SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

MINUTES/PROCEEDINGS

Special Joint Meetingof the Board of Directors

and the Los Angeles County Transportation CommissionNovember 23, 1987

Hall of AdministrationRoom 374

Los Angeles

Directors Present:

Jan Hall" Carmen A. Estrada

Joseph S. DunningMarvin L. HolenErwin N. Jones

Nick PatsaourasJay B. PriceCharles H. StoringGordana SwansonKenneth R. Thomas

Director Absent

John F. Day

The Joint Meeting was called to order at 10:35 a.m. in Room 374of the Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple Street, Los Angeles.SCRTD President Jan Hall and LACTC Chairman Tom Bradley openedthe meeting.

Discussed were local initiatives and alternatives which could beimplemented without state legislation, as well as ways to stream-line and improve the decision-making process and provide bettertransportation for those served by both agencies.

Alternatives presented and discussed are attached as Exhibit i.After lengthy discussion, SCRTD Director Nick Patsaouras offereda motion calling for the respective chairs of the LACTC and theSCRTD to appoint subcommittees, working with staff, to develop aJoint Powers Authority, which motion was seconded and unanimouslyadopted by both agencies.

A transcript of the meeting is attached as Exhibit II.

Adjourned at 12:05 p.m. /

9atricia ~l~keAssistant~/District Secretary

CITIES/COUN’|’Y/ZONES(P~op. A, Local .....

Return, FAU)

RAIL CONSTRUCTION AGENCY

A Joint Powers Authority(Composition to be Determined)

General Manager

Functions¯ AdQpt Annual Construction Budget¯ llire and Manage Contractors for

Design a~*d Construction¯ Coordinate Multiple Project

¯ Federal Graut Recipient¯ Account i [~g/Audit

¯ Equal Opportut~ity

AL’L’ERNATI ~ ~ I

LACTC(No Alte~nates)

5 County SupervisorsL.A. Mayor + 2 |..A. Council

L.B. Council2 League of Cities

Chief Executive

IADMINISTRATION/SUPPORT

tion Policye Allocate Bus Operations

& Rail ConstructionFunds Between OperatorsaI*d Projects

¯ Adopt llighway & RailPlans

¯ Adopt l|ighway & TransitTIP’s

I

I PLANNING & IPROGRAMMING

Functions¯ Develop l|ighway & Rail

Transit Plans¯ Develop Financ|a] Plans¯ Develop Highway & Tran-

sit TIP’s¯ Develop Annual Opera-

tions & ConstructionBudget Criteria

¯ Hire & Manage Plan-ning Consultants

¯ Develop New Initiatives(e.g. Privat]zation)

¯ Coordinate Programsof Cities & CountiesRelating to PrivateContracts

¯ Administer Local R~turn

SCRTD

5 County2 City of L.A~

4 League of Cities

General Manager

Functions¯ Operate Bus Service¯ Execute Labor Contracts¯ Adopt Annual Bus Operations

and Capital Budgets¯ Set Fare & Service Levels¯ Construct Bus Support Facili-

ties¯ Federal Grant Recipient¯ Accounting/Audit

¯ Cont tact ~ng/P.rocurement¯ Eq~~al Opportunity¯ Co~m,unity Relations

Functions C¯ Set General Transporta- ¯ Authorize Rail Project

Construction/ApproveEIS/EIR’s

¯ Allocate Transit Sub-sidies to All Operators

¯ Monitor PerformanceThrough Management andFinancial Audits

¯ Adopt Financial Plans/Issue Debt

¯ Federal Grant Recipient{Planning Only)

¯ Approve/DisapproveTransportation Zones

¯ Adopt Legislative Pro-gram/Seek Enactment

KEY FEATURES OF ALTERNATIVE I

Principal elected officials (no alternates or

designees) make major policy decisions such as

how funds are allocated, adopting highway and

rail plans, and authorizing major projects.

Existing agencies retain responsibilities as

presently identified (with sharper delineation)

in state law, with the exception of rail

planning, which is consolidated within LACTC,

and rail construction, which both agencies

delegate to a JPA. LACTC remains a policy/

planning/programming agency; SCRTD retains

responsibility for bus operations.

Rail construction is consolidated under a

Joint Powers Authority, created by LACTC and

SCRTD.

Administrative/support functions would be de-

centralized where appropriate. Some support

functions could be performed on a contractual

basis by" one agency for another.

C

l’LiLIt:t_ l_(2!!s_

KEY FEATURES OF AL’r~w/~ATIVE II

Principal elected offici&is (no alternates or

designees) make most of the decisions now made

by the LACTC and SCRTD boards through partial

consolidation, with at least seven dual members.

The County Supervisors take their seats on the

LACTC and the SCRTD and the City of Los Angeles

appoints the same two elected officials to both

boards. If the League of Cities also makes dual

appointments, a total of nine dual members could

be achieved.

One chief executive reports to both boards.

The rail construction, planning and programming,

and bus operations functions are performed by

staff departments reporting to the boards.

Two advisory committees would be created to make

recommendations on rail construction and bus

operations.

Administrative/support functions are centralized

in one department.

ii/13/87

~PEC ~ cs1330EXHIBIT II.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SPECIAL JOINT MEETING

OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND THELOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Monday, November 23, 1987

Hall of Administration500 West Temple Street

Los Angeles, California

Reported by MARTHA SOSNOWSKI

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California 213) 872--0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

i0

II

12

13

14

15

16

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Special Joint Meeting before the Board of Directors

of the Southern California Rapid Transit District

and the Los Angeles County Transportation

Commission, taken before MARTHA SOSNOWSKI, a

resident of the County of Los Angeles, State of

California, at the Hall of Administration, 500

West Temple Street, Los Angeles, California,

on Monday, the 23rd day of November, 1987.

MEMBERS OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTYTRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

HON. TOM BRADLEY, Mayor, Chairman

MR. KINGMR. ANTONOVICHMR. WOOMS. BACHARACHMS. REEDMR. GRABINSKIMS. MEDNICK

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD:

JAN HALL, PresidentCARMEN ESTRADA, Vice-PresidentMARVIN L. HOLENNICK PATSAOURASJAY PRICECHARLES STORINGGORDANA SWANSONERWIN N. JONESJOSEPH S. DUNNINGKENNETH THOMAS

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

PROCEEDINGS

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2

3 i MAYOR BRADLEY: We are meeting this morning

4 ,where we have sought to bring together the Board members

5 iof the Rapid Transit District and the LACTC.

I will have Rick Richmond call the roll of

~the members of the LACTC Board, then Jan Hall will call

the roll of the RTD. She will then make a statement and

then we will turn it back to me for further statements.

Rick Richmond, will you call the roll of the

LACTC.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. King?

MR. KING: Here.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Sabo?

MR. SABO: Here.

Mr. Antonovich?

Here.

Mr. Woo?

Mrs. Bacharach?

Here.

Ms. Reed?

Here.

Ms. Mednick?

MR. RICHMOND:

MR. ANTONOVICH:

MR. RICHMOND:

MR. WOO: Here.

MR. RICHMOND:

MS. BACHARACH:

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Grabinski?

MR. GRABINSKI:

MR. RICHMOND:

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. MEDNICKi

MR. RICHMOND:

MAYOR BRADLEY:

MR. RICHMOND:

MAYOR BRADLEY:

Jan Hall?

MS. HALL:

Here.

Chairman Bradley?

Here.

We have a/zorum.

Thank you.

Now, Madam Secretary will call the

roll of the Board of RTD.

MS. BOLEN:

MS. HALL:

MS. BOLEN:

MS. ESTRADA:

MS. BOLEN:

Joe Dunning?

MR. DUNNING:

MS. BOLEN:

MR. HOLEN:

MS. BOLEN:

MR. JONES:

MS BOLEN:

Jan Hall?

Here.

Carmen Estrada?

Here.

John Day?

Here.

Marvin Holen

Here.

Erwin Jones?

Here.

Nick Patsaouras?

MR

MS

MR

MS

MR

PATSAOURAS:

BOLEN:

PRICE:

BOLEN:

STORING:

Here.

Jay B. Price?

Here.

Charles Storing?

Here.

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

9

I0

Ii

12

1

2

3

4

5

6 i

MS. SWANSON:

MS. BOLEN:

MR. THOMAS:

MS. HALL:

MS. BOLEN: ’ Gordana Swanson?

Here.

Kenneth Thomas?

Here. ~

Thank you.

