HomeMy WebLinkAboutSan Diego, City of; 2007-01-19;AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
This Amendment ("Amendment") is entered into between the City of San Diego ("San
Diego") and the City of Carlsbad ("Carlsbad"), collectively referred to herein as "Parties."
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Parties executed a Fund Exchange Agreement, dated January 16,
2007 ("Agreement"), whereby the amount of federal funds allocated under the Regional Surface
Transportation Program ("RSTP") for San Diego's Carroll Canyon Road (SD32) and Genesee
Avenue (SD89) Projects was to be transferred to Carlsbad in exchange for an equivalent amount
of Carlsbad's local funds for its Rancho Santa Fe Road Project (CB08); and
B. WHEREAS, San Diego desires to apply the aforementioned local funds from
Carlsbad towards San Diego's State Route 163/Clairemont Mesa Boulevard Interchange Project
(SD90) (the "Clairemont/163 Project"); and
C. WHEREAS, the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") has
confirmed that San Diego may use Carlsbad's local funds that are to be exchanged for San
Diego's allocation of RSTP funds for the Carroll Canyon Road Project and Genesee Avenue
Project on San Diego's Clairemont/163 Project; and
D. WHEREAS, San Diego no longer needs reimbursement from Carlsbad's local
funds for the amount of RSTP funds for the Genesee Avenue Project that was exchanged with
Carlsbad because SANDAG allocated an equivalent amount of federal funding for the Genesee
Avenue Project in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program subsequent to the
exchange; and
E. WHEREAS, San Diego desires to modify the reimbursement procedure; and
F. WHEREAS, the Clairemont/163 Project is a regional transportation project and
therefore consistent with the purpose of the Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Recitals stated above and incorporated
herein by this reference and for other good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree to
modify the Agreement as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Section 5. Reimbursement Procedure is modified as follows:
a. REVISE the first sentence to read, "The City of Carlsbad shall reimburse the
City of San Diego from principal in the Special Fund within thirty (30) calendar days of
recieving written reimbursement invoice for the City of San Diego, for reimbursable
DOCUMENT N0.$b0268l
FILED JUNTslir-^
costs on the Carrol Canyon Road (SD 32) and State Route 163/Clairemont Mese
Boulevard Interchange (SD 90) projects.
b. DELETE the second sentence of the paragraph, which begins, "The written
reimbursement invoice shall...".
2. Section 7. Retention of Unspent Funds is modified as follows:
a. REPLACE "Genesee Avenue Project" with "State Route 163/Clairemont
Mesa Boulevard Interchange Project (SD90)".
3. The allocation of reimbursement monies from Carlsbad's local funds between the
Carroll Canyon Road Project and the Clairemont/163 Project shall be at the discretion of San
Diego and shall not be limited to or by the amount of RSTP funds respective to either project that
were exchanged with Carlsbad under the Agreement.
4. The Parties agree that this Amendment represents the entire understanding of San
Diego and Carlsbad and affects only those paragraphs of the Agreement referred to, and all other
terms and conditions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed by the City of San Diego, acting
by and through its Mayor or his designee, pursuant to Resolution No. R- jU^bjQ ? and by
the City of Carlsbad.
ORIGINAL
Date=_&
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
By:Jnor
Principal Contract Specialist
Date:
Clauae" A." Lewis
Title MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
RONALD R. BALL, City Attorney for the City of
Carlsbad
By:
ame
Title
MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney for the
City of San Diego
By:
Deputy City Attorney
302684
1
FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARTIES
JAN 192007This Exchange Agreement [Agreement], entered into and effective on
is between the City of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad, collectively referred to herein as
"Parties."
RECITALS
A. Whereas, the Parties are members of the San Diego Association of Governments
[SANDAG]; and, on June 28, 2002, SANDAG adopted the 2002 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program [RTIP], which is a five year program of major transportation projects in the
San Diego region covering the period from Fiscal Year 2003 to Fiscal Years 2007; and
B. Whereas, the RTIP includes improvements to Rancho Santa Fe Road
(CB 08)("Rancho Santa Fe Road Project") in the City of Carlsbad, improvements to Carroll Canyon
Road (SD 32)("Carroll Canyon Road Project") and Genesee Avenue, from 1-5 to Campus Point
(SD 89)("Genessee Avenue Project"), in the City of San Diego; and
C. Whereas, SANDAG approved initial allocations of funding for the Carroll Canyon
Road Project, the Genesee Avenue Project, and the Rancho Santa Fe Road Project, from the
Regional Surface Transportation Program [RSTP] and local funding sources; and
D. Whereas, with the concurrence of the Parties, on September 27, 2002, SANDAG
approved Amendment No. 1 to the RTIP, authorizing the transfer of funding sources between the
City of Carlsbad and the City of San Diego such that all of the RSTP funding for the City of
San Diego's Carroll Canyon Road Project would be exchanged for an equivalent amount of local
funds from the City of Carlsbad for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Project; and
E. Whereas, with the concurrence of the Parties, on November 22, 2002, SANDAG
approved Amendment No. 2 to the RTIP, authorizing the transfer of funding sources between the
City of Carlsbad and the City of San Diego such that all of the RSTP funding for the City of
San Diego's Genesee Avenue Project would be exchanged for an equivalent amount in local funds
from the City of Carlsbad for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Project; and
F. Whereas, based on the bids awarded for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Project, the
Parties anticipate that the City of Carlsbad will receive approximately 6,600,000 dollars in
reimbursement RSTP funding for the Rancho Santa Fe Project; and
G. Whereas, the purpose of this fund transfer is to advance the City of San Diego's and
City of Carlsbad's regional transportation projects.
DOCUMENT
FILED UAN*«20fl7
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
Page 1 of 5 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above and for other good and
valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Amendment to RTIP. By executing this Agreement, the Parties shall act in
conformity with SANDAG Resolution No. 2003-11, approving Amendment No. 1 to the RTIP
("First Amendment"), and SANDAG Resolution No. 2003-15, approving Amendment No. 2 to the
RTIP ("Second Amendment"), copies of which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference
into this Agreement as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively. Amendment No. 1 authorizes a fund
exchange between RSTP funds allocated to the City of San Diego for the Carroll Canyon Road
Project (SD 32) and local funds allocated by the City of Carlsbad for Rancho Santa Fe Road Project
(CB 08). Amendment No. 2 authorizes a fund exchange between RSTP funds allocated to the
City of San Diego for the Genesee Avenue Project (SD 89) and local funds allocated by the City of
Carlsbad for the Rancho Santa Fe Project (CB 08).
2. City of Carlsbad Obligation to Reimburse City of San Diego for
Exchanged RSTP Funds. In conformance with Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 , by
executing this Agreement, the City of Carlsbad obligates itself to reimburse the City of San Diego
for all RSTP reimbursement funds that the City of Carlsbad has received or will receive for the
Rancho Santa Fe Project that were exchanged for RSTP funds designated by SANDAG to the City
of San Diego for the Carroll Canyon Road Project and the Genessee Avenue Project (hereinafter
"Exchanged RSTP Funds"). The Parties understand and acknowledge that the amount of RSTP
funds received by the City of Carlsbad for the Rancho Santa Fe Project, based upon the reallocation
of RSTP funding from the City of San Diego to the City of Carlsbad pursuant to the First and
Second Amendments, may not be equivalent to the amount of RSTP funds originally allocated to
the City of San Diego for the Carroll Canyon Road Project and the Genesee Avenue Project.
3. Reimbursable Project Costs. The Parties agree that any funds exchanged pursuant
to this Agreement shall be used only for reimbursable project costs, in conformance with Chapter 5
of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual published by the California Department of
Transportation, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference into this Agreement
as Exhibit "C."
4. Timing of Reimbursement. The City of Carlsbad shall reimburse the City of
San Diego for the Exchanged RSTP funds by immediately depositing any federal reimbursement
payments received for the Rancho Santa Fe Road Project — excluding any RSTP reimbursement
funds received for Melrose Drive as an exchange from the City of Vista — into a fund that is
specifically and solely designated for reimbursement to the City of San Diego ("Special Fund").
5. Reimbursement Procedure. The City of Carlsbad shall reimburse the City of San
Diego from principal in the Special Fund within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving a written
reimbursement invoice from the City of San Diego. The written reimbursement invoice shall
conform to the requirements for invoices set forth in Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures
Manual. In the event that the principal in the Special Fund does not contain a sufficient amount to
pay the invoice, the City of Carlsbad shall provide written notice to the City of San Diego of such
event. The City of Carlsbad shall remit payment of the invoice amount within thirty (30) days of the
date that sufficient funds are deposited into the Special Fund for reimbursement to the City of San
Diego and the reimbursement obligation shall continue until such time as the City of Carlsbad has
reimbursed the City of San Diego for all of the Exchanged RSTP Funds.
Page 2 of 5
6. Interest in the Special Fund. The City of San Diego shall not be entitled to any
interest earned from the Special Fund.
7. Retention of Unspent Funds. The City of Carlsbad may retain all unspent funds in
the Special Fund after receiving written notification from the City of San Diego that the Carroll
Canyon Road Project and the Genesee Avenue Project have been completed; provided, however,
that the City of Carlsbad has satisfied all reimbursement obligations under this Agreement.
8. Notice. For the purposes of this Agreement, notice shall he deemed given upon
personal delivery or, if mailed, two (2) business days following deposit in the United States mail,
properly sealed, postage pre-paid, registered or certified, and return receipt requested.
9. Mandatory Non-binding Mediation. If a dispute arises out of, or relates to this
Agreement, or the breach thereof, and if said dispute cannot be settled through normal contract
negotiations, the Parties agree to settle the dispute in an amicable manner, using mandatory
mediation under the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association
[AAA] or any other neutral organization agreed upon before having recourse in a court of law.
(a) Mandatory Mediation Costs. The expenses of witnesses for either side shall
be paid by the Party producing such witnesses. All other expenses of the
mediation, including required traveling and other expenses of the mediator
[Mediator], and the cost of any proofs or expert advice produced at the direct
request of the Mediator, shall be borne equally by the Parties, unless they
agree otherwise.
(b) Selection of Mediator. A single Mediator that is acceptable to both Parties
shall be used to mediate the dispute. The Mediator will be knowledgeable in
construction aspects and may be selected from lists furnished by the AAA or
any other agreed upon Mediator. To initiate mediation, the initiating Party
shall serve a Request for Mediation on the opposing Party. If the Mediator is
selected from a list provided by AAA, the initiating Party shall concurrently
file with AAA a "Request for Mediation" along with the appropriate fees, a
list of three requested Mediators marked in preference order, and a preference
for available dates.
(c) If AAA is selected to coordinate the mediation [Administrator], within ten
working days from the receipt of the initiating Party's Request for Mediation,
the opposing Party shall file the following: a list of preferred Mediators listed
in preference order after striking any Mediators to which they have any factual
objection, and a preference for available dates. If the opposing Party strikes all
of initiating Party's preferred Mediators, opposing Party shall submit a list of
three preferred Mediators listed in preference order to initiating Party and
Administrator. Initiating Party shall file a list of preferred Mediators listed in
preference order, after striking any Mediator to which they have any factual
objection. This process shall continue until both sides have agreed upon a
Mediator.
Page 3 of 5
(i) The Administrator will appoint or the Parties shall agree upon the
highest, mutually preferred Mediator from the individual Parties' lists
who is available to serve within the designated time frame.
(ii) the Parties agree not to use AAA, then a Mediator, date and place for
the mediation shall be agreed upon.
(d) Conduct of Mediation Sessions. Mediation hearings will be conducted in an
informal manner and discovery will not be allowed. All discussions,
statements, or admissions will be confidential to the Party's legal position. The
Parties may agree to exchange any information they deem necessary.
(i) Both Parties must have an authorized representative attend the
mediation. Each representative must have the authority to recommend
entering into a settlement. Either Party may have attorney(s) or
expert(s) present. Upon reasonable demand, either Party may request
and receive a list of witnesses and notification whether attorney(s) will
be present.
(ii) Any agreements resulting from mediation shall be documented in
writing. All mediation results and documentation, by themselves, shall
be "non-binding" and inadmissible for any purpose in any legal
proceeding, unless such admission is otherwise agreed upon, in
writing, by both Parties. Mediators shall not be subject to any
subpoena or liability and their actions shall not be subject to discovery.
10. Jurisdiction, Venue. The venue for any suit or proceeding concerning this
Agreement, the interpretation or application of any of its terms, or any related
disputes shall be in the County of San Diego, State of California.
Page 4 of 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad have executed
this Agreement on the date that the last party signs the Agreement.
Dated:
CIT;
Dated:<? 7
Title: Mayor
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
XTName:
Title: City Manager/fc C'O
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
RONALD R. BALL, CITY ATTORNEY
By
City Attorney
Attorney for the City of Carlsbad
CASEY GWINN, CITY ATTORNEY
.y Jw-vU}
Teputy City Artorney
Attorney for the City of San Diego
Page 5 of 5
302290
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-180
2
3
4
PROJECT NOS. 3190 AND 3907.
5
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, considers it necessary and
6
in the public interest to approve the agreement for fund exchange with the City of San Diego for
7
Rancho Santa Fe Road, Phases 1 and 2, Project Nos. 3190 and 3907; and
8
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad agrees to exchange local funds for Regional Surface
9
Transportation Program funds with the City of San Diego in the interest of further developing the
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR
FUIND EXCHANGE WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, PHASES 1 AND 2,
regional transportation system; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the transfer is to advance the City of San Diego's regional
transportation projects; and
WHEREAS, SANDAG approved this fund exchange under Amendment No. 1 to the RTIP
on September 27, 2002 for the City of San Diego Carroll Canyon Road Improvements project and
Amendment No. 2 to the RTIP on November 22, 2002 for the City of San Diego Genesee Avenue,
I-5 to Campus Point project; and
WHEREAS, based on the bids awarded for Rancho Santa Fe Road an exchange of
approximately $6.6 million is anticipated and a maximum amount of $8.401 million is possible; and
WHEREAS, the agreement for fund exchange with the City of San Diego for Rancho
Santa Fe Road, Phases 1 and 2, Project Nos. 3190 and 3907 has been prepared and submitted
hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Carlsbad,
California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. That the agreement for fund exchange with the City of San Diego for
Rancho Santa Fe Road, Phases 1 and 2, Project Nos. 3190 & 3907 is hereby approved and the
Mayor is authorized and directed to execute said agreement.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad City Council
held on the 8th day of June , 2004 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Members Lewis, Finnila^Kulchin, Hall and Packard
NOES: None
ABSENT: No
CLAUDE A. LEWIS, May!
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WOOD, City Clerk ' ' /f (SEAL)
Resolution No. 2004-180
Page Two
iSANDAG
^^•••HBK::-
San Diego's Regional Manning Agency
EXHIBIT "A"
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SEPTEMBER 27, 2OO2
AGENDA ITEM NO. O2-O9- 6
ACTION REQUESTED - APPROVE
2OO2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) -
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Recommendation
It is my recommendation that the Board of
Directors approve Resolution 2003-11
approving Amendment No. 1 to the 2002
Regional Transportation Improvement
Program as shown in Table 1.
Introduction
SANDAG adopted the 2002 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
on June 28, 2002. The 2002 RTIP is a five-year
program of major transportation projects in
the San Diego region covering the period from
FY 2003 to FY 2007. SANDAG has received
requests for various project revisions and
additions to the 2002 RTIP. This amendment
also reflects the fund exchanges approved by
the Transportation Committee at its
September 12, 2002 meeting (see
Transportation Committee Actions - Agenda
Item #4-B). The projects covered by
Amendment No. 1 are shown in Table 1.
Discussion
As stated, the Transportation Committee
approved fund transfers between various
cities and SANDAG. These fund transfers
would expedite delivery of projects for the
Cities of: San Marcos (Rancho Santa Fe Road)
and San Diego (Carroll Canyon). A transfer of
local funds from the Cities of Carlsbad
(Rancho Santa Fe Road) and Chula Vista
(Olympic Parkway Interchange) would allow
these projects to advance their delivery by an
estimated three years. Both the Cities of
Carlsbad and Chula Vista concur with this
exchange. The amendments needed to
implement these fund transfers and other
proposed 2002 RTIP amendments are
discussed in the following paragraphs and
detailed in Table 1.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Indian Reservation Roads (IRR01): The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) has
transmitted projects approved for funding
under the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
program. For the San Diego region, six
projects have been selected. These projects
provide for a range of transportation
activities such as system and project planning,
preliminary project engineering, pavement
surface treatments, highway construction and
reconstruction, and the rehabilitation or
replacement of bridges on Indian reservation
roads. These projects are eligible for 100
percent federal funding. The six projects are
in the reservation areas of Pala ($205,000),
Ramona ($120,000), Los Coyotes ($2.05
million), Pauma ($35,000), Rincon ($65,000),
and Barona ($1.27 million) for a total lump
sum of $3.7 million through FY 2003/04.
Caltrans
1-15 Managed Lanes (CAL18): This project
includes numerous funding sources. The
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) program funds both the freeway
segment as well as the purchase of buses by
the Metropolitan Transit Development Board
(MTDB). CMAQ funds programmed in FY
2004/05 have been included as part of MTDB's
1-15 BRT project. This amendment will adjust
the Caltrans freeway segment accordingly.
Although this is a fully funded project
(estimated project cost of $324 million for the
freeway segment), only $221 million is shown
since this RTIP period only covers up to FY
2006/07.
1-15 Auxiliary Lanes (CAL25): Caltrans has
increased the State Highway Operation &
Protection Program (SHOPP) and State
Transportation Improvement Program -
Interregional Program (STIP-IIP) funds for this
project. SHOPP funds total $19 million, STIP-
IIP totals $18 million, and the private funds
remain at $3 million for a total project cost of
$40 million (prior project total was $34.5
million).
SR 76 North County (CAL29): As part of the
$35 million awarded to Regional Arterial
System (RAS) projects, the City of San Marcos
Las Posas project received $10.2 million in
State Transportation Improvement Program -
Regional Improvement Program (STIP-RIP)
funds. However, due to the statewide
shortfall, the RAS and other projects from the
San Diego region were not approved by the
California Transportation Commission (CTC).
In an effort to ensure that the project can
proceed without delay, $9 million in Regional
Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) along
with $1.2 million of Trans/Vet funds from the
SR 76 project are being programmed for the
Los Posas project. The $1.2 million in TransNet
funds from the SR 76 project will be made up
with future and reserve RSTP funds. The total
project cost for the SR 76 project remains $22
million.
Elderly & Disabled Program (CAL53): The CTC
has allocated FY 2003 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Elderly &
Disabled Program funds to various non-profit
agencies in the San Diego region to purchase
vehicles and equipment needed to meet the
specialized needs of the elderly & disabled
persons for whom mass transportation
services are unavailable, insufficient, or
inappropriate. The FTA Section 5310 funds
awarded to the San Diego region total $1.19
million with a $297,400 local match for a total
project cost of $1.487 million for FY 2002/03.
