 I'd like to call the February 22 19 2019 board meeting of the Santa Cruz Metro Board to order please call the roll here here here here here here here okay now we will swear in our director Stephanie Preston is that will bear truth, faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California. So I take this obligation freely. I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I'm about to enter. The duties upon which I'm about to enter. Thank you. Thank you. Now, we'll go to item number four, the consideration of electing directors and committee members. You have a packet in front of you, and we had discussed this earlier. There are a few vacancies, the nominations that I have made, and we didn't hear any alternative feedback of those to have Ed Batorf be elected president or chair of the board. Mike Rodkin, vice chair on the Capital Projects Committee. Ed Batorf, Bruce McPherson, Cynthia Matthews. If you go to item 4C4, the reappoint or nominate the finance budget audit standing committee, the members would be Trina Kauffman-Gomez, John Leopold, Donna Lind, Mike Rodkin, and Donna Myers. This is a revised attachment C on 4C5, the personnel human resources standing committee. The Ed Batorf, Mike Rodkin, Bruce McPherson, John Leopold, and we will leave the one vacant county position until we have an appointment from the county to be coming. Going to 4C-6 for the representative, the SCCIC that meets maybe once a year, probably. Ed Batorf, John Leopold, Bruce McPherson, Trina Kauffman-Gomez, Aurelio Gonzales. For the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Representatives, Ed Batorf, Mike Rodkin, and Aurelio Gonzales. For the nomination, yes. Mr. Gonzales. You, on 4C6, the SCCIC representative? Yes. You placed me there? Yes. That's a committee that meets probably once, maybe twice a year. Once for five minutes? Yeah. Did you place me also on the RTC? Yes. I think we had a target. It doesn't show on mine. That's why. On 4C7? Yeah. 4C7? 4C7. Oh, okay. I got it. Sorry about that. You don't know what you got yourself into. Oh, that was the alternate. Okay. I got it. Sorry about that. Then for the alternates, it would be Donna Lind, Dan Rothwell, and Donna Myers. And then we're going to have a vacancy on that until the county appoints a new metro board member, which will be nominated this Tuesday, I believe, and then probably be put a week or two after that. We have March 12. March 12. I think March 12, that'll be finalized. Yes. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. You were just going to, I think, clarify whether or not Board Member Myers is being appointed by the city to RTC, which may create a conflict there. Yeah, I am. Actually, I'm Council Member Brown's alternate. Been appointed that by the city. Okay. So I don't know if I could serve. Yeah. As the member, we have four names there, and we could just, the player to be named later could just be in the number three spot. Yeah. I had served as Mayor, as Randy Johnson's alternate for the city and metro for years. And if there were, you know, I rarely had a, I don't think I ever have had a contact. You won't give you two votes. Come on. That doesn't happen. Yeah. Yeah. I'm happy to serve. Okay. Yeah. I understand the. Yeah. I did want to clarify. I have been appointed as Council Member Brown's alternate. So I think it would be fine if when you go as an alternate. Identify. Exactly. Okay. You couldn't be our alternate as well. Okay. Yeah. I'd like to mention that Director Cynthia Matthews has joined us. And I don't know how many committees she's on, but she is very happy to be here. For the CEO goals and objectives ad hoc committee. This is usually the outgoing president chair, the incoming one and the incoming vice chair. So it's Bruce McPherson, uh, Ed Bautorf, Mike Rotkin, um, for the Mac ad hoc committee, Ed Bautorf, Trina Kaufman Gomez, Bruce McPherson and Donna Myers, uh, to, uh, the legislative ad hoc committee members, Ed Bautorf, Bruce McPherson, Mike Rotkin, John Leopold. If I could just, um, interrupt for a sec. I don't need the board to vote on the ad hoc committees. This, this is just for information. Yes. Yeah. I just wanted to make a public clue who's going to be serving where, um, any questions? Yes. Uh, Trina Kaufman Gomez. Um, yeah. Thank you, director. I wanted to, I know that Norm has stepped off and I just wanted to know a little bit more about that vacancy placement in terms of promotion. Um, because I'm not sure exactly if he was included on any of the other committees or if I'm missing. The county is going to replace. Okay. So that's, we replace and that starts the process we have, um, in this Tuesday. Okay. So that has to do with the person with a disability for that placement? Yes. Or with, uh, interest, uh, or having knowledge of, uh, those who have disabilities. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. I'd like to offer an alternative for the ad hoc legislative ad hoc committee members. I'd like to also, I would like to nominate, uh, uh, member Matthews. Uh, excuse me, which, uh, would be four C dot 11. 11. On the ad hoc committee, but I just want clarification. Is it, is it appropriate to. Combinates. There was no, yeah. So I'm just so new to this. Yeah. So the chair is, um, authorized to make those appointments, but it doesn't mean you can't ask the chair to consider one of your colleagues. Yeah. Um, we could have, uh, there's no reason we, there's no reason not to have a fifth member. I was going to ask. Yeah. Is that, is that appropriate? I have no issue. That's strictly your call. I just wanted to point out that we're meeting right after this meeting today with that particular committee. Uh, it's a new one. It doesn't meet very often. It's not expected to meet very often, but, uh, due to the current state legislative cycle and the timing of that, this ad hoc meeting is occurring right after the meeting today. Would you like to be. I'd love to do it. And I'm free. Thank you chair. This happens all the time. You know, people volunteering for more committees. Uh, okay. So Cynthia Matthews will be a fifth member of that is accepted. