Operations - Metro
02/04/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to clarify Section 1.6 - Committees (page 3), to be consistent with the action taken establish Committees. The proposed language is, "Committee appointments are recommended by the chair and confirmed by the MTA Board." Further, staff will return within the interim period with recommendations and comments from the Committees and Construction Board regarding how they can most efficiently serve the MTA and what specific authorities could be delegated under AB 152. This motion was seconded and unanimously carried. |Rules | |
|03/03/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR EDELMAN’S MOTION - Rename the Red Line Civic Center Station "The Tom Bradley |Naming |
| |- Civic Center Station"; and Blue Line 103rd Street Station "The Kenneth Hahn - 103rd Street | |
| |Station." | |
| |The Board agreed to request the Transit Construction Board to review the policy regarding the naming | |
| |of stations and to report back to the MTA Board. | |
|03/03/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS PATSAOURAS/MOLINA MOTION - Begin search to fill positions of Inspector |Rules |
| |General and General Counsel to be placed on agenda for next meeting. | |
|03/03/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN MOTION that a three member subcommittee of the MTA Board be | |
| |established to analyze all headquarters alternatives previously studied by both the RTD and the | |
| |LACTC. Emphasis will be placed on cost effectiveness and the facilitation of organizational merger of| |
| |the RTD and the LACTC. Members of the subcommittee shall include one Board Member representing the | |
| |County Board of Supervisors, one Board Member representing the City Council of Los Angeles, and one | |
| |Board Member representing the City Corridors and that this action would not stop any action being | |
| |taken by RTD or LACTC at this time. | |
|03/24/93 |BOARD APPROVED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MOTION - Referred to Executive Management Committee, |Rules |
| |process for selection of Board Officers, to review motions and make recommendations to MTA Board. | |
| |Approved establishment of a Second Vice Chairperson on a rotation basis and Larry Zarian to fill the | |
| |position. | |
|04/28/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS - Commence meetings at the posted time if a quorum is present. |Rules |
|04/28/93 |BOARD APPROVED CEO signature authority at $100,000; amounts above this would require Board approval. |Procurement |
|05/19/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION - concerning application of Brown Act to Ad Hoc Committee |Rules |
| |Meetings. Approved waiving quorum and notice exceptions of Brown Act. | |
|06/9/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ZARIAN/RIDLEY THOMAS MOTION that the Board adopt and approve the following |USG |
| |actions: | |
| |Termination of all negotiations for the lease or construction of a headquarters project at locations | |
| |other than Gateway. | |
| |Issuance of debt to finance the 26 story Union Station Gateway project; including a pledge of | |
| |revenues of the MTA to secure financing; and authorization of necessary actions by the CEO in | |
| |connection with that financing; and adoption of a formal resolution authorizing the issuance of debt.| |
| |Funding of interim costs until financing is obtained. | |
| |Approval be subject to the Catellus Gateway proposers providing a written guarantee that the MTA | |
| |would not be responsible for any cost overruns due to construction or rental, and thus all costs | |
| |exceeding the amount stipulated in Jhe CEO’s May 20 memorandum be borne by the developer. Further | |
| |that the award be made subject to verification by MTA staff of that which is contained in the June 9 | |
| |document submitted by Catellus and/or its representatives listing the comparison of the public | |
| |benefits between the two competing interests. | |
|06/16/93 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION to provide a direct loan to the Ratkovich Company in the amount of $300,000 |Real Property |
| |secured by a personal guarantee and a direct loan to the Wiltern Associates in the amount of | |
| |$1,000,000 secured by real property. | |
|06/23/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to: |Bus Service |
| |Allow the contract term regarding Omnitrans 110/496 for FY 1994 to expire on June 30, 1993 and do not| |
| |exercise the option years of the current agreement. | |
| |Allocate $300,000 of Proposition C Interest Funds for FY 93/94 to allow time for Omnitrans to explore| |
| |alternate arrangements. | |
| |C. Direct MTA staff to work with adjacent counties to identify any service restructuring that may be | |
| |needed as a result of this action, to assure that transit rider achieve a comparable level of | |
| |service. | |
| |Direct MTA Staff to explore SCAG 1246 process. | |
| |E. A portion of the $300,000 be used to guarantee funding Los Angeles County’s share of Omnitrans | |
| |Line 110/496 for 60 days in FY93-94, at an expected cost of $213,000. | |
| |F A public hearing or community workshop be conducted in coordination with Riverside and San | |
| |Bernardino counties. | |
| |G. Agreement on data needs is secured immediately and collected as a priority for all parties in the | |
| |Joint Service Agreement. | |
| |H Staff return in August with a report on how these transit trips will continue to be served, with | |
| |proposed service adjustments and cost implications, targeting the $300,000 allocation for FY93-94 as | |
| |closely as possible. | |
|06/23/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION - Continue Advisory Committees through July 31, 1993. |Rules |
|06/23/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PAPEN MOTION - It is moved that the Office of Inspector General conduct a |Rules |
| |regular program of monitoring change orders and claims in major construction projects undertaken by | |
| |the MTA. The Inspector General shall report the results of this monitoring to the Board of Directors| |
| |on a quarterly basis. This activity shall consist of the general tracking of causes* and treatment | |
| |of the major change orders and claims, and should address whether change order requests are within | |
| |the scope of the original contract. | |
| |*Change Order Causes should be classified as follows: | |
| |Unforseen circumstances (fire, civil unrest) | |
| |Technical improvements | |
| |Design Errors and Omissions | |
| |Requirements of other agencies | |
| |Personal preference of board or staff member | |
|06/30/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH/HOLEN MOTION and referred to the Operation Committee regarding the|Funding |
| |identification of 2.5% savings in the bus and 2.5% savings in the rail operations program and to | |
| |include all bus and rail for all agencies receiving funds from the MTA. | |
|06/30/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION to restore the full $8.5 million for the preliminary engineering|ACTA |
| |on the Alameda Corridor Project to be funded out of Proposition C. | |
|06/30/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that $5 million for the Immediate Needs Transportation Program |INTP |
| |for Fiscal Year 1993-94 from the general fund account, expanding the program to include paratransit | |
| |and fixed route bus operators, with transfer of the funds for the program to the Corporate Transit | |
| |Partnership and that the Operations Department take the lead in the administering of the program. | |
| |Staff to prepare options to refine the program targeting those with the greatest needs, and to | |
| |recommend actions identifying potential programs that offer consumer choices that maximize funding | |
| |effectiveness. | |
|08/25/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION authorizing the CEO and the MTA federal lobbyists to |Legislative |
| |immediately work with congress and representatives in order to obtain federal rail construction | |
| |funds. | |
|08/25/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ARTHUR MOTION calling for a workshop to be held in September for the purpose | |
| |of | |
| |briefing Board members on the history, schedule and current status of rail development; and | |
| |to present funding options; and | |
| |to discuss the status of North Hollywood red Line extension. | |
|08/25/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION authorizing staff to consult with the film industry, |Filming |
| |including the Director’s Guild of America and other appropriate unions and guilds, Alliance of Motion| |
| |Picture and Television Producers, the Los Angeles Film Development Committee, the California Film | |
| |Commission, as well as other transit properties and city and county film offices, to assist in the | |
| |development of the MTA Film Production Policy and Guidelines. | |
|08/25/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION in concept modification to the DBE and MBE/WBE Programs as it |DBE |
| |relates to professional services with staff to implement the spirit of the policy until it is | |
| |formally adopted; and | |
| |Referred to the RCC for review and comments. | |
| |requirements for design teams proposals; | |
| |make-up of the interview panel; and | |
| |the Minority & Women Participation - Individual Firm form, for inclusion as part of the bid proposal | |
| |package in reporting a company’s composition. | |
|09/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVKSY MOTION to: |Investment |
| |A. Approve staff’s recommendation for senior managing underwriters, co-managing underwriters and | |
| |co-bond counsel for Proposition C rail and highway bond issuance; and | |
| |B. Authorize the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and the Treasurer acting as the CEO’s designee, to | |
| |procure other required services related to the issuance of the bonds, such as but not limited to | |
| |trustee services, printing of the official statement, credit rating agency services, bond issuance, | |
| |liquidity facilities and re-marketing services. | |
| |To approve staff recommendation for co-bond counsel for Proposition C rail and highway bond issuance | |
| |and DIRECT staff to establish appropriate DBE/WBE goals and seek competitive bids for senior managing| |
| |underwriters and co-managing underwriters, and authorize the CEO to award to the lowest bidder. | |
|09/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HOLEN MOTION on the proposed Severance Package and AUTHORIZED the Chief |Human Resources |
| |Executive Officer to begin implementation. With regard to Phase 3, the CEO is directed to provide | |
| |the Executive Management Committee with a methodology for assuring fairness and impartiality in the | |
| |review process for involuntary terminations of regular employees. | |
|09/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED AND REFERRED to Planning & Programming Committee DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION to proceed| |
| |with establishing Benefit Assessment Districts for MOS-2 and MOS-3. | |
| |*BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION - That the Board direct the CEO to conduct an audit of the| |
| |current practices related to the issuance of work orders and report in 60 days. | |
| |* BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION authorizing the CEO to hire a forensic team to review the| |
| |fees paid for architectural/engineering/planning services. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION that the MTA staff prepare and bring before the MTA Board | |
| |of Directors, no later than the November 1993 Regular Meeting, a method by which the Board of | |
| |Directors may be assured that the MTA is operating in compliance: with all Federal, State and MTA | |
| |policy procedures. | |
| |*Asterisked Items and those listed below will be the subject of a special workshop to be scheduled: | |
| |BOARD APPROVED | |
| |that the Board must approve all Master Cooperative Agreements and budget authorizations related | |
| |thereto. | |
| |That the Board approve all work orders in excess of the budget authorization prior to their issuance.| |
| | | |
| |That no work orders shall be issued that benefit an owner of a conflicting facility without a valid | |
| |Master Cooperative Agreement. | |
| |Provide status report on change orders. | |
|09/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION - That the MTA continues to support construction of an |Planning |
| |appropriately mitigated Route 710 Gap Closure Project once the project has met all Federal and State | |
| |environmental requirements; and that MTA staff is authorized to present this resolution and to | |
| |provide testimony at the September 27, 1993 CTC Route Adoption Public Hearing in Pasadena. | |
|10/27/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - that staff seek legislation which would permit |Legislation |
| |procurement of a turnkey stand-alone transit project for the East-West San Fernando Valley Line. | |
|10/27/93 |BOARD APPROVED SUPERVISOR BURKE MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors instruct the contract |Contract Compliance |
| |Compliance staff to schedule a workshop within 45 days for Women Business Enterprises to discuss the | |
| |methods for establishing Women Business Enterprise participation goals as well as Small Women | |
| |Business Enterprise goals. | |
| |Furthermore, the Contract Compliance Staff should report back to the MTA Board within 60 days with | |
| |the results of the workshop. This will include recommendations to provide information, | |
| |clarification, and assurance that the Women Business Enterprise will receive equity and fairness in | |
| |the goal setting process. | |
|10/27/93 |BOARD APPROVED SUPERVISOR BURKE MOTION that the Chief Executive Officer prepare and provide to the |Affirmative Action |
| |Authority an affirmative action breakdown, by employee classification, of the current MTA workforce | |
| |by November 1993. | |
| |Furthermore, the Chief Executive Officer should routinely report to the Authority on the ethnic and | |
| |gender composition of key supervisory and professional appointments. | |
|10/27/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION |DBE |
| |A. changes to DBE certification practices to allow firms applying for DBE certification a maximum of | |
| |20 days to complete requirements. | |
| |B. incorporates language within the solicitation document and the DBE Program document to encourage | |
| |proposers to participate in joint ventures with DBE/MBE/WBE,S on all service contracts. | |
| |C. submits Ownership and Affirmative Action Form from contractors as a requirement of MTA’s | |
| |affirmative action and contract compliance monitoring activity. | |
|10/27/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that staff seek legislation which would permit procurement |LRTP |
| |of a turnkey stand-alone transit project for the East-West San Fernando Valley line. | |
|10/27/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DANA MOTION to reevaluate the policy concerning Board members’ attendance |Procurement |
| |during consultant selection process and request the Rules Committee to review the rules and | |
| |procedures and report back to the Board with their findings. | |
|11/17/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that travel reimbursement claims be submitted within 45 |Travel |
| |days and that the Chief Executive Officer review and implement a policy similar to that of L.A. | |
| |County and report back at the next meeting. The current policy will remain in effect until this | |
| |motion can be considered by the Executive Management Committee. | |
|11/17/93 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION instructing the CEO and the Executive Management Committee to review| |
| |the concept of a Productivity Commission for the MTA and return to this Board with recommendations. | |
| |In 1982, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors approved my motion to create a Productivity Commission,| |
| |which included private sector business and labor leaders, to advise the County on how to improve the | |
| |efficiency and quality of County services. Over the past decade, the commission’s suggestions have | |
| |saved hundreds of millions of dollars. The MTA might benefit from a similar commission. | |
|11/17/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that Franklin White, CEO of MTA and Richard Stanger, | |
| |Executive Director of SCRRA report to the Board at December meeting explaining, the history of and | |
| |giving justification for the delays and cost overruns in the agencies overseeing construction of | |
| |commuter rail stations, particularly at Sylmar and Cal State. | |
|12/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - preparation of list of potential projects for new or increased|Funding |
| |transit authorizations to the Congressional delegation for submittal to the Subcommittee on Surface | |
| |Transportation by January 7, 1994; and | |
| |Further approved list to include The Alameda Corridor; West to Westwood; East to Atlantic Blvd; San | |
| |Fernando Valley East-West Corridor; South along the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor; North along the | |
| |Glendale Corridor; Exposition to USC; 10/60 Corridor (Norwalk); Santa Monica Blvd.; Northeast | |
| |extension of Green Line and Pasadena to Azusa. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BRAUDE MOTION to have a 80/20 federal funding split when requesting funds | |
| |from the federal government. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation | |
| |Authority strongly encourage Congress to refrain from earmarking highway projects in this | |
| |legislation. If Congress chooses to earmark specific highway projects, the MTA respectfully requests | |
| |that Congress consider the Route 30 Gap Closure project in Los Angeles County as its top priority in | |
| |Los Angeles County. | |
|12/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION suspending all activities on the Electric Trolley Bus (ETB) |Bus |
| |Program, demobilizing the ICF Kaiser contract and reprogramming available funds. | |
|12/15/93 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to |Pasadena Blue Line |
| |A. proceed with implementation of the Pasadena Construction Management contract selection process and| |
| |negotiate a contract with CRSS/STV/SUBS for the Pasadena Blue Line for the Los Angeles River Bridge | |
| |Contract C6410, and to conduct constructability reviews of design submittals during FY 94; and | |
| |B. approve the immediate issuance of a Letter Contract - Limited Notice to Proceed in an amount not | |
| |to exceed $1,000,000 for the period during which negotiations are to be conducted. | |
|01/05/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HOLEN MOTION |LRTP |
| |RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority| |
| |does hereby authorize the following: | |
| |1. Seek federal funding for right-of-way protection/land acquisition for the Eastside Extension from | |
| |1st and Lorena to Atlantic, as well as for preliminary engineering for future Metro Red Line | |
| |extensions as determined by the MTA Board through the 20 Year Long Range Plan, as adopted. | |
| |2. Seek authorization for additional funds needed to complete the Gateway Intermodal Transit Center | |
| |at Union Station. | |
| |Seek authorization of additional bus funding for the MTA’s Alternate Fuel initiative for replacement | |
| |buses. | |
| |Seek funding for the L.A. Rail Car Procurement. | |
| |5. Seek funding for the Route 30 Gap Closure project. | |
| |In cooperation with the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority and the City and County of Los | |
| |Angeles, to seek additional funds for the Alameda Corridor project. | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution in no way prejudices the MTA’s adoption of the 20 Year Long | |
| |Range Plan in the Spring of 1995. | |
|03/23/94 |Received report regarding wheel/rail lubrication and vehicle modifications to extend wheel/rail |Operations |
| |wear. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to: | |
| |Instruct staff, designers and engineers to incorporate the lessons learned into future alignments; | |
| |and | |
| |Instruct staff, designers and engineers to review the designs of existing and future alignments and | |
| |identify potential concerns that can be improved upon. | |
|04/27/94 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION regarding |Marketing |
| |revision of production company lease rates, | |
| |submit a proposal for the production of promotional marketing material, and | |
| |prepare a proposal for improvement in MTA’s interface with production companies; with items 1 and 3 | |
| |to be completed in 30 days and item 2 within 60 days. | |
|05/25/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - that all international travel by staff be approved by |Administration |
| |CEO. | |
|05/25/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION -that the Board could vote on the budget at any scheduled |Finance |
| |MTA meeting. | |
|06/22/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION - |Planning |
| |Resolved, that staff explore early acquisition of the Golden Gate Theater site located at Whittier | |
| |and Atlantic Boulevards and report back to the Planning & Programming Committee within 30 days. The | |
| |report shall include costs, funding options and schedule. | |
|07/13/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION to adopt fare structure including changes to existing fares and|Fare |
| |fare media and to reduce the token to 90 cents, set K-12 pass at $20 and extend use to include | |
| |weekends and preserve the college/vocational pass at $30, including a review of fare structure every | |
| |two years. | |
|07/13/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DANA MOTION that: |Bus Service |
| |MTA change its express line policy to allow buses to be decreased from the present minimum of fie to | |
| |a minimum of three in the event that ridership drops near or below the ridership criteria as | |
| |established by MTA. | |
| |MTA provide bus service for Lines 443, 445, and 457 on an experimental basis for 4 months between | |
| |September 5 and December 30, 1994 with a trimmed-down schedule that runs three a.m. buses to downtown| |
| |and three p.m. buses returning. Further MTA should conduct one passenger count on each line during | |
| |each of the four months and be given the flexibility to change the schedules at any time in order to | |
| |attract the greatest amount of passengers. If at the end of the four month period, the passenger | |
| |umbers are once again below the criteria, staff should consider additional changes that may increase | |
| |ridership such as changing the routes, or recommend canceling the line. | |
| |MTA staff calculate the costs necessary to provide the experimental four month service and report | |
| |back to the Board by July 27 on funds that can be used to pay for this continued service. | |
|07/20/94 |BOARD APPROVED referring Director Alatorre’s motion, as amended, to the Chair for referral to the | |
| |appropriate committee: | |
| |It Is Resolved That: | |
| |A. An Ad Hoc Committee comprised of interested MTA Board members be appointed to comprehensively | |
| |review and advise the Board regarding the recommendations contained in “Saving Transit in L.A.” and | |
| |any other recommendations for cost savings and operational improvements it believes are important for| |
| |the Board to consider. | |
| |B. The Ad Hoc Committee will also provide an updated review of the progress that has been made in | |
| |implementing prior recommendations such as those contained in the Deloitte Touche report (for | |
| |example, service delivery, administrative Operational overhead costs and other areas as identified.) | |
| |C. In furtherance of its efforts, the Ad Hoc Committee shall meet with the authors of “Saving | |
| |Transit in L.A.”, Deloitte Touche staff, MTA staff and other individuals or groups it believes can be| |
| |of assistance in meeting its goals. | |
| |D. The Cost Reduction Ad Hoc Committee will return to the Board within 60 days with its report | |
| |including an implementation schedule of cost savings actions based on its recommendations and an | |
| |estimate of the cost savings that can be realized from these actions. | |
|07/20/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION |Pasadena Blue Line |
| |I therefore move this board amend the FY 1994-95 MTA Budget to include the following: | |
| |1. $62.2 million previously identified in the draft FY 94-95 Budget plus an additional $60.8 million | |
| |to be appropriated from the following sources: | |
| |a. $32.8 million of unexpended funds from HOV projects that have been completed under budget; | |
| |b. $18 million in unallocated TOS funds; | |
| |c. $10 million in deobligated capital funds made available in the FY 94-95 Call for Projects | |
| |Recertification. | |
| |2. Staff is instructed to return to the Board within 60 days following the adoption of the FY 94-95 | |
| |Budget with a Full Funding Plan for the Pasadena Blue Line for review by the Board. | |
|07/20/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN MOTION to conduct workshops in the Call for Projects to insure that | |
| |adequate bus capital replacement funds are made available to maintain the county-wide bus fleet, this| |
| |is including all the bus systems, on a twelve year replacement cycle; this is to be a working | |
| |assumption as staff prepares the long term plan. | |
|07/20/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION - staff to develop a communications plan for emergency |Operations |
| |situations and to return to the Board for approval in 30 days. | |
|07/20/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to amend the FY 1995 funding of the Transit Service | |
| |Expansion/Bus Overcrowding Relief (TSE/BOR) projects noted: | |
| |A. funding in the amount of $2.8 million in FY 1995 for the projects noted in the CEO’s report dated | |
| |May 31, 1994, that have met all of the performance criteria and are successful projects; and | |
| |B. funding in the amount of $491,700 in FY 1995 for Long Beach Line 131 and Torrance Line 6; | |
| |C. assigning operating responsibility for demonstration MTA Line 620 (Boyle Heights Shuttle) to LADOT| |
| |effective July 1, 1994; | |
| |D. allocate funding of $395,000 to LADOT and enter into a contract with LADOT for continued operation| |
| |of Line 620 by the MTA until such time as LADOT procures another service provider; | |
| |E. authorizing Foothill Transit, Torrance Transit and LADOT to use funds received from their formula | |
| |share of the $20 million supplemental Proposition C Discretionary operating subsidy contained in the | |
| |FY 95 budget to continue operation of Foothill Line 690, Torrance MAX services and LADOT Lines 409, | |
| |549, 573 and 574; this is limited to FY 95 operation only; | |
| |F. authorizing additional funds in the amount of $650,000, through December 31, 1994, to cover the | |
| |insufficient funding for LADOT Lines 409, 549, 573 and 574; conduct ridership surveys and prepare | |
| |performance evaluation of these services to be considered by MTA Board in October, 1994; and | |
| |G. go work with the Bus Operators Subcommittee to develop reasonable productivity standards to be | |
| |used to evaluate all of the TSE/BOR lines, and seek permanent funding sources for all eligible | |
| |TSE/BOR lines. | |
|07/27/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN MOTION authorizing MTA staff working with the Alameda Corridor |ACTA |
| |Transportation Authority, the California Transportation Commission, and Caltrans to (a) lift the | |
| |conditions on the expenditure of Proposition 116 funds for the Alameda Corridor grade separations, | |
| |and (b) expedite the approval and allocation of the $80 million in Proposition 116 funds for specific| |
| |eligible grade separations along the Corridor. Also, work with interested parties to expedite the | |
| |utilization of Federal Port Access Demonstration funds for these projects. | |
|08/24/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION instructing the CEO to: |Construction |
| |A. Report back to this board on the complaints regarding structural damages caused by Metro Rail | |
| |construction from Union Station to Hollywood; | |
| |B. Prepare a survey plan that would continue to monitor structural damage caused by ongoing settling | |
| |of buildings from Union Station to Hollywood; | |
| |C. Report on the economic impact of subway construction along Hollywood Boulevard and the Wilshire | |
| |Corridor; | |
| |D. Prepare a budget estimate for curing the economic and physical impacts caused by Metro Rail | |
| |construction; | |
| |E. Investigate and identify liability of the aforementioned structural damages, including but not | |
| |limited to the design, construction method and management, faulty geological surveys and tunnel | |
| |execution by the mining contractor; and | |
| |F. Report at the September MTA meeting on the status of the CEO’s earlier recommendation to dissolve | |
| |the appendage RCC organization, creating a construction committee under the direct purview of the | |
| |MTA. | |
|08/24/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION to reaffirm the MTA and LACTC long-standing commitment to fund |LRTP |
| |and construct the San Fernando Valley East/West Transit Rail Project as the next rail project, after | |
| |approval of construction of the Pasadena Blue Line. | |
|08/24/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION requesting the CEO and his staff look into the Possibility |Naming |
| |of renaming the Pasadena Rail Line to clearly distinguish this line from the existing Blue Line (from| |
| |Long Beach to Downtown L.A.) and to report back at the next board meeting. | |
|09/23/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION approving funding in the amount of $6,676,000 for the design |Construction |
| |and construction of the second entrance to the Vermont/Sunset Metro Red Line station from the | |
| |following sources with the contingencies noted: | |
| |Remaining Rail Capital Reserve in the Call for Projects Recertification $831,000 | |
| |Reduced existing Metro Red Line Segment 2 Enhancements budget $2,000,000 | |
| |Delayed procurement of Metro Access operations services $500,000 | |
| |Reduce MTA Transit Police capital projects $317,000 | |
| |Deferral of Metro Red Line Segment 4 Westside Alternatives Analysis due to reprocurement $500,000 | |
| |Staff, Kaiser, and other interested parties to return to Board with alternative funding which may | |
| |include participation by Kaiser 2,528,000 | |
| |Contingencies: | |
| |Approval of necessary real estate agreements with Kaiser Permanente Medical Center and receipt of | |
| |Federal Transit Administration approval of a letter of no prejudice allowing the MTA to use local | |
| |funds which will be matched with federal formula ISTEA funds (CMAQ/RSTP). | |
|09/23/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION on the lawsuit regarding the fare increase and the loss of|Fare |
| |approximately $3 million per month and directed the Chief Executive Officer to prepare a contingency | |
| |plan on how these funds will be made up. The CEO clarified that the two-month delay in implementing | |
| |the fare increase amounts to approximately $6 million and when added to our current shortfall totals | |
| |$16 million for the fiscal year. | |
|10/11/94 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION - |Rules |
| |That the MTA Board direct the CEO to report back to this Board at its next scheduled meeting, on | |
| |October 16th, with a proposed organizational structure of the MTA’s rail construction department, | |
| |proposed staffing, and a proposed timeline for implementation. Additionally that the CEO place his | |
| |reorganization plan on the October 26th agenda for a decisive vote. | |
|10/26/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION - |Rules |
| |NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the MTA Board of Directors does hereby endorse the steps taken by | |
| |the CEO to implement a comprehensive construction management plan which would increase the efficiency| |
| |of MTA construction projects, improve quality, enhance safety and make the MTA staff fully | |
| |accountable for the project. | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that this resolution is hereby transmitted to the Department of Transportation, | |
| |Federal Transit Administration to send a powerful and determined message that the MTA is ready to | |
| |take the necessary actions to ensure the Metro Rail Red Line continues to move forward in a safe and | |
| |efficient manner; | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that the MTA Board: | |
| |Authorize staff to prepare an RFQ, with a three day response time, for a construction oversight | |
| |consultant to work with the MTA Deputy of Construction Management Review and CEO to review and | |
| |recommend a process and control system for capital construction, contract procurement and quality | |
| |assurance, including recommendations on how the MTA Board can be more effective in its oversight; | |
| |Delegate, to the Executive Management Committee and the CEO, authority to carry out the consultant | |
| |selection process; | |
| |Co Direct the selected consultant, the Deputy of Construction Management Review and CEO to provide in| |
| |January 1995, at a joint meeting of the Executive Management Committee and Construction Committee, a | |
| |report on their recommendations; | |
| |That the selected consultant, Deputy of Construction Management Review and the CEO report to EMC and | |
| |Construction Committee on a regular basis during the study; | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, effective November 1, 1994, the Board of the Rail Construction Corporation is | |
| |hereby replaced with a newly established Construction Committee of the MTA Board to be comprised of 5| |
| |members of the MTA Board, appointed by the Chair, who shall be the only voting members of the | |
| |committee; and 3 ex officio members selected on the basis of their experience and expertise in | |
| |construction (particularly rail construction), one appointed Board members representing the County of| |
| |Los Angeles, one appointed by Board members representing the City of Los Angeles, and one appointed | |
| |by Board members representing the League of California Cities, City Selection Committee; | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that the MTA CEO be an ex officio member of the Construction Committee without | |
| |voting rights; | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that any MTA Board member or alternate who serves on the Construction Committee be | |
| |restricted from accepting campaign contributions from any firm doing work or bidding on contracts to | |
| |do work on any MTA projects which are reviewed by or acted upon by the Construction Committee. | |
|10/26/94 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION that the MTA Board initiate the Major Investment Study, Draft |LRTP |
| |Environmental Impact Statement, and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, and Supplemental | |
| |Environmental Impact Report for the SP Burbank Branch alignment, including review of cost saving | |
| |measures: non-deep bore subway construction techniques; open air or skylight subway station design; | |
| |deferral of stations with low ridership projections; and bidding the project on a "turnkey" basis | |
| |with financing and development incentives. | |
|10/26/94 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION - a policy governing procedure to present new motions having a financial or |Rules |
| |policy implication no later than 48 hours in advance of a meeting. | |
|01/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BONZO MOTION – |OIG/Audit |
| |RESOLVED, that the Inspector General work with the Chief Executive Officer and the Internal Auditor | |
| |to develop procedures to more effectively follow through on implementing audit findings and | |
| |recommendations concerning the function of Internal Audit; | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Board supports the structural changes for the Internal Audit function as | |
| |recommended by the Inspector General and concurred by the Chief Executive Officer; and | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, staff is to report in sixty (60) days on evaluating the appropriate levels of | |
| |staffing for the Internal Audit function, a description of significant changes in reporting | |
| |procedures, and a plan for following up audit recommendations. | |
|01/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION requesting the Construction Committee to review the current|Small Business |
| |policies for small and minority business short listing and selection. He also requested the Committee| |
| |to explore ways to better maintain the spirit of the policy such as broader short listing of firms | |
| |and opening competition and participation by a variety of qualified firms without listing teams more | |
| |than once. | |
|01/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BONZO/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to reinstate the firm of Merrill Lynch into the |Investment |
| |underwriter pool and an amendment that all financial underwriter transactions should be competitively| |
| |bid unless the Board determined otherwise on a case-by-case basis. | |
|01/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ARTHUR MOTION to approve all parts of the $56 million shortfall mitigation |Budget |
| |plan and, in addition, take the following specific actions: | |
| |A. APPROVED reprogramming $1 million of the MTA’s unused FY 93-94 TDA capital appropriation for use | |
| |as MTA operating subsidy; | |
| |B. AUTHORIZED development of a new formula to include the criteria, to determine service reductions | |
| |to save money during the balance of FY 94-95; and | |
| |C. APPROVED reprogramming $9 million in the Rideshare account from future year TDM programs to FY | |
| |94-95 MTA operating subsidies. | |
| |THE MITIGATION PLAN | |
| |$4 million – net operating savings during the strike | |
| |$5 million – savings in medical benefits under the new labor contracts. | |
| |$3 million – miscellaneous savings already achieved, primarily vacancies in positions funded by | |
| |operating monies. | |
| |$1 million – reprogrammed MTA’s TDA capital funds | |
| |$11 million – MTA’s share of interest earned on prior years’ capital balances that will be allocated | |
| |through the mid-year adjustment of formula allocation funds next month | |
| |$5 million – MTA’s share of FY93-94 TDA Article 4 funds in excess of the FY93-94 budget. These funds| |
| |will be allocated through the mid-year adjustment of formula allocation funds next month. | |
| |$5 million – MTA’s share of FY93-94 Proposition A 40% funds in excess o the FY03-94 budget. These | |
| |funds will be allocated through the mid-year adjustment of formula allocation fund next month. | |
| |$9 million – reprogram Ridshare account funds from future TDM programs to operating subsides | |
| |Planned cost containment actions to be taken by the CEO in activities planned to be paid from | |
| |operating eligible funds include: | |
| |$3 million – maintain vacancies in positions planned to be paid from operating funds for the balance | |
| |of the year. There are over 500 such vacancies at the present time. The savings level is the | |
| |equivalent of keeping approximately 90 positions of these positions vacant for the balance of the | |
| |year. | |
| |$1 million – defer planning studies | |
| |$1.5 million – reduce operator assignment ration from 1.20 to 1.18 | |
| |$7 million – reduce controllable costs including capping overtime pay to contract employees, | |
| |restricting the use of “as needed” employees, reducing the use of materials and supplies, and | |
| |implementing cost containment measures in administrative items such as travel and overhead | |
| |professional services and contract expenditures. | |
| |Service cuts in bus operations totaling $1.5 million are proposed to be achieved during the remainder| |
| |of FY94-95 to balance the deficit. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BONZO MOTION requesting staff to develop a new formula for evaluating bus | |
| |service cuts which compares like service with like service, and demonstrates that where cuts cannot | |
| |be avoided, that alternative methods of transportation are identified which more cost effectively | |
| |addresses the need for transportation to the affected community. | |
|02/22/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION requesting: |Construction |
| |1. that the Board be informed of all measurable subsidence or structural changes encountered during | |
| |tunneling on the Metro Rail System; | |
| |2. a report of all pending claims due to Metro Rail Construction; and | |
| |3. a report on errors and omissions claims on the Long Beach Blue Line. | |
|02/22/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION requesting staff to report at the next Construction |Construction |
| |Committee Meeting on use of water and methane gas probes. | |
|02/22/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/BURKE MOTION | |
| |A. that staff seek funding through the National highway System Legislation to bridge the Santa Ana | |
| |Freeway to restore the pedestrian cultural and physical link between the Los Angeles Civic Center and| |
| |the historic, cultural and transportation destinations north of the Civic Center; and | |
| |B. that staff continue to coordinate with the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State | |
| |Department of Transportation, the E1 Pueblo Historic District and other community, public and private| |
| |groups impacted by the proposed project. | |
| |C. that the issue of the Alameda Corridor and its financing be considered at the time of the Long | |
| |Range Plan and that every effort be made not to use future Proposition C funds. | |
|02/22/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION to |LRTP |
| |a. eliminate “not to preclude” non-revenue connector stub for the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor | |
| |from Contract C0311 of the Red Line Segment 3 North Hollywood extension by change order; and | |
| |b. reprogram the $2 million savings to the proper account to fund the Wilshire Chamber of Commerce | |
| |Streetscape Project and specifying that the Normandie Station contractor will not do the Streetscape | |
| |work. | |
| |ALSO APPROVED MOTION to ask the Executive Management Committee to formulate a process for | |
| |reprogramming monies in the future. | |
|02/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR GOLDBERG MOTION to award Contract No. C0301R with Tutor-Saliba/Perini, Joint |Construction |
| |Venture, the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder, covering construction work on the | |
| |Hollywood/Highland station and tunnels, and included the following mitigation measures to the | |
| |recommendation: | |
| |use of flag people and lights for backup; | |
| |concrete decking; and | |
| |shifting the construction schedule to lessen impact on Hollywood Highland community during the | |
| |tourist season. | |
|03/22/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION regarding a "SUPPORT" position on repeal of Section 13(c) |Legislation |
| |the Federal Transportation Act. | |
|03/22/95 |BOARD APPROVED THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: |LRTP |
| |RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority| |
| |adopts the Long Range Transportation Plan which includes: | |
| |A. a report back on implementation plan demonstration program of the Mobility Allowance concept in F¥| |
| |1995-96; | |
| |B. a report back on study of the feasibility of using Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) technology on the | |
| |MTA owned rights of- way; | |
| |C. a report back on potential cost savings measures in areas of the construction program; | |
| |D. requiring specific action for approval of each project and program in the Long Range Plan; | |
| |E. establishing a formal review and readoption of the Long Range Plan every two years; | |
| |F. establishing an annual financial review of the Long Range Plan; and | |
| |G. utilization of the Long Range Transportation Plan as a strategic planning tool to assist in the | |
| |development of other plans; (Director Zarian motion) and amended to include: | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that: | |
| |no MTA funds be allocated to the Alameda Corridor Project until either the Third Amendment is | |
| |repealed and full power is restored to the Governing Board on which the MTA is represented, or MTA | |
| |has a seat on the Finance Committee; (Directors Riordan and Antonovich amendment) | |
| |the CEO work with the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority on a value engineering review to | |
| |squeeze all unnecessary costs out of the project; (Directors Riordan and Antonovich amendment) | |
| |C. the CEO direct affected project area teams to meet with corridor cities and report back to the | |
| |Board within 90 days with a range of options for lessening the deleterious effects of increased | |
| |freight traffic; and (Directors Riordan and Antonovich amendment) | |
| |D. any local contributions to the Alameda Corridor be applied to meet the minimum local match | |
| |requirements to all future phases in Los Angeles County (Director Fasana/Papen amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that: | |
| |A. So a cost containment plan be developed by staff for Board approval within the next 90 days which | |
| |includes a report on design and construction savings, potential new revenue as well as a forecast of | |
| |operational costs for the next 20 years; | |
| |B. a five-year implementation plan be developed for Board approval within 180 days, which would | |
| |incorporate the cost constraints presented in the Cost Containment Plan, by detailing the timeline, | |
| |actions, criteria, and projects to be pursued; | |
| |staff develop within 180 days an implementation strategy for the Mobility Allowance Program detailing| |
| |its target population, funding, criteria, and resource deployment; | |
| |do coordinate staff efforts with SCAG to ensure that the Long Range Transportation Plan is in | |
| |conformance with the Regional Mobility Element; (Director Riordan amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that inclusion of the second phase of the East-West Valley rail line, from the 405 | |
| |Freeway to the Warner Center, as part of this group of five rail lines scheduled for inclusion in the| |
| |Long Range Plan should funds become available in the second decade of the Plan; (Director Yaroslavsky| |
| |amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that the MTA continue to work with the Los Angeles Department of Airports and any | |
| |other agency or entity that may be appropriate in an effort to secure the construction of a rail | |
| |connection between the Metro Green Line and the LAX Central Terminal Area, and report back on a | |
| |quarterly basis beginning July 1, 1995, the progress of the effort; (Directors Dana and Riordan | |
| |amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that Caltrans present their 1995-1996 and long-range soundwall programs within 60 | |
| |days to the MTA’s Planning and Programming Committee; which shall include alternate funding scenarios| |
| |to accelerate the program in Los Angeles County with~ notice of the presentation to be given to all | |
| |affected jurisdictions within Los Angeles County; (Director Fasana amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Board reaffirms its policy to only support projects that are | |
| |environmentally addressed by the community and with regard to the 710 Gap Closure Project, the funds | |
| |programmed in the Long Range Transportation Plan shall not be released until the environmental issues| |
| |raised by E1 Sereno and other cities are fully addressed; and (Director Molina amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that the Canoga right-of-way from the Chatsworth Metrolink Station to Warner Center| |
| |is included as a candidate corridor in the DMU-RaiI-Bus Option Element, during the development of | |
| |plans to implement the DMU technology in various areas; and (Director Bernson amendment) | |
| |RESOLVED FURTHER, that Director Alatorre’s motion regarding the Pasadena Blue Line, Director Fasana’s| |
| |motion regarding Pasadena Rail Line and HOV lanes, and Director Cragin’s motion regarding extension | |
| |of the Green Line into the Galleria Shop Mall, are referred to a Cost Containment Workshop for | |
| |further review and analysis. | |
|04/26/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/CRAGIN MOTION to change the Construction Committee membership to |Rules |
| |6 and to remain in effect until July 1, 1995. | |
|04/26/95 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION - to form Arthur Andersen Construction Study Task Force made up of |Rules |
| |the three ex-officio Construction Committee members – one representative from the League of Cities, | |
| |one from Los Angeles County, and one from the City of Los Angeles; the Deputy of Construction and the| |
| |consultant who prepared the report. | |
|04/26/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION to oppose AB 1478 and request management to commence |Transit Policing |
| |negotiations with the Transit Police and their representatives to pursue appropriate state | |
| |legislation to provide the survivor benefit, enhanced penalty for anyone killing a Transit Police | |
| |officer on duty, and exemption from jury duty. | |
|04/26/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - with paragraph one amended by Director Zarian to include |Construction |
| |an analysis of final design/build/maintain (turnkey) opportunities and a report back to the Board at | |
| |the cost containment workshop in June. | |
| |The Pasadena Blue Line Peer Review Panel has completed its review of the Pasadena Blue Line and has | |
| |prepared its report and recommendations for the MTA Board. The Panel made several important findings| |
| |and recommendations to reduce the project's current estimated design and construction costs and | |
| |suggested that it is possible to complete the project earlier than is currently proposed. In order | |
| |for the MTA to fully meet the goals of completing the Pasadena Blue Line in the most cost effective | |
| |and timely manner, action on the panel's recommendations should be undertaken immediately. | |
| |We, therefore, move that the MTA Board adopt the following: | |
| |In accordance with the findings of the Pasadena Blue Line Peer Review Panel, Fluor-Daniel Inc. shall | |
| |initiate and coordinate a Value Engineering and Cost Estimating Review of the Pasadena Blue Line. The| |
| |value engineering study shall include an exhaustive review of all construction contract packages and | |
| |system wide procurements. The value engineering study scope of work shall include, at minimum, the | |
| |findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Peer Review Panel. MTC, the project’s construction| |
| |manager, shall provide support for the value engineering study effort. The panel shall include | |
| |independent members who have or have had responsibility for value engineering or cost estimating for | |
| |light rail projects in North America. The MTA Project Manager for this line shall act as staff | |
| |liaison. Fluor-Daniel Inc. shall report to the MTA Board the findings of this review at the May | |
| |meeting of the Board | |
| |Based on the findings and cost savings identified in paragraph 1, above, the staff shall identify | |
| |alternative funding strategies, including short term financing, and cash flow projections for the | |
| |Pasadena Blue Line that will allow the most fiscally advantageous construction schedule including | |
| |alternatives for commencing operations and revenue service prior to the year 2000 and shall report | |
| |its findings at the June meeting of the Board; | |
| |Based on the findings of the Pasadena Peer Review Panel that a more comprehensive review is required,| |
| |the MTA Chairman shall convene a Peer Review Panel to review operations plans and budget for the | |
| |Pasadena Blue Line. The panel shall be composed of members who have or have had responsibility for | |
| |operating light rail lines in North America. The panel shall also review how operations plans and | |
| |budgets are developed and coordinated with other projects elements such as planning, construction and| |
| |joint development. The MTA project manager for the Pasadena Blue Line shall act as staff liaison. | |
| |The Peer Review panel shall report its findings and recommendations to the Board at the June meeting | |
| |of the Board | |
| |The staff shall draft a Project Business Plan for the Pasadena Blue Line. In addition to providing | |
| |an overview of all project elements, the Project Business Plan shall contain service and revenue | |
| |goals and performance measures. The Project Business Plan shall contain a unified project budget | |
| |reflecting all project cost components including design, construction, rail car and right-of-way | |
| |acquisition, and actual and potential revenues derived from fares and joint development | |
| |opportunities. The Project Business Plan shall also include a plan for integrating the project into | |
| |the MTA's transportation system by describing how joint development planning and rail operations for | |
| |the Pasadena Blue Line will be coordinating with the MTA bus system, ride share, and other transit | |
| |programs. The staff shall present the Project Business Plan to the June meeting of the Board; | |
| |The staff shall review the authority's policy concerning local betterments contained in Master | |
| |Cooperative Agreements, in consultation with the effected cities, and report to the Board in June its| |
| |recommendations for policy changes with the goal of allocating local betterment costs more equitably | |
| |between the MTA and local government. The MTA project manager for the Pasadena Blue Line shall act | |
| |as staff liaison; | |
| |In accordance with the findings and recommendations of the Value Engineering and Cost Estimating | |
| |study, the Business Plan, and the Operations Peer Review Panel and Local Betterments, MTA staff shall| |
| |negotiate a fixed price and schedule with the MTA's engineering and construction consultants for the | |
| |future design and other non-construction costs to complete the Pasadena Blue Line, with the exception| |
| |of Lake Avenue Station pending final agreement with the City of Pasadena regarding the feasibility of| |
| |this station location. Staff shall present for Board approval the revised budget, scope and schedule| |
| |for the Project at the June meeting of the Board; | |
| |All costs associated with any of the above recommendations shall be funded from the Pasadena Blue | |
| |Line project budget. | |
|05/24/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ZARIAN MOTION for County Counsel to report back in June on the recommended |Risk Management |
| |structural changes in the Risk Management Program organization for the MTA as requested in his letter| |
| |dated April 13, 1995. Director Bonzo later requested a report on non-litigated claims resolution and| |
| |the success rate. | |
|05/24/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION requesting a report back on receiving donations of |Marketing |
| |promotional material for MTA Marketing efforts from the business community. | |
|05/24/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION that the legislative advocates present the legislative |Legislation |
| |strategy to bring to positive fruition the issues on the budget at the Executive Management Committee| |
| |and that Chairman Antonovich, First Vice Chair Zarian and Director Fasana meet with Congressman Drier| |
| |to resolve the issues. | |
|05/24/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION requesting for a report on the Transportation Foundation. | |
|05/24/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - to convene Task Force of technical experts from LAPD, |Transit Policing |
| |LAFD, Transit Police, representatives of the Mayor's Office and MTA Chairman's Office and a | |
| |non-voting member of EMC to review ongoing problems regarding communication issues in the MOS-2 and 3| |
| |designs and report back with a recommended system that can be retrofit into MOS-I for Board | |
| |consideration. The motion was amended to also set aside the funds. | |
|06/28/95 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION - The sinkhole created last week at Hollywood and Vermont Boulevards|Construction |
| |is an example of the possible consequences associated with subway construction. Future federal | |
| |subway dollars and the integrity of the MTA are again headline stories, and the cause for concern of | |
| |each board member. Due to the conflicting reports over the cause of the sinkhole, responsibility for| |
| |it and the events that led up to this incident, I request the MTA Inspector General review the | |
| |following and respond to the Construction Committee and this Board at their July meetings: | |
| |The chronology of events beginning with the first indication of problems at about 3:00 AM June 22 to | |
| |the evacuation and subsequent collapse of Hollywood Boulevard several hours later. | |
| |The participation, flow of information, logs and records and directives from the Department of Water | |
| |and Power, MTA representatives, the construction manager Parsons-Dillingham, and Cal-OSHA. | |
| |The role of each of the aforementioned entities and the decisions that lead to the evacuation of the | |
| |tunnel. | |
|06/28/95 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION - that the Board be copied on all non-compliance reports issued by |Construction |
| |inspectors, reports to FTA and minutes of meetings relating to these and that the Arthur Anderson | |
| |Task Force be directly under MTA Board control. | |
|06/28/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION - |Construction |
| |The Board direct the CEO to issue an RFP and award a contract within 30 days for the design and | |
| |construction of a radio communications retrofit for MOS-1 that meets the performance criteria | |
| |established by the LAPD and LAFD for their current radio communications systems, at a cost | |
| |not-to-exceed $1.5 million and with a performance guarantee. | |
| |The LAPD and LAFD representatives be included in the approval of the design and operational | |
| |evaluation of the MOS-1 retrofit radio communications system. | |
| |The MTA Board direct the MTA Police to work with LAPD and LAFD to develop an interim, emergency | |
| |contingency plan within 30 days and report back to the Board for approval. | |
| |AMENDED BY DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS to include that the MOS-1 system be compatible with the systems in | |
| |MOS-2 and 3. | |
|06/28/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION - to urge Congress to continue the funding partnership with |Legislative |
| |Los Angeles County and fund the Metro Red Line Segment 3 at the highest possible level. | |
|06/28/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ABERNATHY MOTION – that at the upcoming cost containment workshop the Board |Construction |
| |re-examine the construction policies that have been pursued in the development of the regional rail | |
| |system for L.A. | |
|06/28/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION: |Budget |
| |1. continue the budget issue to July; submit in writing to the Board Secretary for transmittal to | |
| |Board members and referral to the Finance and Budget Committee all motions to amend the budget; | |
| |2. approve a continuing resolution incorporating all issues raised by the Chief Financial Officer so | |
| |that the MTA can continue to do business; and | |
| |3. approve a reimbursement resolution. | |
|07/19/95 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION |Rules |
| |A. delegation of authority to the Arthur Andersen Task Force with regard to implementation of | |
| |elements of the Arthur Andersen recommendations; | |
| |B. allocation of funds not-to-exceed $3,000 for the purpose of providing continued technical support | |
| |from Arthur Andersen to the Task Force, on a month-to-month basis, during the period of | |
| |implementation; and | |
| |C. requirement of the Task Force, consisting of three ex-officio members of the Construction | |
| |Committee, the Deputy CEO, the Executive Officer for Construction, and Arthur Andersen to report | |
| |progress and any recommended modifications to the Construction Commit | |
|07/26/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/BONZO MOTION |Construction |
| |a. APPROVED an additional $1 million to EMC Contract No. #0070, to maintain continuity and progress | |
| |on the Eastern Extension Rail Project through September 1995; | |
| |b. AUTHORIZED the CEO to hire a consultant to conduct an evaluation of EMC; | |
| |c. AUTHORIZED staff to explore innovative construction approaches, management structures and other | |
| |potentially beneficial alternatives for this project; and | |
| |d. AUTHORIZED CEO to immediately fill all existing staff vacancies in the Construction Dept. and to | |
| |hire a task force of temporary, qualified personnel to carry out the day-to-day function of the | |
| |construction Department in the interim. | |
| |e. APPROVAL is required by the Cost Containment, Contracts & Efficiency Committee and the Board prior| |
| |to allocation of bonus payments for performance in professional services contracts; and | |
| |f. REAFFIRMED continuing support for the Eastern Extension Project. | |
|07/26/95 |BOARD APPROVED BUDGET MOTIONS: |Finance |
| |a. DIRECTOR HEIDT: | |
| |APPROVED establishment of two contingency funds -- Operating and Capital. Any surplus revenue or | |
| |savings after the payment of operating and construction expenses shall be credited to this fund. | |
| |Criteria shall be developed for the reprogramming or use of the contingency fund. Staff shall report| |
| |to the Board quarterly with regard to the status of this fund. A simple majority vote of the Board is| |
| |required. | |
| |b. DIRECTOR FASANA: | |
| |APPROVED no disbursement or encumbrance of Proposition A & C interest noted on Page 21 of the Budget | |
| |until the Board acts on the Municipal Operators and Committee recommendations. | |
| |c. DIRECTOR FASANA: | |
| |APPROVED FY 1996 MTA Budget proposed to commit $53 million for the Pasadena Extension of the Metro | |
| |Blue Line. The proposed commitment would leave $61 million of previously and specifically identified| |
| |funds (as well as Board allocated funds) in the prior fiscal year for the project unspent in the 1996| |
| |Fiscal Year Budget. These funds shall continue to be reserved for the Pasadena project. | |
| |d. DIRECTOR DANA: | |
| |APPROVED: | |
| |1. designation of the LAX/El Segundo del Norte Metro Green Line Station as an MTA Turnkey | |
| |Demonstration Project. | |
| |2. amendment of the MTA budget for FY 1995-96 to include a reallocation of an additional $5.9 million| |
| |within the Green Line budget for the completion of the station. | |
| |3. develop in cooperation with other participating entities and interested parties, and report to the| |
| |Construction Committee within 50 days, a detailed schedule and turnkey procurement strategy to ensure| |
| |the completion of the station at the earliest possible date. | |
| |4. identify maximum joint development opportunities associated with the station cooperating with | |
| |other participating entities and interested parties. | |
| |5. This action does not preclude or limit the possibilities of future public or private sector | |
| |contributions, if needed, toward completion of the project. | |
|08/01/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION to oppose SB 75 (Polanco) which transfer $75 million annually |Legislation |
| |of MTA Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds to the County of Los Angeles for five years and | |
| |request County Supervisors to oppose and to seek the Governor’s veto of the legislation. | |
|08/10/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION that officers and staff of MTA be authorized, if approached, |Legislation |
| |to hold talks with the County about the possibility of transferring up to $50 million without legally| |
| |obligating the MTA provided that discussions relate to one year only and that it be understood that | |
| |the Board’s primary goal is transportation and that this is being considered as an emergency | |
| |situation to assist the County. (Related to SB 75) | |
|08/23/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA - It is recommended that MTA request that proposed legislative changes|Legislation |
| |regarding the use of MTA funding also include changes which provide for increased MTA management | |
| |flexibility that materially reduce cost. Examples of state regulations which impact MTA’s cost | |
| |effectiveness and management flexibility include the following: | |
| |SB 75 prohibited MTA from decreasing bus service. A legislative change (PUC section 30754) permitting| |
| |the MTA to decrease transit service if other operators in Los Angeles County were able to assume the | |
| |service and provide it more economically than the MTA, would maximize the use of subsidies. | |
| |include language allowing the MTA to utilize Turnkey Procurement options for the construction, | |
| |maintenance and operation of the rail projects would dramatically lower costs according to | |
| |successfully completed projects elsewhere in the nation and in Europe, | |
| |delete proposed language in the $2 billion seismic retrofit imitative which requires CTC oversight of| |
| |the MTA bus system. CTC does not currently have oversight of the CTC bus system (nor of any other | |
| |transit operator in the state). | |
| |reduce state local match requirements for project funding in order to maximize the use of these funds| |
| |for bus service support. | |
| |increase MTA’s flexibility in exploiting market-based strategies, including AB 680 type projects, SR | |
| |91 like projects, and other private sector initiatives. | |
| |reduce regulations which impede the ability of the private sector to respond to the mobility needs of| |
| |Los Angeles county citizens in developing these ideas, MTA staff should seek suggestions and | |
| |involvement by experts from the private sector in the various applicable disciplines, including law, | |
| |procurement, construction, operations, and finance. | |
|08/23/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION– authorize the establishment of a Legal Committee with |Rules |
| |responsibility to review, analyze and oversee the agency's legal affairs and, in conjunction with | |
| |legal counsel, make recommendations to the Board regarding dispensation of these matters. | |
|09/27/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR SCHATZ MOTION to send a letter of thanks to Congressman Julian Dixon for his | |
| |efforts in Washington, D.C. on behalf of the Authority. | |
|09/27/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION requesting reports on articles in the Daily News concerning|Construction |
| |parties along Hollywood Blvd. and alleged misuse of construction mitigation funds. He also requested| |
| |a report on the policy for making bonus payments to rail construction companies and possible changes | |
| |to the policy to correct these wrongful payments. | |
|09/27/95 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION to approve Contract Work Order No. 35, and Authorization for Expenditure (AFE),|Construction |
| |to Contract No. E0070 with Engineering Management Consultant (EMC), covering design work for repair | |
| |to portions of the Vermont/Hollywood Tunnel and the sinkhole, in the not-to-exceed amount of | |
| |$1,000,000, with actual construction work NOT to commence prior to receipt of the Wiss Janney report | |
