side.
The words in the parentheses are the themes of the messages
because I'm sure you'd be rolling your eyes
if I read 10 or 12 messages to you.
So I just wanna make a couple of points here.
And I know this is posted so you can read them
at your leisure.
We have worked very closely with your staff
to sub-regionalize many of the messages
because what's true in the high desert
is not true in the West Valley.
And what's true in the West Valley
is not always true in the East Valley.
and we need to be respectful of all those areas.
And with no disrespect, if I'm living in Apple Valley,
I'm not sure I care that much about the pothole
in Montclair, but if I'm in Montclair,
I certainly care about my pothole,
and I'm not sure I care about the pothole in Adelanto.
But if I live in Adelanto, I certainly care.
I certainly care.
Now, I'm just telling you away, I care about my,
I'm speaking for your voters for a moment,
I care about my pothole, my freeway, my traffic light,
my ability to get to work in places I need to go.
That's just how it is.
And we need to be respectful of that.
And that is what the survey did.
We have sub-regional messages for each of the sub-regions.
So we try to speak to each of your voters.
How do we know what these things are?
Because previous surveys have told us
what their priorities were.
And matching them up to your priorities
is how we developed these messages, which
I call sort of the plan in those particular areas.
For the county as a whole, we asked about a bridge message.
Clearly, there are bridges to be fixed in your jurisdictions.
And then talked a little bit about the accomplishments
of Measure I, which many people don't know exists.
I know you folks talk about it all the time.
And when I do your focus groups, well, a couple years ago,
I did your focus groups.
And I asked about people if they knew about,
where does transportation money come from?
Who collects it?
Who's responsible?
They know it's somebody.
They're not quite sure who.
Many people don't know about Measure I.
And for some people, I mean this is a desirable place to live.
I'm not telling you anything you don't know.
And people are moving in for better or worse all the time.
If I've moved in in the last five, six, seven, eight years,
how would I even know about Measure I?
I wasn't there for that election.
If I've just aged into the voting
pool in the last number of elections,
I would not have known about Measure I
because I never had to confront that question on a ballot.
I was out doing other things because I was a kid.
So all those people don't know about it,
and I know that's what you think about
when you come into this building all the time.
So I don't mean to burst your bubble,
but you should talk about your accomplishments.
And when you talk about your accomplishments,
it's a good story to tell,
and there's more to come, as many of you know.
So if we can go down, let's see,
let's skip to slide 23, one more maybe, one more.
So after that education,
telling them what the money could be used for
and telling your story in a non-advocacy way,
we went back and asked the same ballot question
that you saw earlier in the presentation.
The left-hand side was that initial vote
when they just heard ballot title and summary.
You'll recall it's 74 yes, 22 no, 4% undecided.
Telling your story only increases overall total support
by a modest 5% but above the margin of error.
And I'm telling you, you're not getting much better
than 79, like that isn't a really great number,
but I will remind you, it's not a new tax.
So that's, you know, I wish I was like that brilliant,
but you know, it's not a new tax, so that helps, right?
But what I really like in addition to moving that number up
is the, for the sake of the measure,
is the definitely yes moves up nine points.
So 58% for a 2 thirds measure on a survey
is a very strong measure to say definitely yes.
You'll note that the definitely no,
which I was expecting to be at least 20
and in some of your communities even more
because they're tough nuts to crack.
They're very fiscally prudent.
They're mindful about taxes in some of your communities.
So yeah, there's no slam dunk here.
You're not certain counties that will go nameless right now.
But you know who your constituents are.
And only 12% at this point are definitely no.
Now, I haven't said anything negative yet.
I'm about to.
But right now, it stands at a very high number.
It's above the margin of error and above the threshold
needed that two-thirds at this moment.
This tells me what education can do.
You need to think about your level of support
for this agency to do education.
I defer to you as to what is appropriate,
it's not me to say, but I will tell you,
it will certainly help the measure,
but your legal counsel will wanna review everything
to make sure you're doing up in the straight and narrow.
Next slide, here we go.
All right, this is what I'll call the cringe-worthy part
of the presentation.
We gave them a fairly long paragraph
of oppositional statements.
And I always tell my clients, they don't have to be true.