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Very well. Welcome. That's great. Um, any other questions? Are there any alternative nominations? Yeah. Okay. Are there any alternative nominations from? Yes. We don't go ahead. If there are none. I will move that we adopt the slate entirely as proposed by Bruce McPherson. Second. It moved and seconded that we, uh, with the addition of the Cynthia Matthews, uh, for the, uh, the standing committee and ad hoc committees, uh, appointments, all those in favor. I opposed. So ordered. So now we have a new chair. Is that correct? You want. Go ahead. You just have. We're just going to stay right where we are. Um, well before we get started, I just want to take a minute to say this is a real honor and privilege to serve in this position. And I want to thank Bruce McPherson for doing such a great job last year and keeping Metro, uh, you know, moving in the positive direction. He's been a good influence and a great role model for how to run an effective meeting. And I hope I can fill his shoes and we continue moving Metro forward in a positive direction. So thank you very much, my members for that vote of support. Okay. With that, um, yeah, we're going to move on. So let's get our meeting started. I'll bring up our Carlos and a very. It's an item. Yep. Go ahead. Mr. Peoples. Thank you. Brian Peoples with trail. Now we want to officially, um, disagree with the Metro's board of Mike Rotkin's election or the support for the regional transportation commission. Um, trail now. I've been in transportation for 20 years. Um, I've been actually going to be involved with the regional transportation for more than 20 years, actually actively going to those meetings pretty much the last 10 years. Um, and what representative Rotkin has done in his voting practices have not been in the best interest of the Metro bus system. He continues to vote for the train. He continues to support support the train based on ideologies and policies of his own personal feelings. It's actually surprising because he rides a bike, which I commend you for that. Doesn't own a car, but the value, the decisions he's making over the last years that you've been on that board basically have hurt you. It's going to be a game changer. You basically could hurt. The policies have hurt the policies of the community. Have not benefited the Metro organizations. I was actually, our organization originally came out in opposed measure D. We came out as opposed. We were a pack, right? Be another pack later. Um, we changed that after the RTC through the efforts of Zach Fran and Don Blaine, changing and shifting money to the train, to Metro, to paratransit. We did that. We barely won that election. We barely won that election. The representative that you're recommending actually continues to have a policy of not widening the highway, not improving HOVs, not improving bus rapid transit. He's voting for the train over buses. So I just want to say that we oppose continuing to have him on the Regional Transportation Commission. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to comment on the recent nominations and elections? Okay, with that, we'll move on to the beginning of the meeting and I'll bring up Carlos Landeverry to give us an interpretation. Good morning, Directors. Buenos dias, Carlos Landeverry. Para las personas que prefieren español, voy a estar en la parte de atrás. Thank you. Gracias. Thank you, Mr. Landeverry. And just to make an announcement, today's meeting is being broadcast by Community Television of Santa Cruz by Lynn Dutton. And with that, we'll move on to Board of Directors' comments. Are there any Board of Directors that have any comments? Mr. Kaufman, go ahead. Yes, I just wanted to let you know that I'm the ex-officio for TAMSI. So I've met with Debbie Hale and I'm having some really good dialogue regarding the transportation and the connectivity between the South County and Monterey County on their projects and reports and whatnot that I'll share with the Metro that have to do with their transportation. And they're looking to see what is feasible for collaboration and the connectivity for the Bay Area here. So I thought that would be good news for Metro. Great. Thanks for doing that. Any other director comments? Seeing none, we'll move on to oral and written communications as the chance for oral communications to talk about anything that is not on the agenda. Welcome back, Mr. People. Thank you. Brian People's trail now. High-speed rail, the failure of high-speed rail. We witnessed it. And I think we got some great lessons learned there. The thing about high-speed rail that I will typically say being in transportation is it's wrong because it's investing billions on a commute from LA to San Francisco. When our problem is local, it's local. Could you imagine the millions of billions of dollars if they would focus that money on the local communities? That's where you have to go. The other thing we learn about in the failure of rail here is technology and transit. I'm an engineer in background. That's my background. My former boss is Tori Bruno, who's the president of United Launch Alliance. If you know who, the United Launch Alliance were the government side of shooting rockets into space. SpaceX is the competitor. I remember the day that I was talking to Tori and they were talking about reusable rockets and he said they're not going to be able to do it. Well, it was a game changer. Rubber wheel vehicles in the 1800s, when that came, that was a game changer on rails. Uber to taxis, driverless ubers, those are all game changers. E-bikes, e-scooters, jump bikes. Technology is enabling us to have active transportation. Google buses. You see those Google buses when an employee gets on a Google bus, they instantly get paid. Google's writing that off. In 2016, I wrote a state bill, a tax credit, a diving committee that was applying the exact approach that Google was doing. See, technology and policies are changing our transportation. Now in Santa Cruz, policy is really the factor that's creating our transportation crisis. Coastal corridors shut down because of our philosophical policies. We need to open up the coastal corridor. It's right behind us. Could you imagine 60 trains a day going by at 45 miles an hour every 15 minutes? How would you have a meeting? It's like 10 feet from this building. It's not realistic. Think about it. So again, I want to encourage you to understand how technology is changing transportation. It's a game changer. And you're keeping one of the main corridors, the coastal corridor closed. You're closed the road. It's closed. In a storm, if a road closed, when Valencia, my wife, works as a teacher, when Valencia, a road closed, it was a game changer for the community. When that opens up, it's a game changer. When it gets closed again in a storm, it's a game changer. Your policies are keeping the door closed. