[0:01] >> Good morning, everyone. If I

[0:02] could ask everyone

[0:03] to please take a seat. It is

[0:04] 11:00 AM and we want

[0:05] to start this meeting

[0:06] on time.

[0:11] And I want to welcome back

[0:12] everyone. All right.

[0:16] So, I will call the regular

[0:17] Executive Management Committee

[0:19] meeting to order. I am serving

[0:20] as the chair

[0:23] of today's meeting in place

[0:25] of Mayor Bass. Board Clerk,

[0:29] will you please call the roll

[0:30] to establish a quorum?

[0:32] >> Vice Chair Barger is absent

[0:33] today.

[0:35] Director DuPont Walker.

[0:37] >> Here.

[0:39] >> Director Solis.

[0:40] >> Here.

[0:42] >> Chair Bass will be absent

[0:43] today. Caltrans

[0:47] Representative Roberts.

[0:49] >> Here.

[0:50] >> And sitting in for Chair

[0:52] Bass, we will have Chair

[0:53] Sandoval.

[0:54] >> Thank you.

[0:55] >> Quorum is present.

[0:56] >> Very good. Alrighty, I'm

[0:57] going to turn it over to

[0:58] Deanna to read public comment

[0:59] instructions.

[1:03] >> To give public comment,

[1:04] each speaker needs

[1:05] to follow a 3-step process.

[1:06] First, at any time

[1:07] during the meeting, the speaker

[1:08] can dial 1-888-978-8818 and

[1:11] enter the English or Spanish

[1:12] access codes. The English

[1:13] access code is 5647249#. The

[1:16] Spanish access code is

[1:18] 7292892#. This number and the

[1:20] access codes are also listed

[1:23] on the agenda

[1:24] for this meeting,

[1:25] which can be found

[1:26] at boardagendas.metro.net. For

[1:27] speakers watching the video

[1:28] feed, there's a 30-second lag

[1:29] behind the actual meeting. If

[1:30] any speakers are watching

[1:32] on video and want

[1:33] to give public comment,

[1:34] they should dial in early to

[1:35] make sure they don't miss the

[1:36] chance. Second, once a speaker

[1:37] dials

[1:38] into the public comment line,

[1:40] they have

[1:41] to indicate which item they

[1:42] want to speak on. When their

[1:43] item comes up,

[1:44] the speaker should press #2

[1:45] to raise their hand to speak.

[1:46] Third, when it's the speaker's

[1:48] turn, the moderator will call

[1:49] out the last 4 digits of the

[1:50] phone number and unmute the

[1:51] speaker. If the speaker's

[1:52] listening to the meeting

[1:54] on another device,

[1:55] they will need to mute their

[1:56] speakers and microphone

[1:57] on that device

[1:58] to prevent an echo. Speakers

[1:59] will have 1 minute

[2:00] to make their comment, or 2

[2:01] minutes including translation.

[2:02] Consistent

[2:03] with the board rules posted

[2:04] on the agenda,

[2:05] individuals requesting

[2:06] to speak will be allowed

[2:07] to speak for a total of 3

[2:08] minutes per meeting

[2:09] on agenda items in 1-minute

[2:10] increments per item, plus 1

[2:12] minute

[2:13] for general public comment.

[2:14] General public comment is

[2:15] to be used only for items not

[2:16] on the agenda. Please be

[2:17] advised the sign-up for public

[2:19] comment will close immediately

[2:20] once the public comment portion

[2:22] of the item begins. If you wish

[2:23] to speak, make sure

[2:24] to register beforehand.

[2:26] Written public comments

[2:27] received by 5:00 PM the day

[2:28] before the meeting are compiled

[2:29] and sent to the board. Please

[2:31] make sure

[2:32] to include the item number with

[2:33] your comment and your position

[2:34] of for, against, general

[2:35] comment, or item needs more

[2:36] consideration. You may email

[2:38] your comment to

[2:39] boardclerk@metro.net or mail it

[2:40] to Board Administration, 1

[2:41] Gateway Plaza, Mail Stop

[2:43] 99-3-1, Los Angeles,

[2:46] California. Thank you.

[2:47] >> Thank you, Deanna. Okay,

[2:49] let's go ahead and start

[2:50] with the consent calendar. Do

[2:51] any board members,

[2:53] committee members wish

[2:54] to pull an item from consent?

[2:56] Okay, not seeing any. Deanna,

[2:58] can you check

[2:59] to see if we have any speakers

[3:00] on consent calendar items?

[3:02] >> None in the room,

[3:03] but if you're on the phone,

[3:04] please press pound 2 if you'd

[3:05] like to make a comment

[3:06] under consent calendar items

[3:07] 31, 32, and 33.

[3:12] No public comments.

[3:13] >> Okay, can I get a motion

[3:14] to approve?

[3:15] All righty. Second.

[3:16] Got a first, a second. not

[3:17] hearing any opposition,

[3:19] the motion passes. Okay, let's

[3:21] go ahead and move on to item

[3:22] 34, which is state and federal

[3:23] report. Just for committee

[3:27] members and the public,

[3:28] we do have 3 non-consent items

[3:29] for consideration. Welcome.

[3:34] >> Good morning, Mr. Chair and

[3:35] members. Michael Turner with

[3:36] Government Relations. And this

[3:37] chair is temporarily empty

[3:39] because Raffi is checking

[3:41] on something that was happening

[3:42] on the House floor this

[3:44] morning. So, he'll be right

[3:46] down. But Madeline will give us

[3:48] an update on state issues. And

[3:51] mainly there's a lot

[3:52] of discussion

[3:53] about the CAPITA Invest program

[3:55] and really the collapsing

[3:57] of revenues that was created

[3:58] by CARB's recent ruling. And

[4:01] then the Olympics continues

[4:03] to be a big issue for us, both

[4:06] in Washington and Sacramento,

[4:08] and we'll talk about both

[4:11] of those.

[4:13] >> All right, thank you. We're

[4:14] going to go a little out

[4:15] of order, and I'm going

[4:16] to start

[4:17] with our state update. So,

[4:18] since we last met, the

[4:19] California Air Resources Board

[4:21] voted to advance regulations

[4:22] that will essentially defund

[4:24] the Tier 3 investment

[4:26] in the new Cap and Invest

[4:29] program. Tier 3 investments

[4:30] include Greenhouse Gas

[4:32] Reduction Fund-funded transit

[4:33] and intercity rail capital

[4:35] programs for $400 million

[4:37] statewide annually, and the

[4:39] Low Carbon Transit Operations

[4:41] program for $200 million

[4:44] statewide of annual funding.

[4:46] Metro stands to lose $50

[4:47] million a year

[4:49] in LC TOP funding alone,

[4:51] which we use

[4:52] for critical operations.

[4:54] Though Metro and a large

[4:55] coalition of transit,

[4:56] affordable housing, clean air,

[4:58] and other Tier 3 recipients

[5:00] turned out to the late May

[5:01] hearing to urge the CARB board

[5:03] to oppose these regulations,

[5:05] we were not successful. We are

[5:07] aware of litigation related

[5:08] to this vote already.

[5:10] Communities for a Better

[5:12] Environment say CARB failed

[5:14] to fully study changes meant

[5:16] to ease pressure on oil

[5:19] refineries and other industries

[5:20] before taking a final vote.