You have to just tell me you can imagine people will say them.
One has no control over the opposition bully pulpit.
And many of you in your respective communities
have been that opposition at times.
You say what you want.
The SPCTA is not going to hold you back.
So we need to test what other people will say.
So they would say, some folks would say it's unnecessary
because it's not going to expire till 2024.
Let's wait 15 more years to decide
whether we should renew it.
The last time it was supposed to expire in 30 years,
all of a sudden this is going to be a forever tax.
I would argue it's until ended by voters.
Voters can actually overturn any measure they want
by getting enough signatures to place it on the ballot.
And with a 50 plus one can overturn anything,
including, by the way, measure I right now.
So I wanted to point that out,
though I'm not encouraging any of that.
And then the concern you've already started on toll lanes,
which I prefer calling express lanes,
and this money will allow, because of state mandates,
additional toll lanes that might crisscross the county.
It will only encourage more warehouses,
more truck traffic, more people coming,
poor air quality, and communities down the mountain
will receive a majority of the funds,
and the folks up the hills or up the mountains
will get scraps.
This is not coming for me.
this is coming from your opponents.
But my due diligence is to make sure that your measure
is as proof, is prepared the best I can.
When you make your vote, you have to feel like
we've minimized risk, and then it's up to you
as to whether you think it's appropriate or not.
All right, so after this extensive opposition statement,
we re-ask the ballot question.
Again, I'm simulating an election.
Next slide, please.
So initial vote was ballot title and summary only, 74-22.
Those are people who go into the ballot booth
and all of a sudden discover there's something
on the ballot for the first time or at their kitchen table.
Telling them what the money could be used for
and your story in a non-advocacy way.
The measure moves up to 79.16 with 5% undecided
and 58, very high definitely as to 58, definitely no of 12.
hitting the measure hard because you'll want it to go
for a ride, you don't buy a car unless you test drive it
for the good and the bad.
The support goes down to 69%.
The definitely S is at 49.
Still, one in every two is definitely supported.
And the definitely no, which I had expected
to be at least 20% initially,
never gets there even with that very hard message.
And so, final support is 69 yes, 22 no, 9% undecided.
It's above the threshold, but within the margin of error.
There are no certainties in life,
but the numbers look good if the efforts are made correctly.
Again, not trying to get ahead.
Many of you folks may not want this, that's your call.
I'm just telling you that the opportunity is there
if it's done correctly.
Sometimes clients say, oh, the data looks pretty good,
we don't have to do anything, let's just play it out.
Doesn't work like that.
I've simulated an education outreach campaign
and even an opposition.
And it's important for you to take those lessons
if you intend to move forward.
Next slide.
So how does this compare to the first time
we tried testing a measure that was an extension
of the current measure?
In August, the bars here are initial vote,
the dots are initial vote, vote after information
or education and vote after opposition.
The blue bar is the total yes,
the orange bar is the total no and the gray is the undecided.
And you can follow along each vote on those dots.
When I look out on the left side for a moment,
the August 2023, when I look at the last vote,
The yes is at 65, the no is at 28.
The differential is 37%.
I simply subtracted 28 from 65.
When I look on the right-hand side,
the data I've just presented you today,
the last vote is 69, yes, 22, no.
That math, if my math is right, that's 47%.
There's a 10-point increase in the differential
between yes and no from August of 2023, November of 2025,
why is that the case?
Well, one of the cases is we've leveraged the information we've
learned from your past research to make the ballot
question stronger.
There are other circumstances that that may be the case,
but we certainly did that.
And then I'm going to hit the conclusions out.
I just want to thank you for your patience.
I know this is a long presentation,
but it's critical that you have this information
to be able to deliberate.
Next slide, and then one more.
So close to nine and 10 continue to proceed.
There's at least some need for additional funds
with a very high percentage of people who say great need.
Before and after simulated education,
seven and support the countywide absent
implementation measure beyond the mark of error.
After critical statements, it drops to 69.
It's still above the threshold,
but within that margin of error,
there are no foreshore things in life.
The measure appears to be viable,
but of ongoing communication outreach is necessary
and might be susceptible
to a well-funded organized opposition
as every measure is.