| |and Board approval. A peer review is to be formed to evaluate and monitor the design work as it | |
| |proceeds. | |
|09/27/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to delegate to the Construction Committee the authority to|Rules |
| |award contracts valued between $100,000 and $5,000,000 and authority to approve change orders between| |
| |$200,000 and $500,000, with a CUMULATIVE CAP of $5,000,000 on any contract and a 4/5 vote requirement| |
| |for approval. | |
|09/27/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVKSY MOTION requesting that a report is provided showing cost overruns|Construction |
| |for major contractors that have been working on MTA construction projects. He also requested this | |
| |information be provided in future Board reports. It was recommended by the Chairman that this | |
| |subject be referred to the Cost Containment, Contracts and Efficiency Committee to provide a review | |
| |and report to the full Board. Director Bonzo asked that the report include construction management | |
| |firms. B. Dahl suggested that the report also include the cause for and origin of each cost overrun. | |
| |Any changes made in response to MTA’s request should also be noted. Unresolved claims are to be | |
| |noted. | |
|10/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ALATORRE/MOLINA MOTION authorizing the Engineering Management Consultants | |
| |(EMC) no negotiate, WITH MTA OVERSIGHT, and award subcontracts for architectural/engineering services| |
| |on the Metro Red Line Eastside Extension Project a5 a value between $1,500,000 and $4,000,000 with: | |
| |TED TOKIO TANAKA ARCHITECTS, Little Tokyo/Arts Dist. | |
| |CHCG ARCHITECTS, First & Boyle | |
| |DWORSKY ASSOCIATES, Cesar Chavez & Soto | |
| |PARTNERSHIP/CLSA Architects, First & Lorena | |
| |AND that we request a special workshop/meeting of the Construction Committee in November which deals | |
| |exclusively with all aspects of the Eastern Extension and which takes into consideration: | |
| |Ways in which to mitigate any adverse impacts on Federal Funding due to the delays associated with | |
| |improvements to our construction program; | |
| |The current status of MTA critical construction and public outreach staff on the Eastern Extension; | |
| |Funds available through the cost containment efforts thus far; | |
| |Cost of schedule delays through the end of the year and ways to mitigate these costs through a review| |
| |of the project budget; | |
| |A synthesis of the recommendations in the Flour Daniel report, as they relate to exercising greater | |
| |control and oversight of this project through new and improved management concepts, as well as any | |
| |applicable cost saving measures such as fixed price of section design work which could still be | |
| |incorporated to save the project revenue; | |
| |A status report of the Arthur Anderson Task Force which highlights those recommendations which are | |
| |still outstanding and how we can mitigate any adverse impacts they may have on the Eastern Extension | |
| |Project; | |
| |A review of the subcontracting policies and procedures of the EMC relative to the procurement of the | |
| |four Section Design contracts and a presentation of any outstanding issues concerning this | |
| |procurement; | |
| |An informed discussion of ways in which we might bring about greater accountability and competition | |
| |on our General Engineering Consultant work, such as adopting the concept utilized by Metrolink | |
| |whereby 2 consortium firms are used with the remainder of the work bid out through a competitive | |
| |process. | |
| |Proceed to accept these contracts for the station design and MTA staff to negotiate contract and to | |
| |severe any relationship with EMC. | |
|10/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ARTHUR/ALARCON/ YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to adopt for submission no the California |Funding |
| |Transportation Commission (CTC), the AMENDED $1.9 billion Los Angeles County 1996 State | |
| |Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) priority list composed of: | |
| |$882 million in existing STIP projects; | |
| |$507 million in projects to be traded out of the STIP consistent with the MTA’s adopted Long Range | |
| |Plan including the deferral of $467 million in San Fernando Valley East/West Rail Line funding from | |
| |the 1996 STIP no the 1998 STIP; $29 million will remain in the proposed 1996 STIP for final | |
| |engineering and design for the East/West Line project; | |
| |$976.5 million in projects proposed no be traded into the STIP consistent with the MTA’s adopted Long| |
| |Range Plan (Combine the two Route 138 project trade proposals , projects 7 and II, into combined | |
| |project trade proposal number 7; Add the state Route 1 and Route 90 Playa Vista/Dreamworks Access | |
| |Improvement an STIP trade Proposal number ii for an amount not to exceed $30 million and a local | |
| |match of $20 million; and, Add $467 million in San Fernando Valley East/West Rail Line construction | |
| |funding as proposal number 13) | |
|10/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN MOTION: |Rules |
| |A. That Alternates may not speak or vote at any MTA Board or Committee Meeting if the Principal is | |
| |present, unless deferred to by the Principal. If the principal is absent, the Alternate has the | |
| |rights of Principal except on "Principal only" items. | |
| |B. Alternates may not be appointed to MTA standing committees in their own names. | |
| |C. Each Principal is limited to one Alternate, the effective date of this rule to be determined in | |
| |the future following consideration by the Executive Management Committee and approval by the Board); | |
| |and | |
| |D. The Chair’s term is extended to two years beginning with that of Chairman Zarian. | |
|10/25/95 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION to award of 10,000 Congestion Management Program (CMP) special credits each to |CMP |
| |the Cities of Arcadia and Inglewood for their satellite wagering activities and to amend the CMP to | |
| |prohibit awarding CMP credit for unique strategies or projects implemented by the private sector | |
| |unless implemented by action of a city or the County of Los Angeles by ordinance or condition of | |
| |approval. | |
|11/15/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Deputy of Construction prepare and distribute a |Safety |
| |report to the entire Board before the next Construction Committee meeting on alternative sites for | |
| |storage of these explosives, the safety policies, procedures and risk assessment of the agency and | |
| |all its contractors participating in this construction effort. | |
|11/15/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION a review of the policy that allows for low-interest home |Human Resources |
| |loans for upper management as an incentive for employment and consideration of setting a vesting or | |
| |probationary period before this can take place; the same as you do in retirement programs. | |
|11/15/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to review and consider an insurance policy that will |Insurance |
| |guarantee those homeowners who have problems and concerns with tunneling under their property that | |
| |they will not lose any value, that they will be protected and there’s a guarantee that we will | |
| |protect them with an insurance policy and not have them left beholding with escrows dropping out and | |
| |property values declining because of a loss of an inability to sell their property or have their | |
| |property appreciate as other areas have appreciated. So, you have to develop some type of a system | |
| |where we insure them there will be no loss of value. | |
|11/15/95 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION: |Construction |
| |A. directed the recently approved section design contracts to be negotiated on a fixed price basis | |
| |for the final design of the Metro Red Line Eastern Extension; | |
| |B. requested that in 60 days the CEO of Construction develop, or solicit a consultant to develop, an | |
| |RFQ for a general engineering consultant for the management of all final design, engineering and | |
| |oversight services for the Eastern extension; | |
| |This RFQ should establish the level of staffing the qualifications necessary, and the general tasks | |
| |required, during various milestones of the project, to fulfill the existing contract for the | |
| |engineering management consultant on the Eastern extension in the event it is needed; | |
| |1. that the EMC/MTA will proceed with design in accordance with the established schedule per prior | |
| |Board action; | |
| |2. staff to return within 30 days with recommendations on ways for increasing competitively bid | |
| |procurement opportunities on the Eastern extension project; | |
| |C. requested the CEO of Construction prepare a report which describes the steps necessary to | |
| |establish an integrated project office utilizing MTA project staff, the General Engineering | |
| |consultant and the Construction Manager to perform joint management and oversight of the Eastern | |
| |extension; report to provide mitigation measures on any delays presented by this action; and | |
| |D. requested the CEO identify and assign requisite permanent MTA staff for oversight, enc., within 30| |
| |days, if unable to do so, identify and assign temporary staff. | |
|11/15/95 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION that the |Alternate Rail Technology |
| |A. Alternate Rail Technology (ART) Phase 2 report and ADOPTED ART as a demonstration technology; | |
| |B. AUTHORIZED work with local jurisdictions in potential ART corridors and make recommendations | |
| |according to findings; develop a funding plan for increased local rail service in the | |
| |Burbank~Glendale~ Los Angeles corridor and report back in January, 1996. The analysis should address | |
| |both the Metrolink Rail Shuttle and Alternate Rail Technology (ART) options; and | |
| |C. AMENDED TO INCLUDE assessing possible emergency applications of ART to each corridor, problems | |
| |posed and possible solutions and mitigations. | |
|01/24/96 |BOARD ADOPTED Resolution of Necessity for the acquisition of Fee Interests of permanent subsurface |Runyon Canyon |
| |easements located between the Hollywood/Highland Station and the Universal City Station in the City | |
| |of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California; Metro Red Line, Segment 3; | |
| |AUTHORIZED the Chief Financial Officer or her designee to negotiate and bind coverage with | |
| |responsible insurance carriers, through its’ current property insurance broker, Robert F. Driver/RFP | |
| |Insurance, in an amount not-to exceed $1,000,000; and establish a loss reserve in the amount to be | |
| |determined to pay insurance-related deductibles and other related claims which may arise out of | |
| |tunnel construction in the Hollywood Hills; | |
| |AUTHORIZED the Chief Financial Officer to establish the Hollywood Hills Community Property Protection| |
| |Program (HHCPPP) to provide for the handling of physical property claims arising from the MTA’s | |
| |tunnel construction in the Hollywood Hills; and | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVKSY MOTION - the ten mitigation measures below be put into effect | |
| |prior to construction in the Santa Monica mountains. | |
| |I, THEREFORE, MOVE that MTA Construction be directed to amend contract documents relative to | |
| |construction of the Metro Rail Red Line segment 3 Santa Monica Mountains Tunnel (Contract C-311), and| |
| |take other measures to ensure the safest, most environmentally sound and least Intrusive project | |
| |possible, as follows: | |
| |1. Utilize "roadheaders" rather than explosives to excavate all cross-passages north of Solar Drive. | |
| |The Eisenstein Panel has confirmed that these machines can successfully excavate in the mixed | |
| |sediments located in this area. Adoption of this change will completely eliminate blasting in the | |
| |residential communities north of Solar Drive. | |
| |2. Reduce the intensity of blasting for construction of the tunnel level rooms under Solar Drive such| |
| |that there will be no perceptible vibrations at the surface. Because the mountain at Solar Drive is | |
| |made of granite, construction of the tunnel level rooms at this site cannot be done without blasting.| |
| |However, the intensity of the blasts at this location can be reduced such that there will be no | |
| |perceptible vibration at the surface. | |
| |3. Reduce blasting at the extreme southern end of the tunnel by over 50%. At this location, the | |
| |tunnel must be larger in circumference than the tunneling machine allows. Because the earth at this | |
| |location is granite, this can only be done using explosives. However, MTA Construction at this | |
| |location advises that the use of explosives can be reduce by over 50%. | |
| |4. Restrict blasting at the extreme southern end of the tunnel to 7 am - 7 pm five days a week. | |
| |Present plans call for blasting in this section to be conducted between 7 am and 10 pm, six days a | |
| |week. | |
| |5. If the above level of blasting is objectionable to residents, the contract should contain | |
| |provisions to further reduce the intensity of blasting. | |
| |6. Extend the MTA’s special insurance program for property owners within the boundaries of Contract | |
| |C-311 to the owners of all private properties at which vibrations from MTA construction basting will | |
| |be perceptible. | |
| |7. During the tunneling process provide whatever level of grouting is necessary to ensure that there | |
| |will be no leakage into the tunnel underneath seasonal surface springs. The tunneling contractor has| |
| |been instructed to add extra grouting capability such that the circumference of the tunnel can be | |
| |grouted ahead of the boring machine ("annular grouting"). The contractor should be required to grout| |
| |both before and after the machine passes surface springs, as necessary, to ensure that there will be | |
| |zero leakage into the tunnel at these locations. | |
| |8. Amend the MTA’s application currently pending before the Regional Water Quality Control Board to | |
| |reduce by half the requested maximum daily discharge of ~groundwater displaced by the tunneling - | |
| |from a maximum of 7,536,000 gallons a day at present to 3,768,000 gallons a day. | |
| |9. Monitor the effects of tunneling on vegetation not only in Runyon Canyon Park as presently | |
| |planned, but also on all private property along the route. | |
| |10. Assign a full-time “ombudsperson” who is authorized to resolve complaints relative to the | |
| |tunneling project. | |
|01/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION - |Transit Policing |
| |a. exploring the merger of the MTA Transit Police into the LAPD and LASD | |
| |b. extending the Transit Police Officers Association contract for 180 days; and | |
| |c. requesting that the LAPD and LASD submit an implementation plan within 30 days for approval. | |
| |APPOINTED a 5-member committee to review Transit Police related items. Members are Directors | |
| |Riordan, Burke, Antonovich, Perez, and Zarian. | |
|02/28/96 |DIRECTOR BURKE read into the record the following Public Comment Procedures: |Rules |
| |“Effective in March 1996 and for all future meetings of the Board, all Public Comment will be heard | |
| |at the Open Session portion of the meeting beginning at I:00 p.m. Each individual will have the | |
| |opportunity to speak only once at the time public comment is heard and should include comment on all | |
| |items. The Public Comment period will last a maximum of thirty minutes. Speakers will be called in | |
| |the order in which the speaker request forms are received until the thirty-minute period has elapsed.| |
| |If you are a party to a specific item, you will be called upon to speak at the time that issue is | |
| |being considered. The Board is interested in hearing members of the public on their issues. Again, | |
| |all speakers not a party to a particular item are asked to take advantage of the Public Comment forum| |
| |at the beginning of the meeting.” | |
|02/28/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION - to commemoratively name the Transit Plaza the “Patsaouras |Naming |
| |Plaza” as a lasting reminder of the outstanding dedication of this generous volunteer. | |
|02/28/96 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION the following cost containment action AMENDED to delete Paragraph “C” and |Construction |
| |include the statement that as of June 26, 1996 Board Meeting, the MTA will accept no further changes | |
| |to the Pasadena Blue Line: | |
| |a. approve recommended reductions totaling approximately $193.8 million and approve a new budget of | |
| |$803.9 million, resulting in a new Pasadena Blue Line (PBL) design criteria/project scope and | |
| |complete the project for revenue operations in 2001, with staff reporting quarterly a status of the | |
| |cost reduction effort with budget and schedule forecasts; and | |
| |b. approve for Contract No. E0070 w/Engineering Management Consultant (EMC) which will allow the PBL| |
| |Project to proceed immediately w/redesign activity: | |
| |1. The award of Contract Work Order (CWO) No. 36 in an amount not to exceed $3 million to allow | |
| |consultant to proceed immediately with redesign, consultation with impacted cities and community | |
| |groups, and other studies for the cost reduction work; and | |
| |2. a $3 million increase to the AFE for a revised total AFE of $75,196,837, w/staff reporting back | |
| |in June 1996 with a status and final effort required to complete final design for the PBL Project. | |
| |c. retain current construction methodology, i.e. design, bid, construct, and not change to | |
| |Design-Build or Design, Build, Operate and Maintain as described in the Booz, Allen & Hamilton | |
| |report; and | |
| |d. reaffirm MTA commitment to the PBL Project and the financial capacity to fund the Project with an| |
| |ROD in 2001. | |
| |ALSO APPROVED BY DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH: | |
| |Move that this Board instruct staff to report back at the April Cost-Containment Committee meeting | |
| |with turnkey options within the Pasadena Blue Line project that include: specific stations; the yard| |
| |and shop; train control system; system equipment; and system electrification; and | |
| |Move that this Board instruct staff to begin a comprehensive analysis of projects which might benefit| |
| |from turnkey applications. This analysis should include a complete strategic plan which addresses | |
| |issues such as advantages/disadvantages, costs/savings, regulatory; legislative barriers as well as | |
| |the necessary next steps. Finally, staff should inform the Board of its progress at appropriate | |
| |points in the planning process. | |
|02/28/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVKSY MOTION | |
| |A. reaffirm the Alternative Fuel Initiative (AFI) policy; | |
| |B. issue a DUAL bid for 200/250 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses and a Request for Proposal (REP) | |
| |for up five Hybrid Electric Buses; | |
| |C. convert three Ethanol/Methanol buses to diesel engines to assess the technical, air emissions, | |
| |cost and reliability impact; | |
| |D. do continued evaluation and working with industry and other technical resources to seek | |
| |improvement to the performance of the ethanol/methanol engines ; | |
| |E. continue to improve the MTA emissions profile; | |
| |F. work with interested parties on evaluating the conversion of Ethanol/Methanol buses to diesel; and| |
| | | |
| |G. continue to be an industry leader by pushing the Advanced Technology Transit Bus (ATTB) and Hybrid| |
| |Electric Buses. | |
|03/06/96 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION that amended recommendation to support the LOSSAN Board recommendations to seek|LOSSAN |
| |one statewide intercity rail bill. Failing that, seek amendments to SB457 and ABI720. Unless amended | |
| |as recommended in the report, oppose ABI720 and SB 457. | |
|03/27/96 |BOARD APPROVED RESOLUTION – Therefore be it resolved, that the MTA does hereby join with the Antelope| |
| |and San Joaquin Valley High Speed Rail Alliance and SCAG in supporting the Antelope and San Joaquin | |
| |Valley route, and herby urges the Governor, the Legislature, and the California High Speed Rail | |
| |Commission created by SCR 6 to formally adopt the Route 99. | |
|03/27/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN MOTION – to disburse $5,556 to the Alameda Corridor Transportation |ACTA |
| |Authority for outside legal counsel in a lawsuit regarding the third amendment to the Joint Powers | |
| |Authority; $1,667 to be disbursed immediately, balance disbursed as needed, subject to concurrence by| |
| |County Counsel. | |
|03/27/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to support AB 2660 relating to expanded turnkey authority. |Legislation |
|03/27/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION to adopt a: |Benefits |
| |A. uniform policy that all MTA employees pay the full cost of SDI; the State of California mandates | |
| |that all MTA employees MUST be enrolled in SDI; and | |
| |B. an .8% pay increase for all former LACTC employees to compensate for SDI payments. | |
|04/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN MOTION to approve the concept of a merger of the MTAPD with the LAPD |Transit Policing |
| |and LASD to develop a detailed agreement, draft contract, and transition plan for review at the | |
| |Transit Policing Ad Hoc Committee in June 1996. | |
|04/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - to defer further consideration of a Wilshire alignment for |LRTP |
| |Segment 3 until the prohibition against tunneling through the methane “Risk Zone” can be lifted. | |
|04/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION - authorize the MTA to fund the 1996 Hollywood Bowl Park and Ride Program at |Bus Service |
| |the same level of funding as the 1995 season in the amount of $526,000; and further that MTA staff | |
| |develop a plan for ongoing MTA funding which may include other sources for Board review and approval | |
| |working w/all interested parties in identifying any cost saving measures that could be implemented in| |
| |the future and report back by the end of September 1996. | |
|05/22/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION to direct the CEO to meet with representatives of the City of|Safety |
| |Los Angeles’ Department of Public Works, Bureau of Contract Administration and Building Safety | |
| |Department to evaluate the effectiveness of the MTA’s construction inspection teams. | |
|05/22/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION for addition to the June agenda, motion that the Board |Governance |
| |instruct its representative on the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to bring in a motion, to| |
| |add a voting member representing the cities of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys to the ACTA Board. | |
|05/22/96 |BOARD APPROVED AS AMENDED, the following actions for FY 1996-97 Transportation Improvement Program |Call for Projects |
| |(TIP) Call for Projects Recertification: | |
| |A. recertify $207,300,000 in existing FY 1996-97 commitments from the FY 1995-96 TIP Call for | |
| |Projects and authorize the expenditure of funds to meet those commitments; | |
| |AMENDMENT: that the FY 1996-97 transportation improvement program call for projects recertification | |
| |be amended to allocate $20,000 in future call for projects savings to fund the Palos Verdes Peninsula| |
| |telecommuting center project teleaccess project component. | |
| |B. deobligate $5,300,000 of previously approved project funding due to project savings, | |
| |cancellations, and lapsing; require Caltrans to execute inter-agency agreements for their Traffic | |
| |Management Center (TMC) equipment and design projects, totaling $9,500,000 by June 30, 1996, | |
| |C. authorize deobligation of $9,500,000 in TMC funding if Caltrans does not meet this deadline and | |
| |based on a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommendation, allocate $I00,000 of previously | |
| |approved TMC funding to study the coordination and potential co-location of regional TMCs; | |
| |D. authorize the de-obligation of the $9,600,000 in TMC funding if Caltrans does not meet this | |
| |deadline; | |
| |E. program $5,300,000 in revenues made available through project deobligations to the projects; and, | |
| |F. authorize the deobligation of all FY 1991-92 and FY 1992-93 TIP Call for Projects funding | |
| |commitments that are not expended (local funds) or obligated (state federal funds) by December 31, | |
| |1996. | |
|05/22/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVKSY MOTION regarding institution of sanctions for contractors who are|Labor Compliance |
| |not in conformance with work order requirements and regulations. | |
|05/22/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION authorizing the purchase of up to I00 engines at a cost of |Bus |
| |approximately $3.5 million; the determination of the actual number of engines to be purchased will be| |
| |made following an analysis of the costs of repair v. conversion v. purchase. | |
|06/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that this Board instruct its representative on the Alameda |Governance |
| |Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) to bring in a motion, to add a voting member representing | |
| |the cities of the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys to the ACTA Board. | |
|06/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION requesting that the Federal and Inspector General |Safety |
| |investigate the safety bonus program. | |
|06/24/96 |BOARD REFERRED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to Finance, Budget & Efficiency Committee the matter of the|Funding |
| |City of Los Angeles $200 million delinquent payment for the MTA Red Line. | |
|06/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DANA MOTION to continue support of the MTA position on SB 457 and, if LOSSAN |Legislation |
| |Board amends their position after review of any amendments, support the LOSSAN Board amended | |
| |position; and, if no action is taken on this bill this year, request an interim hearing. | |
|06/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION to adopt an amended policy that all bus eligible revenue |Bus Funding |
| |beyond FY 96-97 budget assumptions be dedicated to bus system improvements and that all such funds be| |
| |placed in a bus system improvement fund subject to programming by the MTA Board. | |
|06/26/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION requesting for a report to the Executive Management Committee |Budget |
| |on a proposed policy concerning the impact of budget shortfalls on the Red Line. | |
|06/26/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION to accept from Parsons-Dillingham colleagues of Leonard J. | |
| |Pieroni the gift of a tree for the Wilshire/Vermont Station to stand as a living memorial to his | |
| |contribution to the design and construction of a world-class rail system for the citizens of Los | |
| |Angeles County. | |
|06/26/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - to include the Technical Advisory Committee findings. |Funding |
| |A. funding for the Support for Homeless Re-Entry (SHORE) Program on a month to month basis; | |
| |B. a total of $517,000 from Proposition C Interest funds to be programmed in the fiscal year | |
| |1996-1997 MTA Budget to provide SHORE funding for fiscal year 1996-97; and | |
| |C. continue funding for the Los Angeles County Token Program for the Indigent General Relief Token | |
| |Program on a month to month basis until a comprehensive policy for funding social service | |
| |transportation programs is adopted. | |
|06/26/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION for Alternate Rail Technology (ART) | |
| |A. DEFERRED Alternate Rail Technology (ART) vehicle specification development until after adoption of| |
| |the Long Range Plan; | |
| |B. DEFERRED completion of ART technical and financial feasibility studies in the Harbor Subdivision, | |
| |Santa Clarita and Route 10/60 Corridors, and a financial feasibility and update of station and yard | |
| |locations study for the North San Gabriel Valley Corridor, deferring local commitment of one-third of| |
| |study costs requirement (a maximum $280,000 MTA share), including Director Fasana’s request to look | |
| |at a refund to the cities of Burbank and Glendale; | |
| |C. APPROVED receipt of all funding scenarios for the full ART implementation, with no commitment to a| |
| |specific corridor or technology and consideration of ART implementation in an appropriate corridor in| |
| |the Long Range Plan Update; | |
| |D. DEFERRED completion of an Operational Refinement Study to consider Union Station capacity | |
| |improvements to allow for operation of ART at a cost not-to-exceed $100,000; and, | |
| |E. DEFERRED potential emergency ART applications analysis; | |
|07/24/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION that the Board reaffirm its previous approval of the merger |Transit Policing |
| |"in concept" and form a new Transit Policing Ad Hoc Committee comprised of: | |
| |3 members appointed by the President of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors; | |
| |3 members appointed by the President of the Los Angeles City Council; and | |
| |3 members appointed by the Chairman of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. | |
|08/28/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION – Naming the park located at the corner of Cesar Chavez and|Naming |
| |Vignes Streets, the “Richard Alatorre Park” and referred to the Executive Management Committee the | |
| |issue of establishing criteria and protocol for naming of assets/locations. | |
|08/28/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BOHLKE MOTION to return to the Planning & Programming Committee and |Consent Decree |
| |Operations Committee within 60 days with a report outlining the number of buses that must be | |
| |purchased in order to get the fleet to a 110% load factor standard; a review of the current load | |
| |factor standard and possible recommendations for changes; and, a review of pooling of resources in | |
| |order to add buses to the fleet. | |
|08/28/96 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION to execute Memorandum of Understanding between the MTA and the Los Angeles |HCIP |
| |Community Redevelopment Agency covering economic development programs for the Hollywood Corridor for | |
| |a two-year period. | |
| |AMENDMENT: That the boundaries of the HCIP shall be expanded to include the entire Benefit Assessment| |
| |District area, roughly from La Brea Boulevard on the west to Vermont Boulevard on the east, Franklin | |
| |Boulevard on the north and Fountain Boulevard on the south. | |
|09/25/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the MTA Board: | |
| |A. Reaffirm its commitment to affirmative action by opposing the California Civil Rights Initiative | |
| |scheduled to appear on the ballot for the November General Election; and | |
| |B. Direct the Chief Executive Officer to inform all MTA contracting organizations of the Board’s | |
| |official opposition to the California Civil Rights Initiative. | |
|09/25/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ARTHUR MOTION to: | |
| |A. Plan possible implementation of SB 457, approve the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement to | |
| |establish the Interim Joint Powers Board for the planning of intercity passenger services for | |
| |Southern California; and | |
| |B. Approve $10,000 MTA matching contribution to provide initial administrative and consultant support| |
| |services for the interim Joint Powers Board work program. | |
|10/23/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION that the Board referred to Committee a review by staff of |Graffitti |
| |the New York MTA Workfare Plan and to provide recommendations on how a similar program might further | |
| |the MTA’s Zero Tolerance Program at a time of limited resources. | |
|11/20/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION – the MTA Board instruct the CEO to bring back in January 1997 |Procurement |
| |to the Executive Management Committee for review and to the full Board for Approval: | |
| |A plan, pursuant to the recommendations of the FTA and the Review Team, to establish a central, | |
| |unified Procurement Policy and Compliance Office reporting directly to the CEO. “The office should | |
| |be charged with MTA-wide responsibility for system policies, procedures, performance and training | |
| |standards, compliance reviews and contractor protests.” | |
| |Provide a consolidated and uniform set of procurement procedures and policies, including a | |
| |“…procurement specific Ethics Policy Manual… that covers a broader range of topics that could lead | |
| |MTA employees into difficult ethical problems.” Report back to the Executive management Committee in| |
| |February 1997 what progress has been made toward the implementation and when the Procedures and | |
| |Polices manual will be ready for MTA Board review and approval. | |
| |Inventory as to what extent recommendations have already been implemented from the W. Wayne Wilson | |
| |Review Team Study, i.e., identify and list what steps, in terms of formal policy adoption, have been | |
| |taken to address the Review Team’s list of recommendations. For recommendations that have been | |
| |implemented, list the dates these policy changes were implemented. | |
|11/20/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION – that this Board instruct staff as follows: |Federal Funding Shortfall |
| |Please explain the systemic nature of this deficit problem. Such a presentation should include, but | |
| |not be limited to, a breakdown of the contributing deficit components. Specifically, how have bus | |
| |and rail operations, the over programming of revenues and the diminishment of revenues contributed to| |
| |the aggregate deficit. | |
| |For example, previous revenue projects included projections from benefit assessment districts. | |
| |Subsequently, these revenue projects were eliminated; however, it has not been disclosed, at least to| |
| |my knowledge, what funding source is being used to replace it in order to arrive at a balanced | |
| |budget. | |
| |Furthermore, in terms of bus and rail operations, it seems that previous MTA budgets have not given | |
| |accurate presentations of project fare revenues versus projected operating and maintenance costs. | |
| |While we are being advised there is insufficient revenue to cover ongoing operations and maintenance | |
| |costs for our rail lines, future openings of new rail lines would appear to exacerbate our deficit | |
| |because projected revenues have not covered actual operating costs. Please explain and illustrate | |
| |how new policy recommendations would alleviate this problem in terms of funding impact strategies | |
| |being considered. | |
| |In closing, I feel it would also be helpful for staff to produce a chart that lists | |
| |Each MTA approved project that is being or is to be funded from a “grant” source | |
| |Each specific grant source for said project | |
| |The status of that project in terms of how much as been spent to date and source of revenue for said | |
| |expenditure, and | |
| |The date of receipt of either the grantor’s approval or letter of “no prejudice” | |
| |While these are only three examples of areas of concern, they represent fundamental problems | |
| |illustrating the Board’s “need to know” and why understanding the systemic nature of this deficit | |
| |will be crucial in how we may go about rectifying this critical situation. | |
|12/18/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR CRAGIN to provide tours of the construction sites for members of the | |
| |Construction Committee, open to all members of the Board, commencing January, 1997 and every six | |
| |months thereafter. | |
|12/18/96 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that |Ethics |
| |The MTA Board establish an Ethics Committee to review the current MTA Ethics Policy, Lobbyist Policy,| |
| |and other relevant regulations and recommend changes to enhance their effectiveness, reduce | |
| |ambiguity, and provide for strong enforcement actions; | |
| |The Chairman of the MTA Board of Director’s shall expeditiously appoint the Committee members with | |
| |representation from Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, and the independent city | |
| |representatives. The MTA Ethics Officer shall provide staff assistance to the Committee; and | |
| |The Committee shall meet as necessary to recommended improvements to be presented at the MTA Board of| |
| |Director’s meeting in 1997. Each Board member, MTA staff, or other interested party shall be | |
| |encouraged to recommend changes to the Ethics Committee that could serve to establish a more | |
| |comprehensive, unified, and enforceable set of guidelines. | |
|12/18/96 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION to accelerate funding schedule of $140 million of the $359 million commitment |ACTA |
| |to the Alameda Corridor Project to ensure a 2001 project completion date contingent upon appointment | |
| |of a permanent member & alternate as a voting member to the ACTA Board, member to be appointed by MTA| |
| |with the immediate release of up to $2.7 million conditioned on appointment of an MTA Board member; | |
| |and designate the $400 million spent by the Port of Los Angeles and Long Beach to purchase the | |
| |Alameda corridor railroad right-of-way as the requisite local agency funding match to the MTA’s $350 | |
| |million contribution to the project which will be released as programmed. | |
|01/10/97 |BOARD APPROVED action required to implement adopted rail projects: |LRTP |
| |A. ADOPT a resolution reaffirming the MTA Board’s commitment to the Metro Red Line Project as the | |
| |highest-priority rail project in Los Angeles County; AND | |
| |B. ADOPT recover plan for funding of Metro Red Line Segment 3 with revised schedules and budgets | |
| |including: | |
| |transfer of $300 million federal funds from the HOV program to the transit program; reduce the MTA | |
| |budget by 5% and include this recommendation as part of the five-year business plan; and | |
| |continue implementation of cost saving measures which improve project schedules. | |
| |for inclusion into the Long Range Transportation Plan update. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDED MOTION BY DIRECTOR RIORDAN to the staff recommendation B that the MTA Board | |
| |direct the CEO to: | |
| |1. Issue an IFB for the procurement of new buses to relieve overcrowding and add pilot service; and | |
| |2. Return to the Board in 30 days with a report describing how many additional buses and over what | |
| |period would be required to replace MTA buses over 12 years of age, and request Board approval to | |
| |issue an RFP for the procurement of the required replacement vehicles; and | |
| |3. Return to the Board in 30 days with cost estimates for the purchase, operation, and maintenance | |
| |of both the new buses and replacement buses. | |
| |4. Hold a “Bus Workshop” within 60 days (and prior to consideration of the Long Range Plan update) | |
| |that presents for Board action a funding plan for the procurement, operation, and maintenance of the | |
| |MTA bus system through 2010, including full compliance with the Consent Decree; and further | |
| |5. That the intent of the Board is that the approval of the $300 million transfer and accompanying | |
| |actions will not affect implementation of compliance with the Federal Consent Decree. | |
|01/10/97 |BOARD ADOPTED AS AMENDED Code of Conduct for MTA Board Members and Alternates as follows: |Rules |
| |Section 14 - add to the last line, members “/alternates.” | |
| |Section 25.b - remove the word “former.” (Fasana) | |
| |Section 28.c - change to read “Any person who receives compensation to regularly provide advice, | |
| |recommendations, or counsel to Board Members/Alternates regarding MTA activities and also advises | |
| |another agency or entity which has a financial interest in an item before the Board shall be | |
| |prohibited from giving advice, directly or indirectly to any Board Member/Alternate or his/her staff | |
| |regarding the item.” (Schatz) | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to change the last line of Section 10.g to delete the words | |
| |“full time” staff and “who are employees of a public agency.” | |
| |Agreement was reached to defer action on Section 10.g until the code is reviewed by a legal firm. | |
| |The substitute motion authorizing expenditure of $25,000 for legal review was APPROVED. | |
|01/22/97 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION – a fully-centralized procurement function, combining the two presently |Procurement |
| |separate organizations into one autonomous organization, reporting to the CEO or Deputy CEO/Finance | |
| |and Administration | |
|01/22/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/BURKE MOTION - to instruct staff to identify the necessary steps |LRTP |
| |which must be taken to provide for a Green Line rail extension to LAX, and a rail extension from | |
| |Union Station to the Burbank Airport as AMENDED to examine airport access as it pertains to the | |
| |entire Metro Rail system connectivity issue, including access to the airport from the Red Line and | |
| |Metro Link. | |
|01/22/97 |Consider approval of: |Funding |
| |The proposed amendments to the Segment 3 Financial Contribution Agreement with the City of Los | |
| |Angeles as adopted by the City Council at its August 20, 1996 meeting; and | |
| |Side Letter of Agreement with the City of Los Angeles on condition that the City Attorney or City | |
| |Council acknowledges that the MTA will adhere to the development and construction schedule for the | |
| |San Fernando Valley East/West Rail Line as adopted in the re-adoption of the Long Range | |
| |Transportation Plan in spring 1997. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED SUBSTITUTE MOTION to incorporate the proposed amendments to the Segment 3 financial | |
| |contribution agreement and side letter of agreement with the City of Los Angeles as adopted by the | |
| |City Council at it’s August 20, 1996 meeting. | |
|01/22/97 |BOARD APPROVED SUBSTITUTE MOTION to defer action on Director Fasana’s motion to eliminate |LRTP |
| |consideration of subway along Burbank/Chandler and seek repeal of the Robbins Legislation until the | |
| |draft EIR is completed. | |
|01/22/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to instruct staff to identify the necessary steps which |LRTP |
| |must be taken to provide for a Green Line rail extension to LAX, and a rail extension from Union | |
| |Station to the Burbank Airport as AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BURKE to examine airport access as it pertains | |
| |to the entire Metro Rail system connectivity issue, including access to the airport from the Red Line| |
| |and Metro Link. | |
|01/22/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/ALATORRE MOTION to Approve a fully-centralized procurement function, |Procurement |
| |combining the two presently separate organizations into one autonomous organization, reporting to the| |
| |CEO or Deputy CEO/Finance and Administration. | |
|01/22/97 |BOARD ADOPTED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION a standing policy regarding the naming of MTA property and named |Naming |
| |Transportation Division 5 in honor of Arthur Winston. | |
|02/26/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION |Project Reserve |
| |implementing project reserve accounts by revising policy & procedures and project budgets | |
| |accordingly, as recommended by the PMO; | |
| |if implementation of the recommendations carry cost impacts to the MTA, staff will return to the | |
| |committee with a presentation on the recommendations and a detail of these additional costs prior to | |
| |implementation; and | |
| |carrying over to the March Construction Committee the review of standard details, material lists, and| |
| |specifications of all construction trades for cost selection recommendations. | |
|03/26/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION - that all the issues presented at the Bus Workshop Meeting be|Consent Decree |
| |referred to a joint meeting of the Operations and Planning Committees of the MTA Board, with Director| |
| |Riordan as an Ad Hoc Member, and that staff be instructed to look into any other issues or | |
| |considerations that they believe are pertinent to the issues and that they also be empowered, without| |
| |expense to the MTA, to seek any outside advice they deem helpful. Further that the results of the | |
| |work of the Joint Committee be agendized for the May Board Meeting including a plan for implementing | |
| |a bus procurement, including compliance with the Consent Decree. | |
|03/26/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BONZO MOTION - to authorize Management Audit Services Department to procure |Safety |
| |outside objective construction safety expert to provide a comprehensive review of the MTA safety | |
| |program, amended to include a maximum cost not to exceed $25,000. | |
|03/26/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION - that the |Human Resources |
| |1. MTA explore options to provide job training or other employment opportunities for Boyle Ranch | |
| |Market employees during the market’s relocation period, or in the event the market no longer serves | |
| |the Boyle Heights area; and | |
| |2. staff report back to the Board on the progress in implementing these directions as well as an | |
| |update on its relocation efforts prior to the April 1997 MTA Board meeting. | |
|03/26/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - to authorize Arthur Andersen to review the amendments to|Procurement |
| |the EMC Contract (to be completed in 10 to 14 days) for an amount not to exceed $10,000 and provide a| |
| |briefing on their findings to the Board prior to the April Construction Committee. | |
|03/26/97 |BOARD APPROVED AS AMENDED proposed construction change orders to Contract No. EA#07-I16874 with Ball,|Soundwall |
| |Ball & Brosamer, Inc covering: | |
| |no construction of additional soundwalls at four locations along Interstate 405 HOV Project to | |
| |mitigate freeway traffic noise exceeding Caltrans Noise Barrier Standard at a cost of $1,200,000; and| |
| |B. relocation of Southern California Edison (SCE) high risk/high tension power lines interfering with| |
| |the new construction of a slip connector ramp at the Interstate 405/710 interchange at a cost of $2 | |
| |million. | |
| |AMENDMENT: That Caltrans recognizes that the soundwall in City of Signal Hill is warranted and will | |
| |insure that it is constructed as part of Contract EA#07-I16874; and that staff in conjunction with | |
| |Caltrans and FHWA, and in accord with legal requirements of Proposition C, develop guidelines in the | |
| |next 90 days for when it is appropriate to construct soundwalls as part of the freeway HOV program. | |
|03/26/97 |CONSIDERED positions on seven state legislative items relating to MTA governance and other MTA |Governance |
| |issues. | |
| |SB567 (Polanco) | |
| |SB837 (Kopp/Hayden) | |
| |SB794 (Hayden) | |
| |SB790 (Hayden) | |
| |AB1143 (Murray) | |
| |AB1481 (Kuykendall) | |
| |AB584 (Villaraigosa) | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - that the Board is open to: An appointed Board with 13 | |
| |members, removal of alternates, a fixed term for the CEO or a super-majority vote for removal. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION regarding codification of the MTA Code of Conduct, that the Code| |
| |apply to all transit agencies in the state. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - the Board’s openness to: a fixed term of office for, or | |
| |super-majority vote for removal of, the Inspector General. | |
|04/16/97 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION directing the CEO to assign one person to be accountable for countywide service|Bus Service |
| |and to work with regional partners, increase the flexibility of MTA service to be more | |
| |customer-oriented and maintain a multi-modal view. Director Riordan added that the one responsible | |
| |individual should also provide a detailed plan, which takes population into account as well as | |
| |funding sources, and within two months a rough outline of a transportation plan for the next 20 | |
| |years. He also requested a detailed description of where we are today, and a report on the deficit | |
| |cost of rail operations. | |
|04/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED creation of a seven member Audit Task Force consisting of three members, or their |Rules |
| |designee, appointed by each of the Construction and Executive Management Committees, and the | |
| |Inspector General, with support provided by the Chief of Staff, assisted by the Internal Auditor, | |
| |with its scope to be determined by the Audit Committee. | |
|04/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION regarding the development of a Zero Tolerance Policy for |Graffiti |
| |graffiti on MTA owned or controlled property and present the policy to the appropriate committee | |
| |within 30 days. | |
|04/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that no alcohol or tobacco advertising shall be accepted or |Advertising |
| |permitted on MTA properties. | |
|05/28/97 |BOARD APPROVED amendment of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement to form a 501(c) non-profit |Non-Profit Org |
| |corporation for the purpose of receiving a State of California Economic Development Agency (EDA) | |
| |Grant and for the purpose of implementing the joint development project with Catellus Development | |
| |Corporation above the Westlake/MacArthur Park Metro Red Line Station. | |
| |AMENDED to include instructing the Interim CEO to work in conjunction with County Counsel, the MTA | |
| |Ethics Officer and the Inspector General to establish the corporation; amend the bylaws to include | |
| |compliance with MTA competitive procurement regulations, conflict of interest laws and regulations, | |
| |code of conduct, disadvantaged business policies and procedures, Brown Act open meeting laws and an | |
| |appropriate threshold limitation above which MTA Board shall approve contracts, change orders and | |
| |other fiscal matters. | |
|05/28/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION to support and participate in the formation of the Los |BID |
| |Angeles Downtown Industrial District and authorized the Board Secretary to sign CCEA’s petition in | |
| |support of the District. | |
|05/28/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - Consider authorization to advertise the MTA’s interest in|LRTP |
| |the creation of public/private partnerships for the purpose of designing, financing, constructing, | |
| |operating and maintaining transportation projects that will improve mobility, accessibility and air | |
| |quality, and report back to the Executive Management Committee at the August meeting. | |
| |Staff shall focus their primary emphasis on Board approved alignments contained in the current Long | |
| |Range Plan without limiting or foregoing all other proposals for turn key operations. | |
| |APPROVED AMENDMENT BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY -to the original motion that proposals be limited to | |
| |alignments already approved by the Board or included in the Long Range Plan. The motion was FURTHER | |
| |AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BURKE to state there should be no cost to the MTA or bond financing to be issued | |
| |by the MTA; and by Director Riordan that nothing in the foregoing shall be construed to restrict | |
| |unsolicited proposals. | |
|05/28/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION AS AMENDED for review of a performance-based “Bus Technology |Bus |
| |Policy” for bus procurements: | |
| |1. Reaffirmed the MTA’s commitment to significantly improve the air quality in the region; | |
| |2. Directed the CEO to return in 30 days for Board approval with a detailed, performance-based “Bus | |
| |Technology Policy” report, including but not limited to references to the appropriate regulations and| |
| |technical data and including as its primary goal a plan to materially reduce the diesel carcinogenic,| |
| |particulate and other emissions generated by the Authority; | |
| |3. Directed the CEO to work with SCAG, Coalition for Clean Air, and the AQMD to review the Regional | |
| |Transportation Plan and Air Quality Management Plan. | |
|06/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION - |Finance |
| |A. the Fiscal Year 1998 Budget, including budget adjustments ($1.6M for Management Audit Services and| |
| |$150,000 for Transportation Foundation), AMENDED to reinstate $1.2 million for the Quality | |
| |Integration Program (bus stop cleaning, bus graffiti removal, inactive right of way maintenance); and| |
| |B. a Reimbursement Resolution authorizing the expenditure of funds for capital construction and | |
| |acquisition activities prior to issuance of bonds for the specific activities. | |
| |DIRECTED CEO to report back in 30 days and every 30-60 days thereafter with revised revenue | |
| |assumptions. Also instructed staff not to take any binding actions prior to the time the Board meets| |
| |again to further consider the budget. | |
|06/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - to implement the standardized change order format |Construction |
| |recommendations of the Project Management Assistance (PMA) including, but not limited to the | |
| |following: | |
| |prescribed format to contractors; | |
| |specified change order format approach in contract documents, including equipment time sheets, rental| |
| |agreements, equipment and material invoices, cancelled checks, etc. as evidence of costs incurred; | |
| |and | |
| |direct Construction Manager to develop change order estimate forms and check list of information to | |
| |be required, and submit drafts to the Project Management Assistance and Construction Committee for | |
| |concurrence, comment and approval at the July Construction Committee Meeting. | |
|06/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - |Joint Development |
| |1. directing the MTA Construction Division Project Managers to review all design work currently | |
| |scheduled to commence between July and October, 1997 and identify all surface work not directly | |
| |integrated to subsurface systems, i.e., bus bays, Transit Plazas, parking lots, curb improvements, | |
| |etc.; | |
| |2. directing the Divisions of Procurement, Legal and Construction to develop a process to utilize the| |
| |current Joint Development/ Real Estate Department design firms to accomplish design work identified | |
| |pursuant to “A” above; directing staff to develop an accelerated procurement to select firms to | |
| |accomplish design work identified pursuant to Part 1 of this recommendation; | |
| |3. directing Joint Development/Real Estate Department to utilize a qualified firm from the Joint | |
| |Development pool to design the required surface improvements at the Universal City Station; and | |
| |directing staff to select, pursuant to this accelerated process a qualified firm to design the | |
| |required surface improvements at the Universal City Station, taking into consideration Joint | |
| |Development opportunities, and negotiate a firm fixed-price contract, and execute such contract if | |
| |the negotiated price does not exceed $350,000; and the Lankershim Boulevard widening if the | |
| |negotiated price does not exceed $200,000; and | |
| |4. increasing the authorized expenditure level of any Joint Development pool firm from $100,000 to | |
| |$300,000 selecting the firm chosen to perform the Universal Station improvements and report to the | |
| |Board after award of the contract. | |
|06/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR WILSON MOTION - Board concurrence with the City of Los Angeles Financial |Funding |
| |Contribution Agreement for Metro Rail Red Line Segment 3 as amended. | |
|06/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION APPROVED to conduct a performance review of Hertz Claim Management, |Worker’s Comp |
| |the third party administrator for the MTA’s Workers’ Compensation claim program; AMENDED to include | |
| |examination of M/WBE Program, including case loads and dollar amounts. | |
|06/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/KNABE/RIORDAN MOTION AS AMENDED regarding funding schedule agreement |ACTA |
| |with the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority: | |
| |For the purpose of ACTA proceeding with the project in a timely manner, authorize the Interim CEO of | |
| |MTA to execute a funding agreement with Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA) providing | |
| |$218.7 million* to ACTA for a mutually agreed upon Scope of Work. The funding agreement shall include| |
| |the following basic terms consistent with past MTA Board actions including the MTA Recovery Plan: | |
| |All funds shall be made available to ACTA in accordance with a payment schedule, design and | |
| |construction milestones consistent with ACTA completing the Alameda Corridor project in 2001. ACTA | |
| |will submit quarterly and annual cost certification reports to MTA and other reports as required by | |
| |the agreement. | |
| |All funds granted to ACTA shall be legally binding and shall not be subject to annual appropriations | |
| |recertification or additional MTA Board approval. This includes any previously approved funding for | |
| |ACTA. | |
| |Funds authorized under the agreement represent a legally binding obligation of the MTA. | |
| |Neither ACTA nor MTA shall be held financially responsible for costs of any project for which ACTA or| |
| |the MTA is not directly responsible for design and construction; nor shall the MTA reduce its | |
| |commitment to ACTA to cover such costs. Such costs include, but are not limited to, all Port Access | |
| |Demonstration Projects PADPs). | |
| |MTA will disburse the allowable grant to ACTA in accordance with the agreement schedule only upon the| |
| |issuance of ACTA revenue bonds for the Alameda Corridor Project. | |
| |*Less financing costs, not to exceed $21 million, which could result in a net grant of at least | |
| |$197.7 million. | |
|07/31/97 |BOARD APPROVED Amendments to the FY98 Budget: |Budget |
| |A. increase the expenditure budget by $1.2 million to $2,849,214,000 for the following programs: | |
| |Bus Stop Cleaning Program for $250,000; | |
| |Bus Graffiti Cleaning Program for $750,000; and | |
| |Inactive Right-of-Way Cleaning Program for $200,000; | |
| |B. increase the funds available budget by $2.14 million to $3,283,480,000 increasing the | |
| |system-generated advertising budgeted revenues by $2.15 million; and | |
| |C. allocate the $2.15 million increased funds as follows: | |
| |$1.2 million to the bus stop, bus graffiti and inactive ROW cleaning programs; | |
| |$0.95 million to the operating reserve. | |
|07/31/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION – include all hires/promotions in the last quarter, whther they |Human Resources |
| |were within policy, how the policy has been changed, and what pay for performance has been paid. | |
| |A. Place a hiring freeze on all mid and upper level management positions Grade I-1 and above, and all| |
| |pay for performance and promotions (excluding the one external candidate to whom an offer has been | |
| |made) throughout the agency; | |
| |B. Any filling of vacancies and/or promotions shall be temporary and classified as interim | |
| |appointments only; | |
| |C. Filling of vacancies shall be brought to the executive management committee under the | |
| |recommendation of the interim CEO, examined and ratified by the committee; | |
| |D. This policy shall take effect immediately and be applied retroactively to July 1, 1997; | |
| |E. Upon identification of positions that may require a permanency status, the interim CEO shall | |
| |submit those positions, with proper justification, to the Executive Management Committee for review | |
| |and ratification; and | |
| |F. Any contemplated organizational restructuring should be presented by the respective department to | |
| |its oversight committee for review and ratification. | |
| |Also requested was the criteria for changing people from one department to another and raising their | |
| |salaries. Staff to report to Executive Management Committee in August. | |
|07/31/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION: |Procurement |
| |adoption of the new Procurement Policies and Procedures Manual developed by Administrative | |
| |Management, Inc., covering implementation of a consolidated Procurement Department as the only set of| |
| |policies on procurement and contract administration; and | |
| |authorizing the CEO to make changes to the manual as laws, regulations, business or economic | |
| |conditions require. | |
| |Amendment: | |
| |Staff to continue to work closely with the Executive Officer of Procurement and the consultant in | |
| |developing the Desk Manual; | |
| |The CEO shall undertake, with the assistance of the Executive Officer of Procurement and the | |
| |consultant, the development of training and testing program for all procurement-related staff | |
| |throughout the agency, and to develop personnel performance evaluation standards based on the | |
| |knowledge of the new procurement manuals. Additionally, an abbreviated seminar approach should be | |
| |developed to further educate our own Board of Directors’ staff regarding this revised compilation of | |
| |procurement policies; | |
| |Return to the Executive Management Committee each month hereafter to apprise the Board on the | |
| |progress being made towards completion of this enterprise; and | |
| |Establish a seven-member task force comprised as follows: | |
| |one representative from the Operations, Planning & Programming, Finance and Construction Departments;| |
| |two representatives from the Procurement Department; and | |
| |Consultant, to work together over the next six months in the preparation of the new desk manual. | |
| |Divide requisitions into smaller tasks or quantities to allow for maximum DBE participation. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR LAWRENCE MOTION - | |
| |That staff prepare for the next Board Meeting, actions and recommendations that would address the | |
| |following: | |
| |That MTA will take cognizance of historical and archaeological data to insure that potentially | |
| |sensitive areas are tested prior to any ground disturbance. | |
| |That MTA will provide third-party coordination to insure that ground-penetrating activities by other | |
| |agencies, such as utility relocations and installations, or road improvement, are accompanied by the | |
| |required cultural resource services. | |
| |That MTA will supervise construction contracts and contractors more closely to guarantee schedule | |
| |coordination with cultural resource services. | |
| |That MTA will maintain a contingency fund for cultural resources adequate that new discoveries can be| |
| |visited, evaluated, tested if necessary for determination of significance, and treated, if warranted,| |
| |without having to wait for contract amendments and authorizations. | |
| |That MTA will provide adequate funds for background historical research prior to construction which | |
| |will target sensitive areas to focus work scopes and budgets. | |
| |That MTA will make archaeological and paleontological reports available to the Board, staff and MTA | |
| |Library. | |
| |That MTA will make provision for the permanent curation of significant artifacts a requirement of | |
| |mitigation. | |
|07/31/97 |BOARD APPROVED AS AMENDED: |MRL Eastside |
| |A. certifying review and consideration of the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report; | |
| |B. the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the project changes for the | |
| |Metro Red Line, East Side Extension; and | |
| |C. issuance of Notice of Determination. | |
| |Amendment: | |
| |1. The scope of work for the housing experts to be retained as part of the mitigation program. | |
| |Include a goal to leverage MTA resources in order to reach the objective of providing one-to-one | |
| |housing replacement by exploring funding alternatives with public housing providers, non-profit | |
| |housing providers and private sector funding agencies; | |
| |2. The MTA continue to work with community residents and the legal aid foundation of East Los Angeles| |
| |to formalize a written agreement on mitigation matters where consensus has been reached; | |
| |3. MTA establish an internal technical task force comprised of representatives from the divisions of | |
| |Construction, Procurement and Planning and the Job Development and Training Department within the | |
| |Human Resources Division, and assign them the task of developing appropriate policy amendments and/or| |
| |programs to accomplish the following: | |
| |a. Assist residents who lose their employment resulting from the relocation of a business along the | |
| |East Side Extension alignment; | |
| |b. Assist impacted residents in obtaining entry level, semi-skilled as well as skilled jobs from | |
| |contracts administered by the MTA; | |
| |4. MTA expedite the demolition of acquired structures and provide, in the meantime, secure boarding | |
| |of the building, fencing of the property, security lighting, and increased patrolling of the sites; | |
| |5. Staff to determine if there is in-house capacity to provide housing plan and report to the full | |
| |Board next week. | |
| |Staff to return in 30 days regarding funding sources ($5.2 million available to build replacement | |
| |housing) and in-house v. consultant preparation of Housing Plan. | |
|08/22/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS RIORDAN/YAROSLAVKSY MOTION to - Accept the findings and recommendations of |Budget |
| |the Mayor’s office budget review; Direct the interim CEO and the MTA staff to revise the FY97-98 | |
| |budget to incorporate the recommendations identified in the Mayor’s Office budget review (including | |
| |but not limited to, Exhibit 3, pp. 13-14) and report back to the Board with a progress report at the | |
| |September 10, 1997 Finance & Budget Committee and with a revised budget within 60 days. | |
| |Amended to include A moratorium on approving any new construction or professional services contracts | |
| |for the Eastside Extension, Mid-Cities, or Pasadena Blue Line. | |
|09/25/97 |BOARD CONSIDERED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to contract for the professional services with the same | |
| |legal firm used in the July Burbank-Chandler Turnkey presentation for a review and preliminary | |
| |analysis of all five private sector submittals at a cost not to exceed $20,000, for presentation at | |
| |the October Board Meeting. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED, AS AMENDED, to receive and file the Ventura Freeway proposal and evaluate in-house | |
| |the balance of proposals received from the private sector. | |
|09/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION regarding Disputes Review Board (DRB) to: |Procurement |
| |Require that all DRB decisions, $100,000 and above, without regard to scope or merit finding be | |
| |brought back to the Committee and Board for approval; | |
| |Report to the Construction Committee on a review of the DRB process. This report should include, but | |
| |not be limited to, the following: | |
| |an accounting of all DRB decisions on the MRL Wilshire/Vermont corridor over the past year, including| |
| |a report as to the number of items resolved at the DRB level, and the number of items which either | |
| |the MTA or the contractor further pursued through litigation; | |
| |an analysis of the impact of the DRB decision when litigation is pursued; | |
