SACOG Board of Directors

Sacramento Area 1415 L Street, tel: 916.321.9000 Council of Suite 300 fax: 916.321.9551 Governments Sacramento, CA tdd: 916.321.9550

95814 www.sacog.org

SACOG Board of Directors SACOG Board Room 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Thursday, February 21, 2013 – 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 (alt), Buckland, Cabaldon, Cleveland, Crews, Davis, Duran, Hagen, Hanley, Hesch, Hodges, Jankovitz, Joiner, Krovoza, MacGlashan, Miklos, Peters, Rohan, Samayoa, Sander, Saylor, Scherer, Serna, Slowey, Stallard, VeerKamp, West, Yuill, Vice-Chair Cohn, Chair Griego, and Ex-Officio Member Jones 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 the January 17, 2013 Board Meeting 2. Approve Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento,

Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein 3. Approve Funding of Transit Projects Using Proposition 1B Transit – Public Transportation

Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Funds

4. Approve Modifications to the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program (SECAT) Guidelines

5. Review and Accept the Annual SACOG Financial Reports

6. Approve Land Use & Natural Resources Committee Charge

7. Approve Contract for IMPACS Training for Central Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs)

8. Approve Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2013/14

9. Approve State Transit Assistance Allocation for Fiscal Year 2013/14

10. Adopt Policy on Board Consent Items

11. Approve Transportation Development Act Claim for the City of Galt

12. Approve Subrecipient Agreement between SACOG and Sacramento Regional Transit District for Proposition 1B Funds for Computer Server Room Upgrades

SACOG Board of Directors 2 February 21, 2013

Action Items:◄

13. Federal Advocacy Principles (Ms. Sloan)

14. Consultant Selection for Economic Research in Older Suburbs (Mr. Garry)

Workshop: 15. Flood Control Workshop (Mr. Shabazian and Ric Reinhardt, MBK Engineers/Scott Shapiro,

Downey Brand/Tim Washburn, SAFCA)

Reports: 16. Chair’s Report

17. Board Members’ Reports

18. Chief Executive Officer’s Report

Adjournment: The next meeting of the SACOG Board will be held on Thursday, March 21, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. in the SACOG Board Room, 1415 L Street, Sacramento, CA.

◄Action Requested Prepared by: Approved by: Mike McKeever Mary Jane Griego Chief Executive Officer Chair This agenda and attachments are available on SACOG’s website at www.sacog.org. 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 916-321-9000, e-mail ([email protected]) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

http://www.sacog.org/

Item #13-2-1 SACOG Board of Directors Consent February 14, 2013 Approve Minutes of the January 17, 2013 Board Meeting Issue: The SACOG Board of Directors met on January 17, 2013, for a regular SACOG Board meeting. Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the meeting as submitted. Discussion: Attached are the Action Minutes of the January 17, 2013 SACOG Board meeting. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:rt Attachment

S:\SACOG\Board\BRDPCKTS\2013 Packets\January\1-Minutes.doc

Sacramento Area Council of Governments Action Minutes

The SACOG Board of Directors met in regular session on January 17, 2013 in the SACOG Board Chambers located at 1415 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 at 9:30 a.m. Call To Order: Chair Griego called the meeting to order at 9:32 a.m.

Present: Directors Aguiar-Curry, Ashby (alt)*, Buckland, Cleveland, Davis, Duran,

Hagen, Hesch, Hodges, Jankovitz, Joiner, MacGlashan, Miklos, Payne, Peters, Rohan, Samayoa, Sander, Saylor, Serna, Slowey, Stallard, VeerKamp, West, Wolk, Yuill, Vice-Chair Cohn, and Chair Griego

Absent: Directors Cabaldon, Hanley, and Scherer

*Arrived as noted below

Public Communications: No one appeared before the board to speak.

Chair Griego welcomed our new 2013 Board members: Tony Hesch, City of Colfax; Brian VeerKamp, El Dorado County; Susan Rohan, City of Roseville; Scott Yuill, City of Rocklin; Stanley Cleveland, Sutter County; Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln; Jack Duran, Placer County.

Consent Calendar: It was moved, seconded (Slowey/Aguiar-Curry) and passed by unanimous vote that the following Consent items be approved:

1. Minutes of the December 6, 2012 Board Meeting 2. 2012/2013 Regional Program of Projects for the Federal Transit Administration’s 5311

Funds 3. Resolution Stating Consistency of Regional Housing Needs Plan with Sustainable

Communities Strategy 4. Issue Request for Qualifications: Natural Resources and Regulatory Issues 5. Connect Card Contract Amendment with INIT to Purchase Hardware on the YCTD

and Elk Grove Transit Bus Fleets to Satisfy Data Communications Interface Requirements

6. Contract with UC Davis for SACOG’s SMUD PEV Contract 7. Ratify Distribution of Proposition 1B Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster

Response Account Bond Funds 8. Grant Funding Applications and Opportunities

Action Items: Alternate Director Ashby arrived during the next agenda item.

9. Connect Card Transit Survey Contract: Lacey Symons-Holtzen, SACOG staff presented the staff report. It was moved, seconded (Cohn/Serna) and passed by unanimous vote that:

THE SACOG BOARD OF DIRECTORS AWARD THE ON-BOARD TRANSIT SURVEY CONTRACT TO TRANSIT MARKETING, LLC, AND DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A FINAL CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $350,000.

10. Unmet Transit Needs in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties and the Cities Therein: Barbara Vaughan-Bechtold, SACOG staff presented the staff report. Chair Griego opened the public hearing. Chris Jensen, Resources for Independent Living addressed the Board. The public hearing was closed. This item will come back to the Board for action at the March Board meeting.

11. Action from the SACOG Board Retreat: Rebecca Sloan, SACOG staff presented the staff report. It was moved, seconded (Miklos/Saylor) and passed by unanimous vote that: THE SACOG BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONFIRM THE ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE DECEMBER SACOG RETREAT.

12. Modification To Contracting Authority For Project Level Analysis For The Environment Streamlining Work under the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant: Joe Concannon, SACOG staff presented the staff report. It was moved, seconded (Miklos/Hagen) and passed by unanimous vote that:

THE SACOG BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZE THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ENTER INTO TWO CONTRACTS FOR UP TO A COMBINED TOTAL OF $65,000 AFTER A COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS TO COMPLETE PROJECT LEVEL TRAFFIC AND NOISE STUDIES, AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH TSCHUDIN CONSULTING GROUP UP TO $25,000 FOR ASSISTANCE IN DEVELOPING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO AND CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA.

13. State Advocacy Principles: Erik Johnson, SACOG staff presented the staff report. It was moved, seconded (Saylor/Aguiar-Curry) and passed by unanimous vote that:

THE SACOG BOARD OF DIRECTORS ADOPT THE 2013 STATE ADVOCACY PRINCIPLES AS SUBMITTED.

Reports:

14. Chair’s Report: Chair Griego gave her report.

15. Board Members’ Report: Board members reported on local projects and events.

16. Chief Executive Officer’s Report: CEO McKeever gave his report. Closed Session: The Board adjourned into Closed Session at 10:24 a.m.

17. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: Government Code Section 54957

Title: Chief Executive Officer (Mr. Trost)

18. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9)

Name of Case: Okhade v. SACOG, et al. (Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board Case #ADJ8558868) (Mr. Trost)

The Board reconvened into regular session at 10:42 a.m. There was nothing to report. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 10:42 a.m. Approved By: Attest: ______________________ ________________________ Mary Jane Griego Mike McKeever Chair Chief Executive Officer

Item #13-2-2

SACOG Board of Directors Consent February 14, 2013 Approve Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein Issue: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that SACOG make an annual unmet transit needs finding for the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) and for jurisdictions eligible to use TDA funds. Jurisdictions outside of the SRTD are permitted to use TDA funds on streets and roads projects, if they have filled all transit requests that meet SACOG’s adopted definitions of “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet.” Recommendation: The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board: (1) approve the minutes of the five previously held public hearings (see Attachments F-H) on unmet transit needs in Sacramento County, including the cities therein and the SRTD; and in Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties, and the cities therein; and (2) adopt the attached resolutions regarding unmet transit needs in each county, cities therein, and the SRTD. Committee Action/Discussion: State TDA statute established a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) for each county. LTF revenues are derived from 1/4 cent of the state retail sales tax and are returned to each county according to the amount of tax collected. LTF funds are apportioned to jurisdictions within each county on a population basis. In Sacramento County, the LTF apportioned to jurisdictions located within the SRTD may only be used for transit service. However, jurisdictions located outside of the SRTD may use their LTF apportionments for streets and roads projects, provided they have no transit requests that meet SACOG’s adopted definition of “unmet transit need” that are “reasonable to meet.” It is the responsibility of the SACOG Board to annually make one of the following findings for each of the four counties and the cities therein and the SRTD: (1) there are no unmet transit needs; (2) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet; or (3) there are unmet transit needs, including transit needs, that are reasonable to meet. These findings must be made prior to approving TDA claims for streets and roads projects. The public transit operators and jurisdictions and their respective proposed findings are listed in the attached resolutions and summarized on the summary sheet (Attachment B) as well. TDA statutes require that SACOG follow a specific process in making an unmet transit needs finding for each jurisdiction. Staff has carried out this process for FY 2013-14 (described in Attachment A). As part of the process, transit service requests were identified during public hearings (five were held in the fall of 2012) and through the transportation planning process. These requests were evaluated as to whether they meet SACOG’s adopted definitions (see attachments). The Social Service Transportation Advisory

Council (SSTAC) for each county has participated in the analysis with staff and concurs with staff recommendations. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:BVB:gg Attachments:

A – Unmet Transit Needs Findings Process B – Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Unmet Transit Needs Findings Summary C – Sacramento/Sacramento Regional Transit District Comments and SSTAC Findings D – Yolo County Comments and SSTAC Findings E – Yuba/Sutter County Comments and SSTAC Findings F – Sacramento County and Sacramento Regional Transit District Minutes G – Yolo County Minutes H – Sutter County and Yuba County Minutes

Resolutions:

Citrus Heights Davis Elk Grove Folsom Galt Isleton Live Oak Marysville Rancho Cordova Sacramento Regional Transit District Unincorporated Sacramento County Unincorporated Sutter County Unincorporated Yolo County Unincorporated Yuba County West Sacramento Wheatland Winters Woodland Yuba City

Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Barbara VaughanBechtold, Associate Planner, (916) 340-6226 Christine O’Rourke, Assistant Planner, (916) 340-6262 Victoria S. Cacciatore, Transportation Planner, (916) 340-6315

1300703

Page 1 of 3

SACOG Unmet Transit Needs Finding Process The Transportation Development Act (TDA) is a state law, which provides funding for public transportation from a portion of sales tax collected from each county. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments has TDA administration responsibilities for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties. The annual Unmet Transit Needs Finding process as described below is required by TDA law to identify transit needs and to determine whether remaining TDA funds after transit expenses can be used for streets and roads projects in some jurisdictions. 1. Unmet Transit Needs Finding Process Requirements

TDA statutes require that SACOG follow a specific process in making an unmet transit needs finding for each jurisdiction in the region. The process includes the following actions:

a. Establish a Social Service Transportation Advisory Council for each County to participate

in the unmet transit needs finding process. The Social Service Transportation Advisory Council - Each county’s SSTAC participates

in the identification of unmet transit needs and the determination whether those needs are reasonable to meet. They preside, along with a SACOG Board member, at unmet transit need public hearings in each county. The composition of the SSTAC is set forth in statute and consists of representatives of (numbers in parentheses denote number of required representatives): potential transit users who are 60 years of age or older (1); physically disabled (1); social service providers for seniors, including a transportation provider (2); social service provider for persons of limited means (1); and, representatives of the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA), including a transit operator (2). Because of the presence of urbanized areas within the rural counties in the region, SACOG also seeks the participation of at least one transit rider who is a commuter in order to obtain input on commuter needs.

b. Identify transit needs, which have been considered as part of the transportation planning

process. c. Members of the SSTAC and at least one representative of the SACOG Board of Directors

conduct public hearings in each county to receive pubic comments regarding unmet transit needs. A total of six to eleven hearings are held yearly within the four counties.

d. SACOG staff and SSTAC members meet to identify potential unmet transit needs and

conduct analysis of comments using Board adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and reasonable to meet.” (See the following section) An important consideration of whether a need is reasonable to meet is the ability of an operator to maintain the required farebox recovery ratio under the TDA statutes. SACOG staff prepares an analysis of unmet transit needs including those identified in the last short range transit plan update to determine whether they are reasonable to meet, and makes a recommendation for SSTAC consideration.

A

Attachment A

Page 2 of 3

SACOG staff and the SSTAC meet to discuss staff analysis and recommendations. The

SSTAC can formulate its own recommendation to the SACOG Board, if it is different than that of the staff recommendations. Typically, both the SSTAC and the SACOG staff present to the Board a joint recommendation.

e. The SACOG Board receives, during a regularly scheduled Board meeting, reports from

staff on the pubic hearing results and the joint recommendation. The entire SACOG Board then holds a final public hearing to receive any additional testimony regarding transit needs that may be reasonable to meet. The Board then makes one of the following three possible findings (one for each county and the Sacramento Regional Transit District):

1) there are no unmet transit needs, or 2) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, or 3) there are unmet transit needs, including transit needs that are reasonable to meet.

If it is found that there are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, then those transit needs must be met before any TDA funds can be released for streets and roads projects.

2. Definitions of “Unmet Transit Needs” and “Reasonable to Meet”

TDA regulations require SACOG to adopt definitions of "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet" to guide staff analysis as to whether an identified need is an "unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet". On January 20, 1994, the Board adopted the following definitions:

a. Unmet Transit Needs - A request must identify: 1. The size, location and socio-economic characteristics of identifiable groups likely to

be dependent on transit (including, but not limited to elderly, disabled, and low income persons, including individuals eligible for paratransit and other special transportation services pursuant to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990), trip purposes (such as medical, nutrition, shopping, business, social, school and work) and geographic boundaries and/or major origin and destination points.

2. The adequacy of existing public transportation services and specialized

transportation services, including privately and publicly provided services, in meeting the identified demand.

3. An analysis of the potential alternative public transportation and specialized

transportation services that would meet all or part of the demand.

Page 3 of 3

b. Reasonable to Meet

An unmet transit need that meets the definition above and meets all of the following criteria shall be considered reasonable to meet:

1. Community Acceptance - There needs to be demonstrated interest of citizens in the new or additional transit service.

2. Equity - The proposed new or additional service will benefit, either the general

public ( i.e., transit dependent or disadvantaged) or the elderly population and persons with disabilities.

3. Potential Ridership - The proposed transit service will maintain new service ridership performance standards established for the transit operator in the Short

Range Transit Plan. Ridership performance standards can include passengers per hour and passengers per mile.

4. Cost Effectiveness - The proposed new or additional transit service will not affect the ability of the overall system to meet the state mandated farebox recovery ratio

requirement after a two-year exemption period, if the service is eligible for the exemption. If the exemption is not used, the service must meet minimum farebox return requirements as stated in the TDA statutes or established by SACOG.

Attachment BLocation Hearing Date Hearing

TimeSSTAC Findings

Yuba/Sutter Wednesday, October 24,

2012

2:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yuba.There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sutter.

Number of Service Related Comments: 17 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Marysville There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Marysville.


Yuba City There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Yuba City.Number of Service Related Comments: 5 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Live Oak There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Live Oak.Number of Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Wheatland There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Wheatland.Number of Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Sacramento There are no unmet transit needs in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sacramento outside of the SRTD.


Citrus Heights There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Citrus Heights (as part of the SRTD).


Elk Grove Monday, October 29,

2012

6:00 PM There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Elk Grove.


Fair Oaks/ Orangevale

Included in the SRTD.


Folsom There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Folsom.Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Galt Monday, October 15,

2012

2:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Galt.


Rancho Cordova

There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Rancho Cordova (as part of the SRTD).


Isleton There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Isleton.Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Number of Folsom Light Rail Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Folsom Light Rail Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0


Yolo Wednesday, October 17,

2012

6:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yolo.


Davis There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Davis.Number of Service Related Comments: 2 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

West Sacramento

There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of West Sacramento.


Winters There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Winters.Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

Woodland There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Woodland.Number of Service Related Comments: 2 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0

2013-2014 Social Service Transportation Advisory Council Unmet Transit Needs Findings

There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, including the cities of Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova, as well as portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County.

2:00 PMSaturday, October 20,

2012

SRTD

Unmet Needs Comments Attachment C

Page 1 of 10

Not An Unmet Transit Need Unmet Transit NeedUnmet Transit Need that is

Reasonable to Meet Comments

All operational comments are shared with the transit operators, and/or the appropriate jurisdiction.

Sacramento County

1 Service Elk Grove Provide bus service to/near Seasons at Laguna Ridge Senior (55+) Apartment Community. Seasons is located at the intersection of Bilby and Bruceville Roads in Elk Grove, near a new Wal-Mart that will be a community destination.

Service in the area of Bruceville and Bilby roads will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-tran Short Range Transit Plan. This is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet.

2 e-tran should provide more connecting bus service on weekends, including service from outside Elk Grove back into Elk Grove.

Weekend e-tran bus service will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-tran Short Range Transit Plan. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

3 More attention needs to be paid to the transportation needs of disabled and elderly Elk Grove residents, as well as more marketing done for the specialized transit services that are available.

Specialized transit/paratransit services will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-tran Short Range Transit Plan. The City of Elk Grove has a Disabled Advisory Committee that reviews public transit issues. This is not an unmet transit need.

4 Are e-tran service maps able to be read by a screen reader?

e-tran staff responded by stating that they would work with the person commenting to make sure they got them the map in a format that could be read by their screen reader. This is not an unmet transit need.

5 The Los Rios Community College campuses need to be better connected by transit, in particular e-tran service to Cosumnes River College should be more frequent and run later.

e-tran staff responded stating that the e-tran route 157 does serve the CRC campus in the evening (until 6 PM) and that RT light rail is expected to start serving the campus in 2015. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

6 Is there a standard formula for how ridership and routing is determined, and who measures service performance and decides how resources are distributed?

e-tran staff responded that they are hoping to use new fare boxes as a tool to help evaluate each route’s effectiveness. However, sometimes transit grants are specific, such as Job Access Reverse Commute funding. e-tran tries to balance commute service with local service for transit-dependent riders. The City must also consider federal Title VI civil rights requirements. This is not an unmet transit need.

7 Where does e-tran connect with Amtrak bus services in Elk Grove?

The e-tran route 157 (M-F) and the Weekend Shuttle (Sat-Sun) connect with the Amtrak bus at Laguna Blvd. and Harbor Point Drive in Elk Grove. This is not an unmet transit need.

8 The e-tran routes 70 & 71 don't allow for a full day of work at the Franchise Tax Board.

The e-tran routes 70 & 71 do allow for a full 8+ hour workday at the Franchise Tax Board. This is not an unmet transit need.

9 Does e-tran plan to provide any weekend service between Bradshaw and Sheldon roads and CRC, or anything along Watt Ave. into Elk Grove?

The e-tran service runs nearby on Waterman and Bond roads. This is not an unmet transit need.

10 There is too little service on the e-tran weekend circulator, and that this will be especially problematic when light rail services CRC.

Weekend e-trans bus service will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-tran Short Range Transit Plan. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District (incl. portions of Unincorp. Sacramento Countyand the cities of Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento). [Unmet Transit Needs are highlighted]There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the city of Elk Grove. [Unmet Transit Needs are highlighted]There are not unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the cities of Folsom, Galt, Isleton, and the portion of Unincorporated Sacramento County that is not in the SRTD.


Page 2 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments11 Service Elk Grove cont. RT and e-tran could provide joint service

with a route from Bruceville to Sheldon roads to Power Inn Road to 65th Street that would allow access to the 65th St. light rail station and CRC students access to CSUS.

e-tran riders can currently transfer to RT to access both RT's light rail and CSUS. This is not an unmet transit need.

12 Heritage Park Charter School is moving onto Elk Grove-Florin Road approximately one mile north of Calvine Road. A majority of the students are Elk Grove residents and there is currently no bus service to the new location. Could e-tran provide service to the new location?

The e-tran routes 154 and 162 currently have bus stops approximately 1 mile from the Heritage Park Charter School's new location. The City of Elk Grove can work with the school to assist students with finding safe routes to school. This is not an unmet transit need.

13 Will there be a commuter bus available from Folsom to the new Elk Grove Corrections building?

Commuters coming from Folsom to the CDCR building in Elk Grove can ride light rail to the Butterfield light rail station and catch the e-tran route 91 or into downtown Sacramento and catch the e-tran route 90. Both routes serve the CDCR buildings in Elk Grove. This is not an unmet transit need.

14 Currently, an e-tran monthly pass cannot be used by someone transferring to Yolobus to get to the Sacramento International Airport.

With the coming implementation of the Connect Card universal/regional transit fare card e-tran staff responded that they would like to iron out equitable transfer agreements with all regional transit operators. This is not an unmet transit need.

15 An unannounced "secret-rider" program should be standard practice on e-tran, e-van and Paratransit, Inc. to make sure the services are operating as they should.

e-tran staff noted that they have done this in the past with fixed route service to assess performance. This is not an unmet transit need.

16 e-tran should upgrade to bus bike racks that can accommodate three bicycles on each bus.

e-tran is working to have racks that accommodate three bicycles on the new buses that will be ordered. The current e-tran buses cannot accommodate bike racks that can hold 3 bicycles. This is not an unmet transit need.

17 Elk Grove needs to work on ways to make bicycling more appealing and safer, which would solve much of the "last mile" issues that prevent many people from riding the bus.

The City of Elk Grove continues to work on improving the bicycling infrastructure in Elk Grove. This is not an unmet transit need.

18 Are there any plans for an additional run on the e-tran route 53 in the morning as almost all of the runs are packed?

e-tran is currently analyzing ridership to find the most impacted runs on the route 53 and providing "shadow" or secondary buses at those times. This is not an unmet transit need.

19 The drivers on the route 53 6:05 AM run frequently have to turn people away at the last two stops, which is problematic as this is the only service on White Rock Road.

Another e-tran route 53 arrives after the 6:05 AM one within 15 minutes. This is not an unmet transit need.

20 Why did e-tran cut the 156 on weekend, since without it people can't get to Sacramento in a reasonable amount of time on the weekends?

e-tran staff responded that in comparison to other e-tran routes, the 156 had low performance.

The e-tran Weekend Shuttle runs hourly on Saturday and Sunday and allows riders to transfer to a variety of RT routes at the CRC transfer center. This is not an unmet transit need.

21 Is there the possibility of reinstating the route 156?

Weekend e-tran bus service, including service into Sacramento, will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-tran Short Range Transit Plan. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 3 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments22 Service Elk Grove cont. Can the hours on the latest e-tran route 53 be

extended so riders could get further south in Elk Grove in the evening?

This comment is too vague to effectively analyze. There is currently existing bus service that travels to the far south in Elk Grove. This is not an unmet transit need.

23 Cuts to the e-tran #52 have led to the 6 AM run being extremely overcrowded.

No passengers are being left behind on the route 52. This is not an unmet transit need.

24 The e-tran route 154 should run once an hour from 9:30 AM to 2:30 PM, rather than once every 2 hours after 10:30 AM.

The e-tran route 162 mirrors much of the service on the route 154 effectively providing hourly service along the route 154 from 9:30 AM to 2:30 PM when the route 154 runs only once every 2 hours. After 2:30 PM the route 154 runs hourly. All e-tran bus routes are being analyzed as part of the Elk Grove SRTP. This is not an unmet transit need.

25 Add more stops and scheduled times to the e-tran reverse commute routes that service the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in Elk Grove.

The route 91 currently exists to provide reverse commute service to the CDCR facility in Elk Grove. This is not an unmet transit need.

26 Move the route 91 stop from the Butterfield LRT stop to the Sunrise or Hazel stops to make using the reverse commute service more feasible for those who live in Citrus Heights, Fair Oaks, Folsom, and El Dorado Hills etc.

Those wishing to get to the e-tran route 91 stop at the Butterfield light rail stop can take the many RT bus routes and/or light rail to the Butterfield route 91 stop or use the existing RT park and ride lots. This is not an unmet transit need.

27 Do commute surveys at the CDCR office in Elk Grove as more staff move to that location in Spring of 2013.

e-tran/City of Elk Grove transit staff are currently making themselves available at the CDCR Elk Grove facility for one-on-one assistance to help those who wish to take transit to work to plan their trips. More surveying will likely be done once the "new" CDCR location is fully occupied in late 2013. This is not an unmet transit need.

28 Buses on the e-tran route 52 are constantly braking down, and are overloaded.

The e-tran route 52 is heavily used, but all maintenance issues on the buses have been resolved. This is not an unmet transit need.

29 The amount of service on the route 52 needs to be increased and/or significantly more "shadow" service needs to be run.

The e-tran route 52 is heavily used, and "shadow" buses are used as necessary based on ridership. This is not an unmet transit need.

30 The route 53 buses are overcrowded and service needs to be increased to serve the number of workers needing to travel to downtown Sacramento.

This, and all e-tran bus routes, are being looked at as part of the Elk Grove/e-tran SRTP. e-tran is currently analyzing ridership to find the most impacted run on the route 53 and providing "shadow" or secondary buses at those times. This is not an unmet transit need.

31 The route 59 bus should adjust its schedule leaving Sacramento to 4:55 PM as the walk from the Amtrak station has become much longer due to the track realignment.

e-tran hopes that changes for the Intermodal Station at the Amtrak station will allow access to other bus operators, outside of Amtrak and RT buses. This is not an unmet transit need.

32 The e-tran routes 59 and/or 60 drop commuters in downtown Sacramento before 6:30 AM, but those same commuters cannot get a bus back home until after 3:30 PM forcing them to wait an additional 1/2 hour after they finish work to go home. The schedule should be shifted to pick up downtown 15-20 minutes earlier.

The e-tran routes 59 and 60 allow for a full 8 hour workday. This is not an unmet transit need.

33 The route 59 schedule should be extended until 6:25 PM so that workers who work later/flexible schedules can get home.

Other e-tran routes are available after 6:25 PM, as well as transfers from RT to e-tran local fixed routes are also available later in the evening. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 4 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments34 Service Elk Grove cont. There should be an e-tran route on the

weekend that allows riders to get to downtown Sacramento more easily.

Weekend e-tran bus service, including service into Sacramento, will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-tran Short Range Transit Plan. This is not an unmet transit need.

35 Add a clockwise direction to the e-tran route 162.

The 162B already provides clockwise service along the same route at the route 162. This is not an unmet transit need.

36 With over 1500 CDCR employees moving to Elk Grove there needs to be a bus from San Joaquin County/Stockton to Elk Grove, or at least a stop in Elk Grove.

It is currently possible to transfer from the Lodi SCT/Link service to the e-tran route 156 to get to the CDCR facility. This comment will also be forwarded to the San Joaquin RTD. This is not an unmet transit need.

37 A new bus route is needed to serve the Stonelake neighborhood to get children there to Pinkerton Middle School and Cosumnes Oaks High School.

Both Pinkerton Middle School and Cosumnes Oaks High School have pay school bus service available from the Elk Grove USD. The cost of a yearly school bus pass is slightly less than the yearly cost of a monthly student pass on e-tran. This is not an unmet transit need.

38 Are there plans for any other reverse commute bus service to the new CDCR Elk Grove facility from locations outside of downtown Sacramento?

There is currently reverse commute bus service that originates outside of downtown Sacramento to the CDCR facility in Elk Grove. Reverse commute services are being reviewed as part of the Elk Grove SRTP. This is not an unmet transit need.

39 A bus is needed that runs along Elk Grove Blvd. to Waterman.

The routes 156 (M-F) and Weekend Shuttle--route 163 (Sat.-Sun.) run along these corridors currently. This is not an unmet transit need.

40 Either e-tran or CDCR need to provide bus or shuttle service to/from downtown Sacramento throughout the day to make taking transit a viable option for more employees.

Midday service between Elk Grove and downtown Sacramento may be considered as part of the Elk Grove SRTP. The CDCR may also want to become part of the Guaranteed Ride Home program as well. It is currently possible to travel from Elk Grove to Sacramento at the midday by transferring to RT. This is not an unmet transit need.

41 Could the e-tran route 160 run 1/2 hourly service that serves Albiani Middle School and Pleasant Grove High School during the morning and afternoon school start and finish times?

e-tran currently provides hourly bus service that serves both Albiani Middle School and Pleasant Grove High School. This is not an unmet transit need.

42 Extend the nearest bus line to serve the Seasons at Laguna Ridge Senior Apartment Community. There is an existing bus stop at this location as e-tran provided service prior to recent reductions in service.

Service in the area of Bruceville and Bilby roads will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Elk Grove/e-trans Short Range Transit Plan. This is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet.

43 The e-tran route 57 needs more runs added in the morning and evening as three is not enough.

The route 57 is heavily used but no riders are being left behind at any stops. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 5 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments44 Operations Elk Grove cont. It is a conflict of interest to have the

contractor that provides the e-tran buses to hire the drivers.

In a majority of public transit agencies that contract for their operations the contractor hires the drivers. The City of Elk Grove purchases and provides the buses for e-tran services. This is not an unmet transit need.

45 Buses breakdown frequently due to an apparent lack of maintenance by the contractor.

Older vehicles, be they public buses or private vehicles, tend to have more maintenance issues and associated costs due to their age and high mileage. The City of Elk Grove is working on replacing the oldest vehicles in its fleet as funds become available. This is not an unmet transit need.

46 Will e-tran consider accepting the Roseville Transit Commuter pass for a free transfer to the e-tran buses?

This is currently not under consideration, but may be looked at when the Connect Card universal fare card is implemented over the next two years. This is not an unmet transit need.

47 Change e-tran route schedules to better align with the RT bus lines/light rails that they connect with.

e-tran aligns routes with as many RT bus lines/light rail lines as reasonable. This is not an unmet transit need.

48 e-tran routes 53 and 66 do not start running early enough in the morning to accommodate early work start times (many workers start work as early as 6 AM).

The routes 53 and 66 currently begin early enough to serve a majority of workers' schedules. This is not an unmet transit need.

49 Every day there are large number of people standing on the e-tran commute buses, which means there should be more buses running.

Standees on some routes/runs indicate a well used bus route/transit service and does not indicate the need for running more buses. This is not an unmet transit need.

50 e-tran should update the SacRT schedule information on their website.

The Sacramento RT schedule information on the e-tran website has been updated. This is not an unmet transit need.

51 e-tran commuter routes should have later departure times to accommodate working

This comment is not specific enough to analyze (no routes or times are provided). This is not an unmet transit need.

52 The e-tran route 90 schedule should be adjusted to allow for more time for commuters connecting to Amtrak to get to their train e.g. a 5:15 PM drop off 5 blocks from the Amtrak station is not enough time to make a 5:25 PM train.

e-tran staff will review the schedule and see if it is possible to adjust the route to arrive earlier without harming the performance and connectivity of the rest of route 90. This is not an unmet transit need.

53 Multiple complaints have been filed against an e-tran driver with no resolution or contact from e-tran customer service.

The e-tran contract operator, MV, runs the customer service for e-tran and e-van. City of Elk Grove transit staff will work with MV to improve customer service for e-tran and e-van. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 6 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments54 Operations Elk Grove cont. The e-tran customer service line frequently

goes unanswered during "regular" business hours.


55 e-tran customer service representatives are frequently rude and argumentative.


56 All commuter routes should either run on holidays or not, as it is confusing to patrons to figure out which buses might be running when.

This is an operational comment. e-tran bus schedules clearly show which routes, commuter and fixed, run on holidays and which do not. This is not an unmet transit need.

57 e-tran customer service staff need to call people back if they leave a message on the customer service line as directed.


58 e-tran customer service staff need more training on trip planning as most don't appear to know the e-tran system or the local area very well.


59 e-tran should implement a lower/reduced cost bus pass for college/trade school students.

This is an operational comment. This is not an unmet transit need.

60 Run all e-tran routes on their regular schedules on holidays using smaller vehicles if necessary.


61 When contacting e-tran customer service users are prompted to leave messages that are not returned.



Page 7 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments62 Service Galt SCT/Link Highway 99 service should run

later into the evening to allow users to take night classes at Cosumnes River College.

Later evening service on the SCT/Link Highway 99 service will be reviewed as part of the next SRTP. There currently is not demonstrated demand for this service. This is not an unmet transit need.

63 SCT/Link Highway 99 service could fill a service gap if some night and weekend service was offered.

Later evening service on the SCT/Link Highway 99 service will be reviewed as part of the next SRTP. There currently is not demonstrated demand for this service. This is not an unmet transit need.

64 Can on transfer from the SCT/Link to the Amtrak San Joaquin bus/rail service?

SCT/Link riders can transfer to San Joaquin bus/rail service at the Lodi transit center. This is not an unmet transit need.

65 There is value in a one-seat transit ride connecting south Sacramento County to Roseville and Auburn.

It is currently possible to travel from south Sacramento County (Galt) by transferring to Amtrak, RT and Roseville Transit in downtown Sacramento. This is not an unmet transit need.

66 The Galt to Sacramento Express line provides great service for working people.

This is not an unmet transit need.

67 The Galt to Sacramento Express midday service makes it more convenient for people to use transit even if they need to leave early due to an appointment or illness.


68 The SCT/Link Highway 99 express is a great service that is convenient with drivers that take care or their passengers.


69 Hourly service is needed on the Highway 99 SCT/Link service on the weekends to allow people to go shopping and do other errands they cannot do in their community.

SCT/Link ran Saturday service on the Highway 99 corridor for 2 years and was not able to meet the required fare box ratio. SCT/Link also currently runs a medical appointment shuttle to the south Sacramento medical offices on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Saturday service on the Highway 99 corridor will be reviewed as part of the next SRTP. There currently is not demonstrated demand for this service. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.


Page 8 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments70 Unincorporated Sacramento

CountyNo comments were received regarding unmet transit needs for Unincorporated Sacramento County outside of the SRTD.

71 Service SRTD(incl. portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County)

The routes 30 and 51 are frequently overloaded and many times pass up passengers who use assistive devices like scooters and wheelchairs because of a lack of tie down positions.

The route 51 comes every 12 minutes and the route 30 comes every 15 minutes. Occasionally a rider will have to wait for the next bus, but the wait time is reasonable considering the high frequency of these two RT routes. This is not an unmet transit need.

72 RT route #6 should provide service on Saturday as it serves many regional destinations and neighborhood needs in the Land Park and South Land Park areas.

The route 6 had Saturday service ridership previously that matched or exceeded RT's current acceptable/viable boardings per hour requirements from Transit Renewal. This is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet.

73 RT route #6 should provide service on Sunday as it serves many regional destinations and neighborhood needs in the Land Park and South Land Park areas.

The route 6 had Sunday service ridership of only 9 boardings per hour, and would not meet RT's current acceptable/viable route requirements from Transit Renewal. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

74 The RT route 61 should run on weekends (Saturday and Sunday).

The route 61 had weekend service ridership of only 10 boardings per hour, and would not meet RT's current acceptable/viable route requirements from Transit Renewal. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

75 The route 62 should continue running on Saturday and add Sunday service.

The route 62 had Sunday service ridership of only 10 boardings per hour, and would not meet RT's current acceptable/viable route requirements from Transit Renewal. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

76 A majority of graveyard/third shift workers are not able to use public transit to get to and/or from work.

Graveyard/third shift workers may have to arrive at work early and/or stay late but it is possible to get to many worksites in the RT service area using the RT buses and light rail. This is not an unmet transit need.

77 A regional bus system is needed that starts running at 4 AM and runs until at least midnight is needed to accommodate all needs.

RT has many bus routes as well as light rail that start running before 5 AM and run until near midnight. This is not an unmet transit need.

78 Later service on the Folsom light rail line is needed seven days a week, and should run at least as late as the RT buses do (until 10-11 PM).

There currently is no demonstrated demand for the requested service. This is not an unmet transit need.

79 RT riders should be allowed on buses whose final destination is the RT Garage downtown, which would lessen "dead heading" and increase fare revenue.

Riders who wish to can ride on RT buses heading to the garage. This is not an unmet transit need.

80 RT bus service is needed that serves as closely as possible the college and trade school campuses in the North Natomas area, which run from 6:30 AM to 10:30 PM Monday - Friday.

RT is currently looking at providing service in the North Natomas area that would serve many of the colleges and trade schools located in the area. Current service only runs M-F until 7 PM. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

81 RT bus service on the West side of I-5 in North Natomas.

RT currently runs the Flyer, a commute shuttle, that serves the west side of I-5 in North Natomas. This is not an unmet transit need.

82 There should be a bus that runs along Elk Grove-Florin Road north of Calvine, possibly to Florin Mall, as this neighborhood is in need of public transit service.

There currently is no demonstrated demand for the requested service. This is not an unmet transit need.

83 Bring the RT route 22 back to Arden Way north of Watt Avenue and Fair Oaks Blvd.

There was not sufficient ridership levels to support the route 22 in its previous operations east of Watt Avenue and Fair Oaks Blvd. based on boardings per hour requirements from Transit Renewal. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 9 of 10


Reasonable to Meet Comments84 Service SRTD cont.

(incl. portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County)

The Sacramento Employment and Training Agency (SETA) and Resources for Independent Living Council (RFILC) Sacramento have reported difficulties in placing their many clients who do not have access to a personal vehicle in jobs. In particular in jobs where the hours are different from a traditional work schedule or intermittent and not served by transit.

For SETA and RFILC clients there is the option of arriving at a worksite early and staying late in order to be able to use transit/paratransit where it is available. There is also the option of becoming part of and/or starting a vanpool to a worksite where public transit/paratransit is not an option. SACOG offers a vanpool subsidy program that can assist vanpools for a year with the costs of starting and maintaining a vanpool. This is not an unmet transit need.

85 Operations The RT route 62 does not have any stops between 2nd Avenue and McClatchy High School when traveling southbound.

There is not currently a safe place to stop on Freeport Blvd. between 2nd Avenue and McClatchy High School heading southbound. This is not an unmet transit need.

86 Discounted sales of monthly passes either directly to college/trade school students or to colleges/trade schools.

RT currently does not do bulk/discounted sales of it's monthly passes to colleges/trade schools. This is an operational comment. This is not an unmet transit need.

87 The RT phone trip planner should have the inbound/outbound question deleted because each stop is numbered and the system should know if it is outbound or inbound.

This is an operational comment. This comment will be shared with the RT IT staff that maintain the phone trip planner. This is not an unmet transit need.

88 More bus benches are needed in the Del Paso Heights area.


89 Both of the Sacramento Social Security Offices need to be better served by transit, with neither location having direct or even reasonable walking distance transit service.

Both of these Social Security Offices are located in Sacramento County and only have sidewalks available on one side of the street, thereby preventing buses from stopping closer to these locations. Once a sidewalk is installed on both sides of the adjacent streets buses could stop closer to these locations. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

90 With an increase in the senior and potentially disabled populations on the horizon more thought should be given to how those who use non-folding assistive devices will be accommodated on public transit vehicles.

Non-folding assistive mobility devices can be accommodated in existing RT buses and light rail. This is not an unmet transit need.

91 The changes to the bus routes in the Del Paso Heights area have caused the buses that are still running to be overcrowded and frequently late.

This comment is not specific enough to analyze effectively (specific bus routes, times, and days are not included). This is not an unmet transit need.

92 Frequently priority seating areas on buses and light rail are full of able bodies passengers and there is no recourse for passengers with disabilities as drivers/operators cannot force passengers already seated in that area to move.

Signage in RT vehicles indicates that priority seating should be yielded for passengers with disabilities. It is not RT policy to have operators force passengers to move. This is no an unmet transit need.

93 Older RT light rail cars do not have dedicated positions for bicycles and newer cars have only 4 positions. More bicycle positions are needed, and all RT light rail cars, old and new, need bike racks installed.

RT planning staff will bring this issue to the attention of the operations division. This is not an unmet transit need.

94 Operations SRTD cont.(incl. portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County)

High floor RT light rail cars are difficult to access due to the steep and shallow stairs. All light rail cars should be low floor and have access for all at every door, and not just via a ramp at the first car.

The front car of every RT light rail train is accessible to anyone with impaired mobility, and is accessible under the ADA. RT plans on purchasing low floor light rail cars in the future when funds become available. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 10 of 10



95 Service Paratransit, Inc. Cross jurisdictional travel is difficult for those who must use Paratransit. In particular regularly scheduled travel for jobs or appointments between Sacramento County and Placer County are very challenging and forced transfers make the trips extremely inconvenient.

Though it may sometimes be inconvenient it is possible for paratransit users to travel across jurisdictional boundaries by transferring from one paratransit system to another. This is not an unmet transit need.

Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D

Page 1 of 4



1 Service Yolo County (Unincorporated or Yolobus services operated outside of Yolo County)

Later evening hours on Yolobus services that connect to RT.

Yolobus did not cut back most of its night service when RT did, hence, there is little to reinstate. There are two departures from downtown Sacramento on the Yolobus route 42 A/B at 10:05 PM and 10:35 PM. This is not an unmet transit need.

2 Reinstatement of weekend service on Yolobus route 41.

The route 40 serves all of the same stops/location as the route 41 and runs on weekends. This is not an unmet transit need.

3 Increase frequency, every 30 minutes, during the “peak” travel times on the 42 A/B to alleviate overcrowding.

Half hourly service on the route 42 will be analyzed as part of the upcoming Yolo County Transportation District Short Range Transit Plan. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

4 Double frequency of 42B and 42A service, as hourly service to/from the Sacramento International Airport is insufficient.


5 More frequent service to the [Sacramento International] airport [on routes 42 A/B] would be expected for any city serious about providing public transit as an option.


6 Add route 42 A/B buses on the half hour, at least in the morning [8 AM] and 3:30 PM on to alleviate overcrowding from university/college students going to/from Davis and Woodland.


7 More frequent service (every 1/2 hour) on the Yolobus route 42 A/B during the peak hours when passenger loads are heaviest.


8 Some route 45 Express buses should be re-routed through Davis and West Sacramento to pick up the slack on the route 42, as the #42 is frequently late causing missed connections.

SAME as above, except that shifting of route 45 buses from Woodland to the 42 is not an unmet transit need; rather, it is one person's suggested solution.

9 Operations The Yolobus route 240 schedule should be modified to make more timely connections with the route 35.

This is an operational issue. Changes to the route 35 that may allow it to run on schedule will be analyzed as part of the Yolo County Transportation District Short Range Transit Plan. This is not an unmet transit need.

10 There is no overhang for Yolobus travelers at the Sacramento International Airport terminal B, requiring all Yolobus travelers to stand in the rain and hot sun while waiting and boarding the Yolobus there.

This is an operational issue that has been resolved. There is now a bus shelter at the Yolobus stop at the Sacramento International Airport Terminal B. This is no an unmet transit need.

11 There is no down-lighting at the Yolobus stop at the Sacramento International Airport terminal B creating a potentially adverse safety situation.

This is an operational issue that has been resolved. There is now a bus shelter with lighting at the Yolobus stop at the Sacramento International Airport Terminal B. This is not an unmet transit need.

12 Guarantee that passengers are able to complete their itineraries at any point in the 42 A/B loop.

This comment is too vague to be effectively analyzed (no specific information on time of day, location, day(s) of the week are provided). This is not an unmet transit need.

There are not unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of Yolo County, and the cities within.


Page 2 of 4


Reasonable to Meet Comments13 A bench and shelter from the weather at the

new [Sacramento International airport] terminal [B] might make the long wait a little more tolerable; the overhang that provides cover from the rain ends where the waiting area for the public bus begins.

This is an operational issue that has been resolved. There is now a bus shelter with lighting at the Yolobus stop at the Sacramento International Airport Terminal B. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 3 of 4


Reasonable to Meet Comments14 Operations Yolo County

(Unincorporated or Yolobus services operated outside of Yolo County) cont.

The 42A invariably runs late due to traffic and needier riders in Sac and West Sac. This becomes a major problem when the 42A reaches Woodland and most times many people cannot make their connecting ride.

This is an operational issue. The 42 A/B runs late due to high ridership, multiple stops and the lengthy route. YCTD is looking at ways to improve on-time performance of routes 42 A and B. This is not an unmet transit need.

15 Many times, the other connecting buses leave County Fair Mall and do not wait for the 30 seconds or so it would take for the 42 to arrive.

This is an operational issue. YCTD policy is to allow a connecting bus to hold up by up to 5 minutes if the driver knows that a connecting bus will be arriving during that timeframe. This is not an unmet transit need.

16 Yolobus should work to establish a smartphone enabled bus locator system. The present Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system only works in a web browser and is very difficult to use on a mobile phone. It would be very helpful if both Unitrans and Yolobus could use the same smartphone app.

Yolobus is developing a smartphone application. This is not an unmet transit need.

17 Operations Davis Unitrans needs to be set-up to be convenient for the entire community (City of Davis) not just UCD students with Unitrans continuing the regular bus schedules during UCD finals, breaks and summer.

This is an operational comment. Unitrans does serve a the community of the City of Davis, but does take into consideration when designing and operating Unitrans routes that a majority of the system riders are UC Davis students. This is not an unmet transit need.

18 Unitrans route L North East Davis runs on a loop, so that a rider catching it in that area has to do the whole North East loop before being able to get back into downtown Davis that takes so long that it is often more practical to walk than to take the route L into downtown Davis.

This is an operational comment. The Unitrans route L was extended to serve two lower-income housing developments in the north eastern area of the City of Davis, which has increased ridership on the route. This is not an unmet transit need.

19 Service West Sacramento It is difficult for people with mobility issues to walk to West Capitol Ave. to reach the nearest 42 A/B bus stop. Could a shuttle be provided to assist people in reaching the 42 A/B bus stops?

Yolobus Special service is available for those riders who have mobility impairments or other qualify disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yolobus Special service can be used by those who qualify to connect to fixed route bus services as well. This is not an unmet transit need.

20 It is difficult to get to areas outside of downtown Sacramento for shopping.

It is possible to transfer to Sacramento RT in order to get to areas outside of downtown Sacramento. This is not an unmet transit need.

21 Operations More outreach is needed for the Unmet Transit Needs process.

SACOG does as large a variety of outreach for the Unmet Transit Needs Process as the limited budget allows, and has continued to expand to use more and different outreach methods to reach as large a population as possible. This is not an unmet transit need.

22 Is there anyone on the Yolobus Board that must use transit (is transit dependent)?


23 What is the best method to get senior transportation issues before local agencies that provide and plan for public transit and other transportation projects?



Page 4 of 4


Reasonable to Meet Comments24 Winters No comments were received regarding transit service in Winters.

25 Service Woodland A direct connection (bus) from Woodland to the Amtrak station in Davis is needed.

Yolobus riders can transfer to Unitrans, which has connecting buses to Amtrak, and Yolobus stops within 4 blocks of the Davis Amtrak Station. This is not an unmet transit need.

26 Operations Buses coming from Davis (the route 42) are frequently 20+ minutes late and miss connections with local Woodland routes 210/211, which is particularly problematic when these connections are missed on the last buses of the night and forces riders to walk excessive distances in the dark.

This is an operational issue. The 42 A/B runs late due to high ridership, multiple stops and the lengthy route. YCTD is looking at ways to improve on-time performance of routes 42 A and B. This is not an unmet transit need.

Unmet Needs Comments Attachment E

Page 1 of 3


Reasonable to Meet CommentsService

1 Yuba and Sutter Counties (Unincorporated area or regarding overall bus services that serve both counties)

Bus service to the Plumas Lake area that would connect with Yuba City/Marysville/McGowan.

There is insufficient demonstrated demand for this service. Service to the Plumas Lake area will be further evaluated in the FY 2014 SRTP. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

2 Service on routes that serve locations where youth gather should be provided later in the evening, and could possibly just be provided on certain days of the week.

There is insufficient demonstrated demand for this service. Later evening service will be further evaluated in the FY 2014 SRTP. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

3 Bus service should serve low-income areas and areas with high concentrations of seniors because those people often do not have other transportation options.

This comment is not specific enough to effectively analyze (no specific location, times, days of week are provided). This is not an unmet transit need.

4 A weekend transit bus that will make two trips on Saturday to the Roseville Galleria Mall for weekend shoppers that don't want to drive. A bus could drop them off at 10AM and pick up at 4PM.

Bus service on Saturday for recreational shopping service to Roseville is not an unmet transit need as it is non-essential. This is not an unmet transit need.

5 Have a few buses on Sundays even if the bus only runs for a few hours.

There is insufficient demonstrated demand for this service. Sunday service will be further evaluated in the FY 2014 SRTP. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

6 Linking Arboga and Plumas Lake to the transit line would be most helpful in helping to eliminate people and children from walking on the railroad tracks, thus preventing deaths.

There is insufficient demonstrated demand for this service. Service to the Arboga/Plumas Lake area will be further evaluated in the FY 2014 SRTP. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

7 Operations Add a stop to Food Maxx in Linda, CA on the 4B route for people who choose not to shop at Wal-Mart.


8 Add buses on the 4A and 4B route, running every ½ [hour], consistent with the other routes, because these buses are exceedingly full at times as they only run every hour and it makes for a longer day in transit, and missed connections to other routes.


9 Add an additional route on Powerline Rd., in Olivehurst, with stops along Powerline Rd. at the junior high school, Opud, the Calvary Church shopping center, VFW building, and then crossing back over to Olivehurst Ave. to continue onto the regular route #3 or turn right from Powerline Rd. over the overpass then left onto Lindhurst Ave., along the freeway on the east side of Hwy 70, connecting with the route #6 bus, Edgewood, then continuing on to the Wal-Mart transfer station, a Food Maxx stop could be included on this additional route.

This is an operational comment. Existing service is sufficient. This is not an unmet transit need.

10 Half hour headways on route 6 (Linda Shuttle) to aid transfers.

This is an operational comment. The service is not justified by ridership. This is not an unmet transit need.

There are not unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the counties of Yuba and Sutter, including the Unincorporated Areas, and the cities within.


Page 2 of 3


Reasonable to Meet Comments11 Driver smoke breaks, and smoking at bus

stations in general, set a bad example for youth. Smoking should not be allowed at stops.


12 Operations Yuba and Sutter Counties (Unincorporated area or regarding overall bus services that serve both counties) cont.

Route 4A is unreliable. This is an operational comment. This is not an unmet transit need.

13 Dial-A-Ride service is not well known and needs to be marketed.


14 Bus service to Olivehurst that would loop to Yuba City/Marysville.

This is an operational comment. Route 3 in Olivehurst now connects with Route 1 for service to Yuba City. This is not an unmet transit need.

15 Express bus routes for those going to Yuba College, Yuba City or Marysville campus.


16 Adding an additional stop or 2 on Olivehurst Ave., in Olivehurst, CA, heading south after 9th St.


17 Have three position bicycle racks on all Yuba-Sutter Transit buses.

Keith Martin of Yuba-Sutter Transit replied that all fixed route buses have three bike positions and demand response vehicles have two bike positions. Further investigation found two position racks on some fixed route buses, but there is now only one such bus and it will be converted to a three position rack ASAP. This is not an unmet transit need.

18 Operations Live Oak Run more Live Oak bus service/routes. This is an operational comment. The service is not justified by ridership. This is not an unmet transit need.

19 Marysville No comments were received pertaining to transit service issues solely in the City of Marysville.

20 Operations Wheatland Run more Wheatland bus service/routes. This is an operational comment. The service is not justified by ridership. This is not an unmet transit need.


Page 3 of 3


Reasonable to Meet Comments21 Service Yuba City There needs to be a bus to the Sutter campus.

It would be utilized by students. There is insufficient demonstrated demand for this service. Fixed route service to the Yuba College Sutter County Center will be further evaluated in the FY 2014 SRTP. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

22 Extend the route 2 to serve the Sutter Campus of Yuba Community College because currently the nearest bus stop is approximately 1 mile away.

There is insufficient demonstrated demand for this service. Fixed route service to the Yuba College Sutter County Center will be further evaluated in the FY 2014 SRTP. This is an unmet transit need that is NOT reasonable to meet.

23 Add bus service to the Sutter Campus of Yuba College, as many students drop classes as they have no way tot get to the Sutter Campus.


24 Yuba City Unified high school students participate in co-enrollment opportunities with Yuba College. A bus stop at the new nearby Sutter campus is needed, and there is the potential for a Blue Sky grant to fund the service.


25 Operations Add a public transit stop, route #2, at the Social Security office on Percy Ave., in Yuba City, CA.

This is an operational comment. The service is not justified by ridership. This is not an unmet transit need.

Page 1 of 26

TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING IN THE CITY OF ELK GROVE

MINUTES

October 29, 2012 – 6:00 P.M. The hearing was conducted by Gary Davis representing SACOG Board of Directors, with Sharon Sprowls and Barbara VaughanBechtold of SACOG staff, Ed Coviello, Raquel Chavarria and Kara Reddig from e-tran, and Tom Quigley representing the Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) and the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council. Director Davis and Ms. VaughanBechtold provided an overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. Mr. Coviello and Mr. Quigley gave brief overviews of their transit systems, including upcoming changes. Eighteen people testified at the hearing, and twenty pieces of correspondence were received. All Unmet Transit Needs comments are listed below. Mr. Davis opened the hearing to public comment. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1. Karen Berg, Elk Grove, CA Ms. Berg runs the Seasons at Laguna Ridge Senior (55+) Apartment Community. Seasons is located at the intersection of Bilby and Bruceville Roads in Elk Grove. Seasons has 222 apartments, with approximately 30% of those occupied by couples. A majority of residents are 55 to 70 years old so are not the age 75+ required for e-van services. Current residents’ transportation needs far outpace the capacity of the one van the property has available. Seasons provides transportation four days per week but doesn’t take people to medical appointments, so some end up canceling their appointments if they cannot find transportation. There is an existing bus stop in front of the property where a bus used to stop prior to service reductions in Elk Grove. A new Wal-Mart is opening in the same area in 2013, which might provide an opportunity for bus service. Ms. Berg brought a signed petition encouraging service. 2. William Eipper, Elk Grove, CA Mr. Eipper stated that many deaf people ride the bus. He also said that there is no current e-tran service from outside Elk Grove back into Elk Grove on the weekends, making it very hard to travel and isolating people who rely on public transit. He is hoping e-tran will provide more connecting bus service on weekends. 3. A person involved with the Resources for Independent Living This person stated that more attention needs to be paid to the transportation needs of disabled and elderly residents, and the specialized services currently available need to be marketed better.

Attachment F

Page 2 of 26

4. Ted Clark, a participant who is blind, Elk Grove, CA A participant who is blind asked if the e-tran service maps available at the meeting were able to be read by a screen reader. E-tran staff responded by stating that they would work with the person commenting to make sure they got them the map in a format that could be read by their screen reader. 5. Anonymous, Elk Grove, CA This person commented that the other Los Rios community college campuses need to be better connected to each other by transit. In particular, he mentioned the transit connection to Cosumnes River College (CRC) being difficult and not running late enough. E-tran staff responded stating that the e-tran route 157 does serve the CRC campus in the evening and that RT light rail is expected to start serving the campus in 2015. 6. John Pires, Elk Grove, CA Mr. Pires asked if there is a standard formula for how ridership and routing is determined, and asked who measures service performance and how resources are decided. E-tran staff responded that they are hoping to use new fare boxes as a tool to help evaluate each route’s effectiveness. However, sometimes transit grants are specific, such as Job Access Reverse Commute funding. E-tran tries to balance commute service with local service for transit-dependent riders. The City must also consider federal Title VI civil rights requirements. 7. Anonymous, Elk Grove, CA

Question on Amtrak bus facility and where it connects to the San Joaquin Amtrak train.

8. Veronica Bennett, Elk Grove, CA

This person is a new commuter to Franchise Tax Board. The routes 70 and 71 don’t allow a full day of work. When she called customer service, she reached a recording and left a message but no one called back. She called and was transferred to a Customer Service Supervisor and left a message, but also did not receive a call back. 9. Hector Chavez, Sacramento, CA Mr. Chavez inquired about any weekend service between Bradshaw and Sheldon and CRC, also anything along Watt Ave. into Elk Grove.

Page 3 of 26

10. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA

Mr. Barnbaum noted that changes were made to SCT/Link service that allow a connection to Elk Grove on request. He stated that an unmet transit need is that the Hwy 99 service does not run in the evenings for night classes at CRC. Additionally, he stated that SCT/Link night and weekend service would provide a major fulfillment of a service gap. He stated that this will be more important when the South Line light rail service is open. He noted the value of a one-seat ride connecting south Sacramento County to Roseville and Auburn. He also wondered about an SCT/Link transfer to the San Joaquin Amtrak. Additionally, he noted that there is too little service on the e-tran weekend circulator, and that this would especially be true when light rail services CRC. He also suggested that more service on Power Inn Road could be a potential joint e-tran/RT route. A route from Bruceville to Sheldon to Power Inn Road to 65th Street would allow access to the 65th St. light rail station and CRC students’ access to CSUS. He asked when would be the soonest timeframe for any major service changes. E-tran staff responded that any recommendations will likely be made in late spring 2013. 11. Rosalie, Elk Grove, CA

This person noted that the Heritage Park Charter School has 209 K-12 students with 150 7th through 12th graders. The school now has students who walk and bike. The school is moving to 8065 Elk Grove-Florin, one mile north of Calvine Road. Most of the students are Elk Grove residents. Currently there are no RT bus serves in the area where the school is re-locating to. 12. Anonymous, Elk Grove, CA This person will be traveling from Folsom to the new Elk Grove Corrections building. Will there be a commuter bus? 13. Paul Philly The e-tran pass cannot be used on Yolobus to the airport. E-tran staff responded that they would like to iron out equitable transfer agreements. 14. Denise Clark, Elk Grove

Ms. Clark asked if there is any unannounced “mystery shopper”-type process to test the transit process to shore up the things that work or don’t work, and whether there is a report of results. She suggested this be standard practice, also for e-van and Paratransit, Inc. to make sure they are running as advertised.

Page 4 of 26

E-tran staff noted that they have done this in the past with fixed route service to assess performance. 15. Mark, Elk Grove, CA

The person who commented is a commuter. He likes the bike racks on the front but feels that 3-bike racks would be helpful, to provide more certainty that bike space will be available. With regard to light rail at CRC, he noted that many people care about the time to get downtown, and if it would take an extra 20-30 minutes, it would not be worth it to many people to use light rail.

16. Jeff Doll, Elk Grove, CA Mr. Doll is a commuter. He sees bikes as a good solution to the last mile problem. He noted that a lot of major cities have found ideas to help improve the infrastructure for bicycles, most just with a line on the street, but ways to make biking safer and more attractive.

17. Linda Hedberg

Sometimes there is standing room only on route 53 on I-5. It’s dangerous if the driver needs to slam on their brakes. Lots of workers are elderly or disabled. Is there any plan for an additional bus? The route 53 is crowded except the middle run. The Route 53 after 6:05 AM, the drivers sometimes turn people away at the last two stops. Only bus into White Rock. She also asked why e-tran cut the 156 on weekends. Without, people can’t get to Sacramento on weekends. E-tran staff responded that in comparison to other e-tran routes, the 156 had low performance. 18. Anonymous, Elk Grove, CA This person asked if there is any talk of returning the 156. The cuts to Route 52 have meant that the middle route at 6 am leaving Harbor Point is way overcrowded. It’s less of an issue in the evening. He usually takes the next to last 52, but asked if it is possible to extend evening hours on the 53 because otherwise people can’t get further south in the evening Open House comments: For elder housing 55+ at Big Horn and Laguna and large senior apartment complex near the Nugget Market, service should be available. Pastor Eipper was interested to learn that the weekend shuttle stops near to his church where many deaf persons attend. He took route schedules. He and his companion were also interested in the suggestion that, to communicate better with drivers, deaf persons could write or print out a

Page 5 of 26

card telling the driver where they want to go and asking the driver to let them know when they have reached the correct stop, since they cannot hear stop announcements. Route 52 – would like to see the return of a bus to the regular schedule rather than a shadow bus at the same time. Suggested making the bus more child-friendly. CORRESPONDENCE

1. Anonymous, Elk Grove, CA The commenter currently takes four buses (including one e-tran bus) to get to cosmetology school. When she attempted to purchase a student bus pass on the 6:05 AM e-tran route 159 on 10-22-12, she was denied, though she had purchased this type of pass previously. The commenter relies on public transportation to get to school and cannot afford a full price bus pass. She would like to see e-tran implement a lower cost bus pass for college/trade school students. 2. Robert Tracy, Sacramento, CA

Mr. Tracy lives near Elk Grove-Florin Road and Calvine. He would like to see routes that currently either do not run on holidays or run reduced schedules on holidays to run their regular schedule on those holidays using smaller vehicles if necessary. The route 154 needs to run once an hour from 9:30 AM to 2:30 PM rather than once every two hours after 10:30 AM. All commuter buses should either run on holidays (e.g., the route 57) or not (route 71). E-tran customer service personnel need to call back if a message is left on the customer service line as the voice mail message says they will. Also, the customer service people need more training to assist with trip planning as many don't seem to know the local transit systems or area very well.

3. Johnny Hui, Sacramento, CA Our management (CDCR) has advised us to submit requests (suggestions) to your office for consideration for the change of the current commute routes. Here are some suggestions. • Add schedules to the routes. • Add stops to the routes. • For Route 91, move end stop to Sunrise Light rail or Hazel stations. I know for fact that we

have quite a few staff up here living in Fair Oaks, Carmichael, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, etc. The marginal benefit of taking the commute route is dramatically diminished when staff from these areas has to drive a long distance to get to

Page 6 of 26

Butterfield while fighting with the usual Hwy 50 traffic. It does not seem to be worth to drive a long way to get a bus which would take another 50 minutes to get to the office.

• Suggest to do commute surveys as more workers start moving down to Elk Grove. Thank you so much for your consideration. Johnny 4. Jasvinder (Jazz) Kaur, Elk Grove, CA As a 10-year resident of City of Elk Grove, I have seen the city grow, as well as its public transportation needs. As you requested feedback and assistance with accessing the problem, along with suggestions – following is my input based on my personal experience, as well an analysis of the problem while also offering recommendations. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide feedback. Please keep me informed on how the concerns of the residents in the City of Elk Grove will be addressed. Problem with Route 52: (As previously noted in my communication on 10/12/2012) This is regarding the unacceptable bus service on route 52 for the past two week. The buses are constantly broken and over-packed. This is not only a safety concern but also quality and a compliance concern. If immediate action is not taken to run enough buses, including running shadow and increasing service, I will report this matter to the respective regulatory local and state entities. Analysis: 1. Following is the Route 52 Schedule:

a. Northbound: 1) First bus start at 5:20 2) Second bus starts at 5:35 (15 minutes from previous bus) 3) Third bus starts at 6:00 (25 minutes from previous bus)* 4) Fourth bus starts at 6:30 (30 minutes from previous bus)* 5) Fifth bus starts at 6:45 (15 minutes from previous bus)* 6) Sixth bus starts at 7:00 (15 minutes from previous bus) 7) Seventh bus starts at 7:15 (15 minutes from previous bus) 8) Eighth and last bus starts at 7:30 (15 minutes from previous bus) b. Southbound: 1) First bus start at 3:35 2) Second bus starts at 4:05 (30minutes from previous bus)* 3) Third bus starts at 4:35 (30 minutes from previous bus)* 4) Fourth bus starts at 4:50 (15 minutes from previous bus)* 5) Fifth bus starts at 5:05 (15 minutes from previous bus)* 6) Sixth bus starts at 5:20 (15 minutes from previous bus)* 7) Seventh bus starts at 5:35 (15 minutes from previous bus)* 8) Eighth and last bus starts at 5:50 (15 minutes from previous bus)

Page 7 of 26

2. Routes identified with an asterisk (*) are routes that I have ridden and experienced problems with.

Recommendations: 1. Increase service on Route 52 as following:

a. Northbound: 1) First bus starts at 5:20 2) Second bus starts at 5:35 (15 minutes from previous bus) 3) Third bus starts at 6:00 (25 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Increase service to

every 15 minutes 4) Fourth bus starts at 6:30 (30 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Increase service to

every 15 minutes 5) Fifth bus starts at 6:45 (15 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used

by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

6) Sixth bus starts at 7:00 (15 minutes from previous bus) Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

7) Seventh bus starts at 7:15 (15 minutes from previous bus) Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

8) Eighth and last bus starts at 7:30 (15 minutes from previous bus) Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

9) Add buses: Leaving Elk Grove 7:45; 8:00, 8:15, and 8:30, including using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

b. Southbound: 1) First bus start at 3:35 2) Second bus starts at 4:05 (30minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model

used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

3) Third bus starts at 4:35 (30 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

4) Fourth bus starts at 4:50 (15 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

5) Fifth bus starts at 5:05 (15 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

Page 8 of 26

6) Sixth bus starts at 5:20 (15 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

7) Seventh bus starts at 5:35 (15 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

8) Eighth and last bus starts at 5:50 (15 minutes from previous bus) Change: Using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

9) Add buses: Leaving Sacramento 6:05; 6:20, 6:35, 6:50, and 7:05 including using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

Additionally, I also see problems with Route 53: First and foremost, the limited bus route does not support the number of professionals that commute into downtown Sacramento. The buses are constantly over-packed. This is not only a safety concern but also quality and a compliance concern. Analysis: 1. Following is the Route 53 Schedule:

a. Northbound: 1) First bus starts at 5:25 2) Second bus starts at 5:45 (20 minutes from previous bus) 3) Third bus starts at 6:00 (15 minutes from previous bus)* b. Southbound: 1) First bus start at 3:30 2) Second bus starts at 4:00 (30 minutes from previous bus)* 3) Third bus starts at 4:35 (35 minutes from previous bus)*

2. Routes identified with an asterisk (*) are routes that I have ridden and experienced

problems with. Recommendations 1. Increase service on Route 53 as following: 2. Following is the Route 53 Schedule:

a. Northbound: 1) First bus start at 5:25 2) Second bus starts at 5:45 (20 minutes from previous bus) Change: Increase service to

every 15 minutes 3) Third bus starts at 6:00 (15 minutes from previous bus)*

Page 9 of 26

4) Add buses: Leaving Elk Grove 6:15; 6:30, 6:45, 7:00, 7:15; 7:30, 7:45, 8:00, 8:15, and 830 including using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow, as necessary

b. Southbound: 1) First bus start at 3:30 2) Second bus starts at 4:00 (30 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Increase service

to every 15 minutes 3) Third bus starts at 4:35 (35 minutes from previous bus)* Change: Using a model used

by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

4) Add buses: Leaving Sacramento 4:45; 5:00, 5:15, 6:15, 6:30, 6:45, 7:00, 7:15, 7:15, 7:30, including using a model used by RT on Route 51, increase service to every 12 minutes and/or add guaranteed shadow

Thank you, kindly. Dr. Jasvinder (Jazz) Kaur 5. Will Bourdeau, Elk Grove, CA SACOG, I am a daily Amtrak and e-tran rider. I would like to see the e-tran 59 bus that leaves Sacramento at 4:50 PM moved back 5 minutes to 4:55 PM because the walk to the train has become longer due to the rail realignment. Thanks, Will Bourdeau 6. Amanda Pace, Elk Grove, CA Hello, I had a comment on unmet transit needs for Elk Grove’s e-tran. I take e-tran routes 59 and/or 60 and I do not like the fact that my morning bus drops me off at work before 6:30 AM and yet I cannot catch a bus home until 3:30 PM. I am waiting outside in the hot weather or rain for thirty minutes. I have spoken with fellow passengers and many of them are disgruntled that after working eight hours we can’t get home, thirty minutes is a long wait for a bus. We would like to see an earlier bus route be added to the schedule, 15-20 minutes earlier than it is now. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Amanda Pace

Page 10 of 26

7. Sonia Fuentes, Elk Grove, CA I would like to comment about transportation in Elk Grove. I consider it good transport especially the bus # 59 which is what my family and I have to take, is punctual, but sometimes you have to wait a bit but it's normal. The only thing is that I would like to extend until later afternoon hours, as it is until 6:25 PM and on the weekends because we have no public transport available to travel outside of Elk Grove. It wouldn’t necessarily need to be a big bus, but could be a small one. Thank you very much and we hope that at least one extension in the schedule until later could be considered. Sonia 8. William Long, Elk Grove, CA Add a clockwise direction to the e-tran route 162. 9. Wayne Herin, Stockton, CA I would like to address the need for a bus that runs from Stockton to the new State buildings at 9272 Laguna in Elk Grove. Currently, there is the San Joaquin Commuter bus that runs from Stockton to downtown Sacramento. With over 1500 people moving their work location from downtown Sacramento to the 9272 / 9260 Laguna in Elk Grove location, I think this warrants a bus that will go to this address from Stockton. Thank you for hearing my concern. 10. Kristina Kahl, Elk Grove, CA To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to request a new route for your Elk Grove Service. As you may know, the Elk Grove Unified School District recently changed the school boundaries so that groups of students will need transportation to new schools. Our family lives in the Stonelake neighborhood (off I-5 and Elk Grove Blvd). I have one high school student who takes the 151 to Franklin, but my middle school student is now being sent to Pinkerton Middle School, by the auto mall. Unfortunately, there is not a good bus route that will take my middle schooler from Stonelake to Pinkerton. Starting this year, all of the kids in the Stonelake neighborhood who graduate from Elliott Ranch Elementary will be going on to Pinkerton, and then Cosumnes Oaks High School. We would really love it if you could create a new route to service our neighborhood and take the kids directly to Pinkerton/Cosumnes Oaks. I know there are several other busy parents who would prefer sending their kids on the bus rather than having to drive them. Sincerely, Kristina Kahl

Page 11 of 26

11. Nancy Wold, Sacramento, CA I am not able to attend your open house but I am encouraged that you are conducting this type of event. I live in the South Land Park area of Sacramento and will be moving with California Correctional Health Care Services in March to the facility in Elk Grove. I don’t see that there is any easy way to use mass transit from my location to that location. Additionally, several of my staff live in the Carmichael or Citrus Heights area. Is there consideration being made for those staff who don’t live downtown on the traditional light rail path? Thanks for your consideration. Nancy Wold 12. Nora Hyer, Sacramento, CA This will echo requests you have received from my co-workers: Beginning sometime in March or April 2013, I will be working on Laguna Springs Road. I live off Northrop at Watt Avenue and would like to use public transportation to get to work. Nora Hyer 13. Carol McElheney, Elk Grove, CA I will not be able to attend the workshop Monday evening because I cannot drive due to poor eyesight. My husband, who usually takes me places, works at that time, and other odd hours, including weekends. When I first lost my eyesight due to a stroke, I investigated Elk Grove paratransit [e-van] and found it to be too expensive and too limited. It only took passengers places within the city limits. I can use regular buses, as I am not physically challenged, but I would like transportation to church on Sundays. A friend at church has used paratransit [e-van] in the past, but has found it to be late getting her there on time, and late or early picking her up, so she often either misses communion or has to wait for her ride after most others have left church. She finally stopped coming because the service was so bad. This factored greatly in my decision to not sign up for the service. I would use the bus more if it were available on weekends, especially Sundays so I could ride it to my church (St Mary’s, on Calvine Road & Elk Grove-Florin Road). I can walk from Elk Grove-Florin if the bus were to run up and down EGF. I live near Emerald Oak & Elk Grove Blvd and need to shop at the Waterman Bel Air now that the Elk Grove Blvd Bel Air closed. I usually wait until my husband is off to shop, but

Page 12 of 26

occasionally I need to pick up a prescription, and it would be nice if there was a bus that ran up and down Elk Grove Blvd to Waterman. Finally, on occasion I need to travel downtown, to Sacramento. I understand there will be connections to Light Rail at CRC. That will be good. When I tried to make connections to use transit to visit the State Fair, I found it would take me 3 hours to get there! I did manage to bypass the Elk Grove system by getting a ride downtown with a friend, thus cutting the time to about 20 minutes. I wish Elk Grove had stayed with RT. RT has a region-wide system. Thank you, Carol McElheney 14. Kimberley Lucas, Berkeley, CA Thanks for the opportunity to share the impact that the move from down town Sacramento to Elk Grove has had on me and I'm sure hundreds of other employees. Unfortunately I can't come in person in the evening on Oct 29 as I have over a three hour commute and need to get home. The CCHCS move to Elk Grove never should have happened; especially given we are a state agency. State employees are strongly encouraged to use public transportation and reasonable options were not put in place in spite of all of the surveys and feedback we gave prior to this move. Whether it's provided by Elk Grove or CCHCS or by both, we need buses or shuttles that run throughout the day and that take a reasonable amount of time to get back and forth from downtown Sacramento. It shouldn't take an hour and twenty minutes to two hours taking light rail plus two buses to travel fifteen miles! No matter where you're commuting from, unless you live in or south of Elk Grove, you have to go through down town Sacramento to get there. For the majority of CCHCS employees who prefer public transportation or for whom public transportation is the only option, this means light rail from Sacramento followed by two buses -- a minimum one hour and twenty minute trip in the morning. If someone needed to come in late due to a doctor's appointment, the trip turns into two hours. Having a doctor's appointment in the middle of the day would necessitate taking the entire day off since at least four hours would be spent in transit. I and many others rode Amtrak to down town Sacramento before this move and now that just isn't an option. The token reverse commute e-tran bus is not something I can use because even if I take the earliest train that leaves Berkeley at 5:44 am I cannot make the latest bus which leaves at 7:50 am. Therefore, if I want to continue to take public transportation, I have to instead take the light rail followed by two buses, bringing my total commute time just to get to work in the morning to about three and a half hours. I don't even want to think about how long it would take to get home.

