Okay, good afternoon everyone.

I'm going to call this meeting to order

of the Sacramento Transportation Authority

and the Sacramento Ban and Vehicle Service Authority

for February of 2013, 2025 at 1.34 p.m.

If the clerk would please call the roll to establish a quorum.

Member Desmond.

Here.

Member Dickinson.

Here.

Member Hume.

Here.

Member Kennedy.

Here.

Member Kent.

Here.

Member Maple.

Here.

Member Maple.

Oh, sorry.

I heard Rachel.

Member Kelsey Nelson.

Here.

Member Rathal.

Here.

Here.

Here you go.

Member Rodriguez.

Here.

Vice-Chair Serna.

Here.

Member Singallan.

Here.

Member Spees.

President.

Member Talamantis.

Here.

Member Vang.

I'm here.

And Chergerna.

Here.

Member flashing for the record, remember, p...

Absent.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Let me...

Folks could join me and the tackl...

Stan?

Hello.

Fortune.

So, Little Pledge, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States

of America and to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I know that was one of the better ones.

OK.

Madam Clerk, if you could please read the announcements

for everyone.

This meeting of the Sacramento Transportation Authority

is live and recorded with close captioning.

It is cable cast on Metro cable 14,

the local government affairs channel,

on the Comcast and direct TVUverse cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14live.saccounty.gov.

Today's meeting replaced Sunday, February 16th

at 2 p.m. on MetroCable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting

can be viewed on demand at youtube.com slash MetroCable 14.

To make an in-person public comment,

please compete a speaker form and hand it to the clerk.

The chairperson will call your name

when it's your turn to make a comment.

You may also send written comments by email to board clerk

at saccounty.gov.

Your comment will be routed to the board

and filed in the record.

Great. Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Let's go for item number one, Madam Clerk.

We do not have any comments from the public

regarding matters not on the agenda.

Great. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Appreciate it. Let's move on to item number two, Madam Clerk.

Item number two is to receive a presentation

on an overview of Sacramento Transportation Authority,

recent accomplishments and future efforts.

Okay. Before we begin, I'd like to first welcome

our new board members and let me start off by

Vice Mayor David Cant from the City of Vialton.

Let's give him a big round of applause.

Congratulations. Thank you for your hour long drive

over here.

Council member Kelsey Nelson from the Citrus,

from Citrus, I'd give him a big round of applause.

Unfortunately, Mayor Ciri Puli-Patti won't be here,

but we welcome her to the board as well.

Also, Vice Mayor Justin Raithel,

did I pronounce that right?

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Sometimes you may find it.

And then Council member Maive Ang,

who let's give her a big round of applause over here.

And then, you know, I would say not a new member.

In fact, I think he was involved in the creation of this board.

Council member, former Assembly Member,

former Supervisor Roger Dickinson.

Let's give him a round of applause.

I think he was actually involved in the creation

of the County of Sacramento.

Oh, wow.

Ouch.

Ouch.

I'd also like to make a special recognition

and thank Supervisor Rosario Rodriguez.

He was former Council member on this board.

And now Supervisor, let's give her a round of applause.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

She didn't have a choice being on this board.

It's part of the job.

That's for me.

Okay, let me turn it over to our executive director

for a short presentation.

And as he's coming up, I know the City Council has

a close session today at this afternoon.

So there was called recently.

So we'll have to make sure that we get to that meeting.

So thank you.

Okay.

We'll provide a overview of what is happening with that.

The authority kind of recent accomplishments

and what to expect here in 2025.

So an overview.

So we're created in 1988 as a local transportation authority

with the creation of measure A, the original measure A.

Our mission is to secure funding for local transportation needs.

And we are a independent local government.

There are only three staff.

But we do have support staff that we work,

that we get from the county as well.

Some of the strategic goals that we adopted as part of our last budget process.

Build public trust.

We want to show that we are a steward of taxpayer dollars.

We operate efficiently.

We educate the public on our programs.

We also want to develop great relationships.

Transportation funding is complicated.

And we need to make sure we have those good relationships in place

with both elected partner agency stakeholders and regulatory side.

And then finally, a line transportation priorities with funding.

So we want to assist agencies in maximizing the existing funding

through measure A and our development impact fee.

We want to advocate for agencies transportation priorities.

And then we want to position those priorities for additional funding.

So there are three main program areas for STA.

There is the measure A.

There is the freeway service patrol.

And then there is the SB1 local partnership program.

So for measure A, this was a ballot measure in 2004.

It was overwhelmingly approved by 75% approval rating.

It goes, it's a half-cent cell sacs measure.

It goes for 30 years from 2009 to 2039.

Current track revenues are approximately 175 million a year.

And development impacts fees are around 6 to 9 million a year.

And essentially funds transportation projects and programs

in Sacramento County and programs, you know,

often referred to some of the operational programs we have released to transit.

And the funding goes through a very detailed expenditure plan as well.

So all the funding is allocated in a very precise way.

And it was part of the voter approval.

We also have an independent taxpayer oversight committee that kind of oversees the expenditures.

Make sure they align with the expenditure plan and the ballot measure.

We meet almost monthly with that committee to make sure that we're there breast of all the information.

Then our administrative expenses are captive 0.75%.

So that's the high level measure overview.

The other thing that we do is we do the sac metro freeway service patrol.

We have a fleet of 15 trucks that basically operate in the AMP P.M.

P.C. hours.

They're on basically every major freeway in Sacramento,

annual counties.

Primarily it's congestion management also from a safety standpoint.

The idea is we want to be able to help people and within 10 minutes get them off the road,

whether we tow them or we give them a gallon of gas,

we help fix their flat tire.

We do approximately 30,000 assists per year with our towing contractors,

which saves thousands of hours in traffic.

It's extremely popular with the public because it's a service that has really no cost to them.

But it definitely improves public safety and congestion management.

And then from a we partner with CalTrans and CHP to help run that system and oversee it.

We have funding from both CVR Safe,

which is managed by Saicog as well as the State Highway Fund, Funds the program.

So that's freeway service patrol.

Finally, let's talk about local partnership program.

So this program was created with Senate Bill 1 in 2017.

It's to award agencies like us that have a cell sex.

And so there's 200 million annually.

Those funds are split two ways, one, formulaically,

and the other competitive formulaically,

SDA gets basically almost rewarded with funding.

So we have about 6 million every two years that we can utilize.

It requires a one-to-one match,

and then SDA is responsible for programming those dollars.

And so we anticipate that happening this coming year.

And then on the competitive side, we have around,

there's every two years about 175, 200 million dollars total competitive available

that we can compete for.

And so it's for construction only.

It's a one-to-one match requirement,

and SDA is responsible for prioritizing.

I wish we just did that last year when we submitted the Transforming the Sacramento Region project,

which is a joint SEC RT City of Citrus Heights project.

So that's a little bit about recent accomplishments,

and I kind of align these with the goals.

So the idea is we want to build public trust, right?

And so how do we do that?

We do that through website improvements.

What we've made in the last year.

So our website's been refreshed.

We've expanded our social media.

We've hired an intern to help us on our social media channels.

We try to get some positive media coverage,

and at these board meetings, we try to show that we're a fiscal steward

of all the funds that we receive.

And then we also are doing, working on those relationships right,

continue to maintain those through recurring events and meetings.

And then finally, we're trying to align transportation priorities with funding.

So we've done that this last year in a few different ways.

I want to highlight a few of those.

So the SAICOG Regional Funding Round changes.

So at staff level, we advocated for a road maintenance only category,

because that's a big need for Sacramento County.

We advocated for farm and market roads to be eligible.

And we advocated for a stip intra-county funding.

So keeping the stip funds within the county.

And those were all changes that were made with the update to the SAICOG's funding round.

And then ensuring funding eligibility is another thing that we're doing.

So we have, there's efforts ongoing on US$50, 99, and I80.

And those are planning efforts, those planning efforts have to be done first.

And then once those planning efforts are done,

those projects that are along those quarters are eligible for a program

called Solutions for Cuchess of Quarters.

So there's several different efforts going on on those.

And we've been part of those efforts on those quarters.

We got a million dollar County White Safety Action Plan grant.

Once that planning work is completed,

it will, all the agencies when Sacramento will be eligible for safe streets and roads

for all implementation funding, as well as highway safety improvement program funding.

And then we worked with local agencies on SAICOG's 2025 MTPSCS

to ensure that their priority projects and the projects that were included in measure A

are still eligible for federal and state funding.

There's a little more on funding.

You know, we did the grant prioritization effort in 2024,

which will lead to what's ultimately what's prioritized for CAPTACAP

when we go and talk about what are the priority projects.

Last year we updated our impact fee because we needed to update our next study,

so we continue to collect that fee.

And then we're also looking at a County White VMT mitigation strategy.

So, a lot of information.

