REPORT TO SHASTA COUNTY RTPA

SUBJECT	MEETING DATE	ITEM NUMBER
Consider 2002/2003 Transportation Development Act (TDA) True-Up Instructions and Amended Claims	4/27/04	3-3

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Agency:

1) Approve Resolution 04-02 reflecting revised 2002/2003 Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocation instructions; and

2) Approve revised 2002/2003 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 were increased, with the exception of the City of Redding, as follows:

City of Redding $ 164,193

Anderson 23,607

City of Shasta Lake 18,237

County of Shasta 128,618

TOTAL $ 334,656

DISCUSSION

In April 2003, the Agency approved TDA claims for 2002/2003. That approval was based on RABA=s anticipated costs for the year. The actual costs of providing transit are now available in the 2002/2003 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.

The result of changes in transit cost obligations is as follows and demonstrated on Exhibit C:

1) There was a decrease in “off-the-top” RTPA administration costs, core-planning functions, and excess sales tax revenue resulting in a $256,402 disbursement to claimants. The RTPA received increased resources in sales tax revenue and State Transit Assistance (STA) revenue during the 2002/2003 fiscal year. The RTPA may disburse excess revenue from sales tax and STA, but must maintain a cash reserve equivalent to RABA’s capital reserve of $600,000 and $200,000 reserved for RTPA administrative operations. In the 02/03 true-up the RTPA will disburse $225,000 of this excess currently residing in the treasury.

2) RABA=s actual TDA requirement (total expenses less revenues plus capital costs) incurred was $3,385,540 (Exhibit D). This compares with an estimated TDA requirement of $3,257,279 when the original claims were approved. These components result in an increase in the claimants= collective transit obligation of $128,261 (Exhibit A). RABA requested from the 2001/02 True Up to use $300,000 in reserves to purchase the El Rancho Motel Property. This amount was withheld from RABA in the 2001/02 True Up and included as an expense in 2002/2003. Therefore, the $300,000 must be reduced from RABA’s 2002/2003 expenditures.

3) The original claims contemplated RABA utilizing $697,600 of FTA Section 5307 funding (operating only). RABA actually received $568,895 of FTA

Section 5307 grant revenue for operating. This results in an increase in the transit obligation assigned exclusively to Redding and Shasta Lake of

$128,705. The reason that this applies exclusively to these agencies is that FTA Section 5307 is only eligible in urbanized areas.

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

$109,322. Actual funding received increased to $109,332 resulting in an additional $10 to the City of Anderson. This is the final year that Anderson will receive rural 5311 funding. Anderson received urban status with the 2000 Census.

5) There was a decrease in staff time allocated to Rural Transit, resulting in a decrease in rural administration costs of $42,087. Rural transit costs increased $24,522 due to RABA “dead-heading” the Burney Express. Dead-heading is required when there is no driver in the Burney area and the vehicle must be driven without passengers from Redding to start service in the Burney area. The net result decreases the County’s transit obligation for Burney Express and rural administration by $17,565.

6) Trial service costs were decreased due to a reduction in the estimated cost per service hour from $46.76 to an actual cost of $45.22 per service hour. The true-up of trial services resulted in an increase to the agencies of $17,643 (Exhibit E). Original claims were calculated with trial services terminating on November 30, 2002. The actual termination date was October 31, 2002.

In summary, the impact of the true-up on claimants resulted in an increase in funding available for Other Uses to the agencies.

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, Shasta Lake and Anderson, who have indicated their concurrence with the staff recommendation. It was further discussed at the April 13 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting.

FINANCING

Approval of revised 2002/2003 claims will make claims consistent with actual costs and revenues of providing transit service.

______________________________________

Daniel J. Kovacich, Executive Officer

SLC/jac

Attachment: Resolution No. 04-02

Exhibit A B Calculation of Revised TDA Apportionments and Transit Obligations for 2002/2003

Exhibit B – Revised Schedule of Annual Claims/TDA Budget

Exhibit C - Calculation of Impacts on Claimants Transit Obligations.

Exhibit D – Calculation of RABA TDA Requirement

Exhibit E – True-Up of Trial Transit Services

Exhibit F – RABA Detail of Capital Additions