Page 13 of 26

Many employees have found other work because of this issue. I have lost two of my co-workers in our tiny unit due to this move and the lack of reasonable transit. I have been forced back onto the freeway in my old car and am looking for another job myself. Kim Lucas 15. Sam R., Elk Grove, CA I'm moving back to Elk Grove from Rancho Cordova in early December. My concern is e-tran bus 160 offers only hourly service. My daughter attends Albiani Middle school and will attend Pleasant Grove soon. We will be moving to residence near Elk Grove-Florin and Bond Road about 2 miles from school. We'll be residents of Elk Grove for many many years. Would you please consider changing the hourly west bound to arrive at Bond and Bradshaw 30 minutes after the hour instead of current 2:49 PM, 3:59, 4:59 etc.? Or add one westbound stop arrives 3:26 PM? School gets out around 3:00 PM for Albiani, 3:11 PM for PG high. Thanks for your consideration. Sam R, parent Elk Grove, CA 16. Monica Treat, Elk Grove, CA This email is being sent to express the dire need to extend the current City bus line to the Seasons at Laguna Ridge Senior Apartment Community in Elk Grove. Several of our residents can no longer drive or have access to a vehicle. This restricts their freedom making it difficult to schedule appointments and live independently. With the new Wal-Mart opening in the near future, extending the current bus line 1 or 2 stops will increase customer support and allow our residents 1 stop shopping at their convenience. Due to prior bus lines operating this line, there exists a current bus stop in place in front of the community. Please support our plea for this accommodation. Sincerely, Monica Treat (Please reference attached petition) 17. Beth Snyder, Elk Grove, CA Hi, I was going to try to come to tonight’s open house, but I won’t be able to make it, so I am e-mailing my concerns instead.

Page 14 of 26

1) Over the past year, I have had direct confrontations with a rude driver who has made it clear that she doesn’t like me. I have filed 2 complaints about her, and have yet to hear back on any decisions made regarding the status of my complaints. As I understand it, I am not the only person who has complained about this particular driver, yet she still works for E-Tran.

2) The customer-service line isn’t always answered during regular business hours. 3) The customer service staff are frequently rude and sometimes argumentative. Once when I

called in to report that a bus had failed to stop, the customer service representative told me she failed to see the problem since 6 more buses were scheduled to run for the remainder of the evening (as if I had all night to wait). When I left a message on the supervisor’s voice mail system complaining, I didn’t hear back.

4) The #57 needs to have more drivers and buses added in the morning and evening; 3 is simply not enough.

5) There should be a bus that covers the stretch of Elk Grove-Florin Road north of Calvine Road, perhaps one that connects to Florin Mall. This is a neighborhood that is in dire need of regular public transportation.

6) It is a conflict of interest that the contractor who supplies the buses also hires the drivers. 7) The buses frequently break down because the contractor fails to perform regular maintenance

on them. Thanks for your attention in these matters. Regards, Beth Snyder 18. Joanne De La Torre, Roseville, CA Good afternoon, I am sorry I am unable to attend the Unmet Transit Needs meeting today at the Elk Grove City Council. I live in Roseville and use Amtrak to commute, and it would be inconvenient to travel to Elk Grove for the meeting. I appreciate the opportunity to express my concerns via e-mail. Needless to say, my office’s relocation to Elk Grove, scheduled for January 2013, is going to have a dramatic impact on my commute. I am interested in utilizing E-tran’s Route 90, implemented to transport Amtrak Capitol Corridor commuters to the new location at Laguna Springs, but am concerned that the timetable is not realistic. For example E-tran Route 90 is scheduled to arrive at 7th and G at 5:15 in the afternoon. The Amtrak station is located at 4th and I St. The train to Roseville departs the Amtrak station promptly at 5:25 PM. I am concerned there is not enough time to make that connection. The next departure to Roseville isn’t until 6:50 PM so missing the first train would be a huge inconvenience. Has there been any feedback from commuters using this route? Are they making the connection to Amtrak on time? I am also inquiring if E-tran has considered accepting the Roseville Transit Commuter Monthly pass to transfer to Route 90 for free as they are doing for Sacramento RT riders. That would

Page 15 of 26

give me another option (and maybe better) for commuting to Elk Grove, as the E-tran timetable coincides with Roseville Transit’s arrivals and departures into and out of Sacramento, but I do not want to have to pay additional fare to board the E-Tran bus. Thank you. Joanne De La Torre 19. Nina Stevens, Elk Grove, CA I was unable to attend last night’s e-tran meeting, but would like to comment. I live in Elk Grove and work downtown. The commuter route is perfect when I can make it. The reason I cannot always make the bus is that I am also a working parent. Unfortunately, the very last bus leaving Elk Grove is at my Park and Ride at 7:45 AM. Our elementary school starts at 8:10 AM and the middle school at 8:30 AM. Neither allows an early drop off that would allow me to get to the bus on time. So I am left to either leave them unattended near their school or miss the bus. Neither are good options. It seems that e-tran could support working parents by having one or two more options that leave town a little later. I don't believe there is any school in elk grove that begins early enough for any parent to take their kid to school and there is no commuter route that leaves later. Nina Stevens 20. Corina Meloche, Elk Grove, CA I would like to provide comments regarding Elk Grove’s Transit Plan. I hope it is not too late as the open house was last night. Being that I only use e-tran for commuting to work in downtown Sacramento, my input is limited to that service. More specifically, I live very close to the southwest corner of Elk Grove & Bruceville (just behind the Kohl’s shopping center) and work near 10th & I Streets downtown, next door to City Hall. My work schedule was 6:00am - 2:30pm, but I had to change it due to the lack of corresponding bus service. Routes don’t accommodate early work schedules, and the Franklin area (the neighborhood between Franklin & Bruceville Roads, and south of Elk Grove Blvd.) doesn’t appear to be well-served, although I can really only speak for the section that I live in. As I mentioned, I used to work 6:00am - 2:30pm. I could walk to bus stops on Routes 53 and 66, however the times are too late (Route 66) or the downtown stops are too far from my job (Route 53 only takes me as far as 8th& N or 10th & N, from which points I would have to walk several blocks or wait for the Sac RT light rail to take me the rest of the way to work). The buses are crowded and almost every day several people are standing during the freeway commute. While I can appreciate using space to its maximum capacity, this seems to indicate a need for additional buses. It is also possible that expanding the running times of these routes (starting earlier and running later) would spread the bus-riding population out more. I would not

Page 16 of 26

be comfortable standing on these routes and so I make the extra effort to board the bus before all the seats are taken. It seems that many people use e-tran to commute to Sacramento. That being the case, it would be beneficial to align route times with those of Sac RT, for the routes that connect with RT. When Sac RT made changes to its Blue Line light rail route, e-tran did not make corresponding adjustments. Even worse, e-tran still has not updated the Sac RT times on the Route 156 schedule on its website. While I understand that e-tran may not always be able to make the corresponding route changes, at least having the correct information on its website would be helpful. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on e-tran service. Corina Meloche

Page 17 of 26

TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING

IN THE CITY OF GALT MINUTES

October 15, 2012 – 2:00 P.M.

The hearing was called to order at 2:00PM. The hearing was conducted by Barbara Payne representing the SACOG Board of Directors, with Victoria S. Cacciatore of SACOG staff, Dan Klinker from Sacramento County DOT and representing the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council, Steven Winkler representing the City of Galt, and Kimberlie Hollingsworth representing South County Transit Link (SCT/Link). Director Barbara Payne and Ms. Cacciatore provided an overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. Ms. Cacciatore answered audience questions about criteria for determining whether an unmet transit need was “reasonable to meet”. Three people not on the hearing panel attended the Unmet Transit Needs hearing; no public testimony was given; and three emails of correspondence were received. Ms. Hollingsworth and Mr. Klinker described the existing SCT/Link transit services and answered questions about the services for Galt, Isleton, and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County. Ms. Hollingsworth clarified that passengers are encouraged to call in at least 24 hours in advance to reserve a ride on the Dial-a-Ride service in Galt, but that SCT/Link will work to accommodate later requests too. Mr. Klinker provided information on how to access destinations such as the Sacramento International Airport and the Sacramento Amtrak station by using SCT/Link to connect with other transit systems. Director Barbara Payne opened the hearing to public comment. No formal public comment was submitted and Mr. Winkler announced that SCT/Link would be receiving three new buses in the next three to six months. Mr. Winkler and Mr. Klinker also shared that City of Galt and Sacramento County are analyzing the potential value of a fueling station for the buses in Galt through a management analysis that will conclude next year. Ms. Cacciatore provided a synopsis of the three emails of correspondence received. Mr. Klinker announced that SCT/Link will be updating their Short Range Transit Plan within a year and will conduct public hearings as part of the update. Director Barbara Payne adjourned the meeting at 2:40PM. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY None.

Page 18 of 26

CORRESPONDENCE

1. Delores Thornburg, Galt, CA I am thrilled with the new Galt to Sacramento Express line. I've been hoping for just this thing for years and it has finally happened. It started with about 13 people and now we are up to a full bus load. It works with my work schedule perfectly. I catch it at 6:30 am and 4:45 pm. It’s a stress free ride not having to worry about traffic or accidents. It also runs mid-day which is great if you have to leave early or get sick during the day. The drivers are courteous and very concerned about passenger safety. As word of mouth travels, more and more people are riding. This route is the perfect route for working people with very few stops and pretty much a straight shot to where you need to go. Delores Thornburg 2. Mary Ann Canning, Galt, CA I want to tell you about the SCT/LINK buses. I have ridden this for about a year. The 99 express and the drivers have been very good to me. They have excellent service. The schedule is flexible and works for me to get to work and get home. I now am taking the new commuter bus system and this has been a god scent to me. The driver’s John and Skip are very good drivers and they take care of their passengers. They are very friendly and care about us as people. The need for this commuter bus is very high because we don’t have any option from any other bus system to have the comfort or the convents of one or two stop commute. It is so nice that they are the only bus system that has a mid-day pick-up in the noon hours for people who are sick or have doctors, dentist or business that they need to take care of in the afternoon. I use it to go to doctors and dentist appointment. I don’t drive to Sacramento that often. It has made my live very easy to commute to work in the Sacramento area. I would like to see the noon bus pickup being kept for the people who use it the most. I think it was a great idea, whoever can up with it to offer it to the people in Galt. I only wish that others would do the same. With the economy being what it is today and the price of gas, I look forward to using the Galt commuter bus as long as I would in Sacramento. I think your bus system is great and all the drivers that you have are great. You should give them praise for taking care of their commuters and tell them that we appreciate them for their kindness and safety. Thank You, South County Transit Mary Ann Canning

3. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA Dear Stakeholder of Sacramento South County Transit Services: I want to provide electronic testimony for the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing for Monday 15 October 2012. Due to the passing of my Grandmother on Wednesday 10 October 2012 and the corresponding funeral service on Sunday 14 October 2012, I will be unavailable to personally appear because I will be making Northbound Travel on the Amtrak San Joaquin Train back to

Page 19 of 26

Sacramento the date of the meeting. In the meantime, I would like my testimony that will be provided before you today - Monday 15 October 2012 - to be read aloud to those in attendance so that everyone in the same room hears what my testimony and analysis is. Thank you very much for your understanding in this situation. Should you need to speak with me personally, I will be in attendance at the Davis Unmet Transit Needs Hearing on Wednesday the 17th of October, as well as the Elk Grove Unmet Transit Needs Hearing on Monday the 29th of October. You may also talk to me personally at the October 22nd Meeting of the Sacramento Regional Transit District board of Directors. Until then, let's get to the testimony at hand. South County Transit Unmet Transit Needs for Highway 99 Service: Weeknight and Weekend Service In September 2015, or there about, Sacramento Regional Transit is poised to hold the Grand Opening Event of the Blue Line Extension to Cosumnes River College. In September 2012, Regional Transit extended night service on the existing Blue Line to Meadowview of which the last weekday train leaves at 11:59 P.M. and the last Saturday train leaves at 11:44 P.M. heading all the way back to the Northern Terminus at Watt Avenue and Interstate 80 in the Sacramento County Unincorporated Community of North Highlands. Once the extension to Cosumnes River College occurs and is in revenue service, Regional Transit will need to demonstrate to the Federal Transit Administration - projected ridership numbers. This is where Transit Agencies like the South County Transit Highway 99 Service and Placer County Transit come into play a key role as their riders and RT Light Rail Riders become riders of the other’s transit system. This, however, cannot happen without each other agreeing and funding transit service hours into the evening and on weekends. Currently, South County Transit does not operate on nights any night of the week as well as at any hour on weekends. This in and of itself is a major unmet transit need for the residents of the South County of Sacramento. Night and Weekend service would allow for Cosumnes River College Students the ability to both get to class and to get home on the South County Transit Highway 99 Service. Night service would also allow Amtrak San Joaquin Rail Corridor riders to connect to/from South County Transit at the Lodi Intermodal Station. There will be more to come on the San Joaquin Valley Rail Corridor due to the recent bill signing by Governor Brown on Saturday 29 September 2012 of AB 1779 (Galgianni) giving local and regional transit agencies along the corridor a greater say in what goes on - similar to the Capitol Corridor. Weekend service (running at hourly headways like it does on weekdays) gives South County Transit Highway 99 Riders the ability to go shopping, get to medical appointments, visit friends and relatives, and creates independence without needing an automobile. Weekend service also benefits riders with disabilities who otherwise would feel like they are prisoners in their own homes. I would propose for your consideration to resolve the above mentioned unmet transit needs and better prepare for the service hours of Blue Line to Cosumnes River College in September of 2015, that an additional four hours of weeknight service be made available such that the last buses end at Galt City Hall in each direction of service at 11:20 P.M. rather than the current 7:20 P.M. as it is today. My final thought would be regarding weekend service, and that would be to have a similar schedule for riders to access to on weekends like they would during the week

Page 20 of 26

mainly to keep the schedule simple and easy to understand and to make future light rail connections at Cosumnes River College here in the near future. Mike Barnbaum

Page 21 of 26

TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT

MINUTES

October 20, 2012 – 2:00 P.M. The hearing was conducted by Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, Tom Quigley of the Sacramento Regional Transit District, Kent Gary of the Folsom Stage Line and Janice LaBrado of Paratransit, Inc. also representing the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council. Ms. VaughanBechtold provided an overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. Ms. Covington, Mr. Gary and Ms. LaBrado gave brief overviews of their transit service and upcoming changes. One person testified at the hearing (an additional comment given regarding RT service at the Yolo County hearing has been included as well); and eight pieces of correspondence were received. All Unmet Transit Needs comments are listed below. Ms. VaughanBechtold opened the hearing to public comment. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1. Leoma Lee, Sacramento, CA Ms. Lee said that she has frequently has to wait over an hour to board the route 51 during the first two weeks of the month because of overloads (Ms. Lee uses an electric scooter) of disabled riders who use wheelchairs and non-folding walkers. She believes with the increase in the aging and disabled populations that there should be more wheelchair spaces available. The route 30 also has similar access problems. Ms. Lee says she has to leave at least two hours early whether she rides the 51 or Paratransit, Inc. because of the shared rides being inefficient. 2. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA Mr. Barnbaum stated that the Land Park community in Sacramento doesn’t have adequate weekend service as the RT route 62 only runs on Saturday and there is no east/west service. He said that the RT route #6 should be considered for Sunday service as it serves a large number of regional destinations, and the route 61 should run on weekends (Saturday and Sunday). Mr. Barnbaum also said that the two Sacramento Social Security Offices (College Greens/Marconi and Folsom Blvd.) need to be better served. Especially the office on Folsom Blvd. as it is the only office where new/replacement Social Security cards are issued.

Page 22 of 26

CORRESPONDENCE 1. Patricia Valdez, Sacramento, CA I cannot believe we had to wait until the 21st century to even be asked about our unmet transit needs. I still don't understand why light rail wasn't extended to the City of Folsom as it was originally designed to do. However, you certainly can't justify it now. With regard to present day issues, I've lived most of my life in Sacramento and have not had the luxury of being able to take a bus to my graveyard shift work at any time in my working career. I'm retirement age now and looking at not wanting to maintain a vehicle any longer, but that doesn't even seem to be an option in the capitol city. I am humiliated when friends from other cities or countries come here and ask why our public transportation is so backward. And when I relate the facts of our light rail debacle (building one rail in order to blackmail the city to pay) they just think I'm exaggerating. I went to a Regional Transit community meeting one night in the 90's and had to get a ride home from the Mayor because while the last bus ran in time to get to the meeting there were no more buses to get home. I did notice the bored looks on the faces of the R.T. representatives in their three piece suits and Italian shoes, as they listened to the complaints of residents. There are cities with greater populations than ours but our city is so spread out I simply don't understand why we are so far behind. I think it's shameful that the capitol city of a state with an economy larger than a lot of countries in the world doesn't provide public transportation after 9:30 p.m. California wants to address ecology and global warming yet it does not want to serve third shift workers probably the lowest paid and neediest segment of the population. Some of my more paranoid friends believe it's designed that way on purpose to keep "the people" oppressed and continue to fill the coffers of the Motor Vehicles Department. When I was young I thought the city [of Sacramento] hired city planners right out of college to save money and they just didn't know better. But now, I have to ask just what are you people thinking? I only want to work part-time and if there is a job available in Elk Grove or some outlying area I can't take it because I cannot comfortably commit to being there on time or at all if I take a bus. We've seen car-pools and larger companies sending shuttles but that just underscores why no companies can base their offices here because the expense and reliability is compromised by our provincial attitude toward transportation. Even one of the better ideas that have come about like paratransit is being threatened by rating the disabled and not being available and on time. I've spoken to people who have had heat exhaustion waiting for the paratransit to pick them up at the assigned point. It's always seemed ironic to me that we have a space program that can send men to other planets but we can't get buses to get to work on time. I wonder about the Chamber of Commerce involving themselves in politics but not local transportation. I was called to San Francisco once on an emergency, and I spent more time waiting for a bus to downtown to catch a Greyhound than I spent on the Greyhound that took me to San Francisco. And while I'm grateful to see we're getting light rail to the airport, I have to tell you I lost a minimum wage job at the airport because I couldn't get out of the airport for less than $7.00. That was in the prosperous '80's.

Page 23 of 26

You ask for specific routes and lines to be addressed. I'm a little confused about that. The city has a twenty-year plan of development and it knows where the population is going to grow, that should tell you where the routes need to be. Why are you asking us, one more time, to do the work for you? You have the statistics at hand you are supposed to have a plan. Perhaps you should not develop areas that you are not prepared to service. As we come to terms with our dependence on oil, I hope we can depend on city and regional leaders to come down from their ivory towers and become aware of our needs so that we don't have to beg plead and demonstrate for what should be intelligently provided for us. And most specifically for me, a bus system that runs at least until midnight and begins about 4:00 a.m. so that I can work. 2. Peter Jordan, Long Beach/Folsom, CA I was wondering if perhaps in near future there might be plans to offer later service to Iron Point for those of us who are "remote workers" for Intel flying into Sacramento International Airport on Sunday afternoon and evenings, then using Regional Transit to get to Folsom to work during the week and flying home on Friday evenings? When flying into SMF we then ride the 42A/B Yolobus to get downtown to the 8th & O light rail station hoping to catch Gold Line before the last train East at 8:59 PM which gets to the end-of-the-line on Sundays at Sunrise at 9:39pm As it is now we must pay a $30 cab rides from Sunrise to the Natoma Station area where many of us are living during the week in close proximity to Intel. It is most unfortunate that we are discriminated against when compared with the other Monday-Friday workers commuting on weekdays who are afforded expanded service to Historic Folsom, versus those of us who commute on Sundays. Later service on Sundays out to Iron Point later than the last train at 6:29 PM from 8th & O would afford us a few more hours at home with family on weekends rather than having to fly closer to noon on Sundays in order to avoid a cab ride from Sunrise station. Thank you, Peter M. Jordan 3. Melvina Esqueda, Sacramento, CA Ms. Esqueda stated that the bus routes that were changed in the Del Paso Heights area have caused her problems getting around to where she has to go. Especially to her doctor at Norwood and Harris. She cannot walk far due to health problems. The buses are more crowded than ever at least 2/3rds of the time. She also frequently uses a pull cart when she goes grocery shopping and many times has not been able to get on the bus for up to three rounds.

Page 24 of 26

Also we need more bus benches in this area for those who are elderly or disabled. Good locations would be at Grand & Elm, Grand & Norwood, and Arcade & Marysville. Thank you. 4. Andy, Sacramento, CA When calling RT for trip planning/route questions the question about inbound/outbound should be deleted because the bus stops are numbered so the system should know if the route is inbound or outbound. RT riders should be allowed on buses where the destination is the RT garage downtown, which would result in more fares for RT and less "dead heading". 5. Jose Ramos, Sacramento, CA To whom this may concern, I have been a regular public transit rider for that past 14 years. I started taking buses (61, 62, 67, 68, 30, 31, 81, 82, 87 and others less frequently). Then once the Meadowview bound train came into existence, I began to take the light rail system. Up until a couple of months ago, I felt comfortable with the services. However, recently I have run into a serious health problem for not just me, but all public transportation riders in the Sacramento area. Many individuals are not respecting the non-smoking signs posted at stations, under the weather roofs, but more importantly they are not respecting them in the light rail trains themselves. This is a closed environment, where many children are exposed to the dangers of second hand smoke. Children, who by the way, have not fully developed their lungs. Everyone on the train, including myself become at risk for increased Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). Not only that, but people with pre-existing heart conditions are at an increased risk of early mortality. My intention is not to scare who ever reads this, rather enlighten them on the severity of this matter. I have personally had to restrain myself at times from getting into an altercation with those individuals who smoke on the train. Not only that, I feel that many people are scared to stand up in the chance that they get attacked by these smokers. I would like to share with you a situation I ran into about 2 months ago. I got off the Meadowview bound train, to be able to transfer to the Sunrise at 16th street. Right before I boarded the Sunrise train I noticed a man who had been smoking his cigarette outside. I tried to avoid him outdoors, but we were getting on the same train heading east bound. I kept a watchful eye to make sure he put out his cigarette before he boarded the train. To my surprise he did not. I then continued to monitor the situation on our way to the next stop. I smelled and saw that his cigarette was still lit. So I walked over to him and asked him very politely, "Sir can you please put out your cigarette?" He then looked at me and told me it was out. I told him "No it is not sir I can see and smell the smoke still coming from that cigarette." He then turned to me while seated and said "Get out of here fool, I didn't do anything to you, leave me alone." I then replied "Sir please have some respect for the other passengers on this train." He then turned to face forward and ignore me. I told him "Sir you see those signs posted in this train, they say NO SMOKING."

Page 25 of 26

He continued to ignore me and there was no security or light rail personnel on the train, so out of frustration and restraint I jumped out of that train car and hopped onto the next one. Unfortunately leaving those people in that train car to continue his second hand smoke. This is just one example that has many good paying transit commuters, choosing alternative modes of transportation. In fact, a lot of smokers I see, don't even pay for a light rail ticket. They just look out for personnel and try to avoid them. Looking back there was probably one more thing I could have done. I could have reported this to the light rail conductor. This most certainly would have caused a chain reaction that ultimately delayed the train and having others angry with me. There must be another efficient way to handle this situation. It is no secret that this is becoming more of a prevalent problem in your trains. It is very convenient for me to take public transportation and I feel it helps financially, environmentally (one less vehicle causing pollution), and health by walking (well at least up until now). I don't believe in sacrificing one health component to improve another. I would appreciate a response to this matter or direction to an appropriate point of contact. As well as any advice you may have regarding these individuals who are harming others. Thank You, Jose Ramos 6. Steven Franklin, Carmen Meeks, Brett Daly and Natalie Kramer, Art Institute of CA,

Sacramento, CA To Whom It May Concern: I am a staff member of The Art Institute of California – Sacramento, a campus of Argosy University. I understand that you are seeking recommendations for transit improvements, and I would like to provide input regarding public transportation needs in Natomas. A comprehensive group of colleges in Natomas is working with North and South Natomas Transportation Management Associations to gain a better knowledge of what transit services are needed for college students in Natomas. In many cases, we have no transit which often makes it virtually impossible to recruit students, and then once recruited; retention rates are poor amongst transit-needy students once they realize that no public transportation option is available. Here is what is needed: -Students that can access Natomas colleges by frequent, safe, logical public transportation from 6am to 10:30pm, Monday – Friday. -Bus stops that are closer to college locations – this helps the perception of safety at night and early mornings when it is dark -Bus access on the west side of Interstate 5 -Discounted sales of monthly passes.

Page 26 of 26

The following colleges eagerly await your attention to their needs: University of Phoenix, The Art Institute of California - Sacramento, Universal Technical Institute, American River College, International Academy of Design and Technology and Le Cordon Bleu. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or the North and South Natomas TMAs. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on unmet transit needs. 7. Michelle Bell, Orangevale, CA Hello: My name is Michelle Bell I live in Orangevale, but work in Folsom. I was wondering if this route can start early then 8:06 AM? I live by the stop of Kenneth & Greenback and if there was a stop an hour early that would work out for me. I work the hours of 8:00-5:00 PM so I miss this whole route. If this route can start any early that would be great. Thank You, Michelle Bell 8. Anonymous, Sacramento, CA To whom it may concern, I used to take bus 22 to Whole Foods in Sacramento. The eastern half of bus 22 was canceled two months ago. Bus 22 used to stop in front of Whole Foods. A couple of days ago I shopped at Whole Foods and walked 1.1 miles to El Camino to catch a bus from there. After walking for a few minutes, I started feeling a lot of pain in my back and neck from carrying heavy packages. I walked down Eastern Ave., which doesn't have a sidewalk, and which has very few street lights. I struggled to get past a house which has an unleashed dog, which didn't want me to walk by. Then I (barely) saw a dead squirrel. I had almost stepped on it and could have tripped over it. Then there was a car crash to the east of the area where I was waiting for a bus on El Camino. I walked past the crash to get to the next stop: I was concerned that the 23 bus might drive around the crash and not stop where I was waiting. Also, a bus rider who knows a lot about what's going on behind the scenes, told me that the rich people who live in nice houses on the eastern end of Arden Way, have been trying for years to get the eastern half of route 22 canceled, because they don't like the sound of buses during the day. I asked a driver about that, and he said that it's true. There other people who used to take bus 22 to shop at Whole Foods. On the last day of the eastern half of bus 22, I talked to a bagger who works at Bel Air who needs a bus to get to work. I talked to a man who was assisting a blind man on bus 22: they need bus 22. I heard about an 87 year old man who needed bus 22 to get everywhere. He had to move so that he would be close to a bus stop. I talked to a man who said that bus 22 was the only way he could get to a nursing home to visit his mother. I talked to a woman who needed bus 22 to get to her doctor's appointments. I talked to a Sac State student who lives near Arden & Eastern with his parents. I talked to people who worked near Arden & Eastern who had to quit their jobs. How about bringing bus 22 back to Arden Way? I would like a response.

Page 1 of 7

TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING/LIFELINE TRANASIT WORKSHOP IN YOLO COUNTY, INCLUDING THE CITIES OF DAVIS, WEST SACRAMENTO, WINTERS AND WOODLAND

MINUTES

October 17, 2012 – 6:00 P.M. DAVIS COUNCIL CHAMBERS

Conducted by Don Saylor of the SACOG Board; Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff; Terry Bassett representing the Yolo County Transportation District; Anthony Palmere of Unitrans, Linda Alemania and James Haven of Davis Community Transit; and Mr. David Soto of the Area 4 Agency on Aging and Charlotte Dorsey representing the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council. Six people testified at the hearing. Seven items of correspondence were received. Ms. VaughanBechtold described the unmet transit needs process. Mr. Saylor opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He introduced members of the hearing panel and explained that SACOG is responsible for administering the Transportation Development Act (TDA), which provides funds for transportation purposes throughout the SACOG region. Ms. VaughanBechtold explained that after the hearing the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) will meet to assist SACOG staff in analyzing the hearing testimony based on criteria adopted by the Board of Directors and further explained the SSTAC membership makeup. The Yolo County transit operators’ representatives gave brief descriptions of the services that they offer. Mr. Saylor opened the public hearing. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY 1. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA Mr. Barnbaum informed the group about the expansion of Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) service hours in September, and mentioned that no additional connecting service in West Sacramento or downtown Sacramento (Yolobus routes 42 A/B) was added. Mr. Barnbaum would like to see later evening hours on Yolobus services that connect to RT, as well as reinstatement of weekend service on Yolobus route 51, and more frequent service (every ½ hour) on the Yolobus #42 A/B during the peak hours when passenger loads are heaviest.

Attachment G

Page 2 of 7

2. William Lowell, West Sacramento, CA Mr. Lowell commented that the Yolobus route 42 going from West Sacramento to Davis to Woodland was frequently late and caused missed connections to other routes. He thinks that some route 45 Express buses should be re-routed through Davis and West Sacramento to pick up the slack on the route 42. Mr. Lowell would also like the Yolobus route 240 to make timely connections with the route 35. 3. Beckie Challender, Woodland, CA Ms. Challender lives in Woodland and works in Davis, near 5th and G Streets. She frequently rides the Yolobus route 42 and finds that a lot of the riders are UCD students (international students) or employees, and students at the Sacramento City College Davis campus. Ms. Challender finds that the morning and afternoon (peak period) 42 A buses are almost always overcrowded, with full bike racks, and are frequently late. She would like to see increased frequency, every 30 minutes, during the “peak” travel times on the 42 A/B. Ms. Challender said that she thinks the Yolobus drivers are fantastic and she finds the AVL (automatic vehicle location) information very helpful. 4. Karen Cebra, Davis, CA Ms. Cebra said she supported what the previous speakers had said. She had some questions related to the relationship of the Unmet Transit Needs hearing relation to the City of Davis General Plan Transportation Element, and safety rules for bus passenger loads that were answered after the public hearing was over. Ms. Cebra stated that she felt that since Unitrans isn’t overseen by the City and the schedules are all set to the UCD academic schedule that the non-student residents of the City of Davis are not well served by the system. She said that with the Unitrans bus schedules changing throughout the year going from ½ hour service during the school year to one-hour service May-September (summer) as well as different schedules during holiday breaks made the service very difficult for non-students to use (even with schedule changes being laid out in the schedules available on the buses and online). Ms. Cebra commented that Unitrans needs to be set-up to be convenient for the entire community not just UCD students. She also said there was an issue with the Unitrans route L North East Davis loops coming back into downtown Davis that a rider catching it in that area has to do the whole North loop before being able to get back into downtown Davis, which takes so long that it is often more practical to walk than to take the route L into downtown Davis. 5. Joyce Miller, West Sacramento, CA Ms. Miller commented that she has to walk approximately 5 blocks to the nearest bus stop for the 42 B. She also uses the Yolobus Special to get to medical appointments. She finds it difficult to get to Sacramento to shop. Ms. Miller would like to see more outreach for the Unmet Transit

Page 3 of 7

Needs hearings. She also asked if there was anyone on the YCTD Board who must use transit/is transit dependent. She has noticed the service changes that have included new service to the Social Security Office, West Sacramento High School and IKEA/Wal-Mart. 6. Jim Brewer, West Sacramento, CA Mr. Brewer asked what the best method was to get senior transportation issues before local agencies that provide and plan for public transit and other transportation projects (group attendance at meetings, petitions, etc.). Mr. Brewer’s question was addressed after the official public hearing portion of the meeting. CORRESPONDENCE 1. Tamra L. Barker, Davis, CA Ms. Barker submitted the following comments: Dear Council, I am a disabled veteran, and I travel in and out of the Sacramento airport approximately four times a month. I use the Yolobus to travel from/to my home in Davis to/from the Sacramento airport. The Yolobus stop at the Sacramento airport, at the NEW terminal B, appears too suffered from sheer ignorance and avoidance of Yolobus travelers in the design of the Yolobus passenger waiting and boarding area at the new terminal. 1. There is NO overhang for Yolobus travelers, requiring all Yolobus travelers to stand in the rain while waiting and boarding the Yolobus. 2. There is NO down-lighting at the fixtures above the Yolobus stop, creating a potentially adverse safety situation. Airport travelers who generate airport revenue by renting cars are provided with a well-lighted environment-protective-overhang at the rental car facility shuttle bus stop. I would be happy to meet with any SACOG representative at the Yolobus stop at the Sacramento airport to point out the poor designs at this new terminal that adversely impact the airport travel experience for Yolobus passengers. Respectfully, Tamra L. Barker Davis, CA I have another HUGE complaint as it relates specifically to transit service.

Page 4 of 7

Hourly service to/from the airport is insufficient, especially when the buses encounter other traffic delays on their routes. The 42B service from the airport to Davis is particularly problematic. I relate two specific recent occurrences: 1. Approximately 4 wks. ago on a Friday afternoon, a 42B left Terminal B at approximately 1:20 PM, 5 minutes earlier than the schedule of 1:25 PM. I immediately called Yolobus, was told that this was the bus that was 55 minutes behind schedule, that was to have departed the airport at 12:25 PM, and that it did not have time to wait another 5 minutes to resume the schedule of the 1:25 PM. I was told to wait for the 1:25 PM bus. The 1:25 bus arrived at approximately 1:55 PM. I got on. At the Yolo Fair Mall transit bus stop, the bus driver told me to get off the bus, he had to go to lunch, and he was not going on to Davis. Because he was behind schedule, the regular bus had already departed the Yolo Fair Mall transit bus stop, and I enjoyed the opportunity of sitting out in the hot sun for 45 minutes for the next bus to Davis. I called the Yolobus office several times, requested them to send a driver out to drive the bus to Davis, enjoyed being hung up on by Yolobus staff. The bus driver even threatened to call the police if I refused to get off the bus. It was 100 degrees outside. The bus driver insisted I get off. He was not willing to have me wait inside the air conditioned bus. When I finally got off, he jerked his arm up in an "f---" you gesture. Two weeks ago, the 1:25 PM 42B bus was also running late (Airport to Woodland to Davis). I called Yolobus, asked if when it eventually arrived, if it would be in time to make the connection at the Yolo Fair Mall transit bus stop. The person told me no. Rather than be dumped AGAIN at the Yolo Fair mall bus stop for the next bus, I paid $24 for Super Shuttle to take me home. Two suggestions: Double frequency of 42B and 42A service. Guarantee that passengers are able to complete their itineraries at any point in the loop NEVER again pick up a passenger at the airport who's going to Davis, and dump them off at the Yolobus mall where there are ZERO other transit options, and invite them to sit in the hot sun for an hour for the next bus. Tamra L. Barker, MD Disabled Veteran

2. Anonymous, Woodland, CA

Anonymous submitted the following comment: Buses coming from Davis (the route 42) are frequently 20+ minutes late and miss connections with local Woodland routes 210/211, which is particularly problematic when these connections are missed on the last buses of the night and forces riders to walk excessive distances in the dark.

Page 5 of 7

3. Shauna Manner, Portland, OR/Sacramento, CA Ms. Manner submitted the following comment: I am a regular transit rider in Portland Oregon but not in Sacramento because of safety, cost, schedule, and limitations on where transit goes. I do ride the Yolo Bus between the Sacramento airport and downtown Sacramento each week, but find it disappointing that the bus only runs once an hour. If a flight is timed such that your arrival narrowly misses the bus, it is a long time to wait before the next one comes. More frequent service to the airport would be expected for any city serious about providing public transit as an option. As a side note, a bench and shelter from the weather at the new terminal might make the long wait a little more tolerable; the overhang that provides cover from the rain ends where the waiting area for the public bus begins. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. Shauna Manner

4. Rebecca Challender, Woodland, CA I had heard that at a recent Yolobus council meeting, it was suggested that the 42 A and B routes might benefit from adding buses every half hour. When I emailed them to ask about it, they said it was a good idea but there were funding issues that would prohibit this. This is the Yolo route that makes a circuit from downtown Sacramento through West Sac, Davis, Woodland and the airport. It serves a lot of people and improvements could be adjusted to serve the public even more. 1. The 42A invariably runs late due to traffic and needier riders in Sac and West Sac. This becomes a major problem when the 42A reaches Woodland and most times many people cannot make their connecting ride. This means a wait of one hour for those riders, creating even more disruption in their lives. I have seen many regular riders give up and purchase cars rather than continue to have this big chunk of time taken out of their day five times a week. Missing the 215 to Esparto and Cache Creek, for example, leaves you no options to get home, especially because there is a large gap in service in the early evening. Most times, the other buses leave County Fair Mall and do not wait for the 30 seconds or so it would take for the 42 to arrive. 2. The routes service 2 colleges and the buses are usually standing room only by the time they leave Davis for Woodland. Going the opposite way, the 8 am bus from Woodland to Davis usually has people standing from the back all the way to the driver. And they are packed in, not loosely. 3. Many of the riders on these routes are students and students have bicycles. With only three bike spots on each rack, riders have had to wait one hour for the next bus, race to the next stop to see if someone with a bike gets out and leaves space on the bike rack, or lock up their bike and leave it at the bus stop. Not an ideal situation. This happens quite a lot. Most of these problems could be resolved by adding buses on the half hour, at least in the

Page 6 of 7

morning and 3:30 pm on. I strongly urge you to consider this option. I am willing to answer questions you may have regarding this issue. Thank you- Rebecca Challender 5. Christine Green, Davis, CA Ms. Green submitted the following comment: We need a direct connection (bus) from Woodland to the Amtrak station in Davis. 6. Ira Bray, Davis, CA Mr. Bray submitted the following comment: Yolobus should work to establish a smartphone enabled bus locator system. Their present Automatic Vehicle Locator (AVL) system only works in a web browser and is very difficult to use on a mobile phone. It would be very helpful if both Unitrans and Yolobus could use the same smartphone app. The Unitrans NextBus system works very well from my experience. With the increasing and very pervasive use of smartphones this improvement in service would have a very direct benefit to a large number of riders and is the most efficient way to provide service information. Thank you. Ira Bray Davis, CA 7. Nancy Dyson, Davis, CA Ms. Dyson submitted the following comments: My 80 year old husband and I, his 71 year old wife, are well served by your transit offerings. We live in Davis; my husband walks to town and catches one of the many busses home. On the weekends they come at hourly intervals; weekdays at half hourly. Both are fine and just require planning. I use a cane so ride the paratransit bus for appointments at Kaiser/Morse Avenue. The service has worked just fine. On the paratransit we can encounter delays, but that is to be expected when picking people up from appointments which may not run to the transit schedule. Our experience with the drivers is

Page 7 of 7

that they are helpful and patient. I have also noticed that they are alert and evade erratic drivers, thereby avoiding accidents. All in all we are very pleased with the service. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Dyson Davis, CA

Page 1 of 5

TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING IN YUBA COUNTY AND SUTTER COUNTY, INCLUDING THE

CITIES OF MARYSVILLE AND YUBA CITY MINUTES

October 24, 2012 – 2:00 P.M.

The hearing was conducted by Mary Jane Griego, representing the SACOG Board of Directors, with Christine O’Rourke of SACOG staff, Claudia Hollis and Jane Stan of the Joint Yuba-Sutter Social Service Transportation Advisory Council, and Keith Martin of Yuba-Sutter Transit. Director Griego and Ms. O’Rourke provided an overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. Thirteen people not on the hearing panel attended the Unmet Transit Needs hearing. Seven people testified at the hearing; correspondence was received from five individuals. Director Griego opened the hearing for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Rachel Teague, Marysville, CA

Ms. Teague requested half hour headways on Route 6 to allow for more convenient transfers. 2. Rick Trask, Marysville, CA

Mr. Trask, a student at Yuba College – Sutter campus, complimented Mr. Martin on his informative overview of Yuba-Sutter Transit service. He stated he is dependent on transit to get to classes at the new Sutter campus. He often takes his bike on the bus in order to bike from the bus stop to the campus, but feels there are safety issues on the roads connecting with the bus stop and campus. He would like to see a new bus stop at the Sutter campus and wonders if there can be some data collection that would justify the new stop based on student demand. He appreciates the bicycle accessibility on Yuba-Sutter Transit but stated he has seen people get left behind because there are not enough bike positions on buses. He requested that all buses have three bike positions. Keith Martin of Yuba-Sutter Transit replied that all fixed route buses have three bike positions and demand response vehicles have two bike positions.

3. Barbara Forkey, Marysville, CA (on behalf of Brian Jukes, Yuba College)

Ms. Forkey, Outreach/Recruitment Specialist at Yuba College, read verbatim a letter submitted to SACOG by Brian Jukes, Interim Executive Dean-Sutter County Campus. Mr. Jukes’ letter is included below as Correspondence #1. In addition, Ms. Forkey stated that most students attending the Sutter campus live in four zip codes: 95953 – 130 students, 95901 – 157 students, 95993 – 542 students, and 95991 – 584 students. These four zip codes account for 1,413 students out of a total student body of 1,713 students. Ms. Forkey stated that starting this spring the Sutter

Attachment H

Page 2 of 5

campus will offer late afternoon and evening classes on Mondays and Wednesdays. She recommended adding bus service to the Sutter campus, and stated that many students had to drop classes at the Sutter campus because they had no way to get there.

4. Rebecca Foss, Yuba City, CA

Ms. Foss, representing the REACH Coalition, provided the hearing panel with a handout of comments solicited from youth. Ms. Foss made the following comments:

a. Requested more Live Oak/Wheatland routes b. Route 4A is unreliable c. Service on certain routes should run later into the evening, especially to locations that

youth frequent. To start, late night service could be provided only on certain days and certain routes.

d. Many people do not know about the Dial-a-Ride service or how to use it. e. Bus service should serve low-income areas and areas with high concentrations of

seniors because those people often do not have other transportation options. f. There needs to be a bus to the Sutter campus. It would be utilized by students. Ms. Foss

stated that her brother decided not to attend the Sutter campus because there is no transit service.

g. Driver smoke breaks, and smoking at bus stations in general, set a bad example for youth. Smoking should not be allowed at stops.

5. Zorna Porter, Plumas Lake, CA

Ms. Porter stated that she has seen bus stop infrastructure around Plumas Lake that does not seem to be utilized. She requested bus service to the Plumas Lake area that would connect with Yuba City/Marysville/McGowan.

6. Nancy Aaberg, Yuba City, CA

Ms. Aaberg, Superintendent – Yuba City Unified, stated that high school students at Yuba City Unified schools, mainly living in zip codes 95991 and 95993, participate in co-enrollment opportunities with Yuba College. The Sutter campus is much closer and more convenient for students. She requested a bus stop at the new Sutter campus and stated that a Blue Sky grant (Pacific Power) could be pursued to fund the service.

7. Mary Jane Griego, Olivehurst, CA

Ms. Griego requested bus service to Olivehurst that would loop to Yuba City/Marysville.

Page 3 of 5

CORRESPONDENCE 1. Brian Jukes, Marysville, CA To whom it may concern: Unfortunately, because I am required to meet with a College Accreditation Team next Wednesday during a site visit, I will not be able to attend the Unmet Transit Needs Hearing on October 24th in Marysville, California. I am distressed at missing this very important meeting because I am very concerned that the needs of those seeking transit to the Yuba College Sutter County Center will not be heard. I have, therefore, asked Barbara Forkey, our Yuba College Outreach Specialist, to represent us at the October 24th meeting. Attached is a document that I’ve asked Ms. Forkey to present at that meeting, but I wanted to give it to you ahead of time. It is data I’ve been able to collect over the last few months to demonstrate the need for public transportation to the Yuba College Sutter County Center, currently operating 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The Center will be operational in the spring from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesday and will be open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays. We expect enrollment to increase significantly. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. And I apologize for missing this very important meeting. It is one I definitely did not want to miss. Sincerely, Brian Jukes

2. James Seif

We are in great need of a highway around Marysville to relieve the congestion in downtown Marysville. 3. Calvin Hale, Yuba City, CA

Hello, my name is Calvin Hale and I am a Yuba College student and a Staff writer on the Yuba College Newspaper, the Prospector. I have two questions regarding the current bus situation for the Sutter county campus. Q#1. When can Yuba College Students expect a bus route that will take them to the Sutter County campus? currently the bus gets students about 1.3 miles away from the Sutter county campus Q#2. What can the students do to help this process of getting a bus route that will drop students off closer to the campus? Q#3. How will I know if my questions are being addressed if I cannot attend the Hearing?

Page 4 of 5

Thanks in advance Calvin A. Hale

4. Christine Michelson, Yuba City, CA

I love riding the bus whenever possible so that I may be able to avoid driving in the traffic. Here are some of my ideas * a weekend transit bus that will make two trips on Saturday to the Roseville Galleria Mall for weekend shoppers that don't want to drive. A bus could drop them off at 10AM and pick up at 4PM. Perfect for the Holiday shopping season. *express bus routes for those going to Yuba College, Yuba City or Marysville campus. Many times you're riding the bus for almost an hour to get from Yuba City to Marysville campus. *have a few buses on Sundays even if the bus only runs for a few hours. Thank you Christine Michelson

5. Carmel Garcia, Olivehurst, CA

Good afternoon, In determining unmet transit needs in Yuba County, please consider the following: -Adding an additional stop or 2 on Olivehurst Ave., in Olivehurst, CA, heading south after 9th St. As a disabled person who lives a few blocks away from Olivehurst Ave., dial-a-ride is not always available on a daily basis as needed thus having to take public transportation as an alternative; the closest bus stops are 3 to 4 blocks away, quite challenging for a person with disabilities. In climacteric weather it is worse. -Linking Arboga and Plumas Lake to the transit line would be most helpful in helping to eliminate people and children from walking on the railroad tracks, thus preventing deaths. This would also link the communities and spark bigger ridership. -Adding a stop to Food Maxx in Linda, CA on the 4B route would be real helpful to people with disabilities who choose not to shop at Wal-Mart. -I would like to see additional buses on the 4A and 4B route, running every ½ [hour], consistent with the other routes, I find these buses exceedingly full at times as they only run every hr. and it makes for a longer day in transit, missed connections to other routes, and of recent, for someone who has lots of doctors’ appointments in Sutter Co. I have to leave the city by 4:30p. to make my connections to Olivehurst; if I miss my connections, I'm subject to dial-a-ride and there availability to get me home. Recently this happened, and I got stuck in the wrong part of Linda you don't want to be in the dark, I missed the last 6p., route #3 bus heading south by 1 min., he

Page 5 of 5

didn't see me apparently, heading towards the bus stop waving my arms, thus subject to calling dial-a-ride, the dispatcher then got the information wrong, and I waited nearly 45 mins. after a 6:45pm pick-up time, and then the bus driver was given the wrong information. Seeing the bus across a busy street, impossible to get his attention in the dark. I had to wait for him to turn around, which I hoped he would do and he did, thus in the dark hobbling, I nearly had to jump in front of the bus to get the driver's attention as he was still looking in the other direction for the passenger at the address given by the dispatcher. -Route #3 bus driver, Ernie could be nicer to the disabled, by lowering the lift. Some of us don't always have an attendant with us, especially when the old buses are in use; the stairs are too narrow for assisted devices. -Please strongly consider adding an additional route on Powerline Rd., in Olivehurst, stops along Powerline Rd. could be at the Jr. high, Opud, the Calvary Church shopping center, VFW bldg., and then crossing back over to Olivehurst Ave. to continue onto reg. route or turn right from Powerline Rd. over the overpass then left onto Lindhurst Ave.,(?) heading north, along the freeway on the east side of Hwy 70, connecting with the route #6 bus, Edgewood, then continuing on to the Wal-Mart transfer station, you could get the Food Maxx stop in on this additional route. Just something to consider. I see many walking on these roads, they could be potential customers. -In Sutter Co., a public transit stop at the Social Security office on Percy Ave., in Yuba City, CA would be nice. There is no guarantee of getting a dial-a-ride in the morning unless you are booked 2 weeks in advance, again being disabled, and walking long distances is quite often a challenge. The closest bus stop to the Social Security bldg. is about 4 blocks away, on Plumas Blvd. the No. 2 route. All in all, I really enjoy the transit system and I encourage all to use. My last comment would be that I pray that all bus drivers continue to be compassionate towards the disabled and that they also encourage All riders to do the same. So many times I have seen young or healthy adults take the front seats while, I, myself and other disabled people are forced to seat in the back, just because we are not in a wheel chair does not mean we don't have physical disabilities that we struggle with. The driver seeing the disabled card alone should make sure the disabled party is seated properly. Thank you for allowing the input. Sincerely, Carmel Garcia

Unmet Transit Needs Report: Sutter County Center In a survey conducted at the end of September of approximately 400 current students at the Sutter County Center, just over 50% of them indicated that they would use a bus service if it were available.

If there were bus service to the Sutter County Center, would you use it?

The need for bus service among our current student body is actually greater than expected. We are, of course, surveying the wrong group. Obviously, our current students have some other means of transportation, albeit walking is that mode of transportation for many, or they wouldn’t be here. Yet over half of them say that they would use the bus if it were available. Imagine the hundreds of other potential students who are not attending the Sutter County Center because there is no bus service. These would use the bus to take classes at the new campus, but we cannot survey them. A Yuba-Sutter Transit sponsored survey of Sutter County high school students, of Yuba College students currently using the transit system to attend the Marysville campus, and of other potential students would yield a much better picture of how highly valuable this service would be. We would likely see a very significant number of potential students who are interested, but who are prevented from attending classes at the Sutter County Center because there is no bus service. These would be new, additional customers for the Yuba-Sutter Transit. When we conducted a similar survey on September 7th, among more than 50 Sutter County High School counselors and administrators from several different public and charter schools, 99% of them indicated that if there were bus service to the Sutter County Center, their students would benefit.

Unmet Transit Needs Report: Sutter County Center If there were bus service to the Sutter County Center, would your students use it?

Among our current students, the most common general comment made at the end of our survey was about the lack of a transit support system. Here only a few of their comments:

1. I walk all of E. Onstott and it is dangerous from Pease Rd. to Campus. Please check into that!! Should have been taken care of during the building of Campus as well as a bus route.

2. I would like to get a bus to this campus soon. 3. There really needs to be a bus route that goes to this campus. 4. The bus service is a huge issue. 5. I had no idea there would not be Public Transportation available. I am

dependent p/t upon a bicycle. I have found being a bicyclist or pedestrian very dangerous traveling Live Oak Blvd, parts of Pease, as well as the frontage Rd. The bend especially. As the seasons change, the conditions will get worse. Dial a ride is extremely unreliable as well as expensive.

6. We need busses. 7. It is very important that students have a way to get to their classes and achieve

their goals. 8. We need a bus!! 9. I have a car BUT there are plenty of students who aren’t as fortunate as I am to

have a car and a bus stop at the Sutter Campus would enable many more people to attend this campus.

10. We need a bus stop! 11. Having Bus transportation will allow more students to be enrolled in your

classes. 12. We need a bus!

Unmet Transit Needs Report: Sutter County Center 13. I see a lot of people walking to school & there is very little room for them to walk

without being in the way of the cars going by… 14. I assumed there would be transportation (public) to this campus. Very

dangerous to walk or ride bicycle. Dial-a-ride totally unreliable & Expensive. 15. We need a bus service; there is no way to get to the college. 16. It’s a great campus. The bus service would be great for me and some of my

friends. 17. The bus would really help me out thank you 18. I walk to the campus every morning despite the fact that there is a bus stop a

block from my house, if there was a bus route I would use it. Bus Please. 19. We sure need a Bus!! 20. Walk is DANGEROUS!!!!! 21. We need bus service. 22. When the bus route will come?

Again, these are the comments from students who have already somehow figured out a way to attend their classes without public transportation. There are countless others whom we cannot survey because they cannot attend--but they would attend and would use the transit system, if it were only available. The need is clear. The situation is dire. We have a bus stop already created at the Sutter County Center. All that is needed is a route to take students there. I implore you to meet this public need as soon as possible.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 3 – 2013

FINDING THAT THERE ARE UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE

TO MEET IN THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, which serves the City of Citrus Heights under contract, identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing on transit needs were held by SACOG for the City of Galt at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 15, 2012, the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) at the SRTD Auditorium on October 20, 2012, the City of Elk Grove at the Elk Grove City Council Chambers on October 29, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and

WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.

Resolution No. 3 – 2013 -2- February 21, 2013

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, including the City of Citrus Heights.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21st day of February 2013, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _____________________________ _____________________________ Mary Jane Griego Mike McKeever Chair Chief Executive Officer


FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE

REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF DAVIS

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Davis identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on transit needs was held by SACOG for Yolo County at the Davis City Council Chambers on October 17, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Davis.


PASSED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February 2013 by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _____________________________ _____________________________ Mary Jane Griego Mike McKeever Chair Chief Executive Officer



TO MEET IN THE CITY OF ELK GROVE

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Elk Grove identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Elk Grove.




REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF FOLSOM

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Folsom identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Folsom.




REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF GALT

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Galt identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Galt.



FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN THE

CITY OF ISLETON

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Isleton identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Isleton.



FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN THE

CITY OF LIVE OAK

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Live Oak identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 24, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Live Oak.

Resolution No. 9 – 2013 -2- February 21, 2013 PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21st day of February 2013, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES:

NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _____________________________ _____________________________ Mary Jane Griego Mike McKeever Chair Chief Executive Officer



REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Marysville identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 24, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Marysville.





TO MEET IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and

WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District, of which the City of Rancho Cordova is a member, identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, including the City of Rancho Cordova.


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

RESOLUTION NO. 12 – 2013

FINDING THAT THERE ARE UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, including the cities of Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova, as well as portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County within the SRTD.




REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the County of Sacramento identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and




NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sacramento outside of the Sacramento Regional Transit District.



FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNICORPORATED AREAS OF THE

COUNTY OF SUTTER

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the County of Sutter identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 24, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sutter.





REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF YOLO COUNTY

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the County of Yolo identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on transit needs was held by SACOG for Yolo County at the Davis City Council Chambers on October 17, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yolo.





REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNICORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF YUBA

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the County of Yuba identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 24, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yuba.





REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on transit needs was held by SACOG for Yolo County at the Davis City Council Chambers on October 17, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of West Sacramento.




FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN

THE CITY OF WHEATLAND

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Wheatland identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 24, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Wheatland.




FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN

THE CITY OF WINTERS

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Winters identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on transit needs was held by SACOG for Yolo County at the Davis City Council Chambers on October 17, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Winters.





REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF WOODLAND

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Woodland identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on transit needs was held by SACOG for Yolo County at the Davis City Council Chambers on October 17, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Woodland.





REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines adopted on March 2011; and WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e.. in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), and that have not been implemented or funded”; and WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, and cost effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Yuba City identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 24, 2012, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 17, 2013; and WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and WHEREAS, the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that: There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Yuba City.



Item #13-2-3

SACOG Board of Directors Consent February 14, 2013 Approve Funding of Transit Projects Using Proposition 1B Transit – Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Funds Issue: Should funding be approved for PTMISEA transit projects? Recommendation: The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board approve (1) $160,000 in regional PTMISEA funding to the City of Folsom Cutaway Bus Replacement; (2) $37,500 in regional PTMISEA funding to the City of Folsom Surveillance Equipment; (3) $190,233.50 in regional PTMISEA funding to the City of Elk Grove Surveillance Equipment; (4) $12,022 in regional PTMISEA interest to the Yolo County Transportation District Maintenance and Operations Facility; (5) $15,514.92 in regional PTMISEA cost savings to the Sacramento Regional Transit Bucket Truck and Aerial Platform Line Truck; (6) the allocation of $2,011,331 to the Sacramento Regional Transit South Sacramento County Corridor Phase 2, prior to receiving these funds from state bond sales; and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to sign and submit required Division of Mass Transportation applications and forms, and enter into subrecipient agreements with project sponsors. Committee Action/Discussion: The PTMISEA program is a ten-year, transit capital, state bond program for which SACOG is the recipient of regional (GC 8879.55(a)(2)/PUC 99313) funds for the four-county region. SACOG passes the funding through to transit agencies who act as project sponsors. The Transit Coordinating Committee (TCC) is responsible for reviewing project applications and making recommendations to the Transportation Committee and the Board. The TCC reviewed the PTMISEA funding requests at its January 16, 2013, meeting and recommends funding projects (1) – (6) in Attachment A. For FY 10/11, 11/12, and 12/13, SACOG received an apportionment through the state budget of $34,963,279. SACOG has previously allocated $34,575,545.50 and has $387,733.50 remaining to allocate in FY 12/13. The TCC recommends that Projects (1), (2), and (3) in Attachment A be approved for funding using the remaining funds. PTMISEA funds held in SACOG’s PTMISEA account accrue interest. The balance of PTMISEA interest is $60,722. The TCC recommends allocating $12,022 in regional PTMISEA interest to the YCTD Maintenance and Operations Facility (Project (4)). SACOG previously awarded $2,278,566 in regional PTMISEA funding to this project, and the additional $12,022 will fund final project costs. The TCC recommends reallocating $15,514.92 in project cost savings to Project (5). The cost savings come from Sacramento Regional Transit’s Ahern/12th St. Light Rail Improvement, which came in under budget.

The TCC recommends advancing $2,011,331 to Regional Transit for the South Sacramento County Corridor Phase 2 (SSCP2) (Project (6)), prior to receiving these funds from state bond sales. The SSCP2 project has previously been awarded $24.5 million of regional PTMISEA funding, but bonds have not yet been sold to fulfill that commitment. In order to advance this regionally-significant project, it is recommended that funds from RT/Paratransit, Inc.’s Paratransit Vehicle Replacement project be reallocated to SSCP2. SACOG previously awarded $2.8 million to the Vehicle Replacement project. However, an alternative funding source was found for the vehicles, and the PTMISEA funds were not expended. In November, the Board approved allocating $800,000 of the $2.8 million for Mobile Access Routers (MAR) for RT’s bus fleet. The TCC recommends allocating the remaining $2,011,331 to SSCP2, with the understanding that RT would repay the $2,011,331 out of future bond receipts, expected this spring, which would then be allocated to a future RT/Paratransit, Inc. project to be determined. Funding applications for the recommended projects will be submitted to the Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation for FY 12/13 Cycle 2 by the March 15, 2013, deadline. With Board approval, these funding applications will be signed and the necessary forms and subrecipient agreements prepared and executed with project sponsors. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:CO:gg Attachments Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Christine O’Rourke, Assistant Planner, (916) 340-6262

1300703

Attachment AProjects Recommended for Regional (GC 8879.55(a)(2)/PUC 99313) PTMISEA Funding

FY 10/11, 11/12, & 12/13 Regional Allocation: 34,963,279.00$ Amount Previously Awarded: 34,575,545.50$

Recommended Projects (#1-3 below): 387,733.50$ Remaining FY 10/11, 11/12, & 12/13 Funding: -$

Project Title Description Amount

(1) City of Folsom Cutaway Bus ReplacementReplacement of two, 22' cutaway buses that have the capacity of 3 wheelchairs and 12 seated passengers.

160,000.00$

(2) City of Folsom Surveillance EquipmentPurchase and installation of on-board digital surveillance systems for 5 vehicles.

37,500.00$

(3) City of Elk Grove Surveillance EquipmentPurchase and installation of on-board digital surveillance systems for approximately 25 vehicles.

190,233.50$

Accumulated PTMISEA Interest: 60,722.00$ Recommended Project (#4 below): 12,022.00$

Remaining PTMISEA Interest: 48,700.00$


(4)Yolo County Transportation District Maintenance and Operations Facility

Improvement of existing maintenance shop and expanded and modified administrative and operation facilities.

12,022.00$

Original Ahern/12th St Allocation: 70,000.00$ Actual Ahern/12th St Cost: 54,485.08$

Recommended Project (#5 below): 15,514.92$ Remaining Funding: -$


(5)Sacramento Regional Transit District Bucket Truck and Aerial Platform Line Truck

Purchase of a replacement bucket truck and aerial platform (line) truck that have reached their useful life.

15,514.92$

Original Paratransit Vehicle Allocation: 2,811,331.00$ Previous Reallocation to MAR: 800,000.00$

Recommended Project (#6 below): 2,011,331.00$ Remaining Funding: -$


(6)Sacramento Regional Transit South Sacramento County Corridor Phase 2 (SSCP2)

SSCP2 will extend the light rail transit line from Meadowview Road to Consumnes River College (CRC).

2,011,331.00$



APPROVING THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MODERNIZATION, IMPROVEMENT, AND SERVICE ENHANCEMENT ACCOUNT FUNDING REQUEST

FOR FY 2012/13 CYCLE 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,426,601.42

WHEREAS, the Proposition 1B Transportation Bond program has made funds available under the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA); and

WHEREAS, the FY2010/11 state budget approved an allocation of $34,963,279 for the

SACOG region for FY2010/11, FY2011/12, and FY2012/13; and WHEREAS, the regional PTMISEA account has an accumulated interest balance of

$60,722; and

WHEREAS, the Guidelines issued by Caltrans require SACOG to identify eligible projects and the sponsoring agency for regional PTMISEA funds; and

WHEREAS, the SACOG Transit Coordinating Committee has reviewed the proposed projects and recommended that SACOG support and submit applications for these projects; and WHEREAS, the City of Elk Grove has requested $190,233.50 for Surveillance Equipment; and

WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has requested $160,000 for Cutaway Bus Replacement; and WHEREAS, the City of Folsom has requested $37,500 for Surveillance Equipment; and

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District has requested $15,514.92 in FY 2007/08 regional cost savings be reallocated to Bucket Truck and Aerial Platform Line Truck; and

WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District has requested an advance of

$2,011,331 for South Sacramento County Corridor Phase 2 (SSCP2); and these funds shall be made available by using $2,011,331 in PTMISEA cash flow capacity; and Sacramento Regional Transit District shall repay the advance out of future Prop 1B PTMISEA receipts; and

Resolution No. 22 – 2013 -2- February 21, 2013 WHEREAS, the Yolo County Transportation District has requested an additional

$12,022 for Maintenance and Operations Facility; and these funds shall be made available using $12,022 in PTMISEA regional interest revenue; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors hereby authorizes the Executive Director to submit PTMISEA funding applications for these projects, and execute any grant agreements and subrecipient funding agreements for the purpose of developing and implementing these projects in the Sacramento region.

PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21st day of February 2013, by the following vote of the

Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _________________________ _____________________________ Mary Jane Griego Mike McKeever Chair Chief Executive Officer

Item #13-2-4 SACOG Board of Directors Consent February 14, 2013 Approve Modifications to the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program (SECAT) Guidelines Issue: To allow a modification to Section 3.2.5 of the SECAT Program Guidelines (Program), in order to provide Power Take Off (PTO) usage to be measured from the drive engine hour meter. Recommendation: The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board (1) amend the existing SECAT Guidelines to reflect Power Take Off (PTO) usage from the drive engine hour meter to more accurately account for SECAT Program emission reductions, and to provide flexibility in usage measurement methodology; and (2) authorize the Chief Executive Officer to modify existing SECAT agreements to reflect this change as appropriate. Committee Action/Discussion: Since 2000, the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program has successfully funded hundreds of clean heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the Sacramento Federal Ozone Non-Attainment Area. The Program is implemented by SMAQMD, with SACOG providing overall administration. The Program requires participants to meet certain usage requirements in exchange for receiving incentive funds. The Program is currently governed by the SECAT Program Guidelines adopted in 2009 by both the SACOG Board of Directors and the SMAQMD Board of Directors. The Guidelines have been amended periodically, as needed, and were last amended by the Board in 2010. Initially, the Program usage commitment only allowed participants to undertake a mileage obligation. In 2007, we began to allow the option of an hourly requirement for trucks using Power Take Off (PTO) as a significant part of their operation. In PTO systems, trucks use the engines to operate other functions, such as water pumps, where usage occurs as a function of hourly operation rather than miles traveled. Examples of PTO trucks are water trucks, mixer trucks, and crane trucks. Based on limited historic data on PTO units, and concerns regarding engine idling time, credit for hours of operation was limited to the PTO portion of the equipment. Since 2007, however, more information has become available as a result of the Air Resources Board (ARB) idle limiting rules (circa 2005). SECAT staff believes these rules have significantly reduced drive engine idle time to a point that the idle time usage is insignificant in measuring actual PTO hour usage. SECAT staff proposes to modify Section 3.2.5 of the Guidelines to take into account drive engine hour usage when the vehicle is traveling on the road to a destination, in addition to PTO unit operation. This change will more accurately reflect and improve overall emission reductions. Additionally, Section 3.2.5 of the Guidelines requires applicants to decide at the time of application whether to use hours or miles to meet the SECAT Program requirements. Historical usage data from the applications may have underrepresented actual PTO operation because many PTO units did not have an hour meter installed. The applicant would then select vehicle mileage for contracting. As operational data became available on the new vehicles, SECAT staff recognized that converting mileage usage requirements to hourly usage would better account the emission benefits from trucks operating PTO units.

SECAT staff is seeking authority to reevaluate these contracts as applicable to further meet regional ozone commitments. Staff recommends that the Board of Directors amend Section 3.2.5 of the 2009 SECAT Program Guidelines, and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to modify existing SECAT agreements to better quantify emission reductions within the Sacramento Federal Ozone Non-Attainment Area. The proposed amended Program Guidelines language is shown in redline and strike out in the attachment. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:DG:gg Attachment Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 David Ghiorso, Finance Manager, (916) 3406258

1300710

Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program

Policies and Guidelines

“The SECAT Program is a Partnership between the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District whose

goal is to reduce harmful emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles in the SFNA”

Prepared By:

Land Use / Mobile Source Division Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

DECEMBER 2009 REVISION

Amended February 2013August 2010

SECAT Guidelines – February 2013August 2010 Revision Page 2 of 24

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction / Background 4

Purpose of the SECAT Program 4 Funding 4 Revisions and Updates to the SECAT Program 4 Who We Are 6 The SFNA 7 How to Contact Us / Application Mailing Address 8 General Program Policies and Guidelines 9 General Eligibility 9 Application & Evaluation Procedures 9 Program Requirements & Reimbursement Procedures 11 Audit Procedures 13 Participating Dealerships 13 Environmental Justice Policies 13 Inter-District Projects 13 SECAT Interaction with ARB Rules and Regulations 14 Fleet Modernization Dealer and Salvage Yard Policies and Procedures 15

Vehicle Dealership Requirements 15 Salvage Yard Requirements 16 Fleet Modernization Program Policies and Guidelines 17

Participant Requirements 17 Application Requirements 17 Application Evaluation 18 Replacement Vehicle Requirements 19 Funding Requirements 21 Legal Ownership of the Replacement Vehicle 21 Performance Requirements / Contractual Obligations of the Participant 22 EPA SmartWay® Certified Tires 23 Map of Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area 24


1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program is a partnership between the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (District) and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). The program’s goal is to reduce harmful emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles operating in the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area (SFNA). In 2000, the SECAT Program received $66 million to reduce emissions released from heavy-duty vehicles in the SFNA by providing incentives to offset the costs of purchasing lower-emission technologies and an additional $4 million used by SACOG to help replace old diesel transit buses – totaling $70 million in funding from the state Traffic Congestion Relief Fund ($50 million) and the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funding program ($20 million). This program was originally created by California Assembly Bill (AB) 2511 to help assure that the SFNA would meet its commitments under the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality attainment. In 2008, the SECAT Program received an additional $3.2 million in federal CMAQ funds with additional allocations on a yearly basis, which will be primarily used for projects under the Fleet Modernization option; however, other emission reduction projects may also be funded under the program. Eligible types of projects include the following:

• Replacing older, higher polluting vehicles with newer, lower-emission vehicles (Fleet Modernization);

• Purchasing new, low or zero-emitting vehicles; • Retrofitting existing heavy-duty vehicles with after-treatment systems to reduce Oxides of

Nitrogen (NOx); and • Implementing any other verifiable, enforceable, and cost-effective technology for reducing NOx

emissions from heavy-duty on-road vehicles. The SECAT Program is distinct from the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (the Moyer Program). The key difference is that the SECAT Program is not limited to financing the incremental capital costs of emission control measures, but can also pay for operating costs, facility modifications, out-of-cycle replacement, and financial incentives for participation. This may make the SECAT Program more attractive than the Moyer program for some types of projects. Another difference is that the SECAT Program can only fund projects for on-road vehicles. Projects involving non-road vehicles or engines may be eligible for funding under the Moyer Program. The changes made to the SECAT Program in these August 2010 revisions include: expanding the Fleet Modernization Option to include all heavy-duty diesel vehicles with 2002 or older engines, aligning the qualification requirements with ARB mobile source regulations, coordinating cost caps with other incentive programs, requiring energy efficient tires when available, incorporating vehicle leasing options, adding Enhanced Fleet Modernization, and streamlining several program areas consistent with program goals and objectives.


