SACOG Board of Directors

Transcription

1 Sacramento Area 1415 L Street, tel: Council of Suite 300 fax: Governments Sacramento, CA tdd: SACOG Board of Directors SACOG Board Room 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA Thursday, August 21, 9:30 a.m. The Board may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Public comment will be taken on the item at the time that it is taken up by the Board. We ask that members of the public complete a request to speak form, submit it to the Clerk of the Board, and keep their remarks brief. If several persons wish to address the board on a single item, the chair may impose a time limit on individual remarks at the beginning of the discussion. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Directors Aguiar-Curry, Ashby, Buckland, Cabaldon, Cleveland, Crews, Davis, Duran, Frerichs, Griego, Hagen, Hanley, Hesch, Hodges, Jankovitz, Joiner, MacGlashan, Miklos, Peters, Rohan, Samayoa, Sander, Serna, Slowey, Stallard, VeerKamp, West, Wheeler, Yuill, Vice-Chair Saylor, Chair Cohn, and Ex-Officio Member Rodrigues Public Communications: Any person wishing to address the Board on any item not on the agenda may do so at this time. After ten minutes of testimony, any additional testimony will be heard following the action items. Consent Calendar: 1. Approve Minutes of June 19, 2014, Board Meeting 2. Approve the Transportation Development Act Claims for Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority, County of Yolo, Paratransit, Inc., City of Davis, County of Sutter, City of Elk Grove, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District 3. Approve Multi-Agency Memorandum of Understanding on Implementing the I-5 Freeway Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 4. Approve Connect Card Change Order INIT Website Corporate Accounts 5. Approve Connect Card Change Order for Expanded Bus Fleets 6. Approve Connect Card Subrecipient Agreement Sacramento Regional Transit District Server Room 7. Approve Annual Adoption of Salary Plan per CalPERS Regulation 8. Approve Revised Yuba County Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2014/15 9. Approve CivicSpark Internship Program Adjourn as SACOG, convene as SAFE (separate agenda attached) Adjourn as SAFE, reconvene as SACOG

2 SACOG Board of Directors -2- August 21, 2014 Action: 10. Selection of Consultant for Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Environmental Impact Report Legal Services Contract (Mr. Chew) 11. Authorize Negotiation and Contract Award for Cooperative Purchase of Fuels and Lubricants (Mr. Johnson) 12. Rail Ad Hoc Committee Charge (Ms. Doherty) 13. Comment Letter on Valero Crude by Rail Project Environmental Impact Report (Mr. Trost) Information: 14. Comments on U. S. Department of Transportation Notice of Comprehensive Proposed Rule Making for Crude Oil (Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making) (Mr. Trost) Reports: 15. Chair s Report 16. Board Members Reports 17. Chief Executive Officer s Report Receive & File: 18. Clean Vehicle Rebate Project Adjournment: The next meeting of the SACOG Board will be held on Thursday, September 18, at 9:30 a.m. in the SACOG Board Room, 1415, L Street, Sacramento, CA. Action Requested Prepared by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer Approved by: Steve Cohn Chair This agenda and attachments are available on SACOG s website at The Meridian Plaza is accessible to the disabled. If requested, this agenda, and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof. Persons seeking an alternative format should contact SACOG for further information. In addition, a person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in a public meeting should contact SACOG by phone at , (sacog@sacog.org) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Parking is available at 15 th and K Streets.

3 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Minutes of the June 19, 2014, Board Meeting Issue: The SACOG Board of Directors met on June 19, 2014, for a regular SACOG Board meeting. Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the meetings as submitted. Discussion: Attached are the Draft Action Minutes of the June 19, 2014 SACOG Board. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:gg Attachment

4 Sacramento Area Council of Governments DRAFT Action Minutes The SACOG Board of Directors met in regular session on June 19, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. in the SACOG Board Chambers located at 1415 L Street, Sacramento, CA Call to Order: Chair Cohn called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m. Present: Absent: Directors Aguiar-Curry, Buckland, Cleveland, Davis, Duran, Griego, Hagen, Hesch, Hodges, Jankovitz, Joiner, Krovoza, MacGlashan, Miklos, Peters, Rohan, Sander, Serna, Slowey, Stallard, VeerKamp, West, Yuill, Vice-Chair Saylor, and Chair Cohn. Directors Ashby, Cabaldon, Crews, Hanley, Samayoa, Wheeler Public Communications: No one appeared to speak. Consent Calendar: It was moved, seconded (Krovoza/Griego) and passed by unanimous vote that the following Consent items be approved: 1. Approve Minutes of May 29, 2014, Board Meeting 2. Approve the Transportation Development Act Claim for the City of Sacramento 3. Approve Funding of Transit Projects Using Proposition 1B Transit Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Funds 4. Approve Withdrawal from CalVans Joint Powers Authority 5. Approve Connect Card Change Order with INIT for Expanded Bus Fleets 6. Approve Transportation Demand Management Programming and Funding Guidelines 7. Approve Request for Proposals for Human Resources Consulting Services 8. Approve Contract for Federal Policy Services 9. Approve Reporting and Paying the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions for FY 2014/ Approve Request for Proposals for Public Opinion Research Services

5 SACOG Board of Directors June 19, 2014 Minutes Page 2 of 2 Action: 11. Environmental Impact Report on Crude Oil Shipments in the SACOG Region (Mr. Trost) Kirk Trost, SACOG staff, presented the staff report. It was moved, seconded (Saylor/Krovoza) and passed by unanimous vote that: Workshop: STAFF IS DIRECTED TO WORK WITH SACOG S MEMBERS TO PREPARE REGIONAL COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CRUDE BY RAIL PROJECT PROPOSED AT THE BENICIA REFINERY, INCLUDING COMMENTS ON CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE BOARD CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR, AND THE CHAIRS OF THE GOVERNMENT RELATIONS & PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND THE LAND USE & NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE. 12. Innovation Task Force Presentation on Best Practices Initiative with David Warm (Director Rohan) Reports: Director Rohan and Mike McKeever, CEO, gave brief introductions. David Warm, Executive Director of the Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), gave a presentation. 13. Chair s Report: Chair Cohn recognized Director Krovoza for his service at SACOG. 14. Board Members: No reports were given. 15. Chief Executive Officer s Report: No report was given. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 11:06 a.m. Approved by: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

6 SACOG Board of Directors August 14, 2014 Item # Consent Approve the Transportation Development Act Claims for Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority, County of Yolo, Paratransit, Inc., City of Davis, County of Sutter, City of Elk Grove, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District Issue: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) authorizes eligible cities, counties, and transit operators to receive TDA funds for transportation purposes and street and road projects. The TDA funds are made available from sales tax receipts. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board approve this summary resolution of the TDA claims listed below. 1. Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority FY for $2,673,274 Resolution No Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority FY for $11,701 Resolution No Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority FY for $26,325 Resolution No Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority FY for $20,974 Resolution No County of Yolo FY for $1,267,644 Resolution No County of Yolo FY for $56,762 Resolution No County of Yolo FY for $122,582 Resolution No County of Yolo FY for $50,317 Resolution No County of Yolo FY for $110,915 Resolution No Paratransit, Inc., FY for $1,864,075 Resolution No Paratransit, Inc., FY for $1,882,136 Resolution No City of Davis FY for $3,740,907 Resolution No County of Sutter FY for $662,220 Resolution No County of Sutter FY for $781,337 Resolution No City of Elk Grove FY for $6,354,250 Resolution No City of Elk Grove FY for $5,620,079 Resolution No Sacramento Regional Transit District FY for $44,286,480 Resolution No Sacramento Regional Transit District FY for $44,175,396 Resolution No Committee Action/Discussion: Current Board policy calls for routine TDA allocations to cities, counties, and transit operators to come directly to the Board without review by a committee. These funds will be used as authorized by law for various purposes and in the amounts shown on the attached resolutions. The claims have been reviewed by staff and found to be in compliance with the TDA and are consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Short- Range Transit Plans. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:BVB:gg Attachments Key Staff: Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist, (916) Gary Taylor, Senior Planner, (916) Barbara VaughanBechtold, Associate Planner, (916) cc: Kellie Bruton, City of Davis Simone Reed, Yuba-Sutter Transit Teri Sheets, Unitrans John Beaver, Sutter County Michael Costa, City of Elk Grove Belinda Chee, Yolo County Les Tyler, SRTD Steve Robinson-Burmester, Paratransit, Inc Keith Martin, Yuba-Sutter Transit