But 2025, this is what I see is coming.

We'll do a subcommittee on the future transportation funding,

specifically what is SAICOG's new SAICOG's measure could look like in 2026 or 2028.

There'll be some coordination on the intra-county-stip funding program strategy.

There's interest in now that there's a set aside of just funding within the county

for step funding.

How do we coordinate internally on those funds?

I anticipate some presentations by the Capitol Area Regional Tollia Authority

on some of the efforts there.

They are going to be doing, which we are a future member of.

Some workshops on County White VMT mitigation to see if that strategy is implementable

at the countywide for us.

Obviously that County White Safety Action Plan I talked about getting that started.

And then continuing the SAICOG and SB1 funding coordination that we're already doing.

And then we have a measure a performance audit.

And then we have the same improvements to how we operate.

That will come out of that.

So that is everything.

Open any questions.

Just a little tidbit there.

Thank you, Mr. Bucey.

Madam Clerk, let me bring this over to the public here.

I have one comment card on the public.

Michael Andrew Barnbaum.

Mr. Barnbaum.

Welcome.

Yes.

Thank you.

Kevin, thank you for the presentation.

Very informative and educational.

One of the things that brought me here today regarding this presentation.

Last year in the city limits of the city of Sacramento, some of you heard me make this presentation before.

But others haven't.

32 people were killed in vehicular accidents that could have all been completely preventable.

And things need to be done about that.

I have worked with council member and board member Maple on this particular thing.

And it's an emergency in the city of Sacramento.

We need to do things like delayed green and diagonal crossing among other mitigation measures to help make a friendlier city for pedestrians.

And it's a very important thing to do.

And I think that's what I'm talking about.

You and everyone in society at some point or another are a pedestrian.

And you folks may not realize that.

And I know that one of the things that slowed down Sacramento said very vehemently was it's one thing if something is programmed.

And it will be paid for and completed.

So thank goodness we're just kicking off 2025.

I have circled June 2nd and November 3rd of 2026 on my calendar.

I'm sure that we could see something that all the cities and the unincorporated county can benefit from for active transportation.

And things friendlier to pedestrians.

And let's go fund something that everybody can be helpful for with a majority or two thirds majority.

However, we decide but it needs to be approved and funded.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Baum.

I'm sure every single individual on this board can attest to the fatalities in their jurisdiction.

And your point is well taken on funding.

It seems to be the issue to sure, which is the purpose of this agency.

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

Do we have any members of any additional members on the public signed up to speak?

We do not.

Okay.

Madam Clerk, we'll move on to the next item.

Item number three is a part of members.

Oh, hold on one moment here.

Thank you.

I'll show you a vice chair.

Before we move on to the next item here, we do have questions from board members.

Let me go back to board member Desmond here on the executive front.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And just a comment.

Thanks for the presentation, Kevin.

And I particularly want to call out the, you talk about looking forward to 2025 and the importance of possibly forming a subcommittee to talk about a future transportation measure.

And also maybe a subcommittee to discuss the intra county funding.

And I think we're going to be talking probably more about that in the context of item 14.

But I think that's going to be very important this year because of how the changes in partnership with SACOG to the competitive funding around with respect to the STIP funds.

I think that that kind of, like deeper dive and ongoing work by maybe a subcommittee format, I think is a good thing.

So I look forward to discussing that later on that I do.

Thank you very much, board member Desmond.

Board member Serna.

Thank you, Mr. I wasn't going to chime in except for that last important part of what Mr. Desmond stressed.

And I'll just add to that that I think when it comes time to figure out participation on the committee and leadership on the committee that I think those of us as was introduced from the outset of this meeting that are.

Very new or fairly new to STA and to the prospect of a third try in recent years.

But I would hope that some of the more veteran members that have the battle scars will certainly entertain serving and perhaps leading on that committee.

Because I think there's a lot to be said for understanding lessons from the recent past.

And I think that votes well or better for the product that would come out of such a subcommittee.

So again, I would just encourage those of us that have kind of been in those trenches to consider serving and leading again.

Thanks.

Thank you, board member Serna. And again, I just want to thank Mr. Busey and all the staff at STA.

There's a lot that goes on with our agency here that sometimes doesn't get the attention it deserves.

And I know we will have those conversations this year.

Okay, seeing no more board members this time. Thank you, Vice Chair.

Madam Clerk, we'll move on to the next item here.

Item number three is a part of the minority item.

Selection of Chair and Vice Chair for calendar year 2025.

I'd like to make a motion.

Madam, hold on one moment.

Madam Board Member, Sing Allen.

Mayor.

I'm going to go here.

First, and ask Mr. Busey to give a presentation, and then I'll take your motion.

Thank you.

Yeah, so quick verbal presentation here.

So each year we have to select a chair and a vice chair.

We don't have a, we don't have any requirements specifically on who could be a chair and vice chair.

But we do have a tradition that tradition is to have a rotation between the county and the cities.

And so every, it's basically every time every year changes between the county and the cities.

And then there's a separate rotation that happens between the city of, in the cities.

So it is the, between city of Sacramento and the, in the smaller cities.

So right now we are sitting at the, the chair is the city of Sacramento.

The county is the vice chair.

If we follow tradition, the county will be the chair.

And the, as one of the smaller cities will be the vice chair.

That's how we've done it traditionally.

We do not have to do that, that way we can do whatever we want.

We can certainly look at a two year chair, which is something that has done, has done at both SACRT and I believe SACMT were air quality management district.

The only thing I would caution you on that is that, you know, there's a limit, there's a lot of people on this board.

And so that does create a limited opportunity for leadership.

So, but we don't have requirement here, but that is the tradition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, can I ask, and I'd like to ask a question to Kevin.

So I just want to make clear, the traditional rotation is, is what as it relates to where we are today.

The traditional rotation would be, would be, in the county, would be, you would become the chair and the vice chair would come from one of the smaller cities.

Smaller cities.

False of Melcro, Ranch Cordova.

That's right.

Citro-Cyde-Talton.

Thank you.

Okay. Board member, Singleton.

Excellent. Well, I'm definitely a traditionalist and we have some good precedents here.

We have a fantastic vice chair who's done a great job representing our community, this board, other boards.

So my motion would be to bring forward our vice chair Phil Sarna to the chair position.

Do I have to do both or just one?

We'll start with this one first, and then let's get this one out of the way, and then we'll move over to the next one.

So there's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

There's been a lot of seconds here.

Okay. Any other comments on this?

I'll go to.

Board member.

Kennedy, and then board member.

No, no.

I'm not a member.

I was going to make the same nominations.

Oh, very good. Board member, can't.

Well, I see some declarations here in the agenda item.

I want to make clear because I'm being asked to vote.

I'm highly supportive of chair, but I'm being asked to vote for more than his continued position.

Missors, no, it's the point of order.

The motion on the floor is for vice chair Sarna to be the chair.

That's correct. Correct.

And the issue is that I believe the vote is asking for a potential extension of the term.

No.

No.

No. Mr. I'm going to clarify here, Mr. Board member.

Kent, the current motion on the floor in the question is approval of a nomination for board member Sarna to begin as chair of the board of this board.

That is the question.

Seeing no more questions, Madam Clerk.

So this is a parliamentary item.

Do we need debate on the comments from the public?

Yes.

Let me see. Is there any comments from the public on this, Madam Clerk?

I have not received any.

Okay, so before we vote, Mr. Hume, let me go.

Go ahead and take the vote.

Okay.

All.

Let me take that.

Okay.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All those opposed?

Okay, Mr. Passes, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Mr. Hume.

Yes, I'd like to nominate Mr. Raithle.

I believe it was one of the smaller cities that would be next up in line.

I'll second.

It would be vice chair.

It's been moved and seconded by Mr. Board member Hume and seconded by Board member Rodriguez as vice chair.

I've got Board member Talimantes.

So I guess just something for us to think about on this.

We have a ballot measure coming up, so not this year, so we're going to be in 2026.

So whoever is going to be vice chair now will more than likely because I believe in process.

So whoever's vice chair should be chair the following year.

And so I'm happy to have Supervisor Serna being chair now.

But we have a ballot measure coming up in 2026.

And so whoever's vice chair now will be chair during that year.

And the city of Sacramento has, you know, 550,000 people in it.

I mean, and now Grove is massive too.

And I know we're looking at a lot of policy at the state level to see if we can carve special districts.

So I want us to think about us as a board nominating our vice chair now will be chair the following year.

So even though I'm supportive of process still and having, if you want to smaller cities, I don't know if it'd be beneficial for this justice next year to have the city sacrament of B the vice chair this year.

And then we, the following year could be a smaller city just because of the ballot measure just for that reason.

So something to think about.

Thank you board member telemante sport member Kennedy and then I have board member sing Allen board member Kennedy.

Thank you chair.

