I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting to order.
It is now 10 a.m. for the board of directors meeting
for April 1st, 2026 for the San Antonio County
Transportation Authority and the San Antonio 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.
First thing for us today is we're going to adjourn
to closed session and have conference
with labor negotiators.
Are there any members of the public that would like to speak on the closed session items
on the agenda?
Seeing none.
So at this time we're going to recess to closed session.
We'll be back down upon completion.
Well, hello, and welcome back.
I'm going to go ahead and continue our meeting.
First off, though, we'll go ahead and have council report out of closed session.
No reportable action was taken in closed session.
All right.
Thank you for that.
So we'll go ahead and convene the meeting.
Once again, thanks for being here and your patience during closed session.
We'll start off with the Pledge of Allegiance
and I'd like to have Josh Pullen lead us in the pledge today.
All right, thank you for that.
All right, moving on here.
Clerk, can you even call attendance, please?
When I call your jurisdiction, please state your name.
Adalanto.
Ramos, present.
Apple Valley.
Art Bishop.
Barstow.
Tim Silva, present.
Big Bear Lake.
New York.
Chino.
Una Chiloa.
Chino Hill.
Primarquez.
President, San Bernardino, Helen Tran, 29 Palms, Dan Mintz, Upland, Rudy Zuniga
president, Victorville, Ukepah, Judy Wolsey,
Yucka Valley, Dennison here, County Supervisors first district, not present,
second district, Armaderis present, third district, Don Rao, fourth district, fifth
district, junior president, and our Caltrans ex-officio representative,
Catalina pinning. Thank you. We have a quorum. Oh, thank you. So we'll go ahead and move on to
announcements. I have some employee recognitions today I'd like to bring up. We have,
first off, two new team members joining the agency this month. Please help me welcome
Priscilla Leon. Priscilla is the new accounting assistants in the finance department. Welcome,
Priscilla. It's always great seeing new people here, the young kids that are helping us out.
So we also want to welcome Saguaro Sandoval.
Saguaro is the procurement analyst
for the procurement department.
Welcome, Saguaro.
And then join me in recognizing Julie Pérez.
For 10 years of service with the agency,
Julie is an executive assistant
in the support services department.
And thank you, Julie.
Oh, there she is.
She helps us get started every morning down here,
so thank you, Julie.
Agency recognitions, a couple things today.
Congratulations are deserved to the inland regions regional energy network
team also known as Iran the California Association of Council of Governments
or CalCog recognize Iran with their Eureka Award for regional excellence for
their workforce education and training sector success of their public agency
fellowship program so congratulations to Iran team for their partners and on
that award and we'll go ahead and have a couple of calendar reminders so I'd like
to give a reminder that the trans committee meeting and the metro valley study session
is scheduled for Thursday, April 9th. That meeting has been canceled. Special meetings
of the trans committee and the metro valley study session have been rescheduled to the
following week of April 16th. So make note of that on your calendars.
So back to the clerk, do we have any notices or modifications to the agenda?
Public comments for agenda item 25 were posted and distributed. That concludes my notices.
All right, thank you very much.
And that will bring us now to a conflict of interest.
Any board members that have not?
Thank you.
This thing's gotten into so many sheets of paper.
Sorry about that.
So we have a few public comments today
and two of them are for open general public comment.
We'll start off with that.
The first one that we had that was submitted
is Ulysses Cenia with ASM Robert Garci,
or Assemblyman Robert Garcia, I apologize.
Welcome, Ulysses.
Please turn on your mic.
It's my first time here.
Good morning, again, board.
My name is Ulysses Moore.
I am here on behalf of Assemblymember Robert Garcia.
Really just to introduce myself, we
have been in touch with folks from SBCTA, Cary, specifically.
But I want to say I'm really proud of the work
that our county is doing to connect our communities.
Transportation and transit is an issue
area that falls in one of my issue areas. So I wanted to thank you all and let you
all know even folks that aren't in our district specifically that we are here
as partners in the work that you're doing to make transportation more
accessible to all of our residents because all of these issues are
connected right so as the only region in California that has shown sustained
growth within the last several years. Our freeways are more impacted, our streets are
more impacted, so all the work that you're doing to repair our roads, I live in San Bernardino.
I've seen a huge increase in paved roads, which is kind of like the bare minimum, but
it is so important, right? It makes me have to service my car far less. So thank you to
to our mayor, who is right here.
Yeah, we can give a round of applause for our mayor.
And I have cards.
I didn't bring enough cards.
I didn't realize the board was so big.
But Carrie has our contact information.
Please reach out to me with any help,
letters of support that you need to submit
to whatever agency is funding all of the great work
that you're doing.
We want to help.
So thank you so much.
and please reach out to Carrie and she'll put you in touch with our office, thank you.
Thank you Ulysses it's good to have connections especially with our assembly members and people
that really love our community like we do so welcome. Next we have Yvette from SCAG that'd like
to speak. Hello good morning members of the board of atmospheric SCAG government affairs officer for
the IE here with an invitation for board members and staff alike to go to the LA county mobile
workshop because who doesn't love driving to LA we do have a private tour of the
port of Los Angeles on Friday April 10th from 1015 a 105 you're all welcome to
join so please if you're interested to let me know let staff know they can
communicate with that and that's for both board members and staff alike thank
you so much thank you for your comments that'll do it for general public
comment is there any other members of the public that would like to speak an
open on comment. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move on.