7 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING THE YUBA-SUTTER TRANSIT AUTHORITY S TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,732,274 WHEREAS, the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority has submitted a claim under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for Local Transportation Funds for FY for the City of Marysville in the amount of $180,513; for the City of Yuba City in the amount of $1,027,350; for Yuba County in the amount of $491,568; and for Sutter County in the amount of $123,843; for a total Local Transportation Funds claim of $1,823,274; and WHEREAS, the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority has submitted a claim under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for State Transit Assistance Funds for the City of Marysville FY funds in the amount of $60,189; for the City of Yuba City FY funds in the amount of $323,505 ; for Yuba County FY funds in the amount of $283,485; and for Sutter County FY funds in the amount of $106,469; for the City of Wheatland FY funds in the amount of $11,299 and FY in the amount of $11,701; for the City of Live Oak FY funds in the amount of $20,974 and FY in the amount of $15,026; and for Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority FY funds in the amount of $76,352; for a total State Transit Assistance Funds claim of $909,000; and WHEREAS, the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority has previously claimed State Transit Assistance Funds from deferred State Transit Assistance revenues allocated to Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority in prior years and will expend these funds in FY and these deferred revenues are included in the total TDA claim and shown in the table below; and WHEREAS, the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority submits these claims under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows:

8 Resolution No August 21, 2014 Local Transportation Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 99260(a) Yuba-Sutter Transit Operations FY 2014/15 $1,823,274 Sub Total 1,823,274 State Transit Assistance Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yuba-Sutter Transit Operations FY 2014/15 750,000 Article 4 Section 6730(b) Yuba-Sutter Transit Capital FY 2014/15 100,000 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yuba-Sutter Transit Operations FY 2013/14 11,701 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yuba-Sutter Transit Operations FY 2012/13 26,325 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yuba- Sutter Transit Operations FY 2011/12 20,974 Article 4 Section 6730(b) Revenue Claimed in previous years and moved to FY Yuba-Sutter Transit Capital Sub Total 909,000 Total $2,732,274 WHEREAS, such claim is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the Board and with approved apportionments for FY ; and WHEREAS, the cities of Wheatland and Live Oak and the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority have entered into agreements that the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority will utilize the State Transit Assistance allocation for the cities of Wheatland and Live Oak to provide ongoing transit service to the these cities. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Subchapter 2.5, Article 4, Section 6754 of the Transportation Development Act: 1. The Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority s proposed expenditures are in conformance with the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). 2. The level of passenger fares and charges is sufficient to enable the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority to meet the fare revenue requirements of the Public Utilities Code as they apply. 3. The Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended.

9 Resolution No August 21, The amount of this claim does not exceed the amount the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority is eligible to receive during the fiscal year. 5. Priority consideration has been given to this claim because its purpose is to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increases in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority areawide public transportation needs. 6. The Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section The Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority is not precluded by any contract entered into, on or after June 28, 1979, from employing part-time drivers or from contracting with common carriers or persons operating under a franchise or license. 8. The Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority has submitted the required certification by the Department of California Highway Patrol verifying that the operator is in compliance with Section of the Vehicle Code. 9. The Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority is in compliance with the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code Section or BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the request for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $1,823,274 and the request for State Transit Assistance Funds for FY in the amount of $20,974; FY in the amount of $26,325; FY in the amount of $11,701; FY 2014/15 in the amount of $850,000; and $0 from deferred State Transit Assistance revenues allocated to Yuba-Sutter Transit in prior years for transit capital for an STA amount of $909,000 and a total claim of $2,732,274 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority in proportion to funds received from the State. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 st day of August 2014, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

10 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING THE COUNTY OF YOLO S TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FY AND PREVIOUS YEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,608,220 WHEREAS, the County of Yolo has amended its claim for FY Local Transportation Funds of $1,267,644 and previous years State Transit Assistance Funds of $340,576 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows: Local Transportation Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 8 Section 99400(e) Yolobus Capital FY 2013/14 $ 231,201 Article 4 Section 99400(a) Streets & Road Mte FY 2013/14 998,414 Subtotal 1,229,615 Article 8 Section SACOG Planning FY 2013/14 38,029 Subtotal Incl SACOG 1,267,644 State Transit Assistance Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 6730(b) Yolobus Capital FY 2011/12 51,499 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yolobus Operations FY 2011/12 5,263 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yolobus Operations FY 2009/10 122,582 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yolobus Operations FY 2008/09 50,317 Article 4 Section 6730(a) Yolobus Operations FY 2006/07 110,915 Subtotal 340,576 Total $1,608,220 WHEREAS, such claim is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the Board and with the approved apportionment for FY ; and WHEREAS, the Board Resolution on February 20, 2014, found there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the unincorporated areas of Yolo County. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Subchapter 2.5, Article 5, Section 6754 of the Transportation Development Act: 1. The County of Yolo s proposed expenditures are in conformity with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 2. The level of passenger fares and charges is sufficient to enable the County of Yolo to meet the fare revenue requirements of the Public Utilities Code.

11 Resolution No August 21, The County of Yolo is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. 4. The sum of the County of Yolo s allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year. 5. Priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority area wide public transportation needs. 6. The County of Yolo has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section The County of Yolo is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or from contracting with common carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license. 8. The contractor, Veolia Inc., has submitted the certification required by the Department of the California Highway Patrol verifying that the operator is in compliance with Section of the Vehicle Code. 9. The County of Yolo is in compliance with the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code Section BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the request for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $1,267,644 and State Transit Assistance Funds for previous years in the amount of $340,576 for a total claim amount of $1,608,220 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the County Yolo in proportion to funds received from the State. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 st day of August 2014 by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

12 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING PARATRANSIT, INC. S TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FY AND FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,746,211 WHEREAS, Paratransit, Inc., has amended its claim for FY Local Transportation Funds from the previous amount of $1,712,115 to the new amount of $1,882,136 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act; and WHEREAS, Paratransit, Inc., has submitted a claim under the provisions of Article 4.5, Section of the Transportation Development Act for FY Local Transportation Funds in the amount of $1,864,075 and such funds will be used to provide community transit service, including such services as those for the elderly and persons with disabilities who cannot use conventional transit services; and WHEREAS, Resolution No adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) on July 16, 1981, designated Paratransit, Inc., as the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency and subsequent actions have extended that designation indefinitely and such claim is consistent with the Transportation Development Act, with rules and regulations adopted by the SACOG Board of Directors, and with allocation estimates made for FY and for FY ; and WHEREAS, SACOG as the Regional Transportation Planning Agency has the authority to set the performance criteria for Article 4.5 and Article 8 claimants under the provisions of Section (c)(4)(A), and Paratransit, Inc., has had difficulty meeting current criteria due to the addition of paratransit services costs provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Article 4.5, Section (c) of the Transportation Development Act: 1. That Paratransit, Inc., is responding to a transportation need not currently being met in the community. 2. That the service shall be integrated with existing transit services, if appropriate. 3. That Paratransit, Inc., has prepared an estimate of revenues, operating costs, and patronage. 4. That Paratransit, Inc., is in compliance with Section , , or , whichever is applicable, regarding farebox recovery. 5. That Paratransit, Inc., is in compliance with Sections and

13 Resolution No August 21, 2014 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves continuation of Paratransit, Inc. s farebox recovery ratio at five percent. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby incorporates by reference, Resolution No entitled Designating Paratransit, Inc., as a Consolidated Transportation Service Agency for a One-Year Period with Conditions, adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments on July 16, 1981, and subsequent actions extending the designation indefinitely. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves Paratransit, Inc. s claim for FY in the amount of $1,882,136 and for FY in the amount of $1,864,075 subject to the conditions set forth in the Four-Party Agreement, and authorizes the transmittal of allocation instructions to the Sacramento County auditor consistent with the approved claim following the transmittal of the Paratransit Inc. Board of Director s final action on the resolution authorizing the TDA claim. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 st day of August 2014, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

14 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING THE CITY OF DAVIS TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,740,907 WHEREAS, the City of Davis has submitted a claim for FY Local Transportation Funds of $3,258,883 and State Transit Assistance Funds of $482,024 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows: Local Transportation Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 8 Section 99400(c) Yolobus Operations FY 2013/14 $ 984,802 Article 4 Section 99260(a) Unitrans Operations FY 2013/13 614,400 Article 8 Section 99400(a) Street & Bike Path Mte FY 2013/14 1,015,052 Article 8 Section 99400(d) Administration FY 2013/14 37,550 Article 4 Section 99260(a) Davis Community Transit Operations FY 2013/14 509,312 Subtotal 3,161,116 Article 4 Section SACOG Planning FY 2013/14 97,767 Subtotal Incl SACOG 3,258,883 State Transit Assistance Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 6731(b) Yolobus Operations FY 2013/14 482,024 Subtotal 482,024 Total $3,740,907 WHEREAS, such claim is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the Board and with the approved apportionment for FY ; and WHEREAS, the Board Resolution No on February 20, 2014, found that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Davis. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Subchapter 2.5, Article 5, Section 6754 of the Transportation Development Act: 1. The City of Davis proposed expenditures are in conformity with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 2. The level of passenger fares and charges is sufficient to enable the City of Davis to meet the fare revenue requirements of the Public Utilities Code.

