We're gonna go ahead and call to order the Sacramento Transportation Authority for June 18, 2026.

We please call the roll.

Directors Boulahan.

Here.

Desmond Dickinson.

Getta.

Hume.

Kennedy.

Here.

Maple?

Here.

Middleton.

Pulapati.

Rodriguez here.

Cerna?

Here.

Sing Allen.

Spees.

Present.

Telamontes here.

Bang.

And Chair Raphel.

Here.

And you do have a quorum.

If you'll please stand with me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge of allegiance.

See the flag.

And visible with liberty and justice for all.

And if you'll please make the announcements.

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 Uverse Cable Systems.

It is also live streamed at Metro14Live.sackCounty.gov.

Today's meeting replaced Sunday, June 21st at 2 p.m.

on Metro Cable Channel 14.

Once posted, the recording of this meeting can be viewed on demand at YouTube.com forward 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 send written comment by email to board clerk at SACCounty.gov.

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

Thank you.

And that takes us to the comment items.

Do we have any uh comments from the public this today?

No public comments.

All right, that takes us to consent items.

Uh looking at the board, anyone wants to pull any consent items.

Thanks.

Thanks, Chair.

Um I have some questions about item five.

All right, item number five.

Item five is adopt a strategy for measure a smart growth funds.

Kevin, what uh you you um sends page two that you you evaluated several potential strategies.

Um can you tell us what those strategies were?

Yeah, I think so we have these just for the rest of the board here.

We have uh funds called smart growth funds that are discretionary funds that we we have we have to award on a competitive basis.

Uh historically, we have not awarded those projects uh through STA.

We've actually leveraged SACOG's uh funding round uh program called Community Design, and we we we said essentially if you were able to um uh be successful in getting those community design funds, then measure way would provide the local match uh under the smart growth funds.

And because that program was pretty small, um, we could easily make that statement, right?

Um since that time the the community design program no longer exists and there's a much larger pot of money, so it makes a little bit harder for us.

So um what's proposed here is um there's a variety of smart growth-related projects that each agency is taking on and uh utilizing sort of a formulaic approach similar to what we already do for local partnership program and STIP funds.

We're gonna provide each agency with a a set aside of funds to apply for these smart growth projects uh to utilize um utilize for these, and so we uh reached out to all agencies and said, hey, utilizing that approach, what would you propose?

They provide a list of projects.

We've included that list of projects here.

So we looked at this, you know.

That was that's essentially what we're proposing here now.

Some other things that we looked at to get back to the question.

Specifically, um, you know, we looked at doing a uh a much longer multi-cycle kind of an approach, right?

This is only for three years of funding, when if we did it for six years of funding.

Um we looked at combining it with um our local partnership program formulaic funds, um, so there would be even a larger pot of money.

Um, but I think you know, due to just from a simplicity standpoint, um we really felt like this this was made the most sense.

We had a meeting with our ITOC on it, they sort of agreed.

Um we will come back on uh a local partnership program formulaic approach.

We were we are looking at maybe taking a multi-cycle approach for that one, which is more thoughtful and longer term, um, just to ensure that people have enough funding to really deliver their projects.

Okay, thank thanks.

Did you consider um uh uh holding this essentially as a uh pot that uh people could come to with with projects regardless of jurisdiction and uh in essence be I suppose first come first, sir, but look but would be focused on the smart growth related projects and if one jurisdiction was much more aggressive than another that they would not be bound by uh what essentially is a arbitrary uh allocation.

Yeah, so I think we it's probably pretty similar to at least some degree um what we did in the prior cycles with community design, and so what you had in that instance was an example would be like Citrus Heights, did really well, because they had a lot of complete streets projects that competed really well at CICOC funding round.

So they got a uh a much larger portion of the funds than in than is typical.

Um I'm sure you know other agencies did well as what did well as uh also, but it creates it potentially create this revolving pot of funds, if you will.

Um it does sort of create some uncertainty over time, right?

You don't know how much money you can get out of that, you only get it if you're competitive, you cannot plan for it.

Um, and there's also that you know uh kind of geographic fairness kind of component of it, right?

And ensuring you're getting your your fair share of those funds that was a concern.

Okay, and um uh you indicate that 22 and a half percent was allocated to transit the balance to uh uh other jurisdictions.

Why a different why apparently a different split than the measure A split?

Uh so the 22 and a half percent is consistent with what we use for local partnership program and STIP funding through our MOU.

It's a number that we've sort of gone back and forth on and agreed to over multiple years.

Um that's really why we have it.