[5:21] The next joint

[5:24] California-Quebec auction is

[5:25] scheduled for August 19th,

[5:28] 2026. According to CARB, most

[5:29] of the new changes

[5:30] to the market are scheduled

[5:32] to go into effect September

[5:34] 1st. Now, moving on

[5:36] to the budget, the governor

[5:38] formally signed the FY 26-27

[5:39] budget on June 29th. The final

[5:41] budget deal is very similar

[5:44] to the May revision that we

[5:46] previously reported on. The

[5:48] budget deal does not address

[5:49] the funding issues associated

[5:51] with the greenhouse gas

[5:53] reduction fund that have arisen

[5:55] following the CARB vote. The

[5:57] final budget additionally does

[5:59] not include any funding related

[6:01] to Metro's $379 million

[6:04] transportation infrastructure

[6:06] ask for the 2028 Olympic and

[6:08] Paralympic Games, though it

[6:10] does contain provisions related

[6:12] to the games route network that

[6:13] will be conducted that were

[6:15] conducted in collaboration

[6:17] with Caltrans. In early July,

[6:18] the state announced that

[6:20] preliminary data from

[6:21] California tax agencies showed

[6:23] income tax Data from April

[6:25] through June exceeding the

[6:28] estimates of the May revision

[6:30] by $1.3 billion. While this is

[6:31] welcome news overall

[6:33] to the state budget, just to

[6:35] note that this increased

[6:36] revenue will primarily go to

[6:38] funding schools and community

[6:39] colleges. As far as next steps,

[6:42] additional budget trailer bills

[6:44] are expected when they

[6:45] reconvene in August, and Metro

[6:47] has used this recess

[6:48] to continue to advocate

[6:49] for the inclusion of games

[6:51] funding and the restoration

[6:52] of critical transit funding.

[6:54] Then head

[6:56] to a legislative update. As I

[6:57] mentioned,

[6:59] the legislature is currently

[7:00] in summer recess and will

[7:01] return for its final month

[7:03] of session on August 2nd.

[7:05] Happy to report that on July

[7:06] 1st, Senator Durazo's SB 1361

[7:08] passed the Assembly Local

[7:11] Government Committee on a vote

[7:13] of 8 to 1 with 1 abstention. SB

[7:15] 1361 limits cities' ability

[7:18] to take certain actions

[7:20] against transit projects

[7:22] on the basis of opposition to

[7:24] increased density requirements

[7:25] in 2025's SB 79. This

[7:29] action those these actions

[7:30] include requesting that a

[7:33] transit agency reduce service

[7:34] to a stop so that the bill

[7:36] would not apply. The bill now

[7:39] moves to consideration

[7:40] in the full assembly.

[7:41] Additionally,

[7:43] in other good news, AB 1837

[7:44] by Assemblymember Mark

[7:46] Gonzalez passed its final

[7:48] Policy Committee vote. The

[7:50] members of the Senate

[7:52] Privacy, Digital Technology,

[7:53] and Consumer Protection

[7:54] Committee voted 7 to 2

[7:56] to advance the bill

[7:57] to the full Senate. This bill

[7:59] would extend the sunset

[8:00] to 2032-2034

[8:04] for transit agencies

[8:05] to use front-facing cameras

[8:07] on buses

[8:08] to capture parking violations

[8:09] in bus-only lanes. With that,

[8:11] happy

[8:12] to take any questions or turn

[8:14] it over to my colleague,

[8:16] Raffi.

[8:18] >> Let's go ahead and have the

[8:19] full presentation and ask my

[8:20] colleagues

[8:21] to hold their questions until

[8:22] you finish the presentation.

[8:24] Okay. Thank you.

[8:27] >> Chair Sandoval, members

[8:29] of the committee, Raffi

[8:30] Amprayan, Federal Affairs, LA

[8:31] Metro. Happy to give a quick

[8:32] federal update. Probably 3

[8:34] primary issues that merit,

[8:36] discussion today. The first is

[8:37] remarkably timely,

[8:39] and that is it appears the

[8:41] House of Representatives is

[8:43] moving in the direction of

[8:44] adopting a continuing

[8:45] resolution for our purposes,

[8:47] that is relevant because,

[8:51] we have a number

[8:53] of equities pending in a

[8:56] transportation spending bill,

[8:58] in the House, and it would

[9:00] appear that, there will be,

[9:01] no successful effort to try

[9:04] to get that adopted

[9:07] by the beginning

[9:08] of the federal fiscal year,

[9:10] September 1st. In, shorthand,

[9:12] I would say basically what

[9:14] Congress would be doing and

[9:16] this is sort of the House

[9:17] perspective,

[9:18] and it hasn't been shared

[9:19] by the Senate yet they'd be

[9:21] kicking the can

[9:22] down the road, till after the

[9:23] November election and dealing

[9:25] with what some would

[9:27] characterize as a, a bit

[9:30] of a, a mess

[9:31] of all these spending bills

[9:32] after Election Day. So, that

[9:33] it's significant. We had,

[9:35] a number of funding priorities

[9:38] in the fiscal year '27 bill,

[9:42] including $875 million

[9:44] for the Olympic Games, and a

[9:46] number of other issues,

[9:48] and it appears that as

[9:49] of this morning, the House is

[9:52] going to seek to kick that can

[9:53] down the road. That's

[9:55] significant

[9:56] for another reason,

[9:58] because if they're going

[9:59] to do that,

[10:00] that means there's only about

[10:01] 20 days, 20 legislative days,

[10:05] until Congress breaks for the

[10:07] November recess and the

[10:13] elections. And the second

[10:14] matter I want to raise

[10:16] to the, to the board is the

[10:18] fact that this means the

[10:20] reauthorization of America's

[10:21] Surface Transportation Bill,

[10:24] which was the Bipartisan

[10:25] Infrastructure Law, appears

[10:26] like that's not going to

[10:27] happen. That's significant

[10:29] because with the expiration

[10:32] of the Bipartisan

[10:34] Infrastructure Law, you lose

[10:35] the, the funding that was in

[10:38] Title J of the BIL, which was

[10:40] the advance appropriations.

[10:43] So, Congress will now have

[10:45] to decide in what shape and

[10:46] manner they're going

[10:48] to reauthorize for a short

[10:51] period this authorization bill.

[10:55] It's a complicated matter.

[10:57] There are some stakeholders who

[10:59] believe we should have a

[11:01] short-term authorization

[11:03] extension to put pressure on

[11:05] Congress to get a long-term

[11:06] bill passed. Somewhere

[11:09] in the vicinity of 5 to 6

[11:11] years. And there are others who

[11:12] are concerned that Congress

[11:14] appears not able to deal

[11:17] with these things in the short

[11:18] term and that there should be a

[11:20] long-term authorization

[11:22] of the legislation. And so that

[11:24] we don't get into a herky-jerky

[11:27] perspective where every 2 to 3

[11:30] months we don't know if the

[11:32] formula funding is coming. We

[11:34] don't know what discretionary

[11:36] grant programs are happening.

[11:37] It's, it's not a terribly rosy

[11:42] scenario for us. I think we've

[11:43] got a great planning department

[11:46] and they're taking a look

[11:47] at what the impacts would be

[11:49] of a short-term extension

[11:51] over a long-term extension.

[11:53] So, that's the second impact

[11:54] and sort

[11:56] of collateral damage, Chair

[11:58] Sandoval, of what occurs when

[11:59] the continuing resolution is

[12:02] adopted. You're now going

[12:03] to be looking at an extension

[12:04] of the Surface Transportation

[12:06] Authorization Bill. And the

[12:08] last matter I'd like to raise

[12:09] which is a subject that our CEO

[12:10] has sent

[12:11] out legislative alerts

[12:12] on and we've talked about

[12:13] to the board previously.

[12:14] But I want

[12:15] to make sure that it's clear

[12:16] in everyone's minds the impact

[12:17] of this. The Office of

[12:19] Management and Budget on May

[12:21] 29th issued a proposed rule

[12:24] which would substantially

[12:26] change the manner in which

[12:28] federal grants are given,

[12:29] not just

[12:30] to transportation agencies,

[12:31] but across the whole

[12:33] of government, approximately

[12:34] $1 trillion annually, and it

[12:38] includes having grants cleared

[12:40] by, political appointees. It

[12:43] includes the ability

[12:45] to cease a grant, midstream

[12:47] should that grant be deemed not

[12:49] in the, not part of the

[12:51] executive branch's priorities.