Completely agree with director telemante's and so I'll make the motion that the current chair.

Mr. Guerra be the vice chair.

That's a substitute motion.

No, it's their nominations.

So we'll take one before the other.

I took that as a motion.

So let me go to council council.

We had a motion by board member human is second.

I took it as a motion.

I see yours as a substitute.

So we take yours first.

Okay.

Okay.

Very well.

There's been a substantive motion.

I'll never argue with being taken first.

By board member Kennedy and is there a second to that?

Second.

It's been seconded by.

Oh, board member Dickinson.

I didn't see you back there.

Thank you.

Okay.

Let me move over here.

We have comments here.

Board member sing Allen and then board member sing Allen on the substitute motion.

Okay.

So my general comments.

I respectively agree with what director telemante's assessment in terms of having a strong voice.

But we don't actually know that we're going to have a ballot measure.

We're still going to go through the studies.

So that assumes that that's actually happening.

As I recall when I was chair, we had a subcommittee that worked on the sales tax measure and the board led as a group.

But a lot of the expertise came from the committee, the committee work.

So I mean, I think we're assuming a lot that that's actually moving forward.

We don't know that.

Perhaps it will perhaps it won't the studies aren't there yet.

So I think in the interest and then we're also assuming that our friend from our smaller city won't be a champion for it.

So I don't want I don't I think that.

That's a big assumption too.

So I respectfully would disagree that we need to have someone from Sacramento lead this right now.

I think we can cross that bridge in a year because you know, I mean we don't have to follow the process then.

But let's get to the point where we know there's going to be a ballot measure.

And those studies, you know, we looked at it last time and the studies showed otherwise.

In which case we will have dismissed this fine gentleman here on some assumption.

So I respectfully think that we should move forward with our original motion forwarded by Director Ham.

Thank you, Board Member Singh Ellen.

Let me move this over to I've got on the speaker list Board Member Hume, Board Member Kennedy, and then Board Member Cerna.

Let me go over to Board Member Hume.

And for the new Board members at education, the SCA Board did authorize a subcommittee that will be appointed by the chair for this year.

That committee has not been appointed for that that Board Member Singh Ellen commented. Board Member Hume.

Thank you. I didn't expect this to be a controversial motion.

I was just going through tradition of what was laid out by the executive director.

But I will say I just want to point out something that Mr. Busey did say.

And that is relative to the size of this body and the limited term of elected office that you know, when you have such a large board and you keep cycling through the same people.

There's a chance that folks will serve here and never be able to send up to leadership.

So that's why I am in support of mixing up the players as we go along.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hume. I've got Board Member Kennedy, then Cerna, then Roger. Roger he gets. Board Member Kennedy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just, I'm not necessarily speaking on the motion, but around the motion because of the comments that have been made regarding a potential ballot initiative to be on the ballot.

First of all, serving as chair on this board when we looked at the last time we were potentially going to entertain a ballot initiative and then COVID hit.

So we scrapped all of that. But I can tell you as the chair at the time, it does take a significant amount of time.

You know, work very, very hard to make sure that the public is adequately educated on it.

A lot of the education, which comes before it's an initiative because once it's an initiative, we're out of it anyway.

We'll come under our new chairs, per view. And Mr. Cerna, of course, you know, there's nobody on this board better than going out and selling the value of this than Mr. Cerna.

And then the following year would be, we would be out of the, basically out of the campaigning as a board legally, we cannot do that because we've moved from education to campaigning.

So I think that as far as a board, as far as an ballot initiative goes, it's actually much more important who the chair is, which we've already taken care of, than it is who the vice chair is.

That's just my experience. So therefore, I've already made my motion. I'm not speaking on behalf of one or the other, but I just want to give that historical perspective.

Thank you, board member Kennedy. I've got board member Cerna, then board member Rodriguez. Board member Cerna.

Yeah, great. Thank you. I want to thank my colleague, both here and on the board of supervisors. I think supervisor Kennedy makes some excellent points.

As does board member Tala Montes. So I agree with the substitute motion. And I will just add to that the time and energy that is expected to go in to the, not just the chairmanship, but presumably and expectedly.

Kind of the parallel leadership role at the right times before the converging worlds need to make sure they don't collide.

It comes with that in the context of a tax measure and effort is fairly extraordinary. So I would just like to point out, I don't think you would mind me saying this, but.

Council member and outgoing chair Eric Gera has committed himself 100% of his time now. And of course, addition to my, my God son and his, and his younger son, being the being the great dad that he is is a full time council member on the city council and Sacramento and not at the, not just like anyone else on the city council in terms of their, their dual roles, their quote unquote day job.

And their service on the city council, but I think it's fairly extraordinary that you have that type of commitment that is now 100% focused on his public service.

So again, that is just kind of another additive reason why I feel very confident and it's the right time that Eric continue to serve and expected leadership role when we hope to get.

One of the most important tax measures probably in most of our political lives, not just on the ballot, but successfully through the electorate and making sure that the details of that are where they should be so that it doesn't take a lot of convincing and that the public that were charged to represent understand not just the need, but the benefit that they will enjoy for generations to come.

So again, I'm very supportive of the substitute motion. Thank you.

Thank you very much board member, sir, and I have board member Rodriguez and board member Dickinson board member Rodriguez.

I just want to give some feedback. I do believe in the being able to develop leaders on our board, but I just want to give a bit of a testimony on Justin Raythal who I've known about 10 years.

He is an excellent leader. He's been on our county planning commission and our city planning commission for probably, I don't know, be something like eight years.

He's been chair of those two boards for several years. He has sat on the chamber board and the economic development boards for the city of Folsom.

And he was a strong advocate of measured. She actually was a champion of it in this past year. So experience is something he definitely brings to this board.

He is a petroleum engineer by history, but he has also built businesses, very successful businesses in the city of Roseville and the city of Folsom.

So we're not getting somebody who's fairly new to this process. And if I were to describe his leadership, I would say it's very dynamic. He's relentless. He's very thoughtful and he's very strategic in his approach.

So if he were to sit as vice chair, I think we would be very pleased with his leadership.

Great. Thank you very much, board member Rodriguez. Let's go to we have board member Dickinson. Then board member Dickinson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would only amend what Mr. Kennedy said to this extent.

If this board decides along with the other relevant parties to place a measure on the ballot next year, it could well and it perhaps most likely will be in November.

That means through potentially through even June. Members of this board, both individually, of course, and collectively may be directly involved in the development and conclusion about what that measure should look like.

I do think in that in that respect, thinking about that potential, who becomes the chair in 2026 is significant.

And so recognizing that transportation funding is among the more complicated worlds. There are a few out there, health care and a few others.

But understanding, appreciating and being able to synthesize and explain transportation funding is not a short term undertaking.

It is I'm still trying to figure it out. And I've been at it since the county started according to Mr. Kennedy.

175 years. 175 years. So from that standpoint, I respect the qualities of the committee.

The qualities and characteristics of all on this board. But I do think that it would be advantageous to have someone who has faced these issues directly before on behalf of this board and in his other capacity.

And so that's why the suggestion of having Mr. Getta serve as the vice chair with the expectation of serving as chair next year does make sense to me.

Thank you, Board Member Dickinson. I've got Board Member Kent and then Board Member Cernab. Board Member Kent.

Thank you. I'm going to try to conform to point of order here. And I just want to try and understand again.

The rules for proceedings allow for the nomination of Chair Garrett to continue. But it's not traditional. And if I look at the list, this would be the first time that we've had a serving member extend for another year.

Correct. No. Hold on a moment here. Mr. Cernab. Board Member Cernab, did you want to comment on this item?

I just want to make sure that the first, the Mr. Kent understands that we're past the consideration of Mr. Gera continuing the extent in your words extension of his chairmanship. That's already done.

Now we're talking about whether or not he is. We're giving arguments foreign against nominations between two individuals on the board for vice chair.

Okay. And let me bring this to. I'm going to ask council. Was that correct council on the rules? That's correct. And there's no automatic promotion from vice chair to chair.

That's going to be another vote in 12 months. That's right. We'll do this all over again. So yes. Okay. Good. Did that answer question? Board Member Kent. Thank you. Okay. I've got board member Cernab, board member Vang and then board member Desmond board member Cernab.

Thank you. Just another. I don't. I didn't mean to like begin down the road of, you know, reciting your CV into the lawyer. But I think another important characteristic.

In capacity in which are outgoing chair and prospective vice chair has as it relates to the sensitivities and delicacies of tax measure is the place from which you can speak with some authority.

And I just want to remind everyone to that besides his full commitment to service on the set.

Council. He's also given of himself to serve on the California resources board. And I think that is going to be an important place from which to be able to speak from authority from a, you know, carbon reduction standpoint and V.M.T. reduction standpoint.