| |a review of any requirements assigned DRB members and an analysis as to whether such requirements are| |
| |being fulfilled; | |
| |do a review of the qualification requirements for DRB membership to ensure members are not under | |
| |current contract with either the contractor or the MTA. | |
|09/25/97 |Considered | |
| |A. second year funding for Gannett Fleming, Inc., the Project Management Oversight consultant, to | |
| |perform work on the Pasadena Blue Line, LA Car and Systemwide Tasks in the amount of $1,547,000; and | |
| |B. approval of Statement of Responsibility for MTA Project Management Oversight. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY SUBSTITUTE MOTION to provide no funding at this time for the | |
| |second year of the contract with Gannett Fleming, Inc., to bring the review in-house and if it is | |
| |determined a consultant is needed, the CEO will return to the Board for approval. | |
|09/25/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION - I therefore move that the MTA Human Resources Department work|Human Resources |
| |with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) to provide GAIN participants | |
| |with access to MTA opportunities. The MTA and DPSS should work together to include GAIN participants | |
| |in significant MTA recruitment and hiring efforts, and the MTA should consider GAIN participants when| |
| |appropriately qualified for open positions at MTA. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN/BURKE MOTION - directing the Chief Executive Officer, or his |Bus |
| |designee, to report monthly to the Operations Committee on the bus system performance. A written | |
| |report summarizing key data and information shall be prepared and distributed to all members. In | |
| |addition, key elements shall be presented each month. Policy matters shall be highlighted and | |
| |recommended for appropriate Board action. | |
| |Director Alatorre requested a report prior to the November 13th Special Board meeting on how much has| |
| |been spent over the last five years to "bail out" Operations and where the money came from. | |
| |Director Fasana asked staff to review audits previously done and determine if recommendations were | |
| |ever implemented. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH/ YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - That the Board direct the Chief Executive |Bus Service |
| |Officer to establish an MTA working group, including the relevant departments such as Legal, Planning| |
| |and Labor Relations to explore options for improving bus service in the San Fernando Valley and | |
| |giving the Valley more control over its bus services. The working group should make presentations of| |
| |its findings at the next San Femando Valley Summit, and to the MTA Board in December. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HEIDT MOTION - That the Board direct the CEO or designee to report quarterly |Planning |
| |to the appropriate committee(s), and the full Board, on status and progress of the external | |
| |organizations. This written report shall summarize the roles and responsibilities of the | |
| |organization and the status and progress of each external organizations, including transportation and| |
| |air quality issues affecting MTA and the Los Angeles County region. Staff and/or Board appointee | |
| |shall prepare the quarterly report and present its contents to the specified committee(s) as | |
| |information item. The Board appointee shall have the opportunity for Board direction on regional | |
| |policy issues. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION- dedicating a plaque at the Wilmington/Imperial Metro Blue/Green|Naming |
| |Line Station to Ms. Rosa Parks. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION - meeting with representatives of Southern California Regional|SCRRA |
| |Rail Authority (SCRRA) and the Los Angeles City Department of Transportation (LADOT) to determine the| |
| |feasibility of operating a Metrolink service in the San Fernando Valley, from Union Station to the | |
| |Cities of Burbank and Glendale to Warner Center to help meet the mobility needs of the residents and | |
| |taking an administrative look at Burbank/Chandler route for Metrolink type service and asked the CEO | |
| |to discuss with the SCRRA and LADOT the feasibility and economics of bringing Metrolink east/west | |
| |service to the San Fernando Valley. Also included is taking a look at other opportunities, including | |
| |DMU technology and meeting with ‘COG’ as well as San Gabriel Valley to find opportunities to create | |
| |the best regional transit system and report back to the appropriate committee. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED, AS AMENDED, revised MTA Rules and Procedures to include any amendments that may be |Rules |
| |necessitated by passage of AB 584, amendments to Section 1.4 to state that all contractual items | |
| |approved by, the committee under the delegation of MTA Board authority shall be brought forward to | |
| |the full MTA Board in the form of an agenda addendum to the full board consent calendar as a “consent| |
| |calendar - committee approvals” and ordinarily approved by the full Board as part of the consent | |
| |calendar by reference; and amendments to Section 1.8 to reflect director special items can go | |
| |directly to the Board and inclusion that a director may request an item to be pulled from the consent| |
| |calendar – committee approvals, (as described above in ‘amended’ section 1.4) pursuant to section | |
| |1.9, and held for discussion by the full board and possible further action by the board. Such a | |
| |request is restricted to principal board members only. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALARCON MOTION - Consider an RFP process for public/private partnership for |Procurement |
| |CNG fleet and facilities service and report back to the December Operations Committee. | |
|10/23/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - Consider rescinding action of the Construction Committee |Procurement |
| |taken at the October Committee meeting and refer this item back to the Procurement, Audit and | |
| |Construction Divisions so that audit findings can be incorporated into negotiations prior to | |
| |returning to the Construction Committee for approval. | |
|11/13/97 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION - |Finance |
| |RECEIPT AND FILING of the report on the re-forecast of the previously adopted FY 98 operating budget;| |
| |ALLOCATION of revenues to offset the forecasted FY 98 operating budget cash shortfall: | |
| |Proposition A and C interest revenues of $13 million earned in the current fiscal year allocated to | |
| |MTA; | |
| |One-time revenues consisting of $5 million Rideshare, $2.9 million FAU and $3 million Proposition A | |
| |and C prior years’ interest to MTA. | |
| |AMENDMENTS: It is understood that this action does not include a fare increase. Staff is directed | |
| |to strive to reduce all professional services contract costs by 20%. | |
|11/20/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/OROPEZA MOTION TO ADD ITEM #D: |Bus Procurement |
| |confirming the Board’s previous action to award a contract to New Flyer of America, Cookston, | |
| |Minnesota, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder covering the purchase of 223 CNG regular | |
| |floor buses, including spare parts and test equipment in the amount of $79,621,302; | |
| |rescinding the Board’s previous approval to exercise the procurement option with New Flyer of America| |
| |to increase the base order by 25%, or 55 buses; | |
| |authorizing prompt development of an invitation for bid for a new procurement for 215 low floor CNG | |
| |buses with a delivery schedule commencing in 2001; and | |
| |establishing as policy that the next procurement will be for low floor buses. | |
|11/20/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that all current and future non-solicited proposals received by |Procurement |
| |staff or Board members be immediately forwarded to the CEO and not be agendized for future meetings; | |
| |that the CEO return to the board, when appropriate, with his recommendations on what proposals may | |
| |make sense to explore and the process staff will take to evaluate these opportunities; and, all | |
| |unsolicited proposals shall adhere to Chapter 8, Sections 8.08 and 8.09 of the MTA Procurement Policy| |
| |manual adopted July, 1997 that specifically address "unsolicited" proposals and the Board reiterated | |
| |its policy, as adopted in July of this year, that all procurements explicitly follow the Rules and | |
| |Procedures as contained in the MTA Procurement Policy manual and that the CEO certify to the Board | |
| |staff’s adherence to these policies. | |
|11/20/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KNABE MOTION that as the governing Boards of the Los Angeles County |Naming |
| |Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies hereby name the | |
| |Los Angeles County Call Box System in honor of Los Angeles County Supervisor Kenneth Hahn as ‘The Los| |
| |Angeles County Kenneth Hahn Call Box System.’ | |
| |We further recognize and commend Supervisor Hahn for his exemplary commitment to the safety of all | |
| |motorists and for his conception of the highway call box system. | |
|11/20/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION directing staff to prepare a study and report in January, |Consent Decree |
| |1998 with a preliminary report of savings that might occur, communicate with other transit agencies | |
| |for their input, and perhaps seek a third party for evaluation of savings on alternative approaches | |
| |to restructuring and reallocating bus and rail service delivery, with the objective of meeting the | |
| |requirements of the Consent Decree at a lower operating cost than projected by the MTA’s Operations | |
| |Division. The study should address different approaches to restructuring, including the following: | |
| |Reallocating bus and rail transit service among the 17 existing service providers; | |
| |Reallocating bus service among the 17 existing providers, and creating a new service provision entity| |
| |for rail, including merging with another rail service provider; and | |
| |Reallocating bus service among the existing providers, with at least one new service provision entity| |
| |in the San Fernando Valley. | |
|12/18/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION - to authorize staff to work with the Department of |Bus Service |
| |Transportation (DOT) to determine which Smart Shuttle routes can be restructured to accommodate | |
| |ridership on major bus corridors in which service has been proposed for cancellation by the MTA and | |
| |report back in 30 days. | |
| |And to delete the word “weekend” and use Mobility Allowance Program funds to contract with DOT or | |
| |other entities to immediately replace cancelled service. | |
|12/18/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PATSAOURAS MOTION - that no MTA director or staff travel outside of the US, |Rules |
| |at MTA expense, to inspect a busway in Brazil. | |
|12/18/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to direct staff to prepare and present to the Inspector |Funding |
| |General within 30 days and to the Board within 60 days a detailed report as to how funds designated | |
| |as "The Valley Trust Fund" were computed, how and where they were deposited, a determination of the | |
| |total funds accrued, including account numbers, remaining balance, if any, and identification of the | |
| |accounts where the accrued interest may have been deposited. | |
|12/18/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION to direct the CEO to prepare a study prior to the Board’s |Budget |
| |final consideration of the capital budget on the feasibility and advisability of establishing a | |
| |funding allocation policy to include A, B, C, D and add item E. | |
| |commencing with the adoption of the FY 1999 budget, establish a policy to allocate at least 40% of | |
| |Proposition C Discretionary funds to fund capital projects, including payments of principal and | |
| |interest on existing bonds for capital programs; | |
| |a determination of the amount of future bonding capacity for capital programs that will be achieved | |
| |by the adoption of the aforementioned funding allocation formula; | |
| |commencing with the adoption of the FY 1999 budget, the establishment of a policy to allocate all | |
| |Proposition A Rail Development funds to fund rail capital projects, including payments of principal | |
| |and interest on existing bonds rail construction bonds; and | |
| |an assessment of the impact on other MTA programs resulting from the adoption of all these funding | |
| |allocation formulas. | |
| |Assessment to be made on the alternative uses of such funds for County wide operations and services. | |
|12/18/97 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/ YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to add the cities of San Fernando, Calabasas,|Transit Zone |
| |Burbank, Glendale, Agoura Hills, Santa Clarita, and the County of Department of Public Works in the | |
| |discussion with LADOT and other transit agencies regarding a transit zone. | |
|02/26/1998 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION- that the Board of Directors instruct the CEO effective |Bus Procurement |
| |immediately: | |
| |to develop an implementation plan for the procurement of buses with ATTB design which would include | |
| |all necessary tasks leading up to and including an IFB solicitation along with a time schedule for | |
| |accomplishing each task. | |
| |that the implementation plan incorporate an acceptance test protocol that will include, among other | |
| |things, data received from the MTA field test, Altoona durability tests, East Coast tests, MTA | |
| |emissions - dyno tests and tests performed on Prototype 1 in Los Angeles. | |
| |as part of the plan a multi-year contracting approach be implemented, with this purchase subject to | |
| |cancellation if Federal Transit Administration formula and/or discretionary funds are not | |
| |appropriated by Congress, delivery commitments are not achieved, or if the product fails to meet | |
| |documented specifications; and | |
| |that the bus capital expenditures conform to what was outlined in the MTA Capital Budget Presentation| |
| |presented to a special Budget Board Meeting held December 11, 1997. | |
| |Critical design features of the ATTB should include, but not be limited to: | |
| |low floor with wheelchair ramp access | |
| |43 seated passenger configuration | |
| |CNG powered system | |
| |Dynamic braking capability | |
| |Non-corrosive composite structure | |
| |Computer controlled, integrated sub-systems | |
| |Unloaded curb weight of less than 21,000 pounds | |
| |Director Burke, further, moved that this plan be presented to the Board in 60 days. | |
|03/26/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Board of Directors receive the Board material on |Rules |
| |Friday of the week prior to a designated Board meeting. | |
|03/26/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the Board establish a Special Ad Hoc Committee of the Board|Rules |
| |to work directly with the CEO on the development of a comprehensive strategic program responding to | |
| |the actions taken by the CTC, Congress and the U.S. Department of Transportation; | |
| |The Membership of the Special Committee shall be comprised of the Chairperson of each of the Board | |
| |standing policy committees, the Board Chair and 1st and 2nd Vice Chairs; and | |
| |The CEO and the Special Committee will be requested to make monthly reports to the Board on progress | |
| |in development of the strategic program. | |
|03/26/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/RIORDAN directing the CEO to report back to the Board of Directors at| |
| |its April Board Meeting with his analysis of the Inspector General’s recommendations. This analysis | |
| |should include each action item, project milestones, deadlines for each action item, and the MTA | |
| |staff members responsible for carrying out each action item. As part of the analysis, the CEO should| |
| |establish a project management team which includes the Inspector General or his representative. This| |
| |team should provide monthly progress reports to the Board of Directors. | |
|04/08/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS FASANA/YAROSLASKY MOTION: |Planning |
| |That the MTA Board of Directors formally request SCAG to make the following changes in the draft RTP:| |
| |That the MTA Board maintains maximum flexibility with regard to transit mode and allocation of funds,| |
| |including, but not limited to MOS III and MOS IV, with the exception of the Pasadena Blue Line which | |
| |remains light rail; | |
| |The MTA opposes the imposition of regional performance indicators in the RTIP development process; | |
| |and | |
| |Urge SCAG to further refine all the performance standards goals and to obtain concurrence of affected| |
| |transit operators, CTCs and Subregional COGs prior to adopting these standards goals in an RTP, | |
| |amending the Regional “Transportation Improvement Program Guidelines, incorporating the standards | |
| |goals in Major Investment Study Guidelines, or decisions are reflective of SCAG’s unilateral | |
| |performance-based criteria and identified needs. To further clarify, performance standards must be | |
| |non-binding goals that do not restrict the MTA Board in setting policy and programming funds to MTA | |
| |programs and projects. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION directing the CEO to advocate maximum flexibility for the | |
| |projects in ISTEA II. | |
|04/08/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ZARIAN MOTION requesting the CEO or his designee, to provide a written report| |
| |to the Operations Committee summarizing the MTA’s present and future plans and commitments to the | |
| |Consent Decree. This report should include: | |
| |delineation of all applicable expenditures to items relating to the Consent Decree, and | |
| |explanation of the review and approval processes for Consent Decree related expenditures. | |
|04/23/98 |APPROVE: |Construction |
| |1. deletion of the Kaiser entrance from B261 from B261 Vermont/sunset Station and rejection of all | |
| |bids for Contract B263, Kaiser Entrance; and | |
| |2. Authorizing staff to negotiate and execute a change order to Contract B261 Vermont/sunset Station | |
| |with Tutor Saliba Perini JV for the construction of a ventilation exhaust shaft subject to a legal | |
| |merit determination and audit within a total budget of $4.1 million. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY SUBSTITUTE MOTION: | |
| |1) Direct staff to negotiate a change order with Tutor Saliba Perini, the B261 Vermont/Sunset | |
| |station contractor, within both the construction budget and the overall project budget of $13.2 | |
| |million. | |
| |2) Execute an agreement with Kaiser Foundation Hospitals by May 11,1998 to fully fund the remaining | |
| |shortfall in the project budget in the amount of $4.9 million plus demolition costs of $493,000. | |
| |3) MTA’s contribution to this project will not exceed the $7.9 million approved by the Board in | |
| |1994. | |
| |4) MTA staff will work to contain all ‘soft costs,’ including design and engineering, for this | |
| |project. | |
| |5) Increase the contract AFE appropriately if negotiations with Tutor Saliba Perini are successful. | |
| |6) Should this alternative fail to produce a successfully negotiated change order with the | |
| |contractor within the approved budget or if Kaiser fails to cover the remaining shortfall, CEO would | |
| |be authorized to move forward with the deletion of the Kaiser entrance and proceed with the | |
| |alternative ventilation shaft in order to meet the project schedule. | |
|04/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION - that the MTA Board of Directors adopt the position that any |Legislation |
| |state legislation that facilitates a sub-entity for transportation in Los Angeles County should | |
| |include language that makes this structure available to all parts of the County, including the San | |
| |Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, the East Side, and any other area that prefers more local | |
| |oversight. | |
|04/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION - that the MTA suspend any further demolition of buildings |Construction |
| |related to the Metro Red Line Eastside Extension for the next 60 days. During this time, staff is | |
| |directed to provide ongoing maintenance and security of these buildings, evaluate the condition of | |
| |the buildings, and determine the feasibility of rehabilitating these buildings. Staff will report | |
| |their findings to the Board of Directors in 60 days, and the Board will determine whether or not | |
| |demolition of these buildings should proceed. | |
|04/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - that the MTA hereby re-designate and name the |Naming |
| |Imperial/Wilmington Station, and that henceforth that station shall be called the Rosa Parks Station.| |
|04/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ZARIAN/BERNSON MOTION to request the CEO to investigate the performance, |Bus |
| |safety, and reliability of ALL contracted bus lines and report back to the full Board in 60 days on | |
| |the status of safety, performance, reliability, and customer service and recommendations for | |
| |improving contracted bus services as well as implementing a bus Performance Standards policy. | |
|05/21/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to agendize at the June Board meeting a motion to support |Transit Zone |
| |in concept the San Fernando Valley Transit Zone and to receive the consultant’s report. | |
|05/21/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to amend the 1996 agreement with Kaiser as follows: |Construction |
| |Authorized the CEO to amend the Kaiser Entrance Agreement as follows: | |
| |1. Delete MTA’s payment of $493,000 for property preparation. This item will be covered by Kaiser; | |
| |2. RECEIVED update on status of Kaiser Portal Agreement for MOS2 Hollywood and APPROVED DIRECTOR | |
| |YAROSLAVSKY MOTION ON A ROLL CALL VOTE, to amend the 1996 agreement with Kaiser: | |
| |Authorized the CEO to amend the Kaiser Entrance Agreement as follows: | |
| |1. Delete MTA’s payment of $493,000 for property preparation. This item will be covered by Kaiser; | |
| |2. Include Kaiser’s contribution to the project in the amount of $4,433,559; | |
| |3. Add a provision detailing the responsibility for overruns which provides: | |
| |a. The project budgeted contingency ($827,777) will be used first for costs unrelated to | |
| |contaminated materials. MTA will be responsible for overruns on those costs; | |
| |b. Any remaining contingency will be used for costs related to contaminated materials. If there are| |
| |insufficient remaining contingency funds, MTA and Kaiser will pay contaminated materials overrun | |
| |costs on a 50/50 basis; | |
| |c. In addition, Kaiser remains fully responsible for all costs related to lead, asbestos and | |
| |underground facilities or structures containing hazardous substances; | |
| |4. If Kaiser sells its property within 30 years after the entrance is completed, MTA will receive an| |
| |amortized return of its $7.9 million investment; and | |
| |5. Kaiser must turn over easement areas by September 1, 1998 or pay the MTA $7,500 per day to cover | |
| |MTA’s delay costs. | |
|05/21/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/BURKE MOTION: |Safety |
| |We, therefore, move that staff develop a plan to implement the following recommendations and report | |
| |back to the Board within 60 days on the cost, available funding (including grants and other external | |
| |sources) and proposed completion schedule: | |
| |1. Expand and improve the public education program for the Metro Blue Line; | |
| |2. Install added safety elements, like striping and lighting, to increase pedestrian awareness of | |
| |incoming trains; | |
| |3. Install new pedestrian crossing arms in high-traffic areas; | |
| |4. Install new pedestrian gates in high-risk areas; | |
| |5. Expand photo enforcement program to new intersections along the Blue Line; | |
| |6. Expand photo enforcement program along Washington Boulevard, which has recently experienced an | |
| |increase in Blue Line and vehicle collisions; | |
| |7. Work with state and local elected officials to implement legislation that would increase the | |
| |penalty for violating grade crossing and left turn prohibitions. Work with state and local elected | |
| |officials to implement legislation that would mandate community service for grade crossing violators | |
| |or make it mandatory for violators to attend traffic schools or other public education programs. | |
|06/25/98 |A. BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION - that the MTA Board include $95,000 in the 1998-99 Budget|Budget |
| |for one FTE to act as TCAP liaison to administer, coordinate and provide outreach of the | |
| |Transportation Career Academies, which is funding item being recommended by the MTA for | |
| |reconsideration; and | |
| |that $65,000 be included in the 1998-99 Budget to allow at least 90 students from the five high | |
| |schools to continue their career development by serving as MTA interns next fiscal year. | |
| |B. BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS CRAGIN/ANTONOVICH MOTION - to reaffirm existing policy whereby, when MTA | |
| |allocates any discretionary funds for bus operations, those funds are distributed in a “fair share” | |
| |allocation to Municipal Operators as well as MTA operations. When the final funding allocations are | |
| |approved by the Board in the near future, some adjustments to the budget numbers will be required to | |
| |reconcile the final FY 99 budget with the FY99 funding allocations, so that the budget and funding | |
| |allocations are consistent. | |
| |AMENDED to: | |
| |1) proceed with the FY99 budget process. | |
| |2) direct the CEO to analyze and report back tot he Board in 60 days on the inequity of the current | |
| |funding formulas allocated to all included and eligible operators on a proportionate fair share | |
| |basis, and | |
| |3) if inequities exist, the Board further directs the CEO to work with all transit operators to | |
| |develop an equitable formula. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - that the Board instructs staff to provide at the July | |
| |Board meeting recommendations for a comprehensive, long-term fare policy. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - to direct staff to report back to the Board in 30 days | |
| |on appropriate debt limits. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - that all future Board agenda items proposing the | |
| |issuance of additional debt guaranteed by Proposition A & C and/or fare revenues, specifically | |
| |identify the capital projects and activities to be funded by the debt. This shall be binding until | |
| |changed by the Board. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the use of existing and new bond proceeds guaranteed | |
| |by Proposition A & C sales tax revenues and fare revenues be specifically identified in all agency | |
| |line item expenditures. Such expenditure shall be presented in both the MTA annual budget and in all| |
| |budget updates and estimated actual reports to the Board. | |
|06/25/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that: |HCIP |
| |1. The HCIP Program be extended for FY99 in a not-to-exceed amount of 1.5 million. | |
| |2. The following items be capped at the specified amounts and funded out of the FY99 HCIP budget: | |
| |Deck Removal $75,000 | |
| |Rita Apartments $45,000 | |
| |Parking Program $50,000 | |
| |Labor $44,000 | |
| |HCIP Coordinator $60,000 for FY98 | |
| |Cleaning $75,000 | |
| |Reserved Fund $1,151,000 | |
| |3. The CRA grant program and MOU be extended to June 30, 1999 and be amended to include the | |
| |following items: | |
| |Security Program $722,775 | |
| |HCIP Coordinator $75,000 for FY99 | |
| |Historic Signage Program $75,000 | |
| |Total $857,775 | |
| |Staff should immediately begin negotiations with the CRA to amend the MOU so that these items can be | |
| |funded out of the MTA’s $7 million contribution to that Agency. If negotiations are not successful, | |
| |the grant program and MOU will expire as originally intended in November 1998 and the programs listed| |
| |above shall lapse. | |
| |4. Staff will no longer have the authority to approve construction change orders using HCIP funds. | |
| |All construction change orders tied to HCIP will come before the MTA Board for approval. Previously | |
| |authorized construction change orders shall be audited to determine whether they should have been | |
| |funded out of HCIP or the Segment 2 Project Budget. If these previously authorized change orders | |
| |were funded out of HCIP inappropriately, these funds will be paid back to the HCIP fund. | |
|06/25/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - that this Board instruct staff to incorporate into the current|Operations |
| |budget process the following directives: | |
| |Upon completion and adoption of the strategy recommendations of the Mid-Cities Transit Restructuring | |
| |Studies, prioritize those recommendations that speed service within the area and reduce overcrowding.| |
| |Concurrent with the adoption of the FY99 budget, implement those strategies that further the | |
| |requirements of the consent decree; the limited stop services that reduce overcrowding and speed | |
| |travel and any cost neutral rerouting of lines that results in better local or community based | |
| |service. | |
| |Continue MTA participation in the creation or improvement of transit centers at key locations within | |
| |the restructuring service area as suggested in the plan, including continued participation in the | |
| |development of the Broadway Manchester Transit Center. | |
| |Furthermore, as many of the affected lines within the Mid-Cities Transit Restructuring area originate| |
| |out of Division 5, this Division needs to be guaranteed the necessary resources; both in terms of | |
| |staff and equipment to facilitate implementation. Such implementation shall include, but not be | |
| |limited to the following measures: | |
| |1. Develop a deployment plan fully implementing the Workout Team’s recommendation to move the | |
| |remaining “Flex-Metro” buses out of Division 5 and replace them with the newly converted buses. | |
| |2. All reasonable steps shall be taken to expedite the conversion of the designated alcohol fuel | |
| |buses to clean diesel. Beginning in July 1998, the Operations Committee shall receive monthly report| |
| |on the status of this conversion program. The report shall contain, but not be limited to: | |
| |Number of buses remaining that are eligible for conversion; | |
| |List each division where those buses are located; | |
| |The number of buses currently in the process of conversion at Valley Detroit Diesel and the estimated| |
| |completion date for each bus; | |
| |To which Divisions will the newly converted buses be deployed at the completion of conversion. | |
| |3. Once the Workout Team recommendation has been implemented and the conversion program is completed,| |
| |the Operations Committee shall receive quarterly reports on the deployment of the bus fleet by | |
| |Division. | |
| |4. Henceforth, the criteria for determining bus deployment shall give priority to those Divisions | |
| |with the heaviest load factors. | |
| |5. Additionally, consideration of manpower deployments such as mechanics and other related support | |
| |services, shall give priority and emphasis to those Divisions with the highest load factors and | |
| |serving the greatest ridership. | |
|06/25/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - that the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles County |Legislation |
| |Metropolitan Transportation Authority adopt a resolution calling the special election on “The | |
| |Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Reform and Accountability Act of 1998” and requesting | |
| |consolidation with the November 3, 1998, statewide election. | |
|06/25/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ZARIAN MOTION that: |Bus |
| |A. The MTA staff work with CAC to investigate the feasibility of utilizing high capacity buses on | |
| |some or all of the ten most patronized bus routes. This study will assume that the purchase or lease| |
| |of the high capacity buses will not be in addition to the planned bus procurement costs, but rather, | |
| |staff work within the procurement budget to procure the high capacity buses. | |
| |B. The MTA staff work with CAC to report back in 60 days on the feasibility study of utilizing high | |
| |capacity buses on major transit corridors. | |
| |C. The MTA staff and CAC brief the Board with a presentation on the advantages and disadvantages of | |
| |incorporating high capacity buses in the MTA fleet. | |
|07/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/FASANA/ MOLINA MOTION - That the CEO, or designee, to cooperate |Funding |
| |with the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley Council of | |
| |Governments in their efforts to develop the full funding plan for the Pasadena Blue Line taking into | |
| |account the current programmed funding for California Transportation Commission approval in December,| |
| |1998 and to develop the framework for the principles of a Memorandum of Understanding for the purpose| |
| |of transferring the Pasadena Blue Line Project to a JPA by January, 1999. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED, SUBSTITUTE MOTION, directing that a Special Meeting of the Finance & Budget Committee| |
| |be held and delegating to the Committee the power to determine if the Schiff Bill, as finally | |
| |negotiated, is consistent with the Recovery Plan; and, if it is determined to be consistent, to | |
| |communicate to Sacramento a “Support” position on the Bill. | |
|07/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ZARIAN/FASANA MOTION that the Board requests the CEO, or his designee, to |Worker’s Compensation |
| |investigate and assess the problems concerning workers’ compensation insurance claims and report back| |
| |to the Board, on a quarterly basis, on the status of and improvements to management, policy and | |
| |claims administration associated with workers’ compensation and investigation by the Inspector | |
| |General. | |
|07/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR KNABE AS AMENDED that the Office of Chief Executive Officer should |Rules |
| |be directed to assign project budget requests in excess of $2.5 million, involving a combination of | |
| |construction and agency issues, to the jurisdiction of both the Construction any appropriate | |
| |Committee and the Finance & Budget Committee for the necessary deliberations prior to having | |
| |recommendations forwarded to the MTA Board of Directors. | |
|07/23/98 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH AND FASANA that the CEO, or designee, to cooperate with|Planning |
| |the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, South Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments| |
| |in their efforts to develop the full funding plan for the Pasadena Blue Line taking into account the | |
| |current programmed funding for California Transportation Commission approval in December, 1998 and to| |
| |develop the framework for the principles of a Memorandum Understanding for the purpose of | |
| |transferring the Pasadena Blue Line Project to a JPA by January, 1999. | |
| |APPROVED, SUBSTITUTE MOTION, directing that a Special Meeting of the Finance & Budget Committee be | |
| |held and delegating to the Committee the power to determine if the Schiff Bill, as finally | |
| |negotiated, is consistent with the Recovery Plan; and, if it is determined to be consistent, to | |
| |communicate to Sacramento a “Support” position on the Bill. | |
|08/27/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ALATORRE/BURKE MOTION that the CEO and staff provide a written report to the|Funding |
| |Board at its September, 1998 regular meeting, containing the following information: | |
| |A complete analysis of all revenues available to fund MTA programs and projects through FY 2010, | |
| |including those available from, but not limited to the following sources: all TEA 21 revenues; the | |
| |projected growth in sales tax revenues based upon recent actual growth figures; and all other | |
| |anticipated local, State or Federal funds, including Section 9 Transit Capital funds, CMAQ funds, | |
| |Regional Surface Transportation Program funds, SB 45 funds and others. | |
| |This analysis should also indicate how any of these revenues could be used to finance anticipated | |
| |operating deficits, and also specify the range of transportation uses for each of the revenue | |
| |sources. | |
| |AMENDMENT - that the report asked for in the motion show all “new” funds as well as an estimate for | |
| |the eligible uses for those new funds out through the year 2010. Additionally, this board further | |
| |direct the CEO and internal audit to perform an analysis of MTA funding sources, specifically; prop a| |
| |and c and their subcategories, RSTP, CMAQ TDA, section 5309 rail modification funds and regional | |
| |improvement funds (SB 45, 75%). The analysis shall also identify specific future program | |
| |commitments of those funds out to the year 2010. This portion of the report shall be due in | |
| |October. | |
|08/27/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - That this Board direct the CEO and staff to report on the |Funding |
| |following: | |
| |The full range of policy programming opportunities contained in the new TEA-21 law, including and not| |
| |limited to: | |
| |specific actions needed to access and leverage non-formula funds, | |
| |applications of the new innovative financing provisions; | |
| |implementation of the proposed Los Angeles County “high priority” projects; and | |
| |assess implications of new provisions for a variety of areas, including, design-build, clean fuels, | |
| |etc. | |
| |Collaborating with other affected agencies, i.e. County Public works and LADOT, identify specific | |
| |actions the MTA should consider to access and leverage surplus funds currently contained in the state| |
| |highway account. Assess the implications of SB 1758 (Kelly) which if enacted would allow the CTC to | |
| |loan funds to local agencies in order to accelerate project delivery; and | |
| |Develop specific transportation policy recommendations for the Board’s consideration, for transmittal| |
| |to the “transition team” serving the next Governor-elect. | |
|08/27/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/FASANA/ OROPEZA MOTION - Staff to return to the Board in up to 60| |
| |days with the following: | |
| |A revised financial analysis that utilizes the latest audited MTA National Transit Database data; | |
| |Revised findings and recommendations resulting from a thorough and expanded legal assessment of the | |
| |completed study’s findings, including all divestiture options; and | |
| |In up to 90 days with the following: | |
| |A report on meeting with the affected divestiture stakeholders on the study findings and | |
| |recommendations, including MTA labor unions, CAC and the Bus Riders Union. | |
|09/28/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS LEGASPI/ANTONOVICH MOTION - That the Board direct the CEO to work with |Freeway Service Patrol |
| |Caltrans District 7 and the California Highway patrol and report back in 60 days on: | |
| |1. A restatement of the goals of freeway service patrol program; | |
| |2. Whether there have been any measurable, negative impacts on freeway traffic | |
| |directly related to the FY 98-99 cut in mid-day freeway service patrol; | |
| |3. Support the restoration of mid-day service on some or all beats and determine what, if any, | |
| |changes in freeway patrol service are necessary to meet the goals of the freeway patrol service | |
| |program; and | |
| |4. Recommended funding sources for any recommended service additions. | |
| |IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that issues to be considered should include, but not necessarily be limited| |
| |to: | |
| |Congestion levels of beats | |
| |Rate of assists per beat | |
| |Average response and delay time | |
| |Current mid-day service usage | |
|10/22/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/ ANTONOVICH MOTION - that the MTA staff work with California |LRTP |
| |Transportation Commission (CTC) and Caltrans to CONSIDER a plan to fund 405/101 interchange AND THE | |
| |OTHER improvement projects out of Caltrans 25% share of SB45 funds; | |
| |that MTA staff work with Caltrans to investigate the feasibility of using State Highway Operations | |
| |Protection Program (SHOPP) funds for appropriate short-term and long-term interchange improvements; | |
| |and | |
| |that the MTA participate in this project through the 1999 Call for Projects process contingent upon a| |
| |funding commitment by the state; and | |
| |That staff report back in 30 days with a list of potential projects. | |
|10/22/98 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS FASANA, OROPEZA, KNABE, AND YAROSLAVSKY, AS AMENDED BY BURKE that |Bus Procurement |
| |the funding plan for items A, B, & C approved at the September 28, 1998 Board Meeting, be amended to | |
| |include capital formula funds up to $40,000,000 for the municipal transit operators for FYS 1998-04, | |
| |and that these funds be flexible in use in so far as they support capital improvements that promote a| |
| |young and well-maintained fleet service. | |
| |Adoption of an Accelerated Bus Procurement Plan; | |
| |Negotiation and exercise of a Change Order with Neoplan USA to purchase up to 100 additional Neoplan | |
| |High Floor CNG buses (subject to resolution of remaining warranty issues) in an amount not to exceed | |
| |$38 million, which is inclusive of funding required for taxes, delivery, spares, and optional | |
| |equipment; | |
| |Negotiation and exercise of a Change Order with New Flyer of North America on the base 222 bus buy to| |
| |change to a low floor configuration, at a cost not to exceed $900,000. | |
|11/19/98 |BOARD APPROVED an amendment extending contracted bus service with Ryder/ATE Inc., for a three-month |Bus |
| |period increasing the contract by $3,357,555 to an amount not to exceed $33,587,555. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ZARIAN MOTION instructing the CEO to submit a plan, within 60 days, to | |
| |provide improved administration of the 13 contracted bus lines; the plan should examine the | |
| |opportunity to transfer contract oversight and management of these contracts elsewhere to avoid the | |
| |perception and potential conflict of interest addressed in the August Performance Review of | |
| |Contracted Bus Lines report, criteria to include improved regional connectivity, local | |
| |responsiveness, cost efficiency, and improved route monitoring. Once adopted, the CEO shall provide | |
| |the Board with a “Receive and File” written report on a quarterly basis on the execution of the Plan | |
| |summarizing the status and performance of the 13 contracted bus lines. | |
|11/19/98 |BOARD APPROVED recommending the list of candidate projects for consideration by Caltrans for |Call for Projects |
| |inclusion in the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP); and | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that the CEO shall provide Caltrans with a letter stating the | |
| |MTA is undertaking a review of how to maximize the opportunity to enhance the list by looking at any | |
| |matching funds and report back to the Board at its meeting in January. | |
| |Staff clarified the Route 5 project to include the Western Avenue-Flower Street connector. | |
|11/19/98 |BOARD APPROVED the final draft 1999 TIP Call for Projects Application package and release of |Call for Projects |
| |preliminary modal category fund estimates as information to project applicants; and | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION - requesting the following changes: | |
| |A. The following criteria - reducing traffic congestion, increasing regional mobility, improvement to| |
| |existing transit systems, service to transit-dependent, improvement to air quality shall comprise at | |
| |least 80% of the total points calculated in the evaluation of each project; | |
| |B. Making the criterion “Project Readiness” a requirement rather than a “goal.” MTA should expect | |
| |applicants to submit projects that are realistic and result in timely completion. | |
|11/19/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to authorize the CEO to present to the Special Master |Consent Decree |
| |under the Consent Decree in Labor/Community Strategy Center v. MTA a remedial plan to achieve | |
| |compliance with the Consent Decree load factor goals. The remedial plan will contain the following | |
| |elements: | |
| |the immediate deployment of 30 additional buses and the initiation of a management plan to improve | |
| |bus schedule adherence and mechanical reliability. The plan will include measurable goals and | |
| |objectives to demonstrate that the operational changes are producing satisfactory results. The CEO | |
| |will make periodic reports to the Board on the level of achievement of the goals and objectives. | |
| |2. The deployment beginning July 1, 1999 of an additional 130 buses which shall be coupled with a | |
| |showing of satisfactory progress toward the achievement of the goals and objectives of the management| |
| |plan. | |
|11/19/98 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/ ANTONOVICH MOTION - that the Board instruct the CEO to |Ordinance |
| |implement the provisions of The Metropolitan Transportation Authority Reform and Accountability Act | |
| |of 1998 by: | |
| |1. Proceeding immediately to contract for an independent audit solicit bids from at least three | |
| |independent auditing firms to conduct the audit of Proposition A (1980) and Proposition C (1990) | |
| |Sales Tax revenues and expenditures, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act using whatever | |
| |accelerated procurement procedures are required order to ensure that the MTA may enter into a | |
| |contract for the audit no later than by December 18, 1998, as required by Section 5(a) of the 1998 | |
| |measure. Including delegating authority to the CEO to award and execute such contract. | |
| |2. Requesting each appointing authority for the Independent Citizens’ Advisory and Oversight | |
| |Committee, as outlined in Section 6, to appoint a member of that body. | |
| |3. Amending the budget as necessary and certifying to the Board that on and after November 3, 1998 no| |
| |Proposition A (1980) or Proposition C (1990) Sales Tax revenues have been or will be spent on “New | |
| |Subways,” as defined. | |
| |4. Amending the budget as necessary to comply with Section 8 relative to revenue allocation | |
| |percentages, and certifying to the Board that the MTA is in compliance with Section 8. | |
| |5. Reporting to the Board in connection with the Regional Transit Alternatives Analysis, and all | |
| |other planning efforts, on how best to implement Section 9 which authorizes expenditures of | |
| |Proposition C (1990) “25% Freeways and State Highways” funds for public mass transit improvements to | |
| |railroad rights-of-way. | |
|01/28/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KNABE MOTION to: |Y2K |
| |A. acquire the services of outside vendors to meet identified project plan requirements; | |
| |B. acquire the services of either existing State or County contracts that were competitively bid, if| |
| |this would expedite the process; | |
| |C. allow the Y2K project team the latitude to acquire resources, programming services, software, | |
| |hardware and consultants to streamline and to deal with the many tasks required to be successful; | |
| |D. make Y2K compliance a priority in every division of the MTA; and | |
| |E. develop contingency plans to sustain critical services as backup course of action, in the event | |
| |computer systems, control equipment or other unanticipated events impact their ability to function on| |
| |and after January 1, 2000. | |
|01/28/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/BURKE MOTION authorizing the CEO to begin discussions with the |Funding |
| |municipal operators with the objective of developing consensus for a package of policy changes that | |
| |will improve and enhance regional transit services for bus riders; increase efficiency and provide | |
| |better regional coordination for all Los Angeles County operators and labor. Elements to be | |
| |discussed should include: | |
| |Concerted efforts to improve regional mobility through compatible fare technology, reciprocal fare | |
| |media and a regional pass. | |
| |Develop a pilot project to divest up to ten MTA intra-community routes to municipal operators. | |
| |Development of a countywide transit public information and marketing program. | |
| |Improvements in the schedule and service integration process, using the various transit restructuring| |
| |study findings as a starting point. | |
| |Additional areas of improvement as proposed by the municipal operators. | |
| |All discussions should address both the financial and operational feasibility of potential | |
| |improvements and provide an implementation plan for items deemed feasible. | |
|02/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION adopting a policy that no employee organization represent a |Labor |
| |unit containing both supervisors and the employees they supervise. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KNABE MOTION directing the holding of an election as soon as possible to | |
| |determine majority support for representation by an appropriate unit of such employees in response to| |
| |the February 8, 1999 petition for certification of the American Federation of State, County and | |
| |Municipal Employees (AFL-CIO). | |
|03/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ALATORRE MOTION that: |Labor |
| |A. the Board direct the holding of an election as soon as possible in two separate bargaining units, | |
| |one supervisory and one non-supervisory, to determine majority support for representation in response| |
| |to the February 8, 1999 petition for certification by AFSCME, as long as AFSCME agrees that the two | |
| |bargaining units will be represented by separate locals; | |
| |B. the union add language that supervisors would honor management’s direction; | |
| |C. approved list of job classification be included; and | |
| |D. any disagreements over the supervisory and non-supervisory classifications as related to | |
| |bargaining unit which cannot be resolved by negotiations, will come back to the Board for discussion.| |
|03/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KNABE MOTION - that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation |SAFE |
| |Authority investigate the feasibility of funding, installing, operating, and maintaining emergency | |
| |call boxes at bus stations along the freeways, transitways, and busways throughout Los Angeles | |
| |County. | |
|03/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION: |Procurement |
| |A. Ratification of expenditures to First American Records Management for records storage and | |
| |retrieval services rendered in the amount of $295,367 during fiscal years 1997 and 1998, inclusive of| |
| |$51,427 that exceeded staff’s $100,000 annual delegated authority; | |
| |B. That the Section 210.1, Exhibit A in the Procurement Manual (CEO Limit Column) be amended to read | |
| |as follows: Procurement contracts to $100,000; modifications/amendments which increase the cumulative| |
| |contract price only up to a cumulative contract price of $100,000; and | |
| |C. That the CEO bring to the April Executive Management Committee a status report on the Procurement | |
| |Manual and the continuing efforts to finish the “boiler plate” language that has remained outstanding| |
| |over the past year. | |
|03/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION directing the CEO to: |Consent Decree |
| |Move expeditiously to: | |
| | | |
| |Fully implement the current accelerated bus procurement plan. | |
| |Complete conversion of 333 ethanol buses by December, 1999. | |
| |Complete warranty repair of 594 CNG buses by May, 1999. | |
| | | |
| |Implement MTA program to improve management of bus operator availability. | |
| |Substantially eliminate violations attributable to lack of an operator by December 31, 1999. | |
| | | |
| |Initiate staged bus program. | |
| |Hire additional mechanics and improve training and supervision sufficient to attain 2000 mean miles | |
| |between road calls by June, 2000. | |
| |Create/expand a recurring defects analysis program. | |
| |Improve spare parts management. | |
| |Undertake other improvements in service reliability, with sufficient progress to be demonstrated by | |
| |January, 2000. | |
| | | |
| |Provide additional training of operators and deploy supervisors at problem sites. | |
| |Install APCs on 20% of fleet and initiate TRS pilot program. | |
| | | |
| |Deploy additional on-street supervisors | |
| |Utilize APCs and radio system monitoring to identify problems. | |
| |Collect data and evaluate new technologies for reducing late operations. | |
| | | |
| |Add staff to adequately monitor bus overcrowding | |
| |Conduct point checks twice a month on the top 20 lines and monthly on the additional 55 lines not in | |
| |compliance with load factor target. | |
| |Submit detailed quarterly reports to the Special Master. | |
| |Seek clarification and possible modifications of the Special Masters Order in order to reconcile the | |
| |actual number of buses needed to be placed into service to meet the service requirements of the | |
| |order. | |
| |Seek clarification and possible modification of the Special Master’s order to purchase 532 new CNG | |
| |buses to match the total bus purchases, including the MTA’s Accelerated Bus Purchase Plan, to the | |
| |actual number required to meet the service requirements as finally determined pursuant to B. | |
| |Consult with the Plaintiffs, through legal counsel, in order to attempt to reach common ground on the| |
| |matters contained in items B and C. | |
| |Schedule into service the 160 additional peak buses and reprogram uncommitted funds identified in the| |
| |RTAA to cover the operating costs estimated at $170 million, through FY 2004. | |
|03/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that MTA staff shall: |Construction |
| |A. utilize HCIP funds to fund a shuttle connector along Hollywood Boulevard from the Hollywood/Vine | |
| |station to Hollywood/La Brea in a not-to-exceed amount of $450,000 from June 1999 to May 2000; | |
| |B. amend its existing contract with the Los Angeles Department of Transportation to operate the | |
| |shuttle during this time period and work with DOT staff on routes, stops and other operational | |
| |issues; | |
| |C. include this shuttle connector in its promotional materials, marketing packages and advertising | |
| |for the Hollywood Red Line, where appropriate. Staff shall work with DOT to include the shuttle | |
| |connector in DOT’s brochures and other materials. | |
| |D. put up appropriate station markers at the Hollywood/Vine station and work with DOT to put stop | |
| |signs on Hollywood Boulevard so that passengers can easily locate the shuttle anywhere along the | |
| |route; | |
| |E. work with DOT to monitor the shuttle Connector after it is implemented and will report back to the| |
| |MTA Board in September with an evaluation of the project. | |
|03/25/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION - that when funding sound wall projects consideration be given|Soundwall |
| |to alternatives to the traditional sound wall construction wherever possible and practicable. | |
|04/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION authorizing the CEO to take the necessary steps to fund |LRTP |
| |the reconstruction of a 2.1 mile segment of Lankershim Boulevard from Bluffside Drive to Chandler | |
| |Boulevard in North Hollywood in an amount not-to-exceed $1,275,000 so that the City of Public Works | |
| |Department can complete the construction as quickly as possible. | |
|04/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to amend the MOU with the Community Redevelopment Agency |Construction |
| |(CRA) to allow the CRA to expend up to $100,000 in previously allocated HCIP grant funds to help fund| |
| |a traffic study on the 101 freeway at Highland and Cahuenga. The study will look at redirecting | |
| |traffic from the Highland to the Cahuenga off-ramp as a way of mitigating traffic along Highland and | |
| |on Franklin. The amendment shall be executed by June 30, 1999 before the agreement between the MTA | |
| |and CRA lapses. | |
| |FURTHER APPROVED working with LADOT to make sure that any MTA issues are fully addressed in this | |
| |traffic study. | |
|04/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION: |Transit Zone |
| |A. adopting the amended Zone Guidelines with the following modification adding Section I.E: “these | |
| |Local Transportation Zone Guidelines are intended to guide the application and subsequent contract | |
| |negotiation processes, and variance with any section of these guidelines is permissible through a | |
| |majority vote of the Board of Directors”; and | |
| |B. directing staff to move expeditiously with the application process, addressing zone applicant | |
| |concerns in a timely manner, and return in May with a full assessment of each pre-application, an | |
| |application process schedule with key milestones, and a recommendation for Board action. | |
|04/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, directing development of alternative soundwall funding plans that complete the|Soundwall |
| |outstanding 1989 retrofit soundwall list(s) no later than five years, with the funding plan to | |
| |explore alternative soundwall list priorities, the possible outcomes of pending State soundwall | |
| |legislation, and incorporate the cost containment analysis currently underway by Caltrans and the MTA| |
| |and return to the Committee next month. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION requesting Caltrans to re-evaluate the unfinished | |
| |soundwall project on the 170 freeway between Saticoy and Roscoe. | |
|04/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to remove the Alameda Corridor project from the list of |ACE |
| |projects requiring local match and instruct staff to report back on a funding plan for Alameda | |
| |Corridor East at the May Committee meeting. | |
| |APPROVED ALATORRE SUBSTITUTE MOTION reaffirming support for the Alameda Corridor East project and | |
| |authorizing the CEO to pursue with the Alameda Corridor Authority a financial plan for the overall | |
| |project including a project specific scope for each element and return in May. | |
|05/24/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KNABE MOTION to defer fare increase discussions until such time as the public|Finance |
| |hearing is held in July with staff to provide a contingency plan for a balanced budget if the fare | |
| |increase is not approved. | |
|06/07/99 |BOARD APPROVED MOLINA/YAROSLAVSKY/BURKE/ KNABE - authorizing the CEO to execute and deliver the |Construction Authority |
| |following agreements: Memorandum of Understanding between the MTA, the Pasadena Blue Line | |
| |Construction Authority (PMBLCA) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC); and a Funding | |
| |Agreement; Property Trust Agreement and a Master Cooperative Agreement between the MTA and PMBLCA. | |
| |AMENDMENT: | |
| |That the Board adopt the Memorandum of Understanding with the California Transportation Commission | |
| |and the Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority (PMBLCA) with the following additional | |
| |provisions: | |
| |A. All unencumbered, local funds transferred from the MTA to the PMBLCA can be used for only | |
| |completion of the Phase I of the Pasadena Blue Line from Union Station to Sierra Madre Villa; and | |
| |B. The MTA is not and will not be obligated or committed to providing any funding toward Phase II of | |
| |the Pasadena Blue Line from Pasadena to Claremont until other high priority projects are completed, | |
| |such as (in no specific order): Consent Decree obligations; Fixed Guideway Systems to the Eastside, | |
| |Mid-City, and San Fernando Valley Corridors; and other projects identified in the Long Range Plan and| |
| |the RTAA that has been previously approved by the Board of Directors; and | |
| |That the MTA insert language in the MOU that sets conditions on the expenditure of the remaining | |
| |$68.7 million to be transferred to the PMBLCA. These conditions should only allow local funds to be | |
| |spent as follows: | |
| |A. Phase 1 of the Pasadena Blue Line project from downtown Los Angeles to Sierra Madre Villa. | |
| |B. Engineering and construction related contracts necessary for the completion of the project. | |
| |Professional services and consultant contracts must also be engineering and construction related. No| |
| |local funds shall be spent on public relations and lobbying. | |
|06/07/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION awarding of a contract to Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc., to |UFS |
| |prepare specifications for Universal Fare System (UFS)-compatible cash and electronic fare collection| |
| |systems for the bus, rail and shuttle systems and for modification of the SCRRA Ticket Vending | |
| |Machines (TVMs) to accommodate UFS transactions in the amount of $273,694. This authorization is | |
| |inclusive of an initial award for Phase I, Farebox specifications, and Phase II, MTA and SCRRA TVM | |
| |specifications. | |
| |AMENDED TO INCLUDE THAT STAFF: | |
| |ensure that the exploration of a “cash-less” bus is evaluated in the consultants and/or staffs | |
| |development of the UFS general specifications, and | |
| |return in no later than 60 days with a schedule and scope for an MTA comprehensive fare structure, | |
| |fare policy and fare administration study consistent with the schedule for the implementation of the | |
| |UFS as well as the previously Board-adopted Director Antonovich motion. | |
|06/24/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION: That the CEO be directed to: |Bus |
| |1. Present to the Board no later than 90 days, a comprehensive analysis of contracting out (and | |
| |public/private partnerships) existing MTA services and functions across all MTA operating and | |
| |administrative departments; | |
| |2. Develop aggressive bus operations cost reduction strategies, and implementation feasibility plan,| |
| |that will lower the current projected FY2000 cost per revenue service hour of $106 to at least $102 | |
| |in FY2000 and $90 by the end of FY2001, consistent with the schedule in #1; and | |
| |3. The CEO to report back in 30 days and provide findings on contracting out Operations and | |
| |management along with a plan on how to solicit those services. | |
|06/24/99 |BOARD APPROVED SUBSTITUTE MOTION committing to contribute a maximum of 17 percent ($162 million) of |ACE |
| |the total $950 million Alameda Corridor East (ACE) program funding requirement. | |
| |MTA funds will be allocated annually to match any fully funded portion of the ACE project. Included | |
| |in the $162 million allocation is the $20 million awarded in the 1997 Call for Projects and any | |
| |awards ($17.4 million anticipated) approved for the 1999 Call for Projects. The maximum contribution| |
| |of $162 million is fixed and the MTA will not participate in any project cost increases or overruns. | |
| | | |
| |ALSO APPROVED stating MTA’s strong support for the Alameda Corridor East (ACE) project as part of a | |
| |regional solution and directed staff to work with Alameda Corridor East to resolve funding issues and| |
| |MTA staff to review the list of funding sources to determine from where the money will come. | |
|07/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION - that beginning with this meeting and continuing until further|Funding |
| |action by this Board, all actions of this Board allocating or programming funds to other entities | |
| |shall be considered as contingent and subject to reconsideration by the Board if such funds are | |
| |legally usable, or could be made legally usable, for bus capital or operating purposes. | |
|07/29/99 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION to include “caveat” and to include within the design a signalized intersection |LRTP |
| |at Selby or manning subject to approval of LADOT. Also to include that MTA is not responsible for | |
| |cost overruns on this project. | |
| |A. Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Santa Monica Transit Parkway | |
| |project; | |
| |B. Adopting the: | |
| |1. Environmentally superior alternative for the Santa Monica Transit Parkway project which calls for | |
| |the Classic Boulevard to the west of Beverly Glen Boulevard and the Design Options Alternative east | |
| |of Beverly Glen Boulevard, EXCEPT AT THE INTERSECTION OF CENTURY PARK WEST AND SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD| |
| |WHICH IS A HYBRID DESIGN; | |
| |2. Statement of Significant Environmental Effects, Mitigation Measures, Findings, Statement of | |
| |Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring program; | |
| |C. Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to: | |
| |1. Implement the environmentally superior alternative; | |
| |2. Submit a Notice Of Determination to the State; | |
| |3. Negotiate and execute, at the appropriate time, any agreements necessary, to proceed with the | |
| |project using funds previously secured; | |
| |4. Transfer fee title to the MTA owned Southern Pacific right-of-way, which extends the project's | |
| |length in the median of Santa Monica Boulevard, to the City of Los Angeles; | |
| |Recommending that a determination be made to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other | |
| |federal agencies, as appropriate, for a finding of no significant impact based on the final | |
| |Environmental Assessment (EA); and that this is the superior alternative from an operational | |
| |standpoint. | |
| |Approving in concept and authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute the following final | |
| |negotiated project agreements, contingent upon the City of Los Angeles approving the project without | |
| |substantial modifications to the environmentally superior alternative: | |
| |Funding, with the County and City of Los Angeles and the State of California, Department of | |
| |Transportation (Caltrans) | |
| |Cooperative with the City of Los Angeles and Caltrans; | |
| |Requiring the City of Los Angeles to maintain the Santa Monica Transit Parkway Task Force and to have| |
| |in place a person(s) to serve as liaison with the community at large during the project’s design and | |
| |construction phases. | |
|08/26/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to report back with the following information regarding the|Finance |
| |San Fernando Valley Trust Fund. | |
| |A. When was the Trust Fund actually created; | |
| |B. When were funds first deposited; | |
| |C. How much money was actually deposited; | |
| |D. How much money was withdrawn and for what purposes; | |
| |E. When was the Trust Fund closed; and | |
| |F. If there is a discrepancy between anticipated funds and actual funds, what is the explanation for | |
| |the difference. | |
|08/26/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - That staff to return to this Board in 60 days with |DBE |
| |recommendations on how to implement the DBE (and SBE) Vendor Practices | |
| |A. Revising the MTA’s current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program to include: | |
| |1. Updated Good Faith Efforts Criteria, | |
| |2. Implementation and enforcement of “Prompt Payment” and “Retention” Clause(s) on Prime & | |
| |Subcontractor Agreements, | |