[12:54] And so, for us, as one example,

[12:57] and then I'll conclude a

[12:59] good example would be a CIG

[13:01] project. You have a major

[13:03] project that is funded

[13:05] over a 10-year process,

[13:07] say it's $1 billion. This would

[13:10] give the federal government the

[13:11] ability to, halfway

[13:12] through the grant, to say,

[13:13] we have found reason not to

[13:15] continue this grant and we're

[13:17] going to cease giving you,

[13:20] allocations based on this grant

[13:23] because we found A, B, and C.

[13:25] As you can imagine,

[13:26] for any entity that is building

[13:28] large infrastructure

[13:30] projects. That's highly

[13:32] disruptive. And the a great

[13:35] indicator of this was that

[13:36] Moody's, the rating

[13:38] agency, put out a statement and

[13:40] said the adoption

[13:42] of these proposed rules would,

[13:43] in their estimation, lead

[13:45] to a downgrade

[13:47] in the rating of,

[13:51] transportation entities that

[13:54] are in consistent receipt

[13:58] of federal grants. So, I'll

[13:59] conclude there. Appropriations

[14:00] authorization and the OMB

[14:03] proposed guidance,

[14:05] which is expected to be put

[14:06] into force on October 1st.

[14:10] >> Raffi, do you have any bad

[14:11] news for us?

[14:13] >> Yeah, it's been, yeah,

[14:15] not the greatest news today.

[14:17] >> Before we take comments,

[14:18] I'm out of line here. We have

[14:19] one other presentation. No,

[14:21] that's it. Oh, okay, good.

[14:24] Let's see if we have any

[14:25] speakers on this item, and if

[14:27] not, I'll turn it over

[14:28] to we'll start with,

[14:30] committee member Dupont

[14:31] Walker. But let's see if we

[14:32] have any members

[14:33] of the public who wish

[14:34] to speak.

[14:35] >> This is public comment

[14:36] for item 34. Please press pound

[14:37] 2 if you'd like

[14:38] to make a comment on item 34.

[14:40] Please unmute the caller. We

[14:41] have one caller.

[14:52] Silas, can you

[14:53] unmute 3784, please?

[15:01] >> Please stand by. I'm trying

[15:02] to unmute them now. There we

[15:06] go. Caller ending in 378. One

[15:07] minute

[15:09] to state your comment.

[15:11] >> We didn't want

[15:12] to hear that. So, you have all

[15:13] these the new state stuff,

[15:15] which give reduced local

[15:18] control and allow and prevent

[15:19] cities from stopping transit

[15:21] projects and such. So, I'm

[15:23] expecting we'll probably see a

[15:25] vote against that from the

[15:26] Metro Board at some point, even

[15:28] though it actually helps

[15:29] transit projects. But, you

[15:31] know, it's very notable how you

[15:34] all keep so many

[15:36] of the members of this board in

[15:38] their particular elected

[15:39] capacities and their local

[15:40] governments keep trying

[15:42] to kiss up to the Trump

[15:44] administration, and yet they're

[15:46] still not giving you anything.

[15:47] So, why are you trying

[15:49] to kiss up to them? So let's

[15:50] stop trying to appease Trump.

[15:52] Let's stop failing

[15:54] to do anything

[15:56] to protect your residents

[15:57] from ICE. Let I don't even know

[15:59] where Bass is. She better have

[16:01] a good excuse for missing her

[16:02] first meeting as chair.

[16:04] But she needs to fire

[16:06] McDonnell. Let's start actually

[16:08] standing up

[16:09] to the federal government since

[16:10] they're clearly not giving you

[16:12] stuff in.

[16:15] >> That was the last public

[16:16] comment.

[16:17] >> Okay. I'm going to go with

[16:18] Director Dupont-Walker and then

[16:19] Director Solis.

[16:22] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and

[16:24] thank you for the presentation.

[16:25] I know that your diligence is

[16:27] something we can have

[16:29] confidence in, and our CEO's

[16:31] focus and vision is something

[16:35] that we count on. I just need

[16:36] to understand the process

[16:38] after a rule is proposed,

[16:43] because the news seems

[16:44] to report that

[16:45] without outcome,

[16:47] without possibility

[16:49] of change. Is there any kind of

[16:51] overruling that can happen? I

[16:54] just need

[16:55] to understand simply,

[16:57] and if it's too long today,

[16:58] I'll take a tutorial later.

[17:01] >> Well, there's generally 2

[17:02] tracks. One I would defer

[17:04] to our legal expert on,

[17:07] which is that the,

[17:08] the full expectation that this,

[17:10] proposed rule change,

[17:13] will be challenged

[17:14] in the courts, number one. And

[17:16] number two, and I'm looking

[17:18] at we have a former member of

[17:19] Congress here, the,

[17:20] many members of Congress,

[17:23] including a, a vast majority

[17:27] of Democrats, are deeply

[17:28] opposed, to this rule change.

[17:33] And I can expect, whether it's

[17:35] in the coming weeks and months,

[17:38] or whether it's the beginning

[17:42] of a new 120th Congress, there

[17:44] will be determined efforts

[17:45] by the legislative branch to,

[17:47] overrule this change being

[17:51] proposed by the Office of

[17:53] Management and Budget. So,

[17:55] on the legal, I would defer

[17:56] to the legal expert, but

[17:57] on the, on the federal end

[17:59] of the legislative, I do

[18:01] believe that there will be

[18:02] efforts by members of Congress

[18:04] to enact a law to bar this

[18:06] proposed rule change.

[18:10] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[18:11] >> Thank you.

[18:12] >> Director Solis?

[18:14] >> I concur, Raffi. When we

[18:15] started, you were

[18:18] in the back room,

[18:20] and maybe you should have

[18:21] stayed there, no? Because it's

[18:22] all bad news. But no, thank

[18:23] you, because both, you know,

[18:24] all of you, you know,

[18:26] you guys have been doing great

[18:28] work, and obviously, It's not

[18:30] good, not good messaging and

[18:32] things that have been going on.

[18:33] Even yesterday

[18:35] in our planning committee,

[18:36] we talked about this. And I

[18:37] know that, Holly Mitchell, our

[18:39] also director,

[18:40] is keenly aware that

[18:42] for the state side,

[18:43] there can be work done

[18:45] between now and then on the

[18:46] trailer bills and getting our

[18:48] delegation engaged.

[18:51] So whatever appropriately,

[18:52] appropriately is needed,

[18:54] I'm sure we will get our ducks

[18:55] in order and start doing that?

[18:56] Because that's going

[19:00] to be soon upon us, right?

[19:01] >> Yes, thank you, Director.

[19:02] And I, I would also add that

[19:03] this was a priority. Our $379

[19:05] million ask was a priority

[19:07] of our LA County delegation.

[19:10] They are fully engaged,

[19:12] fully committed. We've been

[19:14] speaking to key members,

[19:16] leadership,

[19:17] and budget staff these past few

[19:19] days, even though it's recess,

[19:20] to really hit the ground

[19:21] running when they return in

[19:23] August. with the hopes that we

[19:24] can secure. We've been very

[19:26] clear that we need the funding

[19:27] this session, that this is not

[19:29] something that they can kick

[19:31] the can down the road for

[19:32] in order to have time

[19:33] to complete the projects.

[19:35] >> So we'll be sending some

[19:37] written as well as calling and

[19:38] visiting or whatever?

[19:41] Yes. All of that.

[19:43] Okay, and

[19:44] on the federal side, well, OMB,

[19:45] let's wait and see what happens

[19:47] after November. 'Cause I'm

[19:50] certain that there are counties

[19:52] and other states and members

[19:54] and other localities that are

[19:56] also gonna be challenging the

[19:58] rule. I know we are

[19:59] at the county doing that too,

[20:02] because it will create havoc.

