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

Uh Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll and establish a quorum?

Good afternoon.

Directors Dickinson.

Gieta.

Gera.

Here.

Say it right here.

Kent?

Here.

Kelsey Nelson.

Here.

Rafel.

Here.

Rodriguez.

Here.

Sing Allen.

Here.

Speace.

Here.

Bellamontes.

Chair Cerna.

Here.

And I'll make a note for the record that Director Vang is walking in.

And we do have a quorum.

Great.

If you can please read our statement.

This meeting of the Sacramento Transportation Authority is live and recorded with closed captioning.

It is cable cast on Metro Cable 14, the local government affairs channel on the Comcast and Direct TV versus cable systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro 14 Live.gov.

Today's meeting replays Sunday, September 14th at 2 o'clock p.m.

on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at YouTube.com slash Metro Cable 14.

To make an in-person public comment, please complete a speaker request 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 SATCounty.gov.

Your comment will be routed to the board and filed in the record.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh Mr.

Bucy, will you please do us the honor of leading us in today's pledge?

Is it the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands?

Under God, liberty and justice for all.

Great.

Thank you very much.

And again, I'd like to welcome everyone to uh today's STA authority uh board meeting.

Uh we have a full agenda, and again, as a uh reminder, we certainly welcome uh members of the public to address the authority board on any matters on our published agenda and uh matters not on our agenda.

We ask that you please keep your comments to no more than three minutes.

That way, everyone who wishes to address the authority board has that opportunity to do so.

So with that, Madam Clerk, our first item.

Our first item is comments from the public regarding matters not on the agenda.

Okay, I am not in receipt of any speaker slips.

Uh so I assume we do not have anyone that was the to uh address us on matters not on the agenda.

That is correct.

Okay, very good.

Next item, please.

The next item is our consent matters items two through eight.

And um, if I could have director Vang if you could log into the system so that we could take a vote in the system, so just the consent matters two through eight, Chair.

All right.

Uh any authority, uh board member wish to pull an item for separate consideration or comment uh or vote.

Yes.

Uh Director Dickinson.

I have a couple questions on item four, so I don't know if you want to take it off of uh consent or just ask the questions and still handle it.

Uh why don't we just go ahead and have the clerk read item four and you can ask your questions and we'll consider the totality of consent.

Sounds good.

Item number four is to receive and follow a contract with Lucas Public Affairs for Community Nissling session on transportation.

Thanks.

I just um I had just a couple questions uh about it.

Um has to do with uh with the stakeholder uh survey, and I was a little unclear um exactly who are the respondents to that because it in the description of the scope, it talks about an online survey of stakeholders and community representatives throughout the region, but then in the same paragraph it talks about collecting data, high level data from a targeted audience.

So does anybody here have who is the target?

How does the stakeholder survey tend to work?

I think you just defined the target audience being those stakeholders that are interested, stakeholders, community leaders.

Uh we're still we're trying to create a I think a short list.

I have a draft short list.

It's got like 175 different or different people on that list.

Um we're just gonna ask them a series of I think six qu six basic questions about transportation transportation needs.

Okay, so it's not a survey of the public generally, it's it's uh it's a by invitation request.

Yeah, yeah, we have to email it's an email survey through um like survey monkey either survey monkey or through Microsoft Forum.

So uh right now it's like 175 people.

I'm sorry, how many?

175?

Oh, okay.

I I just didn't if we're gonna do some polling.

I didn't want to uh have a have a duplication or a conflict if we're gonna do potentially uh widespread polling um in addition.

Okay, so it's okay.

That's uh helpful.

And then I assume the schedule is getting adjusted.

My other question was just about schedule, because the schedule talks about doing work in August, or obviously past August.

Does it uh does it push the end date into December, or are you still expecting the end date to be in November of this work?

I think um so this is uh receiving file for a contract we've executed in August.

We we've already started some work on it.

Um I think there are some key decisions that have there's some key information that we're waiting on as it relates to some of the timing.

And so I've already talked to the consultant about you know potentially extending the schedule out a little more.

Um, but right now we're waiting on some key things.

One is assembly bill 1223 gonna get signed by the governor, right?

Which give us the ability to do a do a sales tax measure.

And the second is the actual uh survey of likely voters that we're doing, where were the where are that where is the results of that gonna be, and it may dictate kind of uh our path forward and some timing.

So we do have the opportunity to sort of extend this out a little bit.

Um you'll notice that the contract term is well beyond the actual um, I think it goes through March.

So we have a little flexibility built into the contract.

Um, if we need to push some things out.

Does that help?

Well, it does to a certain extent.

Uh I mean the governor has until the middle of October to sign legislation.

So that would be a significant impact if you're waiting on on that, potentially, to the significant impact to the schedule, potentially, but also if we were still of any uh mind that we would entertain a June uh a June uh placement of a measure as opposed to November, the later you go the less likely that that becomes uh in terms of feasibility.

So I was just trying to understand what what your thinking is along with the consultant in terms of timing.

Yeah, I think I think generally, you know, the idea of this was just to really get an understanding from the stakeholders, right?

Who are very interested in transportation, as well as the community, where you know what's their feeling on unmet needs for transportation, um, as well as to uh maybe educate them on how their current measure a dollars are being used, um, and then to use that information to inform what the um subcommittee does uh or the recommendations that would ultimately come back to the full STA governing board.

And so this was really intended to try to um provide that additional, you know, additional uh input from the community.

Um and I think we were looking at a November time frame for something coming back from that subcommittee.

Yeah, and uh, but as I said, I think there's a few things that are we need to better understand in order to move forward with a recommendation November.

Um so I anticipate the next subcommittee meeting that the topic of the timing of this will be something we definitely talk about.

Okay.

Well, Mr.

Chair, if uh if um uh I could request for the next board meeting.

If you could just give us an update on schedule for the completion of the work under this contract, I think that would that that would be helpful for uh all of us to understand.

Sounds good.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and move consent for approval.

Second, okay.

There's a motion and a second.

Uh I don't have any speaker slips for consent matters so I I don't I assume we don't have any speakers.

That is correct, Chair.

Okay, we have a motion and a second, please vote.

Looking for a vote for member bank.

And the item does pass unanimously with those members present.

All right, very good.

Next item, please.

Item number nine is to receive a presentation regarding coordination of state transportation improvement program and the results of the four county state funding program.

Okay, good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair Board members.

Uh I'm gonna present on item nine, which is coordination of the STIP funding and the results of the four county state funding program, which actually programs those STIP dollars.