Maybe even bringing some enlightenment to committee members if he, if he serves on the committee. And the general public about those aspects of transportation as it relates to the future of Sacramento County.

So just want to make sure people understand that element of your services. Well, thank you board member Cernab. I have board member Vang and board member Desmond board member Vang.

I feel it's good to be back. Kevin, I just had a quick question as well as a returning board member on STAs that in the next year or so. Are we going to be working on bills as well to go through the state like just any several bills whether we move forward on a ballot measure.

Yes or no? Yeah.

We have a bill that we're moving forward with this legislative session was approved by the covering board in November. Yeah. And then as far as the ballot measure discussion. I mean, we have the subcommittee that was created and had been not formed.

So we'll have to decide, you know, the timing of that is interesting right well to figure out. Hopefully the subcommittee process will figure out a path forward.

But timing is always interesting will be 26 or 28 is some of that is out of set of control. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Kevin, I really appreciate that. I think whether we move forward with the ballot measure or not as Kevin has stated that, you know, we definitely have bills going through the state.

You know, my recommendation will be to support the the the count them substitute motion and a big reason for that is not just because I'm a city of Sacramento council member, but I also think it's going to be really important to have a vice chair that has years working in the state and council member.

So I think that's really important to have the spirit of the bill and the bill that has over 20 years of working in the building and we're going to need that expertise as we're working on bills through legislation. And so I just wanted to to share that as well. I think that's really important to have someone who has the experience working in the building to help STA move those bills along. And so just wanted to make that comment. Thank you.

I'm going to support the board member vang those 20 years by pretty quickly. Board member Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will say that there are several people on this diet that do have some experience over their legislature as well. I would just mention that.

But I do want to underscore. I do want to underscore bills or council's point here that whatever. And I didn't expect this to be controversial. I thought the chair nomination was going to be the bigger discussion.

Whatever decision we make today, obviously we are not bound to elevate that person from vice chair to chair next year. Right. And a lot will happen between now and then which could inform a decision on whether that person gets elevated in 2026. Okay. Thank you.

Good point.

Thank you very much. Well, I haven't had that much of a vice chair discussion ever. I think we've also done a lot of boards. So clearly, I think Madam Clerk, I think we're going to have to do a roll call vote on this one here.

So first let's do a roll call vote on the substitute motion and then see where we move from there. So I think we should have the substitute motion. Just let's make clear what it is.

The substitute motion is to nominate a board member getter. I mean, I guess I have to announce that way. It seems a little weird. I feel like, you know, what is it?

Ross Probe, but.

So I have to nominate board member getter as the vice chair. So is that clear council? It's clear to me. Okay, very good. One year. One year. One year. Okay, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Member Desmond. No. Member Dickinson. I. Member Hume. No. Member Kennedy.

Recognizing director Desmond's extreme experience at the Capitol. I'm still going to vote for Mr. Garrett. Yes.

Member Kent. Kent. Yes. Member Maple. Hi. Member Nelson. No. Member Rae Thal. No.

Member Rodriguez. I just want to say that I have a great deal of respect for you. Chair, but on this one's going to be a no.

I'm sure no. I. Member Singalin. Love you Eric, but I believe in sharing. So no. Member Spees. It's a process, not personality. No. Member Talamantes. Yes.

Member Gietta. Aye. Madam Clerk, can you tell you the votes?

We have eight yeses and seven noes. You need nine. Nine in order to pass. We need nine. Okay, so that measure fails. Let's move on to the substitute motion here.

The primary principle motion. We go back to the original to Mr. Moussion. Yes. We go back to the original motion and seeing no. No.

No. Any changes? I mean, missing. Well, there's no motions on the floor. This is on the. So let's. We're going back to the principle motion here.

So, let's just point board member. Let me read it again. Rise and throw.

Ray. Ray. Sorry. Board member. Ray. Tho as vice chair. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Member Desmond. Aye. Member Dickinson. Aye. Member Hume. Aye. Member Kennedy. Aye.

Member Kent. Aye. Member Maple. Aye. Member Kelsey. Aye.

We can't. We can't. Member Maple. Member Maple. Member Maple. Okay. Member Kelsey Nelson. Aye. Member Rae Tho. Aye.

Member Rodriguez. Aye. Vice chair. Serna. Aye. Member Singh Allen. Aye. Member Spees. Aye. Member Thalamantes. No.

You're supposed to know. No. Okay. Member Vang. No. And member Gera. Gera. Aye.

Member Clerk, please tell you the roll.

That is 13 eyes and.

Two knows that does pass. Okay. Thank you. Measure passes. Okay. That is the lively as vice chair debate we've ever had.

I think in anyone. So let's move.

I think. I think. I think it's the. I think it's the. The way that.

It's the moving the chair and the vice chair but so that they can.

All right. Yeah. Okay. That's one.

Yes. Here.

So we're.

We're going to go take a brief recess or no. Just a two minute two seconds.

Two seconds. But we'll give you 15 seconds here. We're taking 15 second recess.

Everyone. This is the time to make some changes.

Okay.

I'd like to call back to order this meeting of the Sacramento Transportation Authority. Board of Directors.

Member Clerk, please call the roll and raise the motion.

Member Desmond. Dickinson.

Here. Kennedy. Here. Kent.

Maple.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Senior Allen.

Here.

Spees.

Here.

Salamonthas.

Here.

Vang.

Here.

Gettah.

Here.

And chair Surnah.

Here.

Thank you. You have a corner.

All right. We're good. We are going to now move on to the balance of our agenda and Madam Clerk.

What's our next item?

Next item is consent matters.

Item number 4 through 12.

Very good. Thank you. Any member of the authority board have questions or wish to pull anything off the agenda for separate votes?

Second.

Been moved in seconds.

Madam Clerk, do we have any one time to speak on consent?

I do not.

Okay. Very good. Then I think we can do a voice vote on this.

That's correct.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed abstain?

Motion carries. Thank you.

All right. Next item, please.

Item number 13 is appointment of a non-voting director and alternate to the capital area regional tolling authority.

Mr. Busy.

Yeah. The interest of time I will go very fast.

Thank you.

I have to get up here and chair by chair.

I'm here talking about appointment of a non-voting director and alternate to capital area tolling authority.

Why does CARDA exist? CARDA is the capital area regional tolling authority.

It is responsible for operating the Olo main manage lane project in Olo County, which is going to be in construction very soon if not already.

And it will serve as the regional tolling authority, which includes Sacramento County.

I just very once background there is a large network of manage lane, specifically toll lanes that are proposed throughout the four county area.

Most of those are in Sacramento County.

So CARDA's purpose is to own, manage, operate those toll facilities, make policies decisions related to toll operations and costs, and then collect toll revenue and adopt plans for expenditure.

So anticipated efforts for CARDA in 2025-26.

We're going to, CARDA will adopt a CARDA mission vision and values.

They will do a pre-revenue operating budget priorities.

So this is an agency that exists without any actual revenue in the near term.

They've got to figure out how to fund that agency.

They're looking at their staffing structure as it grows from kind of where it is now to full operation.

And then set some regional toll policy to guide both the Olo and the manage lane projects in future projects and then hopefully a regional toll equity policies as well.

So the CARDA Board of Directors, I've shown here, it's fairly somewhat complicated, but the current initial members are CalTrans, SaeColgan, YOLO, TD, STA, Plaster County Transportation Planning Agency and El Dorado County Transportation Commission are future members.

And so we get to appoint a non-voting director.

The other non-voting members have appointed their executive director. For us, we appointed Eric Guerra this last year.

So non-voting director appointment can be either governing board members or STA staff.

So when and where the meetings, the meetings are gone from quarterly to monthly, because there's a lot of policy decisions that you made.

It is a Thursday of the month at noon.

And board meeting locations are SaeColgan's offices.

A couple of considerations for this. So CARDA's near term focus is the Olo, EAD, manage lane project, but the next project is the I-5, manage lane project, which is in the city of Sacramento or Council Member Talamontis is district supervisor.

Desmond has already been appointed by SaeColgan, so he is already on the board. So we do have county representation.

And then from talking with CARDA staff, they would prefer an elected, because if you look to the board structure, it's a variety of electives there.

So it makes sense for us to point someone at equal level to be part of those discussions, especially when we have a non-voting director, they're already limited.

And they are also because of a lot of policy decisions that need to be made in 25 and 26. They would recommend a two-year appointment if feasible.

So the recommended action is appoint a non-voting director from the city of Sacramento for 2025 and 2026, but contingent upon no change in the appointment to supervisor Desmond, because we want to continue to have a balance between, I think from a staff standpoint, we have the balance between the county's interest and the sea's interest.

So potentially SaeColgan changed their appointment next year, and if that does happen, we revisit it. And then we'd also need a point on non-voting director.

That's staff recommendations. Open any questions?