The ~jo~ and I had discussed who would Chair

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7 ithis meeting, and I think appropriately and for purposes

8 iof acknowledging and recognizing people that wish to

speak, Mayor Bradley should do that. For purpose of

perhaps setting the stage, I would like to make a few

comments and then we will proceed into the agenda.

I think that today we have really

established, some are saying, a very historic event, and I

think that’s true, only in that the decisions that both of

these groups seated at these tables makes affects so many

people in the County of Los Angeles. And I feel that I

can speak for the Board of Directors of RTD in stating

that certainly we can always make improvements and if tlhis

meeting can help that happen, we are very, very in favor

of that.

We also, I think, would like to point to the

fact that we have all worked hard in the last year to

identify issues in areas where there is overlapping and

perhaps a better way to do the job that we are all

attempting to do. And, I would hope, and I think the

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-13713

CS1330

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

Board would hope, that we start today to identify those

areas of overlapping and those issues that need to be

resolved and move in that direction.

I would like to add a personal hote, that I

think in this moment in time legislation has certainly

raised the interest of many, but as far as I am concerned

both the LACTC and the Southern California Rapid Transit

District Board of Directors have been working very hard to

attempt to put better transportation in the County of Los

Angeles. Whether that’s light rail, heavy rail, or bus

service, and that we have a mutual interest, and we have a

mutual consistency, so we enter this meeting and hopefully

there will be others with a great deal of hope that we

would be better able to define each role and move forward

to better provide transportation for those people that are

so dependent upon it.

Now we will turn the meeting back to Mayor

Bradley, and he will Chair it.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Thank you, Jan.

If I may, I will lay some background to

establish why this meeting has been called, and what

hopefully we can get out of it.

After ABI8 and SB2 the merger bills were

introduced, the LACTC -- we observed many defects in the

bills from the zery outset, and from time to time raised

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

objections to those particular defects, and indicated that

in order for us to support a bill, there would have to be

amendments that would meet our satisfaction. Grudgingly’,

we were able to get a few of the amendments in, and

finally within the closing day of session in Sacramento,

that we simply dug in our heels and said without these

7 !agreements, and some of them have been agreed to in a

8 imeeting that was held a few weeks earlier in City Hall, we

9 said without these amendments we cannot and will not

support the bill.

We sent our representatives to Sacramento to

lobby heavily against passage of the bill. In fact, the

bills got hung up in the legislature and I was asked to

call and persuade David Roberti to hold off any final

action for 30 days until they came back from recess, and

we all had a chance to look at those issues and see if we

can reach some concensus. We got that 30-day delay, and

even after that there was a flurry of amendments that went

in, some of which helped and some of which simply confused

the issues.

On the last night of the session I can recall

calling several times and then receiving calls from the

floor from various members, asking exactly where we stood.

I must tell you, my position has been consistent with the

LACTC on every score. Ours was a unanimous vote, taken

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

several times. I simply expressed the will of that body.

I had no separate or personal agenda. We were able to get

some amendments, which at that point we thought we would

never get. We didn’t think it was the perfect bill, but

we had made a commitment that if they agreed to our

amendments we would support it, and so we did.

The bill was passed and then the Governor

vetoed the bill in the final hours of his period to review

it. What some of us had said, even while all of this was

going on, is that if we, the local officials dealing with

transportation, hope to have our own agenda, recognized by

all, adopted by us, that we didn’t have much time, that we

all ought to come together and see if we could hammer out

an agreement that would assign responsibilities even

restructure, do it by joint powers agreement. Then ensure

the public that ride our buses, and will ride Metro-Rail,

and light rail, that they are getting the best, in terms

of service and in terms of delivery of transportation to

fill theirneeds.

I convened the first meeting where these

issues were discussed, and I thought we made some

progress. I guess we have had about three meetings since

then. In essence, we came up with a proposal that I will

have Rick Richmond read to you in just a moment. It seems

to be the best of the three alternatives that had been

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

3

~4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 !worked up by staff of both RTD and LACTC. We called the

2 most recent meeting and no definitive action was taken.

So we come back here this morning to ask all

of.you to review it. It is my judgment that if we ever

want to deliver a message that we are responsible enough,

adult enough, sophisticated enough, to devise our own

transportation system, we don’t need help from Sacramento,

today is the day to do that.

We have got to send that kind of clear

message to Sacramento, otherwise, you can be sure that a

bill or bills will be introduced in the next session of

the legislature. They may be introduce in any event. If

we can come up with some kind of concensus that shows that

we mean business, we are going to take control of

transportation in this region, then I think our chances of

having that prevail are far greater than if we do nothing.

If we don’t reach concensus here, and we walk out of here

without a plan, I guarantee you that there will be a bill

passed. I can’t guarantee what the government will do,

but we will be terribly weakened in our efforts to fight a

bill in Sacramento, if we are here, under our own time

constraints, are not able to come up with something which

shows that we know what our business is all about, and

what we need to do.

So it is my hope that that will be the course

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

C$1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

that we will take today. I frankly don’t believe any

nembers of the LACTC has any personal agenda on this

matter. I think that we simply want to get the best we

can for the people of this region. We have no desire to

take power, influence, representation, from one group to

hand it over to another. I think in this first proposal

that is made very clear. We don’t try to do that.

That is about the issue, the summary of it,

at least as I see it. I am going to ask Rick to briefly

discuss the alternatives that were discussed, and we will

then tell you what our original agreement or concensus

seem to be on one of them. They are all open to

discussion, not only by you who sit around this table, but ~-/~

I note that there are a number of locally elected

officials in the audience, and~e don’t have a particular

by-law as to how we are going to operate this meeting, so

I think we can do it ad hoc if some elected officials

representing the city wishes to be heard. Jan has no

objections. I certainly don’t have any objections to you

speaking on issue after the Board members have expressed

themselves. We simply ask that you stand, identify

yourself and your city, and we will hear from you.

There is an item that we need to point out to

24 you on the RTD agenda. There is an item four that talks

25 about operations and determinations of a position on the

I0

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

formation of a revised proposed San Gabriel Valley transit

zone. That was the action of RTD, and they are free to

discuss that issue. I would say to the members of the

LACTC that was not on our notice, we did not know that was

going to come up. So it would be in violation of the

Brown Act for us to engage in that discussion or debate,

inasmuch as we did not put it in our notice. So if the

matter is brought up by RTD they are free to pursue the

discussion. But I would ask that no LACTC member,

speaking in that behalf, get involved in that discussion.

Now, are there any questions on how we got

here, where we are going?

MR. HAHN: Mr. Mayor, first of all, I am glad

to be here, wheelchair or not, I am glad to be here. I

looked around the room here today while you were speaking./

There is enough brains in this room, enough civic minded

people in this room, to work out this problem. I see Ray

Remmy there. I see Bob there. I won’t mention all your

names, but I know you all, and if we can’t get together

today and say this is our plan, we are crazy. We got the

brains, we got the individuals, Republicans like Mike,

Democrats like me, new people like Mike, old people like

me, again.

So Ray, you should say amen, because we can

do it, Mayor, we can do it. I say keep’us in session

ComputerScripts

ii

Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

until we do it, because for to have Sacramento tell us

what we-can do ourselves is crazy; we always say home

rule, home rule. Now we got a chance to exercise home

rule and let’s not fumble the ball.

MAYOR BRADLEY: ~hank you, Ken.

Let us hear from Rick Richmond.

MR. RICHMOND: What we want to do is briefly

summarize the results of the series of meetings that we

had with the representatives of the staffs of the RTD,

County Transportation Commission, the City of Los Angeles,

the County of Los Angeles, and the League of Cities as

well as SCAG, over the last month and a half or so, to

look at some of the options for reorganization that

would not be dependent on legislative changes that would

live within the limitations of existing legislation. And

what that discussion has all been was identification of

two major alternatives which we want to briefly present

this morning as the preface to your discussion.

John and I have agreed to split up the

presentation. Since we have two alternatives he will do

one and I will do one. We will start with the first,

Alternative One, which is on the agenda packet listed as

Alternative One, and also depicted on these boards in the

back here.

MR. DYER: Thank y6u, Rick.

12

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,

President Hall, members of the RTD Board, what I want to

do is spend about three or four or five minutes talking

about Alternative One.

I would like to preface it with the following

couple of statements.

First, I think it’s important that we

recognize and put into perspective what’s being discussed

is really fundamental policy. How we organize to do

public transportation functions and the transportation

function in Los Angeles County, a very fundamental policy.