| |3. Modified DBE certification eligibility requirements; | |
| |B. Approving continuation with 23% as the DBE Annual Goal. | |
|08/26/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION - that the LACMTA staff identify $82,000 from an alternative |Planning |
| |funding source, including CMAQ funds, to keep the Chatsworth Depot Bike Stop and Intermodal Transit | |
| |Center project operating and that this information be transmitted to my office. | |
|08/26/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION authorizing the CEO to negotiate and execute documents which |Bus |
| |allow Fuel Cell Buyers Consortium to use ATTB project resources to further develop and test a Fuel | |
| |Cell power system on the ATTB and also investigate the potential commercialization of the ATTB and | |
| |the Fuel Cell Propulsion system. Coordinate with the Federal Transit Administration to ensure MTA | |
| |compliance with the FTA Grant Management Guidelines and the Full Funding Cooperative Agreement | |
| |related to FTA funding of the ATTB Program. | |
| |Transfer all unencumbered fund balances that have been allocated to the ATTB program to the Fuel Cell| |
| |Buyers consortium. | |
| |Instruct Fuel Cell Buyers Consortium to return to the Operation Committee within six months with a | |
| |status report on the ATTB. | |
|09/28/99 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION: |Consent Decree |
| |The CEO is directed to immediately initiate procurement and funding actions required to purchase 297 | |
| |buses. 195 buses are to be purchased for delivery as soon as possible and 102 buses are to be | |
| |delivered no later than June 30, 2002; buses to be acquired without taking any current or future | |
| |funding from municipal operators. | |
| |The CEO is directed to develop a financial plan to operate the additional buses required by the Court| |
| |Order. Staff shall consult with the Joint Working Group and Special Master as required. Report back| |
| |to the Board in October concerning progress in identifying operating funds. | |
| |Since the Board understands that it is impossible: | |
| |a. to meet the 30-day requirement to “obtain 248 buses on a temporary basis”, and | |
| |b. to determine at this time whether to appeal any aspect of the Order until the contemplated | |
| |further proceedings before the Special Master; | |
| |the Board instructs the CEO, in consultation with legal counsel, to file a motion to stay the | |
| |September 23 Order of the District Court and to file an appropriate notice of appeal, including an | |
| |appeal as to the extent of the exercise of authority over the means of compliance with the Consent | |
| |Decree. | |
|10/28/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS KNABE/RIORDAN MOTION that the MTA Board reaffirm its $30 million commitment |STIP |
| |to fund both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Route 1 and Route 90 Street Improvements as approved in the 1996| |
| |State Transportation Improvement Program; and | |
| |FURTHER APPROVED that the MTA Board remove the caveat that MTA's support for the Playa Vista | |
| |Congestion Improvement projects be contingent upon Dreamworks/SKG locating in the Playa Vista | |
| |Development and proceed with the implementation of the $15.02 million STIP funded Phase 1, Route 1 | |
| |and Route 90 projects. (MOLINA MOTION) | |
|12/02/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/BERNSON MOTION: |Safety |
| |THAT the Board direct staff to report back to the Operations Committee in 60 days on the following | |
| |issues: | |
| |1. The status of the MTA’s current Metro Blue Line safety programs including publicity and awareness| |
| |education; | |
| |2. A review of other rail properties’ experiences & solutions relating to similar at-grade light | |
| |rail safety issues; | |
| |3. Possible additional efforts to effectively boost safety, including but not limited to additional | |
| |safety education programs, and design improvements, such as median islands, four quadrant gates, | |
| |separate left-turn phases, and other alternatives, including all possibilities surrounding grade | |
| |separations; | |
| |4. Levels of funding required to implement the above range of improvements; | |
| |5. Identify any legislative efforts needed to secure appropriate funding for improvements or other | |
| |enhancements of MTA’s Rail Safety Program; and | |
| |6. look at proposing legislation that would make it a criminal act (misdemeanor) to ignore traffic | |
| |laws and safety systems. | |
|12/02/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTRO CRAGIN MOTION: |Funding |
| |that no change be made to the formula for allocation of Federal Section 5307 or in the way these | |
| |funds are allocated, and that MTA's FY 2000 and FY 2001 budgets reflect that policy position; | |
| |CARRIED OVER FOR 60 DAYS AND DIRECTED THE CEO TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE MUNICIPAL OPERATORS | |
| |regarding creation of a Municipal Operator Bus Service to the transit dependent countywide by | |
| |reducing overcrowding and expanding services; and that the Board authorize the CEO or his designee to| |
| |execute funding agreements with the Municipal Operators; and that those agreements provide a total | |
| |for Municipal Operators, for this program, of proposition C 40% funds of $5 million for FY2000; a | |
| |minimum of $10 million for FY2001; and a minimum of $15 million each FY’s 2002, 2003, and 2004; | |
| |Recognizing that these sums are much less than the estimated fair share the municipal operators | |
| |should receive based on anticipated funding MTA will need. | |
|12/02/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION to: |Span of Service |
| |1. Begin free MTA bus and rail service at 11 a.m. on December 31, 1999; | |
| |2. Monitor actual MTA fare revenue on December 31, 1999 versus the expected revenue; | |
| |3. Transfer sufficient funds up to $250,000 from the Board Contingency to MTA transit operations if | |
| |MTA fare revenue is less than projected revenue for December 31, 1999; | |
| |4. Report back to the Board during the January, 2000 committee cycle with the actual cost of | |
| |extending transit service. | |
|12/02/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - that staff report back to the Board in 30 days with a |Span of Service |
| |financing and operational plan to immediately extend rail hours to serve the Staples Center and Music| |
| |Center; | |
| |That staff should work with Staples Center, Music Center and LADOT staff to ensure that the expanded | |
| |service is sufficient to meet ridership demands; and | |
| |That staff should report back to the Board in 60 days with a cost and operational plan for extending | |
| |rail hours and service in the spring when Red Line opens to North Hollywood. Staff should work with | |
| |all interested parties including Universal Studios, the Universal Amphitheater, Hollywood Bowl, | |
| |Trizec Hahn and other interested parties. | |
|12/02/99 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/ANTONOVICH MOTION that Section 1.4E of the MTA Rules and Procedures |Rules |
| |be amended to read as follows: | |
| |Committee actions. All actions taken by a committee, other than actions requiring a 4/5 vote, shall | |
| |require the affirmative vote of a majority of all appointed committee members. All actions taken by | |
| |a committee which require a 4/5 vote for approval shall require the affirmative vote of 4/5 of all | |
| |appointed committee members. | |
| |Any agenda item which does not receive a sufficient vote for approval as required by this section | |
| |shall be forwarded to the full board for consideration without recommendation by the committee. | |
|01/27/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION that MTA staff be directed to review the "Real Time" |Administration |
| |internship program MOU and return to the Board in 60 days with recommendations on how to continue | |
| |funding for this worthwhile program. | |
|01/27/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION instructing MTA staff to revisit the 1992 Metro Blue Line Grade |Safety |
| |Separation Study and reanalyze those ten grade crossings to determine what the present "high priority| |
| |index numbers" would be now. | |
| |FURTHER, that this updated analysis be brought back to the Board to determine how many may qualify | |
| |for State funding under current indices standards. | |
|01/27/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN MOTION that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: |Zone Divestiture |
| |Immediately transfer $140,000 to the Greater San Fernando Valley Transportation Zone Interim JPA from| |
| |the Board contingency account for the purposes of retaining an independent consultant to complete a | |
| |"bottoms up" costing and financial analysis of MTA’s zone divestiture data; and | |
| |Work cooperatively with the Greater San Fernando Valley Transportation Zone Interim JPA and their | |
| |consultant to refine the available subsidy numbers. | |
| |REFERRED Oropeza motion on labor contract issues to the February Executive Management Committee. | |
|01/27/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION directing the CEO to: |Procurement |
| |award only those competitively bid construction contracts which are within Board authorized | |
| |expenditure levels; and that the CEO be directed not to approve any such bids that exceed previously | |
| |authorized levels of expenditure without prior Board approval; and | |
| |establish a procedure of public notification of the award of all low bid contracts so that the MTA | |
| |Board and members of the public may be fully informed on such bids. The notification should include | |
| |the contract name, description of work, prevailing contractor, original engineer’s estimate, amount | |
| |of the final contract including contingency and rationale for the award. The CEO is further directed| |
| |to submit such a plan at the March Meeting. | |
|02/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION - that this Board send a letter to the President, Secretary|Legislation |
| |of Transportation, California Congressional delegation, the House and Senate leadership, members of | |
| |the Senate and House Transportation Committees, and the Federal Highway Administration requesting | |
| |legislation and/or regulations which will include safety conditions as a criteria when reviewing and | |
| |approving highway and freeway improvement projects. | |
|02/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the MTA Board endorse the passage of Proposition 15 on the |Legislation |
| |March 7th ballot. | |
|02/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION TO CARRY OVER TO MARCH EXPOSITION CORRIDOR to seek further |Funding |
| |clarification regarding the following issues: | |
| |The impact of including consideration of the Exposition Corridor on any potential amendments to be | |
| |negotiated regarding the Full Funding Grant Agreement for the Westside Mid-city corridor; | |
| |Identification of potential source(s) of funding for this corridor; and | |
| |Identification of potential ridership sources through engineering and traffic study methodologies. | |
| |APPROVED AS AMENDED, authorizing the CEO to proceed with work on Draft Environmental Impact | |
| |Statements/Reports for the following alternatives in each corridor and consult with the Federal | |
| |Transit Administration (FTA) on any issues related to these alternatives. | |
| |Eastside: | |
| |Light Rail Transit (LRT) from Union Station to Atlantic via First Street with the specific choice of | |
| |tunneling through Boyle Heights from 1st and Boyle to 1st and Lorena, then transitioning to Third | |
| |Street and proceeding east via Third Street/Beverly Boulevard to Atlantic, with the policy direction | |
| |from the Board that the preferred mode of transportation would be light rail. | |
| |Mid-City/Westside: | |
| |Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Wilshire Boulevard from Vermont Avenue to downtown Santa Monica, with | |
| |consideration of minimal operable segments to San Vicente Boulevard (east of La Cienega), Santa | |
| |Monica Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard (west of I-405), including a study of a busway route | |
| |San Fernando Valley: | |
| |Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the Burbank-Chandler right-of-way from the North Hollywood Red Line | |
| |Station to Warner Center, with consideration of a minimal operable segment between Woodman Avenue | |
| |and Balboa Boulevard with rapid bus connections at each end. | |
| |A. Adopt the following preliminary capital funding plan: | |
| |Corridor TC FY04 $ Fed FFGA SB452 Local New State | |
| |East Side $704 $352 $116 - $236 | |
| |Mid-City $590 $295 $44 - $251 | |
| |SF Valley $291 - - $146 $145 | |
| |Total $1585 $647 $160 $146 $632 | |
| |B. Direct the CEO to seek New State funding of $632 million or more to fund the three corridor | |
| |projects. | |
| |C. In the event at least the indicated amount of New State funding for each of the respective | |
| |corridors is not authorized by state legislation by the end of the current fiscal year of the State, | |
| |the CEO will return to the Board for further consideration of funding alternatives for all corridor | |
| |projects. | |
| |D. Also in support of the foregoing capital projects, direct the CEO to seek New State funding to | |
| |cover additional operating expenses over the next five years, on a phase-down basis, to assist the | |
| |MTA in covering increased operating costs while we are otherwise implementing economies and pursuing | |
| |other operating revenues, as follows: | |
| |FY 01 $ 50 million | |
| |FY 02 $ 45 million | |
| |FY 03 $ 40 million | |
| |FY 04 $ 35 million | |
| |FY 05 $ 30 million | |
| |$200 million | |
| |APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - that the MTA seek funding for all three proposed corridors from the | |
| |state; request that the state identify separate funding for each proposed corridor and that all three| |
| |corridors shall move forward together. | |
| |That in the event that one project moves more quickly than the other two corridor projects, it will | |
| |not jeopardize funding for any of the three projects. | |
| |If the State finds that it cannot fund one or more of the three proposed Corridor Projects the MTA | |
| |Board will re-assess all three Projects. | |
| |That the MTA adopt the policy position that the Wilshire corridor cannot be supplanted or replaced by| |
| |the Exposition Corridor. | |
|02/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DE LA VEGA MOTION to extend exclusive right to negotiate with McCormack Baron|Joint Development |
| |for 45 days for a Phase Two Joint Development at the Metro Red Line Hollywood/Western station and | |
| |report back to the March Committee with additional information regarding original appraisal and the | |
| |proposal that’s being rejected. | |
|02/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR LEGASPI MOTION that: |Community Outreach |
| |Staff expand future public outreach efforts related to service changes by developing and implementing| |
| |a statistically valid market assessment survey to better analyze the impacts service changes will | |
| |have on affected customers. | |
| |Staff report back to Planning & Programming committee within 60 days with an implementation plan for | |
| |utilizing a market assessment survey to measure customer satisfaction prior to any future service | |
| |changes. | |
| |Staff utilize a market assessment survey to measure customer satisfaction 3 to 6 months after any | |
| |service changes and report findings and any recommended correction to the service changes to the | |
| |board. | |
|02/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DE LA VEGA MOTION regarding the proposal to extend the pilot program for |Span of Service |
| |increasing the span of service on the Metro Rail System through the end of September 2000, including | |
| |service to North Hollywood and to develop FY2001 budget based on assumption of extended service hours| |
| |throughout the fiscal year. | |
|03/23/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - that the Board support: |Bus |
| |the issuance of a Request for Information (RFI) to be issued by the Fuel Cell Buyers Consortium to | |
| |identify the interested manufacturers for the BRT vehicle based on the ATTB technology, and | |
| |the submittal of a request to Congress to provide $4 million for preliminary engineering work in | |
| |Section 5309 Bus Discretionary funding category. | |
|03/23/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION: |Bus |
| |Directing staff to work closely with state and local air quality regulatory agencies to explore | |
| |possible federal or state assistance in mitigating any additional financial burden on Los Angeles | |
| |County bus transit providers triggered by bus fuel technology mandates; and | |
| |Directing staff to explore and develop the specifications of driver-side bus doors, and articulated | |
| |and bi-articulated buses, to enhance vehicle flexibility and speed passenger loading and unloading | |
| |(e.g. for possible use on the Bus Rapid Transit Projects-BRT) and return to the Board within 90 days | |
| |for possible inclusion in all future bus procurements. | |
|03/23/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE/DE LA VEGA MOTION AS AMENDED, that the MTA Board: |Joint Development |
| |A. Adopt findings that the proposed Encore Hall project is consistent with the joint development | |
| |guidelines and goals of the MTA; | |
| |B. Direct the CEO to enter into an non-exclusive right to negotiate for four (4) months with the | |
| |National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences and their designated development team for the purchase | |
| |and/or long-term ground lease of two MTA owned parcels adjacent to the Red Line North Hollywood | |
| |station; and | |
| |C. Direct the CEO to negotiate a final agreement and report back to the Board no later than May 31, | |
| |2000. | |
|03/23/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION: |Bus |
| |Directed staff to seek BRT demonstration funding from FTA for: | |
| |A. Corridors as defined in the February Board action where BRT is recommended as a technology; | |
| |B. Other high ridership, network enhancing BRT corridors as included in the Phase I and Phase II of | |
| |the Rapid Bus Program. Emphasize regionally significant BRT corridors that create work of feeder | |
| |lines to Metro Rail and MTA major regional bus lines; and | |
| |C. Staff to return with analysis on the availability of funds for BRT based on discussions with FTA | |
| |and a staff analysis on the availability of projects deemed eligible and ready to utilize BRT | |
| |funding. | |
| |Contingent upon the eligibility of all 3 corridors for the funds. | |
|03/23/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DE LA VEGA/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the Board direct the CEO to proceed with |LRTP |
| |work on Draft Environmental Impact Statements/Reports for the following alternative in the Mid | |
| |City/Westside corridor and consult with the Federal Transportation Authority on any issues related to| |
| |this alternative. Mid-City/Westside: Bus Rapid Transit along the Exposition Right-Of-Way from | |
| |Figueroa to Venice/Robertson with a westerly extension along Venice Boulevard to Sepulveda, northerly| |
| |along Sepulveda reconnecting to the Exposition Right-Of-Way to downtown Santa Monica. There should | |
| |be further consideration of minimal operable segments to Crenshaw, La Cienega and Venice/Robertson. | |
| |ALSO APPROVED AMENDMENTS by Fasana to include consideration of light rail and by Knabe to look into | |
| |studying a tunnel section from Figueroa to just west of Vermont. | |
|03/23/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION directing the CEO to: |Joint Development |
| |enter into a non-exclusive right to negotiate for two (2) months with the Children’s Museum and their| |
| |designated development team for a long-term lease of MTA property at the North Hollywood station. | |
| |Because there are several parcels surrounding the North Hollywood station that may be suitable for | |
| |such a development, the CEO should explore all possible parcel options with the Children’s Museum; | |
| |and | |
| |report back to the Board on the status of these negotiations no later than April 30, 2000. | |
|04/27/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS DE LA VEGA/ROBERTS/ BURKE MOTION: THAT the MTA Board direct the CEO to |LRTP |
| |identify a schedule for and present the following Long Range Plan work products (consistent with | |
| |those identified by MTA staff) to the MTA Board for review and approval: | |
| |A. Phase I - Baseline Assumptions | |
| |1. Situation assessment of existing and future mobility (traffic), air quality, and access challenges| |
| |facing the region, including but not limited to identification of the: | |
| |a) Most congested freeways and interchanges | |
| |b) Most congested arterial streets and intersections | |
| |c) Heaviest traveled transit corridors | |
| |d) Areas of highest transit dependency, population density, and employment | |
| |e) Areas of greatest anticipated population and employment growth | |
| |f) Economic development opportunities | |
| |g) System preservation and maintenance | |
| |2. Vision, mission, goals, and criteria | |
| |3. Development and programming (including the relationship between regional and subregional | |
| |decision-making) processes | |
| |4. Evaluation methodology | |
| |5. Baseline assumptions (including low, medium and high revenue forecasts and assumptions) | |
| |B. Phase II - Baseline Analysis | |
| |1. Baseline mobility projections | |
| |2. Preliminary strategies to mitigate deficiencies | |
| |C. Phase III - Alternatives Development and Evaluation | |
| |1. Recommended policies to guide formation of the Long Range Plan | |
| |2. Tabulations of performance by alternative | |
| |D. Phase IV - Recommended Long Range Plan | |
| |1. Sensitivity analysis | |
| |2. Recommended strategic plan | |
| |3. Recommended constrained plan | |
| |DIRECTOR BURKE AMENDMENT: to include that efforts to use Focus Groups reflect a statistical sampling | |
| |of the demographic profile of the population at large in an effort to incorporate the needs of the | |
| |population at large. | |
|05/25/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/BERNSON/FASANA MOTION for Alternative 4 authorizing the 370 base buy |Alternative Fuel |
| |as CNG with no recommendation for the option buses continuing the Board’s Alternative Fuel Policy, at|Initiative |
| |an additional cost over the twelve year life cycle of $27.1 million in capital and $39.6 million in | |
| |operating expenses compared to diesel for the 370 buses. | |
| |DIRECTOR BERNSON AMENDMENT that staff recommendation include the following: | |
| |1. within 30 days, staff initiate an expansion of the existing ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (EC | |
| |Diesel) test program to evaluate the installation of continuously regenerating traps (CRT’s) or other| |
| |similar particulate filters on ten methanol conversion buses; | |
| |2. Upon successful completion in February 2001 of the ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (EC Diesel) test | |
| |program currently underway at the Arthur Winston division, staff be directed to initiate a program to| |
| |install CRT’s or other similar particulate filters by February 2002 on the entire remaining diesel | |
| |fleet projected to remain in service after January 2003; | |
| |3. staff provide status reports to the Board on a quarterly basis on the ultra low sulfur diesel test| |
| |program; and | |
| |FURTHER that MTA continue to be a leader in the area of clean fuel vehicle technology including the | |
| |exploration of new technologies such as fuel cells to accomplish the goal of improving ambient air | |
| |quality in the region. | |
| |DIRECTOR FASANA AMENDMENT transferring $2 million to the Fuel Cell Buyers Consortium with staff to | |
| |identify the funding source and report back. | |
| |AWARDED a fixed price contract for 370 low floor CNG buses to North American Bus Industries (NABI) in| |
| |the amount of $115,424,954 subject to successful completion of post award requirements and successful| |
| |resolution of any protests received. | |
|05/25/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to adopt staff’s compromise to appropriate unrestricted |TFLA |
| |funds for the Real Time Internship Program in the amount of $100,000 to support the Transportation | |
| |Foundation of Los Angeles’ (Foundation) administration and expenses and reimburse the Foundation for | |
| |up to 25 interns at the rate of $5.00 per hour for every hour of work performed by the interns to a | |
| |maximum of $125,000 for a total amount not to exceed $225,000 for FY01. | |
|05/25/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/BURKE MOTION that the Transportation Business Advisory Council |Administration |
| |budget be commensurate with other legislated MTA Advisory Groups and directed staff to review the | |
| |procedures and methodology for appointing members to this Council. | |
|05/25/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/ROBERTS MOTION that by July 2000, the MTA transfer $150,000 of |Planning |
| |the $500,000 included in the proposed MTA FY 00/01 budget to Southern California Association of | |
| |Governments (SCAG) to pay for Phase 1 of the MIS of the 101 Corridor. | |
|07/27/00 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION |Call for Projects |
| |A. the following actions for the 2000 Abbreviated Call For Projects: | |
| |Program $179.7 million in 2000 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds to projects | |
| |recommended by both staff and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) in seven (7) modal categories; | |
| |Program $14 million in AB 1012 Advanced Planning and Development funds in five (5) modal categories; | |
| |Amend the FY 2000-01 MTA Budget to include $9.6 million for MTA Regionally Significant Projects. Of | |
| |this amount, $1.6 million is 2000 STIP funds for project administration and Blue Line Safety | |
| |Improvements and $8 million is AB 1012 funds for the transit corridor projects; | |
| |Approve projects for nomination to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) for 2000 STIP | |
| |funds; | |
| |Administer the Abbreviated Call For Projects as a project-specific grant program with the requirement| |
| |that project sponsors bear all cost increases; | |
| |Execute a Letter of Agreement (LOA) with all project sponsors of approved projects to ensure | |
| |adherence to all applicable federal and state policies, rules and regulations and to ensure that the | |
| |scope of each project is documented, can be audited, and can meet the timely use of funds | |
| |requirement; and | |
| |Amend the recommended 2000 Abbreviated Call for Projects Program of Projects into the FY 2000-06 Los | |
| |Angeles County Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). | |
| |B. funding costs on the following motions regarding the 2000 STIP Abbreviated Call For Projects: | |
| |DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION, amended by Molina, that the MTA staff work with the Los Angeles Department | |
| |of Transportation to determine if one of the Dash buses for the Beverly Center could be allocated to | |
| |the Chatsworth Metrolink Station, that no funds shall be shifted from other jurisdiction projects and| |
| | | |
| |DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION, amended by de la Vega, that MTA staff include the Zoo Drive Widening Project| |
| |on the list of projects to be funded and reprogram $1.5 million of the $3.4 million in Proposition C | |
| |funds which were originally assigned to projects ineligible for the Proposition C funds; funds shall | |
| |not be shifted from other jurisdiction projects; and | |
| |KNABE/BURKE MOTION, amended by Antonovich, that the Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to send | |
| |a letter to the California Transportation Commission and to Governor Davis urging the State to fund | |
| |the remaining $8,713,000 from the Interregional Improvement Program of the State Transportation | |
| |Improvement Program for the I-405 interchange at Arbor Vitae Street Project, (Number 7219), and | |
| |direct the Executive Officer to send a letter to the California Transportation Commission and to | |
| |Governor Davis urging the State to fund improvements for State Route 138 and Avenue T to State Route | |
| |18 from non-urbanized portion of the Interregional Improvement Program of the State Transportation | |
| |Improvement Program. | |
| |C. funding costs on the following motions regarding AB1012 funding sources: | |
| |DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION, amended by de la Vega, further amended by Antonovich and Cragin - that the MTA| |
| |Board (1) add $600,000 to the AB1012 list of Regionally Significant projects to finish the Crenshaw | |
| |MIS and (2) that the Bus Rapid Transit Alternative be incorporated into the Crenshaw MIS Study;that | |
| |staff report back on funding for AB 1012 project development for corridors. | |
| |DIRECTOR DE LA VEGA MOTION: that the CEO immediately initiate MIS work on the following nine (9) | |
| |projects: | |
| |Crenshaw Corridor (BRT) | |
| |San Fernando Valley North-South Project (BRT partially funded by State) | |
| |Vermont Avenue | |
| |Burbank-Glendale-Los Angeles | |
| |Pasadena Blue Line - Phase II (to Claremont) (LRT) | |
| |Extend Eastside Transit Corridor to just east of Route 605 (LRT) | |
| |Metro Green Line Extension into South Bay (LRT) | |
| |I-405/Sepulveda pass (HWY) | |
| |North County Major Combined Corridors Study (I-5/14/138) (HWY) | |
|08/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MOTION that MTA Board of Directors: recommend that CARB |Alternative Fuel |
| |expand its current diesel vehicle study to incorporate CNG vehicles in this test protocol; |Initiative |
| |Commit necessary resources to supplement the ongoing CARB test that utilizes the University of West | |
| |Virginia mobile laboratory which is conducting this test; | |
| |Findings and recommendations of this study will be made available to the MTA Board and staff. | |
| |AMENDED BY BERNSON to be contingent upon receiving from CARB and AQMD a proposal for a second test to| |
| |be run regarding fine particulates. | |
|08/24/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to provide 90 days of 24-hour fixed post security at the El |Security |
| |Monte Busway Terminal and also examine the stations on Harbor Transitway. | |
|10/26/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ROBERTS/ANTONOVICH MOTION - that the MTA grant the exceptions to the MTA |Planning |
| |Right-Of-Way Preservation Guidelines that the City of Burbank has requested for the City’s Chandler | |
| |Boulevard Bikeway project. | |
|10/26/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION: that this Board authorize a management audit, to provide |Audit |
| |recommendations to reduce the agency’s multi-million dollar deficit, and direct the Chief Executive | |
| |Officer to report back at the November meeting with a time table to implement the audit. | |
| |THE CEO TO REPORT BACK ON THE POSSIBILITY OF INCORPORATING THIS AUDIT INTO THE TRIENNIAL AUDIT. | |
|10/26/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors accept the Mayor’s invitation to|Planning |
| |explore the establishment of an agreement between the City of Barcelona, Spain and the MTA in an | |
| |effort to share information that may be helpful to both cities. | |
|10/26/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION that the Board direct staff to: |Bicycle |
| |A. increase, both the number of bicycle lockers and bicycle racks at the North Hollywood Station, as | |
| |soon as possible; | |
| |B. provide recommendations on the feasibility of increasing the number of bicycle lockers and racks | |
| |at other transit stations; and | |
| |C. prepare and present a comprehensive report on this matter at the November 2000 Board meeting. | |
|10/26/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that this Board, in an effort to begin the healing process: |Community Outreach |
| |A. co-sponsor with the Brotherhood Crusade the Back to School Festival scheduled for October 28, 2000| |
| |in the City of Compton to include $500.00 participation fee; and | |
| |B. instruct the CEO to assign the appropriate marketing, public relations and safety staff to equip | |
| |the booth(s) with personnel, and information about such things as train and right-of-way safety, | |
| |student discount passes and fare media and other educational materials and handout information that | |
| |promote ridership on MTA buses and trains; and | |
| |C. that the CEO instruct staff to bring back to this Board in November, 2000 an extensive overview of| |
| |the MTA marketing and public relations departments, their strategies, budgets, and programs for this | |
| |fiscal year with emphasis on detailing current efforts regarding public outreach and education, | |
| |particularly as to the strategies to rebuild ridership. Included in this overview, but not limited | |
| |to it, should be a discussion of the MTA’s current and future participation in the type of community | |
| |outreach events I have described and the reasons why MTA is not currently officially participating in| |
| |such events. The overview should also include what strategies are being developed in response to the| |
| |extensive multi-volume "Service Planning Market Research Program" conducted by the MTA over the past | |
| |several years. Marketing and Public Relations staff shall return hereafter on a bi-monthly basis to | |
| |the Executive Management Committee to report on the progress of those strategies and the progress of | |
| |the MTA’s public outreach program; and | |
| |D. that the CEO instruct staff to return with strategies for improving and expanding the MTA website | |
| |to better serve our riding public, municipal operators and stakeholding agencies. | |
|11/15/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to approve the results of Year 2000 Long Range Transportation |LRTP |
| |Plan (LRTP) development to date: | |
| |summary of Phases I and II results; | |
| |emerging LRTP program recommendations from Phases I and II analysis; and | |
| |projects considered for alternatives analysis in Phase III. | |
| |and that as part of Phase III of the LRTP, a separate and detailed Financial Strategic Plan be | |
| |included. This Plan should include an implementation component that outlines specific options, and | |
| |their timing, that would erase the projected operating deficit. | |
|11/30/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that the MTA Board direct staff to work with the Pasadena Blue |Safety |
| |Line Construction Authority to develop safe, alternative designs that can mitigate, to the extent | |
| |possible, the expected noise impacts at the Southwest Museum Station and Avenue 45 crossing, and | |
| |forward these recommendations to the PUC and advocate for the approval of these design alternatives. | |
| |The alternative designs to be considered should include but not be limited to ceramic bells, wayside | |
| |horns, reduced speeds, and quadrant gates that would maintain safe operation of the blue line. | |
|11/30/00 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR RIORDAN/BURKE MOTION directing the CEO to report back for Board approval no |Bus Procurement |
| |later than January, 2001 with an implementation plan (including a recommendation to initiate vehicle | |
| |procurement) for securing and deploying articulated buses on appropriate MTA bus lines, including | |
| |45-foot, alternative-fuel buses of lightweight composite materials. | |
|01/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR DE LA VEGA MOTION to consider City of Los Angeles Community Development |Finance |
| |Department’s request to partner with MTA on advertising campaign for Earned Income Tax Credit Program| |
| |for low income workers. | |
|01/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - that the Board instruct the CEO and the Executive Director of |Telecommunications |
| |Procurement to direct their staff to prepare a competitive bid process to solicit proposals for | |
| |installation and licensing of cellular services in the subway tunnels and to return to the Board in | |
| |March, 2001 with a report on the progress of their efforts. | |
|02/22/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the Seventh/Metro Center Metro Rail Station be renamed as |Naming |
| |the Seventh/Metro Center Julian Dixon Metro Rail Station and that a plaque be placed in a prominent | |
| |location at the station describing for future generations the magnitude of Congressman Dixon's | |
| |contribution to public transit. | |
|03/22/01 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, UNDER RECONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR LEGASPI to require a report back| |
| |during next year’s budget cycle regarding task orders issued, contract performance, and DBE | |
| |attainment: | |
| |execution of five-year multiple award agreements with three firms, the joint venture of DMJM/Harris, | |
| |Axiom Engineering & Science Corporation, and TMAD Engineers, Inc. to provide as needed General | |
| |Engineering Consultant (GEC) Services with a cumulative total amount not to exceed $12,500,000; and | |
| |issuance of Task Orders under these agreements for general engineering consultant services. | |
|03/22/01 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BERNSON to revisions to the MTA Records Retention | |
| |Schedule to include development of a category for “institutional memory.” | |
|03/22/01 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION on A, B, C, E, and F of the following State Legislation; APPROVED BURKE |Legislation |
| |SUBSTITUTE MOTION ON ITEM D. | |
| |AB 629 (Oropeza) is a spot bill that makes declarative statements about the MTA relating to | |
| |governance, responsibility, operational priorities, and traffic congestion in Los Angeles County. | |
| |WORK WITH AUTHOR UNLESS IT BECOMES INCONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED POLICY. | |
| |AB 651 (Margett) would make technical, non-substantive changes in statute relating to the structure | |
| |of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board. WORK WITH AUTHOR UNLESS IT | |
| |BECOMES INCONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED POLICY. | |
| |AB 630 (Oropeza) is a spot bill relating to the MTA calling on the agency to achieve optimal | |
| |transport service for the movement of goods and people on a countywide basis. WORK WITH AUTHOR | |
| |UNLESS IT BECOMES INCONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED POLICY. | |
| |AB 974 (Calderon) is a reintroduced version of AB 2643 (2000), the Los Angeles County Municipal | |
| |Operator sponsored legislation relating to the formula distribution of all bus operating funds. | |
| |OPPOSE; WORK WITH AUTHOR AND CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE MUNICIPAL OPERATORS. | |
| |BURKE SUBSTITUTE MOTION that the Board temporarily take no position, and order both sides to | |
| |negotiate a settlement to be brought back at the April Board meeting. | |
| |SB 618 (Margett) repeals the authority of Caltrans to rank soundwall projects. WORK WITH AUTHOR. | |
| |AB 1039 (Oropeza) would remove the $1 million cap in TDA funds that SCAG receives from the county | |
| |transportation commissions. OPPOSE. | |
|04/26/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the Board direct MTA staff to seek exemption from |Administration |
| |rotating power outages due to safety considerations, impacts to surrounding street traffic near rail | |
| |transit at-grade crossings, and the detrimental effect of significantly reduced mobility to our | |
| |riding public. | |
|05/24/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION - that the Rules and Procedures be amended to provide that|Rules |
| |the Chair of the MTA Board will serve a one-year term. | |
|05/24/01 |BOARD APPROVED REVISIONS AS AMENDED BY DIRECTORS FASANA, BURKE, PROO AND KNABE to the adopted 2001 |Planning |
| |Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) for Los Angeles County: | |
| |incorporate revisions to the discussion of the I-710 Freeway Gap Closure; | |
| |FASANA AMENDMENT to delete the following paragraph from attachment ‘A’ to the revised report dated | |
| |May 24, 2001: | |
| |“The I-710 Project is being developed to allow construction in phases. Phase I will extend the | |
| |freeway from Valley Boulevard to Huntington Drive. Clatrans has undertaken a traffic impact analysis| |
| |of the temporary Huntington Drive terminus. Based upon the findings of the analysis, Caltrans will | |
| |coordinate the implementation of traffic operations measures with the local jurisdictions to ensure | |
| |safe, efficient traffic operation between phases.” | |
| |Incorporate revisions which clarify that southern portion of the Arbor Vitae Interchange is a | |
| |baseline project needed to address the existing mobility needs and that the northern portion of the | |
| |interchange is not in the LRTP and will require specific MTA Board approval before programming and | |
| |implementation could occur; and | |
| |BURKE AMENDMENT to include the following portions: | |
| |The Arbor Vitae Project – Southern Portion is needed to relieve current conditions associated with | |
| |the I-405 corridor, and given this status, the MTA reaffirms its commitment to Project, and Project | |
| |funding; | |
| |The Southern Portion of the Project is not a project included in the future LAX expansion plans as a | |
| |mitigation but is referenced as an existing condition; and | |
| |In recognition of the community concern over increased congestion on the surface streets surrounding | |
| |the I-405 corridor associated with the LAX Masterplan, the MTA Board will not program, approve, fund | |
| |or recommend for funding the Northern Half of the Arbor Vitae Interchange until such a time as | |
| |community issues with this project can be resolved to the satisfaction of the community. | |
| |incorporate revisions regarding local system preservation, which clarify that staff will take a | |
| |strong leadership role in assisting sub-regional and individual jurisdictions in accessing and | |
| |drawing down funds for system preservation needs, as well as seeking new funding for such needs. | |
| |PROO AND KNABE AMENDMENT to include: staff work with sub-regions and individual jurisdictions to | |
| |evaluate local system preservation and capacity enhancement needs/issues and report to the Board in | |
| |fiscal year 2002 with findings and recommendations for addressing such needs/issues. | |
| |Limit Rideshare funding to $4,367,270 in FY02 until an evaluation of the rideshare program is | |
| |conducted and presented to the Board by March 2002. | |
|06/28/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that: |Transit Zone |
| |A. the Board approve modifications to the Greater San Fernando Valley Transportation Zone (GSFVTZ) | |
| |Pre-Application list of bus lines to make them consistent with current bus service provided by the | |
| |MTA in the San Fernando Valley as follows: | |
| |Remove cancelled MTA lines: | |
| |420 (LA - Hollywood - Van Nuys) | |
| |424 (LA - Ventura Blvd.- Warner Center) | |
| |425 (LA - Ventura Blvd. - Warner Center - Limited) | |
| |427 (LA - Woodland Hills - Warner Center - Canoga Park) | |
| |522 (LA - Ventura Blvd. - Reseda Blvd.) | |
| |Add the newly created MTA lines: | |
| |150 (Canoga Park - Warner Ctr. - Ventura Blvd. - Universal City Red Line Station) | |
| |156 (Panorama City - Van Nuys - Hollywood - LACC) | |
| |750 (Ventura Blvd. Rapid Bus) | |
| |B. the Board approve modifications to the Lines of Regional Significance to make it consistent with | |
| |the existing MTA bus network as follows: | |
| |Remove cancelled MTA Lines: | |
| |420 (LA - Hollywood - Van Nuys) | |
| |424 (LA - Ventura Blvd.- Warner Center) | |
| |425 (LA - Ventura Blvd. - Warner Center - Limited) | |
| |522 (LA - Ventura Blvd. - Reseda Blvd.) | |
| |Add the newly created MTA lines: | |
| |156 (Panorama City - Van Nuys - Hollywood - LACC) | |
| |750 (Ventura Blvd. Rapid Bus) | |
| |C. the Board waive application of steps 2 and 4 of the Zone Application Process for the | |
| |Pre-Application, as amended, since these steps dealing with notice and stakeholder briefings were | |
| |already completed for the original Pre-Application and the remaining steps in the Application Process| |
| |will provided ample opportunity for further notice and stakeholder briefings regarding the | |
| |amendments. | |
|06/28/01 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS O’CONNOR AND PROO that the MTA establish the vision and intent to |Planning |
| |construct light rail to Santa Monica and actively work to accelerate the flow of federal, state and | |
| |local funds to complete this project as soon as possible without compromising other funding sources | |
| |for MTA adopted projects. | |
|07/26/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that staff to form a Bicycle Transportation Plan Working Group |Bicycle |
| |and report back to the Board in six (6) months with a recommendation as to the best manner in which | |
| |to proceed with the preparation of an updated Countywide Bicycle Transportation Plan that, at a | |
| |minimum, satisfies State requirements for Bicycle Transportation Account funding eligibility. The | |
| |working group should consist of MTA staff, representatives from each of the sub-regions and the Los | |
| |Angeles County Department of Public Works, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and other | |
| |interested community/ bicycle transportation organizations. | |
|07/26/01 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY that the Board: |Planning |
| |accept the San Fernando Valley East-West Transit Corridor Draft Environmental Impact | |
| |Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/R) transmitted under separate cover; | |
| | | |
| |adopt the Full Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternative on the former Pacific Electric/Southern Pacific | |
| |right-of-way, including the Chandler median, as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). Direct | |
| |staff to continue to study this alternative during the Preliminary Engineering (PE) and Final EIS/R | |
| |(FEIS/R) phase; | |
| | | |
| |direct staff to continue to study the Oxnard/Lankershim alternative during the PE and FEIS/R phase as| |
| |a possible operating alternative on Saturdays and Sundays should the Board choose not to operate the | |
| |BRT on Chandler on Saturdays and Sundays; | |
| | | |
| |direct staff to continue to work with adjacent communities during the PE and FEIS/R phase to refine | |
| |project design features where appropriate to address concerns; and | |
| | | |
| |authorize the CEO to negotiate Change Orders and contract amendments to the PE and FEIS/R contracts | |
| |to effectuate any extra consultant work necessitated by this motion in an amount not to exceed | |
| |$750,000. | |
|08/23/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION: |Community Outreach |
| |For the last few years, I have been working closely with the MTA and the community surrounding the | |
| |Universal City Station to address concerns and issues that have been raised as a result of the | |
| |construction of the Red Line to North Hollywood. Now that the project is almost completed, there are | |
| |a couple of issues that still must be resolved. | |
| |The Island community near the Universal City station has been working closely with the MTA and their | |
| |consultants to develop a final landscaping plan that includes a solid barrier between South | |
| |Weddington Park and the 101 Freeway, to help mitigate the impacts of the new station access road and | |
| |reconfiguration of the highway entrance on this residential community. The MTA has also worked | |
| |closely with the City's Department of Recreation and Parks and Caltrans in the development of this | |
| |plan to successfully address the concerns of the residents as well as the issues raised by these two | |
| |agencies, including use of park property for the barrier. | |
| |It is important to make sure that the landscaping and barrier plans are finalized, designed and | |
| |constructed before final construction is completed at the Universal City Station site. In order to | |
| |move forward, the Department of Recreation and Parks needs to approve the proposed plan and the MTA | |
| |has to authorize its consultants to design and construct the project within a very short time frame. | |
| |I THEREFORE MOVE that the MTA Board signify its intent to move forward with the final landscape and | |
| |barrier plan developed by the MTA and the community and direct MTA staff to work with Department of | |
| |Recreation and Parks to approve the proposed plan at its September meeting. | |
| |I FURTHER MOVE that the MTA staff return in 30 days with a timetable for completion of the | |
| |landscaping and barrier plan and provide the necessary information for the Board to give final | |
| |authorization to move forward with the design and construction of this project. | |
|08/23/01 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR FASANA that MTA staff report back to the Board in 30 days with a |Planning |
| |response to the aforementioned findings raised in the FY 1998-2000 Triennial Performance Audit, | |
| |accompanied with any necessary corrective policy measures. | |
|09/26/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that promotions for Executive Officer, Administration; Deputy |Administration |
| |Executive Officer, Office of Management & Budget; and Deputy Executive Officer, Human Resources be | |
| |“interim” to afford the new CEO the opportunity to review the appointments and upon confirmation of | |
| |appointments by the new CEO, compensation will be retroactive to initial date of appointment. | |
|09/26/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ROBERTS MOTION that MTA Planning staff work with the appropriate agencies to |Planning |
| |claim all revenue and passenger miles generated by fixed-route and other services, such as the ferry | |
| |to and from Catalina Island, that can generate operations revenue; and that MTA Planning staff report| |
| |back to the Board by January 2002 on the status of this motion. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION that MTA staff in conjunction with the cities of Norwalk and |LRTP |
| |Santa Fe Springs develop a proposal to close the gap between the Metro Green Line and the | |
| |Norwalk/Santa Fe Springs Metrolink station and report back to the Board in 60 days. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION that LACMTA remove the Consolidated Freightways (CF) & Con-Way|LRTP |
| |Transportation Services properties from any future consideration as a site for a Bus Storage Facility| |
| |& Maintenance facility for the Wilshire BRT in the City of Los Angeles; and that MTA discontinue any | |
| |reference to these properties in discussions of the bus maintenance facility and that staff convey | |
| |this to the owners of the above properties. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION that staff prepare a plan for opening the Canoga Avenue |LRTP |
| |rights-of-way as a dedicated public transit route and report back on funding options and | |
| |implementation issues. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION that the Executive Management Committee become the Executive |Rules |
| |Management and Audit Committee. Furthermore, that staff report back to the Executive Management and | |
| |Audit Committee by November 2001, with a report reviewing the last 3 years of Proposition A and C | |
| |administrative specific use and distribution so the Board may determine if the expenditures are | |
| |appropriate from a statutory and policy perspective. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HAHN MOTION that MTA staff as the lead agency in coordination with the City |Security |
| |of Los Angeles Police Department, the County of Los Angeles' Sheriff Department, Amtrak, Southern | |
| |California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), Catellus Development Corporation, and the Metropolitan | |
| |Water District conduct a security assessment for the Union Station complex and the MTA Gateway | |
| |building and report back within 30 days to the MTA Board; and | |
| |FURTHERMORE, that staff in coordination with the City of Los Angeles Police and the County of Los | |
| |Angeles' Sheriff Department conduct a security assessment for the bus and rail system and report back| |
| |within 30 days to the MTA Board. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/ANTONOVICH MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors supports the Los |Safety |
| |Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority's applications for grade crossings now | |
| |before the California Public Utilities Commission. Moreover, the Board urges the California Public | |
| |Utilities Commission to expedite the process to the highest extent possible and grant interim | |
| |permission to begin at-risk construction across the subject streets pending crossing application | |
| |decisions. | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation |Planning |
| |Authority joins SCAG and the 710 Legislative Action Group in urging the Congressional Conference | |
| |Committee for the Federal 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill to delete the following amendment | |
| |contained in H.R. 2299, Section 340, as enacted by the House: | |
| |“None of the funds in this Act may be used for the planning, design, development, or construction of | |
| |the California State Route 710 freeway extension project through El Sereno, South Pasadena and | |
| |Pasadena, California.” | |
|10/25/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ROBERTS/BURKE MOTION that the MTA Library be named in memory of Dorothy |Naming |
| |Peyton Gray and be called the Dorothy Peyton Gray Transportation Library. | |
|11/29/01 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION directing the Chief Executive Officer to formally rename |Naming |
| |the Pasadena Blue Line to the Pasadena Gold Line. | |
|02/28/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION: |Eastside |
| |A. certification of the Los Angeles Eastside Corridor Final Supplemental Environmental Impact | |
| |Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement | |
| |of Overriding Considerations in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; | |
| |B. adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan; | |
| |C. adoption of the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Eastside Corridor Transit Project as | |
| |approved by the MTA Board on May 24, 2001 and modified in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact| |
| |Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report as Light Rail Transit Build Alternative Option B, as| |
| |a project; and | |
| |D. filing a Notice of Determination. | |
| |MOLINA AMENDMENT: | |
| |1. Implement the Eastside Transportation Community Linkages Program in order to address issues | |
| |regarding multimodal interfaces, pedestrian accessibility, traffic management, park and ride needs | |
| |and transit oriented development opportunities along the alignment. | |
| |2. Leave the configuration of traffic lanes crossing First Street Bridge open and support the City of| |
| |Los Angeles in their efforts to secure State and Federal funding to widen First Street Bridge. | |
| |Should the City not receive funding, MTA staff shall return to the Little Tokyo community to address | |
| |their concerns and return to this Board with recommendations. | |
| |3. Continue working with LAUSD to explore options and resolve the issues surrounding Ramona High | |
| |School, including acquiring additional parcels adjacent to the school in order to facilitate the | |
| |school remaining at its current location. | |
| |4. Leave the configuration of traffic lanes open on 3rd street between Atlantic Boulevard and Eastern| |
| |Avenue. Create a parking task force that includes both merchants and residents to study the issues | |
| |raised by the merchants regarding the number of traffic lanes and make recommendations to staff. | |
| |5. Remove the current Kaiser facility from the list of potential acquisition sites and continue to | |
| |work with them on issues of accessibility, noise and vibration, security and on potential joint use | |
| |proposals that will not impact their current nor future needs. | |
| |6. Create a computerized case processing and tracking system for addressing community complaints and | |
| |concerns during the construction process. | |
|02/28/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS HAHN/O’CONNOR that MTA prepare a series of alternatives for the |Operations |
| |accelerated deployment for the phase II program of the MTA Metro Rapid Bus system in 6 months and | |
| |present these alternatives for the full consideration of the MTA Executive Board; and | |
| |FURTHER MOVE that MTA with the full assistance and cooperation of the Municipal Operators, cities, | |
| |and Los Angeles County, expand this proven low-cost and highly effective bus signal priority system | |
| |for the Phase II program as previously developed for the Metro Rapid Bus Demonstration Program (Phase| |
| |I). | |
|03/28/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS FASANA/BERSON MOTION instructing staff to return to the MTA Board for |Planning |
| |approval of any arrangements to advance the I-5 HOV lane between Routes 134 and 170 and the 101 Van | |
| |Nuys freeway off-ramp that arise from the 2002 State Transportation Improvement Program Projects | |
| |(STIP) process. | |
|03/28/02 |BOARD APPROVED FASANA/YOH MOTION: Universities and colleges throughout the state have found |Smart Card |
| |innovative ways to finance local transportation services and provide transit passes to enrolled | |
| |students. These programs are designed to reduce parking problems around campuses, provide | |
| |alternative transportation options, and improve the quality of life for students, faculty, and staff.| |
| | | |
| |For example, California State University at San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly, SLO) subsidizes bus fares with| |
| |funding primarily from parking citations; the program allows faculty, staff and students to ride the | |
| |bus at no cost to the rider. In the San Diego area, San Diego State University; University of San | |
| |Diego; University of California at San Diego; and Mesa City, and Southwestern colleges also offer | |
| |subsidized transportation passes. | |
| |At UCLA, students "swipe" their school ID cards in the fare box on board Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus | |
| |and ride for free, and the university then pays the cost for each boarding. California State | |
| |University at Sacramento and University of California at Santa Barbara finance similar transit | |
| |programs through student activity fees and tuition approved through student referenda. These | |
| |programs encourage public transit use, reduce the costs of education for low-income students, and | |
| |offer all students, faculty and staff a viable and convenient alternative to driving, thereby | |
| |reducing congestion and emissions. | |
| |The introduction of Smartcards at the MTA presents the opportunity to consider similar programs and | |
| |collaborations with universities and colleges. | |
| |WE THEREFORE MOVE that the Board of Directors direct staff to report back to the Board in June 2002 | |
| |on similar approaches that may be viable in Los Angeles County. The Board encourages staff to seek | |
| |input from universities, community colleges, and trade and vocational schools to determine the levels| |
| |of interest in these types of programs. | |
|03/28/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION directing staff to investigate cost effective bus stop |Marketing |
| |information displays and develop an accelerated program for installing bus information displays at | |
| |every MTA bus stop and report back to the Board within 60 days. Each bus stop shall display basic | |
| |route and schedule information and MTA's help line number. Where space is available, the display | |
| |shall include a route map for each route and detailed bus arrival information. | |
|04/25/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BURKE: | |
| |An inflationary increase for the FY03 funding allocation to Access Services, Inc., in the amount of | |
| |$5,086,349, for a total MTA funding commitment of $58,601,051, amended to include a report back on | |
| |possible additional services outside of ADA requirements and funding options; and | |
| |Notifying Access Services, Inc. that the MTA expects improved interaction with the community to | |
| |provide quality, reliable services that comply with the requirements of the Americans with | |
| |Disabilities Act within the above resources. | |
|05/23/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS KNABE/BERNSON/ YAROSLAVSKY MOTION regarding Access Services, Inc: |ASI |
| |Extend current service as it exists today, with existing budget, for six months and report back; | |
| |Provide monthly report regarding complaints; and | |
| |Commence a process of evaluating other vendors and the cost of bringing this service in-house and | |
| |report back in three months. | |
|05/23/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION: |Finance |
| |A. that funds taken off the top for the administration of Propositions A and C programs should not be| |
| |expended for regional programs that are operations related; | |
| |B. that funds taken off the top for the administration of Propositions A and C programs should not be| |
| |expended for MTA operations related activities; | |
| |C. that the Board direct the CEO to report back to the Board within 30 days on the impact of the | |
| |implementation of these clarifications to the financial standards and to recommend modifications to | |
| |the FY03 budget as appropriate; and | |
| |that the Board direct the CEO to provide a detailed listing in future annual budgets and | |
| |comprehensive annual financial reports of programs using Propositions A and C administrative funds. | |
|05/23/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMEDED BY BURKE, REVISED BY BERSON, YAROSLAVSKY, AND YOH the Joint |Joint Development |
| |Development Policies and Procedures to replace the MTA’s previously adopted joint development policy | |
| |document. | |
| |BURKE AMENDMENT, as revised by Berson, Yaroslavsky, and Yoh: | |
| |Section C – Exclusive Negotiations Agreement: | |
| |Developer shall provide a comprehensive list of previous experience in the specific project area | |
| |being described in the solicitation document in both the construction and operation of the said | |
| |project type being solicited, as well as disclose full credit and litigation history under penalty of| |
| |perjury. | |
| |Additionally, staff is directed to: | |
| |Set up a process to brief Board Members on planned developments | |
| |Evaluate all modes of access to transit | |
| |Correct language regarding parking in attachment B | |
| |Do complete background and credit checks on potential developers | |
|05/23/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR MOLINA: |Planning |
| |Receiving Caltrans approved Project Study Report/Project Development Support (PSR/PDS) for the State | |
| |Route 2 freeway terminus improvements project; and | |
| |Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to proceed with the next phase of project development, the | |
| |preparation of the project approval/environmental document, and include in the environmental scoping | |
| |process the four candidate alternatives identified in the PSR.PDS and the alternative proposed by the| |
| |Echo Park Community Action Committee. | |
| |MOLINA AMENDMENT: | |
| |C. That the environmental phase consist of a full environmental impact report (EIR/EIS); | |
| |That the environmental phase include an analysis of the community’s alternative and that it be | |
| |analyzed to the same level that the other four alternatives were studied in the PSR; | |
| |E. That the environmental document include a new and expanded traffic study that sets the | |
| |study area to be the I-5/SR2 interchange at the north and the Berkly/Alvarado/Glendale Blvd. | |
| |Intersection to the south. The traffic study must include a validation of the existing capacity on | |
| |Glendale Blvd. Without assuming any additional enhancements other than those associated with the LA | |
| |City Project. Furthermore, the study should be based upon the projected traffic volumes in 2025 | |
| |given the particular constraints in the corridor, rather than the projected demand; and | |
| |F. That the environmental phase include additional pedestrian safety enhancements and | |
| |possible traffic calming techniques beyond those currently included in the alternatives. | |
|06/27/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/HUDSON MOTION that the MTA, as a prominent tenant of 818 W. 7th |Labor |
| |Street, communicate its concerns to the building owner regarding the treatment of janitors and report| |
| |back to the Board at the July Board meeting. | |
| |HUDSON AMENDMENT: to change the word “better” to “fair” in paragraph 2 of the preamble of | |
| |Yaroslavsky's motion. | |
|06/27/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BURKE |DBE |
| |the Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program; | |
| |authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to make administrative changes to the DBE Program that result| |
| |from the Department of Transportation Final Rule changes, new regulatory amendments and DOT/FTA | |
| |program interpretations; and | |
| |adopting a 20% as the DBE Annual Goal for federal Fiscal Year 2003 (FFY03). | |
| |BURKE AMENDMENT that the Board instruct the CEO and the Staff of DEOD to develop recommendations and | |
| |written procedures on how to implement a “SHARED RESPONSIBILITY” Program in an effort to apply the | |
| |DBE Annual Goal to MTA Departments and report back to this Board with their Recommendations in | |
| |October, 2002. | |
|07/25/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR FASANA the MTA Security Policy that provides a high | |
| |level of security to the MTA customers, employees, and property. | |
| |FASANA AMENDMENT: MTA seeks to ensure that bus and rail passengers receive the same security services| |
| |that pedestrians and drivers of passengers or commercial vehicles receive from local law enforcement | |
| |agencies. | |
|09/26/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/HAHN MOTION the proposed bylaws that are to be used uniformly by all |Sector |
| |Service Sector Councils. | |
| |MOLINA/HAHN AMENDMENT - that the Board amend the policy creating the Service Sector Governance | |
| |Councils and the Council Bylaws to require that at least fifty percent of Council members be | |
| |consumers of transit services and that they live or work in the area. | |
| |Additional amendments approved: | |
| |1. Bylaws Article VII, Authority, 2nd sentence - The Council's authority will include . | |
| |2. Bylaws Article V, Meetings, Item B – “…Council meetings shall be conducted pursuant to Roberts' | |
| |Rules of Order”. | |
| |3. Bylaws Article VI, Amendments, last sentence – “Any amendments to the Bylaws are subject to MTA | |
| |Board approval”. | |
| |4. Bylaws Article II, Item A Composition, 3rd sentence – “retaining structures already in place and | |
| |may request 'from the MTA Board' a change…”. | |
| |5. Bylaws Article II, Item A Composition, last sentence – “MTA Board Members and employees are…”. | |
| |6. Bylaws Article V, Meetings, move Item D, Code of Conduct to Article II: Membership. | |
|09/26/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR HAHN that in honor of the achievement of Chick Hearn and his |Naming |
| |contributions to the game of basketball, Los Angeles Lakers, and the City and County of Los Angeles, | |