[20:03] And I'm glad you pointed out

[20:04] Moody's rating, credit rating,

[20:06] because that also will

[20:07] devastate and fracture a lot

[20:08] of our budgeting and our

[20:10] ability to get loans, right?

[20:16] To support everything that

[20:17] we're doing. So, it's tragic.

[20:19] Thank you for your work. We

[20:21] remain committed, right? So,

[20:23] thank you.

[20:25] >> Thank you. Thank you,

[20:26] Director. Raffi, you said a

[20:28] lot. And I think that

[20:34] for the public, they don't

[20:36] always know necessarily what

[20:37] the implications are. What does

[20:38] it actually mean

[20:39] to riders when you talk

[20:40] about a proposed rule change?

[20:43] Can you just elaborate a little

[20:46] bit on what that actually means

[20:47] for the agency and

[20:48] for our riders, because

[20:50] they have an important role

[20:51] to play in terms of pushing

[20:53] their congressional members

[20:54] to speak

[20:55] on their behalf as it relates

[20:57] to the change. So, can you

[20:59] comment on that?

[21:01] >> I think one of the thank

[21:02] you, Chair Sandoval,

[21:03] for the question. One

[21:04] of the genuine success stories

[21:06] of this agency

[21:07] over the past couple of decades

[21:09] is that we have an exquisite,

[21:10] very productive,

[21:12] very effective relationship

[21:14] between the local community and

[21:15] taxpayers, the state of

[21:18] California, and the federal

[21:21] government what some would

[21:25] refer to as a 3-legged stool.

[21:27] And we've been able

[21:28] to use that 3-legged stool

[21:29] to advance mobility across LA

[21:30] County by building projects

[21:32] both small, medium-sized and

[21:35] big. I think for the

[21:37] LA County resident who

[21:41] would be introduced

[21:44] to this subject

[21:46] for the first time, I would

[21:47] share that this proposed rule

[21:49] might put us in a position

[21:52] of taking away one of the legs

[21:54] of the stool. And you can

[21:55] imagine the result that would

[21:57] occur when you take one leg

[22:01] away. And so the fine and I

[22:02] think brilliant example I gave

[22:05] was with,

[22:07] a full funding grant agreement.

[22:10] There's a Schedule 6 in the

[22:12] full funding grant agreement

[22:13] which says we're going

[22:15] to give you, let's say $100

[22:16] million over a 6-year period.

[22:18] If you're 3 years in and

[22:21] for some reason, whether

[22:24] whatever the administration is,

[22:27] a decision is made

[22:28] to halt that funding,

[22:30] you're left with nothing. In

[22:33] effect half a transit project,

[22:36] or, not in our business because

[22:39] we don't build bridges,

[22:40] but we'd be left

[22:42] with half a bridge. And it,

[22:43] it's not a way, to construct

[22:48] infrastructure because we need

[22:50] to complete our projects and

[22:52] get our,

[22:53] our whether it's our rail

[22:54] lines, our BRT,

[22:55] whatever project we have,

[22:57] they need to go from point A to

[22:58] point be and not halfway there.

[23:02] So, it's, as

[23:06] Director Solis said,

[23:07] it's raised a lot

[23:09] of concerns. I think the

[23:10] Moody's announcement, you know,

[23:11] the, the business and corporate

[23:13] community is also concerned

[23:14] because the impact this could

[23:16] have on,

[23:17] the finances that drive a lot

[23:19] of the construction

[23:21] of these projects.

[23:23] >> And Mr. Chair, I would like

[23:24] to actually expand

[23:25] beyond the rule

[23:27] to connect the dots about some

[23:28] of the things Raffi's referring

[23:30] to because In the

[23:31] reauthorization bill is where

[23:34] the authorized funding levels

[23:36] for the Capital Investment

[23:37] Grant Program are established.

[23:38] That's the main source of how

[23:40] we fund our big projects. We

[23:42] have the Southeast Gateway

[23:44] Line that's waiting

[23:46] to get in, into engineering,

[23:47] which could then become

[23:49] eligible for funding. We have

[23:50] the Eastside extension

[23:52] of the, what used

[23:54] to be called the Gold Line,

[23:56] that would be our one

[23:58] of our next priorities. And

[24:00] then we're trying to line up

[24:01] Sepulveda to ultimately get

[24:02] in that queue. There's also

[24:04] funding that comes

[24:06] from that bill that goes

[24:07] to the state,

[24:09] and then those things flow

[24:10] down into local projects. So,

[24:12] if that authorization ceases,

[24:14] Caltrans then will could

[24:16] potentially have financial

[24:19] trouble in funding projects,

[24:21] shop projects, things

[24:23] like that. At the state,

[24:25] I'm taking Raffi's gloom and

[24:27] making it gloomier.

[24:29] At the state, we just saw CARB

[24:31] eliminate funding for 2 public

[24:34] transit programs. One is the

[24:35] Transit and Intercity Rail

[24:38] Capital Program. That's where

[24:40] we that's the one source

[24:42] of state funding

[24:43] for transit capital projects.

[24:45] There's some money that comes

[24:47] from SB 1, the sales, the

[24:51] sales tax increase we did that

[24:52] goes into that.

[24:53] But that's a big chunk

[24:54] of funding that we have used

[24:56] for our capital projects. The

[24:58] other thing that action did,

[25:00] it eliminates funding for one

[25:01] of the sources

[25:03] of operating funds

[25:04] for our transit programs,

[25:07] about $50 million

[25:09] for the county. Madeline?

[25:12] >> Yes, for the county.

[25:13] >> And so, you know,

[25:15] this is basically what we're up

[25:17] against, right? We've got a

[25:18] threat

[25:19] against the capital programs.

[25:20] There's also the,

[25:21] the transit programs The

[25:23] formula programs are also

[25:24] authorized in that. Oh, sorry,

[25:25] I got those separately. And

[25:26] then at the state,

[25:28] we've got the threats to the

[25:31] TIRCP and the LC TOP program.

[25:33] So, rough waters ahead.

[25:37] >> Yeah, it would be

[25:38] catastrophic for our ongoing

[25:40] and future projects. I would

[25:41] just ask for future

[25:43] presentations if you could at

[25:45] least bring us one positive and

[25:48] good, even if it's small.

[25:50] >> I had good news about the

[25:52] legislation progressing.

[25:53] >> Very good, very good.

[25:55] Okay, not seeing any other

[25:57] directors who wish to speak.

[25:58] This is a receiving file. Thank

[25:59] you so much. We can go and move

[26:01] on to item 35, Homeless

[26:09] Outreach Management and

[26:11] Engagement Quarterly Report.

[26:14] Do my colleagues want a

[26:15] presentation on this item? Do

[26:22] you want a presentation

[26:23] on this item? No?

[26:26] Okay. You can certainly sit and

[26:29] just in case questions come up,

[26:30] but not in need of a

[26:31] presentation. I will go ahead

[26:33] and turn it over to Deanna

[26:35] to see if we have any speakers

[26:36] on this item.

[26:37] >> This is public comment

[26:38] for item 35. Please press pound

[26:39] 2 if you'd like

[26:40] to make a comment on item 35.

[26:43] We have one caller. Please

[26:44] unmute 3784.

[26:48] >> Caller ending in 3784,

[26:49] please state your name. You

[26:50] have one minute

[26:51] to state your comment.

[26:55] >> Hello?

[27:06] >> I think he's, that was the

[27:07] last I guess public comment.

[27:11] >> Very good, very good,

[27:12] very good. Do any of my

[27:14] colleagues have any questions?

[27:16] Uh, yes.