Secondly, I would like to just simply start

with my assessment at this point which is: I think few

people would argue or debate the propositio~ that the way

the st~_uctures in Los Angeles County function, they are

problematic at best, and at worst they are laborious and

inefficient, in terms of the true project, the final

conclusions.

Now, I would like to talk just a little bit

about Alternative One in terms of how that proposal is

advanced. I think I would like to start from the

standpoint of saying that the staff persons, LACTC, RTD,

the County, the City, all the persons that have worked on

it, really don’t have staff preferences. These are two

alternatives that have been advanced through a long

13

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14 transits.

process that seem to be viable, and seem to be workable in

the context that the Mayor put it in to start with.

Let me, if I might, spend just a couple of

minutes on Alternative One. Basically what it does, and

it is displayed in concept form on the chart behind me,

and displayed in specifics in the attached chart that you

have before you. Alternative One basically is an approach

where essentially the LACTC would be restructured to the

extent that no alternates would sit on the commission.

The local elected public officials as such would have the

responsibility of making the key policy decisions in terms

of how dollars are allocated, one; two, what future

direction plans are established both for highways and for

Thirdly, the authorization and approval of

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

major project investments, whether they be entirely

locally funded, ¯or funded in part by the State and the

local government or whether they be funded entirely by

State, local and federal funds in .combination. Thus, the

policy and the programming function would, if you will,

move entirely to the refigured LACTC, w~ich would be

composed entirely of elected public officials with no

alternates.

Secondly, the SCRTD would remain as it

presently functions in terms of its overall

14

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

6

7

8

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

responsibilities for bus operations, for planning for bus

operations, for improvements to the buses, through this

transportation system, and for the operation of rail. The

key thing that would change is who designs and builds rail

systems. And here what the proposal is under Alternative

One is that there would be a joint powers authority

created by, if you will, legal actions of both the LACTC

and the SCRTDo The joint powers authority itself would

function as a separate discrete, unique, independent

entity. It would have the powers to undertake design of

rail systems once the policy approval has occurred by the

LACTC.

The LACTC would, in fact, have the planning

responsibility for rail and the final decision-making as

to alignments, sequencing, project composition, et cetera,

and clearance of the environment impact documents, whether

they be state or federally required, or combination of

both. Once the rail system decisions have been made, if

you will, in terms of priority, in terms of funding, in

terms of alignment, and in terms of environmental issues,

then you would have the rail project moved to the rail

construction agency which would, in fact, have the

authority then to proceed full blast with the completion

of preliminary engineering work, one; two, the

establishment of final decision programs; three, the

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872--0713

cS1330

5

6

7

8

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

completion of the design program, and the start of

construction; and fourth, actual pursuit of the

construction to the point that the project is completed.

At the point in time the project is

completed, then the rail construction agency would in fact

move out of that project and would continue with the other

projects. We all know that there are five or six or seven

major projects that need to be undertaken between now and

the year 2000 or 2010, they involve at least four, five,

six, seven billion dollars, in that range. So this is not

an agency that would be necessarily one that would go out

of existence at the end of three years or four years, but

would be envisioned to be a continuing agency that would ~_~

undertake those functions.

The administrative support and overhead

functions, if you will, at this point have not been

refined in any great detail. But the concept that has

been discussed is there would be sharing or contracting

between perhaps even all three of the agencies, but

certainly two of the agencies, so that we don’t have to

build up an inordinate amount of administrative overhead

to support three different agencies.

I would like to conclude with this just one

and final thing° What this is envisioned as is a /~’~

situation in which there would be, in essence, three

16

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1336

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

federal grantees responsible for receiving federal funds,

Angeles County Transportation Commission as a

recipient of federal Section 8, planning funds. Then the

rail construction agency would be the recipient of Section

3 and Section 9 as appropriate federal capital

construction dollars., for purposes of implementing the

construction program where federal funds are involved.

And you would have the SCRTD as the recipient of the

federal grant funds for operating purposes and for bus

facilities, the capital projects, as well.

So there would be three separate federal

grantees always would be expected to qualify to receive

federal funds and that would be part of the overall, if

this implemented, transitioning process that would be

necessary to get from where it is today to where it would

go. I would expect if once a decision is made to

implement this alternative, if it is the alternative

implemented, you could have most if not all of this in

place within about 90 days.

That concludes my presentation, Mr. Mayor.

MAYOR BRADLEY: John, can you go to those

boxes on these pages, and explain the makeup of the agency

board, all three of them, how they differ from the makeup

of existing boards?

MR. DYER: Yes, sir.

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872--0713

~S1330

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

MR. HAHN: John, I want to ask you a question

after you answer the Mayor. Actually, you are sayingto

the transportation commission, you are going to be

stripped of this authority, and the RTD Board, you are

going to be Stripped of this, we are going to create a new

construction agency for both of us.

MR. DYER: Yes, sir.

in a nutshell.

MR. HAHN:

MR. DYER:

That’s the bottom line

In a nutsheli.

Yes, sir.

To respond to the Mayor’s question, basically

under this proposal, Alternative One, the Los Angeles

County Transportation Commission would be composed of the

five members of the Board of Supervisors, no alternates.

It would be composed of the Los Angeles City Mayor, and

the representative of the City Council, two

representatives of the City Council -- pardon me -- one

representative of the Long Beach City Council, and two

League ~of.Cities representatives, composed in accordance

with the current statute of the LACTC, no alternates.

Then the SCRTD Board would be composed of

22 i five appointees of the Boardof Supervisors, each

23 appointed by the members of the Board of Supervisors, two

24 LA City appointees by the Mayor, confirmed by the City

25 Council. And four League of Cities representatives

18

CS1330

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

appointed in accordance with the quarter selection

process, that involves the election of representatives

from each quarter by the quarter cities in each of the

designated areas. That would be the composition of the

5 itwo agencies.

6 Now, the third agency, the rail construction

7 agency, would be yet to be determined. There has been a

lot of discussion at the staff level, for example to take

half, for example, of the LACTC representatives like, for

example, five or three or some number like that and half

from the SCRTD Board and have a joint powers authority

created equally with composition from each.

Another alternative that’s been discussed

would be to include additional persons that would be

designated by the League of Cities, so that you might end

up with a board that is six from nine to fifteen or

seventeen persons on the rail construction agency. There

really hasn’t been any effort, Mr. Mayor, to try to

include composition of the joint powers authority. That’s

really a policy decision that LACTC and the RTD would have

to make as part of forming the new rail construction

agency.

Thank you.

MAYOR BRADLEY: John, there was one statement

that you made. I did not recall having seen it in the

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872--0713

CS1330

1

2

~3

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

document. I personally agree with it, but I want to be

sure that everybody in this room understands it. And you

refer to block, the bottom and on the right, where RTD

under its functions would operate bus service. I would

assume that when we finish building either Metro-Rail or

light rail, you would include operation of rolling stock,

which would include all three -- all two.

MR. DYER: Present law that exists, that’s on

the books, really provides that SCRTD would operate all

rail and bus. Unless tha~ law has changed, this joint

powers authority would not change that and therefore the

SCRTD would have to operate the rail as well.

MAYOR BRADLEY: All right.

MR. PATSAOURAS:

legal cities, persons?

MR. DYER: Yes.

MR. PATSAOURAS:

¯ MR. DYER: Yes.

MR. PATSAOURAS:

are different persons?

MR. DYER:

This proposal, LACTC has two

And the RTD has four?

Is there an overlap or they

Did everyone hear the question?

I’m not sure in the back. I presume you could.

To respond to Director Patsaouras’ question,

at the present time there is no overlap of persons° They

are designated in corridors which are not the same in

2O

CS1330

4

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

1 terms of the geography, and the process is not entirely

2 the same. I’m no£ sure whether or not there is even a

3 prohibition that would preclude the same person, if you

4 will, sitting as a league representative on both the RTD

5 and LACTC. I do not believe there is a prohibition, but

I’m certainly aware th~at there are six individuals at this

point, and depending on how the rail construction agency

is configured, additional persons from the League could be

the representative if appropriate and proper.

MR. PRICE: Mr. Mayor?

MAYOR BRADLEY: Mr. Price?