So now back to any conflicts of interest with the board. Yes.
Yeah, regarding item number 25, I'm going to accuse myself on the predominance of a
potential conflict. Thank you. Thank you for that notice. Any other members,
if you have a conflict, please notify the clerk. So our first item, our agenda items
two through four informational items. They do not require a vote. These are receive and
file items that are routine and noncontroversial.
We'll move on to our consent calendar.
These will be items five through 24.
Do we have any public comment on any consent calendars?
I have one card today and that will be David Roebuck.
And this is the only one that's on the left.
Okay, hello, my name's David.
I'm a resident of Montclair.
I was born and raised in Fontana, so shout out there.
And I've lived in this county my whole life,
with the exception of being out of state for four years.
But I wanted to speak on some actions that were taken
by this board a while ago and I just recently learned
about the Goldine extension in Montclair.
I'm asking that this board votes down reallocation
of funding from the Goldine extension of Metrolink
and refund original plans.
So yeah, essentially, us in Montclair, we will.
David, just to keep it in line,
we do have an agenda item today on that item.
If you'd like to speak on the item itself,
on, on the discussion. Yeah. This is consent right now. Oh, sorry. The consent calendar,
which will be those items that I spoke of a five through 24. Once we get through a consent
then your comment will be appropriate and I'll call you back up. Okay. Okay. Thank you.
Moved by Navarro. Navarro second by Dutray on consent calendar. All in favor. Aye. Opposed.
extensions. All right. Thank you very much for that. The consent calendar passes unanimously.
All right. So, David, that was pretty quick. We're going to start on item number 25 now,
and that was the item that you were talking about. If you'd like to reapproach the podium.
Do you want the staff presentation first? Oh, yes. I'm sorry. Okay. We're going to have staff
first. Hi, Paul. All right. So item number 25 is measure I. Sorry. This is bill position
Recommendation item 25 on the calendar and Molly Wilshire will present the item. Thank you, Molly. Okay. Thanks for putting up with me during
Well, good morning board members the item before you today is a staff recommendation to take an opposed position on a B
1678 authored by assembly member Haravidian before walking through the specifics of the legislation
I want to take a step back briefly and
Acknowledged the significant effort by both the board and staff over the past year to address concerns related to the Gold Line project
Staff engaged extensively with the Gold Line Construction Authority, but despite these efforts a resolution could not be reached
Following thoughtful deliberation the board made at the policy decision in September
To redirect funding from the Gold Line project to enhance Metrolink service in the same corridor through a shuttle connection
similar to the Aero service that will serve the Pomona North, Claremont, Montclair, Upland, and Rancher Kooka-Munga stations.
With the Gold Line now reaching Pomona North,
this approach leverages that connection to provide a more integrated and cost-effective solution for improving mobility across the corridor.
Following the Board's decision in September, staff proactively engaged our legislative delegation to provide an update on the Board's recent actions, and
And that included a meeting with Assemblymember Haribidian
and his staff in October.
In late February, the Assemblymember's office
solicited feedback from staff on proposed legislation
to advance the Gold Line extension to Montclair
through the participation of SBCTA.
SBCTA staff communicated that the premise of the proposal
is inconsistent with the Board's direction and actions
taken over the past seven months.
We also conveyed on several occasions
that we could not provide input on bill language
as doing so could be perceived
as staff negotiating without board direction
and that we would bring the,
we'd come to the board with a recommendation
once the language was introduced.
At the time of the March legislative policy committee
meeting, legislation had not yet been introduced
and so we informed the committee of the communication
with the assembly members office.
AB 1678 was introduced on March 20th,
which brings this item before you today.
AB 1678 proposes to sunset
the existing Gold Line Construction Authority
once the project reaches Claremont
and to establish a new construction authority
called the Claremont-Clare Authority
to deliver the Gold Line extension
from Claremont to Montclair.
The Claremont-Clare Authority would be governed
by a board consisting of five voting members
appointed by the cities of Claremont and Montclair,
Metro SBCTA as well as the San Bernardino County Supervisor whose district includes the city of Montclair and one non-voting
board member appointed by the governor
While the bill provides SBCTA with a voting seat on the Claire Montclair Authority governing board
It does not address the board's long-standing concerns regarding ongoing costs escalation
Lack of a voice in the delivery and operations or the duplication of transit service within the same corridor
Further, the bill poses significant legal and financial risk to SBCTA, including the
loss of control over SBCT assets and property rights, as the new authority could require
the transfer of assets that it deems necessary for the project, while limiting SBCTA's ability
to impose protections related to its assets.
The limited role in key project oversight as Metro, but not SBCTA, would have the authority
to review significant design or construction changes under a required MOU.
This bill does not include a requirement for the new construction authority to enter into
a construction agreement with SBCTA.