SR 94/125 Widening (CAL68): This new project
would eventually build a connector between
these two freeways and widen SR 125. This
amendment programs the preliminary
engineering phase which totals $5.4 million in
Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP)
funds.
City of Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe Road (CB08): As part of the
fund exchange approved by the
Transportation Committee on September 12,
2002, portions of the local funds were
exchanged for like amount of RSTP funds. The
total project cost is increased from $35 million
to $38.8 million (increase is due to higher
allocations for Highway Bridge Repair &
Replacement and DEMO funds).
City of Chula Vista
I-805 Olympic Parkway Interchange
Improvement (CV01): As part of the fund
exchange approved by the Transportation
Committee on September 12, 2002, portions
of TransNet funds were exchanged for like
amount of RSTP funds. The total project cost
is $14.5 million.
County of San Diego
South Santa Fe Avenue (CNTY14): An
additional $1.5 million in TransNet Highway
78 funds have been identified for this project
due to estimated interest earnings. This
amendment includes the additional TransNet
funds and shows the local TransNet funds
being contributed by the Cities of Vista and
San Marcos. The total project cost is $35.1
million.
City of National City
Plaza Boulevard Widening (NC01): In
accordance with the Regional Arterial System
Use-it-or-Lose-it policy, the Transportation
Committee approved the reallocation of $5.9
million in RSTP funds from this project to
fund other 'ready to go' projects. The
SANDAG Board of Directors September 27, 2002 - Agenda Item # 6 (APPROVE)
preliminary engineering and right-of-way
phases will remain programmed in order to
allow these phases to continue. The reduced
project cost is $3.1 million.
North County Transit District
Bridge 259.6 (NCTD35): This rail bridge in
Rose Creek along NCTD's rail right-of-way was
severely damaged by fire in January 2002.
Although it is anticipated that insurance
proceeds will cover the cost of the repair and
replacement of Bridge 259.6, funds are
needed immediately in order to begin work.
Trans/Vet funds are being programmed to
complete the project. The total project cost is
$2.6 million.
City of San Diego
Carroll Canyon (SD32): As part of the fund
exchange approved by the Transportation
Committee on September 12, 2002, RSTP
funds are exchanged for like amount of local
funds. The total project cost remains $11.8
million.
I-5/SR 56 Interchange (SD38): This project was
initially programmed in the 2000 RTIP with
Caltrans as the lead agency. This amendment
transfers the lead agency role to the City of
San Diego, and adds discretionary funding
received from the FY 2002 federal
appropriations. This project is funded with
$300,000 in High Priority Demonstration
funds, $1.9 million in Corridors & Borders
Infrastructure (CBI) funds, and $561,000 in
local Facilities Benefits Assessment funds. The
total project cost for the preliminary
engineering phase is $2.8 million.
City of San Marcos
Las Posas Road (SM04): See SR 76 discussion
above. This amendment adds the $10.2
million ($9 million in RSTP, $1.2 million in
Trans/Vet) to fully fund this project. The new
project cost is $21.9 million.
Rancho Santa Fe (SM07): As part of the fund
exchange approved by the Transportation
Committee on September 12, 2002, this
project received an additional $2.5 million in
Trans/Vet funds to fully fund the project. The
new project cost is $11.5 million.
Other Minor Changes
Several projects needing minor changes also
are included in this amendment. These
revisions include adjustments in the allocation
of funds between phases and fiscal years (See
Table 1, pages 10-12).
Air Quality Analysis
On June 28, 2002, SANDAG found the 2002
RTIP in conformance with the Regional Air
Quality Strategy/ State Implementation Plan for
the San Diego Region. All of the required
regionally significant capacity increasing
projects were included in the quantitative
emissions analysis conducted for the 2002
RTIP. The projects identified in Amendment 1
are either non-capacity increasing or exempt
from the requirement to determine
conformity according to §93.126 of the
Transportation Conformity Rule. SANDAG
followed interagency consultation procedures
to determine that these projects were
exempt. The 2002 RTIP including Amendment
No. 1 remains in conformance with the air
quality program.
ffs
?ARY L. <37\LLEGOS V (J
Executive Director
Attachments
Key Staff Contact: Sookyung Kim,
(619) 595-5350; ski@sandag.org
Funds are budgeted in Work Element #4.03
SANDAG Board of Directors September 27, 2002 - Agenda Item # 6 (APPROVE)
(SAfilDAG RESOLUTION
^*^«Hg3iR^T
tt PUnnVncr Agency
2003-11
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 921 01
(619)595-5300 • Fax (619) 595-5305
www. sandag. org
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE 2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2002, SANDAG adopted the 2002 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) including the air quality conformity finding with the State
Implementation Plan for air quality; and
WHEREAS, several agencies have requested project additions and revisions for inclusion
into the 2002 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is consistent with the 2020 Regional Transportation
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the regionally significant capacity increasing projects have been incorporated
into the quantitative air quality emissions analysis and conformity findings conducted for the 2002
RTIP and the 2020 RTP;
WHEREAS, all other projects included in Amendment No. 1 are either non-capacity
increasing or exempt from the requirements to determine conformity; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the SANDAG Board of Directors does hereby approve the attached
Table 1 as Amendment No. 1 to the 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SANDAG reaffirms conformity of the 2002 RTIP including
Amendment No. 1 with the Regional Air Quality Strategy and the State Implementation Plan for the
San Diego Region.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to enter into a
fund transfer agreement among the involved agencies to implement the fund exchanges described
herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of September 2002.
ATTEST;.
CHAIRPERSON SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon
Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, North San Diego
County Transit Development Board, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, S.D. County Water Authority, and
Baja California/Mexico.
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOOOs)
Bureau of Indian Affairs
MPO ID: 1RR01
TITLE: Indian Reservation Roads Program
DESCRIPTION: Lump sum for various road reconstruction
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
IRR
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$3,700
$3,700
PRIOR
$994
|_ $994
02/03
$1,021
$1,021
projects
03/04
$1,685
$1,685
CAPACITY STATUS:Exempt
n the reservation areas of San Diego County
04/05 05/06 06/07 PE RW CON
$510 $3,190
$510 $3,190
MPO ID: CAL18 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: 1-15 Managed Lanes (Stages 1-5)
DESCRIPTION: Construct Managed Lanes (freeway element)
Change Reason: Delete FY 05 CMAQ funds (already included as part of MTDB 1-15 BRT project)
FUND TYPE
CMAQ
RSTP
SHOPP
STIP-IIP
ST1P-R1P
TCRP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$43,515
$8,712
$4,000
$58,400
$66,500
$40,100
$221,227
PRIOR
$4,500
$30,800
$35,300
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$35,100 $8,415
$8,712
$4,000
$41,000 $5,800 $5,800 $5,800
$11,000 $17,000 $17,000 $17,000
$5,900 $1,300 $2,100
$94,712 $20,715 $24,900 $22,800 $22,800
PE RW CON
$43,515
$8,712
$4,000
$58,400
$4,500 $62,000
$17,800 $13,000 $9,300
$22,300 $13,000 $185,927
PKOJK T PRIOR TO AMENDMEN 1
FUND TYPE
CMAQ
RSTF
SHOPP
STSP-IIF
STIP-RIF
TCKF
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$61. IOC
$8,700
&4.GOC
$58, 400
c/-,\c <y,or,•POl.', Jit*.;
$40,1(10
SZ38,S€>0
PRIOR
$4,500
$30,800
$35,308
02/03 S3I04 04/85 05/06 OS/07
535,100 $8,900 $18.000
$8, 700
54,000
$41,000 $5,800 $5,800 $5,800
SIIOOO $17,000 $17,000 $17.000
$5,900 $1300 $2,100
$34,708 $28,300 $42fS00 $22,308 $22,880
P£ KW COM
$67.700
$8,?OC
$4.000
$58,400
$4,500 $6?,OOC
$'17,800 $13,000 $3.300
$22,330 $13,800 $203,500
MPO ID: CAL25 CAPACITY STATUS: NCI
TITLE: 1-15 Auxiliary Lanes
DESCRIPTION: From south of Mira Mar Way to north of Mira Mesa Boulevard - Construct north & southbound auxiliary lanes
Change Reason: Program additional SHOPP and STIP-IIP funds
FUND TYPE
Private Funds
SHOPP
STIP-IIP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$3,000
$19,000
$18,000
$40,000
PRIOR
$2,670
$14,500
$17,170
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$3,000
$16,330
$3,500
$22,830
PE RW CON
$3,000
$2,670 $16,330
$1,315 $215 $16,470
$3,985 $215 $35,800
PROJECT f'RiQR TO AMtMDMEN'l
Ft/mo TYPE
Private Funds
SHOPP
ST!P-nP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$3. 000
£13,515
$ 'ifl.QOO
$34,515
PfflOS
S/.530
$1,538
02/03 03/04 04/05 OS/OS OB/07
$3,000
5 / 3. 5 1 5
S 16. 4 70
$32,985
P£ RW COM
$3.000
$13,515
$4,215 $13,785
$4,21 S $3S,300
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing 5
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOOOs)
Caltrans (continued)
MPO ID: CAL29 CAPACITY STATUS: NCI
TITLE: SR 76 North County (D & E)
DESCRIPTION: Melrose Avenue to Mission Road
Change Reason: Transfer Trans/Vet to Ctiy of San Marcos Los Losas Project and reimburse with RSTP
FUND TYPE
DEMO
RSTP
FransNet-H
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$7,500
$6,275
$8,280
$22,055
PRIOR
$0
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$3,900 $3,600
$1,170 $5,105
$7,380 $900
$12,450 $9,605
PE RW CON
$2,700 $1,200 $3,600
$6,275
$675 $6,705 $900
$3,375 $14,180 $4,500
PROJECT PRIOR TO AMtNQMkN'l
FUMD TYPE
DEMO
Rsrr-
TransNet-H
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$7,500
$5.105
£9,450
$22,B5S $8
02/03 03/04 OS/06 06/07
$3,900 $3. BOO
$5,105
$8,550 $900
$12,450 $9,SOS
K RW CON
.52,700 $1.200 $3,60C
$5, 705
$675 $7,875 $90C
$3,375 $14,180 54,500
MPO ID: CAL53 CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
TITLE: Section 5310 Elderly & Disabled Program
DESCRIPTION: Purchase of vehicles and various capital equipment for the provision of transit service to the elderly & disabled
Change Reason: Add FY 2003 funds
FUND TYPE
FTA Funds (Sec. 5310)
-ocal
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$3,063
$765
$3,828
PRIOR
$1,873
$468
$2,341
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$1,190
$297
$1,487
PE RW CON
$3,063
$765
$3,828
PROJKT PRIO:? TO AMENDMENl
FUMD TYPE
FTA FuncK (Sec. 5310)
Local
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$ "i,87 3
,«4S6
$2,341
PRIOR
$1,873
$466
$2,341
02/83 63/04 04/05 05/06 OS/07 f>£ SWJ COM
£7,673
$466
$2,341
MPO ID: CAL68 CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
TITLE: 94/125 Widening
DESCRIPTION: Freeway to freeway connector - preliminary engineering phase
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
TCRP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$5,400
$5,400
PRIOR
$1,700
$1,700
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$3,700
$3,700
PE RW CON
$5,400
$5,400
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOOOs)
City of Carlsbad
MPO ID: CB08 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: Rancho Santa Fe Road
DESCRIPTION: La Costa Ave. to Melrose Dr. - Realign & widen from 2 to 6 lane arterial with bike lanes; widen & replace bridge over
San Marcos Creek
Change Reason: Part of fund exchange; adjustment to allocations of various funds
FUND TYPE
DEMO
HBRR
RSTP
City Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$2,310
$6,480
$13,401
$16,619
$38,810
PRIOR
$0
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$2,310
$6,480
$13,401
$16,619
$38,810
PE RW CON
$2,310
$6,480
$13,401
$16,619
$38,810
PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENO'Vltiv'i
FUND TYPE
DEMO
HBRR
RS'TP
City funds
FOWL-
TOTAL
$? 9^C>
$4,383
$5,000
$22.867
$35,000
PKSO8
$0
02/03 03/04 04/85 05/06 OS/0?
$2.250
$4. S3 3
$5,000 •
$22M'i
$35,000
PE RW coiy
$2.250
$4,883
$5.000
$22.867
$35,800
City of Chula Vista
MPO ID: CV01 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: I-805 Olympic Parkway Interchange Improvement
DESCRIPTION: From Orange Ave. to Palomar St. - Construct soundwalls; widen bridge deck, ramp, add auxiliary lanes &
utility relocation
Change Reason: Part of fund exchange
FUND TYPE
DEMO
City Funds
TransNet-L
STIP-RIP
RSTP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$5,132
$3,255
$2,500
$1,145
$2,500
$14,532
PRIOR
$2,825
$500
$3,325
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$5,132
$430
$2,000
$1,145
$2,500
$11,207
PE RW CON
$5,132
$720 $2,105 $430
$500 $2,000
$1,145
$2,500
$1,220 $2,105 $11,207
PROJECT PRIOR TOAMtNOMCm
f UNO TYPE
DEMO
City Funds
TransNfft-L
srip-Rif
TOTAL:
TOTAL
£5. GOO
S3.255
$5. 000
$1,145
$14,400
$5,000
,SJ,£?5v>
$5.000
$13,255
S2/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/0?
$1.145
$1,1 4S
P£ RW COAJ
$5,000
$720 $2.125 $410
$2,000 $3,000 $C
$1,145
$2,720 $5,1 2S $6,55$
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOOOs)
County of San Diego
MPO ID: CNTY14 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: South Santa Fe Avenue
DESCRIPTION: Vista City limits to San Marcos City limits - Reconstruct & widen from 2 to 4 lanes including bicycle lanes
Change Reason: Increase Trans/Vet funds; revise fund type
FUND TYPE
RSTP
Drivate Funds
TransNet-L*
FransNet-H
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$9,200
$450
$16,560
$8,900
$35,110
PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$4,536 $4,664
$250 $200
$763 $3,974 $4,261 $4,139 $3,423
$4,264 $4,636
$5,299 $8,638 $4,511 $8,603 $8,059
PE RW CON
$9,200
$450
$4,737 $11,823
$2,562 $6,338
$16,499 $18,611
PRQJF.C T PRIOR TO A/v1t:fJDMf:N ]
FUKSD TYPE
RSTP
County f-und^
PnVaCe Funch
1'i-snsNet
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$9.200
$14.101
$45(1
$9,855
$33,610
PRIOR 03/04 04/05 05/06 0S/07
$4,536 $4,864
52,562 $8,403 53,136
£250 S20G
$763 $3,974 S1.S9S $3,423
$5,Z9$ $8,838 94,311 $8,803 $6,S5S
P£ «!* COK
$9,200
$2,562 $11,535
$456
$4,737 $5,122
$18,439 $17,111
'Local Trans/Vet funds from the County and, the Cities of Vista & San Marcos
City of National City
MPO ID: NC01 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: Plaza Boulevard Widening
DESCRIPTION: From Highland Ave. to Euclid Ave.
Change Reason: Use-it-or-lose-it policy
FUND TYPE
RSTP
TransNet-L
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$2,000
$1,092
$3,092
PRIOR
$708
$92
$800
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$1,292
$238 $254 $254 $254
$238 $1,546 $254 $254
PE RW CON
$708 $1,292
$92 $492 $508
$800 $1,784 $508
PROJECT PRIOR i'OAMCNDM£Nf
FUND TYPE
RSTF'
TransNct-i
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$7.968
$1.092
$9,868
P£IOS
S70S
$9.->
02/03 03/04 04/85 05/06
$2,328 $2,466 $2,466
$238 $234 $254 $254
$2,582 $2,7 20 $2,729
PE R» COH
$708 $7,26C
$92 SIOOC
$8,2SO
North County Transit District
MPO ID: NCTD35
TITLE: Bridge 259.6
DESCRIPTION: Repair and replace rail br
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
TransNet-T
Agency*
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$2,350
$250
$2,600
PRIOR
CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
dge 259.6
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$2,350
$250
$2,600
PE RW CON
$170 $2,180
$250
$420 $2,180
'Insurance proceeds
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing 8
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOOOs)
City of San Diego
MPO ID: SD32 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: Carroll Canyon Road
DESCRIPTION: From Sorrento Valley to Scranton - construct modified 4-lane collector with bike lanes (CIP 52-392)
Change Reason: Part of fund exchange
FUND TYPE
City Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$11,792
$11,792
PRIOR
$3,130
$3,130
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$8,662
$8,662
PE RW CON
$3,130 $1,990 $6,672
$3,130 $1,990 $6,672
PROJECT PRIOi-l JO AMENDMENT
FUND TYPE
RSTP
City /'t?nc?3
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$7.438
$4.354
$11,792
PSiOR
$1284
$1,954
$3,238
02/03 03/04 04/05 OS/OS OS/07
$6/154
$2,400
$8,SS4
P£ RW COW
$7,435
$4,354
$11,792
MPO ID: SD88 CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
TITLE: I-5/SR 56 Interchange
DESCRIPTION: Freeway to freeway interchange - preliminary engineering phase
Change Reason: Change lead agency from Caltrans to the City; revise FY, & program additional funds
FUND TYPE
DEMO
CBI
~ity Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$300
$1,942
$561
$2,803
PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$300
$1,942
$561
$2,803
PE RW CON
$300
$1,942
$561
$2,803
PROJECT fniOK 'TO f\M£NDM£N'!
MPO ID: CAL JO
FUND TYPE
DEMO
STIP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$300
$60
$350
PRIOR
$300
$60
$360
02/03 03/84 04/05 OS/87 P£ RW CON
$300
$60
$366
City of San Marcos
MPO ID: SM04 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: Las Posas Road
DESCRIPTION: From Grand Ave. to Mission Rd. - Widen to 6-lane arterial; drainage improvements and utility under grounding
Change Reason: Revise Trans/Vet funds in FY 03; additional Trans/Vet & RSTP funds to fully fund project
FUND TYPE
City Funds
Private Funds
TransNet-L
RSTP*
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$6,900
$1,000
$4,970
$9,030
$21,900
PRIOR
$1,375
$3,000
$4,375
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$4,950 $575
$650 $350
$1,970
$9,030
$16,600 $925 $0
PE RW CON
$1,375 $5,525
$1,000
$3,000 $1,970
$9,030
$4,375 $17,525
PROJECT PRIOR TOAMENDMEN'!
FUmO TYPE
City funds
Private Funds
TransNe-t-L
TOTAl:
TOTAL
$6,900
SIOGC
$3800
$11,700
PRIOR
$i.375
$3.200
$4,575
02/C3 83104 04/05 OS/06 OS/07
$4.950 $575
5f.!50 $350
$600
$S,28Q $925
PE RW COAi
57,375 $5,525
$1,000
$3,200 $600
$4,375 $7,125
* Project to proceed under advanced construction authorization. The City will front the cost of construction in FY 02/03 and be reimbursed for RSTP funds in FY 04/05.