So working on that.
Now you can't target it as an organization,
friends outside can, but that's beyond my purview
for this presentation.
Sorry.
I think your microphone is starting to fail.
Oh.
We'll get staff to swap it out,
but you can continue until it fails.
All right, I'm so close.
All right, sorry.
Thank you.
I will try to put some mic money in for a measure
if you choose to move forward.
All right, last slide, please.
One more, okay, thanks.
Top voter priorities include repairing puddles,
keeping roads in good condition,
as well as reducing traffic congestion,
supporting local jobs,
and adding sidewalks near schools, that's scored well.
Touting a long range action
and the word plan should be in there,
so if you have your notes, you can put an action plan,
which I believe you will be deliberating on
and highlighting what each sub area will receive.
That's really critical.
They wanna know what's in it for me.
That's always the question in this kind of survey.
Is beneficial for educating voters on the measure?
Other themes to highlight include need to repair bridges
and continuing progress that is being made.
And last slide just sums it up,
and I'd like to be open to any questions
that you may have, thanks again.
Well, thank you, Dr. Bernard.
That was a great presentation,
brings up speed on where we're at today
and what the public thinks.
Right now, I'll open it up for public comment.
Anyone from the public have a question
or a comment to Dr. Bernard?
Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the board.
I see Art Bishop.
Thank you very much.
I want to, as a member of the committee,
I actually would like to move the item,
but first off, I would like to make a couple comments.
I think Richard and Otis have done a tremendous job.
than both of the two surveys.
I'm very pleased, 79% or however you look at that
is an unbelievable.
Our measure P in Apple Valley did not have 79%,
but we still passed it with our 2-thirds.
So I was very pleased with that.
Potholes are probably one of the number one concerns
with the people in the high desert.
I do want to apologize to the honorable mayor of Montclair.
I do care about your pothole, sir.
Sorry.
I know Richard said I don't care,
but you need to know, John, that I do care about your pothole.
I care about them, too.
I know you do.
But the last thing I just want to say real quickly
is that at some time, Otis is going to come up here
to speak in a second.
And I know Otis is going to turn to all of us
and ask us to please give our support,
not only here in this room today,
but as this gets closer to the November date.
The only way that this is going to pass in San Bernardino
County, if we all get out there and do everything
within our powers, within our old geographical areas,
to move this forward.
So I think that's extremely critical.
That is something that we look at,
but I would like to move the item if that's appropriate.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I see a member Ramos, please.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I just, just a quick comment.
Wanted to thank you, Mr. Bernard,
for all the hard work and time
that you've been putting into this survey.
Thank the committee as well.
Being part of the committee,
thank you guys for all the discussions.
And since member Bishop brought up potholes,
I'd like to set the record straight.
We don't have potholes in the city of Adelanto, sir.
Thank you.
So you want less money, right?
Yes.
My name.
Don't stop.
Member Michaels, you have a comment?
I don't even know what a pothole is, actually,
but I will tell you this one.
Can you pull up the slide that showed with opposition
Yeah, so they're perfect. Is this the one you're referring to?
Yeah, yeah that one where?
Now when when you have no it was the other one with the lines. Oh
One slide there. Yeah, thank you the drop of from 79 10% drop
Yep, when you do other surveys for other cities, and you do this same thing that what is the normal percentage of drop?
Well, there's yeah, there's certainly degrees of drop and many of your cities go for general-purpose measures
So I worry a little bit less because it's a 50 plus 1 which many of you folks done or are intending to
This seems to be a normal drop
But what's not normal is it's starting from such a high place. So that tells me it can sustain a drop
I mean we know with thought with not a lot of money you're gonna
Every measure is going to lose support, but because you start so high you can sustain some loss excellent
Thank you, and and so that would be that's a drop
But once we implement an education program of educating the public that number would probably come up from it could but I'm
Suggesting that and again no advocacy here, but I'm suggesting if you educate
Your the number for the measure will be much higher and therefore any any hit will be able to sustain it
I don't want you to wait till after
Opposition because sometimes it's hard to recuperate it after. Thank you
number her
First off as a member of the committee. I'd like to second arts motion to approve this
And I think all these cities with no potholes. I think you've been sending them to big bear
so I really don't appreciate that. That's a good comment. Anyone else like to speak?