The pre-commitment to operations and maintenance funding as SBCTA would be prohibited from
negotiating an agreement with Metro until after construction begins.
This essentially pre-commits SBCTA to fund O&M without an opportunity to freely negotiate
terms with Metro. The long-term financial exposure without cost control as SBCTA
would be required to reimburse Metro for ongoing operating costs in San
Bernardino County, again leaving SBCTA with no oversight of costs yet
permanently obligating us to fund O&M. SBCTA would effectively be writing a
blank check to LA. So fundamentally this bill does not address the concerns
raised by the board and SBCTA staff regarding this project.
But if we set aside the project itself for a moment,
the legislation itself would erode this board's authority
to determine which projects it advances in funds
while also undermining its ability
to protect SBCTA's assets and property rights.
For these reasons, staff recommends
that the board take an opposed position on AB 1678.
The bill is scheduled to be heard
in the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 13th.
So we are bringing this item forward at this time
to receive board direction and ensure that SBCTA
can engage meaningfully in the legislative process.
This concludes my report
and I'm available for any questions.
Thank you, Molly, for that.
We'll move it to the board for comments.
I see a member, please.
Thank you, sir, I appreciate it.
Quick question for you.
You said we've actually communicated with them,
so every concern that you had that you told the board,
did we convey that over to the member himself and his staff?
Yes, so in October, when we met with the member himself
and his staff, that was part of a legislative outreach effort
that we undertook to let our board members, our legislative
delegation know the concerns of the board that led you all
to the decision that was made in September
and that we were advancing an alternative project.
So that was the first time that we had that communication.
Subsequent, we did receive outreach from his staff
on several occasions, where we reiterated the board's
concerns on the project and the direction that the board has provided
staff. While they solicited feedback on proposed language, I inform them that we
could not engage in a conversation like that because it would be inappropriate
given the direction that the board has given us, that we could not get into
discussing the actual language of their bill. Just two follow-up questions. Number
one, would there be an RFP for the construction authority or would they
want to use the same one that they're using now? My understanding of the bill
is that it would create it's entirely new construction authority and so it
gives that governing board the opportunity to hire an executive
director and that then they would go out for those types of needs for the
project. And then the member actually sent a letter to the board members so my
question on his letter he says that he's communicating with San Bernardino County
leadership do you know who he's talking to? I could not say. You don't know.
I'm for from San Bernardino County the county itself as in
Yeah, yeah, I do have a copy of the letter. Yes. No, I could not say I know he has staff here
They could probably answer that question
I believe there's been some outreach to some of the supervisors who during the LPC meeting mentioned that they had received calls
But that's as far as I could say. Thank you very much
member Ramos
Mr. President I'll defer to the supervisor Hagman first before I go feels my Hagman. Yeah. Thank you
I believe that's referring to me
I had a phone call with the member as well as two or three
Meetings with some of the representatives of Montclair Metro link and other board members
I'm very sympathetic to Montclair and what they try to plan and I expressed our frustrations aboard saying look
You can't just have us commit to a contract
have no input and I proposed several alternatives such as let's figure out
that section from you know Claremont to Ontario on our own let's figure out a
new method but no we have to have Metrolink standards where Metrolink
needs to be in control they're only focused on the one method of
transportation even though there's alternatives in my mind there's lots of
alternatives to move people from point A to point B and connect with the gold
line to complete mission at much further costs.
So I gave those suggestions, both the assembly member as well as the group we got together,
and the executive director is pretty hard set that, no, we set the standards because
it has to be a Metro line product.
And that's where I think they're not going to bend.
This new organization could go off if they were as clear, concise language like, hey,
the initial monetary commitment that we set aside way back when, that's it.
There's no more liability and you have to get approval from SBCC right away.
Stuff like that go off and fundraise go off the grants figure it out.
I can even be sympathetic to that but they basically won't put the limits on there either.