15 Resolution No August 21, The City of Davis is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. 4. The sum of the City of Davis allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year. 5. Priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority area wide public transportation needs. 6. The City of Davis has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section The City of Davis is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or from contracting with common carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license. 8. The City of Davis has submitted the certification required by the Department of the California Highway Patrol verifying that the operator is in compliance with Section of the Vehicle Code. 9. The City of Davis is in compliance with the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code Section BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the request for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $3,258,883 and State Transit Assistance Funds for FY in the amount of $482,024 for a total claim amount of $3,740,907 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the City of Davis in proportion to funds received from the State. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 st day of August 2014 by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

16 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING THE COUNTY OF SUTTER S TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIMS FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $781,337 AND FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $662,220 WHEREAS, the County of Sutter has submitted Transportation Development Act claims for FY and for FY Local Transportation Funds under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows; and Local Transportation Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 8 Section 99400(a) Street and Roads Maintenance FY 2013/14 $ 753,726 Article 8 Section SACOG Planning FY 2013/14 27,611 Subtotal 781,337 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 8 Section 99400(a) Street and Roads Maintenance FY 2014/15 638,638 Article 8 Section SACOG Planning FY 2014/15 23,582 Subtotal 662,220 Total $1,443,557 WHEREAS, this claim by the County of Sutter is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the Board, and with approved apportionments for FY and for FY ; and WHEREAS, the Board Resolution No on February 20, 2014, found that there are no unmet needs that are reasonable to meet in the County of Sutter; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the request for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $781,337 and for FY in the amount of $662,220 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the County of Sutter in proportion to funds received from the State.

17 Resolution No August 21, 2014 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 th day of August 2014 by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

18 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING THE CITY OF ELK GROVE S TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,354,250 AND AN AMENDED CLAIM FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,620,079 WHEREAS, the City of Elk Grove has submitted a claim for FY Local Transportation Funds of $5,466,339 and State Transit Assistance Funds of $887,911 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Elk Grove has submitted a claim amendment for FY Local Transportation Funds of $5,620,079 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows: Local Transportation Fund Approved August 21, 2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 99260(a) Transit Operations FY 2014/15 $4,699,245 Article 4 Section 99400(c) SRTD Transit Operations FY 2014/15 400,000 Article 4 Section 99260(a) Transit Capital FY 2014/15 85,522 Article 3 Section Pedestrian & Bicycle Impr FY 2014/15 112,629 Subtotal 5,297,396 Article 4 Section SACOG Planning FY 2014/15 168,943 Subtotal Incl SACOG 5,466,339 Article 4 Section 99260(a) Transit Operations FY 2013/14 4,926,493 Article 4 Section 99400(c) SRTD Transit Operations FY 2013/14 279,645 Article 4 Section 99260(a) Transit Capital FY 2013/14 132,937 Article 3 Section Pedestrian & Bicycle Impr FY 2013/14 112,402 Subtotal 5,451,477 Article 4 Section SACOG Planning FY 2013/14 168,602 Subtotal Incl SACOG 5,620,079 State Transit Assistance Fund Approved August 21, 2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 6730(a) Transit Operations FY 2014/15 671,911 Article 4 Section 6730(b) Transit Capital FY 2014/15 216,000 Subtotal 887,911 Total $11,974,329

19 Resolution No August 21, 2014 WHEREAS, such claim is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the Board and with the approved apportionment for FY ; and WHEREAS, the Board Resolution No on February 20, 2014, found that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Elk Grove. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Subchapter 2.5, Article 5, Section 6754 of the Transportation Development Act: 1. The City of Elk Grove s proposed expenditures are in conformity with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 2. The level of passenger fares and charges is sufficient to enable the City of Elk Grove to meet the fare revenue requirements of the Public Utilities Code. 3. The City of Elk Grove is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. 4. The sum of the City of Elk Grove s allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year. 5. Priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority area wide public transportation needs. 6. The City of Elk Grove has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section The City of Elk Grove is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or from contracting with common carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license. 8. The City of Elk Grove has submitted the certification required by the Department of the California Highway Patrol verifying that the operator is in compliance with Section of the Vehicle Code. 9. The City of Elk Grove is in compliance with the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code Section BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the request for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $5,466,339 and State Transit Assistance Funds for FY in the amount of $887,911 and for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $5,620,079 for a total claim amount of $11,974,329 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the City of Elk Grove in proportion to funds received from the State.

20 Resolution No August 21, 2014 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 st day of August 2014 by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

21 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO APPROVING THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT S AMENDED TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CLAIM FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,175,396 AND THE CLAIM FOR FY IN THE AMOUNT OF $44,286,480 WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District has submitted an amended claim for FY Local Transportation Funds of $34,654,785 and FY State Transit Assistance Funds of $9,520,611 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows: WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District has submitted a claim for FY Local Transportation Funds of $35,417,431 and State Transit Assistance Funds of $8,869,049 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows: Local Transportation Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 99260(a) SRTD Transit Operations FY 2014/15 $34,276,160 Article 4 Section SACOG Planning FY 2014/15 1,141,271 Article 4 Section 99260(a) SRTD Transit Operations FY 2013/14 33,538,090 Article 4 Section SACOG Planning FY 2013/14 1,116,695 Subtotal 70,072,216 State Transit Assistance Fund Approved: 8/21/2014 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 4 Section 6730(a) SRTD Transit Operations FY 2014/15 5,186,793 Article 4 Section 6730(b) SRTD Transit Capital FY 2014/15 3,682,256 Article 4 Section 6730(a) SRTD Transit Operations FY 2013/14 5,632,449 Article 4 Section 6730(b) SRTD Transit Capital FY 2013/14 3,888,162 Subtotal 18,389,660 Total $88,461,876 WHEREAS, such claim is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the Board and with approved apportionments for FY ; and

22 Resolution No August 21, 2014 WHEREAS, the Board Resolution No on February 20, 2014, found that there are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board hereby makes the following findings in accordance with Subchapter 2.5, Article 5, Section 6754 of the Transportation Development Act: 1. The Sacramento Regional Transit District s proposed expenditures are in conformity with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 2. The level of passenger fares and charges is sufficient to enable the Sacramento Regional Transit District to meet the fare revenue requirements of the Public Utilities Code. 3. The Sacramento Regional Transit District is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. 4. The sum of the Sacramento Regional Transit District s allocations from the state transit assistance fund and from the local transportation fund does not exceed the amount the claimant is eligible to receive during the fiscal year. 5. Priority consideration has been given to claims to offset reductions in federal operating assistance and the unanticipated increase in the cost of fuel, to enhance existing public transportation services, and to meet high priority area wide public transportation needs. 6. The Sacramento Regional Transit District has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section The Sacramento Regional Transit District is not precluded by any contract entered into on or after June 28, 1979 from employing part-time drivers or from contracting with common carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license. 8. The Sacramento Regional Transit District has submitted the certification required by the Department of the California Highway Patrol verifying that the operator is in compliance with Section of the Vehicle Code. 9. The Sacramento Regional Transit District is in compliance with the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code Section BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the amendment for Local Transportation Funds for FY in the amount of $34,654,785 and for FY in the amount of $35,417,431 and State Transit Assistance Funds for FY in the amount of $9,520,611 and for FY in the amount of $8,869,049 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the Sacramento Regional Transit District in proportion to funds received from the State.