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else like to address the commission on oral communications? We'll go ahead and close oral communications and we'll move on to written communications from the Mac. None of that. Any communications from labor? Welcome, Mr. Sandoval. Good morning, everyone. James Sandoval, SMART Local 23. I've noticed that in the agenda, we're still referred to as UTU. And I just want to say we're no longer UTU. We are SMART now, but not intended. It's sheet metal, air, rail, transportation. And also, you should have my business cards in front of you. And if you have any questions or need information, don't hesitate to contact me. And I look forward to the opportunity of meeting with each and every one of you and getting to know you a little bit more and keeping these healthy channels of communication open. And also, with labor negotiations coming up, we just wanted to tell you that Local 23 is committed to good faith negotiations and a limited negotiation process. Thank you. Thank you for that. Should we list that as SMART or just SMART 23? Does it? Okay. Great. Thank you. Welcome, Michael. Good morning, board members. Michael Rios representing PSA out of SEIU. So I just want to give you guys a little update on where we are for our class and comp. As you guys know, our last contract extension, we agreed, SEIU agreed with management to start a class and comp. And we had a timeline to address the class and comp by the end of the year of 2018. Currently, right now, we are two months into 2019 and just wrapping up the final project before we address the class and comp. So there's been several delays. So I just wanted to give you guys an update on where we are. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that a classification piece has been completed. What we are having delays in getting started is the compensation piece. So we are about halfway done. We still have several more weeks to go before it will be completely done. Great. Thanks for that update. Okay. Any other labor communications? No. So we'll move on to any additional documentation for the agenda items. The only thing I have here is we have a, the news clips came in late and that's, there's a copy up here that's also available on the website. With that, we'll move to the consent agenda. These are items we normally deal with in one vote. Are there, I think we have a request here to pull item 11-9. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chair. If you would please pull 11-9. We'll bring that back in April, following the April capital committee. Is there any other directors like to pull something on the consent? That was a concern of mine. Okay. That actions that we took at the previous capital committee be fully integrated with that report. Okay. I have a couple of typos for the minutes. I meant they're really just clerical. I can give them to Gina. Thank you. That'd be great. Thank you, Chair. I don't intend to pull the item, but I just wanted to comment on item 11-11. The funding of the assistant safety and trading coordinator position. This is an important position for us to fill. But it results in less resources to pay for drivers. I know this will help with processing drivers, but I want to remind this board about the importance of returning some service to the mid-county who took big cuts and has seen very little service added since those big cuts. We had originally talked about an FY20 that we might be able to add a driver. This action would put that a step below, and I just want to remind us all that the folks who live in the mid-county have some very long waits in order to get buses, and I want to encourage us to think about how we increased service there. And so I just want to make that point, because I think as we think about our budget in the future, I want to make sure that we are able to return some service to the mid-county. Thank you for that general reminder for all of us. We need to keep that on our focus. Anyone else pull anything on the consent agenda? Anybody from the public like to pull anything or talk about anything on the consent agenda? I'll bring it back for a motion. Second. Motion. Second. Motion by Rod. Second by McPherson. As amended. As amended. Including as small. This typos to be forthcoming. Great. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That carries unanimously. And that brings us to the regular agenda, and I've been informed that the recipients of the longevity awards are not here. Is that still accurate? So we're going to move past item 12 and go to the CEO report. Oh, I'm sorry. I was thinking there was another item before mine. Thank you. I'm following your lead here. I just need another cup of coffee. I'll be right with you. Okay, Mr. Chair. Yes, a number of items actually I want to present today. On your agenda under consent calendar 1105, you did approve the quarterly report on paratransit services. And I do want to point out that in that report, our October, November, December on time performance is not good. We are not pleased with that. I think you know the background on this. We've been short six drivers. And that is the reason why we've taken such a toll during those months in our on time performance. I am happy to report as I've again, I guess as I have in the past that these more creative recruiting efforts that we have undertaken in the last several months have been successful. We do have four drivers training right now that will complete their training and be put into service on March 15th. And then the final slots that we have open actually three. We went one additional driver. They have been hired. They start their training March 4th. They'll be in service April 17th. So there's a light at the end of the tunnel and these sort of more creative recruitment efforts that the HR department has undertaken have been successful. And we should be back up to speed around mid April on our on time performance just as an aside. Even with all these challenges in January we did approve to 87.48% on time performance. Still not where we want to be. Our ultimate target is at least a 95%. But that shows signs of some improvement. So I wanted to make sure you understood that and make sure you understood that from my perspective and I'm sure you understood that from your point of view, it's the decrease in on time performance is just not acceptable and we'll keep working on it. And next point I'd like to make is relative to the FAST Act. Of course our funding that we so much depend upon and make our journey to Washington D.C. annually to reinforce not only the federal government meeting its commitments under the authorization, reauthorization but that they look for opportunities to what we call plus up add some additional dollars to that and then of course we're getting close to the next reauthorization or new authorization whichever they