Thank you. One question. So the recommended action for this board is to collectively appoint that alternate, correct?

Correct. And appoint a non-voting director and an alternate.

Okay. Great. All right. Very good.

Just in terms of process, if you want to try a little bit differently on this one, you could just take nominations and find out, you know, if there's interest from more than one person.

There's no nomination right now just making me flinch.

Okay. When I say, when I say nomination, I mean informal. And motion is a formal nomination. All right.

So if you just want to discuss who, if, you know, more than one person is interested in being this director or alternate.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Burt. Rich Desmond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thoughts exactly about the nomination. But, you know, partially to restore my recently damaged relationship with my friend, Director Getta.

I do nominate him to remain as the member from the city Sacramento. And I think the reason is, Carter just got off the ground. We just started. We only had a few meetings.

And I think at this point, certainly important to keep that continuity at least for another year. So I nominate director Getta.

I'll second that.

Oh.

Is that a motion to appoint director Getta council?

Is there a second to that motion? I second it.

Okay. It's been moved in second for the appointment for director Getta to serve as the principal non-voting. Is that the right term to use?

No, alternate along with that.

Well, we got others in the queue. Unless director Desmond wants to make it a combined motion.

Okay. So thank you for that. And director Hume.

Thank you, Chair. Can I ask a question? Who is our current alternate on the board?

I think the current alternate on the board is the current alternate on the board.

I think it's the current alternate on the board.

I think it's the current alternate on the board.

That's what I thought it was.

So in risk of soling my relationship with supervisor Desmond, I remember the last time that this came up.

Director Tala Montess really wanted to be on this board.

So the next thing I would make a motion for director Tala Montess to ascend.

And in order to further alienate myself from supervisor Desmond, I will second that motion.

All right. So now, let me just let me try and clarify as we go along.

So now we have a principal motion that would seek to appoint Rhea Point, Eric Getta,

as the principal non-voting member. And it's been seconded.

Now we have a substitute motion for the same post for director Tala Montess and there is a second.

So please, those of you in the queue, please try and make that clear when you choose to speak.

And Madam Clerk, Phil Pluckybaum's not here. Is there any way to clear that?

Oh my goodness.

Who's Phil Pluckybaum today?

All right.

The better question is, who's Phil Pluckybaum?

Who's the cast?

I can't get to bring him.

All right. Next in the queue is Justin Maple.

Justin Maple, what's there?

I will be brief. I was just going to second the substitute, want to support director Tala Montess.

Thank you.

Okay. All right. So now I believe.

Actually, can I?

Yeah. I have Eric Getta as Phil Pluckybaum next.

Eric Getta as Phil Pluckybaum here today.

People confuse us all the time.

I know I was going to support the substitute motion.

I know the biggest impacts are going to be in the North and Thomas area.

And so I want to support the substitute motion and then hopefully get my Thursday lunches back.

Here you go. All right. Very good.

Okay. No one else is in the queue.

Madam Clerk, is there any one time to speak on this?

If there is, that's a new one on me.

We do have Dan Allison.

Okay. All right. Mr. Allison. No?

He's writing funny.

Oh, 13. This is 13 and 40.

This is 13.

Oh, I'm sorry.

All that board discussion confused me.

Dan Allison, I'm a resident city of Sacramento.

I want to support this not about a person, but about having that representation.

I believe that tolling of freeways is the future for the county, for the region, and for the state.

And it's really important that the transportation authority be part of that conversation.

That's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Okay. Mr. Garrett.

Thank you, Mr. Board Member, sir.

I think we could take a voice vote on this way.

Well, hold on. Let me just a matter of process here.

Knowing what we now know, Mr. Desmond, do you want to withdraw your motion?

I'm not going to withdraw my motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And as a seconder of the motion.

Yes, I withdraw.

All right. Now we actually have a new one and only principal motion.

Born from a substitute motion.

All right. So everyone's clear.

All right.

All right. All right. So we will do a voice vote on this.

All right. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed abstain?

Motion carries. Thank God.

All right.

All right.

Okay. You still need an alternate.

We still need an alternate.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Got out under control here.

All right. So now we are going to consider nominations that for the sake of consistency should come in the form of a motion

for an alternate.

Right?

Okay. Any one cared to make a motion?

Mr. Chair?

Yes.

In keeping with complete unprecedented precedent, I would nominate Director Gerda to be the alternate.

All right.

It's been moved and seconded.

Any other comments or not?

Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any one time to speak on this?

We do not have any additions.

All right. Very good. I think we are going to do a simple voice vote. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed abstain?

Motion carries. All right. Very good.

We are, I think we are done with parliamentary stuff today.

All right.

I have two.

Okay. 1340. All right. Next item, please.

Next item, item number 14, to receive a presentation on transportation planning and funding and discuss county white transportation planning.

All right.

Mr. Busey.

Yeah. See we are running low on time.

I will try to speed this up.

Good afternoon, Chair.

I'm here to present on this item.

So why does SCA need planning? Let's talk about the transportation plan.

Let's talk about that.

So STA was created to bring additional transportation funding to projects in Sacramento County.

We do that through measure A. We do that through our impact fees.

We are looking at other revenue, whether that is toll revenue or BMT mitigation.

And one of the measure A taxpayer safeguards is STA will continue to seek the maximum funding for transportation,

improvements through state and federal programs.

And since measure A passed, there has been an increase in state and federal competitive grant funds, whether that is SB1 in 2017,

or the infrastructure investment in jobs act in 2021 at the federal level.

So we have a lot of funding that is coming in at the state and federal level, but it is competitive.

And in order for us to compete for those funds to leverage measure A, we really need is we need to lead with planning, right?

Planning has to come first. I talked about in my first presentation that there's some planning that has to happen.

And once that plan is completed, only then after that is completed, you are eligible for grants.

That's the case for both SB1. That's the case for some of these competitive grant programs.

In addition, some of these grants are very expensive to put together.

Could cost upwards of $100,000 to put a grant application together.

Especially at the federal level, they want to see a benefit cost analysis.

They want to show how you're meeting all the grant rights here.

There's a lot of planning, sort of outreach coordination that all goes into putting those applications together.

So what are the transportation planning interests?

So when I met with staff, what did I hear from them as far as their interest, right?

So they wanted to improve coordination and collaboration amongst transportation agencies.

They want to align transportation priorities between jurisdictions.

So for example, that's the stock tumble of our BRT and multi-mold partnership.

Identify and develop county-wide priority projects for partnering.

A good example of that would be the Farm to Market route work that Sacramento, South Sacramento County is looking at.

Partner and collaborate with the joining counties in SACOG.

A good example of that is the partnership with PCTPA that we have to do the update to the Placer Sacramento Gateway Plan, which will make us eligible for certain SB1 funds on that corridor.

And then implement federal and state grant strategies to advance local priorities.

We've been doing that to some degree.

Ensure a fair share of federal and state funding.

We've been doing some of that working with SACOG.

Develop a shared vision for the county's transportation future.

That's something we probably haven't really done.

We're starting to do that now with this county-wide safety action plan.

But we could go further in that regard.

And then obviously closely coordinating that vision with SACOG's regional plan.

So how is transportation planning funded just to kind of on a high level overview for everyone?

So there's non-competitive state planning funds.

There's competitive planning funds and there's local planning funds.

So at the state, non-competitive state planning funds, there's two main sources of that.

There's a step or state transportation improvement program.

And then there's the Transportation Development Act.

Those are the two funding sources.

And the agencies that receive the non-competitive state planning funds are the regional transportation planning agencies.

The county transportation commissions, such as SACOG created, or SCAD created, sorry.

And the county transportation agencies, which exist within MTC, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.

So I would generally speak about 54 or 58 counties are receiving those planning funds

as either through their RTPA designation, CTC or CTA designation.

This gives you kind of a high level overview.

So if you look at eight largest counties, they are all receiving these state plan,

these non-competitive state planning funds, except for Sacramento, that Sacramento is the exception.

And so when you're looking at a competitive grant environment and you're trying to position projects for funding,

specifically Sacramento is a bit disadvantaged in that area.

And then from a, you look at the SACOG summary, it's, you know, really interesting.

So Sacramento obviously doesn't get any non-competitive state planning funds.

Placer does, Yolo does not, El Rado does, but Saturn you, but it is not.

It's quite interesting, but that is the way it's set up right now.

Competitive planning funds are also an option.

So you have federal and state planning grant programs.

There are a variety of those programs.

They require local matching funds and they require staff to manage.

And in order to get those planning funds, you actually have to, you have to have something that aligns with those specific programs.

So if you want to do planning that doesn't align with those competitive grant criteria, you can't get competitive grant funding for it.

And then there's local funding.

So transportation sales tax revenues, some self-help counties have put a set aside for planning.

There's potentially, you could use development impacts fees, but you'd have to ensure there's an access to new development.