23 Resolution No August 21, 2014 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21 th day of August 2014 by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Steve Cohn Chair Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer

24 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Multi-Agency Memorandum of Understanding on Implementing the I-5 Freeway Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program Issue: Should the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Caltrans and the cities of Elk Grove, Sacramento, and West Sacramento to implement the I-5 Freeway Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program and conduct a program-level EIR? Recommendation: The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends that the Board authorize the CEO to execute an MOU (Attachment A) with Caltrans and the cities of Elk Grove, Sacramento, and West Sacramento to participate in implementation of the I-5 Freeway Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program and to procure, prepare and certify an environmental review of the Subregional Capital Improvement Plan and Impact Fee Program outlined in the MOU. Committee Action/Discussion: In 2009, Caltrans, the cities of Elk Grove, Sacramento, West Sacramento, and SACOG formed a working group to address Caltrans concerns regarding the projected future cumulative mainline freeway traffic impacts on Interstate 5 from new developments located within the jurisdictional boundaries of these cities. Over the past four years, the working group collaborated to develop strategies that would facilitate efficient development within the impacted areas, and with the help of a consultant, produced an agreed-upon alternative methodology to the traditional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process for mitigating traffic impacts. This methodology provides a cost-effective, consistent, equitable and predictable approach that mitigates impacts to the state highway system. The methodology includes a Subregional Capital Improvement Plan of freeway, local roadway and transit projects selected by the working group from regional projects included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS). The working group selected these projects (Attachment B) as a mitigation measure to lessen the freeway congestion impacts caused by new developments located within the I-5 Subregional corridor. The transportation improvements include offmainline improvements with a positive impact on corridor congestion. The parties also evaluated and recommended the fair share cost of these projects that should be funded with a mitigation fee. Caltrans has accepted such fees as adequate freeway congestion mitigation, subject to such mitigation being found adequate upon a review under CEQA. The proposed mitigation fee program involves a simple fair share calculation to determine the funding contribution that a development may voluntarily pay to help implement the Subregional Capital Improvement Plan. However, if a development chooses not to pay the voluntary mitigation fee, it must follow the applicable CEQA process, which will require the preparation of a traffic model analysis regarding the cumulative mainline freeway impacts for the project. A primary task for SACOG to be performed under the MOU is the preparation of a program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with CEQA. SACOG, as the regional partner, was asked to be the responsible lead agency to prepare the EIR for the subregional improvement plan and impact fee program, to analyze whether implementation of such projects would mitigate the cumulative mainline freeway traffic impacts from new development within the Freeway Subregional Corridor.

25 The costs associated with the preparation of the EIR will be shared equally by the cities. The MOU has already been reviewed by all parties and approved by Caltrans and the three cities. Board authorization for the SACOG CEO s signature on the MOU would complete the process and allow SACOG to move ahead with the MOU partners on developing and issuing a Request for Proposal for conducting the EIR. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:AZ:gg Attachments Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist, (916) Azadeh Doherty, Senior Planner, (916)

26 Attachment A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Implementation Plan for the I-5 Freeway Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ( Agreement ) is made and entered into this day of, 2014, ("Execution Date") by and between the City of Sacramento, a municipal corporation ( Sacramento ), the City of West Sacramento, a municipal corporation ( West Sacramento ), and the City of Elk Grove, a municipal corporation ( Elk Grove ), which are referred to herein individually as City and collectively as Cities; and the California Department of Transportation, a state agency ( Caltrans ) and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, a joint powers entity ( SACOG). All of the foregoing entities are referred to herein individually as Party and collectively as Parties. RECITALS A. Due to the concerns of all the Parties regarding the projected future cumulative mainline freeway traffic impacts from new developments located within the jurisdictional boundaries of Cities along the Interstate 5 freeway ( Freeway Subregional Corridor ), staff from Cities and Caltrans (the working group ) met over a four year period and Cities collectively funded a study by DKS Associates dated April 30, 2009, titled: Policy Recommendations for the Evaluation and Mitigation of Significant Impacts from Local Development Projects on the State Highway System (the Freeway Subregional Corridor Study ), regarding measures to mitigate potential impacts. B. The Freeway Subregional Corridor extends generally from the American River on the north, the western boundary of the City of West Sacramento on the west, the southern boundary of the City of Elk Grove on the south and Highway 99 on the east. The study area was divided into four districts, with territory within Sacramento (District 1 and 3), West Sacramento (District 2) and Elk Grove (District 4). C. DKS Associates modeled the cumulative mainline traffic impacts on the I-5 freeway from future developments within the Freeway Subregional Corridor. Based on this information, the working group identified planned transportation improvements in SACOG s Regional Transportation Plan ( RTP ) which would best relieve traffic congestion within the Freeway Subregional Corridor. Caltrans has not adopted plans to add lanes to the I-5 freeway in this corridor to expand capacity, other than adding high occupancy vehicles lanes (the Freeway Improvements ) to encourage carpooling and use of bus transit. The Freeway Subregional Corridor Study identified roadway and river crossing projects (the Local Roadway Improvements ) as planned by the Cities MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 1 Revised:

27 and set out in the RTP, and the Sacramento Regional Transit District s ( Regional Transit ) proposed extension of its light rail system to Natomas (the Transit Improvements ), all of which will serve as alternative routes for intra-city and inter-city travel. The selected Freeway, Local Roadway and Transit Improvements are referred to herein as the Subregional Improvement Plan. D. The Freeway Subregional Corridor Study, with input from the working group and SACOG, evaluated the estimated costs and anticipated funding sources for all of the projects included in the Subregional Improvement Plan, identified the funding shortfall, determined the fair share cost of these projects caused by the additional traffic from new development, and recommended mitigation fees (the Subregional Impact Fee ) to fund such fair share costs based on the development project s location and type of land uses. E. On July 13, 2009, Caltrans, through its District 3 Director, approved the recommendations set out in the Freeway Subregional Corridor Study. Caltrans letter stated that the recommended Subregional Impact Fee to help fund the costs of the projects in the Subregional Improvement Plan would lessen the cumulative mainline traffic impacts caused by new development located within the Freeway Subregional Corridor, and that Caltrans anticipates that it would accept such fees as adequate freeway congestion mitigation for cumulative traffic impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ), subject to its review and acceptance of the EIR as referenced below. F. SACOG and the working group will conduct environmental review of the Subregional Improvement Plan and Subregional Impact Fee to analyze whether implementation of such projects would mitigate the cumulative mainline freeway traffic impacts from new development within the Freeway Subregional Corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, based on the Recitals set forth above and the Parties desire to undertake efforts in a cooperative manner to implement the Subregional Improvement Plan and address how the identified projects are to be funded with the Subregional Impact Fee collected by each City, the Parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Modification of Subregional Improvement Plan. The Parties shall meet to determine if there needs to be any changes to the Freeway, Local Roadway and Transit Improvements included in the Subregional Improvement Plan based on current information with regard to the status and funding of the projects in that plan. The refined MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 2 Revised:

28 Subregional Improvement Plan will be used as the project definition for preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 2. Preparation of EIR. SACOG will be responsible as a lead agency for preparation of a program-level Environmental Impact Report in compliance with CEQA for the Subregional Improvement Plan. The purpose of the EIR is to analyze whether the Subregional Impact Fee is an appropriate measure to mitigate cumulative impacts of new development on the State Highway System. Each Party shall cooperate with SACOG in providing information and reviewing the administrative draft EIR for accuracy. The costs of the EIR preparation shall be shared equally by Cities, subject to approval of the SACOG s budget for the EIR preparation. An EIR cost sharing agreement between the Cities and SACOG will be needed before the EIR is prepared. After certification of the EIR by SACOG, Sacramento, West Sacramento and Elk Grove shall rely on the EIR as a responsible agency in supporting that Party s actions to fund the Subregional Improvement Plan if they adopt the Subregional Impact Fee. 3. Plan Approval and Fee Adoption. If SACOG certifies the EIR for the Subregional Improvement Plan, each City may individually take action to approve the Subregional Improvement Plan and adopt the Subregional Impact Fee. The Subregional Impact Fee may be adopted either: (i) as a voluntary measure, where a project applicant whose project traffic reaches the threshold of significance may choose to pay the fee in lieu of preparing a traffic model analysis of the cumulative mainline freeway impacts, or (ii) as a mandatory development impact fee pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code section et seq.). A. Regardless of whether the Subregional Impact Fee is adopted as a voluntary measure or mandatory development impact fee, the fee would only apply to those development projects which: (i) may generate mainline traffic volumes on the I-5 freeway system within the Freeway Subregional Corridor which would exceed the threshold of significance as adopted by each City, in reliance on Caltrans guidance, and (ii) are not exempt from environmental review or traffic impact analysis under the CEQA Guidelines (CA Code of Regulations, Title 14 Chapter 3). If a project does not meet the thresholds, then no mitigation is required, the fee program does not apply. Caltrans agrees that: (i) if the Cities comply with the terms of this Agreement and a project applicant complies with the fee program for a particular project, or (ii) a project does not trigger the thresholds and therefore is not required to pay a fee, Caltrans will not challenge the lack of a cumulative mainline traffic impact study or the adequacy of the mitigation for such impacts for that project. MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 3 Revised:

