Meeting_Body
AD HOC BOARD COMPOSITION COMMITTEE
JUNE 29, 2026
Subject
SUBJECT: METRO BOARD MEMBER COMPOSITION AND APPOINTMENT STRUCTURE
Action
ACTION: APPROVE RECOMMENDATION
Heading
RECOMMENDATION
Title
APPROVE staff recommendation on Metro’s Board Member Composition and Appointment Structure to:
A. ADOPT “Alternative A (Flexible Appointments)” that would enable each Appointing Authority to have the flexibility to fill their allocated seats (County of Los Angeles 5 seats, City of Los Angeles 4 seats, and City Selection Committee 4 seats) with either elected officials or qualified public members, including special interest stakeholders, transit system users/riders, or subject matter experts;
B. AUTHORIZE the CEO to pursue State legislation to memorialize this change within the Public Utilities Code; and
C. DIRECT the CEO to prepare recommended guidelines that could be used by the Appointing Authorities to support their appointment process under “Alternative A” so that all members, regardless of prior ridership experience, build firsthand familiarity with the customer experience once appointed.
Issue
ISSUE
The Ad Hoc Board Composition Committee (Committee) was established in February 2026 to evaluate Metro’s governance framework, considering Measure G, which expands the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors from five to nine members in 2032, elects a County Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in 2028, and introduces other County governance reforms. A key policy question before the Committee is whether to modify the Metro Board composition following these changes to County governance. Following peer benchmarking and the community outreach and engagement efforts, four alternatives were developed proposing new changes to the Board’s composition for the Committee’s consideration. Based on the Committee’s deliberations at its May 2026 meeting, staff has prepared recommendations for review and consideration by the Committee with subsequent referral to the Metro Board.
Background
BACKGROUND
Following the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee by Chair Dutra in early January 2026, the Metro Board approved Motion 33.1 by Directors Dutra, Barger, Horvath, Padilla, Najarian and Dupont-Walker (Attachment A), which, directed that deliberations and recommendations be informed by relevant comparative, historical, and demographic context as well as community outreach and stakeholder engagement. The motion further enforced that the Board should continue to reflect the diversity and geographic breadth of the County it serves, and that any consideration of potential changes be guided by principles of geographic equity, balanced representation, cost neutrality, and jurisdictional inclusion.
Since its first meeting in February 2026, the Committee has reviewed Metro's governance history and statutory framework (February 2026), completed a benchmarking analysis of 12 peer and reference transit agencies (March 2026), reviewed Metro's advisory body network, and adopted Guiding Governance Values (April 2026).
A multi-pronged countywide engagement effort took place between February and mid-May 2026. It included presentations to 25 stakeholder organizations (over 900 attendees), nine hybrid listening sessions hosted by Metro’s five service councils, PSAC, and the CAC, a countywide virtual listening session, a North County listening session, and 13 pop-up transit intercepts at locations across the County. Staff also established a dedicated website, online surveys, live polling, and community comment channels via email and phone. Collectively, these efforts generated 1,300 engagement touchpoints and 900 survey responses, reflecting broad participation across the County.
At its May 27th meeting, the Committee received a comprehensive community outreach report and presentation on four new governance alternatives - Alternative A (Flexible Appointments), Alternative B (Directly Elected Board), Alternative C (Non-Voting Rider Representative), and Alternative D (Maintaining Board Appointments).
• Alternative A - Flexible Appointments would introduce a new appointment option within Metro's existing structure, expanding the pool of individuals each appointing authority - the County, City of Los Angeles, and the City Selection Committee - may draw from to fill their allocated seats to include qualified public members, including transit system riders/users, special interest stakeholders, or subject matter experts, alongside elected officials. This alternative maintains intergovernmental balance and functional effectiveness, responds to the outreach theme of inclusion of a rider voice, and adapts to Measure G by preserving the County's flexibility to designate the future elected County CEO as one of its five seats. However, its ability to advance regional equity and customer experience depends on each appointing authority's adoption of criteria
• Alternative B - Directly Elected Board would fundamentally reconstitute the Board by replacing all appointment tiers with direct elections from newly drawn geographic districts across Los Angeles County. This alternative most directly advances electoral accountability, as Board members would be chosen by voters on transportation issues alone. In doing so, this alternative also responds to the outreach theme of inclusion of a rider voice. However, it would significantly alter intergovernmental balance by removing appointment authority from the County, City of LA, and other cities, potentially weakening the intergovernmental relationships that support state and federal funding advocacy. Staff also noted concerns regarding the administrative cost of countywide elections and the structural rigidity of district-based representation, which would require additional legislative action to redraw in response to demographic or governance changes.