If you look at SACOG's funding rounds themselves, they are in it as a kind of another data point, uh, especially on the STIP side, that it that number pretty much mats up matches up with the STIP funding.

So, um, and typically we like to get consensus from the public agency staff on these types of things, and so if we were to go and try to adjust that percentage um up or down, it would be a there'd be a lot of discussion about what is right, what is wrong, and now back and forth on that.

So uh just from uh since it's an easily acceptable percentage that we've been using in the past, it was uh to continue to propose that worked really well as far as getting this out quickly.

Okay.

I I understand uh what you said.

I don't understand why transit should do worse under these kind of categories than it than it does in the measure A split, notwithstanding what any uh any other agency does.

A third goes to transit.

I don't understand.

I I understand your answer, but I don't understand why a third doesn't go to go to transit um as would be a a measure a split if it was just money coming in and sales tax revenue to to STA to be distributed out to the jurisdiction.

So that's not a question.

That's that that's a that that's my point of view on this.

Uh and if Citrus Heights did really well in last time because they were aggressive about having good projects to submit, good for them.

Uh it really incentivizes uh jurisdictions to come up with good good projects to apply for to get the get the money, in my opinion, advances those those interests, which is which is what we want to do, and it makes sure we use the money that we don't have an allocation to a jurisdiction that either isn't so interested or doesn't have uh a project that would would qualify so um with that I I I don't appro uh I I don't support this uh this this approach so you can leave it on the consent calendar if everyone else is comfortable with with that and I'll just register a no vote on on this item otherwise I'm fine with the consent calendar.

Well take it separately because that's gonna prevent that item from being on the electronic voting.

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Do we have any uh questions from the public on any of the consent items?

We do not okay.

Perfect.

Uh well, I'll entertain a motion on the rest of the consent items.

Absent five.

Second.

All right.

Please call the roll or electronic voting.

Yeah, even better.

And the motion passes for the consent calendar, other than item five.

Thank you so much.

And do I have any requests to speak on item number five?

No, you do not.

All right.

Uh we can go ahead.

Oh, Director BC.

Yeah, I think just for the clarity.

Um, so the way this funding works is you know, we have 2020 22 and a half percent set aside specifically for transit.

Um the other well, 77.5% goes to cities and counties.

City and counties are free to use that funding for their priority projects, whether that's transit, roadway, active transportation, right?

That's really at their discretion.

Um I would caution you uh regarding this vote because you know we do have these are to actively funds that are gonna be used for match on grants that these agencies are actively pursuing, and so if we we do delay a vote, um, how does that impact applications that will be due in July to say Cox funding round?

Um I think we also have and from SACRT standpoint they have a sustainable transportation planning grant that they'll find out in July on.

Um I get the concern uh for sure.

I just want to flag that that is a risk for for this particular item.

And I believe I saw in there that every jurisdiction had a project that we felt would qualify.

Pretty much every agency that that uh, I think we have two exceptions there because there's dollar amounts are smaller.

So they're looking at waiting.

Okay, any other comments?

All right.

Uh we'll go ahead and vote on item number five.

Well, is there a motion?

No, there's not.

Oh, so we need a motion and a second.

We'll entertain a motion.

I'll move a motion for approval.

I mean, I'll move the item for approval, second.

And now we'll vote.

And that motion fails.

All right.

Well, we will um do we I can entertain another motion.

Wait, no, that motion.

How did how did that motion feel?

We need a motion to reconsider first, uh, Jesus Christ.

You could do a motion to reconsider.

Otherwise, the money's still there, and I think in two months we come back, right?

Uh, and staff can propose a different allocation for the smart growth funds.

I move to reconsider.

It's got to be someone in the uh well, has to be a one of the on the prevailing party.

So who's the prevailing party?

Oh, so it's you, okay.

There is no prevailing party.

I I would, but go ahead.

Okay, whatever, whatever you say, council.

If if you can get nine to to approve a vote to reconsider and explain you know the reasons why.

You want to reconsider, then yes, go ahead and you can discuss it again, a different allocation.

But it's two, it's two votes.

It's the vote to reconsider and then another vote on a different.

And I'd like to reconsider by virtue of the fact that the body makeup has changed since the the last vote, and uh, don't want to put these funds in jeopardy for the uh um reasons that uh director Busey stated.

Second, all right, we have a motion and a second.

We'll go ahead and vote.

Okay, and if I could get director Gera to log in, I start okay.

Yes, and that motion passes.

You could vote aye on this, all right.

Uh Director BC, do you want to uh bring director Gera up to speed?