29 B. If a City adopts the Subregional Impact Fee as a voluntary measure and an applicant decides not to comply with the Subregional Impact Fee program, even though the project s traffic impacts will exceed the threshold of significance as adopted by that City, then the City will: (i) require a traffic model analysis of the cumulative mainline freeway impacts for that development project as part of the preparation of the applicable CEQA document for that project; (ii) consult with Caltrans regarding the scope of such traffic analysis and the applicable mitigation measures if the resulting analysis demonstrates that the project s impacts could create potentially significant adverse impacts on the freeway mainline operations under future cumulative conditions; and (iii) consider imposing such mitigation measures as part of the conditions of approval for the project at the time the project and the CEQA document is approved. C. Each City may adopt the voluntary or mandatory Subregional Impact Fee in consideration of the information in the Freeway Subregional Corridor Study, as well as any additional information that it may rely upon. The City may adjust the amount of the fees from those in the Freeway Subregional Corridor Study based on: (i) the land use categories applicable within each City s zoning ordinance, and (ii) whether the City previously adopted development impact fees which already include the fair share costs of one or more of the projects in the Subregional Improvement Plan. In addition, the working group may recommend to each City to increase or decrease the amount of the fees on an annual basis to account for changes in construction costs, the scope of the project and its estimated costs, and changes in project funding from other sources, all in compliance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. D. If the Subregional Impact Fee is paid by the project applicant, whether on a voluntary or mandatory basis, Caltrans will provide written verification to the City, upon request from that City, that the payment of the fee satisfies Caltrans as to that project s obligation under CEQA to mitigate its cumulative mainline traffic impacts on the State Highway System. 4. Allocation of Fees. Annually, after adoption of the Subregional Impact Fee as described in Section 2, above, each City will prepare an annual report and provide a copy to all of the other Parties which includes the amount of the fees that the City has collected and its proposed allocation of such funding for projects in the Subregional Improvement Plan. A. The Parties acknowledge that it may take many years to collect enough fees to assist in funding the costs of a project in the Subregional Improvement Plan as set out in the Freeway Subregional Corridor Study, and that many projects in that plan may not be ready for construction for a period of time after fees have been collected MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 4 Revised:

30 due to the need to secure additional funding. In addition, there may be delays in construction of the projects included in the Subregional Improvement Plan due to the need to prepare engineering plans and undertake environmental review. For these and other reasons, the Parties acknowledge that a City may propose in its annual report to continue to accumulate the fees for a specified period of time and not to expend the funds that have been collected. B. The Parties acknowledge that the first priority for each City in allocating fees it has collected is to apply those funds towards construction of projects in the Subregional Improvement Plan which are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of that City, or closest thereto, so as to benefit the new developments within that City which either paid the fee in accordance with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act or voluntarily. C. Cities acknowledge that some of the projects in the Subregional Improvement Plan are to be constructed by another City, Caltrans, or Regional Transit. The working group shall meet annually to make recommendations on the allocation of the fees collected for projects. Each City will consider those recommendations and determine whether to allocate all or a portion of the fees it has collected to another City, Caltrans, or Regional Transit to assist in funding a project within their respective jurisdiction. If there are no projects or no remaining projects in the Subregional Improvement Plan in a City, that City must nonetheless allocate the fees it has collected to another City, Caltrans or Regional Transit to fund a project in the Subregional Improvement Plan. Transfer of such funding may require those Parties to enter into a project improvement agreement to specify the terms for transfer of such funds, or a City may transmit such funds to SACOG for appropriation for a project in another City, Caltrans or to Regional Transit which is included in the Subregional Improvement Plan. D. SACOG may rely on the Cities annual reports in determining funding allocations which may be needed when preparing its annual Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan for those projects which are included in the Subregional Improvement Plan, so as to facilitate construction of such projects which are supported by all of the other Parties. 4. Project Development. In regards to the delivery of projects included in the Subregional Improvement Plan, the Parties agree as follows: A. Each Party will encourage public awareness and undertake public outreach efforts to involve the public in the planning and environmental review processes in which the Parties are engaged for their respective projects included in the MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 5 Revised:

31 Subregional Improvement Plan which are to be approved and/or constructed by that Party. B. Each Party may use the products of any technical studies and reports generated by another Party in a manner consistent with its respective obligations. Each Party is responsible for making its own determination as to the usefulness or as to the propriety of its use of or reliance upon the work product of the other Party. Neither Party represents or warrants that its work product is or will be sufficient for the purposes to which another Party may wish to apply that work product. This Agreement does not reduce, expand, transfer, or alter in any way any of the statutory or regulatory authorities or responsibilities of any Party hereto. Neither Party is delegating any rights, duties, or responsibilities to any other Party under this Agreement. 5. Term. This Agreement is effective after execution by all of the Parties and shall continue in effect until terminated by all of the Parties through mutual agreement. Any Party may terminate this Agreement in regards to respective obligations of that Party under this Agreement upon providing 30 days advance written notice delivered to the other Parties. 6. Other Provisions. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. This Agreement does not create a joint venture, partnership, or any other relationship of association among the Parties. Nothing contained herein is intended, nor shall this Agreement be construed, as an agreement to benefit any third parties. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the Parties in relation to the matters contained herein, and no other understanding whether verbal, written or otherwise exists among the Parties. [Signature pages follow] MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 6 Revised:

32 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Agreement as of the last date set out below: CITY OF SACRAMENTO By: Name: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: City Attorney ATTEST City Clerk MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 7 Revised:

33 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO By: Name: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: City Attorney ATTEST City Clerk CITY OF ELK GROVE By: Name: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: City Attorney ATTEST City Clerk MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 8 Revised:

34 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Name: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: Attorney SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS By: Name: Title: Date: Approved as to Form: Attorney ATTEST Clerk MOU - Implementation Plan for the I-5 Subregional Corridor Mitigation Program 9 Revised:

35 Attachment B AGREED-UPON PROJECT LIST SUB-REGIONAL FREEWAY MITIGATION WORKING GROUP Project TRANSIT DNA-MOS2 Streetcar Elk Grove Intercity Rail Station LOCAL ROADWAY Kammerer Road American River Crossing Richards Blvd./ Railyards Description Extend light rail from Richards Boulevard to Natomas Center Streetcar network connecting the Intermodal Terminal in Downtown Sacramento to West Sacramento (Phase 1); South to R Street and Broadway corridors (Phase 2) Construct parking lot, platform, and passenger shelter for intercity rail station Construct 4-lane parkway from I-5 to Highway 99 New bridge(s) across the American River I-5/Richards, Richards/Brannon couplet, 7 th Street widening, 6 th Street extension to Richards, SR160 IC Two new bridges across the Sacramento River Sacramento River Crossings FREEWAY I-5 HOV HOV lanes from Elk Grove Boulevard to U.S. 50 I-5 Ramp Meters and Detection Station I-5 Auxiliary/Transition Lanes Ramp meters from Elk Grove Boulevard to Sutterville Road Auxiliary lane: Florin to Pocket Auxiliary lane: U.S. 50 connector-ramp to Sutterville Road off-ramp Auxiliary lane: U.S. 50 entrance to P Street on-ramp Transition lane: Garden Highway off-ramp to Garden Highway on-ramp Total Cost Unfunded Assumed Funding from Fee Program $ 561,000,000 $ x $ 10,000, ,000,000 67,500,000 20,000,000 8,500,000 x 5,000,000 50,000,000 35,000,000 10,000, ,000, ,000,000 10,000, ,000, ,000,000 15,000, ,000, ,000,000 30,000, ,000, ,300,000 11,400,000 11,400,000 19,900,000 19,900,000 35,000,000 TOTAL $1,573,000,000 $1,194,500,000 $135,000,000

36 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Connect Card Change Order - INIT Website Corporate Accounts Issue: Should SACOG execute a contract change order with Innovations in Transportation (INIT) to purchase corporate accounts functionality for the Connect Card customer website? Recommendation: The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends that the Board grant the Chief Executive Officer authority to negotiate and execute a contract change order with INIT in an amount not to exceed $55,000 to develop software functionality for corporate accounts in the Connect Card customer website. Committee Action/Discussion: The Connect Card project is currently finalizing software development for the customer website. The website was subject to extensive pilot testing and design review in early For a number of technical reasons, testing on the Corporate Accounts section of the website was delayed until late into the pilot phase. Concurrently, a committee of business and finance staff at participating transit agencies completed an exhaustive review of the corporate accounting functions. The committee concluded that additional functionality is highly desirable. Corporate accounts for the Connect Card include private companies, public agencies, and social service agencies. Most corporate clients offer some form of employer/agency subsidy and represent a very important business constituency to the Consortium transit agency members. The sponsored transit patrons represent a significant percentage of total transit ridership. The Connect Card website will provide a portal through which a corporate client s transportation coordinator (ETC) can manage its transit pass program. Functions available to the ETC include managing cardholders, adding/deleting cardholders, creating new smart cards, and managing various payment methods. While some functions were part of the contract s technical specifications, other identified functions are new and require a change order with the vendor for software development. Staff recommends execution of a proposed change order with INIT for corporate account functionality for an amount not to exceed $55,000. The cost for this item (and a portion of item #4) will be offset by an anticipated contract credit with the primary vendor worth $105,400. In May, staff reported that after Board approved expenditures, the contingency stood at $391,586. While $21,600 of the combined Committee items will come out of contingency, the project budget will receive an infusion of project funds from other sources. By October, the contingency will stand at about $485,300 because of a contract surplus by way of Sacramento Regional Transit. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:RM:gg Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist, (916) Robert McCrary, Senior Planner, (916)