Just to give you a little context here.

So historically, SACOG has done what's called the regional funding round, where they combined federal and state dollars into a large pot of funds, usually several hundred million dollars in funds, and every two years they would do a call for projects and projects across the across the uh four county uh or the the region would have to compete against each other.

Um and one of the one of the challenges with this approach is really that um it creates some uncertainty, right?

And if you're trying to plan for a project to get that project delivered, and you're really unsure if you're going to get funding through this program, it can be challenging.

And then from cycle to cycle, um, there are different results, and even you submitting the same project you did last time may not get funding.

Um so it just creates a creates a variety of challenges, uh, and then oftentimes between even between cycles, uh they change the criteria too.

Um so it's really a challenge if you're trying to deliver a project that's important to your particular jurisdiction.

Um, and that that's kind of kind of the premise behind um what we're gonna talk about here.

So uh luckily um through some advocacy at the staff and the board uh board level advocacy, um, we're able to get a change done on the state side.

And so what that state state change did um is instead of pooling all the county shares of STIP dollars or state dollars together into one big pot, and all of us, all of our agencies competing against each other for those funds.

Um, we we asked SACOG to say, hey, how about you keep the um the county shares of funding uh all together, right?

So we can ensure that uh all the funding that's for Sacramento County goes to projects within Sacramento County.

Um and we got a and we got them to make that change.

Um uh 90% of the funds stay within the county, 10% of the funds are pooled together.

So uh the region essentially is competing against each other for that smaller pot.

Um so that that meant that there was 28.4 million dollars available for projects in Sacramento County, which is I think a good thing that made sure that those funds weren't going to other counties, stayed within our county.

Um, and so what this board did in March and April was we introduced the concept of an MOU.

Um, and generally that is hey, we have 28.4 million.

If we can all agree upon how those funds are allocated, instead of competing against each other, uh, we'll just uh apply for our our specific share that we've agreed to.

Uh, and as long as we've submitted projects that meet the um competitive criteria and meet the minimum scoring threshold, we should get those funds.

And so what that did is it provided a lot of certainty for your agencies um to actually know exactly how much they were gonna get out of a funding round, knowing keep in mind they still have to submit competitive projects.

Now we had a set aside for transit and rail so we could make sure we're we're we were had funds for them, and then there were sub-allocations for each geography, right?

So we know the state of Sacramento knew exactly how much money they were allocated for their projects, uh unincorporated county the same ranch Cordova, Folsom across the board.

Um, and the way that we address this is through a memorandum of understanding.

Um, this next slide.

So with that MOU in place, I just want to talk about how the results went, right?

So there was 28.4 million available.

Uh so we use this MOU.

SDA sort of was the coordinator of this, um, kept things organized.

We used those formula allocations, and then each year agencies identified the project that aligned with the dollar amount and the guidelines Stake Hog developed, and then put applications together.

And we had flexibility within MO MOU as well, depending upon if you had a project ready or you needed more funding, which I'm gonna give you a couple examples of how that worked in a couple slides from here.

And then we weren't all competing against each other.

Um that was one of the other great things, so we could actually support each other, and I'll give you an example of that.

And so ultimately, of that 28.4 million, 28 million was awarded.

We had one project that didn't meet the uh minimum scoring threshold.

So some key takeaways from this before I get into the actual awards.

Uh so SACOG enabled the policy change, which allowed us to really maximize the benefit of this, right?

Create that certain certainty for projects to get delivered.

Um SDA worked to maximize the benefits of that, but through its coordination, ensuring that we were meeting every two weeks with all the agencies, making sure their applications were getting in on time and there were changes that need to be made between the draft and the final application, those changes were being made.

Uh and I think ultimately we built a lot of trust across the agencies, and this is gonna be a good this MOU is actually gonna apply to multiple rounds, so we'll be able to uh do hopefully an even better job the next round uh and have more certainty.

So this these are the awards uh for everyone.

This is 28 million dollars in awards, and I I want to highlight a couple of projects uh specifically.

Uh the first one being the 1.2 million award for City of Folsom.

So they had a really good project, but the challenge with City of Folsom's project was that it um it wasn't an existing trail, so there wasn't a lot of data that supported the need for the trail, right?

And that's really hard when you're trying to show hey, this trail is needed.

Um, and so what um what I did is I asked uh the cities of ranch city of Ranch Cordova and the county of Sacramento, hey, can you review the city of Folsom's application and provide them with any feedback to improve their applications?

Because we I know it's a good project, it's just hard to document the need for it.

And so we were able to get some really good comments from those agencies to improve that application and meet the minimum scoring threshold, and that allowed City of Folsom to get that one point two million dollar award.

Um the second example I'll give you is the city of Sacramento's marriageable boulevard vision zero project.

So the city of Sacramento share of funding was probably only was only like six million dollars.

Um, but there was a couple of cities here, which you'll see there's some cities missing that ha either needed more money for their project or uh had a project that they're waiting to submit maybe in a future round.

And so instead of letting their funds roll over to the next round and be unused and left on the table, City of Sacramento said, Hey, why don't you give us your funding, and we'll we'll advance our project a lot at a much larger amount, and we'll give you your money back the next round.

That way you'll get your still get your money, but we can actually not leave any money on the table and we'll get used that.

And so that allowed us to allow the city of Sacramento to get a 9.1 million dollar award.

Um a couple other things I'll point out to this too.

Is typically, you know, agencies are submitting multiple applications, hoping one of these will win, and so this limited the amount of work agencies actually had to do.

Um typically awards are in the four million dollar range, and so you'll see there's three projects over that four million dollar range.

That's because we we weren't all trying to you could actually be a little more strategic and put it all in one project, uh, which because of that certainty, which I think was a good thing.

And then if you look at this at a regional level, Sacramento County is the only county that actually put together a uh this MOU.

We're the only agency this coordinated and this organized to do this.

Um so YOLO County tried to couldn't get all their agencies to agree, and it it fell apart on them, and they left a lot of money on the table.

Uh, a couple of other counties were trying to do an informal agreement, but you know, they weren't really that well organized or coordinated, and so they had very mixed results.

So I think from that standpoint, we did incredibly well on this funding round.

I just hope to continue on continue that to the next process next round.

Um, so with that, um open any questions.

All right, thank you.

Kevin, uh any questions for our director.

Director Calamantes, uh, no questions, but just want to commend you and all the public works directors from all the local agencies on working together to be able to achieve more and reach for more money um as an agency.