Oh, and so we can have something to follow.

Okay.

I'll understand a motion.

We have a motion to reconsider.

Now we need another motion.

I'll move to approve the consent calendar.

And I'll second.

Well, we're just looking at the item five.

Okay, then we can call it.

Well, okay.

Just so Director Gera, as long as he is up to speed on what the prior discussion was.

Somebody doesn't want the smart.

Do you want to summarize from our director, yes.

Yeah, okay.

If you feel like you're sufficiently up to speed on, I'm sufficiently up to speed on the information.

I uh watched it outside as I was walking in, and you guys voted before I opened the door.

So okay.

So another motion.

Approved item number five.

Second, all right.

All right, we'll go ahead and vote.

There we go.

And that motion passes.

All right.

That concludes our consent calendar, and we'll move on to separate items.

Please call the next item.

Okay.

Item number eight is adopt Sacramento Transportation Authority, final budget for fiscal year 2026-27.

All right.

Hello, Chair and Board of Directors.

Um, Dustin Puritan, the CFO with Sacramento Transportation Authority, and I'm presenting just a verbal presentation about the 2027 budget.

So there have been no material changes to the budget since we saw it in May.

Um as noted in the May meeting, the budget is balanced because we have sufficient revenue and fund balance to carry the appropriations.

And staff will continue to monitor and report any significant changes over the budget year.

We'll bring back uh budgetary amendments and budgetary budget to actual quarterly reporting.

And the this budget reflects both fiscal prudence and strategic investment in public engagement and education and all of all the transportation priorities that STA has.

There are no public speakers.

Alright, we have a motion and a second.

Please call the next item.

Oh, sorry.

Item nine is receive a presentation from the independent taxpayer oversight committee and approve the measure a performance compliance audit report for July 1, 2023 through June 30th, 2025 and management letter.

We better get your rest for next week.

All right.

Um as a clerk mentioned, we're here to present on the measure a performance and compliance audit for the two-year period ending June 30th, 2025.

And I'm joined here with Jose Luis Caceres, the director of programming project delivery for Stan Cog and our ITAC voting member.

So to start off, uh just a couple of the key objectives of this audit.

Um, why are we doing it?

So the measure A measure A and the ordinance are a promise to voters to to make sure that things that are in the ordinance are carried out.

So this audit helps us to prove that we have been going in that direction and keeping those promises.

So this also gives us an opportunity to maintain oversight and have some continuous improvement in our operations and the things that we do.

Um we're constantly kind of asking the auditors for what what are best practices?

What can we do differently?

Um, also increases our accountability and transparency to the public, uh building the public trust that we're we're trying to foster.

So in this is a measure ordinance requirement, and the last time that this was done was earlier last year, we had a five-year performance audit with the period ending June 30th, 2023.

So this is a two-year audit.

The last one was a five-year audit.

So and I'm gonna hand this over to Jose Luis to present on the ITAC.

Greetings.

Uh yes, I'm one of the members of the independent taxpayer oversight committee.

We're tasked with oversight.

Uh our mission is that the um the voters when they pass this measure uh were given uh promises on how their funds would be spent, and we're tasked with making sure that those promises are kept.

Um we uh we have to review the audits that are performed.

Um we uh make sure that the funds are going as planned.

I think I'll go to the next slide, please.

So who's on the independent taxpayer oversight committee?

There are six of us, three voting members and three ex officio.

Uh it's required through the ordinance that those three voting members, one be a planner engineer, one is appointed, uh, sorry, one is um appointed by the excuse me, the county auditor and someone who's uh who knows finance.

I'm sorry, I just messed that up.

Someone who is uh finance professional and someone who's been a construction manager, and then of the three ex officio, these are appoint uh two are appointees.

One's appointed by the board here of STA, another is appointed by the county auditor, and the third is uh Kevin Busey, the executive director of STA.

Uh we meet about every two months, and um what I can tell you is the next slide, please.

That we are not we may I?

Yeah, we did well.

I'll just say we did not find any significant findings.

Uh the controls are operating as intended.

Um I'm gonna pass this off to Dustin to go over it in more detail, but I'll be here for questions.

All right, thank you.

So moving on, the the key areas of testing.

I just wanted to highlight the areas that the auditors focused on.

All of these key testing areas were approved by the ITOC and the board before this audit started.

Um to start off the revenue distributions.

As you know, we get sales tax and impact fee dollars that flow into the program.

Um, that's ensuring that the revenues just being distributed appropriately to the ordinance, uh, capital program distributions, they're checking over contracts and appropriate eligible expenditures for the jurisdiction levels.

