Sacramento Transportation Authority Board Meeting, October 9, 2025

The Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Board of Directors convened for a meeting on October 9, 2025. Due to a lack of an initial quorum, the board proceeded with items that do not require a vote, including receiving an executive director's report and public comments, before a quorum was established to vote on the consent calendar and the prioritization agenda item.

Consent Calendar

• Items 2 through 5: The board moved to approve the routine consent items. A roll call vote was taken after a request to ensure all members were voting. The motion passed with all voting members (Dickinson, Gera, Hume, Kennedy, Kent, Maple, Raffel, Rethelel, Spees, Vang, and Chair Cerna) voting "Aye".

Public Comments & Testimony

• Item 1 (Matters not on the agenda): No speaker slips were submitted for off-agenda matters.
• Item 6 (Debt Program Presentation): No public comment was received for this presentation.
• Item 7 (SACOG Prioritization): No public comment was received for this presentation.
• Executive Director's Report (Item 8): No public comment was received.

Discussion Items

• Debt Program Status Update (Item 6): CFO Dustin Purenton presented the annual debt program status.

  • Project Description: The STA portfolio is 100% fixed-rate, with annual debt service payments ranging from $20.3 million to $35.3 million.
  • Position Summary: Pureston reported that the STA is in compliance with all bond covenants. Current debt service coverage is 8.6x (under the 2022 series) and 4.9x (when larger debts begin repayment), both well under the maximum annual debt service limit of 2x. A 2023 refunding is projected to generate $6.7 million in net savings, with a break-even interest rate increase of 1.47%.

• SACOG Regional Project Prioritization (Item 7): Kevin Busey presented the process for identifying countywide priorities for federal (e.g., BIL, RAISE, INFRA) and state (SB1) grants, as well as projects in development.

  • Purpose: SACOG seeks to narrow multiple competing projects to a single regional priority per grant category to enhance competitiveness for Congressional and State funding.
  • Positions and Discussion:
    • Director Kent: Expressed full support for the proposal to identify consolidated priorities and coordinate with SACOG, noting it is highly advisable to accept the proposal assuming resources are covered by current administrative costs.
    • Director Dickinson: Raised questions regarding the scope of the prioritization process.
      • Clarified that the process focuses on regional serving projects. A solely local project (e.g., a sidewalk project in Oak Park) would likely be at a disadvantage and proceed separately through local channels or other SACOG rounds.
      • Noted that if a local project is part of a larger regional corridor (e.g., along U.S. 50 or the Plaza Sacrament Gateway Plan), it can be incorporated into the regional priority discussion.
      • Suggested that the committee consider including Capital Corridor in future meetings due to potential overlaps (e.g., Sacramento Gateway) and the potential third main line track between Sacramento Valley Station and Roseville, stating there is "no downside" to including them and an "upside" to their perspective.
      • Clarified the distinction between the regional fund round (RTIP) and this prioritization effort, noting the efforts are connected but separate; the RTIP is a programming document for funded projects, whereas this is a pre-award strategic prioritization.
    • Director Maple: Noted the importance of directing resources to "fix it first" regarding deteriorating PCIs and acknowledged SB1 as a significant consideration, not just an ancillary one.
    • Executive Director: Discussed the potential for STA to act as a co-applicant or applicant on multi-agency projects (e.g., Stockton Boulevard BRT, Farm to Market Routes) to demonstrate regional significance and leverage Measure A funds.
    • Director Hume: Stated they have nothing to report from the Region Committee.
    • Director Guerra: Reported on the new Transportation Funding Subcommittee activities, noting that stakeholder survey results are both "heartbreaking but extremely fascinating." He confirmed results will be available at the city level and noted that cross-tabulations for smaller cities may be limited due to variance.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously (11-0).
• Executive Director's Report: Accepted without motion; legislative updates (AB 1223) and VMT strategy workshops noted as ongoing.
• Item 7 (SACOG Prioritization): The board authorized the Executive Director to submit a letter to SACOG establishing countywide priorities and to submit applications for multi-agency projects for prioritization. The item passed with a unanimous vote (11-0) with members present.
• Next Steps: The Transportation Funding Subcommittee plans to provide a deeper dive into survey results and a full board report by the end of the month. The VMT mitigation strategy recommendations are expected to be presented in November or potentially February.