• Alternative C - Non-Voting Rider Representative This alternative adds a designated seat in response to the outreach theme calling for inclusion of a rider voice, bringing a rider perspective into Board deliberations. However, the experience of Metro's ridership is not uniform, and a single appointee cannot be expected to represent the full range of rider experience across geography, income, and mode.
• Alternative D - Maintain Existing Board Appointments would retain the current appointment structure, with a new feature: once the elected County CEO position takes effect under Measure G, the County would have the flexibility to designate the CEO as one of its five Board of Supervisors-appointed seats. All other appointment authorities would remain consistent with current statutory requirements. This alternative preserves intergovernmental balance, transparency, functional effectiveness, and electoral accountability, consistent with peer agency practice, and is directly responsive to Measure G. When the Board of Supervisors expands to nine members in 2032, five of those members, potentially including the elected County CEO, would be eligible to serve on the Metro Board.
The alternatives reflected community outreach findings, aligned with the Guiding Governance Values adopted by the Committee, and were informed by peer agency practice. All four alternatives proposed new changes to the composition of the Board structure while maintaining the number of voting members, and all would require an amendment to Metro's enabling State statute to implement.
Board expansion, under any alternative, is not recommended. Peer agencies average approximately 10 voting members, and expansion would risk disrupting intergovernmental balance while imposing additional administrative and compensation costs. Community outreach also did not surface advocacy for a larger Board; participants instead called for greater accountability and inclusion of a rider voice.
Discussion
DISCUSSION
At its May 2026 meeting, several Committee members requested additional context on the community outreach and stakeholder engagement, as well as further analysis on a broader set of governance structure questions raised during the discussion, including rider representation, labor representation, the County Chief Executive Officer seat, City of Long Beach representation, proportional representation for the 87 cities, and voting alternates. These topics are addressed below.
Outreach Data
The Committee requested additional detail regarding the distribution of engagement activities and survey responses, to confirm that there was a concerted effort to engage respondents in South Los Angeles, East Los Angeles, and Central Los Angeles.
In response to this request, Metro cross-referenced ridership data with respondent zip codes. The analysis confirms that outreach successfully targeted the highest-ridership corridors within South, East, and Central Los Angeles. As shown in Attachment B, the majority of outreach activities occurred within the zip codes where there is the highest concentration of bus and rail ridership. In addition, Metro staff collected surveys from approximately 90% of zip codes across LA County - and those zip codes that were not represented correspond with areas of LA County that are not reliant on Metro transit service.
Over the last four months, Metro staff engaged residents through both direct transit-rider outreach and broader community partnerships, including:
• Direct Transit Outreach: Targeted engagement at Metro transit centers and high-traffic bus and transit hubs.
• Community Events & Activations: Tabling and interactive pop-ups at regional events, such as the Santa Clarita Cowboy Festival and the Pomona Night Market (hosted through Metro’s Station Activation programs).
• Listening Sessions & Partner Networks: Dedicated sessions with Metro Service Councils and Advisory Committees, alongside localized flyer distribution through trusted partners like the Metro LIFE program at L.A. Care community centers.
Formal Subregional Agency Feedback
The Committee also confirmed its interest in seeking feedback from the eight subregional entities, which is comprised of Councils of Governments (COG) and joint power authorities. As of June 25, 2026,, five of the eight subregional entities had submitted formal positions. Staff subsequently conducted additional outreach to the remaining bodies. The following summarizes feedback received from the subregional agencies as of the printing of this report.
• South Bay Cities COG - Opposes any changes to Metro Board governance, arguing that Measure G does not justify board expansion and that if Supervisorial seats increase, the Board of Supervisors should select five of its nine members to sit on the Metro Board rather than adding new seats, and that there should not be an additional dedicated seat for the County’s future elected CEO.
• Las Virgenes-Malibu COG - Opposes any modifications to Metro Board governance, contending that Measure G's creation of new Supervisorial seats does not warrant board expansion and that the County should designate five of its nine future Supervisors to serve, without adding a dedicated seat for the elected County CEO.