37 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Connect Card Hardware Change Order for Expanded Bus Fleets Issue: Should SACOG execute a contract change order with Innovations in Transportation (INIT) to purchase hardware and installation services for an expanded bus fleet? Recommendation: The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends that the Board grant the Chief Executive Officer authority to negotiate and execute a contract change order with INIT in the amount not to exceed $72,000 to purchase hardware and installation services for an additional 13 buses. Committee Action/Discussion: The Connect Card project is currently planning final hardware installations prior to system roll-out. Another limited expansion or modification to the system s bus fleet has come from the following Consortium members: Elk Grove Transit, Sacramento Regional Transit, and Yolo County Transportation District. The source of these changes is either evolving procurement decisions or technical complications. Hardware will be needed for equipping the additional buses, including smart media processors, on-board computers, operator control units, and data communications. Installation services are included in the quote received from the vendor; installations would be performed in July and August. The Committee discussed that transit agencies should be covering hardware expenses related to new buses. Staff noted that on July 21, the Consortium s Executive Committee adopted a policy that freezes the project investment for bus hardware. The costs for all future hardware needs due to fleet expansion or replacement will be borne by the transit agency. The Project Manager is empowered to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis, subject to normal advice and consent requirements. Staff recommends execution of a proposed change order with INIT for up to $72,000 for hardware and installation for 13 additional buses. All but $21,600 of the necessary funds will be offset by a vendor contract credit, with the remainder coming from the project budget contingency. As described in Item #4, after change orders, the contingency will increase to $485,300 by October due to an influx of funds from another project source. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:RM:gg Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist, (916) Robert McCrary, Senior Planner, (916)

38 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Connect Card Subrecipient Agreement Sacramento Regional Transit District Server Room Issue: Should SACOG execute a subrecipient agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit (SRTD) to pass through $80,000 in California Transit Security Grant Program (CTSGP) grant funds for computer server room upgrades? Recommendation: The Transportation Committee unanimously recommends that the Board grant the Chief Executive Officer authority to negotiate and execute a subrecipient funding agreement with SRTD in the amount not to exceed $80,000 to upgrade environmental and safety features in SRTD s primary computer server room to support the Connect Card project. Committee Action/Discussion: The Connect Card project is currently planning final hardware installations prior to system roll-out. All centralized functions are part of the Regional Service Center (RSC), physically located at an SRTD facility. The Connect Card data center will be located in the SRTD main server room. The SRTD server room requires environmental and safety upgrades to meet modern industry standards and support the Connect Card data center. A major focus of the upgrades is building more efficiency and redundancy into the dedicated cooling system. The improvement of the environmental systems and other associated safety upgrades will contribute to data reliability and security. The California Emergency Management Agency (CAL EMA) has awarded SACOG $80,000 of CTSGP grant funds to perform the necessary upgrades. The SACOG Board approved a subrecipient agreement with SRTD with these funds for the same purpose on February 21, SRTD was unable to schedule the necessary work before the original contract expired on June 30, A new agreement was preferred by SRTD over extending the previous agreement. Staff recommends execution of a proposed subrecipient agreement with SRTD for $80,000. The funds are fully obligated and are in the approved Project Budget. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:RM:gg Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Sharon Sprowls, Senior Program Specialist, (916) Robert McCrary, Senior Planner, (916)

39 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Annual Adoption of Salary Plan per CalPERS Regulation Issue: Whether to adopt SACOG s Salary Plan as required annually to comply with CalPERS regulation (California Code of Regulations (CCR) section 570.5). Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee unanimously recommends that the SACOG Board adopt the Salary Plan as shown in the attachment. Committee ActionDiscussion: In 2011, the California Code of Regulations (section 570.5) was amended to require the annual adoption of SACOG s Salary Plan in order to account for any modifications to salary, including even cost of living adjustments. In August 2014, pursuant to the current MOU with SACOG s Employee Association, SACOG staff was granted a 2.19% cost of living increase. In order to comply with CCR section 570.5, the Board is required to adopt a salary plan reflecting this change. Adoption of the attached Salary Plan will result in no changes in compensation. It simply provides information in the form now required by state regulation. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer KT:EJ:SN:ts Attachment Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy & Administration, (916) Stacy Niccum, Acting Finance Manager, (916)

40 Position Salary Range Monthly Sacramento Area Council of Governments Monthly Salary Schedule - Effective August 1, 2014 A B C D 13 years longevity 18 years longevity Monthly 13 years longevity 18 years longevity Monthly 13 years longevity 18 years longevity Monthly 13 years longevity 18 years longevity E Monthly 13 years longevity 18 years longevity Administrative Clerk I 2,813 2,883 2,955 2,954 3,028 3,104 3,101 3,179 3,258 3,256 3,337 3,421 3,419 3,504 3, Staff Assistant 2,813 2,883 2,955 2,954 3,028 3,104 3,101 3,179 3,258 3,256 3,337 3,421 3,419 3,504 3,592 Administrative Clerk II 16 3,101 3,179 3,258 3,256 3,337 3,421 3,419 3,504 3,592 3,590 3,680 3,772 3,770 3,864 3,961 Administrative Clerk III 18 3,419 3,504 3,592 3,590 3,680 3,772 3,770 3,864 3,961 3,958 4,057 4,158 4,156 4,260 4,366 Administrative Assistant I 3,770 3,864 3,961 3,958 4,057 4,158 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4, Accounting Technician 3,770 3,864 3,961 3,958 4,057 4,158 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 Administrative Assistant II 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 Accountant I 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 Graphic Designer I 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5, Information Technology Analyst I 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 Public Information Coordinator I 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 Research Technician 4,156 4,260 4,366 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 Planner I 23 4,364 4,473 4,585 4,582 4,697 4,814 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 Administrative Coordinator I 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6, Administrative Assistant III 4,811 4,931 5,055 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 Accountant II 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 Planner II 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 Research Analyst 26 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 Graphic Designer II 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 Information Technology Analyst II 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 Public Information Coordinator II 5,052 5,178 5,308 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 Administrative Coordinator II 27 5,304 5,437 5,573 5,570 5,709 5,852 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 Accountant III 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 Associate Information Technology Analyst 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 Associate Planner 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7, Associate Research Analyst 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 Associate Public Information Coordinator 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 Associate Graphic Designer 5,848 5,994 6,144 6,140 6,294 6,451 6,447 6,608 6,773 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 Senior Accountant 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 Senior Graphic Designer 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 Senior Research Analyst 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 Senior Planner 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8, Senior Public Information Coordinator 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 Senior Information Technology Analyst 6,770 6,939 7,113 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 Supervising Senior Planner 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 8,640 8,856 9,077 Supervising Senior Research Analyst 33 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 8,640 8,856 9,077 Clerk of the Board/HR Specialist 7,108 7,286 7,468 7,464 7,651 7,842 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,229 8,435 8,646 8,640 8,856 9,077 Manager 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,535 8,748 8,967 9,294 9,526 9,765 10,121 10,374 10,633 11,028 11,304 11,586 Principal Project Expert 7,837 8,033 8,234 8,535 8,748 8,967 9,294 9,526 9,765 10,121 10,374 10,633 11,028 11,304 11,586 Steps within this range are for illustrative pursposes only; salaries are determined by individual employment agreement within the range. Director 10,433 10,694 10,961 11,360 11,644 11,935 12,372 12,681 12,998 13,473 13,810 14,155 14,681 15,048 15,424 Steps within this range are for illustrative pursposes only; salaries are determined by individual employment agreement within the range. Chief Operating Officer/Gen Counsel 17,472 17,909 18,357 18,870 19,342 19,825 20,381 20,891 21,413 22,011 22,561 23,125 23,770 24,364 24,973 Chief Executive Officer 17,472 17,909 18,357 18,870 19,342 19,825 20,381 20,891 21,413 22,011 22,561 23,125 23,770 24,364 24,973 Steps within this range are for illustrative purposes only; salaries are determined by individual employment agreement within the range. NOTES: Regular full-time employees are paid a monthly salary based on this schedule. Longevity pay is 2.5% for employees with 13 years of FTE service and an additional 2.5% for employees with 18 years of FTE service. The salary range for the COO/General Counsel and CEO includes contractual benefits; the base salary range for these positions is approximately $15,359 to $20,776