2.0 INTRODUCTION / BACKGROUND 2.1 Purpose of the SECAT Program Although air quality in the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Region (SFNA) for ozone has improved significantly over the last 10 years, we continue to experience violations of the federal 8-hour and 1-hour ozone standards. Most of the pollution is created by mobile sources, including heavy-duty vehicles. Over 30% of NOx emissions from mobile sources come from heavy-duty vehicles. In 1994, the five air districts within the SFNA adopted a federally mandated State Implementation Plan (SIP), which requires the region to decrease emissions from heavy-duty vehicles as one part of a larger strategy to attain the federal one hour ozone standards by 2005 as mandated by the federal Clean Air Act. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard. The regional air districts approved a new 8-hour SIP in 2008, which will include requirements to reduce heavy-duty vehicle emissions. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the designated planning organization for the region responsible for ensuring that transportation projects and plans do not impede the region’s clean air goals. SACOG evaluates all projects included in the Federal Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program to ensure consistency with air quality objectives and the SIP. As part of the region's overall effort to meet clean air standards and achieve conformity with transportation plans, SACOG also partners with the air districts to promote clean-fuel vehicles and develop mobile source control measures. One such measure is the development and implementation of the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air Transportation (SECAT) Program. The SECAT Program was created as part of the SIP effort to provide incentives to help on-road heavy-duty truck owners purchase technologies to reduce emissions in the SFNA in order to meet federal air quality standards. This document sets out the policies and guidelines of the SECAT Program. The SECAT Program includes a variety of options to help truck owners and fleet managers reduce emissions:

• Replacing older, higher polluting vehicles with newer, lower-emission vehicles (Fleet Modernization);

• Purchasing new, low or zero-emitting vehicles; • Retrofitting of existing heavy-duty vehicles with aftertreatment systems to reduce NOx; and • Implementing other verifiable, enforceable, and cost-effective technology for reducing NOx

emissions from heavy-duty on-road vehicles. The following policies and guidelines in this document include minimum qualifications for a vehicle to enter the SECAT Program, the responsibilities of vehicle owners, vehicle dealerships, engine dealerships, salvage yards, and surplus sale entities such as auction yards and information on how funding amounts are determined. 2.2 SECAT Program Funding The $70 million allocated under the 2000 SECAT Program has been fully allocated. In 2008, the newest phase of SECAT funding of $3.2 million was awarded by SACOG’s Air Quality Funding Program. SECAT is expected to receive annual funding under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program through 2018. Applications for new projects will be accepted once funding becomes available.


2.3 Revisions and Updates to the SECAT Program Staff continuously evaluates the implementation procedures, participant qualifications, and overall effectiveness of the SECAT Program in order to ensure that the SFNA achieves the highest emission benefit possible. Listed below is a summary of changes that have been made since 2000 to enhance the SECAT Program’s effectiveness. Fleet Modernization: In 2002, the Fleet Modernization program was adopted as another option for truck owners to reduce emissions. This option allowed for the purchase of newer, cleaner vehicles as a replacement for older, higher polluting vehicles. Updated emissions model: The original mobile sources emissions model (EMFAC7F) was replaced with an updated emissions model (EMFAC2002). Now, the SECAT Program will use the most current emission model (EMFAC2007) used by the Carl Moyer Program to evaluate projects. The updated model offers more accurate emissions information based upon the latest research completed on car and truck surveys. Revised Fleet Modernization participant requirements: Participants will be required to provide more information on the operational history of their original vehicles in order to be approved to participate in the program. Additional information required will include a full registration and insurance history of the original vehicle from the previous three years and stricter proof of actual historic usage including, if necessary, submitting to a trial period of three months to one year where mileage will be recorded. Revised Fleet Modernization replacement vehicle requirements: The replacement vehicles must have engines certified to model year 2007 or retrofitted to meet 2007 emission standards or better. This new requirement is designed to help participants comply with future California Air Resources Board guidelines and to maximize the emission reductions per project. Revised Vehicle Inspection Procedures: Inspections will only be performed by District personnel, unless SMAQMD waives this requirement. Most projects will require at least three separate inspections – pre-inspection of the old vehicle, post-inspection of the replacement vehicle, and pre-salvage inspection of the old vehicle to verify its condition prior to salvage. In October 2007 revisions and updates to the SECAT Program included, eliminating engine repowers as an option, requiring that replacement trucks in the Fleet Modernization option comply with 2007 heavy duty diesel vehicle emission standards, incorporating updates to the inspection, survey and audit procedures, and increasing funding by 10% for vehicles that meet the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Smartway truck certification standards. For the August 2010 Revision, the SECAT Program is implementing the following changes: The changes made to the SECAT Program in August 2010 revisions included: expanding the Fleet Modernization Option to include all heavy-duty diesel vehicles with 2002 or older engines, aligning the qualification requirements with ARB mobile source regulations, coordinating cost caps with other incentive programs, requiring energy efficient tires when available, incorporating vehicle leasing options, adding Enhanced Fleet Modernization, and streamlining several program areas consistent with program goals and objectives. The changes made to the SECAT Program in the February 2013 revisions take into account drive engine hour usage when the vehicle is traveling on the road to a destination, in addition to PTO unit operation. This change more accurately reflects and improves overall emission reductions. 1. Adding Enhanced Fleet Modernization. 2.4 Who We Are


The SECAT Program is a partnership between the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). The goal of the program is to reduce harmful emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles in the SFNA. The Climate & Air Quality Committee of the SACOG Board of Directors is responsible for the oversight of the SECAT Program consisting of representatives from a variety of government agencies and the private sector. They play a major role in developing and reviewing program changes. 2.4.1 The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) SACOG is a legislatively created association of Sacramento Valley governments formed from the six surrounding counties - El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba - and its 22 member cities. The SACOG directors are chosen from the elected boards of its member governments. SACOG's primary charge is to provide regional transportation planning and allocate funding for transportation projects. It also provides a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues. In this role, SACOG prepares the region's long-range transportation plan, approves distribution of affordable housing around the region, keeps a region wide database for its own and local agency use, helps counties and cities use federal transportation funds in a timely way, and assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and airport land uses. 2.4.2 The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) SMAQMD is also a legislatively created agency, and is the local agency primarily responsible for implementing the federal and state Clean Air Acts. In that capacity, it works cooperatively to coordinate the efforts of local, state and federal government agencies, the business community, and private citizens to achieve and maintain healthy air quality for the SFNA. SMAQMD cannot achieve healthy air for Sacramento alone; however, with its regulatory efforts and its lead role in development of innovative programs, it can encourage the cooperative inter-agency and public efforts that are required to improve air quality. The SMAQMD's 14-member Board of Directors is composed of all five Sacramento County Supervisors, four members of the Sacramento City Council, one member representing each of the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom and Rancho Cordova, and one member representing the Cities of Galt and Isleton. The Board reviews and approves all rules, programs, policies and budgets. SMAQMD represents the other air districts in the SFNA in implementing the SECAT Program. These air districts include the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, the Placer County Air Pollution Control District, the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, and the Feather River Air Quality Management District. Each air district has played an important role in our ongoing efforts to improve air quality in the region. 2.4.3 The SFNA – Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area The SFNA is commonly known as the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area for ozone. This area is comprised of five Air Districts – the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, and Feather River Air Quality Management District – covering all or parts of six counties. This region is designated non-attainment by the federal government under the federal Clean Air Act because it does not meet the NAAQS for ozone. The SFNA has been classified as “severe” for the federal 8-hour ozone standard with an attainment date of 2019. The SECAT Program is one of many programs in place to help reduce emissions in order to meet our attainment date and make the air healthier to breathe. A map of the SFNA is on Page 24.


2.5 How to Contact Us / Application Mailing Address SMAQMD staff is available to answer any questions regarding the SECAT Program. For more information on the SECAT Program or to request an application, go to the website or contact one of the following staff members listed below: Website: WWW.4SECAT.COM Program Staff: Kristian Damkier (916) 874-4892 [email protected] Heather Taylor (916) 874-4889 [email protected] Joanne Chan (916) 874-6267 [email protected] Pat Robinson (916) 874-6276 [email protected] Steffani Charkiewicz (916) 874-6361 [email protected] Program Coordinators: Mike Neuenburg (916) 874-1676 [email protected] (Contract/Applications) Amy Roberts (916) 874-6354 [email protected] (Inspections/Audits) Program Supervisor: Mark Loutzenhiser (916) 874-4872 [email protected] Mailing Address for Applications: SECAT Program, Application for Funding - SMAQMD 777 12th St., 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95814-1908 Applicants can also go directly to local participating truck and engine dealerships. Participating dealerships have been trained to help truck owners understand all of the program requirements to help them complete applications and receive for funding under the SECAT Program. All applications must be returned signed and dated in their original format in either blue or black ink. Any application that is not signed or dated will be returned. Faxes WILL NOT be accepted.


3.0 GENERAL PROGRAM POLICIES AND GUIDELINES 3.1 General Eligibility 3.1.1 Who is eligible to participate? Any individual, company, or public agency may apply to receive incentive funds. If the applicant does not own the vehicles in question, the application must include a satisfactory, binding contract with the person(s) or organization(s) that do own the vehicles. This contract must commit the owner of the vehicles to carry out the actions described in the proposal. 3.1.2 Who is not eligible to participate? Any applicant applying for funds for purchases or retrofits that are already required by any local, state, or federal rule or regulation – including, but not limited to, the Energy Policy Act (EPACT), existing regulations, agency memoranda of agreement or understanding, state mobile source Air Toxic Control Measures, or other legally binding requirements. A more detailed discussion of which vehicles are eligible is located in Section 3.9. 3.1.3 What type of vehicle is eligible? Projects must reduce emissions from on-road heavy-duty vehicles operating in the SFNA. On-road motor vehicles are defined as “self-propelled motor vehicles that are manufactured for or designed primarily for use on public roads.” All vehicles must be over 14,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). 3.1.4 What technologies are eligible to participate? This program is designed to produce SIP emission reductions that can be used to demonstrate progress toward our SIP requirements. Consequently, all emission reductions must be real, quantifiable, surplus, enforceable, and permanent. To meet this requirement, any engine or vehicle purchased under the program must be emission certified or verified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Likewise, any emission control technologies must be certified or verified by CARB or otherwise approved by CARB. Research and development (R&D) will not be funded under the SECAT Program. Subject to CARB approval for use on vehicles operating in California, the SECAT Program may fund in-use durability demonstration programs for technologies provisionally certified or verified by CARB pending the outcome of such demonstrations. 3.1.5 Restrictions on emissions averaging, banking and trading. Low-emission engines, vehicles or technologies funded under the SECAT Program cannot be used to generate emission credits in any emissions averaging, banking or trading program. 3.2 Application Instructions & Evaluation Procedures 3.2.1 Application Instructions Please follow all of the application instructions. Any incomplete or incorrect applications will be returned to the applicant.

• Fill out and sign the most recent SMAQMD mobile source incentive program application as available at http://www.airquality.org. The application can be also be downloaded from the SECAT website (www.4secat.com) or can be ordered by calling one of the program staff or sending a request via e-mail. Staff contact information is in section 2.5.


• Fill in a “Vehicle Information Form” for each vehicle that you are proposing to replace or retrofit.

• Submit additional documentation as required under the specific program guidelines. Each specific program may require different paperwork. Contact project staff if there are any questions with regard to additional documentation.

• The application will be reviewed to determine that all the required information has been provided and that all program requirements have been met. If the application is not complete or does not meet the program requirements, it will be returned with a request for additional information or an explanation as to why the application was not approved. The SECAT Program reserves the right to request additional information and can deny the application if such requested information is not provided.

• Application Procedure Overview:

1. Applicant submits a complete SECAT Application including all supplementary documentation to

SMAQMD for evaluation 2. Applications will be assigned to a Project Manager for review 3. If funding is available, SMAQMD will use its best efforts to contact applicants within 3-5

business days to confirm approval or discuss problems with the application 4. Applicants will then be contacted by an Inspector to perform a visual and operational inspection

of the old vehicle to verify eligibility 5. Following approval, funding agreements will be circulated to the applicant, SMAQMD, and

SACOG for signatures (an executed copy of the executed agreement will be returned to the applicant)

6. After the applicant receives a fully executed funding agreement, the applicant may purchase the low emission technology and subsequently invoice the SECAT Program for reimbursement

7. Applicant will be contacted by an Inspector to perform a visual and operational inspection of either the new vehicle or low emission technology to verify eligibility

8. Fleet Modernization Only: The old vehicle will also be inspected again by an Inspector prior to its delivery to an approved salvage yard to verify that it still meets program requirements unless the vehicle is assigned for sale through an approved entity such as an auction yard.

9. Upon receipt of all signed invoices, inspections, and tax information, the Project Manager will submit payment for the amount authorized in the funding agreement

10. Applicant will then be responsible for meeting all requirements in the funding agreement for the term of the agreement including operation, audit, and recordkeeping requirements

3.2.2 Evaluation Procedures Applications will be evaluated on a first-come, first served-basis. Completed applications will be evaluated according to the methodology used in the Carl Moyer Program Guidelines (2008 Revision) to determine the emission reductions and the cost-effectiveness on a per-vehicle and overall project cost basis. All applications will generally be reviewed and approved on a first-come, first-served basis according to the availability of funding, although SMAQMD reserves the right to accelerate approval of particular applications if it determines that early approval will benefit air quality or meets Environmental Justice goals discussed in Section 3.6. Project managers will submit eligible projects to the SECAT Executive Committee for approval. The SECAT Executive Committee consists of the Air Pollution Control Officers of SMAQMD, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, and the Executive Director of SACOG. If an application meets the program guidelines, it will be approved by the SECAT Executive Committee providing the project cost effectiveness does not exceed $100,000 per 1-yr ton NOx reduced. If an application does not meet the above cost-effectiveness conditions, the applicant can petition SMAQMD for further evaluation. SMAQMD will determine whether there are unusual circumstances that may justify the incentive award, and if appropriate, will submit the petition to the SACOG board for approval or denial.


3.2.3 Applicant Compliance Checks All applicants will be subject to verification of compliance with all local and state air quality rules, including compliance with air district rules and regulations based on the applicant’s business address. Applicants will be required to resolve all outstanding Notices of Violation or other citations with all agencies to receive incentive funding. Potential applicants are advised to check for violations with CARB and/or their local air district prior to applying for funding. In addition, the SECAT Program may reject applications from applicants that have previously received incentive funding from SECAT or any other incentive program if they are not in compliance with their contracted performance requirements. Applicants may also be required to reimburse the SMAQMD or SECAT any deficient balance prior to receiving additional incentive funding. 3.2.4 Funding Awards Based on Historic Usage Based on Miles Driven Funding awards are based upon historic usage of an individual vehicle within the Sacramento Federal Non-attainment Area (SFNA). Documentation supporting the claimed historic usage for the previous three (3) years must be provided prior to application approval. The old vehicle must have operated at least three (3) months per twelve (12) month period to qualify. 3.2.5 Funding Awards Based on Historic Usage Based on Hours Operated – PTO Operation The SECAT Program will allow certain vocational trucks to use hours of Power Take Off (PTO) operations instead of miles to determine funding. Examples include 10-wheel dump trucks, water trucks, mixer trucks, crane trucks, and other trucks as determined by SMAQMD to have dedicated PTO operation. Trucks funded using PTO must use the drive engine to perform PTO; auxiliary or “pony” motors are not eligible for funding. Each hour of PTO will be converted into 28 driving miles for emission calculations,; however,and participants will be required to meet annual hour operational commitments. Applicants can choose at the time of application either miles traveled or hours of operation for cannot combine both hours and mileage for calculation purposes. and must choose at the time of application which one to use. Trucks funded using PTO are required to have an separate hour meter recording actual PTO operation (not total engine hours) to record compliance. SECAT does not fund projects based on engine idle time. 3.3 Program Requirements & Reimbursement Procedures Following application approval, each participant will be required to enter into a funding agreement with SACOG and SMAQMD. Each participant is required to read and understand the funding agreement. If the participant does not fully understand the agreement terms, conditions, and requirements, it is the participant’s responsibility to seek guidance from staff or from a contract law attorney. Although dealership representatives help provide assistance with the application process, they are not authorized to interpret or provide guidance on the agreement terms, conditions, and requirements to participants. All questions and clarifications should be directed to staff for further explanations. The following is a brief summary of the program requirements. 3.3.1 Program Requirements

• Participation in the SECAT Program will require a minimum five (5) year commitment to operate in the SFNA. Funding for the project will be issued at the beginning of this five year commitment. Throughout the contract period, the participant will be required to meet its performance requirements (miles per year). Projects that fail to meet the agreed performance requirements may be required to refund some or all of the funds issued under the SECAT Program. The participant should contact SMAQMD immediately if it knows or has reason to know that the performance requirements will not be met. The start date for performance will be the date the


funds are released to the participant, unless an alternative start date is specified in the funding agreement. Some projects may have a minimum operational commitment less than five years depending on special circumstances.

• Any emission reduction credits in the SFNA resulting from participating in the SECAT Program

will be retired in the interest of air quality improvement. The participant will be required to waive any right to claim emission reduction credits which may accrue at anytime as a result of the project. The applicant will also agree not to apply to SMAQMD, any other Air Quality Management District, Air Pollution Control District, or any other public or private entity for any credits based on reductions generated as a result of participating in the SECAT Program.

• Participants are required to maintain liability and replacement value insurance coverage for the

vehicle(s) participating in the SECAT Program. Self-insurance can satisfy these requirements, but must be approved by SMAQMD prior to execution of the agreement. Additionally, SACOG must be listed as a Loss Payee and Additional Insured on the Participant’s insurance policy. Participant will be required to maintain the following levels of insurance:

o $1,000,000 General Business Liability (commonly referred to as Umbrella) coverage o $1,000,000 General Liability per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and

property damage o $1,000,000 Automobile Liability per accident for bodily injury and property damage o Comprehensive and Collision coverage sufficient to replace the vehicle(s) and emission

control system(s) funded by SECAT – including diesel engine retrofits

• Participants will be required to document actual usage in the SFNA (see map on Page 24) for each year of the agreement term. The Program will claim annual emission reductions that must be achieved based on the participant’s projected usage in the SFNA. Participants will be required to return annual usage reports at least once a year. Projects that fail to meet the agreed performance requirements or submit usage reports may be required to refund some or all of the funds issued under the SECAT Program.

• All participants must keep a driver’s log with actual mileage, fuel consumption records, and any

other records identified in the contract pertaining to maintenance, down time, and miles traveled in the SFNA. Participants funded using engine hours must also log hours performed in the SFNA and total hours operated. SMAQMD may waive the usage log requirements if the applicant installs a SMAQMD approved Electronic Monitoring Unit. A log must be kept of the maintenance and down time throughout the contract period.

• SMAQMD at its option may require the installation of an Electronic Monitoring Unit capable of

tracking the operation of the vehicle within the SFNA and transmitting the data to SMAQMD. If eligible units are identified, the SECAT Program may increase the funding available to the project to include the cost of the system as part of the total incentive amount as long as the total project cost plus the cost of the Electronic Monitoring Unit does not exceed cost effectiveness limits.

• The participant is required to inform SMAQMD of any changes in business name, address, phone

number, or contact person within 10 business days of the change. Furthermore, the participant is required to inform the SMAQMD prior to any sale of funded equipment or change in ownership that would require a contract amendment. The participant will also be required to inform the SMAQMD of any problems or issues resulting in the failure to meet the performance requirements as soon as possible.

3.3.2 Reimbursement Procedures A reimbursement invoice will only be issued after an agreement has been executed, the vehicle or engine is replaced, and adequate dealership invoices for the purchase of the vehicle or equipment have been submitted to SMAQMD. The participant must submit a Sacramento County Payee Data Form along with


their signed funding agreements before the project can be funded. Invoices must include a copy of the final purchase order detailing the actual purchase price of the vehicle or emission control technology and cannot be processed until after inspection of the funded technology. Reimbursement checks can be issued to either one party (the applicant) or to two parties (the applicant and the dealership). Reimbursement may take between 4-8 weeks from the time the reimbursement invoice is received by project staff. Prompt submittal of all required documentation is the best way to speed processing of the reimbursement check. Any funds issued through the SECAT Program may only be used to purchase the vehicle or equipment identified in the participant’s contract. If any funds are used for vehicles or equipment that is not identified in the contract, the participant will be required to refund all incentive amounts. If a program participant wishes to change the vehicle or equipment to be funded, he or she may request a contract amendment. Any contract amendment must be approved in writing and the vehicle or equipment must meet all of the SECAT eligibility requirements. 3.4 Audit Procedures At any time during the agreement term, SACOG or SMAQMD (or both) may conduct an audit of the participant’s operations, including all paperwork documenting actual operation within the SFNA, to verify that the applicant is complying with all contract terms. Any audits will be conducted at a reasonable time and with reasonable notice to the participant. 3.5 Participating Dealerships Local vehicle, engine and salvage yard dealerships play a vital role in the operation and success of the SECAT Program. Dealerships who wish to become a Participating Dealership must be trained by the staff of the SECAT Program, and must be able to assist the applicants in filling out the application, making sure all program requirements have been met, and advising applicants on the SECAT Program performance requirements as required in Section 5. Each Participating Dealership must sign a master agreement with the SECAT Program and must provide any information requested by the Program relating to an application or approved project. 3.6 Environmental Justice Policies SACOG and SMAQMD are committed to accomplishing Environmental Justice goals through the SECAT Program. The Fleet Modernization program has historically funded projects in the construction and agriculture industries which have a disproportionate impact on communities of color and low income populations. The mobile nature of heavy-duty diesel vehicle projects also impact populations living near regional freeways and major thoroughfares. Reductions in regional ozone formation, fine particulate matter, and toxic air contaminants attained through the Fleet Modernization program improve air quality and human health for all people in the SFNA. SACOG and SMAQMD will make every effort to achieve Environmental Justice goals through the Fleet Modernization program. Staff will provide outreach and give funding priority to applicants based or operating within Qualifying Areas as defined in Section 4.1.4 of SMAQMD adopted “Guidelines for Implementing AB 1390 (Firebaugh) Requirements for the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Incentive Program”. These guidelines meet the directives outlined in “Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”. Participating dealers and other stakeholders will also be informed of these objectives. 3.7 Inter-District Projects Inter-district projects are projects where the participant operates their vehicle in the SFNA and in one or more other adjoining air districts. These projects may be funded by two different incentive programs that will claim the resulting emission reduction credits. For example, if a vehicle normally operates in the SFNA and the San Joaquin Region, the applicant may apply to both regions for funding. Funding


distribution will be based on the percentage of operation in each region and on the total emission reductions that are achieved. For more information, contact district staff prior to completing an application. Participants are prohibited from receiving funding from other districts without written approval from the SECAT Program. 3.8 Program Documentation All forms used under the SECAT Program (i.e. applications, agreements, invoices) are subject to change at any time. Potential applicants or other interested parties may contact the SECAT Program to request sample copies of any forms at any time. 3.9 SECAT Interaction with ARB Rules & Regulations Due to the recent adoption of several mobile source rules by the California Air Resources Board, the SECAT Program will require that applicants demonstrate that the purchase of the equipment on their application is not required for compliance. Staff will use the following chart to determine eligibility; however, any changes or modifications to the regulations may affect the eligibility of the project at the time of application. Please contact the SECAT Program for the latest information.

Truck Engine

Model Year

Old Truck in Drayage Truck Registry

Old Truck NOT in Drayage Truck

Registry

Pre-1994

GVWR > 33,000 lbs: Ineligible for SECAT Funding

GVWR ≤ 33,000 lbs:

All vehicles are eligible through 12/31/2009

Prior to 12/31/2009: All trucks are eligible for funding.

After 12/31/2009:

Only trucks in Small Fleets (3 or fewer trucks) are eligible for SECAT funding.

Trucks in Large Fleets may be eligible if the applicant can show the purchase is surplus

to the rule.

1994-1999

Prior to 12/31/2009: Eligible for SECAT Funding if:

1) Old truck is already equipped with a Level 3 VDECS; or

2) Applicant provides a valid quote for a Level 3 VDECS installation with the cost

deducted from the maximum SECAT incentive amount

After 12/31/2009:

Eligible for SECAT Funding only if the truck is equipped with a Level 3 VDECS and is

fully compliant with the rule

All vehicles are eligible through 12/31/2011 (funding opportunities beyond this date are limited to projects being surplus to a rule or

regulation)

2000-2002

All vehicles are eligible through 12/31/2012 (funding opportunities beyond this date are limited to projects being surplus to a rule or

regulation) VEHICLES EXEMPT FROM THE ARB TRUCK & BUS REGULATION (OR OTHER RULES) WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING UP TO ONE (1) YEAR PRIOR TO THEIR EXEMPTION EXPIRATION DATE. Applicants may also be subject to other rules, including but not limited to the Transit Bus Fleet Rule, Solid Waste Collection Vehicle Rule, or the Public Fleet Vehicle ATCM. Staff will evaluate each application to determine whether the proposed project is surplus to these regulations. Applicants will need to have executed SECAT funding agreements at least one year prior to the first compliance deadline of the applicable rule or regulation to secure project funding. Project funding must


then be liquidated within 180 days of the agreement execution or the agreement will be terminated with funding reallocated to other projects.


4.0 FLEET MODERNIZATION DEALER AND SALVAGE YARD POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 4.1 General Information Vehicle dealers, salvage yards, and approved sale entities such as auction yards are an important part of the SECAT Program. New vehicle dealers are responsible for providing low emission diesel trucks meeting the needs of program participants. The salvage yards are responsible for ensuring proper destruction of the old vehicle. Because of their importance, the SECAT Program has special guidelines for salvage yards designed to preserve the integrity of the program and provide maximum emission reductions. 4.2 Vehicle Dealership Requirements Vehicle dealerships are a key partner in the SECAT Program because they help market, qualify, and facilitate Fleet Modernization and Engine Retrofit projects. Representatives of the dealership will often meet with potential applicants and provide information about SECAT and the process. They are also suppliers of new vehicles and engine technology and have the most knowledge about what is appropriate for each applicant. Because of this responsibility, the SECAT Program has Master Agreements with many dealerships to ensure that they are eligible to market their equipment and services to applicants. Participants are not required to purchase technology from an Approved Vehicle Dealership, but working with an Approved Vehicle Dealership may benefit applicants. For example, Approved Vehicle Dealerships can accept old vehicles for salvage. Without this, participants are fully responsible for working with the salvage yard and will be required to schedule multiple pre-salvage inspections to ensure the condition of the old vehicle, rather than just sending the old truck to the Approved Vehicle Dealership. Also, if a participant does not use an Approved Vehicle Dealership, the SECAT Program will not deliver the incentive funds until SMAQMD has received the vehicle title (or a copy from the Finance/Lease Company) listing SMAQMD as a lien holder. Vehicles purchased from an Approved Vehicle Dealership may be paid before the title is processed since the dealership has an agreement with the SECAT Program to ensure SMAQMD is listed as a lien holder. Approved Vehicle Dealerships are also allowed to handle the paperwork and are trained to handle any potential issues with the application process. To become an Approved Vehicle Dealership, dealers must meet the following requirements:

• Owner has had a valid California business license for a minimum of the last two years.

• A minimum of one (1) employee has been trained by the District regarding the SECAT Program.

• Owner agrees to allow the District to inspect vehicles covered under this agreement during normal business hours.

• The business must be licensed by the California Department of Motor Vehicles as a vehicle

dealership.

• Owner must possess a valid State of California seller’s permit issued by the Board of Equalization.

Approved Vehicle Dealerships must agree to:

• Assist the Program Participant in the preparation and submission of its SECAT Program Application. As part of this process for new vehicles, Dealership must prepare an invoice signed by the Participant and submit it to the SECAT Program.


• Provide the District with a copy of the Vehicle Purchase documents, invoices, and DMV registration for the New Vehicle.

• Promptly submit to the District and the Program Participant invoices for all work performed by Dealership or its subcontractors.

4.3 Salvage Yard Requirements Approved Salvage Yards under the SECAT Program are responsible, as applicable (see section 5.12 Enhanced Fleet Modernization), for destroying the old vehicle in an environmentally responsible manner to permanently remove the vehicle from operation. Because of the special requirements, Approved Salvage Yards must be under a Master Agreement with the SECAT Program. The Master Agreement allows an Approved Salvage Yard to be eligible to market its services to Program participants and receive fees or materials for salvage. All vehicles funded under the SECAT Program must be destroyed by an Approved Salvage Yard, unless SMAQMD approves an alternative disposal method that ensures emission reductions. To become an Approved Salvage Yard, salvage yards must meet the following requirements:

• Owner possesses a current, valid auto dismantler’s license issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.

• Owner possesses a current, valid Hazardous Material Generator and Storage Permit issued by

the California Environmental Protection Agency.

• Owner has a current, approved State of California Storm Water Pollution Control Plan.

• Owner has had a valid California business license for a minimum of the last two years.

• A minimum of one (1) employee has been trained by the District regarding the SECAT Program.

• Owner agrees to allow the District to inspect vehicles covered under this agreement during normal business hours.

Approved Salvage Yards must agree to:

• Complete the vehicle destruction within 30 days of the date the salvage yard received the vehicle. Destruction must comply with the SECAT Program Policies and Guidelines and include cutting a jagged-edged hole in the engine block that is at least three inches in diameter and cutting the frame rails completely through in half.

• Surrender the certificate of title to the DMV by submitting a Report of Vehicle to be Dismantled

and register the vehicle as non-repairable – where the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) can no longer be registered or titled. All forms required by DMV to render the vehicle as non-repairable must be filed by the owner or salvage operator within 30 days of the old vehicle delivery. A DMV receipt or non-repairable certificate verifying the vehicle can no longer be registered or titled must be made available to District staff upon request.

4.4 Program Disclaimer The SECAT Program does not review the operations or reach any conclusions regarding the quality of the product or service of Approved Vehicle Dealerships, Approved Salvage Yards, or Approved Sale Entities such as an auction yard. The participant is solely responsible for the quality and performance of the low emission vehicle and/or engine technology funded under the SECAT Program and may not hold the SECAT Program liable for any issues encountered with Approved Vehicle Dealerships, Approved Salvage Yards, or Approved Sale Entities.


5.0 FLEET MODERNIZATION PROGRAM POLICIES AND GUIDELINES The following are the policies and guidelines specific to the Fleet Modernization option under the SECAT Program. Projects such as retrofits or any other emission reduction projects must comply with the general program policies and guidelines. The Fleet Modernization Program provides incentives to reduce emissions by replacing older vehicles with newer, lower-emission vehicles. In place since 2002, this program has been the most popular option to reduce emissions for owners operating older, higher polluting vehicles. With the help of participating engine dealerships, salvage yards, and vehicle dealerships, more than 700 old vehicles have been replaced with newer, lower-emission vehicles. A list of participating dealerships can be found on the SECAT website at www.4secat.com. All applicants must meet the requirements and follow all of the policies and guidelines in order to be approved for funding under the SECAT Program. Vehicle dealerships are specifically trained on the provisions of the SECAT Program and can help participants throughout the application process. Please contact program staff or participating vehicle dealerships with any questions during the application process. 5.1 Participant Requirements The following is a summary of the requirements that must be met prior to approval of a submitted application. If any information is missing or an applicant does not qualify for the program, the application will be mailed back to the applicant.

• Old vehicle must have an engine model year of 2002 or earlier • Old vehicle must have been owned and operated by the applicant within the SFNA for the past

three years at the time of application* • Old vehicle must still be operating on at least a part-time or seasonal basis defined as being

registered with the DMV for on-road operation at least 3 months per 12 month period • Old vehicle must be turned into the vehicle dealership in the same condition that it was in at the

time of the pre-inspection (see Section 5.4) * If the applicant has purchased another business that possessed trucks meeting this requirement and provides documentation that the entire business has been purchased by the applicant, staff may approve the application without three years of ownership by the applicant. Purchasing vehicles from another business for the purpose of receiving SECAT funding is prohibited.

5.2 Application Requirements The following items must accompany the completed original application at time of submittal. FAXED OR COPIED APPLICATIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTED.

• Signed and dated application • Signed and dated Sacramento County Payee Data Record • Copy of the Applicant’s Drivers License or other Photo ID Card • Copy of old vehicle title • Vehicle Registration Information Record from the DMV including the last three years • Mileage verification for previous three years (i.e. maintenance records, fuel receipts, mileage log

books, job invoices, etc.) o If verification is not provided, applicant may opt into tracking mileage for 3 to 12 months

based on estimated historic mileage on a case-by-case basis as approved by a project manager – FUNDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL AFTER THE TRACKING PERIOD

• Proof of vocation – verify the normal operation of the vehicle (i.e., business letterhead, job receipts or tags, delivery invoices)


• Proof of vehicle insurance for previous three years • If engine tag is missing, applicant may be required to provide a printout of the engine horsepower

from a participating engine dealership or provide official dynamometer test data performed within the previous 90 days

5.3 Application Evaluation SMAQMD will use its best efforts to evaluate applications within 3-5 business days after receipt. Staff may request additional information of the applicant and can deny the application if the requested information is not provided. Incomplete and illegible applications will be returned to the applicant or the vendor. If the applicant does not respond within 30 days, the application will be automatically terminated and the application process will have to be reinitiated in order for the project to be reconsidered. After evaluating the application, staff will conduct a Pre-Inspection of the old vehicle. The old vehicle will be inspected to determine the condition of the vehicle. The vehicles will be reinspected immediately prior to salvaging, and if the condition of the vehicle has changed, SMAQMD may withhold payment until the vehicle is restored to the condition documented during the Pre-Inspection (see Section 5.4). 5.4 Requirements for Turning In Old Vehicle The applicant must agree NOT to remove or replace the tires, rims, seats, fifth wheel, engine parts, hood, fenders, fuel tanks, horn, exhaust pipes, mirrors, grill, cab air shield, or any other accessory or item on the vehicles between the Pre-Inspection and the date of the Pre-Salvage inspection. At the time of the Pre-Salvage inspection and when the vehicle is turned over to the SECAT Approved Salvage Yard for salvage or Approved Sales Entity such as an auction yard, the vehicle must be in operational condition, all tires must be road worthy and the vehicle must be able to pass a California Highway Patrol Inspection (see sections 27452 and 27465 of the California Vehicle Code listed below). These items, at minimum, cannot be removed or replaced after the Pre-inspection:

• Hood • Fuel tanks • Tire rims • Horns • Chrome exhaust pipes • Mirrors • Grill • Seats • Air shield on top of cab • 5th wheel • Any parts that would hinder vehicle operation

California Vehicle Code Section 27452 The required thickness of rubber shall extend evenly around the entire periphery of the tire. The entire solid tire shall be securely attached to the channel base and shall be without flat spots or bumpy rubber. Section 27465 (a) No dealer or person holding a retail seller’s permit shall sell, offer for sale, expose for sale, or install on a vehicle axle for use on a highway, a pneumatic tire when the tire has less than the tread depth specified in subdivision (b). This subdivision does not apply to any person who installs on a vehicle, as part of an emergency service rendered to a disabled vehicle upon a highway, a spare tire with the disabled vehicle was equipped


(b) No person shall use on a highway a pneumatic tire on a vehicle axle when the tire has less than the following tread depth, except when temporarily installed on a disable vehicle as specified in subdivision (a): (1) One thirty-second (1/32) of an inch of tread depth in any two adjacent grooves at any location of the tire, except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3). (2) Four thirty-second (4/32) of an inch tread depth at all points in all major grooves on a tire on the steering axle of any motor vehicle specified in Section 34500, and two thirty-second (2/32) of an inch tread depth at all points in all major grooves on all other tires on the axles of these vehicles. 5.5 Replacement Vehicle Requirements The applicant must submit a vehicle information form and ensure that the replacement truck meets the following requirements:

• All replacement vehicles are required to comply with heavy-duty diesel vehicle emission standards as defined below:

o “2007 Model Year NOx Emissions Equivalent” means:

A heavy-duty diesel engine certified by the California Air Resources Board to a standard or FEL at or below 1.4 g/bhp-hr NMHC+NOx and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM; or

Emissions from an engine certified to the 2003 or prior model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard that is equipped with a VDECS that reduces NOx exhaust emissions by at least 70 percent and PM exhaust emissions by at least 85 percent (Level 3, Mark 4); or

Emissions from an engine certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard that is equipped with a VDECS that reduces NOx exhaust emissions by at least 40 percent and PM exhaust emissions by at least 85 percent (Level 3, Mark 2).

o “2010 Model Year NOx Emissions Equivalent” means: A heavy-duty diesel engine certified by the California Air Resources Board to a

standard or FEL at or below 0.20 g/bhp-hr NOx and 0.01 g/bhp-hr PM; or Emissions from an engine certified to the 2004 through 2006 model year heavy-

duty diesel engine emissions standard that is equipped with a VDECS that reduces NOx exhaust emissions by more than 85 percent and PM exhaust emissions by at least 85 percent (Level 3, Mark 5); or

Emissions from an engine certified to the 2007 through 2009 model year heavy-duty diesel engine emissions standard that is equipped with a VDECS that reduces NOx exhaust emissions by more than 70 percent and PM exhaust emissions by at least 85 percent (Level 3, Mark 4).

o Emission data for all engines and diesel emission control systems are available from the engine manufacturer or by contacting SECAT staff.

• Horsepower Requirements: The horsepower of the old and replacement vehicles must be the

same, unless a different horsepower rating is approved by program staff, because emissions produced by a vehicle are related to engine horsepower. Horsepower information should be available on the old engine tag. If the engine tag is missing, program staff may opt to determine the horsepower of the replacement vehicle based on engine manufacturer data, or may require the applicant to provide proof of horsepower through a chassis dynamometer test that takes into account a 15% loss in actual horsepower based on transmission loss. Only in limited cases, where no certified engines are available for any vehicle, will staff approve a horsepower rating on the replacement vehicle that is more than 20% greater than on the old engine tag. The test must have been completed within 90 days prior to submitting the application. The horsepower of the engine can not be increased throughout the term of the agreement.

• System Modifications: Modifications to the following are not allowed: engine performance

characteristics (including changes in horsepower), emission characteristics, engine emission


components (not including repairs with like original equipment manufacturer replacement parts) or any other modifications that cause the engine’s emission control system to be modified.

• Truck Weight Requirements: Heavy-duty trucks in the SECAT Program are separated into two

classes for emission purposes:

o Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles are defined as all vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) between 14,001 – 33,000 lbs and equipped with a certified Medium Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine.

o Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicles are defined as all vehicles with a GVWR over 33,000 lbs or any truck-tractor equipped with a fifth-wheel (DMV Registered Body Type Model = DS) and equipped with a certified Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine.

o The replacement vehicle must be in the same weight class as the old vehicle.

• Truck Axle and Body Configuration Requirements: The replacement vehicle may have a different axle and/or body configuration than the old vehicle as long as the replacement vehicle will operate at least the same number of miles or hours as the old vehicle through the contract term.

• Body Funding: The SECAT Program will not pay for any body value. Additionally, an applicant

may purchase a replacement vehicle equipped with a sleeper cab regardless of the configuration of the old vehicle; however, the SECAT Program will not pay for the cost of the sleeper cab.

• Engine Warranty Requirements: All applicants must purchase a minimum of a 1-year / 100,000

mile major component engine warranty as part of the SECAT Program. Even though it is not a requirement, the SECAT Program suggests that the highest grade warranty be purchased in order to avoid any problems in the future. The SECAT Program is not responsible for any failure of the replacement vehicle, engine or any part, component or accessory. The applicant takes sole responsibility for ensuring that the truck is in operational condition throughout the agreement period. No additional funds will be issued for maintenance or repairs related to the operation of the vehicle.

• Particulate Matter Control Device: All replacement vehicles funded under the SECAT Fleet

Modernization program are required to comply with heavy-duty diesel vehicle emission standards which require the use of diesel particulate filters, so no additional requirements are necessary.

• SECAT Program Decals: Two SECAT Program decals will be placed on each side of the new

vehicle by District staff. These decals must be easily viewed by the public and remain on the vehicle during the life of the contract.

• Pictures of the new vehicle: Staff or a participating dealership will take pictures of the new

vehicle prior to delivery to the applicant. Pictures taken by the participating dealership must be submitted in digital format, and must show: (This requirement will be waived if SMAQMD personnel inspect the vehicle.)

o Front, rear, right and left sides of vehicle – hood down o Vehicle Identification Number – tag inside cab and on vehicle frame o Model year – tag inside cab o Gross Vehicular Weight Rating o Odometer and hour meter reading o Vehicle and engine date of manufacture o Engine – right and left sides o Engine model year – tag on engine o Engine emission family number – tag on engine o Engine serial number – tag on engine


o Engine horsepower – tag on engine o Aftertreatment exhaust system information o Emission certification – tag on engine o Electronic Monitoring Unit (if applicable) o Particulate matter control device – serial number (if applicable) o Additional modifications / body o SECAT Program decals applied to the vehicle body o Drayage Truck Registry label (if applicable) o Other identification labels (if applicable)

5.6 Funding Requirements Funding amounts will be based on the following criteria: 1. The SECAT Program’s cost-effectiveness limit of $100,000 / 1-year ton of NOx; or 2. Maximum vehicle cost cap of:

For 2010 Model Year NOx Emissions Equivalent replacement trucks purchased with Federal Excise Tax, no more than 50% of the final purchase price of the vehicle (excluding body cost and other ineligible costs) not to exceed $60,000 per vehicle; or

For all other new replacement trucks or used 2010 Model Year NOx Emissions Equivalent replacement trucks, no more than 50% of the invoice price of the vehicle (excluding taxes, body cost, and other ineligible costs) not to exceed $50,000 per vehicle; or

For all used trucks, no more than 50% of the invoice price of the vehicle (excluding taxes, body cost, and other ineligible costs) not to exceed $40,000 per vehicle

The SECAT Program will pay the lesser amount of either 1 or 2 towards the project. All funds issued by the SECAT Program must be applied towards the stated vehicle. 5.7 Legal Ownership of the Replacement Vehicle The participant must own and operate the replacement vehicle or engine. The participant may obtain financing to assist in the purchase. The SECAT Program requires that the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and the SMAQMD be added as a lien holder on the title of the replacement vehicle throughout the term of the agreement (usually five years). The Participant must provide proof by submitting either a copy of the replacement vehicle title or the invoice documents listing the lien holder(s) on the replacement vehicle. SACOG and the SMAQMD should be listed on the vehicle title as follows: Sacramento Area Council of Governments/SMAQMD 1415 L St, Ste 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 321-9000 If the participant uses either a Finance Company or Leasing Company to provide their cost share to purchase the replacement vehicle, the Finance/Leasing Company must agree to list SACOG and SMAQMD as lien holders on the vehicle title. The SECAT Program will allow most types of vehicle financing and leasing, however, specific parties should contact the SMAQMD to determine if their program is eligible. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Finance/Leasing Company and the SMAQMD is available to define the relationship between the two parties.


5.8 Certificate of Existing Vehicle Acceptance and Salvage When a vehicle is turned in for salvage, this certificate must be signed by both the vehicle dealership at the time the existing (old) vehicle is turned in and by the Approved Salvage Yard at the time the old vehicle is destroyed. The old vehicle must be turned in within 30 days of taking possession of the new vehicle. The old vehicle must be in the same operating condition as it was during the first inspection. If the truck is stripped, parts are taken off, or the tires are found not to be road worthy, the applicant will be in breach of the contract and will either be required to reinstall all missing or defective parts to the participating salvage yard or repay the total incentive amount. (This certificate requirement will be waived if SMAQMD personnel inspect the vehicle.) The salvage yard has 30 days to destroy the truck by cutting the frame rails completely in half and punching a jagged-edged hole in the engine block large enough to prevent repairs (minimum 3-inch diameter hole). The salvage yard must also take pictures of the destroyed vehicle and register the title with DMV as a non-repairable vehicle so that the VIN number can no longer be registered or titled for operation in California. A Non-Repairable Vehicle Notice or a Report of Vehicle to be Dismantled must be filed by the owner or salvage yard within 30 days of delivery. Once a DMV non-repairable title or DMV receipt showing the vehicle has been junked is received, a copy must be provided to SMAQMD. Pictures of the vehicle must include the following:

• Front of vehicle with hood down • Right side of vehicle with hood down • Left side of vehicle with hood down • Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on tag inside of cab and on frame rail • Odometer reading • License plate • Engine, including engine serial number on tag or stamped on block • Hole in engine • Frame rails cut into two pieces

5.9 Certificate of Vehicle / Equipment Inspection Form This certificate must either be signed by SMAQMD staff or a participating vehicle or equipment dealership as designated by the SECAT Program. This certificate provides verification of the condition of the old and new vehicles and equipment. Old vehicles must be inspected under normal operating conditions. (This certificate requirement will be waived if SMAQMD personnel inspect the vehicle.) 5.10 Performance Requirements and Contractual Obligations of the Participant All participants in the Fleet Modernization Program will be required to agree to the following terms for a minimum of five years. These requirements are in addition to the requirements in the general guidelines. If these provisions conflict with the general requirements, these requirements will control.

• The participant must agree to operate the replacement vehicle for a minimum of five (5) years in the SFNA meeting a minimum performance requirement equal to the amount listed in the application. This requirement may be met with either mileage or hours depending on the vehicle type and configuration.

• The participant is required to meet both an annual commitment and a lifetime commitment. Because of this, the SECAT Program recommends using a low estimate of vehicle operation when applying for funding.

• The participant cannot sell or otherwise encumber the replacement vehicle without written authorization from the SECAT Program.

• The replacement vehicle may operate outside the SFNA and outside the State of California; however, the participant is responsible for meeting their minimum annual SFNA performance.


• If there is a significant event for the participant – including, but not limited to bankruptcy, sale of business, or contact information change – the participant must notify the SECAT Program.

• If the replacement vehicle is involved in an accident, the applicant will need to report the accident to program staff within 10 business days. The applicant will be required to provide a police report of the accident, a letter from the insurance company regarding the accident, and any additional information requested by SMAQMD. Down time due to an accident will be credited toward the performance requirements as long as the information is reported as requested and the participant repairs the vehicle as soon as possible. The participant will be required to repair the vehicle and return it to operation if possible. If the vehicle is totaled, SMAQMD may demand repayment of a pro rated portion of the incentive funds.

5.11 EPA SmartWay® Certified Tires The SECAT Program is now requiring that all replacement truck-tractors be equipped with EPA SmartWay® Certified Tires. This requirement is consistent with the ARB regulation requiring the use of these tires on vehicles subject to the regulation. Only replacement vehicles equipped with a fifth-wheel capable of towing a trailer are required to have certified tires. Incomplete trucks, vocational trucks, and medium heavy-duty vehicles are not required to have certified tires, however, their use is strongly recommended. Certified tires are available in both single and dual tire configuration from several manufacturers. The SECAT Program does not require the use of single-wide tires; however, their weight and fuel savings may make them an attractive option for fleets. Please contact staff for more information. 5.12 Enhanced Fleet Modernization As an alternative to destruction of the old vehicle by an Approved Salvage Yard, the SECAT Program is now implementing Enhanced Fleet Modernization (EFM). The purpose of EFM is to recover the residual value of the old truck to assist the cities and counties in the SACOG region in streamlining the zoning codes and ordinances in targeted areas to facilitate infill development. EFM is also designed to maintain the original air quality benefit of the Fleet Modernization program by ensuring that the old vehicles will not operate in California. This section will describe the process for vehicles selected for participation. Prior to payment, the SECAT Program or their designee may direct the Participant to deliver their old vehicle to an approved point of sale with an Approved Sale Entity such as an auction yard for participation in the EFM. The Participant will be required to transfer the old vehicle title to the approved point of sale instead of sending the vehicle to a Salvage Yard for destruction. No additional SECAT funding will be provided to the Participant nor will the Participant receive any compensation resulting from his or her participation in the EFM. All Approved Sale Entities participating in the EFM must have an executed agreement with SACOG and the SMAQMD prior to delivery of any old vehicles. Upon receipt of the old vehicle, the Approved Sale Entity shall sell the vehicle at the next available auction. In order to reduce the potential for trucks making return trips to California, the EFM shall require that trucks be sold east of the Continental Divide of the United States as defined by the United States Geological Survey. Proceeds will be submitted to the SMAQMD pursuant to the terms of the Auction Yard Agreement. Any contractors found to violate the requirements or intent of the EFM will be terminated immediately and may be subject to penalty. Additionally, any EFM vehicles found to be operating in California will not be claimed for credit under the Sacramento State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Item #13-2-5 SACOG Board of Directors Consent February 14, 2013 Review and Accept the Annual SACOG Financial Reports Issue: Receive and accept the annual financial audits of SACOG and the accompanying reports to management. Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board accept the audits of SACOG and the reports to management. Committee Action/Discussion: SACOG must annually undergo a financial audit by an independent financial auditor and issue a report on the financial position of SACOG at June 30 of each year. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) is for the period ending June 30, 2012. As usual, SACOG received an unqualified opinion for all of its audits. The SACOG CAFR (Attachment A) is broken into several sections: • Introductory – this section includes a letter of transmittal, which is an executive summary introducing the financial

statements along with other required information. • Financial Section – this section has the independent auditor’s report from Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP; the

Management Discussion and Analysis, which is the management overview of the financial position; a description of how the budget is adopted and managed; identification of any major issues and projections for the future; and the actual financial statements.

• Statistical Section – this section contains various unaudited demographic and financial information for the SACOG region.

• Single Audit Section – this section is a requirement for agencies that have federal grants in excess of $500,000 and includes the auditor’s report on their findings and any questioned costs, as it relates to federal grant programs.

The audit for SACOG had no questioned cost findings. The auditors did make three findings related to subrecipient monitoring and reporting compliance, but none were deemed to be a material weakness and all have been resolved. Attachment A contains the SACOG FY 2011-12 CAFR. Attachment B is the Report to the Board of Directors (management letter). Attachment C is the required SAS 114 letter for the SACOG audit, which addresses any audit findings, difficulties encountered in performing the audit, corrected and uncorrected misstatements, and any disagreements with management; none are reported. Also included with this item are the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) audits for the counties of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. Attachment D contains the four LTF Audits. Attachment E is the State Transit Assistance Fund Audit. Attachment F contains the Reports to the Board of Directors (management letters) and management responses. Attachment G is the SAS 114 letter that covers the four LTF audits and the State Transit Assistance Fund Audit. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:DG:ef Attachments Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/Legal Counsel, (916) 340-6210 David Ghiorso, Finance Manager, (916) 340-6258 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\5-financial reports.docx1302001

FISCAL YEAR 2011–12


COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT

CAFR

SACOG MISSIONDelivering transportation projects; providing public information and serving as a dynamic forum for regional planning and collaboration in the greater Sacramento Metropolitan Area

BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS

Mary Jane Griego (Chair), Yuba County

Steve Cohn (Vice Chair, City of Sacramento

Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, City of Winters

John Buckland, Yuba City

Christopher Cabaldon, City of West Sacramento

Stanley Cleveland, Sutter County

Mark Crews, City of Galt

Gary Davis, City of Elk Grove

Jack Duran, Placer County

Carl Hagen, City of Placerville

Kevin Hanley, City of Auburn

Tony Hesch, Colfax

Diane Hodges, City of Live Oak

Robert Jankovitz, City of Isleton

Kevin Johnson, City of Sacramento

Paul Joiner, Lincoln

Joe Krovoza, City of Davis

Roberta MacGlashan, Sacramento County

Steve Miklos, City of Folsom

Susan Peters, Sacramento County

Susan Rohan, Roseville

Ricky Samayoa, Marysville

David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova

Don Saylor, Yolo County

Walt Scherer, Town of Loomis

Phil Serna, Sacramento County

Jeffrey Slowey, City of Citrus Heights

Tom Stallard, City of Woodland

Brian VeerKamp, El Dorado County

Rick West, City of Wheatland

Scott Yuill, Rocklin

Jody Jones (Ex-Officio Member), Caltrans District 3

1415 L Street, Suite 300Sacramento, CA 95814tel 916.321.9000tdd 916.321.9550www.sacog.org

COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 1415 L Street, Suite 300

Sacramento, California 95814

Prepared by: Finance Department

David Ghiorso, Finance Manager

Sacramento Area Counci l o f Governments

Table of Contents For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

SACOG Mission, Board of Directors, and Member Counties and Cities ................ Inside Front Cover What We Do ......................................................................................................................... Inside Back Cover

Introductory Section

Letter of Transmittal .......................................................................................................................................... i Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ........................................................... ix Organization Chart ............................................................................................................................................ x

Financial Section

Independent Auditors’ Report .................................................................................................................... A-1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .................................................................................................... A-3 Basic Financial Statements: Government-Wide Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets ............................................................................................................... A-20 Statement of Activities.................................................................................................................. A-21 Fund Financial Statements: Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds ....................................................................................... A-22 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds ............................................................................................................. A-24 Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to the Statement of Activities ........................ A-26 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual – Planning and Administration Fund .............................................................. A-27 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual – Capitol Valley Regional SAFE Special Revenue Fund ................ A-28 Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ................................................................................................. A-29 Required Supplementary Information – Schedule of Funding Progress ........................................... A-61 Supplemental Information: Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures by Activity – Budget and Actual – Planning and Administration Fund ............................................................................................ A-62 Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures – Board of Directors and Advocacy – Budget and Actual ......................................................................................................................... A-64 Schedule of Indirect Service Costs .................................................................................................... A-65


Table of Contents For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

(Continued)

Statistical Section

Index of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. B-1 Net Assets by Component .......................................................................................................................... B-2 Statement of Activities & Changes in Net Assets .................................................................................... B-4 Planning and Administration Fund – Changes in Fund Balance ........................................................... B-6 Fund Balances – Governmental Funds ..................................................................................................... B-8 Changes in Fund Balance ......................................................................................................................... B-10 Total Population by Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................. B-12 Total Households by County ................................................................................................................... B-13 Labor Force & Unemployment by County ............................................................................................ B-14 Largest Employment Centers by County ............................................................................................... B-16 Public School Enrollment by County ..................................................................................................... B-19 Total Acreage by County .......................................................................................................................... B-20 Average Annual Wages by County .......................................................................................................... B-21 Transit Providers by County .................................................................................................................... B-22 Summary of Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Function & Program .......................................... B-23 Summary of Full-Time Equivalent Employees by Project .................................................................. B-24 Planning & Administration Fund – Indirect Service Cost Comparison ............................................ B-26 Capital Assets – by Fund .......................................................................................................................... B-28 Miscellaneous Statistics ............................................................................................................................. B-30

Single Audit Section

Supplementary Information: Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ........................................................................................... C-1 Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .................................................................... C-2 Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act ........................................................................................................ C-3 Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance with Requirements that Could Have a Direct and

Material Effect on Each Major Program and on Internal Control over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 ............................................................................................... C-5 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ............................................................................................. C-7 Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings .......................................................................................... C-13

Auburn

Citrus Heights

Colfax

Davis

El Dorado County

Elk Grove

Folsom

Galt

Isleton

Live Oak

Lincoln

Loomis

Marysville

Placer County

Placerville

Rancho Cordova

Rocklin

Roseville

Sacramento

Sacramento County

Sutter County

West Sacramento

Wheatland

Winters

Woodland

Yolo County

Yuba City

Yuba County

Sacramento Area Council of Governments

1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814

tel: 916.321.9000 fax: 916.321.9551 tdd: 916.321.9550 www.sacog.org

January 17, 2013

Sacramento Area Council of Governments Board of Directors Capitol Valley Regional Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Financing Corporation Board of Directors At the close of each fiscal year, a complete set of financial statements presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards by a firm of licensed certified public accountants is required. Pursuant to that requirement, we are pleased to submit to you the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012. This report consists of management’s representations concerning the finances of SACOG. Consequently, responsibility for both the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the management of SACOG. To the best of our knowledge and belief, the enclosed data is accurate in all material respects, and is reported in a manner designed to present fairly the financial position and changes in the financial position of the various funds of SACOG, and all disclosures necessary to enable the reader to gain an understanding of SACOG’s financial activities have been included. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of SACOG has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect SACOG’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of SACOG’s financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, SACOG’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and accurate in all material respects The firm of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, a licensed certified public accounting firm, has audited the basic financial statements. The goal of the independent audit was to provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements of SACOG for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, are free of

ii

material misstatement. The independent audit involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management; and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP issued their unqualified (clean) opinion that the basic financial statements of SACOG for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, are fairly presented in accordance with GAAP. Their report is presented as the first component of the financial section of this CAFR.

Profile of SACOG

This comprehensive annual financial report includes all of the funds of the following entities:

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Sacramento Area Council of Governments Financing Corporation Capitol Valley Regional Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (Capitol

Valley SAFE) Glenn County Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (Glenn County SAFE)

SACOG is a joint powers authority of local governments formed by six counties and 22 cities in the region. Member governments are the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba and the cities of Auburn, Citrus Heights, Colfax, Davis, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton, Lincoln, Live Oak, Loomis, Marysville, Placerville, Rocklin, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento, Wheatland, Winters, Woodland, and Yuba City. SACOG’s primary responsibility is the transportation planning for the region; however, some land use planning, as reflected in the Blueprint project and the Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted in 2012, provides the framework for designing transportation needs. SACOG has a 31-member Board of Directors comprised of elected officials from each of the member agencies, plus one ex-officio member from Caltrans. These members sit on three committees: Government Relations & Public Affairs; Land Use & Air Quality; and Transportation. The SACOG Board of Directors also meets as the Board of Directors for Capitol Valley SAFE, and the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee meets as the Board of Directors for the Financing Corporation. SACOG provides transportation planning and funding for the region and serves as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues. In addition to preparing the region’s long-range transportation plan and assisting member agencies in delivery of the projects within that plan, SACOG approves the distribution of affordable housing in the region and assists in planning for transit, bicycle and pedestrian networks, clean air, and airport land uses. The annual budget serves as the foundation for SACOG’s financial planning and control. The budget is prepared in two segments: the Overall Work Program (OWP), which is subject to approval by the federal funding partners and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and the non-OWP budget that contains the costs related to the Board of Directors and Advocacy, equipment purchases, and similar expenditures outside the purview of Caltrans. The budget process begins in December-January with the SACOG management and staff identifying projects for the subsequent year as well as grant projects that are not expected to be completed by

iii

the end of the current fiscal year. For the next several months, SACOG management and staff, the Board of Directors, Caltrans and federal funding partners, regional transportation partners, citizens, and others are involved in defining the goals and objectives, as well as the projects, to be included in the OWP. In April, a public meeting is held where all interested parties are invited to comment on the OWP, with final Board of Director approval occurring in May or June. Within the OWP budget, the level of budgetary control is at the element level. Costs for the projects, as well as classification of costs, can be modified as long as the element total remains the same. Board approval is needed if costs are expected to exceed the element total, or if new projects are added to the element. Throughout the year, budget adjustments are proposed by staff for new grant funding and/or a realignment of project priority, and approved by the Board of Directors, federal funding partners and Caltrans. The Capitol Valley SAFE budget is prepared by staff based on the expected contractual agreements for operating the call box system and maintenance of the call box equipment. The preliminary budget is presented in March with final approval in May or June by the SAFE Board of Directors. Budget-to-actual comparisons are provided in this financial statement for the governmental funds for which an appropriated annual budget is adopted.

Factors Affecting Financial Condition

The information presented in the financial statements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader perspective of the specific environment within which SACOG operates. SACOG is located in Sacramento, California. The SACOG region, if a separate state, would rank 46th in acreage, ahead of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Delaware, and 37th in size for population. Unlike its member agencies, SACOG is primarily dependent upon formula revenues and planning grants from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and the State of California. These funds are passed through Caltrans. The primary source of local revenue is Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues received from the ¼ cent sales tax on gasoline from four counties (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba) upon which SACOG receives an administrative fee and a transportation planning fee. SACOG also has agreements with the transportation planning agencies in El Dorado County and Placer County to designate a portion of their LTF revenues in return for the transportation planning SACOG performs on their behalf. Revenues from those agencies are also on the increase. A new federal transportation reauthorization bill passed, titled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), which covers the two-year period expiring October 1, 2014. Under the new bill, SACOG expects that the number of discretionary grants SACOG typically receives each year for various transportation and transit planning functions may be subject to change. Funds from the federal agencies are determined by formula and subject to Congressional appropriation. Prior to the passage of MAP-21, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) had been in effect and operating on a series of short-term extensions.

iv

In 2012-13, the State of California is expected to face increased costs due to the expiration of a number of temporary budget measures, a significant increase in Proposition 98 school costs under current law, the required repayment of a $2 billion Proposition 1A property tax loan used to help balance the budget in 2009, and other factors. These factors contribute to a projected $10 billion operating shortfall (the difference between annual General Fund revenues and expenditures) in 2012-13. However, due to the tax measure approved in the November 2012 General Election, California’s budgetary condition is looking up. The California Legislative Analyst’s forecast of the state's budget condition over the next five years shows that California's situation has improved sharply, and that the state's economic recovery, prior budget cuts, and the additional, temporary taxes provided by Proposition 30 have combined to bring California to a promising moment: The possible end of a decade of acute state budget challenges. The Legislative Analyst’s economic and budgetary forecast indicates that California's leaders face a dramatically smaller budget problem in 2013-14 compared to recent years. Furthermore, assuming steady economic growth and restraint in augmenting current program funding levels, there is a strong possibility of multibillion-dollar operating surpluses within a few years. Notwithstanding the uplifting budget outlook, the state budget pressures may continue to threaten revenues that would normally pass to cities and counties. Federal funds flowing through the state are secure from the ongoing state budget challenges, as they are segregated from other state funding sources. However, the release of those funds to SACOG can be delayed if the state budget is not approved in a timely manner. Each year, SACOG monitors cash flow issues that could result from state budget delays. The six-county Sacramento Region will see positive annual job growth return by the third quarter of 2012, according to the first quarter 2012 update to the Sacramento Region Business Forecast. The forecast shows annual job growth ranging between -0.4 percent and 1.2 percent within the April 2012 to March 2013 period. To put the high end of this range in perspective, the state and nation have been posting annual job growth around or above the 1.0 percent level since early 2011. On average, over the 12-month forecast period, the Region will post 0.5 percent job growth (equating to 3,800 jobs), which reflects a notable improvement over the past 12 months when job growth averaged -0.9 percent. Recovery in the Sacramento Region has lagged the state and the nation, but regional job growth has shown an upward pattern since the summer of 2011 and is currently experiencing only modest annual job losses. The positive momentum of sustained job growth at the statewide and national levels, and encouraging trends in other key indicators such as consumer sentiment and business confidence (as reflected in the Sacramento Region Business Confidence Index), will likely have a beneficial impact on recovery in the Sacramento Region, particularly in the private sector. Following a brief period of continued negative job growth, the forecast shows that the Region will again see job gains on a consistent basis, nearly two full years after the state and the nation shifted back to positive territory, and following 54 straight months in negative territory.

Major Initiatives during the Year

There were a number of focus areas during the fiscal year. The most highly visible and far-reaching work for SACOG was the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for 2035, which culminated in April 2012 with the SACOG Board of Directors approving a new long-term plan for

v

the six-county region. The program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the MTP/SCS, which has to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was also approved by the Board in April 2012. An MTP is a required project for Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) every four years. The last MTP was adopted by the Board of Directors in March 2008, and it was recognized by state and national organizations as an innovative and unique document to be held as a standard for others to follow. Since the adoption of the 2008 Plan, California enacted the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, also known as Senate Bill 375, which requires MPOs to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) element in their MTP updates to further integrate transportation planning, land use planning, state affordable housing processes, and streamlined environmental review under CEQA. In May 2012, the California Air Resources Board determined that the MTP/SCS, if implemented, would meet SACOG’s projected greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 10 percent by 2020 and 16 percent by 2035. The MTP/SCS is an important document that, among other things, outlines the region’s transportation needs, sets principles and policies, proposes specific strategies to coordinate and manage future transportation improvements in the region, considers resource areas and farmland in the region, identifies areas in the region to house the projected population of the region in light of state housing goals, and, to the extent feasible, forecasts a development pattern for the region that will meet the regional target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. SACOG engaged in extensive public outreach and education to coincide with the technical research and planning. SACOG continued work on the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development project, that was based on a $1.5 million grant SACOG received last year from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Sustainable Communities Regional Planning. The grant funded a new Sacramento Regional Consortium made up of regional partners and stakeholders charged with accelerating transit-oriented development. This Consortium met various times during the year. The focus is on improving quality of life through creating more complete communities and reducing overall cost of living. The remaining work will be completed in the 2012-13 budget year. The grant work complements the MTP/SCS and funds a portion of the environmental review work that will benefit transit priority areas under SB 375. Staff continued work on the Rural-Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS). RUCS is designed to study the challenges and opportunities in the rural areas, with an eye toward the economic sustainability of rural areas, as well as the transportation needs in rural areas, where agricultural vehicles often compete with commuters who bypass congested main roads for rural roads. Last year, SACOG received a $750,000 grant from the California Strategic Growth Council, a partnership between state agencies, to address social equity, economic development, environmental protection, and safety and health in the RUCS project. The work for that grant began this year; however, a large portion of this effort will occur in FY 2012-13 and the following year. In connection with RUCS, in October 2011, the California Department of Food and Agriculture awarded SACOG a Specialty Block Grant of $318,000 to work with the food banks and agriculture producers to study the potential for a local food system using food banks as distribution hubs for locally grown food. Another focus area is a continuing project called the Connect Card Implementation, which involves the implementation planning, procurement, and deployment of a regional universal transit fare card system. The new system is expected to simplify and integrate transit operations, improve system connectivity, contribute to regional air quality goals, and increase the attractiveness of transit

vi

to new patrons. During the year, the project was proceeding in Phase II. Phase III will involve full system design, deployment, integration, and testing. Full system acceptance is anticipated by January 2014. Another focus area this year was the ongoing work on the 511/STARNET Capital Improvement project, which is the communication platform that will be used by the operators of the transportation facilities and emergency responders in the Sacramento region. The project will enable real-time sharing of data and live video, and the refinement of joint procedures for operations of roadways and public transportation safety activities. The project also will provide more timely and accurate information for travelers via the region’s 511 website and interactive phone services. It is anticipated that this work will reach conclusion and transition to maintenance and operations program in 2013-14. A new focus area began in September 2011, with the receipt of $75,000 in grant funding from the U.S. Department of Energy to the Capital Area Plug-in Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council (a partnership between SACOG, SMUD, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and Greenwise Joint Venture) and a partnership of other regions to plan for plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure around California. In October 2011, the California Energy Commission presented SACOG with another grant for $200,000 to the Capital Area Plug-in Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council on behalf of the region. During the year, SACOG also continued to support the Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation (SECAT) program with CMAQ funding. The program finances the retrofitting of diesel engines with cleaner, fuel-efficient engines for traveling within the SACOG region. SACOG also administers programs that allocate federal funds to regional jurisdictions for capital projects. In December 2011, SACOG allocated $115 million in state and federal funds (held by Caltrans) to local governments through the regional funding program. These projects are anticipated to be completed between 2012 and 2017. Local governments obtain their federal funds by seeking reimbursement directly from Caltrans. SACOG also administers many pass-through grants on behalf our member jurisdictions and local transit agencies. These are by no means the only work accomplished by SACOG this year. Many other agency projects support the principles of efficient and diverse regional transportation, integrated with smart, mixed-use, compact development, that preserves the dynamic heritage of the region.

Financial Information

The Planning and Administration Fund is where the majority of SACOG’s activities are recorded. The original combined budgets of the Planning and Administration Fund and Board and Advocacy Fund projected a $894,976 use of reserves for the year. This was followed by a mid-year improved budget projecting a $400,159 use of reserves. SACOG ended up using $618,776 of reserves, when combining the two funds’ activities. The total actual change in the calculation of the Planning and Administration Fund balances was a decrease of $1,069,223 for the year, per the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund balance on page A-24. SACOG’s Planning and Administration Fund operations (excluding SMF activity) use of reserves totaled $720,359; however, this was offset by an increase in the Board

vii

and Advocacy Fund balance of $101,583, netting to the $618,776 number. The SACOG Managed Fund activity accounted for $477,947 of the fund decrease, as funds were paid out for approved claimant costs from “committed” fund balance. The GIS Recipient’s assigned fund balance increased by $27,500. SACOG planning fund operations can be impacted by various factors, including the receipt of additional federal funds, additional sales tax revenue, project cost savings and deferral of some costs into future years, collection of funds previously expensed via the indirect cost plan (in prior years), and over-absorption and under-absorption of indirect expenses in the current year. The Planning and Administration Fund activities encompass the myriad of projects and programs for which SACOG is responsible. The SMF activity is accounted for separately within the Planning and Administration Fund. The SACOG Financing Corporation had a small increase due to interest income; however, it remained essentially the same as last year. The Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Special Revenue Fund, in its fourth year, received $13.7 million compared to $800,000 last year, and payments to grantees increased accordingly. The STA Special Revenue Fund appears to be back on its normal annual cycle of funding by the State of California, as SACOG received $14.2 million for the year, whereas last year there was no revenue or expenses, as the $14.7 million it received in June 2010 covered both FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11 program years. The four Local Transportation Funds (LTFs) had increased sales tax revenue as compared to last year. This is the second year in a row for increases. The combined four-county average increase was 5.77 percent higher than last year. Yuba County had the highest percentage increase of 8.48 percent. Payments to jurisdictions were higher also, as more funds were available for distribution. The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program (SECAT) Special Revenue Fund, supported by TCRP funding, was designed to fund inefficient engine replacements in order to reduce the nitrogen oxide emissions in the area. Program funds are essentially exhausted; however, refunds of prior expenditures continue to come to SACOG, and Caltrans has requested that the refunds be returned to them directly. The Capitol Valley SAFE remains a fiscally strong fund with a reliable stream of revenue. Some projected expenditures did not materialize in fiscal year 2011-12, so the fund balance increased by $556,178.