[27:17] >> Just briefly, I just want

[27:18] to say thank you

[27:19] for your work and thank you

[27:20] for continuing to work

[27:21] with the County Department of

[27:23] Mental Health

[27:24] with the teams and all

[27:26] of that. And I'm really happy

[27:27] because every time you do

[27:28] present, it's always good,

[27:29] good news. Just one concern

[27:31] end of the line,

[27:34] and continuing to see how we

[27:36] can get our COGS more involved

[27:38] because they do receive

[27:39] funding,

[27:41] special funding and allocations

[27:43] through Measure A and also

[27:46] through trust funds that come

[27:49] down from Sacramento

[27:50] for housing and all that. And I

[27:52] really think it would be

[27:53] worthwhile

[27:54] to have members talk,

[27:56] those that are part of the COGS

[27:59] also. let our COGs know how

[28:01] important it is for them to

[28:03] also stand up interim housing

[28:06] and opportunities like that.

[28:07] 'Cause I think that people are

[28:08] losing sight

[28:10] of it and I'm hearing some of

[28:12] that and it's really concerning

[28:13] because we don't need

[28:15] to be faced with that. We

[28:17] should be all

[28:18] in this together. So, whatever

[28:20] we can do, not just your staff

[28:22] 'cause I know you're all

[28:24] out there, but maybe that's

[28:25] something that this,

[28:26] this board can do as well.

[28:28] So, just wanted

[28:30] to say that.

[28:31] >> Well said, Director Solis.

[28:32] Director Dupont-Walker.

[28:34] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want

[28:35] to join, Supervisor Solis

[28:37] in saying thank you. During,

[28:38] FIFA, when I was ear hustling,

[28:42] I heard so many local people

[28:44] talk about being back on public

[28:46] transit and seeing the

[28:48] ambassadors and seeing the

[28:49] attention

[28:51] to some persons who were

[28:53] on the trains. For the buses, I

[28:56] think there's also a very

[28:57] wonderful and welcome

[28:59] atmosphere. I even heard we

[29:03] even had some black shirts

[29:05] occasionally on there. So,

[29:07] thank you for continuing

[29:08] to do that, especially

[29:10] for the residents of the county

[29:11] who have no choice,

[29:13] that we are able

[29:14] to offer them an opportunity

[29:15] to be housed. Thank you, Mr.

[29:18] Chair.

[29:20] >> Thank you, Director. I do

[29:23] have a, a question, and it,

[29:24] relates back to comments made

[29:25] by Director Solis. I know that,

[29:29] we could always use more

[29:31] interim beds. I know in the

[29:33] City of Pomona, we have I

[29:36] believe we provide 5 interim.

[29:39] just, just

[29:41] for full transparency,

[29:44] between The A-line

[29:49] from downtown Union Station

[29:52] to Pomona. How many other

[29:53] cities are providing interim

[29:54] beds? Do you have that number?

[29:58] >> In partnership with Metro?

[29:59] >> Correct.

[30:01] >> Unfortunately, we just lost

[30:03] 25 that we had in partnership

[30:05] with LASA and the county, one

[30:09] of the shelters, Welcome

[30:11] Navigation Shelter, that is

[30:13] located pretty close

[30:15] to the proximity of Union

[30:16] Station, had to close due

[30:17] to funding. A lot

[30:19] of that funding was LASA,

[30:21] and as you know, a lot of the

[30:23] funding that LASA had went

[30:24] to the new department

[30:27] in the county.

[30:28] Through that process,

[30:29] they were unable

[30:30] to keep the shelter open,

[30:32] and therefore those 25 of 80

[30:33] beds that that shelter had,

[30:34] we were utilizing

[30:36] for end-of-line assistance,

[30:37] is no longer available.

[30:38] >> So, because

[30:39] of that decision,

[30:41] there are real consequences to

[30:42] the efforts that we've

[30:43] undertaken with Metro. Yes.

[30:46] So, in terms of where do we go

[30:48] from here, you mentioned the

[30:50] COGs, Director Solis. 25

[30:55] beds is, is huge. Can you

[30:58] explain what a next step might

[31:00] look like?

[31:02] >> Yeah, it's a systemic issue,

[31:03] you know, with respect to how

[31:06] homeless services is being

[31:08] looked

[31:09] at and ultimately directed to

[31:11] be funded. there's an impact

[31:14] that not just the Metro teams

[31:16] are seeing,

[31:17] but the entire continuum

[31:19] of care is seeing. And so

[31:20] anytime there's a systemic

[31:21] issue like a loss

[31:23] of resources, whether that be

[31:25] permanent housing vouchers,

[31:27] whether that be interim

[31:28] housing, or any service

[31:30] for that matter, our teams are

[31:32] also experiencing the effects

[31:34] of that. And so recourse for

[31:36] moving forward is challenging.

[31:38] If we were to go

[31:39] to COGS and say we're aware

[31:40] of the funding that you've got,

[31:42] you know, are you interested

[31:43] in partnering with Metro? Are

[31:44] there ways in which we can help

[31:46] direct people who we engage to

[31:47] occupy the beds that you've

[31:49] got? Those conversations are

[31:51] typically okay,

[31:52] but they're met

[31:55] with a little resistance

[31:56] because of the impact

[31:58] of the system's issues.

[32:03] >> Yes. I would just,

[32:04] I would just add that, you

[32:05] know,

[32:07] we did consolidate services

[32:08] into the new department

[32:10] at the county, HSH. So, I would

[32:11] encourage, again, I mean,

[32:12] you do this anyway, but

[32:15] to partner with them, to meet

[32:16] with the COGs, because if

[32:17] there's a model that could be

[32:18] created,

[32:20] I think it's worthwhile. And I

[32:21] believe that members

[32:22] of the board, Board of

[32:24] Supervisors, would be, you

[32:25] know, interested in seeing how

[32:27] that can be worked out.

[32:29] In part, you have

[32:30] to understand, the public has

[32:32] to understand that we just got

[32:33] hit really hard by the federal

[32:35] government as well. So, many of

[32:37] those vouchers that we thought

[32:39] we had went away. And now

[32:41] they're shifting

[32:42] from permanent housing to look

[32:44] at interim housing. Not

[32:48] everyone is capable

[32:49] of coming up fast in speed

[32:51] to meet the challenge. And it's

[32:53] really bad right now. And all I

[32:56] would say is let's try to work

[32:57] with those that might have

[32:58] funding streams that we can

[33:00] connect with our departments,

[33:02] and I'm sure our director

[33:04] of HSH would,

[33:06] would be interested in hearing

[33:08] that. I know we can certainly

[33:09] pass that along.

[33:10] >> Ms. Mahan and I have a good

[33:12] working relationship.

[33:13] >> Okay, thank you. So, this is

[33:16] a thank you for the work that

[33:17] you're doing. this is a receive

[33:19] and file and does not require a

[33:20] vote,

[33:21] so we can go ahead and move on

[33:23] to the next item, which is

[33:24] Metro Workforce Housing. And I

[33:25] We're going to ask

[33:27] for a presentation

[33:30] on that.

[33:37] >> Welcome. Morning.

[33:38] >> Morning, Chair and

[33:39] committee members. pleasure

[33:40] to be with you. Seleta

[33:41] Reynolds. I'm the Chief of

[33:42] Innovation and Games Mobility

[33:43] Planning. I'm joined here by

[33:44] Marcel Porras, who's the

[33:45] Deputy Chief of Innovation.

[33:46] And, we're bringing this item

[33:48] before you. it actually ties

[33:50] back directly to a motion,

[33:52] an addendum

[33:54] to a motion that came from

[33:55] Director Solis to ask Metro

[33:56] to go into the marketplace and

[33:58] find solutions

[34:01] for workforce housing as part

[34:02] of our overall affordable

[34:04] housing efforts and joint

[34:05] development efforts in LA

[34:07] County. And so we're pleased

[34:08] to bring back before you

[34:10] something that we have been

[34:13] reporting back

[34:14] on progress and are ready

[34:15] to potentially advance

[34:17] to implementation.