So just kudos to you and the team and looking forward to the next round.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh all right.

Um, seeing as there's no more questions from directors, I don't have any speaker slips on this matter.

So this was just a uh report back, correct?

We have no action to take.

That is correct.

All right.

Then we will go on to item 10.

And I do have uh so far two speakers signed up to address the board at the appropriate time.

So we'll put that on the record so people who wish to address us can do so.

However, we are going to get a staff presentation, I believe, first.

That is correct.

So item number 10 is to receive a presentation from the SACMOS coalition on principles to consider for future ballot measures.

All right, wonderful.

I'm just gonna quickly introduce the speakers here, but uh, want to highlight just a couple of things.

You know, we talked about item four and that contract, right?

And so I think you know, showing that the board is willing to listen to the community and the stakeholders specifically on what are their interests in a sales sex measure is very important.

I think having this item is actually a very important item to have.

Um I will say another thing about SAC moves, which is different from a lot of other organizations, is they are a coalition, and they have and they'll and they'll talk about this too.

But I I they have, you know, I think I believe over 25 organizations that are part of this, and they've been actively engaged in pretty much every measure that I'm been involved in, um, probably over 10 years at least at this point.

So I think it's a really nice to have them do this.

I think I think the other challenge, I mean, is SCA is a very small agency as well, and so having uh a group of coalition members who all work together and agree upon what they want, uh, and doing all that work for us is a very important thing.

So, with that, with that introduction, I'm gonna introduce um Dan Allison and Deb Banks who are gonna make this presentation.

All right, very good.

Come on up.

It's the Dan and Deb show.

I was stuck in traffic.

Ironic.

Good afternoon, board members.

Um, I'm Dan Allison, and uh in the coalition, I represent Sacramento Transit Advocates and writers.

I'm Deb Banks, executive director, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates, and that's who I bring to the SAC Moves Coalition.

The two of us have been the leadership of the coalition for the last two years, two and a half years.

Yeah, that's why we're here.

So the coalition um has about 25 organizations in it, and some of them are environmental interests, some transportation, some housing, some equity.

There are a lot of different organizations in the coalition for different purposes, but we came together in an effort to try to improve um ballot measures or sales tax funding for transportation.

We also have a lot of individual participants that join us in our meetings and are welcome to talk when we need to make a decision, it's the organizational members.

We started in about 2014, working towards the 2016 measure B ballot measure.

All right.

So we're gonna walk through a framework that we have, and it'll be the tag team.

I'm gonna offer up the issue, and then Dan's gonna talk about the policy and the benefits.

And we're gonna start with something that is near and dear to everybody's hearts.

Fix it first.

Uh, we believe that everybody wants streets and sidewalks that are walkable and rollable, uh, without potholes, et cetera.

And that though if we have fix it first and we spend time maintaining what we have, it's gonna be a lot safer for everybody who uses our roads.

Um policy and benefits.

Um our priorities are fix it first, or which is also often referred to as state of good repair.

Um you have heard both terms, um, and we believe it's critical in any transportation funding to do that.

Secondly, we would like to see performance measures, not just for pavement condition index PCI, which has always been part of the measures, but also sidewalk conditions.

Um we believe that people walking deserve the same level of recognition.

Next up is mode choice, something near and dear to my heart as a bicycle agency.

We're always trying to get more people to leave their cars at home and choose other ways to get around.

Uh past investments have by and large favored cars.

That's been in street design, et cetera, with large long uh boulevards, etc.

And we know that walking and cycling and transit are lower cost alternatives and can do the job just as well.

We'd like to reduce car reliance by offering effective alternatives.

So, um we want all modes to be in the measure.

We don't want to neglect any modes, we want them all to be in there.

Um, and we'll come in some later slides to the balance of those things.

Um, and we believe that complete streets policies, not just adopted, but actually implemented, and the design of projects are a key thing for accomplishing this.

The implementation and the design of the projects, complete streets accommodate all modes, and that's what we're aiming for.

Next up, we believe in transit.

We have strong support for transit.

We believe that it needs to be reliable, safe, consistent, and affordable, frequent, all the good things.

And transit, we know reduces congestion, and not just for non-riders.

If you have a bus full of 60 people, that's possibly 40 to 60 cars that are off the streets.

So that makes it better for everybody.

So we want to see an emphasis on better bus service, and not just big projects.

The listening sessions that SACRT recently did indicated again and again in different communities that they went to that the thing that people most wanted was better bus service, and so we think that's what should be emphasized.

We need to remove infrastructure barriers.

There are places where there are sidewalk gaps or bicycle facility gaps leading to bus stops and light rail stations.

Those should be fixed.

We would like to see investment in safe routes to transit, and that's also a strong initiative with SACRT that they want to see the same thing and are starting that up, but it needs funding.

We support free passes for K-12 students, and I know many of you sit on other boards that have addressed this issue before.

We want to see that continue, and we would also like to see fair discounts for disabled seniors and low-income riders.

So far, only the SACRT Flux program has a discount for low income, but we believe that with funding that can be extended to the other services that the transit agency offers.

Okay.

Freeway expansion.

We know that it induces travel and it erases some of the benefits that we've just been talking about.

And the thing about expansion is that it not just uh makes it harder for us to get around, but it makes it so that more people that are traveling through the county county use it, meaning folks that are going up to Lake Tahoe and or you know into other uh areas, they're moving through the county versus stopping and staying in the county.

So we believe that freeway and expansion induces travel and reduces all the benefits that we actually really believe in.

We believe instead that the funding should go to maintaining existing things.

Every time we expand a freeway, that's actually a liability because we then have to maintain it, and if we keep expanding freeways and roadways, but not allocating sufficient money to maintain them, we dig ourselves a hole that will be very hard to get out of, and that's part of the reason for not wanting freeway expansions.

We need to spend our money on other things.

We believe that most of the funds raised within Sacramento County through a sales tax or any other taxation method should stay mostly within the county, serving county needs.

Now, obviously, that's not a across the board always kind of thing, but we believe that money that comes from the citizens here should serve the citizens here.

Okay, system zero.

This is near and dear to my heart.

County and cities have a very high fatality rate, severe injuries compared to others in the state.

Thank you so much.

I was just looking at some of the statistics.

Sacramento follows Los Angeles as the worst state in this in the as the worst city in the state for fatalities and serious injuries.

That absolutely is unacceptable and has to change.

We've got to turn that around.

So how do we turn that around?

We need to invest to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries.