• San Fernando Valley COG - Supports maintaining the current governance structure and urges that any changes do not diminish regional representation or diminish the voice of the San Fernando Valley.
• San Gabriel Valley COG - Endorses Alternative D (Maintaining Board Appointments), arguing it best preserves the existing subregional representation framework, maintains accountability to local jurisdictions through representation by elected officials, provides continuity and governance stability during the implementation of Measure G; avoids unintended consequences that could diminish the voice of local governments and subregions within Metro governance; and accommodates the future elected County Executive without disrupting the established balance between countywide and subregional interests. Emphasizes that future consideration of Board expansion should enhance not diminish subregional representation, geographic equity, and local government accountability.
• Westside Council of Governments (WSCCOG) - Supports a substantive review of Metro Board composition in light of Measure G, arguing that a 13-member Board falls short of peer representational standards given Metro's scale. Recommends that any expansion of County representation be matched by a corresponding expansion of city and COG representation, including direct WSCCOG representation, and encourages the Committee to consider a fully voting Board seat dedicated to transit rider representation.
Committee Requested Governance Structure Considerations
The following sections address the specific issues raised during the May 27th meeting , including the rider representative's voting status, labor representation, a designated seat for the County CEO, representation for the City of Long Beach, proportional representation for the 87 cities, and the reinstatement of Board Member alternates.
Rider Representation on the Metro Board
The Committee discussion focused on whether a rider representative on the Metro Board should serve as a voting or non-voting member. Staff evaluated this issue against the Committee's adopted values, the findings from Metro's countywide outreach effort, and the peer agency benchmarking analysis.
• Community Outreach: The single most consistent finding across Metro's countywide outreach effort was a desire for the Metro Board to include members who understand the day-to-day experience of riding Metro. Across all engagement channels - listening sessions, transit intercepts, online surveys, and stakeholder presentations - participants emphasized that board members should reflect the communities and riders the system serves. This theme emerged consistently from riders in South Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, the Gateway Cities corridor, and the North County. Community outreach consistently surfaced a desire for a formal rider voice on the Metro Board, understood broadly as Board members who engage with and have firsthand familiarity with Metro's system
• Peer Benchmarking and Guiding Values: The following summarizes three scenarios for incorporating rider representation on the Metro Board, each analyzed against the Committee’s adopted values and in relation to the completed peer benchmarking.
1. Voting Rider Representative: A voting rider seat would give rider perspectives equal weight in Board decisions on service, fares, and capital investment, and follows precedent at peer agencies such as the MBTA and WMATA.
2. Non-Voting Rider Representative: A non-voting seat would guarantee a rider voice in deliberations while preserving the Board's existing intergovernmental balance and functional structure, consistent with precedent at the NY MTA.
3. Voting Rider Through an Existing Appointed Seat: Under Alternative A, each appointing authority may choose to fill its existing seats with riders or rider-experienced individuals, or individuals who would foster engagement with transit users.
Staff does not recommend Scenarios 1 or 2, as both would require expansion of the Board, creating administrative and financial burdens on the agency. This would be inconsistent with the Board's direction that any governance changes be cost neutral. Scenario 3 does not create a new seat; rather, it reflects a new proposed change -- that, under Alternative A, each appointing authority may choose to fill its existing seats with riders or rider-experienced individuals.
Labor Representation
The Committee raised the question of whether Metro's governance structure should include formal representation for labor - specifically, whether a voting seat should be designated for a representative from organized labor, given labor's central role in Metro's construction, operations, and service delivery. Staff has reviewed this question against the Committee's adopted values, the findings from Metro's countywide outreach effort, and the peer agency benchmarking analysis.
• Community Outreach: Metro's three-month community engagement effort, which generated nearly 900 survey responses and more than 1,300 engagement touchpoints, did not surface explicit public support for formal labor representation or any other specific interest or stakeholder group (beyond rider representation) on the Board. Community feedback focused broadly on the need for rider experience, subject matter expertise, and accountability in governance. In fact, one piece of feedback from the Bizfed-distributed survey explicitly opposed a labor representative and instead called for a representative from the business community.
