[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.