We have not always done that in the past, and we think it's very important, and a significant amount of the available investment needs to go to that.

Um safety standards need to apply to all modes.

It's not just safety for bicyclists or safety for car drivers.

It's all modes need we need to raise our bar for safe travel for all modes.

How well is our approach to safe systems working?

And we need to allocate money to safety plans and their implementation.

It's often hard for entities to get um funding for the planning for safety, and this is something that a countywide measure could do is provide some of that funding to create those plans and then implement them.

Let me just add for just a second about this.

I sit on the city's active transportation commission.

I ask all the time when we are presented with new road designs and projects that are happening.

What is being written in for evaluation of these?

How do we know that if we change this road and we spend all this time and millions of dollars to make this road safer?

How do we know it actually is gonna be safer?

And the city, I'm just speaking for City of Sac, um, always tells me the engineers, et cetera, is that we can't put in money for evaluation.

It's not built into the grant procedures.

That's a real problem because how do we know that we're actually getting to the goals that we want to get to?

We're trying to get to that point here.

Okay, moving on.

Infill and economic.

Can I interrupt real quick?

So before you move on, if you can can you go back to the previous slide, please.

Thank you.

Um I'm really uh very glad that this is um part of uh the agenda for SAC moves.

Um as someone that uh walks intentionally walks 250 to 300 miles a month, um, mostly in uh North Atomas, but um somewhat frequently also here in downtown and midtown Sacramento, East Sacramento.

Uh, what I've encountered as a uh as an intentional pedestrian trying to get his mileage in, is that uh I see quite frankly, I see more conflicts um uh safety um concerns as it relates to pedestrians and people on electric scooters on one-wheels, um, electric bikes nowadays are hitting 30 35 miles an hour in some cases very fast, and I see them on sidewalks.

Um I've had to dodge them myself.

Uh I've had people yelling at me that they have the right-of-way when they're clearly when they clearly don't, right?

Um so uh what I didn't hear in your your reference to um to safety, and again, kind of the graphic is uh seems primarily dedicated to um making sure that uh we set policies and apply resources to minimize the conflicts between uh vehicles and pedestrians.

What what part of your agenda, if any, is really kind of scrutinizing or paying close attention to um kind of the the growing um popularity of these very fast moving electric uh alternative modes of transportation and pedestrians.

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

We haven't talked a lot about it in SAC moves recently, however, we do know that the growth of e-bikes, e-scooters, bike share, all sorts of alternative modes that are typically found on sidewalks instead of in the street where some of them should be.

Um is just because people aren't feeling safe.

We're all in on education, building awareness, and then enforcement to the extent that we can and that and that we can find some enforcement mechanisms that will actually do the job.

That's a whole different piece of the puzzle, but for sure we believe in the safe systems approach regarding anybody, everybody on the road on the sidewalk.

We just want people to get safely from point A to point B, no matter how they're doing it.

No, I I'm glad to hear that.

Um I would just hope that we all not just SAC moves, but we all um think um carefully about how um we manage uh again kind of the the growing interest by um a lot of folks, not just uh young people that are doing the one-wheels, but uh I've seen I've seen uh uh people of my age that are out on uh electric scooters uh going full speed ahead in their you know uh in their suits and ties, going to meetings uh presumably that just don't seem to be paying a lot of attention.

And I just I've heard some horror stories too about uh folks um that uh uh become um very susceptible to entry uh because they're they're doing uh exactly that.

So um just wanted to interject uh while you moved on from the safety slide to uh point that out and hopefully stress that uh that's something that will be of growing interest to SAC moves.

Absolutely, thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I will say that um there are other locations, some of which I visit that have much worse problems than we do.

Um there are people riding modified uh electric bikes that go 45 miles an hour.

It's illegal to do that, but there isn't any enforcement.

Some of these issues can be solved at the state level, some at the county or individual city levels, and some can only be addressed through education, and yes, we support addressing those.

Good.

All right, let's move on.

Infill and economic development, it's something that's really important, and we've been spending a lot of time on in fill these days, which is great.

In the past, transportation investments haven't always promoted economic vibrancy and livable places.

They've been sometimes investments have been way off, not where people are living and where they're needed, in the idea that we would fill and get to where those uh transportation um places exist.

We think that needs to shift a little bit.

We know that multimodal corridors best support local businesses.

We want people to stop and walk in and spend some time and spend some money in their local uh businesses, and that means we want transportation to be close in as well so that people can access it.

So Deb covered we want things to be aligned with NFL.

Um, we believe that there's an important way in which transportation investment can make places more successful.

And a lot of people say, Well, how do you make a place successful?

And I'm fortunate to live in the central city, and my answer is make places more like the central city.

It's a place with a lot of residences, a lot of businesses, not very many high-speed arterial streets.

It's a place that's livable, and it's economically vibrant during the economic downturn, mid-down, midtown was the place that really got through with no major problems because that was the form of the place.

And um I will say that um the diagram there that's in illustration is from a Citrus Heights report about how they wanted to create infill and economic vibrancy in the city of Citrus Heights.

Um we have a lot of aging corridors, places where businesses may still exist, but they're not doing well, um, they're not multimodal.

Um by investing in those places, we can make them economically productive.

And I we understand that um the transportation authority is transportation, and this job is not housing, it's not creating infill, but there are many things the authority can do to support info.

Yeah, it's a byproduct, it becomes a byproduct.

Last, I think this is our last slide, talking about equity.

The transportation investments have often missed low-income communities, and that as a result of that, those communities are less livable and have more uh problems with safety, especially in areas where freeways have gone through, and we all know about redlining and that freeways that have displaced families and communities and then are now living near um higher areas of pollution, et cetera, as a result of new freeways.

So we want to try to change that score and even it by making sure that our our communities that have been overlooked in the past um get some love.

And to do so, we will need to direct some of the funding towards those places that have been neglected in the past, or where we created transportation facilities that don't work very well for that community.

Um by reducing car use, offering multimodal travel, um, we can save low-income people the expense of having a motor vehicle.

They can get around by other methods.

And having worked with a lot of low income communities when I was safe routes to school coordinator, it's not simply the expense of buying a car.

Most people can make that.

What happens though is that car breaks down and they don't have the money to fix it, and they are stuck.

They thought the car was the solution to their transportation needs, it turned out not to be.

And we want to give those people a choice.

They can get around by some other method.

We're very aware of the convenience of cars.

We don't we don't miss that at all, but for some people, other modes work better, and we need to make sure that funds are evenly distributed throughout the county.