41 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Student Intern Hourly Wage Schedule (Effective August 1, 2014) 8/1/2014 8/1/2013 8/1/2012 8/1/2011 8/1/2010 8/1/2009 8/1/2008 8/1/2007 First Year Student (Less than equivalent of 30 semester units completed) A. No relevant work experience $11.85 $11.60 $11.40 $11.18 $11.18 $11.18 $11.18 $10.65 B. At least equivalent of 15 semester units completed or 500 hours of appropriate experience $12.43 $12.16 $11.95 $11.72 $11.72 $11.72 $11.72 $11.16 Second Year Student (Equivalent of 30 semester units completed) A. No relevant work experience $12.73 $12.46 $12.25 $12.02 $12.02 $12.02 $12.02 $11.45 B. At least equivalent of 45 semester units completed or 500 hours of appropriate experience $13.36 $13.07 $12.85 $12.61 $12.61 $12.61 $12.61 $12.01 Third Year Student (Equivalent of 60 semester units completed) A. No relevant work experience $13.67 $13.38 $13.15 $12.90 $12.90 $12.90 $12.90 $12.29 B. At least equivalent of 75 semester units completed or 500 hours of appropriate experience $14.37 $14.06 $13.82 $13.56 $13.56 $13.56 $13.56 $12.91 Fourth Year Student (Equivalent of 90 semester units completed) A. No relevant work experience $14.71 $14.39 $14.14 $13.87 $13.87 $13.87 $13.87 $13.21 B. At least equivalent of 105 semester units completed or 500 hours of appropriate experience $15.42 $15.09 $14.83 $14.55 $14.55 $14.55 $14.55 $13.86 Graduate Student (B.A. or B.S. Degree Completed) A. No relevant work experience $15.84 $15.50 $15.23 $14.94 $14.94 $14.94 $14.94 $14.23 B. At least equivalent of 9 semester units completed or 500 hours of appropriate experience $16.62 $16.26 $15.98 $15.68 $15.68 $15.68 $15.68 $14.93 C. At least equivalent of 18 semester units completed or 1,000 hours of appropriate experience $17.45 $17.08 $16.79 $16.47 $16.47 $16.47 $16.47 $15.69 D. At least equivalent of 27 semester units completed or 1,500 hours of appropriate experience $18.29 $17.90 $17.59 $17.26 $17.26 $17.26 $17.26 $16.44 E. At least equivalent of 36 semester units completed or 2,000 hours of appropriate experience $19.21 $18.80 $18.48 $18.13 $18.13 $18.13 $18.13 $17.27

42 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Consent August 14, 2014 Approve Revised Yuba County Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2014/15 Issue: Should the Board approve the revised Yuba County Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Findings of Apportionment (FOA) for Fiscal Year 2014/15? Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee unanimously recommends that the Board approve the revised Yuba County Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2014/15. Committee Action/Discussion: In February 2014, the Board approved the Fiscal Year 2014/15 FOA. At the end of FY 2013/14, the Yuba County Auditor-Controller reported lower receipts than what were originally estimated. This makes a reduction in the FY 2014/15 Yuba County LTF FOA necessary. Attachment A identifies the current amendment to the FOA for Yuba County and indicates the amount of LTF funds each claimant within the county is eligible to receive. Attachment B compares the current amendment to the FOA with the original FY 2014/15 FOA funding amounts. In accordance with the Transportation Development Act laws, the LTF funds are apportioned on a pro-rata basis using population estimates published by the California Department of Finance for the most recent calendar year. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:GT:ts Attachments Key Staff: Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy & Administration, (916) Gary Taylor, Senior Planner, (916) Barbara VaughanBechtold, Associate Planner, (916)

43 Attachment A COUNTY OF YUBA August 2014 AMENDED FINDINGS OF APPORTIONMENT LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) Fiscal Year 2014/15 County's Estimated June 30, 2014 Balance $0 Local Transportation Fund Income ,129,000 Less: County Administrative Costs -750 Less: SACOG Administrative Costs -12,603 Balance for Allocation $1,115,647 Jurisdication Population 1 Yuba County (Unincorporated) % of Total Population County Finding of Apportionment SACOG Planning Amount Available to Jurisdiction 2 57, % $876,487 $26,295 $850,192 Marysville 12, % $186,096 $5,583 $180,513 Wheatland 3, % $53,064 $1,592 $51,472 TOTALS 73, % $1,115,647 $33,470 $1,082, Sources: Report E-5, Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 1/1/ Funds available for projects and programs under Article 4 and Article 8. All or a portion may be available to the jurisdictions depending on outcome of unmet needs finding. Yuba; 8:26 AM7/15/2014 Yuba Co. Amend FY FOA.xls

44 COUNTY OF YUBA August 2014 AMENDED FINDINGS OF APPORTIONMENT LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDS (LTF) Fiscal Year 2014/15 Attachment B Aug-14 Feb-14 County's Estimated June 30, 2014 Balance $0 $0 Local Transportation Fund Income ,129,000 1,215,415 Less: County Administrative Costs Less: SACOG Administrative Costs -12,603-13,568 Balance for Allocation $1,115,647 $1,201,097 Jurisdication Feb 2014 Finding of Apportionment Aug 2014 Finding of Apportionment Feb 2014 Amt. Available SACOG Planning Aug 2014 SACOG Planning Feb 2014 Amount Available to Jurisdiction 2 Aug 2014 Amount Available to Jurisdiction 2 Yuba County (Unincorporated) $943,620 $876,487 $28,309 $26,295 $915,311 $850,192 Marysville $200,349 $186,096 $6,010 $5,583 $194,339 $180,513 Wheatland $57,128 $53,064 $1,714 $1,592 $55,414 $51,472 TOTALS $1,201,097 $1,115,647 $36,033 $33,470 $1,165,064 $1,082, Sources: Report E-5, Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 1/1/ Funds available for projects and programs under Article 4 and Article 8. All or a portion may be available to the jurisdictions depending on outcome of unmet needs finding. FOA to Amendment; 8:26 AM7/15/2014 Yuba Co. Amend FY FOA.xls

45 SACOG Board of Directors August 14, 2014 Item # Consent Approve CivicSpark Internship Program Issue: Staff is requesting that the Committee approve funding an internship program through the Local Government Commission called CivicSpark. Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee unanimously recommends that the Board give permission to the CEO to enter into a contract with the Local Government Commission (LGC) in the amount of $100,000 to fund up to six AmeriCorp employees to work on a regional climate resiliency project. Committee Action/Discussion: The CivicSpark program is a partnership between LGC and the Governor s Office of Planning and Research, in collaboration with AmeriCorps. Over the next three years CivicSpark will provide high-quality, technical support to local and regional partners, helping California communities pursue clean energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, safeguard against climate change impacts, and implement sustainable community strategies. The AmeriCorps employees are equivalent to an entry level professional position, and must have at least a bachelor s degree in a related field. SACOG is working with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) on creating a regional project focused on climate mitigation and resiliency. The project covers one calendar year, with the option of adding up to two additional years, and includes six full time AmeriCorps employees, at a total cost of $150,000. Because of the outside funding through AmeriCorps, the cost for the employees is equivalent to $18 per hour, which is less than our current cost for interns. The $150,000 total project cost will be split between the three partners, with SMUD contracting directly with LGC, and SMAQMD providing funds to SACOG. SACOG s portion of overall project cost would be $50,000. $30,000 of this will be paid for through an existing grant SACOG received from the Strategic Growth Council to work on climate action planning, and the other $20,000 through a combination of existing components of the adopted budget, including the intern budget. Therefore, this project does not result in a net increase to the budget already passed by the Board. SMAQMD. LGC provides a stipend of $8,400 to the host regions to offset costs of participation. SACOG will work with LGC to use this money to lower the total project cost. Staff is working with local jurisdictions and partners to draft a scope of work for the project, which won t be finalized until a contract is entered into with LGC. Staff will continue to seek guidance from the Board on the scope of work, and provide updates on the status of the program throughout the length of the contract. Approved by: Mike McKeever Executive Director MM:KT:RP:ts Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Raef Porter, Senior Research Analyst, (916)