• Peer Agency Benchmarking and Guiding Values: The following summarizes three scenarios for incorporating Labor representation on the Metro Board, each analyzed against the Committee’s adopted values and in relation to the completed peer benchmarking.
1. Voting Labor Representative: A voting labor seat would give labor perspectives equal weight in Board decisions. However, no peer agency has a voting labor seat.
2. Non-Voting Labor Representative: A non-voting seat would provide a labor voice in deliberations while preserving the Board's existing intergovernmental balance and functional structure, consistent with precedent at the NY MTA. Peer agencies where labor representation exists, it takes the form of a non-voting seat, typically tied to the agency's own bargaining units rather than to organized labor broadly.
3. Voting Labor Through an Existing Appointed Seat : Under Alternative A, each appointing authority may choose to fill its existing seats with a labor representative (or other special interest stakeholder).
Staff does not recommend Scenarios 1 or 2, as both would require expansion of the Board, creating administrative and financial burdens on the agency. This would be inconsistent with the Board's direction that any governance changes be cost neutral. Scenario 3 does not create a new seat; rather, it reflects that, under Alternative A, each appointing authority may choose to fill its existing seats with a Labor representative. Additionally, given that this was not a position raised during the community outreach process, it is not a consistent governance approach used by peer agencies, and the concept is not consistently aligned with the Committee’s adopted values, staff does not recommend proceeding with this option. Designating a formal seat for labor specifically, rather than for any of the County's other major interest groups, such as business, environmental, disabled, or public health stakeholders, would be difficult to justify without a clear basis in community outreach or peer practice for treating labor differently from these other constituencies.
Existing Stakeholder Participation
Metro has a strong and productive working relationship with organized labor across multiple domains, and this relationship is reflected in concrete policy commitments that are among the most progressive in the country. Metro's agencywide Project Labor Agreement - negotiated with the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and covering all construction projects valued above $2.5 million - is among the most progressive labor agreements adopted by any transit agency in the nation, and notably the first transit agency in the country to secure FTA approval for national targeted hiring goals on federally funded projects. These commitments reflect a meaningful and durable partnership between Metro and organized labor.
Incorporation of a Specified Seat for and Appointing Authority by the County’s Chief Executive Officer (post 2028)
Two related questions were raised at the meeting: first, whether the elected County CEO should be statutorily appointed to the Metro Board; and second, whether the County CEO, rather than the Board of Supervisors, should hold appointing authority over the County's Metro delegation. Staff has reviewed this question against the findings from Metro's countywide outreach effort and the peer agency benchmarking analysis.
• Community Outreach: Metro's countywide outreach to the general public did not yield explicit input on the CEO seat. The summary of feedback from outreach activities notes that no organization, listening session participant, rider, or survey respondent explicitly called for including the County's future CEO in the Board's composition or granting them appointing authority. Among institutional stakeholders, two councils of governments - the South Bay Cities COG and the Las Virgenes-Malibu COG - took formal positions opposing any dedicated CEO seat, citing concerns about diluting city representation.
• Peer Agency Benchmarking: While the peer agency review did not identify peer agencies in which the County CEO served on the governing board, there were reference agencies in which a county executive or their designee held a seat on the governing board.
Sound Transit's board is a three-county federated body of 17 locally elected officials (allocated to King, Pierce, and Snohomish by population) plus the WSDOT Secretary, in which each county's executive is an automatic board member who also nominates that county's other delegates, subject to confirmation by that county's council. Sound Transit's enabling statute (RCW 81.112.040) affirmatively requires each county executive to ensure that their county's board delegation includes representation from unincorporated areas of the service area, as a condition of the executive's nominating authority.
At Pittsburgh Regional Transit, the Allegheny County Executive appoints a majority of the board but does not serve on it. Pittsburgh Regional Transit's enabling statute contains no comparable requirement; its criteria for the County Executive's appointees address residency and subject-matter background but not unincorporated-area representation.
Measure G defines the County CEO’s powers as supervising department heads, preparing the county budget, executing laws and ordinances, and emergency management, which are internal to county government operations. Measure G assigns the CEO no explicit role in intergovernmental relations, regional representation, or external governance, and is silent on the question of CEO appointment authority over external agencies. Metro is an independent regional agency, not a county department; extending the CEO's authority to Metro Board appointments would go beyond anything voters sanctioned when they passed Measure G.