Other Information

I N D E P E N D E N T A U D I T

SACOG is required to undergo an annual Single Audit in conformity with the provisions of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the United States Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations. The Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards can be found in the Single Audit section, along with the auditors’ reports on Internal Controls and Compliance. The reports of Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, are included in this report.

viii

GAAP requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. SACOG’s MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

The preparation of this report could not be accomplished without the efficient and dedicated services of the entire staff of the Finance Department and Communications and Administrative staff. Their dedication to professional excellence is reflected in this comprehensive annual financial report. We would also like to commend SACOG’s Board of Directors for their interest in, and support of, this substantial effort, as well as a shared commitment to assuring the financial viability of SACOG, which remains progressively committed to meeting the transportation planning needs of the region. Respectfully submitted, MIKE McKEEVER DAVID GHIORSO Chief Executive Officer Finance Manager Special acknowledgement goes to: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel Daphne Chavarria, Accountant III Stacy Niccum, Accountant III Debra Overton, Accountant I Gayle Greene, Administrative Assistant III Scott Overton, Administrative Clerk III

ix

x

Organization Chart

SACOG BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mike McKeeverChief Executive Officer

Gordon Garry

Director of Research &

Analysis

Matt Carpenter

Director of Transportation

Services

Rebecca Sloan

Director of External Affairs & Member

Services

David Ghiorso Finance Manager

Rochelle TiltonClerk of the Board & Human Resources

Specialist

Team/Team Leader:

Metropolitan Transportation Plan Team/Matt Carpenter

Programming & Project Delivery Team/Theresa Arnold

Transit Team/Gary Taylor

Intelligent Transportation Team/Mark Heiman

511 Traveler Information Team/ Mark Heiman

Goods Movement Team/Matt Carpenter

SAFE/Callbox Team/Mark Heiman

Passenger Rail Team/Matt Carpenter

Bicycle/Pedestrian Team/Lacey Symons-Holtzen

Team/Team Leader:

Overall Work Program Team/ David Ghiorso

Finance & Budget Team/David Ghiorso

Team/Team Leader:

Human Resources Team/Rochelle Tilton

Board Team/ Rochelle Tilton

Facilities Team/ Rochelle Tilton

Benefits Implementation Team/Rochelle Tilton

Team/Team Leader:

Blueprint Implementation Team/Kacey Lizon

Rural-Urban Connections Team/ David Shabazian

Housing Team/ Greg Chew

Airport Land Use Commission Team/ Greg Chew

Communications Team/ Rebecca Sloan

511 Traveler Information Team/A.J. Tendick

Transportation Demand Management Team/A.J. Tendick

Government Relations Team/ Erik Johnson

Team/Team Leader:

Model Operations Team/Bruce Griesenbeck

Transportation Monitoring Team/Bruce Griesenbeck

Transportation & I-PLACE3S Development Team/Raef Porter

Data Services/ GIS/Monitoring Team/Joe Concannon

Information Technology Team/David Hodgson

Air Quality/ Gordon Garry

Climate Change/ Raef Porter

Kirk Trost Chief Operating

Officer & General Counsel

Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLPCertified Public Accountants

VALUE THE D IFFERENCE

FRESN O • L AGUN A H I L LS • PALO ALTO • P LEASANTON • RAN C HO CUC AMON GA • R I v E R S I d E • SACRAMENTO

2151 River Plaza Drive, Suite 308 Sacramento, CA 95833 Tel: 916.570.1880 Fax: 916.570.1875 www.vtdcpa.com

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), as of and for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, which collectively comprise SACOG's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of SACOG's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We did not audit the fund financial statements of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund, the County of Yuba Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund, the County of Sutter Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund, the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund, and the State Transit Assistance Special Revenue Fund, which are major funds and collectively represent 38 percent, 24 percent, and 72 percent, respectively, of the assets, net assets, and revenues of the governmental activities. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon have been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those entities, is based on the reports of the other auditors. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and the significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit and the reports of other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, based on our audit and the reports of other auditors, the financial statements referred to previously present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities and each major fund of SACOG as of June 30, 2012, and the respective changes in financial position thereof and the respective budgetary comparison for the Planning and Administrative General Fund and Capitol Valley Regional SAFE Special Revenue Fund, for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 A-1

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated January 17, 2013, on our consideration of SACOG's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management's discussion and analysis and schedule of funding progress as listed in the table of contents be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management's responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with evidence sufficient to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise SACOG's financial statements as a whole. The introductory section, supplementary information and statistical section, as listed in the table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements. The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is also not a required part of the financial statements. The supplementary information and the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America by us and other auditors. In our opinion, based on our audit, the procedures performed as described previously, and the report of the other auditors, the supplementary information and the Schedule of Expenditure of Federal Awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements as a whole. The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them.

Sacramento, California January 17, 2013



Management’s Discussion and Analysis For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012


This section of the annual financial report presents a discussion of the financial position and changes in financial position for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and its related component units for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012. This discussion and analysis is intended to be used in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes to the financial statements, which follow this section.

Overview

The approval of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for 2035, which occurred in April 2012, was a major focus of the year. This new plan covers the six-county region. The program-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the MTP/SCS, which has to be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was also approved at the same time. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are required to prepare a new MTP every four years. The last MTP was adopted by the Board of Directors in March 2008. Since then, California enacted the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, also known as Senate Bill 375, which requires MPOs to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) element in their MTP updates to further integrate transportation planning, land use planning, state affordable housing processes, streamlined environmental review under CEQA, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. With respect to the latter, the MTP/SCS forecasts greenhouse gas emission reductions of 10 percent by 2020 and 16 percent by 2035, if the MTP/SCS is implemented. SACOG engaged in extensive public outreach and education to coincide with the technical research and planning. The MTP/SCS outlines the region’s transportation needs, sets principles and policies, proposes specific strategies to coordinate and manage future transportation improvements in the region, considers resource areas and farmland in the region, identifies areas in the region to house the projected population of the region in light of state housing goals, and, to the extent feasible, forecasts a development pattern for the region that will meet the regional target for greenhouse gas emission reductions. SACOG continued work on the Regional Plan for Sustainable Development project. This project helped support the new Sacramento Regional Consortium, which is made up of regional partners and stakeholders charged with promoting infrastructure and development near transit stations. The Consortium’s task is to improve quality of life through creating more complete communities and reducing overall cost of living. This work is expected to continue into the 2012-13 budget year. The work complements the MTP/SCS and supports the environmental review work that will benefit transit priority areas under SB 375. Rural-Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS) work continues. Last year, SACOG received a grant from the California Strategic Growth Council, a partnership between state agencies, to support this ongoing work into the future. SACOG received another grant in October 2011, to work with the food banks and agriculture producers to study the potential for a local food system using food banks as distribution hubs for locally grown food. RUCS is designed to study the challenges and opportunities in the rural areas, with an eye toward the economic sustainability of rural areas, as well



(Continued)


as the transportation needs in rural areas, where agricultural vehicles often compete with commuters who bypass congested main roads for rural roads. The Connect Card Implementation project continues to march forward, with full system application expected by January 2014. The new system is expected to simplify and integrate transit operations, improve system connectivity, contribute to regional air quality goals, and increase the attractiveness of transit to new patrons. The project involves the implementation planning, procurement, and deployment of a regional universal transit fare card system. During the year, the project was proceeding in Phase II. The 511/STARNET Capital Improvement project also is moving forward, and it is expected that in FY 2013-14, work will conclude, and the project will become more operations- and maintenance-focused. The project will enable real-time sharing of data and live video, and the refinement of joint procedures for operations of roadways and public transportation safety activities. The project also will provide more timely and accurate information for travelers via the region’s 511 website and interactive phone services. A new foray into the Plug-In Electric Vehicle arena began in September 2011, with the receipt of a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. The project was tasked with establishing a Capital Area Plug-in Electric Vehicle Coordinating Council between various local jurisdictions and then forming a partnership with other interested regions, in order to plan for plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure around California. In addition, in October 2011, SACOG was awarded another grant for $200,000 to further support these efforts. These efforts will continue into the next two years. The Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation (SECAT) program continues to provide for the retrofitting of diesel engines with cleaner, fuel-efficient engines. In December 2011, SACOG allocated $115 million in state and federal funds (held by Caltrans) to local governments through the regional funding program. SACOG’s Project Delivery/Programming Team administers the program that approves federal funds to regional jurisdictions for capital types of projects. SACOG also administers many pass-through grants on behalf our member jurisdictions, and local transit agencies.

Financial Highlights

The overall net assets of SACOG are $55,931,343 an increase of $3,221,771 from last year. The Planning and Administration’s fund balance decreased by $1,069,223 from last year, as a result of a $720,359 decrease from the Planning Administration operations and a decrease of $477,947 due to the SACOG Managed Fund activity. This was offset by a $101,583 increase in the Board and Advocacy Fund and a $27,500 increase in the GIS Recipient’s fund balance. The SACOG Managed Fund activity (included within the Planning and Administration fund) included interest income and expenditures to jurisdictions who participate in the Community Design program and other programs. Last year, this activity was integrated into the SACOG Planning and



(Continued)


Administration Fund because of the reporting requirements of GASB 54. Interest earned was $37,504 and disbursements to grantees totaled $517,451. The net impact to fund balances was a $477,947 decrease. The SACOG Financing Corporation increased its fund balance by $15,032 due to investment earnings in the Sacramento County investment pool. The cash and investments in the fund are the result of two building sales transactions in prior years. The Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) fund accounts for the activities related the bond proceeds from the State of California’s Proposition 1B to fund transportation/transit projects. This is the fourth year of operations. This year the fund had increased activity and received $13.7 million in advance funds compared to $800,000 last year. Reimbursements to the local transit operators for approved and completed projects were higher than last year because of the increased activity. The STA Special Revenue Fund appears to be back on its normal annual cycle of funding by the State of California, as SACOG received $14.2 million for the year. Payments out to jurisdictions increased accordingly. The four Local Transportation Funds (LTFs) had increased sales tax revenue as compared to last year. This is the second year in a row for sales tax increases. The combined four-county average increase was 5.77 percent higher than last year. Yuba County had the highest percentage increase of 8.48 percent. Payments to jurisdictions also were higher, as more funds were available for distribution. The combined assets for the four funds increased by $2.4 million, primarily because Sacramento County had more cash at year-end as a result of a higher amount of funds Due to other Governments than last year. Corresponding liabilities for four LTF funds (apportionment claims) increased by $5.5 million primarily due to more reimbursement claims awaiting disbursement at the Sacramento County LTF. The liability balances can fluctuate from year to year depending when the jurisdictions submit their reimbursement claim requests. The SECAT fund (utilizing TCRP state money) continues to exist, as the fund received refunds from prior disbursements because not all funds were needed by grant recipients. Caltrans has requested that the refunds be returned directly to them as they oversee the state TCRP program. A second SECAT program funded with CMAQ federal monies is accounted for in the Planning and Administration Fund. Increases in fund balance for the Capitol Valley Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (Capitol Valley SAFE) and Glenn County Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (Glenn County SAFE) reflect normal operations. Some significant costs for Capitol Valley SAFE did not occur as planned. As a result, fund balance increased by $556,178.



(Continued)


Overview of the Financial Statements

This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to SACOG’s basic financial statements. The basic financial statements are comprised of the government-wide financial statements, the fund financial statements, and the notes to the basic financial statements. This report also contains required supplementary information to further enhance the reader’s understanding of SACOG’s financial position, as well as statistical and other information.

G O V E R N M E N T - W I D E F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S

The government-wide financial statements are designed to provide readers with a broad overview of SACOG’s financial performance in a manner similar to the financial reports provided to stockholders of private-sector companies. The statement of net assets presents information on all of SACOG’s assets and liabilities, including its component units, with the difference reported as net assets. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of SACOG as a whole is improving or deteriorating. The statement of activities presents information showing how SACOG’s net assets have changed during the fiscal year. Revenues and expenses are reported when the underlying event giving rise to the transaction occurs, regardless of when the cash is received or paid.

F U N D F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S

SACOG has eleven governmental funds used to account for the activities supported by grants, sales taxes, intergovernmental revenues, member assessments, charges for services, administrative services, and other similar types of revenue sources. These funds focus on the near-term annual inflows and outflows of resources, rather than the longer-term focus of governmental activities as seen in the government-wide financial statements. The governmental funds balance sheet and the governmental funds statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances provide a reconciliation to facilitate the comparison of the governmental funds to the government-wide statements. The Board of Directors adopts an annual budget for the Planning and Administration Fund and the Board and Advocacy Fund, which is accounted for separately within the Planning and Administration Fund. Much of the Planning and Administration fund budget is formulated through the OWP in order to comply with state and federal grant budgeting requirements. The OWP identifies the revenue sources and planned program expenditures for each of the project elements. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration also review and approve the OWP. The Board of Directors also adopts a separate budget for expenditures not related to the OWP, i.e., capital equipment expenditures, Board of Directors and Advocacy, and other program expenditures not eligible for grant funding.



(Continued)


The SECAT program and the PTMISEA do not have annual budgets since they are grant funded and used only for their ongoing specific program. The STA fund and LTF funds also do not have annual budgets, but are funded and governed by California state statutes and California Code of Regulation requirements for each program. Capitol Valley Regional SAFE has an annual budget separately adopted by its Board of Directors, which is also the SACOG Board of Directors. The Glenn County SAFE fund does not have an annually adopted budget but is used to account for the activities of SACOG and Capitol Valley SAFE on its behalf as identified in the agreement between the agencies.

N O T E S T O T H E F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S

The notes to the basic financial statements provide additional information that is essential for a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide financial statements and the fund financial statements. The notes can be found on pages A-29 through A-60 of this report.

Government-Wide Financial Analysis

Overall, SACOG’s net assets increased $3,221,771 as shown in the following table.

S T A T E M E N T O F N E T A S S E T S For Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011Increase

(Decrease)ASSETS Current and other assets 76,473,583$ 61,600,032$ 14,873,551$ Capital Assets 281,982 769,096 (487,114) Total Assets 76,755,565 62,369,128$ 14,386,437

LIABILITIES Other Liabilities 19,515,816 8,480,537 11,035,279 Long Term Liabiliities 1,308,406 1,179,019 129,387

Total Liabilities 20,824,222 9,659,556 11,164,666

NET ASSETS Invested in Capital Assets 281,982$ 769,096$ (487,114)$ Restricted: Transportation Claimaints 38,980,228 34,088,672 4,891,556 Unrestricted 16,669,133 17,851,804 (1,182,671) Total net assets 55,931,343$ 52,709,572$ 3,221,771$

Governmental Activities

Total current and other assets increased by $14.9 million as a result of the following significant activity that occurred in each of SACOG’s major funds:



(Continued)


The PTMISEA fund assets increased by $8.9 million because the amount awarded this year was approximately $13.7 million greater than last year. Disbursement to grantees amounted to $6.4 million versus $1.6 million last year.

The STA fund assets increased by $4.0 million, as STA received $14.2 million of funding this year. STA last received funding in June 2010, which was used to cover two years, FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11.

The combined assets of the four Local Transportation Funds increased by $2.4 million. Three of the counties had higher balances, totaling $4.6 million, but this was offset by a decrease of $2.3 million from Yolo County. Balances can fluctuate, depending on when reimbursement claims are submitted and paid.

The SACOG Planning and Administration assets decreased by $1 million due to use of fund balance reserves by the planning fund and SACOG Managed Fund disbursements.

Capitol Valley SAFE’s assets were higher by $500,000, as projected expenditures did not occur as anticipated.

Total capital assets decreased by $487,114 due to an increase to accumulated depreciation resulting from depreciation expense. Total liabilities increased by $11.2 million due to the following significant activity: Liabilities in the four Local Transportation Funds increased by $5.5 million primarily

because Sacramento County had significantly higher outstanding claimant requests at year-end compared to the previous fiscal year ($8.6 million vs. $1.7 million). Sutter County’s balance was $1 million higher and Yolo County’s balance was $2.3 million lower. Liabilities can fluctuate if jurisdictions do not file timely claims to receive their LTF monies. The Sacramento County increase was due to timing issues and various jurisdictions that had not filed claims for payment.

Liabilities for the STA fund increased by $3.9 million, as SACOG received STA funds this year. No funds were received last year. The amount at year-end represents STA claimant requests. This can vary from year to year depending on when claim requests are submitted.

PTMISEA fund liabilities increased by $1.5 million compared to last year’s amount of only $74,000. This year, the fund received significant funding which correspondingly effects payments to transit claimants. The fund liabilities can fluctuate year-to-year based on transit claimant invoices still outstanding at year-end.

Net Assets increased by $3.2 million as result of: Capital Assets declined by $487,114 due to depreciation expense. Restricted Net Assets increased by $4.9 million. The PTMISEA restricted asset balance increased by $7.4 million due to significantly higher funding from the state bond sales during the



(Continued)


year. This increase was offset by a decrease in the Sacramento County LTF restricted assets of $3.6 million, while the other three counties had increases. For both Sacramento and Yolo counties, actual sales tax revenues came in higher than the apportionment amount, which helped increase net assets. In both cases, the extra funds can now be apportioned out in either FY 2012-13, as an amendment (revision), or can be used in the FY 2013-14 apportionment process. Unrestricted Net Assets decreased by $1.2 million. This balance declined due to payouts to SACOG Managed Fund (SMF) project claimants for approved expenditures from the fund. Net impact of SMF transactions (expenditures vs. interest income on the SMF cash balance) was a net outflow of approximating $477,947. SACOG operations also used approximately $720,000 of reserve funds for operations. SACOG did have an increased OPEB liability of $139,039; however, this was partially offset by increases in the Board and Advocacy fund activity.

S T A T E M E N T O F A C T I V I T I E S For Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011Increase

(Decrease)Revenues Program Revenues: Charges for services 2,773,900$ 2,691,010$ 82,890$ Operating Grants and contributions 25,604,323 18,171,115 7,433,208 General revenues: - State shared revenue - sales /use tax 73,300,929 55,894,683 17,406,246 Investment earnings 249,031 261,290 (12,259) Other and In-Kind 447,720 995,918 (548,198)

Total Revenues 102,375,903 78,014,016 24,361,887

Expenses Planning and Administration 16,548,264 20,668,754 (4,120,490) Transportation Claimants 73,899,504 51,508,069 22,391,435 SECAT 58,172 1,313 56,859 PTMISEA 6,385,003 1,579,144 4,805,859 Capitol Valley Regional SAFE 2,247,338 2,293,278 (45,940) Glenn County SAFE 15,851 16,061 (210)

Total expenses 99,154,132 76,066,619 23,087,513

Change in Net Assets 3,221,771 1,947,397 1,274,374

Net- Assets Beginning 52,709,572 50,762,175 1,947,397

Net - Assets Ending 55,931,343$ 52,709,572$ 3,221,771$




(Continued)


Total revenue increased by $24.4 million as a result of the following significant activity: State Shared Revenue – Sales and Use Tax (which includes STA and the four LTF Funds)

increased by $17.4 million. The increase is primarily due to a $14.1 million increase in STA funds, as last year, no STA revenues were received by SACOG. Prior to that, the STA fund received $14.7 million the final week of 2009-10, that covered two years (FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11). It appears that the State of California is back on track with its annual funding of STA.

All four LTF funds had sales tax increases over the prior year. The Sacramento County LTF sales tax revenue increased by $2.3 million (5.4 percent), Yolo County LTF sales tax revenue increased by $474,000 (6.1 percent), Sutter County LTF sales tax revenue increased by $258,000 (8.2 percent), and Yuba County LTF sales tax revenue increased by $97,000 (8.4 percent). This is the second straight year that the LTFs have seen sales tax increases.

Operating Grants and Contributions revenue reflects a net increase of $7.4 million. PTMISEA revenue increased $12.9 million over last year. Last year, the state funding to PTMISEA was only $800,000 compared to $13.7 million this year. PTMISEA funding to SACOG is dependent on state bond sales, which can vary from year to year, depending on the state’s financial circumstances.

The Planning and Administrative Fund revenue decreased by $5.4 million as a result of less reimbursable expenditures. SACOG operations are primarily reimbursement based. Revenues and expenditures can fluctuate from year to year, depending on what projects are completed by staff, and the dollar amount of pass-through projects activity that SACOG manages/oversees for the year.

Total expenses increased by $23.1 million based on the following significant activity:

Transportation claimants’ expenditures for STA and the four LTF funds increased by $22.4 million primarily because STA expenditures were $14.0 million higher than last year, when no expenditures or revenue were recorded. In the 2009-10 year, STA recorded $14.7 in revenue and expenditures that resulted in the allocation of two years of funds that encompassed fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11.

The four LTF funds reflect a net $8.3 million increase in expenses. Sacramento and Yolo counties show higher expenses, while Sutter and Yuba counties have lower expenses. Sacramento County expenses increased $8.8 million due to higher apportionment, and a mid-year revision to increase the FY 2011-12 apportionment. The increased apportionment took into account increased sales tax revenues and a significant amount from the June 30, 2012, reserve. Yolo County expenses increased $1.7 million, as the county increased its apportionment from the previous year. Sutter County expenses decreased by $2 million, because the prior year’s apportionment number was unusually high, due the correction of a previous sales tax recording error taken into account in 2010-11. The Sutter County apportionment for FY 2011-12 was more in line with the actual sales tax received. Yuba



(Continued)


County expenses decreased by $19,000, as the county’s apportionment estimates appear to be relatively flat for the last two years, even though sales tax revenues increased.

PTMISEA expenses increased by $4.8 million over the previous year as a result of higher reimbursement requests and the fact that the program received $12.9 million more revenue this year compared to last year. There was more money to pay out to more grantees. Both revenue and expenses can fluctuate from year to year, depending on the State of California’s ability to sell bonds, and the grantees’ ability to complete their approved projects and request reimbursement.

Planning and Administration expenditures decreased by $4.1 million over last year. As noted above in the revenue section, Planning and Administration revenues also decreased, as SACOG’s operations are primarily reimbursement based. This can fluctuate from year to year depending on the Overall Work program goals and the amount of consultant and pass-through costs that SACOG incurs in carrying out program activities.

Fund Financial Statement Analysis

As noted earlier, SACOG uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with financial-related legal requirements.

P L A N N I N G A N D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

The Planning and Administration Fund’s change in balance, which is broken out into four components for clarity, decreased by $1,069,223 from last year. This amount takes into account the activity from the Board and Advocacy Fund and the SACOG Managed Fund. The decrease is broken out into four sections:

A $720,359 decrease from the planning and administration activities A $477,947 net decrease from expenditures from the SACOG Managed Fund

committed reserve A $101,583 increase in the Board and Advocacy Fund Committed balance A $27,500 increase in the GIS Recipient’s Assigned fund balance reserve

SACOG's operations are primarily reimbursement based due to its funding structure. Expenditures drive the offsetting revenues, which in most cases results in a net zero effect, depending on whether SACOG’s annual primary source of local funds (TDA funds for planning and administration) is fully utilized, either as a match for our federal grants and/or used to overmatch project costs, if deemed necessary to meet the project deliverables. A use of reserves can occur when SACOG uses more than its annual stream of TDA funding and dips into its cash reserves to cover operating costs. SACOG also tracks other Committed and Assigned reserve activities, which typically don’t have a budget, like the SACOG Managed Fund and the GIS Recipient’s reserve.



(Continued)


The final approved combined budgets for the Planning and Administration Fund and the Board and Advocacy Fund projected a use of reserves in the amount of $400,159. Combined use of reserves was $618,776, generally due to some minor unanticipated expenses, some future year obligations satisfied in the current year, and some minor declines in revenues.

S A C O G F I N A N C I N G C O R P O R A T I O N

The SACOG Financing Corporation, a legally-separate entity, was created to purchase the Meridian Plaza complex with a local developer. During 2004-05, the Meridian Plaza complex was sold, resulting in a net gain to the Financing Corporation of $1.2 million for the initial investment of $2 million. Since then, the proceeds have been invested in the Sacramento County investment pool and have accumulated interest earnings, bringing the total cash and investments in the fund to $3,858,271. The only activity for the year was investment earnings of $15,032. In 2006, the Board of Directors assigned amounts in the SACOG Financing Corporation for the potential funding of retiree health benefits. At the time, the Board noted that its action was a policy only and, if at some future date it is determined there is a better use for these funds, the policy could be modified or reversed. In May 2010, the Board authorized the use of up to $1,042,000 of the funds to support the FY 2010-11 Planning and Administration Fund should that be necessary. In May 2011, the Board continued that authorization for use in FY 2011-12, should that be necessary. As of June 30, 2012 the amounts were not necessary for FY 2011-12, thus they were reassigned to funding of retiree health benefits.

S A C R A M E N T O E M E R G E N C Y C L E A N A I R A N D T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P R O G R A M ( S E C A T )

SECAT is in its twelfth year of operation as a separate special revenue fund. The fund was originally advance-funded $66 million from the California Governor’s Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). The goal of the program was to reduce nitrous oxide (NOx) emissions in the region. SACOG had planned to close this fund in FY 2012-13; however, it continues to receive refunds from monies not fully utilized by the engine owners. Caltrans has directed SACOG to return these refunds to Caltrans as the administrator of the original TCRP program. SACOG is complying with the request. During the year, $46,139 in refunds were received by SACOG, and $58,172 was paid to Caltrans. The cash balance was $46 at year-end but that will increase by $20,697 in FY 2012-13 when the Accounts Receivable (refunds) amount of $20,697 is received. Those funds will be paid to Caltrans.

P U B L I C T R A N S P O R T A T I O N M O D E R N I Z A T I O N I M P R O V E M E N T & S E R V I C E E N H A N C E M E N T A C C O U N T ( P T M I S E A )

The amount awarded to the PTMISEA program, now in its fourth year, was $13,695,246. Last year, the program received $800,000, and the year before that it received $15.3 million. Amounts awarded are impacted by the State of California’s ability to sell bonds for this program. Payments to approved grantees this year amounted to $6.4 million; the two prior year expenditures were $1.6



(Continued)


million and. $4.7 million, respectively. Cash balance at year-end is $23.1 million, versus $14.2 million last year. Payments out were for Transit Facilities Improvements, Transit Operations Expansion, Automated Fare Box Improvements, Connect Card Implementation costs, Fleet Maintenance Equipment, Bus Engines, and more. More detail on this can be found in the Note O section of the Notes to Basic Financial Statements. The SACOG Board of Directors approves all projects that receive PTMISEA funds.

S T A T E T R A N S I T A S S I S T A N C E F U N D S ( S T A )

The STA Special Revenue Fund appears to be back on its normal annual cycle of funding by the State of California, as SACOG received $14.2 million for the year compared to no revenues or expenses last year. Approximately the same amount ($14.0 million) also was allocated out (shown as expense) during the year. In FY 2009-10, SACOG received approximately $14.7 million that ended up covering two fiscal years, FY 2009-10 and FY 2010-11, since there was no STA funding in FY 2010-11. The ending fund balance amount was $255,441 and is categorized as Restricted. This balance represents funds not yet allocated to the transit agencies or jurisdictions.

L O C A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N F U N D S ( L T F )

The four LTF special revenue funds are administered by SACOG on behalf of various county jurisdictions throughout the Sacramento region and used to fund various transportation-related activities as authorized by California law under the Transportation Development Act. Actual sales tax receipts affect the revenue for these funds.

C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O L O C A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N F U N D

Sales tax revenues increased for the second year in row, after a 10 percent dip in 2010. This year’s sales tax revenues increased by $2,394,365 (5 percent) to $46.2 million for the year. The previous year increase was $3,452,868 (9 percent). Sales tax is on a very strong upward trajectory, as total sales tax of $46.2 million has now exceeded the high in 2009 of $44.1 million. Apportionment expenditures increased by $9.2 million (23 percent) over last year and ended at $49.9 million for the year, primarily because the FY 2011-12 original apportionment was revised in February 2012. The revision increased the sales tax estimate by $2,344,300 to $45,144,300. It also increased the use of fund balance reserves by $3,555,700 to $4,755,700. The apportionment for FY 2012 was the highest in the last four years. Actual sales tax ended up about $1.1 million higher than projected, so not all of the fund balance reserve planned for FY 2011-12 was used. This accounts for the net change in fund balance decreasing by $3.6 million. Fund Balance, which represents accumulated unapportioned amounts, ended up at $9.4 million, which was $3.6 million lower than same time last year. That new balance



(Continued)


represents about 2.5 months of receivables, based upon the Due from Other Governments balance at June 30, 2012 ($7.4 million for May and June 2012). The apportionment for FY 2012-13 projects $44,000,000 in sales tax revenue and zero use of the fund balance reserve. This estimate for FY 2012-13 is in line with actual sales tax revenues for 2011, but $2.6 million lower than the actual sales revenues for FY 2011-12.

C O U N T Y O F Y U B A L O C A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N F U N D

Sales tax revenues increased the last two years from the big drop in 2010. This year’s sales tax revenues increased by $97,404 (8 percent) to $1.3 million. The previous year increase was $126,617 (12 percent). Sales tax is on a strong upward trend, as total sales tax of $1.3 million has now exceeded the high in 2009 of $1.2 million. Apportionment expenditures declined a small amount (-2 percent) over last year, to $950,000. The county projection for FY 2011-12 was comparable to the 2011 apportionment. The apportionment number was based on a sales tax estimate of $950,000 only, and did not include any use of fund balance. As it turns out, the actual sales tax was $1,246,638 higher than projected, which equated to a $296,638 difference that added to fund balance. Fund balance, which represents cumulated unapportioned amounts, ended up at $693,038, primarily because the actual sales tax came in higher than projected. The apportionment for FY 2012-13 uses $200,000 of the reserve funds, and includes an increased sales tax revenue estimate of $1,003,500, which is a 5.6 percent increase over last year’s estimate, but a solid $200,000 less than the actual sales tax revenues for the last two years.

C O U N T Y O F S U T T E R L O C A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N F U N D

Sales tax revenues continue to increase. Sales tax revenues increased by $257,724 (8 percent) to $3.4 million for the year. The previous year’s increase was $138,830 (5 percent). The sales tax trend continues to be positive, as total sales tax of $3.4 million has exceeded the high in 2009 of $2.9 million. Apportionment expenditures decreased by $2.1 million (-39 percent) compared to last year, to $3.3 million for the year. The apportionment for FY 2011 was unusually high at $5.5 million, and it was higher than any previous single year, as a significant portion of fund balance was used to increase the apportionments total as a result of the correction of a prior year’s revenue error, when sales tax revenue was understated. The apportionment for FY 2011-12 was more in line with the annual sales tax revenues. The FY 2011-12 apportionment was based on a sales tax estimate of $3,100,000 and the use of $228,723 of fund balance. As it turns out, the actual sales tax was higher at $3,402,913, which equates to a $302,913 difference. Fund balance, which represents cumulated unapportioned amounts, ended up at $668,609, which was $94,955 higher than last year. This was due the increased sales tax and the fact that the county did not have to use any of the fund balance amount after all. The apportionment for FY



(Continued)


2012-13 uses $400,000 of the June 30, 2012, balance reserve funds, and a higher sales tax revenue estimate of $3,321,552, which is a 7 percent increase over last year’s sales tax estimate.

C O U N T Y O F Y O L O L O C A L T R A N S P O R T A T I O N F U N D

Sales tax revenues have increased the last two years. This year’s sales tax revenues increased by $473,865 (6 percent) to $8.2 million for the year. The previous year increase was $750,428 (11 percent). The 2012 sales tax number exceeds the high in 2009 of $7.8 million. Apportionment expenditures increased by $1.7 million (26 percent) over last year, to $8.2 million. The county increased its apportionment projection for FY 2011-12 to $6.5 million. The apportionment amount was based on a sales tax estimate of $7.3 million and the use of accumulated fund balance of $887,000, totaling $8.2 million. As it turns out, the actual sales tax was $1 million higher than the projected sales tax and that covered the apportionment amount, so there was no need to dip into the fund balance amount of $877,000. Fund balance, which represents accumulated unapportioned amounts, ended up at $2.2 million, which approximated last year's ending balance amount. The $1 million of actual sales tax over the projected amount negated the need for use of any fund balance. The apportionment for FY 2012-13 uses $1.8 million of the June 30, 2012, fund balance, with projected sales tax revenue of $7.8 million, for a total apportionment of $9.6 million.

C A P I T O L V A L L E Y R E G I O N A L S E R V I C E A U T H O R I T Y F O R F R E E W A Y S A N D E X P R E S S W A Y S ( S A F E )

The Capitol Valley Regional SAFE program fund balance increased by $556,178. Actual revenues compared to budgeted revenue increased by $175,642, primarily from higher vehicle registration revenue. Actual costs ended up lower than budget by $415,866, primarily because certain costs related to the 511/STARNET Capital Improvement project and the 511/STARNET Operations program did not materialize as planned. As a result, the fund balance increased accordingly. This fund balance is limited by SAFE Board action in 2008, whereby a minimum fund balance of $1,000,000 was established to cover unexpected operating costs and to save for unplanned capital improvements.

G L E N N C O U N T Y S A F E

The Glenn County SAFE fund balance increased $12,743 over last year. The increase this year was slightly higher than last year, as revenues were up by $1,968 due to an increase in registration fees. Expenses were only $75 higher than last year. For the third year in a row, total annual expenditures continue to average $10,000 to $12,000 less than annual total revenues.



(Continued)


Budget

Annually, the SACOG Board of Directors approves the budget in two phases. One phase is the OWP budget, which is the plan for the transportation-related projects. The OWP is funded largely by federal and state grants with matching funds from local sources. The projects are comprised of functions related to the responsibilities of a Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Agency and centered on transportation and land use planning and project delivery to fulfill those plans. The OWP is available for public comment for a 30-day period during which the grantor agencies, both federal and state, various public organizations including member agencies, regional transit authorities, and the general public review the projects planned for the budget year and make comments. During the public comment period, a group formed of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), California Department of Transportation and other parties impacted by the OWP, will meet and discuss the OWP within the broader goals and guidelines of the region. At the close of the public comment period, the SACOG Board of Directors adopts the OWP as it has been amended from the review period. Final adoption of the OWP occurs in May or June of each year. After adoption by the Board of Directors, Caltrans, FHWA, and FTA approve the OWP. Throughout the year, amendments to the OWP budget occur for grants that are received, a realignment of priorities for projects or other occurrences that require a budget adjustment, and increases or decreases in federal or state funding allocations. The second phase of the budget process is the adoption of the operating budget for SACOG. This includes the administrative budget related to the OWP, office equipment expenditures, the Board of Directors and Advocacy Budget, and other related functions not associated with the OWP. This second phase is adopted no later than June for the following fiscal year. SACOG’s Planning and Administration original budget projected a use of reserve funds of $894,976, of which $857,000 related to the Planning and Administration fund and $37,976 was for the Board of Directors Advocacy Fund. The budgeted use of reserved funds was later amended to $400,159, of which $362,183 was for the Planning and Administration fund and the Board and Advocacy budget remained the same. The actual change in balance in the Planning and Administration Fund was $1,069,223. The change is made up the following components: expenditures of $720,359 from the Planning and Administration Fund itself; expenditures of $477,947 from the SACOG Managed Fund ; a surplus of $101,583 from the Board and Advocacy Fund; and a $27,500 increase in reserves in the GIS Recipient’s assigned fund.



(Continued)


Capital Assets

Total investment in capital assets at June 30, 2012, net of accumulated depreciation, was $281,982, a decrease of $487,114 from the prior year. The primary reason for the decrease was depreciation expense. Capital additions were $42,023 for the year. Planning and Administration assets are primarily computers and other office equipment. SAFE assets are fixed Call box capital costs.

Planning and Administration

Capitol Valley Regional SAFE

Glenn County SAFE

Total - Gorvernmental

Activities

Equipment, Furniture, Phones, computers, and software 1,104,921$ $ - - 1,104,921$ SAFE Equipment 5,202,240 195,659 5,397,899

Less Accumulated Depreciation (1,027,048) (5,005,799) (187,991) (6,220,838)

Capital Assets, Net 77,873$ 196,441$ 7,668$ 281,982$

Additional information regarding capital assets can be found in the Note E to the Basic Financial Statements.

Economic Factors and Next Year’s Budget

One of the ongoing challenges for SACOG over the last several years has been the loss of revenues from the close out of certain multi-year discretionary earmarks/grants and finding new revenues to replace them. To address these challenges, SACOG has focused on four main strategies: cost containment measures related to staffing, overhead costs, and legal expenses; concessions from a cooperative Employees Association; discretionary grant awards through SACOG staff’s entrepreneurial efforts with state and federal agencies; and increasing federal, state, and local funds. SACOG is fortunate to have benefitted from a fiscally-sound labor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the Board approved five years ago, and continues to benefit from a strong relationship with the SACOG Employees Association (SEA), which has greatly supported SACOG’s cost reduction and containment strategies. The SEA has proactively worked with management to identify and implement additional savings through amendments to the MOU, including foregoing cost-of-living adjustments, assuming a greater share of retirement contributions, implementing a two-tier retirement system with reduced benefits, and modifying the formula for calculating retirement benefits.



(Continued)


While many of the revenues SACOG receives are based on formula planning funds or discretionary grant awards, the requirement to match those funds with non-federal and/or non-state dollars can be a challenge. The primary source of those matching dollars is the ¼ cent sales tax collected within each county for transportation. The last two years have seen increases in sales tax revenues throughout the SACOG region, which effects SACOG’s funding. In the long term, we expect funding levels to increase as the economy improves. The number of discretionary grants which SACOG typically receives each year for various transportation and transit planning functions is subject to change, but the state financial outlook is improved with the passage of Proposition 30 in the November General Election and the federal outlook for transportation is improved by the new federal transportation reauthorization bill. The federal bill, titled Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), covers the two-year period expiring October 1, 2014. Under the bill, SACOG expects that the number of discretionary grants SACOG typically receives each year for various transportation and transit planning functions may be subject to change. Federal funds flowing through the state are secure from the state budget annual challenges, as they are segregated from other state funding sources. However, the release of those funds to SACOG can be delayed if the state budget is not approved in a timely manner. Each year, SACOG monitors cash flow issues that could result from state budget delays. The SACOG Board of Directors adopted a budget, also called the Overall Work Program (OWP), of $50,301,372 to fund the transportation planning projects in fiscal year 2012-13, of which a significant portion was for rollover grant funding or pass-through to other agencies. The OWP continues a focus on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), with particular emphasis on implementation now that the MTP/SCS 2035 was approved in April 2012. This focus will include strategies to fund early year plan priorities and support local jurisdictions interested in pursuing SB375 CEQA benefits that became available with the adoption of the MTP/SCS. SACOG will also continue to complete work related to the RUCS project as part of, and in concert, with implementation of the MTP/SCS. Continuing projects include the next phase implementation of the Connect Card and the Intelligent Transportation Systems’ STARNET project, and the Plug-In Electric Vehicle work. SACOG and its component units remain fiscally stable, although it is projecting to use a small portion of its reserve funds for its fiscal year 2012-13 operations. Management and the Board of Directors remain conservative in their financial policies and have not budgeted for revenues that are not quantified; expenditures are managed carefully and adjustments made as conditions require. While much of the budget relies on funding from the federal and state governments, there continues to be a steady flow, albeit reduced, of money from those programs that fund transportation. As additional funding is received, projects will be assessed to determine their priority within the SACOG Strategic Plan, planning goals for the year, and the availability of staff to work on the project. If funding is received that requires local matching funds, and no matching funds are available, management may decide to postpone the related project to a future year in order to be able to preserve the limited matching funds available. Despite the financial challenges, SACOG is committed to assisting our member agencies with their land use and transportation planning in order to create a more livable and transportation-friendly region.



(Continued)


Requests for Information

This financial report is designed to provide the reader with a general overview of SACOG’s finances and to demonstrate SACOG’s accountability for the resources it receives. If you have questions about this report or need additional financial information, please contact the Finance Department, Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814.



Statement of Net Assets June 30 , 2012


ASSETSCurrent assets: Cash and investments 58,706,912$ Receivables 17,692,050 Other assets 74,621 Non-current assets: Capital assets, net 281,982

Total assets 76,755,565

LIABILITIESCurrent liabilities: Payables 19,452,322 Long term liabilities - Due within one year 12,984 Compensated absences - Due within one year 50,510 Subtotal 19,515,816

Non-current Liabilities Long term liabilities 89,807 Compensated absences benefit 959,695 Net other post employment liability 258,904 Subtotal 1,308,406

Total liabilities 20,824,222

NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets 281,982 Restricted for Transportation Claimants 38,980,228 Unrestricted 16,669,133

Total net assets 55,931,343$

The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement.



Statement of Activities For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

Functions/Programs ExpensesCharges for

Services

Operating Grants and

Contributions

Primary Government:Governmental Activities:

Planning and administration 16,548,264$ 481,980$ 11,909,077$ (4,157,207)$ Transportation claimants 73,899,504 - (73,899,504) Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program 58,172 - - (58,172) PTMISEA 6,385,003 13,695,246 7,310,243 Capitol Valley Regional SAFE 2,247,338 2,261,157 13,819 Glenn County SAFE 15,851 30,763 14,912

Total Governmental Activities 99,154,132$ 2,773,900$ 25,604,323$ (70,775,909)

General revenues: State shared revenue - sales and 73,300,929 Investment earnings 249,031

In-kind Revenue 293,611 Other 154,109 Total general revenue 73,997,680 Change in net assets 3,221,771 Net assets - beginning 52,709,572

Net assets - ending 55,931,343$

Net (Expense) Revenue and

Changes in Net Assets

Program Revenues




Balance Sheet GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS

June 30 , 2012

P ublicT ranspo rtat io n

Sacramento M o dernizat io n,Emergency Impro vement &

SA C OG C lean A ir and Service StateP lanning and F inancing T ranspo rtat io n Enhancement T ransit

A dministrat io n C o rpo rat io n P ro gram A cco unt A ssistanceA ssets

Cash and investments 12,208,776$ 3,858,271$ 46$ 23,122,473$ 1,447,976$ Accounts receivable - - 20,697 - - M iscellaneous receivable 30,839 - - - - Due from other governments 3,956,784 - - - 3,600,686 Interest receivable 23,142 4,277 4 23,242 2,003 Prepaid items 72,497 - - - -

Total assets 16,292,038$ 3,862,548$ 20,747$ 23,145,715$ 5,050,665$

Liabilit ies and F und B alancesLiabilities:

Accounts payable 1,715,311$ -$ -$ - -$ Accrued liabilities 263,003 - - - - Deferred Revenue 21,271 Due to o ther funds - - - -Due to o ther governments 116,092 - 20,747 1,616,845 4,795,224

Total liabilities 2,115,677 - 20,747 1,616,845 4,795,224

Fund Balances:Nonspendable:

Prepaid Items 72,497 - - - - Restricted:

PTM ISEA Funds - - - 21,528,870 - State Transit Assistance Funds - - - - 255,441 Local Transportation Funds - Sacramento County - - - - - Local Transportation Funds - Yuba County - - - - - Local Transportation Funds - Sutter County - - - - - Local Transportation Funds - Yolo County - - - - - Capito l Valley Regional SAFE - - - - - Glenn County SAFE - - - - -

Committed:Board & Advocacy 211,122 - - - - SACOG M anaged Fund Grantees 1,820,244 - - - -

Assigned:Legal Defense 500,000 - - - - Self Insurance 200,000 - - - - Pro ject Specific Carryover Funds 193,182 - - - - GIS Recipients 89,897 - - - - Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) - 3,862,548 - - -

Unassigned:Unasigned Fund Balance 11,089,419 - - - -

Total fund balances 14,176,361 3,862,548 - 21,528,870 255,441

Total liabilities and fund balances 16,292,038$ 3,862,548$ 20,747$ 23,145,715$ 5,050,665$

Special R evenue




Balance Sheet GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS

June 30 , 2012

C apito lValley Glenn T o tal

Sacramento Yuba Sutter Yo lo R egio nal C o unty Go vernmental C o unty C o unty C o unty C o unty SA F E SA F E F unds

10,562,824$ 474,237$ 1,088,597$ 1,915,571$ 3,910,415$ 117,726$ 58,706,912$ - - - - 390,422 5,101 416,220 - - - - - - 30,839

7,458,500 217,059 574,000 1,361,500 - - 17,168,529 11,272 1,742 6,501 - 4,149 130 76,462

- - - - 2,124 - 74,621

18,032,596$ 693,038$ 1,669,098$ 3,277,071$ 4,307,110$ 122,957$ 76,473,583$

-$ -$ -$ -$ 177,611$ 5,518$ 1,898,440$ - - - - - - 263,003

21,271 - - - - - - -

8,635,053 - 1,000,489 1,085,158 - - 17,269,608

8,635,053 - 1,000,489 1,085,158 177,611 5,518 19,452,322

- - - - 2,124 - 74,621

- - - - - - 21,528,870 - - - - - - 255,441

9,397,543 - - - - - 9,397,543 - 693,038 - - - - 693,038 - - 668,609 - - - 668,609 - - - 2,191,913 - - 2,191,913 - - - - 4,127,375 - 4,127,375 - - - - - 117,439 117,439

- - - - - - 211,122 - - - - - - 1,820,244

- - - - - - 500,000 - - - - - - 200,000 - - - - - - 193,182 - - - - - - 89,897 - - - - - - 3,862,548

- - - - - - 11,089,419 9,397,543 693,038 668,609 2,191,913 4,129,499 117,439 57,021,261

18,032,596$ 693,038$ 1,669,098$ 3,277,071$ 4,307,110$ 122,957$ 76,473,583$

R EC ON C ILIA T ION OF T H E B A LA N C E SH EET - GOVER N M EN T A L F UN D S T O T H E ST A T EM EN T OF N ET A SSET S:

Fund balances - to tal governmental funds 57,021,261$ Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement o f net assets are different because:Net OPEB Obligation. (258,904)Long term liability, not due in the current period, therefore, not reported in the funds. (102,791)

281,982 (1,010,205)

Net assets o f governmental activities 55,931,343$

Compensated absences not due and payable in the current period, and not reported in the funds.

Capital assets used in government activities are not financial resources, and are not reported in the funds.

Lo cal T ranspo rtat io n F unds

Special R evenue




Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes In Fund Balances – Governmental Funds

For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

P ublicT ranspo rtat io n

Sacramento M o dernizat io n,Emergency Impro vement &

P lanning SA C OG C lean A ir and Service Stateand F inancing T ranspo rtat io n Enhancement T ransit

A dministrat io n C o rpo rat io n P ro gram A cco unt A ssistanceR evenues:

Sales and use taxes -$ -$ -$ 13,695,246$ 14,182,888$ Vehicle registration fees and traffic fines - - - - - Intergovernmental:

Federal 8,678,720 - - - - State 2,676,805 - - Local 553,552 - - - -

Charges for services 197,710 - - - - M ember assessments 284,270 - - - - Investment earnings 50,047 15,032 74 66,734 4,973 In-kind 293,611 - - - - Other 66,295 - 46,139 - -

Total revenues 12,801,010 15,032 46,213 13,761,980 14,187,861 Expenditures:

Current:Transportation Claimaints

City o f Elk Grove - - - - 944,845 City o f Citrus Heights - - - - 459,163 City o f Davis - - - - 489,369 City o f Fo lsom - - - - 422,991 City o f Galt - - - - 126,439 City o f Isleton - - - - 4,283 City o f Live Oak - - - - 45,810 City o f Sacramento - - - - - City o f West Sacramento - - - - 252,346 City o f Rancho Cordova - - - - - City o f Wheatland - - - - 18,541 City o f Winters - - - - 36,987 City o f Woodland - - - - 298,525 City o f Yuba City - - - - - County of Sacramento - - - - 133,122 County of Sutter - - - - - County of Yolo - - - - 122,827 County of Yuba - - - - - Sacramento Regional Transit District - - - - 9,596,963 Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority - - - - 891,912 Yolo County Transportation District - - - - 201,715 Paratransit, Inc - - - - -

SAFE services - - - - - Freeway service patro l - - - - - Equipment and maintenance - - - - - Insurance and DM V fees - - - - - P lanning and administration 15,857,825 - - - -

- - - 6,385,003 - Payments to SM F grantees 517,451 - - - - Refunds returned to State SECAT Program - - 58,172 - -

Capital outlay 42,023 - - - - Total expenditures 16,417,299 - 58,172 6,385,003 14,045,838

Excess (deficiency) o f revenues over (under) expenditures (3,616,289) 15,032 (11,959) 7,376,977 142,023

Other F inancing So urces (Uses):Transfers in 2,547,066 - - - - Transfers out - - - -

Total other financing sources (uses) 2,547,066 - - - - Net change in fund balances (1,069,223) 15,032 (11,959) 7,376,977 142,023

Fund balances - beginning 15,245,584 3,847,516 11,959 14,151,893 113,418 Fund balances - ending 14,176,361$ 3,862,548$ -$ 21,528,870$ 255,441$

Public Transportation M odernization Improvement & Service Enhancement

Special Revenue




Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes In Fund Balances – Governmental Funds


C apito lValley Glenn T o tal

Sacramento Yuba Sutter Yo lo R egio nal C o unty Go vernmentalC o unty C o unty C o unty C o unty SA F E SA F E F unds

46,241,065$ 1,246,638$ 3,402,913$ 8,227,425$ -$ -$ 86,996,175$ - - - - 2,261,156 30,763 2,291,919

- - - - - - 8,678,720 - - - - - - 2,676,805 - - - - - - 553,552 - - - - - - 197,710 - - - - - - 284,270

39,016 6,712 20,765 31,764 13,469 445 249,031 - - - - - - 293,611 - - - - 41,675 - 154,109

46,280,081 1,253,350 3,423,678 8,259,189 2,316,300 31,208 102,375,902

4,763,165 - - - - - 5,708,010 2,916,956 - - - - - 3,376,119

- - - 2,585,123 - - 3,074,492 2,365,378 - - - - - 2,788,369

803,235 - - - - - 929,674 27,211 - - - - - 31,494

- - 287,800 - - - 333,610 331,851 - - - - - 331,851

- - 1,880,520 - - 2,132,866 42,932 - - - - - 42,932

- 44,122 - - - - 62,663 - - - 275,852 - - 312,839 - - - 2,224,939 - - 2,523,464 - - 1,345,087 - - 1,345,087

1,232,740 - - - 1,365,862 - - 715,189 - - 715,189 - - - 920,039 - - 1,042,866 - 352,238 - - - - 352,238

33,554,746 - - - - - 43,151,709 - 514,877 844,823 - - - 2,251,612 - - - - 201,715

1,824,843 - - - - - 1,824,843 - - - - 344,831 15,610 360,441 - - - - 851,210 851,210 - - - - 459,685 - 459,685 - - - - 19,631 149 19,780 - - - - 84,765 2,706 15,945,296

- - - - - - 6,385,003 - - - - - - 517,451 - - - - - - 58,172 - - - - - 42,023

47,863,057 911,237 3,192,899 7,886,473 1,760,122 18,465 98,538,565

(1,582,976) 342,113 230,779 372,716 556,178 12,743 3,837,337

- - - - - - 2,547,066 (2,036,943) (38,763) (135,824) (335,536) - - (2,547,066)

(2,036,943) (38,763) (135,824) (335,536) - - - (3,619,919) 303,350 94,955 37,180 556,178 12,743 3,837,337 13,017,462 389,688 573,654 2,154,733 3,573,321 104,696 53,183,924 9,397,543$ 693,038$ 668,609$ 2,191,913$ 4,129,499$ 117,439$ 57,021,261$

Lo cal T ranspo rtat io n F unds

Special Revenue

The notes to the financial statements are an integral part of this statement



Reconciliation of the Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds to

the Statement of Activities For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

Net change in fund balances - total governmental funds (page A-23) 3,837,337$

Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of activities are different because:

Governmental funds report capital outlays as expenditures. However, in the statement of activities the cost of those assets is allocated over their estimated useful lives and reported as depreciation expense.

Capital outlay for Planning and Adminstrative Fund 42,023 Depreciation expense for Planning & Administrative Fund, Capitol Valley SAFE and Glenn SAFE

(529,139)

Net Other Post Employment Benefit Obligation (139,039)

Some expenses reported in the statement of activities do not require the use of current financial resources and, therefore, are not reported as expenditures in governmental funds.

Debt for OPEB Liability 12,986 Compensated absences for Planning & Adminstrative Fund (2,397)

Change in net assets of governmental activities (page A-19) 3,221,771$




Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances

B U D G E T A N D A C T U A L — P L A N N I N G A N D A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

Fo r the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

Variance with

Original Final Actual Amounts

Final Budget Positive

(Negative)Revenues:

Intergovernmental:

Federal 31,911,454$ 38,097,977$ 8,678,720$ (29,419,257)$

State 10,785,080 11,747,254 2,676,805 (9,070,449)

Local 838,095 857,421 553,552 (303,869)

Charges for services 398,206 294,727 197,710 (97,017)

Member assessments 284,270 284,270 284,270 -

Investment earnings 20,000 20,000 50,047 30,047

In-kind 836,031 1,685,127 293,611 (1,391,516)

Other 210,019 66,295 (143,724)

Total revenues 45,073,136 53,196,795 12,801,010 (40,395,785)

Expenditures:

Current:

Planning and administration 48,204,254 56,074,229 15,857,825 40,216,404

SACOG Managed Fund grantees - - 517,451 (517,451)

Capital outlay 70,000 70,000 42,023 27,977

Total expenditures 48,274,254 56,144,229 16,417,299 39,726,930

Deficiency of revenues under expenditures (3,201,118) (2,947,434) (3,616,289) (668,855)

Other Financing Sources:Transfers in 2,306,142 2,547,275 2,547,066 (209)

Total Other Financing Uses 2,306,142$ 2,547,275$ 2,547,066$ (209)$

Change in fund balances (894,976)$ (400,159)$ (1,069,223) (669,064)$

Fund balance - beginning 15,245,584

Fund balance - ending 14,176,361$

Budgeted Amounts




Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances

B U D G E T A N D A C T U A L –

C A P I T O L V A L L E Y R E G I O N A L S A F E S P E C I A L R E V E N U E F U N D For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

Variance with

Original FinalActual

Amounts

Final Budget Postive

(Negative)

Revenues:Vehicle registration fees 2,095,158$ 2,095,158$ 2,261,156$ 165,998$ Investment earnings 16,000 16,000 13,469 (2,531) Other 31,500 31,500 41,675 10,175

Total revenues 2,142,658 2,142,658 2,316,300 173,642

Expenditures:Current: SAFE services 656,069 656,069 344,831 311,238 Freeway Service Patrol 897,409 897,409 851,210 46,199 Equipment and maintenance 469,373 469,373 459,685 9,688 Insurance and DMV fees 21,000 21,000 19,631 1,369 Planning and administration 132,137 132,137 84,765 47,372

Total expenditures 2,175,988 2,175,988 1,760,122 415,866

Excess of revenues over expenditures (33,330)$ (33,330)$ 556,178 589,508$

Fund balance - beginning 3,573,321

Fund balance - ending 4,129,499$

Budgeted Amounts



Notes to the Basic Financial Statements For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012


NOTE A — Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

I . R E P O R T I N G E N T I T Y

In January 1965, the Sacramento Regional Area Planning Commission (SRAPC) was organized under the State Planning Law to provide a forum for elected officials to address multi-county problems, issues, and needs. In January 1981, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) succeeded SRAPC under a new Joint Powers Agreement pursuant to Section 6500 of the California Government Code. Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 115, states that income derived from a governmental function is tax exempt. Since SACOG’s members are all governmental entities and SACOG exercises the common powers of its members, SACOG exercises governmental functions. Therefore, SACOG’s income is exempt from federal taxation.

SACOG is an association of local governments formed by 6 counties and 22 cities. SACOG’s member governments are the counties of El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba, and the cities of Auburn, Citrus Heights, Colfax, Davis, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton, Lincoln, Live Oak, Loomis, Marysville, Placerville, Rocklin, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento, Wheatland, Winters, Woodland, and Yuba City. SACOG is governed by a 31-member Board of Directors composed of elected officials representing the member governments. The Board of Directors maintains budgetary controls over SACOG’s accounts. SACOG’s various designations and certifications include: Designations as: Regional Transportation Planning Agency for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties

by the California State Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) by the Governor and the U.S. Department of Transportation for the Sacramento, Yuba City, and Davis Urbanized Areas.

Metropolitan Planning Organization in the Sacramento Metropolitan Planning Area (MPA) by the California State Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.

Airport Land Use Commission for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.

Service Authority for Freeway and Expressways for Sacramento, San Joaquin, Yolo, Yuba, Sutter, and El Dorado counties.

Area Wide Clearinghouse for the counties of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba and the cities of Lincoln, Rocklin, and Roseville by the State of California Procedures of Intergovernmental Review of Federal Financial Assistance and Direct Development Activities.

Designated recipient for the Sacramento large urbanized area for FTA Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) and FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Programs.


NOTE A, Continued

Joint Certification as: Sacramento Area Metropolitan Planning Process by the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

The governmental reporting entity consists of SACOG and its component units. Component units are legally separate organizations for which the Board is financially responsible or other organizations whose nature and significant relationship with SACOG are such that exclusion would cause SACOG’s financial statements to be misleading or incomplete. Financial accountability is defined as the appointment of a voting majority of the component unit’s board, and (i) either SACOG’s ability to impose its will on the organization or (ii) the potential for the organization to provide a financial benefit to or impose a financial burden on SACOG. Blended Component Units: The Sacramento Area Council of Governments Financing Corporation (Corporation) was established on April 9, 2002, and is governed by SACOG’s Board of Directors Government Relations and Public Affairs Committee. Although it is legally separate from SACOG, the Corporation is reported as if it were part of the primary government because its sole purpose was to purchase, own, lease, encumber and dispose of all or any interest in certain real property located at 14th and L Streets and 15th and K Streets in Sacramento, California. After the property was sold, it was legally determined that the Corporation should continue to exist in order to manage the proceeds from the sale of the property, until another use is determined. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies, also known as the Capitol Valley Regional Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (Capitol Valley SAFE), is a legally constituted public entity created and established pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14 of Division 3 of the Street and Highways Code of the State of California (the “Freeway Act”) to serve as the service authority for freeway emergencies in the counties of El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba. Under the Freeway Act, Capitol Valley SAFE is authorized to impose a fee on vehicles registered in the six counties for the implementation, maintenance and operation of the motorist aid system of call boxes. Capitol Valley SAFE is administered by a governing board consisting of members of SACOG’s Board of Directors plus one member representing San Joaquin County and one member representing the cities of San Joaquin County. SACOG provides administrative services for Capitol Valley SAFE. Capitol Valley SAFE is included in SACOG’s reporting entity because of the significance of its financial or operational relationship and its mutual governing board. The financial statements of SACOG have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applied to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The following is a summary of significant policies:


NOTE A, Continued

I I . G O V E R N M E N T - W I D E F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T S

The statement of net assets and statement of activities report information on all of the activities of SACOG. SACOG is engaged only in governmental activities, which are normally supported by taxes and intergovernmental revenues. The statement of activities presents a comparison between direct expenses and program revenues for each function of SACOG’s governmental activities. Direct expenses are those that are specifically associated with a program or function and, therefore, are clearly identifiable to a specific function. Program revenues include (i) charges paid by the recipients of the goods or services offered by the programs and (ii) grants and contributions that are restricted for meeting the operational requirements of SACOG’s activities. Sales and use taxes, investment earnings, and other revenues not properly included among program revenues are reported as general revenues.

I I I . M E A S U R E M E N T F O C U S , B A S I S O F A C C O U N T I N G A N D F I N A N C I A L S T A T E M E N T P R E S E N T A T I O N

The government-wide financial statements are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned, and expenses are recorded when a liability is incurred, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. Grants and similar items are recognized as revenue as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Governmental fund financial statements are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized as soon as they are both measurable and available. Revenues are considered to be available if they are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to pay liabilities of the current period. For this purpose, SACOG considers revenues to be available if they are collected within six months from the end of the current fiscal period. SACOG uses a six-month availability period because of the reimbursement timeline associated with most of its funding sources. Revenues considered susceptible to accrual primarily include sales tax revenues, federal, state and local funds, as well as investment earnings. Expenditures generally are recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. However, expenditures related to compensated absences are recorded only when payment is due. Major sources of revenue are federal, state and local planning grants and sales tax revenues. Grant revenue is recognized as soon as all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. When such funds are received in advance, they are recorded as deferred revenue until SACOG has satisfied the grantor’s eligibility requirements. Such funding is subject to review by the funding agency and may result in disallowance in subsequent periods. Sales taxes collected and held by the state at year-end on behalf of SACOG are recognized as revenue.


NOTE A, Continued

SACOG Reports the Following General Fund: Planning and Administration Fund Used to account for SACOG’s transportation planning and administration activities funded from various federal, state and local sources. Included in it are the transactions for the Board and Advocacy Fund and the SACOG Managed Fund. SACOG Reports the Following Major Special Revenue Funds: SACOG Financing Corporation Fund Used to account for the proceeds received from the sale of the Meridian Plaza building and for annual interest earned on the funds. The Financing Corporation is a blended component unit and its general fund is reported as a special revenue fund of SACOG. Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program Fund (SECAT) Accounts for the revenues and expenditures restricted for SACOG’s administration of the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP), funded by the State of California. Public Transportation, Modernization, Improvement & Service Enhancement Account Used to account for restricted funds from Public Transportation, Improvement & Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Regional Funds. SACOG is the grant recipient for these funds and will pass the funding to transit agencies for approved transit projects. SACOG Board approval is required for the subrecipient funding agreements. State Transit Assistance Fund Created pursuant to the Transportation Development Act (TDA) to account for the allocations received from the state restricted for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. Funds are derived from the statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. Local Transportation Funds Created pursuant to the TDA to account for the proceeds received from the State Board of Equalization of the ¼ cent of the state’s 7-1/2 percent retail sales tax collected within the following counties. These restricted funds are administered by SACOG on behalf of each County and used to fund various transportation related activities as authorized by California Law, under the Transportation Development Act.

Sacramento County Yuba County Sutter County Yolo County

Capitol Valley Regional SAFE Fund Used to account for SACOG’s administrative activities for implementing, operating and maintaining the motorist aid system of call boxes and 511 operations within the counties of El Dorado, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba. Revenues are derived from the vehicle registration fee imposed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14 of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code.


NOTE A, Continued

Glenn County SAFE Fund Used to account for activities in accordance with the contract with the County of Glenn for implementing, operating and maintaining the motorist aid system of call boxes within the County of Glenn pursuant to Street and Highways Code section 2553. Revenues are derived from the vehicle registration fee imposed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 14 of Division 3 of the Streets and Highways Code.

I V . A S S E T S , L I A B I L I T I E S A N D N E T A S S E T S O R F U N D B A L A N C E

Investments Investments are recorded at fair value, which is the quoted market price. Accounts Receivable/Payable These amounts represent receivables/payables with other agencies, vendors, employees and other miscellaneous transactions due at June 30, 2012. Due from/to Other Governments These amounts represent receivables/payables with other federal, state and local governments.

Interest Receivable Investment income available but not yet received at June 30, 2012. Prepaid Items Payments for services that will benefit periods beyond June 30, 2012. Capital Assets (including Intangible Assets) Capital and intangible assets are recorded at historical cost or at estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is not available. Donated capital assets are valued at their estimated fair market value on the Sacramento Area Council of Governments date of donation. Capital and intangible assets are defined by SACOG, as assets with an initial, individual cost of more than $5,000 and an estimated useful life in excess of two years. Capital and intangible assets used in operations are depreciated/ amortized using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives in the government-wide statements of net assets. The estimated useful lives for furniture and equipment are 3 to 15 years. Compensated Absences It is SACOG’s policy to permit employees to accumulate earned but unused paid time off (PTO) leave benefits. Employees are entitled to PTO depending on the length of service and other factors. SACOG has recognized a liability in the government-wide financial statements for unused PTO leave in which employees have a vested right and which is attributable to employee services already performed. A current liability for this amount is reported in the governmental funds only if the PTO has matured, for example, as a result of employee resignations and retirements. The Planning and Administration Special Revenue Fund is used to liquidate the compensated absences liability. Interfund Transfers Interfund transfers typically report the amounts provided to SACOG for planning and administrative services performed by the four Local Transportation Funds.


NOTE A, Continued Use of Estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. Fund Balance Policy The Fund Balance Policy establishes the procedures for reporting fund balance in SACOG’s financial statements for its various government funds. Certain commitments and assignments of fund balance will help ensure that there are adequate financial resources to protect the agency against unforeseen circumstances and events such as revenue shortfalls and unanticipated expenditures. The policy also authorizes and directs management to prepare financial reports which accurately categorize fund balance as per Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions. The general policies applicable to all SACOG funds are as follows:

1. Maintaining adequate fund balance reserves is an essential part of sound financial management. SACOG realizes the importance of reserves in providing reliable service to its members, financing its operations, and funding emergencies should the need arise.

2. For committed fund balances, the highest level of decision-making authority is the Board of Directors; a Board resolution or motion is required to formally establish, modify, or rescind a fund balance commitment.

3. The Board delegates to the Chief Executive Officer and/or the Chief Operating Officer authority to assign, change, and manage unassigned fund balance transactions going in and out of the funds where SACOG’s intent is for those amounts to be used for specific purposes. This delegation of authority is for the sole purpose of reporting these amounts in the annual financial statements.

4. It is the policy of SACOG that when an expenditure is incurred, and both restricted and unrestricted fund balance is available for the expenditure, that the expenditure reduces the restricted balance first and the unrestricted balance second.

5. It is the policy of SACOG that when an expenditure is incurred, and committed, assigned, or unassigned fund balance is available for the expenditure, that the expenditure reduces the committed balance first, the assigned fund balance second, and the unassigned fund balance last.

6. SACOG’s Fund Balance Policy will be reviewed as a part of the annual budget process. Fund Balance Nonspendable – This category represents amounts that cannot be spent because they are either (i) not in a spendable form, such as prepaid items, inventories of supplies, or loans receivable; or (ii) legally or contractually required to be maintained intact, such as the principal portion of endowment.


NOTE A, Continued

Restricted Fund Balance – This category represents external restrictions imposed by creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments and restrictions imposed by law through constitutional provisions or enabling legislation.

Committed – This category represents amounts that can only be used for specific purposes pursuant to constraints imposed by formal action of the government’s highest level of decision-making authority and remain binding unless removed in the same manner. SACOG’s Board of Directors is the highest level of decision-making authority. Any formal actions to establish (and modify or rescind) a fund balance commitment would have to be approved the Board of Directors. Board and Advocacy – represents a portion of fund balance segregated for that portion of

discretionary revenue available to support activities of the Board of Directors.

SACOG Managed Fund grantees – represents a portion of the SACOG Managed Fund balance segregated for grantee commitments that are contracted for, but services have not yet been acted on by the grantee.

Assigned – This category represents amounts that are constrained by the government’s intent to be used for specific purposes, but that are neither restricted nor committed. Such intent needs to be established at either the highest level of decision making or by an official designated for that purpose. The Chief Executive Officer has been designated for this purpose by the SACOG Board of Directors. Unassigned Fund Balance – This category includes amounts that do not fall into one of the above four categories. The general fund is the only fund that should report this category of fund balance. These funds are the amounts in the Planning and Administration Fund not classified as nonspendable, restricted, committed, or assigned.

The unassigned fund balance also includes funds previously reported in the SACOG Managed Fund. The SACOG Managed Fund has been used to accumulate funds from local agencies for reimbursement of projects originally expected to have been completed with local funds, but were instead funded with available Federal Funds. Through these reimbursement arrangements, SACOG has been able to accumulate flexible local funds without the burden of state and federal restrictions and processes. The SACOG Managed Fund has been used to provide financing and cash flow to benefit local agency projects. Historically, the Fund has been treated as a separate special revenue fund and was consolidated with the Planning and Administration Fund in accordance with GASB 54 in fiscal year 2011.

New Accounting Pronouncements Adopted in Current Year GASB Statement No. 64, Derivative Instruments: Application of Hedge Accounting Termination Provisions—an amendment of GASB Statement No. 53. The objective of this Statement is to clarify whether an effective hedging relationship continues after the replacement of a swap counterparty or a swap counterparty’s credit support provider. This Statement sets forth criteria that establish when the effective hedging relationship continues and hedge accounting should continue to be applied. The provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2011. This statement did not have a material effect on the financial statements.


NOTE B — Budgetary Information

The Board adopts an annual budget for the SACOG Planning and Administration and Capitol Valley SAFE Special Revenue funds based on anticipated projects at the beginning of the year.

SACOG reports its primary activities through the Planning and Administrative General Fund. The budget is approved in two phases. One phase is the Overall Work Program (OWP) budget which is the plan for transportation related projects which is a major portion of the Planning and Administration fund budget, is approved by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) after adoption by the Board of Directors. The second phase of the budget process is the adoption of the operating budget. This includes the OWP, Board of Directors and Advocacy, capital assets, and can include other related functions not associated with the OWP. The annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and are presented on the modified accrual basis of accounting. Within the OWP budget, the level of budgetary control is at the element level. Board approval is needed if costs are expected to exceed the element total, or if new projects are added to the element. No annual adopted budget is prepared for the remaining special revenue funds as they are special purpose funds whose ending fund balance at June 30 becomes the amount available for the next fiscal year. Because of SACOG’s dependency on federal, state, and local budgetary decisions, revenue estimates are based upon the best available information as to potential sources of funding. SACOG’s annual budget differs from that of a local government in two respects: (i) the uncertain nature of grant awards from other entities, and (ii) conversion of grant budgets to a fiscal year basis.

NOTE C — Cash and Investments

A U T H O R I Z E D I N V E S T M E N T S

The table below identifies the investments types that are authorized by the California Government Code Section 53601, which constitutes SACOG’s investment policy, for funds held with the Sacramento County Pooled Investment Fund. The Pooled Investment Fund investors are comprised of Sacramento County, school and community college districts, districts directed by the Sacramento Board of Supervisors, and independent special districts (SACOG being a JPA) whose “Treasurer” is the Sacramento County Director of Finance. The following articles, in order of supremacy, govern the Pooled Investment Fund

1. California Government Code

2. Annual Investment Policy of the Pooled Investment Fund

3. Current Investment Guidelines

4. Approved Lists of banks, note issuers, money market funds, and firms as broker/dealers


NOTE C, Continued

Authorized Investment Type Maximum Maturities

Maximum Concentrations

Maximum Investment in

One Issuer Minimum

Rating

U.S. Treasury Notes and Agency Obligations

5 years 100% -- None

Bonds Issued by Local Agencies 5 years 80% -- None

Registered State Warrants and Municipal Notes

5 years 80% -- None

Bankers’ Acceptances 180 days 40% 10% None

Commercial Paper 270 days 40% 10% A1/P1

Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 180 days 30% 10% A

CRA Bank Deposits/Certificates of Deposit

1 Year 30% -- AA

Repurchase Agreements 1 year 30% 10% None

Reverse Repurchase Agreements 92 days 20% 10% None

Medium Term Corporate Notes 180 days 30% 10% None

Shares of Money Market Mutual fund SEC regs 20% 10% None

Collaterized Mortgage Obligations 180 days 20% 10% None

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) --- Per state limit 10% None The ultimate maximum maturity of any investment shall be five (5) years. The dollar-weighted average maturity of all securities shall be equal to or less than three (3) years. No more than 80 percent of the portfolio may be invested in issues other than United States Treasuries and Government Agencies. No more than 10 percent of the portfolio, except Treasuries and Agencies, may be invested in securities of a single issuer including its related entities.