Can I go back real quick? Oh yes please. Just real quick Dr. Bernard I just want
to make sure for Mayor Michael the information we see on the slide that's
on the screen right now we have done the education and that gets us up to 79
and then we have opposition and that brings us down. Correct which is why I
I suggest go first don't wait yeah thank you okay we have the item moved by
Bishop and second by Herrick oh we have more I'm sorry please go ahead I'm I
apologize our step ahead I'll be going I'll be quick we'll just close out real
quick so I'm gonna walk you through just a few more highlights here okay this one
work first let me say I want to thank Dr. Bernard for coming out participating he
does have another engagement that he's going to have to leave for shortly so if
any questions come up that you have specific for him please don't hesitate to
jump in before he has to depart. So we'll take just a few more minutes to
walk you through some of the highlights of the ordinance and expenditure plan. So
we'll start with the expenditure plan as discussed at previous board workshops
and with the ad hoc committee the objective is to create a long-term
expenditure plan that provides greater flexibility in response to a changing
transportation landscape and here you can see a revised expenditure plan for
both the Valley as well as the Mountain Desert and you can see the transition
that we've taken with the Valley sub area moving from eight different
programs major street for freeway interchange commuter rail so on and so
forth to three local mobility at 25% regional mobility which are the big
capital projects and then operations for our transit operations and programs at
25%. Mountain desert is 70, 20, and 10 respectively. When we think about those
key changes and recommendations for the expenditure plan that are different from
the existing plan was first the creation of our interregional mobility
expenditure plan which will replace the cajon pass expenditure plan taking 3%
off the top and then making those resources available to be used county
wide for impacts of tourism and goods movement.
We're working to make the independent taxpayer oversight
committee the ability to fill those vacancies a little easier
for the president to make sure that we have consistency
with that oversight.
5% will be dedicated from the local pot
for those important sidewalks that Dr. Bernard
mentioned here earlier.
And the other piece that I think is probably
the most significant that we've talked about
the extension of the half-cent sales tax until ended by voters. In terms of some
of the carryover elements, obviously we'll maintain the independent
taxpayer oversight committee, the provisions of one percent not being used
not exceeding one percent for administrative overhead, funds will not
be supplanted, local spending needs to stay the same, that's our maintenance of
effort provision, local developers still need to put skin in the game and the
return to source model will still continue. So moving on to our last slide
we want to talk about what the next steps are as we move forward. As Carrie
mentioned and I appreciate that highlight the board approved additional
resources to conduct some educational campaigns which we've begun in May of
last year and have continued through the end of that year and will continue
through this year doing some of those educational programs so those will
continue. We did look with the work with the ad hoc committee on reviewing the
expenditure plan which we appreciate their their time and their support. Mr.
Bernard referenced the polling that was done in November of last year and then
the ad hoc committee had a chance to review those results prior to the
recommendation to come to the full board. Now the the ad hoc committee met again
in January recently to look at the last few changes to the expenditure plan and
ordinance and here we are today with the recommendation to continue to move
forward with the with the full board. The next step is today and what we're
asking for today is for the board to authorize staff to go out and solicit
the approval from the member agencies and once that happens we'll get out
starting in February through April and seeking agenda items from each of the
member agencies for their approval of the draft expenditure plan. And then in
April, just as a follow-up, we'll do one more tracking poll just to be sure that
we're on the right track. After that poll has taken place the ad hoc committee
will have an opportunity to review it and then that recommendation will come
from them to the board to either move forward or to hold back. That brings us
to the May board meeting on May 6th where the first reading of the ordinance
expenditure plan will take place seeing that that's approved then we would move
to the second reading or the adoption in June and then on to the board of
supervisors for the placement on the ballot. The board of supervisors actually
has until August to actually put it on the ballot but we hope to get that
resolved in July pending approval from the board to move forward. That concludes
our presentation. Happy to take any questions that you might have. We will
also, one more note, we will be sharing this same presentation with the city
managers tomorrow and asking for their support as we go out to the member
Agencies soliciting their approval
And I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you Otis. I appreciate that and we'll start off with member McCollum just a
Clarification our member agencies can only educate and not advocate
So I didn't hear the question. I was for the lawyer
The law is is that the agency cannot use no agency resources can be used for advocacy
I don't know that the courts have ever looked at what the member agencies can do
But I might my advice my advice would be to not use
City or county funds or it could it could because it could possibly jeopardize
It could open up a challenge if it were passed so
That's why I asked the question. It's a little murky. It is a little murky
Whether we we can as a city advocate as long as we don't put we you can educate you can educate
And also what's murky is that line between what's education and what's advocacy?