choose. So this is important to us. Without this we would have to cut off a lot of our service. So we were happy to see that the president did sign the budget which did fund the FAST Act at the FY19 levels and then some. We did get the mandatory 2% year over year so in the FAST Act some of the various funds must go up 2% year over year. We did get some plus ups again this year and when I talk about plus ups that means that in addition to the minimum requirement of the FAST Act that means that Congress added some additional dollars and as you might recall we had some significant plus ups last year. So last year for example we received $630,000 in additional funds across three different federal programs that we participate in. This year's plus ups not as aggressive. We'll result in about 118,500ish across two federal programs so we anticipate some extra money as a result of the plus ups but certainly not as much as last year. We do in the 5339A program which is a program that we depend upon because it's a formula program that comes to us annually and we use that for the much smaller types of capital investments like for example when we need to buy a pair of transit pair of cruise vehicles we typically turn to that source. If we need a server for example we might turn to that source those smaller capital projects. Of the 118 about 111,755,000 estimated should come to us in additional money in that program and then in the competitive program the 5339B which you know two years ago we did succeed in getting a grant award which is buying some Gellick buses for us. They didn't give us one last year but the federal government is clear if you got one in a grant in one year you probably shouldn't expect to get one the next year. So we didn't get one the next year. But in the coming year we do hope to succeed in that program. They've added nationwide 160 million to that program. So that's pretty close to the plus up that they did last year. It's about $10 million short so we're really happy to see that money occur. In the area of high speed rail you might say well why would Clifford be talking about high speed rail? How does that impact us? I would just draw your attention to you've read the articles. You've seen what our new governor has mentioned about high speed rail and maybe potentially scaling that back from the original program. The original program under the 2009 ARA program sought for a lot of money for this state to be matched by California money. And we've received a lot of dollars. And President Trump on Tuesday said he's canceling the federal government's remaining commitment of $929 million. So California has drawn down a significant portion of that and there is still some to be drawn down. He says President Trump says he's canceling it. Don't know whether he can do that or not. I have no opinion one way or the other on whether he can do that. I'm sure there's court challenges yet ahead. And then I guess to make matters worse he said gee the $2.5 billion that we already gave you since 2009 we want that repaid. So how does that potentially affect Metro? Well we don't know at this time. We need to monitor it. But one speculation could be that he could do what we kind of think he's done in the past is kind of take it out on California in the way of the competitive grants. And that certainly could hurt us in the program. I just talked about 5339 B program which is a competitive program we've succeeded in and we hope to succeed again. Under the Governor Brown administration significant amounts of cap and trade dollars have been diverted for high speed rail. So if the high speed rail program sees a reduction in federal money what does that mean? Does that mean that potentially more cap and trade money has to be diverted to high speed rail to make up for the void created by the loss of federal money? Don't know just speculating but if that occurs that has an impact on us because we do receive cap and trade dollars particularly through the LC top program. So there are linkages all over the place. I just think at this point we need to carefully monitor what's going on in that particular area. In the vein of homeless at our bus stops and our metro facilities one of our challenges you have adopted a customer code of conduct that helps us deal with folks that are not transit riders and using those facilities. And we are adding some additional security nightly patrols to monitor not only our metro facilities but also to make contact at least make contact on our sort of top ten bus stops where we have some folks that have moved in and are using those for non transit services and to ask them to please move along. And we will include in that program some pamphlets or brochures that we will develop that we'll be able to send to those individuals pointing them to places in the county alternate places where they can seek assistance for the homeless issue. So that is upcoming we hope to start that in the next couple of months. Then you read no doubt the articles about the city of Santa Cruz in metro and the eco pass which we're really excited about so the city council of Santa Cruz has approved that. Now it will take us several more months to get this up and running because there's a lot of devil in the detail to work out. We need to talk about the fair media that we will use how it will be distributed what kind of marketing program we don't want to just launch something and say hey come and get it we want to make sure that we encourage people to use those bus passes and ride our system. There's some fraud avoidance issues that we need to talk about in a number of other smaller details so we'll bring that back to you for final approval after we worked out the details of that eco pass. And then finally in the area of new hires and promotions new hires as I mentioned before we have four paratransit operators Sarah Hewitt Bonnie McCall Roddy Rodrigo Mojica Garcia and David neighbor. Those are all our new four that are in training and soon to graduate and then in promotions we had Rena Solorio who is in the position of admin assistant supervisor moving over from being a purchasing assistant and Mr. Chair and directors that concludes my comments and I'm happy to answer any questions. Director Rotkin I wonder if you or one of the city council members could expand a little bit and explain what is this eco pass program. Just briefly. Eco pass is a proposal to give a metro pass to all downtown qualifying downtown employees that is they actually work downtown. It's part of a broader transportation demand management program new that affects our downtown parking district as some of you may