Uh the ongoing program, we did note some exceptions, and I'm gonna talk about those in the next couple of slides here.

That's a direct pass-through dollars that go to jurisdictions, SECRT, um, paratransit, um, the air board.

Um, fourth item here is the internal controls.

So the auditors are looking at how the agencies are handling the funds internally, making sure that uh their proper internal controls in place of funds are spent appropriately and handled appropriately.

Uh fifth item is ITOC compliance.

So, as Jose Luis mentioned, there are ordinance requirements for the makeup of the ITOC, and they do look at that and how they're voted in and terms and whatnot.

Uh developer impact fees, the sixth item here.

So the the calculation of the impact fee and use of those funds.

Administrative costs, we are limited to a 0.75% cap on spending in the admin for the administrative costs and maintenance of effort and compliance.

We're gonna look talk about that on a future slide, but we did test that item as well.

So, first area of uh of an exception really is the the city of IELTS was not able to provide us any support for testing.

Um, as most of you are probably aware, the city of Ileton did have a full turnover at administrative staff in the last year and a half or so.

We have been working with the current uh consultants that are in place and talking to them regularly about when we can expect uh new reporting.

So we're gonna have quarterly updates with them until they're able to produce reporting.

Once we do get that, we are going to audit them back to the last period that we were able to review their records.

So very likely it's gonna be all the way back to 630 2023 is when we're gonna audit them too.

Um if they're not able to provide records within the next year before June 30th, 2027, we're gonna start escrowing their ongoing funding.

And the escrow just means we're gonna set it aside, maintain it in interest bearing account until they're able to come into compliance.

So the next items here are the cities of Folsom and Sacramento.

We had uh reporting mismatches between the underlying records of the city and what SCA had on our side.

So just I don't want to use any jargon but reconcile, match, reconcile.

Um their records didn't match what was reported to us.

We were able to calculate it out with them after the fact, um, but it's still an internal control finding because we found it to begin with.

We will follow up with them and they will be audited in the next audit period to determine if they're back into compliance.

Um, next slide here.

I wanted to describe maintenance of effort a little bit more because it is a little bit of a nebulous, complicated um topic.

So the maintenance of effort for set STA's ordinance was set at inception.

We had a five-year look back period which looked at how much local funding or the jurisdiction spending for transportation.

It was set at that point.

That created our inception baseline, which, in terms of this chart, it's the bottom most portion.

This chart's just made up for discussion purposes.

So the inception baseline is where everyone was at at that calculated point in time.

And compliance with maintenance of effort is meeting or exceeding that every year after that.

So we didn't have anyone that fell outside of the maintenance of effort compliance requirements.

Everyone was in compliance.

And I just wanted to show this in a chart to explain the baseline set and where non-compliance would be and where compliance is.

So we want to make sure that funding supplements existing transportation dollars, not replace transportation dollars.

So and with that, I'm open to any questions.

And we do have the auditors on the line too if anyone has any questions for the auditors.

So I am not seeing any questions.

And we know public comment?

No public comment.

All right.

I can entertain a motion.

Thank you.

For approval one second.

We have a motion and a second to approve.

And that motion passes unanimously with those members present.

Please call the next item.

Item 10 is authorized actions related to the Interstate 5 managed lanes project, including execution of a memorandum of understanding with the Capital Area Regional Tolling Authority amendment of the measure A capital allocation and expenditure contract with Caltrans fiscal year 2026-27, budget amendment, execution of a consultant services contract and the submittal of federal and state grant nominations.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

So item 10 is really about advancing the I-Fi managed lanes project.

I'm Kevin Busey, I'm your executive director.

Uh we have in the audience uh staff from uh Caltrans, SACOCARTA, all involved involved in this project.

Should there be any detailed questions?

And really, this item is about measuring uh using our measure A funds to leverage those to essentially get additional funding at the federal and state level.

Um let's talk a little bit about uh the sort of the measure A vision and the expenditure plan.

So um the plan with the measure A was to build a regional bus and carpool lane network.

Um, and we have specific funding set aside only for the regional bus carpool lanes uh within our measure a expenditure plan.

Um, and in addition, the expenditure plan one is to leverage federal and state grant funds on this particular program.

We've had a lot of success in actually uh building out our um managed lane network or bus and carpool lane network.

Um there are four projects in our expenditure plan.

Three of those are constructed.

This would be the last one.

Um so on Interstate 80.

Um, the first, this is in chronological order.

The very first project was I-80, uh, where we added bus and carpool lanes on I5 on I 80 between I-5 and Capital City Freeway.