And then potentially even member contributions, which is some agencies within Sacramento do such as SACOG.

And this is the last slide beautifully enough.

So I've talked about, you know, where the interests are at the staff level.

I've talked about where the funding sources could be.

But right now I would love a wonderful discussion on what are the interests of the SDA governing board.

In these three kind of buckets being countywide, that county-kind coordination role, that grant strategy role, and that even more that funding and plenty of equity role.

Obviously, the next steps, if we get some consensus here, would be to explore and consider options to fund those efforts.

So with that, I'm opening any questions.

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Bucy.

First and the queue is Director Keum.

Thank you, Chair.

First of all, I just want to congratulate you, Kevin, for the staff report.

I think it struck a very informational tone.

It presented things in a factual manner in order to have a conversation.

And I know that there's a representative from Sae Cog in the room, as well as RT and Parrot Transit, and potentially other agencies who either are involved or benefit from the flow of partner agency dollars to the region.

And so I just wanted to lead out by saying that this conversation, I believe, needn't be adversarial or confrontational.

And I think that we can have a good discussion exploring the maximizing use of dollars flowing to this region and making sure that we're doing that in a way that benefits our shared constituents.

And so I just have a couple of questions relative to the information provided in the staff report.

The first is, I believe it said that 54 of the 58 counties have either RTPA, CTC, or CTA status, and so that the only four that do not have that layer would be the four that are within the Sae Cog in PO.

Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. And I will just quickly note, and I forgot to, is we have a contract with Sylia McAdams behind me, who is the former Executive Director of PCTPA,

who can answer, if we get into really into weeds, we got her as support. So, yes.

Well, thank you for that introduction. I did not have the pleasure of meeting you, but you come with high esteem attached to your reputation.

So we appreciate your input as we kind of tease out some of these issues.

So of the three options, two require statutory legislation or some sort of enabling document.

One is a regional agreement that would be struck, the CTA, who would be the signatories to that regional agreement?

Yeah, so the way that's specifically the MTC model, and they have counties and they have agreements in place.

So for us, it would be an agreement between Sae Cog and STA on how some of those funds could flow down to us, and then there's associated responsibilities that would shift down to STA to make some of those decisions.

And so, if I heard you correctly, then that could, in a way, take place without any functional change to how these agencies operate today, right?

It would just be an understanding much like the TDA split letter of what is competitive, what is formulaic, who gets what, et cetera.

It would be between the agencies or between this agency and...

That could be a compromise we end up at, yes.

Okay. And then because only the state funds are subject to this structure, and that the federal funds must flow through the MPO,

is there an economy of scale relative to administering both funds, and or the second part of that question would be,

if the STA elevated its role in transportation planning, what would you anticipate the staff needs to be in order, what, who we would have to bring on to accomplish those roles?

Is there a third part? Is there a third?

I could show my session.

I'm sure I could come up with one if you give me a hand.

Yeah, seriously.

Man, so as far as economy of scale, I mean, I think you have to be careful about...

If that's the only factor, then, you know, you could say, it would be a lot easier if there were no incorporated cities, and all this is remain at the county level.

Right? So, I know.

I know. But I mean, there's a benefit, right?

So, I think it's kind of how you look at it. I mean, we are a sales tax agency that manages, manages, you know, $185 million in funding.

Say, COG manages $100 million in a quarter-cent sales tax measure, right?

And so, why do we have two agencies managing separate sales tax?

So, I think there's an economy... I'm not sure the economy...

I think there's economies, whether either way, when you look at it, I think we could figure that out.

I'm not sure... And I think that, in my book, you know, I think there's a cost to having better local decisions that are made.

I'd rather pay a little more to actually feel like we have a more buy-in to the decisions that are made than anything.

I think that's relevant.

And then, as far as staffing, I mean, you know, where do you get three staff?

So, but if you look at like Eldrotto and Placer, they only have, they have like five or six.

And so, and I think there's some overlap already with what we have.

So, I mean, we're talking about two, maybe three more staff, maybe, depending on where we get... how much we do.

Okay, so then, by that answer, you kind of lead me into my next question.

And then, that's it. And I'm curious to hear from my colleagues.

But, would this agency be able to morph into a CTA?

Yeah, I think that would be feasible.

I don't think that's a concern. Yeah. We should be able to.

CTAs are basically joint powers authorities that are created between the counties and the cities that receive both federal and state funding down from MTC under a specific agreement.

I think we could obviously morph into that.

Okay, thank you, Chair.

Mr. Reviser, Desmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And first, I'll just start by saying it may be that I apologize for perhaps an inarferally made motion a few months ago has resulted in an awful lot of discussion by an awful lot of people.

But I think it's actually really healthy. And I do really appreciate that the staff report, Kevin.

And I think we haven't probably haven't had this discussion enough really among the Sacramento County collectively, you know, jurisdictions.

It's an important one to have. You know, kind of what is our role at STA visa V say cog.

Are we getting our fair share over time?

And I think that, you know, for me, I've been on the say cog board for four years.

And we've had this discussion at say cog.

We've had the discussion of a discussion with other other members on this dius here at say cog board about that very thing about.

Our first loyalty is to all of us. I think our jurisdiction in Sacramento County.

But we also understand the importance and the value of regionalism. We're not willing to sacrifice our own local jurisdictions on that ultra of regionalism.

But it is extremely important for us to maintain that commitment to a regional approach through say cog.

And I think with that in mind, with the assistance and collaboration of say cog and a lot of other jurisdictions.

They started redoing the competitive funding around how they handled the competitive funding around.

I think in light of some of these concerns coming out of Sacramento County jurisdictions.

And I will say that I'm extremely pleased on where, how far we have come with say cog.

And, you know, Mr. Coralus is out here and I know he'll be offering some public comment.

You know, he and I sat down at a conversation where, look, if you're looking at a regional approach for these dollars, it may not be coincide or may not be purported.

It may not be proportional to your lane miles or population in any given year.

But over time, it should be fair fairness over time. And I think that's what we need to strive for.

And so I think you, James, and I think say cog for that work in that regard. I think we've done a lot.

I also really appreciate Super Reserve Human really zeroing in on that CTA issue.

Because that's something that I really looked at too. I mean, they're correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin.

But there's a huge difference between an RTPA and a CTA. Is that correct?

There's a difference. I mean, there's a difference.

Yeah, RTPAs have certain authority that we would not have. I mean, or that a CTA would not have.

Specifically, they're eligible to meet for certain competitive programs.

And I think they handle like the SB 125 differently.

Okay. Yeah.

Well, that also underscores, I think the fact that this is not a conversation that's going to be done today.

You know, there's a lot of complex nuances to this discussion.

But I'm interested in that in that CTA model. Is that because you look at that chart,

it looks like we have nothing in Sacramento County. What we do, we have say cog.

We participate in say cog and have a good and I think really improving relationship and partnership with say cog in our recognition.

That there should be fairness over time and the dollars that can should come to Sacramento County for us to debate on how those, how those dollars get spent.

So I would like to see, you know, Mr. Corpus, when you do come up and offer public comment, I hope you can maybe comment on the CTA and perhaps I forgot former RTPA.

I would like to hear your comment about that as well.

So I'm going to stop there. You know, you look, you want board direction on these three, you know, kind of objectives.

I would say, I'm interested in all three of them. And I think we should continue exploring really all three of them.

And I think this is something that really screams for maybe more discussion by a subcommittee or something.

But I'll stop there and look forward to your comments and additional comments from the board members.

But just really want to thank you for bringing this up and really appreciate the discussion.

Director Kennedy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a lot more things to say before my colleagues did.

But I first of all, I'll agree with Mr. Hume and saying that I did appreciate the tenor and the tone of the staff report in being that it was informative without being in any one direction and pushing the board.

Because this is something that we need analysis of. I agree with Mr. Desmond in that.

I think this has been posed as status quo or RTPA.

And I don't think that's the question that we should be having in front of us.

I think that there's other options that could get us closer to where we want to be as an organization, the STA, for funding our local jurisdictions.

I think that regionalism is extremely important and it's losing its popularity.

But when it comes to a particularly a transportation issue, transportation does not respect political boundaries.

So I would be very sorry to see if this organization or any of the organizations that many of us sit on would lose sight of the fact that we have to plan transportation on a regional basis.

That being said, what I would like and we're not taking action here today, but my direction is one board member would be that we look at what our options are.

First of all, it needs to be delineated what it is that we want to achieve by this.

Are we trying to come up with a solution to a problem we haven't defined? I kind of feel that way.

So I want to identify what is it that we're trying to do here and be very clear about that.

But I'd also like to look at our options between status quo, the way it is today and RTPA.

I think there are other options in between there, maybe more than three, that we could look at as a board and consider.

And I'd really want to see really nailed down pros and cons of each one.