[34:22] >> Good afternoon. Marcel

[34:23] Porras, Deputy Chief

[34:24] Innovation Officer. Here

[34:26] to present the project. So, the

[34:29] project that Nathaniel has

[34:32] previously mentioned was is a

[34:33] 97-unit workforce housing

[34:36] income-restricted development.

[34:38] To the right,

[34:40] you see the final mix that we,

[34:41] we arrived on based

[34:43] on negotiations

[34:44] with the developer and

[34:45] supported

[34:47] by our underwriting analysis.

[34:48] It shifted

[34:51] from majority studio units

[34:52] to now be 9 studios, 65

[34:54] one-bedrooms, and 23

[34:56] two-bedrooms. This shouldn't be

[35:00] new to y'all because I think

[35:02] we're here because

[35:03] of your direction

[35:05] on workforce housing, but,

[35:06] here are just a couple

[35:07] of the main, you know,

[35:08] findings that we did

[35:09] through our analysis in terms

[35:10] of why workforce housing is

[35:11] important. One, it attracts top

[35:13] talent. It builds loyalty and

[35:14] retention. It improves

[35:16] productivity, and it enhances

[35:18] work-life balance. In regards

[35:20] to location, there are 3

[35:25] factors that make this location

[35:26] unique for Metro's first

[35:27] workforce housing pilot. One,

[35:29] its proximity to Metro

[35:30] operations. As you can see,

[35:32] the site sits near 3 rail

[35:33] divisions and 1, bus division.

[35:35] its existing system

[35:36] connectivity this station's

[35:38] proximity to the KE Line and

[35:41] the transfer at Expo Crenshaw

[35:43] gives residents one-transfer

[35:45] access to downtown LA and the

[35:47] broader east-west corridor

[35:48] today. And finally, the K

[35:50] Line Northern Extension. When

[35:52] complete, the KNE adds

[35:54] underground transfers

[35:56] to the D Line and B Line. 3

[35:57] rail lines, no above-ground

[35:59] transfers, and it's unique in

[36:00] Metro's joint development

[36:02] pipeline. In regards to,

[36:06] I'm sorry, as part

[36:11] of our due diligence, Metro

[36:12] also dove

[36:13] into other alternatives.

[36:14] First, we looked

[36:15] at whether or not Metro could

[36:16] leverage the joint development

[36:17] pipeline of projects.

[36:18] However, low-income housing tax

[36:20] credits, regulations prohibit

[36:21] employer, restricted occupancy

[36:23] in tax credit financed housing.

[36:25] Second, Metro issued an RFI. as

[36:27] you can see on the bottom part

[36:30] of the slide, 19 total projects

[36:31] were identified, 9 of which met

[36:33] the 95+ unit scale threshold.

[36:37] 6 of those were adjacent to a

[36:39] Metro rail station. We found

[36:40] ourselves with only 2 projects

[36:43] of the total 19 meeting

[36:45] the thresholds of, but

[36:47] none matched the connectivity

[36:51] that the Limerick Park project

[36:53] that we're looking at today,

[36:54] provided slide.

[37:00] So in regards

[37:01] to employee benefit, Metro

[37:02] identified around 2,000

[37:04] frontline employees including

[37:05] bus operators, rail operators,

[37:07] mechanics, maintenance staff

[37:08] that would qualify

[37:10] for the 80% AMI threshold.

[37:12] To the right of the slide, we

[37:14] highlight how we would

[37:15] establish the Metro employee

[37:17] preference and work with the

[37:18] property management team

[37:19] to fill the units with Metro

[37:20] workforce. In regards to the

[37:21] Metro's loan, it is a $25

[37:27] million loan at a 3%,

[37:29] simple interest. The term

[37:33] of the project is 55 years,

[37:34] which coincides with the

[37:36] covenant term that's tied

[37:39] to the entitlements. We would

[37:41] be the subordinate lender.

[37:44] There would be a 60/40 revenue

[37:46] split

[37:48] of the residual receipts,

[37:49] the refi proceeds,

[37:51] or the disposition proceeds.

[37:52] And then finally, Metro's net

[37:54] present value is $7.2 million

[37:56] worth of loan payments

[37:58] over the 55-year period.

[38:06] In terms of risk,

[38:07] we identified 4 key elements.

[38:09] The first one being

[38:11] subordination. As I mentioned,

[38:12] we are the second lender. The

[38:14] mitigation here and what that

[38:16] does is our loan and preference

[38:18] are subordinate. The way we

[38:21] would look to address this is

[38:22] to develop an agreement that

[38:25] would be acknowledged

[38:27] by the senior letter for

[38:28] Metro's workforce preference as

[38:30] a continuing operating

[38:32] requirement. Second, developer

[38:35] default. So, if it was were

[38:37] to go into foreclosure, the

[38:39] senior lender could extinguish

[38:40] subordinate interests. The

[38:42] mitigation here is a step-in

[38:43] right. Metro may assume

[38:45] property management role to

[38:46] preserve the program if the

[38:48] senior lender takes possession.

[38:49] Third, long-term ownership.

[38:50] The risk here is the future

[38:52] sale could remove Metro's

[38:54] ability

[38:56] to enforce the preference. The

[38:57] way we're looking at mitigating

[38:59] this is developing a right

[39:00] of first refusal

[39:01] on the first offer. Metro could

[39:03] acquire the project

[39:05] at any proposed sale, default,

[39:06] or foreclosure. And lastly,

[39:08] the construction period. Metro

[39:10] is the first committed funder,

[39:12] and the senior lender has not

[39:14] yet been selected. The

[39:16] mitigation here would be

[39:17] milestone-based disbursements,

[39:18] draw inspection rights,

[39:20] and cure rights. Protect

[39:22] Metro's capital

[39:24] during construction. So,

[39:25] lastly,

[39:28] the staff recommendations for,

[39:29] this item is

[39:31] to authorize the CEO,

[39:33] to execute and enter into a

[39:35] loan agreement and other

[39:36] related documents,

[39:37] with the developer team,

[39:38] authorize the CEO or designee

[39:40] to negotiate and execute a

[39:42] recorded regulatory agreement

[39:44] establishing a Metro employee

[39:46] housing preference for 100%

[39:48] of the project units

[39:49] to be acknowledged

[39:50] by the senior lender, and

[39:51] finally find that the project

[39:53] is categorically exempt

[39:54] from CEQA. Happy

[39:57] to answer any questions.

[39:58] >> Just to close out, to give a

[39:59] little bit more context,

[40:00] this came through as an

[40:02] unsolicited proposal,

[40:04] which is why the Office of

[40:05] Innovation is sort of

[40:06] in the role that we're in,

[40:07] and we had brought it

[40:08] to the board previously

[40:09] to get guidance on taking it to

[40:11] the next step because it

[40:13] qualifies as what's called a

[40:14] landmark unsolicited proposal

[40:17] meaning either the dollar

[40:19] amount or the nature of the

[40:20] proposal passes a certain

[40:21] threshold. So, we brought that

[40:22] before you and got your

[40:24] guidance

[40:25] on what things we wanted

[40:27] to negotiate with

[40:28] in the next step, and those

[40:29] negotiations have concluded

[40:30] successfully. And so now we're

[40:32] bringing it back

[40:33] before you and asking

[40:34] for the, the actions listed

[40:35] above. Thank you.

[40:38] >> Thank you.

[40:39] Before we take questions,

[40:40] comments from directors,

[40:41] let's go ahead and I'll turn it

[40:43] over to you, Deanna,

[40:44] to see if we have any speakers

[40:45] on this item.

[40:46] >> This is public comment

[40:47] for item 36. Please press pound

[40:48] 2 if you'd like to make a

[40:49] comment. I have one caller.

[40:51] Please unmute.

[40:54] >> Caller ending in 3784,

[40:55] please state your name. You

[40:56] have 1 minute

[40:57] to state your comment.