So it's just another way for them to try and get their way that they were negotiating out
there about eating concessions that I saw originally which was a true frustration because
there are places in the middle between where we're at and where they're at to accomplish
goals for those cities that have planned for this for a long time Montclair plan for that type of moving people from point 80 point B
And there's other ways we could do it
But they're not they only wanted that one way has to be Metrolink standards Metro link engineering and only through the goal and authority
To make that happen
So I see the semi member trying to solve the problem. I give them kudos for that, but I didn't address the core issues of
What open what funding what type of things, you know, who's gonna be responsible what who's gonna do for maintenance and I feel for this board
Because it is literally a blank check for we're gonna assess this amount of money to your transportation
even if we got it built ongoing, there's no limitations on that so I
I'm torn because I really want to support the city of Montclair, but this doesn't help that
Get to that goal. I wish they would be open to other goals
Thank you for your comments remember Ramos
Go ahead, sir. Oh, I was just gonna say I actually had similar conversations with them as a county supervisor
They actually had a meeting with me and Kurt and we did
Basically Kurt said everything that was actually in the conversation
So just put for the record when they asked about who it was me Kurt. I don't know what other supervisors, but
Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President since it's a short agenda. I'm gonna be a little long-winded and I apologize in advance
you know, I've had the opportunity to sell this board for going on six years now and I
Have personally witnessed some amazing dialogue some amazing differences
But at the end of the day this board always does what's best for the residents of San Bernardino County and transportation
I've taken a lot of time to read up on this specific, you know item
I'm gonna urge this board not to go back go backwards, right? Let's not go backwards
It's not on scab a scab wound already with respect to the assemblyman and I agree with Supervisor Hagman
It's it's it's not enough, right? There's something there's something that's missing
If you guys have to go back to the drawing board and start all over again, then maybe that's that's what needs to happen
But I'll say it if it smells like a duck. It sounds like a duck. It's probably a duck
We have to ensure that this board keeps control and keeps the decisions in our
hands, right? We're in a time where we see a lot of stuff being taken away from
local decision makers and that could potentially lead to a problem. So with
that being said I'm going to ask this board to please support the the
recommendation of SBCTA and I'll make a motion that we adopt an opposed
position for Assembly Bill 1678. Official will second the motion with the
comment. Copy, I recognize Ramos moving the item, Bishop seconding the item. I had
member Baca wanting to speak. I just had a question on here and in reference do we
know where, I agree with first of all with Kurt's comments, but do we know
where the other legislators in our county stand on this? We have had a lot
of conversations with our the rest of our delegation regarding this that the
decision that the board took and the reasons for that and what we are
advancing instead we have not spoken to other legislators on the this exact
bill. Well I think it would be wise for us to talk to our local legislators that
represent each and every one of us because that's those are the
individuals that sometimes feed us and other projects within our cities too as
as well, along with what we are responsibilities are.
That's just my comment.
Thank you for your comments.
Member Bishop.
Yes, thank you very much.
I realize the town of Apple Valley
is a long way from John's beautiful city,
wherever he went.
But this is not a local issue.
This is an issue that every person at this table
has voted on multiple times.
And as Daniel said, as we've all talked about,
this is a critical thing.
So I do want to urge every city to oppose this bill.
And I will tell you that the town of Apple Valley
has already sent its letter in opposition to this currently.
And I would encourage all of us to do the same.
I think it's really critical that we show how united we are
here in San Bernardino County to Sacramento.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments, yes, Member Walker.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I certainly appreciate the assembly member
trying to get involved and trying to help.
But I think what we're seeing is we're seeing a restructuring
of the committee, but not addressing the fatal flaw
in the entire legislation is that funding was not addressed
at all in this legislation.
So we have a different board, but the same outcome is that,
and I'm glad that Art was talking about this.
This impacts a slight, maybe 1% of the entire county
San Bernardino, but we're asking the entire county to be obligated for unknown costs that we may encumber and that's my real concern is
It's just not I don't know policy
There's no policy issue here if we can't control our own budget and we're forced to
See to whatever this board or the other county wants it just it makes no sense
So until I see legislation actually addresses the funding issue and the ability to control our own cause
I I can't support any assembly like that
Thank you for your comments. Yes, mr. Marcus. Thank you, sir. We appreciate that. First of all, I want to say, Kurt
Thank you so much for reaching out to the assembly member and talking to him and also Jesse. Thank you for doing that, too
Just a couple other facts. Alan Whopper you're 100% right. There's no issue on funding. That's a big issue
The allocation that we had as far as funding has gone to other projects right now
So there's no money to to move this forward so that that's a concern that I do have and I just want to say
Yes, I don't want to go backwards either
But I do feel for the city of Montclair out of which we could do something and I sit on the an alternate for Metrolink
And I know we have a 30 million dollar deficit that they're looking at right now
We're gonna have to start cutting back our service
So I get to sit at North Pomona and I see every eight minutes that the a line is moving back and forth
And I know we're gonna be cutting our service as far as Metro link if we can't figure out the issue of the problem
So again, is this something that could happen in the future?
I would like to see it, but there has to be a funding source for it and we have to have more responsibility
Over our right away. So, thank you
Thank you for your comment seeing no more for the board. Oh, I apologize. Yes, never mind, you know, I
Thank you. Mr. President
What was it September? I think we took a vote and we took that vote to
because of costs because of unknowns because of a lack of of
Our ability to control and our destiny in our county and giving it to another county
Didn't set well with any of us. We thought about what we would do if we
Use that money to enhance a Metro link line. I know there's challenges with that, but we've yet to see
That occur when it does occur. It's going to help not just one city. It's going to help
Montclair upland Rancho Cucamonga with that enhanced level of service
I was troubled, I guess, when when I read the letter that there had been no
meaningful discussion with with our staff and that troubled me. So I
contacted SBCTA to say you know why haven't we been in conversations and
found out that we've been in a number of conversations and those conversations
basically by staff since this board gave direction on what we wanted to do was to
support the board's position about the piece of legislation
and our opposition to that legislation.
As far as I look at it, nothing's really changed.
We still have the problem of authority.
We still have the problem of cost
that we don't know anything about yet.
We knew back in September it was going
to be very, very expensive.
So I would agree with the motion and the man that seconded it.
Thank you for your comment.
This time we're going to go ahead and open it up for public comment.