As I said, Mr. Bucy, I completely appreciate what you did put together, but it's not something we could make a decision on by any means.

So if we were to make a decision, I'd need a lot more data on why this is good for this organization and our individual jurisdictions, and why it's also good for the region because we have to maintain a vision on regional planning when it comes to transportation.

Thank you.

Great. Real quick, before we go to our next commenter here from Das, just another time check.

We're going to lose five members of this board here in probably 15 minutes.

So I'll keep that in mind. Director Singalind and Director Kent, who I accidentally took out of the queue, but I'm putting them back in.

Thank you.

So with respect to Director Desmond's comments and even Director Kennedy's comments, we do want to have, I think, a more thorough discussion and get the data as we explore funding sources.

So while there's no action item before us, can we form an ad hoc committee of five members to do the deeper dives, perhaps, and then provide a report?

I'm not really out loud here, but I procedurally legally can we form a subcommittee to study funding options?

It's not an action item, but I would say to form a subcommittee with no explicit direction on where it's supposed to go.

I would say yes without it being agendized.

If there's no substantive action taken and just a subcommittee, that would give us a report back presumably.

Yes.

Okay.

So I guess I'll make a motion then to form an ad hoc committee.

It's not a motion because it's not a agenda, is right?

So how do we do this?

How do we have an ad hoc committee?

Put a fee direction to the second of your book.

I think it's general direction.

I will articulate it.

I think we see that take a poll of folks afterwards does not be today from here, but talk to individual board members to see if they'd prefer to serve on this ad hoc committee that is not going to produce anything in particular other than information back to the general board.

I think this is great information, so thank you for providing this and providing it as information only.

But based on the comments that I've heard, I definitely am supportive of having this ad hoc committee so that we can have a more thoughtful conversation and look at all the pros and cons and all of the data-driven decision making that will go into what we ultimately may do in a year or so or whatever it leads.

Maybe it leads nowhere.

So that would be my preference.

Okay.

Thank you.

Director Kent.

Thank you.

So in the alphabet soup of funding sources and the directed graph of their disbursement, I just like to offer a general metaphor.

When it comes to funding sources for the region, I prefer to collect more but not play a diversion game.

And speaking to supervisor Hume or board member Humes, a question about economy of scale.

What I would want to know would be in the formation of these agencies, RTPA or CTA, what the duplication of effort would be compared to what we are currently processing.

If I find or if we find that staff work is considerably duplicated, then we would have to find a way to avoid that to meet the subjective.

Is that a direct question to our executive director?

Yeah, I'd like some advice on what you think the duplication would be and whether you think we can collect more without diverting from one side or another.

Yes, I will reference the current model where Placer County and El Rado County operate as RTPAs with CACOG and they have an MOU in place on how everything will work.

And because of that duplication of effort, there is money that flows from the RTPA to CACOG to do certain work that makes more sense at a six county region, six county level, then at a one county level.

So that's how they balance it currently. I would assume that could be an option for us as well.

And I would just add to that that I suspect that a ad hoc committee might dive a little deeper and give us some nuance to it.

All right, Director Gatta.

Thank you very much, Chair.

One, I do also think that as we attempt to pontificate on the board here, I would encourage us to work with the professional advisory group.

We have a group of DOT professionals within our own jurisdictions who do this work already and they are coordinating.

Again, I think this is a good exercise on for, I guess, this board to discuss, okay, well, what is the future of STA?

But I, number one, I think having that response from the professional advisory group in our DOT from our respective agencies is, I think, the first question, giving, gets some internal feedback in the second, is, I think, to what board member Kennedy mentioned, which is,

we have an undefined problem. There's all of these other issues. I think the unifying sentiment is we feel we're not getting enough. Like everybody always feels that way.

But I think the real issues, we have an undefined problem. And if the undefined problem is, we don't have enough for our deferred maintenance. Well, the number one issue is the transportation measure. That's the eye on the prize.

So I also would hope that this agent, this body, maybe the subcommittee can take some time to work on that. But the number one priority should be putting together a viable and responsible transportation measure that deals with the multi-billion dollars of deferred maintenance in our county.

So these, these other pots are in the, in the millions, sometimes in the tens of millions, 100 millions if we're lucky. But, but the real issue here that I hope we do not get distracted from is our transportation measure.

I agree also with the, if the undefined problem is that we need to be more effective competitively for state and federal dollars. If that's the undefined problem, then maybe this CTA concept is an option. But if we're duplicating efforts, again, that's a cost. And we don't just get planning staff without a funding source. So where are we going to pay for that, that staff.

And are we duplicating what cities and are already doing. And I'm sure the county has their own work as well. So that is my concern. So I would say identifying those issues. And just to highlight that this agency should not lose its focus on what is a multi-billion, multi-billions in deferred maintenance for our county.

I think you just warmed up to your seat made there. All right. All right.

Director Dickinson, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Stoking my long white beard here as old man time. Just a note or two.

First of all, with respect to the way Placer County and Eldrato County are treated, these are the say cog. Those are, they are really historical antecedents. That is not something that occurred because there was a conscious discussion of what the arrangement ought to be.

So looking at them as exemplars of something that should be duplicated or replicated in this region, I don't think makes carries is very compelling.

Secondly, we referred to this earlier in 1988 when Measure A was adopted by the voters originally. STA was created for one reason and one reason only. And that was to be the recipient of the sales tax revenue to apportion out to the jurisdictions, the cities and regional transit primarily and the disabled service provider.

It had no other designated or identified purpose or function. Now that has changed some over over the years. And perhaps this is an important moment in time to examine whether this entity ought to continue to pursue expanding its role in responsibility or not.

I think that certainly something within the purview of this board, but I do think it's always worthwhile considering what the purpose and intent of the creation of any entity was at its founding.

For a couple of reasons, I have to say I don't think that pursuing this issue makes sense at this time. Some of this is the same reasoning that Member Guerra has articulated.

But this is a time to keep our eye on the ball. And the ball is how we generate more revenue for transportation and mobility purposes in the county of Sacramento. That ball is going to be carried primarily by a measure that we can put together, hopefully with unanimity to put before the voters next year.

If there's any lesson that we all should have learned about this exercise from the last two times around the block, one with a measure that didn't go on the ballot in 2020 and one that did in 2022 and failed, is we cannot afford division.

That is a recipe for losing. And we also ought to have recognized how difficult it is to reach critical mass on these issues.

Anything that distracts our attention from putting together a measure that will stand the test with the voters is time misspent in my opinion.

Secondly, as Member Guerra raised, I am very concerned about the duplication of effort and more importantly that we would spend money.

We don't have the luxury of not spending our money to get a result that translates into improved mobility for the citizens of this county and of this region.

So anything that compromises that purpose to me does not make sense.

Finally, the idea, and I know that no one is ready to broach this just at this point, but one has to, I think, reasonably look down the line a little bit, the idea that we would fashion legislation along the lines that might be suggested for the purpose of creating an RTPA or other form of organization is not going to move through the legislature this year.

That's just a simple fact. And so again, why spend our time, energy, and effort to try to examine something that by virtually any measure is not going to have any chance of success.

There's a lot more groundwork that would need to be done. The timing needs to be different if this is pursued at all.

And so the creation of a subcommittee seems innocuous enough. Let's get more information. Let's examine the issues, but I would repeat.

Anything that takes our attention away from doing what's most important, and that's getting a tax measure that the voters will find acceptable is diluting our effort and is unproductive.

So I personally would put this on the shelf for the time being. I wouldn't necessarily say forever that depends. But I certainly wouldn't spend our time, staff's time, the public's time on this, at this critical time, where we need to be doing other work that takes priority.

Thank you, Director Talmonte.

Thank you so much, Chair. While I agree with my council member, Director, right now here are directors, right?

Director Dickinson. I agree with having a focus on measure A. I mean, that should be front, mine, and center. But in the last two and a half weeks, I have learned more about transportation funding.

And how R.T. Say Cog and S.T.A. work together, and about R.T. P.A.s and C.T.A.s, then I've learned in the last two years as a new council member for the City Sacramento.

And so even though I'm hearing from people and I've learned from the grapevine, that it's a terrible idea for X, Y, and Z reason, my mind will always be curious.

But what if, and if the answer is like, hey, this isn't going to work because of, and staff comes out with a report of X, Y, and Z reasons and what's historically been done and how I got here, I'd be okay with that.

I just like, in the last two and a half weeks, I didn't like the fact that we as a board up here were trying to say whether it was a good idea or a bad idea within ourselves.

Like, we have staff for a reason, and we have great transportation and funding experts.

So let's hear from staff in here why it's a good idea or a bad idea. And if it's a bad idea, that's okay too. We won't do it, we won't pursue it.

But our jobs as elected officials is always to be challenging our own conventional thinking, to think creatively, to be more efficient in taxpayer dollars and be transparent.