MR. PRICE: I feel it necessary to play a

little devil’s advocate here. Neither LACTC nor RTD,

under existing law, are subsidiaries of the other. They

are equal. They are equal partners at the bottom line of

transportation in this county. If Alternative Number One

was to be considered with only two membe~s of LACTC

18 iserving, the other which is basically setting the real

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

basic policies for this county, your other 84 cities of

the county are not being represented the way they should

be at the top level.

Now, if you will quickly, although it has not

been discussed but it’s the basis of my pointing it out,

if you quickly look at Alternative Number Two, where you

have, in effect, what we have sitting here today, that is

21

California (213) 872-.0713

CS1330 ’

.i

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the combined boards sitting together, where we are peer

organizations, we neither are subsidiaries of the other.

We are equals working together, and we have all of the

membership of the city members of LACTC and all the

membership of the 84 cities of RTD working together, and

you then are working under the existing law. Because the

existing law has provided LACTC with certain duties, which

under Alternative Two, are being fulfilled. The existing

law gives RTD certain laws under which we would continue

to do.

It’s my humble opinion, and I will repeat

what Mr. Hahn said, and I will repeat what the Mayor said,

the bottom line here is transportation. The bottom line

here is not to see who is going to be kind of the hill. I

don’t want to be kind of the hill, but I do expect that we

would all work tegether at the same peer level. We cannot

work together at the same peer level under Alternative

One. Under Alternative Two we all work tegether at the

same peer level, and we all sit together, whether we are

going to decide to have our meetings weekly, hi-weekly,

monthly, or quarterly, we are all going to have all of our

membership there to make the decisions; not only for the

big cities, but for the little cities of this county.

Now, for us to go on into discussion of

having two members sitting at the top in a peer position,

22

ComnuterScriDts Los Anaeles. California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1 over an organization that they were never given a peer

2 position to begin with under law, and to expect that they

3 would then enter into a joint powers agreement with a

4 subsidiary organization, to me sounds a little naive.

5 However, under Alternative Two, where you have two peer "

6 iorganizations working together like we are today, we are

7 working together as a joint powers agreement, no problem.

8 !We could work together from now until the year 2050, and

9 !we have got the Red Cars back on the line.

I0 What I think I’m trying to tell you is, if it

ii ain’t broken, don’t fix it. I don’t think we are broke.

12 I think all we need to do is to join sides and get

13 together on this thing. Because, if we go Alternative One

14 we are, in effect, saying the wheel’s broke, let’s fix it.

15 If we go Alternative Number Two -- please don’t shut me

16 off. I have a message to get across here -- if we go

17 Alternative Number Two we indicate that, ineffect, the

18 wheel is not broken. We have got the ability as two peer

19 organizations to work together to solve the bottom line of

20 transportation, with the least confusion in any area that

21 you want to name.

22 With that, I am going to tell you gentlemen,

23 ~in your own minds, look at the two charts, and decide

24 which one of those you would feel the happiest to work

25 under, and which one you think would produce the greatest

23

ComputerScripts Los AnGeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

25

results for the bottom line, which is the transportation.

You are going to find it is not Alternative One, it’s

Alternative Two. Look at it.

MAYOR BRADLEY: I hope we don’t have to have

you repeat that, because you did jump the gun a little

bit. Rick is about to get into a description of

I think it would be appropriate at thatAlternative Two.

time to --

MR. PRICE: I just wanted to have my say up

front so nobody has any doubts as to where I stand and

where I am going to fight from.

Richmond.

MAYOR BRADLEY:

MR. RICHMOND:

Now we will hear from Rick

Let me run through the

description of Alternative Two along the same basis as

John has described Alternative One.

Alternative Two is another approach to

getting at the notion of a consolidation of efforts. It

is done in this case through the, in effect, combination

of the two boards in terms of overlapping appointments.

It does maintain the two boards in separate and distinct

roles in terms of as they meet. For instance, there would

be a meeting where the first part of the agenda would be

the RTD items that needed to be dealt with.. Another part

of the agenda would be the Commission items that needed to

24

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be dealt with, so that the responsibilities of the two

agencies would be kept separate in terms of coming to tlhe

boards. However, there would be, through the assumed use

of dual appointments to both boards, a substantial overlap

in terms of the individual sitting at the table. And wlhat

I will do is describe how that takes place.

Under Alternative Two you have the ability to

have relatively simply, seven of the eleven members of

both agencies being the same people. That is accomplished

through the County Supervisors taking their seats both ,on

£he Commission and also as their appointing themselves to

the RTD Board. In addition, it is assumed that two L.A.

.City appointments on the Commission, either the Mayor and

his two appointments or the two appointments. It doesn’t

really matter which are appointed to both boards, both the

RTD and the Commission that gives you seven of eleven

members on both boards which would be the same

individuals. The remainder would be different which is

reflective of the difference in legislation. There is not

the ability to change the remaining fourth member, where

they come from.

In the case of the Commission, there would be

an appointment from Long Beach. There would be two League

of Cities appointments, and one additional from the City

of Los Angeles, which is the way the current Commission is

25

ComDuterScriDts Los Anaeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

structured. ~

In the Case of the RTD, you simply have four

additional League of Cities representatives. Now, it is

at least possible, that of those League appointments two

could also be the same people on both boards. So you

could have seven or as many as nine, if the League chose

to do it that way, being the same individuals on the two

boards.

Now, under this concept then this new board

of primarily elected officials and primarily the same

people on both boards, would be responsible, in effect,

for all the decisions that are made by the two board

agencies. Now, except to the degree they chose and could

delegate them to staff, would be really the choice of the

board.

There would be a single chief executive under

this concept that would report to the two boards. The

rail construction planning and programming and bus

operations functions would, in effect, operate as staff

units, reporting to this joint board. In some areas they

would report to one board and in another area they would

report to the other board. It would have to be sorted out

as you set this agency up. But basically they would be

handled as departments or staff units as opposed to having,.

25 separate agency responsibilities.

26

CS1330

The suggestion of a meeting that was held

just recently, the concept of advisory committees was

added to this particular alternative, to deal with some of

the most difficult and time-consumingissues that might

5 icome before the two boards so that there would be some

6 iability to screen, in effect, some of the issues that are

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

].6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

raised through a review process of an advisory committee.

In the case of the rail construction

activities, such things as design of the projects could be

run by advisory committees, award of major contracts could

be run through advisory committees before going to either

board.

In the case of bus operations area, it is

envisioned that the advisory committees would function as

performing the review of fare and service decisions that

have to be made by the RTD Board currently, issues

relating to the labor agreements and major contract award,

again. So the idea there again is to develop a mechanism

whereby the full brunt of requirements in terms of time

and meeting, number of meetings, would be lessened by the

introduction of advisory committees.

In the case of this alternative, as I

mentioned, you can accomplish the consolidation of rail

construction in a single department of staff. You can

accomplish consolidation of support functions and so forth

27

ComDuterScriDts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

through, again, a staff unit of joint boards. The issue

on implementation would be the sorting out of how to

structure the reporting relationships. For instance, if

the board level whether all rail items should only report

to one board or the other or shohld be split up according

to what the nature of the decision is, the actual physical

7 ’ joining of the two staffs would be an issue that would

8 takesome appointment, and the appointment process

conceivable.

So those are the matters that would have to

be dealt with in order to implement that particular

alternative.

MS. HALL: Rick, the advisory committee

indicates composition to be determined. These are pretty

significant issues, ones that probably takes, at least,

from the RTD’s perspective, a tremendous amount of time.

Who is the staff, or whomever did this, anticipating would

make these appointments, because I think that that

appointment situation and how large would have a

significant impact on the decisions that are made. If we

are talking about making elected officials be more ~

directly responsible, what did you anticipate as far as

appointees?

MR. RICHMOND: We didn’t directly address as

with the joint powers agency in the previous example

28

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 exactly how you would make up those committees. So we

2 !have not tried to deal with that until such time as people

3 ~seem to be generally comfortable with one alternative or

4 the other. The idea was that, particularly on the bus

5 operating side, where this is a substantial commitment of

6 time to deal with those issues, that the advisory

7 committee would relieve, to some degree, the requirements

of the, in this case, RTD Board, for some of those issues

by going through certain public review processes that now

are required. So we did not address specifically who

would be on those advisory committees.

I would suspect that could be dealt with

relatively quickly if this were the direction that people

wished to go.

MR. HAHN: Mr. Chairman?

MAYOR BRADLEY: Kenny?