The scope of the County CEO's authority over external bodies and appointments remains an open question under the ongoing Measure G implementation process. The Governance Reform Task Force is actively working through how the CEO's appointment powers apply to non-county agencies.
While the County CEO may be the only elected official to directly represent all County residents, every Metro appointee is responsible for representing the broad constituency of the jurisdiction they represent, and of Los Angeles County at large - not just their own constituents. Given that there was no community advocacy for a direct County CEO appointment or for the CEO to select the County's delegation, and that County executives do not play this role among peer agencies, staff recommends Alternative A, under which the Board of Supervisors may choose to fill one of its existing seats with the elected CEO.
Additional Concepts Discussed
Direct Appointment of Long Beach Representation
Testimony at the May 27 meeting included advocacy from nine speakers, including three elected officials representing Long Beach, one elected official from the City of Bell, and three stakeholders representing Long Beach organizations, advocating for the creation of a dedicated Metro Board seat for the City of Long Beach. Proponents shared that Long Beach, as the second-largest city in Los Angeles County with a population of approximately 455,000, plays a distinct regional transportation role and that a dedicated seat would simultaneously create greater opportunity for smaller Gateway cities to secure their own representation. While this theme was not raised at any of Metro's community outreach activities, Director Hahn separately sent a letter advocating for a dedicated Long Beach seat.
A population-based equity analysis raises questions about why Long Beach (approximately 455,000 residents) would warrant a dedicated seat as the City of Los Angeles (approximately 4million+ residents) when significantly larger population clusters in other COG areas do not have dedicated representation. Any dedicated city seat should be evaluated in the context of overall city representation on the Board, not in isolation. The existing COG ratification process provides a form of regional accountability across the 87 cities, and the historical record demonstrates that this process has produced geographic diversity in sector representation. A dedicated seat for a single city - at the expense of the broader COG-based selection process - may be difficult to explain and defend to other municipalities that have not received comparable treatment, and would disrupt the balance that the City Selection Committee structure is designed to maintain.
The role of population-weighted voting within COG subregions was also noted as making it structurally difficult for smaller cities to win a sector seat when larger cities compete. These governance questions may be most appropriately addressed within the City Selection Committee and League of Cities processes, where the 87 cities collectively govern how their seats are apportioned and how selection processes are structured. The Committee could encourage the City Selection Committee and the League of California Cities (Los Angeles Division) to study how the current weighted voting and sector structure affects representation equity across the 87-cities - and whether process reforms at that level, rather than a statutory dedicated seat, better address the underlying concern.
Proportional Representation for the 87 Cities
The Committee's discussion at the meeting also raised a longstanding structural question: under Public Utilities Code §130051, the 87 cities currently hold approximately 31% of Metro's voting seats, while representing more than 50% of Los Angeles County's population - a gap that committee members noted has persisted since the mid-1990s without adjustment.
This population-to-seat comparison, however, does not account for the fact that many of the 87 cities operate their own municipal transit systems with their own separate governance models- including Long Beach Transit, Foothill Transit, Culver CityBus, Santa Monica's Big Blue Bus, Santa Clarita Transit, and others. Residents of these cities already have a direct local governance channel over a portion of their transit service that is not reflected in a Metro-seats-to-population ratio. As a result, while the raw percentages are accurate, the comparison may overstate the degree to which city residents lack a voice in transit governance overall.
The Committee may also want to encourage the City Selection Committee to examine how current sector boundaries and weighted voting structures affect representation equity across the 87 cities.
The Reinstitution of Voting Alternates
The alternate system was discontinued largely due to the concern that alternates could hold different policy positions than the members they represented, and that accountability was diffused when it was not the appointed elected member voting on major policy and financial decisions. Reinstituting alternates would also impose a significant administrative burden on staff, who would need to manage additional briefings, noticing, and recordkeeping for a second tier of Board-eligible individuals across every appointing authority, as well as potential additional cost to the agency to support stipends and related expenses for the expanded roster. Accordingly, staff does not recommend reinstating voting alternates.