Um Mr.

Busey just talked about a situation where there was sort of a funding trade off where uh one entity wanted to proceed with an expensive project, and others said we'll wait until the next round.

And so it won't necessarily be at every given moment that the funding is geographically equal, but over time it should be.

And that's the end of our presentation.

Um if you have questions for us, we will um do our best to answer.

You should understand that just as you are just starting into this process of considering a funding measure, so are we starting into the process of more clearly defining what we want?

And I we often get asked, well, what do you think about that project?

And in general, our answer is what we want is policies that will make sure all the projects are good, and we don't generally get involved in being for or against a particular project.

What we want is good policies, good performance measures.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Great.

Thank you, Dan.

Thank you, Deb.

Uh, before we get to comments from uh directors, um, I just want to uh get some clarity.

So is it appropriate then to think of SAC moves as a umbrella organization for uh other local um transit or active transportation groups?

Is that is that the is that our appropriate characterization?

We certainly include those, but uh we also include other interests there, some education organizations, uh equity organizations, um, housing in particular.

And it's always been a strong housing has always been a strong voice in our organization.

Okay, very good.

Um then is SAC moves its own nonprofit?

No, it's just a group of people that come together to under the auspices of same thinking, uh same framework, and same values.

So you don't have any uh tax code restrictions on political activity and anything like that?

Nope.

Okay, very good.

All right, uh, we will get to uh director comments.

We'll start with Director Kent.

Thank you.

You have many laudable goals that you've expressed here, including transportation made available and affordable to all within a community, multimodal, low risk, in other words, high safety.

My question comes from your reluctance to support new freeway expansion in that tracking general economic growth within a county is important so that you'll have funding for these services.

So the freeways are also used for many different types of routes, as we well know for transport, freight, commuting, that's the incentive behind high occupancy vehicle lanes.

So, how do you balance what is required to fund in a general way the economics of a county?

Uh and also not necessarily discourage travel within the county, which has an economic impact?

Part of the answer is that if a freeway is meeting regional or statewide needs, it should be funded at a regional or statewide level, not by the county.

Um Sacramento County doesn't need to do favors for the other counties in the region.

Um they're an equal partner, and certainly there are projects that may be a benefit to the region or to the state, but we feel that when that is the case, the funding should come from the region or the state.

All right, thank you.

Uh Director Rodriguez.

So I'm gonna sound like a negative Nelly here, but I don't mean to be.

Um I'm I'm a transit user when I get a chance.

Um, you know, oftentimes I look at my calendar and I think, oh great, no off-site meetings.

That means I can take light rail to work.

Um I'm a big supporter of the light rail system.

And having now been a policymaker for five and a half years and approving developments.

One thing that is missing in in many of these projects is the ability to implement either some kind of a uh bus system into these neighborhoods.

So we continue to grow, and Sacramento continues to, you know, um expand and sprawl out, and we continue to make neighborhoods that are very car dependent.

And so if we don't invest into our highway system, breeway systems, and create opportunities to uh um get uh congestion out of certain areas, then that will make it worse.

But I I think Sacramento has gotten a little too far too big that it it people are car dependent.

If uh, you know, if a youngster wants to go to the mall, they only way to get to the mall is through driving, um, driving their car because sometimes the roads don't have the ability to have bikes on them or certain, you know, areas have better trail systems that can, but in our society and in our culture, we haven't really created that.

And so I I mean I like everything that you said I like.

I grew up in a city where you didn't have to have a car, but if you had a car, great.

The transit system was phenomenal if I wanted to get from one city to another city.

I knew that I can get on the muni, I can get on bar, I can get I can do whatever I can to get around, but the Sacramento region isn't really supportive of that kind of of a lifestyle, and so um, as much as I I do support it, I just don't know how realistic it is.

Um, and I am a big fan of NFIL.

I think in fill is a great way to take certain areas and create housing.

You know, I'm I'm a big supporter of housing, and and in fill is a great way to do that.

Um, but in terms of transit, I I uh on a realistic level, I I don't know if Sacramento has gotten too big to be able to imp to be able to implement that.

You know, I am also a big fan of the BRT, you know, getting bus systems into areas.

But when when you look at you know, I I live in the city of Folsom, and we have two high schools that are highly congested, highly impacted by uh transportation in the mornings and in the afternoons, and I've always said a great way to reduce that is to hopefully it's can we get bus systems into the neighborhoods to get some of these kids into the buses?

And I'll tell you, it's interesting how much you know pushback that has and for communities because we've made communities dependent on vehicles.

That's it.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on that.

No, thank you so much.

I mean, this is where we are wanting to really push on transit.

It has not gotten the love to use my terminology, also to be able to get into the places that it needs to get, so that we have a thriving community that you just described.

I think you're probably in the Bay Area.

San Francisco, San Francisco.

There are cities all over the United States and the world that are much more transit-friendly, and that with a solid transit system, we could have those kinds of walkable cities and cities that kids can take the bus and easily get off and get to school, et cetera.

And then their families might not feel so uh like they need to put their child in their car as the only safe way to get them to school.

Because there are lots of kids all over the United States that go to school by bike or walk or by transit.

Yeah, we would love to see that in Sacramento.

Yeah, it's interesting some of the feedback that you know I get when I think, well, it would be great to get a bus system, like let's talk about the high schools.

That's it'd be great to get a bus system that can get people around.

And then I hear comments like, well, no, because what it's gonna do is it's gonna bring all the homeless into our neighbor.

So there's all these like negative and negative connotation when it comes to transit and and what it what how it would impact a community.

So but thank you for the presentation.

This is informative.

I support a lot of the efforts that you are um that in your efforts.

Thank you.

Great thing.

Thank you for your comment.

Um, one of the thing I I wanted to add is we're talking about a potentially 40-year investment, um, and if we say, well, things aren't working now, so we won't invest anymore in what's not working, we will be in the same place 40 years from now.

We want to shift our investment so that we are in a good place.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for your presentation.

I am curious on the realistic point of view as well.

Um, as leaders in this space of transit, what does your commute look like personally?

What percentage of the time do you you use your cars?

And with your goals that you have uh for uh, you know, more transit options, how do you anticipate that changing?

Do you want to start?

Um I'm car-free.

Um I number one, I walk, number two, I bicycle.

Number three, I use transit.

When I go to the Bay Area, I use transit a lot more because it there's a better transit system there, I admit it.

Um again, it goes back to we believe people should have a choice.