have read over time. This has been a topic of study for a good long time. We have restructured the parking rates in an overall effort to reduce reliance on single occupancy vehicle vehicles and therefore the demand on our parking district. There's been a long effort to increase support for transportation options which includes cycling car pooling metro among them etc. So within the past year we have restructured our parking rates downtown increasing the rates for and this is over a five-year period increasing the rates for permits for downtown residents downtown employees and increasing the hourly rates at meters really restructuring the meters and simultaneously reducing the parking deficiency fee on businesses. So it's a complicated formula. So among the suggestions and there's been a great deal of study on what downtown employees prefer, what will get them out of their single occupancy vehicle etc. So our transportation planner Claire Fleecer has done a good deal of study on this. Went through the public works excuse me downtown commission for recommendations. So the new budget with all the restructuring of fees allocates 300,000 plus I believe that's it to the overall package and the overall package had some amount of money for metro for eco passes. The downtown commission decided to double the amount of money allocated to eco passes. So it went from kind of a trial of a certain number of eco passes to basically eco passes for every downtown employee. So it's an experiment. We'll see how it works out. The effort overall is to reduce the single occupancy vehicle use and demand on the parking district as part of a much larger program. That was probably more than you wanted. No, it's not. Just to be clear, this is not just city employees, but if you work for a store on Pacific Avenue. Any downtown employee. And then you would get a pass that allows you to use the bus the way UCSC students have a student car to ride the bus in effect. As Alex said, devil's in the details remains to be seen and the proposal is to exempt UC students who work downtown because they already have a pass. So I have no idea how the details of this will shake out. I think the fraud avoidance is, you know, that's another thing. We'll see to what extent. What impact it has. I will say in the study, it turned out that metro use was several several incentives down from things like bikes and carpools and so forth. So it wasn't the top preference for what will get get me out of my car. But it's an experiment. Thank you. Dr. Leofold. Thank you. The county is also looking at how to deal with some parking situations at the 701 ocean. So once the details are worked out, I think it'd be worthwhile to connect with our CAO's office to figure out if there might be some program that we could offer as an incentive to our employees to encourage bus use rather than cars. Thank you. With your report on the homeless situation that you have with the different stations, if you can also let us know where those stations are located. If in fact there's some that were in Watsonville, I'd like to make sure that we integrate our staff on what we can do to help with the resources to make sure that we've got safe passage and that we're taking care of those that are in our community and get them the resources that they need. Dr. McPherson. I want to congratulate Santa Cruz for looking into this. And as Supervisor Leofold said, that we are too. And I want to encourage those who might be able to participate in this, city employees or downtown employees to participate in it. This, you know, Santa Cruz County is sensitive to this whole transportation issue. I think what are we, the 14th highest uses of bicycles to work, I think in the nation or something I read. And so people have those options and there's, you can say it's a competing option, but it's a good competing option. And it'll be very interesting to see how this all works out. But I'm really encouraged and thank you, Santa Cruz for taking this on and we're going to be right behind you if we can be. So we're looking into it as well. Thank you. Dr. Mathews. I'll add a couple more things. The whole transportation demand management incentive of course relates only to parking demand by employees. It doesn't relate to parking demand by residents or visitors to downtown. So our parking demand is much bigger, but this is a good chunk of it. Also I would be interested as Trina mentioned to know where those bus stops are. And in terms of developing some information to be available to people who are occupying a bus stop, you probably don't have to invent that yourselves. There's so much collaborative work going on right now in terms of resources and materials. So I would say don't waste time on that. Just plug in with the... Yeah. Any other director comments? Okay. Mr. Clifford, thanks for that great report. Stimulated the board, so that was good. All right. Move on to the consideration and approval of the consulting management compensation study. This is Ms. Aiken. Welcome, Angela. Good morning. So this is a staff report that's been a long time coming. This is consideration of approval of the final CPSHR consulting management total compensation study results. As most of you know, this has never been done for managers the whole time that Metro's been in existence, as far as we all know. We started this process back in March of 2017 when we allowed a contract to CPSHR consulting to do a management classification and compensation study. It was broken into two parts. We did the classification study where all of the position descriptions were reviewed and with the staff as well as CPS and we came up with brand new position descriptions. Once that process was done, then it went into the second phase of the total compensation piece. The total compensation piece was not just salary and included all of the benefits that are included in the current management compensation plan. January 16th of 2018, we went to the personnel committee and we had the classification and the compensation back. We put some ground rules together. And then the personnel committee wanted us to do market median 5% above and 5% below. We did it on the 10 agencies at first. And then we came back to the personnel committee in May once the compensation study was done for all 10 agencies. And we were asked to go back and do only seven agencies. We took out the top three. I have a mistake there on the bullet second from the bottom. It says four large agencies, actually three. It was AC, transit, Golden Gate and BTA. So we took out those three top agencies. We looked at it again from the seven agency perspective. And