We have one speaker, Declan Floyd.
Oh.
I apologize.
David.
Oh, David.
I'm sorry.
Declan.
Hold on just one second.
I'll still get to you.
I had already deferred David to speak and then we'll keep it in order.
Yeah.
Hello.
So as I said, my name's David.
I am a resident of Montclair and I realize I probably put this under the wrong item.
So apologies for that.
This is more of just a general comment about the whole solving this problem which the board has been talking about for a while, evidently.
My public comment boiled down to the fact that this project was included in Measure I, which was approved by the voters.
And so I understand that, you know, costs have gone up. Obviously, there's legitimate concerns about authority of the board.
I had one board member previously on record say it's not even really about the money per se.
fact that the CTA, this county, is not going to be able to control the spending,
right, because we have to be able to want to fund that and ultimately us, the
taxpayer, and I understand that, but put simply, the voters gave a mandate to
build the gold line to Montclair, and I heard a member previously say in one of
the old votes, I don't think people would support this now. Well, with all due
respect, we live in a republic. If there's a mandate from voters to do
something if you believe there's legitimate reason that that needs to
change you need to go back to the voters and not alter funding I appreciate that
we're at least attempting to build more transit through service from Rancho
Cucamonga to Pomona North but with respect it's a very different project
than if we simply extend the gold line to Montclair and I've also heard
discussion about that this is only going to benefit the city of Montclair well we
do know that people commute to stations from not just the city so yes the
station is going to be Montclair,
but people who live close by a couple blocks away in Upland,
close by in Chino even, Ontario, that's also
going to be a viable option.
And I would just say, my overall comment
is we need to build the gold line.
As a taxpayer, as somebody who's lived in this county,
it needs to get done.
I understand there's legitimate concerns about the construction
authority and such.
But ultimately, we gave you a mandate to build this,
And so we expect it to be done.
The Arrow project, for reference,
costs nearly $360 million.
And as of last quarter report from Metrolink,
they're averaging 420 daily riders.
So we're OK funding $350 million for a rail project that
gets 420 boardings.
But now less money than that for the Gold Mine extension
is too much.
That doesn't make sense to me.
And I appreciate that there's been discussions
between us, the assembly, and the construction authority,
and all that such.
But as a voter, the bulk of the thrust of my public comments
I want to explain is just frustration.
We gave you a mandate to build this.
We expect it to be built. I read a recent report
from February of this month from the city manager
saying that Montclair has been in contact with the CTA.
And ultimately, if a resolution can't be reached,
they might have to even go towards legal measures.
David, thank you very much for your comment times.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Okay, our next speaker is going to be Declan Floyd.
Thank you, Declan, for your patience.
I'd also like to notify that Cecido has left
and also Helen Tran.
Well, good morning, everyone here
on behalf of Assemblymember John Harbedian
in opposition to the staff recommendation on this item.
I know we've discussed the letter a bit,
but I just want to reiterate a few key points
from Assemblymember Harbedian's letter.
The staff analysis of this bill is in direct conflict
with the reality of what the bill actually does.
It states that AB 1678 would remove SBCTA
from a meaningful decision-making role in the project,
but the entire point of the bill
is to create an equitable structure
that values SBCTA's voice
as a leading partner in this project.
This bill is a direct result of conversations
that the Assemblymember has had
with San Bernardino County leaders and residents,
and the conversations that have been had on this board
relating to the concerns with the existing
Gold Line Authority,
stemming from your lack of voting power on that board.
Many of the other points relating to control
being taken away from SBCTA,
ignore the fact that three of the five board votes
on the Clare Montclair Authority
would come from San Bernardino County,
from people sitting at this dais right now,
giving SBCTA a vital role
every step of the way in this project.
We're also concerned, of course,
that this item is being brought forward
before we've had any meaningful dialogue
between our office and SBCTA on this specific bill.
We first reached out to SBCTA
to discuss a path forward in partnership.
When the bill was just an idea,
we were told that we needed to have a document written
in legislative council format, which we then provided.
We were then told that we had to put the bill fully in print
and then receive board direction.
But unfortunately, at the same time
we were receiving these messages staff was already putting together the report
before you today asking you to oppose the bill. So we're now faced with a
prospect of SBCTA opposition before even a preliminary conversation has been
held between our office and board and staff leadership on the specifics of
this legislation. The staff report also notes that this item is being brought
directly to the board due to urgency relating to legislative committee
hearings but it fails to mention that the board has been referred to three
different committees in the assembly and it would then have to go through the
entire process again in the Senate which means we really have several months for
ongoing conversations, amendments, collaboration, and the like before this
bill would get to the finish line. So Assemblymember Harbutian's request today
is pretty simple. Please just postpone a vote on an official position from this
board and allow time for board members and staff to meet with the Assembly
member, meet with our office, and other San Bernardino County legislators to work
on this bill in partnership and find a path forward. Assemblymember
Harbedian is very proud to represent San Bernardino County. We have a Rancho
Cucamonga in Upland. We love those cities. We love the entire county and we want to
find solutions that work for everyone. So the Assemblymember respectfully asks
that you oppose the staff recommendation today and just give us a
little bit of time to meet and find a way forward in partnership. But thank you
very much for your time. You're welcome and thank you for coming and speaking
Speaking in reference in regards to the assembly member with that currently. Yes, we have another member speaking just a clarification for me. I haven't been on the sport all that long. How long we've been working on this. How many years at least since 2012 and the legislation.