| |the Board hereby instructs the MTA staff to immediately establish and properly designate the Pico | |
| |Station of the Long Beach Metro Blue Line as the “Chick Hearn” station. | |
|09/26/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY that the Board take an oppose position to Prop 51 |Legislative |
| |because it is not in the best interest of the MTA legislated mandate to provide multi-modal projects | |
| |in Los Angeles County. | |
|09/26/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS FASANA, O’CONNOR AND YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT that once the |Expo |
| |preliminary engineering contract is finalized, an independent peer review panel be immediately | |
| |convened to review MTA’s design standards and make recommendations to bring the design, engineering | |
| |and construction costs of this project in line with comparable projects. Participants should include| |
| |high level project managers from other properties with experience in building cost effective light | |
| |rail systems and should be familiar with urban traffic and community mitigation issues. The | |
| |recommendations of the peer review panel should be presented to the MTA Board for review and | |
| |approval. | |
| |FURTHER that the MTA shall use this peer review panel to reassess | |
| |the entire budget for the Exposition Light Rail line and make | |
| |recommendations to reduce the cost of this project through value | |
| |engineering, cost containment and by using the budgets and | |
| |experiences of comparable light rail systems. Lastly, that the peer review panel should meet at | |
| |important milestones during the preliminary engineering of this project and their findings should be | |
| |presented to the MTA Board for review. | |
|09/26/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR ROBERTS that MTA Planning staff work with the appropriate agencies |Planning |
| |to claim all revenue and passenger miles generated by fixed-route and other services, such as the | |
| |ferry to and from Catalina Island, that can generate operations revenue; and that MTA Planning staff | |
| |report back to the Board by January 2002 on the status of this motion. | |
|10/24/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMEDNED BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY award of a five-year firm fixed price | |
| |Contract No. PS-0532-1235, to Aon Risk Services, Incorporated for: | |
| |Phase 1 of the Construction Insurance Brokerage services administering marketing services in the | |
| |amount $65,255 effective November 1, 2002; and | |
| |contingent on the successful completion of Phase 1, authorize the Chief Executive Officer to exercise| |
| |the option for Construction Insurance Implementation and Program Administration (Phase 2) in an | |
| |amount not to exceed $1,014,594, for a total contract value not to exceed $1,079,819. | |
|12/12/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HUDSON MOTION that the Finance & Budget Committee reaffirm the committee |Rules |
| |summary/description as accurately reflecting the scope of responsibility of the Finance & Budget | |
| |Committee to: | |
| |Act as focal point for development, review and approval of MTA funding resources, debt structure and | |
| |expenditures. Review and approve annual operating and capital budgets, formula allocations, | |
| |financial plan, mid-year budget and financial structure adjustments, and provide guidance to the | |
| |Board in management of funds. | |
|12/12/02 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY AND BURKE that the MTA work with preliminary |Construction |
| |engineering consultant to immediately convene a peer review panel to assess the design specs and | |
| |standards for the Expo line. MTA staff should report back during the January committee cycle on the | |
| |progress made by the peer review panel and the panel’s recommendations should be presented to the MTA| |
| |Board and incorporated into the preliminary engineering. | |
| |WE FURTHER MOVE that the MTA staff look at the internal structures of other transit properties that | |
| |have built successful design/build rail lines and report back to the Board on internal changes that | |
| |can be made to better implement design/build projects in the future. | |
| |WE ALSO MOVE that no new RFPs for consultants or professional services contractors for the Expo line | |
| |be developed or issued without approval by the MTA Board. | |
|12/20/02 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY/BURKE MOTION that the MTA work with the preliminary engineering |Planning |
| |consultant to immediately convene a peer review panel to assess the design specs and standards for | |
| |the Expo line. MTA staff should report back during the January committee cycle on the progress made | |
| |by the peer review panel and the panel’s recommendations should be presented to the MTA Board and | |
| |incorporated into the preliminary engineering. | |
| |ALSO APPROVED MTA staff looking at the internal structures of other transit properties that have | |
| |built successful design/build rail lines and report back to the Board on internal changes that can be| |
| |made to better implement design/build projects in the future. | |
| |ALSO APPROVED no new RFPs for consultants or professional services contractors for the Expo line be | |
| |developed or issued without approval by the MTA Board. | |
|01/23/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY SUBSTITUTE MOTION to extend funding of the existing Transit |Transit Policing |
| |Community Policing services for one month and carry over to the next board meeting consideration of | |
| |new contracts. | |
|01/23/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that MTA establish a Gold Line operating procedure which |Safety |
| |designates the crossings at Avenues 45 and 50 as quiet zones, and which includes rules prescribing | |
| |the circumstances under which train operators should sound “quackers,” and other audible warning | |
| |devices, such as horns and bells; | |
| |I FURTHER MOVE, that this operating procedure be designed in a manner which balances the need to | |
| |ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic with the legitimate community interest in | |
| |eliminating unnecessary noise in the operation of the Gold Line; | |
| |I FURTHER MOVE, that, if, in drafting the operating rules, staff determines a further application to | |
| |the Public Utilities Commission or legislation is required to allow quiet zones at Avenues 45 and 50,| |
| |the staff prepare the application and return to the Board with its recommendation. | |
|01/23/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION the Crenshaw-Prairie Corridor Major Investment Study and |LRTP |
| |directed staff to: | |
| |A. Prepare, a funding and implementation schedule for Crenshaw Metro Rapid enhancements including | |
| |higher capacity buses, enhanced stations and segments of dedicated transit lanes for consideration by| |
| |the Board, along with other potential projects, as part of the Short Range Plan; | |
| |B. Initiate discussions with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company (BNSF) regarding | |
| |shared use of the Harbor Subdivision railroad right-of-way within the Crenshaw Corridor for exclusive| |
| |bus lane or possible future passenger raft uses; | |
| |C. Co Coordinate with the ongoing Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) Master Planning efforts to | |
| |evaluate connections from any new LAX Intermodal Transit Center to the Crenshaw Corridor; | |
| |D. Consider implementing a bus route from the Wilshire/Westem Station to the planned LAX Intermodal | |
| |Transit Center via the Crenshaw Corridor; | |
| |E. Continue to reflect potential future implementation of light rail transit (LRT) or a 24-hour Metro| |
| |Rapid Transitway in the Crenshaw Corridor in the MTA Long Range Transportation Plan evaluate higher | |
| |capacity modal options. | |
|01/23/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to adopt a resolution authorizing the Chief Executive |Financing |
| |Officer to price and deliver up to $560 million of the Proposition A 2003-A refunding bonds, | |
| |including approval of documents on file with the Board Secretary, in a negotiated bond sale using the| |
| |previously approved underwriting syndicate consisting of UBS PaineWebber as book-running co-senior | |
| |manager and Salomon Smith Bamey as co-senior manager, with co-managers Chapman & Co., E. J. De La | |
| |Rosa & Co., M. R. Beal & Co., Ramirez & Co. and Siebert Brandford Shank & Co., LLC, to encourage | |
| |minority participation and that a bond sale other than a forward bond sale must be competitively bid.| |
|01/23/03 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH AND FASANA AS AMENDED BY MOLINA to accept the San |Sector |
| |Gabriel Valley Coalition of Governments’ seven nominees, of which any five may be selected by the | |
| |Council of Governments to serve on a rotating basis, starting with the current interim Joint Powers | |
| |Authority; Two members that are non-elected officials to be nominated by the Council of Governments; | |
| |Two members representing the County Board of Supervisors to be selected annually by lottery: | |
| |A. Nominate the following to serve on the San Gabriel Valley Service Sector representing the eleven | |
| |cities with members to serve on a rotating basis starting with the current Interim Joint Powers | |
| |Authority initially serving staggered terms of 1, 2, 3 year(s): | |
| |San Gabriel: Harry Baldwin | |
| |Pasadena: Sid Tyler | |
| |South Pasadena: David Rose | |
| |San Marino: Emile Bayle | |
| |Sierra Madre: Bart Doyle | |
| |Montebello: Kathy Salazar | |
| |Monterey Park: Sharon Martinez | |
| |Two (2) members representing the County Board of Supervisors to be nominated by the LA County Board | |
| |of Supervisors: | |
| |B. increase the allowed membership on the San Gabriel Service Sector Council from 9 to 10 members, | |
| |nine voting and one non-voting. (One public member, non-voting to serve as an advisory voice, to be | |
| |selected by the nine voting members.) | |
|02/05/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to delete the word “working priorities”: |Funding |
| |adoption of working priorities and priority-setting criteria for highway, existing Call for Projects | |
| |and transit projects; (See Attachment A which is made as part of the minutes) | |
| |a State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) amendment request; and | |
| |adoption of state legislative positions that include transportation revenue increases. | |
|02/27/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the MTA staff will conduct a study on the efficacy of |Security |
| |establishing an internal MTA Police Force and report back to the Board within 6 months with the | |
| |results of that study. | |
|02/27/03 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to |Joint Development |
| |continue Exclusive Negotiation Agreement through March 28, 2003 with Legacy Partners for the | |
| |development of approximately 2.8 acres of MTA-owned properties located at the Hollywood and Vine | |
| |Metro Rail station; and thereafter allow the MTA to open non-exclusive negotiations for the | |
| |Hollywood/Vine station site with those who have previously made proposals to the MTA as part of the | |
| |original RFP process. | |
|03/27/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/ROBERTS MOTION - that the Executive Director of the MTA be |Safety |
| |directed to immediately review the following complaints: | |
| |the MTA’s rail system’s escalators, elevators, and ticket vending machines are frequently out of | |
| |order; | |
| |service attendants are not available to assist the disabled passengers; and | |
| |the condition of the Blue Line rail cars appears rundown with graffiti-etched windows; and report | |
| |back to the Committee in 30 days with an action plan to improve the rail fleet’s appearance and | |
| |service to its commuters; and | |
| |that in addition to reviewing the Blue Line complaints, that this Committee directs the Executive | |
| |Officer to expand Director Antonovich’s motion to include the Red Line stations in the action plan. | |
|03/27/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BERNSON MOTION that MTA staff study the feasibility of a parking lot observer|Worker’s Compensation |
| |program, based on WMATA's program that assigns individuals who are on workers' compensation to be | |
| |observers at MTA parking facilities and key stations, and stops throughout the city to monitor | |
| |suspicious parking lot activity and report back in 30 days. | |
|04/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the MTA rename the MTA Metro Rapid Transitway the San|Naming |
| |Fernando Valley Metro Rapidway Project and take all appropriate steps to reflect this change. | |
|04/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION to receive monthly update on the action plan to improve the|Cleanliness |
| |rail fleet and station appearance and services to its commuters. | |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ROBERTS/BURKE MOTION to restore the previously Board approved Arbor Vitae |LRTP |
| |South Portion interchange in the Short Range Transportation Plan. | |
| |A. receiving and filing the report on the Draft Short Range Transportation Plan for Los Angeles | |
| |County; and | |
| |B. approval of ROBERTS MOTION that the Draft Short Range Transportation Plan be referred back to | |
| |Planning and Programming Committee with instructions to seek and incorporate more input from the | |
| |subregions and the various local jurisdictions, and extend the final comment date to July 3, 2003, or| |
| |until such time that all comments are included in the final recommendations. | |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that the MTA Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to |Planning |
| |suspend execution of the agreement with the City of Los Angeles to reimburse the City for | |
| |construction of the El Pueblo Transportation Museum until such time as these outstanding impacts to | |
| |the adjacent businesses are resolved, and that the MTA Board urge the City of Los Angeles to consider| |
| |relocation of the proposed entrance to the museum and other alternatives that will insure that the | |
| |existing Puestos and the existing businesses continue in their current locations. | |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that the MTA staff express their preference for Alternative B, |Planning |
| |the TSM/TDM alternative, to the I-710 Corridor Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Oversight | |
| |Policy Committee (OPC) and work with the various entities to develop a hybrid alternative using | |
| |elements from Alternative C, D, and E that results in meaningful improvements to the corridor without| |
| |impacting residences and businesses. | |
| |Furthermore, I move that staff urge the TAC and OPC to remove from consideration the design elements | |
| |of Alternatives C, D, and E that result in the acquisition of business and residential parcels. Staff| |
| |should continue working with the TAC, OPC, and Gateway Cities COG to identify improvements to the | |
| |I-710 freeway that do not rely solely on cost and that explore non-standard design methods. | |
| |Additionally: | |
| |1) form advisory committees in key areas along the Corridor where current design alternatives require| |
| |the acquisition of large amounts of private property. These committees should be comprised of | |
| |residents and business owners and staff should work with local jurisdictions to identify members. | |
| |The establishment of these committees should begin immediately. | |
| |2) and report back on the use of rail, specifically the Alameda Corridor, as a method of moving cargo| |
| |to and from the ports. The report should include possible policies and incentives in order to | |
| |further promote rail usages as the preferred method of transportation to and from the ports. | |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION to change the name of Boyle Station to Boyle Heights Mariachi |Naming |
| |Plaza Station; that MTA rename the following stations along the Pasadena and Eastside Gold Line: | |
| |Avenue 26 Station shall be changed to Lincoln Heights/Cypress Park Station; | |
| |French Avenue Station shall be changed to Heritage Square/The Arroyo Station; | |
| |Avenue 57 Station shall be changed to Historic Highland Park Station; | |
| |Alameda Station shall be changed to Little Tokyo/Arts District; | |
| |Utah Station shall be changed to Pico/Aliso Station; | |
| |Boyle Station shall be changed to Mariachi Plaza Station Boyle Heights Mariachi Plaza Station | |
| |Ford Station shall be changed to Maravilla Station; | |
| |Mednik Station shall be changed to East L.A. Civic Center Station; and | |
| |that MTA staff work with the Eastside Review Advisory Committee and the Cities of Pasadena and South | |
| |Pasadena to rename the remaining stations should those entities wish to do so. | |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS O’CONNOR/ANTONOVICH MOTION |Fare |
| |A. receiving and filing comments from the public hearing conducted by the Board of Directors on | |
| |Saturday, April 12, 2003; and | |
| |B. adopting Option B fare restructuring, inclusive of tokens effective January 1, 2004, and directed | |
| |staff to work with municipal operators regarding transfers and report back to the Board in the Fall | |
| |and to report back with recommendation on a policy to adopt a multi-year fare restructuring program | |
| |similar to the SCRRA’S program. | |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION - Authorized the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a |Joint Development |
| |three-month Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with RAD Jefferson, LLC (Developer) for a land exchange | |
| |of MTA’s 3.13 acre Venice Division 6 site for a 4.66 acre site in West Los Angeles; not to preclude | |
| |staff from seeking and considering alternative sites and report back in 30 days regarding sewer line.| |
|05/22/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS FASANA/YAROSLAVKSY MOTION - Resolved by the Board of Directors of the Los |Naming |
| |Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority that John Dyer be recognized for his commendable| |
| |efforts and pioneering years of dedicated service in the transportation industry and that staff be | |
| |instructed to determine the most appropriate Metro Red Line Subway Station or any other appropriate | |
| |MTA facility to be renamed in his memory as a tribute to his significant and material contributions | |
| |for the mobility betterment and for improving the quality of life for residents and visitors in Los | |
| |Angeles County. | |
|06/26/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BERNSON/FASANA MOTION supporting the recommendations of the US-101 Corridor | |
| |Study Steering Committee and directing staff to take the following implementing actions: | |
| |include the potential short and mid-range mobility improvement projects in the appropriate | |
| |subregional section(s) of the MTA Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP)subject to further community | |
| |review and refinement, and modification by the affected agencies. Assist the sponsoring agencies in | |
| |seeking funds for those projects through future MTA Call for Projects and other funding programs; | |
| |B. include analysis of the US-101 freeway as a "Congested Corridor" in the next update of the MTA | |
| |SRTP; | |
| |C. continue to include the US-101 freeway improvements in the Strategic Element of the MTA Long Range| |
| |Transportation Plan so that a long-range multi-modal transportation vision, including transit | |
| |options, can be better defined and funded; and | |
| |D. support Countywide and regional coordinated inter-agency efforts in pursuit of innovative land use| |
| |policies that would effectively promote smart growth, prevent and mitigate traffic congestion, and | |
| |improve quality of life in Los Angeles County. | |
| |FASANA AMENDMENT to add: | |
| |E. Continuation of US-101 Corridor Study Steering Committee process. | |
| |BERNSON AMENDMENT: Under no circumstances do we back off for the need of improving these Corridors | |
| |with additional capacity, as well as the off-ramp that was proposed in the initial stage. | |
|06/26/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/BURKE MOTION directing staff to report back in 60 days on a |Planning |
| |comprehensive rail program which prioritizes MTA’s next phase of rail projects and include an | |
| |indication of the possibility of alternative technologies with comparative costs. | |
|06/26/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to: |Construction |
| |A. an increase to the life of the project budget for Project 800115, Universal City Site Enhancements| |
| |Project, from $3,355,090 to $6,970,790 and amend the FY04 Capital Budget to authorize an FY04 | |
| |expenditure of $3,615,700, an increase of $1,092,700, for additional site and traffic improvements | |
| |and related design, construction management, MTA Project Administration and Third Party | |
| |Administration costs as described in Recommendations B and C below; | |
| |B. negotiation and execution of Contract Modification No. 12 to Contract No. C0324, Universal City | |
| |Station Site Improvements, with Brutoco Engineering and Construction, Inc. (BEC), to pay for the | |
| |widening of Lankershim Boulevard at Campo de Cahuenga City Park, in an amount not to exceed | |
| |$1,400,000; and | |
| |C. an increase in contract authorization for Contract Modifications to Contract C0324, Universal City| |
| |Station Site Improvements to fund both Recommendations B above and potential contract modifications | |
| |of $780,000 for a total delegated staff authority amount of $2,180,000, increasing the current | |
| |contract authorization from $2,621,190 to $4,801,190. | |
| |YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT: that the proposed budget increase of $3,615,700 for the Universal City Site | |
| |Enhancements project be reduced to $1,935,000 and allocated as follows: $1,400,000 for all | |
| |construction activities related to the Lankershim Boulevard widening at Campo de Cahuenga; $215,000 | |
| |for utility/force accounts; no more than 10% of the construction costs to fund professional staff | |
| |services; and $180,000 for project contingency. | |
|06/26/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HAHN MOTION to approve color schemes and referred graphics to Committees. |Branding |
|06/26/03 |BOARD APPROVED ACTION authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate a cost neutral Scope of |Planning |
| |Work change to Contract No. PS-4340-0667 with the consultant Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas| |
| |(PBQD) for the I-710 Major Corridor Study to accommodate the MTA May 2003 Board action. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED REVISED FASANA MOTION to include for staff to return to Board with proposal and cost | |
| |estimate to evaluate financial, economic, and environmental impacts of expansion of the Ports of Los | |
| |Angeles and Long beach on the Los Angeles County region, and determine various corridors for goods | |
| |movement that include routes 5, 10, 57, 60, 91, 110, 138, 605, and 210 in addition to the 710; and | |
| |that staff is to take a “systems approach to solving the goods movement problem.” | |
|07/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION – to |Eastside |
| |A. and certified the Modified Initial Study/Addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact | |
| |Statement/Supplemental |mpact Report (SEIS/SEIR) for the Eastside Corridor; | |
| |B. project enhancements not previously included in the Final SEIS/SEIR; and | |
| |C. filing of Notice of Determination of the Modified Initial Study Addendum with the Los Angeles | |
| |County Clerk and State Clearinghouse. | |
| |APPROVED MOLINA AMENDMENT: to include in mitigation measures assurance that parking at the | |
| |Pomona/Atlantic Park-N Ride will be free of charge for transit users. | |
|07/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to: |Planning |
| |A. award five-year multiple agreements under Contract Number PS-4310-1268 for the Countywide Planning| |
| |and Development Division with contractors recommended to provide planning related services on smaller| |
| |scale planning, architectural and engineering and non-architectural and engineering projects for an | |
| |amount not exceed $6 million effective August 1, 2003; and | |
| |B. execute Task Orders under the individual Bench Contracts for up to $500,000 per contract. | |
| |BURKE AMENDMENT: direct Staff to come back in 6 months with expansion of consultant list. | |
|07/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that 11% as the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) |DBE |
| |Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Annual Overall Goal for Federal Fiscal Year 2004 (FFY04). | |
| |MOLINA AMENDMENT: that this Board instruct the CEO and the Staff to examine the procurement process | |
| |and develop recommendations and written procedures on how to implement a SMALL BUSINESS TECHNICAL | |
| |PARTICIPATION INITIATIVE in an effort to ensure small businesses are included in a wide variety of | |
| |technical work. Staff is to report back to the Board with their recommendations and implementation | |
| |plan in January 2004. | |
|07/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YOH AND O’CONNOR MOTION adopting |Parking |
| |A. the MTA Parking Policy; | |
| |B. authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to implement Pay for Parking at MTA parking facilities | |
| |system wide, generally modeled upon the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s (BART) “Pay | |
| |for Parking" system; and | |
| |C. working with affected patrons and communities regarding the number of spaces to be reserved at | |
| |each location, mitigation of any potential spill over effects, and other issues. | |
| |DIRECTOR YOH AMENDMENT: Section 4 of Parking Policy: Assess existing and proposed new services such | |
| |as Metro Rapid Bus to determine access parking needs. Recommend cost-effective methods to increase | |
| |parking supply or improve alternative access modes where needed to accommodate existing or encourage | |
| |new riders using the methods described in this policy. | |
| |DIRECTOR O’CONNOR AMENDMENT: Section 2di - Re-Stripe the Current Lot: Gains of 5-15% more parking | |
| |can often be achieved with a re-stripe Consider the increase in vehicle size including SUVs in any | |
| |re-stripping plans that considers trends in vehicle sizes. | |
| |Delete ii under Section 5b. | |
|07/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS YOH/PROO MOTION that the Chief Executive Officer direct staff to evaluate |UFS |
| |the utilization of UFS smart card readers at the rear door of MTA buses. This evaluation should | |
| |include costs and benefits, reliability of the technology and, a potential phase-in plan. This | |
| |evaluation should also consider any other relevant issues. Staff should return to the Operations | |
| |Committee with a report and recommendation within 60 or 90 days. | |
|07/24/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION that the City of Pasadena’s request to rename Metro Gold Line |Naming |
| |Stations as follows: | |
| |From To | |
| |Del Mar Station Del Mar Station | |
| |Memorial Park Station Old Pasadena/Civic Center Station | |
| |Lake Station Lake Avenue Station | |
| |Allen Station Allen Station/College Station | |
| |Sierra Madre Villa East Pasadena Station | |
|08/28/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR PROO MOTION – to adopt the 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan for Los |SRTP |
| |Angeles County with revisions; and revise the fifth bullet for page 23 to read examine in | |
| |consultation with freight industry representatives including shippers, ports, and affected local | |
| |jurisdictions, freight movement strategies to reduce congestion on key freeways, such as the I-710 | |
| |during peak commute periods. Develop recommendations, which address local, state, or federal | |
| |regulatory changes that would be necessary for implementation. | |
|08/28/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ANTONOVICH MOTION directing staff to explore revenue owed to MT A from the |Revenue |
| |City of Los Angeles and report back on options available to lease to others. | |
|09/25/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION to execute Change Order No. 58 to Contract No. HII00, Union |Rules |
| |Switch & Signal, Inc., Automatic Train Control, for an amount not to exceed $1,900,000 to provide | |
| |compensation for delays and inefficiencies, increasing the total contract value from $60,723,743 to | |
| |$62,623,743; and an increase in the Authorization for Expenditure (AFE) to provide funding for Change| |
| |Order No. 58 and for pending changes that are within the Board-delegated authority in the amount of | |
| |$112 943, increasing the current AFE from $62,407,800 to $62,520,743. | |
| |AND that in future board reports for change orders, a section be added showing impact on other | |
| |contracts. | |
|09/25/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HAHN MOTION to adopt the MTA Transit Service Policy and to carry over Section|Transit Service |
| |1. 1 (Hub and Spoke System), which will supersede all previous MTA Board adopted service policies. | |
|09/25/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to enter into an |Joint Development |
| |Exchange Agreement with RAD Jefferson, LLC (the Developer), and all other agreements required to | |
| |implement the exchange of MTA's Venice facility for acquisition and development of the larger | |
| |replacement facility in the City of Los Angeles. | |
| |AMENDMENT: that the Board approve the Development Exchange Agreements subject to the following | |
| |conditions: | |
| |MTA staff, and the developer will continue to work closely with the community throughout the EIR | |
| |process and potential construction, | |
| |MTA staff will assemble and convene a Design Review committee made up of representatives from Blair | |
| |Hills, Cameo Woods and East Culver City as well as representatives from the neighboring commercial | |
| |community, | |
| |Traffic impacts identified through the EIR must be fully mitigated, including (but not limited to) | |
| |MTA buses not in service must stay off La Cienega south of Jefferson, and off of Rodeo Road between | |
| |La Cienega and Jefferson during peak periods. | |
| |MTA buses shall further avoid using Rodeo Road, west of La Cienega, during the hours from 9:00 PM to | |
| |7:00 AM Noise Mitigations must be put in place to ensure that the facility does not increase the | |
| |ambient noise levels identified during the EIR in the neighboring residential areas, particularly | |
| |Cameo Woods, Blair Hills, Baldwin Gardens, and East Culver City especially between the hours of 9:00 | |
| |PM and 7:00 AM. | |
| |Additionally, noise mitigations shall be included to prevent and avoid loud impact noises during | |
| |those periods, as well. | |
| |Noise mitigations shall also be included dealing specifically with noise associated with employees | |
| |and cars entering and leaving the parking facility in the late night and early morning hours | |
| |especially during the change of shift periods. | |
|09/25/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION to carry over paragraph B-2, two-part financing proposal for |Funding |
| |Deferred Los Angeles County State Transportation Improvement Program Projects as follows: | |
| |A. approving amended programming that utilizes Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bond | |
| |proceeds in the amount of $36.4 million for the Route 14 Carpool Lane from Pearblossom Highway to | |
| |Avenue P-8; and | |
| |B. for the 29 transportation improvement projects AUTHORIZE the Chief Executive Officer to propose to| |
| |the California Transportation Commission (CTC) a $248. 5 million financing plan consisting of the | |
| |following two parts: | |
| |1. A GARVEE bond of $207, 0 million for up to 16 eligible Los Angeles County right -of-way and | |
| |construction projects (including the new programming); and | |
| |CARRIED OVER: | |
| |2. an advance of $41.5 million in Proposition C 250/0 funds for up to 13 Los Angeles County State | |
| |Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects, which is to be repaid with replacement project(s)| |
| |in future year(s) through the CTC's AB 3090 process. | |
|09/25/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS PROO/KNABE revised freight movement motion that MTA authorize the Chief | |
| |Executive Officer to provide the necessary leadership in the area of freight movement planning by | |
| |ensuring a coordinated countywide approach to developing consistent freight and passenger movement | |
| |policy, analyzing systemic needs, assessing freight movement strategies, identifying priorities for | |
| |project development, seeking additional innovative revenue sources, and providing viable | |
| |recommendations to support the economic vitality of the county s residents and businesses. | |
| |Direct the Chief Executive Officer to ensure the freight planning process involves consultation with | |
| |public and private stakeholders, including trucking companies ports, local jurisdictions, railroads | |
| |and commuter rails, shippers, and other community groups to develop recommendations that would | |
| |address the need for accommodating the projected freight movement growth its impacts to the | |
| |transportation network, and impacts on Los Angeles communities. | |
| |Coordinate its work with federal, state, regional, and local transportation agency partners to | |
| |develop a comprehensive and cohesive freight movement policy and plan for the Los Angeles County. | |
| |Direct the Chief Executive Officer to report back in 90 days with a comprehensive Work Plan to | |
| |address the freight management and funding strategies. | |
|09/26/03 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR MOLINA |Planning |
| |Should additional Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding become available through | |
| |TEA-21 Reauthorization, MTA will consider specifying a percentage for funding System Preservation | |
| |(Rehabilitation, Resurfacing, Reconstruction – 3R) work along with other potential uses for these | |
| |funds and create an incentive program to encourage the cities to participate and report back to the | |
| |Board. | |
|10/15/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR LABONGE MOTION to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to |Strike |
| |award any contract necessary to procure services related to a work stoppage by MTA employees, | |
| |including, but not limited to, services to protect MTA Property or to communicate with MTA employees | |
| |or the public and to include some form of rebate, proration or reimbursement for current MTA pass | |
| |holders. | |
| |This delegation of authority shall expire on December 31, 2003, unless extended by further action of | |
| |the Board of Directors. | |
|12/04/03 |BOARD APPROVED reaffirmation of commitment to the project financial plan for the Metro Gold Line |Funding |
| |Eastside Extension (MGLEE), MTA's highest regional transit corridor project priority, to further | |
| |support the execution of the federal full funding grant agreement (FFGA) and to improve future | |
| |federal funding allocations. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION that the Board direct the CEO to develop a fiscal contingency | |
| |plan to ensure the timely completion of the Gold Line Eastside Extension until such time that federal| |
| |appropriations are more secure. Allocations to a contingency fund should include the $10M short range| |
| |transportation allocation to the Gold Line Extension to Claremont that has yet to be drawn down. | |
| |Further that the CEO be directed to examine any other potential sources of funds from lower priority | |
| |projects and recommend any further reallocations of funds to this Gold Line Eastside Extension | |
| |contingency fund. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARIAGOSA AMENDMENT that allocations to the contingency fund also should | |
| |include the remaining FY03 and FY04 MTA contributions to the Alameda Corridor East project and that | |
| |staff report back to the Board on any sources of funding that could be dedicated to the Gold Line | |
| |Eastside Project. | |
|12/04/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) work with Human |Human Resources |
| |Resources and County Counsel to prepare a salary structure that provides equity among positions, to | |
| |develop a policy that would require budget authorization for positions and Board approval for the | |
| |creation of new positions; and | |
| |Further, that the Chief Executive Officer develop comprehensive job descriptions for all | |
| |non-represented positions in the agency, salary scales commensurate with those positions, and a | |
| |policy governing other benefits such as housing and car allowances. The CEO should report back to the| |
| |Board with this information within 60 days. | |
|12/04/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that in light of MTA's budget situation, the Sector |Service Sector |
| |Governance Council Bylaws be amended to remove cap the annual travel allowance provision for Sector | |
| |Councilmembers at $7,500; and | |
| |Further, that MTA staff return in 60 days with a report on the costs associated with the sectors and | |
| |sector governance councils and recommendations on further changes to the bylaws that will help | |
| |streamline these costs. | |
|12/04/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR HAHN MOTION that the Board direct MTA staff to report back in 60 days on the |Design |
| |feasibility of the inclusion of sustainable building practices into the design of Division 6, and for| |
| |subsequent MTA developments of this magnitude including, but not limited to such measures as: | |
| |A. LEED certification for the design of the main building structure at the site; | |
| |B. The installation of photovoltaic (solar) panels for future energy savings. | |
| |1. Consider their use as mechanisms to provide shade for parked buses and/or employee vehicles. | |
| |2. Determine how much DWP rebates would be able to offset the installation costs; and | |
| |C. The implementation of Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) in order to reduce the amount | |
| |of, and improve the quality of, runoff into the City storm drain system, which drains into Ballona | |
| |Creek, and subsequently to the Santa Monica Bay. | |
| |1. Consider options for on-site water retention and reuse. | |
|12/04/03 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that Director Molina’s motion be amended as follows: |Funding |
| |Allocations to the Contingency Fund also should include the remaining Fiscal Year 03 and Fiscal Year | |
| |04 MTA contribution to the Alameda Corridor East project; and | |
| |I FURTHER MOVE that staff undertake any further reallocations of programmed funds necessary to insure| |
| |that appropriate categories of reallocated monies are dedicated to the Gold Line Eastside Extension | |
| |Contingency Fund. | |
|12/04/03 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY that the CEO work with Human Resources and County |Human Resources |
| |Counsel to prepare a salary structure that provides equity among positions, to develop a policy that | |
| |would require budget authorization for positions and Board approval for the creation of new | |
| |positions. | |
| |I FURTHER MOVE that the CEO develop comprehensive job descriptions for all non-represented positions | |
| |in the agency, salary scales commensurate with those positions, and a policy governing other benefits| |
| |such as housing and car allowances. The CEO should report back to the Board with this information | |
| |within 60 days. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS KNABE/PROO MOTION to release MTA comments, as amended, on the Southern | |
| |California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan. | |
| |AND AMENDED the MTA' s preliminary comments on SCAG' s Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) | |
| |in its communiqué dated January 22 2004 to Mark Pisano, Executive Director of SCAG, regarding the | |
| |Desmond Bridge, page 2, number 8 to read as follows; and submit amendments to SCAG prior to the | |
| |ending of the public comment period of February 9, 2004: | |
| |The RTP must commit to fully funding all MTA priorities identified in the LRTP and SRTP before | |
| |funding non- MTA priorities in Los Angeles County. | |
| |For example, the Gerald Desmond bridge replacement is listed in the RTP as a baseline, funded | |
| |project. Although this project is in the FTIP and RTIP for preliminary engineering (funded with | |
| |federal discretionary funds), it has not been programmed in the TIP or included in the MTA' s LRTP | |
| |for construction, we, therefore, request that this project be considered as part of: | |
| |the RTP Constrained plan (with funding from new or innovative sources that do not impact LRTP funds | |
| |or project commitments); or | |
| |the RTP Unconstrained Plan so that this project can be further considered in the regional planning | |
| |process as new or innovative funding mechanisms are identified. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION directing staff to ensure that if new or innovative | |
| |funding is made available for the Gerald Desmond Bridge, that any Memorandums of Understanding for | |
| |the project incorporate language to ensure that Long Range Transportation Plan projects or funds are | |
| |not adversely impacted. | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR ROBERTS MOTION that MTA Staff be directed to provide comments to SCAG | |
| |regarding their draft RTP requesting SCAG to resolve inconsistencies between the MTA LRTP and SCAG' s| |
| |RTP and that our legislative program should communicate MTA' s funding priorities. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the San Fernando Valley Metro Rapidway be renamed the|Naming |
| |Orange Line and that all future references to the project reflect this name change. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that as part of the FY04-05 budget process, MTA staff |Budget |
| |develop three cost cutting scenarios for consideration by the MTA Board of Directors as part of its | |
| |budget approval process. These scenarios would represent across-the-board cuts (or their | |
| |equivalents) of at least 5%, 10% and 15% for every MTA department. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS VILLARAIGOSA/MOLINA/ YAROSLAKVSY MOTION that the MTA Board direct the Chief |Funding |
| |Executive Officer to release the funds for the Alameda Corridor East project that were temporarily | |
| |held in the Gold Line Eastside Extension Contingency fund by the Board' s action of December 1, 2003 | |
| |rescind the Board action taken at the December 4, 2003 meeting relative to the Alameda Corridor East | |
| |Project. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS KNABE/MOLINA/PROO MOTION that MTA staff report back to the Planning and | |
| |Programming Committee in February 2004 with a Status Report of projects on the MTA Proposed AB 3090 | |
| |Project List deferred in December 2003. | |
| |As part of this Status Report, staff identifies projects that are ready to go and/or in jeopardy of | |
| |losing matching funds, and develop a funding strategy for implementation that safeguards projects | |
| |from losing current local, state and federal earmarks. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the MTA Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to |Funding |
| |release the funds for the Alameda Corridor East project that were temporarily held in the Gold Line | |
| |eastside Extension Contingency fund by the Board’s action of December 4, 2003. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY that as part of the FY04-05 budget process, MTA staff |Budget |
| |develop three cost cutting scenarios for consideration by the MTA Board of Directors as part of its | |
| |budget approval process. These scenarios would represent across-the-board cuts (or their | |
| |equivalents) of at least 5%, 10%, and 15% for every MTA department. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED REVISIONS AS AMENDED BY DIRECTORS KNABE, PROO, VILLARAIGOSA, AND ROBERTS approved for | LRTP |
| |release MTA comments, as amended, on the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) Draft| |
| |2004 Regional Transportation Plan. | |
| |KNABE/PROO AMENDMENT amend the MTA’s preliminary comments on SCAG’s Draft 2004 Regional | |
| |Transportation Plan (RTP) in its communiqué dated January 22, 2004 to mark Pisano, Executive Director| |
| |of SCAG, regarding the Desmond Bridge, page 2, number 8 to read as follows; and submit amendments to | |
| |SCAG prior to the ending of the public comment period of February 9, 2004: | |
| |The RTP must commit to fully funding all MTA priorities identified in the LRTP and SRTP before | |
| |funding non-MTA priorities in Los Angeles County. For example, the Gerald Desmond bridge replacement| |
| |is listed in the RTP as a baseline, funded project. Although this project is in the FTIP and RTIP | |
| |for preliminary engineering (funded with federal discretionary funds), it has not been programmed in | |
| |the TIP or included in the MTA’s LRTP for construction, we, therefore, request that this project be | |
| |considered as part of | |
| |the RTP Constrained Plan (with funding from new or innovative sources that do not impact LRTP funds | |
| |or project commitments); or | |
| |the RTP Unconstrained Plan so that this project can be further considered in the regional planning | |
| |process as new or innovative funding mechanisms are identified. | |
| | | |
| |VILLARAIGOSA AMENDMENT direct staff to ensure that if new or innovative funding is made available for| |
| |the Gerald Desmond Bridge, that any Memorandums of Understanding for the project incorporate language| |
| |to ensure that Long Range Transportation Plan projects or funds are not adversely impacted. | |
| |APPROVED ROBERTS MOTION that MTA staff be directed to provide comments to SCAG regarding their Draft | |
| |RTP requesting SCAG to resolve inconsistencies between the MTA LRTP and SCAG’s RTP and that our | |
| |legislative program should communicate MTA’s funding priorities. | |
|01/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS VILLARAIGOSA AND MOLINA AS AMENDED BY YAROSLAVSKY that the MTA |Funding |
| |Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to release the funds for the Alameda Corridor East Project | |
| |that were temporarily held in the Gold Line Eastside Extension Contingency fund by the Board’s action| |
| |of December 4, 2003 rescind the Board action taken at the December 4, 2003 meeting relative to the | |
| |Alameda Corridor East Project. | |
|02/23/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION |Funding |
| |A. adopting the resolution certifying to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) | |
| |that the Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the "highest priority" for | |
| |transportation funding by the MTA and other agencies in Los Angeles County; | |
| |B. approving a $1.79 billion amendment to schedule project funding and add projects (recommendations | |
| |B-3 and B-4) to the 2004 County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as follows: | |
| |1. Programming actions totaling $786. 3 million that implement the 2003 Short Range Transportation | |
| |Plan (SRTP) for Los Angeles County; | |
| |2. The 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Los Angeles County totaling $728. 3 | |
| |million, including the designation of $110.1 million in replacement project funding for the Route 10 | |
| |Carpool Lane project from Route 605 to Puente Avenue; | |
| |3. Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bond financing totaling $199.5 million for the | |
| |Interstate 5/Carmenita Road Interchange (right-of-way and construction) and the Route Carpool Lane | |
| |project from Pearblossom to Avenue P-8 (construction); and | |
| |4. Programming of $74.2 million in regional funds potentially made available by prior GARVEE bonds to| |
| |the Route 5/Route 14 Connector project. | |
| |C. reprogramming $81.9 million of 2002 STIP projects to receive Proposition C 10% and Proposition C | |
| |25% funds (cash or bonds) instead; | |
| |D. approving up to $73.6 million of regional Proposition C 10% and Proposition C 25% funds (cash or | |
| |bonds) in FY 2005 for AB 3090 replacement project financing that will be used for the ready-to-go | |
| |2004 STIP projects; and | |
| |E. approving programming of AB 3090 replacement project funding received from Recommendation D, to | |
| |the $195. 6 million in non-Caltrans Call for Projects deferrals. | |
| |AMENDMENT: In all appropriate documents related to Item #6, staff substitute the Exposition LRT | |
| |project for the Mid-City Wilshire transit corridor (BRT) project to reflect the Exposition project as| |
| |our next highest transit priority after the Eastside. This switch will preserve both projects but | |
| |will ensure that the Exposition project remains on schedule as the Agency s next highest transit | |
| |priority. | |
|02/23/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION to adopt the Conceptual Joint Development Guidelines for |Joint Development |
| |the MTA' s Metro Gold Line First/Boyle, First/Soto, First/Lorena, and Cesar Chaves/Soto joint | |
| |development sites. | |
| |AND to include housing in the development guidelines as acceptable land uses for the First/Lorena and| |
| |First/Soto station area properties. | |
|02/23/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS FASANA/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to delete item B: |UFS |
| |A. staff to return to the Board within 30 days with their completed analysis on the cost and | |
| |administrative structure to implement, operate and maintain a Regional UFS Clearinghouse; | |
| |the Board allocate necessary regional funding for the purchase and acquisition of equipment | |
| |staff return to the Operations Committee on a monthly basis to report on the status of the | |
| |procurement, cost and schedule to complete this final segment of the UFS regional program until it is| |
| |fully operational. | |
|02/26/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY |STIP |
| |adopting the resolution certifying to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) that | |
| |the Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) is the “highest priority” for | |
| |transportation funding by the MTA and other agencies in Los Angeles County; | |
| |approving a $1.79 billion amendment to schedule project funding and add projects (recommendations B-3| |
| |and B-4) to the 2004 County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as follows: | |
| |Programming actions totaling $786.3 million that implement the 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan | |
| |(SRTP) for Los Angeles County; | |
| |The 2004 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) for Los Angeles County totaling $728.3 | |
| |million, including the designation of $110.1 million in replacement project funding for the Route 10 | |
| |carpool Lane project from Route 605 to Puente Avenue; | |
| |Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bond financing totaling $199.5 million for the Interstate| |
| |5/Carmenita Road Interchange (right-of-way and construction) and the Route 14 Carpool Lane project | |
| |from Pearblossom to Avenue P-8 (construction); and | |
| |Programming of $74.2 million in regional funds potentially made available by prior GARVEE bonds to | |
| |the Route 5/Route 14 Connector project. | |
| |reprogramming $81.9 million of 2002 STIP projects to receive Proposition C 10% and Proposition C 25% | |
| |funds (cash or bonds) instead; | |
| |approving up to $73.6 million of regional Proposition C 10% abd Proposition C 25% funds (cash or | |
| |bonds) in FY 2005 for AB 3090 replacement project financing that will be used for the ready-to-go | |
| |2004 STIP projects; and | |
| |approving programming of AB 3090 replacement project funding received from Recommendation D, to the | |
| |$195.6 million in non-Caltrans Call for Projects deferrals. | |
| |AMENDMENT: In all appropriate documents related to Item #6, staff substitute the Exposition LRT | |
| |project for the Mid-City Wilshire transit corridor (BRT) project to reflect the Exposition project as| |
| |our next highest transit priority after the Eastside. This switch will preserve both projects but | |
| |will ensure that the Exposition project remains on the schedule as the Agency’s next highest transit | |
| |priority. | |
|03/25/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION |Joint Development |
| |A. holding a public hearing on the proposed resolution of necessity for the acquisition of assessor | |
| |Parcel Nos. 5147-035-004, 005 , 006, 007, and 008 for the Division 1 land acquisition and expansion | |
| |project; and | |
| |B. adopting the Resolution of Necessity authorizing the commencement an eminent domain action to | |
| |acquire the subject real property. | |
| |AND that Staff negotiate with appropriate property owners for the development of adequate, mutually | |
| |agreeable parking. | |
|03/25/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION to include a resolution urging use of GARVEE bond |Funding |
| |financing: | |
| |adoption of an alternative to the 2004 Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) | |
| |that does not rely on Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds; | |
| |receiving and filing of programming changes due to GARVEE bond debt service interest rate | |
| |recalculations; and | |
| |receiving and filing of technical amendments to the 2004 Los Angeles County TI P requested by | |
| |Caltrans. | |
| |AND | |
| |the MTA strongly urges the CTC to approve the GARVEE bond alternative for the 2004 Los Angeles County| |
| |TI P instead of the Non-GARVEE bond alternative, which is submitted under protest; | |
| |the MTA agrees to repay interest on GARVEE bonds from its County Share of the State TIP, provided | |
| |that the State of California manages the bond proceeds in an efficient manner; and | |
| |the MTA remains committed to GARVEE bond financing to expedite the 1-5/Carmenita, Route 14 , Route | |
| |5/14 projects , Route 5 Soundwalls from Route 118 to Route 14, and other regionally significant | |
| |projects. | |
|03/25/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS ANTONOVICH/ROBERTS/ VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the Board support the High | |
| |Speed Rail Antelope Valley Alignment and the Palmdale Station; and forward a copy of the motion to | |
| |the High Speed Rail Authority. | |
|04/12/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the Board direct the CEO and staff to |Funding |
| |re-examine the “Prop C 40% discretionary” funding commitments as well as other discretionary funding | |
| |sources in an effort to continue funding the Immediate Needs Program and report back with alternative| |
| |funding proposals for Immediate Needs at the next Board Budget Workshop and Budget presentation; and | |
| |to include a comprehensive review of the Immediate Needs Program in terms of the possibility of local| |
| |funding, how monies are disbursed, if it has ever been audited, are we getting a return on our | |
| |investment, and is there a better way. | |
|04/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that Metro administration and staff report to the Board | |
| |of Directors in one month regarding policies, strategies and implementation recommendations for | |
| |enabling wider participation and management of local, emerging, and DBE investment banking and | |
| |financial firms in Metro’s financing activities. | |
|04/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to award a 4-year 8-month Contract No. |Legislative Program |
| |PS0471-301-3 to Van Scoyoc, Associates, Inc. for federal legislative advocacy services for an amount | |
| |not to exceed $1,960,000 inclusive of 3 one-year options beginning May 1, 2004 and staff to return to| |
| |the Board for each of the option years. | |
|04/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR MOLINA MOTION |Eastside Extension |
| |A. reaffirming the Chief Executive Officer s authority to execute Contract C0803 , Tunnel Stations, | |
| |Trackwork, and Systems for the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension project and to exercise the options| |
| |within the contract with the technically acceptable, lowest- priced , responsive and responsible | |
| |bidder for design and construction; and | |
| |B. authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute Contract Modifications and establish a Contract| |
| |Authorization for Modifications in the amount of $42 031,430 which is equal to 7% of the contract | |
| |award value, subject to reporting and authority approval based upon individual contract modification | |
| |dollar limitations set forth. | |
| |AND | |
| |I therefore move that this Board direct staff to implement the following items, as prioritized below,| |
| |as funding from project contingency becomes available. | |
| |Traction power substations | |
| |200 space parking structure at Atlantic and Pomona | |
| |Urban design elements next to each station, portal and power substations | |
| |Ticket vending machines | |
| |I further move that this Board direct staff to attempt to secure a price for each of these items from| |
| |the lowest bidder before the contract is signed. | |
|05/27/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR FASANA MOTION to delete Item #3, bylaw Article V, meetings, which would |Service Sector |
| |remain unchanged; and implement cost savings as identified by staff: | |
| |A. receiving and filing the report on costs associated with the Sector Governance Councils; and | |
| |B. modifying the Service Sector Governance Council Bylaws and Policy to help streamline costs as | |
| |follows: | |
| |1. Bylaw Article II. Membership. Paragraph E Code of Conduct – add language to clarify that Sector | |
| |Governance Council Members have no individual authority over MTA Operations and must act only through| |
| |the Governance Council of which they are a member. | |
| |2. Bylaw Article II. Membership. Paragraph I Removal/Replacement – add language to allow the MTA | |
| |Board to remove or replace a Service Sector Council member by a majority vote. This will become | |
| |effective immediately. | |
| |3. Bylaw Article V. Meetings. Paragraph B. Regular Meetings add language to reflect that Sector | |
| |Governance Councils shall meet four six times a year inclusive of public hearings or be required to | |
| |stay within the annual budget allotment for six meetings, except for emergency situations in which a | |
| |meeting is necessitated. This will become effective May 31, 2004. | |
| |4. Bylaw Article VI. Amendments - clarify language that allows the MTA Board to amend the bylaws by | |
| |simple majority vote. This will become effective immediately. | |
| |5. Policy Section 2. Travel - replace existing language and specify an annual travel allowance cap of| |
| |$3,500 $7,500 per year per Sector for all five Governance Councils on travel allowance provisions for| |
| |Council members. The policy will include language requiring Service Sector Council members to adhere | |
| |to the provisions of MTA Travel Policy, FIN#14. | |
|05/27/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION that the passage of this item does not prejudice any other |Funding |
| |options for funding the immediate needs program: | |
| |A. execute Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Modification No. 3 to MOU No. TCP2610LASD to provide | |
| |funding for FY05 transit community policing services for an amount not to exceed $49,791,668 | |
| |$49,054,950 for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, and increasing the total contract | |
| |value from $55,081,812 to $104,876,480 for the period July 1, 200 through June 30, 2005. | |
| |B. add the amount of $500,000 to MOU TCP2610LASD for contingency funding to cover emergency services | |
| |required for heightened security resulting from activities similar to the recent Madrid train | |
| |bombing, revising the total contract value from $55,081,812 to $104,636,762. | |
|06/07/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KNABE/ROBERTS MOTION - that staff develop allocation and administrative |Funding |
| |guidelines to ensure that Prop A funds are programmed for the purpose for which they were allocated, | |
| |including whether this current recommendation went through the requisite process and report back to | |
| |the Board. | |
|06/07/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/ROBERTS/ MOLINA/ VILLARAIGOSA/YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that this Board act |INTP |
| |to restore the entire funding of the Immediate Needs Program for FY ' 05 using “Incentive Program” | |
| |funds (Proposition A Discretionary Funds) under the following conditions: | |
| |That the Administrative Fee for FY '05 shall be limited to 15%; | |
| |In an effort to determine the ongoing viability of the INTP and whether or not the MTA Board should | |
| |continue it's historical commitment to the INTP, the MTA staff shall return to this Board in | |
| |November, 2004 with an updated report on the status of employing all of the provisions listed in the | |
| |2001 Business Plan including but not limited to the following: | |
| |A review and possible revision of the administrative fee; | |
| |A status report on efforts and progress to coordinate and consolidate overlapping functions with | |
| |those agencies previously cited, including dial-a-ride programs throughout the county and other | |
| |efforts to eliminate and reduce duplication, plus | |
| |Efforts to form partnerships to develop coordination with health care and human service agencies, | |
| |including the County’s Interagency Operations Group; and | |
| |Include an assessment of the impact of cancellation of the INTP from the affected agencies; | |
| |A review and recommendations of how to increase the usage of “day passes” (or other fare media) in | |
| |lieu of taxi vouchers; | |
| |A status report and analysis of MTA staff efforts to secure further funding from both federal and | |
| |State agencies to mitigate and obviate the need to use Prop C 40% discretionary funding for Homeland | |
| |Security. | |
| |A status report on other MTA funding sources, other than Prop C 40%, to fund Homeland Security; | |
| |A status report on efforts to identify other MTA funding sources to continue the Immediate Needs | |
| |Transportation program, including seeking assistance from other jurisdictions directly benefiting | |
| |from the Immediate Needs Program. | |
| |DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT that staff reduce the Immediate Needs Program administrative fee to | |
| |10% and use the savings from the reduction to contribute to the program itself. Directed staff to | |
| |work with the two agencies to reduce the administrative burden and report back in October on impact | |
| |of 10% administrative fee. | |
| |DIRECTOR MOLINA AMENDMENT that staff includes review of the use of taxi vouchers instead of Dial- | |
| |Ride, possible unlicensed taxis, and set clear purpose and guidelines for the program. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY MOTION adopting the following position on State Legislation AB |Legislation |
| |712 (Liu) - Would create the Metro Foothills Gold Line Construction Authority with a board structure | |
| |of seven voting members. OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED. | |
| |AMENDED (to include a 5-member board and that MTA remain the sole recipient of federal funds) | |
| |authorized the Chief Executive Officer to work with all interested parties to explore other | |
| |alternatives and develop consensus on AB 712. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA MOTION amending the FY04 budget to appropriate $23.9 million of |Budget |
| |General Fund right-of-way lease revenues to the Enterprise Fund. | |
| |AMENDMENT: Staff to add projections and forecasts to the quarterly reports, provide a monthly status | |
| |report, and reinstate the mid-year budget amendment process. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED LABONGE/FASANA/PROO MOTION that the Board direct MTA staff to work with Southern |Air Quality |
| |California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) staff to explore new opportunities to reduce air quality | |
| |emissions from Metrolink operations and report back to the Board within 90 days on issues and | |
| |potential options. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that staff report to the Operations Committee on the |Signage |
| |feasibility of developing a program that would identify the locations on railroad bridges and tunnels| |
| |that are used by Metro and Metrolink trains with the appropriate aesthetically pleasing logos to | |
| |heighten motorists’ awareness of the various transportation options available in the region, which | |
| |they fund through transportation tax revenues. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that staff report to the Operations Committee on the |Marketing |
| |feasibility of developing a Sunday family day pass. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that staff report to the Operations Committee on the |Rail Operations |
| |feasibility of converting the last car on the Metro Red Line subway to allow bicycles without any | |
| |restrictions. | |
|06/24/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS MOLINA AND VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board rescind its action of |Funding |
| |December 4, 2003, which created a temporary contingency fund for the Eastside Extension of the Gold | |
| |Line. | |
|07/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS BURKE/KNABE MOTION authorizing: |Planning |
| |adoption of the final report of the North County Combined Highway Corridors Study (copies available | |
| |on request from MTA Records Management Center); and | |
| |use of the Study for future updates to the Short Range Transportation Plan (SRTP), Long Range | |
| |Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Regional Transportation plan (RTP) in order to guide future highway | |
| |operation transit development and multi-modal implementation in North Los Angeles County, involving | |
| |1-5, SR- 14 and SR- 138. | |
| |AMENDMENT that the Coastal Corridor effort be presented at the September ' 04 meeting of the Planning| |
| |and Programming Committee, and that staff be directed to work with the South Bay Cities Council of | |
| |Governments toward using the Coastal Corridor program for future updates of the Short Range | |
| |Transportation Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan, and Regional Transportation Plan. | |
|07/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION awarding a fixed price contract to Shared Technologies to |Tele-communications |
| |provide telephone system maintenance and service for a period of seven years, inclusive of two | |
| |two-year options, in the amount of $1,534,489, effective August 1, 2004. | |
| |AMENDMENT that staff report back on the cash flow and financial status of Shared Technologies before | |
| |exercising options. | |
|07/22/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR BURKE MOTION approving the addition of 8 non-represented positions within the|Risk Management |
| |Risk Management Department as follows: | |
| |1 Workers' Compensation Supervisor (Grade K) | |
| |1 Senior Workers' Compensation Analyst (Grade I) | |
| |Workers' Compensation Analysts (Grade H) | |
| |2 Administrative Aides (Claims) (Grade F) | |
| |AMENDMENT: Make every effort to fill these positions from within the Department/agency or with | |
| |displaced employees. | |
|08/26/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS HAHN, BURKE, AND MOLINA, AS AMENDED BY YAROSLAVSKY that the Board |Planning |