So I, 100% I'm just like, hey, let's focus on the measure because that's the most important thing in front of us.

But I don't think it harms anyone with having a subcommittee and just learning more about it because I think we all become better for it.

And I can just say for myself, I have learned a lot in the last two and a half weeks and have had so many amazing conversations, even learning about say,

I think the last two years I was in the last two years, I was not aware of it. And there's just a lot going on.

And so I just think that for the public, it's important for us to have a report and to continue these conversations. I think it's what people want of us.

Thank you, Director Bang.

Thanks. I'll keep my comments short because I know we have a few of us have to leave.

I recognize that there are several members on our STA board that's not part of say, cog.

And I think that if we decide to explore a subcommittee, I do think that having a workshop for the full board is going to be really important because even if we have an ad hoc, it's really important for the full board to be equipped with all the knowledge and tools.

And so, you know, whatever the direction is to our staff, I would also love the opportunity for say cog to come and present to the full board about just the funding mechanism.

I know there's a lot of concerns that perhaps our county is not getting our fair share. And I think it's important for say cog to be here and to kind of break down how the funding works as we explore the various options.

So that would be my addition to the direction. And then the other piece I just want to echo council member Dick Dickinson about that our main focus should really should be on this on the transportation measure.

What I do just do I worry about is that, you know, while we're creating a subcommittee to explore this, I rather have a subcommittee really exploring a transportation measure, right?

If I had to choose between the two, I want to be very mindful of that because we're all stretch, we're all elected officials in our own jurisdiction.

We have a lot on our plate. And if I had a shoot between either or it would be the transportation measure. And so I just want my colleagues to be really mindful of that.

But I would definitely I would love to request for say cog to come present given that not everyone on here is part of say cog so they can understand how the funding funding works. Thank you.

I don't have any other directors in the queue. I'll just add before you hear public comment that I think we can do both. I'm not one to advocate stifling any of my fellow directors wanting to be perhaps better informed and perhaps share information that the rest of us don't have availability of so I think it is healthy for as I mentioned Kevin to, you know, see if there's any other way to do that.

I know see if there is enough interest among board members for an ad hoc committee that can go off and spend their time and energy to as director Kennedy first mentioned I think rightfully so.

You know what is the debt first of all starting with definition of the problem does one exist. And also I think respecting the fact that I think director Dickinson makes perhaps the strongest point made here today about what our mission is and what our focus needs to be so again I'll that that can be handled administratively we don't need to make any formal appointment as it's an ad hoc committee.

So with that I have Madam Clerk one speaker slip.

So we will start with Dan Ellison.

Thank you Dan Ellison again or is it an Sacramento.

I don't have much to say about the structure of SDA because there's a lot of different ideas and a lot of complexity there but what I do want to speak to is planning entirely apart from the structure more planning needs to happen.

I want to particularly point out Mr. Busy slide three item G develop a shared vision for the county's transportation future I don't believe we have that.

And having been a core part of the opposition to the two failed ballot measures I can tell you if there's not a clear vision presented along with the measure it will fail again it needs to be transformative and it needs to be clear to people what they're really getting.

The weakness of the two previous measures with they were just project lists there wasn't really any idea about what are we going to accomplish with this I remember when I first started attending SDA meetings.

Basically the policy was you don't question my project I don't question your project we're all okay and thankfully the board has evolved beyond that narrow limited thing but that's what showed up in the ballot measures is just a list of projects with no clear vision so however it's accomplished I would like there to be a planning effort that addresses that what is the vision that the board has thank you.

Before we continue with public comment Mr. B. C. Did you have something to say.

Yeah just really quickly so I think what I'm getting direction on is one great ad hoc subcommittee to kind of look at these options I think I've got you know I think I got enough direction to understand that the a transportation measure in 2026 is probably a priority.

And so this this ad hoc would be a little bit of a sort of on the back burner but continuing to meet with the priority is the new measure and then at risk of me providing my own input I just want to point out that I think it is really important that we pass a sales tax measure it is billions of dollars however it is also almost equally as important that we want to leverage that that eight billion dollars to with federal and state grants so I don't want to be a part of that.

I don't want to completely take my off of the federal leveraging component and the state funding component of that so I think both discussions are important we can prioritize the measure effort but we'll continue this ad hoc as well hopefully that sounds correct.

Great thank you.

That's what I'm hearing yes we can walk in to go all right.

Mr. Corulus.

Thank you chair.

I was just going to listen to your discussion today because I know you were all eager to have this discussion director Desmond set me up.

I thought I was going to say something so just a few things first of all I give a lot of credit to executive director Busey here he's done exactly I think what you all wanted which is laid out right some key questions so that you could be you could begin a discussion on what is it what are the gaps.

You want to fill what more do you want to be besides a sales tax authority and then how can you find the resources to fill those gaps right great questions and if you want to have an ad hoc we'd love to be part of that help you continue discussion I'm happy to come back for the full board and do a workshop.

So great memo I will say the attachment that so show Sacramento County kind of NA that you it's almost like you're orphaned right here in Sacramento County nobody's looking after you I think that's just a little misleading we are the RTPA for four counties in the Bay Area their cog MPO is the RTP for nine counties and in Southern California they're the RTP for six counties and as director Dickinson said in some ways plaster in Alderado or a historical artifact from the nineteen seven.

We're also the MPO I we've got a written comment in the record there and I would just say I think what we have suggested in that written comment is and what I've heard a little bit today is we want to make sure you want to make sure I hear that you're getting your fair share of dollars right you're not having dollars it should come to Sacramento County goes somewhere else.

As director Desmond said we've just spent two years with the say cog board director buc and every single other public works entity in the six we've never done this before we've revamped our entire funding round you could not have more certainty that Sacramento County dollars stay in Sacramento number one so that's something you do get within our TPA we've done that in other words we've actually giving you that benefit which is great number two what can you do to grow the pie increase resources and I just would be very mindful that we're not shuffling

money we're actually growing resources and secondly never you have said let's not be redundant let's not create another level of government that does the same thing with half half the money because we're splitting it down the middle so with all that great discussion always I'm happy to answer questions and come back whenever you want.

Thank you James any questions for executive director Corlus yes director Hume.

Not for Mr. Corlus for once public comment is okay last speaker on the side of Mr. Barnum.

Thank you excellent presentation by executive director buc and and the staff just wanted to expand a little bit further on the example given about county wide example involving the county and one or two cities in the presentation with something was mentioned about stock.

And I reminded me to bring up kind of expanding it to regional level to the point director Kennedy made and I want to expand on that to mention sent to Chi boulevard Wadavinew south Wadavinew Elkrow Florent Road as another corridor between Elkrow and West Roseville and involves possibly the edge of the city of Sacramento and the city of Sacramento and

both of course the county of Sacramento and the county of Placer and so there's something that could be done on a regional level with one roadway under four different roadway names as a possibility to look into.

I like the idea director sing Allen you brought up about the the committees ad hoc committee subcommittees I like to maybe expand on that and hearing what director Vang mentioned everyone on the diocesan elected official they have a lot of schedules and and committees and subcommittees to to be at so perhaps looking at having the subcommittees be a combination of elected officials.

Transportation professionals and citizens at large one of the things you know if the eye on the prizes director gara said is going to be a ballot measure either next year on June 2nd or November 3rd.

We need to identify who had opposed the past to what would get them to go from the opposition to now the proposition those that would now favor the the ballot measure going forward thank you.

Okay director Q. Thank you chair appreciate the conversation today again I think it's one with swarth having it's one worth having amicably and I just want to reiterate that I don't think anything about this conversation or the questions being raised should suggest that anything untoward is happening but I think it's it's an important thing to just say is there some way we could be doing anything better toward that end.

I'm in favor of keeping all three options in play learning more about them and I would like to throw my hat in the ring to serve on a subcommittee should be formed.

Great all right thank you any final words Mr. Bucy.

All right very good I think I think this is the the nature of the conversation we all expected and I think it's productive one there are different differences of opinion but I appreciate my colleagues keeping it all very respectful so again this administratively to put a bow on this Mr. Bucy will be reaching out to those that have expressed interest to serve on this at all committee and with that.

Any final clerk can we go to our next item please I don't know what for 15 is to receive a fall the measure a cell stacks revenue forecast.

Yeah in the interest of time we're happy to weigh the presentation about okay thank you thanks for reading the room that is why me that's why me is soon to be one of the tertion running executive directors of this organization.

All right very good and so that brings us to comments right for from authority members any comments that haven't been already mentioned.

All right seen on I want to thank my colleagues for being here I want to thank members of the public for your testimony your comments Mr. Coralus thanks for being here and helping us along and thank you to my colleagues for entrusting me with the

gavel for the year so with that if there's no further business before the authority board we are June.