came in
2015 no 2012 the AB
1600 came in 2012. That's when it started showing up in our 10-year delivery plan
Member Harriman, please. Yes, just thank you Rick. Just so everybody knows I'm kind of new to this item
But I have I have studied it as the materials come to me
Hasn't
The assemblyman already had plenty of time instead of last minute
Wanting more time two months I think his letter says I
understand
Okay, so I understand the the Declan's position and what he shared. I think that what's
Missing and what director Ramos touched on is this board has deliberated for several months
We have been working on this project since 2012
We have fully funded it and then the cost have increased we started working on an O&M agreement
with LA Metro to try to make sure we were protecting our county's interests and financial position as well as we could.
There has been a lot of work. And I will say personally, I ramped it up excessively during the summer time.
Juliana, Victor, Otis, several of us worked very diligently to try to reach agreement on how to deliver this project.
We do a lot of cooperative projects, a lot.
We have many agreements with your agencies.
It's something we're actually very good at.
And multiple funding plans, we have not
been able to reach agreement on how to deliver this project
and adequately come to you and say,
we are doing justice and protecting this agency
financially and from other risks.
And that effort was extensive during the summertime.
That was all public.
The board's discussion on that and the concerns that have been reiterated today was all public and this ball. This bill does not address those. So I think I'm answering your question. I'm attempting to, but we have done a lot of work on this to try to solve the problems in delivering a cooperative project that crosses county lines and have an ongoing service that we have to fund.
So then I think the answer is yes.
He had plenty of time waiting until the last minute.
Like I said, I'm new to the item.
I'm fairly new to the item.
I have read the material.
And it just reads to me like he didn't have any time
or have any interest in it, until it came down to the,
you know, the real time to do so.
So, I would just like to say to the board,
it just appears to me like it was dragging the feet.
I would caution that a little bit.
I try to be very impartial and fair.
I think that they went into the legislative process
after the board made the decision.
And I think the frustration on their end
is that staff has been very clear
to follow the board direction,
instead of starting to negotiate language
and go down the path we've already been down once before.
We really wanted to see what the bill said
and get it in front of you so we could get clear direction
and continue down that path with what the policymakers want.
And so, okay, so I apologize.
Like I said, I'm new to the item.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Member Hagman.
Yeah, thank you.
um, as a recovering legislator, a couple of us on this thing. There is a process. So you
have a deadline to submit a bill. And I think they were trying to outreach and communicate
both with staff and elected leaders in the area to try to see if there was something
there there. This board made it clear that the staff didn't have the freedom because
our policy was not to go forward with this period. They couldn't go sit there and have
meaningful discussions with the legislator at the time.
I think, you know, I've been pretty clear on this.
As written, it doesn't solve the problems that this board face.
Instead of a straight oppose, what we could possibly do is oppose unless the minute and
at least let the staff go out and talk.
It is going to take three hearings.
If it's been triple referred, it's likely it's going to get stuck down somewhere, especially
when it comes to their probes later or something like that.
And, you know, I'll take your input, Carrie, is there something there to at least look
and have discussions but still be opposed unless amended at this point with the first
and second considering that?
But you think there's anything that can be done to at least I always like to work for
our letter setters.
They're working hard for us up there hopefully.
And we want them to be supportive of us and sometimes the smack of opposed versus opposed
list amended, not giving your team the ability to go have meaningful discussions and bring
it back in a month and say we got nowhere. We keep it opposed. But it gives you an opportunity
to explore things.
Yeah. So I've been giving this a lot of thought and I appreciate the comments you shared early
on about the conversations you've had. I think the board is clear on what the issues are.
I don't know, my recommendation to be clear is you,
my recommendation to you is to oppose,
but I'm very respectful of the board's direction
and we will toe the line and we will do the work
you want us to do aligned with your policy.
But I think the board, I don't think,
I know the board's concerns with the delivery
of this project and the ongoing O&M are clear.
They're public knowledge, they've been clear since September
and they've been reiterated and we have shared them
immediately after the board made the decision,
we went out to make sure there was a clear understanding
of what your concerns are.
So the question is, do I think there's
a meaningful path forward if you do,
if you choose to do a pose unless amended?
I do not believe so.
If that's where your comfort zone is,
we will go do that work and we will work at it
just as hard as we did over the summertime.
But my expectation to you is that
the board's concerns were clear.
There's four clear points.
They were not addressed in this legislation.
And they actually took away additional rights
and protections from this board
with the bill that was introduced.
Thank you, Member Ramos.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Yeah, I agree one full heartedly
with the executive director, right?
You made a great point when you said
we've always come to an agreement
when it comes to delivering projects,
always with the exception of this project.
We've always had the trust to put into the staff
to make a recommendation.
And we've always agreed on a project, except for this one.