MR. HAHN: Virtually what you were talking

about, again, in a nutshell, five County Supervisors and

two elected officials from the City Council. That means,

in effect, two City Councilmen will be actually

supervisors or temporary, seven supervisors. Two City

Councilmen automatically can be Supervisors when they sit

because they have the same equal voting power as the

Supervisors.

By the way, this building was designed for

29

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

seven Supervisors. I told the architect, "Prepare for the

future, design this building for seven Supervisors, when

we have seven men." But Mike, do you see this, five

Supervisors and two City Councilmen that they sit equally

with us. They are virtually a Supervisor with all the

power and prestige. But, that’s what it means, seven

Supervisors from the RTD, five and two City Councilmen.

Is that right, Rick?

MR. RICHMOND: That’s seven of the eleven,

and then you have the small city representatives, too.

MR. PRICE:

MS. HALL:

Can I ask Rick a question?

Yes, I wanted to finish.

In looking at both of these alternatives, and

the advisory committee is certainly an interesting

concept, but one of the things that I would just like to

get Some discussion or some focus on is when we talk about

reorganization and local decisionmaking and responsibility

of elected officials, I think, and we have a meeting like

this, what we are really talking about is how do we get a

better situation than we have now. Without it, from my

particular perspective, saying that it’s so bad now that

it can’t function. The issues that were raised that

continued to be raised, I think relate to about four

different areas.

This particular scenario seems to address it

30

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

more carefully than the other.

solves the problems.

to just raise those.

But I am not sure it

So as we discuss this I would like

Labor concerns are a major concern

for the operations of the bus system and future operations

of the rail system, and the ability to deal with those in

a responsible manner, I think needs to be part of any

change that we are going to make.

One thing that occurs to me is auditing,

which has been raised by the media in many areas, either

under one of these scenarios, unless I am misreading them,

it occurs to me. that auditors are auditing the auditors.

In other words, they are auditing themselves. I think

that that’s something that we need to look carefully at.

Because, certainly responsibility of elected officials are

not going to do anything wrong. But the public needs to

be constantly reassured that the auditing function is

making sure they haven’t.

Overlapping staffs are something that I think

has been raised in the past, and I think as we look at

this, that needs to be something that’s looked at

carefully, to make sure that with the advisory committee

under this scenario, the two different organizations

coming together, that some of those overlapping staff

responsibilities get looked at to make sure that we are

not still spending the same amount of money and really not

31

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

5

6

7

8

9

i0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

getting anything for it.

Funding concerns to me are the bottom

underlying problem. And those funding concerns directly

relates to the RTD from our perspective, the ability to

put service on the road, that is desparately needed, that

then creates the problems that have been raised many times

before, which is overcrowding, late buses, and all of

those things.. And, at the same time the greater

transportation community by way of the LACTC has funding

problems in that we are seeing federal government sources

start to dry up, and we are seeing a problem that all of

us have to deal with.

So I don’t see where either one of these

makes that problem better, although perhaps by having the

elected officials sit, then we could generate a more

impressive board that could go to these funding agencies

at the state and federal level and plead a better case.

But, I have some real concerns about advisory boards that

would look into what I think are the basic operation and

transportation decisions. And if it creates just more

advisory boards that would concern me.

MR. PATSAOURAS: A couple of points. First,

Alternative Two, the Mayor is not a member, am I right?

MS. HALL: Well, I think he could be a

member.

CS1330

1 MR. PATSAOURAS: Well, why don’t you put it

2 so it will be specific. But above all, the whole issue of

3 ireorganization started because of lack of accountability.

4 IThere is an Alternative Three that I don’t see has been

discussed thoroughly, and that is a full elected board.

What you create there is a Tower of Babalon. You are

’going to have with Alternative One or Two 15, 20, 25

)le, and you are telling me that the poor guy on the

street is going to look at this 25 people for

i0 .accountability. I hope I am alive to see it. Why don’t

ll__iyou consider an elected board? They are accountable, and

12 !we have a lot of time to spend on transportation.

MR. DUNNING: I guess I would like to ask a

question about Alternative One. The powers of the RTD are

the powers of LACTC if changed therefore the only

difference is that together they will form a joint powers

authority; is that correct?

MR. RICHMOND: Yes.

MR. DUNNING: Then I would ~ike to make

statement. I guess I tend to agree with Jay, and with. the

others, that if it’s not broke why are we actually fixing

it. And because of that, each agency has a distinct job

to do. If that Alternative One chart had been done with

the LACTC here and RTD here and abox either underneath,

on top, or horizontally, that said "Rail Construction

33

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Agency," that there would be this question of peers and

nonpeers. All Alternative One does to me is take a

problem that the agency can acknowledge Construction of

rail from two different locations and put that together

and what I see is the first step. It’s a phase one. If

that works then we say, "Well, where is another problem

that we can go look at."

I think Nick brings up a point of an elected

board, and Jan brought up later. This whole attempt was

something that we could do locally without legislation.

It seems to me if we start taking a phase kindof

approach, as we are doing that, we begin identifying areas

where we will need legislation. There is no way to change

some of these without legislation, but at least we are

taking the issue locally identifying those things and we

go to Sacramento instead of Sacramento coming to us.

I don’t look at Alternative Two as a good

idea. I look at Alternative One as a phase one approach,

where we begin to work together and identify some of the

issues of concern with the other in mind that if that

works we go on and proceed with more.

I very much share Jan’s concern of advisory

committee. I think it’s going in exactly the wrong

direction. You would have the League of Elected Officials

on there probably, and this way you have elected officials

34

CS1330

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

on every board. ’I also have a strong concern about the

time of the supervisors and the Mayor and the City

representatives and directing all of the issues that

4 iAlternative Two will require that they address.

5 ! I guess I am speaking for a phase approach,

6 !and I think that’s what Alternative One is.

7 MR. VAN DOREN: I am John Van Doren, Mayor of

the City of Duarte. Well, not engaging in a debate over

our own boundary, discussing the east San Gabriel Valley,

and without entering into a debate about understanding the

)resence of Alternative One or Alternative Two, I want to

first commend all of you being in the room together.

I think that without speaking to a preference

of Alternative One or Two, I think it is important to all

of us in local government, first of all, there is a need

to look at not only movement of people in the transit mode

that your various agencies have addressed, but you have to

look at movement of people who depend upon your agency.

Keeping that in mfnd, I would consider the alternative

that would lead a city in all elements of transportation,

not just transit.

Secondly, I do want to echo the comments of

Ms. Hall. The lack of accountability if you’ get into the

situation where local people cannot go to their elected

representatives and say, "Here is what I want you to do in

35

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

my area."

MR. PRICE: This was taken from a subsidiary

position and put up as a peer with LACTC. It probably

would improve the entire thing. I find one thing

6

7

8

9

i0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

5.1disturbing in all of the legislative comments that were

made in the last legislature. The idea was that elected

officials were going to have to be the ones that bear the

brunt of the public in all of this, as I read Alternative

Two. I have gone through many years, I have gone through

16 years of it. I am a veteran of the war. When it comes

time to raise fares and cut service, I am the one that has

to vote for the fares.

So that is why I say if Sacramento says it

must be elected officials that are going to bear the brunt

of raising fares, let’s just don’t put the raising of

fares on the back of half the board or part of the board.

~~S17 i Let go over here to Alternative Two and let’s make

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

everybody support raising the fares, because I don’t want

somebody from another board pointing a finger at me and

saying, "You raised the fares on the poor and the

disadvantaged," and I agree with them.

Let’s look at them in a separate and equal

responsibility for fare increases and look for contracts,

because then that again are the two bottom lines and it

seems like too many people want to skirt this issue and

36

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

leave these two in the lap of the RTD, so that the people

are going to only point at the RTD and say, "You are the

persons that raised the fares and you are the pe~rsons that

changed the service."

No, let’s make it a peer combination so if

the public wants to take action against us, they are going

to take action against both of us, not part of it.

If there are two advisory boards they should

be purely optional at the will of the combined membership,

if they want advisory boards, fine. But to have an

advisory board coming to me as an elected official, and

telling me, "This is the way that we feel, as an advisory

board, it should be received." I say no way. They are

not elected. I am an elected official, I am a Mayor, too,

and I am responsible to my people and I can be kicked out

of office. Let the buck come right back up to the top .and

there is the top, right over there. Let them be

responsible for it.

MR. DUNNING: Mr. Chairman, I would just like

to, before we get into it, point out that it was my

understanding that What we are going to come up with is

something that was new and much more efficient than

anything we had before. We are talking about new concepts

coming on line.