Um, I'm one of those people who does not drive, rarely accepts rides.

Um, so that works for me.

We realize it doesn't work for everybody.

I own a car.

I drove it here today because I was dressed up, and this is hard on a in a bicycle, it'll get caught in the spokes.

Um, however, um, and I live about seven miles away on the other side of the Godwest Bridge, you know, in East.

Well, it's not Eastac anymore.

Um, I ride my bike to the office, which is just on the street uh three times a week, and it's usually my I have an e-bike, an e-bike assist, so it's about seven, eight miles.

It's delightful.

I do have a vehicle, I put less than 5,000 miles on it a year.

Um, it sits a lot, which I kind of think I should get rid of it, but for special needs, I still use it.

Um I rarely use transit because my commutes are just pretty easy by bike.

Um I will also be really honest.

Um, I my partner and I own a very old vintage car, it's over 40 years old, which we drive every once in a while, and we own a van.

And when we want to get out of town and go camping, we typically take the van.

So, full disclosure, I uh I I am a car family, but I personally spend very little time in them.

If I were to characterize the people in SAC moves, I would say that most of them are car light.

They have cars, they use their cars, but they don't use them a lot.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Very good.

Uh Mary Sing Allen.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Very thoughtful.

Um, I think some of the questions you heard from my colleagues, for those of us that live in the surrounding communities, where some of the goals identified aren't practical, right?

So for Folsom for citrus sites for the city of Elk Grove.

It would be nice to walk, bike for all of our needs, but it's just I think a lot of the focus that you've done a great job at and advocacy for is around the urban core.

But for a lot of us, you know, this is great information as we look at a future potential ballot measure of how to incorporate all of these ideas, but there will still be a realistic disconnect between the city that particularly the downtown needs, the surrounding cities, and then all of our other, the cities that surround the city of Sacramento.

So for me, what I'm really looking forward to seeing as we develop these conversations is how are we going to bring that together into something that we can all perhaps support?

Otherwise, we are going to have a significant disconnect.

And our priorities may not be aligned with your priorities, and that's just the reality.

So I, you know, we I don't want to be offensive to that, but I also want to be realistic of the needs of Folsom, the city of Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, are not going to necessarily be aligned with SAC moves in all of your goals.

But I appreciate the work that you are doing, and I think it is important work.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments, questions from directors?

I see Director Dickinson, question to speak.

I I too appreciate the work in the and the presentation today.

I do think that we often uh underestimate the uh both the appetite and the extent to which we can move in different directions from a transportation standpoint and frankly a development and growth standpoint, wherever we are in this county.

Uh, this is not this is not an all-or-nothing proposition.

Um, this is I think as as has been noted, a question of choice and uh a question of real viable alternatives.

I think it's not unfair or unrealistic to say that in any one of our communities and neighborhoods, whether we're within a more dense, uh more urban environment or a more suburban environment, there are trips that lend themselves to walking, to biking, to modes of transportation other than getting in a car if we make those modes and those choices realistic and practical, and if we plan and develop our communities in a way that accommodates those those choices.

The truth of the matter is historically in Sacramento County, out outside of the urban core, we haven't done a very good job of that in the way we have developed.

And so we find ourselves today, and some of us sitting here responsible for some of those decisions, frankly, but we find ourselves in a posture where we now have to try to accommodate with the funding that we can develop a pivot in the way that we transport ourselves and the others in the community transport themselves, because there are any number of compelling reasons that demand it.

Among them are climate, among them are congestion, uh, among them are feasibility, among them are personal economics.

Um so um I think the essence of what I draw from the presentation is not not so much the particulars of uh of support for transit or support for biking or things of that kind, but more how it's incumbent on us to think about how we will be required to move in a different direction sooner or later.

And the sooner we do it, and frankly, it's no longer sooner, but the sooner we do it, the better off we will position those in our own time and especially those who come after us to have a vibrant, vital, sustainable county and region.

Excuse me, Director Vang.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I just wanted to add to uh Chair Um Member Dickinson.

I just want to take this moment um to just um thank you for your presentation.

I echo all my colleagues.

Um really appreciate the work that you've done uh to get us to this moment.

I think my understanding is that we've tried almost three times at this ballot measure, and we've have failed.

And for me, I think it makes it very clear that we need something bold, visionary, and truly transformative to actually meet this moment, or else the voters won't pass uh the next ballot measure.

And so um, you know, we do need a ballot measure that can speak to all the needs and really take into consideration all the cities in this region.

Um, but I do I am hopeful that we can find common needs and figuring out important ways to move forward.

I think we all want to be connected to work to family to neighborhoods.

I agree with you that we need to make sure that there are all those options of modalities.

I think that's really important.

Um, but I look forward to working with you and also my colleagues to figure out what that ballot measure may look like, right?

It's felt three times because the voters have sent us a message that we need to come back with something better, and so I do think that whatever we come up with, it has to be bold and transformative, or else um we're gonna be in a really tough situation, right?

And so uh again, just thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you.

I did want to highlight one of your particular slides as it related to um improvements on the bus routes.

Um that's a conversation we're having at SAC RT, and it's something that my community in El Grove is also very interested in, as opposed to just you know, uh investing and expanding infrastructure, improving the routes that exist, and and increasing um those routes as opposed to just expanding.

So those these are important conversations, but I did want to um highlight one of your slides that I did recognize that that is where I think that there is some common ground on that.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

So I live in South Natomas, and you know, I don't ride a bike to work because I don't feel like it's safe enough.

And a lot of the outside of the urban core, it's the reality that we are so car dependent.

And I just want to echo uh member Rosario's uh comments on when you have new housing developments coming online, how you can get bus rapid transit and really work with local TMAs to make sure that people can get to and to and from work, you know, carpooling and small shuttles and buses and stuff.

So I'm just want to echo her comments, and I also want to say, you know, the first investment that we need to do is our roads.

Uh people are tired of potholes, people want to see resurfacing on our streets.

I can tell you the number of emails I get every day asking for road resurfacing, and I know how much it costs millions and millions of dollars to be able to do that, but then you have to do that so that people can be able to ride their bikes and not get their tires popped, and then after you do that, you must invest in rapid transit.

We must do that.

That's the most important thing that we can do, so that once we make that one-time investment on our roads, we get the buses so that people stop.

You have 40 less cars driving down Northgate, and that road then can last for a longer amount of time, and so I just really want to highlight that in your PowerPoint, and then I'm 100% on board with the investments in our roads, investments in rapid transit, so we can make them last longer and really have a plan kind of like you know, member Vang said, P voters have denied us this because they're not seeing our tax type hair dollars hard at work.

