Back to Index

REPORT TO SHASTA COUNTY RTPA

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Agency:

1) Approve Resolution 02-03 reflecting revised 2000/2001 Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocation instructions; and

2) Approve revised 2000/2001 TDA claims as reflected on Exhibit B (attached).

SUMMARY
RTPA Policy 6-3 and TDA regulations provide for a reconciliation of claimants= transit obligations to RABA=s actual costs on an annual basis. Revised allocation instructions and claims have been prepared for Agency approval. Exhibit A reflects the revised calculation of transit obligations based upon RABA=s actual audited costs. Exhibit B represents the revised schedule of claims.

After funding RABA=s true TDA requirement (Actual Operating Expenses plus Capital costs), amounts available for other uses including Streets and Roads can be adjusted as follows:

DISCUSSION
In April 2001, the Agency approved the TDA claims for 2000/2001. That approval was based on RABA=s anticipated costs for the year. The actual costs of providing transit are now available based upon the 2000/2001 audited financial statements and RABA=s annual report of transactions to the State Controller=s office. This revision to the TDA claims is based on RABA=s actual costs (operating and capital) of providing transit services. This true up also updates the population changes used in the apportionment and allocation process. This is consistent with past practices and is consistent with RTPA Policy 6-3.

The result of reconciling estimates to actual revenues received and expenses incurred is displayed below. Exhibit C describes each component that changed and translates that change from a global level to the effect on each individual local agency.

1) TDA resources were increased by $911,711. This represents an increase of revenue in LTF and STA funds of $900,000 over the amount used when claims were originally approved. This increase in revenue is due to stronger sales tax revenues than estimated and represents a buildup over several years. There was also a decrease in "off-the-top" administration costs

2) and an increase of $25,000 to the CTSA for the local match for the Rural Transit System Grant Program, resulting in a "net" increase of $11,711 to claimants.

3) RABA=s actual TDA requirement (total operating and capital expenses less revenues) incurred was $2,809,147. This compares with a TDA requirement of $3,028,573 when the original claims were approved. This component resulted in a decrease in claimants= collective transit obligations of $219,426.

4) The original claims contemplated RABA utilizing $400,000 of FTA Section 5307 funding (operating only). RABA actually received $399,775 of FTA Section 5307 grant revenue for operating and $27,953 for capital costs. This translates to a decrease in the transit obligation assigned exclusively to Redding and Shasta Lake of $27,728. The reason that this applies exclusively to these agencies is that FTA Section 5307 is intended for urbanized areas. These revenue sources are credited exclusively to these two entities.

5) The original agency claims for expected FTA Section 5311 Grant funding

was $85,727. Actual funding received increased to $ 92,904, resulting in an additional $7,177 available to Anderson and Shasta County. This revenue source is dedicated solely to those local agencies in the non-urbanized areas.

6) There was a significant decrease in Rural Transit Costs due to requirements from RABA to purchase two buses, which was not completed in the 2000-2001 year. This results in a decrease in Shasta County's transit obligation because these services are funded exclusively by Shasta County.

ALTERNATIVES
The Agency could modify any of the above proposed revisions recommended by Staff. This is not recommended because this reconciliation has been prepared in accordance with RTPA Policy 6-3 and TDA regulations.

OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
This reconciliation or Atrue-up@ was developed in cooperation with RABA staff who concur with the staff recommendation.

The staff recommendation and supporting schedules were shared with the staffs of Redding, Shasta County and Shasta Lake, who have indicated their concurrence with the staff recommendation.

FINANCING
Approval of revised 2000/2001 claims will make claims consistent with actual costs and revenues of providing transit service.

______________________________________
Daniel J. Kovacich, Executive Officer

/jac

Attachments:

1) Resolution No. 02-03
2) Exhibit A B Calculation of Revised TDA Apportionments and Transit Obligations for 2000/2001
3) Exhibit B B Schedule of Annual Claims/TDA Budget (as revised 4/23/02)
4) Exhibit C - Impact of 2000-2001 TDA True-Up on Local Agencies