But my understanding is is that they have outside organizations that are going to take up the advocacy part for us. So that's
Can I ask a follow-up question? Sorry because it's relevant. Please doctor may the
The City Council's at least endorse they can vote to endorse a measure is that correct?
Yes, they can and in fact in order to proceed to the ballot
We need a majority of the cities representing a majority of the people living in cities
Plus the Board of Supervisors to approve the expenditure plan that actually has to be formally done. So
Thank you for the clarifications. We'll move on to member Bishop just two things real quick
If we could get a copy of something that you would like us to present either as a consent item or as an agenda item
to our city councils
That would be a tremendous help. I'm sure you already have planned on that, but I just wanted to mention that real quick
But I love it all I have no concerns, but
The one thing that keeps going in the back of my head is that the state of California seems to be moving
on a very rapid pace for the VMT and
I'm just a little bit concerned that as and it may be completely done by then and I may be completely wrong
But I don't want people to be confused
with the governor's VMT
proposal and what San Bernardino County is trying to move forward related to transportation.
I don't have an answer for that.
I don't think Otis you have an answer for this, but I'm just telling you I'm a little
bit concerned with the timing and I'll leave it at that.
I think you're referring to proposals about road user charges and things of that sort
and how that could get conflated with Measure I. I think back to Dr. Bernard's point, which
is I think important is our our message is we're not changing anything we're
leaving things the same we're extending an existing ordinance in order to
continue the work of transportation improvements so I think we're in a
little better position. Thank you for that. Member Marquez. Thank you so I
appreciate that. Again our job is basically to educate the communities
surrounding us as we educate is there any concerns that we have with the
Brown Act being a board of director. Well potentially but without more facts I
really can't answer that question. I've got an example for you.
League of Cities dealing division, would there be an issue if we have a speaker
come and present the measure to the division? There is no issue with a
speaker say for example Otis going and speaking to an organization about what
the measure to educate about the measure whether they're that that would
not violate the Brown Act what might violate the Brown Act is if there is a
quorum of any SBCTA policy committee or the board discussing measure I outside
of a Brown Act meeting I can't answer your question right now because I don't
have enough information about the specifics of the League of Cities but we
are looking into that for you. Just a clarification too when you say
discussing meetings that I attend outside it really isn't a discussion
issue it's more just informational so the Brown Act is very clear that even
discussion amongst a quorum of members of a legislative body which includes not
just the SBCTA Board but any of its standing policy committees about any
any SBCTA or SBCOG, anything within their subject matter jurisdiction would violate
the Brown Act because that's a gathering of a quorum of that body to discuss an item that
should be discussed publicly.
Okay, and you're going to get more of a clarification for us for education for us?
Yes.
Okay, thank you so much.
Thank you for that.
Member Michael.
Yeah, just one, I'll just say it is correct that you will be or your staff, someone's
going to be at every city council meeting of every city to dealing with
adoption of the ordinance is that not correct? I think the objective is that
the item be placed on the city's agenda. Whether or not you'd like us to come
present is up to the individual jurisdictions. You would be available for that.
Absolutely and we'll share that same message to the city managers tomorrow as well.
Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, we have the item moved by
We have the second by Harrick.
All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation.
The item passes unanimously, but let the record reflect that Chino Hills is now present at
the meeting and Supervisor Hagman has left the meeting.
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
Okay.
Well, that presentation is moved on, so I'm going to move on to agenda item number four.
That's grant administration program update by Dulce-Spencer.