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in $OOOs)
City of San Marcos (continued)
MPO ID: SM07 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: Rancho Santa Fe Road
DESCRIPTION: From La Costa Meadows Drive to Island Drive - Construct 4-lane arterial including grading and utility under grounding
Change Reason: Part of fund exchange
FUND TYPE
City Funds
Drivate Funds
TransNet-L
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$4,200
$4,600
$2,700
$11,500
PROJECT PRIOR JO AMENDMENT
F0SD TYPE
City Fund',
Private /"Ufi'ds
TrfimNet-L
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$4/200
$4.800
$200
$$,QS8
PRIOR
$2,100
$2,100
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$2,100
$4,600
$2,700
$9,400
$2. 'ICC
$2,180
02/03 03104 04/05 OS/OS OB/07
S700 SI, 400
$4.600
$200
$s,sm $1,400
PE RW CON
$1,500 $2,700
$250 $4,350
$2,700
$1,500 $250 $9,750
PE RW CQKl
$4,200
$4,600
$200
$9,000
Technical Corrections (adjustments in the allocation of funds between phases and fiscal years)
MTDB
MPO ID: MTDB46 CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
TITLE: 1-1 5 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations
DESCRIPTION: Build four transit stations along the 1-15 corridor as part of BRT project
Change Reason: Revise phases
FUND TYPE
rcRp
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$25,800
$25,800
PRIOR
$13,600
$13,600
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$800 $10,700 $700
$800 $10,700 $700
PE RW CON
$1,400 $13,300 $11,100
$1,400 $13,300 $11,100
PROJECT PRIOR JO AMENDMENl
FUND TYPE
TCKP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
%2S, BOO
$25,880
SI3.SOO
$13,S00
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 OS/07
$800 570,700 $700
$10, 700 $700
P£ SI* CON
$1100 $13.600 $11,100
$1,160 $13,800 $11,100
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing 10
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in $OOOs)
North County Transit District
MPO ID: NCTD32 CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
TITLE: Oceanside Transit Center Parking
DESCRIPTION: In Oceanside - Build multi-level parking structure
Change Reason: Revise STIP funds to reflect state only cash
FUND TYPE
FTA Funds (5309 NS)
RSTP
City Funds (Oceanside)
STIP-IIP
STIP-RIP
TCRP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$2,000
$1,232
$400
$2,700
$1,300
$1,500
$9,132
PRIOR
$400
$700
$1,100
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$2,000
$1,232
$2,700
$1,300
$800
$0 $8,032 $0 $0
PE RW CON
$2,000
$1,232
$400
$2,700
$1,300
$700 $800
$700 $400 $8,032
PROJECT P^iOR TO AMENDMENT
FUND TYPE
FTA funds (5309 NS)
RSTF
City funds (Ocsai'tside)
S TIP- ISP
STIP-RtF
TCRP
TOTAL
TOTAL
$2.000
$1. 232
$400
$2, 700
,1,1.300
$1506
$3,132
PRIOR
$400
$700
$1,160
02/03 03/84 04/05 05/06 OS/07
$2,000
$1,232
12, 700
$1,300
$300
$8,032
f£ RW CON
$2.000
$'1233
$400
$2, 70C
$1.300
$790 $800
$1,932 $400 $S,88S
City of San Diego
MPO ID: SD15 CAPACITY STATUS: NCI
TITLE: Street Lights
DESCRIPTION: Install street lights at various locations
Change Reason: Transfer funds from SO 16 (see below)
FUND TYPE
City Funds
TransNet-L
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$400
$2,592
$2,992
PRIOR
$892
$892
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$200 $200
$500 $300 $300 $300 $300
$500 $500 $500 $300 $300
PE RW CON
$400
$2,592
$2,992
PROJECT PRIOR K) AMEMMrM
fUNB TYPE
Csly Funds
TransNst-L
TOTAL:
TOTAL
S40G
$1,792
$2,1 SZ
PRIOR
$892
02/03 03/94 04/85 8S/O7
$200 $200
$500 $WO $100 $100 $10C
$508 5300 $380 S10Q &1SS
P£ «W COW
$400
$1.792
S2, 182
MPO ID: SD16 CAPACITY STATUS: NCI
TITLE: Traffic Signals
DESCRIPTION: Install traffic signal improvements at various locations
Change Reason: Transfer funds to SD 75 (see above)
FUND TYPE
TransNet-L
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$10,930
$10,930
PRIOR
$0
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$930 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
$930 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500
PE RW CON
$10,930
$10,930
FROJKC T PRiOR TO AMtNDMlN J
Fl?WD TYPE
TrznsN&t-l.
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$11.930
$11,935
PRIOR
$0
02/03 03/04 04/05 OS/OS 06/07
$T,UO $2.700 $2.700 S2.70Q $2.700
$1,130 $2,788 $2,700 $2,700 52,700
P£ RW COftl
$11.936
$11,930
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing 11
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOOOs)
SANDAG
MPO ID: SAN1 1 CAPACITY STATUS: Exempt
TITLE: Regional Rideshare Program
DESCRIPTION: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Change Reason: Increase ST1P-RIP in FYs 2003 & 2004
FUND TYPE
FTA Funds (5307)
RSTP
AB2766
TDA
STIP-RIP
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$4,200
$1,500
$331
$544
$10,706
$17,281
PRIOR
$700
$700
$165
$10
$2,020
$3,595
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$700 $700 $700 $700 $700
$400 $400
$166
$9 $175 $175 $175
$1,644 $1,688 $1,738 $1,792 $1,824
$2,910 $2,797 $2,613 $2,667 $2,699
PE RW CON
$4,200
$1,500
$331
$544
$10,706
$17,281
PROJECT PRIOR TO AMENDMENT
FUIVD TYPE
FTA Funds (5307)
RSTP
AB2786
TDA
STIP-R1F
TOTAL;
TOTAL
$4.200
$1,500
$331
$544
$9.986
$ie,ssi
$700
170C
$16:<
$10
$2, TOO
$3,87 S
S2/Q3 03/04 OS/87
$700 S700 i7GO 5700 $700
$100 $400
$166
5.9 $175 $175 $'175
$'!,2d4 $1288 $1.738 $1792 $1824
$2,510 $2,397 $2,813 $2,66? $2,833
K »W CON
$4,20C
S1.501J
$331
$544
$9.986
$16,561
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing 12
RTIP
Fund Types
CMAQ
CBI
CDBG
DEMO
HBRR
RSTP
RTP
SHOPP
STIP-IIP
STIP-RIP
TCI
TCRP
TCSP
TSM
IDA
TDA-B
TEA
Trans/Vet-H
Trans/Vet-L
Trans/Vet-H
Section 5307
Section 5309
Section 5309 NS
Section 5309 R
Section 5311
Section 5310
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Corridors and Borders Infrastructure
Community Development Block Grants
Demonstration
Highway Bridge Repair & Replacement
Regional Surface Transportation Program
Recreational Trails Program
State Highway Operation & Protection Program (for Caltrans use only)
State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program
State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional Improvement Program
Transit Capital Improvement Program
Transportation Congestion Relief Program
Transportation & Community & System Preservation
Transportation Systems Management
Transportation Development Act
Transportation Development Act-Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities
Transportation Enhancement Activities Program
Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Highway
Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Local Streets & Roads
Prop. A Local Transportation Sales Tax - Transit
Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula
Federal Transit Administration Discretionary
Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - New Starts
Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - Rail Modernization
Federal Transit Administration Rural Program
Federal Transit Administration Elderly & Disabled Program
13
CSANDAG
^^^^••WBWTV
San Diego's Regional Manning Agency
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SEPTEMBER 27, 2OO2
AGENDA ITEM NO. O2-O9- i
ACTION REQUESTED - INFORMATION
PROGRESS REPORT ON
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
Introduction
This report summarizes the current status of
major highway, transit, arterial, traffic
management and transportation demand
management (TDM) projects in SANDAG's
four-year Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP). The TransNet
one-half cent local sales tax and other local,
state, and federal sources fund the projects.
The projects contained in this report have
been previously prioritized and are included
in the 2020 Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP).
Attachment 1 - "TransNet Program" -
indicates sales tax revenue available for
allocation was $15,857,424 in August 2002,
bringing the fiscal year total to $28,901,466.
Revenue for the fiscal year is nearly 7% lower
than it was last fiscal year at this time.
However, a reduction in the construction cost
index for the last quarter offsets this
decrease. The California Highway
Construction Price Index is currently 8% lower
than last year at this time. Revenue available
for allocation since the inception of the
TransNet Program totals $2.04 billion.
Highway Projects
Attachment 2 - "Highway Projects" - provides
basic cost and schedule information on the
major highway projects in the San Diego
region. The accompanying map (Attachment
3 - "Major Highway Projects") locates these
projects.
Caltrans awarded the construction contract
for the SR-56 4-lane freeway (project #27)
from Camino Ruiz to Carmel Country Road.
This last remaining segment of SR-56 between
I-5 and 1-15 is scheduled to be open to traffic
July 2004.
Transit and Bikeway Projects
Attachment 4 - "Transit and Bikeway
Projects" - provides basic cost and schedule
information on the major transit and bikeway
projects in the San Diego region. The
accompanying map (Attachment 5 - "Major
Transit and Bikeway Projects") locates these
projects.
MTDB completed Phase I construction of the
San Ysidro Station (project #50). Phase I
included drainage work, a parking lot and a
pedestrian bridge. Phase II construction,
which includes station modifications,
continues and should be complete by
December 2003.
Arterial and Freeway Interchange
Projects
Attachment 6 - "Arterial and Freeway
Interchange Projects" - provides cost and
schedule information on the major arterial
and interchange projects in the San Diego
region. The accompanying map (Attachment
7 - "Major Arterial and Interchange Projects")
locates these projects.
The City of San Marcos awarded the
construction contract for the Rancho Santa
Fe Road Widening (project #91) project.
Completion of this project is anticipated by
late 2003.
SANDAG
San Diego's Regional Planning Agency
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NOVEMBER 22, 20O2
EXHIBIT "B"
-11.4-AAGENDA ITEM NO. O2-"
ACTION REQUESTED - APPROVE
20O2 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP)
AMENDMENTS -
A. 2002 RTIP AMENDMENT NO.2
- UPDATED AIR QUALITY
CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Recommendation
It is my recommendation that the Board of
Directors approve Resolution 2002-15
approving Amendment No. 2 to add two
arterial widening projects to the 2002 RTIP
(Table 1), along with the final Air Quality
Emissions Analysis (Attachment 1).
Introduction
SANDAG, as the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO), is responsible for the
adoption of a biennial Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
The 2002 RTIP must conform to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities in the 2002 RTIP will
not create new air quality violations, worsen
existing violations, or delay the attainment of
the national ambient air quality standards. The
SANDAG Board adopted the 2002 RTIP
including the regional emissions analysis at its
meeting on June 28, 2002, and the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA)/Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) approved the
2002 RTIP on October 4, 2002.
The addition of capacity increasing projects to
the approved RTIP requires a new regional
emissions analysis. SANDAG has received a
request from the City of San Diego to add two
such projects to the 2002 RTIP. SANDAG has
updated the regional emissions analysis, and a
draft report was presented to the Board for
distribution and public review at its October
25, 2002 meeting. To date, no comments have
been received in regard to the new air quality
emissions analysis. This report represents the
final Air Quality Emissions Analysis
incorporating the two capacity increasing
projects.
Discussion
The 2002 RTIP is a five-year program of major
transportation projects in the San Diego
region covering the period from FY 2003 to
FY 2007. Federal metropolitan planning and
air quality regulations prescribe the process
for determining air quality conformity. These
regulations require that the RTIP: (1) provide
for the timely implementation of transporta-
tion control measures (TCMs), (2) include a
quantitative emissions analysis of projects
programmed in the RTIP, including all
regionally-significant projects, and (3) be
within the region's emissions budgets
(targets) included in the approved SIP.
The 2002 RTIP programs substantial funds for
the implementation of the four TCMs
(identified as "T-tactics") adopted in the SIP
for air quality improvement. The four TCMs/T-
tactics are ridesharing, transit improvements,
traffic flow improvements, and bicycle
facilities and programs. The TCMs/T-tactic
projects programmed for implementation
total approximately $1.82 billion, or about 41
percent of the total funds programmed in the
2002 RTIP. The addition of the two capacity
increasing projects does not impact the timely
implementation of TCMs.
A quantitative air quality emissions analysis
including the new projects proposed in
Amendment No. 2 was conducted for the
years 2010, 2020, and 2023 revenue-
constrained transportation scenarios. The
results of this analysis are included in
Attachment A. The draft report was released
for pubic comment and review at the October
25, 2002 SANDAG Board meeting and, also
was reviewed by the San Diego Region
Conformity Working Group (CWG) at its
meeting on October 23, 2002. The CWG is an
interagency consultation group made up of
various transportation and air quality
agencies including the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District, Caltrans, California
Air Resources Board, the U.S Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection agency. To date, no comments
were received on the report.
Based on the analysis, the 2002 RTIP
Amendment No. 2 meets the conditions for
determining conformity with the applicable
SIP for air quality.
GARY L. GALLEGOS
Executive Director
Attachments
Key Staff Contact: Elisa Arias, (619) 595-5336;
ear@sandag.org or
Sookyung Kim, (619) 595-5350;
ski@sandag.org
Funds are budgeted in Work Elements #4.03
and #3.11
SANDAG Board of Directors November 22, 2002 - Agenda Item # 4-A (Approve)
&»o Otcoo'f (ToaictfN/ PUnrrfnff AQf r<y it i f^
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)595-5300 • Fax (619) 595-5305
www. sandag. org
RESOLUTION
2003-15
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE 2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on June 28, 2002, SANDAG adopted the 2002 Regional Transportation
Improvement Program (RTIP) including the air quality conformity finding with the State
Implementation Plan for air quality; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Diego has requested the addition of two capacity increasing
projects for inclusion into the 2002 RTIP as shown in Table 1; and
WHEREAS, the updated Air Quality Conformity report for Amendment No. 2 to the 2002
RTIP as shown in Attachment A has been found to be in conformance with the 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the 1991 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)/1982 State
Implementation Plan (SIP); and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP continues to provide for timely
implementation of transportation control measures contained in the adopted RAQS/SIP for air
quality and a quantitative emissions analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the RTIP
projects and programs meet all the federally required emissions budget targets; "and
WHEREAS, the public and affected agencies have been provided notice of and an
opportunity to comment on Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP and its air quality conformity
determination; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that SANDAG finds Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP in conformance
with the applicable SIP for the San Diego region; and
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the SANDAG Board of Directors does hereby approve
Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP and its Air Quality Conformity Report; and
BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that all regionally significant, capacity increasing projects included
in Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP are included in the 2020 RTP; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. to the 2002 RTIP 2 is consistent with
SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP is consistent with
SANDAG Public Participation policy.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of November 2002
ATT
CHAIRPERSON
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon
Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos, Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVISORY/LIAISON MEMBERS: California Department of Transportation, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, North San Diego
County Transit Development Board, U.S. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, S.D. County Water Authority, and
Baja California/Mexico.
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 2
San Diego Region (in $OOOs)
[City of San Diego
MPO ID: SD89
TITLE: Genesee Avenue
DESCRIPTION: From 1-5 to Campus Point Drive - Widen
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
City Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$2,733
$2,733
PRIOR 02/03
CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
from 4 to 6 lanes with Class II bicycle lanes
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$2,733
$2,733
PE
$645
$645
RW
$500
$500
CON
$1,588
$1,588
Note: Part of fund exchanged approved by the Transportation Committee 9/12/02 (swap $963,000 in STIP with Carlsbad Rancho Santa Fe local funds)
MPO ID: SD90 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: SR 163/Clairemont Mesa Boulevard Interchange
DESCRIPTION: From Kearny Mesa Road to Kearny Villa Road - Widen from 4 to 6 lane prime arterial
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
RSTP
City Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$4,400
$6,350
$10,750
PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$4,400
$6,350
$10,750
PE RW CON
$1,147 $3,253
$1,656 $4,694
$2,803 $7,947
Note: Program RSTP but will seek funds through 2004 STIP)
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing
NCI = Non-capacity Increasing
Attachment 1
AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
FOR THE 2002
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
AMENDMENT NO. 2
November 22, 2002
SANDAG
401 B Street, Suite 800 - San Diego, CA 92101-4231 • (619) 595-5300
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
(SANDAG
^imm •:':""
San Diego's Regional Planning Agency
The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum
for regional decision-making. The Association builds consensus, makes
strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a
broad range of topics pertinent to the region's quality of life.
CHAIR: Hon. Ron Morrison
VICE CHAIR: Hon. Mickey Cafagna
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gary L Gallegos
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Hon. Ramona Finnila, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor
(A) Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Hon. Shirley Morton, Mayor
(A) Hon. Patty Davis, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Mary Salas, Councilmember
CITY OF CORONADO
Hon. Chuck Marks, Mayor Pro Tern
(A) Hon. Thomas Smisek, Mayor
(A) Hon. Phil Monroe, Councilmember
CITY OF DEL MAR
Hon. Richard Earnest, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Crystal Crawford, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Mark Whitehead, Mayor
CITY OF EL CAJON
Hon. Richard Ramos, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Mark Lewis, Mayor
CITY OF ENCINITAS
Hon. Dennis Holz, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Maggie Houlihan, Councilmember
CITY OF ESCONDIDO
Hon. Lori Pfeiler, Mayor
(A) Hon. June Rady, Mayor Pro Tem
CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH
Hon. Diane Rose, Mayor
(A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Mayor Pro Tem
(A) Hon. Patricia McCoy, Councilmember
CITY OF LA MESA
Hon. Art Madrid, Mayor
(A) Hon. Barry Jantz, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Rick Knepper, Councilmember
CITY OF LEMON GROVE
Hon. Mary Sessom, Mayor
(A) Hon. Jill Greer, Councilmember
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
Hon. Ron Morrison, Councilmember
(A) Hon. George H. Waters, Mayor
CITY OF OCEANSIDE
Hon. Betty Harding, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Esther Sanchez, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Jack Feller, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF POWAY
Hon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor
(A) Hon. Don Higginson, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Robert Emery, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Dick Murphy, Mayor
(A) Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember
CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Hon. Hal Martin, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Pia Harris-Ebert, Vice Mayor
CITY OF SANTEE
Hon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Jack Dale, Vice Mayor
(A) Hon. Randy Voepel, Mayor
(A) Hon. Jim Bartell, Councilmember
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
Hon Joe Kellejian, Councilmember
(A) Hon. Marcia Smerican, Mayor
(A) Hon. Doug Sheres, Deputy Mayor
CITY OF VISTA
Hon. Judy Ritter, Mayor Pro Tem
(A) Hon. Steve Gronke, Councilmember
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Hon. Ron Roberts, Supervisor
(A) Hon. Bill Horn, Supervisor
CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(Advisory Member)
Jeff Morales, Director
(A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(Advisory Member)
Leon Williams, Chairman
(A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman
NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT
DEVELOPMENT BOARD
(Advisory Member)
Hon. Julianne Nygaard, Chair
(A) Hon. Christy Guerin, Board Member
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
(Liaison Member)
CAPT Christopher Schanze, USN, CEC
Commander, Southwest Division
Naval Facilities Engineering Command
(A) CAPT Ken Butrym, USN, CEC
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT
(Advisory Member)
Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner
(A) Patricia McQuater, Commissioner
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY
(Advisory Member)
Hon. Bud Lewis, Director
BAJA CALIFORNIA/MEXICO
(Advisory Member)
Hon. Rodulfo Figueroa Aramoni
Consul General of Mexico
Revised October 2, 2002
ABSTRACT
TITLE: Air Quality Emissions Analysis for the 2002 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program, Amendment No. 2
AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments
DATE: November 2002
SOURCE OF San Diego Association of Governments
COPIES: 401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619)595-5300
NUMBER OF 23
PAGES:
ABSTRACT: The 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP) is a five-year program of major highway, transit,
local street and road, and non-motorized projects in the
San Diego region from FY 2003 to FY 2007. The U.S.