Not enough.

And I think we've been doing a better job saying, hey, this was paid for by Measure A with the signage and the social media.

I think that's a start, and something we're gonna continue to do.

But I'm looking forward to hearing back on the committee on where we're at on this ballot initiative because I have been asked about it, and I'm like, well, I know that there's a committee and we're working on it, but we're gonna have to come out full force, united on this front to be able to make sure that we have key initiative like transportation projects here.

All right, thank you very much.

Uh don't have any directors left in the queue.

Um, I'll just offer one uh one observation, one thought, and one maybe one challenge.

Uh I think you've heard um from us that uh uh I think like uh SAC moves choice is important to us, and you're hearing it especially from some of the more uh suburban um representatives uh up at the dais that uh part of that choice you know necessarily involves um vehicles uh does it mean uh that you're hearing from us any kind of defensive uh or seeing any kind of defensive posture necessarily in support of uh car only transportation but I think you are seeing agreement that uh whatever uh we intend to do very um intentionally when it comes to another ballot measure we have to be uh very careful to listen to uh some of the polling and the survey uh products uh about what where voters uh see themselves in that choice spectrum and uh as it relates to one of those uh alternatives uh walking again I'm gonna come back into walking since I'm I'm very committed to to that right now and and will continue to be I think in the foreseeable future is that I would challenge everyone to uh try and walk to a destination you would otherwise uh use a vehicle for there's a there's kind of an interesting psychology that I've uh kind of experienced for myself in terms of um uh distance and how you uh perceive uh distance and I would just say that uh in many instances a destination that you would otherwise drive to but you choose to walk to uh is gonna perhaps seem much shorter both temporally in terms of the the time that it takes and the the physical distance um you just try it as a as an experiment when you when you have an opportunity um for instance I've walked from uh far far north in Thomas uh closer to the airport than uh than downtown all the way to downtown and um you know it takes takes a while um but it's uh it's not as far as as people might think and I'm not suggesting that Mary Sing Allen uh is going to be walking from Elgrove to her meetings downtown in the near future but the stilettos won't allow it but uh I'll pick you up but again um we I we all want to thank you for um uh clearly expressing SAC move's um priorities and uh what your agenda is as an active uh advocacy in our uh organization here in our community and we appreciate uh your participation and ongoing partnership as we collectively uh come to um come to terms with uh what we all hope to be a successful uh ballot measure in the future so again thank you thank you thank you for the opportunity yep all right uh we do have public speakers on this item uh so I want to invite first uh Bassam Ibrahim and following Mr.

I'm will be Steve Cohn uh do I go here or yeah uh if you can bring the microphones in uh both and stand between them.

Test us there you go.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um yeah um in their presentation there were a lot of points uh really did resonate with me um mainly fixing things first before we plan on expanding mainly because the more lanes we have it's more liability it's the more we have to pay more and if we don't fix those roads then we get potholes and more basically more lane equal more pothole because it costs more to fix.

And then along with that our public transportation can reduce the amount of lanes we need if we set it upright and by that I mean um it we just need safe we need a safe effective routes to transit like uh they said uh we needed safe routes to transit we also need um easy access to trans to our public transportation really to reduce our set car dependency.

I mean, if you look at um suburbs, they are pretty um they're like a maze.

But a good thing about them is they do have cul-de-sacs, which are usually separated by like a small distance.

So maybe you could like build a bike trail or something to connect those two over like between some houses.

I don't know, that's a suggestion.

But um that could reduce our car dependency, get more people to use public transportation, which will not only make things better for um because they wouldn't have to pay as much for having a car, maintenance, gas, insurance, registration, the list goes on.

But it also helps drivers, because now there's less cars on the road.

There's less traffic all of a sudden.

So by funding more public transportation, we not only help our transit riders, we help the drivers too.

So even if you live in like the suburb, you're still being helped by this.

It's a win-win for everyone.

And uh, yeah, that's uh thank you.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

All right, next up, no stranger to these chambers.

Welcome back, Mr.

Collin.

Yes, great to be here.

Uh Chair Cerna, members of the board.

Uh is this does this mic also?

Yeah, you can Steve, you can stand between the uh the two mics, and that'll just that's I'm not used to this.

There you go.

Of the uh, we'll we'll try and zoom in on that a little bit.

At any rate, I wanted to take this discussion sort of supplement just by getting down to the bottom line of categories of spending.

So smart, uh, which I'm president of the board is a incorporated nonprofit, uh, a 501c3, so we don't engage in political activities.

We're a charitable organization, educational.

Um, but we uh very strongly support transit and smart growth.

We're trying to create here in the Sacramento region uh something similar to what Spur has done in the Bay Area.

So, you know, merry uh smart growth with transit and and bike and pet.

Um what this chart shows is a comparison of the different measures going back to 2004, and I basically reduced it to four categories.

So there's a little rounding that goes on, so it may uh they may not all add up to exactly 100% because each measure had a little different way to care characterize different um measures or different projects.

Um but as you can see uh 2004, which passed by the way by over 70 percent, um, did have more transit uh spending than the 2020-2022 measures.

Uh the 2020, of course, never went on the ballot, but the 2022 measure, the so-called citizens measure was very similar to what STA uh adopted in 2020 and had to take off because of the pandemic.

What isn't shown was the 2016 measure which failed, was very similar to 2020, with actually a little bit uh a little bit different percentages, but very close to the 2020.

What I now show you on the left-hand side, um, my left-hand side, is the um what a 45-50-10 measure could look like, where you put 50% transit, 40% local roads, zero for highways, and then take what would have gone to highways, put it more into housing infrastructure, air quality, economic development, projects that meet a lot of our needs, as well as uh the American River Parkway, other regional mobility needs.

So innovation is kind of a uh generic category for that.

I think it's fair to test all of these percentages in in terms of your polling.

I hope it hasn't been done yet.

You still have the opportunity to incorporate some of these concepts so we can see what the public supports, but we do know they did not support that 2020 2022 measure.

In fact, they couldn't even get 45 percent.

So we know that didn't work.

So let's be practical in terms of what can work, but also what we need for the next 40 years.

You know, I I think some good points were raised about highways and the need for highways.

We're not saying you shouldn't fund highways, we're saying this particular fund, this new measure A needs to focus on priorities that have been set aside in the past.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Steve.

Good to see you.

Okay.