Spencer hi good morning mr. president and board members thank you for the
opportunity to provide an update on the ground administration program I'm really
excited about this alrighty it works right as a brief program overview the
grant support across SP cog and SBCTA has historically been provided by
individual opportunities individual opportunities and available with
available staff capacity, but with the board approval with the grant team
framework that occurred last year, this function is more structured and
coordinated. The framework formalizes how grant writing and technical assistance
will be provided to our member agencies. Since approval, staff have begun
implementation activities including outreach to member agencies through a
webinar that was held in November. So as part of the implementation, we developed
member agency grant website to serve as a centralized access for grant resources,
funding opportunities, and support. I'll start from the SB Cog landing page to
demonstrate how member agencies can navigate to the grant section. Ready, this
is the SB Cog landing page and to the right corner you'll see a tab which says
SB Cog and then down below it has grant resources. You'll click on the grant
resources, and this is now a directory member agency grant funding website.
As you can see right in the center, a bright blue button which says open grant opportunities.
Now that's exactly where you'll find open and upcoming grant opportunities from SPCOG,
and down below you'll see a carousel of our current award-winning nominations and awards
that we received.
And as we scroll a little bit further down to the links and attachments, section, this
is a one-stop location where you'll be able to find locations of supporting material just
as, for example, supporting, there's a support template.
Or any other information such as our grant support progress, process, program guidelines
as well.
and other funding resources available.
For example, SCAGs, regional grant listing,
and are also at California grant portal.
Now if we go back to the top of the screen,
where you see on the right side,
it says request grant assistance.
That green button that says go,
that will take you straight to what it would directly say
that you may initiate your support for grant assistance.
Now heading back to, let me break the PowerPoint, thank you.
Oh, perfect, thank you.
So this right here is a screenshot
of the member agency website,
just giving you the arrows exactly
of the two primary resources that'll be very useful.
Go open grant opportunities as well as the green button
so that you may submit your grant assistance request.
So moving forward, so how do we provide grant support?
When member agencies request grant assistance,
staff prioritizes support based on alignment
with regional plans and opportunities that involve
multiple jurisdictions allowing limited resources
to be focused for regional coordination at most value.
So especially that we're gonna make sure
that it aligns with our SBCTA 10 year delivery plan,
SBCOG five year work plan as well.
Support may include targeted technical assistance
such as technical review for the grant narratives,
benefit cost analysis, or just refining projects
as well, the scopes.
Alrighty, so we encourage member agencies
to contact staff through our member grant website,
as well as via my email, which is listed on the screen.
The intent is to provide transparency,
improve accessibility, and maintain a consistent process
for agencies seeking grant assistance.
Over this past year, staff has supported grant efforts
that have successfully secured more than 44 million.
With the grant administration program now,
staff will continue supporting agencies
and pursuing additional funding.
That concludes my presentation.
be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Dulce. We'll open it up for public comment at this time.
Any comments or questions? Seeing none, back to board. Seeing none, this is a receive and file
item. So thank you very much, Dulce, for the update. Thank you. Moving on to our last agenda item,
agenda item number five. Reallocate Gold Line Project funding to the Enhanced Metrolink Service
Project, and Victor Lopez will be presenting. Good morning, Board President, Board members.
As mentioned this item, we are recommending
to allocate funding to the Metrolink service
that was previously approved by this board last month.
So for background purposes, last September,
this board approved defunding the Gold Line
to Montclair project and to use those funds
to enhance service to Montclair using Metrolink
or other alternatives recommended by an ad hoc committee.
The ad hoc committee recommendation
was presented at the December Transit Committee
and was then approved by this board last month.
So since the project to enhance the service
between Pomona North and Rancho Kamanga
Metrolling Station was recently approved,
we are recommending to allocate the funds
noted in the recommendation
so that we can continue to advance
the enhanced Metrolling Service project.
Furthermore, allocating the funds to the project
will demonstrate local financial commitment
for future grant opportunities.
That concludes my presentation
I'll be happy to answer to any questions
All right. Thank you Victor. We'll open it up for public comment on this item number five seeing none back to board
I see member McCollum, please. Well, thank you very much
we're doing this transfer now because
for us to proceed with a project study report and
Demonstrate that our local financial commitment is there for future grants
We need to do it now as opposed to without do it without this transfer if you will
We can't proceed with the project study report. Is that a good?