Department of Transportation approved the Final 2002
RTIP on October 4, 2002. With the addition of two
capacity increasing projects, this document represents the
emissions analysis for the 2002 RTIP, including
Amendment No. 2.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview 3
Consistency with the 2020 RTF 3
Air Quality Conformity Determination 3
Financial Capacity Analysis 4
Public Participation 4
Chapter 2 - AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Development of Transportation Control Measures 9
Air Quality Conformity Requirements 10
Expeditious Implementation of TCMs 11
Quantitative Emissions Analysis 11
Emissions Budget Analysis 12
Exempt Projects 14
Conclusion 14
Appendix A - Projects Exempt From Air Quality Conformity Determination
Appendix B - Glossary of Terms and Acronyms
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-1 2002 RTIP Transportation Control Measure Projects 5
Table 1-2 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2 6
Chapter 2 - AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Table 2-1 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2 Air Quality Conformity Analysis 12
Table 2-2 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2 Conformity Worksheets 13
Table 2-3 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2 Control Factor Adjustments Worksheet 14
VII
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP, is a five-year program of major
highway, transit, arterial and non-motorized projects funded by federal, state, TransNet local sales
tax, and other local funding from FY 2003 to FY 2007. The RTIP, which includes an air quality
emissions analysis for all regionally significant projects, requires the approval by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Amendment No. 2
adds two capacity increasing projects to the 2002 RTIP prompting an update to the regional
emissions analysis.
The RTIP is a prioritized program designed to implement the region's overall strategy for providing
mobility and improving the efficiency and safety of the transportation system, while reducing
transportation-related air pollution in support of efforts to attain federal and state air quality
standards for the region. The 2002 RTIP also incrementally develops the 2020 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP), the adopted long-range transportation plan for the San Diego region.
The 2030 RTP is currently being developed.
The Final 2002 RTIP, including the air quality emissions analysis, was approved by FHWA and FTA on
October 4, 2002. Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTIP adds two capacity increasing projects. The 2002
RTIP document, published in July 2002, fully documents the RTIP development process, project
listings, financial capacity analysis, and the air quality conformity analysis. This report focuses on the
new regional air quality emissions analysis for conformity purposes. The Final 2002 RTIP document
also is available on the SANDAG Web site.
Consistency with the 2020 RTP
On April 13, 2000, FHWA and FTA issued a finding that the SANDAG 2020 RTP was in conformance
with federal air quality and planning regulations. The 2020 RTP includes both a revenue-
constrained plan for federal purposes and a needs-based (preferred) plan for regional planning
purposes.
The 2002 RTIP, including Amendment No. 2, is consistent with the 2020 RTP. As a financially-
constrained document, the 2002 RTIP contains only those major transportation projects listed in the
revenue-constrained plan of the 2020 RTP.
Air Quality Conformity Determination
Federal metropolitan planning and air quality regulations prescribe the process for determining air
quality conformity. These regulations require that the proposed RTIP: (1) provide for the timely
implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs), (2) include a quantitative emissions
analysis of projects programmed in the RTIP, including all regionally-significant projects, and (3) be
within the region's emissions budgets (targets) included in the approved State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
The 2002 RTIP programs substantial funds for the implementation of the four TCMs (identified as
"T-tactics") adopted in the 1982 Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS)/1982 State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for air quality improvement. As shown in Table 1-1, the TCMs/T-tactic projects programmed
for implementation total approximately $1.82 billion, or about 41 percent of the total funds
programmed in the 2002 RTIP. This total includes $16.6 million for Ridesharing, $1.69 billion for
Transit Improvements, $24.6 million for Bicycle Facilities and Programs, and $92.5 million for Traffic
Flow Improvements. The addition of the two capacity increasing projects does not impact the timely
implementation of TCMs nor affect any of the TCM projects listed (Table 1-2).
A quantitative air quality emissions analysis was conducted for the years 2010, 2020, and 2023
revenue-constrained transportation scenarios. The results of this analysis, including Amendment
No. 2, was distributed for public comment at the October 25, 2002 SAIMDAG Board meeting, and
also was reviewed by the San Diego Region Conformity Working Group (CWG) at its meeting on
October 23, 2002. No comments have been received to date. The 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2 meets
the conditions for determining conformity with the applicable SIP for air quality. A detailed
description of the regional emissions analysis and modeling procedures is included in Appendix C of
the Final 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. Chapter 2 of this report summarizes
the air quality conformity analysis for Amendment No. 2.
Financial Capacity Analysis
The 2002 RTIP is required by federal regulations to be a revenue-constrained document with
programmed projects based upon available or committed funding and/or reasonable estimates of
future funding. Funding assumptions are generally based upon: (1) authorized or appropriated
levels of federal and state funding from current legislation; (2) conservative projections of future
federal and state funding based upon a continuation of current funding levels; (3) the most current
revenue forecasts for the TransNet program; and (4) the planning and programming documents of
the local transportation providers.
The Final 2002 RTIP further describes the financial capacity analysis of major program areas. Based
upon this analysis, the projects contained within the 2002 RTIP, including the two projects in
Amendment No. 2, are reasonable when considering available funding sources.
Public Participation
It is the policy of SANDAG to encourage public participation in the development of agency planning
and programming activities. Public involvement consists of participation on various SANDAG
technical and advisory committees, opportunities to comment at SANDAG Board and committee
meetings, public notices of document availability and public hearings, and through the SANDAG
public communications program. See Appendix A of the Final 2002 RTIP which describes the
SANDAG public participation process.
Table 1-1
Transportation Control Measure Projects
2002 RTIP - San Diego Region (in $OOOs of Future Dollars)
RIDESHARING
SANDAG Regional TDM Program -
RideLink and Regional Vanpool Program $16,561
Subtotal $16,561
TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Mission Valley East Light Rail Project
Oceanside-Escondido Rail Extension
1-15 Bus Rapid Transit (Rolling Stock/Stations)
Mid-Coast Corridor Project
Sorrento to Miramar Double Track/Realign
Regional Fare Technology
Oceanside Double Track Project
East Village Intermodal Transit Station*
San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center*
Oceanside Transit Center Parking
Bus/Rail Vehicles Purchase
Bus/Rail Infrastructure
Intercity Rail Projects
Other Transit Projects (Operations/Planning)
$452,000
$351,520
$50,800
$100,090
$31,716
$35,402
$6,000
$24,641
$16,408
$9,132
$130,674
$324,009
$34,540
$119,140
Subtotal $1,686,072
'additional funds are included under the regional TEA program
BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJECTS
Bicycle Facilities $24,607
Subtotal $24,607
TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS
Caltrans/SANDAG Traffic Management System Projects
CMAQ/Local Agency Traffic Signal Improvement Projects
$56,671
$35,796
Subtotal $92,467
:• [ *i x < it > *
Total Transportation Control Measure Projects:
Total All Transportation Projects in 2002 RTIP:
Share of Transportation Control Measure Projects:
$1,819,707
$4,445,221
40.9%
Table 1-2
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 2
San Diego Region (in $OOOs)
City of San Diego
MPO ID: SD89
TITLE: Genesee Avenue
DESCRIPTION: From I-5 to Campus Point Drive - Widen
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
City Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$2,733
$2,733
PRIOR 02/03
CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
from 4 to 6 lanes with Class II bicycle lanes
03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$2,733
$2,733
PE RW
$645 $500
$645 $500
CON
$1,588
$1,588
Note: Part of fund exchanged approved by the Transportation Committee 9/12/02 (swap $963,000 in STIP for this project with Carlsbad Rancho Santa Fe)
MPO ID: SD90 CAPACITY STATUS: Cl
TITLE: SR 163/Clairemont Mesa Boulevard Interchange
DESCRIPTION: From Kearny Mesa Road to Kearny Villa Road - Widen from 4 to 6 lane prime arterial
Change Reason: New Project
FUND TYPE
RSTP
City Funds
TOTAL:
TOTAL
$4,400
$6,350
$10,750
PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
$4,400
$6,350
$10,750
PE RW CON
$1,147 $3,253
$1,658 $4,694
$2,803 $7,947
Note: Program RSTP but will seek funds through 2004 STIP)
Note: Cl = Capacity Increasing
NCI = Non-capacity Increasing
Chapter 2
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Chapter 2
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
The San Diego region has been designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a
federal non-attainment area for ozone, and as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO). The
County of San Diego is federally designated as a Serious non-attainment area for ozone and is
federally designated as a Maintenance area for CO.
In 2001, the San Diego region attained the federal one-hour ozone standard. The San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (APCD) is preparing a request for the EPA to redesignate San Diego
County from Serious nonattainment to attainment/maintenance. APCD has developed an ozone
Maintenance Plan to be submitted as part of the redesignation request.
DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES
In 1982, SANDAG adopted four transportation tactics (T-tactics) as elements of the 1982 Revised
Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS). These T-tactics are ridesharing, transit improvements, traffic
flow improvements, and bicycle facilities and programs.
These four T-tactics were subsequently approved by the San Diego Air Pollution Control Board
(APCB) and are the transportation control measures (TCMs) in the 1982 State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for Air Quality. The EPA approved this SIP revision for the San Diego Air Basin in 1983, and
these four T-tactics remain the federally approved TCMs for the San Diego region.
The California Clean Air Act required the preparation of a 1991 RAQS, including TCMs. During 1991
and 1992, SANDAG, in cooperation with local agencies, transit agencies, and the APCD, developed a
Transportation Control Measures (TCM) Plan. The TCM Plan was approved by SANDAG on March
27,1992.
On June 30, 1992, the APCB amended the TCM Plan and adopted the 1991 RAQS, including the
amended TCM Plan. TCMs included in the 1991 RAQS include the four T-tactics described above, as
well as a transportation demand management (TDM) program, vanpools, high occupancy vehicle
(HOV) lanes, and park-and-ride facilities. On November 12, 1992, the California Air Resources Board
(ARE) gave approval to the 1991 RAQS, including the TCMs.
The 1995 Triennial RAQS Update subsequently deleted the Employee Commute Travel Reduction
Program contained in the TDM program because the program was no longer required under federal
law. Assembly Bill 3048 (Statutes of 1996, Chapter 777) eliminated all state requirements for
mandatory trip reduction programs. As a result, the Student Travel Reduction Program, the Non-
Commute Travel Reduction Program, and the Goods Movement/Truck Operation Program proposed
in the 1991 RAQS were no longer statutorily mandated and were deleted from the RAQS in 1998.
The 2001 Triennial RAQS Revision made no changes to measures related to mobile sources.
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS
SANDAG, as the MPO, and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), must make a
determination that the 2002 RTIP, including Amendment No. 2, conforms to the applicable SIP.
Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not create new air quality violations,
worsen existing violations, or delay the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
The EPA and DOT issued a final rule for transportation conformity on August 15, 1997. Based upon
this regulation, conformity of transportation plans and programs, including the 2002 RTIP, is
determined according to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) [Section 176(c)(3)(A)] if the
following is demonstrated:
1. The RTIP provides for the timely implementation of the TCMs contained in the adopted State
Implementation Plan for Air Quality (SIP).
2. A quantitative analysis is conducted on the cumulative emissions of projects programmed within
the RTIP, including all regionally-significant, capacity-increasing projects. Further,
implementation of the projects and programs must meet the motor vehicle emissions budget
developed by local and state air quality agencies and approved by EPA. The 2002 RTIP, including
Amendment No. 2, must be within the budget contained in the 1994 Ozone SIP (approved by
EPA in February 1997), and the CO emissions budget established in the CO Maintenance Plan
(approved by EPA in June 1998).
In addition to the required emissions tests, consultation with transportation and air quality agencies
is required. The consultation process followed to prepare the air quality conformity analysis
complies with the San Diego Transportation Conformity Procedures adopted in July 1998.
Interagency consultation involves SANDAG, the APCD, Caltrans, California Air Resources Board
(ARE), the U.S. DOT, and the U.S. EPA, which form the San Diego Region Conformity Working
Group (CWG).
Consultation is a three-tier process that:
1. formulates and reviews drafts through a conformity working group;
2. provides local agencies and the public with opportunities for input through existing regional
advisory committees and workshops; and
3. seeks comments from affected federal and state agencies through participation in the
development of draft documents and circulation of supporting materials prior to formal
adoption.
SANDAG consulted with the San Diego Region CWG in the preparation of the air quality analysis of
the 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2. The preliminary schedule for the development of the 2002 RTIP
Amendment No. 2 was established at the CWG meeting in August 2002. SANDAG also follows the
interagency consultation procedures for exempt projects.
10
SANDAG distributed a draft conformity finding, including Amendment No. 2, to APCD, Caltrans,
GARB, FHWA, FTA, EPA, and the general public for comments at the October 25, 2002 SANDAG
Board meeting. The draft report was discussed at the interagency consultation meeting held on
October 23, 2002. To date no comments have been received.
The Draft 2002 RTIP and its conformity finding were released on May 24, 2002. The Final 2002 RTIP
was adopted by the SANDAG Board on June 28, 2002, and approved by FHWA/FTA on October 4,
2002.
The following sections provide a summary of SANDAG's analysis of the 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2
in relation to the above conformity requirements.
EXPEDITIOUS IMPLEMENTATION OF TCMS
The first requirement of the EPA-mandated conformity finding is to provide for the expeditious
implementation of adopted TCMs, or T-tactics. The 2002 RTIP, including Amendment No. 2 makes
substantial progress in programming funds for implementation of the four adopted TCMs for the
San Diego region contained within the 1982 SIP.
Table 1-1 (page 5) shows that TCMs programmed for implementation total approximately $1.82
billion, or 41 percent of the total funds programmed. Included are $16.6 million for Ridesharing,
$1.69 billion for Transit Improvements, $24.6 million for Bicycle Facilities and Programs, and $94.5
million for Traffic Flow Improvements. The addition of two capacity increasing projects does not
impede the timely implementation of TCMs. Based upon this analysis, the 2002 RTIP, Amendment
No. 2 continues to provide for the expeditious implementation of the four existing TCMs in the
1982 Revised RAQS, which remain the EPA-approved TCMs for the San Diego region.
QUANTITATIVE EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
The second requirement of the conformity finding is that a quantitative emissions analysis be
conducted on the proposed RTIP amendment. In summary, the emissions analysis must show that
implementation of the 2002 RTIP meets the emissions budgets as established in the 1994 Ozone SIP
and the 1998 CO Maintenance Plan.
A quantitative emissions analysis was conducted according to the requirements established in the
Transportation Conformity Rule, under Section 93.122(b). Motor vehicle emissions forecasts were
produced for the following three scenarios:
1. 2010 Revenue-Constrained Scenario,
2. 2020 Revenue-Constrained Scenario, and
3. 2023 Revenue-Constrained Scenario.
SANDAG's regional growth forecasts and transportation models, as well as CARB's emissions model,
were used to generate the emission forecasts. Transportation forecasts were developed using the
TRANPLAN transportation planning computer package. The four-step transportation modeling
process includes trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and trip assignment. The quantitative
11
emissions analysis used motor vehicle emissions factors from the California Air Resources Board's
EMFAC7F1.1 emissions model.
All of the proposed capacity-increasing improvements identified in the 2002 RTIP Amendment No. 2
(Table 1-2 on page 6) that are on the Regional Arterial System (as defined in the Regional
Transportation Plan) or the FHWA functional classification system (other Principal Arterials and
higher classification) were modeled.
In April 2002, CARB released updated control factors to estimate emissions credits for SIP measures
not included in the EMFAC7F1.1 rates for use in conformity assessments. The air quality conformity
analysis uses these updated control factors.
EMISSIONS BUDGET ANALYSIS
Table 2-1 provides a summary of the results of the quantitative emissions analysis conducted. The
analysis shows that the projected emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and
reactive organic gases (ROG) meet the San Diego region motor vehicle emissions budgets for CO,
NOx, and ROG.
Table 2-1
2002 SAN DIEGO RTIP, AMENDMENT NO. 2
AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Scenario
SIP Emissions Budget
2010 Revenue-Constrained
2020 Revenue-Constrained
2023 Revenue-Constrained
Average
Weekday
Vehicle
Starts
(1 ,000s)
13,814
15,398
15,763
Average
Weekday
Vehicle
Miles
(1,000s)
87,567
99,598
101,910
Average
Highway
Speed
(mph)
32.4
32.3
32.4
CO
Tons/Day
1,194.87
439.46
423.91
421.25
NOx
Tons/Day
114.25
57.04
61.17
61.88
ROG
Tons/Day
89.60
38.72
30.25
28.63
Details of the analysis shown in Table 2-1 are outlined below in Tables 2-2 and 2-3.
12
Table 2-2
2002 SAN DIEGO RTIP, AMENDMENT NO. 2
CONFORMITY WORKSHEETS*
DTIM2 Emissions1
2010 Revenue-Constrained
2020 Revenue-Constrained
2023 Revenue-Constrained
CO
439.46
423.91
421.25
Control Factor Adjustments4
2010
RTIP Analysis5
SIP Emissions Budget
2010 Revenue-Constrained
2020 Revenue-Constrained
2023 Revenue-Constrained
CO
1194.87
439.46
423.91
421.25
NOx
108.42
112.55
113.25
NOx
51.38
NOx
114.25
57.04
61.17
61.88
Burden Total
TOG TOG2 TOG
48.95 8.50 57.45
41.19 7.09 48.28
39.87 6.67 46.54
ROG
14.37
ROG
89.60
38.72
30.25
28.63
Total
ROG3
53.09
44.61
43.00
* Emissions in tons per day
1. Trip and VMTrelated emissions from DTIM2plus emissions from Mexican vehicles derived from the BURDEN7F
documentation.