| |instruct MTA representatives to meet with LAUSD and members of the community to determine the | |
| |feasibility of building a school on or near the MTA Exposition rail right-of-way in a manner that | |
| |does not jeopardize the Exposition Light rail and report back to the Board at the time the final | |
| |environmental documents are presented to the Board for approval and report back to the Board within | |
| |the next sixty days. | |
|09/23/04 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTORS MOLINA/VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the CEO report back at the October Board |Funding |
| |meeting regarding the availability of funding to reprogram the implementation of the items specified | |
| |above for the Eastside Gold Line in conjunction with the CEO’s ten year financial forecast. | |
| |WE FURTHER MOVE that the CEO also report on the availability of resources that could be programmed | |
| |through the Community Linkages Program to implement the pedestrian improvements as a separate outside| |
| |of the eastside Gold Line project budget. | |
|09/23/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTORS HAHN AND YAROSLAVSKY AUTHORIZING the Chief Executive |Planning |
| |Officer to enter into a six-month Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Santa Fe Yards, LLC for | |
| |the development of approximately 4.0 acres of Metro-owned properties located at the Metro Red | |
| |Line/Santa Fe Yards Maintenance of Way facility. | |
| |HAHN AND YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT to include a study to review the feasibility of designing and | |
| |constructing a Red Line station adjacent to Division 20 and the 4th Street bridge as part of the | |
| |Exclusive Negotiation Agreement. Staff must require the developer to fund the feasibility study as | |
| |well as the construction of the station. | |
|09/23/04 |BOARD APPROVED AS AMENDED BY DIRECTORS MOLINA AND VILLARAIGOSA |STIP |
| |approving acceleration if deferred transportation programs using $1,314.2 million Proposition C 25% | |
| |cash and planned borrowing to restore schedules approved by the MTA Board of Directors, advance | |
| |mobility in Los Angeles County, and help Southern California meet air quality conformity requirements| |
| |of the Federal Clean Air Act. With this action, the MTA will strategically utilize planned borrowing| |
| |to advance the committed Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in its entirety | |
| |and amend that program to include the following $1,314.2 million in additional project funding: | |
| |I-5 Carpool Lane from Route 134 to Route 170: $254.2 million | |
| |Exposition Light rail Transit Extension to Culver City: $240.9 million | |
| |I-5 Carpool lane from Route 91 to Route 605: $541.4 million | |
| |Alameda Corridor East (Advance 17% from Phase II to Phase I): $85.0 million | |
| |Deferred Call for Projects (includes I-5 / Route 14 Direct Connenction): $192.7 million | |
| |Deferring new programming in FY 2010 and FY 2011 by suspending the 2005 Call for Projects. But work | |
| |to secure funding for a possible2007 Call for Projects for FY 2010 and FY 2011. | |
| |MOLINA AND VILLARAIGOSA AMENDMENT that the CEO report back at the October Board meeting regarding the| |
| |availability of funding to reprogram the implementation of delayed projects for the Eastside Gold | |
| |Line in conjunction with the CEO’s ten year financial forecast; and | |
| |WE FURTHER move that the CEO also report on the availability of resources that could be programmed | |
| |through the Community Linkages program to implement the pedestrian improvements as a separate project| |
| |outside of the Eastside Gold Line Project. | |
|10/28/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR MOLINA that the Board direct MTA staff to work with Metrolink Board|Metrolink |
| |members and staff to identify a plan that would increase inspections of the commuter rail lines using| |
| |ultrasonic technology and other techniques that would identify fatigued rail tracks and report back | |
| |to the Board within 30 days. | |
| |I FURTHER MOVE, that the Board direct County Counsel to request the commercial rail operators and the| |
| |National transportation Safety Board to submit to the Board a safety plan and status report on their | |
| |inspection of railroad tracks in Los Angeles County. | |
|12/13/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS BURKE AND YAROSLAVSKY that a final reconciliation budget be |Budget |
| |annually presented to the MTA Board for approval before the final budget book is published. | |
|12/13/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS BURKE AND YAROSLAVSKY that this Board instruct the Inspector |Human Resources |
| |General to initiate a confidential investigation into the following: | |
| |1. Review of all personnel files for individuals laid off since January 2002 to determine: | |
| |If their position numbers, classifications have been re-used or changed and the subsequently created | |
| |new positions have been re-filled? Were any of the “re-filled” positions given to laid-off | |
| |employees? | |
| |What actions did the HR Department take to inform employees of new opportunities available within MTA| |
| |for up to one year after their separations? | |
| |What re-training activities were made available to provide employees with skills for jobs within | |
| |other departments in MTA? What re-training opportunities were made available to laid-off employees? | |
| |2. Determine the number of positions abolished; | |
| |the number of new positions created, | |
| |how many of the new positions created involved laid off employees, and | |
| |how many of the new positions required bringing in personnel from other transit agencies? | |
| |3. In how many cases where personnel were brought into the agency could a laid off employee have | |
| |been retrained for the job; and, | |
| |In how many cases were laid off employees interviewed or even contacted about job availability? | |
| |4. Provide the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) data, by category, by year as well as cumulative | |
| |data in each grouping and note changes. | |
| |5. The Inspector General shall report back to the full Board at the April 2005 meeting on the status| |
| |and results of his investigation. | |
|12/13/04 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR HAHN AS AMENDED BY FASANA that the MTA Board of Directors direct |Operations |
| |staff to: | |
| |allow MTA to implement this Rapid Bus line in its truncated form, stopping at Hollywood and Vine for | |
| |now; | |
| |return to the February Operations Committee with a recommendation on how to implement Rapid Bus | |
| |Service south on Fairfax to the West L.A. Transit Center as originally planned; and | |
| |add the implementation of the Fairfax Rapid service into the service change for June 2005. | |
| |FASANA AMENDMENT to refer to Service Sectors before the item comes back to the Board. | |
|01/27/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTORS MOLINA AND BURKE MOTION: |I-710 |
| |adopting the Draft Final Report on the I-710 Major Corridor Study between the Ports of Los | |
| |Angeles/Long Beach and the SR-60 Pomona Freeway; and | |
| |authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to proceed with the preparation of a scope of work and | |
| |funding plan that will include funding commitments from multiple partners for the environmental phase| |
| |of the project pursuant to the Major Corridor Study’s Locally Preferred Strategy and use input from | |
| |the I-710 Community Advisory Committees in the environmental scoping process. The scope of work | |
| |should also include assessment of impacts to the I-710/SR-60 interchange and evaluation of | |
| |alternative project delivery methods. | |
| |MOLINA AND BURKE MOTION that the Board: | |
| |Adopt the Draft Final Report on the I-710 Major Corridor Study. | |
| |Direct MTA staff to report back to the Board with the results of the East Los Angeles mini-study and | |
| |that the results be included into the locally preferred strategy prior to initiating scoping for the | |
| |EIR/EIS. | |
| |Receive the Tier II report to be accepted and utilized as pre-scoping guidance for the EIR/EIS. | |
| |Direct the MTA CEO, with the assistance of our state and federal advocates, to work with the | |
| |appropriate governmental and non-governmental agencies to form a multi-jurisdictional entity to | |
| |coordinate the appropriate aspects of the project, including identification of a funding plan with | |
| |funding sources from multiple partners. | |
|01/27/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR HAHN that the LACMTA Board of Directors direct Staff to immediately|Operations |
| |take the following actions: | |
| |Conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of all MTA Rail lines and determine what, if any, | |
| |additional safety measures should be put into place to protect rail passengers, automobiles and | |
| |pedestrians and report back to the MTA Board within 30 days; and | |
| |Reprioritize the MTA Legislative Program to advocate for increased funding for transit safety | |
| |measures including, but not limited to, at grade rail crossing barriers and grade separations. | |
|01/27/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR FASANA that the Board of Directors direct staff to report back to |Operations |
| |the Board at the next Operations Committee and Executive Management and Audit Committee meetings on | |
| |the cost of providing Orange Line service within the organization versus the cost of contracting out | |
| |the operation of the services, maintenance of vehicles, and the maintenance of the Right of Way and | |
| |fixed guideway. | |
|01/27/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION OF REVISED AMENDEMENTS BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY to the Los Angeles County |Financial |
| |Metropolitan Transportation Authority Fiscal Year 2006 Financial Standards. | |
| |Revised Amendments: | |
| |Financial Standards General G12 – be amended to include that the EMAC, as the audit committee for the| |
| |MTA, will provide input and approve the audit workplan. Furthermore, completed audits will be | |
| |submitted to the CEO and to the Board through the EMAC. | |
| |Financial Standards Planning Parameters – B6 “…FTE’s will be held at or below FY2005 level adjusted | |
| |for service expansion…” | |
| |Financial Standards Planning Parameters – B8 “Capital projects in excess of $5 million shall be | |
| |presented separately for life-of-project approval by the Board.” | |
|02/24/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: |Planning |
| |Include in the MTA Long Range Transportation Plan a countywide policy, standards and/or criteria for | |
| |determining where best to construct underground rail; | |
| |Work to remove the federal prohibition on the use of federal funds for rail tunneling in potential or| |
| |high potential methane gas risk zones; | |
| |Analyze the impact of removing restrictions on the use of transportation sales tax revenues for | |
| |planning, design and construction of heavy rail tunnels in Los Angeles County; and | |
| |Assess any potential financial implications of removing restrictions on the use of transportation | |
| |sales tax revenues for heavy rail tunneling on the capability of the MTA to develop and implement | |
| |current, planned or approved transit projects and/or programs such as the Eastside extension of the | |
| |Gold Line, the Exposition Line and other projects related to them. | |
|03/24/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LUDLOW that the LACMTA Board of Directors direct staff to report |Bus Operations |
| |back at the April Operations Committee meeting on the following, but not limited to: 1) a detail map | |
| |that depicts the original Metro Bus Line 107 with an overlay of the new alternative line(s), | |
| |including transfers; 2) a comparison on Metro Bus Line 107 passenger boardings to the new alternative| |
| |line(s) passenger boardings; 3) fiscal and time impacts to passengers on Metro Bus Line 107 and the | |
| |new alternative line(s) – e.g. cost and time to Point A to Point B. | |
|03/24/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BURKE: | |
| |certifying that: | |
| |the Final Environment Impact Report (FEIR) (distributed to the Board on CD in Board packets) for the | |
| |West Los Angeles Transportation Facility and Sunset Avenue Project, including the comments, responses| |
| |to comments, and corrections and additions to the draft EIR are in compliance with the California | |
| |Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); | |
| |the FEIR was presented to the Board of Directors; | |
| |the Board reviewed and considered the information contained therein; and | |
| |the Board’s decision based on the FEIR, the staff report, and public testimony reflects the Board’s | |
| |independent judgment and analysis; | |
| |adopting the West Los Angeles Transportation Facility as the Project; | |
| |adopting the Statement of Findings that the West Los Angeles Transportation Facility is the | |
| |Environmentally Preferred Alternative; | |
| |adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) for the Project, and pursuant to Section| |
| |21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, finding that the MMRP is adequately designed to | |
| |ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation; | |
| |certifying, in its role as a Co-Lead Agency with respect to the Sunset Avenue Project, that it has | |
| |independently considered and reached its own conclusions regarding the environmental effects of the | |
| |proposed Sunset Avenue Project, and has determined that the document adequately addresses the | |
| |environmental impacts of the proposed project and finds that the FEIR has complied with the | |
| |requirements of the CEQA; and | |
| |authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to file Notice of Determination. | |
| |Amendment: To implement the reduced Impact Alternative (150 buses). | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that the Board direct staff to contact the Southern |Metrolink |
| |California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and discuss the feasibility of operating hourly Metrolink | |
| |train service on weekdays between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. to and from Union Station and | |
| |Bob Hope (formerly Burbank) Airport and report back to the Operations Committee. | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that the Board direct staff to report on the status of any |Operations |
| |efforts to examine improvements to the Harbor Freeway Transit Project that would connect it to the | |
| |surrounding transit network. | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that the Board direct staff on the draft implementation |Bus Operations |
| |plan for the Metro Connections effort, particularly as it relates to existing rail service and | |
| |stations, the Metro Orange Line busway and Metro Rapid bus service, as well, as connections to | |
| |community centers and neighborhoods in the region. | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that the Board direct staff to examine the feasibility of |Operations |
| |creating a shuttle service between existing Metrolink stations and Griffith park, as well as to | |
| |contact the Cities of Glendale and Burbank, as well as Caltrans, to inquire about their interest in | |
| |developing an additional train station in the area of San Fernando Road near the 134 Freeway to serve| |
| |such shuttle service. | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR LaBONGE that the Board direct staff to provide a detailed report on|Construction |
| |the status of the North Hollywood train station restoration project to the Construction Committee. | |
| |This report should include the current involvement of the City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment| |
| |Agency efforts; the existing funding status; anticipated timelines and completion date; and a review | |
| |of the issues that have led to delays with the project. | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS YAROSLAVSKY AND BURKE that MTA staff revise the Joint Development |Planning |
| |Policy to require an RFP, RFQ/RFP or competitive bidding process for all joint development projects | |
| |except in very exceptional circumstances (such as small parcels or those with access problems) and to| |
| |submit such a revised Joint Development Policy to the Board for the consideration at its May meeting.| |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR YAROSLAVSKY a change of the internal funding source |Finance |
| |used to pay the debt service on the outstanding Grand Central Square bonds from Prop A 40% | |
| |(discretionary) to Prop A 35% (rail). | |
| |YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT that the MTA Board reconfirm the existing policy to fund debt service payments | |
| |for the Grand Central Square bonds out of Proposition A 40% (discretionary) funds and acknowledge | |
| |that debt service repayment for this project is also eligible out of Proposition A 35% (rail) funds. | |
| |Staff may determine the best funding source for repayment on an annual basis. | |
|04/28/05 |BOARD APPROVED SUBSTITUTE MOTION BY DIRECTOR MOLINA to move forward with staff recommendation to | |
| |authorize the CEO to enter into a six-month Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Taylor Yards, | |
| |LLC for the development of approximately 17 acres of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation | |
| |Authority owned properties located adjacent to the Metrolink maintenance of way facility along San | |
| |Fernando Road and the Los Angeles River. | |
| |ANTONOVICH MOTION: | |
| |Whereas, an exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) is now being considered for development of the | |
| |Taylor Yards site; and | |
| |Whereas, this ENA is in response to an unsolicited proposal that was made for the development of the | |
| |Taylor Yards site; and | |
| |Whereas, a Request for Proposals (RFP) may yield better alternatives for development of this parcel | |
| |in terms of cost, density, value, future ridership, and other performance measurements; and | |
| |Whereas, it is the intent of the Metro Board of Directors to maximize the value and utility of | |
| |developments through requesting RFP’s as opposed to unsolicited proposals; | |
| |I therefore move that the Board direct staff to solicit bids for the development of this site through| |
| |an RFP, and make every effort to report back to the Board on competing alternatives that are | |
| |acceptable to the Board as close as possible to the July 2005 Board meeting. | |
| |(CARRIED OVER FROM MARCH BOARD MEETING) | |
|08/25/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS BURKE AND YAROSLAVSKY, AS AMENDED BY MOLINA that the CEO develop |Construction |
| |an MOU with the Exposition Light Rail Construction Authority for Board approval no later than | |
| |September 29th which enables MTA staff to work on the Exposition Light Rail Project, provides for | |
| |reimbursement to the MTA, and implements a plan that transfers budgeted funds to the Authority as | |
| |soon as possible. | |
| |MOLINA AMENDMENT that the MOU with the Exposition Light Rail Construction Authority include the | |
| |following conditions: | |
| |Not more than 50% of Mr. Thorpe’s time shall be spent on the EXPO project; | |
| |Mr. Thorpe’s total salary and benefits package is to be shared by the MTA and the EXPO Authority | |
| |based on actual hours worked for each entity; | |
| |Mr. Thorpe shall present a quarterly work plan to the Construction Committee outlining his | |
| |anticipated time allocation between the two projects; | |
| |The CEO shall report to the Construction Committee monthly regarding the status of Mr. Thorpe’s work | |
| |for both the MTA and the EXPO Authority, including a determination of any impact his workload for the| |
| |Authority has had on the Eastside Line; and | |
| |In the event that Mr. Thorpe’s workload at the Authority has a negative impact on his ability to work| |
| |on the Eastside Line, the terms of the MOU shall return to the Board for discussion. | |
|08/25/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS MOLINA/FASANA/ANTONOVICH/LOWENTHAL, AS AMENDED BY VILLARAIGOSA |MGL Foothill Extension |
| |that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) support legislation that | |
| |would specifically provide that: | |
| |The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (MGLFECA) be governed by a Board | |
| |consisting of seven voting members: three members appointed by the affected jurisdictions through | |
| |which Phase II will pass and that will construct stations; two members of the LACMTA Board of | |
| |Directors, appointed by the Chair of the LACMTA, who must be a representative of the Los Angeles | |
| |County City Selection Committee – San Gabriel Valley Sector Representative or a County Supervisor | |
| |representing the affected jurisdictions, with the third member meeting these qualifications serving | |
| |as a voting alternate; one member appointed by the Mayor of Los Angeles; one member appointed by the | |
| |Mayor of Pasadena. | |
| |The directly affected jurisdictions along the Phase II alignment are recognized as the cities of | |
| |Arcadia, Azusa, Claremont, Duarte, Glendora, Irwindale, La Verne, Monrovia, Pomona, and San Dimas. | |
| |The city of South Pasadena and the San Bernardino Association of Governments shall serve as | |
| |non-voting, ex-officio members. | |
| |The MGLFECA enter into a memorandum of understanding with the LACMTA that shall specifically address | |
| |the ability of the LACMRA to review and approve any significant changes in the scope of the design or| |
| |construction of the Project. | |
| |The MGLFECA and the Exposition Construction Authority will be precluded from being designated as the | |
| |recipient agency for federal funds. | |
| |The LACMTA will not be legally obligated to allocate any federal and/or local funds for this project.| |
|09/29/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR FASANA a Memorandum of Understanding between the Los |EXPO |
| |Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Exposition Metro Line Construction | |
| |Authority for interim funding for the Exposition Light Rail Project. | |
| |FASANA AMENDMENT: Delete second paragraph of Section 4 of the Memorandum of Understanding, which | |
| |states “The indemnification specified of this MOU shall survive termination of this MOU, and any | |
| |agreements entered into by the parties in furtherance of the duties and obligations that are deemed | |
| |necessary to effectuate and the meet the requirements of SB504.” | |
|09/29/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS KATZ AND FLEMMING AS AMENDED BY BURKE that the Board direct the | |
| |CEO to: | |
| |Identify and allocate agency funding to initiate and appropriate alternatives analysis on a regional | |
| |connector; and | |
| |Report back to the Board no later than the November/December 2004 2005 Board meeting on the following| |
| |items utilizing existing resources with no fiscal impact or delay to other projects. | |
| |Impact of the regional connector on the current ridership for the Metro Blue Line, Red Line, and Gold| |
| |Line and estimated ridership for the Expo Line and Eastside Extension; and | |
| |Implementation timeline and costs for each phase of work related to an analysis of the options for a | |
| |regional connector, including completion of the alternative analysis, environmental work, design, | |
| |preliminary engineering, final design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction; and | |
| |Possible sources of funding to complete a regional connector. | |
|09/29/05 |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTOR KATZ MOTION that the Board: | |
| |Direct the CEO to return to the Planning & Programming Committee within 60 days with the following | |
| |information: | |
| |A formal scope of work for the Wilshire Bus-Only Lane, including but not limited to, community | |
| |outreach, street resurfacing and reconstruction, road widening, curb modifications, street restriping| |
| |and signage improvements, parallel road improvements, and potential development and location of | |
| |off-street parking facilities; and | |
| |A formal budget and implementation schedule for the project, including scopes of responsibility for | |
| |the MTA, Los Angeles Department of Transportation, and each impacted jurisdiction. | |
| |Direct the CEO to partner with the City of Los Angeles, both functionally and financially, to: | |
| |Complete a Transit Priority Lane Study, and | |
| |Develop a set of criteria to determine when such lanes are appropriate, and | |
| |Identify additional corridor locations to provide optimum mobility improvements throughout the | |
| |County. | |
|09/29/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR BURKE ratifying the award of a firm fixed-price | |
| |Contract No. OP3922-1755 to AJK Communications, Inc. for furnishing Security Surveillance Equipment | |
| |for all Metro Rail stations for a total contract value of $2,073,019, inclusive of sales tax. | |
| |BURKE AMENDMENT: That the Board of Directors grant the Chief Executive Officer temporary, through | |
| |January 2006, to execute contract awards for system security enhancements previously presented to the| |
| |full Board in the July and August closed sessions. | |
| |Such contract awards shall be in accordance with PUC Section 130235. Immediate Remedial Measures, to| |
| |enhance MTA’s Security System in order to avert damage to MTA property, to further ensure that the | |
| |facilities of MTA are available to serve the transportation needs of the general public, and that | |
| |procurements done in compliance with sections 130232, 130233, and 130234 are inadequate. | |
| |The CEO, after any such award, will submit a report in closed session to the Board explaining the | |
| |necessity of the action. | |
|09/29/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR MOLINA: | |
| |Negotiation and execution of Change Order No. 14 to Contract No. PS-4310-0964, with Eastside LRT | |
| |Partners, a Joint Venture, consisting of Parsons Brinckerhoff, Jenkins/Gales & Martinez, and Barrio | |
| |Planners, Inc. for engineering and environmental services on the relocation of Indiana Station for an| |
| |amount nor to exceed $365,000 increasing the total contract value from $38,226,803 to $38,591,803; | |
| |and | |
| |Execution of future contract modifications to Contract No. PS-4310-0964, for the Metro Gold Line | |
| |Eastside Extension for an amount not to exceed $36,500. | |
| |MOLINA AMENDMENT: That maximum monthly expenditures of $100,000 be brought to the Board for approval | |
| |on a monthly basis. | |
|09/29/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA: | |
| |Approving service changes to Tier 1 bus lines to be implemented in December 2005 or later; and | |
| |Modifying the Service Sector Governance Council Bylaws and Policy to clarify the service change | |
| |process as follows: | |
| |By-law Article VII – Authority, Paragraph C – add language to clarify that the Sector Governance | |
| |Councils will call public hearings pertaining to all Tier 1, 2, and 3 bus route changes within the | |
| |Sectors, including Rapid Bus; and | |
| |Policy Statement – delete existing language that the Board retains responsibility for conducting | |
| |public hearings for service changes to corporate bus lines, Metro Rapid and replace with language | |
| |that the responsibilities of Sector Governance councils include calling and conducting public | |
| |hearings for all Tier 1, 2, and 3 bus route changes within the Sectors, including Metro Rapid. | |
| |VILLARAIGOSA AMENDMENT: Include language that any proposed changes to Tier 1 services, which include | |
| |Rapid Bus, come back to the Board before they are implemented. | |
|10/27/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTORS VILLARAIGOSA AND BURKE that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: | |
| |Allocate $42,000 in Board contingency funds for outreach activities to small and disadvantaged | |
| |businesses for the remainder of the fiscal year; | |
| |Restore funding in future years and include a minimum of $65,000 for outreach activities to small and| |
| |disadvantaged businesses through the support services business unit in the Fiscal Year 2006-07 | |
| |budget; | |
| |Review the best practices for SBE and DBE outreach at public agencies in Los Angeles County – | |
| |including consultation with the Transportation Business Advisory Council (TBAC) – and report back in | |
| |90 days with additional recommendations for strengthening the MTA’s outreach program. | |
|12/15/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR MOLINA that the Board rename the Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension|Naming |
| |the “Edward R. Roybal Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension,” in honor of this local icon’s revered | |
| |memory. | |
|12/15/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARKS that the Board request that the Exposition Metro Line |EXPO |
| |Construction Authority staff begin work with the City of Los Angeles to develop park and ride | |
| |facilities at the major cross street stations, such as Vermont, Normandie, Western, Crenshaw, and La | |
| |Brea along the alignment that do not have adequate parking. As additional funding is secured above | |
| |the total cost of Phase I of the project, these funds will be devoted to such park and ride | |
| |facilities. | |
|12/15/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARKS that the Board amend staff recommendation Item #E1: |EXPO |
| |USC/Exposition Park optional At-Grade or Below-Grade Station near Kinsey Drive/Trousdale Parkway. | |
|12/15/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARKS that the Board direct staff to offer free fares for the first|Operations |
| |day of service for the upcoming Rapid Bus on Western Avenue, as well as free fares on the first day | |
| |of any new service implemented by Metro. This promotion would apply to only to brand new service. | |
|12/15/05 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR PARKS that the Board direct staff to reinstate the Holiday |Operations |
| |Celebration Free Fare Program on December 24th, December 25th, December 31st, and January 1st. | |
|01/25/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY DIRECTOR VILLARAIGOSA, AS AMENDED BY DIRECTOR MOLINA that the MTA Board |SBE |
| |direct the CEO to: | |
| |Transfer $25,000 from Board Contingency in the current fiscal year (2005-2006) to the Diversity & | |
| |Economic Opportunity Department’s small business outreach program. | |
| |Include at least $100,000 in funding in the proposed 2006-2007 MTA budget for the Diversity & | |
| |Economic Opportunity Department’s small outreach program. | |
| |MOLINA AMENDMENT to require a department self-assessment: AND FURTHER, that the Diversity & Economic| |
| |Opportunity Department conducts a performance audit on how to improve the effectiveness of | |
| |Department. | |
|2/23/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH, FASANA, KNABE, LOWENTHAL AND ROBERTS, AS AMENDED BY BURKE, |Funding |
| |MOLINA, YAROSLAVSKY AND LOWENTHAL: | |
| | | |
| |To direct staff to continue Municipal Operators Service Improvement program (MOSIP) funding at the | |
| |established levels based on the 05-06 methodology for a period of one year (’07 funding would be | |
| |$17.4 million), including an annual 3% increase, and to include MOSIP funding in MTA’s ten-year | |
| |financial forecasts and Long Range Transportation Plan Update. | |
| | | |
| |The extension to the Municipal Operator Service Improvement Program (MOSIP) is predicated on the | |
| |following instructions to the MTA management and the Municipal Operators: | |
| | | |
| |Both parties shall enter into and complete negotiations to revise the formula allocation procedure | |
| |(FAP) with the goal of updating the formula allocations to reflect the current operating transit | |
| |service delivery environment. | |
| |The parties shall have 6 months commencing in March 2006 to enter into and complete negotiations and | |
| |bring back to the MTA Board of Directors in September 2006 a revised FAP for implementation in | |
| |FY07-08. | |
| |Commencing in June 2006, MTA management and the Municipal Operators shall jointly furnish the MTA | |
| |Board with quarterly reports on the progress of the negotiations. | |
| |All issues pertaining to a further extension of the MOSIP and other ancillary transit funding | |
| |programs shall be incorporated into the completed revised 2008 FAP. | |
| |Effective FY2007, for routes that are dropped by one operator and assumed by another operator, the | |
| |two-year lag in the data year and the allocation year shall be eliminated. Transit subsidy | |
| |allocations will be calculated utilizing budgeted data. Guidelines to specify the reconciliation | |
| |methodology and ensure accountability will be developed and presented to the MTA Board within 90 | |
| |days. | |
| |The MTA Board Hereby endorses and adopts the two sets of “Principles for Formula Allocation | |
| |Procedure” previously agreed upon in 2004 and 2005, respectively, by the MTA management and Municipal| |
| |Operators as the foundation principles for further negotiations. | |
| | | |
|2/23/06 |BOARD APPROVED REVISED RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED BY BURKE that the Metro Board of Directors instruct | |
| |the CEO to return to the Board in April at the Executive Management and Operations Committees with: | |
| | | |
| |recommendations, including a timeline, on the implementation of a barrier ticketing system for the | |
| |red line; | |
| |the capital costs of such implementation and potential funding sources; | |
| |a financial analysis of cost savings that includes a “payback” amortization period of the barrier | |
| |system as compared with the present escalating manpower-costs associated with using fare inspectors; | |
| |and | |
| |a report by staff on the feasibility of MTA sponsored legislation to decriminalize Penal Code Section| |
| |640, including recommendations and a financial analysis on the costs of establishing a “transit | |
| |adjudication bureau” to process fare evasion infractions and the potential for MTA “cost recovery” | |
| |revenue estimates. | |
|3/23/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH & FASANA that the Metro Board of Directors direct the CEO to: | |
| | | |
| |to have staff work with other appropriate transportation agencies to study and implement shuttle | |
| |service between Metro rail stations on the Gold, Blue and Red lines and Dodger Stadium by no later | |
| |than April 14th for that extended homestand, and if possible, by April 3rd for the first homestand, | |
| |in order to maximize ridership possibilities for Metro rail lines. | |
| |to engage in discussions with the Los Angeles Dodgers and other potential business partners to | |
| |provide sponsorship, funding, and advertising opportunities for subsidizing the cost of this shuttle;| |
| |and | |
| |to have staff report back to the Operations Committee in April with an overview of this | |
| |implementation plan that details the stations, routes, schedule and other details for the shuttle, as| |
| |well as Metro plans to market this service and to increase ridership on the Metro rail system. | |
| |to have staff report back to Operations Committee in May with an overview of and implementation | |
| |strategy for other similar opportunities for Metro to work with other transportation operators to | |
| |provide shuttle services from the Metro Rail and Metrolink system to other similar large-attendance | |
| |events (e.g. other sports events, entertainment events) to increase rail ridership on all Metro Rail | |
| |lines, Metro Bus Rapid lines, and Metrolink lines to reduce traffic congestion throughout the County.| |
| | | |
| | | |
|3/23/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH that the Metro Board of Directors direct the CEO to take the | |
| |following actions: | |
| | | |
| |Hold a public investigation into how and why Metro’s environmental and pre-construction processes did| |
| |not detect this mass grave prior to submission of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement| |
| |to the FTA during the FTA New Starts process, and publicly present the results of this investigation;| |
| |Develop a plan for METRO to provide, in conjunction with appropriate cultural and historical agencies| |
| |and communities, a dignified and fitting burial for these discovered remains, as well as future | |
| |remains discovered through excavation, with Metro providing funding for the re-interment; | |
| |Bring back to the Metro Board of Directors within 90 days a full review of Metro environmental and | |
| |pre-construction policies, with recommendations for revising said policies to ensure that future | |
| |archaeological and human remains can be detected and handled appropriately prior to submission of | |
| |final environmental documents necessary to meet local, state and federal environmental guidelines in | |
| |preparation for construction and excavation. | |
| |Bring back to the Metro Board of Directors within 30 days a plan to work with appropriate cultural | |
| |and historical agencies to devise a memorial or historical exhibition that will highlight the role of| |
| |Chinese immigrant laborers in developing Los Angeles County’s transportation network in the 19th and | |
| |20th centuries. | |
|5/3/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY O’CONNOR MOTION that each position on the Westside/Central Governance | |
| |Council be granted a one-time, six-month extension so that each three-year term will expire at the | |
| |end of the fiscal year in June. | |
|5/3/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA that the Board approve the Project Performance Criteria as outlined | |
| |in the Presentation on the Long Range Transportation Plan for use in developing planning documents | |
| |and evaluating the agency’s transportation projects. | |
|5/3/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ROBERTS that the CEO take no action on the North County Transportation Board| |
| |Deputy Position unless specifically instructed by the incoming League Board Director. | |
|5/25/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FLEMING/VILLARAIGOSA to direct the CEO to meet with the CEO of Metrolink and| |
| |CEO’s of the four other counties to develop consensus on fair funding formula by July 1. | |
|5/25/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FLEMING/FASANA that all members of Service Sector Governance Councils will | |
| |be referred to as “Sector Representatives.” | |
|5/25/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FASANA that | |
| |1) the Service Sector Governance Councils shall have the authority to review and authorize all Metro | |
| |Bus service changes emanating from the Metro Connections program and all other service change | |
| |programs related to Metro Bus service consistent with Board adopted policies; and | |
| |2) proposed service changes that require Governance Council approval and that operate a significant | |
| |level of service into an adjacent Service Sector, shall be reviewed by the impacted Service Sector | |
| |prior to Governance Council approval. | |
|5/25/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY LOWENTHAL that the | |
| |1. The CEO be directed to return in June 2006 with a recommendation to amend the FY07 budget to add | |
| |an additional $6 million of Prop C 40% to be distributed to the Munis during FY07 to offset the | |
| |additional cost of fuel on a one-time, non-precedent setting basis; | |
| |2. The Munis be directed to decide on an equitable basis for the distribution of the $6 million among| |
| |themselves based on an existing formula such as service miles and inform the CEO of the distribution | |
| |methodology within 90 days; and | |
| |3. The Munis and Metro collectively pursue every opportunity to jointly and cooperatively purchase | |
| |fuel using the region's buying power to achieve the lowest possible price. | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FASANA that the BOARD OF DIRECTORS, to ensure equity of compensation for | |
| |non-represented employees consistent with Board policy, is adjusting the non-represented pay ranges | |
| |by 10% to partially mitigate the impact of previous years when inflationary pay range adjustments | |
| |were not made. | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY LOWENTHAL/BURKE that the Board adopt the staff recommendations and further | |
| |instruct staff, in consultation with the CTC’s CEO committee, to take the following actions: | |
| |1. To further explore the nature, development, and role of a single-purpose agency or agencies to | |
| |fund this and other projects; | |
| |2. To investigate the applicability of the funding model used in Oregon, whereby private investment | |
| |was used to help fund the initial project development work; | |
| |3. To investigate the conditions for applying for and obtaining pre-deployment funding from the TIFIA| |
| |program to support early work on the 710 project; and | |
| |4. Bring an update to the Board in August, 2006 | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY KATZ that the MTA Board direct the CEO to present the following | |
| |recommendations to the I-710 Executive Committee and the I-710 Project Committee for consideration in| |
| |the development of the I-710 Environmental process: | |
| |1. Provide for future freight mobility and air quality improvement by fully examining an alternative | |
| |that uses advanced technologies for the movement of goods. | |
| |2. Ensure that public and community participation includes a "Tier 2-like”stakeholder advisory | |
| |committee(s) for the I-710 Corridor project, that the committee(s) convene quarterly at minimum and | |
| |include, representatives of the affected residential, business, and environmental communities and | |
| |other groups. | |
| |3. Request that the Executive Committee submit to the MTA Planning and Programming Committee a | |
| |quarterly status update of the "Compendium of Existing and Proposed Near-Term Air Quality Improvement| |
| |Strategies for the I-710 Corridor", Exhibit 2 (March 2006). | |
| |4. Allocate $75,000 from the fiscal year 2006-2007 “Proposition A, C, TDA Administration” fund | |
| |balance to the Gateway Council of Governments to complete the “short-term air quality plan” that | |
| |addresses near-term mitigations of emissions. | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board adopt the CEO recommendation with the | |
| |following amendments: | |
| |1. Pursue additional advertising revenue: | |
| |A. Direct the CEO to immediately implement pilot programs for the following items in Attachment B | |
| |B-2 Expand vending contracts | |
| |B-3 Product promotions, placement and sampling | |
| |B-4 Website and WiFi (including Gateway building) | |
| |B-5 Wholesale service sponsors | |
| |B-6 Product licensing | |
| |B-7 Facility naming | |
| |B. Establish a combined minimum revenue target of $10 | |
| |million for fiscal year 2006-2007 for all pilot programs (B-2 | |
| |through B-7) | |
| |2. Direct the CEO to establish a revised revenue sharing agreement whereby MTA receives at least 65% | |
| |of all advertising revenue for all new and future contracts; and | |
| |3. Direct the CEO to report back quarterly to EMAC with revenue update. | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY KATZ that the Board: | |
| |1. Amend the CEO recommendation to establish a combined minimum revenue target of $4 million for | |
| |fiscal year 2006-2007 for all pilot programs (A-1 through A-5); and | |
| |2. Direct the CEO and County Counsel to amend the current bus advertising contract to allow the | |
| |current contractor and future bidders to submit bids to “wrap” up to 25% of the MTA’s bus fleet, | |
| |subject to final Board approval. | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA | |
| | | |
| |Account Reductions | |
| |A. Reduce various accounts in the adopted FY 2007 budget by a total of | |
| |$4.6 million as described in Attachment A | |
| |B. Direct the CEO to distribute the budget reductions across MTA | |
| |departments as appropriate, without impacting schedule or delivery of | |
| |the eastside extension or exposition light rail line. | |
| | | |
| |Vacancies | |
| |A. that the Board keep vacant during FY 2007 certain vacant positions in | |
| |the adopted FY 2007 budget as described in Attachment B for a savings | |
| |of $660,000 | |
| | | |
| |Operator Shortage - that the Board direct the CEO to report back within | |
| |two months with a plan to eliminate the operator shortage. | |
|6/22/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY YAROSLAVSKY that the Staff report back to the Board on potential revenues | |
| |prior to instituting ‘wraps” on rail vehicles. | |
|6/29/06 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE/KNABE/O’CONNOR AND KNABE/LOWENTHAL amending the FY07 budget by | |
| |adding up to $2.3 | |
| |million for recommendations A-L, which includes six additional FTE’s for | |
| |the following programs and projects: | |
| |addition of one FTE and $100,000 for Countywide Planning to initiate the major investment study for | |
| |the extension of the Metro Red Line to the west side of Los Angeles; | |
| |addition of one FTE and $100,000 for Countywide Planning to initiate the major investment study for | |
| |the light rail regional connector in downtown Los Angeles; | |
| |addition of one FTE and $100,000 for Countywide Planning to initiate a major investment study for the| |
| |Harbor subdivision right of-way from downtown Los Angeles to Los Angeles International Airport and | |
| |Wilmington; | |
| |addition of one FTE and $150,000 for Countywide Planning to study environmental issues and conduct | |
| |further design on the I-710 North extension; | |
| |addition of one FTE for Countywide Planning to provide additional technical support on the Goods | |
| |Movement Action Plan; | |
| |addition of one FTE for Countywide Planning to increase monitoring and administrative | |
| |responsibilities associated with SAFETEA-LU; | |
| |The following programs and projects do not require FTE additions: | |
| | | |
| |addition of $250,000 for Countywide Planning to provide a funding contribution to the Gateway Cities | |
| |COG, Caltrans, and SCAG to initiate a major corridor study of the SR-91/I-605 corridor; | |
| |addition of $80,000 for Countywide Planning to provide a funding contribution to the South Bay COG to| |
| |continue Phase III of the research on Mixed-Use Centers and Transit Corridors Demand Study; | |
| |addition of $125,000 for Countywide Planning to conduct a joint study with OCTA to develop, evaluate | |
| |and recommend transportation improvements focused on issues at the LA/OC border; | |
| |addition of $150,000 for Countywide Planning to provide a funding contribution to the City of Los | |
| |Angeles to prepare a study on the I-10 South Master Plan; | |
| |addition of $120,000 for Countywide Planning to prepare twelve Bicycle Transit Bike Access hub plans;| |
| |and | |
| |addition of $500,000 for Procurement to conduct a disparity study to determine the presence of | |
| |discrimination, or its effects, as required by the Department of Transportation. | |
|6/29/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA/ANTONOVICH/FASANA/NAJARIAN | |
| | | |
| |Addition of $150,000 for Countywide Planning to support ridership modeling on the Metro Gold Line | |
| |Foothill Extension,for which MTA is required by the Public Utilities Code to assume responsibility | |
| |for operation upon completion of the line | |
| | | |
| |Addition of $150,000 for Countywide Planning to implement a regional connector through Glendale and | |
| |Burbank that links the Red Line and/or Orange Line in North Hollywood with the Gold Line in Pasadena.| |
| | | |
| |Addition of $250,000 for Countywide Planning to initiate a feasibility study of the use of DMU | |
| |technology (a self-propelled rail car for commuter rail or intercity rail service) on existing | |
| |MTA-owned rail. | |
| | | |
| |Addition of up to $50,000 for Countywide Planning / Caltrans to modify the project study report (PSR)| |
| |on the I-10/1-605 interchange to determine if possible integration of the project | |
| |into the existing I-10 carpool lane project, currently funded by | |
| |Metro, would generate cost savings. | |
| | | |
| |Addition of two full-time equivalent (FTE’s) regular positions | |
| |and $4.7 million (grant funded) for Communications to | |
| |implement a grant-funded countywide public vanpool | |
| |program; and for staff to report back in 2 months with | |
| |quantifiable goals for increasing vanpool ridership. | |
| | | |
| |Addition of $200,000 for a study of the Eastside extension to the southern San Gabriel Valley. | |
|6/29/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY YAROSLAVSKY | |
| | | |
| |Addition of one FTE and $1,116,161 for Countywide Planning to accelerate completion of bus lanes and | |
| |other project components for the Wilshire Bus Rapid Transit project from San Vicente to Fairfax. | |
|6/29/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY BURKE, KNABE AND O’CONNOR MOTION | |
| | | |
| |Addition of $250,000 to partner with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments to develop a | |
| |strategy for Goods Movement into, out of and through the South Bay. | |
| | | |
|6/29/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY KNABE/LOWENTHAL | |
| |Addition of $225,000 to partner with the Gateway Cities Council of governments to pursue the | |
| |following studies: | |
| | | |
| |• $150,000 for feasibility/planning study (psr equivalent) for | |
| |truck inspection facility; potential sites on Commerce, | |
| |South Gate, and Compton. | |
| |• $50,000 - ITS Integration plan, matching funds for a | |
| |federal grant | |
| |• $25,000 - regional system integration planning; how the | |
| |line would function within the county-wide transportation | |
| |system for the West Santa Ana Branch Mainline Mag.-Lev. | |
|6/29/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY BURKE that staff put together those studies that they already made regarding| |
| |moving the Green Line to LAX and coordinate with the City of Los Angeles and LAX in attempting to | |
| |study what would be required and the financial cost of moving the Green Line to LAX. | |
|7/27/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA that the CEO report back to the Board with a policy that: | |
| |1) establishes guidelines for setting an appropriate contingency for every | |
| |project; | |
| |2) prohibits staff from exceeding the life of project budget without prior | |
| |Board approval; and | |
| |3) requires that when requesting an increase to the life of project budget | |
| |staff provide realistic alternatives to increasing the budget. | |
|7/27/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA that the Board of Directors request that the CEO report back within | |
| |60 days with a policy that would require staff to verify that any landfill or recycling facility used| |
| |by Metro or one of its contractors has all necessary and valid permits in place. | |
|8/24/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY YAROSLAVSKY AND NAJARIAN to first approve the Sworn Uniformed Office Fare |Item 11 |
| |Exemption Policy only and to delete the last paragraph of the policy. | |
|8/24/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the Board direct the CEO to: |Item 14 |
| |eliminate 300 operator vacancies within six months; | |
| |report back to the Board with monthly progress reports, including but not limited to: | |
| |marketing, recruitment, and outreach efforts | |
| |Bridge Program success and completion rates | |
| |operator training and probation completion rates | |
| |allocate from the MTA Board Contingency Fund $50,000 for expansion of recruitment efforts and Bridge | |
| |Program to community colleges, worksource centers, and other community non-profits; and | |
| |allocate from MTA Board Contingency Fund $10,000 to fund an employee referral program for bus | |
| |operators limited to $300 per referral with a maximum of two referrals per MTA employee. | |
|8/24/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA directing the Chief Executive Officer, together with regional |Item 31 |
| |transit operators, to develop a short-range and long-range plan to increase transit ridership, reduce| |
| |congestion and improve air quality. The MTA Board direct the CEO to report back in 60 days with a | |
| |3-year goal for increased ridership, including annual interim milestones. | |
|8/24/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY BURKE to adopt the name Expo Line and defer the color issue. |Item 37 |
|8/24/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY YAROSLAVSKY approving the following color designations for Metro Rail and |Item 37 |
| |other fixed guideway projects for use in printed and electronic communications materials: | |
| | | |
| |B. adopt the color purple to designate the Union Station -Wilshire/Western subway line, and refer to | |
| |the project as the Metro Purple Line; | |
| | | |
| |C. adopt the color silver to designate the El Monte express busway; and | |
| | | |
| |D. adopt the color bronze to designate the Harbor express busway. | |
| | | |
|8/24/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY YAROSLAVSKY AND BURKE that the MTA Board direct staff to return to the |Item 38 |
| |Board in 60 days with preliminary plans for implementing a Wilshire "Super-Rapid" service as a pilot | |
| |program. The plans should address: | |
| |proposals for how the service would operate; | |
| |the locations of the 4 stops (based on the Metro Connections Program); | |
| |how the service would integrate with current Wilshire Rapid and local service; | |
| |where the "Super-Rapid" bus would meet the Metro Rail; and | |
| |implementation and operational costs. | |
|9/28/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH that the Metro Board of Directors direct the CEO to have staff |Item 34 |
| |report to the | |
| |Operations Committee, the Finance and Budget Committee and the full Board within 90 days on the | |
| |following: | |
| |a review of the current effectiveness of the Service Sectors (broken down by Sector) in creating | |
| |operational efficiencies, savings, increased ridership, improved service and improved customer | |
| |outreach; | |
| |a formal collection and review of input and recommendations for improving the Service Sector | |
| |performance solicited from the General Manager and Council Chair of each Service Sector; | |
| |areas of misalignment between the Service Sectors as envisioned by the original Service Sector Task | |
| |Force Report (2002) and the current operation of the Service Sectors, with the cost/gain to Metro’s | |
| |operating budget and structural deficit and benefit/deficit to service quality as a result of these | |
| |misalignments, with a specific review and recommendation as to the provision of Sector staff levels | |
| |and positions as identified in the 2002 report; | |
| |policy recommendations to improve the overall effectiveness of the Service Sectors in creating | |
| |further operational efficiencies, savings, increased ridership, improved service and improved | |
| |customer outreach by realigning parts or all of the Service Sector structure with the structure | |
| |identified in the Service Sector Task Force Report (2002) or with a superior structure identified by | |
| |staff; | |
| |projections on how much savings the implementation of staff policy recommendations would realize for | |
| |Metro over a 1-year, 2-year, 5-year and 10-year window of time; and | |
| |other policy recommendations for the Metro Board of Directors to consider that would be necessary or | |
| |desired to allow Metro to implement fully and consistently the aforementioned policy recommendations | |
| |to create further operational efficiencies, improved service, savings, and customer outreach and | |
| |increased ridership. | |
|9/28/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board direct the CEO to meet with the service |Item 14 |
| |sectors and municipal operators within the next 30 days to finalize a reduced fare program to | |
| |increase ridership, by offering discount fares of 25-50 cents on the following 13 routes: Lines 102, | |
| |127, 154, 168, 177, 202, 209, | |
| |214, 258, 265, 275, 305 and 577X and report back to the Board in October 2006 with a recommendation | |
| |on how to proceed. | |
|9/28/06 |On approving the Alternative C – proposed formula (Revised SCRRA – 25% Stations/TVMs) as the new |Item 7 |
| |method for allocating Metrolink’s net operating costs among the member agencies beginning with the FY| |
| |2007-08 Metrolink Budget. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE to approve the proposed formula on the condition that MTA and | |
| |Metrolink members, within the next three years, review and revise the formula based on expansion | |
| |levels incurred by member agencies. | |
|9/28/06 |On approving the Alternative C – proposed formula (Revised SCRRA – 25% Stations/TVMs) as the new |Item 7 |
| |method for allocating Metrolink’s net operating costs among the member agencies beginning with the FY| |
| |2007-08 Metrolink Budget. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY NAJARIAN that a cost/benefit analysis should be conducted by MTA staff | |
| |prior to the close of FY 06/07 to determine if MTA’s funding would be better served, improving | |
| |service in Los Angeles County, e.g., the Metrolink Antelope Valley Line, which is entirely in the | |
| |county, or if we should continue to fund the other counties’ expansions. | |
|9/28/06 |Approval of 13% as the Federal Transit Administration Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Overall Goal |Item 15 |
| |for Federal Fiscal Year 2007. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: | |
| |Report back quarterly on the number of new DBE firms certified during fiscal year 2006-2007. | |
| |Work with the Transportation Business Advisory Council (TBAC), Minority Business Opportunity | |
| |Committee, the Minority Business Development Agency, and similar agencies to increase contract | |
| |opportunities for DBEs by February 2007. | |
|9/28/06 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY O’CONNOR that the MTA Board of Directors direct staff to report back to |Item 32 |
| |the Board in 30 days on the impact of the allocation of the available additional State Transit | |
| |Assistance Act funds in the California FY2007 budget to the Los Angeles | |
| |County Municipal Operators in this fiscal year, according to the Formula | |
| |Allocation Procedure. Staff should, further, consider if the funding disbursed by the State during | |
| |the first and second quarter of this fiscal year could be made available to formula allocation at the| |
| |mid-year point of this fiscal year. | |
|9/28/06 |Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to: |Item 9 |
| |begin environmental clearance and Preliminary Engineering for a northern extension of the Metro | |
| |Orange Line along: | |
| |Van Nuys Boulevard | |
| |the Metro-owned Canoga rail right-of-way to the Chatsworth Metrolink Station; and | |
| |continuing to work with the City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation to refine and | |
| |environmentally clear alternative bus speed improvement projects along the corridors identified in | |
| |the eastern portion of the San Fernando Valley North/South Transit Corridor. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FLEMING/KATZ/YAROSLAVSKY | |
| | | |
| |Amend recommendation A by adding: | |
| |“Consider the feasibility and costs of a northward extension from the Chatsworth Metrolink station to| |
| |the SR-118 Ronald Regan Freeway with a potential park-and-ride lot at the SR-118 termibus.” | |
| |Substitute the following language for recommendation B: | |
| |Continue to work with the City of LA, Department of Transportation (LADOT) to refine, prioritize and | |
| |update cost estimates for LADOT’s preliminary recommendations (Attachment B) and environmentally | |
| |clear regarding alternative bus speed improvements projects along the corridors identified in the | |
| |eastern portion of the San Fernando Valley North/South Transit Corridor Study with emphasis given to | |
| |the Van Nuys Boulevard alternative. | |
| |Add the following recommendation: | |
| |C. Return to the Board no later than March 2007 with: | |
| |Request for CEO authorization to award environmental and preliminary engineering contract for the | |
| |Canoga Extension to be completed by September 2008; and | |
| |Request funding approval for LADOT to lead and conduct the environmental clearance and preliminary | |
| |engineering for the improvements on Van Nuys Boulevard and potentially other projects on the priority| |
| |list of Attachment B prior t o September 2008. | |
|9/28/06 |Receive and file the Southern California National Freight Gateway Strategy MOU |Item 10 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY LOWENTHAL that the Board finalize the MOU instead of the CEO. | |
|10/26/06 |On approving a Life of Project budget for restoration of the Lankershim |Item 9 |
| |Depot Transit Center | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FASANA that the City of Los Angeles be required to pay their 20% share of| |
| |the new increased cost, consistent with the policy of the new Supplemental Call for Projects. | |
|10/26/06 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY NAJARIAN that any project savings above $200,000 must return to the Board|Item 18 |
| |for approval prior to the reprogramming or transfer of funds to other projects or programs. | |
|10/26/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY PARKS/VILLARAIGOSA |Item 31 |
| |that the Board directs the Chief Executive Officer to report back | |
| |within 60 days on the following: | |
| | | |
| |A comprehensive three-year plan to install solar panels on every MTA bus and rail facility in | |
| |cooperation with the Department of Water and Power, The Gas Company, and southern California Edison; | |
| |and | |
| |The comprehensive three-year plans should include details on schedule, staffing, costs, expected | |
| |savings, funding, and available rebates. | |
|10/26/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY NAJARIAN/LOWENTHAL that the MTA staff develop an energy policy to be added |Item 31 |
| |to the comprehensive 3-year plan (31A and B) as Amendment C (see above regarding the 3 year plan to | |
| |install solar panel) | |
|12/7/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA MOTION that the Board amend the Position Authorization and |Item 48 |
| |Compensation Policy to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to approve the following: | |
| |all non-contract position reclassifications that result in a higher level position and a salary under| |
| |$125,000; | |
| |creation of new non-contract classifications within the adopted fiscal year budget and FTE’s with a | |
| |salary under $125,000; | |
| |salary adjustments that result in salaries that are within the salary range for the position | |
| |classification and under $125,000; and | |
| |salary adjustments that result in a salary in excess of the salary range for the position | |
| |classification if necessary to allow an employee to receive the full benefit of a Board approved | |
| |LACMTA-wide non-contract salary adjustment such as a cost of living increase. | |
|12/7/06 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: |Item 49 |
| | | |
| |form a task force of relevant staff to ensure that MTA maximizes its efforts to improve air quality; | |
| |instruct this task force to work with federal, regional and state agencies to coordinate the | |
| |implementation of air quality programs and regulations in a cost effective manner; | |
| |identify projected emission reductions from the implementation of MTA’s current and future transit | |
| |and highway projects; | |
| |use advocacy resources to maximize federal and state funding for environmental programs and projects,| |
| |including expansion of MTA’s Solar Generation Project and other sustainable energy technologies; and | |
| |instruct this task force to report back to Executive Management and Audit Committee on a quarterly | |
| |basis on clean technology benchmarks, emission reduction goals, available funding sources, and other | |
| |initiatives to advance the MTA’s role as an environmental leader. | |
|12/7/06 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE that this Board authorize the CEO to engage the professional |Item 25 |
| |services of a fare collection expert, through an expedited competitive procurement, to complete a | |
| |comprehensive, detailed analysis of Metro’s smart card based automated fare collection system (UFS), | |
| |and return to the Board with a study that | |
| |addresses the following issues: | |
| | | |
| |a detailed assessment of implementing MTA’s Red Line barrier gates, including a comprehensive cost | |
| |analysis for the acquisition of capital equipment, i.e. gates, station booths and ticket offices, the| |
| |cost of recurring maintenance and operations; costs for infrastructure and civil engineering | |
| |requirements, and the impacts such barrier gates will have to all regional public transit customers | |
| |including ADA and ASI riders, Municipal bus, Local Transit Service Systems and Metrolink patrons; | |
| |a detailed assessment of MTA’s Light Rail fare system to potentially reduce fare evasion by utilizing| |
| |UFS technology and infrastructure enhancements; | |
| |a comprehensive assessment of new transit projects as projected in the Long Range plan, Metro | |
| |Connections, and Metro Rapid, etc. to explore all options to implement distance based fares using | |
| |smart card based fare collection on bus and rail systems including opportunities to deploy off-board | |
| |fare payments; | |
| |include a study of infrastructure and UFS compatible equipment for MTA parking lots and structures | |
| |adjacent to MTA Rail stations as a means to further increase the farebox recovery ratio; and | |
| |to fully investigate limited-use paper smart card technology to permit the cash paying, or occasional| |
| |rider ingress and egress through barrier gates, and to transfer onto bus or rail lines deploying | |
| |distance based fares; and to use this technology as a viable alternative to reduce fraud from paper | |
| |interagency transfers and day passes. | |
|12/7/06 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY YAROSLAVSKY AND BURKE that the Board approve the staff recommendation |Item 28 |
| |regarding implementation of a Rapid Express Service along Wilshire in June 2007. | |
| |Further move that staff evaluate the possibility of implementing up to an | |
| |additional four Rapid Express Service lines by June 2007 along existing Metro Rapid corridors which | |
| |demonstrate that such service will increase efficiency and effectiveness and improve transit service.| |
| |Staff should report back to the Board with these recommendations by February | |
| | | |
|12/7/06 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FASANA that the Board direct the CEO to: |Item 14 |
| |Work in close coordination with Caltrans to promptly initiate the next steps, including environmental| |
| |clearance, tunnel alternatives analysis, preliminary engineering, etc.; | |
| |Encourage Metro and Caltrans to form an Advisory Group to ensure interests are represented during the| |
| |next phase consisting of SGVCOG, SCAG, LA County Districts 1 and 5, and the cities of Alhambra, | |
| |Glendale, La Canada-Flintridge, Los Angeles, Monterey Park, Pasadena, San Marino, and South Pasadena;| |
| |Support Caltrans’ efforts to obtain $5 million through Caltrans’ ITIP process to add to the $3.4 | |
| |million of SAFETEA-LU and State funding already earmarked for the project so that Caltrans can | |
| |conduct the environmental clearance/tunnel alternatives analysis; and | |
| |Report back to the Board in 90 days to update status of the next steps. | |