I just want to make a statement, that I am

3 7

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

little bit concerned that we bring too much baggage to

this and we are not going to be able to-come up with

something that is new and efficient. I think the reason I

am making that point is because I don’t think Alternative

One or Alternative Two are anywhere near perfect, but I

think somewhere in between is what we are looking for.

MR. GRABINSKI: I just want to point out that

both RTD and LACTC have done a marvelous job. what we are

talking about is transportation unity in the future,

that’s going to be taking on problems now of which we

faced before. I think what we are doing is building

something that’s attributed to success not any problems,

or failures from the past. So I am just bringing that

point up early so that we don’t end up having a division

here.

MR. BARTLET: I am Bob Bartlet, Mayor of the

City of Monrovia. On behalf of the Transportation

Committee of the League, indicating our support for

Alternative One.

However, before I get too far into that, I

think it’s important that we look at the drawing of the

chart, because it seems to be the problem here. It’s not

just subservient to the other but what we are really

trying to accomplish is accountability and do it without

legislative action. I see maybe if you could draw the"

38

CS1330

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

ichart again and show SCRTD the same level as LACTC with a

dotted line between the two and maybe the rail

construction would be below the two of them I think we got

4 i your problem solved, as far as people in the city are

5 !concerned.

6 Secondly, I heard Jay say that all people

7 should bear the brunt of raising fares and that sort of

thing, under Alternative Two, nothing changes. As I

understand it, the SCRTD Board would have their own

agenda, LACTC would have their own agenda, and neither

~ard would overlap in that regard. You can’t under

either alternative.

I just want to make sure that everybody

understands that the League is going to support

Alternative One. However, I think this should be redrawn

so that neither organization should be subsidiary to the

other.

Thank you.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Thank you, Bob.

MS. HALL: Bob, I hear what you are saying,.

and I understand what you are saying, that Alternative One

is sort of the same, but the same level. I think the

bottom line difference between Alternative One and

Alternative Two is that the Board of Supervisors are

sitting on both, and therefore there are no alternatives.

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

There are no appointees. The Board of Supervisors, in

fact, then as a member of both boards become responsible

not only for allocation as members of that board, but

become responsible for allocations of moneys as well as

5 setting up fares and collecting the revenues. So I think

6 i there is a bit of a difference in the way that works,

7 ~because of that very strong overlap of five members that

8 would sit on both boards.

I would like to know as they look at these,

the emphasis seems to be on their sitting individually,

and as a group on these particular boards in order to give

accountability we haven’t heard from any of the members of

of Supervisors on that point. I am not askingthe Board

for Alternative One or Two, but just the point of sitting

on this board of this magnitude.

MR. EDLEMAN: I am not ready to respond to

this before I have a little more time to decide. It would

seem to me, Mayor, my speaking quickly here, without a lot

of thought, maybe we could say that in certain instances

the board members themselves have to be there. When you

have a critical policy decision to make ~nd agree to have

the board members themselves go at those meetings, short

23 !of that, have alternates attend, I would think that would

24 be acceptable for you and others who are elected officials~

25 ~who have responsibilities beyond transportation.

40

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We have to have enough time to deal with the

other matters° We have good alternates. I don’t want my

position here to reflect on my alternates on either of the

Transportation Commission or on the RTD. I am unwilling

to say that we should do away with alternates. I don’t

think that is necessary, that may satisfy some, but I

don’t think that in the end it would be a good conclusion.

I would think that we should still have alternates. We

should meet maybe where we have a certain major decision,

but that would have to be made by policies.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Ed, I think it’s a matter of

distorted perceptions. I am not sure any of the

suspicions and doubts they have about these two agencies

unless they see a requirement that the principal policy

making members of the board sit full time. You and I know

it’s going to be a burden on us to do that, but I don’t

think we are going to satisfy anybody without making that

sacrifice.

MR. EDELMAN: You could still satisfy maybe

that public concern, that image problem. The two

transportation commissions and the other RTD Board get

together maybe every so many months, to try to deal with

some of the problems. The RTD has certain expertise. The

Commission has certain expertise. But I don’t think it

makes sense to unravel what ha~ been built up over the

41

CS1330

5

6

7

8

9

i0

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

years. That’s why I have some reservations about that

legislation, and I suggested that to the officers.

don’t think we have to just jump because the press or the

media says that we should jump. I think we have to jump

based upon our own reason and judgment;

Thank you.

MS. REED: As one of the people who

participated intensely, as one of the people who was

called on to participate intensely of the legislative

process, along with Mr. Bacharach and Jan Hall, as several

officials going back and forth to Sacramento trying to

deal with people of Sacramento who thought they had all of

the answers to the problems here in this county, I think

we have to force ourselves to resolve it in a better way

to approach these problems here in this county, or we will

be forced to have our problems solved for us. And those

of us that are in the legislation in Sacramento and

dealing with the office know that a lot of dumb ideas got

put in and taken out on a daily basis in the legislation,

especially the end of session. We had to work really hard

to get an understanding of the practicalities of what they

are trying to do to us. And it wasn’t easy.

I think that we would hold a burden on

ourselves and I can say this because I would be happy to

come to all the meetings. I would be happy to serve in

42

CS1330

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

either capacity I was called on to represent. I am one of

the largest city representatives on the Commission. As

far as I am concerned, I would be willing to put in the

time. I recognize that the Supervisors and the Mayor have

different time constraints, but I think that we have to

force ourselves to do this or it will be done for us in

ways that will not work out very well.

So we need a good-faith commitment by the

elected officials, the ones who are the appointing

authorities to keep coming to the meetings or alternately

something such as the Supervisor will put on the table. A

commitment to say once every two months or once every

three months, to have one of these meetings so that there

can be a discussion of the specific problems, with some

good-faith attempt and go back to the individual boards

and reach an agreement. I think there is. If we don’t

continue in this forum as we are this morning, then

Senator Robins and others will pursue their own agenda

with regard to reorganization of transportation.

So I think it is very important that we press

forward and that we require that of ourselves even if it

means more work for ourselves.

MAYOR BRADLEY: John Dyer, one question.

There has been some suggestion that there be local bodies,

three on one line. If that is the case, who is going to

43

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-.0713

CS1330

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

.17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be responsible for auditing, for oversight? I am doubtful

that this one at the topwas run as a super agency without

being named LACTC. Perhaps, by some surname, if we don’t

have that, how do we ensure that somebody isn’t looking

over our shoulders auditing, raising questions about the

rail construction agency or the bus and rail operators?

MR. DYER: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Maybe I

better answer this in two respects.

First, obviously each of the three major

bodies, the federal government is going to control the

responsibility for federal funds.

Secondly, I believe the intended purpose is

that the LACTC is terms hero, if you make it some other

name, fine. It is intended to be the monitoring on the

oversight agency for all functions performed on rail

construction performed by the SCRTD and performed by

itself.

Alternative One is intended to download the

publicofficial the entire amount of time. required on all

issues. It downloads them because they basically delegate

a major phase of operation, construction, development to

the two agencies.

In Alternative Two it doesn’t download the

public officials. In fact, it uploads them. They are

going to have to spend a lot of time for Alternative Two

44

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

1 for the same reason,~ they have to sit as bodies on both

2 the SCRTD and the LACTC or it won’t work. So there is a

3 major difference in time.

4 The final thing I would like to mention is

5 that what Alternative One attempts to do is recognize the

construction agency, the construction agency is just

starting in Los Angeles County.

MR. EDELMAN: Mr. Chairman, RTD and

Alternative One, there could be a broken line. They do

not have to sit together, but as peers they conform as

joint powers agreement between them that the

responsibility to the two of them. I’m saying what was

previously said here, that in bringing them in so that: one

is not subsidiary to the other with a dotted line, but the

two of them then create the joint powers agreement sitting

as supervisors. I do believe, as it has been stated over

here, that we should at least quarterly meet where the top

elected officials would serve.

As you are well aware, LACTC is allowed to

have appointees and the RTD is allowed to have appointees.

I think that should remain the same because to change it

22 takes state law. We don’t need legislators getting into

23 the act again. We would have to get into the act. It

24 would be a voluntary committee on your part and on the

25 part of the supervisors, to meet quarterly without all of

45

ComDuterScriDts Los Anqeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

I0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

us on the Board for policy decisions. Otherwise, that one ~

could be moved on the dotted line as the joi~t powers

agreement comes down from the two and it would work, I

will agree to that. It would work, but it’s not going to

work the other way.