2. Vehicle based evaporative emissions (diurnal and resting loss) from BURDEN7F summaries.
3. ROG calculated from Total Organic Gases (TOG) using the following factors: 0.9240 for non-catalyst exhaust,
0.8515 for catalyst exhaust, and 0.9573 for diesel exhaust.
4. Control factors for California SIP measures not accounted for in EMFAC7F for 20W, 2020. and 2023 (see Table 2-
3).
5. 2010, 2020 and 2023 NOx and ROG adjusted to account for control factor reductions shown above.
The calculation of emission reductions for SIP measures not accounted for in EMFAC7F1.1 are shown
in Table 2-3. The control factor adjustments used in the calculations were provided by CARB for use
in conformity determinations on April 3, 2002. The adjustments include heavy duty diesel
adjustments the enhanced inspection and maintenance program, and other state and federal
measures.
SANDAG consulted with the San Diego Region Conformity Working Group (CWG) to determine the
correct use of the budget according to the conformity rule requirements. The 2002 RTIP emissions
were forecast as TOG and converted to ROG for the budget comparison.
13
Table 2-3
CONTROL FACTOR ADJUSTMENTS WORKSHEET*
20 101
TOG from DTIM23
ROG4
Control Factor 5
ROG Reduction
NOx from DTIM23
Control Factor5
NOx Reduction
Light &
Medium-
Duty Fleet 2
40.45
37.40
0.249
9.31
51.48
0.494
25.43
Heavy-Duty
Gas
1.65
1.46
0.172
0.25
10.14
0.312
3.16
Heavy-Duty
Diesel
6.61
6.32
0.759
4.80
42.91
0.531
22.78
Reduction
Applied to
SANDAG
Analysis
14.37
51.38
* Emissions in tons per day
7. 2020 and 2023 control factors assumed same as 2010.
2. Includes light-duty automobiles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks.
3. Urban bus and Mexican fleet emissions not adjusted.
4. ROC calculated from TOG using the following factors: 0.9240 for non-catalyst exhaust, 0.8515 for catalyst
exhaust, and 0.9573 for diesel exhaust.
5. These factors were provided by the CARB in April 2002 for use in conformity assessments.
Additional procedures including detailed discussions on growth forecasts, transportation modeling,
T-tactics, and emissions modeling are included in Appendix C of the Final 2002 RTIP.
EXEMPT PROJECTS
Section 93.126 of the Transportation Conformity Rule exempts certain highway and transit projects
from the requirement to determine conformity. The categories of exempt projects include safety,
mass transit, air quality (ridesharing and bicycle and pedestrian facilities), and other (such as
planning studies).
The 2002 RTIP programs funding for several of these exempt projects that, according to the
conformity rule, may be implemented even in the absence of a conforming transportation plan and
transportation improvement program. SANDAG followed interagency consultation procedures to
determine exempt projects.
CONCLUSION
Based upon an evaluation of projects and funds programmed and a quantitative emissions analysis,
the 2002 RTIP, Amendment No. 2, meets the EPA transportation conformity regulations contained
within the federal guidelines published on August 15, 1997 and the requirements of the federal
Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.
14
Appendix A
PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM AIR QUALITY
CONFORMITY DETERMINATION
APPENDIX A
PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION*
SAFETY
Railroad/highway crossing
Safer non-federal-aid system roads
Traffic control devices and operating assistance
other than signalization projects
Pavement resurfacing and/or rehabilitation
Emergency relief (23 U.S.C. 125)
Skid treatments
Adding medians
Lighting improvements
Emergency truck pullovers
Increasing site distance
Hazard elimination program
Shoulder improvements
Widening narrow pavements or reconstructing
bridges (no additional travel lanes)
Truck climbing lanes outside the urbanized area
Guardrails, median barriers, crash cushions
Pavement marking demonstrations
Fencing
Safety roadside rest areas
Railroad/highway crossing warning devices
Safety improvement program
MASS TRANSIT
Operating assistance to transit agencies
Purchase of operating equipment of vehicles
(e.g., radios, fareboxes, lifts, etc.)
Rehabilitation or reconstruction of track
structures, track, and trackbed in existing rights-
of-way
Purchase of new buses and rail cars to replace
existing vehicles or for minor expansions of fleet
Construction of small passenger shelters and
information kiosks
Rehabilitation of transit vehicles
Purchase of support vehicles
Construction or renovation of power, signal and
communications systems
Reconstruction or renovation of transit buildings
and structures (e.g., rail or bus buildings, storage
and maintenance facilities, stations, terminals, and
ancillary structures)
Construction of new bus or rail storage/maintenance
facilities categorically excluded in 23 CFR part 771.
Purchase of office, shop and operating equipment
for existing facilities
AIR QUALITY
Continuation of ridesharing and vanpooling
promotion activities at current levels
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
OTHER
Specific activities which do no involved or directly
lead to construction, such as:
Sign removal
Transportation enhancement activities except
rehabilitation and operation of historic
transportation buildings, structures, or facilities)
Planting, landscaping, etc.
Directional and informational signs
Engineering to assess social, economic, and
environmental efforts of the proposed action or
alternatives to that action
Noise attenuation
Repair or damage caused by natural disasters, civil
unrest, or terrorists acts, except projects involving
substantial functional locational or capacity changes
Acquisition of scenic easements
Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23
CFT712.204(d))
ALL PROJECTS
Intersection channelization projects
Interchange reconfiguration projects
Truck size and weight inspection stations
Intersection signalization projects at individual
intersections
Changes in vertical and horizontal alignments
Bus terminal and transfer points
*Source: Federal Register, August 15,1997, Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 51 & 93
Transportation Conformity Rule Amendments: Flexibility and Streamlining: Final Rule
17
Appendix B
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Appendix B
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
B
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APCB/APCD (San Diego) Air Pollution Control Board (District)
H
Con
CAA
Caltrans
CARB
CBI
CDBG
Cl
CMAQ
CMP
CO
CTC
Construction Phase
1990 Clean Air Act, as amended
California Department of Transportation
California Air Resources Board
Corridors and Borders Infrastructure
Community Development Block Grant (Federal)
Capacity Increasing
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
Congestion Management Program
Carbon Monoxide
California Transportation Commission
DEMO
DOT
ISTEA Special ProjectsfTEA-21 High-Priority Demonstration
U.S. Department of Transportation
E
EPA
Engineering/planning phase
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA
FSP
FTA
Federal Highway Administration
Freeway Service Patrol (and FSP Act)
Federal Transit Administration
HES/SR2S
HOV
Hazard Elimination Safety/Safe Routes to School program
High Occupancy Vehicle
21
IM
IRR
ISTEA
ITS
Interstate Maintenance
Indian Reservation Road
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
Intelligent Transportation Systems
M
N
LRT
MPO
MTDB
NAAQS
NCI
NCTD/NSDCTDB
IMHS
Light Rail Transit
Metropolitan Planning Organization
San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Non Capacity Increasing
North County Transit District/ North
Development Board
National Highway System
San Diego County Transit
PIPE
PPNO
Preliminary Engineering Phase
Project Number (Caltrans)
RAQS
ROG
RW/ROW
RTIP
RTP
RSTP
Regional Air Quality Strategy
Reactive Organic Gas
Right-of-Way phase
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (SANDAG)
Regional Transportation Plan (SANDAG)
Regional Surface Transportation Program
SANDAG
SBTA
SDTC
SDTI
SHOPP
SIP
SLTPP
SR
STA
STIP
STIP-IIP
STIP-RIP
STP
San Diego Association of Governments
State Bicycle Transportation Account
San Diego Transit Corporation (San Diego Transit)
San Diego Trolley, Incorporated (San Diego Trolley)
State Highway Operation and Protection Program
State Implementation Plan (for air quality)
State-Local Transportation Partnership Program/SBSOO
State Route (as in SR 52 - State Route 52)
State Transit Assistance (act)
State Transportation Improvement Program (CTC)
State Transportation Improvement Program - Interregional Program (CTC)
State Transportation Improvement Program - Regional Improvement
Program (SANDAG)
Surface Transportation Program
22
TEA Transportation Enhancement Activities
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TCI Transit Capital Improvement (State)
TCM Transportation Control Measure
TCRP Traffic Congestion Relief Program (Governor's initiative)
TDA Transportation Development Act
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TMA Transportation Management Agency
TOG Total Organic Gas
TP&D Transportation Planning and Development
TransNet San Diego Region 1/2% Local Transportation Sales Tax Program
TSM Traffic Systems Management
T-1 Transportation T-tactic: Ridesharing
T-2 Transportation T-tactic: Transit
T-3 Transportation T-tactic: Bicycle
T-5 Transportation T-tactic: Traffic Improvement
V
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
23
EXHIBIT "C"
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
CHAPTERS ACCOUNTING/INVOICES
CONTENTS
Section Subject Page Number
5.1 REQUIREMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT 5-3
5.2 TYPES OF INVOICES 5-5
5.3 FORMAT OF LOCAL AGENCY INVOICES 5-5
5.4 REIMBURSABLE PROJECT COSTS 5-8
Direct Cost Reimbursement 5-9
Indirect Cost Reimbursement 5-9
5.5 EXPEDITED PAYMENT PROCEDURES 5-12
Accelerated Payment of Invoices Through the State Controller's
Office 5-12
Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure 5-12
5.6 FINAL EXPENDITURE REPORTS 5-14
5.7 AUDIT OF LOCAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES 5-14
5.8 FINAL PROJECT COSTS 5-15
5.9 FINAL REPORT OF EXPENDITURES ON PROJECTS ADMINISTERED BY THE
STATE 5-15
5.10 AUDIT OF STATE EXPENDITURES 5-15
5.11 FINAL PROJECT COSTS OF STATE-ADMINISTERED PROJECTS 5-15
5.12 SERVICE CONTRACTS 5-16
5.13 INVOICE CHECKLIST BEFORE SUBMITTING TO LOCAL PROGRAM
ACCOUNTING 5-16
FLOW CHARTS
Chart Description Page Number
5-1 INVOICE PROCESSING 5-1
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Description Page Number
5-A SAMPLE FEDERAL-AID INVOICE (EXCEPT FOR TEA AND STIP PROJECTS) .. 5-19
5-B SAMPLE FEDERAL-AID INVOICE WITH Two APPROPRIATIONS & DIFFERENT
REIMBURSEMENT RATES 5-21
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
EXHIBITS CONTINUED
Exhibit Description Page Number
5-C SAMPLE OF STATE PROJECT INVOICES 5-25
5-D SAMPLE RIGHT OF WAY INVOICE 5-27
5-E SAMPLE OF "STIP PROJECT" FEDERAL INVOICE 5-29
5-F SAMPLE OF "STIP PROJECT" STATE INVOICE 5-31
5-G SAMPLE OF TEA PROJECT INVOICE 5-33
5-H ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT PROCEDURE SAMPLE 5-35
5-1 COGNIZANT FEDERAL AGENCIES 5-37
5-J SAMPLE INDIRECT COST RATE PROPOSAL 5-39
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
INVOICE PROCESSING
For Developing All Local Federal-Aid Projects
LOCAL
AGENCY
See Project
Completion
Chapter 17
No X Project
complete?
OLP 2/96
LPP 00-02
Page 5-1
March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
Page 5-2
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
CHAPTER 5 ACCOUNTING/INVOICES
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a local agency with the basic information
required to obtain reimbursement for their expenditures on local Federal-aid and State
funded projects. More information may be obtained from Local Program Accounting
(LPA) through the District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE), if required. Most
payments made under these provisions are for expenditures paid by the local agency prior
to claiming reimbursement from Caltrans. The exceptions to this reimbursement concept
are:
State-Local Transportation Partnership Program (SLTPP) projects involving $300,000 or
less in State funds receive the full State share of funding at the time of contract award.
This lump sum payment is considered a "grant" and is reimbursed regardless of final cost.
The local agency is responsible for ensuring that these funds are used consistent with the
project application. Final inspection and accounting reconciliation are not performed.
SLTPP projects involving more than $300.000 in State funds can be reimbursed at 100
percent of incurred cost for the State share. Progress billings are reimbursed at 100
percent until the total State share is fully reimbursed. A final inspection (final inspection
report and final report of expenditures required) and audit is required to establish actual
eligible project costs within 6 months after the end of the fiscal year in which the project is
completed.
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) projects in which there is a request for
direct deposit of EEM funds into an escrow account. DLAE-approved invoices must be
submitted to LPA within 30 days prior to closing escrow for the purchase of property.
Planning. Programming, & Monitoring (PPM) and Rideshare (RPRSL) projects. Caltrans
has prepared a standard agreement for the distribution of these funds which allows lump
sum "up front" payments to all agencies which programmed $300,000 or less per fiscal
year. Agencies which receive over $300,000 will be paid on a reimbursed basis.
State Match and Exchange Program (X projects) and TEA Exchange Program (TX
projects). These funds are advanced to the local agencies to be spent in accordance with
the provisions in the local agency-state agreement. It is the responsibility of the Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies (RTFA) to provide LPA and the DLAE with an annual
report on these funds. The report, with an as-of date of June 30, is due August 1 of each
year. It must show the amount of funds unspent, the amount spent that year by the RTF A,
and amount given to each of the Cities and/or County. Failure to provide this report will
result in future year exchanges being held in abeyance. The State Controller's Office
(SCO) will review the actual expenditures to verify compliance with the State Law.
5.1 REQUIREMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT
Local agency invoices are routinely processed for payment within twenty-five (25) days of
the date LPA receives the invoices provided that:
• The State legislature and Federal government have provided budget authority and the
project has met all program budget conditions, e.g. timely use of funds.
Page 5-3
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
• The Program Supplement, project agreement, or some other required applicant-State
agreement has been executed. These documents are agreements between the State and
local agency (or applicant) which must be executed prior to the reimbursement of
Federal and State funds for each project. It identifies the reimbursable phases of work
as well as types and amounts of Federal, State, and local funds used to finance the
project.
• If Federal funds are used on a project, an E-76 and Program Supplement Agreement
must be executed prior to LPA processing invoice reimbursement to the local
agencies. This is necessary to allow Caltrans to be reimbursed by FHWA for Federal
funds paid on the local agency's invoices. Therefore, the local agency must provide
the DLAE with the required documents so that the project agreement can be executed
with the FHWA.
• If you are claiming reimbursement of indirect costs, you must have an Approval Letter
for the fiscal year involved from Caltrans Audits & Investigations before you can
request reimbursement for those costs. If a project involves more than one fiscal year,
separate approvals are needed for each fiscal year. Complete the Indirect Costs
Calculation section on the Invoice and enter the Indirect Costs to Date on the first page
of the invoice.
• If Emergency Relief funds are used on a project, all restoration work must be done at
the normal reimbursement ratio for the highway facility on which the ER project is
located (88.53% on local highways). Emergency Opening work necessary to restore
essential services that is accomplished within 180 days calendar days following the
incident period will be reimbursed at 100%. See Chapter 11, Local Assistance
Program Guidelines, for additional details.
• If a Federal project is not funded at its full pro-rata share, the reimbursement ratio
shown on the invoice must be at the lower rate. The reimbursable ratio is computed
by dividing the amount of Federal funds authorized for the project, by the total costs
or the total participating costs, whichever is less. For example, STPL-XXXX(XXX)
has a normal pro-rata share of 88.53%; the total costs of the project are $100,000, the
total participating costs are $80,000, and the total Federal funds are $60,000 for
Federal Appropriation Code Q24. Using this data, the invoice should reflect a
reimbursable ratio of 75%. On the final invoice, the reimbursable ratio may float up to
88.53% to allow all of the Federal funds to be used.
• Reimbursements requested do not exceed authorized amounts. If an invoice labeled
"progress invoice" requests all of the funds available on the current executed
documents, LPA will consider the invoice a "final" invoice. Since the "final" invoice
requires District approval, LPA will return the invoice to the local agency to follow
the prescribed final payment procedures.
• The invoice submitted contains the required information and if a final invoice, it is
accompanied by the required final reports and approved by the DLAE or other
designated authorities.
• Local agencies may submit invoices for reimbursement of participating project costs
monthly. Amounts claimed must reflect the cost of completed work. Local agencies
must claim all reimbursable work within 180 days of project completion, or prior to
the expiration date of the project agreement, whichever comes first.
Page 5-4
March 28,2003 LPP 03-01
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accou nting/Invoices
• At the end of fiscal year (June 30), it is very important for the local agencies to invoice
Caltrans timely for all incurred project costs so that accrued expenditures are properly
identified on the State financial statements.
5.2 TYPES OF INVOICES
We have provided seven sample invoices for the most common projects. Use the
appropriate one for your project.
1. Federal-aid invoice with one appropriation or two appropriations with the same
reimbursement rate (see Exhibit 5-A). Do not use for Transportation Enhancement
Activities (TEA) or Local Grant Projects in the State Transportation Improvement
Program (STEP) projects.
2. Federal-aid invoice with two appropriations with different reimbursement rates (e.g.
80% and 88.53%.). See Exhibit 5-B. Do not use for Transportation Enhancement
Activities (TEA) or Local Grant Projects in the STIP projects.
Note: Emergency relief projects (ER) that have different reimbursement rates must
clearly identify the time period of costs incurred.
3. Sample invoice for State programs (see Exhibit 5-C)
4. Sample Federal-aid invoice for Right of Way (see Exhibit 5-D)
5. Local Grant Projects in the STIP project invoices (see Exhibits 5-E and 5-F)
6. Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA) project invoices (see Exhibit 5-G)
7. Sample invoice for Alternative Payment Procedure (see Exhibit 5-H)
5.3 FORMAT OF LOCAL AGENCY INVOICES
Provided below are detailed instructions which will assist you in properly completing your
invoice.
1. Invoices must be submitted on local agency letterhead with local agency's address.
2. Invoices must have a current date when sent to the District or to LPA
3. Invoices must be certified and signed by the appropriate responsible persons in the
local agency.
4. Invoices must have one original and two copies with one copy of the back-up
documentation for costs incurred and claimed for reimbursement when mailed to the
District or LPA.
5. Progress invoices are transmitted directly to LPA at:
Page 5-5
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
6. Final invoices must be submitted to the DLAE as part of the Final Report of
Expenditures. The DLAE verifies project completion and approves payment before
forwarding the one original and two copies of the final invoice to LPA.
7. For Local Grant Projects in the STIP projects, preliminary engineering phase must be
separated into Environmental Studies/Permits; and Plans, Specifications and Estimates
(PS&E).
8. The invoice format may vary, but the following information must be included:
a) Date of invoice. If the invoice was returned to the local agency for any reason, it
must be re-dated when resubmitted to the District or LPA.
b) Progress billing number. This is a serially assigned number that begins with #1.