[41:00] >> Okay, so first of all,

[41:01] I just have to say how

[41:02] embarrassing it should be to

[41:04] you that you have approximately

[41:07] 2,000 employees who are making

[41:08] At or below 80,000 80%

[41:11] of area median income,

[41:12] which is currently $92,080 a

[41:15] year. Like, why aren't you

[41:18] paying your employees more?

[41:19] Like, like genuinely, what why,

[41:20] why do so many employees

[41:22] qualify for this based

[41:24] on the metrics you're using?

[41:27] Because it seems like you

[41:28] should be paying your employees

[41:30] more so that they actually are

[41:31] paid a living wage. And then

[41:33] you should, You know,

[41:36] raise the requirements for this

[41:38] so that they can your employees

[41:39] who are now making a living

[41:41] wage in the city of LA, one

[41:44] of the most expensive county

[41:45] of LA, one

[41:46] of the most expensive counties

[41:48] in the country can now qualify

[41:49] for the Housing Up requirements

[41:51] that meet the new raised wage

[41:54] for all your employees. Is this

[41:56] that's just embarrassing how,

[41:58] how little your employees are

[42:00] apparently making.

[42:06] >> That was the last public

[42:07] comment.

[42:08] >> Thank you. Okay, I'm going

[42:09] to start with Director DuPont

[42:10] Walker and then Director

[42:11] Solis.

[42:12] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and

[42:13] thank you, Department of

[42:16] Extraordinary Innovation.

[42:19] >> Strategic Innovation.

[42:21] >> Strategic.

[42:22] >> Thank you.

[42:23] >> Strategic. Strategic and

[42:24] Extraordinary Innovation.

[42:27] >> The extraordinary is just

[42:28] implied. We don't have

[42:29] to state it anymore

[42:30] in the title of the cabinet. we

[42:31] are now strategic.

[42:35] >> I admire your humility. I do

[42:41] want to put this in context

[42:44] because this is an opportunity

[42:46] for Metro again

[42:48] to trailblaze. I want to point

[42:51] out that we will learn some

[42:53] things

[42:54] from this because it is, I

[42:56] believe, a first. As was the

[42:59] business interruption fund that

[43:01] Metro put in place. I want to

[43:03] remind us that when that

[43:05] happened,

[43:06] there was great angst

[43:07] about it. People thought it was

[43:09] not deserved.

[43:11] But what a number

[43:12] of us who supported it had

[43:14] in our ears was the statement

[43:16] of the then head of the

[43:19] Department of Commerce, who

[43:21] said they would hope that with

[43:23] our system we would solve some

[43:24] of the problems that had

[43:26] existed in the industry for

[43:27] decades and are directly

[43:29] related to housing. This board

[43:31] decided to move

[43:33] beyond just the core mission

[43:35] and to take a look at impact

[43:37] on community. And impact

[43:39] on community means impact

[43:41] on people. And so with the

[43:43] Business Interruption Fund, we

[43:46] said that it was just not a

[43:48] good idea. But I want

[43:49] to put it in the context

[43:50] with affordable housing also.

[43:52] Affordable housing is not

[43:54] low-income housing. It is a

[43:56] definition that no one should

[43:58] spend more than 1/3

[44:00] of their income for housing.

[44:01] So, if a millionaire was

[44:03] spending $500,000, it is not

[44:05] affordable. We tend to think

[44:06] of that in today's world

[44:08] because there's so many people

[44:11] who need it who happen to fall

[44:13] within the range

[44:15] of low income. But the

[44:16] low-income housing tax credit

[44:18] originally defined this upper

[44:20] limit as 120% AMI,

[44:22] and we're looking at 80%. So,

[44:24] we're still struggling to

[44:27] address a problem we knew

[44:28] existed several decades ago.

[44:31] It is absolutely trailblazing

[44:33] and a wonderful opportunity

[44:35] for Metro to set an example, to

[44:38] create a model that transit

[44:41] agencies

[44:42] across the country can use,

[44:44] because our construction has

[44:45] tended

[44:46] to tilt housing affordability

[44:48] in the wrong direction. It has

[44:50] brought about extreme

[44:53] gentrification nationally, and

[44:55] for us

[44:57] to intentionally put housing

[44:58] in place is important. Let me

[45:00] add quickly that that means the

[45:02] people who work for Metro, the

[45:04] ones who keep our buses

[45:05] running, our buses running,

[45:08] our buses running,

[45:10] maintain our mail system, and

[45:12] serve our riders every day

[45:13] deserve

[45:15] to have the opportunity to have

[45:16] affordable housing. I'm happy

[45:18] to see the change in mix away

[45:20] from the studios that sometimes

[45:23] when we charge a large rent we

[45:25] call the lofts. It's still the

[45:27] same thing,

[45:29] but it provides that

[45:30] opportunity

[45:31] for not only one-person

[45:33] families

[45:34] but 2 and 3-person families

[45:36] to have a good place to live

[45:38] within the City of Los Angeles

[45:40] because the cost of housing,

[45:42] whether it's rental or

[45:44] homeownership, is driving

[45:46] certain income families out

[45:48] of the city. And this city

[45:51] deserves to have diverse

[45:53] housing opportunities

[45:54] for persons

[45:56] with diverse incomes, because

[45:58] if our residents do not have

[46:01] to spend more than one-third

[46:02] of their income for housing,

[46:04] the quality of life changes,

[46:05] and they might even be able to

[46:07] have homeownership because

[46:09] they're able to have savings

[46:11] and put money aside for the

[46:12] other things that they would

[46:14] like. Thank you

[46:16] for this opportunity. Thank you

[46:17] for those who have envisioned

[46:19] this particular project,

[46:21] Nathaniel. Thank you

[46:24] for bringing it to a community

[46:25] that's an equity-focused

[46:26] community that needs it as a

[46:28] start, not a finish,

[46:29] as a start. This innovative

[46:30] pilot will help us learn how to

[46:32] tackle transportation as a part

[46:35] of community development, which

[46:38] includes housing. I'll have

[46:39] some more questions later, but

[46:43] I cannot tell you how exciting

[46:44] this is

[46:46] to someone who has spent most

[46:48] of my professional life trying

[46:50] to make sure that affordable

[46:51] housing stays on the table.

[46:54] And for Metro to take this step

[46:55] is very important

[46:57] to the entire community, but to

[46:59] the affordable housing

[47:01] community, I say kudos, Madam

[47:03] CEO. Kudos, Department of

[47:05] Strategic Innovation. And kudos

[47:07] to all of Metro, especially

[47:10] those who will find a way as an

[47:11] employee of Metro to be close

[47:13] to their worksite,

[47:14] to have a quality of life

[47:16] for themselves and

[47:17] for their families, and to have

[47:18] communities which are going

[47:19] to be restored in ways that all

[47:22] income levels can find a home.

[47:25] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[47:27] >> Thank you, Director.

[47:28] Director Solis.

[47:30] >> Thank you, Director DuPont

[47:31] Walker. I mean,

[47:32] you are the guru on housing for

[47:36] our communities and especially

[47:38] for our riders and for all

[47:40] of us. And I want to underscore

[47:42] how proud I am that we've been

[47:43] able to come to this point.

[47:45] This has been in the works

[47:47] for some time

[47:48] to create this model. And

[47:50] at the County of Los Angeles,

[47:52] we're also looking

[47:53] to do similar things. We had

[47:55] the idea of converting an old

[47:56] general hospital into housing

[47:59] for employees, for staff,

[48:02] for nurses, and

[48:04] for people who live

[48:06] around the community. So, the

[48:07] concept isn't new,

[48:08] but it is new when it comes to

[48:09] a transit agency that

[48:11] oftentimes people say,

[48:12] why are you bothering

[48:13] with housing? Why are you

[48:15] bothering with the homeless?