MR. WOO: We can devise an effective way to

change which essentially was laid, but the legislature in

terms of whether we at the local level improve something,

improve the making of it. I think there are varying

opinions around the table as to how broken is the process,

to what extent it needs to be fixed. ~ I think the main

idea most of us here have in common is, that it is better

if we try to solve it here at the local level rather than

leave it for the legislature. I think for this reason

it’s important for us at this meeting to be able to agree

upon some kind of apparatus that can be implemented.

I tend to think that Alternative One is

easier to accomplish as opposed to Alternative Two. I am

in agreement with Councilwoman Reed that it is probably

not enough to stop with Alternative One. It is a step

that we can take in the shortrun, but I think when we look

at Alternative One the main improvements that it makes

over the current situation is that it creates a joint

powers agreement in terms of the consolidating of the rail

construction agency.

As I look back upon the last year or so, the

2 ilast consolidation of rail construction agency, I don’t

~think it was the main complaint. I think we have to look

for a way to increase the accountability of some, to

improve other agencies, to conduct oversight, to be able

to achieve some economies of sale in terms of

consolidating.

I think one other thing we learned over the

9 :process of the last year or so is that it is not something

I0 ithat can be done in one morning or six months. I think

11 ithat what would be a sensible approach for us in terms of

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

demonstrating a good-faith effort to respond to concerns

of the legislature, is to adopt Alternative One or some.

variation of Alternative One. ~And looking at that as a

kind of intermediary step towards something perhaps more

like Alternative Two or some kind of long-range way to be

able to provide oversight, identifying clearly who is

responsible for making things work better. I think what

we need to look at is a process and not just at one fail

swoop.

The other thing that is important for us, I

think it is important for us sitting around the table

today is to not send a message to the public that we are

weak. I think that will not be an adequate message to

send back to the legislature and I think that we have to

ComputerScripts Los Anqeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 come up with some answers.

2 MS. BACHARACH: I think that a lot of the

3 brush that got painted was because the general manager and

4 the board was busy with the rail. They didn’t focus on

5 the board, and that is part of the problem. The rail

program we see today, as John just said, is in the very

beginning of an incredible large rail process. We need to

focus on a board overseeing that. As I said before, I

think it’s a very good first phase. It gets us used to

doing those kinds of things, and it allows us to really

concentrate on bus operations and a board to concentrate

on the varying construction programs we have.

MR. PATSAOURAS: I would like to make a

motion to start with Alternative-One.

MR. PRICE: If we are going to take this one

step at a time, let’s take it one step at a time and let’s

do it properly. I mean I think it’s a mistake for us to

expect that we are going to have a joint powers agreement

between one that is over another body. Remember we are

building Metro-Rail also. They are building two rails.

We are building Metro-Rail under a federal grant of $4

billion, approximately. I would support the motion

absolutely when we make the minor modification.

MR. STORING: We are here today to solve

other problems on an administrative level so it isn’t done

48

CS1330

in Sacramento on a legislative level. I also had assumed

that it was univerally accepted that we would engage in

some sort of consolidation, and this is not consolidation,

if it isn’t proliferation. It is nothing more than status

uo, and Sacramento is not going to let us get away with

maintaining what we have~ no matter on what level we place

it.

MS. SWANSON: Mr. Mayor, after much

9 !discussion, I feel that instead of talking about

i0 !Alternative One or Alternative Two, the process that we

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

are undertaking today is the first step in beginning to

make things work between these two agencies. I think that

the beginning of this process is very important and we

should not underestimate it. We should look at the

problems that are underlying to have caused, the reason

for which we ask that certain alternatives be developed.

We should begin to start working together, which we have

not done terribly well in the past. The most important

job that we are faced with right now in the county is to

work on rails.

I would like to propose as an alternative

that the two rail commi£tees of the LACTC and RTD work

together to periodically meet where as needed or on a

regular basts, whichever the two boards deem that it is

appropriate to work together on rail projects.

49

ComputerScriDts Los Anaeles, California (213) 872-~713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Secondly, that we work together on the

developing of the short- and long-range transit plans.

These are the issues that are very vital in planning the

transportation in the region. We could do a great deal of

good by sitting together as committee members to work on

these issues and then bring them, once we agree upon them,

on the basic plans and policies, should bring them to our

respective bodies for approval.

Thirdly, that we work together with the two

bodies so that all legislative matters as they pertain to

transportation be worked on together by the two agencies.

I would like to offer that as an alternative

to the previous motion made.

MS. HALL: Mr. Mayor, I just hope and pray

that as we seek a solution to this problem, our solution

doesn’t become a problem in the future. We have to keep

two things in mind, that whatever we do in the future

ought to be a setup where we improve upon what we perceive

to be the issue. And whatever solution we come up with

ought to be a lot more simple, and a lot more direct in

dealing with the issues than the current setup.

I happen to favor for that reason Alternative

One or some highbred of it because I think that

Alternative Two appears, at least from the public’s

standpoint, appears to be cumbersome, overlapping, and I

5O

(213). 872-0713

CS1330

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

].3

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

think quite very likely to be unrealistic in terms of tlhe

ability of officials to attend to all those meetings and

do the job right.

So with that in mind I would like to favor

Alternative One. I think at this point we should perhaps

restate what the positions are. I think we have three

motions on the floor and they are unclear.

MR. PATSAOURAS: We start working using

Alternative One as a framework for the next step, and

that’s to amplify on the joint powers agreement,

memberships, makeup and start working with that instead of

spending another i0 days talking about One or Two.

MAYOR BRADLEY: The motion that Jay proposed

lost for a lack of a second.

Ray Remming is here.

MR. REMMING: An elected official has to

serve. It would be said all state officials have to serve

on every board that they also are appointed to. It seems

to me the motion that Nick has made is a sound one. It

gives a framework. There is a joint committee between RTD

and the Commission that perhaps they could take whatever

direction. That committee could take all of those ideas

from the framework of Alternative One and report that back

to the boards as to a series of short-term actions and a

series of long-term suggestions, some of which might

51

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

require a legislation framework within Alternative One, as

Nick has suggested and taking in consideration for Jay’s

idea. And that is just suggestion.

Before we vote, the publicMAYOR BRADLEY:

should be heard.

MR. DUNNING: One of the things that seems to

be disturbing to me is Alternative One is called LACTC.

It is no longer only LACTC as defined here. By the law

what it calls for is the active participation continuously

of five county supervisors. That is nonexistent as LACTC

in effect today. It calls for the Mayor and the L.A. City

Council members. That is by law what is called for. It

is not in effect as LACTC is operating now. Would it be

any less disturbing to those discussing the relative

position if it is the League, to in fact chan~e the name

of that governing body to an Alternative One to some other

name that is not LACTC. If that is accomplished we would

have in fact eliminated the subservient organization to

LACTC. It would in fact be subservient to this new

organization. We do, as Ray pointed out, have, in fact,

existing meetings between the representatives of the two

groups in identical commissions. That could be the step

towards implementing Alternative One as prepared here,

with the exception of the name.

Now, if those who are in a position could

52

~^~,~,,~r~n~-~ ~’.n.~ ~na~.q. California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

clarify my question so in fact that could be implemented.

MR. PATRAOURAS: I would like to amend my

motion to strike LACTC as a superior agency.

MS. HALL: May I say something? It’s a

composition to be determined. If that seems to be the

trend that we are going towards. I thought that Mr.

Remming perhaps identified what I thought your position

was, Nick. Which is, that we move in the direction of

that framework and that we then take this motion and

determine that in fact it is not in the best interest of

the. public and the County of Los Angeles to have a joint

powers authority comprised. I have to rely on the members

of both LACTC and the RTD to make those very important and

critical decisions as to how we construct that rail.

So perhaps again just to clarify what the

motion is, if we take to the framework then we have some

homework to do, to come back together as a joint group, to

talk about the composition and I think get a better feel

for what seems to me to be a great unanswered question and

that unanswered question is just how would the Board of

Supervisors accept that responsibility. They are so very

busy and they have such a large job. Ray and I are on the

same City Council and we have a lot of responsibility.

Whether or not they are in fact in a position to serve,

because by state law now they can, but they are given the

53

ComputerScripts Los Anqeles, California (213) 872-13713

CS1330

5

6

7

8

9

I0

11

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

opportunity to have alternates and to serve when they

wish, if there is an important vote.