46 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Action August 14, 2014 Selection of Consultant for Metroplitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Environmental Impact Report Legal Services Contract Issue: Should SACOG contract with the selected legal services consultant for the MTP/SCS and EIR recommended by staff? Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends (with Vice Chairs Ashby and Serna abstaining) that the Board direct and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and sign a contract with the Thomas Law Group. Committee Action/Discussion: On May 29, 2014, the Board approved release of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Legal Services Related to the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) Update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The action required that the staff review team bring a consultant selection recommendation back to the Board for approval. The RFQ had a stated budget amount of not-to-exceed $200,000. Three firms submitted Statements of Qualifications: Best Best and Krieger, PC Law Group, and Thomas Law Group. Based on the criteria listed in the RFQ, Thomas Law Group was unanimously scored the highest qualified firm to perform this work. Thomas Law Group offered the most direct experience with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Senate Bill 375, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the Sacramento region. The firm demonstrated exceptional qualifications in each of the skills and knowledge areas identified in the RFQ: Detailed knowledge of, and experience with, CEQA Tina Thomas, founder of Thomas Law Group, has practiced environmental and land use law in California for over 30 years. Part of the firm s practice involves assisting clients with issues related to implementation of AB 32 and SB 375, particularly with respect to compliance with CEQA documentation. Experience with regional transportation plans; familiarity with actions of other MPOs in state to implement SB 375 Thomas Law Group has represented a number metropolitan planning organizations on regional transportation plans and related environmental impact reports, including three MPOs in their first round of SCS development. Thomas Law Group is currently representing MTC and ABAG in litigation challenging the program EIR for the RTP/SCS for the San Francisco Bay Area; the firm provided peer review for the San Diego Association of Governments RTP/SCS; and the firm also served as SACOG s legal consultant in the development of the current MTP/SCS in Detailed knowledge and experience with SB 375; experience with development of the type incentivized by SB 375 CEQA reforms Thomas Law Group also has unique knowledge and experience with SB 375 from a number of perspectives. Tina Thomas assisted in drafting portions of the bill and has drafted proposed policies related to SB 375 for various agencies, including the city of Sacramento. In addition, the firm has represented private sector clients on the types of development projects incentivized by the SB 375 CEQA reforms.

47 Knowledge of SACOG In addition to serving as SACOG s legal consultant in the development of the current MTP/SCS, Tina Thomas and the Thomas Law Group have represented public and private sector clients throughout the SACOG region. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:GC:ts Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/Legal Counsel, (916) Kacey Lizon, Acting Planning Manager (916) Greg Chew, Senior Planner, (916)

48 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Action August 14, 2014 Authorize Negotiation and Contract Award for Cooperative Purchase of Fuels and Lubricants Issue: Should SACOG award a contract for the cooperative purchase of fuel and lubricants for public agencies in the greater Sacramento region? Recommendation: The proposal review committee did not complete its work in time to forward this item to the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee, so the Committee did not have an opportunity to provide a recommendation. However, the Committee agreed to send this item forward to the Board. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and award a contract to Hunt & Sons, Inc., and assess an administrative fee. Discussion: In May, the Board authorized the CEO to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the cooperative purchase of fuels and lubricants. SACOG received three qualified proposals, which SACOG staff reviewed with procurement experts from the counties of Placer and Sacramento, and the cities of Roseville and Woodland. The review committee unanimously recommends a contract be negotiated and signed with Hunt & Sons, Inc. for bulk delivery of fuel and vehicle lubricants, and access to cardlock facilities. This contract would allow for SACOG member agencies, and any interested public agency in the State of California to purchase bulk delivery and cardlock facilities, as well as all vehicle oils and lubricants. This is a unique contract structure, because there is no specific dollar value, and no cost to SACOG. All of the costs will be incurred on a scheduled or on-demand basis by participating agencies, and transactions will be direct between participating agencies and the vendor. The only financial involvement of SACOG will be an administrative fee of $ per gallon for all purchases, which the vendor will collect and submit to SACOG quarterly. Staff does not know how many agencies will participate, but this could generate between $50,000 to $75,000 annually for SACOG to cover the costs of this procurement and future pooled purchasing efforts. Many public agencies in the Sacramento region have expressed interest and provided specific information. This contract would set pricing for those entities. An overview of the proposed process for agency participation is attached. The contract will be structured so that each agency uses the general contract terms, and then signs a separate agreement establishing the quantities desired and other terms specific to their needs. Interested agencies have not yet had a chance to review their specific pricing, but staff is sharing the information now that the RFP process is completed. Each participating agency that submitted estimated usage will have until October 1, 2014 to decide whether to use the pricing and terms of this contract. Deliveries/cardlock access would begin December 1, Should all agencies that provided estimated demand use this contract, the total value would be approximately $35 million annually. Staff will report back to the Board to provide a status report on this cooperative purchase and the cumulative savings it brings to member jurisdictions. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:KT:EJ:ts Attachment Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Erik Johnson, Acting Manager of Policy and Administration, (916)

49 Attachment A Overview of Cooperative Fuels and Lubricants Contract This contract is for the purchase of (1) commercial cardlock automotive fuels, (2) bulk automotive fuels, and (3) automotive oil and lubrication products on a scheduled or on-demand basis on behalf of the participating agencies defined below. Any public agency within the State of California may choose to participate at a future date. SACOG will sign the master agreement with the vendor. Participating agencies shall purchase directly from the contractor, under the contract awarded pursuant to this RFP and the resulting agreements between the vendor and each participating agency. Participating agencies shall be directly billed by the vendor for purchases. No party, including SACOG, shall be responsible to the contractor for specific payments other than the participating agency contracting for those purchases. Project Timetable August 21, 2014 August 21-September 2, 2014 September 2, 2014 October 1, 2014 December 1, 2014 Contract award Negotiation between contractor and SACOG Execution of the contract Participating Agencies sign subagreements Contract effective/deliveries begin Potential Participating Agencies City of Davis City of Elk Grove City of Folsom City Of Galt City of Rocklin City of Roseville City of Sacramento City of Woodland County of Amador County of Butte County of El Dorado County of Placer County of Sacramento County of Sacramento County of Solano County of Sutter Fleet Maintenance County of Yolo County of Yuba Elk Grove Police Department Los Rios Community College District Nevada Irrigation District Placer County Water Agency Sacramento RT San Juan Water District SMUD SRCSD Town of Loomis Town of Truckee UC Davis Yuba-Sutter Transit About the Procurement Process Three qualified proposals were received. Two offered delivered fuel, and two offered cardlock. Proposals were scored in the categories of Bulk Automotive Fuel and Cardlock on three criteria: cost analysis and justification, reliability of the contractor s fuel supply network, and project management and business continuity. Cardlock was also evaluated on a fourth criterion: locations of cardlock facilities. Cost was 80 percent of the total score for Bulk Automotive Fuel, and 60 percent of the score for Cardlock.

50 SACOG Board of Directors Item # Action August 14, 2014 Rail Ad Hoc Committee Charge Issue: Adoption of the Rail Ad Hoc Committee Charge. Recommendation: The Rail Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Board adopt the attached charge for the Rail Ad Hoc Committee. Discussion: Per the request of the Board Chair, this committee has been formed to provide information and recommendations to the SACOG Board on all activities related to the inter-city and freight rail. In accordance with SACOG Rule #14, each standing committee shall have a written statement which identifies the standing committee s charge, mission, duties, or responsibilities. Attached is a draft of the proposed committee charge. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:AD:gg Attachment Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) Azadeh Doherty, Senior Planner, (916)

51 SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RAIL AD HOC COMMITTEE CHARGE DRAFT AUGUST 1, 2014 Purpose: The Rail Ad Hoc Committee shall develop recommendations for the full SACOG Board of Directors relative to issues regarding inter-city passenger and freight rail planning, policies, funding, and services. Activities: Activities of the committee may include but are not limited to: Providing information and recommendations to the Board of Directors on activities relating to the inter-city passenger and freight rail planning policies, studies, projects and programs. Providing information and recommendations to the Board of Directors on activities relating to rail transportation finance activities, including revenue forecasting, project delivery, and the programming of federal, state, and local monies; In coordination with the Transportation Committee, provide recommendations to the Board of Directors on SACOG activities relating to the inter-city passenger and freight rail planning and its impact on the transportation air quality conformity; Serving as a regional forum for discussing inter-city passenger and freight rail transportation planning and policy issues. Membership: The current chair of the SACOG Board of Directors shall appoint the members of the Rail Ad Hoc Committee. Term of Committee Members: Members of the Rail Ad Hoc Committee shall serve for a term of one year. Officers: The current chair of the SACOG Board of Directors shall designate one of the committee members to serve as committee chair and one or two to serve as committee vice-chair.

52