then it was also put forward by our CEO that we would be doing the market median instead of 5% below. At that point it was seven agencies and doing everything at the market median. In October, CPS came back with that information. We brought it to the personnel committee. And the staff asked the personnel committee to, because it had taken so long to have it retro back to July 1st of 2018 when we intended to have this done. And that the facility maintenance manager position description was added because we did not have a position description but we needed that job since we started this back in March of 2017. And then the assistant operations manager was also added as a position that we had found we needed over the course of the year that we had taken to put this together. As that came together, we discovered that we needed a differential of internal equity analysis that had not been done. So we came back to the personnel committee one last time in February with that differential of internal equity analysis included and seven agencies at the median for total compensation. Did you explain what that differential, internal and differential, I even got the phrase down, whatever it is. Equity. What is that? So differential internal equity, when you have different groups of different levels of managers, you have your CFO, your COO, then you have your directors, then you have your deputy directors, those are different levels. And you want to make sure that you have internal equity and the differential between those at comparable market levels. So you have, I'm going to give you examples, 10% between one level and another level, 15% between another level and the lower level. It is detailed in here on, take it to the exact sheet, and the attachment. I didn't have it marked. 14B1. So 14B1, you can see where some of these are grouped. I know it's black and white in the paper copy that you have in front of you, but they are colored lines in the color copy if you have it electronically. And those different colors are the different levels with the internal equity. So that's what that's related to. So if you go to page 145, SAC is recommending what the committee actions were. Section four there, the final CPS total compensation recommendations, authorizing the CEO to implement the recommendations retroactive to July 1st of 2018. Include two revised job descriptions for the facility maintenance manager and the system operations manager, along with the total compensation results that we received from CPS. And to delegate to the CEO, the determination of a six-step range that may or may not incorporate as yet to define paper performance programs. The cost of implementing these actions is below what was budgeted in FY19 and FY20. If you go to page 14.6, you can see that the cost, the budgeted cost in 19 was 430, and the budgeted cost in FY20 was 444. Any questions? Any questions? All right. Any questions from the public on this item? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the board for discussion, directly. Thank you, chair. When serving on the personnel committee, it was hard for me to believe that in all the years of the agency that we have never done this, this study, and I want to acknowledge the patients, not only of the management staff who has waited all these years to do it, but even in this process has been a long and sometimes torturous process of making sure that we were comparing the right agencies that we looked at the issues that we spoke to employees, that we really went back and went back again to make sure that we got this right. I feel very confident that this is a good step forward, and it's a good reminder that for all of our employees we shouldn't let this go this long, because it's a there's a lot of inequity when we don't make these, do this analysis. And I'm confident in talking with our CEO that this is something that we don't want to let go again in the future. So with that, I would move the recommended actions. Motion by adreclio. Second. Second by Rocking. And the comments. I'll go over the comments. I'm sure John meant this as well, but I'd also like to appreciate the patience of the folks from SCIU whose study is following this one, because I think when we started this out they all thought, well, this will be a quick study because it's not that many people relative to SCIU. And in the end we'll get to them quickly and stuff will happen. And so this has pushed off their study as well. And the thing is that's important is we've learned a lot in doing this. It will be helpful to making the process with SCIU, I hope, a lot easier than it would have been otherwise, because as John pointed out, just knowing what agencies are reasonable to compare to, we ended up discovering that three of the different agencies we looked at were just so different than us that trying to make a comparison of wages and benefits and stuff with them was not really appropriate and stuff. So those kinds of, learning those kinds of things are, I think, important to where we're going next in the big study that's still coming up. And so their patience is appreciated as well. You're here. I think that I heard just briefly that you had a budget for fiscal year, but this came in under in terms of the overall assessment. Can you elaborate a little bit more about that comment? So we had full intentions of having this done in fiscal year 18. Okay. I thought maybe it was a salary thing that came in. No. We had preliminary numbers back in early, early 18. And so when we did the budget process for 1920, because we did the two-year budget, we put the number in there, what we thought it was going to come out at. We had no idea exactly what it was going to be. And so after all the renditions that we did since putting the FY 19-20 budget together, May of 18, we still came under what we thought it was going to come out to. I mean, the overall cost analysis of what the salaries are versus implementing this. The implementation of this is coming in under what was already budgeted in 1920, because we intended to have this done May, June of 2018. Can I respond to that, Mike, on the SEIU? Please go ahead. So I wanted to go with what Mike said and what Michael Rio said that we are moving forward on SEIU just to give you an update from our perspective. We are done with the position descriptions as of yesterday. And we are going to be meeting next week on a couple things that we have to iron out with SEIU on some positions that have non-prosable items in them, which we're going to go through with them. And then once we get that done, we'll put the parameters together for the compensation