Summary of Recommendations
Based on the outreach and engagement feedback, review of peer agencies, and the objective of aligning future board composition with the adopted Governance Values, staff recommends that the Committee advance Alternative A (Flexible Appointments) to the full Board as a proposed new governance structure that includes the following attributes:
• Five (5) appointees selected by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, effective January 1, [2029], who, at the discretion of the Board of Supervisors, may be members of the Board of Supervisors, the County CEO, or member(s) of the public, but each of whom shall be a resident of a different supervisorial district;
• The Mayor of Los Angeles, and three (3) designees of the Mayor, who may be members of the City Council or member(s) of the public, but each of whom shall be a resident of a different council district;
• Four (4) appointees from the City Selection Committee, who may be elected representatives or member(s) of the public.
• One (1) designee of the Governor, who may be elected representatives or member(s) of the public.
Consistent with the flexible design of Alternative A, appointing authorities are not required to select transit users or riders when filling these seats. Staff recommends that Metro provide appointment guidance and recommended guidelines to all appointing authorities that foster ongoing engagement between Board members and transit, including bus, rail, Metrolink, bike share, and municipal operator services, so that all members, regardless of prior ridership experience, build firsthand familiarity with the customer experience once appointed.
Determination_Of_Safety_Impact
DETERMINATION OF SAFETY IMPACT
This board action will not have an impact on safety standards for Metro
Financial_Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff's recommended option, Alternative A (Flexible Appointments), would not result in an additional number of Board Members and would therefore not have a financial impact,. Options that would add a new or designated Board seat would carry additional administrative and compensation costs, as discussed above.
Equity_Platform
EQUITY PLATFORM
The evaluation of governance alternatives through a transparent, community-informed process supports Metro's equity principles by helping ensure that rider, community, stakeholder, and regional perspectives are meaningfully incorporated into discussions of potential governance changes. The outreach conducted as part of this process included engagement with riders, transit-dependent communities, local jurisdictions, advisory bodies, youth organizations, business and community stakeholders, and members of the public from across Los Angeles County.
Vehicle_Miles_Traveled_Outcome
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED OUTCOME
VMT and VMT per capita in Los Angeles County are lower than national averages, the lowest in the SCAG region, and on the lower end of VMT per capita statewide, with these declining VMT trends due in part to Metro’s significant investment in rail and bus transit.* Metro’s Board-adopted VMT reduction targets align with California’s statewide climate goals, including achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. To ensure continued progress, all Board items are assessed for their potential impact on VMT.
While this item does not directly encourage taking transit, sharing a ride, or using active transportation, it is a vital part of Metro operations. Because the Metro Board has adopted an agency-wide VMT Reduction Target, and this item supports the overall function of the agency, this item is consistent with the goals of reducing VMT.
*Based on population estimates from the United States Census and VMT estimates from Caltrans’ Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data between 2001-2019.
Implementation_of_Strategic_Plan_Goals
IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING GOALS
The recommendations in this report advances Goal 5- Provide responsive, accountable, and trustworthy governance within the Metro organization - by formally embedding rider representation into the Board's appointment criteria. The recommendation also supports Goal 2, Deliver outstanding trip experiences for all users of the transportation system, and Goal 3, Enhance communities and lives through mobility and access to opportunity, by ensuring that the perspectives of regular riders are present across multiple Board seats and inform decisions on service planning, fares, and capital investment. Finally, by preserving the existing intergovernmental appointment structure rather than introducing administrative disruption or additional cost, the recommendation supports Goal 4, Transform Los Angeles County through regional collaboration and national leadership, by maintaining the interagency balance that underpin Metro's regional and federal funding relationships.
Alternatives_Considered
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The Committee could decide not to support the staff recommendation. This report evaluates each governance alternative against community outreach findings, peer agency practice, and the Board-adopted Guiding Governance Values. Other alternatives evaluated (Directly Elected Board), the voting labor seat, and the direct statutory CEO seat are not recommended because they lacked community support, deviated from established peer precedent, and were not consistently aligned with the Committee’s adopted Governance Values, as detailed in the Discussion section above.
Next_Steps
NEXT STEPS
If approved, staff will present the recommendation of the Ad Hoc Committee to the full Metro Board in July for approval.
Attachments
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Motion 33.1
Attachment B - Ridership and Outreach Maps
Prepared_by
Prepared by: Madeleine Moore, Deputy Executive Officer, Government Relations, (213) 922-4604
Marisa Perez, Deputy Chief Community Relations Officer, (213) 922-3808
Reviewed_By
Reviewed by: Nicole Englund, Chief of Staff, (213) 922-7950