|1/25/07 |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA that the Board direct the Countywide Planning and Development staff |Item 46 |
| |to report back to the Board in 120 days with a scope of work, cost, time frame, and implementation | |
| |strategy for conducting a Los Angeles County Bus-Speed and Street Design Improvement Plan. This plan | |
| |should identify and prioritize highly congested arterials with high transit demand for bus speed | |
| |improvements, and urban amenity improvements countywide. The plan should identify the feasibility of | |
| |various bus speed improvements for these corridors such as bus only lanes, bus by-pass lanes, queue | |
| |jumpers, and bus signal priority. It should also list feasible and cost-effective techniques to | |
| |improve the quality of street life on the sidewalks of the major arterials where riders wait for the | |
| |bus. As part of the plan, staff should consult with local jurisdictions regarding the feasibility of | |
| |implementing bus speed improvements with an enhanced pedestrian environment. The plan should also | |
| |identify the cost of implementation and potential funding sources. | |
|1/25/07 |3Year Metro Ridership Plan |Item 24a |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: Further evaluate the | |
| |proposed actions and report back to the Executive Management and Audit Committee within 120 days with| |
| |a prioritized list of actions to increase ridership by 5% per year and to develop a FY08 budget | |
| |package to implement this prioritized list. | |
|1/25/07 |3Year Metro Ridership Plan |Item 24b |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY ANTONOVICH that the CEO request on behalf of the Board that all Metro | |
| |Service Sector Governance Council Boards and General Managers report back to the Operations Committee| |
| |and Executive Management Audit Committee by April 2007 on their additional suggestions, specific | |
| |policies, and practical applications of the Metro Ridership Plan that would generate greater | |
| |ridership within each of their respective sectors, for Board discussion. | |
|1/25/07 |3Year Metro Ridership Plan |Item 24c |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY PARKS that the MTA Board direct the CEO to consolidate the findings of the | |
| |amendments proposed by Directors Villaraigosa and Antonovich into one unified and comprehensive | |
| |response. | |
|1/25/07 |3Year Metro Ridership Plan |Item 24d |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY LOWENTHAL TO VILLARAIGOSA AMENDMENT | |
| | | |
| |In the course of the evaluation of the proposed actions, include the following: | |
| |Include costs/capital investments for all proposals where there are investments indicated. | |
| |Articulate a proposal to address personal security/safety as a deterrent to transit ridership and | |
| |discretionary riders. | |
| |Develop a proposal/incentives to address enticing youth to use transit in place of driving. | |
| |Report back on the relationship between marketing and ridership increases (holding neutral for gas | |
| |prices other external factors) | |
|1/25/07 |3Year Metro Ridership Plan |Item 24e |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY O’CONNOR (verbal) to incorporate information from our call-centers | |
| |including: where people are calling to go to, destinations not being serviced, etc. | |
|1/25/07 |3Year Metro Ridership Plan |Item 24f |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY MOLINA (verbal) to incorporate bus-only lanes into the evaluation, as | |
| |well. | |
|1/25/07 |Harbor Subdivision Technical Feasibility Analysis Final report |Item 6 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENTS BY KATZ AND FLEMING that the Board authorize the CEO to proceed with the | |
| |Alternatives Analysis phase of the environmental process and that all alternatives examined, | |
| |including the DMU, should look at clean fuel technologies that will have less impact on the | |
| |environment. | |
| | | |
|1/25/07 |Vanpool Program |Item 23 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY YAROSLAVSKY that staff develop a plan that targets a minimum of two major| |
| |employment centers in each of our service sectors. This plan should identify key stakeholders and | |
| |potential liaisons with Metro staff that will help in the implementation | |
| |of the program and that staff return to the board within 6 months on the progress and implementation | |
| |of the program. | |
|1/25/07 |UFS/TAP |Item 29 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FASANA that Staff: | |
| |Immediately begin testing and conversion of Metro Dependents passes (approximately 11,000) to TAP | |
| |smart cards. | |
| |Immediately begin testing and conversion of Metro Retiree passes (approximately 3,500) to TAP smart | |
| |cards. | |
| |Immediately begin testing and conversion of Metro Annual and Business passes (approximately 2,000) to| |
| |TAP smart cards. | |
| |Immediately begin testing and conversion of Metro Mail customers (approximately 5,400 monthly paper | |
| |flash passes) to TAP smart cards. | |
| |Immediately begin testing and conversion of Metro Corporate customers (approximately 6,000 monthly | |
| |paper flash passes) to TAP smart cards. | |
| |Develop a schedule of the conversion of all remaining Metro passes and fare products, and | |
| |Report back to the Board in each Monthly UFS/TAP Update on the status of these conversions totaling | |
| |almost 40,000 passes to TAP | |
|2/22/07 |WI-FI SERVICE FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT |Item 21 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: | |
| | | |
| |Complete a preliminary feasibility assessment (scoping) of how to provide Wi-Fi service on the Red | |
| |Line, Green Line, Blue Line and Orange Line | |
| |Work with cellular carriers and other wireless service providers to determine if there is a no-cost | |
| |alternative to provide Wi-Fi service that provides "open access" to customers, regardless of their | |
| |service provider | |
| |Report back to the Board in April 2007 with recommendations on how to proceed | |
|2/22/07 |COUNTYWIDE CONGESTION MITIGATION FEE FEASIBILITY |Item 7 |
| |STUDY | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY LOWENTHAL that in keeping with the level of communication that has been | |
| |established, staff circulate the Guiding Principles, as a draft document, to the COGs, cities, and | |
| |the Policy Advisory Committee for review and comment before returning to Planning and Programming for| |
| |approval. | |
| | | |
| | | |
|2/22/07 |COUNTYWIDE CONGESTION MITIGATION FEE FEASIBILITY |Item 7 |
| |STUDY | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE/LOWENTHAL that staff be instructed to research this program, meet | |
| |with the SCIP personnel and examine its applicability with the CMP Mitigation Fee | |
| |and report back to this Committee after a review with the Policy Advisory | |
| |Committee and other interested parties. | |
|3/22/07 |AUDIT OF ASI (PARATRANSIT SERVICES) |Item 22 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MT A Board direct the MT A Office of the Inspector | |
| |General to conduct a performance and compliance audit of ASI, and its contractors, including those | |
| |charged with determining eligibility for paratransit services, and report back to the Board with | |
| |recommendations by no later than October 18, 2007. | |
| |Further, that the Office of the Inspector General be permitted to secure any necessary contractual | |
| |services to complete the audit. | |
| |Staff to report back in 60 days with the scope of the audit. | |
|4/30/07 |RIDER SAFETY – VISIBLE SIGNAGE & SECURITY CAMPAIGN |Item 52 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY LOWENTHAL that in order to maximize the deterrence factor and promote rider | |
| |safety, the following actions take place. | |
| |The Communications Department work with the Safety and Security Department (including the Sheriff's | |
| |Transit Service Bureau and Metro Security Staff) to develop appropriate, highly visible signage that | |
| |will promote crime deterrence and safety on the Metro bus and rail system. | |
| |That Communications revive and maintain on an ongoing basis the safety and security campaigns | |
| |characterized by "Always Be Aware", "What's suspicious", "Which one is Undercover" as well as | |
| |periodically disseminate wallet cards, "take-ones", "seatdrops", and other safety materials developed| |
| |in conjunction with the Safety and Security Dept. | |
| |In the course of developing this campaign, the Communications Department and Safety and Security | |
| |Department will work with the Metro Governance Councils to promote customer safety and security | |
| |information appropriate to the individual sector. | |
| |The Communications Department will consider using Metro pass media periodically to provide safety, | |
| |awareness and emergency protocol information to the public. | |
| |Return to the Committee within 90 days with a plan for implementing a comprehensive program. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|4/30/07 |METRO RED LINE GATING ANALYSIS |Item 26 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE AND FASANA | |
| |that, this Board instruct the CEO to return to the Board in May 2007 at the Executive Management and | |
| |Operations Committees (respectively) with: | |
| | | |
| |A cost proposal from the existing UFS/TAP fare technology consultants to produce the scope of work | |
| |for gating the Metro Rail System and deploying new distance based fare initiatives that will enable | |
| |the full implementation of the policy direction given by the Board for transit security improvements | |
| |based on Metro's risk-based Security and Emergency Preparedness Plan (SEPP) and the Regional Transit | |
| |Security Strategy (RTSS); | |
| |Provide a funding plan for the procurement of the barrier gates, bus validators, and the technical | |
| |oversight consultant to oversee the implementation.; and | |
| |Provide a complete procurement strategy and schedule that includes the design, build, test, and | |
| |implementation of barrier gates to improve security and safety of patrons traveling on all Metro Rail| |
| |lines with options for implementing distance based fares on Metro bus and rail systems. | |
|4/30/07 |Carry forward of items 38 -42 for discussion as part of FY08 budget hearing |Item 37 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY PARKS that the Board direct the CEO to carry forward items 38, 39, 40, | |
| |41, and 42 for discussion as part of the FY08 budget hearing. | |
|4/30/07 |PURCHASE OF 100 60FT. CNG HIGH CAPACITY ARTICULATED BUSES |Item 43 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY PARKS that the Board direct the CEO to report back on: | |
| |the feasibility of debt financing this procurement and | |
| |how the delivery of the buses would be impacted if the purchase is delayed until the FY08 budget | |
| |hearing | |
|4/30/07 |METRO CONNECTIONS PLAN |Item 47 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY PARKS that the Board direct the CEO to report back at the April 30 Board | |
| |meeting a comprehensive Metro Connections plan and how the proposed Tier I, ", and III cuts fit into | |
| |this plan. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|4/30/07 |METRO CONNECTIONS PLAN - LINE 442 |Item 47 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE to carry over any action on Line 442 to allow time to address | |
| |safety issues and request alternative services from LADOT | |
|5/24/07 |FARE MODIFICATION | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA, FASANA, O’CONNOR, AND YAROSLAVSKY that the Board of Directors: | |
| | | |
| |Adopt the attached fare schedule for fiscal years 2008 through 2012. | |
| |Authorize the implementation of the first phase of fare restructuring in 2008 and the second phase in| |
| |2010 as outlined in the attached fare schedule. | |
| |Implement a 25 cent off-peak fare for disabled and seniors 65 years and older. The fare shall be | |
| |valid between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM and after 7:00 PM on all weekdays and all day | |
| |Saturday, Sunday and Federal holidays. The only proof of eligibility required for seniors shall be a | |
| |medicare card. | |
| |Direct the CEO to work with City of Los Angeles to implement the restructuring of downtown bus | |
| |service and bus only peak-hour lanes as identified by the Mayor of Los Angeles in his letter to the | |
| |Board dated May 21, 2007. | |
| |Instruct Metro's legislative advocates to aggressively pursue Metro's share of the 2007 State | |
| |spillover funds estimated to be up to $110 million. | |
| |Instruct Metro's legislative advocates to lobby for the reauthorization of the CNG tax credits | |
| |scheduled to sunset in 2009. | |
| |Direct the CEO to prepare a comprehensive plan for checking fares on the Orange line and all rail | |
| |lines and report back to the Board within 60 days with an implementation plan that can begin within | |
| |60 days thereafter. | |
| |Direct the CEO to perform an analysis of the 25 worst performing bus lines and report back to the | |
| |Board within 90 days for revÎew. The analysis should contain an assessment of how the lines could be | |
| |restructured or consolidated in order to improve their performance and make them more cost effective.| |
| |Direct the CEO to come back to Board within two years with: | |
| |An analysis of TAP data and possible future alternative fare structures including distance based | |
| |fares, peak and off-peak fares, and premium fares for train and express service. | |
| |Status of the cost savings from the restructuring of downtown service and the implementation of bus | |
| |only lanes in partnership with the City of Los Angeles. | |
| |Direct the CEO to report to the Board quarterly on the ridership and revenue outcomes due to fare | |
| |restructuring. | |
| | | |
|5/24/07 |FARE MODIFICATION | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY LOWENTHAL to include the following in the above motion: | |
| | | |
| |Budget an additional “safety net” of $5 million through a Countywide expansion of the Immediate Needs| |
| |program or a similar program targeting social service agencies that work with the neediest segment of| |
| |the population. | |
| | | |
| |Staff shall report back on the program that is developed and funding issues within six months to | |
| |ensure effectiveness and the adequate level of funding. | |
|6/28/07 |STANDARDIZED MOU FOR COGs | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY MOLINA that the Board direct the CEO to work with the Four City Selection| |
| |Board Members to develop a standardized MOU and report back within 120 days on the results of his | |
| |efforts. | |
|6/28/07 |INCIDENT BASED RECORDING TECHNOLOGY | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY MOLINA AND FASANA that the Board: | |
| | | |
| |Amend the FY08 budget to include $975,000 to fund the implementation of "incident based recording | |
| |technology" on all buses agency wide, including contract services; | |
| |Direct staff to establish key performance indicators for the program and report back to the board | |
| |within 120 days of implementation and on regular intervals as to the efficacy of the program; | |
| |Direct staff to report back to the board in 60 days on steps necessary to establish a specialized bus| |
| |accident investigation unit to be responsible for investigating and preparing reports of incidents | |
| |involving metro buses. This unit shall be staffed by certified accident investigators. The report | |
| |should include qualifications and number of employees needed and the structure of the department with| |
| |associated costs. | |
|6/28/07 |EVALUATION OF METRO OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR THE USE OF FREEWAYS BY ALL REVENUE AND NON-REVENUE METRO | |
| |BUSES | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH that the Metro Board of Directors instruct the CEO to do the | |
| |following: | |
| | | |
| |Return to the operations committee and the full board within 60 days with an evaluation of metro | |
| |operating procedure for the use of freeways by all revenue and non-revenue Metro buses; and | |
| | | |
| |Send a letter on behalf of the Metro Board to Governor Schwarzenegger; Secretary of Business, | |
| |Transportation and Housing Dale Bonner; and California Highway Patrol Commissioner Mike L. Brown that| |
| |requests within 90 days an assessment on how current laws prohibiting trucks and other large vehicles| |
| |from use of lanes other than the outermost lanes can be enforced to the greatest extent possible and | |
| |be expanded in future legislation to accommodate new provisions and threats to the safety of highway | |
| |users from increasing traffic attributed to freight trucks and vehicles of similar size. | |
| | | |
|6/28/07 |CONGESTION PRICING | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FASANA, ANTONOVICH, KATZ AND FLEMING that the Metro Board direct the CEO,| |
| |within the framework of the FY07-FY08 budget to: | |
| | | |
| |Work with Caltrans and other agencies as appropriate to develop a detailed operating plan with at | |
| |least three options for implementing congestion pricing in Los Angeles County by 2010. The plan | |
| |should provide revenue projections, environmental effects, mobility impacts, legislative | |
| |requirements, and technical feasibility. | |
| | | |
| |Return to the Board every quarter with status updates and any policy issues requiring additional | |
| |direction. | |
|6/28/07 |LINE 442 | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY BURKE that the MTA Board of Directors instruct the Chief Executive Officer: | |
| |to fund a one-time continuation of the line 442 for the period of one year at fy07 service levels; | |
| | | |
| |through the allocation of $332,000 in funding from the general fund balance described in the | |
| |sub-category labeled "general" on page 34, line 37 in the proposed fy08 budget "yellow book"; and | |
| |that the line be marketed in an effort to increase ridership and that staff report back to the board | |
| |on a quarterly basis to provide ridership reports and updates on marketing efforts. | |
| |further move that future funding consideration beyond FY08 will be contingent upon increasing the | |
| |average ridership on line 442 to the level of 60% capacity. | |
|7/26/07 |RECONSIDER BARRIER GATE ANALYSIS |Item 52 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY NAJARIAN that the | |
| |feasibility analysis be brought back to the July 2007 board meeting for reconsideration. | |
|7/26/07 |CALL FOR PROJECTS |Item 43 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY DIRECTORS FASANA AND BURKE that the Metro Board approves the list of | |
| |projects and order of preference on the call and that the funding decision be put over to the | |
| |September meeting. | |
| | | |
|9/27/07 |STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS |Item 48 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA that the Board direct the Chief Executive Officer, notwithstanding | |
| |any other efforts, to take all steps necessary to protect State transportation funds. The Chief | |
| |Executive Officer shall be authorized to explore potential legislation including ballot initiatives | |
| |to be submitted to the voters and litigation against the State in order to protect transportation | |
| |funding. | |
|9/27/07 |AUDIT OF PARATRANSIT SERVICES |Item 47 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA to receive verbal report from the Inspector General on the | |
| |status of the Board motion approved on March 22, 2007 directing the Office of the Inspector General | |
| |to conduct a performance and compliance audit of Access Services, Inc. and its contractors, including| |
| |those charged with determining eligibility for paratransit services. | |
|10/25/07 |5 Year METRO RIDERSHIP PLAN |Item 14 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FASANA/BURKE that the Board authorize the CEO to: | |
| | | |
| |Direct staff to return to the November 2007 full Board with an amended Ridership Plan that includes | |
| |TAP technology options that clearly promote ridership growth opportunities. TAP staff are to include | |
| |and discuss recognized examples in the Plan such as: | |
| |opportunities for sponsorship from local and national businesses to underwrite cost of TAP cards with| |
| |co-branding and advertising | |
| |ability to implement multi-use TAP card with TOD (transit oriented development) project at retail | |
| |stores, parking, hotels, restaurants (site examples in operation in Europe & Asia) | |
| |ways to implement TAP at senior centers, schools, recreation centers near TODs and Metro bus/rail | |
| |hubs. | |
| |strategies to work with theater chains, destination points such as theme park, museums, etc. using | |
| |TAP | |
| |strategies for use of TAP for off-site parking to sporting and musical/entertainment events and to | |
| |ride Metro to the venue, i.e. Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium, Staples, Coliseum, Convention Center, | |
| |Hollywood Bowl, Long Beach Auditorium, etc. | |
| |strategies for implementing VISA/MasterCard/AMEX to use on TAP Metro bus/rail system. | |
| |strategies to implement cell-phone technology to work on TAP system. | |
| |strategies to implement low-cost paper smart cards for ridership opportunities with tourism agencies,| |
| |convention centers, etc. | |
| |other TAP opportunities that present ridership growth potential | |
| | | |
| |amend the funding plan to be limited to Year 1, including TAP initiatives, and to clearly define in | |
| |the Plan an annual process to measure the progress of programs and their impacts to ridership growth.| |
| |Staff are directed to identify additional yearly funding needed for continuation of initiatives | |
| |undertaken after Year 1, or to add and amend the funding plan for new initiatives being recommended; | |
| |and | |
| | | |
| |staff to return quarterly to report on the progress of each adopted year’s Plan to the Executive | |
| |Management and Audit Committee and Operations Committee. | |
|10/25/07 |5 Year METRO RIDERSHIP PLAN |Item 14 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY VILLARAIGOSA that the Metro Board approve the proposed Ridership Plan and| |
| |further direct the CEO to report back to the Board at the first quarterly update in 90 days with the | |
| |following: | |
| | | |
| |Metro Connections criteria for aligning service hours with customer demand; | |
| |how service hours could be reallocated to comply with the Plan’s proposed 15-minute peak hour | |
| |headways while adhering to the ten-year financial plan; | |
| |a detailed implementation schedule for Metro Connections to include forecasts for increasing | |
| |ridership at each stage; | |
| |a report detailing all bus service, including that of municipal operators, that duplicates or | |
| |competes with existing rail service or major bus lines; and | |
| |make an additional investment in field supervision. | |
|11/29/07 |2008 L. A. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSITION 1B TRANSIT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM|Item 8 |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY O’CONNOR/LOWENTHAL/KATZ that the Metro Board | |
| | | |
| |Direct the CEO to work with the Municipal Operators and State Officials to ascertain if a funding | |
| |allocation resolution that would honor the statutory Formula Allocation Program (PUC Section 99285) | |
| |in Los Angeles County could be forthcoming for the current year allocation of these funds; if no | |
| |remedy to the situation is possible for this year: then | |
| | | |
| |Direct the CEO in the implementation of state established procedures for the allocation of | |
| |Proposition IB Transit Modernization Program funds for the first year of the program, to allocate | |
| |funding derived from either Proposition C 40% or Proposition A 40% Discretionary Growth over CPI | |
| |Account (or any combination) to Municipal Operators noted as eligible in Proposition IB language (and| |
| |in subsequent trailer legislation pertaining to this issue) at the current Formula Allocation Program| |
| |levels for purposes specified by this program. This funding would provide a bridge between the | |
| |identified state funding according to the STA formula and Los Angeles County FAP. | |
| | | |
| |The CEO, further, is directed to allocate funding for purposes specified by this program to Los | |
| |Angeles Department of Transportation and Santa Clarita Transit at funding levels equivalent to the | |
| |Formula Allocation Program allocation for these properties. | |
| | | |
| |Direct the CEO, in collaboration with the Municipal Operators, to initiate urgency legislation which | |
| |will establish that, for the remaining years of available funding, the above noted bond funds will be| |
| |allocated in Los Angeles County according to the approved Formula Allocation Program. | |
|11/29/07 |2008 L. A. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSITION 1B TRANSIT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM|Item 8 |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FASANA TO THE BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY O’CONNOR/LOWENTHAL/KATZ: | |
| |Clarify that since the Los Angeles Department of Transportation and Santa Clarita transit are being | |
| |included as eligible operators that the other two eligible operators, Foothill Transit and Antelope | |
| |Valley Transit Authority, also be included. | |
|11/29/07 |2008 L. A. COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND PROPOSITION 1B TRANSIT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM|Item 8 |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY ANTONOVICH TO THE BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY O’CONNOR/LOWENTHAL/KATZ | |
| |AMENDMENT that the Metro Board of Directors amend recommendation B for item 8 so that: | |
| |the decision to allocate the $116.6 million recommended for "Miscellaneous Transit Projects" ($27.5 | |
| |million in FY 2008; $53.5 million in FY 2009; $35.6 million in FY 2010) and the $85.0 million | |
| |recommended for "Union Bus Division Construction" ($5 million in FY 2008; $36 million in FY 2009; $44| |
| |million in FY 2010) be deferred to and considered concurrently with the Board approval of the 2008 | |
| |Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update. | |
| |Should the California Transportation Commission (CTC) deadline for project submittals fall before the| |
| |LRTP update can be approved, then these two decisions shall be deferred only to the Metro board | |
| |meeting prior to said CTC deadline. | |
|11/29/07 |DIESEL MULTIPLE UNIT (DMU) FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS |Item 12 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA AND KATZ that the Metro Board approve the proposed Diesel | |
| |Multiple Unit (DMU) Feasibility Analysis and further direct the CEO to include a clean fuel | |
| |alternative to the feasibility analysis contract. | |
| | | |
|11/29/07 |TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION PROJECTS |Item 13 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA AND NAJARIAN that the board direct staff to allocate $16.352 million | |
| |of the funds being returned by the City of Los Angeles to eligible projects in the signal | |
| |synchronization category from the 2007 Call for Projects that were funded but at a reduced amount; | |
| |and that the board direct staff to allocate the remaining $3.968 for use on future signal | |
| |synchronization projects. | |
|11/29/07 |REQUEST SCAG TO CONTRIBUTE TO METRO’S CONGESTION PRICING PLAN |Item 20 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FASANA that the Metro Board direct the CEO to request that SCAG contribute | |
| |funding towards the cost for developing Metro's Congestion Pricing Operating Plan. | |
|11/29/07 |PROPOSED 2008 FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS |Item 24 |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY MOLINA/O’CONNOR that the Chief Executive Officer direct staff to bundle | |
| |projects from multiple corridors when applying for Federal Transportation Administration funds and to| |
| |develop an annual Metro Legislative Lobbying Day at the State Capitol. | |
|11/29/07 |GATING FEASIBILITY STUDY |Item 43 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE/FASANA that the CEO direct staff to: | |
| | | |
| |Immediately proceed with a plan to implement Option 2 described in the Rail Gating analysis and work | |
| |with the current TAP equipment contractor to negotiate a contract modification to install fare gates | |
| |as outlined in the analysis; and | |
| | | |
| |Work with current TAP consultant to negotiate a contract modification to provide technical oversight | |
| |for design review, testing, and implementation oversight for an amount not to exceed $ 1 million; and| |
| | | |
| |Return to this Board in 60 to 90 days for approval of both contracts. | |
|11/29/07 |LRTP AND FUNDING STRATEGIES |Item 46 |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH that the Metro Board of Directors instructs the CEO to return to | |
| |the full Board in January 2008 with a report that contains the following: | |
| |An analysis of the effectiveness and deficiencies in the LRTP document and planning process in | |
| |attracting and incorporating private sector funding and other non-traditional funding opportunities | |
| |into the prioritization of projects. | |
| | | |
| |Policy recommendations for the Metro Board to consider on how to update the LRTP document and | |
| |planning process to better reflect the reality of public-private partnerships, private sector | |
| |capital, toll lanes, and other innovative 21st century financing techniques as viable funding sources| |
| |for projects to be placed in a Metro-approved priority list of projects that would have similar | |
| |commitment level as projects placed in the constrained portion of the LRTP. | |
| | | |
| |Recommendations for legislation to pursue at the state and federal level to assist Metro in | |
| |implementing desirable LRTP reforms currently not allowed under state and federal regulations. | |
| | | |
| |A strategic plan by the CEO presented for Board discussion and approval that would | |
| |identify potential private sector funding collaborators; | |
| |reach out to these potential collaborators for insight and advice regarding current policy and other | |
| |barriers that prevent public-private partnerships and private sector funding opportunities from | |
| |occurring; | |
| |collect this information into a report for Board discussion, and; | |
| |present these findings to the Board with recommendations for further policy action. | |
|11/29/07 |FAP |Item 49 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY KNABE/LOWENTHAL/O'CONNOR | |
| | | |
| |We, therefore, move that the following change be made to the Formula Allocation Program (FAP). | |
| | | |
| |FAP Funding Stability: | |
| | | |
| |In the application of this FAP formula adjustment, all Operators' FAP dollar funding levels shall be | |
| |held to a minimum of their FY 2007 dollar funding levels. Where necessary, funding to implement this | |
| |provision shall come from the Proposition A 40% Discretionary Growth Over CPI | |
| |Account. However, no additional funding will be allocated to an operator to mitigate against a | |
| |reduction in funding from the fiscal year 2007 level, if this reduction is caused by a reduction in | |
| |service level provided by that operator. | |
| | | |
| |Application of FAP Formula: | |
| | | |
| |A new rule be added to the current FAP effective immediately for application to the FY 2009 | |
| |Allocation Year (whose allocations are based on FY 2007 TPM data). | |
| |If an Operator increases its base fare anytime from July 1, 2006 forward, their fare units will be | |
| |frozen at that Operator's fare unit level during the last full fiscal year of the old lower fare. It | |
| |will remain at this level, until the new fare unit calculation based on the new higher fare becomes | |
| |greater than the frozen level. After that point, their fare units will be calculated normally. | |
| | | |
| |Example: If an Operator implements a fare increase on July 1, 2006, or anytime during FY 2007, their | |
| |fare units will be frozen at the FY 2006 level until fare unit growth occurs. Thus the fare units | |
| |utilized to calculate the FAP will be the higher of the fare units calculated using current TPM data | |
| |or the fare units from the FAP calculation from the fiscal year prior to the fare increase. | |
| | | |
| |If an Operator lowers their base fare anytime from July 1, 2006 forward, their fare units will be | |
| |frozen at that Operator's fare unit level during the last full fiscal year of the old higher fare. | |
| |Thus. an Operator could not trigger an increase in their fare units by lowering their base fare and | |
| |would have no incentive to do so. Operators would be required to increase their base fare to an | |
| |amount equal to or greater than the base fare established using FY 2006 TPM data to again calculate | |
| |their fare units utilizing current TPM data. | |
| | | |
| |Los Angeles Department of Transportation's annual fare units calculation for the purpose of | |
| |determining its annual FAP subsidy funded from the County's Proposition A Discretionary Growth Over | |
| |CPI account be adjusted as described below. | |
| | | |
| |Effective with the FY 2008 allocation year, the calculation of fare units for LADOT will be conducted| |
| |utilizing a $0.90 base fare for its eligible express services and a $0.50 base fare for its eligible | |
| |local services. LADOT's annual FAP subsidy allocation will continue to be funded from the County's | |
| |Proposition A Discretionary Growth Over CPI account, which is the primary source of FAP funding | |
| |designated by Metro for all Eligible Operators in the County. LADOT will also be subject to the | |
| |proposed new FAP formula/distribution rules discussed above for all Included and Eligible Operators. | |
| |This includes holding all of the other Eligible Operators to a minimum of their FY 2007 dollar | |
| |funding levels. | |
| | | |
| |Continuation of Current Transit Operating Funds: | |
| | | |
| |The LACMTA shall continue to allocate funds to the Included and Eligible Operators from the following| |
| |sources for both the FAP and non-FAP programs; | |
| |Transportation Development Act, Article 4 (includes Interest) | |
| |State Transit Assistance (includes interest) | |
| |Proposition A 40% Discretionary | |
| |Proposition A 40% Discretionary Interest | |
| |Proposition A 40% Discretionary Growth Over CPI | |
| |Proposition C 5% Security | |
| |Proposition C 40% Discretionary Municipal Operator Service Improvement Program (MOSIP) | |
| |Proposition C 40% Discretionary Transit Service Expansion (TSE) | |
| |Proposition C 40% Discretionary Bus System Improvement Plan (BSlP)/Overcrowding Relief | |
| |Proposition C 40% Discretionary Base Restructuring | |
| |Proposition C 40% Discretionary Foothill Transit Mitigation | |
| |Proposition C 40% Discretionary Interest | |
| | | |
|11/29/07 |FAP |Item 49 |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY VILLARAIGOSA TO THE KNABE, LOWENTHAL AND O’CONNOR MOTION ABOVE, which | |
| |replaces the words “$0.90 base fare” and “$0.25 base fare” with “current base fare”; and adds | |
| |paragraph d | |
| |The LACMTA shall allocate any new state or local operations funding sources to the Included and | |
| |Eligible Operators by this formula. In the event that federal or state legislation excludes any of | |
| |the Included and Eligible operators from this new funding source, LACMTA will allocate other funding | |
| |sources to the operators equivalent to their share under the FAP formula. | |
|11/29/07 |FAP |Item 49 |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY NAJARIAN/FLEMING that updates from the current year’s budget be provided and| |
| |called out on a quarterly basis to Metro’s Finance Committee on allocations and expenditures from the| |
| |Proposition A Growth Over Inflation funds that have been converted to Proposition C 40% | |
| |Discretionary; and | |
| |that in Metro’s FY 2008-2009 budget, a line item be inserted in simple terms showing the | |
| |conversion/transfer of Proposition A Growth Over Inflation funds to Proposition C 40% Discretionary | |
| |funds. | |
|11/29/07 |ROSA PARKS HUMAN RIGHTS DAY |Item 53 |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY BURKE AND PARKS that Metro Board hereby proclaim December 1, 2007 as “Rosa | |
| |Parks Human Rights Day” and urge all citizens throughout Los Angeles County to honor and pay tribute| |
| |to the spirit and memory of Rosa Parks, through a reaffirmed commitment to practicing tolerance and | |
| |promoting diversity. | |
|01/24/08 |PROGRAMMING OF PROPOSITION 1B TRANSIT |Item 10 |
| |MODERNIZATION FUNDS | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FASANA to approve FY08 allocation of $32.5 million in Proposition 1B Bond | |
| |funds and defer FY09 allocation of $89.5 million and FY10 allocation of $79.6 million until final | |
| |adoption of the Long Range Transportation Plan. | |
| | | |
| | | |
|01/24/08 |FARE POLICY AND SENIOR AGE FOR DISCOUNTED FARES AND PASSES |Item 16 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA to retain 62 as the qualifying age for all discounted senior | |
| |cash fares and passes. | |
| | | |
|01/24/08 |ROSA PARKS HUMAN RIGHTS DAY |Item 49 |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY BURKE AND PARKS that the Metro Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to | |
| |report back in 90 days with plan to implement the Rosa Parks Human Rights Day on an annual basis. | |
|01/24/08 |METRO SUPPORT SERVICES CENTER SOLAR ENERGY AND |Item 50 |
| |ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA/FASANA to approve the project but directed County Counsel to review | |
| |the Chevron contract and report back in 30 days | |
|01/24/08 |2008 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR |Item 54 |
| |L0S ANGELES COUNTY | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY LOWENTHAL that instructs staff to develop standards for acceptable | |
| |Public/Private Partnership funding commitments and bring this back to the full Board in 60 days. | |
|01/24/08 |STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE RAND CORPORATION OF NEAR-TERM CONGESTION RELIEF STRATEGIES FOR LOS ANGELES |Item 55 |
| |COUNTY | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY FLEMING that the Board direct the CEO to provide up to one-third of the | |
| |total study cost but in no event to exceed $100,000 for the RAND Corporation study of Strategies for | |
| |Reducing Traffic Congestion in Los Angeles in the Near-Term with the understanding that the LACMTA | |
| |will have full access to the study analysis and results. | |
|2/28/08 |SERVICE HOUR CUTS |Item 30 |
| | | |
| |BOARD MEMBER BURKE directed that staff return in March with a report that details the following | |
| |information: | |
| | | |
| |Total service hour cuts made in 2007; | |
| |Total proposed cuts for 2008 and 2009; | |
| |Proposed cuts in local service included in the existing Rapid Bus Implementation Plan; | |
| |Total hours (other than service cuts) that are planned to be added to the Rapid | |
| |Bus to ensure that it is an expansion of the program in compliance with the existing court order; and| |
| |What economies and service reductions are being contemplated and/or applied to the Metro Rail | |
| |corridors and operations? | |
| | | |
|2/28/08 |SERVICE HOUR CUTS |Item 30 |
| | | |
| |BOARD MEMBER FASANA amended Board Member Burke’s motion for staff to include geographic information | |
| |about service cuts by sector and jurisdiction | |
|2/28/08 |AB1815 (FEUER) CREATE THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING TASK FORCE |Item 35A |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY KNABE/BURKE to change from “SUPPORT” to “Work with Author on guaranteeing| |
| |proportional representation.” | |
|2/28/08 |AB1836 (FEUER) ELIMINATE THE VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR ESTABLISHING INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING |Item 35B |
| |DISTRICTS | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY MOLINA to change from “SUPPORT” to “Work with Author.” | |
|2/28/08 |AB TBD (FEUER) IMPLEMENT A GREENHOUSE GAS MITIGATION FEE AND REQUIRE THAT THE REVENUE BE USED FOR |Item 35E |
| |PUBLIC TRANSIT AND CONGESTION | |
| |MANAGEMENT PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY KNABE to change from “SUPPORT” to “Work with Author.” | |
|2/28/08 |GATING |Item 36 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY ANTONOVICH that staff provide the Operations Committee, monthly reports | |
| |related to timelines, overruns and costs. | |
|2/28/08 |I-5 NORTH TRUCK LANES |Item 37 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY VILLARAIGOSA/KATZ | |
| | | |
| |Consider the adoption of the Southern California Consensus Working Group Trade Corridor Improvement | |
| |Fund (TCIF) project list at the March 27, 2008 Board meeting. | |
| | | |
| |Require a highway improvement agreement with the Golden State Gateway Coalition to ensure the | |
| |coalition provides $55 million in local match and will cover any cost increases related to the | |
| |project. | |
| | | |
| |Clarify that this project remains in Tier Two on the Southern California Consensus Working Group | |
| |list. | |
|3/27/08 |PROPOSED JUNE 2008 SERVICE CHANGES |Item 38 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA-PARKS-BURKE, AMENDED BY LOWENTHAL, KNABE, NAJARIAN AND FASANA| |
| |that the MTA Board direct the CEO to report back to the April 2008 Operations Committee meeting with | |
| |the following additional information for the areas surrounding the proposed Tier 1, 2 and 3 bus | |
| |service reductions and line eliminations: | |
| | | |
| |Violent crime statistics (crime rates, including differences by time day), as well as high crime | |
| |areas, gang reduction zones (GRZ), gang injunction areas, and CLEAR sites | |
| | | |
| |Identification of the percentage of the population that is transit dependent | |
| | | |
| |Identification of alternative bus/rail services available | |
| | | |
| |Identification of additional walk/bike distance to access these alternative services | |
| | | |
| |Additional wait and/or transfer time for these alternative services | |
| | | |
| |Alternatives to canceling owl service as well as service segments that leave areas of the region | |
| |uncovered by transit. | |
| | | |
| |further that the MTA Board direct the CEO to generate an alternative proposal – in addition to the | |
| |current proposed June 2008 service changes – for Board consideration at the April 2008 Operations | |
| |Committee and MTA Board Meeting that reduces the same number of service hours within each Sector | |
| |without reducing or eliminating vital bus service in high crime/gang and transit dependent areas, | |
| |including access to local hospitals. | |
| | | |
| |further that the MTA Board direct the CEO to establish a formal consultation process with municipal | |
| |and local operators for all future proposed MTA service changes (cuts, etc.) as they are being | |
| |developed, including a written notification and details to each affected municipal operator with the | |
| |final MTA staff recommendations at least ten business days before the governance council public | |
| |hearing or MTA Board meeting where the issue is scheduled to be discussed. | |
|3/26/08 |SUSTAINABILITY SURVEY |Item 42 |
| | | |
| |BOARD MEMBER BURKE directed that the Sustainability Committee direct staff, in consultation with the | |
| |County's Energy & Environmental Policy Team and other appropriate entities, to initiate a survey and | |
| |analysis of local jurisdictions and other public agencies (including universities, special districts,| |
| |school districts, sanitation districts, water resource agencies, ports and airports) in Los Angeles | |
| |County to accomplish the following: | |
| | | |
| |Inventory Existing or Planned Implementation Strategies to Comply with AB 32 to determine the level | |
| |of awareness of AB32 and level of integration into general and/or strategic plans. This would include| |
| |the level of greenhouse gas inventory reporting and levels of existing and proposed greenhouse gas | |
| |emission mitigation strategies that exist, such as: | |
| | | |
| |Green building, procurement and energy efficiency ordinances | |
| |Smart growth zoning ordinances | |
| |Energy efficiency and demand management goals | |
| |Renewable energy programs | |
| |Vehicle miles traveled reductions and other transportation initiatives | |
| |Waste reduction and recycling programs | |
| | | |
| |Report back to the Sustainability Committee with their findings at the June Ad-Hoc Sustainability | |
| |Committee Meeting. | |
|4/24/08 |UPGRADE AND SALARY FOR DEPUTY EXECUTIVE |Item 21 |
| |OFFICER, WAYSIDE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY MOLINA to approve the salary upgrade and remove the position upgrade | |
|4/24/08 |HOLLYWOOD WALK OF FAME |Item 22 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY YAROSLAVSKY to | |
| |Direct the Chief Executive Officer to take a leadership role and initiate discussions with all | |
| |interested parties; | |
| |Develop a funding agreement with the City, Metro and other affected parties to repair and replace the| |
| |remainder of the Hollywood Walk of Fame, subject to Metro Board's approval; and | |
| |Report back to the Board in 90 days with a commitment plan that describes the implementation and | |
| |estimated costs to perform the repairs and replacement of the black terrazzo along the Hollywood Walk| |
| |of Fame. | |
|4/24/08 |PROPOSED JUNE 2008 SERVICE CHANGES |Item 39 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA-PARKS-BURKE that the MTA Board direct the CEO to | |
| |cancel the proposed June 2008 Tier 1, 2 and 3 (including Night Owl service) service cuts with the | |
| |exception of cuts to Limited Stop service on lines 330, 115/315, 361, 350, 394 and implement six new | |
| |Rapid lines to achieve a total savings of $4.7 million. | |
| | | |
| |Further that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: | |
| |identify $12.5 million in savings to maintain the current Tier 1, 2, and 3 service and report back to| |
| |the May Operations Committee with potential options | |
| |establish a 25% cap on headway increases to achieve the 215,000 revenue service hours in thinning | |
| | | |
|4/24/08 |SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REFERENCES TO A TRUCK LANE ON STATE ROUTE 60 IN THE |Item 45 |
| |2008 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY MOLINA directing the Chief Executive Officer to contact SCAG and request | |
| |that any references to a truck lane on State Route 60 in the 2008 RTP Strategic Plan be removed and | |
| |be replaced with a project that is more broadly described as an east-west freight corridor including | |
| |non-freeway corridors and alternative freight technologies. | |
|4/24/08 |SB 1722 (OROPEZA) – WOULD ESTABLISH A METRO GREEN LINE CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY |Item 46B |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY KNABE to change position from "oppose" to "work with author" | |
|4/24/08 |CONGESTION PRICING OPERATING PLAN FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY - AWARD CONTRACT TO PB AMERICAS, INC. |Item 48 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED DIRECTIVE BY MOLINA to forward to Ad Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee to discuss | |
| |outreach | |
| | | |
|4/24/08 |STAFF DIRECTION RELATING TO POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE |Item 49 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY O’CONNOR that the Metro Board request and authorize the CEO to: | |
| | | |
| |Research the requirements for putting a 1/2% sale tax measure on the November ballot. | |
| | | |
| |Develop a comprehensive package of projects and programs that would include moving up projects | |
| |schedules currently in the Constrained Plan of the draft 2008 Long Range Plan, as well as, including | |
| |the highest performing projects in the Tier I element of the Strategic Plan and Tier II of the TCIF | |
| |projects. | |
| | | |
| |Develop a draft ballot measure for the Board's review and consideration. | |
| | | |
| |Initiate any other efforts that will be needed to inform or help the Board in it's consideration of | |
| |placing a measure on the November 2008 ballot. | |
| | | |
| |Return to the Board in June 2008 for further consideration of asking the County Board of Supervisors | |
| |to place a measure on the November 2008 Ballot. | |
|4/24/08 |STAFF DIRECTION RELATING TO POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE |Item 49 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY BURKE to include Operations funding. | |
|4/24/08 |STAFF DIRECTION RELATING TO POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE |Item 49 |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY KATZ that the ballot measure be less constrained. | |
|4/24/08 |STAFF DIRECTION RELATING TO POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE |Item 49 |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH that the Board direct the CEO to take immediate action to have | |
| |Metro staff make a detailed presentation to and request comprehensive input from: | |
| | | |
| |each of the Councils of Government in Los Angeles county (e.g. san Gabriel valley, gateway cities, | |
| |south bay cities, Westside cities, Las Virgenes-Malibu, Arroyo Verdugo) | |
| | | |
| |the north county transportation council | |
| | | |
| |the City of Los Angeles | |
| | | |
| |and as many of the unincorporated areas and cities not included in these regional governance | |
| |structures. | |
| | | |
| |This schedule of outreach to the aforementioned jurisdictions and agencies must allow for a | |
| |comprehensive level of input to be received by the Metro Board of Directors prior to the June 2008 | |
| |Metro Board meeting. | |
| | | |
| |Furthermore, the Metro staff presentations and requests for input shall include, but not limited to, | |
| |the following topics: | |
| | | |
| |project lists | |
| |project funding maxima and minima | |
| |project schedule | |
| |length of tax/sunset provision | |
| |criteria for choosing eligible projects | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|4/24/08 |INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR NEW RAIL PROJECTS |Item 50 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY VILLARAIGOSA that the MTA Board direct the CEO to: | |
| | | |
| |Issue a request for information (RFI) within 30 days | |
| |requesting concepts and preliminary proposals for innovative | |
| |public-private partnerships (PPP) to build one or more of the | |
| |18 candidate fixed guideway projects using the attached | |
| |principles (See "Public-Private Partnership Principles" | |
| | | |
| |Work with interested parties to provide requested data | |
| |necessary to develop concepts and preliminary proposals | |
| | | |
| |Present to the Board information received from the RFI no | |
| |later than the July 2008 MT A Board meeting, analyze the | |
| |advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and seek | |
| |policy direction from the MT A Board on whether to proceed | |
| |to a formal request for proposals (RFP) for a public-private | |
| |partnership (PPP) | |
| | | |
|4/24/08 |INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR NEW RAIL PROJECTS - RFI FOR PPP |Item 50 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY ANTONOVICH to | |
| | | |
| |Expand the scope of the Request for Information (RFI)to include proposals on any of the fixed | |
| |guideway systems in the Strategic Portion of the Metro Long Range Transportation Plan, any new fixed | |
| |guideway concepts in Los Angeles County regardless of technology or corridor, and highway projects | |
| |such as the High Desert Corridor and the 710 Gap Closure. | |
| | | |
| |Extend the period for submittal of proposals by the private sector to July 31st 2008, with the | |
| |understanding that proposals for the projects requested by the original motion are requested by May | |
| |31st 2008 for initial consideration by the Board. | |
| | | |
| |The "principles" enumerated in the original motion shall be recommended, but not required, guidelines| |
| |for the private sector to consider when making their proposals, with the opportunity for the private | |
| |sector to submit proposals to Metro that do not follow each principle provided for the sake of | |
| |flexibility and innovation. | |
|4/24/08 |INNOVATIVE FINANCING FOR NEW RAIL PROJECTS - RFI FOR PPP |Item 50 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY LOWENTHAL that the Interstate 710 Freeway Corridor and Metro Gold Line | |
| |Eastside Extension Phase II projects are included. | |
|4/24/08 |METRO/NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY WORKING GROUP |Item 51 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED MOTION BY ANTONOVICH that the Board of Directors direct the CEO to create a | |
| |Metro/North county transit connectivity working group that will explore connectivity issues between | |
| |the North Los Angeles County areas outside of the Metro service area and the Metro service area. | |
|4/24/08 |METRO/NORTH COUNTY TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY WORKING GROUP |Item 51 |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY NAJARIAN AND PARKS that the Metro CEO create a working group to expand | |
| |and coordinate regional connectivity and service options for the cities of Burbank, Glendale, Los | |
| |Angeles and Pasadena, comprised of the following representatives: | |
| | | |
| |1 each from the four cities, MTA transit sector staff, municipal operator staff, interested board | |
| |member staff and MTA planning staff. | |
| | | |
| |MTA northern corridor board deputies shall co-chair this group with City of Los Angeles board | |
| |deputies, convene meetings, present to the board on an as-needed basis proposals as a result of this | |
| |group’s effort. The first meeting shall convene no later than May 10, 2008. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|5/22/08 |PROGRAMMING FOR SCRRA FY 2008-09 ANNUAL BUDGET |Item 6 |
| |AND PRIOR YEAR RE-PROGRAMMING OF FUNDS | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN AMENDMENT that the Board approve the Long Range Transportation Plan $50.1 | |
| |million allocation, provide a one-time funding of $780,000 for the EZ pass subsidy increase, and | |
| |approve the use of $8.8 million in prior years’ subsidy for operating and capital needs, for a total | |
| |of $59.7 million. Further move that Metro adopt the 50% resident formula for allocating both direct | |
| |and indirect operating costs for Metrolink as recommended in the cost/benefit analysis and direct the| |
| |CEO to work with the other Metrolink JPA members to adjust the Metro formula for the FY 09/10 | |
| |allocation. | |
| | | |
| |DIRECTOR NAJARIAN STATED: this amendment does not alter the capital plan projects in the LRTP listed| |
| |in attachment D of the staff report | |
| | | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET |Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN MOTION requesting the CEO to direct Metro staff to report back to the board | |
| |at the June meeting with a chart for PROP A growth over inflation fiscal years 98/99 through 08/09 | |
| |stating the revenues and expenses for each fiscal year before any balances are converted to PROP C | |
| |40% discretionary funds. LACMTA staff should work with board staff to develop a simple format that | |
| |is easily understood. | |
| | | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET –POSITION AUTHORIZATION AND COMPENSATION POLICY |Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDMENT authorizing the CEO to approve all non-contract salaries up to $175,000| |
| |for new hires, reclassifications, salary equities and adjustments and the creation of new | |
| |non-contract classifications; and allow the CEO to adjust this threshold annually by the average COLA| |
| |awarded non-represented employees. | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET - FIVE-YEAR RIDERSHIP PLAN |Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KNABE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO FORWARD BURKE/LOWENTHAL/PARKS MOTION TO THE JUNE FINANCE | |
| |AND BUDGET COMMITTEE AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE | |
| | | |
| |The motion is to include: | |
| | | |
| |the Five-year Ridership plan be revised to set on-time performance as a funding priority | |
| |that two additional TOS positions per sector be allocated in the 2008-09 Bus Operations budget | |
| |that a phased plan be submitted to the Board to increase road supervision to a level commensurate | |
| |with achieving increased on-time performance goals | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET - SERVICE SECTOR COMMUNICATIONS FUND |Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH AMENDMENT that the Board of Directors instruct the CEO to increase to | |
| |$500,000 the allocation to the Service Sector Communications Fund in the FY 08-09 budget in a | |
| |cost-neutral manner from the overall Communications budget. | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET – RECOMMENDATION L – RECLASS AND SALARY EQUITY ADJUSTMENTS) |Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT that three positions in Recommendation L with proposed salaries | |
| |above $175.000 be approved | |
| | | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET - HIGH DESERT CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY |Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH/NAJARIAN AMENDMENT that the Board of Directors instruct the CEO to grant to| |
| |the High Desert Corridor Joint Powers Authority the sum of $500,000 for fiscal year 2008-09. | |
|5/22/08 |PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET - EXECUTIVE OFFICER LEVEL TO THE NEW BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT|Item 11 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KNABE SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO FORWARD FASANA MOTION TO THE JUNE FINANCE AND BUDGET | |
| |COMMITTEE | |
| | | |
| |FASANA MOTION move that the Board amend the FY09 Budget to add 1 FTE at an Executive Officer level to| |
| |the New Business Development Department to oversee the Congestion Pricing program and be responsible | |
| |for coordinating related departmental activities, to provide executive direction to project | |
| |management staff and consultants, and to perform the following duties, but not limited to: | |
| |Directs and manages the development of congestion reduction operating plans and implementation | |
| |schedules, including revenue projections, environmental effects, mobility impacts on legislative | |
| |requirements and technical feasibility. | |
| |Develops strategy for receiving legal authority to implement conversion of high occupancy vehicle | |
| |(HOV) to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. | |
| |Develops revenue projections and investment recommendations. | |
| |Oversees and manages the development of cost estimates for implementation, operations and | |
| |administration. (continued) | |
| |Assumes a leadership role with partner agencies to negotiate roles and deliverables and communicate | |
| |with decisionmakers in other agencies to resolve issues quickly. | |
| |Oversees the identification of required equipment, technologies and other infrastructure. | |
| |Recommends institutional structures, regulatory functions and legislative actions required to | |
| |implement, administer and operate congestion pricing alternatives. | |
| |Directs and manages the identification of mitigation measures for potential traffic, environmental | |
| |and social impacts on adjacent areas and target populations. (continued) | |
| |Establishes and monitors short-range and long-range project goals, budgets, schedules, progress, and | |
| |strategies. | |
| |Sets and implements project policies, procedures, safety and work standards, and controls. | |
| |Ensures cooperation and coordination of services amongst departments to achieve metro-wide goals and | |
| |objectives. | |
| |Ensures compliance with metro policies and procedures and applicable state, federal and local | |
| |regulations and laws. | |
| |Prepares and presents reports to executive and management staff, the board of directors, and outside | |
| |regulatory agencies. | |
| |Makes presentations and recommendations to the Ad Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee (ACPC), | |
| |Transportation Agency Advisory Group (TAAG), and Community Advisory Groups (CAG). | |
| |Represents Metro at meetings, conferences, and public events. | |
|5/22/08 |TRANSIT PROJECT PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS |Item 27 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED YAROSLAVSKY SUBSTITUTE MOTION to direct staff to report back to the June Planning and | |
| |Programming Committee the Fasana motion that staff explore and present a Transit Project Performance | |
| |Analysis that includes consideration of the environmental benefits of a transit project, with areas | |
| |to be analyzed for environmental benefit/detriment | |
| | | |
| |CHAIR O’ CONNOR added that highway projects need to be included, not just the environmental benefits | |
| |of transit projects. | |
| | | |
| |BURKE added that the environmental analysis should be consistent with SCAG & FTA criteria. | |
| | | |
| | | |
|5/22/08 |STUDY THAT WILL FULLY RESEARCH THE POTENTIAL FOR A CONGESTION PRICING PROPOSAL FOR THE REMAINDER OF |Item 30 |
| |FREEWAY CORRIDORS IN LOS ANGELES | |
| |COUNTY | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Board of Directors instructs the CEO to return to the full | |
| |board in June 2008 with the following: | |
| |A plan to deliver to the board a study that will fully research the potential for a congestion | |
| |pricing proposal for the remainder of freeway corridors in Los Angeles County (e.g. I-405, US-101, | |
| |SR-170). This study will contain, but not be limited to, the following items: | |
| |timeframes for earliest implementation of congestion pricing on these freeway corridors; | |
| |funding requirements needed to implement these corridor congestion pricing proposals; | |
| |policy decisions necessary at the local, state and federal level to allow this implementation to | |
| |occur; | |
| |a plan to meet with, present to and obtain input from the Los Angeles County state and federal | |
| |delegation on corridor proposals within each member’s jurisdiction as well as the current congestion | |
| |pricing proposal as outlined in the Metro/USDOT Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); | |
| |identification of which corridors could potentially replace the current 210/10/110 corridors in the | |
| |Metro/USDOT MOU. | |
| | | |
| |A timeframe in which this plan will be executed so that: | |
| |any alternative congestion pricing corridor proposals in Los Angeles County will be available as a | |
| |substitute for the three current corridor proposals, staying within the guidelines of the USDOT | |
| |Congestion Reduction Demonstration grant; and | |
| |any alternative congestion pricing corridor proposals which do not meet the implementation deadlines | |
| |for the USDOT grant will still be developed for possible action should a new round of grants or | |
| |funding opportunities arise. | |
|6/26/08 |THE FY 2009 BUDGET BE AMENDED TO ADD 1 FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT AT AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER LEVEL TO THE NEW|Item 17 |
| |BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED FASANA MOTION that pending approval of legislation authorizing a Congestion Pricing | |
| |Program and securing of funds for the project, that the Board amend the FY09 Budget to add 1 FTE at | |
| |an Executive Officer level to the New Business Development Department to oversee the Congestion | |
| |Pricing program and be responsible for coordinating related departmental activities, to provide | |
| |executive direction to project management staff and consultants, and to perform the following duties,| |
| |but not limited to: | |
| |Directs and manages the development of congestion reduction operating plans and implementation | |
| |schedules, including revenue projections, environmental effects, mobility impacts on legislative | |
| |requirements and technical feasibility. | |
| |Develops strategy for receiving legal authority to implement conversion of high occupancy vehicle | |
| |(HOV) to high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. | |
| |Develops revenue projections and investment recommendations. | |
| |Oversees and manages the development of cost estimates for implementation, operations and | |
| |administration. (continued) | |
| |Assumes a leadership role with partner agencies to negotiate roles and deliverables and communicate | |
| |with decisionmakers in other agencies to resolve issues quickly. | |
| |Oversees the identification of required equipment, technologies and other infrastructure. | |
| |Recommends institutional structures, regulatory functions and legislative actions required to | |
| |implement, administer and operate congestion pricing alternatives. | |
| |Directs and manages the identification of mitigation measures for potential traffic, environmental | |
| |and social impacts on adjacent areas and target populations. (continued) | |
| |Establishes and monitors short-range and long-range project goals, budgets, schedules, progress, and | |
| |strategies. | |
| |Sets and implements project policies, procedures, safety and work standards, and controls. | |
| |Ensures cooperation and coordination of services amongst departments to achieve metro-wide goals and | |
| |objectives. | |
| |Ensures compliance with metro policies and procedures and applicable state, federal and local | |
| |regulations and laws. | |
| |Prepares and presents reports to executive and management staff, the board of directors, and outside | |
| |regulatory agencies. | |
| |Makes presentations and recommendations to the Ad Hoc Congestion Pricing Committee (ACPC), | |
| |Transportation Agency Advisory Group (TAAG), and Community Advisory Groups (CAG). | |
| |Represents Metro at meetings, conferences, and public events. | |
|6/26/08 |2008 LONG RANGE TRANSPORATION PLAN (LRTP) |Item 51 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED BURKE MOTION to forward Fasana, Antonovich, Najarian motion to first regular meeting | |
| |following the November 2008 general election. | |
| | | |
| |The Fasana, Antonovich, Najarian motion is that the Board of Directors amend the Long Range | |
| |Transportation Plan to: | |
| | | |
| |include the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2A (to Azuza/Citrus) as a project in the | |
| |constrained (funded) portion of the long range transportation plan; | |
| | | |
| |provide a capital contribution of $80 million and fund operations for Metro Gold Line Foothill | |
| |Extension Phase 2A (to Azusa/Citrus) and report back on the impacts to the long range transportation | |
| |plan. Metro’s $80 million capital commitment to the project shall not exceed 20 percent of the | |
| |project cost of the Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2A Project to Azusa/Citrus. The | |
| |Authority shall be responsible for all cost overruns. | |
| | | |
| |direct staff to immediately begin negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Construction | |
| |Authority to implement this commitment and agreements as necessary. | |
|6/26/08 |2008 LONG RANGE TRANSPORATION PLAN (LRTP) |Item 51 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED FASANA MOTION that the Board amend the 2001 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) to | |
| |include the Congestion Reduction Demonstration Initiative as a project on the Constrained Project | |
| |List. | |
|6/26/08 |2008 LONG RANGE TRANSPORATION PLAN (LRTP) |Item 51 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ MOTION that the Board delay approval of the 2008 LRTP until the November Board | |