piece and move forward. The intent is to move forward by the end of this month. CPS is going to need six to eight weeks to finish that. I'm hoping to get them to get that done sooner. There are 78 positions that are in there. They are not evaluating all 78. They will be evaluating at the journey level. Thank you for that clarification. Any other comments? I just have one quick comment. I think it's important here to recognize that Metro is multifaceted and there's a lot of projects we all want to move forward on. And even though this one may not be moving as fast as people had hoped, I think we should acknowledge that the board is committed to moving forward on all these projects and we will get to them all. So I want to commend the board and the CEO for getting this project here. And with that, we'll have a vote. All in favor of authorizing? Aye. Opposed? The motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. That will take us to our next position. This is a approved authorization of a provisional planning aid position. Carol Emerson. I'll make this pretty quick. Good morning, chair, board members, staff, and public. I'm here today to ask the board to authorize a provisional planning aid in the planning department in the FY19 and 20 budgets. A provisional position at Metro is for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years important. The need for planning department to have an additional staffing is driven by Metro and this department taking on additional near-term time-sensitive projects, including but not limited to those noted on page two of my report. You'll all recognize those are some of our biggest projects. And as we've gotten back on our feet, we've started to try to go forward and take on the initiatives that we should be taking on. Anyway, enough whining for that moment. The department's near-term workload has reached the point where it will be more cost-effective to have a full-time provisional position for the remainder of 19 and 20 rather than the current use of contracted assistance, either temps or consultants. At the end of FY20, Metro would evaluate the need for this position in the longer term, and if we deem it necessary, we would request an additional permit position through the budget process a year and a half from now. Funding for this short-term need would be covered in the FY19 year by existing budget and would be budgeted for in the FY20 year. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any questions? Ms. Coffman-Gomez. Can you point out the amount in budget for this particular position? Okay. In FY19, it is the money that is and I don't have a budget sheet from you, but you'll see we have under our professional and technical, thank you. Under our professional technical services is where we've been funding our temp that goes out and does surveys and various things, a very part part-time job, and then what we would do is if this is approved, we would offer up within our professional and technical services budget in FY20. You'll know the planning department always has three or four projects for under professional services, and the idea is you keep the price down of hiring consultants on these projects when you get some of the labor done in house. So between our temp budget this year and our professional services budget this year and the professional services budget next year, this will be easy to take care of. Okay. Maybe if you can just get back to me on what the seller would be out of that budget, that would be helpful to know. Sure. Thank you. Director McPherson. Yeah, I just, this is the top ten so to speak, but there's more than these ten I know, but just so people have an idea of what some of those are it's the bust on shoulder planning, strategic business plan that we have accelerated bus stop upgrade program, very basic, but very essential that we make some improvements in these ten areas and there's more to come but I think it's, the general public should know that we're looking forward to improving our system and this is the way to go about it. Thank you. Director Rockin. I would just add to that list it also includes the alternative quarters, alternative transportation options in the quarter study. Ryan Peebles will be pleased. That's the third to last bullet. That's my highest goal in life but that's important for us to make sure that, but the alternative of train versus bus and so forth is looked at in a really serious way and in a way that's practical rather than abstract as it's claimed at least that my view is that I only believe in the train and the abstract. I want the best system possible in that quarter like everybody else I think. And your comments will be in the record too. Thank you, Chair. And the last bullet, I think it's important for us to make sure that the alternative of train versus bus and so forth is looked at in a really serious way and in a way that's practical rather than abstract as it's claimed and that's your point. This is an ambitious list of projects that you and one provisional aid to take on. And so good luck with that. We'll, it, we only care, kind of like everything that's on this list. I know one of the things that people also care about is the AVL and the analysis that will be taking to make that work correctly because that's, we know that that's a top priority for bus riders and people are interested in riding the bus. And just to reflect on the comments from my colleague, Director Rockin, you shouldn't worry too much about us, the comments from someone who doesn't want any transit on the corridor. You're supportive of transit on the corridor, which is what the Metro is in favor of, which is what we all voted for unanimously at the RTC. So I look forward to this. I think you have a busy couple of years. Let me just make one comment. I have to credit the other four people on my team that I always refer to for you, but your AVL project is a perfect example. My planning analysts will be committing a lot of time to the introduction of AVL, and this provisional has been in the support there in the data and surveying. So that's how we're grabbing these ebbs and flows. Thank you. Director Matthews. It's a breathtaking list. And it's scope and importance. And obviously an interest of mine is Pacific Station, which is a big project as well. So I'm thoroughly supportive. Yeah, good luck. It's better to have a lot on your plate. Yeah. Any other comments? Security. Any questions from the public on this or comments? I'll bring it back to the board for... I would move the recommended actions. Motion by Leopold, second by Kaufman-Gomers. Any other comments? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Have motion carries unanimously. Okay, it moves this right along to item 16, consideration of accepting Metro's modified Title VI program. Our attorney, Julie Sherman. Thank you. So as you know, as an FTA grantee, Metro is required to have a Title VI program and to submit it to the FTA every three years. This one is due April 1st of 2019. That our Title VI program is a comprehensive program to ensure our services are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. For your information, 16A is the clean, revised policy. And 16B has our red line changes. Pretty much clean up items, nothing's really substantive, updating roles and responsibilities, and updating portions of the LEP implementation plan and the language assistance plan, just clarifying the actual outreach and services Metro's actually providing to customers. And with that, I'm happy to take questions. There's really no alternatives here. We have to do this if we want our FTA funds and obviously we should do it anyway, even if we don't want our FTA funds, but happy to take questions from the board. Any questions? Ms. Coffman, moments. Sorry, I don't mean to be a plethora of questions to keep everybody here any longer than they need to. We're going to invite. Any input public wise for modifications to this requirement and language changes? So it is going to be shared with our committees. Let me see when exactly, I know Ricky and put that in the staff report. And there is no requirement to have, oh yeah, to the MAC and the E&D TAC, it will be forwarded to those committees. They have seen this before as has the public because we're really not changing it very much. The last time we adopted it, we held public hearings. We're not required to do that, but we did do it at the time. We didn't really get any feedback. Transparency, it's what it's all about. Director Leopold? Well, I just want to say I appreciate the red line version. And the one question I have is about the gender identity and making sure that this document is gender neutral. We've tried to do that with our county code and I think it's a good practice for us to get involved in. I know we've made some changes, but I think it's just something for us to keep an eye on. I appreciate that we identified non-binary as one of those pieces, but I think it's just something for us to keep in mind with all of our documents. I agree. Title VI actually doesn't include gender identity, but our program does. Any questions? Open up to the public. Any comments on this item? Bring it back to the board for an action. We accept the program as proposed. Motion by Rodkins, second by McPherson. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Not a unanimous vote, thank you. Takes us to review of items to be discussed in closed session. We actually don't need to have a closed session. So just an FYI, as long as we have our labor negotiations pending, it's always going to be on the agenda, but if we don't need it, we'll pull it off. So we'll just say for just a very short little while, we're going to have this on the agenda because we're going to wrap those up quickly. Sounds good. With that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting to our next meeting, Friday, March 22nd, at the Metro Administrative Office in Santa Cruz. Chair. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know where else to bring this up. Well, let's bring it up now. It has to do with the business between meetings. We got the structural reports on the metro station work. And obviously, we're trying to move towards a decision there. We'd like to just suggest that we pull together meeting just as at the staff level that involve potential partners in metro station reconfiguration, which would include Dientes, Santa Cruz Community Health Centers, non-profit health providers, as well as the city's Economic Development Department. To look at the potential, there is so much potential for additional outside funding that could help. That could seriously affect in a good way the metro financial responsibilities for whatever happens at Metro. So I think maybe a working session getting all those people at the table who, when I talked to them privately, are convinced that the time is right for significant money to come from additional sources to support the best possible metro station. So I'm just putting that out as a suggestion to not just occasional emails and phone calls, but a good, solid working session to get it all together as we try and move towards a decision. Director, would it be possible to incorporate that into our next capital meeting as a component of that meeting? Yes. The reason I'm hesitating is we're struggling with the March 8th. I have another TDA task force in Sacramento on the 8th, and we're looking at either adjusting that meeting. But I don't necessarily have to be there. I guess I should say the answer should be yes. I will also say we did meet with the city this week and have a pretty extensive discussion about something similar to that. We don't have an economic development arm in our agency. The city does, through Bonnie, who's just fantastic. And she did talk a little bit about opportunity zones. We didn't know until this week, for example, that the city had designated the downtown as an opportunity zone, which provides some potential federal tax credits that can entice investment in that area. So we do need to explore that a little bit further. Let me work on that, Mr. Chair. If I can work with you on that. Yeah, that'd be great. We may not be making any decisive action at that meeting because of the reports not being up to date. But to have a workshop and a lively discussion about what the possibilities are, I think would be good. And if your presence is not there, I'm sure that you'll have a suitable replacement to carry the ball. Director Rodkin. I'd just point out in the future that item six, which it's usually this number on our agenda, is communications from various members. And so that's appropriate for the future. Thank you. Chair. Dr. Matt. I might also add, yeah, I was recently at the DENTIS celebration, and their executive director did offer to give us an update, to give us a presentation on their live vote project, which is a very good model that we might look to as well as learning how all these various partners can work together. So I think there's a lot of interest to start the conversation about this. I think it's a great suggestion. Any other comments at this point? All right, with that, I just want to thank everyone for coming to Capitola. And the meeting is adjourned. I guess so. Yeah, the car back.