[48:16] Why are you bothering

[48:18] to extend, you know,

[48:19] your values

[48:21] in a different way?

[48:22] But the values for me come home

[48:23] because it's our riders and the

[48:26] folks that depend

[48:28] on this system of ridership,

[48:30] whether it's bus riders or

[48:31] whether it's mechanics or

[48:33] sanitation workers that clean

[48:35] our buses. Everyone should have

[48:37] an opportunity. And I'm very,

[48:39] I'm very happy to see this

[48:41] project move forward. I'm even

[48:43] interested in seeing if

[48:45] something can happen at the

[48:46] El Monte Transit Center because

[48:47] we do have some excess space

[48:49] there, and I know other folks

[48:52] have approached us

[48:54] to do development there, but I

[48:56] think this is where I think it

[48:58] really changes the whole

[48:59] paradigm because we are looking

[49:02] at not just affordable

[49:04] but sustainable, and also

[49:06] for people who do work in

[49:08] certain income brackets that we

[49:10] know need

[49:11] to have opportunity as well.

[49:13] So, I want to thank you, and I

[49:15] hope,

[49:17] I hope you will come back maybe

[49:18] with some ideas about the El

[49:19] Monte Transit Center. So, thank

[49:21] you. Thank you for your work.

[49:22] Thank you, CEO.

[49:24] >> Thank you, Director Solis.

[49:26] Thank you, DuPont, Director

[49:27] DuPont Walker. I will not be

[49:29] able to capture the eloquence

[49:30] of either of you as it relates

[49:31] to this project. Obviously,

[49:33] this is a project, that I,

[49:35] that I would support. I, I,

[49:37] I do want to just situate it

[49:40] though. as I think you know,

[49:42] I chair the Finance, Budget

[49:45] Audit Committee. I know these

[49:46] are general fund dollars if I

[49:49] understand correctly. Am I

[49:50] correct? And we have finite

[49:53] general fund dollars.

[50:02] Michelle?

[50:04] >> Good afternoon no,

[50:05] good morning. Michelle

[50:06] Navarro, interim Chief

[50:07] Financial Officer. This is

[50:09] general fund revenues. We do

[50:10] not need funding this year. We

[50:12] did split it up

[50:13] across multiple years,

[50:14] so this will be a need in the

[50:16] next fiscal year. We are going

[50:17] to look and focus on our joint

[50:20] development lease revenues,

[50:22] then also our advertising

[50:23] revenues, where we do

[50:25] anticipate an increase in these

[50:27] revenues because we had gained,

[50:29] some good partnerships,

[50:30] during this World Cup. And

[50:33] while this is general fund and

[50:35] operating eligible dollars, we

[50:36] do see this as a critical

[50:38] investment in our workforce

[50:40] that will benefit and attract

[50:41] and retain our employees.

[50:44] >> And that's why I raised the

[50:47] question, right, is for us

[50:48] to be able to see the value

[50:50] that while it yes,

[50:52] it does come

[50:53] from general fund dollars,

[50:55] there is this is a positive

[50:56] gain

[50:57] for us as an organization. But

[50:58] as we situate this conversation

[50:59] around the fiscal cliff, right,

[51:00] we as directors are going

[51:02] to have

[51:03] to make very difficult

[51:05] decisions about what we what is

[51:06] essential, what is primary,

[51:07] what is secondary. So, I raise

[51:08] it in that context with the

[51:09] full understanding that this is

[51:11] a, this is a great project, I

[51:12] think, for Metro. And certainly

[51:14] you say it's a pioneering

[51:16] project. This is a, this is a

[51:17] first, right? And, and if I

[51:19] understood correctly, and,

[51:21] is that this is going

[51:24] to be available to Metro

[51:25] employees? It is not going to?

[51:29] >> Correct.

[51:30] >> Because, because we're not

[51:31] receiving funds from other

[51:32] entities that would require us

[51:33] to include others outside the

[51:35] Metro family, if you will.

[51:37] Yeah, that's significant. I

[51:39] think there's a lot

[51:40] of cities that would love

[51:41] to be able to do that, where,

[51:42] you know, when we talk

[51:44] about taking care of,

[51:45] in this particular case,

[51:46] homeless, is let us,

[51:47] let us take care

[51:49] of our homeless population. But

[51:50] it doesn't always work that way

[51:52] because we get funds from

[51:53] multiple different sources so

[51:55] that we have

[51:57] to broaden our reach, if you

[51:59] will, understandably. So, thank

[52:00] you, and thank you for that.

[52:02] All right, this is a, this is an

[52:05] action item, and I have a

[52:09] first, and I, I have first

[52:11] from DuPont Walker and a second

[52:12] from Solis, and I'm not hearing

[52:14] any objections, so,

[52:16] the item moves forward. It is

[52:19] approved. Thank you. Thank you.

[52:22] All right, before we go

[52:23] to general public comment,

[52:28] Director DuPont Walker, had

[52:29] asked me if we could revisit

[52:31] item 32, not to take action

[52:35] on the item, but just so she

[52:36] can provide some comments

[52:38] on the item. So, I'm going to

[52:40] go ahead and say yes and then

[52:41] turn it over to Director

[52:44] Dupont Walker.

[52:45] >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very

[52:46] quickly, I apologize because I

[52:48] should have been paying

[52:50] attention, but I did want to

[52:51] note the excellent performance

[52:53] with small business in this

[52:55] particular contract and

[52:57] proposal. And

[52:59] with the talent bank alone,

[53:01] it speaks to our effort to help

[53:04] small businesses not only

[53:06] survive but thrive.

[53:08] But when we have a number

[53:10] of them proposed, I think it's

[53:11] 17%, which exceeds our request,

[53:13] I just wanted to take the time

[53:15] to say thank you and kudos

[53:17] for helping Metro continue

[53:19] to achieve its goal

[53:20] of providing an opportunity

[53:22] for everyone.

[53:24] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[53:25] >> Thank you, Director

[53:26] Dupont-Walker. Okay, let's go

[53:27] to general public comment.

[53:28] >> This is general public

[53:29] comment. Please press pound 2

[53:30] if you'd like to speak

[53:31] under general public comment.

[53:32] We have one caller.

[53:33] Please unmute.

[53:36] >> Caller ending in 3784,

[53:37] please state your name. You

[53:38] have 1 minute

[53:39] to state your comment.

[53:42] >> Yeah, so I, I do think it's

[53:43] a little weird that both the

[53:45] Chair and Vice Chair are absent

[53:47] today. Like, I mean, I give

[53:48] Bass the benefit

[53:49] of the doubt. Maybe she's

[53:51] dealing with the flood thing.

[53:52] But I don't know, she seems

[53:54] to have a habit of missing the

[53:56] meetings. I guess we're

[53:57] probably better off without

[53:59] Barger's presence anyway, so,

[54:00] you know. But, but I mean,

[54:02] it's just like, you know, these

[54:05] board members aren't even

[54:07] interested

[54:08] in attending the meetings, it

[54:10] seems, but yet they don't want

[54:11] to give up their power. And

[54:13] that's why the board structure

[54:16] they recommended is completely

[54:17] just You know,

[54:18] basically doesn't take away any

[54:20] of their power or listen

[54:22] to any of the things that the

[54:23] public said over the months

[54:25] of hearings that they had.

[54:27] And, you know, these board

[54:28] members have all have all kinds

[54:31] of scandals. And now the now

[54:34] they want to add a new board

[54:37] member who's literally a MAGA

[54:38] Republican. They want

[54:40] to literally add a MAGA

[54:41] Republican to this.

[54:44] >> That's the last public

[54:45] comment.

[54:46] >> All righty, thank you. All

[54:47] right,

[54:49] this meeting is adjourned.

[54:51] Everyone have a great rest

[54:52] of your day. Thank you.

Executive Management Committee on 2026-07-16 11:00 AM

Agenda

Transcript