There's something wrong.
There's something that's not clear with this project.
And with respect, and respectfully as Supervisor Hagman's
point, I would still urge this board to oppose it.
And if you want to go back and talk about it,
and again, go to the drawing board and start all over
and bring it back, you know, do that later on in the year
or next year, but right now this board has made a decision.
We spent hours and hours in dialogue on the first floor
and on the second floor, right?
And here we go again with more dialogue and more dialogue,
trying to reverse the decision
that this board already made unanimously.
So I'm gonna urge that we move forward
with my original motion on opposing this bill
with no amendments, and that's it.
Member Heze.
Thank you.
I agree 100% Daniel and Art's second.
But when the young man got up here
and talked about what the taxpayers voted for,
you know what the taxpayers voted for us to make sure
our taxes aren't being wasted.
And to give LA County a green light?
No, that's just, that doesn't, we voted for San Bernardino
County, not LA County. And like Daniel said, we've been talking about this, we've
been wasting a lot of man-hours trying to figure stuff out. I'm gonna say
wasting, but we're putting a lot of pressure on staff and this has been
brought up. This is like trying to get a dead horse to walk again and it's not
gonna walk. So my thing is just move forward on this and keep going. I mean
this is what our voters that we represented for us not to waste their
money on something for LA County. Yeah it's a nice project but I'm not going to
vote for something with a big promise and then keep coming back and keep
coming back and follow the yellow brick road to the Wizard of Oz and hoping that
you know the Wizards actually there. No I think this is done. I think we have
other stuff pending and we should just move forward so yeah I do not trust
another county with San Bernardino County's taxpayers dollars so that's my
comment. Thank you. Thank you. Member Boccasino. Yeah I you know as a former
legislator we have the option to make any kind of recommendations to the
current legislator that's carrying the legislation just opposing and I think
we should oppose it and we should listen to staff because there's a lot of
concerns that are there right now. We've had opportunities apparently since what
2012 to work on this, and I think as Bill indicated too, is we have a
responsibility to San Bernardino County, and what I'd like to see is the Metro
Link extended all the way to Barstow, so we avoid the traffic going up the home
pass, you know. But I think we need to oppose this. We can always work with them.
We can always put amendments if they want to work with us, and if not, they're
going to pursue and do whatever they want, but I think we should take the concerns of
what staff has right now. We've had an opportunity. We should be part of it. We don't really have
a say so even if this goes through because that means, well, you know what, how many
bodies or people will actually be there? How many voting persons will actually be there?
And we don't know the exact amount of dollars that will actually be spent on this, so we
should take an opposition to this. And I call for the question.
Thank you for your comments, and we still see a break in tomorrow, please.
Yes, thank you, and I agree with all the comments that are being made, but one of the things
that really strikes me is the four bullet points that are in the staff report.
These are very serious bullet points that staff brought forward to us.
If you read them, it says that SBCTA will be excluded from any activity within managing
the funding and they would only be expecting a return check on the receipt that we receive
from them, the invoice that we receive from them for the maintenance and operations of
this.
Where it says right there, CMA would be required to enter into a memorandum of understanding
with Metro for project delivery granting Metro but not, not SBCTA, the ability to review
any significant changes.
And it goes on to say other things about that.
they're leaving us completely out of the picture,
out of the table, off the table.
And then they're talking about bringing members
of this board to that board.
We only got one board.
One vote, if we have four people, we only get one vote.
How many votes does Metro get and how many other?
So I'll answer real quickly.
So the legislation proposes a five-member board,
one of which is an SBCTA rep, one is a Montclair rep,
one is a county supervisor from the area
within the project, one metro, and then one ex officio.
Thank you for that.
And I recognize that Bob had called for the question.
So if there's.
Just one more, if I may, Mr. President.
OK, quickly.
We have members that may have to leave.
OK, very quickly.
I think I just want to make it clear to the audience
that this board and this agency is more than willing to cooperate
with other counties.
And I'll just use an example of the I-15 express lanes.
Riverside County Transportation Authority
did not want to spend the money to connect our section
to their section.
We as a county decided we needed to do that.
And if I'm not mistaken, we funded that segment
so that we could have a continuation of the express
lanes all the way through to where its terminus will be,
I believe, on baseline road.
Now, having said that, it would be wonderful to have LA County
come and do the same for us with their monies
that we could get this thing done or with state funds
or any other opportunity to help us out.
Gary, go ahead.
May I, if you could, please guess.
So I think I-15 is a great example negotiated
during the same period of time.
Very, very challenging negotiation.
We got there.
We adequately protected this county.
Riverside was happy.
Another one to consider is right now,
we are building the West Valley Connector, which
goes about five miles.
Sorry, I may be off on my mileage,
but it does go into LA County.
Very important service, West Valley Connector.
10 minute frequency.
We were able to secure, in partnership with Pomona,
a grant that covers the cost of the infrastructure in LA County.
But the way the bus system works, especially even with BRT,
is that will be funded by San Bernardino County.
We will fund that operation into LA County.