Um recently, uh, fairly recently on I-5 between Elk Grove and downtown.

We added bus and carpool lanes, and then um the last project that's I would say substantially complete um is US 50 from Sunrise Boulevard to downtown.

Um, and then that leaves the last remaining project listed in our expenditure plan as the I-5 bus and carpool lanes from downtown to I-80.

Essentially, um, essentially this is the project here is the IFA managed lanes project.

Um, this is a project Caltrans has been leading, um, begins obviously downtown Sacramento at 80 and goes all the way up to the airport, right at the Sacramento Yolo County line.

Um you can see that this particular facility has a lot of congestion, uh, especially in the morning hour and is a need of a lot of assistance or help.

Uh and this is an interstate, obviously, right?

It's an interstate facility, meaning it goes through multiple states and has a lot of uh freight traffic as well.

So the locally preferred alternative for this is a hot three plus lane.

Um we'll have to we'll go into a little more detail on that, but it essentially is a bus and carpool lane for three or more occupants.

Um so essentially, if you are a um you're in a your your carpooling on your or in a bus, it is free for your use, right?

There's no issues with you.

Now, the hot the hot or the T component, the tolling component is if you would like to use that lane and pay for it, um you have that option.

Um so if you have you're driving with yourself or with one other person, you can go ahead and pay to use that land.

That's at your option.

But it does um satisfy our measure expenditure plan, meaning we are building the bus and carpool lanes that we told the voters we would build.

Um, the existing lanes remain free, there's no cost to those.

Um this option sort of supports shared travel because obviously you can move a lot of people if they're sharing a car, right?

Or sharing or riding in a bus.

Um, and it really helps.

And then this project, you know, it'll improve bus and bus operations and the carpool lane use, obviously, but it also uh also improve people in the other lanes who are not paying at all.

It'll actually improve their travel as well.

So it actually provides uh benefit to everyone in those lanes.

And so why high accuracy toll lanes?

I want to talk a little bit about this.

Um, you know, those really prioritize share trips, right?

Over on a general purpose lane or regular lane.

Um, you know, SACOG has a regional plan called the Blueprint.

It identifies the uh these managed lanes within that plan.

Um this is these bus and carpool lanes are in our expenditure plan, so it aligns with measure A.

And uh, you know, a general purpose lane or even HOV lane is actually fairly hard to fund right now for federal and straight grants.

And so a actual HOT lane actually makes us more competitive for federal and state grants.

There's a lot of people involved in this project, so I just want to clarify some of that.

Um from an agency role standpoint.

Um Caltrans is the SEQA lead.

They're they are developing that project.

They're doing the environmental design, they will be the they'll be implementing the construction phase of that project.

SACOG is involved because of their regional planning aspect, and they've um they Caltrans has received funding from SACOG through their competitive funding round for this project, and then finally CARTA, which is a new agency, which we have one of our board members sits on, uh, will actually operate the toll function of this.

We have actually a couple of members of our board on the on the on CARTA, but uh will will function as essentially operating that toll facility, right?

They're responsible for the tolling component of it.

And SDA obviously is um a funding partner.

Um, and so there takes a lot of effort to move these projects forward, and so this this next slide is really about grant readiness and schedule, right?

All there's a lot of things that have to happen to ensure that you can actually get grants awarded.

Um, so one of those is making sure that you know all the partners are in agreement.

So you've got SACOG, CARTA, Caltrans, STA, you know, we all need to be going in the same direction.

And we spent a lot of time working through different alternatives and options to get to a point where in about spring of this year, we all felt very comfortable moving forward with this particular alternative.

And then you have once you have that alignment, you want to make sure that you have your environmental completed and your tolling completed so that you can get grants, right?

That really shows the agencies that you're ready to receive the grants and can move forward on a project.

So the environmental clearance phase anticipated to be completed in the spring of 27.

The uh tolling authority around the same time frame, and then grants would be awarded in the summer of 27 if we were successful.

Um but really toward those get those grants awarded, we need to have those two steps earlier steps done.

So the really the approach for this is we have about 880,000 that's needed to fund the tolling authority work that Carta would do, um, specifically asking for tolling authority from the California Transportation Commission, as well as um doing any required tech studies, whether that's um a traffic and revenue study work that they have to do or reviewing any of um Caltrans' work, right?

Um and in addition, well, I'll add to that that CARTA had offered to loan us the funds to do that work, and we'd have to pay it back, but we saw that as a fine, there was a financing cost of that of several hundred thousand that we wanted to avoid, so we advanced these dollars to make this work happen.

