REPORT TO SHASTA COUNTY RTPA
|
SUBJECT
|
|
MEETING
DATE
|
ITEM
NUMBER
|
|
Consider 2001/2002
Transportation Development Act (TDA) True-Up Instructions and Amended Claims
|
10/21/03
|
3-4
|
RECOMMENDATION
It is
recommended that the Agency:
1) Approve Resolution 03-04 reflecting revised 2001/2002
Transportation Development Act (TDA) allocation instructions; and
2) Approve revised 2001/2002 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 actual transit costs
(Operating Expenses plus Capital), additional amounts available for other uses
are adjusted as follows:
|
Jurisdiction
|
Distribution Amount
|
|
City
of Redding
|
$ 868,161
|
|
City
of Anderson
|
$ 92,238
|
|
City
of Shasta Lake
|
$ 49,454
|
|
County
of Shasta
|
$ 258,553
|
|
Total
Amount Available for Distribution
|
$1,268,406
|
DISCUSSION
In April
2002, the Agency approved TDA claims for 2001/2002. That approval was based on RABA=s anticipated costs for the year. The actual costs of providing transit are
now available in the 2001/2002 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 increases in TDA revenue is as follows and demonstrated on
Exhibit
C:
1) TDA resources were increased
by $683,149. This represents an
increase of revenue in LTF and STA funds during the 2002/2003 fiscal year in
the amount of $661,436. There was also
a decrease in “off-the-top administration costs and core-planning functions in
fiscal year 2001/2002 in fiscal year 2001/2002 resulting in an increase of
$21,713 to claimants.
2)
RABA=s actual TDA requirement
(total expenses less revenues plus capital costs) incurred was $3,367,203
(Exhibit C). This compares with a TDA requirement of $4,236,170 when the
original claims were approved. In
addition to these costs, RABA has requested $300,000 for the acquisition of the
El Rancho Motel property adjacent to the RABA maintenance center (Exhibit D).
These components result in a net decrease in claimants= collective transit
obligation of $568,967.
3)
The
original claims contemplated RABA utilizing $1,604,273 of FTA Section 5307
funding. RABA actually received $1,510,002 of FTA Section 5307 grant
revenue. This results in an increase in
the transit obligation assigned exclusively to Redding and Shasta Lake of
$94,271. 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.
4) The original agency claims
for expected FTA Section 5311 Grant funding was
$92,904. Actual funding received increased to $99,376
resulting in an additional $6,472 available.
5)
There was a decrease in Rural Transit costs due to the
termination of the Shingletown vanpool in January 2001, and reduced cost per
service hour for the Burney Express, resulting in a reduction of $ 48,542 for
rural transit. Rural transit solely affects the County’s TDA apportionment.
6)
Trial service costs were decreased due to a reduction in the
cost per service hour from $46.76 to $41.40 per service hour. The true-up of trial services was based on
the percentage of stops in each jurisdiction (Exhibit F). This results in an overpayment of trial
services to RABA for $55,548.
In summary, the additional
resources in TDA funding for other uses are resulting from excess revenues
received in funding during the 2001-2002 year, decreased Rural Transit costs,
and a decrease in RABA’s necessary funding requirements.
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 Anderson, who have indicated their concurrence with
the staff recommendation. It was
further discussed at the July 8, 2003 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
meeting.
FINANCING
Approval
of revised 2001/2002 claims will make claims consistent with the actual costs
and revenues associated with transit service.
______________________________________
Daniel
J. Kovacich, Executive Officer
/jac
Attachment: Resolution No. 03-04
Exhibit A B Calculation of Revised TDA
Apportionments and Transit Obligations for 2001/2002
Page 1 Page 2
Exhibit B B Revised Schedule of Annual
Claims/TDA Budget
Exhibit C - Calculation of Impacts
on Claimants Transit Obligations (Available at
RTPA office)
Exhibit D – RABA Acquisition Letter - Page
1 Page 2 Page
3 Page 4 Page
5 Page 6
Exhibit E – E 1 Population Estimate
Exhibit F – True Up of Trial Transit Services - Page
1 Page 2