| |meeting. | |
|6/26/08 |REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE TRANSIT POLICING CONTRACT |Item 56 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Board postpones the release of the Request for Proposals | |
| |for the Transit Policing Contract until after the full Board can deliberate the proposal and | |
| |framework for Metro Transit Policing at the July 2008 regular Board meeting. | |
|7/24/08 |TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM PROP A GROWTH OVER INFLATION TO PROP C 40% |Item 12 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN AND FLEMING MOTION that after the Eligible Operators have received funding | |
| |from Growth Over Inflation (GOI) (created for Eligible Operators and the primary use of this fund), | |
| |and prior to the transfer of unused GOI funds to Prop C 40%, staff bring their recommendations back | |
| |to the MTA board for specific use of these funds through the annual budget process as a separate | |
| |item. | |
|7/24/08 |BIG RIG SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM |Item 24 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED LOWENTHAL/ BURKE DIRECTIVE that staff report back to the Board with a status report | |
| |six months after commencement of permanent Big Rig Service Patrol Program (scheduled for | |
| |7/2009—Report Back 1/2010). | |
|7/24/08 |TRANSIT COMMUNITY POLICING CONTRACT |Item 28 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH/PARKS AMENDMENT that the Board Of Directors instruct the CEO to do the | |
| |following: | |
| | | |
| |Create an Operations Subcommittee composed of Board staff, similar in nature to the Board staff | |
| |budget preparation participation process, that will receive periodic updates as requested by this | |
| |Subcommittee. | |
| | | |
| |Have staff present to the Operations Committee a full update after approval of the exclusive | |
| |negotiation agreement. | |
|7/24/08 |TRANSIT COMMUNITY POLICING CONTRACT |Item 28 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED PARKS AMENDMENT that the MTA Board directs the CEO to return for Board approval to | |
| |enter into exclusive negotiations with the most qualified respondent to provide transit security | |
| |services over the next five years in response to the proposed Request for Interest and Qualifications| |
| |(RFIQ) | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED VILLARAIGOSA, PARKS, FLEMING AND KATZ AMENDING MOTION that the Metro Board direct and | |
| |authorize the CEO to amend the ordinance to use funds, , from the “countywide bus service operations,| |
| |maintenance, and expansion” program (category) (O’CONNOR Amendment: after formula allocation | |
| |procedure is distributed first)and revise the expenditure plan to: | |
| | | |
| |Suspend the Metro Board adopted fare increases scheduled for July 1, 2009 (FY09-10) for one year. | |
| |Freeze all Metro fares in the following categories for five years (through June 30, 2013): | |
| |Student | |
| |Senior | |
| |Disabled | |
| |Medicare | |
| |In the event that a measure placed on the ballot by LACMTA implementing a sales tax increase of one | |
| |half of one percent (0.5%) in the County of Los Angeles is not adopted by the voters at the November | |
| |4, 2008 election, this motion shall be null and void. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDING MOTION that the Metro Board adopt the following: | |
| | | |
| |1. Exposition LRT phase II (“Expo”) | |
| | | |
| |A. Expo shall remain a priority rail project and receive full funding from local sources. | |
| | | |
| |B. LACMTA hereby programs $115.3 million of Proposition C 25% funds and $238.0 million of proposition| |
| |a 35% rail bond funds for Expo in addition to sales tax funds from this measure and other previously | |
| |programmed funds. | |
| | | |
| |C. LACMTA directs that the funding identified in paragraph B of this motion for Expo be placed in | |
| |the sales tax expenditure plan. | |
| | | |
| |D. If the final project approved by the Metro Board is less than the programmed project cost | |
| |identified in the adopted 2008 LRTP, then the Metro Board may re-program the unused funds to other | |
| |eligible uses in the sub-region. | |
| | | |
| |In the event that a measure placed on the ballot by LACMTA implementing a sales tax increase of one | |
| |half of one percent (0.5%) in the County of Los Angeles is not adopted by the voters at the November | |
| |4, 2008 election, this motion shall be null and void. | |
| | | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED LOWENTHAL AND BURKE MOTION that if the sales tax measure passes that the CEO return | |
| |to this Board with an outline for including training and local workforce utilization for all | |
| |infrastructure projects financed with sales tax proceeds. This would include, but not be limited to, | |
| |the development of apprenticeship programs and local hiring agreements. | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN MOTION that any Metrolink funding must be spent within Los Angeles County per| |
| |the most current Board policy. | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDING MOTION that the Metro Board revise section 8: oversight as follows: | |
| | | |
| |D. The committee shall select and consult with an advisory panel when performing its responsibilities| |
| |required under this ordinance. The advisory panel shall consist of at least one representative, and | |
| |not more than two, of the following professions or areas of expertise: | |
| |Construction trade labor union representative | |
| |Environmental engineer or environmental scientist | |
| |Road or rail construction firm project manager | |
| |Public and private finance expert | |
| |Regional association of businesses representative | |
| |Transit system user | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDING MOTION to amend the board resolution placing the sales tax ordinance on | |
| |the ballot by inserting the following new section after the section entitled “notice of election:” | |
| | | |
| |Withdrawal of proposition | |
| |Metro hereby authorizes the CEO to instruct the Registrar-Recorder to withdraw the proposition from | |
| |the November 4, 2008 ballot in the event that the California legislature adopts any statute that | |
| |prevents the ordinance from taking effect, or in the event that the California legislature fails to | |
| |adopt a statute that provides that the tax proposed by Metro in the ordinance shall not be considered| |
| |for the purposes of the combined rate limit established by section 7251.1 of the revenue and taxation| |
| |code. | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDING MOTION to include the following technical amendments (non-substantive) | |
| |in the resolution: | |
| |Page 2, ballot proposition: | |
| |strike current ballot language and replace with:Traffic relief. Rail extensions. Reduce foreign oil| |
| |dependence. | |
| | | |
| |To: | |
| |synchronize traffic signals; | |
| |repair potholes; | |
| |extend light rail with airport connections; | |
| |improve freeway traffic flow (5, 10, 14, 60, 101, 110, 138, 210, 405, 605, 710); | |
| |keep senior/student/disabled fares low; | |
| |provide clean-fuel buses; | |
| |expand subway/Metrolink/bus service; | |
| |dedicate millions for community traffic relief; | |
| | | |
| |Shall Los Angeles County’s sales tax increase one-half cent for 30 years with independent audits, | |
| |public review of expenditures, all locally controlled? | |
| | | |
| |Page 4, election/registrar-recorder: | |
| |In the first paragraph, in the phrase “conduct of such special election,” strike the word “such” and | |
| |replace with the word “the.” | |
| |In the third paragraph, in the phrase “canvass the returns of said special election,” strike the word| |
| |“said” and replace with the word “the.” | |
| | | |
| |Page 4, arguments | |
| |In the phrase “and any rebuttal arguments” replace “any” with “the” and strike the “s” in “arguments”| |
| |so that the phrase reads “and the rebuttal argument.” | |
| | | |
| |Page 4, Request for Letter Identifying Proposition | |
| |Replace the Letter “t” with “a.” | |
|7/24/08 |THE ORDINANCE, INCLUDING EXPENDITURE PLAN, BALLOT LANGUAGE, AND FIVE-POINT PLAN, TO IMPLEMENT A |Item 36 |
| |TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX MEASURE | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDING MOTION to include the following technical amendments (non-substantive) | |
| |in the Ordinance: | |
| |Header | |
| | | |
| |Strike phrase “working draft 10” | |
| | | |
| |Section 1: TITLE | |
| | | |
| |Following phrase “traffic relief and rail expansion ordinance” insert a comma and the phrase “, | |
| |imposing a transactions and use tax to be administered by the state Board of Equalization.” | |
| | | |
| |Section 3: DEFINITIONS | |
| | | |
| |In “gross sales tax” change the phrase “sales taxes” to “sales tax” | |
| |In “Metro or MTA” change quotation marks to read “Metro” or “MTA” | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |Section 7: USE OF REVENUES | |
| | | |
| |Paragraph (B) in the phrase “allocation ratios described in on page 1 of attachment A” strike the | |
| |word “in.” | |
| |paragraph (D) (3) strike entire paragraph and replace with: | |
| | | |
| |Metro shall allocate no less than the amount of net revenues identified in attachment A as “new sales| |
| |tax – total” for the project identified in attachment A as “Capital Project Contingency (transit).” | |
| |Funds allocated to “capital project contingency (transit)” shall be expended as needed to provide | |
| |additional funding for capital projects identified in Attachment A as “transit projects.” Metro may | |
| |expend such funds for debt service, excluding payments for principal, to offset the costs of | |
| |inflation, or for any other purpose. Metro shall not expend an amount of net revenues from capital | |
| |project contingency (transit) that is greater than the amount permitted in paragraph (E) (2) for any | |
| |capital project. | |
| |Paragraph (H) in the phrase “capital project contingency subfund or such other subfund…” replace the | |
| |first “subfund” with the phrase “line item” and strike the word “other.” | |
| |Section 8 | |
| | | |
| |Paragraph (g) in the phrase “except that the metro may reimburse…” strike the word “the.” | |
| |Paragraph (i) in the phrase “and making findings as to whether metro has compiled…” the word “making”| |
| |should be changed to “make.” | |
| | | |
| |Section 11 | |
| | | |
| |Paragraph (d) following the phrase “simple majority vote of the electors” insert the phrase “voting | |
| |on a measure to approve the amendment.” | |
| | | |
| |Section 14 | |
| | | |
| |Strike title and first paragraph and replace with the following: | |
| | | |
| |Section 14: ELECTION | |
| |Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code section 130350, Metro hereby calls a special election to| |
| |place this ordinance before the voters. The ballot language shall read as follows: | |
| | | |
| |Strike ballot language and replace with: | |
| | | |
| |Traffic relief. Rail extensions. Reduce foreign oil dependence. | |
| |To: | |
| |Synchronize traffic signals; | |
| |Repair potholes; | |
| |Extend light rail with airport connections; | |
| |Improve freeway traffic flow (5, 10, 14, 60, 101, 110, 138, 210, 405, 605, 710); | |
| |Keep senior/student/disabled fares low; | |
| |Provide clean-fuel buses; | |
| |Expand subway/Metrolink/bus service; | |
| |Dedicate millions for community traffic relief; | |
| | | |
| |Shall Los Angeles county’s sales tax increase one-half cent for 30 years with independent audits, | |
| |public review of expenditures, all locally controlled? | |
| |Section 16 | |
| | | |
| |Paragraph (A)(2)(A)(III) the project “San Fernando Valley North-South Rapidways” is renamed “San | |
| |Fernando Valley East North-South Rapidways” | |
| |Paragraph (A)(2)(B) the phrase “one half” should be hyphenated as “one-half” | |
| |Paragraph (A) (3) following the phrase “is adopted by the California legislature in the 2007-2008 | |
| |legislative session” insert the phrase “and becomes law.” | |
|9/25/08 |ENHANCED COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY |Items 49 & 50 Combined |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED VILLARAIGOSA ANTONOVICH KNABE NAJARIAN KATZ MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors: | |
| | | |
| |1. Instruct the Los Angeles delegation to the Metrolink Board of Directors and request the whole | |
| |Metrolink Board of Directors to: | |
| | | |
| |A. Direct Connex Railroad LLC/Veolia Transportation to immediately staff Metrolink locomotive cabs | |
| |with two qualified engineers and authorize the Metrolink CEO to negotiate any associated contract | |
| |amendments | |
| |B. Implement “automatic train stop” (ATS) wayside infrastructure immediately to compliment Metrolink | |
| |trains that are already equipped with ATS equipment and capability | |
| |C. Install in all Metrolink locomotive cabs as soon as possible video cameras and digital video | |
| |recorders (or equivalent technology) that will record all engineer and other staff activity in the | |
| |cab for forensic and investigative purposes, including appropriate discipline for engineers who | |
| |violate operating procedures required by law or contract | |
| |D. Immediately establish an independent “Commuter Rail Safety Peer Review Panel” to review | |
| |Metrolink’s existing rail safety plans, operating procedures, and protocols. The panel shall include | |
| |experts in applicable fields to review and recommend both immediate and longer term improvements that| |
| |will increase safety, reduce the risk of a catastrophic event, and focus on creating safety | |
| |redundancy in Metrolink’s operating procedures, vehicles, facilities (wayside), and systems. In | |
| |addition, the panel should be requested to review the safety plans and protocols of the Burlington | |
| |Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads operating in Metrolink service area. The results of the| |
| |peer review need to be presented within two weeks at a special Metrolink Board meeting. | |
| |E. Concurrent with the work of the “Commuter Rail Safety Peer Review Panel” challenge the Burlington | |
| |Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific railroads to implement ATS infrastructure on their locomotives | |
| |operating in the Metrolink service area, including the County of Los Angeles | |
| | | |
| |2. Direct the CEO to: | |
| | | |
| |A. Immediately identify and program $5 million for implementation of “automatic train stop” (or | |
| |positive train control systems and/or other effective collision avoidance systems) on the commuter | |
| |rail system in the County of Los Angeles | |
| |B. Report back to the Board in October with cost estimates and any additional programming required to| |
| |implement these automatic train stop systems | |
| |C. Include funding for ATS and any other recommended safety improvements in MTA’s proposed FY 2009 | |
| |budget | |
| | | |
| |3. Direct the CEO to work with Metrolink’s other funding partners to secure, identify and program | |
| |funding for implementation of positive train control systems (or other effective collision avoidance | |
| |systems) on the commuter rail system in the non-Los Angeles portions of Metrolink’s service area | |
| | | |
| |4. Request the CEO to report on actions needed to secure and allocate for rail safety improvements in| |
| |the Metrolink service area, the $97.0 million of Trade Corridor Improvement Fund revenues, programmed| |
| |by the California Transportation Commission for the Colton Crossing project, consistent with Article | |
| |2.5. Section 8879.52 (d) of AB 268 | |
| | | |
| |5. Adopt “SUPPORT” positions on the following federal legislation that would implement positive train| |
| |control and other collision avoidance systems on commuter rail lines and create federal assistance | |
| |for families of passengers involved in rail passenger accidents and the aggressive timeline in the | |
| |Feinstein/Boxer bill: | |
| |A. S. 3493 (Feinstein/Boxer) | |
| |B. H.R. 2095 (Oberstar) | |
| |C. S. 1189 (Lautenberg) | |
| | | |
| |6. Authorize the CEO to work with the Congressional authors to amend the respective bills to meet the| |
| |policy and safety goals of this motion | |
| | | |
| |7. Direct the CEO to report back to the Board in October with a work plan to develop a comprehensive | |
| |“Los Angeles County Commuter and Freight Rail Master Plan” that includes, but is not limited to, the | |
| |following: | |
| | | |
| |A. Identify, evaluate, and recommend additional technological and systems investments including, but | |
| |not limited to: | |
| |Positive train control | |
| |Automatic train stop | |
| |Seat belts | |
| |Upgraded signals | |
| |Enhanced communications | |
| |Upgraded dispatch | |
| |On-board cameras | |
| | | |
| |B. Identify, evaluate, and recommend new rail infrastructure upgrades that include, but not limited | |
| |to: | |
| |Grade separations | |
| |Track straightening | |
| |Tunnel improvements | |
| |Adding new track (double tracking, etc.) | |
| |Improved highway-rail crossing intersections | |
| | | |
| |C. Other recommended rail improvements not identified above or recommended by the Metrolink “Commuter| |
| |Rail Safety Peer Review Panel” process. | |
| | | |
| |8. Direct the CEO to include advocacy for additional federal and state funding to increase the safety| |
| |of the commuter rail system in Los Angeles County and the entire Metrolink service area | |
| | | |
| |9. Direct the CEO to prepare for signature by all 13 MTA Board members a letter to Los Angeles | |
| |County’s Congressional and state delegations urging them to: | |
| | | |
| |A. Support additional federal and state funding for enhanced commuter rail safety, especially for | |
| |automatic train stop/positive train control systems, grade separations, and double tracking single | |
| |track portions of Metrolink’s service area | |
| | | |
| |B. Adopt laws requiring the railroad industry to implement enhanced safety measures on the nation’s | |
| |commuter rail and freight network | |
| | | |
| |C. Urge regulatory and enforcement agencies, including the Federal Railroad Administration and | |
| |California Public Utilities Commission, to allow and approve (if necessary) implementation of | |
| |existing automatic train stop technology while a national standard for a more advanced positive train| |
| |control system is being developed | |
| | | |
| |D. Urge Congress to direct the FRA to be more aggressive in implementing safety measure that protect | |
| |commuters | |
| | | |
| |E. Urge Congress to empower and require FRA to regulate railroad worker hours in a manner similar to | |
| |how the Federal Aviation Administration regulates airline pilots to reduce the risk of fatigue | |
| |causing or contributing to human error that can lead to a catastrophic rail incident | |
|9/25/08 |ENHANCED COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY |Items 49 & 50 Combined |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT that the MTA Board of Directors direct staff to report back to | |
| |this Board at the October meeting on the feasibility, including implementation and costs, for | |
| |installing shoulder harness/lap belts on all Metrolink trains. | |
|9/25/08 |ENHANCED COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY |Items 49 & 50 Combined |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN AMENDMENT that funds have been identified in Prop C 10%, fiscal years ’09 and| |
| |’10. These funds should be utilized and/or combined with Prop 1B Los Angeles County Metrolink funds, | |
| |to immediately fund the directives (ATS and other recommended safety improvements) contained in | |
| |paragraph 2 (A), (B), (C) of said motion. | |
|9/25/08 |ENHANCED COMMUTER RAIL SAFETY |Items 49 & 50 Combined |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED PARKS AMENDMENT that lessons learned or discovered from the safety investigation that | |
| |can be applied to Metro Light Rail or Subway operations shall be reported at the October meeting. | |
|9/25/08 |“TIGER TEAM” |Item 51 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Board of Directors instruct the Chief Executive Officer to | |
| |assemble a tiger team that will do the following: | |
| | | |
| |Be in effect for a six-month period until January 31,2009. | |
| |The CEO shall bring to the Board an item for consideration to extend the term, and/or modify the | |
| |mission and composition, of this "Tiger Team" in January 2009. | |
| | | |
| |Be composed of key members of each of the Metro departments – bus operations, rail operations, | |
| |planning, finance, communications, government relations, construction, risk management and economic | |
| |development - as well as County Counsel, the Sheriff’s Department and Caltrans. | |
| | | |
| |Be convened by the Chief Operating Officer as often as deemed necessary given the trends in ridership| |
| |and impacts on the system, but with a meeting once a week at minimum to maintain a current level of | |
| |awareness of Metro ridership issues. | |
| | | |
| |Evaluate the current implementation and effectiveness of the Metro Five- Year Ridership Plan adopted | |
| |in November 2007, and propose policies if necessary to the Board. | |
| | | |
| |Analyze and propose policies for implementation for all elements of the transit ridership experience,| |
| |including but not limited to issues and policies related to the following: | |
| |Parking structures and parking costs. | |
| |Bikes, carts, strollers, wheelchair, and suitcase capacity on buses and rail during peak periods. | |
| |Rail and bus Rapid line stations. | |
| |Asset condition of rail system and facility infrastructure to sustain current and future increases in| |
| |service. | |
| |Evaluate new rail and bus service plans and the equipment and operating resources to meet them. | |
| |Advertising and communications focused on acclimating new ridership to Metro service and guidelines. | |
| |Ridership safety. | |
| |Economic opportunities associated with ridership growth, such as vending, advertising and customer | |
| |service, complaints and outreach. | |
| |Operational efficiency and effectiveness. | |
| |Metro and non-Metro feeder systems into rail and bus Rapid lines. | |
| |Lessons learned for application to Eastside, Exposition, and all future rail and bus Rapid lines. | |
| |Enforcement and evaluation of the customer code of conduct. | |
| |Evaluation of enforcement of current Metro policies by sheriffs and security force. | |
| | | |
| |Be authorized under the authority of the CEO to take immediate action to implement temporary policies| |
| |and decisions across Metro departments specifically designed to mitigate problems associated with the| |
| |focus of this motion as they arise. | |
| |These policies wil expire at the conclusion of each month unless the CEO gains authorization from the| |
| |Board to continue for a longer period of time. | |
| | | |
| |Report back to the Operations Committee and the Board of Directors on a monthly basis with the | |
| |following elements: | |
| |A report on temporary actions approved by the CEO for the prior month, with written justification and| |
| |rationale. | |
| |Policy recommendations for the Committee and Board to consider for action on any of the items listed | |
| |above. | |
| |An overview of the impact of higher ridership on the Metro system and emergent trends - both positive| |
| |and negative - in the short term and long term. | |
| | | |
| | | |
|9/25/08 |“TIGER TEAM" |Item 51 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED O'CONNOR AMENDMENT that status reports be made quarterly or as needed to Service | |
| |Sector Governance Councils. | |
|9/25/08 |BOARD APPROVED PARKS/VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors direct the CEO to: |Item 52 |
| | | |
| |implement a pilot for expanded Metro Red Line nighttime service hours (two-car trains with 20-minute | |
| |service) between North Hollywood and Union Station to 3:00 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays between | |
| |November 1, 2008 and January 3, 2009, conditioned upon securing legally binding commitment(s) to fund| |
| |the marginal operating costs through private donations or of other non-MTA sources of funds by | |
| |October 17, 2008; and | |
| | | |
| |report back during the January 2009 Board cycle with ridership and farebox recovery figures. | |
| | | |
|9/25/08 |BOARD APPROVED MOLINA AMENDMENT to ensure that Metro receives the funds for expanded Metro Red Line |Item 52 |
| |service hours prior to implementation. | |
|9/25/08 |BOARD APPROVED FASANA MOTION directing the CEO to report back on seatbelts and other safety items for|Item 55 |
| |Metro buses and trains. | |
|10/23/08 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Metro Board instructs the CEO to do the following: |Item 14 |
| | | |
| |Make a joint presentation with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department to the full Board in December | |
| |2008 that examines and evaluates the totality of Metro's safety and security expenditures, policies | |
| |and priorities - both current and proposed. This presentation will include pros and cons and analysis| |
| |that takes into account but is not limited to, the following items: | |
| |Increasing efficiency of current and proposed resources | |
| |Increasing effectiveness of current and proposed resources | |
| |New capital improvements that could improve efficiency or effectiveness | |
| |Consolidation, coordination and/or integration of information flow and command | |
| |Emergency management and responsiveness | |
| |Complete breakdowns of all costs associated with different types of security provision, including | |
| |sworn vs. unsworn officers, armed vs. unarmed officers, liability, sunk costs, overtime, etc. | |
| |Line authority and related issues | |
| |Long term versus short term models for Metro security | |
| |Coordination with future gating and TAP program implementation | |
| | | |
| |Provide for enough flexibility in the negotiation of the Scope of Work for the new transit community | |
| |policing services contract to allow for innovation, alternative service delivery and other similar | |
| |considerations 'that arise through Board direction as a result of this briefing or through the | |
| |negotiation process. | |
|10/23/08 |BOARD APPROVED FASANA MOTION that Metro Management and Audit Services; Office of the Inspector |Item 28 |
| |General; Los Angeles Sheriff Dept-Transit Service Bureau; Metro System Safety and Security; Metro | |
| |Operations, Metro TAP project; and Metro Marketing-Pass Sales report back within 60 days on lessons | |
| |learned to date, difficulties securing fare media, findings and recommendations of any audits | |
| |completed to date, and potential controls to protect fare media. | |
|10/23/08 |BOARD APPROVED MOLINA MOTION that the Board of Directors instruct the CEO to take the necessary steps|Item 34 |
| |to seek approval to install four quadrant gates along all at grade intersection crossings along the | |
| |eastside extension. The CEO shall provide monthly status reports at the Construction Committee | |
| |meeting. The first report shall include a detailed plan outlining all the necessary steps for | |
| |obtaining the Public Utilities Commission's approval of the gates along with the estimated timeline | |
| |for such approval and an estimate cost. | |
| | | |
| |Further that the Board request that the CEO work with the Los Angeles | |
| |County Department of Public Works to design and install red light photo enforcement cameras at all | |
| |four approaches on all at-grade intersection crossings along the eastside extension. | |
| | | |
| |Finally, that the Board request that the CEO extend the planned | |
| |deployment of Rail Ambassadors along the line by three months so that there is coverage for a total | |
| |of six months: three months during pre-revenue testing and the first three months of revenue | |
| |operations. | |
| | | |
|12/4/08 |BICYCLE LOCKER RENTAL FEE |Item 6 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED FASANA/KATZ AMENDMENT to delegate to the CEO the authority to raise bicycle locker | |
| |fees by an amount not to exceed inflation | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED BURKE, O’CONNOR, YAROSLAVSKY MOTION that the Board of Directors: |Item 10 |
| | | |
| |Instruct the Chief Executive Officer to coordinate appropriate staff participation in the activities | |
| |of the Los Angeles Regional Collaborative For Climate Action & Sustainability in order to | |
| |cost-effectively meet the obligations and commitments of SB 375, AB 32, and other climate change | |
| |related legislation; and | |
| | | |
| |Instruct the Chief Executive Officer to coordinate with the collaborative to develop best practices | |
| |on sustainable mobility, travel demand management partnerships, and other opportunities to reduce Los| |
| |Angeles County's transportation carbon footprint. | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED KATZ MOTION that the Board of Directors direct the Chief Executive Officer to report |Item 11 |
| |back during the January 2009 Board cycle on the following: | |
| |1. identifying projected Measure R revenues available to acquire real property for rail yard and | |
| |maintenance facility development, on both a cash flow and bond (debt) basis. | |
| |2. providing preliminary cost estimates for the nine sites identified in the “Consolidated Rail Yard | |
| |Site Yard Analysis Report” | |
| |3. assessing the availability of the nine sites identified in the “Consolidated Rail Yard Site Yard | |
| |Analysis Report” and estimating the best case, probable, and worst case schedule to acquire each | |
| |property | |
| |4. recommending whether or not it would be advantageous for the MTA to acquire one or more of the | |
| |properties in the near-term, and if yes: | |
| |A. which properties should MTA acquire? | |
| |B. what would be the proposed schedule to acquire the properties? | |
| |C. Analysis of how much of the current and future rail yard demand would be accommodated by acquiring| |
| |and developing the recommended properties | |
| |D. Preliminary funding plan to acquire the proposed properties | |
| |5. If none of the properties are recommended for acquisition, identify an alternative strategy to | |
| |meet the current and future rail yard demand. | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED MOLINA MOTION that the Metro Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to use the |Item 29 |
| |existing project management assistant contract (PM024) STV, Inc. to perform the initial analysis | |
| |outlined in the report (Step 1 – determine feasibility, $80,000-$100,000, 4-6 months) before using | |
| |funds available in the Construction Division professional services budget. | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED MOLINA AMENDMENT that the Metro Board direct the Chief Executive Officer to enter |Item 30 |
| |into a memorandum of understanding with the City of Los Angeles that commits to the following points:| |
| |1. There will be no further expansion of Midway Yard other than that specified in the action before | |
| |the Board today. | |
| |2. Metro will be a partner with the City in pursuing a grade crossing adjacent to Midway Yard in | |
| |order to provide access to the river | |
| |3. Metro will engage Metrolink as a participant in the working group. | |
| |4. Metro will conduct periodic outreach to the surrounding community regarding operations at Midway | |
| |Yard and their collaboration on river issues. | |
| |5. Metro will work with the City to actively pursue options for acquiring property for the | |
| |establishment of a consolidated rail facility to meet the growing needs of the Metro rail system in | |
| |Los Angeles County including the eventual relocation of the facilities at Midway Yard. | |
|12/4/08 |TRANSIT SECURITY POLICY FRAMEWORK |Item 45 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED PARKS MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors adopt and direct the CEO to use the | |
| |following framework in determining how overall transit security services will be provided and in | |
| |developing the new contract with the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department (LASD): | |
| |1. Chain of Command | |
| |A. The LASD commanding officer shall function as the MTA's "Chief of Police" for transit law | |
| |enforcement purposes | |
| |B. The LASD commanding officer shall be required to notify the MTA through the CEO and/or his or her | |
| |delegate of any security issues, major incidents, after action reports, etc. | |
| |C. LASD shall have exclusive command and control of all law enforcement functions and LASD personnel | |
| |consistent with MTA Board direction; the CEO and/or his or her delegate shall be responsible for | |
| |communicating MTA Board direction to LASD | |
| |D. The CEO shall have exclusive command and control of all other transit security functions | |
| |E. LASD command staff and MTA management shall meet at least weekly | |
| |2. Contract Term - The new contract term shall be two years plus one one-year option, i.e. the base | |
| |contract will cover FY09-10 and FY10-11 plus the remaining portion of FY08-09, and the one-year | |
| |option will cover FY11-12 | |
| |3. Responsibility by Function | |
| |A. Law enforcement functions shall be performed by LASD using sworn, armed, uniformed personnel | |
| |B. Deterrence/presence functions shall be performed by MTA using non-sworn, unarmed, uniformed | |
| |personnel (law enforcement personnel would also de facto perform this as a secondary, intrinsic | |
| |function) | |
| |C. Fare inspection functions shall be the responsibility of both LASD and MTA field staff | |
| |D. If dedicated fare inspectors are deployed, that responsibility shall be performed by MTA using | |
| |non-sworn, unarmed, uniformed personnel | |
| |E. MTA personnel shall be authorized by LASD to issue fare evasion and other citations | |
| |F. Fixed post (facility) functions shall be performed by MTA using non-sworn, armed, uniformed | |
| |personnel | |
| |G. Revenue protection functions shall be performed by MTA using non-sworn, armed, uniformed personnel| |
| |H. Staffing gates shall be the performed by MTA using non-sworn, unarmed, uniformed personnel | |
| |4. Deployment | |
| |A. LASD shall have exclusive control over deployment of sworn personnel consistent with MTA Board | |
| |direction; the CEO and/or his or her delegate shall be responsible for communicating MTA Board | |
| |direction to LASD | |
| |B. See Amendment by Fasana | |
| |C. occasional deviations from the above deployment policy by LASD may occur as the situation warrants| |
| |from time to time with approval of the CEO and/or his or her delegate | |
| |1) Either the MTA or LASD may request changes to the deployment policy framework directly to the MTA | |
| |Board as the situation may warrant | |
| |D. LASD shall be required to report in writing to the CEO and/or his or her delegate at least monthly| |
| |to MTA on actual deployment by: | |
| |1) Person | |
| |2) Location | |
| |3) Time of day | |
| |4) Mode (bus or rail, plus specific line, fixed post, mobile, etc.) | |
| |5) Time worked | |
| |a) Minutes/hours worked | |
| |b) Shift length (hours) and number of shifts worked | |
| |c) Straight time and overtime worked | |
| |6) All data reported shall reconcile with invoices/billing statements submitted by LASD to MTA | |
| |E. MTA shall be required to issue each LASD personnel a unique transit access pass (TAP) card and | |
| |LASD personnel shall be required to use the TAP card any time they enter or leave an MTA | |
| |facility/property/transit vehicle with TAP-enabled readers | |
| |F. MTA shall have exclusive control over deployment of non-sworn personnel consistent with MTA Board | |
| |direction | |
| |G. MTA shall be required to consult and coordinate with LASD regarding the deployment of | |
| |deterrence/presence and fare inspection personnel Contract Value | |
| |5. Contract Value | |
| |A. FY08-09 shall be the same the current contract value (~$60 million on an annual basis), prorated | |
| |for the remainder of the fiscal year | |
| |B. FY08-09 shall be considered the "base year" budget | |
| |C. The "base year" contract value shall be adjusted annually by Consumer Price Index - Urban for the | |
| |Los Angeles region | |
| |D. MTA and LASD shall work together to identify the incremental staffing requirements and incremental| |
| |cost above the "base year" for law enforcement related to the pending new service increases, | |
| |including but not limited to: | |
| |1) Eastside Extension | |
| |2) Expo Line | |
| |6. Supervisory Ratio | |
| |A. LASD shall have at least seven (7) deputies for every supervisor | |
| |B. LASD shall reduce existing command staff and ratios to acceptable management practices | |
| |C. Cost reduction resulting from reduced command staff shall be reallocated toward adding additional | |
| |sworn deputies to police the MTA transit system | |
| |7. Staffing & Billing | |
| |A. LASD shall maintain a dedicated "Transit Services Bureau" (TSB) to provide service to MTA with | |
| |dedicated personnel | |
| |B. All LASD personnel assigned to the TSB shall be required to have completed transit-specific law | |
| |enforcement training provide by MTA, including safety and other training deemed necessary by MTA | |
| |C. Staffing shall be "position based" (as opposed to "minutes based" or "FTE based"), i.e. LASD shall| |
| |Identity exactly how many positions will be assigned to TSB and specific personnel shall be | |
| |identified for each position | |
| |D. LASD reporting and billing shall identify whether TSB and/or non-TSB personnel responded to each | |
| |incident | |
| |E. LASD shall estimate, based on historical LASD data, the projected average daily deployment | |
| |compared to budgeted positions related to personnel being sick, on vacation, etc. | |
| |F. LASD shall identify the "relief factor", i.e. the number of actual deputies required to staff one | |
| |position 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire fiscal year | |
| |G. LASD shall advise MTA daily of any event (sick, vacation, injured on duty, etc.) that would cause | |
| |the actual field deployment to be less than funded number of positions | |
| |H. MTA through the CEO and/or his or her delegate shall decide at its discretion whether to commit | |
| |additional resources to maintain a constant staffing level (field deployment) or accept reduced | |
| |staffing levels to control costs | |
| |I. Occasional additional LASD resources (e.g. bomb squad, helicopter, SWAT, and other non-TSB | |
| |resources) required to respond to a specific incident will be provided at no additional cost to MTA | |
| |consistent with the original "multiplier effect" benefit promised by LASD when the MTA police | |
| |department was merged into LASD and the Los Angeles Police Department | |
| |J. LASD shall not knowingly assign personnel to TSB with disciplinary or other problems that could | |
| |affect service quality or increase liability | |
| |K. LASD shall report alleged or actual disciplinary problems to MTA through the CEO and/or his or her| |
| |delegate and LASD shall remove from TSB such personnel until the allegations are adjudicated | |
| |L. If allegations are sustained, LASD shall permanently remove such personnel from TSB upon request | |
| |by the CEO and/or his or her delegate | |
| | | |
| | | |
|12/4/08 |TRANSIT SECURITY POLICY FRAMEWORK |Item 45 |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY FASANA | |
| | | |
| |1. Chain of Command | |
| |LASD command staff and MTA management shall meet at least weekly. The CEO shall return to the MTA | |
| |board in January 2009 with recommendations to improve the communication and reporting structure | |
| |between the LASD and MTA and review the staff levels and deployment of MTA transit security | |
| |personnel. | |
| | | |
| |4. Deployment | |
| |B. The CEO shall return to the MTA Board in January 2009 with a recommended policy framework to best | |
| |determine the deployment of sworn personnel by mode | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED VILLARAIGOSA MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors: |Item 46 |
| |A. Direct the CEO to solicit feedback through the Service Sectors on what type of bus service | |
| |improvements are wanted by the public by February 2009 | |
| |B. Provide to the MTA Board and municipal operators by March 2009 with an estimate of the MTA and | |
| |municipal operator portions of Measure R 20% using the formula allocation procedure (FAP) | |
| |C. Direct the CEO to coordinate with the municipal operators to avoid service duplication or other | |
| |inefficiencies, including requesting information on how each municipal operator intends to spend its | |
| |portion of Measure R 20% funds | |
| |D. Direct the CEO to report back during the March 2009 Board cycle with recommendations for a new | |
| |“Bus System Improvement Plan” for MTA’s portion of Measure R 20% funding that considers, but is not | |
| |limited to: | |
| |1. New clean fuel bus purchases | |
| |2. Additional fare freeze or fare reduction | |
| |3. Added bus lines | |
| |4. More frequent service | |
| |Longer hours of operation | |
| | | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH AMENDMENT |Item 46 |
| |1. Amend paragraph "A" so that the feedback solicited from the Service Sectors comes from only the | |
| |Service Sector Councils at this time, and not through a public hearing process. This feedback should| |
| |include an overview of current lines of service provided and performance of those lines. | |
| |2. Amend paragraph "D" so that it also requires the CEO to include with the "Bus System Improvement | |
| |Plan" a plan to close the Enterprise Fund structural deficit without the use of Measure R dollars by | |
| |FY2011 if possible. | |
| |3. Amend paragraph "D” so that the Bus System Improvement Plan considers the restructuring of lines | |
| |as well as the other points enumerated. | |
| |4. Amend paragraph "D" so that the "Bus System Improvement Plan" brought back by the CEO in March | |
| |2009 is self-contained entirely within new Measure R dollars and does not create a new or expanded | |
| |structural deficit in MTA's Enterprise Fund as a result of this added service. | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED VILLARAIGOSA/NAJARIAN MOTION that the MTA Board of Directors direct the CEO, County |Item 51 |
| |Counsel, Ethics Officer, Inspector General, and Board Secretary to: | |
| |1. Immediately freeze hiring of any new employees unless exempted elsewhere in this motion | |
| |2. Immediately freeze promotions and any other form of compensation increase for all employees except| |
| |as required by MTA Board ratified memoranda of understanding (MOU) | |
| |3. Immediately ban executing any new consulting contracts unless related to safety or measure R | |
| |implementation | |
| |4. Request exemptions from the hiring and/or promotion freeze as well as the new consulting contract | |
| |ban in writing to the MTA Board | |
| |5. Submit to the MTA Board in writing within 5 business days of the end of each month a monthly | |
| |report of exempted actions | |
| |Further, that the MTA Board of Directors exempt from the hiring freeze | |
| |the following: | |
| |1. Employees required for the operation, maintenance, and safety of the MTA transit system (does not | |
| |include indirect costs) | |
| |2. Employees required for the safety of other facilities and property owned or controlled by MTA | |
| |3. Employees working on projects funded by Measure R (does not include indirect costs) | |
|12/4/08 |BOARD APPROVED KATZ & NAJARIAN AMENDMENT to immediately ban executing any new consulting contracts |Item 51 |
| |unless related to safety, or Measure R implementation, Proposition 1b funding, congestion pricing, | |
| |homeland security or legal support necessary and appropriate to minimize LACMTA'S potential | |
| |liabilities and protect its legal interests. | |
|1/22/09 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Metro Board of Directors directs the CEO to have |Item 5 |
| |appropriate staff meet with the Chatsworth neighborhood council to address the concerns raised and | |
| |report back to the board within two months with the results of these meetings and any staff | |
| |recommendations | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY YAROSLAVSKY and to carry out the recommendation in a cost-neutral manner | |
|1/22/09 |BOARD APPROVED VILLARAIGOSA, ANTONOVICH, KNABE, NAJARIAN AND KATZ MOTION that the Metro Board: |Item 48 |
| | | |
| |approve the use of FY 07-08 surplus funds previously approved and allocated to Metrolink by the Metro| |
| |Board (no impact on Metro FY 08-09 or FY 09-10 budgets), consistent with Los Angeles County's share | |
| |of Metrolink's budget, to pay for our share and advance other counties’ shares (with appropriate | |
| |reimbursement agreements) for LED signal upgrades, signal relocations, and other short-term safety | |
| |enhancements approved by the Metrolink Board on January 9, 2009 (item #9); and | |
| | | |
| |direct the CEO to take all steps necessary to expedite related funding approvals and/or transfers. | |
|1/22/09 |BOARD APPROVED FASANA MOTION that the Metro Board of Directors advance Caltrans $17,300,000 to |Item 51 |
| |complete the LA I-10 Busway Rehab Project, contingent upon a written commitment from Caltrans to | |
| |promptly reimburse Metro. Board amended the motion so that approval is conditioned upon guaranteed | |
| |certainty of repayment in a timely manner with interest | |
|1/22/09 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Metro Board Of Directors directs the CEO to work with the |Item 52 |
| |American Heart Association (AHA) and staff to illuminate the Metro Gateway building with a heart on | |
| |all four sides of the building on the evening of February 5th, in support of the AHA’s Go Red for | |
| |Women campaign. | |
|1/22/09 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the CEO instruct staff to evaluate the Transportation |Item 53 |
| |Foundation of Los Angeles (TFLA) proposal, to seek feedback as necessary from the TFLA, and to | |
| |provide a report on their evaluation and recommendation for action on this proposal at the February | |
| |2009 meeting. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY KNABE that the evaluation include TFLA's performance in providing | |
| |services to foothill transit | |
|2/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED VILLARAIGOSA, ANTONOVICH, KNABE, NAJARIAN, and KATZ MOTION that the MTA Board of |Item 30 |
| |Directors: | |
| | | |
| |Adopt as board policy that Measure R 3% commuter rail funds shall be prioritized for Metrolink system| |
| |safety improvements, with a first priority for implementation of positive train control (PTC) in the | |
| |Los Angeles County portion of the Metrolink service area | |
| |Direct the CEO to report back to the MT A Board with recommendations on how to program the remainder | |
| |of the Measure R 3% commuter rail funds after PTC is implemented and operational | |
| |Direct the CEO to program, based on cash flow needs identified by Metrolink, up to $105 million in | |
| |Measure R 3% funds for positive train control in the Long Range Transportation Plan and allocate | |
| |necessary funds in future budgets; funding commitment shall depend on the level of federal and/or | |
| |state funding secured and shall be amended, subject to MTA Board approval, when a more precise Los | |
| |Angeles County share for PTC is known | |
| |Direct the CEO to develop and recommend for MTA Board approval one or more agreements to front-fund | |
| |the non-Los Angeles County portion of PTC costs if requested by other Metrolink and/or its member | |
| |agencies, subject to the following: | |
| |Each county seeking MTA front-funding shall be required to execute a legally binding repayment | |
| |agreement | |
| |Repayment terms shall include interest annually equal to the consumer price index to account for | |
| |decreased spending value of funds due to inflation | |
| |MTA shall issue debt against the Measure R 3% revenue stream if necessary to meet MT A's and/or | |
| |another county's PTC share if funding assistance is requested; other counties shall be required to | |
| |pay interest and issuance costs to MT A per agreed upon terms if debt is issued to meet some or all | |
| |of their share of PTC funding | |
| | | |
| | | |
|2/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED KNABE, NAJARIAN, O’CONNOR, FASANA, DUBOIS, ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Metro Board, |Item 13 |
| |recognizing the needs of all low income transit users in the county, extends the Rider Relief | |
| |Transportation Program to services provided by included and eligible municipal operators in Los | |
| |Angeles County, with no additional revenues needed since the extended program can be accommodated | |
| |within the funding originally approved by the Metro Board in 2007. | |
|2/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED O’CONNOR MOTION that this Committee place on the February MTA BoardAgenda the |Item 46 |
| |recommendation that the MTA Board vigorously support a technical corrections Bill to SB 375 and these| |
| |efforts be placed at the top of MTA state legislative priorities and that we further instruct our | |
| |legislative staff to work closely with Senator Steinberg in this effort. | |
|2/26/09 |Approve waivers of Investment Policy provisions as detailed in Attachment A. |Item 16 |
| |Authorize the immediate purchase of $21 million for projects under construction; | |
| |The 1-10 Busway Rehabilitation project was approved under Board delegated authority, Attachment C, | |
| |line 1; and, | |
| |Other small projects in the final stages of construction as recommended by Caltrans, Attachment C, | |
| |line 2-19. | |
| | | |
| |Authorize the CEO to negotiate and execute further bond purchases to keep other Los Angeles County | |
| |projects on schedule under similar terms up to a maximum of $200 million. | |
| | | |
| |Inclusion of the following projects for inclusion in the first bond purchase: | |
| |1. New Station Track at Los Angeles Union Station, $22 million | |
| |2. Bus Mid-life rehabilitation, $20 million | |
| |3. Interstate 10 HOV Lanes I-605 to Puente, $66 million | |
| |4. ATSAC-Reseda Phase I, $9 million | |
| | | |
| |E. Working with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to identify the costs of the other | |
| |member agencies for this project; and requiring each county that requires MTA front-funding to | |
| |execute a legally-binding repayment agreement. If, and when, the state repays the MTA for the | |
| |purchased bonds, the MTA Board shall determine the use of the interest and repayment. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDMENT that the waivers of investment policy provisions are subject to meeting| |
| |required timeline parameters of the memorandum of understanding. | |
| | | |
|2/26/09 |Approve waivers of Investment Policy provisions as detailed in Attachment A. |Item 16 |
| | | |
| |Authorize the immediate purchase of $21 million for projects under construction; | |
| |The 1-10 Busway Rehabilitation project was approved under Board delegated authority, Attachment C, | |
| |line 1; and, | |
| |Other small projects in the final stages of construction as recommended by Caltrans, Attachment C, | |
| |line 2-19. | |
| | | |
| |Authorize the CEO to negotiate and execute further bond purchases to keep other Los Angeles County | |
| |projects on schedule under similar terms up to a maximum of $200 million. | |
| | | |
| |Inclusion of the following projects for inclusion in the first bond purchase: | |
| |1. New Station Track at Los Angeles Union Station, $22 million | |
| |2. Bus Mid-life rehabilitation, $20 million | |
| |3. Interstate 10 HOV Lanes I-605 to Puente, $66 million | |
| |4. ATSAC-Reseda Phase I, $9 million | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN AMENDMENT that the CEO direct staff to work with the SCRRA to identify the | |
| |costs of the other member agencies for this project. Further, that should the other counties require | |
| |MTA front- funding, each county shall be required to execute a legally binding repayment agreement. | |
| |If and when the state repays the | |
| |MTA for the purchased bonds, the MT A board shall determine the use of the interest and repayment. | |
|2/26/09 |Establish a Los Angeles County funding approval/obligation deadline for all federal transportation |Item 44 |
| |capital funds to be made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the | |
| |Recovery Act or the ARRA) -- 75 days from the apportionment of the federal funds, and subject to | |
| |deadlines described in Attachment A - to obligate as much of the full County share as quickly as | |
| |possible and help position the County for any redirected funding; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program 100% of Federal Section 5307 Urban Formula/Transit Capital funds using the | |
| |Capital Allocation distribution from the annual Transit Fund Allocation process, resulting in the | |
| |up-to-grant amounts by transit operator listed in Attachment B; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program 100% of Federal Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization and Federal Section | |
| |5340 Growing States funds for the eligible capital projects described in Attachment C; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program up to $215 million (or up to $315 million with proposed state legislation) of | |
| |flexible federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds to Cities and the County of Los| |
| |Angeles for eligible transportation capital projects using "first-come-first-served" approach up to | |
| |100% of each local jurisdiction's population share as shown in Attachment D1 (or Attachment D2 with | |
| |proposed state legislation); and allow the Cities, County of Los Angeles, other transportation | |
| |agencies and us to request remaining unobligated funding after the 75-day deadline; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program up to 50% of any federal Transportation Enhancements Activities (TEA) funds made| |
| |available to our eligible candidate projects in Attachment E- Part I (starting with the first project| |
| |and thereafter with the Chief Executive Officer determining priority), and allocate and program up to| |
| |50% of any federal TEA funds made available to Cities and the County of Los Angeles for their | |
| |February 9, 2009 list of eligible candidate projects in Attachment E- Part II (with the Technical | |
| |Advisory Committee determining priority based on project readiness), subject to the approval of | |
| |Caltrans and/or the California Transportation Commission (CTC); | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program up to $200 million (or with proposed state legislation, up to $100 million in | |
| |RSTP and $100 million in Caltrans Recovery Act funds) in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) for cash | |
| |flow purposes to enable the on-time award of the Interstate 405 Northbound Carpool Lane from | |
| |Interstate 10 to U.S. 101, as described in Attachment F; program the remaining RIP, if any, (or, | |
| |using proposed state legislation, up to $20 million of RSTP and up to $63.7 million in private | |
| |placement bond reserves from Item 16 of this month's regular board meeting agenda), to the Interstate| |
| |5 Carpool Lane project from State Route 118 to State Route 170; and program $20 million of local | |
| |funds released towards a cost reserve that the Federal Highway Administration is requiring for the | |
| |Interstate 5 Carpool Lane project from State Route 134 to State Route 170; | |
| | | |
| |Adopt the funding plans in Attachment G, subject to RecoveryAct funding being made available, and | |
| |nominate the Exposition Light Rail Transit (LRT) Phase I project for $150 million of Federal Section | |
| |5309 New Starts/Discretionary funds and the Gold Line Foothill LRT Extension project for $150 million| |
| |of Federal Section 5309 New Starts/Discretionary funds, in addition to the possible acceleration of | |
| |our existing federal Full Funding Grant Agreement commitments to the Gold Line Eastside Extension to | |
| |Whittier/Atlantic; and | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program our share of Federal Section 5307 Urban Formula/Transit Capital funds to the top| |
| |seven projects on Attachment H; and program any remaining RIP and/or RSTP funds, any reallocated | |
| |funds (after the 75-day deadline for the Cities, County of Los Angeles and Municipal Operators for | |
| |their collective shares), and any federal discretionary grants (except as specified in Action G | |
| |ofthis recommendation) to our eligible projects from Attachments F or H at the Chief Executive | |
| |Officer's discretion. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN DUBOIS AMENDMENT that: | |
| | | |
| |LACMTA (Metro) and the municipal operators that are eligible for American Recovery and Reinvestment | |
| |Act (ARRA) of 2009 funds under Federal Section 5307 shall have 135 days from February 17, 2009 (or by| |
| |July 1, 2009) in which to obligate these funds. This allows a 45-day processing period for Metro | |
| |staff. | |
| | | |
| |In accordance with the provisions made in the ARRA law, the deadline above applies to not more than | |
| |50 percent of the Federal Section 5307 funds allocated under the ARRA. The remaining 50 percent of | |
| |the funds shall be obligated within 320 days from February 17,2009, (or by January 3, 2010), allowing| |
| |a 45 day processing period for Metro. | |
|2/26/09 |Establish a Los Angeles County funding approval/obligation deadline for all federal transportation |Item 44 |
| |capital funds to be made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the | |
| |Recovery Act or the ARRA) -- 75 days from the apportionment of the federal funds, and subject to | |
| |deadlines described in Attachment A - to obligate as much of the full County share as quickly as | |
| |possible and help position the County for any redirected funding; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program 100% of Federal Section 5307 Urban Formula/Transit Capital funds using the | |
| |Capital Allocation distribution from the annual Transit Fund Allocation process, resulting in the | |
| |up-to-grant amounts by transit operator listed in Attachment B; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program 100% of Federal Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization and Federal Section | |
| |5340 Growing States funds for the eligible capital projects described in Attachment C; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program up to $215 million (or up to $315 million with proposed state legislation) of | |
| |flexible federal Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) funds to Cities and the County of Los| |
| |Angeles for eligible transportation capital projects using "first-come-first-served" approach up to | |
| |100% of each local jurisdiction's population share as shown in Attachment D1 (or Attachment D2 with | |
| |proposed state legislation); and allow the Cities, County of Los Angeles, other transportation | |
| |agencies and us to request remaining unobligated funding after the 75-day deadline; | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program up to 50% of any federal Transportation Enhancements Activities (TEA) funds made| |
| |available to our eligible candidate projects in Attachment E- Part I (starting with the first project| |
| |and thereafter with the Chief Executive Officer determining priority), and allocate and program up to| |
| |50% of any federal TEA funds made available to Cities and the County of Los Angeles for their | |
| |February 9, 2009 list of eligible candidate projects in Attachment E- Part II (with the Technical | |
| |Advisory Committee determining priority based on project readiness), subject to the approval of | |
| |Caltrans and/or the California Transportation Commission (CTC); | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program up to $200 million (or with proposed state legislation, up to $100 million in | |
| |RSTP and $100 million in Caltrans Recovery Act funds) in Regional Improvement Program (RIP) for cash | |
| |flow purposes to enable the on-time award of the Interstate 405 Northbound Carpool Lane from | |
| |Interstate 10 to U.S. 101, as described in Attachment F; program the remaining RIP, if any, (or, | |
| |using proposed state legislation, up to $20 million of RSTP and up to $63.7 million in private | |
| |placement bond reserves from Item 16 of this month's regular board meeting agenda), to the Interstate| |
| |5 Carpool Lane project from State Route 118 to State Route 170; and program $20 million of local | |
| |funds released towards a cost reserve that the Federal Highway Administration is requiring for the | |
| |Interstate 5 Carpool Lane project from State Route 134 to State Route 170; | |
| | | |
| |Adopt the funding plans in Attachment G, subject to Recovery Act funding being made available, and | |
| |nominate the Exposition Light Rail Transit (LRT) Phase I project for $150 million of Federal Section | |
| |5309 New Starts/Discretionary funds and the Gold Line Foothill LRT Extension project for $150 million| |
| |of Federal Section 5309 New Starts/Discretionary funds, in addition to the possible acceleration of | |
| |our existing federal Full Funding Grant Agreement commitments to the Gold Line Eastside Extension to | |
| |Whittier/Atlantic; and | |
| | | |
| |Allocate and program our share of Federal Section 5307 Urban Formula/Transit Capital funds to the top| |
| |seven projects on Attachment H; and program any remaining RIP and/or RSTP funds, any reallocated | |
| |funds (after the 75-day deadline for the Cities, County of Los Angeles and Municipal Operators for | |
| |their collective shares), and any federal discretionary grants (except as specified in Action G of | |
| |this recommendation) to our eligible projects from Attachments F or H at the Chief Executive | |
| |Officer's discretion. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED KATZ AMENDMENT that: | |
| | | |
| |Measure R local return funds can be exchanged on a one-for-one basis with stimulus funds. | |
| | | |
| |Nothing in this item shall be construed as setting a priority for this funding. Based on new federal| |
| |regulations, if other projects are eligible, the board will revisit this issue at that time. | |
| | | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED NAJARIAN-KATZ-YAROSLAVSKY-DUBOIS-FASANA AMENDMENT that the Metro Board: |Item 35 |
| | | |
| |direct the CEO to provide technical assistance - including Metro consultant services - to interested | |
| |municipal operators to determine if lower cost TAP card validators that integrate with their | |
| |respective fare box systems are feasible; | |
| | | |
| |direct the CEO to work with the municipal operators to reach consensus with regional partners, | |
| |including Metrolink, on the integration of the EZ transit pass into the tap system; and | |
| | | |
| |report back to the Metro Board during the June 2009 board cycle with recommendations on how to | |
| |proceed, a status report on which municipal operators are participating in the TAP program and any | |
| |remaining outstanding issues. | |
| | | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED DUBOIS AMENDMENT that the Sheriff be consulted and participate in establishing any |Item 35 |
| |security protocol, policy or technology associated with TAP implementation. | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED ANTONOVICH MOTION that the Metro Board of Directors approve the replacement of La |Item 40 |
| |Canada Flintridge Councilman David Spence on the San Gabriel Valley Service Sector Council with the | |
| |appointment of Harry Baldwin, former councilman from San Gabriel. | |
|3/26/09 |AS A RESULT OF THE PASSAGE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ECONOMIC STIMULUS RECOVERY PACKAGE, METRO WILL |Item 41 |
| |RECEIVE FUNDING TO EXECUTE A NUMBER OF “SHOVEL READY” PROJECTS THROUGHOUT ITS SERVICE AREA. THE | |
| |INTENT OF THE FUNDING IS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND TO PROVIDE | |
| |EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS. | |
| | | |
| |BOARD APPROVED RIDLEY-THOMAS MOTION that the Board of Directors direct the Chief Executive Officer to| |
| |establish a local hiring program to meet the objectives described herein, consistent with federal | |
| |regulations, to ensure that the local community benefits through funds received by Metro. | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED KATZ MOTION that the Metro Board: |Item 42 |
| | | |
| |direct the CEO to extend both light rail vehicle option periods under the Contract No. P2550 with | |
| |AnsaldoBreda SpA. from March 31, 2009 to May 31, 2009, subject to receipt of written acceptance of | |
| |such extension from AnsaldoBreda SpA no later than March 31, 2009; | |
| |condition the extension of the option periods on AnsaldoBreda SpA’s written acceptance no later than | |
| |March 31, 2009 acknowledging that the option price shall be determined based on the option pricing | |
| |formula set forth in Contract No. P2550 (special provision 18); and | |
| |direct the CEO to meet with AnsaldoBreda SpA to address and attempt to resolve any outstanding issues| |
| |between the parties and to report back to the Board at its May 2009 meeting with a recommendation | |
| |regarding whether or not to exercise the options. Further move that nothing in Metro's offer to | |
| |extend the option periods shall be deemed to relieve AnsaldoBreda SpA of its obligations under | |
| |Contract No. P2550. | |
| | | |
| | | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED YAROSLAVSKY AMENDMENT that the Metro Board, prior to considering exercising an option |Item 42 |
| |with AnsaldoBreda SpA., directs the CEO to ensure that all contractual obligations are met by | |
| |AnsaldoBreda SpA., including but not limited to: | |
| |price per vehicle per contract no. p2550 | |
| |maximum vehicle weight not to exceed 103,263 pounds | |
| |trainline compatibility | |
| |delivery schedule | |
| |interior dimensions | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED DUBOIS AMENDMENT that the Metro Board direct the CEO to prepare and be ready to |Item 42 |
| |release by June 1, 2009 a request for proposals (RFP) to procure new light rail transit vehicles and | |
| |associated services. | |
|3/26/09 |BOARD APPROVED AMENDMENT BY VILLARAIGOSA AND MOLINA that the Metro Board direct the CEO to: |Item 43 |
| | | |
| |allow cities and the County of Los Angeles to add into the program. database new projects | |
| |that may be eligible for second tier funds no later than April 24, 2009; | |
| |only allow projects to be added into the database that can be expeditiously amended administratively | |
| |into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); | |
| |ensure that any of the $315 million unobligated remaining after May 18, 2009 will be first made | |
| |available to projects sponsored by cities and the County of Los Angeles which Caltrans has approved | |
| |to proceed to construction. Projects will be selected by the technical advisory committee; and | |
| |ensure that Caltrans, cities and the County of Los Angeles share in any and all future allocations of| |
| |American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds received by Metro as a result of intra and interstate | |
| |redistribution of these funds. | |
|3/26/09 |MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 26, 2009 BOARD MEETING: ITEM 44, PAGE 11 |Item 2 |
| | | |
| |KATZ AMENDMENT, PART A, SHOULD READ: Measure R and Prop A local return funds can be exchanged on a | |
| |one-for-one basis with stimulus funds. | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- metro bus schedule columbus ga
- metro bus station columbus ga
- metro bus stops near me
- metro cash loan
- rome metro map printable
- metro bus columbus ga
- metro bus schedule near me
- columbus metro bus routes
- metro nashville board of education
- metro pcs pay my bill
- metro bus routes and schedules
- metro pcs account sign