But I am reiterating the motion as this joint

group basically starts out on the path to establish a

joint powers authority and that we would have to come back

with a much more definitive statement as to what that

authority would do.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Now we will hear from Tom

Silver.

MR. SILVER: Thank you. I would just like to

say on behalf of Supervisor Antonovich, that Alternative

One, from his point of view, represents a step away from

unity and a step away from accountability. I think he

would frankly oppose that alternative. He favor~

Alternative Two, which brings together at least seven

members who would overlap. I think he is open to

Supervisor Edelman’s suggestion that possibly some

distinction could bemade between major policy decisions

and housekeeping decisions.

I do believe that we are going in the

opposite direction when we create a third board of

undetermined composition, possibly not elected officials.

I think we are going in the right direction to support

Alternative Two.

MAYOR BRADLEY: We will now hear from Leo

CS1330

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. KING: I would like to comment on your

actions today. I am elated over what I am hearing with

respect to the majority of you sort of forming a consensus

this time. From what I am hearing it sounds really good.

6 IWe thank you, all of us.

7

8

I am just elated that you people

are starting to move together.

I really only have three areas of concern,

other than what was brought to my attention, and I

certainly agree with some of my colleagues and their

comments. So once again I would just like to say if you

would take those into consideration.

I appreciate what you all are doing today and

I thinkI certainly hope that you have another meeting.

you can really bring it together.

you all.

On behalf of my city I would like to thank

MAYOR BRADLEY: Thank you very much.

Next we will hear from Mr. Holen.

MR. HOLEN: I suspect that this forum is too

large to begin to draw boxes and lines, be they solid or

broken, and to fill those boxes in with names and numbers.

I think that this meeting has become a very valuable part

of the process that you initiated a while back, but I

think that it is part of that process.

55

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

I~ think Jan articulated very well the

direction of the attitudes that I have heard around the

table, which is toward the joint powers agreement, where

we bring together in a more efficient fashion the

decisionmaking process itself for the transportation in

the county.

I would suggest that we use that articulation

as the basis from which we leave this meeting, which is

you look towards the joint powers authority. We do not

have limits and parameters, to be faced by the people who

will be dealing with it, but understand that within the

objectives is efficiency and accountability.

I think that is about as far as you can go

today, but I think it’s a big step forward.

MR. CROYTS: My name is Hal Croyts.,. City of

Lomita.

Our contract city executive board took a

position earlier in the month. We would support

Alternative Three, which is not here. And I believe that

the reason for Alternative Three or maybe a modification

21 ’ ~ of Alternative Two, was that the cities of Los Angeles

22 iCounty would have a greater representation than

23 i Alternative One.

24 During all of the discussion today, I feel

25 that Alternative One modified as Jackie indicated a while

56

(213) 872-0713

CS1330

9

i0

ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 iago within the constraints of the current law, would be

2 iappropriate and with alternates as Supervisor Edelman has

3 indicated, having periodic meetings bi-monthly or monthly,

4 ior quarterly° However, for those key things which the

5 !staff could define, where the Supervisors and the Mayor

6 !would sit.

7 I think that, as I view it right at the

8 momint, and it is from a personal standpoint, is that the

Mayor of Los Angeles City and the Supervisors of the

county have six votes on LACTC, and essentially they have

the same votes on RTD because there are those people on

there who are their appointees.

So based on that, I feel that you six

representatives can basically make this thing work. You

put your minds to it and work together on it. You have

the controlling vote. I think with that in mind, that it

would be appropriate to do within constraints of the

present law, your organization at least on an interim

basis of Alternative One with the two organizations and

then forming JPA. I think it would be appropriate to

recommend or for your assigned staff for a subcommittee to

come up with what the responsibilities and structures .and

so on that might be.

5~YOR BRADLEY: Thank you very much, Hal.

The Chairman will call that we are ready for

5 7

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872--0713

CS1330 ~

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a vote, with the exception of one speaker from the public.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

My name is Greg Roberts.

The plan that I would favor is the one that

is the simplest. The simplest for the public to

understand, the simplest to operate. Keep it simple.

Just keep it simple.

The old kiss-it rule from theArmy, and I am

sure as you know from your many years, the most simple it

is the better the chances it has to succeed. So if it is

One, if it’s Two, so that’s my comment.

Thank you very much, Mayor.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Thank you very much.

MS. SWANSON: Mr. Mayor, in order to

hopefully receive a positive vote, I would like you to

clarify the motion, because -- somebody clarify it. I

thought that we are not voting, for the specific boxes as

they are in front of us, we are voting for formation of

the JPA in principle, so that we would come back and

define the responsibilities of that authority.

Is that what we are voting on?

MAYOR BRADLEY: I will have the maker repeat

his motion as soon as we hear from two others.

MR. WALTER: Mr. Chairman and members of the

Commission and RTD Board of Directors and staff, everyone.

58

R~9-~713

CS1330

First of all, I want to commend both of your

organizations for meeting today and attempting to get the

best possible organization to help fulfill a very complex

transportation need here in Los Angeles County.

The only suggestion I would have is both of

6 lyour boards and commissions meet twice a mon£h, usually

7 ithe first and third week of each month. I might just

8 Isuggest that perhaps say the first week the policymakers,

9

I0

ii

12

13

14

15

every elected official meet on the first week and then

.maybe even continue in that same meeting have delegates

and appointees continue on with the agenda of that

particular meeting. And then maybe the third week have

the appointees meet, perhaps in the third week or so.

That would just give a commitment of the elected officials

to meet once a month ~ then continue the meeting perhaps

16 iwith the appointees, so that the elected officials are not

17

18

19

committed to have to sit on the board all that time. Kind

of divide it up where the elected officials meet to

discuss the basic policies and then carry out the policies

20 iwith the sub-boards, or the delegates or appointees or so

21

22

23

24

25

on to continue with the meeting.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Mr. Dunkan.

MR. DUNKAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I note on the first page, the last two boxes,

the last four items are duplications, personnel, contract

59

ComputerScripts Los Anqeles, California (213) 872-0713

CS1330

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

i0

ll

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

procurements, equal opportunity, community relations. I

would like to discuss the credibility of this joint

meeting. It would be enhanced in the eyes of the public,

I would believe, that you can clearly state that the cost

currently between overhead related to two activities of

boards will be definitely reduced. Separated from that,

that there will be a reduction in the cost of employees

and perhaps the number of employees all of those under a

more efficient operation in the future, some cleaner buses

and that buses that run every hour and never miss. They

always show up sometime during the course of the

operation.

Thank you very much.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Thank you.

N~k Patsaouras, would you repeat your motion

and we will be ready for a vote.

MR. PATSAOURAS: My motion is that the

respective Chairs of the LACTC and RTD appoint

subcommittees, working with staff, to develop a joint

powers authority, as far as the duties, responsibilities,

and makeup of the authority.

MS. HALL: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I

will offer that same motion for the LACTC. I understand

we have to have a second on the motioD.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Jan, call on the RTD.

6O

CS1330

6

7

8

I0

Ii

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

MS. HALL: We have a motion before us. I

think the discussion, I won’t ask for any more discussion,

any objections to the motion as stated.

Then the motion carries, Mr. Mayor.

MAYOR BRADLEY: Now the members of the

Southern California Transportation District Board, having

taken its action.

Now LACTC all in favor of the motion please

say "aye."

[Chorus of ayes.]

MAYOR BRADLEY: Opposed~

It is unanimous.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think this has been

an historic event for us. I thank each of you for your

support, your willingness to offer a contribution, and I

think we are going to move in the direction of

accomplishing our goal.

Thank you very much.

MS. HALL: By way of clarification, I think

that our agenda items were not accepted, therefore we will

have no further discussion.

[At 12:00 a.m., the proceedings were

concluded.]

-o0o-

6].

ComputerScripts Los Angeles, California (213) 872-0713

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

I0

ii

12

CERTIFICATE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ]] ss.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ]

I, MARTHA SOSNOWSKI, a resident of the County of

Los Angeles, State of California, declare:

That the foregoing proceedings taken before me at

the time and place herein set forth, at which time the

aforesaid proceedings were recorded stenographically by me

and thereafter transcribed under my supervision; and

That the foregoing transcript, as typed, is a true

record of the said proceedings.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name this

13 19th day of December, 1987.

14 ~

15 1

16

17 .~

18

19

2O

21

22

23

24

25

Martha Sosnowski