I N T E R E S T R A T E R I S K

Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. SACOG manages its exposure to interest rate risk by investing a significant portion of its investments in investment pools not subject to such risk and by purchasing investments with maturity dates evenly distributed over time. SACOG’s investments and maturities are as follows:


NOTE C, Continued

Maturity

No Maturity

0-5 Years

FairValues

Balance at June 30, 2012

Petty cash $ 300 $ - $ 300

Deposits in banks 23,609 - 23,609

County of Sacramento investment pool - 55,204,599 55,204,599

County of Yuba investment pool - 474,237 474,237

County of Sutter investment pool - 1,088,597 1,088,597

County of Yolo investment pool - 1,915,571 1,915,571

Total cash and investments $23,909 $58,683,004 $58,706,912

C R E D I T R I S K

Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. SACOG’s investments in the County of Sacramento, County of Sutter, County of Yolo and County of Yuba’s investment pools are not rated.

C U S T O D I A L C R E D I T R I S K

Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party.

SACOG has no exposure to custodial credit risk because it primarily invests in external investment pools. The California Government Code does not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits: The California Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local governmental units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law. The market value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at least 110 percent of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. At year end, the carrying amount of SACOG’s cash deposits was $23,609 which was fully insured and collateralized.


NOTE D — Receivables

Receivables as of June 30, 2012, for SACOG are as follows:

Fund Name

AccountsReceivable

Due from OtherGovernments

Interest Receivable

Misc. A/R Total

Planning and Administration $ - $ 3,956,784 $ 23,142 30,839 $ 4,010,765

SACOG Financing Corporation - - 4,277 - 4,277

SECAT PTMISEA

20,697

-

-

-

4

23,242

-

-

20,701

23,242

State Transit Assistance - 3,600,686 2,003 - 3,602,689

Sacramento County Local Transportation Fund - 7,458,500 11,272 - 7,469,772

Yuba County Local Transportation Fund

-

217,059

1,742 -

218,801

Sutter County Local Transportation Fund

-

574,000

6,501 -

580,501

Yolo County Local Transportation Fund

-

1,361,500

- -

1,361,500

Capitol Valley Regional SAFE 390,422 - 4,149 - 394,571

Glenn County SAFE 5,101 - 130 - 5,231

Total Receivables – Governmental Activities $ 416,220 $ 17,168,529 $ 76,462 $ 30,839 $ 17,692,050


NOTE E — Capital Assets

Capital asset activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, was as follows:

July 1, 2011 Additions Deletions June 30, 2012SACOGComputers 232,937$ 36,144$ (22,551) 246,530$ Furniture and Equipment 677,230 5,879 683,109 Phones 35,360 35,360 Intangible Assets - Software 139,921 139,921 Total for SACOG 1,085,448$ 42,023$ (22,551)$ 1,104,921$

Capitol Valley SAFE - Equipment 5,202,240$ 5,202,240$

Glenn County SAFE - SAFE Equipment 195,659$ 195,659$

Total Capital Assets 6,483,347$ 42,023$ (22,551)$ 6,502,820$

Less Accumulated Depreciation/Amortization for:SACOGComputers 205,325$ 27,445$ (22,551)$ 210,219$ Furniture and Equipment 637,786 10,427 648,213 Phones 35,360 35,360 Intangible Assets - Software 126,591 6,665 133,256 Total for SACOG 1,005,062$ 44,537$ (22,551)$ 1,027,048$

Capitol Valley SAFE - Equipment 4,534,342$ 471,457$ 5,005,799$

Glenn County SAFE - SAFE Equipment 174,847$ 13,145$ 187,992$

Total Accumulated Depreciation/Amortization 5,714,251$ 529,139$ (22,551)$ 6,220,839$

Net Book Value of AssetsSACOGComputers 27,612$ 8,699$ 36,311$ Furniture and Equipment 39,445 (4,548) 34,897 Intangible Assets - Software 13,330 (6,665) 6,665 Total for SACOG 80,386$ (2,514)$ 77,873$

Capitol Valley SAFE - Equipment 667,898$ (471,457)$ 196,441$

Glenn County SAFE - SAFE Equipment 20,812$ (13,145)$ 7,668$

Total Net Book Value of Capital Assets 769,097$ (487,116)$ -$ 281,982$


NOTE E, Continued Depreciation expense was charged to the governmental activities as follows:

Note F — Payables

Payables as of June 30, 2012, for SACOG are as follows:

Fund Name

Accounts Payable

AccruedLiabilities

and Deferred Revenue

Due to Other Governments

Total

Planning and Administration $ 1,715,311 $ 284,274 $ 116,092 $ 2,115,677 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation Program

-

-

20,747

20,747

PTMISEA - - 1,616,845 1,616,845

State Transit Assistance Fund - - 4,795,224 4,795,224

Sacramento County Local Transportation Fund

-

-

8,635,053

8,635,053

Sutter County Local Transportation Fund - - 1,000,489 1,000,489

Yolo County Local Transportation Fund - - 1,085,158 1,085,158

Capitol Valley Regional SAFE 177,611 - - 177,611

Glenn County SAFE 5,518 - - 5,518

Total Payables – Governmental Activities $1,898,440 $ 284,274 $ 17,269,608 $19,452,322

Planning and Administration $ 44,537 Capitol Valley Regional SAFE 471,457 Glenn County SAFE 13,145 Total depreciation expense $ 529,139


NOTE G — Operating Lease

In July 2002, SACOG entered into a lease agreement to lease office space in the Meridian Plaza office building. SACOG moved into the building on August 18, 2003, and the lease commitment was for 10.5 years with early termination available after 7 years if the landlord sells the property within the first 5 years after completion. That lease was amended effective October 1, 2010. The lease term was extended for ten years through September 30, 2019, with new lease rates. Rental expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 were $568,502. Common Area Maintenance (CAM) costs were $6,734. As of June 30, 2012, SACOG minimum lease payments required under the lease are as follows:

Year ending June 30

2013 $ 591,517

2014 597,373

2015 614,943

2016 620,800

2017 638,369

Remaining 1,472,935

Total $ 4,535,937

NOTE H — Compensated Absences

Compensated absences activity for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, was as follows:

July 1, 2011 Additions Deletions

June 30, 2012

Due within One year

Compensated absences $1,007,808 $ 678,083 $ (675,686) $ 1,010,205 $ 50,510

A portion of the ending balance is expected to be paid out in the next fiscal year so is categorized as due within one year. The Planning and Administration fund is used to liquidate the compensated absences liability.


NOTE I — 401(a) Money Purchase Plans

The Board of Directors has established three defined contribution plans (IRC Section 401(a)) for the employees. The plans are fully vested. As a defined contribution plan, benefits are dependent solely on amounts contributed to the plan plus investment earnings. The Special Pay Plan contains two plan features, one of which is the FICA-Alternative Plan. This plan is for temporary employees and interns. These employees are exempt from the Old Age and Survivors Disability portion of Social Security and contribute 7.5 percent of their gross pay to the plan. Total contributions to this plan were $5,492 for the year. The other plan feature involves year-end PTO hours and employees who terminate employment and is more fully explained in Note K. Total contributions to this plan were $111,941 for the year. SACOG maintains two other money purchase plans where contributions are voluntary. Total employee contributions to both plans were $115,162 for the year.

NOTE J — Contingent Liabilities, Commitments and Long-Term Liabilities

SACOG has received federal and state grants for specific purposes that are subject to review and audit by the grantor agencies or their designee. Such audits could lead to a request for reimbursement to the grantor agency for expenditures disallowed under terms of the grant. Based on prior experience, SACOG believes such disallowance, if any, will be immaterial. Commitments generally represent open consultant contracts, whereby the goods and services for which the contracts were set up, were not received or provided by the end of the year, and are expected to be liquidated in the following year(s). In some cases, certain longer term consultant contract amounts (commitments) are shown at their total amount, even though the work to be performed will cover multiple future years’ activity. Commitments for the Planning and Administration Fund are $12,211,073, at June 30, 2012. The PTMISEA Fund commitments totaled $11,442,478 at June 30, 2012. In 2010, SACOG incurred a long-term severance liability (in lieu of an OPEB benefit) of $129,814 (that is separate from the OPEB CERBT information found in Note N) as a result of an agreement with an employee who retired from SACOG. Payments approximate $12,981 per year, over 10 years. The balance of this liability is $102,791 at June 30, 2012.


NOTE K — Special Pay Plan

In December 2004, the Board of Directors established a Special Pay Plan (IRS Section 401(a) allowing the annual transfer of the cash value of accumulated sick leave and separation leave hours under certain conditions to SACOG’s Special Pay Plan, subject to IRS limitations. Effective July 1, 2006, the negotiated agreement with the SACOG Employee Association effected an amendment to the contract provisions such that the cash value of Paid Time Off (PTO) leave in excess of 592 hours for those employees over age 50 is deposited to the Special Pay Plan. In addition, any employee who separates from SACOG employment will have the cash value of accumulated PTO hours over 80 hours deposited to the Special Pay Plan, subject to IRS limitation. In May 2010, the plan was amended to include contract employees under age 50 that have a leave balance over 592 hours. Total SACOG contributions to the Plan totaled $111,941 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012. A separate provision of the Special Pay Plan is that temporary and intermittent employees and student interns contribute 7.5 percent of their gross salary to the Special Pay Plan. These funds are fully vested to the employee. Under this program, neither SACOG nor the employee contributes to Social Security.

NOTE L — Risk Management

SACOG is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of assets; errors and omissions; injuries to employees; and natural disasters. SACOG reports its risk management activities in its Planning and Administration and Capitol Valley Regional SAFE Special Revenue Funds. SACOG purchases commercial insurance through an insurance agent, who obtains the appropriate insurance coverage needed by SACOG from insurance companies. SACOG’s deductibles and maximum coverage are as follows:

Maximum per Coverage Deductible Occurrence

General liability, bodily injury and property damage liability $ 5,000 $ 5,000,000 Personal injury 5,000 5,000,000 Non-owned and hired automobile liability 5,000 5,000,000 Owned automobile liability 5,000 5,000,000 Public official errors and omissions 5,000 5,000,000 Fire damage 5,000 1,000,000 Uninsured motorist 5,000 1,000,000 Employment practice liability 10,000 2,000,000 Crime policy 2,500-25,000 1,000,000 Products and Completed Operations 5,000 5,000,000 Policy Property Limit 1,000 350,000 Insured Property Limit 1,000 1,689746 Maximum per occurrence, for all coverages combined 5,000,000


NOTE L, Continued

SACOG obtains insurance coverage relating to workers' compensation claims through Employers Compensation Insurance Company. SACOG makes one annual payment toward the premium. There is no deductible paid by SACOG regarding workers' compensation. The Planning and Administration Fund is used to record any worker’s compensation claims. To date, there have been no reductions in any of SACOG’s insurance coverage, and no settlement amounts have exceeded commercial insurance coverage for the last three years.

NOTE M — Employee Retirement Plan

P L A N D E S C R I P T I O N

SACOG contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS), a cost sharing multiple-employer public employee defined benefit pension plan. CalPERS provides retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS acts as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by contract with CalPERS in accordance with the provisions of the Public Employees Retirement Law. Copies of CalPERS’ annual financial report may be obtained from their Executive Office, 400 Q Street, P.O. Box 942701, Sacramento, California 94229.

F U N D I N G P O L I C Y

The contribution requirements of plan members and SACOG are established and may be amended by CalPERS. SACOG’s employer rate is based on a CalPERS actuarially-determined rate and was 19.08 percent of covered payroll cost in fiscal year 2011-12. The required member contribution is 8 percent of the employee’s annual covered salary for Tier I employees and is determined by state statute. There were no Tier II employees during the year.

Miscellaneous Plan Employer Portion

Fiscal Year Ended

Required Contribution

Percentage of Required

Contribution Made 6/30/10 $ 668,449 100% 6/30/11 $ 720,532 100% 6/30/12 $ 903,741 100%


NOTE M, Continued

SACOG contributes 6 percent of the employees’ contribution on their behalf and for their account; the employee contributes the remaining 2 percent. SACOG’s required contribution in dollars and the percentage of that amount contributed for the current year and each of the three preceding years is as follows:

Miscellaneous Plan Employee Portion Paid by SACOG

Fiscal Year Ended

Required Contribution

Percentage of Required

Contribution Made 6/30/10 $ 301,933 100% 6/30/11 $ 306,542 100% 6/30/12 $ 284,675 100%

NOTE N — Other Post-Employment Health Benefits (OPEB)

S A C O G P O S T - R E T I R E M E N T M E D I C A L B E N E F I T P L A N

(A) Plan Description SACOG provides three-tier post-retirement health insurance coverage, in accordance with the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA), Chapter One, Article 8 of the California Public Employees Retirement Law, to employees who retire under the Public Employee’s Retirement System on or after attaining the age of 50.

Tier I employees receive 100 percent of their health premiums up to the maximum amount of the Kaiser Bay Area/Sacramento Family rate, currently $1,462.99 per month.

Tier II employees, those hired after November 1, 2005, and before June 30, 2006, are funded based on the vesting schedule identified in Article 8 of the PEMHCA. Employees who have five years of SACOG service and five years of other PERS service shall receive the premium value of 50 percent of the Kaiser Bay Area/Sacramento Family rate. Tier II employees will also receive an additional 5 percent of the premium for each year up to 20 years of service which will entitle them to 100 percent of the Kaiser Bay Area/Sacramento Family rate.

Tier III employees, those hired on or after July 1, 2006, are subject to the same vesting schedule as Tier II employees; however, their benefit is limited to the Kaiser Bay Area/Sacramento Two-Party Basic premium, currently $1,125.38 per month.

In addition, employees hired prior to July 1, 2006, may “opt out” of any retiree health benefits in exchange for monthly cash payments, net of OASDI and Medicare premiums, equal to the Kaiser Bay Area/Sacramento Two-Party Basic premium as of the retirement date, for ten years from the date of retirement. As of June 30, 2011, 31 retirees and their spouses met the Tier I eligibility requirements; there are no Tier II or Tier III retirees.


NOTE N, Continued

SACOG provides post-retirement health benefits to spouses, surviving spouses and dependent children (up to age 26) of eligible retirees. SACOG’s policy is to contribute the cost of retiree and dependent medical coverage based on the limits identified above. Once the eligible retiree has reached the age of 65, the retiree is required to enroll in Medicare, and the cost to SACOG decreases. In an effort to further secure the funding of the OPEB obligation; in 2006 the SACOG Board of Directors directed that the funds in the SACOG Financing Corporation fund be assigned for the future costs of the employee post-retirement health benefits. At that time, the Board noted that its action was policy only and, if at some future date it is determined there is a better use for these funds, the policy could be modified or reversed. At June 30, 2012, the amount available in the fund is $3,862,548. Authority to establish and amend the benefit provisions of the plan resides with the SACOG Board of Directors. In July 2008, SACOG established an Other Post Employment Health Benefit (OPEB) irrevocable trust with the California Employer’s Retiree Benefit Trust Program (CERBT) administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) as an agent multiple-employer plan. This trust is used to accumulate resources to fund future benefits; however, it does not represent the activities of the plan. Financial statements of CERBT are included in the CalPERS CAFR. Copies of the CalPERS CAFR may be obtained from the CalPERS Executive Office – 400 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. (B) Funding Policy The contribution rate is determined on an annual basis by an independent actuary and is authorized by the SACOG Board of Directors. The contribution rate is based on the Annual Required Contribution (ARC), an amount that is actuarially determined in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement No. 45. The ARC represents a level of funding that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover the normal cost each year and amortize any unfunded actuarial liabilities (for funding excess) over a period not to exceed thirty years. The ARC for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, was 8.29 percent of annual covered payroll. (C) Annual OPEB Cost and Net OPEB Obligation For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, SACOG’s annual OPEB cost (expense) was $394,029; however, only $254,990 was actually contributed based on the pay-as-you go method, leaving an estimated Net cumulative OPEB Obligation at June 30, 2012, of $258,904. This is the second year that SACOG has had a Net OPEB Obligation.


NOTE N, Continued

Description Amount Annual Required Contribution (ARC) $392,676

Interest on Net OPEB Obligation 9,122

Adjustment to Annual Required Contribution (7,769)

Annual OPEB Cost $394,029

Contributions made (Actual in FY 11-12) 254,990

Increase in Net OPEB $139,039

Net OPEB Obligation at beginning of year 119,865

Net OPEB Obligation at end of year $258,904

SACOG’s annual OPEB cost, the percentage of annual OPEB cost contributed to the plan, and the net OPEB obligation for June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, were as follows:

Fiscal Year Ended

Annual OPEB Cost

Percentage of Annual OPEB Cost

Contributed Net OPEB Obligation

2010 $405,800 100% -

2011 $375,806 68% $119,865

2012 $394,029 65% $258,904 (D) Funded Status & Funding Progress SACOG is required to prepare an OPEB actuarial every two years. As of June 30, 2011, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the plan was 47 percent funded. The actuarial accrued liability for benefits was $5,494,630, and the actuarial value of assets was $2,578,675, resulting in an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of $2,915,955. The covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the plan) for June 30, 2012, was $4,736,588, and the ratio of the UAAL to the covered payroll was 62 percent. (E) Actuarial Methods and Economic Assumptions

Projections of benefits for financial reporting purposes are based on the substantive plan (the plan as understood by the employer and plan members) and include the types of benefits provided at the time of each valuation and the historical pattern of sharing of benefit costs between the employer and plan members to that point. The actuarial methods and assumptions used include techniques that are designed to reduce short-term volatility in actuarial accrued liabilities and the actuarial value of assets, consistent with the long-term perspective of the calculations. .


NOTE N, Continued

In the June 1, 2011, actuarial valuation, the entry age actuarial cost method was used. The actuarial assumptions included a 7.61 percent investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses) and an annual healthcare cost trend rate of 7.3 percent initially, reduced by decrements to an ultimate rate of 5.5 percent after six years. Both rates include a 3.25 percent inflation assumption. The actuarial value of SACOG’s assets was determined using techniques that spread the effects of short-term volatility in the market value of investments over a three-year period. SACOG's unfunded actuarial accrued liability is being amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll on a closed basis. The remaining amortization period at June 30, 2012, was twenty-six years. SACOG participates in the California Employers Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT) and the SACOG Board of Directors in October 2011 approved using Asset Strategy #1. The long-term investment goal of Strategy No. 1 is a 7.61 percent annual rate of return and as a result the valuation is based on a 7.61 discount rate. The health care cost trend rate is projected to increase an average of 6.6 percent per year, for the next six years. The health care cost rate recognizes the following influences on health care: pure medical inflation, utilization changes, technological changes, regulatory requirements, and Medicare cost shifting. The actuarial assumptions also included demographic assumptions, estimates for retirement and withdrawal dates, and baseline premium health cost increases by SACOG.

Annual Health Care Cost Trend Rate Assumption

January 1, 2013 7.3% January 1, 2014 7.0% January 1, 2015 6.7% January 1, 2016 6.4% January 1, 2017 6.1% January 1, 2018 5.8%


NOTE O — Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA)

In November 2006, California voters passed a bond measure enacting the Highway Safety, Traffic reduction, Air Quality and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. Of the $19.925 billion of state general obligation bonds authorized, $3.6 billion was set aside by the state as instructed by statute into the PTMISEA account. These funds are available to the California Department of Transportation for intercity rail projects and to transit operators in California for rehabilitation, safety or modernization improvements, capital service enhancements or expansions, new capital projects, bus rapid transit improvements or for rolling stock procurement, rehabilitation or replacement. PTMISEA activity for SACOG for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2011, and 2012 are as follows:

PTMISEA Cash Balance at June 30, 2010 $ 15,499,333 Receipts: Interest 102,385 Receipts: PTMISEA Funding 800,000 Expenses: Capital Service Enhancements (371,012) Expenses: Commuter Bus Fleet Replacements (378,371) Expenses: Universal Fare Care Implementation (84,338) Expenses: Vehicles for Agriculture Worker Transportation (100,000) Expenses: ADA Transition Improvements (110,572) Expenses: Ahern 12st Street Improvements (38,744) Expenses: Light Rail Crossing Enhancement Program (298,492) Expenses: CNG Fueling Facility (655,897) Expenses: Transit Operations Expansion (148,642) Cash Balance at June 30, 2011 $14,215,650 Receipts: Interest 54,249 Receipts: PTMISEA Funding 13,695,246 Expenses: Automated Fare box Improvements (752,527) Expenses: Bus Destination Signs (63,253) Expenses: Connect Card Implementation (140,855) Expenses: Fleet Maintenance Equipment (21,714) Expenses: Bus Engine (74,795) Expenses: Ahern 12st Street Improvements (81,346) Expenses: Transit Facilities Improvements (1,160,826) Expenses: Three Wheelchair Bus Lift (29,550) Expenses: Transit Operations Expansion (2,517,806) Cash Balance at June 30, 2012 $23,122,473


NOTE P — New Accounting Pronouncements

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) has released the following new standards: GASB Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements. Statement 60 addresses how to account for and report service concession arrangements (SCAs), a type of public-private or public-public partnership that state and local governments are increasingly entering into. The requirements for Statement 60 are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2011. GASB Statement No. 61, The Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus—An amendment of GASB Statements No. 14 and No. 34. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting for a governmental financial reporting entity. The requirements of Statement No. 14, The Financial Reporting Entity, and the related financial reporting requirements of Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, were amended to better meet user needs and to address reporting entity issues that have arisen since the issuance of those Statements. This Statement modifies certain requirements for inclusion of component units in the financial reporting entity. The provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2012. GASB Statement No, 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements. The objective of this Statement is to incorporate into the GASB’s authoritative literature certain accounting and financial reporting guidance that is included in the following pronouncements issued on or before November 30, 1989, which does not conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements:

1. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Statements and Interpretations

2. Accounting Principles Board Opinions

3. Accounting Research Bulletins of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ (AICPA) Committee on Accounting Procedure.

Hereinafter, these pronouncements collectively are referred to as the “FASB and AICPA pronouncements.” This Statement also supersedes Statement No. 20, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Proprietary Funds and Other Governmental Entities That Use Proprietary Fund Accounting, thereby eliminating the election provided in paragraph 7 of that Statement for enterprise funds and business-type activities to apply post-November 30, 1989, FASB Statements and Interpretations that do not conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements. However, those entities can continue to apply, as other accounting literature, post-November 30, 1989 FASB pronouncements that do not conflict with or contradict GASB pronouncements, including this Statement. The requirements of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2011.


NOTE P, Continued

GASB Statement No. 63 Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Position. This Statement provides financial reporting guidance for deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources. Concepts Statement No. 4, Elements of Financial Statements, introduced and defined those elements as a consumption of net assets by the government that is applicable to a future reporting period, and an acquisition of net assets by the government that is applicable to a future reporting period, respectively. Previous financial reporting standards do not include guidance for reporting those financial statement elements, which are distinct from assets and liabilities. Concepts Statement 4 also identifies net position as the residual of all other elements presented in a statement of financial position. This Statement amends the net asset reporting requirements in Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, and other pronouncements by incorporating deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources into the definitions of the required components of the residual measure and by renaming that measure as net position, rather than net assets. The provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2011. GASB Statement No. 65 Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities. This Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards that reclassify, as deferred outflows of resources or deferred inflows of resources, certain items that were previously reported as assets and liabilities and recognizes, as outflows of resources or inflows of resources, certain items that were previously reported as assets and liabilities. Concepts Statement No. 4, Elements of Financial Statements, introduced and defined the elements included in financial statements, including deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources. In addition, Concepts Statement 4 provides that reporting a deferred outflow of resources or a deferred inflow of resources should be limited to those instances identified by the Board in authoritative pronouncements that are established after applicable due process. Prior to the issuance of this Statement, only two such pronouncements have been issued. Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments, requires the reporting of a deferred outflow of resources or a deferred inflow of resources for the changes in fair value of hedging derivative instruments, and Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements, requires a deferred inflow of resources to be reported by a transferor government in a qualifying service concession arrangement. This Statement amends the financial statement element classification of certain items previously reported as assets and liabilities to be consistent with the definitions in Concepts Statement 4. This Statement also provides other financial reporting guidance related to the impact of the financial statement elements deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, such as changes in the determination of the major fund calculations and limiting the use of the term deferred in financial statement presentations. The provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2012. Earlier application is encouraged.


NOTE P, Continued

GASB Statement No. 66 Technical Corrections—2012—An Amendment of GASB Statements No. 10 and No. 62. The objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting for a governmental financial reporting entity by resolving conflicting guidance that resulted from the issuance of two pronouncements, Statements No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, and No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements. This Statement amends Statement No. 10, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Risk Financing and Related Insurance Issues, by removing the provision that limits fund-based reporting of an entity’s risk financing activities to the general fund and the internal service fund type. As a result, governments should base their decisions about fund type classification on the nature of the activity to be reported, as required in Statement 54 and Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—and Management's Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments. This Statement also amends Statement 62 by modifying the specific guidance on accounting for (1) operating lease payments that vary from a straight-line basis, (2) the difference between the initial investment (purchase price) and the principal amount of a purchased loan or group of loans, and (3) servicing fees related to mortgage loans that are sold when the stated service fee rate differs significantly from a current (normal) servicing fee rate. These changes clarify how to apply Statement No. 13, Accounting for Operating Leases with Scheduled Rent Increases, and result in guidance that is consistent with the requirements in Statement No. 48, Sales and Pledges of Receivables and Future Revenues and Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets and Future Revenues, respectively. The provisions of this Statement are effective for financial statements for periods beginning after December 15, 2012. Earlier application is encouraged. GASB Statement No. 67. Financial Reporting for Pension Plans—An Amendment of GASB Statement No. 25. Issued June 2012. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting by state and local governmental pension plans. This Statement results from a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of existing standards of accounting and financial reporting for pensions with regard to providing decision-useful information, supporting assessments of accountability and interperiod equity, and creating additional transparency. This Statement replaces the requirements of Statements No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans, and No. 50, Pension Disclosures, as they relate to pension plans that are administered through trusts or equivalent arrangements (hereafter jointly referred to as trusts) that meet certain criteria. The requirements of Statements 25 and 50 remain applicable to pension plans that are not administered through trusts covered by the scope of this Statement and to defined contribution plans that provide postemployment benefits other than pensions. This GASB revises existing standards of financial reporting for most pension plans and establishes a definition of a pension plan that reflects the primary activities associated with the pension arrangement—determining pensions, accumulating and managing assets dedicated for pensions, and paying benefits to plan members as they come due. The provisions of Statement 67 are effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2013. Earlier application is encouraged.


NOTE P, Continued

GASB Statement No. 68. Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions—an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27. Issue June 2012. The primary objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state and local governments for pensions. It also improves information provided by state and local governmental employers about financial support for pensions that is provided by other entities. This Statement results from a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of existing standards of accounting and financial reporting for pensions with regard to providing decision-useful information, supporting assessments of accountability and interperiod equity, and creating additional transparency. This Statement replaces the requirements of Statement No. 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers, as well as the requirements of Statement No. 50, Pension Disclosures, as they relate to pensions that are provided through pension plans administered as trusts or equivalent arrangements (hereafter jointly referred to as trusts) that meet certain criteria. The requirements of Statements 27 and 50 remain applicable for pensions that are not covered by the scope of this Statement. The scope of this Statement addresses accounting and financial reporting for pensions that are provided to the employees of state and local governmental employers through pension plans that are administered through trusts that have the following characteristics: Contributions from employers and nonemployer contributing entities to the pension plan and earnings on those contributions are irrevocable. Pension plan assets are dedicated to providing pensions to plan members in accordance with the benefit terms. Pension plan assets are legally protected from the creditors of employers, nonemployer contributing entities, and the pension plan administrator. If the plan is a defined benefit pension plan, plan assets also are legally protected from creditors of the plan members. This Statement establishes standards for measuring and recognizing liabilities, deferred outflows of resources, and deferred inflows of resources, and expense/expenditures. For defined benefit pensions, this Statement identifies the methods and assumptions that should be used to project benefit payments, discount projected benefit payments to their actuarial present value, and attribute that present value to periods of employee service. Note disclosure and required supplementary information requirements about pensions also are addressed. Distinctions are made regarding the particular requirements for employers based on the number of employers whose employees are provided with pensions through the pension plan and whether pension obligations and pension plan assets are shared. Employers are classified in one of the following categories for purposes of this Statement. Single employers are those whose employees are provided with defined benefit pensions

through single-employer pension plans—pension plans in which pensions are provided to the employees of only one employer (as defined in this Statement).

Agent employers are those whose employees are provided with defined benefit pensions through agent multiple-employer pension plans—pension plans in which plan assets are pooled for investment purposes but separate accounts are maintained for each individual employer so that each employer’s share of the pooled assets is legally available to pay the benefits of only its employees.


NOTE P, Continued

Cost-sharing employers are those whose employees are provided with defined benefit pensions through cost-sharing multiple-employer pension plans—pension plans in which the pension obligations to the employees of more than one employer are pooled and plan assets can be used to pay the benefits of the employees of any employer that provides pensions through the pension plan.

In addition, this Statement details the recognition and disclosure requirements for employers with liabilities (payables) to a defined benefit pension plan and for employers whose employees are provided with defined contribution pensions. This Statement also addresses circumstances in which a nonemployer entity has a legal requirement to make contributions directly to a pension plan. Defined Benefit Pensions. This Statement requires the liability of employers and nonemployer contributing entities to employees for defined benefit pensions (net pension liability) to be measured as the portion of the present value of projected benefit payments to be provided through the pension plan to current active and inactive employees that is attributed to those employees’ past periods of service (total pension liability), less the amount of the pension plan’s fiduciary net position. Actuarial valuations of the total pension liability are required to be performed at least every two years, with more frequent valuations encouraged. If a valuation is not performed as of the measurement date, the total pension liability is required to be based on update procedures to roll forward amounts from an earlier actuarial valuation (performed as of a date no more than 30 months and 1 day prior to the employer’s most recent year-end). Unless otherwise specified by this Statement, all assumptions underlying the determination of the total pension liability and related measures set forth by this Statement are required to be made in conformity with Actuarial Standards of Practice issued by the Actuarial Standards Board. Projections of benefit payments are required to be based on the benefit terms and legal agreements existing at the measurement date and to incorporate the effects of projected salary changes (if the pension formula incorporates future compensation levels) and service credits (if the pension formula incorporates periods of service), as well as projected automatic postemployment benefit changes, including automatic cost-of-living-adjustments (COLAs). Projections also are required to include the effects of ad hoc postemployment benefit changes (including ad hoc COLAs), if they are considered to be substantively automatic.

Projected benefit payments are required to be discounted to their actuarial present value using the single rate that reflects (1) a long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments to the extent that the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is projected to be sufficient to pay benefits and pension plan assets are expected to be invested using a strategy to achieve that return and (2) a tax-exempt, high-quality municipal bond rate to the extent that the conditions for use of the long-term expected rate of return are not met. The actuarial present value of projected benefit payments is required to be attributed to periods of employee service using the entry age actuarial cost method with each period’s service cost determined as a level percentage of pay. The actuarial present value is required to be attributed for each employee individually, from the period when the employee first accrues pensions through the period when the employee retires.


NOTE P, Continued

Single and Agent Employers. In financial statements prepared using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting, a single or agent employer that does not have a special funding situation is required to recognize a liability equal to the net pension liability. The net pension liability is required to be measured as of a date no earlier than the end of the employer’s prior fiscal year (the measurement date), consistently applied from period to period. The pension expense and deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions that are required to be recognized by an employer primarily result from changes in the components of the net pension liability—that is, changes in the total pension liability and in the pension plan’s fiduciary net position. This Statement requires that most changes in the net pension liability be included in pension expense in the period of the change. For example, changes in the total pension liability resulting from current-period service cost, interest on the total pension liability, and changes of benefit terms are required to be included in pension expense immediately. Projected earnings on the pension plan’s investments also are required to be included in the determination of pension expense immediately. The effects of certain other changes in the net pension liability are required to be included in pension expense over the current and future periods. The effects on the total pension liability of (1) changes of economic and demographic assumptions or of other inputs and (2) differences between expected and actual experience are required to be included in pension expense in a systematic and rational manner over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with benefits through the pension plan (active employees and inactive employees), beginning with the current period. The effect on the net pension liability of differences between the projected earnings on pension plan investments and actual experience with regard to those earnings is required to be included in pension expense in a systematic and rational manner over a closed period of five years, beginning with the current period. Changes in the net pension liability not included in pension expense are required to be reported as deferred outflows of resources or deferred inflows of resources related to pensions. Employer contributions subsequent to the measurement date of the net pension liability are required to be reported as deferred outflows of resources. Financial Statements Prepared Using the Current Financial Resources Measurement Focus and Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting. In governmental fund financial statements, a net pension liability should be recognized to the extent the liability is normally expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. Pension expenditures should be recognized equal to the total of (1) amounts paid by the employer to the pension plan and (2) the change between the beginning and ending balances of amounts normally expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. Notes to Financial Statements. The Statement requires that notes to financial statements of single and agent employers include descriptive information, such as the types of benefits provided and the number and classes of employees covered by the benefit terms. Single and agent employers also should disclose the following information:


NOTE P, Continued

For the current year, sources of changes in the net pension liability: Significant assumptions and other inputs used to calculate the total pension liability,

including those about inflation, salary changes, ad hoc postemployment benefit changes (including ad hoc COLAs), and inputs to the discount rate, as well as certain information about mortality assumptions and the dates of experience studies

The date of the actuarial valuation used to determine the total pension liability, information about changes of assumptions or other inputs and benefit terms, the basis for determining employer contributions to the pension plan, and information about the purchase of allocated insurance contracts, if any.

Required Supplementary Information. This Statement requires single and agent employers to present in required supplementary information the following information, determined as of the measurement date, for each of the 10 most recent fiscal years: Sources of Changes in the Net Pension Liability. The components of the net pension liability and related ratios, including the pension plan’s fiduciary net position as a percentage of the total pension liability, and the net pension liability as a percentage of covered-employee payroll. If the contributions of a single or agent employer are actuarially determined, the employer should present in required supplementary information a schedule covering each of the 10 most recent fiscal years that includes information about the actuarially determined contribution, contributions to the pension plan, and related ratios. If the contributions of a single or agent employer are not actuarially determined but are established in statute or by contract, the employer should present a schedule covering each of the 10 most recent fiscal years that includes information about the statutorily or contractually required contribution rates, contributions to the pension plan, and related ratios. Significant methods and assumptions used in calculating the actuarially determined contributions, if applicable, should be presented as notes to required supplementary information. In addition, the employer should explain factors that significantly affect trends in the amounts reported in the schedules, such as changes of benefit terms, changes in the size or composition of the population covered by the benefit terms, or the use of different assumptions. Cost-Sharing Employers. In financial statements prepared using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting, a cost-sharing employer that does not have a special funding situation is required to recognize a liability for its proportionate share of the net pension liability (of all employers for benefits provided through the pension plan)—the collective net pension liability. An employer’s proportion is required to be determined on a basis that is consistent with the manner in which contributions to the pension plan are determined, and consideration should be given to separate rates, if any, related to separate portions of the collective net pension liability. The use of the employer’s projected long-term contribution effort as compared to the total projected long-term contribution effort of all employers as the basis for determining an employer’s proportion is encouraged. A cost-sharing employer is required to recognize pension expense and report deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions for its proportionate shares of collective pension expense and collective deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions. In addition, the effects of (1) a change in the employer’s proportion of the collective net pension liability and (2) differences during the measurement period between the employer’s contributions and its proportionate share of the


NOTE P, Continued total of contributions from employers included in the collective net pension liability are required to be determined. These effects are required to be recognized in the employer’s pension expense in a systematic and rational manner over a closed period equal to the average of the expected remaining service lives of all employees that are provided with pensions through the pension plan (active employees and inactive employees). The portions of the effects not recognized in the employer’s pension expense are required to be reported as deferred outflows of resources or deferred inflows of resources related to pensions. Employer contributions to the pension plan subsequent to the measurement date of the collective net pension liability also are required to be reported as deferred outflows of resources related to pensions. In governmental fund financial statements, the cost-sharing employer’s proportionate share of the collective net pension liability is required to be recognized to the extent the liability is normally expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. Pension expenditures should be recognized equal to the total of (1) amounts paid by the employer to the pension plan and (2) the change between the beginning and ending balances of amounts normally expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. This Statement requires that notes to financial statements of cost-sharing employers include descriptive information about the pension plans through which the pensions are provided. Cost-sharing employers should identify the discount rate and assumptions made in the measurement of their proportionate shares of net pension liabilities, similar to the disclosures about those items that should be made by single and agent employers. Cost-sharing employers, like single and agent employers, also should disclose information about how their contributions to the pension plan are determined. This Statement requires cost-sharing employers to present in required supplementary information 10-year schedules containing (1) the net pension liability and certain related ratios and (2) if applicable, information about statutorily or contractually required contributions, contributions to the pension plan, and related ratios. Defined Contribution Pensions. An employer whose employees are provided with defined contribution pensions is required to recognize pension expense for the amount of contributions to employees’ accounts that are defined by the benefit terms as attributable to employees’ services in the period, net of forfeited amounts that are removed from employees’ accounts. A change in the pension liability is required to be recognized for the difference between amounts recognized in expense and amounts paid by the employer to a defined contribution pension plan. In governmental fund financial statements, pension expenditures should be recognized equal to the total of (1) amounts paid by the employer to a pension plan and (2) the change between the beginning and ending balances of amounts normally expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. A pension liability should be recognized to the extent the liability is normally expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources. Notes to financial statements of an employer with a defined contribution plan should include descriptive information about the pension plan and benefit terms, contribution rates and how they are determined, and amounts attributed to employee service and forfeitures in the current period.


NOTE P, Continued

Special Funding Situations. In this Statement, special funding situations are defined as circumstances in which a nonemployer entity is legally responsible for making contributions directly to a pension plan that is used to provide pensions to the employees of another entity or entities and either (1) the amount of contributions for which the nonemployer entity legally is responsible is not dependent upon one or more events unrelated to pensions or (2) the nonemployer is the only entity with a legal obligation to make contributions directly to a pension plan. This Statement requires an employer that has a special funding situation for defined benefit pensions to recognize a pension liability and deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions with adjustments for the involvement of nonemployer contributing entities. The employer is required to recognize its proportionate share of the collective pension expense, as well as additional pension expense and revenue for the pension support of the nonemployer contributing entities. This Statement requires the employer to disclose in notes to financial statements information about the amount of support provided by nonemployer contributing entities and to present similar information about the involvement of those entities in 10-year schedules of required supplementary information. The approach required by this Statement for measurement and recognition of liabilities, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources, and expense by a governmental nonemployer contributing entity in a special funding situation for defined benefit pensions is similar to the approach required for cost-sharing employers. The information that should be disclosed in notes to financial statements and presented in required supplementary information of a governmental nonemployer contributing entity in a special funding situation depends on the proportion of the collective net pension liability that it recognizes. If the governmental nonemployer contributing entity recognizes a substantial proportion of the collective net pension liability, it should disclose in notes to financial statements a description of the pensions, including the types of benefits provided and the employees covered, and the discount rate and assumptions made in the measurement of the net pension liability. The governmental nonemployer contributing entity also should present schedules of required supplementary information similar to those required of a cost-sharing employer. Reduced note disclosures and required supplementary information are required for governmental nonemployer contributing entities that recognize a less-than-substantial portion of the collective net pension liability. This Statement also establishes requirements related to special funding situations for defined contribution pensions. How the Changes in this Statement Will Improve Financial Reporting. The requirements of this Statement will improve the decision-usefulness of information in employer and governmental nonemployer contributing entity financial reports and will enhance its value for assessing accountability and interperiod equity by requiring recognition of the entire net pension liability and a more comprehensive measure of pension expense. Decision-usefulness and accountability also will be enhanced through new note disclosures and required supplementary information, as follows:


NOTE P, Continued

More robust disclosures of assumptions will allow for better informed assessments of the reasonableness of pension measurements.

Explanations of how and why the net pension liability changed from year to year will improve transparency. The summary net pension liability information, including ratios, will offer an indication of the extent to which the total pension liability is covered by resources held by the pension plan. The contribution schedules will provide measures to evaluate decisions related to the assessment of contribution rates—in comparison to actuarially, statutorily, or contractually determined rates, when such rates are determined. It also will provide information about whether employers and nonemployer contributing entities, if applicable, are keeping pace with those contribution rates. The consistency and transparency of the information reported by employers and governmental nonemployer contributing entities about pension transactions will be improved by requiring:

The use of a discount rate that considers the availability of the pension plan’s fiduciary net position associated with the pensions of current active and inactive employees and the investment horizon of those resources, rather than utilizing only the long-term expected rate of return regardless of whether the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is projected to be sufficient to make projected benefit payments and is expected to be invested using a strategy to achieve that return. Including a single method of attributing the actuarial present value of projected benefit payments to periods of employee service, rather than allowing a choice among six methods with additional variations. Immediate recognition in pension expense, rather than a choice of recognition periods, of the effects of changes of benefit terms and the effects of projected pension plan investment earnings. Recognition of pension expense that incorporates deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions over a defined, closed period, rather than a choice between an open or closed period. The comparability of reported pension information also will be improved by the changes related to the attribution method used to determine service cost and the total pension liability, requirements for immediate recognition in pension expense of certain items, and the establishment of standardized expense recognition periods for amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions. Effective Date: The provisions of Statement 68 are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014. Earlier application is encouraged.



Required Supplementary Information – Schedule of Funding Progress


OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PLAN

C D F A B (B-A) (A/B) E (C/E)

Actual Valuation

Date

Actuarial Value of Assets

Actuarial Accrued Liability

(AAL) Entry Age

Unfunded AAL (UAAL)

(B-A) Funded Ratio

Covered Payroll

UAAL as Percentage of Covered

Payroll

1/1/2008 $1,844,000 $5,051,163 $3,207,163 37% $4,503,505 71%

7/1/2010 $2,066,438 $5,342,380 $3,275,942 39% $4,344,807 75%

6/30/2011 $2,578,675 $5,494,630 $2,915,955 47% $4,499,386 65 %



Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures by Activity

BUDGET AND ACTUAL – PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION FUND


W ork Element

#F inal

B udgetFHW A - PL

GrantFTA 53 0 3

FTA 53 0 4

FTA D iscret ionary

Jarc/ N ew Freedom Grant s

St at e Planning & R esearch

Part nership / Sp St ud ies

HU D Grant /

D ep t o f Energy C M A Q

STIP R IP PPM / R STP

R evenues:

Intergovernmental: Federal 38,097,977$ 2,569,032$ 774,150$ 696,865 1,047,226$ 734,960$ 774,588$ 2,077,938$ -$ State 11,747,254 - - - - - - - 1,067,075 Local 857,421 - - - - - - - - Charges for Services 294,727 - - - - - - - - M ember Assessments 284,270 - - - - - - - - Investment Earnings 20,000 - - - - - - - - In-kind 1,685,127 - - - - - - - - Other 210,019 - - - - - - - -

Total revenues 53,196,795 2,569,032 774,150 696,865 1,047,226 734,960 774,588 2,077,938 1,067,075

Expend it ures: Current :

12-001 1,066,505 440,987 160,000 - - - - 129,130 - Long-Range Transportat ion Planning 12-002 1,843,646 307,736 64,085 40,062 - 640,767 - - -

12-003 1,146,041 7,500 27,000 277,584 13,805 - - 2,291 -

12-004 14,267,176 241,061 205,150 - 54,305 - - 511,555 393,650 Land Use & Housing Planning 12-005 1,792,345 321,218 87,000 - - - - - - Public Services 12-006 3,386,255 866,547 120,915 - - - 729,373 - - M ember & Agency Services 12-007 17,129,469 383,983 110,000 - - - 45,215 1,434,962 673,425 Pass-Through to Other Agencies 12-008 1,309,306 - - 379,219 - 94,193 - - - M iscellaneous Other Funding 12-009 9,040,994 - - - - - - - FTA New Freedom & Jobs Access 12-012 4,464,120 - - - 979,116 - - - - Services to Other Agencies 12-015 94,627 - - - - - - - - SAC County GIS 12-016 - - - - - - - - Capital Assets 12-021 70,000 - - - - - - - - Board of Director and Advocacy 12-023 342,246 - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

191,499 - - - - - - - - Total expenditures 56,144,229 2,569,032 774,150 696,865 1,047,226 734,960 774,588 2,077,938 1,067,075

Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (2,947,434) - - - - - - - -

Ot her F inancing Sources ( U ses) :Transfers in 2,547,275 - - - - - -

2,547,275 - - - - - - - -

Net change in fund balances (400,159)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Non-cash Expenditures (remaining)

Government Relat ions, Public Af fairs & Administrat ion

Cont inuing Transportat ion Implementation

A ct ual - F und ing Sources

Short-Range Transportat ion Planning & Studies

Non-cash Expenditures Indirect Cost Computation



Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures by Activity

BUDGET AND ACTUAL – PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION FUND


SA F E R out es

t o Scho o l

St at e/ C alt rans/ PTM ISEA /

Prop 8 4 Grant s/ PT A

A cct

TD A A dminist rat ion

& Planning

C ap it o l V alley R eg ional

SA FE and Glen C ount y SA FE

Placer C o unt y T ransport ait on

Planning A gency & El D orado

Transport ait on C ommission

Ot her Government al

A genciesGIS

R ecip ient s

SA C OG M anaged

FundB oard and A dvocacy SA C OG

Ot her / In-kind T ot al

3,961$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 8,678,720$ - 1,569,844 - - - 16,802 - - - - 23,083 2,676,804 - - - 132,309 334,237 87,006 - - - - - 553,552 - - - 102,823 - 94,887 - - - - - 197,710 - - - - - - - - 284,270 - - 284,270 - - - - - - - 39,504 10,545 - (2) 50,047 - - - - - - - - - - 293,612 293,612 - - - - - - 27,500 - 4,004 34,791 - 66,295

3,961 1,569,844 - 235,132 334,237 198,695 27,500 39,504 298,819 34,791 316,693 12,801,010

- - 81,079 - 334,237 - - - - 600 - 1,146,033 - 447,641 266,837 - - 31,342 - - - - 28,484 1,826,954

3,961 - 95,487 - - - - - - -

4,588 432,216 - 1,010,311 289,212 - - 24,195 - - - 18 2,729,457 - 81,156 216,584 - - 95,973 - - - 4,850 3,000 809,781 - - 1,046,207 - - - - - - - - 2,763,042 - - 522,624 132,309 - 18,115 - 517,451 - 190,785 197,430 4,226,299 - 30,736 7,947 - - 29,070 - - - - 83,173 624,338 - - 21,089 - - - - - - - - 21,089 - - - - - - - - - (50) 979,066 - - - 102,823 - - - - - - - 102,823 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42,023 - 42,023 - - - - - - - - 197,236 - - 197,236 - - - - - - - - - (37,245) - (37,245) - - - - - - - - - 214,684 - 214,684 - - - - - - - - - 339,503 - 339,503

3,961 1,569,844 2,547,066 235,132 334,237 198,695 - 517,451 197,236 755,150 316,693 16,417,299

- - (2,547,066) - - - 27,500 (477,947) 101,583 (720,359) - (3,616,289) `

- - 2,547,066 - - - - - - - 2,547,066

- - 2,547,066 - - - - - - - 2,547,066

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 27,500$ (477,947)$ 101,583$ (720,359)$ -$ (1,069,223)$

`



Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures Board of Directors and Advocacy

BUDGET AND ACTUAL


Actual Variance with

Original Final Amounts Final Budget

Revenues:Member assessments 284,270$ 284,270$ 284,270$ -$ Investment earnings 20,000 20,000 10,545 (9,455) Funds from Board and Advocacy Reserve 37,976 37,976 (37,976) Other - 4,004 4,004

Total revenues 342,246 342,246 298,819 (43,427)

Expenditures:Current:

Meetings 79,000 79,000 42,155 36,845 Directors Fees 65,000 65,000 51,361 13,639 Consultant 70,000 70,000 33,012 36,988 Other 6,659 6,659 3,944 2,715 Memberships 39,850 39,850 30,806 9,044 Vehicle parking reimbursement 1,000 1,000 - 1,000 Awards 500 500 - 500 Salaries and Benefits 80,237 80,237 35,958 44,279

Total expenditures 342,246 342,246 197,236 145,010

Excess of revenues over expenditures -$ -$ 101,583$ 101,583$

Budgeted Amounts



Schedule of Indirect Service Costs For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

DIRECT COSTS:

Salaries and benefits 5,691,914$

INDIRECT COSTS:

Allocated Indirect Costs (40.18%):Service costs 2,322,871

Actual Indirect Costs:

Building expenses 575,236Career Development Program 50,103Consultants 45,455Depreciation 44,537Insurance 67,924Legal 40,782Office Equipment 12,499Office Equipment Maintenance 3,439Meetings 8,678Memberships 11,663Miscellaneous 5,242Mileage 13,717Parking 10,650Postage 8,219Publications/Periodicals 1,497Salaries and benefits 1,600,335Computer Software and Maintenance 66,675Supplies 45,136Accounting Services 10,189Telecommunications 45,640Unemployment costs 1,281Temporary labor services 1,623Printing costs (8,146)

Total indirect costs 2,662,374

Over-absorbed indirect costs (339,503)$


This page intentionally left blank.

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 B-1


Statistical Section For the F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

The Statistical section contains comprehensive statistical data which relates to physical, economic, social and political characteristics of SACOG’s ongoing operations and impact within the six-county region in which it serves. It is intended to provide users with a broad and more complete understanding of SACOG and its financial affairs than is possible from the financial statements and supporting schedules. In this section, readers will find comparative information related to SACOG’s revenue sources, expenditures, and demographics. In addition, this section provides information related to demographic data encompassing the six-county region that SACOG serves, and other miscellaneous statistics pertaining to services provided by SACOG. In contrast to the financial section, the statistical section information is not subject to independent audit.

Index of Tables

Net Assets by Component .......................................................................................................................... B-2 Statement of Activities & Changes in Net Assets .................................................................................... B-4 Planning and Administration Fund – Changes in Fund Balance ........................................................... B-6 Fund Balances – Governmental Funds ...................................................................................................... B-8 Changes in Fund Balance .......................................................................................................................... B-10 Total Population by Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................... B-12 Total Households by County ..................................................................................................................... B-13 Labor Force & Unemployment by County ............................................................................................. B-14 Largest Employment Centers by County ................................................................................................ B-16 Public School Enrollment by County ....................................................................................................... B-19 Total Acreage by County ........................................................................................................................... B-20 Average Annual Wages by County ........................................................................................................... B-21 Transit Providers by County ...................................................................................................................... B-22 Summary of Full-time Equivalent Employees by Function & Program ............................................ B-23 Summary of Full-time Equivalent Employees by Project .................................................................... B-24 Planning and Administration Fund – Indirect Service Cost Comparison .......................................... B-26 Capital Assets – by Fund ............................................................................................................................ B-28 Miscellaneous Statistics .............................................................................................................................. B-30



Net Assets by Component For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008

GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES:

Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 2,484,597$ 2,005,015$ 1,508,043$ 2,624,670$ Restricted for Transportation Claimants 11,247,159 12,214,496 5,197,396 7,119,396 Unrestricted 9,274,954 9,812,898 11,573,273 13,203,519

Total governmental activities net assets 23,006,710$ 24,032,409$ 18,278,712$ 22,947,585$

2001-2003 information w as not available at the time the report w as prepared.

Note: For SACOG, governmental activities are the same as the Primary Government Activities. Therefore, the Primary Government Activent Activities section is not show n.



Net Assets by Component For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2009* 2010 2011 2012

2,062,372$ 1,282,726$ 769,096$ 281,982$ 11,681,253 13,895,556 34,088,672 38,980,228 27,759,660 35,583,893 17,851,804 16,669,133

41,503,285$ 50,762,175$ 52,709,572$ 55,931,343$



Statement of Activities & Changes in Net Assets For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008

EXP EN SES

Transportation Claimants 62,623,327$ 72,411,224$ 92,928,882$ 71,889,819$ P lanning and Administration 9,882,280 11,794,482 14,015,459 11,103,987 Sacramento Emergency Clean Air & Transportation Program 2,345,417 5,889,595 12,250,196 5,926,133 SACOG M anaged Fund N/APTM ISEA N/ACapito l Valley SAFE 2,665,920 2,125,367 2,274,985 5,431,978 Glenn County SAFE 39,111 21,705 35,230 101,897 T o tal Expenses 77,556,055$ 92,242,373$ 121,504,752$ 94,453,814$

P R OGR A M R EVEN UES

Operating Grants and Contributions: P lanning and Administration 6,371,323$ 7,499,794$ 10,313,252$ 12,260,257$ Sacramento Emergency Clean Air &

Transportation Program 2,345,417$ 5,889,595$ 12,250,196$ 5,926,133$ PTM ISEACharges for Services: P lanning and Administration 479,474 1,088,718 1,156,341 1,237,811 SACOG M anaged FundPTM ISEACapito l Valley SAFE 2,166,838 2,194,802 2,215,115 2,208,656 Glenn County SAFE 28,977 30,086 30,515 30,876 Total Program Revenues 11,392,029 16,702,995 25,965,419 21,663,733

N et Expense (66,164,026)$ (75,539,378)$ (95,539,333)$ (72,790,081)$

General R evenues and Other C hanges in N et A ssets

State Shared Revenue - Sales and Use Taxes 67,078,282$ 75,218,223$ 87,759,141$ 75,580,640$ Investment Earnings 441,575 911,839 1,640,450 1,168,227 In-Kind Revenue - - - - Other 192,557 435,015 489,765 710,086 Special Item - Sale o f M eridian Plaza 1,112,296 - - - Loss on Disposal of Capital Assets - - (103,720) T o tal General R evenues 68,824,710$ 76,565,077$ 89,785,636$ 77,458,953$

Change in Net Assets 2,660,684 1,025,699 (5,753,697) 4,668,872

Net Assets - Beginning 20,346,026 23,006,710 24,032,409 18,278,712

Net Assets - Ending 23,006,710$ 24,032,409$ 18,278,712$ 22,947,584$

*2009 numbers have been restated

Source: Individual internal fund statements

Note; For SACOG, governmental activities are the same as the Primary GovernmentActivities. Therefore, the Primary Government Activities section is not show n.**2011. The SACOG Managed Fund activity w as transferred into the SACOG Planning and Administration Fund



Statement of Activities & Changes in Net Assets For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2009 2010 2011** 2012

62,570,554$ 62,176,903$ 51,508,069$ 73,899,504$ 14,959,542 17,283,003 20,668,754 16,548,264

8,984,793 2,494,831 1,313 58,172 1,941,314 1,068,276 n/a n/a

68,584 4,742,226 1,579,144 6,385,003 2,302,480 2,431,941 2,293,278 2,247,338

30,311 33,236 16,061 15,851 90,857,578$ 90,230,416$ 76,066,619$ 99,154,132$

16,900,076 14,153,990 17,371,115 11,909,077

11,437,452 0 04,060,255 15,319,020 800,000 13,695,246

1,190,472 430,347 581,041 481,9803,051,000

2,195,851 2,145,307 2,081,247 2,261,15730,243 29,386 28,722 30,763

38,865,349 32,078,050 20,862,125 28,378,223

(51,992,229)$ (58,152,366)$ (55,204,494)$ (70,775,909)$

63,210,973$ 66,132,449$ 55,894,683$ 73,300,929$ 766,571 529,002 261,290 249,031

- 627,948 649,531 293,611 653,710 121,857 346,387 154,109

- - - -

64,631,254$ 67,411,256$ 57,151,891$ 73,997,680$

12,639,025 9,258,890 1,947,397 3,221,771

28,864,260 41,503,285 50,762,175 52,709,572

41,503,285$ 50,762,175$ 52,709,572$ 55,931,343$



Planning and Administration Fund Changes in Fund Balance

For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2010 2011** 2012

12,157,504$ 13,637,674$ 8,678,720$ 1,204,156 3,088,223 2,676,805 743,493 645,220 553,552 146,077 296,771 197,710 284,270 284,270 284,270

12,696 56,532 50,047 625,448 649,531 293,611

86,467 288,978 66,295 15,260,111 18,947,199 12,801,010

16,981,392 20,022,388 15,857,825 390,310 -

517,451 42,278 16,816 42,023

17,023,670 20,429,514 16,417,299

(1,763,559) (1,482,315) (3,616,289)

2,033,399 2,124,575 2,547,066

269,840 642,260 (1,069,223)

3,203,555 14,603,324 15,245,584

3 ,473,395$ 15,245,584$ 14 ,176,361$

68,505$ - - -

700,000 - - - - -

1,500,000 - -

151,573 58,725 72,497 - -

109,539 211,122 1,412,071 1,820,244

500,000 500,000 200,000 200,000

194,065 194,065 193,182 75,451 62,397 89,897

783,801 12,708,787 11,089,419 3,473,395$ 15,245,584$ 14 ,176,361$



Planning and Administration Fund Changes in Fund Balance

For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2009* 2010 2011** 2012

7,463,171$ 12,157,504$ 13,637,674$ 8,678,720$ 1,406,497 1,204,156 3,088,223 2,676,805 1,012,580 743,493 645,220 553,552 840,987 146,077 296,771 197,710 349,485 284,270 284,270 284,270 80,243 12,696 56,532 50,047

625,448 649,531 293,611 622,954 86,467 288,978 66,295

11,775,917 15,260,111 18,947,199 12,801,010

13,155,044 16,981,392 20,022,388 15,857,825 390,310 -

1,188,305 517,451

48,806 42,278 16,816 42,023 14,392,155 17,023,670 20,429,514 16,417,299

(2,616,238) (1,763,559) (1,482,315) (3,616,289)

2,301,584 2,033,399 2,124,575 2,547,066

(314,654) 269,840 642,260 (1,069,223)

3,518,209 3 ,203,555 14,603,324 15,245,584

3 ,203,555$ 3,473,395$ 15,245,584$ 14,176,361$

118,876$ 68,505$ - - - -

700,000 700,000 - - - - - -

1,500,000 1,500,000 - -

212,056 151,573 58,725 72,497 - -

109,539 211,122 1,412,071 1,820,244

500,000 500,000 200,000 200,000

194,065 194,065 193,182 75,451 62,397 89,897

672,623 783,801 12,708,787 11,089,419 3,203,555$ 3,473,395$ 15,245,584$ 14,176,361$



Fund Balances – Governmental Funds For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008R EV EN U ESSales and Use Taxes 67,078,282$ 75,218,223$ 87,759,141$ 75,580,640$ Vehicle registrat ion fees and traff ic f ines 2,195,815 2,224,888 2,245,630 2,239,532 Intergovernmental: Federal 4,207,117 4,839,847 7,552,527 6,240,742 State 2,782,976 7,052,123 12,387,935 6,768,648 Local 1,726,647 1,497,419 2,622,986 5,410,000 Charges for services 227,724 793,758 841,255 922,725 M ember assessments 251,750 294,960 315,086 315,086 Investment earnings 441,575 911,839 1,640,450 1,168,227 In-KindOther 192,557 435,015 489,765 710,086 Total Revenues 79 ,10 4 ,4 4 3 9 3 ,2 6 8 ,0 72 115,8 54 ,775 9 9 ,3 55,6 8 6

EX PEN D IT U R ESCity of Elk Grove 3,831,141 4,632,607 6,083,245 4,961,671 City of Cit rus Heights 3,360,116 3,687,554 4,355,157 3,261,077 City of Davis 2,292,909 3,019,992 4,031,515 3,060,636 City of Folsom 2,466,249 2,793,722 3,417,484 2,611,488 City of Galt 847,737 938,840 1,141,920 863,102 City of Isleton 32,348 35,204 40,834 31,365 City of Live Oak 273,466 230,696 306,102 364,421 City of M arysville - - 8,856 48,781 City of Sacramento 327,543 358,463 384,147 517,112 City of West Sacramento 1,277,508 1,731,037 2,381,012 1,970,250 City of Rancho Cordova 54,242 60,604 46,767 38,710 City of Wheatland 42,386 72,235 113,644 109,987 City of Winters 230,686 313,194 413,239 313,752 City of Woodland 1,782,559 2,391,065 3,161,298 2,416,275 City of Yuba City 1,372,310 756,991 1,116,305 1,634,398 County of Sacramento 1,500,333 1,608,953 1,489,561 974,665 County of Sutter 885,085 610,546 729,615 906,757 County of Yolo 803,658 1,033,415 1,353,669 1,041,769 County of Yuba 299,254 405,905 699,670 895,991 Sacramento Regional Transit District 37,375,999 43,195,816 56,002,015 41,280,919 Yolo County Transportat ion District 28,997 61,544 171,433 95,753 Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority 1,669,312 2,435,831 3,338,658 2,764,093 Paratransit , Inc 1,866,539 2,037,010 2,142,736 1,726,847 SAFE services 964,254 837,072 408,988 368,075 Freeway service patrol 645,000 635,000 665,000 697,525 Equipment and maintenance 657,208 654,137 726,099 517,207 Insurance and DM V fees 62,641 20,513 20,567 19,719 Planning and Administrat ion (includes planning grants) 9,894,343 11,185,228 13,923,774 13,605,568 SACOG M anaged Fund

Public Transportat ion M oderizat ion Improvement & Service Enhancement - - - - Community Design GrantsSECAT grants or refunds 2,345,417 5,889,595 12,250,196 5,926,133 Capital out lay 55,671 47,506 45,758 2,500,319 T o t al Expend it ures 77,244,911 91,680,275 120,969,264 95,524,365

Excess of Revenues over Expenditures 1,859,532 1,587,797 (5,114,489) 3,831,321

OT HER F IN A N C IN G U SES Transfers in 2,150,443 2,372,141 2,918,782 2,497,150 Transfers out (2,150,443) (2,372,141) (2,918,782) (2,497,150) Total other f inancing uses - - - - Special Item 3,112,296 - - - Net Change in Fund Balances 4,971,828 1,587,797 (5,114,489) 3,831,321 Fund Balance - Beginning 15,915,178 20,887,006 22,474,803 17,360,315

F und B alance - End ing $2 3 ,9 9 9 ,3 0 2 2 2 ,4 74 ,8 0 3$ 17,3 6 0 ,3 14$ 2 1,19 1,6 3 6$

*2009 was restated.




Fund Balances – Governmental Funds For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2009* 2010 2011 2012

63,210,973$ 66,132,449$ 56,694,683$ 86,996,175$ 2,226,094 2,174,693 2,109,969 2,291,919

7,463,171 12,157,504 13,637,674 8,678,720 20,445,532 16,523,176 3,088,223 2,676,805

7,540,080 792,331 645,220 553,552 840,987 146,077 296,771 197,710 349,485 284,270 284,270 284,270 766,571 529,002 261,290 249,031 524,413 627,948 649,531 293,611 129,297 121,857 346,387 154,109

10 3 ,4 9 6 ,6 0 3 9 9 ,4 8 9 ,3 0 7 78 ,0 14 ,0 18 10 2 ,3 75,9 0 2

4,816,070 4,453,961 3,855,576 5,708,010 3,030,674 2,718,195 2,387,142 3,376,119 2,742,094 2,875,410 2,054,718 3,074,492 2,469,833 2,342,024 1,936,048 2,788,369

817,643 745,182 657,899 929,674 29,461 25,426 22,299 31,494

128,846 236,516 464,676 333,610 39,846 67,049 - -

314,308 253,973 270,420 331,851 1,850,226 1,952,997 1,487,468 2,132,866

39,750 32,551 34,747 42,932 57,047 73,562 45,266 62,663

283,631 292,099 219,278 312,839 2,226,637 2,317,034 1,755,475 2,523,464

135,202 508,249 2,787,330 1,345,087 1,145,801 1,109,664 1,051,691 1,365,862 232,880 538,880 1,232,138 715,189 953,893 969,937 735,302 1,042,866

311,142 549,293 374,072 352,238 37,381,148 36,298,222 27,382,646 43,151,709

67,986 143,020 - 201,715 1,765,555 2,268,254 1,264,700 2,251,612

1,730,882 1,405,405 1,489,178 1,824,843 348,682 403,004 384,153 360,441

791,631 814,681 834,494 851,210 573,455 443,720 450,983 459,685 19,666 17,365 21,255 19,780

14,912,347 17,118,422 20,156,239 15,945,296 1,941,314 1,068,276 517,451

68,584 4,742,226 1,579,144 6,385,003 390,310 -

8,984,793 2,494,831 1,313 58,172 48,806 42,278 16,816 42,023

90,259,833 89,321,706 75,342,776 98,538,565 13,236,770 10,167,601 2,671,242 3,837,337

2,301,584 2,033,399 2,124,575 2,547,066 (2,301,584) (2,033,399) (2,124,575) (2,547,066)

- - - - - - - -

13,236,770 10,167,601 2,671,242 3,837,337 27,108,311 40,345,081 50,512,682 53,183,924

4 0 ,3 4 5,0 8 1$ 50 ,512 ,6 8 2$ 53 ,18 3 ,9 2 4$ 57,0 2 1,2 6 1$



Changes in Fund Balances For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008

MAJOR FUNDS - Pre GASB 5479,663$ 76,893$ 71,523$ 73,143$

Unreserved, designated for: Contingencies 700,000 760,000 760,000 760,000

Operating Cash Reserve - - - - Encumbrances - 1,187,915 1,553,754 1,513,569 Glenn County SAFEBoard and Advocacy - 129,903 129,903 168,856 Project Specific Carryover FundsCommunity Design GranteesReserved for GIS receipientsPost Retirement Health Benefits - - 3,543,559 3,699,737 Total unreserved, designated 700,000 2,077,818 5,987,216 6,142,162

20,107,343 20,320,092 11,301,575 14,976,331

Fund Balance Categories under GASB 54 Reserved for prepaid itemsRestricted:

SECAT ProgramPTMISEA FundsState Transit Assistance FundsLocal Transportation Funds - Sacramento CountyLocal Transportation Funds - Yuba CountyLocal Transportation Funds - Sutter CountyLocal Transportation Funds - Yolo CountyCapitol Valley Regional SAFEGlenn County SAFE

Committed: Board and Advocacy Community Design GranteesAssigned: Legal Defense Self Insurance Project Specific Carryover Funds GIS Receipients

Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)Planning and Administration Fund

Assigned: Unassigned Fund Balance

Total Fund Balance 20,887,006$ 22,474,803$ 17,360,314$ 21,191,636$

Unassigned Fund Balance

* 2009 was restated.Format conforms with GASB 54 guidelines.Source: Agency Annual Reports

Unreserved, undesignated

Reserved



Changes in Fund Balances For the E igh t Years Ended June 30 , 2012

2009* 2010 2011 2012

121,026$ 70,656$

760,000 700,000 1,500,000 2,542,000

212,056 151,573 194,065

1,660,260 75,451

3,789,940 2,785,847 6,261,996 8,109,196 - -

33,999,177 42,332,830

60,877 74,621

11,959 - 14,151,893 21,528,870

113,418 255,441 13,017,462 9,397,543

389,688 693,038 573,654 668,609

2,154,733 2,191,913 3,571,169 4,127,375

104,696 117,439

109,539 211,122 1,412,071 1,820,244

500,000 500,000 200,000 200,000 194,065 193,182

62,397 89,897 2,805,516 3,862,548 1,042,000

12,708,787 11,089,419 40,382,199$ 50,512,682$ 53,183,924$ 57,021,261$



Total Population by Jurisdiction For Years 2003 to 2012

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

SACOG Region 2,084,252 2,131,322 2,170,077 2,203,775 2,236,491 2,266,234 2,290,482 2,312,406 2,327,914 2,341,006

El Dorado County 166,195 168,984 171,739 174,218 176,226 177,897 179,150 180,682 180,483 180,712 Placerville 10,238 10,259 10,210 10,164 10,204 10,275 10,324 10,365 10,306 10,369 South Lake Tahoe 23,184 22,888 22,520 22,094 21,888 21,737 21,517 21,407 21,328 21,343 Unincorporated 132,773 135,837 139,009 141,960 144,134 145,885 147,309 148,910 148,849 149,000

Placer County 283,703 296,712 307,710 317,437 325,985 333,805 340,995 347,133 351,463 355,328 Auburn 12,517 12,726 12,809 12,863 12,993 13,079 13,232 13,307 13,378 13,468 Colfax 1,774 1,789 1,813 1,805 1,815 1,822 1,843 1,946 1,966 1,977 Lincoln 20,387 24,011 28,083 34,342 38,360 40,726 41,787 42,589 43,144 43,572 Loomis 6,256 6,203 6,166 6,318 6,345 6,385 6,416 6,427 6,460 6,500 Rocklin 46,227 49,962 51,206 51,521 52,718 54,561 55,566 56,720 57,767 58,295 Roseville 94,099 99,371 104,105 106,451 108,503 111,259 114,869 118,180 120,307 122,060 Unincorporated 102,443 102,650 103,528 104,137 105,251 105,973 107,282 107,964 108,441 109,456

Sacramento County 1,307,189 1,331,910 1,350,523 1,365,214 1,380,172 1,394,510 1,406,168 1,417,259 1,427,961 1,435,153 Citrus Heights 86,458 85,940 85,153 84,112 83,552 83,347 83,317 83,382 83,583 83,881 Elk Grove 88,954 113,391 125,703 135,996 142,003 146,083 149,302 152,652 154,440 155,937 Folsom 62,433 64,396 66,362 67,936 69,257 71,064 71,625 72,139 72,393 72,725 Galt 21,843 21,952 22,485 22,628 22,996 23,371 23,584 23,654 23,757 24,076 Isleton 838 831 811 802 800 800 802 805 808 810 Rancho Cordova 0 54,979 55,476 56,866 59,502 61,526 62,724 64,024 65,475 66,093 Sacramento 429,918 436,799 442,662 445,774 452,711 458,965 463,633 466,740 469,477 470,956 Unincorporated 616,745 553,622 551,871 551,100 549,351 549,354 551,181 553,863 558,028 560,675

Sutter County 83,018 85,097 87,097 89,364 91,563 92,983 93,918 94,765 94,620 95,065 Live Oak 6,380 6,473 6,603 7,266 7,890 8,255 8,355 8,422 8,446 8,247 Yuba City 48,505 51,034 57,975 60,197 61,835 62,974 64,042 64,818 64,792 65,300 Unincorporated 28,133 27,590 22,519 21,901 21,838 21,754 21,521 21,525 21,382 21,518

Yolo County 180,798 184,015 186,530 189,078 192,826 196,219 198,642 200,484 201,071 202,133 Davis 63,609 64,241 63,889 64,043 64,412 64,712 65,143 65,558 65,421 65,052 West Sacramento 36,579 38,191 40,289 43,331 45,179 46,979 47,962 48,582 49,048 49,292 Winters 6,446 6,707 6,753 6,602 6,584 6,648 6,638 6,630 6,609 6,839 Woodland 51,150 51,934 52,474 51,919 52,917 54,118 54,750 55,400 55,345 55,646 Unincorporated 23,014 22,942 23,125 23,183 23,734 23,762 24,149 24,314 24,648 25,304

Yuba County 63,349 64,604 66,478 68,464 69,719 70,820 71,609 72,083 72,316 72,615 Marysville 12,704 12,807 12,567 12,446 12,312 12,285 12,310 12,304 12,098 12,104 Wheatland 2,754 3,219 3,474 3,499 3,489 3,488 3,506 3,519 3,459 3,469 Unincorporated 47,891 48,578 50,437 52,519 53,918 55,047 55,793 56,260 56,759 57,042

Source : State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, as of of January 1 of each year.