There, and it's an additional 400,000 for the I-5 grant application.

So we are we are funding grant applications for the next three years for this project um for at the federal and state level, and these grants take a lot of effort because they want a lot of information on what your outcomes are, what is your benefit cost analysis, all those things.

All this work will position us for grants to get grants awarded.

Um it all uses Caltrans' share of the measure A CIP funds.

So this action today would advance the tolling authority work.

Essentially, would put an agreement between uh Cardin SDA and MOU to ask them to apply for tolling authority and fund the required cities allow them to do that.

It would authorize us to submit grants and would fund the actual grant application work itself.

And with that, that really ends my presentation.

Director Telemontis.

I do not have any questions, more of comments to my colleagues.

I have a year and a half now on this board, and I have learned so much about the process, about variable pricing.

So it's not gonna be like you're not gonna get charged by like, oh, you get off get on J Street, you get off Richards.

It's gonna be like by the miles, not segment pricing.

So I've learned about how we can we're gonna do pricing, uh, what kind of boulders we're gonna put in, what kind of back end system we're gonna use, what the equity study looks like.

Uh we hired a new director, Kathleen Aziz, uh, who's gonna be taking over uh next month.

So I'm really excited for her.

She just had a baby and it's coming back into a brand new job, but she's been so great at explaining engineering things into human form where we can understand it, then eventually be able to relay it to our constituency and our and the our voters who are probably gonna be upset um about this once it um comes into fruition.

Uh one of the media outlets did write about this project, and a lot of the comments that I read online were um we pay for these roads, so why do we have to pay again to use them?

And uh that's the sentiment that I saw online.

And so Carta is working hard at explaining how and why they're gonna add the additional lane, um, how it's gonna make it quicker for everybody, and um also incorporate equity into the conversation.

So um I know today's like the first presentation, um, and you know, and now when I travel anywhere, I notice everything.

I went to um the Bay Area like last weekend, and I noticed Fairfield also has toll lanes, and honestly, it was really confusing for me.

I no one was using it, everybody else was on the other four lanes, and I saw the the billboards and the pricing, and it was super confusing for me.

So as we navigate this, um it's front mine and center of what the average driver will feel like when they step onto the freeway.

So something that I just keep prep mine is there.

So I just want to give you as an update.

Thank you.

Uh Director Dickinson.

Thanks.

There we go.

Thanks.

I just had a couple questions, Kevin.

Um this is specifically for the uh segment from the I-5 US 50 interchange to the uh US 80 interchange.

Is that right?

Essentially through downtown across the the river to the interchange with AD, is that right?

Yeah, so the the expenditure plan in our plan, we have um essentially I-5 from the limits you just said, right?

From US 50 to I-80.

Um obviously that expenditure plan is from 2004, and a lot of things have changed.

And so we're providing funding for a project that's a little bit longer, obviously, because it goes to the airport.

Um, but the idea here is that you know obviously we're we're paying our portion of that cost, and that the grant funds will essentially um cover the the larger overall project.

So the grant the the grants being sought would would cover the entirety of the what we have is the what was designated as the carpool network some years ago to go to uh uh implement that completely where we don't have carpools such as in the section I just described, and convert existing carpool lanes to hot lanes.

No, there's no there's it's only an additional, it's additional, it's an additional lane only.

Um so we're adding a new high occupancy toll lane on I-5 from downtown to the airport.

I think you're pointing out that the expenditure plan is a smaller, it's a smaller segment.

It only goes from downtown to 80.

So this grant application would run from US 50 um uh I 5 interchange to to Sacramento International Airport to cover that segment.

I see.

Okay, and then for um for the uh segment that is US 50 I f I-5 to the Sacramento River, does does this contemplate um adding a lane?

I assume it does, given their description, and does that um is that uh able to be accomplished within the existing right-of-way.

Uh sorry, what were the limits one more time that you were just from US 50 I-5 to the Sacramento, uh excuse me, to the American River.

Um essentially, yes.

Um it's you know, obviously there's I think you're pointing out that there's a pretty tight right away in there, right?

Um so I believe that Caltrans will be converting an existing aux lane over um to sort of make you be a better use of that facility to add that managed lane in there.

But you're right that it's tight in there, but that we're able to figure it out.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'm also thinking about the fact that that there's a lot of interest uh in covering the um I-5.

Uh in fact, uh as I think most, if not all of the members know, there's been federal money allocated through Congresswoman Matt Suey to study covering that uh in the vicinity of the crocker.