Sorry
Thank you
Let me let me first and so do we need the full 37 million to do the project study report?
No, is it showing that we're prioritizing the project and it starts building that local
Funding contribution for ultimately what is estimated to be a hundred and fifty million dollar project that that's what we're doing here
We're also headed into staff starting to work on our 2026 10-year delivery plan
And so decisions like these are important to make sure we're building that plan up appropriately
high support
Member do you tray? Yeah, thank you very much and obviously
myself as a member of the ad hoc committee that's brought this forward to the to the board last month
Regarding the Metro link enhancement project, you know, there's a lot of work needs to be done on this so far
You know, we still don't know where else is going
I was we spent last 18 years on a different project which I'm not gonna name that name
We're all tired of it. And so I just think maybe
Instead of just putting into one project fund perhaps we should put into a program fund called the West Valley
rail transit enhancement project.
Obviously these funds can be used
for the Metroland Enhancement
as we're incurring project costs
or consultant costs and other costs.
And then when we know exactly where we're going,
what project it's gonna be,
we have these funds set aside ready to go.
And the other thing I just wanna bring up here
is my city, for the last 18 years,
especially our transit center and the improvements
that we were expecting to get from the other project,
I hope to say this board doesn't forget
that as we progress, that my station, Montclair,
should also get the improvement
that we talked about in the past.
I just wanna make sure the board understands it.
But nevertheless, I think it'd be much better,
I don't care if you agree with me or not,
that we just place these funds into a program fund
called the West Valley Transit.
And this way, here's the flexibility,
we know where this is going.
You know, one of the things I heard about this one
perhaps LA Metro may be opposed to it I don't know what that's at right now but
I just think we're just jumping it too far to move the funds into one another
project that may or may not have who knows so instead of a project we call it
a program right now those are my comments yes member Marquez thank you
sir appreciate it um I know we made that decision not to move forward with the
goal line I'm sorry for saying that but my understanding that that at that time
we were going to establish an ad hoc committee and they were going to come
back to us with other options on how we could do that project and then also
looking at MetroLink to figure out the enhancements that we would need to I
guess every 15 minutes was our goal so my question have we does that been
detailed out what the request I'm asking? Yes that was done as part of the ad hoc
process and then reported out to board in December and so this is the follow-up
action to that. I do need to apologize to my board members I am going to be
turning 70 in a couple of months and that's the reason I forgot so thank you
for that appreciate it. Thank you. Excuse me, Mr. Chair, 70 is okay, okay Ray?
So there was 60.
I'm almost there.
Good comment.
Member, what?
Thank you, Mr. President.
I guess, John, I'm still not sure what you're asking for.
I think that the commitment was, since we're not
funding Gold Line 1, to make sure
that there was enhanced service.
In order to have that, obviously, we
have to make improvements all along the Metrolink line.
It can't just be one, because otherwise, there's
nothing to feed into it.
So I think the way that staff is proposing it,
and correct me if I'm wrong, Kerry,
is this would be used to enhance Metrolink service.
I think we're looking for Rancho going westbound.
Yes, between Montclair and Rancho.
Yes, and I think that makes sense.
That way it incorporates the transit center in Montclair
as well as the new development
at the Cucamonga Metrolinx station.
Yes, Member Navarro.
Yes, thank you, Mr. President.
During the allocation of these funds
that are coming back to us
and also incorporating some of the measure I
looking forward to things. Have we considered policies where we guarantee rail and transit
the funds are guaranteed through policy on an ongoing basis?
So I'm going to take that in two buckets. One is the money that you see that we're talking about
reallocating here. All of it is only eligible for transit related expenses,
so the eligibility requirements of the fund source are dictating that
that's it needs to go in the into these types of projects or operations. On the
measure forward-looking measure I 3.0 if it is approved by voters there is not
you just saw the buckets that we have that we are proposing in there there is
a operations fund that is heavily focused on transit. It does include FSP,
freeway service patrol, and some other operational things that we do in the
region. But the regional pot, there is no distinction at this point in time between
what would go to freeways, interchanges, or bus or rail. That would be
handled as part of the update to the strategic plan process. Because we don't
want the ordinance so restrictive, it's Intel perpetuity, you know, or Intel
ended by voters. We want to be we want to have as much flexibility as we can
have in there and then support that with the strategic plan update which is the
policy portion. Okay so in the policy portion could we put language in there
that based on the needs of the organizations in that bucket that the
allocation will be equally divided. See what I'm looking at is that we're
putting money for rail but I don't get the sense that we're putting sufficient
money for transit. That's the feeling that I'm getting. I think that if you look at, if you look at how
we allocate funding we are careful to address both the bus and the rail needs.