Total Households by County For Years 2003 to 2012

Total Units Vacant Total Units Vacant Total Units VacantSACOG Region 825,586 43,756 848,411 44,966 863,254 57,137El Dorado County 76,617 4,061 78,351 4,153 79,448 13,486Placer County 127,634 6,765 132,672 7,032 134,896 14,867Sacramento County 503,175 26,668 516,104 27,354 524,648 22,505Sutter County 29,566 1,567 30,496 1,616 31,175 1,403Yolo County 65,412 3,467 67,039 3,553 68,537 2,510Yuba County 23,182 1,229 23,749 1,259 24,550 2,366

Total Units Vacant Total Units Vacant Total Units VacantSACOG Region 887,241 58,463 903,731 60,424 916,203 60,780El Dorado County 81,478 13,757 82,695 13,992 83275 14,024Placer County 140,330 15,220 144,207 15,603 147408 15,701Sacramento County 535,788 22,916 545,287 23,720 551,219 23,627Sutter County 32,472 1,459 33,069 1,485 33,491 1,503Yolo County 70,542 2,454 71,755 2,533 73,138 2,563Yuba County 26,631 2,657 26,718 3,091 27,672 3,362

Total Units Vacant Total Units Vacant Total Units VacantSACOG Region 922,560 63,442 932,323 90,378 935,759 90,071El Dorado County 83,871 14,107 88,121 17,926 88,272 17,957Placer County 149,265 16,061 152,422 20,003 153,730 20,107Sacramento County 553,916 23,874 555,335 41,944 556,973 42,060Sutter County 33,681 1,506 33,846 2,421 33,920 2,426Yolo County 73,811 4,347 74,984 4,178 75,326 4,192Yuba County 28,016 3,547 27,615 3,906 27,538 3,329

Total Units VacantSACOG Region 937,035 90,173El Dorado County 88,300 17,965Placer County 154,525 20,188Sacramento County 558,209 42,143Sutter County 33,935 2,427Yolo County 74,379 4,171Yuba County 27,687 3,279

20042003

Source: California Department of Finances E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates (Annual) (http://w w w .dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/ReportsPapers.php) Note: Counts as of July 1, of each year.

2010

2012

2005

2006 2007 2008

2009 2011



Labor Force & Unemployment by County For Years 2002 to 2011

Labor Force Employment

Unemploy-ment Rate


Unemploy-ment Rate

SACOG Region 1,027,500 967,900 59,600 5.8 1,054,400 991,200 63,200 6.0El Dorado County 85,800 81,400 4,400 5.2 87,800 83,000 4,800 5.5Placer County 145,500 138,600 6,900 4.8 152,700 145,300 7,400 4.8Sacramento County 641,200 605,100 36,100 5.6 656,300 618,200 38,100 5.8Sutter County 39,200 34,900 4,300 11 39,800 35,400 4,400 11.1Yolo County 90,600 85,200 5,400 6 92,400 86,600 5,800 6.3Yuba County 25,200 22,700 2,500 9.8 25,400 22,700 2,700 10.8


Unemploy-ment Rate


Unemploy-ment Rate

SACOG Region 1,069,100 1,008,600 60,500 5.7 1,090,700 1,034,300 56,400 5.2El Dorado County 89,100 84,500 4,600 5.1 92,100 87,700 4,400 4.8Placer County 155,000 147,900 7,100 4.6 166,300 159,100 7,200 4.3Sacramento County 665,600 629,000 36,600 5.5 672,300 639,000 33,300 5.0Sutter County 40,200 36,000 4,200 10.5 40,500 36,600 3,900 9.7Yolo County 93,600 88,100 5,500 5.9 93,500 88,300 5,200 5.6Yuba County 25,600 23,100 2,500 9.7 26,000 23,600 2,400 9.1


Unemploy-ment Rate


Unemploy-ment Rate

SACOG Region 1,107,500 1,052,900 54,600 4.9 1,126,700 1,063,100 63,600 6.0El Dorado County 93,600 89,300 4,300 4.6 94,500 89,600 4,900 5.2Placer County 169,000 161,900 7,100 4.2 174,400 165,900 8,500 4.9Sacramento County 682,600 650,300 32,300 4.7 690,900 653,100 37,800 5.5Sutter County 41,100 37,400 3,700 8.9 42,400 38,300 4,100 9.6Yolo County 94,700 89,800 4,900 5.2 96,700 91,000 5,700 5.9Yuba County 26,500 24,200 2,300 8.8 27,800 25,200 2,600 9.3

2003

2004

2002

2005

2006 2007



Labor Force & Unemployment by County For Years 2002 to 2011

(Continued)


Unemploy-ment Rate


Unemploy-ment Rate

SACOG Region 1,128,600 1,045,200 83,400 7.4 1,128,400 997,800 130,600 11.6El Dorado County 92,400 85,900 6,400 6.9 91,800 81,500 10,300 11.3Placer County 176,200 164,700 11,500 6.5 179,000 160,100 18,900 10.6Sacramento County 690,400 640,800 49,600 7.2 687,600 609,600 78,000 11.3Sutter County 42,000 36,900 5,200 12.3 42,100 34,900 7,200 17.0Yolo County 99,500 92,200 7,300 7.4 99,200 88,000 11,200 11.3Yuba County 28,100 24,700 3,400 12.0 28,700 23,700 5,000 17.3


Unemploy-ment Rate


Unemploy-ment Rate

SACOG Region 1,111,000 966,700 144,500 13.0 1,110,800 974,400 136,500 12.3El Dorado County 90,800 79,400 11,500 12.6 91,000 80,300 10,700 11.8Placer County 177,100 156,800 20,300 11.5 175,100 156,200 18,900 10.8Sacramento County 674,900 588,600 86,300 12.8 675,600 594,100 81,500 12.1Sutter County 42,100 33,800 8,300 19.8 43,300 35,200 8,200 18.8Yolo County 98,000 85,300 12,700 13.0 97,800 85,700 12,100 12.4Yuba County 28,100 22,800 5,400 19.1 28,000 22,900 5,100 18.2

2011

Source: Labor Force Data for Sub-County Areas (Annual), State of California Employment Development Department Labor Market Information Division (http://w w w .labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/). 2012 data is not currently available.

2008 2009

2010



Largest Employment Centers by County* For F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

# of # ofEmployer Employees % Employer Employees %

El Dorado County 1,583 3.4% Blue Shield of California 1,744 3.8%Red Hawk Casino Data N/A EL Dorado County 1,735 3.8%Blue Shield of California 1,719 3.7% Red Hawk Casino 1,400 3.0%DST Output 850 1.8% Marshall Medical Center 1,350 2.9%Marshall Medical Center 1,145 2.5% DST Output 820 1.8%Barton Healthcare System 495 1.1% Sierra-at-Tahoe Inc. 750 1.6%State of California 685 1.5% State of California 657 1.4%Sierra at Home Inc 752 1.6% El Dorado County Office of Educatio 600 1.3%El Dorado County Office of Education Data N/A El Dorado Union High School Distric 583 1.3%Camp Richardson Resort 400 0.9% Raley's Inc 516 1.1%Roebbelen Contracting, Inc. 263 0.6% Camp Richardson 400 0.9%Raleys Family of Fine Stores 540 1.2% Lake Tahoe Unified School District 400 0.9%El Dorado Irrigation District Data N/A Roebbelen Contracting Inc. 285 0.6%

County Employment Estimate 46,600 100.0% County Employment Estimate 46,100 100.0%


Kaiser Permanente 3,147 2.5% Kaiser Permanente 3,702 2.9%Placer County 2,400 1.9% Hewlett-Packard Inc 3,200 2.5%Sutter Health 2,144 1.7% Placer County 2,240 1.8%Hewlett-Packard Inc 3,500 2.8% Sutter Health 2,205 1.7%Union Pacific Railroad 2,000 1.6% Thunder Valley Casino 2,000 1.6%Thunder Valley Casino 2,025 1.6% Union Pacific Railroad Co Inc 2,000 1.6%PRIDE Industries Inc Data N/A Northstar-At-Tahoe Resort 1,950 1.5%Northstar at Tahoe 1,950 1.6% City of Roseville 1,690 1.3%City of Roseville 1,205 1.0% Pride Industries 1,021 0.8%Placer County Office of Education 1,004 0.8% Raley's Family of fine stores 967 0.8%Raleys Family of Fine Stores 1,000 0.8% Rocklin Unified School District 904 0.7%Dry Creek Joint Elementary School Distri Data N/A Placer County Office of Education 899 0.7%


2011* 2012

2011* 2012El Dorado County

Placer County

*2011/12 information. The list of large employers for El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo Counties is based on Sacramento Business Journal lists throughout 2011/12. The list of the major employers for Sutter and Yuba Counties is taken from the EDD website showing large employers but only has employment spans available (ex 100-249 employees, 250-499 employees, etc.). SACOG has used some other data to bolster the specific employment numbers in those two counties, so they are likely reasonable assumptions of employment, but may not be representative of the specific number of employees. The total employment number for each county is the EDD 2010/11 Annual Average employment.



Largest Employment Centers by County*

For F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012 (Continued)


State of California 70,937 13.0% State of California 70,918 13.0%Sacramento County 11,300 2.1% Sacramento County 11,450 2.1%UC Davis Health System 8,580 1.6% UC Davis Health System 7,725 1.4%Kaiser Permanente 6,367 1.2% Dignity Health 7,069 1.3%Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region 6,958 1.3% Intel Corp 6,633 1.2%Sacramento City Unified School District 4,500 0.8% Kaiser Permanente 6,360 1.2%Elk Grove Unified School District 5,619 1.0% Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Re 5,765 1.1%Intel Corp 6,515 1.2% Elk Grove Unified School District 6,984 1.3%Mercy/Catholic Healthcare West 6,942 1.3% Sacramento City Unified School Dis 5,200 1.0%San Juan Unified School District 4,600 0.8% San Juan Unified School District 4,700 0.9%

City of Sacramento 5,178 1.0%


2011* 2012Sacramento County


Oceanspray/Sunsweet Growers Data N/A Fremont Medical Center 1,600 6.0%Fremont Medical Center 1,850 8.0% Yuba City Unified School District 1,185 4.4%Sysco Food Service Data N/A Sutter County 870 3.3%Environmental Pro Assoc Data N/A Oceanspray/Sunsweet Growers 600 2.2%Wal-Mart 525 2.3% Sutter North Surgery Center 500 1.9%Sunset Moulding Co Data N/A Sysco Food Service 460 1.7%Home Depot Data N/A Trees Inc 460 1.7%Alta California Regional Center Data N/A Walmart 400 1.5%Sutter North Surgery Center 575 2.5% Sunset Moulding Co 380 1.4%Yuba City Unified School District 1,316 5.7% Home Depot 300 1.1%Sutter County 970 4.2% Yuba City 300 1.1%Sunsweet Growers 670 2.9%City of Yuba City 325 1.4%Sam's Club 198 0.9%Raley's Family of Fine Stores 185 0.8%Winco Foods 150 0.6%Landstar Ranger Inc Data N/A


Sutter County2011* 2012



Largest Employment Centers by County*

For F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012 (Continued)


University of California, Davis 11,704 13.1% University of California, Davis 21,586 23.0%Cache Creek Casino Resort Data N/A State of California 2,486 2.6%State of California 2,214 2.5% Cache Creek Casino Resort 2,200 2.3%Yolo County 1,245 1.4% Yolo County 1,252 1.3%Raley's Family of Fine Stores 831 0.9% Woodland Joint Unified School District 1,000 1.1%Woodland Healthcare 994 1.1% Woodland Healthcare 991 1.1%Nugget Market Inc 500 0.6% Raley's Inc 833 0.9%Pacific Gas & Electric Co 623 0.7% Davis Joint Unified School District 790 0.8%City of Davis Data N/A City of Davis 700 0.7%Coventry Health Care Data N/A Pacific Gas & Electric Co 671 0.7%US Postal Service 1,794 2.0% Sutter Davis Hospital 511 0.5%Davis Joint Unified School District 792 0.9% Nugget Market Inc 380 0.4%Target Corporation 782 0.9% City of West Sacramento 331 0.4%



Rideout Memorial Hospital Data N/A Rideout Memorial Hospital 2,050 13.7%Beale AFB 5,721 43.7% Marysville Joint Unified School District 913 6.1%Yuba Community College 700 5.3% Yuba Community College 700 4.7%Wal-Mart 300 2.3% Yuba County 615 4.1%Baldwin Contracting Co Data N/A Walmart 450 3.0%Yuba County 805 6.1% Sierra Kiwi Inc 300 2.0%Sierra Kiwi Inc 250 1.9% Bishop's Pumpkin Farm 300 2.0%Bishop's Pumpkin Farm 250 1.9%Frank Booth Inc Data N/AMarysville Joint Unified School Distric 1,000 7.6%California Transportation Department 650 5.0%Appeal Democrat 150 1.1%Elite Universal Security 150 1.1%


Yolo County

Yuba County

2011* 2012

2011* 2012



Public School Enrollment by County For the 2001-02 to 2010-11 Schoo l Years

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

SACOG Region 374,927 382,981 387,142 392,314 394,681El Dorado 29,104 29,147 29,072 29,368 29,332Placer 58,228 60,716 61,718 62,666 63,742Sacramento 228,122 232,612 235,269 238,385 239,026Sutter 16,233 16,528 16,976 17,435 17,771Yolo 29,099 29,466 29,321 29,429 29,460Yuba 14,141 14,512 14,786 15,031 15,350

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

SACOG Region 395,240 397,285 398,098 399,127 400,310El Dorado 29,417 29,662 29,336 29,972 29,781Placer 64,401 65,708 67,088 68,278 68,815Sacramento 238,233 238,346 237,722 236,936 237,362Sutter 19,137 19,599 20,020 20,652 21,110Yolo 29,493 29,507 29,591 29,366 29,404Yuba 14,559 14,463 14,341 13,923 13,838

Source: County Reports (Annual), California Department of Education. 2012 data is not currently available.



Total Acreage by County

Total Acreage

SACOG Region 4,199,415El Dorado 1,145,825Placer 959,744Sacramento 637,640Sutter 389,537Yolo 654,720Yuba 411,950

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Tiger Line File



Average Annual Wages by County For Years 2003 – 2012

Average Weekly Wages

Average Annual Wages1







SACOG Region $696 $36,187 $718 $37,358 $751 $39,041 $782 $40,638El Dorado County $598 $31,114 $617 $32,092 $658 $34,200 $693 $36,049Placer County $704 $36,618 $740 $38,477 $764 $39,717 $797 $41,431Sacramento County $730 $37,953 $749 $38,961 $784 $40,786 $816 $42,418Sutter County $507 $26,357 $531 $27,612 $545 $28,319 $580 $30,183Yolo County $640 $33,285 $674 $35,063 $699 $36,326 $719 $37,396Yuba County $582 $30,268 $572 $29,741 $616 $32,008 $627 $32,627









SACOG Region $808 $41,992 $833 $43,316 $842 $43,784 $861 $44,772El Dorado County $719 $37,384 $742 $38,584 $748 $38,896 $736 $38,272Placer County $822 $42,770 $824 $42,848 $839 $43,628 $861 $44,772Sacramento County $842 $43,773 $867 $45,084 $875 $45,500 $899 $46,748Sutter County $590 $30,687 $608 $31,616 $629 $32,708 $628 $32,656Yolo County $753 $39,170 $776 $40,352 $777 $40,404 $790 $41,080Yuba County $663 $34,454 $701 $36,452 $716 $37,232 $750 $39,000





SACOG Region $861 $44,772 $861 $44,772El Dorado County $975 $50,684 $1,005 $52,261Placer County $975 $50,684 $1,005 $52,261Sacramento County $975 $50,684 $1,005 $52,261Sutter County $802 $41,689 $820 $42,633Yolo County $975 $50,684 $1,005 $52,261Yuba County $802 $41,689 $820 $42,633

* Data for 2011 and 2012 were only available at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) level, individual county level data was not available.Source: California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division1Average Annual Wages based upon Average Weekly Wages

2012*

2006

2007 2008 2009 2010

2011*

2003 2004 2005



Transit Providers by County

SACOG REGION TRANSIT PROVIDERS

El Dorado County El Dorado Transit

Placer County Auburn TransitLincoln TransitPlacer County TransitRoseville Transit

Sacramento County Elk Grove TransitFolsom Stage LinesParatransit, Inc.Sacramento Regional Transit DistrictSouth County Transit/LINK

Yolo County Davis Community TransitUC Davis - TAPSUnitransYolo County Transportation District

Yuba-Sutter County Yuba-Sutter Transit

Source: SACOG



Summary of Full-Time Equivalent Employees

BY FUNCTION & PROGRAM For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 - 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012FUNCTION

Chief Executive Officer* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Administration 8 6 6 6 9 8 9 9Finance 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4Research Analysts* 6 8 11 13 9 10 12 12Information Technology 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1Planning 19 21 20 18 19 19 19 19Public Affairs and Communications 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5Interns 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2

Total Approved Full-Time Positions 49 48 50 51 51 51 54 53

*Formerly called Executive Director** Formerly called Geographic Information Systems




BY PROJECT For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 - 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008

Direct ProjectsInteragency Relations and Program Management 0.9 1.2 1.4 n/ aProject Delivery and Programming 3.4 3.7 3.0 n/ aMultimodal Transportation Planning and Coordination

2.9 6.1 6.1 n/ a

Air Quality Planning, Analysis and Coordination 0.7 0.8 2.0 n/ aTransit Planning and Coordination 4.2 4.0 4.0 n/ aHousing and Land Use 3.8 3.3 0.6 n/ aRegional Monitoring and Forecasting 6.8 10.5 5.7 n/ aGeographic Information Systems 5.1 n/a n/a n/aPublic Information/Outreach and Advocacy 5.6 4.0 3.8 n/ aServices 2.8 1.2 1.5 n/ aSpecial Projects and Local Technical Assistance/NEPA Linkages

0.1 0.7 1.0 n/ a

Regional Blueprint Programming n/a 0.6 n/ a n/ aMetropolitan Transportation Plan n/a n/a 9.1 n/ aServices to Other Agencies (pass-through) n/a 0.6 0.8 n/ aMisc Other Funding n/a n/a n/ a n/ aGovernment Relations, Public Affairs & Administration

n/a n/a n/a 4.9

Long-Range Transportation Planning n/a n/a n/a 10.1Short-Range Transportation Planning & Studies n/a n/a n/a 1.4Continuing Transportation Implementation n/a n/a n/a 5.7Land Use & Housing Planning n/a n/a n/a 8.7Public Services n/a n/a n/a 2.8Member & Agency Services n/a n/a n/a 4.9Services to Other Agencies n/a n/a n/a 0.9Board and Advocacy n/a 0.3 0.5 0.2

Subtotal - Direct Projects 36.3 37.0 39.5 39.6

Indirect 12.3 11.8 11.1 12.2

Total FTEs Based on Total Hours 48.6 48.8 50.6 51.8




BY PROJECT For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 - 2012

2009 2010 2011 2012

n/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/an/a n/a 12.0 10.8n/ a n/ a 0.2 0.3n/ a n/ a n/ a 0.25.1 4.5 4.7 4.0

3.5 6.0 3.7 3.50.4 1.1 2.8 1.311.0 8.9 6.8 7.811.1 10.2 4.4 3.52.8 2.7 n/ a n/ a4.7 3.7 7.0 8.60.5 0.5 0.5 0.40.3 0.2 0.2 0.239.4 37.8 42.3 40.7

12.4 12.8 11.7 12.3

51.8 50.6 54.0 53.0



Planning & Administration Fund

INDIRECT SERVICE COST COMPARISON For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 – 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008INDIRECT COSTS

Building Costs 573,947$ 573,947$ 641,863$ 638,875$ Career Development Program - - 49,690 52,408 Consultants 80,810 57,038 39,071 116,034 Depreciation 168,452 156,390 136,081 133,337 Insurance 15,828 68,658 67,478 69,959 Legal 88,481 178,649 257,799 320,942 Maintenance 15,579 44,048 6,176 13,295 Meetings 40,664 19,059 12,099 5,300 Memberships 21,219 42,139 42,794 25,377 Miscellaneous 3,157 12,265 676 2,530 Mileage 17,120 13,862 11,408 14,093 Office Equipment - - 16,825 19,591 Parking 5,950 6,525 7,400 7,550 Postage 30,458 24,197 22,605 21,367 Printing - - 16,671 1,762 Publications 5,013 3,425 4,227 4,869 Salaries and Benefits 1,130,960 1,186,651 1,164,671 1,337,701 Software & Maintenance 58,531 41,206 36,601 49,921 Supplies 72,979 75,394 38,499 45,429 Accounting Services - 7,723 8,169 17,065 Unemployment Costs - 8,469 - - Telephone/Telcommunications 29,356 28,693 32,906 34,114 Temporary services 6,673 580 2,119 409

Printing Cost offset - (71,048) - -

OPEB ARCTotal Indirect Costs 2,365,177$ 2,477,870$ 2,615,828$ 2,931,928$



Planning & Administration Fund

INDIRECT SERVICE COST COMPARISON For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 – 2012

2009 2010 2011 2012

677,089$ 601,854$ 582,991$ 575,236$ 89,195 42,699 46,247 50,103

269,661 100,131 45,655 45,455 86,257 82,426 45,844 44,537 68,903 68,251 68,376 67,924

259,557 242,566 245,404 40,782 11,580 14,590 6,762 3,439 12,187 7,269 8,737 8,678 25,511 17,246 28,795 11,663

3,719 4,664 4,660 5,242 12,915 14,171 13,749 13,717 11,044 2,823 4,520 12,499

9,450 10,376 10,200 10,650 9,014 17,998 10,462 8,219 9,081 (1,931) (18,297) (8,146) 3,567 2,264 2,686 1,497

1,423,539 1,496,208 1,475,280 1,600,335 51,418 62,364 86,315 66,675 53,275 70,105 56,512 45,136

9,420 9,844 12,943 10,189 - - 4,279 1,281

39,244 37,349 40,350 45,640 132 384 403 1,623

-

405,800 - - 3,135,758$ 3,309,451$ 2,782,873$ 2,662,374$



Capital Assets – by Fund* For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 – 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008

Planning and Administration Fund: Furniture/equipment/computers 579,541$ 470,401$ 379,209$ 313,598$

Capital Valley Regional SAFE: Call boxes 1,857,102 1,505,224 1,118,006 2,250,826

Glenn County SAFE: Call boxes 47,954 29,390 10,828 60,245

Total 2,484,597$ 2,005,015$ 1,508,043$ 2,624,669$


*Ne t o f accumu la ted deprec ia t i on



Capital Assets – by Fund For E igh t F isca l Years Ended June 30 , 2005 – 2012

2009 2010 2011 2012

235,902$ 109,415$ 80,386$ 77,873$

1,779,369 1,139,355 667,898 196,441

47,101 33,956 20,812 7,668

2,062,372$ 1,282,726$ 769,096$ 281,982$

*Ne t o f accumu la ted deprec ia t i on



Miscellaneous Statistics For F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

Date of Joint Powers Authority In January 1965, the Sacramento Regional Area

Planning Commission (SRAPC) was organized under the State Planning Law to provide a forum for elected officials to address multi-county problems, issues, and needs. In January 1981, SACOG succeeded SRAPC under a new Joint Powers agreement pursuant to section 6500 of the California Government Code

Form of Government Joint Powers Authority, Board of Directors

Member Jurisdictions Six counties and 22 Cities within the greater Sacramento Metropolitan Area

Board of Directors Board of Supervisors and City Council members appointed by their member jurisdictions, 31 members and one ex-officio member from Caltrans

Board Committees Government Relations & Public Affairs; Land Use & Air Quality; Transportation; and Strategic Planning

Board Terms Board members serve multi-year terms and may be reappointed. The chair and vice-chair, elected by voting members of SACOG, serve one-year terms.

SACOG Mission Provide leadership and a dynamic, collaborative public forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, innovative and integrated regional planning, and a high quality of life within the greater Sacramento region.

Regional Transportation Planning Agency Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties

Metropolitan Planning Organization Sacramento, Yuba City, and Davis Urbanized Areas and the Sacramento Metropolitan Planning Area

Airport Land Use Commission Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties

Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways

Sacramento, San Joaquin, Yolo, Yuba, and Sutter Counties

Designated Recipient for Sacramento Large Urbanized Area

FTA Section 5316 Job Access Reverse Commute and Section 5317 New Freedom Programs

Source: SACOG

For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 C-1


Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards For F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

Federal Grantor/Pass-through Grantor/Program TitleFederal CFDA

Number

Pass-through

Grant AwardNumber Expenditures

U.S. Department of Transportation Highway Planning & Construction Cluster:

Passed through the State of California, Department of Transportation

Planning 20.205 2,569,032$ CMAQ - Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning 20.205 2,292 CMAQ - Connect Card Implmentation 20.205 511,555 CMAQ - Transportation Demand Management 20.205 1,020,259 CMAQ - SECAT Program 20.205 539,307 CMAQ - 511 Trip Planning 20.205 4,525 FHWA Partnership Planning 20.205 174,192 SAFE Routes to School 20.205 3,961

Subtotal - Highway Planning and Construction Cluster1 03-6085R 4,825,123$ 74A0135

Direct Metropolitan Planning Program - FTA 20.505 1,471,015

Direct Federal Transit Administration - - State Planning and Research 20.515 560,768

Direct Transit Services Programs Cluster:Federal Transit Administration - JARC Funds1 20.516 645,789

Federal Transit Administration - New Freedom 1 20.521 401,437 Subtotal: Transit Services Programs Cluster: 1,047,226

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Direct:Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program 14.703 729,373

U.S. Department of EnergyDirect:

Convervation Research and Development 81.086 45,215

Total Expenditures of Federal Awards 8,678,720$

1Denotes major program



Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards For F isca l Year Ended June 30 , 2012

NOTE A - GENERAL

The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the year ended June 30, 2012, presents the activity of all federal award programs of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Federal awards received directly from federal agencies, as well as federal awards passed through to other governmental agencies, are included in the schedule.

NOTE B - BASIS OF ACCOUNTING

The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented using the modified accrual basis of accounting, which recognizes revenue in the accounting period in which it becomes measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current accounting period. Expenditures are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred (when goods are received or services rendered).

NOTE C – CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA)

The CFDA numbers included in the accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards were determined based on program name, review of grant contract information and Office of Management and Budget’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.

NOTE D – SUBRECIPIENTS

Of the federal expenditures presented in the schedule, SACOG provided federal awards to subrecipient as follows:

Federal Program

FederalCFDA Number

Amount Providedto Subrecipients

Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 $ 699,009 Federal Transit Administration – JARC Funds Federal Transit Administration – New Freedom Funds Total

20.516 20.521

577,629 401,437

$ 1,678,075





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

To the Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012, which collectively comprise SACOG's basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated January 17, 2013. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Other auditors audited the fund financial statements of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund, the County of Yuba Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund, the County of Sutter Local Transportation Special Revenue Fund, the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund, and the State Transit Assistance Special Revenue Fund for the year ended June 30, 2012, as described in our report on SACOG's financial statements. This report does not include the results of the other auditors' testing of internal control over financial reporting or compliance and other matters that are reported on separately by those auditors. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management of SACOG is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered SACOG's internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG's internal control over financial reporting.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity's financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined previously.


Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether SACOG's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. We noted certain matters that we reported to management of the SACOG in a separate letter dated January 17, 2013. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors and management of SACOG, Federal awarding agencies, and pass-through entities, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.







INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT AND MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL

CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 To the Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California Compliance We have audited the Sacramento Area Council of Government's (SACOG) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of SACOG's major Federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2012. SACOG's major Federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to each of its major Federal programs is the responsibility of the SACOG's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on SACOG's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major Federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about SACOG's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of SACOG's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion SACOG complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to previously that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major Federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2012. However, the results of our auditing procedures disclosed instances of noncompliance with those requirements, which are required to be reported in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and which are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as items 2012-01 through 2012-03. Internal Control Over Compliance

Management of SACOG is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to Federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered SACOG's internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major Federal program to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG's internal control over compliance.


A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a Federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a Federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined previously.

SACOG's responses to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. We did not audit SACOG's responses and, accordingly, we express no opinion on the responses. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors, management of SACOG, Federal awarding agencies, and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.



SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 I. SUMMARY OF AUDITORS’ RESULTS

FINANCIAL STATEMENTSUnqualified

NoNone reported

No

FEDERAL AWARDS

NoNone reportedUnqualified

Yes

CFDA Number Name of Federal Program or Cluster

20.205 Highway Planning and Construction Cluster20.516 and 20.521 Transit Services Program Cluster

300,000$ Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? Yes

Type of auditors' report issued:Internal control over financial reporting:

Material weaknesses identified?Significant deficiencies identified?

Noncompliance material to financial statements noted?

Internal control over major programs:

Identification of major programs:

Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs:

Material weaknesses identified?Significant deficiencies identified not considered to be material weaknesses?

Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs:Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Circular A-133, Section .510(a)?


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 II. FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDINGS

None reported.


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 III. FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS

FINDING 2012-01 Program: Highway Planning and Construction Cluster CFDA No.: 20.205 Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Transportation Passed-through: California Department of Transportation Award Year: FY 2011-2012 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Criteria: The June 2012 OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement requires Federal agencies to require recipients to identify to each subrecipient, and document at the time of subaward, CFDA title and number; award name and number; if the award is research and development; and the name of the Federal awarding agency and applicable compliance requirements. Condition Found: Instance of Noncompliance - As a result of our audit of subrecipient contracts we noted for one of the three subrecipient contracts tested, SACOG did not communicate the CFDA title and number to the subrecipient. Questioned Costs: We identified no questioned costs in our tests of compliance with this requirement. Context: The contracts made with subrecipients do not specifically identify all of the required elements as required by OMB Circular A-133. SACOG is required to identify to each subrecipient and document at the time of the subaward, the CFDA title and number; award name and number; if the award is research and development; and the name of the Federal awarding agency and applicable compliance requirements. Effect: Not properly disclosing the Federal award number and CFDA title and number at the time of subaward to subrecipients could increase the risk of the subrecipients not knowing the Federal nature of their funding and other related compliance requirements such as performing the Single Audit. Cause: SACOG did not maintain procedures to ensure that the Federal award number and CFDA title and number were communicated to the subrecipients at the time of award. Recommendation: We recommend SACOG to implement policies and procedures to ensure that the necessary information required by OMB Circular A-133 is disclosed to the subrecipients at the time of award of funds.



View of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions: SACOG concurs with the auditor recommendation. This condition was first noted in the fiscal year 2011 Single Audit. In response, SACOG took immediate action to implement the recommendation of the auditors. In February 2012, SACOG implemented a process to add the federal award number and CFDA title and number to all JARC/New Freedom and TDM subrecipients going forward from that date. The agreement which is the subject of this finding was executed in October 2011, prior to the 2011 audit finding. SACOG did not go back and revise this preexisting contract, because it has since been closed out. FINDING 2012-02 Program: Highway Planning and Construction Cluster CFDA No.: 20.205 Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Transportation Passed-through: California Department of Transportation Award Year: FY 2011-2012 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs and Activities Criteria: OMB circular A-133, Sub-par C, Section 300, Part b, states that the auditee is responsible for "maintaining internal control over Federal programs that provide reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that have a material effect on each of its Federal programs." Condition Found: Instance of Noncompliance - Based on the testing over SACOG's compliance over payroll expenses charged to Federal programs, we noted SACOG's internal controls require supervisor approval of employee's hours prior to processing the monthly accounting close. As a result of our audit, we noted one out of sixty timesheets selected for testing did not have evidence of supervisor approval. However, we also noted that each employee sampled for compliance with activities allowed and allowable costs/cost principles charged their time correctly to each project, and as a result, no questioned costs were identified in our tests of compliance with this requirement. Questioned Costs: We identified no questioned costs in our tests of compliance with this requirement. Context: The condition noted above was identified during our testing over the approval of staff costs charged to the Federal program. Effect: Not properly reviewing staff timesheets could result in inaccurate time being charged to the Federal program.



Cause: SACOG did not maintain procedures to ensure that staff time is reviewed by a manager. Recommendation: We recommend SACOG strengthen timesheet review procedures to ensure that all staff time is properly approved by a manager. View of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions: SACOG concurs with the audit finding and recommendation. SACOG believes that this finding is the result of an inadvertent error, and not a systemic problem, as SACOG does have procedures in place to ensure that staff time is reviewed by a manager. However, SACOG will review its current process for improvement. FINDING 2012-03 Program: Transit Services Programs Cluster CFDA No.: 20.516 and 20.521 Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Transportation Award Year: FY 2011-2012 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Criteria: The June 2012 OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement requires Federal agencies to require recipients to identify to each subrecipient, and document at the time of subaward, CFDA title and number; award name and number; if the award is research and development; and the name of the Federal awarding agency and applicable compliance requirements. Condition Found: Instance of Noncompliance - As a result of our audit of subrecipient contracts we noted for one of the three subrecipient contracts tested, SACOG did not communicate the CFDA title and number to the subrecipient. Questioned Costs: We identified no questioned costs in our tests of compliance with this requirement. Context: The contracts made with subrecipients do not specifically identify all of the required elements as required by OMB Circular A-133. The Council must identify to each subrecipient and document at the time of the subaward, CFDA title and number; award name and number; if the award is research and development; and the name of the Federal awarding agency and applicable compliance requirements.



Effect: Not properly disclosing the Federal award number and CFDA title and number at the time of subaward to subrecipients could increase the risk of the subrecipients not knowing the Federal nature of their funding; and other related compliance requirements such as performing the Single Audit. Cause: SACOG did not maintain procedures to ensure that the Federal award number and CFDA title and number, to the subrecipients at the time of award. Recommendation: We recommend SACOG to implement policies and procedures to ensure that the necessary information required by OMB Circular A-133 is disclosed to the subrecipients at the time of award of funds. View of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions: SACOG concurs with the auditor recommendation. This condition was first noted in the fiscal year 2011 Single Audit. In response, SACOG took immediate action to implement the recommendation of the auditors. In February 2012, SACOG implemented a process to add the federal award number and CFDA title and number to all JARC/New Freedom and TDM subrecipients going forward from that date. The agreement which is the subject of this finding was executed in August 2011, prior to the 2011 audit finding. SACOG did not go back and revise this preexisting contract but has advised the subrecipient of the federal funding and compliance requirements.


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012

Summarized below is the current status of all audit findings reported in the prior year audit's schedule of findings and questioned costs. Finding Number Program CFDA No.

Compliance Requirement Status

2011-01 Highway Planning and Construction 20.205 Subrecipient Monitoring

Not Implemented – See Finding 2012-01

2011-02 Transit Services Programs Cluster

20.516, 20.521 Subrecipient Monitoring

Not Implemented – See Finding 2012-03

2011-03 Transit Services Programs Cluster

20.516, 20.521 Reporting Implemented

2011-04 Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program

14.703 Subrecipient Monitoring Implemented

2011-05 Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grant Program

14.703 Reporting Implemented


WHAT WE DOThe Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is an association of Sacramento Valley governments formed from the six regional counties—El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba—and 22 member cities. SACOG’s directors are chosen from the elected boards of its member governments. SACOG’s primary charge is to provide regional transportation planning and funding, as well as a forum for the study and resolution of regional issues. In this role, SACOG prepares the region’s long-range transportation plan; approves distribution of affordable housing around the region; keeps a region-wide database for its own and local agency use; helps counties and cities use federal transportation funds in a timely way; assists in planning for transit, bicycle networks, clean air and airport land uses; and has completed the Blueprint Project which links transportation and land development more closely.

EXECUTIVE STAFF

Mike McKeeverChief Executive Officer

Kirk TrostChief Operating Officer/ General Counsel

David GhiorsoFinance Manager

PROJECT STAFF

Stacy NiccumAccountant lll

Daphne ChavarriaAccountant lll

Debra OvertonAccountant l

SUPPORT STAFF

Gayle GreeneAdministrative Assistant lll

Scott OvertonReprographics

This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. The views and opinions of the authors or agency expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

SACOG.ORG


MANAGEMENT LETTER

JUNE 30, 2012

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Attachment B





1

Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California Ladies and Gentlemen: We have audited the basic financial statements of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the year ended June 30, 2012 and have issued our report thereon dated January 17, 2013. In planning and performing our audit of the basic financial statements of SACOG, we considered internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the basic financial statements. An audit does not include examining the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and does not provide assurance on internal control. We have not considered internal control since the date of our report. We have also reported on the SACOG's internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Government Audit Standards in a separate report dated January 17, 2013. This letter does not affect our report dated January 17, 2013, on the financial statements of SACOG. During our audit we noted certain matters involving internal control and other operational matters that are presented for your consideration. These comments and recommendations, all of which have been discussed with the appropriate members of management, are intended to improve internal control or result in other operating efficiencies and are summarized as follows: CURRENT YEAR MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS: RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFIT PAYOUT OBSERVATION: Per the 2006 MOU between SACOG and the SACOG Employees Association, SACOG employees hired prior to July 1, 2006 have the option to receive retirement health benefits through CalPERS or receive a monthly payment for ten years equal to the basic premium as of the retirement date. As a result of the FY 2012 audit, we noted that a SACOG employee received the monthly payment option in the form of an up-front lump sum payment upon retirement. We noted that this action is not clearly defined in the referenced MOU, and formal approval by the board was not obtained prior to payment. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that SACOG implement procedures to ensure that retirement actions performed are allowable per the MOU between SACOG and the SACOG Employees Association, and obtain board approval before performing actions outside of the approved MOU. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: All actions taken in connection with this matter were taken in consultation with, and pursuant to the advice of, outside special counsel and tax counsel, and with the knowledge of the Chair and Vice Chair of the SACOG Board of Directors.

2

By way of background, the employee in question here, a management contract employee, had the right to receive the same benefits provided to the majority of other SACOG employees. The 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SACOG and the SACOG Employees Association gives SACOG employees hired prior to July 1, 2006, a choice upon retirement: either receive retirement health benefits through CalPERS or receive a monthly payment for ten years equal to the Kaiser Two-Party Basic Premium as of the retirement date. Subsequent to adding the cash payment option to the MOU, SACOG has been advised by tax counsel of the potential for unintended tax consequences as a result of this benefit. SACOG has been advised that the “in lieu” payments would likely be seen as "deferred compensation" that is governed by section 457(f) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Code section 457(f) provides that compensation deferred under an arrangement maintained by either (i) a State, political subdivision of a State, or any agency or instrumentality of a State or political subdivision of a State, or (ii) any other organization that is exempt from tax, that is not an "eligible deferred compensation plan" governed by Code section 457(b), is included in the gross income of the participant for the first taxable year in which there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such compensation. Here, because the employee’s right to the monthly payments for ten years was not subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, the present value of that income stream would be included in his gross income in the year when the promise is made (e.g., 2012) even though the cash is not paid until future years (see Treasury regulations section 1.457-11(c)). Consequently, SACOG was advised that the proper tax treatment for this amount is additional Form W-2 wages in 2012. Tax counsel recommended that SACOG make a single sum payment to the employee (discounted to present value) so that he would have the cash to pay the taxes and so that the full amount was properly reported. SACOG was also advised that a failure to treat this situation in this manner opened the risk for interest and penalties on the employee’s income taxes, underwithholding of income taxes by SACOG, underpayment of employment taxes by both the employee and SACOG, and an increased likelihood of certain penalties under Code section 409A. Based on this advice, SACOG entered into a Retiree Medical Benefits Waiver and Release Agreement with the employee, and made the agreed upon lump sum payment. Finally, the Retiree Medical Benefits Waiver and Release Agreement did not expand the benefits to which the employee was entitled pursuant to his Employment Agreement with SACOG. Consequently, outside counsel advised that this was not an item that required approval by the SACOG Board of Directors. Nevertheless, management consulted with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors prior to executing the Waiver and Release Agreement. STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS: As a result of the FY 2010-2011 audit, we noted the following observations and recommendations. Management continues the process of implementing the recommendations. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OBSERVATION: Some workflow processes, although performing well internally, could be improved upon with better detail and written documentation, as well as regular updates. This would ensure continuity of key processes, including the following:

Procurement policies, which were last updated in 2005.

3

RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that SACOG draft, or update, current written policies to address these areas. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: During 2012, SACOG staff has been working with outside counsel to update its procurement policies. Staff will present the revised policies for Board of Directors’ approval in early 2013. FORMAL DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN OBSERVATION: SACOG does not have a formal written disaster recovery plan to document how it would recover if a disaster struck the IT system. The objective of developing and maintaining a formal disaster plan is to minimize the disruption of SACOG's operations in the event of a disaster or breakdown. A comprehensive and efficient disaster plan serves to mitigate any unforeseen disruption in SACOG's operations related to disasters or breakdowns. We noted that while SACOG has engaged in the process of evaluating potential vendors to supply an off-the-shelf disaster recovery system, the overall plan itself has not been formally adopted or tested as of the end of FY 2011-2012. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that SACOG develop a formal, documented plan which should include the following items:

Objectives of the plan;

Location of, and access to, off-site storage;

A listing of all data files that would have to be obtained from the off-site storage location;

Identification of a back-up location (name and telephone number) with similar or compatible equipment for emergency processing (management should make arrangements for such back-up with another entity, a computer vendor, or a service center, the agreement should be in writing);

An individual to be responsible for the overall implementation of the disaster plan;

The assignment of responsibilities to appropriate IT personnel and the specific procedures to be

performed by these individuals and their subordinates; and

Priority of critical applications and reporting requirements during the emergency period. The disaster recovery plan should include procedures for the off-site storage of back-up electronic data files, particularly accounting system files. Additionally, SACOG should test the plan to determine whether it will be workable in an emergency situation and whether SACOG has considered all significant points relative to disaster planning.

4

MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: Management staff is in the process of implementing a SACOG’s Business Continuity Plan which outlines procedures for recovery of operations in the event of disaster. The plan brings together SACOG’s existing procedures regarding off-site storage and emergency contact into one document. The draft plan also outlines new formalized staff responsibilities for setting up an alternate office location and operations plan in the event that the existing office at 1415 L Street is not accessible to staff. The Management agrees that this plan needs to be tested and formally adopted PASSWORD SECURITY OBSERVATION: We noted that SACOG does not have a formal written policy or review procedure in effect regarding password maintenance and security. RECOMMENDATION: SACOG should develop a written policy or guideline for the review of password maintenance in all instances where passwords are utilized to ensure proper access control. A policy should also be created and published to include confidentiality of passwords and prohibition of password sharing. While we recognize the intricacy of implementing different passwords across multiple systems, and the effort SACOG has made during FY 2011-2012 on planning for a draft policy in the near future, we recommend the agency to continue its effort with the change in a more progressive manner. MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: SACOG has implemented a formal policy on password use and maintenance. That password policy is a part of the orientation process for all new SACOG staff. PRIOR YEAR IMPLEMENTED MANAGEMENT LETTER COMMENTS: The following observations were noted as result of our FY 2010-2011 audit, have since been fully implemented by SACOG as of June 30, 2012:

Policies and Procedures – Year-End Financial Reporting User Access Approval/Formal User Account Procedures

5

NEW FINANCIAL REPORTING STANDARDS INFORMATIONAL ONLY

GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 60

In November 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 60, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Service Concession Arrangements. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting by addressing issues related to service concession arrangements (SCAs) and establishes recognition, measurement, and disclosure requirements for SCAs, improving the comparability of financial statements. The requirements of this Statement are effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 61 In December 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 61, The Financial Reporting Entity: Omnibus. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting for governmental financial reporting entities. This Statement modifies certain requirements for inclusion of component units in the financial reporting entity and amends the criteria for reporting component units as if they were a part of the primary government in certain circumstances. This Statement is not effective until the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 62

In December 2010, GASB issued Statement No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements. The objective of this Statement is to incorporate into the GASB's authoritative literature certain accounting and financial reporting guidance that is included in pronouncements issued on or before November 30, 1989, which does not conflict with GASB and issued through 1) Financial Accounting Standards Board [FASB] Statements and Interpretations, 2) Accounting Principles Board Opinions, 3) Accounting Research Bulletins of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' [AICPA] Committee on Accounting Procedures). The requirements of this Statement are effective for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 63 In June 2011, GASB issued Statement 63, Financial Reporting of Deferred Outflows of Resources, Deferred Inflows of Resources, and Net Positions. This Statement provides financial reporting guidance for deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources and the resulting net position. This Statement is not effective until the fiscal year ending June 30, 2013. GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 65 In March 2012, GASB issued Statement No. 65, Items Previously Reported as Assets and Liabilities. This Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards that reclassify, as deferred outflows of resources or deferred inflows of resources certain items that were previously reported as assets and liabilities and recognizes, as outflows of resources or inflows of resources, certain items that were previously reported as assets and liabilities. This Statement is not effective until the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 66 In March 2012, GASB issued Statement No. 66, Technical Corrections – 2012 – and amendment of GASB Statements No. 10 and 62. The objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting for a governmental financial reporting entity by resolving conflicting guidance that resulted from the issuance of two pronouncements, Statements No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, and No. 62, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in Pre-November 30, 1989 FASB and AICPA Pronouncements. This Statement is not effective until the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014.

6

GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 67 In June 2012, GASB issued Statement No. 67, Financial Reporting for Pension Plans – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 25. The objective of this Statement is to improve financial reporting by State and local governmental pension plans. This Statement replaces the requirements of Statements No. 25, Financial Reporting for Defined Benefit Pension Plans and Note Disclosures for Defined Contribution Plans, and No. 50, Pension Disclosures, as they relate to pension plans that are administered through trusts or equivalent arrangements (hereafter jointly referred to as trusts) that meet certain criteria. The requirements of Statements No. 25 and No. 50 remain applicable to pension plans that are not administered through trusts covered by the scope of this Statement and to define contribution plans that provide postemployment benefits other than pensions. This Statement is not effective until the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014. GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD No. 68 In June 2012, GASB issued Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27. The objective of this Statement is to improve accounting and financial reporting by state and local governments for pensions. This Statement replaces the requirements of Statement No. 27, Accounting for Pensions by State and Local Governmental Employers, as well as the requirements of Statement No. 50, Pension Disclosures, as they relate to pensions that are provided through pension plans administered as trusts or equivalent arrangements (hereafter jointly referred to as trusts) that meet certain criteria. The requirements of Statements No. 27 and No. 50 remain applicable for pensions that are not covered by the scope of this Statement. This Statement is not effective until the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015 Our audit procedures are designed primarily to enable us to form an opinion on the financial statements, and therefore may not bring to light all weaknesses in policies or procedures that may exist. We aim, however, to use our knowledge of SACOG gained during our work to make comments and suggestions that we hope will be useful to you. We would be pleased to discuss these comments and recommendations with you at any time. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the board, management, and others within the organization and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.






1

Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities and each major fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the year ended June 30, 2012. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards, Government Auditing Standards and OMB Circular A-133, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated June 7, 2012. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit. Significant Audit Findings Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by SACOG are described in Note A to the financial statements. We noted no transactions entered into by SACOG during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period. Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management's knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the financial statements were:

Management's estimate of the depreciation of capital assets is based upon the estimated useful lives of the related capital assets. Management's estimate of other postemployment benefits (OPEB) costs are based on the estimated costs of providing benefits to SACOG's retired employees and spouses using actuarial methods and assumptions prescribed by GASB Statement No. 45.We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the depreciation and OPEB estimates in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear. Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Attachment C

GGreene

Typewritten Text

GGreene

Typewritten Text

2

Disagreements With Management For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditors' report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit. Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated January 17, 2013. Management Consultations With Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a "second opinion" on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the Authority's financial statements or a determination of the type of auditors' opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants. Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as SACOG's auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention. Other Matters With respect to the supplementary information accompanying the financial statements, we made certain inquiries of management and evaluated the form, content, and methods of preparing the information to determine that the information complies with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, the method of preparing it has not changed from the prior period, and the information is appropriate and complete in relation to our audit of the financial statements. We compared and reconciled the supplementary information to the underlying accounting records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves. This information is intended solely for the use of the Board of Directors and management of SACOG, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND

Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Report

June 30, 2012

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Attachment D

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND


June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

Audited Financial Statements

Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................................. 1 Balance Sheets .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance ..................................................................... 3 Notes to Financial Statements .................................................................................................................................. 4

Compliance Report

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act ............................................................................................. 9

Richardson & Company 550 Howe Avenue, Suite 210 Sacramento, California 95825

Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

1

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

To the Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of and for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

As discussed in Note B, the financial statements present only the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, and the results of its operations for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 22, 2012 on our consideration of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ internal control over financial reporting related to the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters and the Transportation Development Act. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.

October 22, 2012

2012 2011 2010ASSETS

Cash and investments 10,562,824$ 7,670,344$ 9,577,253$ Due from other governments 7,458,500 7,110,800 6,274,800Interest receivable 11,272 4,449 21,977

TOTAL ASSETS 18,032,596$ 14,785,593$ 15,874,030$

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE

LIABILITIESDue to other governments 8,635,053$ 1,768,131$ 6,039,413$

TOTAL LIABILITIES 8,635,053 1,768,131 6,039,413 FUND BALANCE

Restricted for public transportation projects 9,397,543 13,017,462 9,834,617 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 9,397,543 13,017,462 9,834,617

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 18,032,596$ 14,785,593$ 15,874,030$

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND

BALANCE SHEETS

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

2

2012 2011 2010REVENUES

Sales and use taxes 46,241,065$ 43,846,700$ 40,393,832$ Investment earnings 39,016 36,145 66,678

TOTAL REVENUES 46,280,081 43,882,845 40,460,510

EXPENDITURESCurrent:

Allocations:Sacramento Regional Transit District 33,554,746 27,382,646 25,842,243City of Elk Grove 4,763,165 3,855,576 3,612,944City of Citrus Heights 2,916,956 2,387,142 2,260,867City of Folsom 2,365,378 1,936,048 1,957,134Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2,036,943 1,612,354 1,525,164Paratransit, Inc. 1,824,843 1,489,178 1,405,405County of Sacramento 1,232,740 1,051,691 969,423City of Galt 803,235 657,899 619,142City of Sacramento 331,851 270,420 253,973City of Rancho Cordova 42,932 34,747 32,551City of Isleton 27,211 22,299 21,154

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 49,900,000 40,700,000 38,500,000

NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE (3,619,919) 3,182,845 1,960,510

Fund balance at beginning of year 13,017,462 9,834,617 7,874,107

FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR 9,397,543$ 13,017,462$ 9,834,617$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF SACRAMENTO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND

STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE

For the Years Ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

3


NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

4

NOTE A – ORGANIZATION

In 1972, the Local Transportation Fund was created under the Transportation Development Act to provide funding for public transportation. Funds for the program are derived from 1/4 cent of the retail sales tax collected statewide by the State Board of Equalization. The money is returned to each county, through a designated regional planning and programming agency, based upon the sales tax collected in that county.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA) designated by the Director of the Department of Transportation for the Sacramento Region, which includes the Counties of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba. As a TPA, SACOG is responsible for the administration of the Local Transportation Funds for these counties.

This County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund, which is one of the funds that SACOG administers, is held at the County of Sacramento (the County) but can only be disbursed in accordance with written allocation instructions issued by SACOG in compliance with the Act. The funds are to be used to administer the Transportation Development Act and to provide transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and streets and roads funding within the County. Eligible claimants of the funds are the cities, consolidated transportation service agencies and special districts located within or operating within the County. Funds are initially apportioned on an annual basis to areas within the County based upon population. The funds are then allocated by SACOG to each claimant for a specific purpose.

NOTE B – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The financial statements of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund (Fund) of SACOG have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles.

The Reporting Entity: The financial statements are intended to present the financial position and results of operations of only those transactions attributable to the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund of SACOG. The Fund is included in the financial statements of SACOG.

Fund Accounting: The accounts of SACOG are organized on the basis of funds. A fund is an accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts established to record the financial position and results of operations of a specific governmental activity.

SACOG utilizes the special revenue fund type of the governmental fund group to account for the activities of the Fund. Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for a specific purpose.

Basis of Accounting: The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. A special revenue fund is accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus. With this measurement focus, only current assets and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheet. Operating statements of these funds present increases (i.e., revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (i.e., expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets.

The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by special revenue funds. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual, i.e., when they become both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined and "available" means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period, which is generally six months.


NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

5

NOTE B – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

Sales taxes are recognized as revenue when the appropriation becomes effective, which is in the same fiscal year as the sales taxes are collected by the State of California. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, which is when the amounts are apportioned to jurisdictions.

When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is SACOG’s policy to use restricted resources first, and then unrestricted resources as they are needed.

Fund Balance: Apportionment is the division of available funds by population to jurisdictions within each county as required by the Transportation Development Act. Once funds are apportioned to a given jurisdiction, they are available only for allocation and payment to claimants for that jurisdiction upon the submission of a claim by a claimant for that jurisdiction and the approval of the claim by SACOG. Fund balance represents resources received that have not been apportioned to a jurisdiction that are restricted to future claims for public transportation projects under the Transportation Development Act.

NOTE C – CASH AND INVESTMENTS

Investment policy: SACOG’s investment policy may be found in the notes to SACOG’s basic financial statements.

Investment in the County of Sacramento Investment Pool: The Fund’s cash is held in the County of Sacramento Treasury. The County maintains an investment pool and allocates interest to the various funds based upon the average daily cash balances. Investments held in the County’s investment pool are available on demand to SACOG and are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.

Interest rate risk: Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. As of June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010 the weighted average maturity of the investments contained in the County of Sacramento investment pool was approximately 259, 190, and 170 days, respectively.

Credit Risk: Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. The County of Sacramento investment pool does not have a rating provided by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Custodial credit risk: Custodial risk is the risk that the government will not be able to recover its deposits or the value of its investments that are in the possession of an outside party. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local government’s indirect deposits or investment in securities through the use of government investment pools (such as the County of Sacramento investment pool).



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

6

NOTE D – DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS

Due to other governments consisted of the following at June 30:

2012 2011 2010

Sacramento Regional Transit District 3,968,745$ County of Sacramento 1,938,835 723,095$ 1,509,192$ City of Elk Grove 907,965 3,612,944 City of Galt 803,235 City of Rancho Cordova 350,303 307,371 272,624 City of Citrus Heights 345,008 City of Folsom 279,769 368,574 City of Sacramento 39,250 270,420 568,281 City of Isleton 1,943 98,671 76,372

8,635,053$ 1,768,131$ 6,039,413$

NOTE E – SUPPLEMENTARY EXPENDITURE INFORMATION

California Code of Regulations Article 5, Subchapter 2, Section 6661 related to the Transportation Development Act requires supplementary information for the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund regarding expenditures made by the Fund. The net amount allocated and expended for each of the allocation purposes specified in Public Utilities Code (PUC) Chapter 4 of the Act were as follows for the years ended June 30:

SAC

RA

MEN

TO A

REA

CO

UN

CIL

OF

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

C

OU

NTY

OF

SAC

RA

MEN

TO L

OC

AL

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

FU

ND

NO

TES

TO F

INA

NC

IAL

STA

TEM

ENTS

June

30,

201

2, 2

011

and

2010

7

NO

TE E

– S

UPP

LEM

ENTA

RY

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N (C

ontin

ued)

PUC

Se

ctio

nPu

rpos

eA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed/

Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed/

Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed/

Unc

laim

ed

9923

3.1

Adm

inis

tratio

n:SA

CO

G55

7,16

8$

557,

168

$

40

3,98

3$

403,

983

$

38

2,13

7$

38

2,13

7$

C

ount

y of

Sac

ram

ento

17,0

00

17

,000

17,0

00

17

,000

17,0

00

17

,000

574,

168

57

4,16

8

42

0,98

3

420,

983

39

9,13

7

399,

137

99

234

Pede

stria

n an

d bi

cycl

e fa

cilit

ies:

City

of S

acra

men

to33

1,85

1

292,

601

39

,250

$

27

0,42

0

270,

420

$

25

3,97

3

253,

973

C

ity o

f Elk

Gro

ve86

,594

86,5

94

79

,496

79,4

96

74

,494

74,4

94$

City

of C

itrus

Hei

ghts

53,0

30

53

,030

49,2

19

49

,219

46,6

16

46

,616

City

of F

olso

m43

,002

43,0

02

39

,919

39,9

19

40

,353

40,3

53

C

ity o

f Isl

eton

561

56

1

460

46

0

436

436

C

ount

y of

Sac

ram

ento

317,

755

31

7,75

5

300,

829

30

0,82

9

City

of R

anch

o C

ordo

va34

,747

34,7

47

32,5

51

32

,551

C

ity o

f Gal

t13

,565

13,5

65

12

,766

12,7

66

51

5,03

8

475,

788

39

,250

80

5,58

1

499,

954

30

5,62

7

762,

018

35

3,70

8

408,

310

99

260(

a)Pu

blic

tran

spor

tatio

n:Sa

cram

ento

Reg

iona

l Tra

nsit

Dis

trict

33,5

54,7

46

29,5

86,0

01

3,96

8,74

5

27

,382

,646

27

,382

,646

25

,842

,243

25,8

42,2

43

C

ity o

f Elk

Gro

ve3,

768,

606

3,76

8,60

6

3,

731,

219

3,73

1,21

9

3,

538,

450

3,53

8,45

0

C

ity o

f Fol

som

1,32

5,96

7

1,

325,

967

1,17

7,96

4

80

9,39

0

368,

574

1,

143,

645

1,14

3,64

5

38

,649

,319

34

,680

,574

3,

968,

745

32,2

91,8

29

31,9

23,2

55

368,

574

30

,524

,338

26,9

85,8

88

3,

538,

450

9926

2Pu

blic

tran

spor

tatio

n sy

stem

pla

nnin

g:SA

CO

G1,

388,

718

1,38

8,71

8

1,

071,

796

1,07

1,79

6

1,

103,

302

1,10

3,30

2

9927

5C

omm

unity

tran

sit s

ervi

ces:

Para

trans

it, In

c.1,

824,

843

1,82

4,84

3

1,

489,

178

1,48

9,17

8

1,

405,

405

1,40

5,40

5

9940

0(a)

Stre

ets,

road

s, pe

dest

rian

and

bicy

cle

proj

ects

:C

ity o

f Isl

eton

26,6

50

26

,650

21,8

39

21

,839

20

,718

20,7

18

City

of F

olso

m36

0,97

4

360,

974

C

ity o

f Gal

t16

6,45

6

166,

456

12

6,37

6

126,

376

26

,650

26,6

50

549,

269

52

7,43

0

21,8

39

147,

094

12

6,37

6

20,7

18

9940

0(c)

Con

tract

ed p

ublic

tran

spor

tatio

n:C

ity o

f Citr

us H

eigh

ts2,

297,

793

2,29

7,79

3

2,

122,

507

2,12

2,50

7

2,

027,

788

2,02

7,78

8

C

ity o

f Fol

som

716,

640

71

6,64

0

357,

191

35

7,19

1

746,

445

74

6,44

5

Cou

nty

of S

acra

men

to49

5,13

6

407,

687

87

,449

46

5,79

4

465,

794

C

ity o

f Gal

t31

7,31

0

317,

310

40

0,00

0

400,

000

C

ity o

f Elk

Gro

ve44

,861

44,8

61

3,01

4,43

3

3,

014,

433

3,

337,

005

3,24

9,55

6

87

,449

3,

640,

027

3,17

4,23

3

46

5,79

4

2012

2011

2010

SAC

RA

MEN

TO A

REA

CO

UN

CIL

OF

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

C

OU

NTY

OF

SAC

RA

MEN

TO L

OC

AL

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

FU

ND

NO

TES

TO F

INA

NC

IAL

STA

TEM

ENTS

June

30,

201

2, 2

011

and

2010

8

NO

TE E

– S

UPP

LEM

ENTA

RY

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N (C

ontin

ued)

PUC

Sect

ion

Purp

ose

Allo

catio

nsD

isbu

rsem

ents

Und

isbu

rsed

/ U

ncla

imed

Allo

catio

nsD

isbu

rsem

ents

Und

isbu

rsed

/ U

ncla

imed

Allo

catio

nsD

isbu

rsem

ents

Und

isbu

rsed

/ U

ncla

imed

9940

0(d)

Adm

inis

tratio

n of

con

tract

ed p

ublic

tran

spor

tatio

n:C

ity o

f Citr

us H

eigh

ts22

1,12

5$

221,

125

$

21

5,41

6$

215,

416

$

18

6,46

3$

18

6,46

3$

C

ity o

f Gal

t16

0,56

8

160,

568

80

,000

80,0

00

C

ount

y of

Sac

ram

ento

146,

800

14

6,80

0

110,

800

11

0,80

0$

City

of F

olso

m26

,691

26,6

91

22

1,12

5

221,

125

522,

784

52

2,78

4

40

3,95

4

293,

154

11

0,80

0

9940

0(e)

Tran

sit v

ehic

le a

cqui

sitio

n:C

ount

y of

Sac

ram

ento

75,0

00

75

,000

75,0

00

75

,000

9940

2St

reet

s and

road

s pla

nnin

g:SA

CO

G91

,057

91,0

57

13

6,57

5

136,

575

39

,725

39,7

25

Unc

laim

ed -2

012

App

ortio

nmen

t:C

ount

y of

Sac

ram

ento

1,21

5,74

0

1,

215,

740

$

City

of G

alt

803,

235

80

3,23

5

City

of E

lk G

rove

907,

965

90

7,96

5

City

of C

itrus

Hei

ghts

345,

008

34

5,00

8

City

of F

olso

m27

9,76

9

279,

769

C

ity o

f Ran

cho

Cor

dova

42,9

32

42

,932

3,

594,

649

3,

594,

649

Tota

l app

ortio

nmen

t49

,900

,000

$

42,2

97,3

56$

7,

602,

644

40,7

00,0

00$

39

,916

,511

$

783,

489

$

38

,500

,000

$

33,8

80,9

28$

4,

619,

072

Unc

laim

ed/U

ndis

burs

ed- P

rior Y

ear A

ppor

tionm

ents

:C

ount

y of

Sac

ram

ento

723,

095

63

5,64

6

556,

769

C

ity o

f Ran

cho

Cor

dova

307,

371

27

2,62

4

240,

073

C

ity o

f Isl

eton

1,94

3

76

,372

55

,218

C

ity o

f Sac

ram

ento

568,

281

1,

032,

409

984,

642

1,

420,

341

Tota

l due

to o

ther

gov

ernm

ents

8,63

5,05

3$

1,

768,

131

$

6,03

9,41

3$

2012

2011

2010


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

9

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL

STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT


We have audited the financial statements of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012 and have issued our report thereon dated October 22, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Management of SACOG is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered SACOG’s internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over financial reporting.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above.

Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether SACOG’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. Our audit was further made to determine that Transportation Development Act funds allocated and received by SACOG were expended in conformance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act and Section 6661 of the California Code of Regulations. The results of performing these tasks disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

To the Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments

10

We noted certain matters that we reported to management of SACOG in a separate management letter for the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund dated October 22, 2012.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Directors, and the State Controller’s Office and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

October 22, 2012

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COUNTY OF SUTTER LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND


June 30, 2012



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010


Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................................. 1 Balance Sheets .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance..................................................................... 3 Notes to Financial Statements .................................................................................................................................. 4

Compliance Report



Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

1



We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of and for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010 as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.


As discussed in Note B, the financial statements present only the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, and the results of its operations for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated October 22, 2012 on our consideration of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ internal control over financial reporting related to the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters and the Transportation Development Act. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.

October 22, 2012

2012 2011 2010ASSETS

Cash and investments 1,088,597$ 34,254$ 2,806,599$ Due from other governments 574,000 539,400 479,900Interest receivable 6,501

TOTAL ASSETS 1,669,098$ 573,654$ 3,286,499$

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCELIABILITIES

Due to other governments 1,000,489$ 409,280$ TOTAL LIABILITIES 1,000,489 409,280

FUND BALANCE Restricted for public transportation projects 668,609 573,654$ 2,877,219

TOTAL FUND BALANCE 668,609 573,654 2,877,219

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 1,669,098$ 573,654$ 3,286,499$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF SUTTER LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND

BALANCE SHEETS

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

2

2012 2011 2010REVENUES:


TOTAL REVENUES 3,423,678 3,150,435 3,110,217

EXPENDITURES:Current:

Allocations:City of Yuba City 1,345,087 2,787,330 175,839 Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority 844,823 753,802 1,376,948 County of Sutter 715,189 1,232,138 411,780City of Live Oak 287,800 464,676 191,752 Sacramento Area Council of Governments 135,824 216,054 88,882


EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUESOVER EXPENDITURES 94,955 (2,303,565) 865,016

Fund balance at beginning of year 573,654 2,877,219 2,012,203

FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR 668,609$ 573,654$ 2,877,219$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF SUTTER LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND



3



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

4


In 1972, the Local Transportation Fund was created under the Transportation Development Act to provide funding for public transportation. Funds for the program are derived from 1/4 cent of the retail sales tax collected statewide by the Board of Equalization. The money is returned to each county, through a designated regional planning and programming agency, based upon the sales tax collected in that county.


This County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund, which is one of the funds that SACOG administers, is held at the County of Sutter (the County) but can only be disbursed in accordance with written allocation instructions issued by SACOG in compliance with the Act. The funds are to be used to administer the Transportation Development Act and to provide transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and streets and roads funding within the County. Eligible claimants of the funds are the cities, consolidated transportation service agencies and special districts located within or operating within the County. Funds are initially apportioned on an annual basis to areas within the County based upon population. The funds are then allocated by SACOG to each claimant for a specific purpose.


The financial statements of the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund (Fund) of SACOG have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles.

The Reporting Entity: The financial statements are intended to present the financial position and results of operations of only those transactions attributable to the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund of SACOG. The Fund is included in the financial statements of SACOG.




The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by special revenue funds. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual, i.e., when they become both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined and “available” means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period, which is generally six months.



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

5




Fund Balance: Apportionment is the division of available funds by population to jurisdictions within each county as required by the Transportation Development Act. Once funds are apportioned to a given jurisdiction, they are available only for allocation and payment to claimants for that jurisdiction upon the submission of a claim by a claimant for that jurisdiction and the approval of the claim by SACOG. Fund Balance represents resources received that have not been apportioned to a jurisdiction that are restricted to future claims for public transportation projects under the Transportation Development Act.



Investment in the County of Sutter Investment Pool: The Fund’s cash is held in the County of Sutter Treasury. The County maintains an investment pool and allocates interest to the various funds based upon the average daily cash balances. Investments held in the County’s investment pool are available on demand to SACOG and are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.

Interest rate risk: Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. As of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, the weighted average maturity of the investments contained in the County of Sutter investment pool was approximately 1,106, 1,074, and 1,079 days, respectively.

Credit Risk: Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. The County of Sutter investment pool does not have a rating provided by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Custodial credit risk: Custodial risk is the risk that the government will not be able to recover its deposits on the value of its investments that are in the possession of an outside party. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local government’s indirect deposits or investment in securities through the use of government investment pools (such as the County of Sutter investment pool).



2012 2011 2010

County of Sutter 712,689$ 409,280$ City of Live Oak 287,800

1,000,489$ -$ 409,280$

SAC

RA

MEN

TO A

REA

CO

UN

CIL

OF

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

C

OU

NTY

OF

SUTT

ER L

OC

AL

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

FU

ND

NO

TES

TO F

INA

NC

IAL

STA

TEM

ENTS

June

30,

201

2, 2

011

and

2010

6

NO

TE E

– S

UPP

LEM

ENTA

RY

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

Cal

iforn

ia C

ode

of R

egul

atio

ns A

rticl

e 5,

Sub

chap

ter 2

, Sec

tion

6661

rela

ted

to th

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Dev

elop

men

t Act

requ

ires s

uppl

emen

tary

info

rmat

ion

for t

he C

ount

y of

Su

tter L

ocal

Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Fu

nd re

gard

ing

expe

nditu

res m

ade

by th

e Fu

nd.

The

net a

mou

nt a

lloca

ted

and

expe

nded

for e

ach

of th

e al

loca

tion

purp

oses

spec

ified

in P

ublic

U

tiliti

es C

ode

(PU

C) C

hapt

er 4

of t

he A

ct w

ere

as fo

llow

s for

the

year

s end

ed Ju

ne 3

0:

PUC

Se

ctio

nPu

rpos

eA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndisb

urse

d /U

ncla

imed

9923

3.1

Adm

inis

tratio

n:

SAC

OG

37,1

52$

37

,152

$

54

,133

$

54,1

33$

22,2

70$

22

,270

$

Cou

nty

of S

utte

r2,

500

2,50

0

2,50

0

2,

500

2,

500

2,50

0

39,6

52

39,6

52

56

,633

56

,633

24,7

70

24,7

70

99

260(

a)Pu

blic

tran

spor

tatio

n:Y

uba-

Sutte

r Tra

nsit

Aut

horit

y84

4,82

3

844,

823

753,

802

75

3,80

2

1,

376,

948

1,37

6,94

8

99

262

Publ

ic tr

ansp

orta

tion

syst

em

plan

ning

:

SAC

OG

24,3

35

24,3

35

9940

0(a)

Stre

ets,

road

s, pe

dest

rian

and

bicy

cle

proj

ects

:

City

of Y

uba

City

1,

345,

087

1,34

5,08

7

2,78

7,33

0

2,

787,

330

17

5,83

9

175,

839

C

ount

y of

Sut

ter

712,

689

71

2,68

9$

1,

229,

638

1,22

9,63

8

409,

280

40

9,28

0$

City

of L

ive

Oak

287,

800

28

7,80

0

464,

676

46

4,67

6

19

1,75

2

191,

752

2,34

5,57

6

1,

345,

087

1,

000,

489

4,48

1,64

4

4,

481,

644

77

6,87

1

367,

591

409,

280

99

402

Stre

ets a

nd ro

ads p

lann

ing:

SA

CO

G98

,672

98

,672

161,

921

16

1,92

1

42

,277

42

,277

Tota

l app

ortio

nmen

t3,

328,

723

$

2,32

8,23

4$

1,00

0,48

9$

5,

454,

000

$

5,45

4,00

0$

-$

2,

245,

201

$

1,83

5,92

1$

409,

280

$

2012

2011

2010


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

7




We have audited the financial statements of the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012 and have issued our report thereon dated October 22, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.