So that's why I'm curious whether this would require more right-of-way and and if there's been coordination with that with regardless of the answer to that question, whether it's been coordination with the proposed um or impending study to look at at covering I-5.

Yeah, just confirmed that the I think you're talking you're talking about they call it the boat section, I believe.

Yes, it is it is over the boat section.

Over the boat section.

So this project is staying within the existing boat section boat, yeah, right away.

It's not we're not changing, we're not touching that uh the act those walls, right?

Um and then your your further question, which is like has there been any discussion about um specifically that aspect of the project, that aspect and it potentially being part of this project?

No, no, no.

I just wanted to make sure that the these two don't proceed without um the core coordination between them.

Not not that not that this should fund that.

Otherwise I think I think that would be great to have direction on, yeah, just to make sure that I think that we're doing that, but just you know, if you're asking us make sure those two projects are being coordinated, I'm happy to uh I think that's a great addition to a motion.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I don't know if it needs to be in the motion, but maybe it can just be a direction that we give uh to make sure that there's there's coordination.

And then the last thing I just I wanted to confirm that where there are say from I-5 south of the US 50 interchange, where we have carpool lanes now, the notwithstanding the staff report saying this would add a lane, not take a mixed-use lane where we have a carpool lane, the idea would be just to convert that to a hot lane.

The carpool lane.

We're not gonna add another lane in with and a carpool lane and a hot lane, right?

Yeah, I I agree, but I think the level of detail you're getting into is gonna I'm gonna have to call up Mr.

Greg from Caltrans, and hopefully you can answer that for us.

If not, his uh staff will help answer that.

Hello.

Hello?

Okay.

Uh good afternoon, uh, Greg Wong.

I'm from Caltrans District 3.

I am not the PM, but um in this uh you what you're saying south of downtown.

No, we're not gonna add any more lanes.

Yeah.

So you'll you'll have to convert the H only HD lane.

That's what I assume, but I wanted to make sure because that's not a good one.

Unless you can find me a lot of money in the policy change, I'd be happy to do that.

I can't.

I can't, Greg.

You have to convert it.

Okay, uh, all right.

Thank you.

That that really that answers the question.

All right, thanks, Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh easy things.

So I I I completely appreciate the the comments uh relative to to equity.

I think if it if we were if we were taking away lanes, I would certainly have uh concerns uh relative to taking away what you know the public has paid for, right?

That makes sense.

I've seen this work really well in Utah.

In fact, Utah all down the I 15 corridor is there's it's it's fantastic having that extra lane.

Um so my my only question that I have is relative to the tolls that are collected, how is that what are those tolls used for?

Is it only for the lane or is there extra that's used for I don't know cats in the field?

I don't know.

Yeah, so there's some very specific uh restrictions on the use of toll revenues.

Um so obviously you can use it to actually fund the tolling operations cost, correct?

Um but if there's any excess revenue, those revenues have to return to the corridor.

So um uh in the the approach varies, but you have a little bit of flexibility there.

So like an example might be I'll give you like three examples.

Um if there was a um you want to increase transit routes, transit frequency on on a facility on uh on that corridor specifically, you could fund that.

If you wanted to fund um in some sort of like aux lane sort of like or a ramp modification to improve congestion further, you could fund that.

If you wanted to fund um potentially even like an active transportation project that's in that corridor somehow, I don't know if that's a piece of the American River Parkway or or something that's like underneath one of those interchanges, um, you could fund that.

We don't anticipate there to be a lot of actual revenue beyond what's needed to operate the facility though.

Um, but there are rules that the funding has to stay, you know, within the corridor.

Um the decision on the funding would be uh on that funding would go would be a CARTA decision.

Um I will say that you know, was part of when the the from the formation of Carta, we sort of push them to modify their agreement so to ensure that revenues that are um generated in Sacramento County, um our Carter board members have to at a majority of our Carter board members that are appointed from Sacramento County have to approve that.

So there's a little bit of a local control there to ensure that those their funds are being spent in agreement with what our electeds want to do.

That's a hopefully that helps, Kevin.

And so then the the lane itself is only paid for by toll funds entirely, right?

I'm I'm I'm kind of picking at the equity issue is is it completely funded by the toll?

The toll lane has to fund itself from an operational standpoint, and uh but from a capital standpoint, meaning the project construction, we're using Measure A and grants to fund it.

Once it's funded, it should be sustained wholly by toll funding alone.

So essentially to operate it, uh and there's some maintenance component to that as well.

Got it.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

I expect that um folks are gonna try to avoid these toll lanes by using highways 12 and when 60, and to for like some some folks in debate, they might want to be extreme and try to use highway four to go through Stockton.

