Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Metro Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
No‑vote hearing held on Metro board restructuring after Los Angeles Measure G; author seeks two‑year amendment and more stakeholder talks
Summary
Senator Allen presented SB 220, a bill addressing governance of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) following passage of Measure G; committee held the item as a discussion (no vote) and the author asked to make it a two‑year effort and continue stakeholder engagement.
Senator Allen presented SB 220 to the Senate Transportation Committee in a discussion‑only hearing at which committee members and stakeholders exchanged perspectives but did not vote on the measure.
SB 220 responds to Measure G — a recently passed Los Angeles County measure that will change county governance, including establishing a countywide executive beginning in 2028 and expanding the Board of Supervisors — and seeks to revise the composition and governance of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) board. Allen framed the bill as a conversation starter: Metro is the nation’s second‑largest transit operator, and its board responsibilities have grown over time. "I welcome robust input" from cities, counties and other stakeholders as the bill is developed, Allen said.
Committee members and outside witnesses urged caution, noting the changes implicate representation of cities versus countywide interests and that Measure G’s implementation timeline provides lead time. Vice Chair Strickland and others said they want to ensure cities retain meaningful representation in any reform. Stakeholder witnesses from Streets for All expressed conceptual support and a desire to continue negotiations; LA Metro representatives said they were opposed but committed to working with the author.
Senator Allen and committee members agreed the timing allows more deliberation; Allen proposed converting SB 220 into a two‑year bill to permit broader study and stakeholder engagement. The committee did not take a vote and the author confirmed the item was held for further processing, allowing additional amendments and outreach before future committee consideration.
The hearing was intended as an initial forum to surface issues — board makeup, countywide executive roles, supervisor expansion and balance between city and county representation — and to begin written and technical work on data and governance options before formal amendment or votes.