8

We noted certain matters that we reported to management of SACOG in a separate management letter for the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund dated October 22, 2012.


October 22, 2012

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COUNTY OF YOLO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND


June 30, 2012



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010


Independent Auditor's Report .................................................................................................................................... 1 Balance Sheets ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance...................................................................... 3 Notes to Financial Statements ................................................................................................................................... 4

Compliance Report

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act ............................................................................................ 8

Schedule of Findings and Responses……………………………................... ........................................................ 10


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

1

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT


We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of and for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments' management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.


As discussed in Note B, the financial statements present only the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, and the results of its operations for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated October 22, 2012 on our consideration of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ internal control over financial reporting related to the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters and the Transportation Development Act. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.

October 22, 2012

2012 2011 2010ASSETS

Cash and investments 1,915,571$ 4,238,790$ 2,587,391$ Due from other governments 1,361,500 1,325,100 1,156,465

TOTAL ASSETS 3,277,071$ 5,563,890$ 3,743,856$


LIABILITIESDue to other governments 1,085,158$ 3,409,157$ 2,856,720$

TOTAL LIABILITIES 1,085,158 3,409,157 2,856,720 FUND BALANCE

Restricted for public transportation projects 2,191,913 2,154,733 887,136 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 2,191,913 2,154,733 887,136



SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF YOLO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND

BALANCE SHEETS

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

2

2012 2011 2010REVENUES


TOTAL REVENUES 8,259,189 7,777,647 7,029,381


Allocations:City of Davis 2,585,123 2,054,718 2,382,229City of Woodland 2,224,939 1,755,475 2,022,478City of West Sacramento 1,880,520 1,487,468 1,703,445County of Yolo 920,039 735,302 847,355Sacramento Area Council of Governments 335,536 257,809 297,365City of Winters 275,852 219,278 255,268


EXCESS (DEFICIENCY) OF REVENUESOVER EXPENDITURES 37,180 1,267,597 (478,759)

Fund balance at beginning of year 2,154,733 887,136 1,365,895

FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR 2,191,913$ 2,154,733$ 887,136$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF YOLO LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND



3



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

4


In 1972, the Local Transportation Fund was created under the Transportation Development Act to provide funding for public transportation. Funds for the program are derived from 1/4 cents of the retail sales tax collected statewide by the State Board of Equalization. The money is returned to each county, through a designated regional planning and programming agency, based upon the sales tax collected in that county.


This County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund, which is one of the funds that SACOG administers, is held at the County of Yolo (the County) but can only be disbursed in accordance with written allocation instructions issued by SACOG in compliance with the Act. The funds are to be used to administer the Transportation Development Act and to provide transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and streets and roads funding within the County. Eligible claimants of the funds are the cities, consolidated transportation service agencies and special districts located within or operating within the County. Funds are initially apportioned on an annual basis to areas within the County based upon population. The funds are then allocated by SACOG to each claimant for a specific purpose.


The financial statements of the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund (Fund) of the SACOG have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles.

The Reporting Entity: The financial statements are intended to present the financial position and results of operations of only those transactions attributable to the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund of SACOG. The Fund is included in the financial statements of SACOG.




The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by special revenue funds. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual, i.e., when they become both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined and “available” means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period, which is generally six months.




June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

5





Investment policy: The County of Yolo’s investment policy may be found in the notes to SACOG’s basic financial statements.

Investment in the County of Yolo Investment Pool: The Fund’s cash is held in the County of Yolo Treasury. The County maintains an investment pool and allocates interest to the various funds based upon the average daily cash balances. Investments held in the County's investment pool are available on demand to SACOG and are stated at fair value.

Interest rate risk: Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. As of June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010, the weighted average maturity of the investments contained in the County of Yolo investment pool was approximately 398, 390, and 296 days, respectively.

Credit Risk: Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. The County of Yolo investment pool does not have a rating provided by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Custodial credit risk: Custodial risk is the risk that the government will not be able to recover its deposits or the value of its investments that are in the possession of an outside party. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local government’s indirect deposits or investment in securities through the use of government investment pools (such as the County of Yolo investment pool).



2012 2011 2010

City of Davis 2,054,718$ 2,382,229$ City of West Sacramento 1,085,158$ 679,795 202,387 City of Woodland 455,366 241,519 City of Winters 219,278 30,585

1,085,158$ 3,409,157$ 2,856,720$

SAC

RA

MEN

TO A

REA

CO

UN

CIL

OF

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

C

OU

NTY

OF

YO

LO L

OC

AL

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

FU

ND

NO

TES

TO F

INA

NC

IAL

STA

TEM

ENTS

(Con

tinue

d)

June

30,

201

2, 2

011

and

2010

6

NO

TE E

– S

UPP

LEM

ENTA

RY

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

Cal

iforn

ia C

ode

of R

egul

atio

ns A

rticl

e 5,

Sub

chap

ter 2

, Sec

tion

6661

rela

ted

to th

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Dev

elop

men

t Act

requ

ires

supp

lem

enta

ry in

form

atio

n fo

r the

Cou

nty

of Y

olo

Loca

l Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Fu

nd re

gard

ing

expe

nditu

res m

ade

by th

e Fu

nd.

The

net a

mou

nt a

lloca

ted

and

expe

nded

for e

ach

of th

e al

loca

tion

purp

oses

spec

ified

in P

ublic

Util

ities

Cod

e (P

UC

) Cha

pter

4 o

f the

Act

wer

e as

follo

ws f

or th

e ye

ars e

nded

June

30:

PUC

Se

ctio

nPu

rpos

eA

lloca

tions

Disb

urse

men

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Disb

urse

men

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

ed

9923

3.1

Adm

inis

tratio

n: S

AC

OG

91,7

80$

91

,780

$

64

,595

$

64,5

95$

74,5

06$

74

,506

$

C

ount

y of

Yol

o5,

000

5,00

0

5,00

0

5,

000

5,

000

5,00

0

96,7

80

96,7

80

69,5

95

69,5

95

79,5

06

79,5

06

9926

0(a)

Publ

ic tr

ansp

orta

tion:

City

of D

avis

466,

494

466,

494

42

8,26

1

428,

261

$

460,

480

460,

480

$

City

of W

oodl

and

10,8

16

10,8

16

47

7,31

0

47

7,31

0

42

8,26

1

428,

261

46

0,48

0

46

0,48

0

9926

2Pu

blic

tran

spor

tatio

n sy

stem

pla

nnin

g: S

AC

OG

79,9

52

79,9

52

10

9,55

2

109,

552

52

,684

52

,684

9940

0(a)

Stre

ets,

road

s, pe

dest

rian

and

bicy

cle

proj

ects

: C

ity o

f Woo

dlan

d1,

064,

032

1,

064,

032

741,

051

74

1,05

1

465,

122

465,

122

C

ount

y of

Yol

o63

9,48

4

63

9,48

4

449,

353

44

9,35

3

567,

357

567,

357

C

ity o

f Dav

is62

2,80

3

62

2,80

3

136,

915

13

6,91

5

99,6

39

99,6

39

C

ity o

f Win

ters

157,

781

157,

781

13

5,94

5

135,

945

13

4,55

9

10

3,97

4

30,5

85

2,

484,

100

2,

484,

100

1,

463,

264

1,19

0,40

4

27

2,86

0

1,26

6,67

7

1,13

6,45

3

13

0,22

4

9940

0(c)

Con

tract

ed p

ubic

tran

spor

tatio

n: C

ity o

f Dav

is1,

472,

981

1,

472,

981

1,46

6,62

4

1,

466,

624

1,80

2,96

0

1,80

2,96

0

C

ity o

f Woo

dlan

d1,

138,

251

1,

138,

251

992,

110

53

6,74

4

455,

366

1,

515,

121

1,

273,

602

241,

519

C

ity o

f Wes

t Sac

ram

ento

795,

362

795,

362

1,

487,

468

807,

673

67

9,79

5

1,70

3,44

5

1,50

1,05

8

20

2,38

7

Cou

nty

of Y

olo

275,

555

275,

555

28

0,94

9

28

0,94

9

274,

998

274,

998

C

ity o

f Win

ters

118,

071

118,

071

53

,284

53

,284

120,

709

120,

709

3,

800,

220

3,

800,

220

4,

280,

435

1,62

5,36

6

2,

655,

069

5,41

7,23

3

3,17

0,36

7

2,

246,

866

2012

2011

2010

SAC

RA

MEN

TO A

REA

CO

UN

CIL

OF

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

C

OU

NTY

OF

YO

LO L

OC

AL

TRA

NSP

OR

TATI

ON

FU

ND

NO

TES

TO F

INA

NC

IAL

STA

TEM

ENTS

(Con

tinue

d)

June

30,

201

2, 2

011

and

2010

7

NO

TE E

– S

UPP

LEM

ENTA

RY

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N (C

ontin

ued)

PUC

Se

ctio

nPu

rpos

eA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ndis

burs

ed

/Unc

laim

ed

9940

0(d)

Adm

inis

tratio

n of

con

tract

ed p

ublic

tran

spor

tatio

n: C

ity o

f Win

ters

30,0

49$

30

,049

$

City

of W

oodl

and

11,8

40$

11,8

40$

22

,314

22

,314

$

22,3

14$

22

,314

$

C

ity o

f Dav

is22

,845

22

,845

22,9

18

22,9

18

19

,150

19

,150

$

34,6

85

34,6

85

75,2

81

22,3

14

52

,967

41,4

64

22,3

14

19

,150

9940

0(e)

Con

tract

ed p

ublic

tran

spor

tatio

n ca

pita

l:C

ity o

f Woo

dlan

d

19,9

21

19,9

21

9940

2St

reet

s and

road

s pla

nnin

g:SA

CO

G16

3,80

4

16

3,80

4

83,6

62

83,6

62

17

0,17

5

17

0,17

5

Unc

laim

ed -

appo

rtion

men

tC

ity o

f Wes

t Sac

ram

ento

1,08

5,15

8

1,08

5,15

8$

Tota

l app

ortio

nmen

t8,

222,

009

$

7,13

6,85

1$

1,08

5,15

8$

6,51

0,05

0$

3,

100,

893

$

3,

409,

157

$

7,

508,

140

$

4,65

1,42

0$

2,85

6,72

0$

2012

2011

2010


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

8




We have audited the financial statements of the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012 and have issued our report thereon dated October 22, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.




Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we identified a deficiency in internal control over financial reporting, described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as finding 2011/12-1, that we consider to be a significant deficiency in internal control over financial reporting,. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.


As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether SACOG’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. Our audit was further made to determine that Transportation Development Act funds allocated and received by SACOG were expended in conformance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act and Section 6661 of the California Code of Regulations. The results of performing these tasks disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the


9

Transportation Development Act. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

We noted certain matters that we reported to management of SACOG in a separate management letter for the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund dated October 22, 2012.

SACOG’s response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. We did not audit SACOG’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.


October 22, 2012

10


SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND RESPONSES

June 30, 2012


Criteria: Internal controls over financial reporting should be in place to ensure management has the ability to initiate, record, process and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements.

CURRENT YEAR FINDINGS

Finding 2011/12-1

Condition: SACOG did not receive and review the County of Yolo LTF quarterly financial statements to monitor the status of the Yolo County LTF.

Effect: SACOG did not monitor the Fund’s activity to ensure it was in compliance with the TDA and to ensure financial activity was properly reported.

Cause: The County of Yolo Auditor-Controller’s Office did not provide quarterly financial statements to SACOG, as required by Section 6622 of the California Code of Regulations.

Recommendation: We recommend SACOG obtain and review quarterly financial statements to properly monitor the status of the Fund in accordance with the TDA.

Management Response: We will obtain and review quarterly financial statements in the future.

STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS

None

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS COUNTY OF YUBA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND


June 30, 2012



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010


Independent Auditor’s Report .................................................................................................................................. 1 Balance Sheets .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance..................................................................... 3 Notes to Financial Statements .................................................................................................................................. 4

Compliance Report

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act ............................................................................................ 7

Schedule of Findings and Responses ......................................................................................................................... 9


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

1


To Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of and for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010 as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.


As discussed in Note B, the financial statements present only the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to in the first paragraph present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, and the results of its operations for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated October 22, 2012 on our consideration of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ internal control over financial reporting related to the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters and the Transportation Development Act. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.

October 22, 2012

2012 2011 2010ASSETS

Cash and investments 474,237$ 184,817$ 135,630$ Due from other governments

Sales and use taxes receivable 207,900 195,300 170,800Overpayments receivable from claimants 9,159 9,159 51,045

Interest receivable 1,742 412 217

TOTAL ASSETS 693,038$ 389,688$ 357,692$

LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCELIABILITIES

Due to other governments 151,966$ TOTAL LIABILITIES 151,966

FUND BALANCERestricted for public transportation projects 693,038$ 389,688$ 205,726

TOTAL FUND BALANCE 693,038 389,688 205,726

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE 693,038$ 389,688$ 357,692$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF YUBA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND

BALANCE SHEETS

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

2

2012 2011 2010REVENUES


TOTAL REVENUES 1,253,350 1,152,556 1,026,714


Allocations:Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority 514,877 510,898 819,295 County of Yuba 352,238 374,072 254,136 City of Wheatland 44,122 45,266 55,032 Sacramento Area Council of Governments 38,763 38,358 46,537

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 950,000 968,594 1,175,000

NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 303,350 183,962 (148,286)

Fund balance at beginning of year 389,688 205,726 354,012

FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR 693,038$ 389,688$ 205,726$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSCOUNTY OF YUBA LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUND



3



June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

4


In 1972, the Local Transportation Fund was created under the Transportation Development Act to provide funding for public transportation. Funds for the program are derived from 1/4 cent of the retail sales tax collected statewide by the State Board of Equalization. The money is returned to each county, through a designated regional planning and programming agency, based upon the sales tax collected in that county.


This County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund, which is one of the funds that SACOG administers, is held at the County of Yuba (the County) but can only be disbursed in accordance with written allocation instructions issued by SACOG in compliance with the Act. The funds are to be used to administer the Transportation Development Act and to provide transit services, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and streets and roads funding within the County. Eligible claimants of the funds are the cities, consolidated transportation service agencies and special districts located within or operating within the County. Funds are initially apportioned on an annual basis to areas within the County based upon population. The funds are then allocated by SACOG to each claimant for a specific purpose.


The financial statements of the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund (Fund) of SACOG have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles.

The Reporting Entity: The financial statements are intended to present the financial position and results of operations of only those transactions attributable to the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund of SACOG. The Fund is included in the financial statements of SACOG.




The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by special revenue funds. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual, i.e., when they become both measurable and available. "Measurable" means the amount of the transaction can be determined and "available" means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period, which is generally six months.




June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

5



Overpayments Receivable from Claimants: The Fund is due $9,159 at June 30, 2012 and 2011 from the City of Marysville, which is the net difference between $20,600 paid to the City in 2008 prior to the apportionment being reduced and $11,441 that remains unpaid at from the 2009 apportionment. The June 30, 2010 receivable also included $33,958 and $7,298 paid to Yuba-Sutter Transit and SACOG, respectively, in 2010 prior to the apportionment being reduced that were subsequently collected by the Fund.




Investment in the County of Yuba Investment Pool: The Fund’s cash is held in the County of Yuba Treasury. The County maintains an investment pool and allocates interest to the various funds based upon the average daily cash balances. Investments held in the County’s investment pool are available on demand to SACOG and are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.

Interest rate risk: Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. As of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, the weighted average maturity of investments contained in the County of Yuba investment pool was approximately 395, 392, and 303 days, respectively.

Credit Risk: Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. The County of Yuba investment pool does not have a rating provided by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Custodial credit risk: Custodial risk is the risk that the government will not be able to recover its deposits on the value of its investments that are in the possession of an outside party. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local government’s indirect deposits or investment in securities through the use of government investment pools (such as the County of Yuba investment pool).



2012 2011 2010

Yuba County 82,167$ City of Wheatland 69,799

-$ -$ 151,966$

SAC

RA

MEN

TO A

REA

CO

UN

CIL

OF

GO

VER

NM

ENTS

C

OU

NTY

OF

YU

BA

LO

CA

L TR

AN

SPO

RTA

TIO

N F

UN

D

N

OTE

S TO

FIN

AN

CIA

L ST

ATE

MEN

TS

June

30,

201

2, 2

011

and

2010

6

NO

TE E

– S

UPP

LEM

ENTA

RY

EX

PEN

DIT

UR

E IN

FOR

MA

TIO

N

Cal

iforn

ia C

ode

of R

egul

atio

ns A

rticl

e 5,

Sub

chap

ter 2

, Sec

tion

6661

rela

ted

to th

e Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Dev

elop

men

t Act

requ

ires

supp

lem

enta

ry in

form

atio

n fo

r the

Cou

nty

of Y

uba

Loca

l Tra

nspo

rtatio

n Fu

nd re

gard

ing

expe

nditu

res m

ade

by th

e Fu

nd.

The

net a

mou

nt a

lloca

ted

and

expe

nded

for e

ach

of th

e al

loca

tion

purp

oses

spec

ified

in P

ublic

Util

ities

Cod

e (P

UC

) Cha

pter

4 o

f the

Act

wer

e as

follo

ws f

or th

e ye

ars e

nded

June

30:

PUC

Sect

ion

Purp

ose

Allo

catio

nsD

isbu

rsem

ents

Unc

laim

edA

lloca

tions

Dis

burs

emen

tsU

ncla

imed

Allo

catio

nsD

isbu

rsem

ents

Unc

laim

ed

9923

3.1

Adm

inis

tratio

n:SA

CO

G10

,603

$

10

,603

$

9,

611

$

9,61

1$

11

,660

$

11,6

60$

Cou

nty

of Y

uba

750

750

750

750

750

75

0

11

,353

11

,353

10,3

61

10,3

61

12

,410

12

,410

9926

0(a)

Publ

ic tr

ansp

orta

tion:

Yub

a-Su

tter T

rans

it A

utho

rity

514,

877

514,

877

510,

898

510,

898

819,

295

81

9,29

5

9940

0(a)

Stre

ets,

road

s, p

edes

trian

and

bicy

cle

proj

ects

:C

ount

y of

Yub

a35

1,48

8

35

1,48

8

37

3,32

2

37

3,32

2

25

3,38

6

253,

386

City

of W

heat

land

44,1

22

44,1

22

45

,266

45

,266

55,0

32

55,0

32$

395,

610

395,

610

418,

588

418,

588

308,

418

25

3,38

6

55

,032

9940

2St

reet

s an

d ro

ads

plan

ning

:SA

CO

G28

,160

28

,160

28,7

47

28,7

47

34

,877

34

,877

Tota

l app

ortio

nmen

t95

0,00

0$

950,

000

$

-$

968,

594

$

968,

594

$

-$

1,17

5,00

0$

1,

119,

968

$

55

,032

Unc

laim

ed/U

ndis

burs

ed- P

rior Y

ear A

ppor

tionm

ents

Cou

nty

of Y

uba

82,1

67

City

of W

heat

land

14,7

67

96

,934

Tota

l due

to o

ther

gov

ernm

ents

151,

966

$

2012

2011

2010


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

7




We have audited the financial statements of the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012, and have issued our report thereon dated October 22, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.



Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses and therefore, there can be no assurance that all deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses have been identified. However, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses, we identified a deficiency in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be a material weakness.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses as finding 2010/11-1 to be a material weakness.


As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether SACOG’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. Our audit was further made to determine that Transportation Development Act funds allocated and received by SACOG were expended in conformance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act and Section 6661 of the California Code of Regulations. The results of performing these tasks disclosed no material instances of noncompliance with the applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the Transportation Development Act. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not


8

an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

We noted certain matters that we reported to management of SACOG in a separate management letter for the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund dated October 22, 2012.

SACOG’s response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and responses. We did not audit SACOG’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Directors, and the State Controller’s Office and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

October 22, 2012


SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND RESPONSES

June 30, 2012

9


Criteria: Internal controls over financial reporting should be in place to ensure management has the ability to initiate, record, process and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements.

CURRENT YEAR FINDINGS

None

STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS

Finding 2010/11-1

Condition: The Local Transportation Fund’s (the Fund) general ledger was maintained on the cash basis.

Effect: Significant audit adjustments were required to report the Fund’s financial statements on the modified accrual basis and to record an overpayment to the City of Marysville.

Cause: The two receipts required to be recognized to adjust revenue to the modified accrual basis were not accrued, and an overpayment receivable from the City of Marysville in 2008 based on an apportionment that was subsequently reduced was not recorded.

Recommendation: We recommend SACOG adjust the Fund’s financial statements to the modified accrual basis by preparing a payable roll-forward at year-end to ensure all receivables and payables to and from the Fund have been accrued and follow-up on and collect any overpayments receivable from claimants in a timely manner. If SACOG intends to allow the City of Marysville to keep the overpayment from 2008, SACOG should issue revised allocation instructions to the County of Yuba and the City of Marysville, otherwise SACOG should require the overpayment to be returned or removed from future allocations.

Management Response: Management concurs with the recommendation and will change its processes and reporting accordingly.

Current Status: The recommendation has not been implemented.

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND


June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Attachment E


Audited financial Statements and Compliance Report

June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010


Independent Auditor's Report ................................................................................................................................... 1 Balance Sheets .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance..................................................................... 3 Notes to Financial Statements .................................................................................................................................. 4

Compliance Report



Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

1

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT


We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of and for the years ended June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010 as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.


As discussed in Note B, the financial statements present only the State Transit Assistance Fund and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, and the results of its operations for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued reports dated October 22, 2012 on our consideration of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ internal control over financial reporting related to the State Transit Assistance Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters and the Transportation Development Act. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit.

October 22, 2012

2012 2011 2010ASSETS

Cash and investments 1,447,976$ 1,002,454$ 10,562,018$ Due from other governments 3,600,686 Interest receivable 2,003 629 5,550

TOTAL ASSETS 5,050,665$ 1,003,083$ 10,567,568$


LIABILITIESDue to other governments 4,795,224$ 889,665$ 10,476,710$

TOTAL LIABILITIES 4,795,224 889,665 10,476,710

FUND BALANCERestricted for public transit 255,441 113,418 90,858

TOTAL FUND BALANCE 255,441 113,418 90,858



SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSSTATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND

BALANCE SHEETS

June 30, 2012, 2011 and 2010

2

2012 2011 2010REVENUES

Sales and use taxes 14,182,888$ 14,706,510$ Investment earnings 4,973 22,560$ 15,822

TOTAL REVENUES 14,187,861 22,560 14,722,332


Allocations:Sacramento Regional Transit District 9,596,963 10,455,979Yuba Sutter Transit Authority 956,263 893,727City of Elk Grove 944,845 841,017City of Davis 489,369 493,181City of Citrus Heights 459,163 457,328City of Folsom 422,991 384,890City of Woodland 298,525 294,556City of West Sacramento 252,346 249,552Yolo County Transportation District 201,715 143,020County of Sacramento 133,122 140,241City of Galt 126,439 126,040County of Yolo 122,827 122,582City of Live Oak 44,764City of Winters 36,987 36,831City of Wheatland 18,530City of Isleton 4,283 4,272

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 14,045,838 14,706,510

NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE 142,023 22,560 15,822

Fund balance at beginning of year 113,418 90,858 75,036

FUND BALANCE AT END OF YEAR 255,441$ 113,418$ 90,858$


SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTSSTATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUND



3



June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010

4


In 1979, the State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund was created under the Transportation Development Act to provide funding for transportation planning, public transportation, and community transit purposes as specified by the Legislature. Funds for the program are provided by the State from the statewide sales tax on motor vehicle fuel (gasoline) and use fuel (diesel). The money is appropriated to the State Controller's Office and is then allocated by formula to each designated regional planning and programming agency. The formula allocates 50% of the funds based upon population of the region compared to the population of the State, and the remaining 50% is based upon transit operator revenues for the prior fiscal year compared with statewide transit operator revenues.

The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the Transportation Planning Agency (TPA) designated by the Director of the Department of Transportation for the Sacramento Region, which includes the Counties of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba. The STA allocations for the Sacramento Region are deposited in this STA Fund. As a TPA, SACOG is responsible for the allocation of the STA Fund monies to the transit operators and claimants within its region.

This STA Fund, which is one of the funds that SACOG administers, is held at the County of Sacramento for SACOG. The funds are to be used to provide transit operator or transit contract services within the four counties. Eligible claimants of the funds are the cities, counties, transit districts, consolidated transportation service agencies, and operators located or operating within the four counties.


The financial statements of the STA Fund of SACOG have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles.

The Reporting Entity: The financial statements are intended to present the financial position and results of operations of only those transactions attributable to the STA Fund of SACOG. The STA Fund is included in the financial statements of SACOG.




The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by special revenue funds. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual, i.e., when they become both measurable and available. "Measurable" means the amount of the transaction can be determined and "available" means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period, which is generally six months. Sales taxes are recognized as revenue when the appropriation becomes effective, which is in the same fiscal year as the sales taxes are collected by the State of California. Expenditures are recorded when the related fund liability is incurred, which is when the amounts are allocated to jurisdictions.



June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010

5



Fund Balance: Fund balance represents resources that have not yet been approved for allocation to the jurisdictions by the SACOG Board of Directors that are restricted to claims for future public transit under the Transportation Development Act.



Investment in the County of Sacramento Investment Pool: The STA Fund’s cash is held in the County of Sacramento Treasury. The County maintains an investment pool and allocates interest to the various funds based upon the average daily cash balances. Investments held in the County's investment pool are available on demand to SACOG and are stated at cost, which approximates fair value.

Interest rate risk: Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates. As of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010, the weighted average maturity of the investments contained in the County of Sacramento investment pool was approximately 259, 190, and 170 days, respectively.

Credit Risk: Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. The County of Sacramento investment pool does not have a rating provided by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization.

Custodial credit risk: Custodial risk is the risk that the government will not be able to recover its deposits or the value of its investments that are in the possession of an outside party. Custodial credit risk does not apply to a local government’s indirect deposits or investment in securities through the use of government investment pools (such as the County of Sacramento investment pool).



2012 2011 2010

Sacramento Regional Transit District 2,366,565$ 5,304,891$ County of Sacramento 559,880 426,758$ 426,758 County of Yolo 406,641 283,814 283,814 Yuba Sutter Transit Authority 321,432 130,867 938,491 City of Elk Grove 232,993 841,017 Yolo County Transportation District 201,715 143,020 City of Galt 126,439 126,040 City of Folsom 125,316 384,890 City of Davis 120,676 508,812 City of Citrus Heights 113,227 457,328 City of Woodland 73,616 388,051 City of West Sacramento 62,228 502,165



June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010

6

NOTE D – DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS (Continued)

2012 2011 2010

City of Winters 51,967$ 14,980$ 51,811$ City of Isleton 32,529 33,246 33,246 City of Wheatland 46,549 City of Live Oak 39,827

4,795,224$ 889,665$ 10,476,710$

NOTE E – SUPPLEMENTARY FUND BALANCE AND EXPENDITURE INFORMATION

California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 2.5, Article 5, Section 6751 related to the Transportation Development Act requires supplementary information for the STA Fund regarding fund balances maintained and expenditures made by the Fund. No portion of the fund balance was apportioned to operators pursuant to Section 6721 of the Code as of June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010. The amounts allocated and expended for each of the allocation purposes specified in Sections 6730 and 6731 of the Code were as follows for the years ended June 30:

PUCSection Purpose

Allocations DisbursementsUndisbursed/Unclaimed Allocations Disbursements

Undisbursed/Unclaimed

6730(a) Public transportation systemoperating costs:Sacramento Regional Transit District 5,686,411$ 3,319,846$ 2,366,565$ 8,283,697$ 2,978,806$ 5,304,891$ Yuba Sutter Transit Authority 735,273 515,332 219,941 893,727 893,727 City of Elk Grove 764,845 531,852 232,993 841,017 841,017

7,186,529 4,367,030 2,819,499 10,018,441 2,978,806 7,039,635

6730(b) Public transportation system capital requirements: Sacramento Regional Transit District 3,910,552 3,910,552 2,172,282 2,172,282 City of Elk Grove 180,000 180,000 Yuba Sutter Transit Authority 156,639 156,639 Yolo County Transportation District 143,020 143,020 County of Sacramento 140,241 140,241 City of Galt 126,040 126,040 City of Winters 36,831 36,831

4,247,191 4,247,191 2,618,414 2,172,282 446,132

2012 2010



June 30, 2012, 2011, and 2010

7

NOTE E – SUPPLEMENTARY FUND BALANCE AND EXPENDITURE INFORMATION (Continued)

PUCSection Purpose

Allocations DisbursementsUndisbursed/Unclaimed Allocations Disbursements

Undisbursed/Unclaimed

6731(b) Contracted transportation services:City of Davis 489,369$ 368,693$ 120,676$ 493,181$ 493,181$ City of Citrus Heights 459,163 345,936 113,227 457,328 457,328 City of Folsom 297,675 297,675 384,890 384,890 City of Woodland 244,406 224,909 19,497 294,556 294,556 City of West Sacramento 206,598 190,118 16,480 249,552 249,552 City of Winters 36,987 36,987 County of Yolo 122,582 122,582 City of Live Oak 44,764 44,764 City of Wheatland 18,530 18,530 City of Isleton 4,272 4,272

1,734,198 1,427,331 306,867 2,069,655 2,069,655 Unclaimed 2012 apportionment

Yolo County Transportation District 201,715 201,715 County of Sacramento 133,122 133,122 City of Galt 126,439 126,439 City of Folsom 125,316 125,316 County of Yolo 122,827 122,827

Yuba Sutter Transit Authority 64,351 64,351 City of Woodland 54,119 54,119 City of West Sacramento 45,748 45,748 City of Isleton 4,283 4,283

877,920 877,920

Total apportionment 14,045,838$ 10,041,552$ 4,004,286 14,706,510$ 5,151,088$ 9,555,422

Unclaimed prior year apportionmentsCounty of Sacramento 426,758 286,517 County of Yolo 283,814 161,232

Yuba Sutter Transit Authority 37,140 City of Isleton 28,246 28,974 City of Live Oak 39,827 City of Winters 14,980 14,980 City of Wheatland 28,019 City of West Sacramento 252,613 City of Woodland 93,495 City of Davis 15,631 Total unclaimed prior year apportionment 790,938 921,288

Total due to other governments 4,795,224$ 10,476,710$

2012 2010

Note: The 2011 amounts are not presented as there were no STA apportionments for the year.


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

8




We have audited the financial statements of the State Transit Assistance Fund of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012 and have issued our report thereon dated October 22, 2012. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.








9


October 22, 2012


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

To the Board of Directors and Management Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund (the Fund) of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered SACOG’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) over the Fund as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over the Fund. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over the Fund.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we noted the following other matters that have been included for your consideration:

We noted SACOG was not able to locate one of the quarterly Sacramento County LTF financial statements the County submits to SACOG per California Code of Regulations Section 6622 and therefore SACOG was not able to monitored the County’s LTF receipts and expenditures for appropriateness. We recommend SACOG actively monitor the submittal of the county quarterly LTF financial statements and retain the quarterly county LTF financial statement submittals to support compliance during the annual audit.

We noted the letter notifying the claimants of the apportionment prior to the March 1, 2011 deadline per California Code of Regulations Section 6644 could not be found by SACOG staff. We recommend the letter be retained for use during the audit.

We recommend the following items be documented in the next update of the SACOG TDA Guidelines.

The claim package in the SACOG TDA Guidelines should be updated to include all items reviewed by the Senior Planner in the claim review process and clarify items currently requested, including, but not limited to:

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Attachment F

To the Board of Directors and Management Sacramento Area Council of Governments Page two

o An analysis of unrestricted fund balance available in the claimant’s TDA funds from prior years that should be used before claiming the current year apportionment/allocation, or at least the claimant’s general ledger as of the date of the claim to review the fund balance of the fund used to account for the TDA funds.

o The request for the claimant budget should indicate the claimant should provide a reconciliation of the budget to the claim or include only budget items related to TDA activities rather than the entire claimant budget document so SACOG staff may more easily identify the budget for TDA funded activities.

o A discussion of the requirements and steps performed in the claim review process and the purpose of the items requested in the claim package for use by new SACOG and claimant employees in understanding the claims review process.

o We continue to recommend that SACOG include its position that allocations reserved in the LTF under California Code of Regulations section 6648 will not earn interest in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines so claimants understand this position.

o Allocation instructions for the LTF refer to guidelines for the frequency of payment of approved allocations per Section 6659 of the California Code of Regulations (i.e. single payment, monthly installments, quarterly installments, etc.). Separate guidelines exist documenting the frequency of payment. We recommend this information be included in the SACOG TDA Guidelines to consolidate all relevant information in one document.

This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors, management and others within the organization and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

October 22, 2012


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

Board of Directors Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento, California

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund (the Fund) of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered SACOG’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) over the Fund as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over the Fund. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over the Fund.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, we noted the following other matter that has been included for your consideration:

We noted SACOG did not use the most recent population estimates available from the Department of Finance when the Fiscal Year 2011/12 Findings of Apportionment for Sutter County LTF was prepared. SACOG used the 2009 population estimate for the City of Yuba City’s apportionment instead of the 2010 population estimates used for the other claimants and as a result, the City of Yuba City’s apportionment was $19,754 understated and the apportionments for the other claimants were overstated by the same amount. We recommend SACOG consider whether these differences are significant enough to warrant correcting during the current year.

* * * * *

This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors, management, and others within the organization and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

October 22, 2012


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728


In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund (the Fund) of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2012, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered SACOG’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) over the Fund as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over the Fund. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control over the Fund.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and therefore, there can be no assurance that all deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses have been identified. However, as discussed below, we identified a deficiency in internal control that we consider to be a significant deficiency.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We consider the following deficiency to be a significant deficiency:

We noted the Yolo County Auditor-Controller’s Office did not provide the quarterly financial statements to SACOG during the year as required by Section 6622 of the California Code of Regulations. As a result, SACOG did not monitor the activity of the Fund to ensure it was in accordance with the TDA and did not review financial activity to ensure it was properly reported. We recommend SACOG obtain and review the quarterly financial statements to properly monitor the status of the Fund in accordance with the TDA in the future.

We also noted the following matter that we have included for consideration:

We recommend SACOG determine what it considers to be a reasonable cushion to protect against a revenue shortfall and approve a Board Resolution establishing a fund balance commitment for economic uncertainty. Any fund balance in excess of the amount committed should be apportioned in the following year’s apportionment. The commitment should be documented in the SACOG fund balance policy along with the criteria for use as required under GASB Statement No. 54. We noted the unapportioned fund

To the Board of Directors and Management Sacramento Area Council of Governments Page two

balance has grown to over two million dollars at year-end. We understand SACOG intends to apportion the excess fund balance once it is verified that a revenue shortfall does not exist during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.

This communication is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors, management, and others within the organization and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

October 22, 2012


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728


In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund (the Fund) of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the year ended June 30, 2012, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, we considered SACOG's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for determining our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of SACOG’s internal control.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and therefore, there can be no assurance that all deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses have been identified. However, as discussed below, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be a material weakness.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We consider the following deficiency to be a material weakness:

The Fund’s financial statements were not maintained on the modified accrual basis and an overpayment receivable from the City of Marysville from 2008 was not recorded, resulting in the need to post material adjusting entries to convert the fund’s accounting records to the basis used for financial reporting. We recommend SACOG ensure the fund’s financial statements are converted to the modified accrual basis at year-end for financial reporting.

* * * * *

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors, management, and others within the organization and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specific parties.

October 22, 2012

Yolo County Problem Auditor Comment SACOG Response and Corrective ActionSignificant deficiency in Internal Control:

We noted the Yolo County Auditor-Controller’s Office did not provide the quarterly financial statements to SACOG during the year as required by Section 6622 of the California Code of Regulations. As a result, SACOG did not monitor the activity of the Fund to ensure it was in accordance with the TDA and did not review financial activity to ensure it was properly reported.

We noted the Yolo County Auditor-Controller’s Office did not provide the quarterly financial statements to SACOG during the year as required by Section 6622 of the California Code of Regulations. As a result, SACOG did not monitor the activity of the Fund to ensure it was in accordance with the TDA and did not review financial activity to ensure it was properly reported. We recommend SACOG obtain and review the quarterly financial statements to properly monitor the status of the Fund in accordance with the TDA in the future.

Action: SACOG will monitor the receipt of quarterly financial statements and send reminders to the county controllers when the reports are due. SACOG will monitor the activity of each county's LTF fund as shown on the quarterly financial statements. SACOG will seek guidelines from peer agencies managing LTF before hiring a consultant to develop fund monitoring guidelines. The information received will help narrow the scope for any consulting and likely will result in budget savings on the consulting contract. The draft guidelines will be shared with each county controller for comment before being finalized. SACOG will withhold distribution until a quarterly financial statement is provided by an established deadline. SACOG will retain copies of the counties' quarterly financial statements to support compliance. Timeline for implementation: Three months.

For Consideration We recommend SACOG determine what it considers to be a reasonable cushion to protect against a revenue shortfall and approve a Board Resolution establishing a fund balance commitment for economic uncertainty. Any fund balance in excess of the amount committed should be apportioned in the following year’s apportionment. The commitment should be documented in the SACOG fund balance policy along with the criteria for use as required under GASB Statement No. 54. We noted the unapportioned fund balance has grown to over two million dollars at year-end. We understand SACOG intends to apportion the excess fund balance once it is verified that a revenue shortfall does not exist during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012.

Action: As discussed with the auditors, SACOG has resolved the issue of the $2 million fund balance when $1.8 m of the fund balance was included in the FY2012_13 findings of apportionment based on estimates provided by the county. However, SACOG will analyze 5-10 years of LTF trends in order to inform any subsequent recommendation for a fund balance reserve for periods of economic uncertainity. Staff will contact peer agencies managing LTF to understand their practices, including Board policy commitments, for managing LTF balances in times of economic uncertainity. SACOG proposes to defer a Board resolution on establishing a fund balance commitment activity until after the proposed research referenced above are complete and the guidelines for monitoring county LTF fund activity are established. Timeline for implementation: Nine months.

Yuba County Problem Auditor Comment SACOG Response and Corrective ActionMaterial Weakness: The Fund’s financial statements were not maintained on the

modified accrual basis and an overpayment receivable from the City of Marysville from 2008 was not recorded, resulting in the need to post material adjusting entries to convert the fund’s accounting records to the basis used for financial reporting.

The Fund’s financial statements were not maintained on the modified accrual basis and an overpayment receivable from the City of Marysville from 2008 was not recorded, resulting in the need to post material adjusting entries to convert the fund’s accounting records to the basis used for financial reporting. We recommend SACOG ensure the fund’s financial statements are converted to the modified accrual basis at year-end for financial reporting

Action: SACOG will request that Yuba County report the quarterly and annual financial statements for the LTF fund using a modified accrual basis. Yuba County may need to perform a reconciliation from the County's accounts to prepare the reporting format required by SACOG. SACOG will withhold distributions until a quarterly financial statements is provided by an established deadline. SACOG staff will contact Marysville and determine any technical assistance needs in order to meet the reporting requirements. Timeline for implementation: One month.

Sutter County Problem Auditor Comment SACOG Response and Corrective ActionFor Consideration We noted SACOG did not use the most recent population

estimates available from the Department of Finance when the Fiscal Year 2011/12 Findings of Apportionment for Sutter County LTF was prepared.

Action: SACOG will adjust the FY2013_14 Finding of Apportionment to add $19,754 to the the City of Yuba City's apportionment. This adjustment to the FY2013_14 Findings of Apportionment will include the necessary correction for the other claimants also. Timeline for implementation: Completed

Sacramento County Problem Auditor Comment SACOG Response and Corrective ActionFor Consideration We noted SACOG was not able to locate one of the quarterly

Sacramento County LTF financial statements the County submits to SACOG per California Code of Regulations Section 6622 and therefore SACOG was not able to monitored the County’s LTF receipts and expenditures for appropriateness.

We noted SACOG was not able to locate one of the quarterly Sacramento County LTF financial statements the County submits to SACOG per California Code of Regulations Section 6622 and therefore SACOG was not able to monitored the County’s LTF receipts and expenditures for appropriateness. We recommend SACOG actively monitor the submittal of the county quarterly LTF financial statements and retain the quarterly county LTF financial statement submittals to support compliance during the annual audit.

Action: SACOG will monitor the receipt of quarterly financial statements and send reminders to the county controllers when the reports are due. SACOG will monitor the activity of each county's LTF fund as shown on the quarterly financial statements. SACOG will seek guidelines from peer agencies managing LTF before hiring a consultant to develop fund monitoring guidelines. The information received will help narrow the scope for any consulting and likely will result in budget savings on the consulting contract. The draft guidelines will be shared with each county controller for comment before being finalized. SACOG will withhold distribution until a quarterly financial statement is provided by an established deadline. SACOG will retain copies of the counties' quarterly financial statements to support compliance. Timeline for implementation: Three months.

For Consideration We noted the letter notifying the claimants of the apportionment prior to the March 1, 2011 deadline per California Code of Regulations Section 6644 could not be found by SACOG staff. We recommend the letter be retained for use during the audit

Action: SACOG will retain copies of the letters notifying claimants of the apportionment prior to March 1st to support compliance. Timeline for implementation: One month.

Recommendations The claim package in the SACOG TDA Guidelines should be updated to include all items reviewed by the Senior Planner in the claim review process and clarify items currently requested, including, but not limited to:

1. The request for the claimant budget should indicate the claimant should provide a reconciliation of the budget to the claim or include only budget items related to TDA activities rather than the entire claimant budget document so SACOG staff may more easily identify the budget for TDA funded activities.

Action: SACOG will change the checklist and claim form to state that the required budget information to be submitted must clearly identify the part of the budget for the expenses and revenues of the activities and items to be funded with LTF or STA. SACOG is also proposing to hold at least one TDA Claim workshop prior to the end of the FY. We have done this in prior years and have presentation materials available that are still relevant. Given the turnover in local agency staff it would be timely to do it this year. Timeline for implementation: Three months.

2. A discussion of the requirements and steps performed in the claim review process and the purpose of the items requested in the claim package for use by new SACOG and claimant employees in understanding the claims review process.

Action: SACOG will revise the claim checklist to include a discussion of the purpose of the items requested. SACOG is also proposing to hold at least one TDA Claim workshop prior to the end of the FY. We have done this in prior years and have presentation materials available that are still relevant. Given the turnover in local agency staff it would be timely to do it this year. Timeline for implementation: Three months.

3. We continue to recommend that SACOG include its position that allocations reserved in the LTF under California Code of Regulations section 6648 will not earn interest in its Transportation Development Act Guidelines so claimants understand this position.

Action: SACOG does not accrue interest to individual projects. SACOG will include this statement on earned interest in the SACOG TDA Guidelines. As any other funds administered by SACOG, the LTF fund does earn and accrue interest which is added to the LTF funding distributed through the Findings of Apportionment. Timeline for implementation: Done.

4. Allocation instructions for the LTF refer to guidelines for the frequency of payment of approved allocations per Section 6659 of the California Code of Regulations (i.e. single payment, monthly installments, quarterly installments, etc.). Separate guidelines exist documenting the frequency of payment. We recommend this information be included in the SACOG TDA Guidelines to consolidate all relevant information in one document.

Action: SACOG will include the guidelines for the frequency of payment of approved allocations in the SACOG TDA Guidelines. Timeline for implementation: One month.


Telephone: (916) 564-8727

FAX: (916) 564-8728

October 22, 2012


We have audited the financial statements of the Sacramento, Yolo, Yuba and Sutter Local Transportation Funds and the State Transit Assistance Fund (the Funds) of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) for the year ended June 30, 2012 and have issued our reports thereon dated October 22, 2012. Professional standards require that we provide you with the following information about our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audits. We have communicated such information in the engagement letter dated May 20, 2010. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.

Significant Audit Findings

Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices

Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by SACOG are described in Note A to the financial statements. No new accounting standards were implemented during the year and the application of existing policies was not changed during the year. We noted no transactions entered into by SACOG during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Estimates were used to determine the fair value adjustment on investments in each fund. Management’s estimate of the fair value adjustment is based on the fair value percentage provided by the Treasurer’s Department of each county. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the fair value adjustment in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of SACOGS’s compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, including the Transportation Development Act and California Code of Regulations. However, the objective of our tests was not to provide an opinion on compliance with such provisions.

Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Attachment G

GGreene

Typewritten Text

Board of Directors Page 2

We performed the audit according to the planned scope previously communicated to you in our engagement letter dated May 20, 2010.

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit

We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audits.

Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements

Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Adjustments consisted of an entry to adjust the County of Yuba Local Transportation Fund revenues to accrue the August and September receipts and to true-up accounts payable, accounts receivable and cash for prior year adjustments; an entry to the County of Yolo Local Transportation Fund to true-up revenue, sales tax receivable, due to other governments and fund balance; and an entry to the County of Sutter Local Transportation Fund to record the fair value adjustment to the County’s investments. In addition, the attached schedules summarize uncorrected misstatements for the County of Sacramento Local Transportation Fund and State Transit Assistance Fund. Unadjusted differences included the fair value adjustment for both funds. Management has determined the effect of these uncorrected misstatements is immaterial to each Fund’s financial statements taken as a whole.

Disagreements With Management

For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.

Management Representations

We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letters for each Fund dated October 22, 2012.

Management Consultations With Other Independent Accountants

In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to Funds financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.

Board of Directors Page 3

Audit Findings or Issues

We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as SACOG’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.

This information is intended solely for the use of the Board of Directors and management of SACOG and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

October 22, 2012

Item #13-2-6 S A C O G B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s Consent

February 14, 2013 Approve Land Use & Natural Resources Committee Charge Issue: Adoption of the Land Use & Natural Resources Committee Charge and review of a draft work plan. Recommendation: The Land Use & Natural Resources Committee recommends that the Board adopt the attached charge for the Land Use & Natural Resources Committee, and provide input on the attached sub-elements of the overall work program that would be overseen by the committee. Committee Action/Discussion: Per the request of the Board Chair, staff has drafted a charge for the SACOG Land Use & Natural Resources Committee. The attached committee charge includes guidance and oversight of policies and projects drawn from the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy for 2035 (MTP/SCS) and the Overall Work Plan (OWP). The MTP/SCS Guiding Principles that would be the principal focus of the committee’s charge are the following:

Smart Land Use: Design a transportation system to support good growth patterns, including increased housing and transportation options, focusing more growth inward and improving the economic viability of rural areas.

Environmental Quality and Sustainability: Minimize direct and indirect transportation impacts on the

environment for cleaner air and natural resource protection.

Within the OWP, the following agency activities would be included within the committee’s charge: monitoring greenhouse gas and air quality emissions standards and regional performance; developing and maintaining tools associated with land use monitoring and forecasting activities; administering the Community Design Grant program; managing the agency responsibility for Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) functions; continuing research and grant work associated with the agency’s Rural Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS); and developing the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and support activities for member jurisdictions in the development of their housing elements. New to the committee charge in 2013 is the expansion of the resource issues to include monitoring and discussing flood and water considerations for transportation and land use impacts. Attached is a full description of the proposed committee charge. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:RS:DS:EJ:ts Attachment Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis, (916) 340-6230 Rebecca Sloan, Director of External Affairs and Member Services, (916) 340-6224 David Shabazian, Supervising Senior Planner, (916) 340-6231 Erik Johnson, Government and Media Affairs Coordinator, (916) 340-6247 Greg Chew, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6227 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\6-lunr committee charge.docx

Attachment A

SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS LAND USE & NATURAL RESOURCES

COMMITTEE CHARGE

Purpose: The Land Use & Natural Resources Committee shall develop recommendations for the full SACOG Board of Directors relative to issues regarding land use and all natural resources issues, including air quality, climate change, water resources, flood protection, and open space. Activities: Activities of the committee may include, but are not limited to:

Overseeing the Community Design Grant program, a competitive regional funding program providing incentives for smart growth implementation, including monitoring of awarded grants for timely benchmarks and deliverables.

Acting as recommending committee for the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) functions for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties and for developing the Airport Land Use compatibility plans (ALUCPs) for areas around the airports working with cities and counties to ensure consistency determinations.

Overseeing the regional air quality plans for criteria pollutants (ozone, PM-10, PM-2.5, carbon monoxide) and the resulting air quality conformity analyses for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy (MTP/SCS) and Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (MTIPs).

Providing guidance and oversight of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), an eight-year plan of projected jurisdictional housing needs by household income, and supporting member jurisdictions in the development of their housing elements.

Guiding the Rural-Urban Connections Strategy (RUCS), including program activity associated with multiple state and federal grants (e.g., California Strategic Growth Council Grant).

Guiding implementation measures included in the MTP/SCS that will help mitigate climate change and other environmental impacts.

Analyzing transportation, air quality, natural resources, and land use issues and their inter-

relationships within our region for potential negative impacts that could inadvertently be created, identifying opportunities for improvements in these areas, and serving as a clearinghouse of ideas for SACOG members.

Serving as a regional forum for discussing air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, energy conservation, climate change, and other natural resources issues, and serving as a regional clearinghouse for ways to address these issues.

Monitoring greenhouse gas and air quality emissions standards and regional performance, including development and maintenance of tools associated with land use monitoring and forecasting activities.

Convening key stakeholders in discussions about natural resource issues and policy interactions with the MTP/SCS and RUCS, including the development of a regional open space plan, as identified in MTP/SCS.

Discussing and supporting policies to encourage access to water resources and coordination of flood protection considerations associated with land use and transportation infrastructure planning, including the development of workshops to provide the Board with background and potential strategies flood issues.

Monitoring and identifying the impacts of changes to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA regulations that may impact development in communities subject to flooding.

Discussing and supporting local agency requests for critical levee improvement projects, for authorization under the Water Resources Development Act, and for changes to mitigate the impacts of the National Flood Insurance Program on unique industries and economic clusters in the Sacramento region.

Participating in regional coalitions related to water resources concerns associated with the Delta and Delta watershed.

Membership: The current chair of the SACOG Board of Directors shall appoint the members of the Land Use & Natural Resources Committee. Term of Committee Members: Members of the Land Use & Natural Resources 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 members to serve as vice chairs.

Item #13-2-7 S A C O G B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s Consent

February 14, 2013 Approve Contract for IMPACS Training for Central Valley Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) Issue: SACOG has an opportunity to provide training to Central Valley MPOs on IMPACS, an infrastructure cost estimation tool developed by SACOG. Recommendation: The Land Use & Natural Resources Committee recommends that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer enter into a contract with a consortium of Central Valley MPOs to provide IMPACS training and report back to the Board on the progress of the contract budget and staff resources. Committee Action/Discussion: IMPACS is a tool, developed by SACOG over the past decade, used to estimate the costs associated with providing water, sewer, storm water, and roads given different patterns of development. Recently, the tool was expanded to include the cost of providing services, as well as an estimate of revenue generated. Staff has conducted several training sessions for member jurisdictions and partner agencies in our region, and worked with many jurisdictions around the region on implementation of the tool. The Central Valley MPOs are in the process of creating their Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs) and Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCSs), and upon adoption will be working with their local staff on project implementation. The timing of providing this training is key to their planning process. In addition, the training provided to the Central Valley MPOs gives SACOG a chance to refine the training methods and materials for future training sessions in our region. The scope of work for this project will include the creation of a data collection methodology report and materials to show how particular data are most useful in the model. The amount of the contract would be not to exceed $60,000, and includes all direct and indirect costs associated with the training sessions. A draft budget is attached to this item. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:RP:ts Attachment Key Staff: Gordon Garry, Director of Research and Analysis, (916) 340-6230

Raef Porter, Senior Research Analyst, (916) 340-6261

s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\7-impacs.docx 1300505

HOURS Rate Prep

IMPACS

Distribution

Pre‐Training

Webinar

Model Data

Documentation

Laptop

prep Travel Hotel

per

diem

materials

& comm.

2 X

Training

Model

Updates

Follow‐up

Webinar TOTAL

Sup Senior $136 8 0 3 2 0 12 0 0 0 20 30 18 93

Senior $129 16 8 3 8 4 12 0 0 0 20 60 18 149

Junior $71 16 1 3 16 8 12 0 0 0 20 100 18 194

Junior $62 16 1 3 16 8 12 0 0 0 20 100 18 194

misc $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 630

COST Rate Prep

IMPACS

Distribution

Pre‐Training

Webinar

Model Data

Documentation

Laptop

prep Travel Hotel

per

diem

materials

& comm.

2 X

Training

Model

Updates

Follow‐up

Webinar TOTAL

Sup Senior $136 $1,088 $0 $408 $272 $0 $1,632 $300 $100 $0 $2,720 $4,080 $2,448 $13,048

Senior $129 $2,065 $1,032 $387 $1,032 $516 $1,549 $300 $100 $0 $2,581 $7,743 $2,323 $19,628

Junior $71 $1,128 $71 $212 $1,128 $564 $846 $300 $100 $0 $1,411 $7,053 $1,270 $14,083

Junior $62 $988 $62 $185 $988 $494 $741 $300 $100 $0 $1,235 $6,173 $1,111 $12,376

misc $0 $0 $0 $200 $200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400 $400 $0 $600 $1,800

TOTAL $60,935

Item #13-2-8

SACOG Board of Direct ors Consent February 14, 2013 Approve Local Transportation Fund Findings of Apportionment for Fiscal Year 2013/14 Issue: Review Fiscal Year 2013/14 Local Transportation Fund (LTF) Findings of Apportionment for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties. Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board approve the Findings of Apportionment for Local Transportation Funds for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties for Fiscal Year 2013/14. Committee Action/Discussion: The Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires the Regional Transportation Planning Agency to annually adopt Findings of Apportionment, which allocate ¼ percent of sales tax revenue to eligible local agencies prior to March 1 each year. The process requires each of the County Auditor-Controllers to submit their estimate for the ending fund balance for the current fiscal year (in this case FY 2012/13) plus their estimate of sales tax available to the TDA fund within their county for the next fiscal year (in this case FY 2013/14). The total amount available for apportionment in Fiscal Year 2013/14 by the four County Auditor-Controllers is approximately $65.2 million. This amount is an 11.5% increase over last year’s initial findings of approximately $58.5 million. TDA law allows SACOG and each of the counties to claim a portion of the revenue for administrative fees, which are shown on the attached spreadsheets. In FY 2012/13, the administrative fee was 1.117 percent and the planning fee was 3 percent; this rate has been maintained in FY 2013/14. The attached Findings of Apportionments indicates the amount of LTF funds each claimant is eligible to receive. In accordance with the TDA 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. Attached you will also find a long-term picture of the LTF revenues and findings of apportionment dating back to FY 1993/94. A review of this data indicates the impact of the recent multi-year economic downturn and what appears to be a rebound of LTF revenues. The level of funding for our jurisdictions in the four-county area shows continued improvement in projections for FY 2013/14. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer Attachments Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Gary Taylor, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6279 Clint Holtzen, Assistant Planner, (916) 340-6246 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\8-ltf findings.docx1300703

Item #13-2-9

SACOG Board of Direct ors Consent February 14, 2013 Approve State Transit Assistance Allocation for Fiscal Year 2013/14 Issue: Review Fiscal Year 2013/14 State Transit Assistance (STA) Allocation for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties. Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board approve the Allocation of State Transit Assistance for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties for Fiscal Year 2013/14. Committee Action/Discussion: In January or February of each year, the State Controller’s Office (SCR) releases the Department of Finance budgeted amount of State Transit Assistance according to Section 99312.7 of the Public Utilities Code. The budgeted amount of STA revenue for the four-county SACOG region for FY 2013-14 is $9,388,576 of Section 99313 and $4,555,230 of Section 99314 for a total of $13,943,806. This represents a 6.1 percent decrease from FY 2012-13 level of funding. In Placer and El Dorado counties, these funds are passed through the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies for each county. The STA allocation is funded through a portion of the sales tax on diesel fuel and is a result of the gas tax swap of 2010 that removed the sales tax on gasoline, which used to be the source of STA funds out of the Public Transportation Account. These funds can only be used for transit purposes and are subject to variations in the price and usage of diesel fuel statewide. In FY 2013-14, the funds can be used for operating or capital purposes with no restrictions through the signing of Senate Bill 565 in 2011. The bill contains a waiver for the use of STA for operations that will continue until FY 2014-15. As there is often great variation in the level of funding and the ability of operators to use the funds for operating purposes, transit operators are encouraged to use these funds for one-time capital expenditures. Many of the transit operators in the SACOG region use these funds for operating purposes. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer Attachments MM:GT:ef Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Gary Taylor, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6279 Clinton Holtzen, Assistant Planner, (916) 340-6246 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\9-sta.docx1300703


ALLOCATION OF STATE TRANSIT ASSISTANCE FUNDS (STA)FY 2013-14

PUBLIC UTILITY CODE SECTION 99314

REVENUETRANSIT REVENUE AS AOPERATOR BASIS 1/ % OF TOTAL ALLOCATION 2/

City of Elk Grove $1,714,213 2% $96,934

City of Folsom $788,032 1% $44,561

Sacramento RegionalTransit District $70,330,832 87% $3,977,004

Yuba-SutterTransit Authority $1,415,650 2% $80,051

City of Davis $2,540,424 3% $143,654

Yolo County Transportation District $3,767,239 5% $213,026

TOTAL $80,556,390 100.00% $4,555,230

1. Each operator's revenue basis is based on latest eligible allocations as reported by the State Controller's

Office for State Transit Assistance funding.

2. Entire amount must be used for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes.

January 31, 2013

Regional Share of Statewide PUC Allocation: $391,972,000

Item #13-2-10 SACOG Board of Directors Consent

February 14, 2013 Adopt Policy on Board Consent Items Issue: What items should be placed on the consent agenda for Board meetings? Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board establish a minimum standard that only items that have received a unanimous vote at the Committee level are eligible for consideration to be placed on the consent calendar at Board meetings. Committee Action/Discussion: Some Board members requested that this policy be established a couple Board meetings ago and staff agreed to bring it forward. The unanimous vote at the Committee level would be a minimum requirement. Staff may decide to place some items that receive a unanimous vote on the action, rather than the consent calendar if, in the Chief Executive Officer's judgment, the item warrants the opportunity for full Board discussion. Also, the Committee vote on an item also may contain a condition that it be placed as an action rather than consent item on the Board agenda. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:ef Key Staff: Kirk E. Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\10-consent items.docx


February 14, 2013 Approve the Transportation Development Act Claim for the City of Galt 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 claim listed below.

1. City of Galt FY 2011-12 in the amount of $954,516 Resolution No. 23 – 2013 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 resolution. The claim has been reviewed by staff and found to be in compliance with the TDA and is consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Short-Range Transit Plans. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:GT:gg Attachment Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Gary Taylor, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6279 cc: Dolores Martinez, City of Galt Steven Winkler, P.E., City of Galt Dan Klinker, County of Sacramento Dan Shoeman, County of Sacramento

1300703



APPROVING THE CITY OF GALT’S TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT

CLAIM FOR FY 2011-12 IN THE AMOUNT OF $954,516

WHEREAS, the City of Galt has resubmitted a claim replacing Resolution 61-2012 for FY 2011-12 Local Transportation Funds of the total amount $828,077 and State Transit Assistance Funds of $126,439 under the provisions of the Transportation Development Act for the amounts and purposes as follows:

Local Transportation Fund Approved: 9/20/2012 Public Utility Code Purpose Year of Funds Amounts Article 8 – Section 99400(c) SCTLink Transit Operations FY 2011/12 $394,893 Article 8 – Section 99400(d) Administration & Marketing FY 2011/12 $72,130 Article 8 – Section 99400(a) Streets & Roads Maintenance FY 2011/12 $319,650 Article 3 – Section 99234 Pedestrian & Bicycle Impr FY 2011/12 $16,562 Article 8 – Section 99402 SACOG Planning FY 2011/12 $24,842

Subtotal $828,077

State Transit Assistance Fund Article 4 – Sub Chapter 2.5 6730(b) Purchase Buses FY 2011/12 $126,439

Subtotal $126,439

Total $954,516 WHEREAS, such claim is consistent with State Law, with Guidelines adopted by the

Board and with approved apportionments for FY 2011-12; and

WHEREAS, the Board Resolution No. 29-2012 on June 21, 2012, found that there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Galt. 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 Galt’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 Galt to meet the fare revenue requirements of the Public Utilities Code.

Resolution No. 23 – 2013 -2- February 21, 2013 3. The City of Galt 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 Galt’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 Galt has made a reasonable effort to implement the productivity improvements recommended pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99244.

7. The City of Galt 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, Storer Inc., has submitted the certification required by the Department of the California Highway Patrol verifying that the operator is in compliance with Section 1801.1 of the Vehicle Code.

9. The City of Galt is in compliance with the eligibility requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 99314.6.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby approves the request for Local Transportation Funds for FY 2010-11 in the amount of $678,246 and for FY 2011-12 in the amount of $828,077 and State Transit Assistance Funds for FY 2010-11 in the amount of $126,040 and for FY2011-12 in the amount of $126,439 for a total claim amount of $1,758,802 and authorizes the forwarding of funds to the City of Galt in proportion to funds received from the State. PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 21st day of February 2013, by the following vote of the Board of Directors: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Mary Jane Griego Mike McKeever Chair Chief Executive Officer


February 14, 2013 Approve Subrecipient Agreement between SACOG and Sacramento Regional Transit District for Proposition 1B Funds for Computer Server Room Upgrades Issue: A contractual agreement is required to pass through Proposition 1B Safety and Security project funds from SACOG to Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) to implement infrastructure upgrades to the Connect Card Regional Service Center. Recommendation: The Transportation Committee recommends that the Board authorize the Chief Executive Officer to enter into a subrecipient agreement with RT for regional Proposition 1B funds in the amount of $80,000 to finance security and environmental upgrades to the RT computer server room. Committee Action/Discussion: The Connect Card implementation is transitioning from the system design phase to procurement and manufacturing. As part of this effort, the project now requires infrastructure upgrades in support of the Connect Card Regional Service Center (RSC) located at RT. RT is providing the facilities and staffing on behalf of the regional Consortium for centralized functions at the RSC. Computing and communications hardware for the regional system will be centralized at the RT computer server room. To meet rigorous manufacturer and security protocol standards, the server room infrastructure requires an upgrade. Included in the proposed improvements are an upgraded conditioned air delivery system, related environmental controls, and security access/monitoring systems. SACOG received a grant award from the California Emergency Management Agency from Proposition 1B for the above purpose, and received funding authorization on November 26, 2012. SACOG already has several active subrecipient agreements for state bond funds with RT for other projects. As with all standard SACOG subrecipient agreements, RT will agree to fully comply with state requirements. Approval of the proposed subrecipient agreement will help the Connect Card fill a vital infrastructure improvement need and keep the project on schedule. The actual pricing will depend on the competitive bids and/or invoicing of internal RT resources. SACOG will be invoiced on a reimbursement basis, such that unexpended funds will be returned to the project budget. A draft of the subrecipient agreement will be circulated between the agencies shortly, and will be approved as to form by SACOG legal counsel prior to execution. The funding for the work is included in SACOG’s approved Overall Work Program and project budget. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:RM:gg Key Staff: Matt Carpenter, Director of Transportation Services, (916) 340-6276 Robert McCrary, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6238

1300405

Item #13-2-13 SACOG Board of Directors Act ion February 14, 2013 Federal Advocacy Principles Issue: What policy objectives should SACOG pursue at the federal level in 2013? Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee recommends that the Board approve the Federal Advocacy Principles as amended. Committee Action/Discussion: The committee accepted the staff recommendation and added a clause to specify high-speed rail interconnectivity funds as an advocacy item. The new Congress will bring continued discussion of hard-to-fund projects both in transportation and water. The 2012 adoption of a two-year surface transportation authorization bill, MAP-21, consolidated programs, increased performance-based programs, and encouraged streamlined federal review processes. Unresolved is the issue of sufficient federal revenue for the nation’s transportation infrastructure demands. As Transportation Secretary LaHood noted in his visit to Sacramento in January, revenue will continue to be point of discussion as will the need for communities and regions to prioritize their needs for what will continue to be insufficient resources for the level of demand. Early in 2013, Congress is expected to take up the Water Resources Development Act, the funding source for critical levee improvements in our region. SACOG’s annual advocacy activities focus on authorizations, grants, appropriations and other relevant legislation. Additions to the continuing four themes carrying forward include:

• encouraging continued coordination and integration among federal agencies, such as the Partnership for Sustainable Communities;

• seeking funding sources for an updated list of key projects based on the adoption of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS);

• continuing to leverage the region’s integrated planning for fund development in competitive programs; • advocating for strategic funding formulas for farm-to-market road maintenance in the Farm Bill; • advocating for unique flood protection requirements for agricultural lands under the National Flood Insurance

Program; • advocating for a definition of “rural” that ensures federal rural programs funding eligibility for rural

communities in the region; • encouraging federal environmental and regulatory streamlining to reduce barriers to economic growth; and • supporting open space conservation efforts, including market-based solutions for resource lands protections.

Staff is seeking the committee’s recommendation to the SACOG Board for the adoption of amendments to the Federal Advocacy Principles. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer Attachment MM:EJ:ef Key Staff: Rebecca Sloan, Director of External Affairs &Members Services, (916) 340-6224 Erik Johnson, Government & Media Affairs Coordinator, (916) 340-6247 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\13-federal advocacy.docx1300104

Federal Advocacy Principles

The principles outlined below help support SACOG’s work in linking transportation, air quality, and land use. SACOG will work to advance the interests of the Sacramento region. In order to accomplish these principles, SACOG will advocate for sufficient funding in legislation and seek out grants to effectively plan for and deliver projects that meet these principles. SACOG will also advocate for innovative financing options, such as subsidized bonds, public-private partnerships, and a national infrastructure bank. Economic Vitality Efficiently connect people to jobs and get goods to market. • Ensure stable funding sources for all modes of transportation infrastructure investments. • Include hard-to-fund, MTP/SCS projects in the transportation authorization bill or discretionary

programs for transit, urban complete streets (e.g., Woodland’s East Main Street and Olivehurst Ave. in Yuba County) and rural complete corridors (e.g., Yolo County Road 98 Beale Air Force Base Gateway), and major infrastructure projects, such as the Intermodal Transportation Facility, South Line and Green Line light rail extensions, West Sacramento-Sacramento Downtown-Riverfront streetcar, Rancho Cordova streetcar, high-speed rail interconnectivity, the Watt Avenue at Highway 50 Interchange, Highway 113 at I-5 interchange and Blueprint implementation planning for hard-to-fund projects such as river crossings in the Sacramento urban core and the 5th Street bridge in Yuba City/Marysville.

• Adjust funding formulas to support rural roads and other rural infrastructure needs, including rural farm-to-market roads.

• Fund local and regional food systems to improve food access and national food security, especially to assist with promoting a connection between rural and urban areas of the region, and also to help producers get their products to all markets.

• Fund evacuation planning and supportive transportation infrastructure including bridges, local roads, as well as state and federal highway connections.

Smart Land Use Design a transportation system to support good growth patterns, including increased housing and transportation options, focusing more growth inward and improving the economic viability of rural areas. • Support continued funding for transportation and land use linked planning and formula incentives

for high performing projects resulting from integrated planning, support for regional planning tools for modeling and data gathering, and ongoing public education and engagement related to travel behavior.

• Fund SACOG to implement the Blueprint preferred growth scenario, and continue technical assistance for cities and counties.

• Enact greenhouse gas reduction measures that support and incentivize land use benefits from implementation of Blueprint and MTP/SCS objectives.

• Encourage implementation of Blueprint preferred growth scenario with unique funding sources for new and improved infrastructure to support concentrated housing and employment in high frequency transit corridors.

• Support the revitalization of aging suburban commercial corridors through investing in infrastructure system retrofits and context-sensitive design for infill developments.

• Support open space conservation efforts, including market-based solutions for resource lands protections.

• Support regional economic development planning and fund implementation. • Support continued eligibility of rural communities for federal rural funding programs by

advocating for a definition of “rural” that does not impose restrictions on rural communities due to their adjacency to larger urban areas and, at a minimum, uses definitions of rural as set forth by Congress to ensure fair distribution of funding for Rural Development programs.

Equity and Choice Provide real, viable travel choices for all people throughout our diverse region. • Support planning and fund Complete Streets in rural and urban communities designed to

accommodate cars, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians including education, encouragement and infrastructure for Safe Routes to School.

• Provide discretionary funding for a balanced transit network to support: an integrated rail network that includes Northeast and Folsom light rail double-tracking, funding for light rail car rehabilitation and replacement needs; and streetcars that offer a cost-effective expansion of the areas served lifeline and choice bus riders through funding to replace and expand fleets and improve facilities; enhanced passenger rail service on Capitol Corridor; and new streetcar and light rail transit along corridors, with supportive land uses.

Environmental Quality & Sustainability Minimize direct and indirect transportation impacts on the environment for cleaner air and natural resource protection. • Encourage continued application of regulatory strategy with federal resource agencies that

incentivize Blueprint implementation. • Fund RUCS-identified innovations that link enhance natural resource services mitigation, and,

particularly habitat valuation, on agricultural lands. • Incentivize energy conservation, for regional efforts as well as local implementation.

• Fund natural resources data development, including implementation of the Six-County Aquatic Resources Inventory, and overall planning to support habitat conservation plans in the region.

• Improve public safety and Fund local flood protection efforts for improved public safety, with sensitivity to unique land uses and resource impacts on property owners in designated floodplains while protecting local land use authority, not penalizing communities based on floodplain designations through pursuit of. Pursue streamlining and integrated planning opportunities with federal agencies to expedite construction of federally identified levee improvement projects as regional assets.

• Continue eligibility for diesel engine replacement/retrofit programs.