This progress billing number allows LPA to determine that they have received all
the invoices for a project.
c) Invoice number (local agency accounting system assigned number), if applicable
d) Federal-aid or State project number, e.g. prefix-project number, STPL- 5012(005),
CML- 5006(089), ER- 3632(002), etc
e) Local agency Federal Tax Identification Number
f) Date project accepted by the local agency (for final invoice only). Show "On
going" if project is not complete.
g) Project location
h) Project Expenditure Authorization No. (E.A.#)
i) Local Agency/State Agreement and supplement numbers; and date executed
j) Phase of work headings such as preliminary engineering, right of way,
construction engineering, construction contract
k) Federal Appropriation Codes
1) Federal authorization date for each phase of work
m) Time period for which claimed Federal participating costs were incurred and paid
for each phase of work. Costs incurred prior to the Federal authorization date
(FNM 76) are not eligible for Federal reimbursement.
Page 5-6
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
n) Cost breakdown by Federal appropriation code for preliminary engineering (if for
Local Grant Projects in the STEP projects, Preliminary Engineering (PE) has to be
segregated into Environmental Studies/Permits, and PS&E), construction
engineering and construction, as follows:
• Total indirect costs of project to date, if claimed, by phases of work. Indirect
costs are described in Section 5.4 below. Indirect cost reimbursement will
not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base. Complete the Indirect
Cost Calculation Section of the invoice and transfer the computed Indirect
Cost to Date to the front of the invoice. Footnotes containing additional
clarifying instructions are provided at the bottom of each sample invoice.
• Total direct costs of project to date by phases of work. Direct costs are the
labor, material, contract payments, and right of way acquisitions for project
related activity. The phases of work and a fuller discussion of direct costs
are in Section 5.4 below.
• Less total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the
project and after all retention has been released, the amount should be zero.
• Less liquidated damages
• Less non-participating costs (these are ineligible costs that were incurred
prior to Federal authorization date, or outside of the scope of the Federal
project.)
• Total Federal participating costs to date
• Less Federal participating costs shown on previous invoice
• Change in participating costs
• Federal and/or State reimbursement ratio. Federal reimbursement rate may
vary depending on projects such as 80%, 88.53%. If State funds are
matching the Federal funds, the combined reimbursement of Federal funds
and State funds will be 100%. If a Federal project is not fully funded, see the
discussion in Section 5.1, 6 above, for detailed instructions on how to
compute the reimbursable ratio.
• When multiplying the "Change in participating costs" by the
"Reimbursement Ratio," the result must be rounded down to the lowest cent.
Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
• Federal reimbursement amount
• State reimbursement amount
• Total amount of claim
o) Certification, printed name, title and signature of the local agency responsible
person
Page 5-7
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
p) Specific contact person and phone number for LPA to contact if there are
problems with invoices
NOTE: One copy of backup information shall accompany each invoice sent to LPA. For
construction contract progress payments, the backup is the agency's progress
payment estimate to the contractor. For final invoices, the Report of Expenditures
package is the backup. See Chapter 13, "Right of Way," of this manual for backup
required for right of way payments.
5.4 REIMBURSABLE PROJECT COSTS
In addition to construction contract costs and right of way purchases, the costs of salaries,
wages, and related costs of local agency personnel may be reimbursable for the following
activities:
1. Preliminary engineering: Preliminary engineering is the location, design, and related
work preparatory to the advancement of a project to physical construction. For Local
Grant Projects in the STIP projects, these costs must be segregated into:
a. Environmental Studies and Permits
b. Plans, Specifications & Estimates
2. Construction engineering: Construction engineering is the supervision and inspection
of construction activities; additional staking functions considered necessary for
effective control of the construction operations; testing materials incorporated into
construction; checking shop drawings; and measurements needed for the preparation
of pay estimates.
3. Acquisition of rights of way: Acquisition of rights of way, real property, or rights
thereto are included as the preparation of right of way plans; making economic studies
and other related preliminary work; appraisal for parcel acquisition; review of
appraisals; preparation for and trial of condemnation cases; management of properties
acquired; furnishing of relocation advisory assistance; and other related labor expenses
(see "Reimbursement of Local Agency's Expenditures" in Chapter 13, "Right of
Way").
Note: Right of way rental income may be retained by local agencies but must be used
for a valid Title 23 purpose.
4. Preaward Audit costs: Preaward audits are required for all engineering and design
related service contracts and subcontracts. See Chapter 10 of this manual for more
information.
5. Administrative settlement costs: Administrative settlement costs contract claims are
services related to the review and defense of claims against federal-aid projects (see
"Federal-Aid Participation" in Chapter 16, "Administer Construction Contract").
All costs are may be broken down into eligible direct and/or indirect cost components.
Page 5-8
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
DIRECT COST REIMBURSEMENT
Direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost
objective, that is—expenditures solely incurred for a specific Federal-aid/State funded
highway project. They include contract payments, right of way acquisition, direct
material, as well as salaries, wages, fringe benefits, and related costs which become
eligible when an individual participates in project-related activities. Typical direct costs
chargeable to Federal-aid/state funded projects are:
• Compensation of employees for the time devoted and identified specifically to the
performance of the project phase for which the Federal-aid/state funding was
approved. This is usually permissible up to the first level of supervision dedicated to
the project.
• Cost of materials consumed, or expended specifically for the purpose in which the
participating Federal/State funds were authorized.
• Equipment and other approved capital expenditures.
• Travel expenses incurred specifically to carry out the purpose in which the
participating Federal/State funds were authorized.
Supervision activities above the first level are usually recoverable as indirect costs.
INDIRECT COST REIMBURSEMENT
At the discretion of the local agencies, indirect costs may be included when seeking
reimbursement for their Federal-aid highway projects, as well as State funded projects.
Specifically, this applies to federally authorized work with costs incurred after June 9,
1998, all STIP projects, and to any State funded project. However, any completed project
with a Final Report of Expenditures will not be eligible for retroactive indirect cost
reimbursement.
These procedures are based on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-
87 entitled Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments and the Cost
Principles and Procedures for Establishing Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates
for Agreements with the Federal Government (ASMB C-10) from the United States
Department of Health and Human Services.
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL
A local agency which has been assigned a cognizant Federal agency by the OMB must
submit its indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan to its
cognizant Federal agency for approval. A list of the cognizant Federal agencies assigned
to State and local agencies is found in the Federal Register; excerpts for California
agencies are provided in Exhibit 5-1. If the assigned cognizant Federal agency is the U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) as listed in Exhibit 5-1 and FHWA provides the
largest amount of Federal funds compared to other DOT administrations, the indirect cost
rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan will be submitted to Caltrans Audits
and Investigations for approval under delegation from the FHWA, California Division.
Page 5-9
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
Local agencies not having an assigned cognizant Federal agency and/or who have not been
required by their cognizant Federal agency to submit their indirect cost rate proposal and
central service cost allocation plan for review and approval, will submit their proposals to
Caltrans Audits and Investigations for their review and approval under delegation from the
FHWA, California Division.
Local agencies which have an indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation
plan approved by a cognizant Federal agency will submit a copy of their approved
proposal and plan and subsidiary worksheets and other relevant data, as detailed below, to
Caltrans Audits and Investigations for their review and information.
Mail indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan to: Caltrans Audits
and Investigations, MS 2, P.O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274-0001, Attention:
External Audits, Review of ICAP.
DOCUMENTATION OF PROPOSAL
All local agencies desiring to claim indirect costs for Federal-aid and/or State funded
projects must prepare an indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan
and related documentation to support those costs. All documents relating to the indirect
cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan must be retained for audit in
accordance with the records retention requirements in the "common rule," Title 49 of CFR
Part 18. The following shall be included with each proposal as prescribed by OMB
Circular A-87:
Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
1. Schedule showing calculation of rates proposed including subsidiary worksheets and
other relevant data, cross-referenced and reconciled to the financial data noted below.
Unless a cognizant Federal agency requires otherwise, the type of rate to be used is the
"fixed rate" addressed in OMB Circular A-87, Attachment E, Section B, No. 6.
2. Subsidiary worksheets should include the following:
• Schedule of actual direct/indirect costs incurred by cost category type (i.e., rent,
utilities, etc.) as well as by department unit
• Schedule of budgeted direct costs and indirect costs by cost category type and
departmental unit
• Schedule showing calculation of the over/under carry forward provision when
"fixed rate" is used
3. A copy of the financial data (financial statements, comprehensive annual financial
report, etc.) on which the rate is based
4. The approximate amount of direct base costs to be incurred under Federal-aid
reimbursement. These costs should be broken out between salaries and wages and
other direct costs.
5. A chart showing the organizational structure of the agency during the period for which
the proposal applies along with a functional statement noting the duties and/or
responsibilities of all units that comprise the agency
Page 5-10
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
6. Certification that the indirect cost proposal was prepared in a manner consistent with
the cost principles of OMB Circular A-87
Local agencies who are required to submit their indirect cost rate proposal to Caltrans for
approval, shall submit it in the sample format of Exhibit 5-J (includes documentation
outlined in paragraphs 1, 2, and 6 above) along with the other required documentation
(paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above) to Caltrans Audits and Investigations at the address
specified above.
Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
Local agencies who are required to submit their central service cost allocation plan to
Caltrans for approval should submit a Certificate of Cost Allocation Plan, document their
plan, and include supporting documentation in accordance with OMB Circular A-87,
Attachment C. Also, see ASMB C-10 for a Sample Central Service Cost Allocation Plan
and supporting documentation.
APPROVAL AND USE
If a cognizant Federal agency has approved the local agencies' indirect cost rate proposal
and central service cost allocation plan for an approved time period/fiscal year in which
reimbursement will apply and it was submitted to Caltrans Audits and Investigations
(along with a copy of the approval letter) and Caltrans Audits and Investigations notified
the local agency that it had accepted the approval, then the local agency may include
indirect costs on its invoices.
If a local agencies' indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan has
not been approved by a cognizant Federal agency, then Caltrans Audits and Investigations
will perform the review and approval. If Caltrans Audits and Investigations approves the
indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation plan, then they will issue an
approval letter. The local agency may bill for indirect costs once they receive the approval
letter.
The approval letter, either from the cognizant Federal agency (if accepted by Caltrans
Audits and Investigations) or from Caltrans Audits and Investigations, will serve as the
documentation needed to justify estimates and reimbursement invoices. Caltrans Audits
and Investigations will forward a copy of the approval letter from the cognizant Federal
agency or from Caltrans Audits and Investigations to Local Program Accounting for them
to process the payment of invoices.
If Federal-aid highway funds or State funds participate in indirect cost reimbursement, all
invoices must include a line item for indirect cost, showing the calculation (direct costs
multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate). The preferred direct cost base is direct
salaries and wages plus fringe benefits. Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to
direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of way purchases, not
included in the direct cost base.
Local agencies' indirect cost rates are calculated on an annual basis, so there may be
several rates on a multiyear project. The rate may change from year to year. If the
fluctuation causes a depletion of program funding, the local agency will be responsible for
making up the difference.
Page 5-11
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
Detailed information regarding allowable costs, cost allocation plans, and indirect cost rate
proposals are available in OMB Circular A-87 and ASMB C-10. Both documents are
available through the Internet: OMB Circular A-87 is at www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/
circulars/a087/a087-all.html; and ASMB C-10 is at www.hhs.gov/progorg/
grantsnet/index2.htm. Additionally, OMB Circular A-133 provides single audit
information and may be accessed on the Internet at www.
whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/al33/al33.html.
The sample invoice exhibits in the back if this chapter show how indirect costs should be
billed.
5.5 EXPEDITED PAYMENT PROCEDURES
Invoices are normally paid within twenty-five days of receipt by Caltrans' Accounting
Service Center. However, local entities may use the following expedited payment
procedures when the normal process will result in significant hardship.
ACCELERATED PAYMENT OF INVOICES THROUGH THE STATE CONTROLLER'S
OFFICE
Payment of invoices through the SCO may be accelerated for those local agencies
experiencing severe cash flow problems upon payment of a fee by the local agency.
Because of the labor-intensive effort by both Caltrans and the SCO, this process is not to
be used routinely. This is necessary to ensure that other local agencies are not treated
unfairly regarding their timely requests for invoice reimbursement. The acceleration can
result in payment of invoices within five to ten days of receipt. A fee of $75 for five days
and $10 for ten days whereas normal invoicing through the SCO will normally be
processed within 25 days.
A letter authorizing LPA to deduct the SCO expedite fee must be sent to LPA with each
invoice. The request must be in writing and include the reason for the expedite request.
Local Program Accounting strongly advises that the local agency notify LPA one week in
advance of the expedite request and indicate if future invoices for the same project will be
expedited as well. This advance notification will help LPA and the State Controller Office
to evaluate the project and take appropriate measures ensuring prompt processing of the
expedite payments.
ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS PAYMENT PROCEDURE
All Federal and most State funded local agency projects must be invoiced in arrears. This
means that the local agencies must first make payments to their contractors and then
request reimbursement from Caltrans for their costs. The alternative construction progress
payment procedure is designed to assist local agencies in the implementation of their local
transportation projects when they are experiencing severe cash flow problems and the
"Accelerated Payment of Invoices through the State Controller's Office" procedure will
not solve the problem. These problems could be the result of either:
• Unusual cash shortages within the local agency caused by economic or other
conditions,
• The need to provide up front payment on an unusual large Federal or State
transportation project, or
• Cash drain to repair damages caused by flood, earthquake or other acts of nature.
Page 5-12
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
Since this alternative procedure requires extra work by Caltrans and thus adversely affects
other agency processing, it will be used only for the construction phase of projects and
should be used only as a last resort. Recent construction contract administration process
reviews have found that some local agencies were not invoicing Caltrans for money that
was due to them in a timely manner. Local agencies that have money due to them from
local assistance projects or programs, but have not invoiced in a timely manner, will not be
eligible to use this procedure since this would not demonstrate a cash flow problem.
Local Program Accounting will process a local agency's invoice based on estimated
payments to the contractor in the same manner as normal reimbursement billings are paid.
The invoice format for this alternative construction progress payment is shown in Exhibit
5-H. Local agencies should follow the following procedures when requesting use of these
alternative payment procedures:
1. The governing board for the local agency must pass a resolution requesting use of
this procedure for a specific project. The resolution must include the reasons for
the request and a statement that all other options have been considered and that the
project cannot be implemented, or will be delayed, unless this procedure is used.
The local agency must also provide a written schedule of estimated monthly
construction payments for the project. This resolution and estimated payment
schedule should accompany the local agency's Request for Authorization to the
DLAE for the construction phase of their project no later than 45 days prior to the
first month's payment to the contractor. Earlier submittals will gladly be
accepted. The DLAE will forward the estimated payment schedule to LPA
through the Division of Local Assistance.
2. After approval of the Request for Authorization and execution of the Program
Supplement (which must include language allowing payment based on estimated
costs), an invoice requesting payment for the first month's estimated payment
(less local match funds), may be submitted to LPA. This invoice can be submitted
anytime within 30 calendar days prior to the date of the first month's payment to
the contractor. This will allow payment to made to the local agency at
approximately the same time they are required to pay the contractor. The
"Accelerated Payment of Invoices through the State Controller's Office"
procedures in this section cannot be used in series with this procedure.
3. The estimated payment amount shown on second and subsequent invoices must
reflect the most current estimated payment to the contractor. In addition, the
invoices will reflect the difference between the estimated payment claimed on the
prior invoice and the actual payment made to the contractor.
4. The local agency must provide a final invoice and a final report of expenditures,
showing actual project costs (including claims) within 180 days of project
completion. This final invoice, the final report of expenditures, and final
inspection forms must be sent to the DLAE for written approval. For
Environmental Enhancement & Mitigation (EEM) projects, the final invoice and
final report must be submitted 60 days prior to the expiration of the Budget
Authority.
5. If Caltrans has overpaid, a check for the amount of overpayment by Caltrans,
along with a copy of the final invoice, must be sent to LPA within 30 calendar
days of the final invoice approval by Caltrans.
Page 5-13
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
6. Failure by a local agency to adhere to all terms of this procedure will result in
termination of the alternative payment procedure for that project.
5.6 FINAL EXPENDITURE REPORTS
Within six months of project completion, the local agency is responsible for preparing and
submitting to the DLAE the final report documents which collectively constitute the
Report of Expenditures. For EEM projects, the final report (including the final invoice)
must be submitted 60 days prior to the expiration of the Budget Authority. These report
documents provide key information required to initiate timely project closure and
payment. The Report of Expenditures is signed by the responsible person in charge of the
project for the local agency. After the DLAE reviews and approves the "Report of
Expenditures," including the final invoice, he/she will forward them to LPA for processing
of the final reimbursement. Additional information can be found in Chapter 17 "Project
Completion."
If the final invoice is returned to the local agency for error revision, the final invoice must
be re-dated when resubmitted to the District or LPA.
5.7 AUDIT OF LOCAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES
The agency shall maintain written source document records that account for agency costs
and payments made to consultants, vendors and contractors. Contract records must be
retained by the local agency for a minimum period of three years from the date of final
payment.
Local agency expenditures for all local assistance programs are subject to financial and
compliance audits by the SCO and Caltrans Office of External Audits (OEA). The OEA's
evaluation of a local agency's system of controls will determine if an on-site audit of the
local agency's records (underlying the reported project) is necessary.
The auditors typically discuss any audit citation with the local agency before finalizing
their audit reports. The local agency should provide any clarifications or raise any
objections to the audit findings at this meeting.
Local agency expenditures for the Natural Disaster program may be audited by the Audits
Division of the SCO or OEA because of the variety of funding sources and the need to
determine the eligibility of expenditures for each funding source. Local Program
Accounting coordinates the audit requests and receipt of audit reports with the audits units
within SCO and OEA.
Local agencies are also subject to the audit requirements of the Federal Office of
Management and Budget's Circular A-133. A single audit is required if an agency
receives more than $300,000 in Federal funds from all sources. Normally, project audits
are not necessary if the expenditures for a project are covered by a single audit report
accepted by the appropriate Federal agency.
Page 5-14
March 28, 2003 LPP 03-01
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
5.8 FINAL PROJECT COSTS
The final project cost listed in the local agency's final invoice is analyzed by LPA to
determine if the costs reported for each phase of work are eligible for Federal
reimbursement. Eligible amounts for each phase of work, as determined from the analysis,
are reconciled with the eligible costs recorded in the Caltrans' accounting system.
If it is determined that the Federal funds paid to a local agency are more than the amount
eligible for reimbursement, LPA will initiate a Notice of Overpayment and submit it to the
local agency for recovery of the overpayment. However, if it is determined that the
amount paid to the local agency is less than the amount eligible for reimbursement, LPA
will initiate a Notice of Final Payment and submit it to the local agency along with a
payment for the amount due.
5.9 FINAL REPORT OF EXPENDITURES ON PROJECTS ADMINISTERED BY
THE STATE
The final report of contract expenditures for State-administered local assistance projects is
prepared by LPA.