That's the common act.

I just want to comment on that.

You have to anticipate that.

All right, uh, do we have any comments from the public?

No, we do not.

All right.

I'll move the item.

I have a motion and a second.

Okay, and I'll be taking a voice vote.

Directors Boulahan.

All right.

Dickinson?

Aye.

Gera?

Vice Chair Hume?

Abstain.

Kennedy, Maple.

Abstain.

Middleton.

Aye.

Rodriguez?

Aye.

Cerna?

All right.

Spees?

Aye.

Telemontes.

Hi.

And Chair Raithel.

Aye.

And the motion passes with members Hume and Maple recording abstentions.

Thank you.

Please call the next item.

Item number 11 is the executive director's report.

They got me in there.

Okay, bestie.

All right, wonderful.

Um I just have a couple of items here I want to flag.

Um, so you know, we're doing um, we've gonna begun a series of community listening sessions to gather input on transportation priorities throughout Sacramento County.

Uh these are really part of STA's broader uh public outreach and education uh efforts that were authorized by the governing board.

Essentially we're we're doing community listening sessions.

We've done one in Arden Arcade already.

Um we're sort of learning from each of those sort of presentations and refining our messaging.

Uh we have two more planned in sort of Folsom and Ranch Cordova.

We're trying to spread those out throughout the county.

Um we just don't have enough budget to do one in every single city at this point, and then we do have one virtual presentation that we uh that we do plan to do as well.

Um so we'll be putting out information on those in our on our um on our social media channels.

Um I think what this comes down to is really trying to educate voters about the challenges we have with transportation funding, um, and to so they understand you know everything that we're going through as far as you know, as far as declining gas tax revenues and construction costs really being high, um, and and hopefully we get a little bit of input, right?

Is a listening session in the fact that I think it's important that we hear from you know the community before we take any sort of future policy action, right?

And we we continue to can consider you know a sales tax measure potentially in 2028, but right now this is more about listening and understanding what the interests are, what the concerns are, maybe what the priorities are.

Um but I think these are actually really helpful meetings in getting in better refining our evening our own messaging.

Uh and we're being assisted by Lucas Public Affairs on that, and they've been they've been really good.

Um, just so everyone knows.

One other sort of I would say fairly big effort that's kind of happening behind the scenes here at SDA is um, you know, the Senate Bill has a um several competitive funding programs that are going to be due in um in the November.

And so um SACOG has been asking applications to be submitted through them to for prioritization.

Um SCA is you know been working with a variety of agencies trying to collect those applications and compile them together.

Um so we have actually some prepared and submitted applications on behalf of all these agencies.

Um one of those is the US 50 multimodal corridor connections project, um, would be a potential grant for solutions for congestion corridors program.

The total grant amount is about 86.375 million.

Um, and so you know, SB1, it happens every two years.

There's our region typically gets somewhere in the hundred to 150 million dollars total.

Um, you know, we want to make sure we're getting our fair share of those funds.

Um this is an opportunity for us to do that and get it get provide some leadership, provide some coordination, put that application together.

Um I think it's a really important that we do this consistently.

Um we're also we've also been partnering with Placer Sacramento on the Sacramento Gateway with PCTPA.

Um they have been leading that effort, but with our support, they have submitted a similar application for 115 million dollars.

Um and then finally, this same project we just talked about has submitted under the trade court or enhancement program.

So the I5 project is submitted for 20 million dollars.

Um, and it's created a lot of there's been a lot of coordination to really make these happen.

Um I will flag that item six on our agenda today, which was approved, which I appreciate, has a lot more detail.

If you want to see specifically um the projects that were included in that, but what we've been trying to do is to, you know, to the extent we can.

We've tried to, like on US 50 as an example, we we brought together this all the cities, the county, SACRT.

What are your projects that are ready to go?

Let's compile those together on US 50 and put a compelling application together.

And so we are I think we're lucky in that we have a really good balance of projects uh along all the along 50, but within all those jurisdictions, and I think it will be a fairly competitive project.

Um so I'm really hopeful to for that to happen.

Uh, with that I'm opening any questions.

Any questions?

All right.

Uh we have no comments from the public.

No comments.

All right, and that takes us to our last item.

The reports out from the authority members.

Uh Director Talamantes, anything on Carta?

No.

All right, anything from our other two subcommittees?

No report, all right.

Director Hume.

Nope.

All right.

With that, we are adjourned at 224.

Have a great day, everybody.

You were right, Bill.