Item #13-2-14

SACOG Board of Direct ors Act ion February 14, 2013 Consultant Selection for Economic Research in Older Suburbs Issue: Consultant assistance is needed to develop economic factors for community success in older suburban communities. Recommendation: The Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee forwards this item to the Board of Directors without a recommendation. Staff recommends that the Board of Directors select the recommended consultant and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to finalize negotiations and sign a contract in an amount not to exceed $100,000. Committee Action/Discussion: An important part of the implementation of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy is the economic health of older suburban communities where much of the growth is to go. In particular, two questions have been put forth: what are the factors and strategies that can make post World War II inner-ring suburbs economically healthy and what economic sectors are most successful near rail transit stations. In order to get some useful information on these issues developed and used in the HUD-funded Sustainable Communities Initiative project, SACOG staff released a Request for Qualifications. The research will collect the best available data on economic factors for success across the country, then apply it to our communities as part of the overall SCI project. The budget will not exceed $100,000. The funds are currently in the Overall Work Program. Given the schedule for Committee meetings and the Board meeting there is not enough time to allow prospective consultants to develop proposals prior to the Committee meeting. The RFQ was released February 1, 2013 with a due date of February 19, 2013. Staff will review the statements of qualifications and, if needed, will ask questions to clarify issues with the consultants. After a staff recommendation is developed, we will meet with the chair and vice-chairs of the Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee to review the proposals, the consultants, and staff analysis that led to the recommendation. If the chair and vice-chairs conclude that more time is needed, this item will be pulled from the agenda until next month. The scope of work from the RFQ is attached. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:GG:ef Attachment Key Staff: Gordon Garry, Director of Research & Analysis, (916) 340-6230 s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\february\14-consultant selection.docx

Attachment

RESEARCH RELATED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN SUBURBAN SETTINGS

PROJECT SUMMARY AND DESCRIPTION The contract for the Research Related to Economic Development in Suburban Settings will be an agreement between SACOG and the consultant. SACOG will provide contract administration services. The consultant will invoice SACOG for services rendered and SACOG will compensate the consultant for these services as set forth in the agreement. Funding for the consultant services will be provided by SACOG. The SACOG Board of Directors will award the contract and project deliverables will be reviewed by the SACOG Project Manager. SCOPE OF WORK/SERVICES The scope of work is described below. The selected consultants or consulting teams will be expected to perform all technical and other analyses necessary to complete the scope of work. Tasks should be quoted independently noting relevant qualifications and research experience. The consultant will receive general direction from the SACOG Project Manager. Tasks: Task 1 - Research Related to Economically Successful Suburban Communities

Part A - Conduct a comparative analysis using nation-wide data on inner ring suburban communities to identify the key types and mixture of employment and business activity that have created sustained economic health in suburban communities. The analysis should be based on the best available data on changes over time of firm expansion and contraction, wages of these firms, real estate market changes, sales tax and other local government revenue, and household characteristics (growth, economics, and demographics). To the extent possible, relate local government policies and programs to these economic and community changes. Recommend indicators to measure progress towards an economically healthy mix of businesses. Part B - Review existing and forecasted employment mixture in three communities in the SACOG region (selected in consultation with SACOG staff) and recommend strategies to attain a successful phasing process to achieve the recommendations in Part A. The analysis and the data it is built from should be as causative as possible. It is assumed that some of the data will be from proprietary sources. It is acknowledged that the very complex nature of household and firm dynamics, land value, and government policies over time makes the task of clear indicators and strategies a significant challenge. However, given these constraints to transparency, we will evaluate statements of qualifications on the ability to provide clear, concise results that can be used by policy makers and local government staff.

Task 2 - Research Related to Employment Near Transit Rail Stations in Suburban Settings Conduct a comparative analysis of major employment activities that are found near suburban rail transit stations and receive comparative advantages due to that access. Review the different types of business activity that surrounds at least four different types of major employment centers (e.g., education, office, government) near rail transit stations. The analysis should be based on the best available data on changes over time of firm expansion and contraction, wages of these firms, real estate market changes, and household and community changes. Relate, to the extent possible, transit ridership changes and the impact of local government policies and programs. The analysis should be conducted at several buffer diameters from the stations (i.e., quarter mile, half mile, one mile, one and a half miles). Recommend employment sectors and mixes of sectors that could be attracted to at least four different types of rail transit oriented employment centers. The analysis and the data it is built from should be as causative as possible. It is assumed that some of the data will be from proprietary sources. It is acknowledged that the very complex nature of firm dynamics, land value, and government policies over time makes the task of clear indicators and strategies a significant challenge. However, given these constraints to transparency, we will evaluate statements of qualifications on the ability to provide clear, concise results that can be used by policy makers and local government staff.

Item #13-2-15 S A C O G B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s Workshop February 14, 2013 Flood Control Workshop

Issue: Flood control experts in the region ̶ Ric Reinhardt, MBK Engineers; Scott Shapiro, Downey Brand; and Tim Washburn, SAFCA ̶ will present a workshop at the Board meeting on the region’s flood control history; and an overview of recent issues and activities affecting the region.

Recommendation: None, this item is a workshop. Background: After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Sacramento was identified as the next most-vulnerable region for flooding in the country. SACOG Board leadership, in partnership with the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency and Solano County, formed an ad hoc committee to build a regional plan for mitigating the risk of flood. Throughout 2006 and 2007, the Ad Hoc Flood Management Committee assisted in the development of a white paper and a strategy for how the region, in partnership with the state and federal governments, could address flooding risks (Attachments A and B). At this time, the state legislature also proposed several pieces of legislation to change the state’s role in flood management. One of those bills, SB 5 (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2007), reorganized the State Reclamation Board as the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and required the Board to create a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. SB 5 and the required plan were based largely on the principles and strategy by the Ad Hoc Flood Management Committee. Over the last two MTP cycles, SACOG has tracked levee and floodplain designation statuses (see Attachment C) to identify any potential impacts of changes to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA regulations that may affect growth plans in communities subject to flooding. The progress of levee improvements appears to be on track in parts of the region where private and/or ratepayer funding has been available in addition to public funding. Other communities expect improvements to start when private funding, linked mostly to development, becomes available. Rural communities do not have funding to improve levees to a 200-year urban standard, which precludes them from new development. In February 2012, there was discussion in Congress of authorizing the Natomas Levee Improvements Project as part of the federal transportation authorization bill. The Natomas project is still seeking congressional authorization. Staff worked with flood control agencies throughout the region to collect information on other pending needs and developed the attached summary (Attachment D). At its March 2012 meeting, the Board also approved the following strategy for future SACOG involvement in flood issues: (1) offer letters of support to all local agencies seeking federal funding or approval for flood control projects; (2) coordinate with the Metro Chamber’s Cap-to-Cap Flood Protection Team; (3) increase the agency’s ongoing understanding of flood control issues; (4) consider positions on specific flood control legislation brought forward by board members; and (5) bring flood issues forward to a board committee for ongoing education and policy discussion. In 2012, staff began discussions with flood control experts about SACOG’s potential role in flood control issues. These conversations have helped staff better understand the issues and how they relate to the MTP/SCS and RUCS project. Flood control experts see value in SACOG’s role as a regional convener and an organization with extensive data and modeling capacity. While no specific role has been defined, flood experts have expressed interest in working with SACOG on the development of Regional Flood Management Plans. These efforts, and a history and background of the flood control system and current issues, will be topics addressed at the workshop. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer MM:DS:ts Attachments

Key Staff: Kirk Trost, Chief Operating Officer/General Counsel, (916) 340-6210 David Shabazian, Supervising Senior Planner, (916) 340-6231 Erik Johnson, Government and Media Affairs Coordinator, (916) 340-6247

SAFCA LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND

FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE SACRAMENTO VALLEY (Endorsed by SACOG - 4/20/06)

I. BACKGROUND California is confronting the serious and complex challenge of reducing the risk of flooding and its associated liabilities during a period of rapid growth and development. This challenge is particularly pressing in the Sacramento Valley, where the State of California (State) and many cities, counties and local flood management agencies are confronting an unprecedented confluence of legal, historical, regulatory and fiscal conditions, including:

• The devastation of Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast and in the City of New Orleans, which has underscored the vulnerability of urban developments in protected floodplains;

• The recent appellate decision Paterno v. State of California, which has greatly expanded California’s common law of inverse condemnation and held the State liable for damages resulting from the failure of a federal project levee in Yuba County;

• The challenge of the State and local levee maintaining agencies to address design deficiencies in the aging system of levees, weirs, bypass channels, and reservoirs that comprises the federal Sacramento River Flood Control Project (SRFCP);

• Increasing urbanization behind portions of the federal levee system that have not been systematically evaluated for their performance and reliability; and

• Ongoing regulatory and fiscal constraints on the ability of the State and its local governmental partners to operate and maintain the system.

In response to these circumstances, the Legislature is urgently considering the steps that should be taken to reduce the risk of flooding and limit the State’s liability for flood damages. Toward this end, this paper suggests that it would be wise to focus on the Sacramento Valley where the flood risks are most acute and the opportunities for risk reduction are most robust. The paper outlines the elements of a flood risk management plan for the SRFCP that recognizes the special demands imposed on the SRFCP by urban development; emphasizes the need for both structural and non-structural approaches to flood risk management; and identifies the elements of a financing strategy for achieving and maintaining the goals and objectives of the plan. The paper is intended to serve as a framework for shaping the legislation that is likely to be enacted this year on flood management issues in the Central Valley.

1

Attachment A

II. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK A. Identify the Elements of the State’s Flood Risk Management

Plan for the Sacramento Valley The legislation should direct Department of Water Resources (DWR) to explicitly identify the fundamental documents that explain the development of the SRFCP. These documents should be used to create a single comprehensive description of the plan that identifies the State’s expectations for the SRFCP. These expectations should be framed in the following manner:

• At its inception, the main purpose of the SRFCP was to reduce the risk of flooding on agricultural lands within the floodplains of the Sacramento River and its tributaries. Toward this end, SRFCP levees were designed to contain flows and water surface elevations roughly based on an evaluation of 1907 and 1909 floods. (referred to as the “1957 profile”) with a relatively low risk of failure. The design was based on a minimum levee cross section and minimum freeboard above the design flood water surface profile. Levees meeting this minimum standard provide adequate protection to support agricultural/rural land uses but retain a residual risk that is not compatible with urban development.

• Several SRFCP protected floodplains are experiencing substantial urban development. These floodplains should be specifically designated as urban development areas and should be required to meet an urban levee standard that exceeds both the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and the minimum non-urban design criteria of the SRFCP.

• The SRFCP’s non-urban areas contain numerous small communities that are subject to substantial damage in the event of uncontrolled flooding. One of the long-term objectives of the State’s flood control and flood risk management plan should be to enclose these communities within perimeter levees that at least meet the minimum requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program so as to preserve the economic viability of these communities.

• The residual risk of flooding in the urban and non-urban areas protected by SRFCP levees should be addressed by requiring the responsible cities and counties to develop and maintain effective emergency response programs and capabilities, and by requiring property owners in these areas to maintain flood insurance obtained through the National Flood Insurance Program. This insurance requirement should be considered a non-structural element of the State’s plan.

2

B. Identify the Urban and Non-Urban Levees Comprising the SRFCP

Based on the above expectations, and as part of the description of the State plan, the legislation should direct DWR to identify the urban and non-urban levees comprising the SRFCP. The urban levees should be those that are protecting the portions of the Sacramento Valley that contain substantial urban developments such as: Sacramento, including Natomas; West Sacramento, including Southport; Woodland; Marysville, including Reclamation District 784; and the cities of Yuba City and Live Oak in Sutter County. The SRFCP levees protecting the areas of the Sacramento Valley that do not contain such developments should be identified as non-urban levees. C. Establish a Minimum Design Standard for the SRFCP’s Non-

Urban Levees The legislation should direct DWR to develop an appropriate minimum design standard for the SRFCP’s non-urban levees. This standard should be similar to the existing SRFCP design standards but with an additional underseepage criterion that is less stringent than the urban area requirement. D. Develop a Capital Improvement and Maintenance Program to

Address Design Deficiencies in the SRFCP’s Non-Urban Levees, Including Systemic Erosion and Sedimentation

Based on the minimum design standard, the legislation should direct DWR to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the SRFCP’s non-urban levees, identify any design deficiencies, including systemic erosion and sedimentation and develop a capital improvement program to address these deficiencies, including systemic erosion and sedimentation. The legislation should anticipate that the actions needed to address systemic erosion and sedimentation will be carried out through a reauthorization of the Sacramento River Bank Protection Project and an expansion of the State’s levee and channel maintenance program under Water Code Section 8361. The objectives of these programs should be to (1) improve the reliability of the non-urban levees consistent with the design of the SRFCP and (2) enhance the fish and wildlife habitat value of the river and stream channels confined by these levees. E. Ensure that Non-Urban Levees are Properly Maintained The legislation should seek to improve the maintenance of the SRFCP’s non-urban levees by:

• Expanding the State’s maintenance responsibilities to include the levees of the Sutter Bypass and the Yolo Bypass.

3

• Directing DWR to establish clear guidelines for non-urban levee maintenance based on the adopted minimum design standard for the SRFCP’s non-urban levees.

• Requiring local districts to prepare regular reports (every two years) to the Reclamation Board on the condition of their levees.

• Directing DWR to work with the appropriate state and federal regulatory agencies to establish a habitat enhancement program for fish and wildlife habitat values, including mitigation banking, that will facilitate the permitting process for levee improvement and maintenance activities.

• Revamping the State’s power to ensure compliance with the non-urban levee maintenance guidelines by providing financial assistance to cooperating local districts and streamlining the Reclamation Board's enforcement procedures.

F. Identify the Small Communities Occupying the SRFCP’s Non-

Urban Areas and Establish Policies and Design Standards for Protecting These Communities Over Time

The legislation should seek to limit the potential for inverse condemnation liability by directing DWR to identify the small communities occupying the SRFCP’s non-urban areas and to develop appropriate policies and design standards for protecting these communities over time. The State’s long-term goal should be to enclose these communities within perimeter levees that at least meet the minimum design standards of the National Flood Insurance Program and contribute to preserving the economic viability of the affected communities. G. Establish Design Standards for the SRFCP’s Urban Levees and

Guidelines for Urban Development of SRFCP Protected Floodplains

The legislation should seek to limit new sources of inverse condemnation liability by imposing stricter requirements on urban development in floodplains protected by the SRFCP based on designating these floodplains as hazard zones for such development. Urbanization would be allowed in these zones only if the responsible land use agency prepares a flood risk management plan that addresses the following issues.

1. Require the SRFCP’s Urban Levees to Safely Contain the Flows and Water Surface Elevations Produced by an Urban Standard Flood (USF)

The legislation should direct DWR to develop guidelines for urban standard flood protection. These guidelines should establish a water surface profile for the SRFCP “urban standard flood” derived from estimates, developed in connection with the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, of the water surface elevations produced by a 200-year flood. Based

4

on this urban standard flood profile, the guidelines should identify appropriate levee freeboard, stability, underseepage, and erosion standards. Local land use agencies desiring to proceed with urban development in an SRFCP protected floodplain would be required to indicate, as part of their adopted risk management plan, how this new State standard will be achieved over time. Assuming the process for developing the engineering, environmental, and financial elements of the plan and its expected implementation timeline are reasonable and feasible, local agencies would be permitted to proceed with development based on meeting applicable National Flood Insurance Program requirements during the time period when the local jurisdiction is working to achieve urban standard flood protection.

2. Complete a Comprehensive Evaluation of the Levees Protecting

the Urbanizing Areas The local risk management plan should provide reasonably current data that are sufficient in scope to demonstrate how the levees protecting the urbanizing floodplain will meet existing National Flood Insurance Program requirements while the local entity is working to meet the State’s more rigorous urban standard flood requirements. These data should be a product of a comprehensive evaluation of the affected levees that addresses all applicable levee freeboard, stability, underseepage and erosion standards, including the geotechnical guidelines of the Corps, Sacramento District Standard Operating Procedure: Geotechnical Levee Practice (August 2004). This evaluation should also serve as the basis for identifying the steps needed to achieve urban standard flood protection. 3. Ensure that SRFCP Levees Protecting Urban Development are

Maintained in Accordance with Urban Standards The legislation should direct DWR to clarify the guidelines applicable to maintenance of SRFCP levees protecting urban development. These guidelines should address all aspects of urban levee maintenance, including seepage evaluation and erosion control and should include provisions to enhance fish and wildlife habitat values in the affected river and stream channels.

4. Ensure that Urban Development in SRFCP protected floodplains does not Increase the Peak Flow of Stormwater Discharged from the District When River Flows Equal or Exceed the Design of the SRFCP

Since urban development has the potential to alter the infiltration capacity of agricultural land and change the drainage patterns of the protected floodplain, the local risk management plan should also indicate how the urbanizing area will be designed to ensure that there is no net increase in the peak flow of stormwater discharged from the floodplain when flows in the SRCP system equal or exceed the design of the system.

5

5. Require Local Agencies to Develop a Flood Emergency Response

Plan, including Floodplain Evacuation Most SRFCP protected floodplains are subject to deep flooding in the event of a levee failure. In order to prevent unnecessary injuries and loss of life in such an event, the local risk management plan should contain appropriate provisions addressing the location and design of critical health and public safety facilities, and plans for emergency response and floodplain evacuation. H. Update the Guidelines Governing the State’s Regulation of the

SRFCP’s Urban and Non-Urban Floodways The legislation should direct DWR to work with the Reclamation Board to update the guidelines governing the State’s regulation of the SRFCP’s urban and non-urban floodways consistent with the State plan. The updated guidelines should identify goals and policies for sound floodplain management, flood conveyance, erosion control, levee stability and levee maintenance, including guidelines for riparian habitat, public recreation, and riverfront development as floodway encroachments. This effort should take advantage of the accomplishments of the Sacramento River Planning Forum. I. Continue to Invest in the Capital Improvements Necessary to

Reduce the Risk of Flooding in the Urban Areas Protected by the SRFCP

Since the flood of 1986, the State and federal governments have made substantial investments in improvements to the SRFCP that will reduce the risk of flooding in the urban areas protected by the SRFCP. This effort is being carried out in partnership with local agencies supporting development in these areas. The legislation should reaffirm the State’s commitment to sponsor the SRFCP improvement projects that are needed to provide urban standard flood protection to the urbanizing areas of the Sacramento Valley. J. Ensure that Occupants of Areas Protected by the SRFCP have

Adequate Notice of the Risk of Flooding in their Area Consistent with applicable real estate disclosure requirements, the legislation should declare that the risk of flooding to structures located in SRFCP protected floodplains and their contents is a material fact to be disclosed in all real estate transactions involving property in these areas, whether urban or non-urban. In addition, the legislation should require cities and counties to cooperate with local flood management districts in providing occupants of SRFCP protected floodplains with regular notice (at least annually) regarding the risk of flooding in their area as well as any progress which has been made in reducing that risk.

6

K. Preserve Agricultural Open Space in the Areas Upstream and Immediately Downstream of the Fremont Weir

The State plan should encourage the preservation of agricultural open space in the areas upstream and immediately downstream of the Fremont Weir, which are likely to absorb some of the impact of extreme flood events that exceed the conveyance capacity of non-urban levees. This could be accomplished through the acquisition of flowage/conservation easements, augmented by a complementary habitat enhancement program on the affected lands that is consistent with adopted regional Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans where applicable. L. Require all Property Owners in Areas Protected by SRFCP

Levees to Carry Flood Insurance Flood insurance obtained through the federally backed NFIP is the most reasonable mechanism for equitably distributing the relatively low risk but potentially catastrophic consequences of flooding in the areas protected by the SRFCP. Accordingly, the legislation should require all property owners in SRFCP protected floodplains to maintain NFIP flood insurance policies covering the estimated replacement value of all structures and contents with a replacement value in excess of $50,000. This flood insurance requirement should be viewed as a key non-structural element of the State’s plan and the legislation should direct DWR to develop an appropriate plan for enforcing this requirement. This could be accomplished by:

• Including notice of this requirement in the annual notice of flood risk issued by local districts to property owner in SRFCP protected floodplains,

• Directing insurance companies to notify these property owners regarding the flood insurance requirement in connection with any other insurance transaction affecting the property, and

• Requiring banks and mortgage companies doing business in California to ensure that any mortgage issued on property in a SRFCP floodplain is backed by NFIP flood insurance.

The premiums paid for such policies would vary depending on risk of damage, structure value, and degree of coverage. In order to reduce the resulting cost burden on property owners in the non-urban areas, the legislation should provide appropriate mechanisms to offset this cost.

M. Update the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Maps

Covering the Floodplains Protected by the SRFCP It is widely recognized that the NFIP flood insurance maps that currently govern development and flood insurance requirements in the floodplains protected by the SRCFP are outdated. The legislation should direct DWR to

7

proceed expeditiously to update these maps based on the best available hydrologic, hydraulic, geotechnical, and maintenance information. N. Clarify the Standards for Inter-Governmental Liability for Flood

Damage Claims in Areas Protected by the SRFCP and Provide the Tools Necessary to Manage this Liability

Governmental liability for flood damages in areas protected by the SRFCP is based on common law principles of inverse condemnation. Under these principles, California courts have held government liable when a flood control project, as designed, constructed, operated, and maintained, exposes a landowner to an unreasonable risk of harm. Where the government is found to be liable, the extent of the damages depends on the extent of the development in the protected area. This approach has created two problems that should be addressed by the legislation. First, in determining what constitutes an “unreasonable risk of harm” courts have cited an increasingly unwieldy list of criteria that tends to confuse rather than clarify governmental and landowner responsibilities. Second, because the responsibilities for SRFCP design, SRFCP maintenance and protected area land use are distributed among different levels of government, it is difficult to develop an effective risk management program. The legislation should address these problems by clarifying the statutory grounds for holding government liable for flood damage claims in areas protected by the SRFCP and providing the affected governmental agencies with the tools necessary to manage this liability. The legislation should indicate that the considerations for determining whether property owners may hold the government liable for flood damages in a SRFCP floodplain are:

• Whether the damages resulted from a reasonably foreseeable

structural or operational deficiency in the flood control project that the government had a reasonable opportunity to correct;

• Whether the government made a reasonable effort to ensure that the affected property owners were made aware of the risks associated with owning property in a protected floodplain; and

• Whether the government provided reasonable mechanisms for equitably distributing the financial risks borne by the property owners due to the potential for flooding.

With respect to providing the tools necessary to manage this liability, as discussed above, the legislation should:

• Direct DWR to develop appropriate design standards for SRFCP facilities that distinguish between the flood protection needs of urban and rural areas and allow the affected governmental agencies to identify structural and operational deficiencies;

8

• Outline a comprehensive flood risk management plan tied to these design standards that promotes appropriate land-use planning in SRFCP protected floodplains and augments the structural protections provided to property owners in these floodplains with a mandatory flood insurance requirement; and

• Create a financing plan for the SRFCP that provides the capital needed to achieve the adopted design standards for SRFCP facilities and the ongoing funding needed to operate and maintain these facilities.

The legislation should not attempt to address the problem of governmental liability for flood damages by altering the current scheme of inter-governmental indemnification that has grown up in connection with the SRFCP. Under this scheme, by agreement with the Federal Government, the State has accepted responsibility for operating and maintaining SRFCP levees and related facilities and for holding the Federal Government harmless for any damages associated with these facilities. The State has in turn entered into a series of agreements with local levee maintenance and flood management agencies pursuant to which these agencies have agreed to carry out the State’s operation and maintenance responsibilities and to hold the State harmless for any damages associated with these facilities. Local agencies which control land use in SRFCP floodplains have no contractual basis for holding the State harmless for flood damages because they do not control the operation and maintenance of SRFCP facilities. It would be inappropriate to abandon this historically fruitful separation of functions. Rather, as discussed above, the relationship between land use and the potential scope of flood damages should be managed by establishing reasonable standards governing land use in SRFCP protected floodplains. O. Amend the State Constitution to Exempt Local Property

Assessments for SRFCP Levee Maintenance and Improvement from the Voting Requirements of Proposition 218

The passage of Proposition 218, which amended the State Constitution by popular initiative, has made it very difficult for local flood management agencies in urban and non-urban areas protected by SRFCP levees to raise the funds needed to improve and maintain these levees. The Legislature should support efforts to include local assessments for SRFCP levee maintenance and improvement activities on the list of fees and charges that are exempt from any voting requirements under Proposition 218. This would substantially increase the authority of local districts to address their levee maintenance and improvement needs and reduce the risk of flood damages and claims against the State and local government.

9

III. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The actions called for in the proposed legislation would require a significant increase in funding for technical studies; improvements to SRFCP facilities; more extensive levee maintenance, inspection and oversight activities; emergency preparedness; flood insurance and easement acquisition. The legislation should provide appropriate mechanisms for meeting these needs as discussed below. A. State Infrastructure Bonds The Legislature is currently considering asking California voters to approve the issuance of infrastructure bonds to finance flood control and other water resource related activities. As set forth in AB 1839 and SB 1166, these would be designated as the “2006 Bond” and “2010 Bond”. The 2006 bond authorizes $540 million in spending for improvements and activities related to the SRFCP and to the state plan of flood protection in the San Joaquin Valley. The 2010 Bond authorizes an additional $600 million for these purposes. In their present form, AB 1839 and SB 1166 call for these funds to be expended for certain designated purposes with certain local-State cost-sharing arrangements. Although the language of these bills appears to anticipate revision of the standards governing the State plan for flood protection, portions of the bills need to be revised to strengthen the linkage between the bills’ designated purposes and the achievement of these standards. In particular, the bills should be crafted to serve the state’s interest in facilitating urban standard protection for the urbanizing areas of the SRFCP while ensuring that deficiencies in the system’s non-urban levees, determined by reference to the adopted design standard for these levees, are remedied over time. B. SRFCP Benefit Assessment District At the outset of the 2005 legislative year, the Legislature considered a proposal to create a new benefit assessment district covering all of the property within the drainage area of the Central Valley. This proposal was part of a larger package of flood control and flood risk reduction measures contained in AB 1665 that failed to generate enough support to become law despite last minute efforts to gut the main provisions of the bill including the assessment district. AB 1665 is likely to be revised and resubmitted for consideration in the current session. If the bill calls for a benefit assessment district, the scope of the district should be limited to property owners in the Sacramento Valley who benefit from the protection of the SRFCP. Such a district could provide funding for the following purposes: (1) satisfying the local cost-sharing requirements of the infrastructure Bonds, (2) improving the SRFCP’s urban and non-urban levees consistent with the design standards established by the State’s plan, (3) protecting the small communities exposed to flooding in the SRFCP’s non-urban areas, (4) initiating a flood insurance offset program in the rural areas protected by the

10

SRFCP, (5) acquiring flowage/conservation easements to create overflow areas that also preserve prime farmland and its associated habitat value in rural areas upstream of the Fremont Weir, (6) providing support for funding forecast-based reservoir operations, and (7) building a reserve fund for flood emergencies. The district would be formed by the State. Property owners would be assessed on an annual basis using assessment principles already authorized by the California Water Code for flood control activities. Under these principles, property owners in protected urban floodplains would provide the bulk of the assessment district’s revenue. Property owners in protected non-urban floodplains would be assessed at substantially lower rates. In addition, in order to increase the funds available to the district for acquiring flowage/conservation easements and pursuing the other purposes outlined above, development impact fees could be imposed on all new development in the district that converts agricultural and habitat land to urban use. C. Federal Participation Over the next ten to fifteen years, the Federal Government is expected to make significant contributions to funding the federal share of the cost of modifying Folsom Dam and completing federally authorized levee improvements around the Sacramento area so as to provide this area, which contains more than 60 percent of the damageable property value in SRFCP protected floodplains, with urban standard flood protection. Additional federal contributions will also be needed to cover the federal share of the cost of authorized federal projects aimed at providing urban standard protection to urbanizing areas in Yuba and Yolo Counties. Because of the magnitude of these efforts, the demand for federal financial assistance is likely to exceed historic federal funding capabilities. Accordingly, the legislation should expressly permit the State and its local partners to negotiate cost-sharing agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers that contain appropriate credit/reimbursement provisions and anticipate substantial upfront expenditures by the non-federal interests to initiate SRFCP facility improvements. The Federal Government would provide additional funding for completing this work and would reimburse the State for expenditures in excess of the mandated non-federal share. These reimbursements could be used to create a reserve fund and augment the funding available for levee design deficiency and channel maintenance work. In addition, the legislation should call upon the Federal Government to reauthorize the Sacramento River Bank Protection Program. The purpose of this federal program would be to enhance fish and aquatic habitat values in the SRFCP’s streams and channels so as to complement the State’s design deficiency/channel maintenance program.

11

D. Support from State Water Project and Central Valley Project Beneficiaries

The channel and bank improvements needed to maintain the stability of SRFCP levees could be funded in part by the beneficiaries of the State Water Project (SWP) and the Central Valley Project (CVP) based on the adverse impacts of these projects on the integrity of these levees. These projects have helped to create a new flow regime in the main stem rivers that produces consistently lower spring and higher summer flows geared to the demands of urban and agricultural water customers. This altered flow regime in turn supports a growing use of the rivers for recreation, including boating activities that contribute to the destabilization of SRFCP levees by generating persistent wake driven waves that act as a chronic source of bank and levee erosion. The effort needed to address this chronic erosion is thus attributable in part to the SWP and CVP. The legislation should direct DWR to develop recommendations as to how the beneficiaries of these projects could contribute to this effort. E. Support from Boaters Using the Waterways of the Delta and the

SRFCP The use of SRFCP waterways for boating and related recreation is a benefit provided in part by the operation of the SWP and CVP and the Delta and SRFCP levee systems. Because of the detrimental impact of boat wakes on these systems, it is reasonable to expect boaters to contribute to the cost of the channel and bank improvements needed to maintain these systems. Accordingly, the legislation should direct DWR to consider developing a program under which users of the waterways of the SRFCP contribute to the maintenance costs associated with boating impacts.

12

Item #07-5-11

SACOG Board of Directors Action

May 10, 2007 SACOG Floodplain Development Strategy Issue: Last year, the Board endorsed SAFCA’s white paper and adopted recommended revisions to AB 1899 (Wolk), forming a floodplain development strategy and policy position. Current flood bills and the Department of Water Resources’ flood control initiative highlight issues SACOG has not yet addressed and should consider in an update of the floodplain development strategy. Recommendation: The Flood Management Committee recommends that the SACOG Board adopt the updated floodplain development strategy (Attachment A). Committee Action/Discussion: The Flood Management Committee was created to form regional consensus around a floodplain development strategy that was used last year to advocate SACOG’s position on relevant state flood bills. The strategy was also part of Blueprint implementation. SAFCA’s white paper formed the basis for SACOG’s strategy, but as AB 1899 (Wolk) evolved, it was clear that the strategy would have to be expanded to respond to the land use restrictions the bill would have imposed. Based on meetings with legislators and DWR staff late last year and early this year, it is apparent that the state is broadening its focus on flood control and SACOG needs to update its strategy again in order to respond to flood-related bills and DWR’s flood initiative. At its March meeting, the Flood Management Committee directed staff to propose additional floodplain development strategy components in preparation for taking positions on key bills. The committee revised the strategy update at its April and May meetings. The floodplain development strategy is included as Attachment A. Components adopted last year are in standard type and new components are italicized. The strategy includes development requirements that must be met at various stages of flood protection and levee improvement, as well as ongoing requirements given any level of protection or development. Approved by: Mike McKeever Executive Director MM:DS:ts Attachment Key Staff: David Shabazian, Senior Planner, (916) 340-6231 S:\SACOG\BRDPCKTS\2007 Packets\May\11-Floodplain Strategy.doc 0700601

Attachment B

1

Item #07-5-11 Attachment A

Floodplain Management Strategy Draft – May 7, 2007 (Italics indicate new components in addition to those adopted last year by the SACOG Board) 1. Prior to levee evaluations and improvement plans:

• Create a land use strategy for the region addressing development in the floodplain based on the Blueprint and the floodplain management strategy components listed below in items 1-4. Some have called this the “Dryprint.”

• Inspect levees and report conditions regularly; • Notify property owners and occupants of flood risk via real estate transaction

disclosures and regular notices by local flood management districts cooperating with affected local jurisdictions;

• Require flood insurance through a plan enforced by the State of California; • Require a plan for emergency preparation, response, and recovery; • Ensure new development does not increase stormwater discharge above peak flow;

2. While making improvements to achieve 100-year level of protection, apply all of the

above and include: • Use FEMA’s development conditions while achieving certified 100-year level of

protection.

• Use FEMA’s definition of infill; • Support a public policy goal of achieving an urban level of flood protection

(approximately 200 years) and require local land use agencies to indicate, as part of their adopted risk management plan, how urban standard flood protection will be achieved over time. Assuming the process for developing the engineering, environmental, and financial elements of the plan and its expected implementation timeline are reasonable and feasible, local agencies would be permitted to proceed with development based on meeting applicable National Flood Insurance Program requirements during the time period when the local jurisdiction is working to achieve urban standard flood protection (SAFCA White Paper, March 2006);

• Development in flood-prone areas will be allowed only where new development’s flood mitigation is part of a local plan of flood protection. Examples of such

2

mitigation include levee improvements, floodway land acquisition, channel improvement, and reservoir operational improvements.

• Apply a lower flood protection standard to small communities and rural areas;

• Establish small community development conditions (see “Small Community

Conditions” below);

• Identify undeveloped areas where urban areas can purchase flood easements. Where possible, focus on lands that are, or will be, part of a Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Communities Conservation Plan;

• Include flood management priorities established in Integrated Regional Water

Management Plans; 3. Once 100-year protection is achieved, apply all of the above and include:

• Set a minimum 200-year level of protection design standards for urban levees; use a lower standard for levees protecting small communities and rural areas.

• Do not impose a strict timeline to achieve an urban level of flood protection, but

require that flood mitigation for new development is part of a local plan to achieve urban standard flood protection.

4. Regarding State involvement in local flood protection efforts:

• Focus on lands protected by State project levees, but include non-project levees where necessary and appropriate to support efforts to improve the State project levee system (i.e., a system-wide approach to improving flood protection in the Central Valley);

• Focus Proposition 1E and 84 bond proceeds on areas with the highest level of risk as

calculated above and appropriate a portion of the proceeds to small communities based on their percentage of total development in the floodplain;

• Preclude Reclamation Board review of tentative map applications for individual

development projects;

• Establish what, if any, local oversight of floodplain management plans should be required and who would be responsible for that oversight.

3

Small Community Conditions Below are conditions included as part of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors approval of the Old Sugar Mill Project in Clarksburg. The conditions have been amended somewhat for use by the Flood Management Committee. These conditions would apply to small communities in the floodplain that are less than 3,500 people including: Courtland, Hood, Isleton, Clarksburg, Yolo, Knights Landing, Nicholas, and Robbins. 1. Habitable areas must be elevated one-foot above the 100-year base flood elevation (BFE) or one

foot above the 100-year highest expected flood elevation, whichever is greater at the time a residential building permit is issued.

2. All property owners must have flood insurance until geotechnical evaluation of the levee is

conducted that either demonstrates that minimum 100-year flood protection exists, or until improvements to the levees (or other measures) are completed that will achieve minimum 100-year flood protection.

3. All lots must contain a deed disclosure regarding flood risk and the status of the levees. Annual

notice of flood risk and the flood insurance requirement will also be provided. 4. There must be a permanent 50-foot setback from the levee within which no development may occur. 5. In order to preserve an area to implement levee improvements in the event of a levee failure, an

interim restriction on development within 300 feet of the levee is required. This may be reduced to the permanent 50-foot setback following completion of the geotechnical evaluation of the levee along the project site and implementation of feasible improvements.

6. Preclude residential uses anywhere in the project until such time as the Flood Protection Plan is

completed and all feasible improvements implemented by the developer. 7. Annual notice of flood risk to all property owners is required, including notice of the owner’s

requirement to carry flood insurance if or when 100-year certification is no longer available. 8. Require permanent land use restrictions and design requirements applicable in the area within 500

feet of the toe of the levee. These include: 1) no permanent unlined excavations; 2) basements or swimming pools must be engineered to withstand uplift forces of shallow groundwater; 3) no below grade leach systems; 4) specifications for buried utility conduits and wiring; 5) no new water wells; 6) specifications for levee penetrations; and 7) requirements for landscape root barriers within 50 feet of the toe.

9. Should the levee adjoining the project be decertified by FEMA or if the geotechnical evaluation

determines that improvements are needed in order to achieve or re-certify 100-year flood protection, require that a Flood Protection Plan be prepared by the developer, including identification of improvements necessary to achieve 200-year flood protection and a financing plan including an estimate of costs and identification of local, state, and federal financial participation.

10. Require the developer to participate in any special district created to implement flood control

improvements.

4

Yolo County staff also proposed the following concepts for inclusion in SACOG’s development strategy for small communities in the floodplain. The ideas are focused on State support for small communities: 11. Allow limited development in small communities located in the floodplain to fund basic

infrastructure needs;

12. Provide state subsidies for flood insurance for small or disadvantaged communities;

13. Provide state subsidies for infrastructure needs for small communities to reduce the incentive to approve development.

Attachment C

1

Sacramento Region Floodplain Status Report August 8, 2010 BACKGROUND This report is an update to a floodplain status report from 2007 that was used for the land use plan that underpins the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). At that time, many jurisdictions expressed some uncertainty about their ability to develop in flood prone areas due to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) remapping of the floodplains in the SACOG region. Preliminary maps at that time were showing many basins along the rivers of the region to have less than a 100‐year level of protection and therefore designated as zones where development could occur only with certain conditions being met, which in some areas would impose a de facto moratorium. At the same time, Senate Bill 5 (Machado) was approved. It requires cities and counties to now have a 200‐year level of flood protection for urban areas and a 100‐year level of protection in rural areas. Flood protection plans and general plans must be consistent with the State Plan of Flood Protection and flood protection improvement milestones must be met in order for development to occur. Those milestones include: a flood protection improvement plan by 2015 after which adequate progress toward 200‐year level of protection by 2025 must be demonstrated. A 200‐year level of protection must be in place by 2025. As discussed below, many jurisdictions have been working hard to conduct needed levee assessments and develop plans and funding for improvements to meet FEMA and state requirements for development approval. In many cases, jurisdictions believe that their efforts and improvement schedules will result in very little or no affect on growth forecasts and development in the floodplain as envisioned by the MTP, notwithstanding the current economic recession being experienced by developers and consumers. Some jurisdictions are more challenged to meet federal and state requirements due to levee conditions, hydrology, or funding shortfalls. Specific status reports, written with the help of local jurisdictions, are provided below. YUBA COUNTY Plumas Lake, Linda, Olivehurst, Arboga Levee Status Levees around the South Yuba County basin (Reclamation District 784) are anticipated to be accredited by FEMA based on their acceptance of a recently submitted certification package by the Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority (TRLIA). FEMA has confirmed that 29 miles of levees meet certification criteria for 100‐year level of protection and will be sending a letter of determination in August with maps reflecting the accreditation. There are four miles of levee

Attachment C

2

that are still under construction; however, the project is expected to be completed this summer and final maps are expected in February 2011. These levees also meet the 200‐year standard establish by state legislation (SB 5). One section of the levee system near the Goldfields area has been identified as potentially not meeting the 200‐year standard. Hydraulic analysis is being conducted to determine if additional work is needed in this area. FEMA and SB 5 Status Given that FEMA has accredited the levees as providing 100‐year level of protection and is sending a new letter of determination, TRLIA is confident that RD 784 will be mapped out of the floodplain early next year. Regarding consistency with the state’s 200‐year protection requirement, TRLIA believes that even if improvements are needed for levees in the Goldfields area, meeting state requirements for an improvement plan by 2015 will be achieved. All other levees have a 200‐year level of protection. MTP 2035 Implementation Levee accreditation by FEMA means that communities within RD 784—Linda, Olivehurst, Arboga and Plumas Lake—will not be “mapped” into a Special Flood Hazard Area when FEMA’s new Flood Insurance Rate Maps take effect in February 2011. There is an exception in areas affected by internal drainage issues. Growth anticipated for this area will be allowed to continue with no building elevation requirements and property owners will not be required to purchase flood insurance. Marysville Levee Status The levees on the Yuba and Feather Rivers around Marysville are not certified as having 100‐year protection, although no deficiencies have been identified at this time. The Department of Water Resources is currently conducting a drilling program along the entire levee around Marysville. Borings are spaced at 1,000‐foot intervals, and will provide data for an underseepage analysis. This analysis should indicate what work, if any, will be needed to achieve 100 or 200 year protection for the City. In addition, the Corps of Engineers is starting construction on the Marysville Ring Levee project, which will repair the levee to carry the 1957 design level (approximately 200‐year flow). Levees within the City’s sphere of influence south of Marysville are within the jurisdiction of Reclamation District 784. These levees are being upgraded by RD 784 and Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority through a levee improvement plan that is intended to achieve 200‐year protection. Within Marysville’s sphere of influence to the north, flood protection is provided by Reclamation District 10. These levees are not certified, and the Reclamation District has not started an evaluation program. FEMA and SB 5 Status The City of Marysville is not currently within the 100‐year floodplain. The current Flood

Attachment C

3

Insurance Rate Maps for Marysville, as revised in the digital mapping program, show Marysville under a Provisionally Accredited Levee (PAL) Agreement. The PAL expired in June, 2010, and it is anticipated that the next FIRM cycle will show Marysville within the 100‐year floodplain, unless the DWR Urban Levee Analysis, when completed, shows the levees are adequate for 100‐year protection. MTP 2035 Implementation Development within the existing city limits of Marysville will be strictly infill and intensification of existing uses. It is not anticipated that the studies currently underway will affect efforts to develop within the city, therefore it is likely that MTP 2035 allocations will be realized as anticipated. Wheatland Levee Status Levees on the Bear River currently are not certified as having 100‐year level of protection. Levee improvements for a 200‐year level of protection were completed for the north levee of the Bear River in early 2010. Reclamation District 817 is in the process of submitting a letter of map revision (LOMR) to FEMA and the Corps of Engineers and expects levee certification in February 2011. This certification will affect approved growth areas in the city’s southwest quadrant and pending growth plans in southeast quadrant. Development interests have funded the necessary levee improvements, but an assessment district is needed to provide for long‐term maintenance of the Bear River levee. A ballot measure has been mailed to property owners benefiting from the levee improvements for this assessment district and will be subject to the two‐thirds approval requirements per Proposition 218. Levees along Dry Creek to the north and downstream of Wheatland require evaluation and a plan for improvements. Timing of this work is contingent on funding. There is one pending development project and one approved project along Dry Creek requiring some level of improvement to the levee before development can occur. FEMA and AB 5 Status Except for high ground on which much of the existing city was built, Wheatland is currently mapped into the 100‐year floodplain. FEMA released preliminary maps in 2006, which assigned an “A” designation across the sphere of influence on the north and west sides of the city. This designation could essentially stop development in these areas if it were to become final since it implies that the base flood elevation is unknown and hence, building elevation requirements are unknown. However, given the levee improvements and pending LOMR and levee certification, the south side of the city will most likely be mapped out of the floodplain by spring 2011 and will meet the 200‐year level of protection requirements per AB 5. Northern areas affected by Dry Creek will continue to have an “A” designation. MTP 2035 Implementation Given the levee improvements and anticipated re‐designation of the southern floodplain, growth phasing in the 2035 MTP in Wheatland will most likely occur as anticipated. The first

Attachment C

4

greenfield development within the floodplain will like occur in the southwest part of the city where two development projects totaling approximately 1,200 units have entitlements. In the southeast, landowners are in the process of securing entitlements for as many as 15,000 units. In the north, along Dry Creek, and to the west, greenfield development will occur more slowly as levee evaluations and improvement plans have yet to begin given that funding remains an issue for these projects. Therefore SACOG’s 2035 MTP growth allocated in the north part of the city could start later than anticipated and may not be completed within the planning horizon. SUTTER COUNTY Levee Status The levees in Sutter County are currently not certified as providing 100‐year level of protection due mainly to the potential for underseepage problems. Levees along the west bank of the Feather River have been studied extensively, as have the levees within the Natomas Sub‐Basin (along the east bank of the Sacramento River and the south bank of the Natomas Cross Canal). The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) continues to implement the levee improvement plan for the Natomas Sub‐Basin that addresses the underseepage concerns and anticipates bringing most of the Natomas Sub‐Basin to a 200‐year level of protection by 2015. The Sutter‐Butte Flood Control Agency (SBFCA) is working on a “Sutter Basin General Investigation Feasibility Study” in partnership with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). SBFCA is also proposing an “Early Implementation Project” for the west bank of the Feather River that would result in 100‐year certification for most of the Yuba City Sub‐Basin. Butte and Sutter County property owners are currently going through a Proposition 218 process to establish an assessment district to raise the local cost share for the Early Implementation Project. Should the assessment district be approved by the voters, SBFCA expects to complete the Feather River levee improvements by 2015. FEMA and SB 5 Status In December 2008, new FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) went into effect for much of the County. The new FIRMs show the Natomas Sub‐Basin, most of the Nicolaus Sub‐Basin, and the southern half of the Yuba City Sub‐Basin as falling within Special Flood Hazard Areas (zone “A”). As a participating member of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), Sutter County is required to enforce minimum NFIP standards, such as mandating that the first floor of new or substantially improved buildings be at or above base flood elevation. Property owners who have a federally‐backed mortgage on properties within a Special Flood Hazard Area are also required carry flood insurance for all structures on that property. In some areas where potential flood depths could be very deep, future development may become infeasible as it is impractical to raise buildings beyond a certain height. FEMA anticipates release of preliminary FIRMs for all of Sutter County in early 2011. Sutter County is working closely with FEMA and is providing considerable technical data and detailed studies to assist in the map modernization effort. The County maintains that FEMA maps should be based upon detailed studies that use current and accurate topographical data and

Attachment C

5

accurately represent the floodplain. The County is opposed to approximate “A” zone designations in areas where detailed studies have not been completed. All urban levees in Sutter County will have a 200‐year level of protection to meet state requirements. Given anticipated funding and project completion, levees protecting land between Live Oak and Yuba City and within the Natomas basin will meet SB 5 standards by 2015. 2035 MTP Implementation The levee improvement schedules for the Natomas Sub‐Basin and the Yuba City Sub‐Basin show that 200‐year flood protection should be achieved by 2015. Given this schedule and funding availability, it is likely that the growth allocated to these areas in the 2035 MTP will occur as currently forecasted. Considering that the Sutter Pointe Specific Plan has been approved, development in the Natomas Sub‐Basin is anticipated to proceed once a 200‐year level of protection is achieved. An assessment district was recently approved by Sutter County residents, which will provide the local funding needed to match state and federal funds for levee improvements for the Live Oak‐Yuba City Sub‐basin. Any state or federal funding delays could hinder levee improvements and development beyond 2015 in one or both basins. In other areas of Sutter County that remain within a Special Flood Hazard Area, development could still proceed provided that the amount of elevation required (i.e. elevating the first floor at or above base flood elevation) will be feasible to achieve. However, flood depths in these areas range from less than one foot to 21 feet. YOLO COUNTY Unincorporated County (Knights Landing, Clarksburg, and Yolo) Levee Status Decades ago, FEMA certified Yolo County’s Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees as strong enough to withstand a 100‐year flood event. Several changes have been made by FEMA over the past decade to redefine regional flood hazards. The southern Cache Creek levees were disaccredited in April 2002, which placed significant portions of the City of Woodland within the 100‐year floodplain. Similarly, the levees protecting the towns of Knights Landing, Yolo, and Clarksburg were decertified in June 18, 2010, and all three towns were remapped into the 100‐year floodplain. Absent specific engineered analysis, FEMA, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and DWR assume that Yolo County’s levees in the unincorporated area do not meet new federal standards for certification, including standards for freeboard, erosion, and geotechnical stability (i.e., throughseepage and underseepage). The only way to determine whether these levees can meet federal standards is to conduct expensive geotechnical or “problem identification” studies. Yolo County and levee maintenance districts are struggling to attract state and federal money to conduct these studies, as well as implement needed repairs, because the County’s levees protect small communities and important agricultural land, not urban areas. Due to the

Attachment C

6

high cost of levee reconstruction and the relatively low value of the farmland and rural towns they protect, it is not possible to meet the 1:1 cost‐benefit ratio needed in order to qualify for federal and state assistance. With the passage of Proposition 84, DWR has indicated they may evaluate levees in small communities. The money, however, will not be available until at least July of 2010. FEMA and SB 5 Status FEMA, in coordination with the DWR, is in the process of remapping Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees to determine if they meet new federal standards. FEMA’s new FIRMS disaccredited the levees, thereby expanding the boundaries of many existing flood areas. As anticipated the previously identified low lying flood prone areas and unincorporated areas protected by Sacramento River levees were remapped into the 100‐year floodplain. As a result, FEMA now requires property owners in these areas that have federally‐backed mortgages to carry flood insurance. Land owners will also be required to comply with new building restrictions consistent with Yolo County’s floodplain ordinance. These restrictions include raising new and substantially improved residential structures to at least one foot above the base flood elevation. Levee Flood Protection Zone Maps (LFPZM) In August for 2009, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) released their LFPZM maps for the Sacramento River Basin pursuant to AB156 and recently adopted California Water Code §91221 and §9130. The maps essentially identify property owners that could be affected by flood impacts in the event of a levee break. Although similar to the FEMA flood maps, the newly established LFPZM maps provide estimated depth of flooding for both Knights Landing (3‐19 feet), Clarksburg (5‐23 feet), and Elkhorn (3‐21 feet). The estimated depth of flooding for the town of Yolo is unknown. MTP 2035 Implementation The only communities in the unincorporated area of Yolo County protected by Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees are Knights Landing, Clarksburg, and Yolo. In addition, the 2030 General Plan includes a new Specific Plan area located at Elkhorn, where Interstate 5 crosses the Sacramento River. Projected new growth is expected to total approximately 1,500 new housing units in the three towns under the 2030 General Plan. An additional undetermined number of residential units would be built on upper stories within the Elkhorn Specific Plan. Since the county does not have funding for problem identification studies, growth in these areas could be stymied for some time, so 2035 MTP allocations for the unincorporated county may be affected. Woodland Levee Status The Cache Creek levees were designed to provide the City of Woodland with 10‐year level of protection, but generally don’t overtop until a 30‐year or greater event occurs. Currently there are no improvement plans in place to upgrade the levees above a 10‐30 year level. Yolo Bypass levees are understood to provide 100‐year or greater protection, but very little, if any of the

Attachment C

7

City would be affected by a break in the Bypass levees. Nonetheless, all levees were decertified by FEMA in 2009 including the Yolo Bypass levees. DWR has finished the investigation of the urban protection levees on the Yolo Bypass and Cache Creek System. None of these levees meet present criteria for construction and under seepage. FEMA and SB 5 Status Woodland’s 100‐year floodplain covers approximately 50 percent of the city. Flood depths from a 100‐year event are generally 2 feet to 3 feet, but reach up to 12 feet in some areas. The city is currently subject to FEMA’s “AE” designation and will be until levees meet the new 100‐year level of protection criteria. DWR has investigated the Settling Basin levees as part of the AB 142 funding and found that they can not be certified as part of FEMA’s issuance of digitized Flood Insurance Rate Maps. There is a possibility that underseepage criteria were not in place when the Settling Basin levees were originally designed and constructed. As a result of the levee decertification of the Cache Creek Levees, the Settling Basin Levees, and the Yolo Bypass levees, I‐5 is now in the 100‐year floodplain and modeling shows that the section of I‐5 east of Woodland to the Yolo Bypass could be flooded for two months if a 100‐year Cache Creek flood were to occur. Similar results would also occur if the Cache Creek Settling Basin levees were to fail.

The city needs to model the 200‐year event to meet state SB 5 requirements. It is recognized that both local and regional flood events could impact different parts of the city. At present, the city is waiting for the hydrology that is being developed by Central Valley Flood Control Association before beginning the modeling of the events. It is expected that some areas will be subject to flooding from either or both the local event and the regional events. The city is also waiting for the definition of “protection” under SB 5 because it will define the associated expectations and costs.

A unique issue for the city is that all the levees that affect the city’s flood problem are outside the jurisdiction of the city. The city can only work with the jurisdictional agencies towards a solution. How this will affect the mandates required by SB 5 remain to be determined.

MTP 2035 Implementation The residential growth areas are generally outside the floodplain, but essentially all the non‐residential growth is in the floodplain. Half of the non‐residential growth is in the “deep” floodplain (defined as over 4 feet of flooding) where development is prohibited by the General Plan. The redevelopment area is partially in the floodplain, but relatively shallow flood depths make it unlikely that redevelopment would be significantly impacted. Given that the evaluation of the levees for the 200‐year event and an improvement plan are completed by 2015, the city believes that the 2035 MTP allocations will likely not be affected by flood concerns. West Sacramento Levee Status The city currently has FEMA 100‐year certification and an aggressive levee improvement program. The city has completed levee evaluations using new levee design guidelines, and has

Attachment C

8

identified deficiencies based on new federal standards. A levee improvement program underway is designed to ultimately provide the city with 200‐year level of protection. FEMA and SB 5 Status FEMA is in the process of remapping the city of West Sacramento per FEMA’s map modernization program. The city is working closely with FEMA to exchange information that will help determine the most accurate flood zones for the city. Due to the complexities of the city from a geographic and hydraulic standpoint, it is anticipated that multiple flood zones will be issued throughout the city. The city leads a regional and national effort to revise FEMA’s flood zone designations criteria to more accurately reflect current conditions. Proposed regulatory changes to flood zone designations may help the city qualify for AR and/or A99 zones and further levee improvements. MTP 2035 Implementation Achievement of the 200‐year level of protection is expected to be accomplished by 2020. Although the city maintains an aggressive levee improvement program and responsible land use policies, the current federal regulatory conditions could delay growth allocations in the 2035 MTP. Given current FEMA policies, final maps with an AE designation over the city would create a de facto building moratorium. Given that the evaluation of the levees for the 200‐year event, assuming continued progress on proposed regulatory changes to federal flood zone designations and an improvement plan is completed by 2020, the city believes that flood concerns will likely have variable, but limited affect on the 2035 MTP allocations. SACRAMENTO COUNTY Natomas Basin – Joint Vision Area, Metro Air Park, Natomas Community Plan Levee Status The Natomas Basin levees are undergoing a major upgrade as identified in SAFCA’s Natomas Levee Improvement Plan (NLIP) that once implemented would provide the basin with at least a 200‐year level of protection. As part of SAFCA’s 2007 Consolidated Capital Assessment District, funds were included in the district to provide for SAFCA’s share of the improvements. In addition, a development fee was initiated to provide additional funds to help implement the project. Over half of the needed levee improvements to bring the basin up to a 200‐year level will be completed by the end of 2011. In addition to the current physical improvements to the levee, a Post‐Authorization Change Report for the Natomas Basin is being produced by the Corps and is expected to be complete by the end of 2010. Congress will need to authorize the report prior to federal money being used to construct the remaining improvements to the levee system. It is expected that the Corps will start construction of the remaining features in 2012 with construction activities winding up in 2014/2015 timeframe. Once the project is completed, the basin will be afforded 200‐year level of protection.

Attachment C

9

FEMA Status and SB 5 FEMA remapped the Natomas Basin from an X zone to an AE zone on December 8, 2008 after the Corps determined that the Natomas levees, which had been certified in 1998, no longer met 100‐year certification standards. As part of the remap process, FEMA determined that the Natomas Basin did not qualify for less restrictive AR or A99 flood zones and mapped the area into the more restrictive AE flood zone. Since then, new buildings or substantial improvements to existing buildings must be elevated or floodproofed to the base flood elevation of 33 feet. This has caused a de facto building moratorium in Natomas and homeowners within the basin are now required to purchase flood insurance. The City of Sacramento, Sacramento County, and Sutter County plan to apply to FEMA for a remap of the area to an A99 flood zone in January 2012 upon adequate progress of the NLIP. Assuming the NLIP stays on its current schedule, the Natomas Basin should be remapped to an A99 flood zone by the summer of 2012. With Zone A99, flood insurance will still be required, but no floodplain development restrictions will apply. Legislation passed in 2007 (SB 5) directed the Department of Water Resources to develop a Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) to develop a sustainable, integrated flood management plan for areas protected by facilities of the state‐federal flood protection system in the Central Valley for adoption by July 1, 2012. After adoption, the city and county will be required to amend its general plan to include information in the CVFPP. Once this occurs, the city and county will not be able to enter into development agreements unless the area has 200‐year level protection or adequate progress on construction of a flood protection system has been made. MTP 2035 Implementation Achievement of the 200‐year level of protection is expected to be accomplished by 2015. This will eliminate any state or federal restrictions on development in the basin imposed by the very restrictive AE flood zone designation. In the interim, if the city and counties are successful in their application for an A99 designation, development could proceed in 2013 without restrictions, except for the requirement of flood insurance. Given that improvements and re‐designation of the floodplain occurs as anticipated, there may be little affect on the growth projections in the 2035 MTP allocation City of Sacramento – Delta Shores Levee Status The levees protecting the Delta Shores area have been certified within the last 5 years. In addition, the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP) is currently under construction with a major contract award set to occur in September of 2010. The JFP will allow more efficient operation of the dam allowing the operators to manage larger flood events so that the levees downstream are not overwhelmed. Completion of the JFP is expected in 2015. Currently, it is not known what improvements are needed to the levees in order for them to be

Attachment C

10

able to pass the 200‐year event. The Corps has initiated a General Re‐Evaluation Report (GRR) that will study the levees around Sacramento and identify the improvements needed, if any, to bring the levees to a 200‐year level standard. The GRR is currently scheduled to be completed in 2012 with the construction of improvements to follow based on federal authorization and appropriations. FEMA and SB 5 Status Based on a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) dated February 21, 2007, most of Delta Shores area is now designated as Zone X, thereby allowing for development in the area to proceed without flood insurance requirements. Another LOMR is anticipated to be issued by FEMA in October 2010 for the area west of Morrison Creek, which will remove the east edge of Delta Shores from the A99 floodplain except for a 124‐acre piece on the southeast end of Delta Shores, which will be remapped to a restrictive Zone AE. Currently, a drainage system does not exist in this area, but with the development of Delta Shores and placement of a drainage system, the floodplain can be remapped to a Zone X. MTP 2035 Implementation Currently, most of the area can develop without FEMA conditions. The city and SAFCA anticipate that the GRR will be completed in 2012 and that a plan to achieve the 200‐year level of protection, if needed, will be in place that same year. This will meet the requirements of SB 5 and development will be allowed to proceed. Any delay in this process beyond the 2015 deadline could affect the ability to build in this area and possibly delay the timing of growth anticipated by the 2035 MTP. City of Sacramento (not including Natomas or Delta Shores) Levee Status The levees protecting the remainder of Sacramento are currently recognized as providing the base level of protection (100‐year). In addition, the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP) is currently under construction with a major contract award set to occur in September of 2010. The JFP will allow more efficient operation of the dam allowing the operators to manage larger flood events so that the levees downstream are not overwhelmed. Completion of the JFP is expected in 2015. The work at Folsom will lower stages in the American River which benefits the north area streams levee system as well. Currently, it is not known what improvements are needed to the levees in order for them to be able to pass the 200‐year event. The Corps has initiated a GRR that will study the levees around Sacramento and identify the improvements needed, if any, to bring the levees to a 200‐year level standard. The GRR is currently scheduled to be completed in 2012 with the construction of improvements to follow based on federal authorization and appropriations. FEMA and SB 5 Status The remainder of the City of Sacramento is designated Zone X meaning there are no building restrictions except for some floodplains created by Magpie Creek/Dry Creek, designated Zone AE, Arcade Creek, designated Zone AE and AH, and the creeks east of Morrison Creek

Attachment C

11

(Unionhouse, Florin, and Elder), designated Zone A99. This Zone A99 in the Morrison Creek area is part of the South Sacramento Streams Group Project but it is uncertain at this time when the project will be completed in this area to allow the area to be remapped into a Zone X designation. The city expects that the flood zones will not change in the city with the new county‐wide DFIRMS anticipated to be effective by March 2011. MTP 2035 Implementation Growth in the remaining portions of the city will be infill development. As long as there is an “X” designation in this portion of the city, infill will be allowed. The 2035 MTP allocation will only be affected if the GRR determines that improvements to meet a 200‐year level of protection are needed and the city and SAFCA do not have a plan for those improvements by 2015. This situation is unlikely.

Federal Flood Policy Issues March 7, 2012 This supplements the staff item on federal flood policy issues. The SACOG Board has had a federal advocacy principle related to flood protection for the past several years. The Government Relations and Public Affairs Committee is recommending an expansion of this principle (underlined) as part of the Federal Advocacy Principles item: Federal Advocacy Principle Improve public safety and fund local flood protection efforts, while protecting local land use authority, not penalizing communities based on floodplain designation through pursuit of streamlining and integrated planning opportunities with federal agencies to expedite construction of federally identified levee improvement projects. This handout includes additional information collected by staff on active federal levee projects in the Sacramento region and information about the current challenges in Congress. 1. Levee Project Status

In December, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) issued the first Flood Control System Status Report (Report). This report is one component of enhanced state flood control measures required under state laws enacted in 2007. The report contains over 300 pages of comprehensive information on the state of flood control in the Central Valley. Figure 1 maps the conditions of levees in the Central Valley based on evaluations by the California Department of Water Resources.

The report includes an appendix focusing on levee conditions. Using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Periodic Inspection Report Cards, the appendix details the conditions in the Sacramento region, as well as the status of funding and construction.

Table 1 incorporates information from the CVFPB Report with more recent information from USACE and local agencies. Figure 2 shows these projects along with some that have been completed since CVFPB collected its data, as well as projects outside of the Sacramento region.

2. Background on Federal Funding Process

Authorization Flood control projects must first receive an authorization for the total federal commitment from Congress before any federal funds may be spent. This usually takes place through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a multi-year authorization bill similar to the federal transportation authorization bill. In order to be authorized, USACE must complete several technical studies that result in a Chief of Engineers’ report, which contains a recommended total project cost, including the federal share. The Natomas Levee Improvement Project is the only active flood control project in the Sacramento region that has a Chief of Engineers’ report completed but has not been authorized by Congress. USACE is working on technical documents for the West Sacramento Levee Improvement Program, but they do not anticipate having them completed for an authorization request until 2014 or 2015. The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) and the city of Sacramento are seeking an authorization for the Natomas project outside of the WRDA process because of a rule in the House of Representatives prohibiting earmarks that would cover this action. This is an issue across the country for all areas seeking levee improvements or related funding. Several of the possible options for how Congress may act are outlined in section 3.

Attachment D

Appropriations Table 1 also shows which projects in the region have received funding in the current fiscal year (FY2012), or which are included in the President’s budget proposal for USACE for FY2013. Historically, Congress would also add specific projects as part of the annual appropriations process, but since the earmark moratorium began in some form in 2007, the project funding requests have only come from the President’s budget. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Congress recessed last year without taking action on a comprehensive reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). They did pass a continuing resolution that extends the existing program through May 31, 2012. The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive reauthorization of the program in July 2011 (H.R. 1309). The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee also passed a bill, S. 1940, but the bill has not yet been considered by the full Senate. One item in the Senate bill that has generated particular controversy is a provision that would require homeowners and businesses to purchase federal flood insurance despite being protected by certified flood control infrastructure (Special Flood Hazard Areas or SFHA). In the House, Congressman John Garamendi, who represents the southernmost portion of Sacramento County and portions of several Bay Area counties, introduced legislation (H.R. 4020) intended to exempt agricultural structures in specific flood zones from NFIP. Congressman Lungren is cosponsoring this bill. Agricultural Floodplain Management Alliance A coalition of northern California counties (including SACOG members Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba) has formed the Agricultural Floodplain Management Alliance. They are planning to release a white paper on issues similar to those that H.R. 4020 seeks to address. The Ferguson Group is supporting this alliance, but SACOG and federal advocate Mike Miller are not involved.

3. Scenarios for Congressional Action Congress is weighing several options for how to authorize and appropriate funds for flood control.

a. Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorization with project-specific authorization

levels; House makes exceptions to earmark moratorium (either broad or narrow) The Senate is accepting local requests for WRDA project authorizations. The House seems unlikely to make broad exceptions to its earmark rule, but potentially could make narrow exceptions for high-risk areas that have USACE Chief of Engineers’ reports.

b. WRDA authorization with authorization authority given to USACE This option is being discussed by some Senate staff, but it is unclear if either the House or the Senate is comfortable turning over control of this process, or if they have the interest in passing what would likely be a very large spending bill in an election year.

c. Project authorizations attached to non-WRDA bills Congresswoman Matsui is proposing an amendment to H.R. 7, the House transportation authorization bill, which would authorize the Natomas Levee Improvement Project. The House will likely hold firm on its earmark rule on all bills.

d. House passes WRDA authorization It is hard to imagine the House initiating a WRDA bill this year that conforms to its earmark moratorium. The House T&I Committee has jurisdiction over WRDA and is currently caught up in the transportation authorization bill.

4. SACOG Involvement The board could consider a range of options, from no SACOG involvement to advocacy letters on specific bills, with a possible middle ground of writing general support letters to individual jurisdictions which could then be used by the jurisdictions for a variety of purposes. In the past, SACOG has been involved in advocating for flood control and flood policy issues. In 2006 and 2007, the SACOG Board had an ad hoc committee on flood management that primarily focused on state flood policy issues. In April 2006, the SACOG Board endorsed SAFCA’s Legislative Framework for Flood Control and Flood Risk Management in the Sacramento Valley (attached). SACOG staff, in partnership with SACOG consultant Stacey McKinley of The McKinley Group, has worked over the past several years to follow federal policies that impact where development may occur. In December 2009, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released a draft update to the Principles and Guidelines for Water and Land Related Resources Implementation Studies. The document sets the framework for the management of all aquatic resources in the country. CEQ has also been drafting modifications to Executive Order 11988, which regulates development in floodplains. The proposed Principles and Guidelines update would expand the scope of jurisdiction to include any federal agency that regulates water. The proposed changes to Executive Order 11988 may restrict floodplain development. SACOG staff and McKinley, under direction of the Board of Directors, will maintain engagement with the hope of further informing future regulation of water resources, flood management and land use. Attached is a letter SACOG staff sent to CEQ in 2010 explaining our issues.

Figure 1: Composite Map of Physical Levee Conditions

Source: Flood Control System Status Report, Central Valley Flood Management Planning Program (December 2011)

Table 1: Flood Control Project Status Summary1

Project Name Project Description Federal Authorization2

FY2012 (Work Pl )

FY2013 (request)

SAFCA Natomas Levee Improvement Program (Reclamation District 1000)

Construction of cutoff walls and levee strengthening and reshaping features of the existing levee system surrounding the Natomas Basin.

Currently seeking additional authorization

WSAFCA West Sacramento Levee Improvement Project

Construction of levee improvements to achieve a 200- year level of protection.

Seeking additional authorization (est. 2014-2015)

American River Watershed, Common Features Project

Raise and widen levees and close gaps in slurry walls to prevent flooding in the Sacramento area.

Seeking additional authorization (est. 2015-2016)

$25,037,000 $6,400,000

American River Watershed, Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project

Raise the dikes around Folsom Reservoir by 3.5 feet to increase surcharge flood storage.

Yes $1,700,000 $5,100,000

Yuba River Basin Project, Marysville Ring Levee Element

Construction of cutoff walls and levee strengthening and reshaping features for the existing levee system surrounding the Marysville urban area.

Yes $1,960,000 $1,800,000

Yuba River Basin Project

Additional levee improvements to address underseepage.

Seeking additional authorization

Middle Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project

Construction of flow-regulation structures to restore vegetation and wetlands.

Yes

South Sacramento County Streams Group Project

Construct channel improvements, floodwalls, levee raising, levees, seepage cutoff walls, and bridge retrofits.

Yes $1,100,000

West Sacramento Project (Slip Repair)

Levee raising, levee offsets, and slurry wall construction.

Yes

Cache Creek Settling Basin Enlargement

Enlargement of settling basin facilities.

Yes

Lower Cache Creek Improvements

Conducting feasibility study for levee improvements in Woodland

Yes

Sacramento River Bank Protection Project Phase II 2

Bank protection at identified sites of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project.

Yes $9,800,000 $3,000,000

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Central Valley Flood Management Planning Program Notes: SAFCA = Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency TRLIA = Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority

USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WSAFCA = West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency

1 This list may not be complete, due to the number of local agencies involved and the timeline for developing this information. 2 Projects must have a completed Chief of Engineers Report in order to use federal funds. 3 Because these sites are scattered throughout the Sacramento River watershed and GIS information was not available, the sites

are not included in Figure 2.

Figure 2: State (Early Implementation Program) and Federal-State (Central Valley Flood Protection Board) Projects in Sacramento and San Joaquin River Watersheds

Source: Flood Control System Status Report, Central Valley Flood Management Planning Program (December 2011)

Item #13-2-16 Report

SACOG Board of Directors

February 14, 2013 Chair’s Report Chair Griego will brief the Board members on current issues. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer S:\SACOG\Board\BRDPCKTS\2013 Packets\February\16-Chair's Report.doc

Item #13-2-17 SACOG Board of Directors Report

February 14, 2013 Board Members’ Reports Board members will provide updates on local issues. Approved by: Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer S:\SACOG\Board\BRDPCKTS\2013 Packets\February\17-Bd Report.docx

Item #13-2-18 SACOG Board of Directors Report February 14, 2013 Chief Executive Officer's Report The following is a brief status report on some of the major issues and projects currently being advanced by SACOG. Consent Items. All items on the consent calendar received unanimous support from the three Committees (including the item that established a formal policy that only unanimous consent items at Committee level may go on the consent calendar)! Workshop Item #15 Flood Control. This is an excellent panel and should stimulate a robust discussion with the Board. It marks the start of increased effort from SACOG on the flood control issue, and has roots in the Board discussion a year ago about our federal advocacy approach for funds for levee repairs. Other Issues. Board Chair Griego, Erik Johnson and I will be in Washington, D.C. March 11-13 for our annual federal advocacy trip. A strong delegation of Board members and staff will also participate in the Metro Chambers annual Cap-to-Cap trip a month later. The Board’s Shared Services and New Initiatives Task Force will convene immediately following the Board meeting. All Board members are welcome to participate in those meetings. CALENDAR: Mar 7 @ 10:00 a.m. Transportation Committee Meeting SACOG Mar 7 @ 1:00 p.m. Land Use & Natural Resources Committee Meeting SACOG Mar 11 @ 10:00 a.m. Government Relations & Public Affairs Committee Meeting SACOG Mar 21 @ 9:30 a.m. SACOG Board of Directors SACOG Shared Services & New Initiatives Task Force SACOG (Meets upon adjournment of SACOG Board meeting) Mike McKeever Chief Executive Officer s:\sacog\board\brdpckts\2013 packets\january\16-ceo report.doc

Date post:	14-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SACOG Board of Directors

Documents