Sometimes the State performs only specific phases of work associated with a local
assistance project. For example, design engineering, right of way acquisition, or striping
may be performed by the local agency staff for a construction project that is administered
by the State. In such instances, LPA is responsible for preparing a final Report of
Expenditures for the work performed by State staff. The local agency is responsible for
preparing the final Report of Expenditures for work it performs and for any expenditures it
incurs.
5.10 AUDIT OF STATE EXPENDITURES
State expenditures for local assistance Federal-aid major construction contracts
(>$300,000) are subject to the internal procedures established by the Caltrans OEA and the
Bureau of State Audits when they perform the annual single audit of Caltrans. The
Department's internal procedures and controls, established for major contract
administration, do not require a formal audit of each construction project. However,
projects may be selected on a random basis by OEA for an audit of extra work paid by a
force account method of payment (see Chapter 12, "PS&E").
5.11 FINAL PROJECT COSTS OF STATE-ADMINISTERED PROJECTS
Each final report of contract expenditures for State-administered local assistance projects
is analyzed by LPA to determine the final amount of Federal, State and local agency funds
expended for the project. The final expenditure of local agency funds is compared to the
local agency deposit for the project. Refunds or billings are made upon completion of the
Final Voucher analysis regardless of the amount involved.
Provided that all pending claims by the contractor have been settled, the Final Voucher is
prepared by LPA and submitted to the FHWA.
Page 5-15
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
NOTE: If the Report of Contract Expenditures indicates that a claim by the contractor has
not been settled, the final expenditure of Federal, State and local agency funds
cannot be determined. Consequently, the submittal of the Final Voucher is
delayed until all pending claims are settled.
The Final Project Cost Adjustment analysis is prepared concurrently with the Final
Voucher to determine the final allocation of Federal, State and local agency funds for each
phase of work. Budgeted amounts are adjusted to reflect the actual amount of funds
expended for the project.
If during the final adjustment it is determined that the deposit of local agency funds is less
than the agency's share of expenditures, LPA initiates an Accounts Receivable Invoice
and submits it to the local agency for recovery of the required funds. If the deposit
exceeds the Agency's share of expenditures, the excess funds are refunded to the local
agency by LPA.
A Report of project Final Expenditures showing the final allocation and expenditure of
Federal, State and local agency funds is prepared for distribution to the local agency.
5.12 SERVICE CONTRACTS
Invoices for work performed by local agencies, consultants or other contractors under
Caltrans local assistance service contracts shall be submitted to the designated program
manager, e.g., Railroad Crossing Program Manager, for review and verification. The
manager then forwards the invoice to LPA for payment.
5.13 INVOICE CHECKLIST BEFORE SUBMITTING TO LOCAL PROGRAM
ACCOUNTING
Local agency's invoices are normally paid within 25 days after LPA receives the invoices,
provided that the invoices adhere to the format of in this chapter. To assist local agencies
with the format of their invoices, use the checklist below before sending invoices to the
District or LPA for reimbursement.
• Is the program supplement executed by both Caltrans and the local agency?
• Has the public works department submitted all the required documents to the Caltrans'
DLAE so that the project agreement can be processed with FHWA for Federal fund
reimbursement?
• Are the reimbursable phases of work authorized on the program supplement and
Federal documents? Were all the federally eligible costs incurred after the Federal
authorization date? Are those dates shown on the invoice?
• Does the submitted invoice have two copies and the required back-up documentation?
• Does the invoice claim exceed the total authorized funds on the project?
• Does the invoice show cumulative costs to date and is the calculation correct?
• Is the date of the invoice current? (resubmitted invoice must be re-dated)
Page 5-16
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accounting/Invoices
Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction
contracts and right of way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
Does the invoice request all the funds specified on the program supplement or Federal
documents? If so, are all of the proper documents included? (final project reports,
proper signatures from authorized parties...)
Is this a final invoice? If it is, it should be sent to the District or to the designated
Caltrans program manager for approval before coming to LPA.
Does the invoice have the local agency's letterhead, address, and signed certification
statement from the responsible parties?
Does the invoice have a contact person's name and phone number?
Does the invoice show the correct project number and correct reimbursement ratio?
Is the invoice in the proper format of Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures
Manual!
Page 5-17
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
Chapter 5 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Accounting/Invoices
Page 5-18
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-A
Sample Federal-aid Invoice (Except for TEA and STIP Projects)
Date of Invoice
SAMPLE FEDERAL -Aro INVOICE
(EXCEPT FOR TEA AND STIP PROJECTS)
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Billing No: 1,2..., or Final
Invoice No: Local Agency's Invoice No.
Federal-aid Project No: Prefix-Pro.)'. No.-(Fed. Agreement No.)
Tax Identification No: Agency IRS ID Number
Date Project Accepted by City/County: Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Location: Project Limits
Project Expenditure Authorization:
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number. Program Supplement
No.. Number, executed on Date
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
To
Total Indirect Costs to Date
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidated Damages
Non-participating Costs
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
(federal and/or state)
Federal reimbursement
State reimbursement
Amount of this claim
Preliminary
Engineering
Q24/33D
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
Construction
Engineering
Q24/33D
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
Right of Way/
Acquisition
Q24/33D
5/12/99
5/15/99
6/30/99
$8,290.00
(1,200.00)
Construction
Contract
Q24/33D
5/12/99
5/25/99
8/30/99
$150,652.00
(20,000.00)*
0.00**
(16.000.00)
Total
$2,690.50
$171,342.90
(20,000.00)
0.00
(18.390.00)
$4,475.60 $9,425.80 $7,090.00 $114,652.00 $135,643.40
$2.120.95
$2,354.65
$6,350.20 0.00 $98,231.00 $106,702.15
$3,075.60 $7,090.00 $16,421.00 $28,941.25
88.53%
$25,621.68
0.00
$25,621.68***
LPP 00-02
Page 5-19
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-A Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Federal-aid Invoice (Except for TEA and STIP Projects)
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal **** $602.64 $222.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering S825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under the
Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $ 1185.07
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal**** $1474.43 $391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Construction Engineering column)
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
** Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** Total must be rounded down to the lowest cent. Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
**** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Page 5-20
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-B
Sample Federal-aid Invoice With Two Appropriations & Different Reimbursement Rates
SAMPLE FEDERAL-AID INVOICE
WITH Two APPROPRIATIONS & DIFFERENT REIMBURSEMENT RATES
(EXCEPT FOR TEA & STIP PROJECTS)
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Billing No:
Invoice No:
Federal-aid Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by City/County:
Project Location:
Project Expenditure Authorization:
1,2..., or Final
Local Agency's Invoice No.
Prefix-Proj. No. (Fed. Agreement No.)
Agency IRS ID Number
Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Limits
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number.
Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date .
Preliminary Construction Right of Way/ Construction
Engineering Engineering Acquisition Contract
Total
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
To
Total Indirect Costs to Date
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidated Damages
Non-participating Costs
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
Amount of this claim
Q24
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
$4,475.60
Q24
6/5/99
6/15/99
8/30/99
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
$9,425.80
Q24
5/12/99
5/15/99
8/30/99
——-»—_._—-.
$8,290.00
(1.200.00)
$7,090.00
Q24
6/5/99
6/15/99
8/30/99
_____„—,____
$150,652.00
(20,000.00)*
0 00**
(16,000.00)
$114,652.00
$2,690.50
$171,342.90
(20,000.00)
o on
(18,390.00)
$135,643.40
S2.120.95 $6.350.20 0.00 $98.231.00 S106.702.15
$2,354.65 $3,075.60 $7,090.00 $16,421.00 $28,941.25
88.53%
$25,621.68***
LPP 00-02
Page 5-21
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-B Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Federal-aid Invoice With Two Appropriations & Different Reimbursement Rates
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
To
Total Indirect Costs to Date
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidated Damages
Non-participating Costs
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
114
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$500.00
$2,700.00
(0.00)
$3,200.00
0.00
$3,200.00
114
5/12/99
5/15/99
8/30/99
$1,375.25
$5,250.00
(0.00)
$6,625.25
0.00
$6,625.25
114
5/12/99
0.00
(0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
114
5/12/99
5/15/99
8/30/99
$63,240.00
(6,324.00)*
0.00**
(9,500.00)
$47,416.00
0.00
$47,416.00
$1,875.25
$71,190.00
(6,324.00)
0.00
(9,500.00)
$57,241.25
0.00
$57,241.25
Reimbursement Ratio
Amount of this claim
INVOICE TOTAL
80%
$45,793.00***
S71.414.68
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs (Q24):
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $ 1944.00
Approved indirect cost rate 31 %
Subtotal **** $602.64
FY 1999-2000
$673.82
33%
$222.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering $825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Q24 Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs (024/33D):
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal **** $1474.43
FY 1999-2000
$1185.07
33%
$391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Q24/33D Construction Engineering column)
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs (114):
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $972.00
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal**** $301.32
FY 1999-2000
$602.07
33%
$198.68
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering $500.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the 114 Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs (114):
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $3174.78
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal**** $984.18
FY 1999-2000
$1185.07
33%
$391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $1375.25 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the 114 Construction Engineering column)
Page 5-22
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-B
Sample Federal-aid Invoice With Two Appropriations & Different Reimbursement Rates
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
** Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** Total must be rounded down to the lowest cent. Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
**** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Page 5-23
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-B Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Federal-aid Invoice With Two Appropriations & Different Reimbursement Rates
Page 5-24
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-C
Sample of State Project Invoices
SAMPLE OF STATE PROJECT INVOICES
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Billing No: 1,2..., or Final
Invoice No:
State Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by City/County:
Project Location:
Expenditure Authorization No.
Local Agency's Invoice No.
Prefix-Proj. No.
Agency IRS ID Number
Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Limits
Reimbursement for State Program funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No.
Program Supplement No., _
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidatec
Non-parti(
Total State Parti
to Date
invoice
Reimbursement Ratio
Amount of this claim
Number.
nt No., Number,
> to Date
o Date
ting Costs
iting Costs
Costs on previous
ting Costs
:io
rn
executed on Date
Preliminary Construction Right of Way/
Engineering Engineering Acquisition
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
$4,475.60
$2.120.95
$2,354.65
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
$9,425.80
$6.350.20
$3,075.60
$8,290.00
(1.200.00)
$7,090.00
0.00
$7,090.00
Construction
Contract
$150,652.00
(20,000.00)*
0 00**
(16.000.00)
$114,652.00
$98,231.00
$16,421.00
Total
$2,690.50
$171,342.90
(20,000.00)* o no
(18.390.00)
$135,643.40
$106.702.15
$28,941.25
0.75
$21,705.93
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal *** $602.64
FY 1999-2000
$673.82
33%
$222.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering $825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under the
Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal *** $1474.43
FY 1999-2000
$1185.07
33%
$391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Construction Engineering column)
LPP 00-02
Page 5-25
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-C
Sample of State Project Invoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
Contact Name (for questions about this invoice)Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
** Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Page 5-26
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-D
Sample Right of Way Invoice
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
SAMPLE RIGHT OF WAY INVOICE
(LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL A GENCY)
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Billing No:
Invoice No:
Federal-Aid Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by City/County:
Project Location:
Expenditure Authorization No.
1,2..., or Final
Local Agency's Invoice No.
Prefix-Proj. No.(Fed. Agreement No.)
Agency IRS ID Number
Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Limits
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number . Program
Supplement No., Number executed on Date .
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
to
Total Indirect Costs To Date
Total Direct Costs To Date
Less: Nonparticipating Costs
Federal Participating Costs to Date
Less: Participating Costs on Previous Invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
Amount of this claim
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT
Phase 9
Capital
Phase 2
Incidental
33D
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$1,133,907.00
(20,750.00)
$1,113,157.00
$980,165.00
$132,992.00
88.53%
$117,737.81*
33D
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$4,147.00
$243,642.00
(64,356.00)
$183,433.00
$150,794.00
$32,639.00
88.53%
$28,895.30*
$146,633.11
Right of Way Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense
Approved indirect cost rate
Subtotal **
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
FY 1998-1999
$1944.00
31%
$602.64
FY 1999-2000
$10740.49
33%
$3544.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering $4147.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Right of Way Incidental column)
1. I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief the above data is correct: that adequate title to the necessary right of
way has been acquired for the herein above described Federal-aid project in the name of the Local Agency name for the
LPP 00-02
Page 5-27
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-D Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Right of Way Invoice
amount of just compensation based on bona fide appraisals duly qualified as required by the right of way procedures of
the Federal Highway Administration and other written justification now contained in the Local Agency files, in
accordance with procedures as submitted and accepted by the Director.
2. I further state that this certification is made in my official capacity as Title . pursuant to Section 1.31 of Title 23 of the
Code of Federal Regulations and Section 121 of Title 23, United States Code, for the purpose of securing, pursuant
thereto, by the Local Agency name. Federal-aid funds in connection with the above designated Federal-aid highway
project, and that neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, any officer, agent or employee of the City. County
authorized in any official capacity to perform services in connection with the appraisal or acquisition of any such right of
way has any interest or contemplates any benefit from any transaction which involves acquisition of property for right of
way for such project, other than as herein disclosed.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Please round down the figures to the lowest cent. Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Note: Rental income may be retained by local agencies, but must be used for Title 23 purposes.
Page 5-28
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-E
Sample of "STIP Project" Federal Invoice
SAMPLE OF "STIP PROJECT" FEDERAL INVOICE
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
Billing No:
Invoice No:
Federal-aid Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by City/County:
Project Location:
Project Expenditure Authorization:
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
1,2..., or Final
Local Agency's Invoice No.
Prefix-Proj. No. (Fed. Agreement No.)
Agency IRS ID Number
Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Limits
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number.
Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date .
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
To
Total Indirect Costs to Date
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidated Damages
Non-participating Costs
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
Amount of this claim
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT
Environmental
Studies &
Permits
Q24/33D
5/12/99
5/15/99
8/15/99
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
$4,475.60
PS&E
Q24/33D
5/12/99
6/15/99
8/15/99
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
$9,425.80
Construction
Engineering
Q24/33D
6/10/99
6/15/99
8/15/99
$2,690.50
$8,290.00
(1,200.00)
$9,780.50
Construction
Q24/33D
6/10/99
6/15/99
8/15/99
$150,652.00
(20,000.00)*
0.00**
(16.000.00)
$114,652.00
$2,120.95
$2,354.65
88.53%
$2,084.57***
$6.350.20
$3,075.60
88.53%
$2,722.82***
0.00 $98.231.00
$9,780.50 $16,421.00
88.53% 88.53%
8,658.67*** $14,537.51***
$28,003.57
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Environmental Studies & Permits Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $ 1944.00
Approved indirect cost rate 31 %
Subtotal **** $602.64
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Environmental Studies & Permits !
under the Environmental Studies & Permits column)
FY 1999-2000
$673.82
33%
$222.36
J825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice
LPP 00-02
Page 5-29
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-E Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample of "STIP Project" Federal Invoice
PS&E Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1185.07
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal**** $1474.43 $391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for PS&E $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under the PS&E column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $6000.00 $2516.67
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal**** $1860.00 $830.50
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $2690.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Construction Engineering column)
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
** Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** Please round down the figures to the lowest cent. Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
**** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Note: For R/W acquisition use Exhibit 5-D.
Page 5-30
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-F
Sample of "STIP Project" State Invoice
SAMPLE OF "STIP PROJECT" STATE INVOICE
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Billing No: 1,2..., or Final
Invoice No: Local Agency's Invoice No.
State Project No: Prefix-Proj. No.
Tax Identification No: Agency IRS ID Number
Date Project Accepted by City/County: Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Location: Project Limits
Expenditure Authorization No.
Reimbursement for State Program funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No.
Program Supplement No.,
Number.
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidatec
Non-parti<
Total State Parti
to Date
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
Amount of this claim
it No., Number, executed on
Environmental
Studies &
Permits
to Date $825.00
a Date $4,000.60
ins Costs (350.00)
iting Costs
$4,475.60
Date
PS&E
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
$9,425.80
Right of Way/ Construction
Acquisition including CE
fA M1! TJ
$8,290.00 $150,652.00
(20,000.00)*
. Q 00**
(1,200.00) C16.000.00)
$7,090.00 $118,975.22
Total
$7,013.72
$171,342.90
(20,000.00)
0.00
(18.390.001
$139,966.62
$2.120.95
$2,354.65
$6.350.20
$3,075.60
0.00
$7,090.00
$98,231.00
$20,744.22
$106.702.15
$33,261.47
0.75
$24,946.10
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Environmental Studies & Permits Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal *** $602.64
FY 1999-2000
$673.82
33%
$222.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Environmental Studies & Permits $825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice
under the Environmental Studies & Permits column)
LPP 00-02
Page 5-31
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-F Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample of'STIP Project" State Invoice
PS&E Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1185.07
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal*** $1474.43 $391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for PS&E $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under the PS&E column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 F Y 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $9500.00 $4176.43
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal *** $2945.00 $1378.22
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $4323.22 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Construction Engineering column)
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
**Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Page 5-32
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-G
Sample of TEA Projects Invoice
SAMPLE OF TEA PROJECTS INVOICE
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Billing No: 1,2..., or Final
Invoice No: Local Agency's Invoice No.
Federal-aid Project No: Prefix-Proj. No. (Fed. Agreement No.)
Tax Identification No: Agency IRS ID Number
Date Project Accepted by City/County: Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Location: Project Limits
Project Expenditure Authorization:
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number.
Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date.
Preliminary Construction Right of Way/ Construction
Engineering Engineering Acquisition Contract
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
to
Total Indirect Costs to Date
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidated Damages
Non-participating Costs
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date
Q22/33B
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
$4,475.60
Q22/33B
6/5/99
6/15/99
7/15/99
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
$9,425.80
Q22/33B
5/12/99
5/15/99
7/15/99
$8,290.00
(1,200.00)
$7,090.00
Q22/33B
6/5/99
6/15/99
7/15/99
$150,652.00
(20,000.00)*
0.00**
(16,000.00)
$114,652.00
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
(Federal and/or State)
Amount of this claim
$2.120.95
$2,354.65
88.53%
$6,350.20
$3,075.60
88.53%
0.00
$7,090.00
88.53%
$98.231.00
$16,421.00
88.53%
$2,084.57*** $2,722.82*** $6,276.77*** $14,537.51***
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT $25,621.67
LPP 00-02
Page 5-33
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-G
Sample of TEA Projects Invoice
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $ 1944.00
Approved indirect cost rate 31 %
Subtotal **** S602.64
FY 1999-2000
$673.82
33%
$222.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering $825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under the
Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23
Approved indirect cost rate 31%
Subtotal **** $1474.43
FY 1999-2000
$1185.07
33%
$391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Construction Engineering column)
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
** Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** Please round down the figures to the lowest cent. Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
****• Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
Page 5-34
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT S-H
Alternative Payment Procedure Sample
ALTERNATIVE PAYMENT PROCEDURE SAMPLE
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
Date of Invoice
(For Progress Invoice)
Department of Transportation
Accounting Service Center, MS 33
Local Program Accounting Branch
P.O. Box 942874
Sacramento, CA 94274-0001
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director
Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
City, CA Zip Code
Invoice No:
Federal-aid Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by City/County:
Project Location:
Project Expenditure Authorization:
Billing No: 1,2..., or Final
Local Agency's Invoice No.