there will always be needs that exceed the revenue that's available. That is
the reality, it's what we live with. But I'll give you a couple examples.
We have certain federal FTA, Federal Transit Administration dollars that come
back to us that are generated based on the type of service that is provided in
our county and those are tracked and kept whole between which mode is
producing what it's something we do on the back end but is there a policy right
now and would I would I support when I would I would not recommend one I think
it would be too restrictive and not allow this board to make the decisions
it wants to to make based on the needs at the time that would be that's where
I'm at on it I think the board's done a fantastic job every year allocating
funding to both Metrolink both omni trans and and the mountain desert does
exceptionally well in this space of balancing each other's needs to get to
get certain projects done but I would not recommend it I think it'd be very
challenging I think you would hear policy exceptions from us I think I think
it could be very disruptive mr. chair I'll move the item we have McCollins
move the item is presented we have a second we have a second by Navarro all
All in favor? Opposed? Abstentions? Dutreus abstends.
All right, thank you.
The item passes 24 in favor.
0 opposed, 1 abstention, abstention being Montclair.
At this time, we'll open it up for board member comments
before we adjourn.
Seeing, oh, our bishop.
I have, thank you, Rick.
I have three real quick.
Betty, I see you in your audience, but you stand up.
Last week, Betty works on behalf of the 17-year-old County Transportation Authority, the IRAN committee.
Last week, Betty and I sat down with my director of planning, and Betty was able to show him
all the benefits through Southern California Edison, Southern California GAS, that are
available to different groups that are moving into—I have a lot of big boxes moving into
Apple Valley that are moving into your community.
I would strongly recommend each of you get a hold of,
I ran through Betty or Jennifer,
and seek their help to meet with your staff
because they did a great job.
I will tell you, my director of planning
said you were absolutely perfect
and thank you for the information.
Thank you.
The next thing I wanted to mention
is that town of Apavale is very proud
that with the help of
San Bernardino County Transportation Authority,
We are starting the rebuild of our 1962 bridge
over the Mojave River.
Yes, the Mojave River only has sand,
but it still flows occasionally.
So we're very excited about that.
And I just want to really quickly announce
that the town of Apple Valley through the grant,
I wanted to thank you, Ms. Spencer, for all your help
through the grant process and let Julie know,
I said that too.
Received just under $10 million in transportation grants
recently.
And this is the project.
This is the booklet we did.
It's the complete street action plan
for the town of Apple Valley.
I'd be glad to share this with anything
because I want to see all of our names on this list.
This is the highest in the state of California.
There were 55 applications and Apple Valley fortunately
came out number one.
thank you very much mr. Press great accomplishment thanks for sharing it
thank you anyone else this time we'll turn it over to our executive director I
have no announcements happy new year happy Valentine's Day got a few
holidays in there very good so at this time before we adjourn I'm gonna turn
the microphone over to Curtis Burton from the city of Chino to close our
meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm here this morning representing Mayor
Eunice Ulloa. Unfortunately, her husband Bob passed away this morning and I
understand we close this meeting in memory of Bob. They were married for
over 50 years. Bob worked at General Dynamics for many, many years and after
he left General Dynamics.
He actually worked for Senator Ruben Ayala
down in the Chino area.
But Bob has supported Eunice for over 40 years in politics.
Tremendous man, tremendous family man,
huge into camping with his family,
and he's a huge Trojan fan as well.
But I just appreciate that.
Thank you very much sir. I know that Eunice appreciates all the thoughts and the prayers
Bob has been struggling the last several months with medical issues, but she certainly appreciates
your support and your prayers. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you for that Curtis.
This meeting is adjourned.