Ultimately, OmniTrans board will have the decision
on what they run, how they run it, how it changes,
but they're also the ones that's paying the bill.
And so I think that's another important example
for this board to consider.
All right, thank you for that.
I recognize that Member Rao has left the meeting.
At this time, we have the motion by Ramos.
Second by Bishop.
And second by Bishop.
All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Seeing none.
Let the record reflect that Mayor Dutray
did recuse themselves so he was not present for this item.
The item passes with 23 in favor,
zero abstentions, zero opposition.
And we'll wait for Member Dutray to return to the meeting.
We'll go ahead and move on to the next item.
Oh, here it comes.
Oh, okay, good.
Okay, show that Member Dutray has returned.
We'll move on to agenda item number 26,
amend to measures I strategic plan policy 4005.
This is the Valley Freeway Interchange Program.
And Andrea is our speaker.
Good morning, President Dennison and board members.
This item requests board approval of an amendment
to the term loan provisions contained
in the measure I strategic plan policy
for the Valley Freeway Interchange Program,
as well as direction to develop a term loan agreement
with San Bernardino County
for the I-10 Cedar Interchange Project.
In 2012, the board approved an amendment to Paul,
or the board recognized that some options were needed
for local jurisdictions to be able to provide
their development impact fee share
that was required to match Measure I funds
for interchange projects.
At that time, they adopted a toolbox of loan options.
for jurisdictions to borrow Measure I funds primarily from their own share of local pass-through
funds and arterial program funds to meet shortfalls in their development impact programs.
We've approved five of these term loan agreements to date.
There are two that are outstanding, one in Highland for 210 baseline and one in Montclair
for I-10 Montevista.
The item before you today is to address a critical need for Cedar Avenue interchange.
As reported last month, this project has encountered significant delays and cost increases because
of conflicts with Union Pacific railroads and ability to offer work windows to our contractor.
The county has a unique challenge because of the various spheres where the funds are
collected within the county and in the Rialto sphere where the Cedar Interchange Project
is located, they don't have sufficient development impact fees to fully fund their share of the
project cost.
They also looking at the Rialto sphere's share of pass-through and arterial program funds,
Those can't meet the needs under the available loan options to date.
So to address this need, staff is recommending an amendment to the interchange program policy
to allow interchanges that are in the top ten priority list that's been adopted by the
board to use Measure I interchange program funds as a loan toward the developer's share.
And of course this would be subject to a case-by-case analysis of the actual need identified by
by the jurisdiction.
This would also apply to the two outstanding term loan agreements.
We would offer that option to those jurisdictions.
The baseline interchange is priority number 2 and Monte Vista is priority number 10.
So if approved, this policy amendment would allow the county to borrow up to $14 million
of the $35 million local share of right-of-way
and construction costs.
3.3 million would be from their arterial program funds,
and then 10.7 from the interchange program.
We've evaluated the financial risks that this
and any potential amendments
to the outstanding term loan agreements would cause
for the interchange program.
And we are in a bonding,
we're currently in a bonding situation already
for the interchange program.
so this could potentially increase the bonding need,
but in a long-term perspective,
it's a minor impact on the interchange program
and would not impact the ability
of any planned projects to proceed.
So with that, staff is recommending approval
of the amendment to the interchange policy
and also a direction to staff
to develop the term loan agreement with the county.
This will enable the county to approve
the cooperative agreement that reflects the cost increase
on the project with assurance that we will be working
together to help them meet their shortfalls
and their development fees.
And I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for the presentation.
I'll open up for public comment.
Seeing none, we'll move it back to the board.
For any comments?
I'll move, second.
Okay, we gotta move by Baca, Baca Jr., and second.
Oh, oh, senior, Baca Senior and Navarro was second.
Oh, Baca, oh, Baca and Baca, gotcha.
Senior moved it, second.
Okay, junior moved it, senior, second.
Okay, with that, I'm gonna go ahead and recognize
that Member Hagman and Wapner have left prior to the vote.
All in favor?
Aye.
Opposed?
Abstentions?
Thank you.
The item passes unanimously.
Thank you, Andrea.
All right, moving on to agenda item number 27,
Express Lane's Automatic Occupancy Detection Pilot Program.
And this is a single source agreement.
And Phillip, too.
Good morning.
Item 27 is to seek recommendation and approval
for a single source contract with two vendors, Envision
and Indra, to conduct an automatic occupancy detection
system pilot along the I-10 Express Lane.
Just a little background, this item
was unanimously approved at the March MVSS meeting.
It is on discussion because it's a single source agreement,
so we have to bring it to board as a discussion item.
So our quick overview.
Move the item.
Second.
Have the item moved by Navarro, second by Baca, Sr.
Thank you for the presentation.
Do we have any public comments on this item?
Seeing none.
Mr. President, he dressed up, especially today,
for to present today.
It looks good.
We'd recognize your comment.
Thank you.
All in favor of the item?
opposed abstentions appreciate it thank you and passes
unanimously thank you for that thank you so brief board member comments happy
Easter thank you sir happy Easter happy Easter all right so executive director
comments had a lot going on today at 9 I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue by
the board do you guys continue to impress me thank you