Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Metro Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Allen urges faster Metro governance study after Measure G; local leaders push back
Summary
Senator Allen asked the committee to expedite a legislatively required Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority governance report so the new countywide executive created by Measure G will be considered sooner. LA Metro and the City of Los Angeles opposed the bill, saying local task forces are already addressing governance and the Legislature should defer.
Senator Allen introduced SB 220 as a narrowly focused vehicle to accelerate LA Metro’s statutorily required governance report following passage of Measure G, saying the intent was to solicit local recommendations, not to prescribe new board membership. He told the committee the bill would “get this conversation moving” so the new countywide executive will be folded into Metro discussions well before 2028.
Madeline Moore, deputy executive officer at LA Metro, testified in opposition, saying Metro has established a governance reform task force that will gather stakeholder input across cities, councils of governments, labor and other transportation partners and deliver recommendations to the Legislature no later than July 2026. “This bottoms up process and local buy in is how Metro was able to successfully pass four ballot measures,” Moore said, arguing the state bill is unnecessary and risks undermining local engagement.
Andrew Antwey, speaking for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, urged a ‘no’ vote and said the City of Los Angeles favors a fully vetted local conversation without Sacramento intervention. Antwey said the mayor and Metro prefer the locally driven approach and worried the measure could act as a “stalking horse” for additional changes not yet disclosed.
Committee members divided along regional and procedural lines. Several Southern California members said they supported keeping a legislative vehicle available so the Legislature could consider recommendations if local processes proved insufficient; others, including Vice Chair Strickland, said the bill was premature and that local hearings and the county task force should run their course. Multiple senators urged the author to work with the LA delegation and to pull the bill if a consensus could not be built locally.
The hearing record shows the committee took a roll call and left SB 220 on call for absent members and additional local outreach; members emphasized that the bill’s future would depend on continued engagement between the author and the LA delegation before any final floor action.