Our final speaker on this item is Troy Wilkinson.

Hello, everyone.

Uh thank you for your time.

I really appreciate and want to echo uh the previous speakers, uh, particularly the mentality of this being a win-win situation for both highways drivers, as well as people who are car light or carless, uh, such as I am.

I think uh we see a lot of at least online rank or regarding the um construction happening on the freeways currently, and there's a lot of I think a sentiment that the uh improvements that are being made there, at least right now, are causing a lot of difficulties for drivers, and I would caution against uh trying to um use the measure to incorporate that much in support of additional uh highways infrastructure and um of that sort, almost solely because, in my experience, uh there's plenty of people who are really excited about infrastructure, really excited about transportation, active transportation, but sour on the idea of voting for something that's going to continually give more money to what has already been supported to an amazing degree the driving infrastructure of the United States, and so we've um it's not even a you know 50 50 oh, which one should we choose right now?

We have a society in which it's I would say almost 100% driver focused, at least particularly in somewhere like Sacramento, and so supporting something else is a uh small piece of bread that can be offered uh as opposed to what we currently have, which is really uh minuscule rations for the people who don't have cars and don't have uh that type of transportation.

I currently uh am carless.

My spouse uh does not have a license, she recently immigrated to the United States, and is afraid.

Yeah, you know, where she's from and and where we met uh wasn't car dependent as much, and there were alternative modes such as e-bikes, e-scooters that can be worked with, and I think uh shouldn't be, you know, I I didn't get the sense that it was a barrier when you brought the e-scooters up.

Yeah, safety issue, right?

But it definitely I think is uh, you know, cars are a huge safety issue in many instances and uh I have a coworker whose son recently passed away in a car accident.

The the situation and the details obviously matter a hell of a lot regarding that stuff, but important nonetheless uh to prioritize safer modes of transportation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh want to thank the speakers for contributing to the uh discussion this afternoon.

Uh Director Dickinson.

Thanks, Chair.

I just want to as a point of clarification.

Distributed a um a little information piece on behalf of of SMART, which lists the board of directors and include and includes me, but I am no longer a member of the board of directors.

So just for the record.

Let the record show.

Let the record show.

Okay.

Very good.

Yeah.

Before we get to the executive director's report, I just want to uh impart a few um brief thoughts here.

I I think it's fantastic that we have so many um transportation and transit advocates here in our region and our county.

Uh I think uh to a person, everyone that sits up here, uh whether you're a member of a board of supervisors or uh you're a municipal representative.

I think we all have um very um strong feelings and we're passionate about uh equity and making sure that again going back to the theme of choice that that is gonna be at the forefront of uh what we eventually offer the voters uh and our constituents.

Uh but I do think um we would sometimes we have to back away a little bit from simply narrowing the discussion to uh mode choice and and having that be the principal part of our uh consideration when it comes to the um the complexion of a of a ballot measure.

I think we also have to be very cognizant of the fact that we need to understand the condition of the economy uh at the time that the ballot measure will be considered.

We have to understand what may also uh join that ballot, other measures.

Uh we and we need to understand uh in different parts of the county and um and the cities they're in uh what the current uh tax burden is and all that has to feed into again very uh a very deliberative um uh consideration of something that we all want to see succeed.

Uh there's been plenty of mention this afternoon about uh the times where the measure has failed, and none of us have the uh appetite to see that happen again.

So um I know that with uh SAC Moves help and SMART and others uh we'll get there, and um we need you.

Um we we can't simply you know work in a in a vacuum.

Um and uh having you share what you've shared this afternoon is uh very welcome, and uh we look forward to continuing the the discussion.

So thank you.

All right, madam clerk, next item, please.

Item number 11 is the executive director's report.

Right.

Yeah, I'll do a quick uh quick executive director's report.

So uh a little bit on the legislative update.

So uh assembly bill twelve twenty-three, which is the bill that this board authorized in November 2024 to move forward with, which gives us the ability, among many things, to have some geographic flexibility uh on a future sales tax measure.

That bill was passed by both the Senate and assembly floor, is now on the governor's desk.

We're waiting um, yeah.

We're hoping he's gonna sign it soon, right?

Hopefully, uh mid-October, and we'll get a signature.

Uh, he's had a he's had it for a week, maybe it'll be early October.

Um, so I reached out to a few agencies who asked for some letters of support.

Um we think it will be signed by the governor.

Um we had a really wonderful conversation in the last board meeting about the Ice Street Bridge, as you might remember.

So uh we we actually envision a probably a lighter version of an MOU coming back to this meeting.

Um, but you know, I there was a lot of good comments and good direction, and so we're taking a little bit longer than we anticipated to try to make sure we're addressing all the concerns we heard.

Uh we are hopeful that it's gonna come back in October.

Um, but if if you know, I think we have to get the city of Sacramento and STA at least at a staff level, you know, when considering our both our our bond council, our legal council or financial council all on the same page.

So we're shooting for October, but it if it has to be, it'll be November.

Uh I just wanted to get an update on that.

So um we have a lot going on the next couple of meetings, um, October and November.

Um I just want everybody to know that, so and some of the items it's a little bit fluid on.

Um, so October might be a little light.

Um, if so, that means November's gonna have a lot on it um so right now from October standpoint we do our annual debt review as part of that we are trying to bring that back the I Street Bridge financing uh back in October uh we want to give an update on legisl on the legislation um because uh hopefully by October we'll know if that's signed and we can talk through how that sort of evolved and where we're currently at with that legislation what what what we what um there's some sort of uh some changes that occurred I think they're fairly minor but we I want to make sure the board's fully aware of that um let's see so no November has a lot on it so November we were planning for a recommendation from the future transportation funding subcommittee on what to do next but we're sort of in limbo because we're waiting on this assembly bill we're waiting on some survey results um so that could get moved the VMT mitigation strategy you know we've had those workshops that should come back in November as well um with I think a recommendation a high level recommendation um and then we have uh we have an award of our our new finance uh we call it the enterprise resource planning or accounting system uh we have the annual financial audit that we do um and then we usually do some uh minor budget amendments uh sort of make sure things are corrected uh to align with the actual spending so uh we'll have a busy october november thanks very much all right very good thank you mr buy any questions for our executive director supervisor rodrigues no okay okay all right very good uh all right our final item uh this afternoon then are comments and reports from authority members any um we at CARTA discussed revenue waterfalls and how it will land and that's about it all right very good any others all right uh then if there is no further business before this board we stand to turn it out