Prefix-Proj. No. (Fed. Agreement No.)
Agency IRS ID Number
Final Date or "Ongoing" if not Final
Project Limits
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number,
Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date .
*****
33D/33C
1/15/99
3/1/99
7/30/99
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
$4,475.60
33D/33C
2/10/99
3/1/99
7/30/99
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
(840.00)
$9,425.80
33D/33C
2/10/99
3/1/99
7/30/99
$200,000.10
(20,000.00)*
0.00**
(16.000.00)
$164,000.10
$2,690.50
$212,401.00
(20,000.00)
0.00
(17.190.00)
$177,901.50
Preliminary Construction Construction
Engineering Engineering Contract
Federal Appropriations Code
Federal Authorization Date
Federal participating costs from
to
Total Indirect Costs to Date
Total Direct Costs to Date
Less: Retention
Liquidated Damages
Non-participating Costs
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice
Change in Participating Costs
Reimbursement Ratio
(Federal and/or State)
Federal Reimbursement
State Reimbursement
Amount of this claim
ADJUSTMENT OF STATE FUNDS FOR ESTIMATED CONTRACT PAYMENTS
Total of this claim
Less: Estimate Previously Invoiced for the month
Difference (positive or negative amount)
Plus: Estimate for next month
INVOICE TOTAL
Total
$2.120.95
$2,354.65
$6.350.20
$3,075.60
$98.231.00
$65,769.10
$106.702.15
$71,199.35
88.53%
$63,032.78
0.00
$63,032.78***
$63,032.78
$80,000.00
($16,967.22)
$100.000.00
LPP 00-02
Page 5-35
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-H Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Alternative Payment Procedure Sample
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $ 1944.00 $673.82
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal **** $602.64 $222.36
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Preliminary Engineering $825.00 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under the
Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1185.07
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal**** $1474.43 $391.07
Total Indirect Costs To Date for Construction Engineering $1865.50 (this Amount is carried to the front of the invoice under
the Construction Engineering column)
I certify that the work covered by this invoice has been completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications; the
costs shown in this invoice are true and correct; and the amount claimed, including retention as reflected above, is due and
payable in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
Signature, Title and Unit of Local Agency Representative Phone No.
For questions regarding this invoice, please contact:
Name Phone No.
* Total retention amount withheld from contractor. At the end of the project and after all retention has been released, this
amount should be zero.
** Show "liquidated damages" amount on final invoice.
*** Please round down the figures to the lowest cent. Federal rules do not allow rounding up.
**** • Indirect cost for this project equals the direct cost base expense (i.e., direct salaries & wages plus fringe benefits)
for this project multiplied by the approved indirect cost rate.
• Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, i.e., payment of construction contracts and right of
way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
• An indirect rate must be approved by Caltrans every fiscal year to be used for only those costs incurred for that
year.
***** If invoice is for a STIP project, PE has to be segregated into E&PP and PS&E.
Page 5-36
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-1
Cognizant Federal Agencies
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 3 / Monday, January 6.1986 / Notices
COGNIZANT AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS FOR COST
ALLOCATION UNDER OMB CIRCULAR A-87
AND FOR SINGLE AUDIT UNDER OMB Cmcu
LAR A- 128— Continued
•Crt««:
Gadsdcn _
HuntsviMe. .
MoMe _ .
ALASKA
SUIt agencies:
Comment end Economic Devekanem
Community and Regioni!..- -
Corrections „ _ . „
Education. __ ..... .
Environmental ConMfvtlion _
Governor's Office
Hulttt and social Services. ... ~
Housing Authority
Ubor. _
Natural RMOurcn _. _ _
Public Safely _
Transportation and PubSc FaciMm..
Vocmonai RehablMMon
CountiM: Greater Anchorage
Cities: Anchorage
AMERICAN SAMOA
Slalc agencies: AH department) and agencies
ARIZONA
Slaw Agencies:
Education. „ _. _ .
Emergency and MMary AHairs -
Health Services „ . _
Land...
hhne Inspector
Pi**: Safety. _
Slate Parks
Transportation _
CounMs:
CocNse
Mancopa
' Pima __ . .....
Pwial
Cities
Proem:
Human Resources/Relations.
Pole*
Putt* Works „
Sewer Utility . . ..
Transit . ...
ARKANSAS
State agoncm:
Corrections _ . _
Education
Emergency Service* Office
ErM»gy Office . „ „„
Forestry Corrosion
Gam« and F«h Commission
Governor's Oflice
Heallh
Highway and TransporUWn. ..
Hunvm Services . _ .
Labo> -
Natural and Cultural Hentage.
Parks and Tourism.
PoVvlion Control and Ecology. -
Workers' Compensation Commission.
Veterans Affairs
Counties-
Jefferson
Mississippi.. . . _
Pulaiki - ... '
Cognizant
Federal
agency
. HUD
. HHS
. OOL
HUO
. HUO
. HUO
DOE
OOL
OOJ
ED
USOA
OOI
HHS
HHS
WJD
DOLOOO
OOI
OOJDOT
HHS
HHS
HHS
OOI
OOJ
HHS
ED
OOD
DOI
DOL
HHS
DOL
USDA
OOL
OOJ
OOI
OOT
HHS
HUO
HHS
HHS
DOT-
HUO
HUO
OOL
OOI
OOJ
OOT
EPA
OOT
HUO
OOJED
FEMA
DOE
USDA
OOI
OOL
HHS
OOT
HHS
OOL
OOI
DOI
EPA
OOL
VA
HHS
HHS
HUO
COGNIZANT AGENCV ASSIGNMENTS FOR COST
ALLOCATION UNDER OMB CIRCULAR A-87
AND FOR SINGLE AUDIT UNDER OMB CIRCU-
LAR A- 128— Continued
Sebastian.. - *
CHes:
Fort Smuh —
UMeRock
Cofflfnurvty ImpfOvarnant....*,.. —....»—«...-,...•-.
Human RMOUTCM _ _» _..._
Ptvki - . —..
North Unit Rock
CAUFOMM
Stt* agandat:
Aging
Air Ratouroaa Bonri ..„.-...---..— 1_.....».....—
Alcohol and Drug AbUM PfOgnvna
Comwvaiion - r.,-, . .-,...„„
DavatOpfYMOtai SflOnOMw«« ,———•— ™....w~..—
Education
emptayirwot Da*alopiiiant _.- ..-
Flnanca - — ........ . .
F"wh am? Gama~ ... . .^.^.^n...^, . ,, n
Food and Agricuttura ~
FonHtry. ,.....-.^^m™« .... -,....._
Govwnor*! OWoi-.-^™^.,.™™...— ..-.— «...—
Health SarvicM «........~..,....™. .......................
Homing and Community DavatopmaiM — .,
Induslnal R*)(Aliont..~»»«..'.».«..'«.«»>'«.»»..
Justice .„« , ..,.___....._.._«..-— —
Manta! Health ,
Poat Secondary EducaHo* Convnlukm
Planning and Raiaarch Office „—..„„.„_„„ — ...
fl«hat*U)kxi
R«*ourc«* Agency „.-_„
Social &«rvic*i ._...„.„_ «,.,-.....„....— —
SoM Wwt* M«n«g«fn.*nt Board
T/»mportalion.™»™,~ .«_-._ „...
VcMfans Affalrt
Wfttor RMOUTCW Con»ol Board
Countes:
Mwnada:
Dirtict Attonwy
Hatmi/HomM Soviets
planning „._ „._„_ «_..^-mw_. -„.„„„.
Shari*t,..m..« ..™..M....™.-«..™...», _
Sodtl Stxvion - .
Fmno -.... « »»»,...«««_.»..«» ~..~^.~...
K«m „_ „.. ......
Lea Ang.*lM:
Community *nd Sanior CMnnt/SatviM* —
CoAWwnrty Davetopfneiit CcfflrniiaAnH...._
Courti _,_____
Drstrid Anoiney ....._.......
Health Sacvioaa ^
Parks and Recreation . .
Put* Social Sences
Put* Worts
Regional Ptanning
Sheriff... „ _
Marced ... „.
Monterey. . . ~
Orange
Airport
CrWnal Justice .„ ,.-
Courts .
Environmental AHa>VP.Mcik>ri~l..Il!l....
Healtti/Human Services..
Probation „. ,
SerJor GMxens/Servlces .
Sheriff
Riverside . « . .
Sacramento
San Bernardino:
Community Development
Environmental Public Works
Cogntttant
Federalagency
EPA
HHS
HUO
DOL
HUD
DOI'
EPA
HHS1
EPA
HHS
EPA
HHS
HHS
DOC
ED
FEMA
DOL
DOE
HUO
DOI
USDA
USOA
DOJ
HHS
HUD
DOL
DOJ
HHS
OOD
DOI
ED
HUO
ED
EPA
HHS
EPA
DOT
VA
EPA
HHS
HHS'
HHS
HUD
DOJ
DOJ
HHS
DOT
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHS'
HUD
OOJ
HHS
HMS
HHS
USOA
HHT
DOT
DOT
DOJHHS
HHS
DOT
DOJ
DOL
HHS"
HUDHH;
HHS
HHSHHS
r-HS
HIS
HI (0
EPA
COGNIZANT AGENCY ASSIGNMENTS FOR C
ALLOCATION UNDER OMB CIRCULAR A
AMD FOR SINGLE AUDIT UNDER OMB OF
LAR A-128—Continued
Cogn
Human Resources/Relations...
Law and Justice
San Luis Obispo..
San Malao
Tubye
Al other counties..
FuHerton
Garden Grove....
dendale
Haywvd
hglewood
Lakewood
Long Beach
Airport....
Bidding and Satoty
Communily Development
Cound
Fire Services
General Services.
Housing Authority.
Mayor's ~
Parks and Recreation.—
Personnel,
Public Works
Redevelopment Agency
Transportation.,
Norwa*
Palo Alto
Pasadena.
Rivenide
Sacramento
S«n Bernardino
San Diego:
General Services..
Housing Commission...
San Fcandectt
AdmWstrasve 0«ic»
Heatm/Human Ssrvioes
Mayor's OfBce..._
Parks and Recreation
PoliceSan Jose
San LeanCro
San MaleoSena Ana
SaolaBarabara.
Santa Clara:
.lusbce..
Manning.«.«.
Santa Montea_...
Southgate
Stockton
Sunnyvale.
To,
VaBeft}.
Van Mrs
Was) Covtna
HHS-
HHS
DO)
DOL
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHS
HHSHHS
HUD
HHS
HHS
EPA
HUD
HHS
HHS
DOT
HUO
HHS
HUD
HHS
HHS
HHS
Hit<:HS
HHf
HUD
DOT
HUD
HUO
OOT
FEM.
HUO
HUP
DOC
HUD
DOI
EPA
HUP
DOT
HHS
HUO
EPA
HHS
HUO
HUO
HUO
HUO
HUO
DOT
HUO
HUD
EPA'
EPA
DO
HHS
DOL-
DOIOCX
DOJ
USD/
HHS
HUO
HUO
HUO
OOJ
HUD1
HHS
HHS
HUO
HHS
HHS
HUO
HHS
HHS
LPP 00-02 Page 5-37
March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-1 Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Cognizant Federal Agencies
Page 15-38
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-J
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Local Agency name
Indirect Cost Plan
The indirect cost rate contained herein is for use on grants, contracts and other agreements with the
Federal Government and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), subject to the conditions in
Section II. This plan was prepared by the Local Agency name and approved by Caltrans.
SECTION I: Rates
Rate Type Effective Period Rate* Applicable To
Fixed with carry forward 7/1/96 to 6/30/97 40.49% All Programs
*Base: Total Direct Salaries and Wages plus fringe benefits
SECTION II: General Provisions
A. Limitations:
The rates in this Agreement are subject to any statutory or administrative limitations and apply to a
given grant, contract, or other agreement only to the extent that funds are available. Acceptance of the
rates is subject to the following conditions: (1) Only costs incurred by the organization were included in
its indirect cost pool as finally accepted: such costs are legal obligations of the organization and are
allowable under the governing cost principles; (2) The same costs that have been treated as indirect costs
are not claimed as direct costs; (3) Similar types of costs have been accorded consistent accounting
treatment; and (4) The information provided by the organization which was used to establish the rates is
not later found to be materially incomplete or inaccurate by the Federal Government or Caltrans. In
such situations the rate(s) would be subject to renegotiation at the discretion of the Federal Government
or Caltrans; (5) Prior actual costs used in the calculation of the approved rate are contained in the
grantee's Single Audit which was prepared in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. If a Single Audit
is not required to be performed, then audited financial statements should be used to support the prior
actual costs; and, (6) The estimated costs used in the calculation of the approved rate are from the
grantee's approved budget in effect at the time of approval of this plan.
B. Accounting Changes:
This Agreement is based on the accounting system purported by the organization to be in effect during
the Agreement period. Changes to the method of accounting for costs which affect the amount of
reimbursement resulting from the use of this Agreement require prior approval of the authorized
representative of the cognizant agency. Such changes include, but are not limited to, changes in the
charging of a particular type of cost from indirect to direct. Failure to obtain approval may result in cost
disallowances.
C. Fixed Rate with Carry Forward:
The fixed rate used in this Agreement is based on an estimate of the costs for the period covered by the
rate. When the actual costs for this period are determined—either by the grantee's Single Audit or if a
Single Audit is not required, then by the grantee's audited financial statements—any differences between
the application of the fixed rate and actual costs will result in an over or under recovery of costs. The
over or under recovery will be carried forward, as an adjustment to the calculation of the indirect cost
rate, to the second fiscal year subsequent to the fiscal year covered by this plan.
Page 5-39
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
EXHIBIT 5-J Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
D. Audit Adjustments:
Immaterial adjustments resulting from the audit of information contained in this plan shall be
compensated for in the subsequent indirect cost plan approved after the date of the audit adjustment.
Material audit adjustments will require reimbursement from the grantee.
E. Use by Other Federal Agencies:
Authority to approve this agreement by Caltrans has been delegated by the Federal Highway
Administration, California Division. The purpose of this approval is to permit subject local government
to bill indirect costs to Title 23 funded projects administered by the Federal Department of
Transportation (DOT). This approval does not apply to any grants, contracts, projects, or programs for
which DOT is not the cognizant Federal agency.
The approval will also be used by Caltrans in State-only funded projects.
F. Other:
If any Federal contract, grant, or other agreement is reimbursing indirect costs by a means other than the
approved rate(s) in this Agreement, the organization should (1) credit such costs to the affected
programs, and (2) apply the approved rate(s) to the appropriate base to identify the proper amount of
indirect costs allocable to these programs.
G. Rate Calculation
FY 1997 Budgeted Indirect $3,168,447
Costs
Carry Forward from FY 1995 (441.989)
Estimated FY 1997 Indirect $2,726,458
Costs
FY 1997 Budgeted Direct $6,732,880
Salaries and Wages plus fringe
benefits
FY 1997 Indirect Cost Rate 40.49%
CERTIFICATION OF INDIRECT COSTS
This is to certify that I have reviewed the indirect cost rate proposal submitted herewith and to the best
of my knowledge and belief:
(1) All costs included in this proposal to establish billing or final indirect costs rates for fiscal year 1997
(July 1, 1996 to June 30, 1997) are allowable in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and
State award(s) to which they apply and OMB Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State, Local, and
Indian Tribal Governments." Unallowable costs have been adjusted for in allocating costs as indicated in
the cost allocation plan.
Page 5-40
March 6, 2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-J
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
(2) All costs included in this proposal are properly allocable to Federal and State awards on the basis of
a beneficial or causal relationship between the expenses incurred and the agreements to which they are
allocated in accordance with applicable requirements. Further, the same costs that have been treated as
indirect costs have not been claimed as direct costs. Similar types of costs have been accounted for
consistently and the Federal Government and Caltrans will be notified of any accounting changes that
would affect the predetermined rate.
I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.
Governmental Unit:
Signature: Signature:
Reviewed, Approved and .Submitted by: Prepared by:
Name of Official: Name of Official:
Title: Title:
Date of Execution: Phone:
INDIRECT COST RATE APPROVAL
The State DOT has reviewed this indirect cost plan and hereby approves the plan.
Signature Signature
Reviewed and Approved by: Reviewed and Approved by:
(Name of Audit Manager) (Name of auditor)
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
Phone Number: Phone Number:
Page 5-41
LPP 00-02 March 6, 2000
3CAs
g
h.
•0
uoI*
b
uen
'I
<
'a
o
J
"«(A
IIBIT 5-Jpie Indirect Cost Rate Propox itd c«
QX
. CD
0) "*.
O) O
E
STLL
+
iCO•sCD
0,0
Q? ^O o
"D ^_,
CD 0
> CDO t
Q.^Q..E< —
CO o^a> h~OJ **^~ ^-i
•7 >• ^Z iio "•
t w £5 0) 0
CO 3 ? ^P n °S ^ >- in
i < £
c Q -§~
g.% 0) CO5* < 05 CO
|| E 5
"•J ^^
DC
QX
^-O
APPROVED 1C RATERWARDINDIRECT CARRY FOCD r~-oo ^tCD ^t
T-" 00"
Tfr CO
^" co"
v>
</)o0
"o
"E TJ
CO C
£ -aO CD
LL IS"• CO
ra "^O LLJ
2o"CM
(Q COCD CO
co" oj"
^ °°CN"
^ ^
S COCOr*^ ^~
CD" o"
CD, O
CM"
'•&D
CD
D>C
CO
co "555 o
LL tj;>> CD
t -i=CO "O
O .£
COin•<*
co"CM
CM"
tntooO
"o
^^ .;=^ "Ren —
"5 "°
CQ -g
^ FO} -
>. to
LL. LLJ
E —
2 %
t H
0
CO
CNCM
CM"
COCO
o"o
CO
CM"
"w0O
0
^
"co
"o
0
00oo
CM"CO
CD"
CQLL
+
£
CO
4_4
£b
"§
-^-»
E•4=
LU
^ ^t5O)
CQ
0)
>-LL
E0
t
CO o^ O)co o inCM T- CO
S-" C) ^fT- in CD
1^ CO
in" CM"
OO o^ OCD CO CDCD co in
o" co o>"CO ^d" f^
CM CM
in CM"
CO£
CDC.CD
CQ
CDC55.E J2.L- w
LL 0+ o
W -G
Recovered CostsDirect Salaries & Wage(* Approved Rate)Total Recovered Indire0)COen
T~
^
0)
o"CM
Indirect Carry Forward^~
T3ZS
CD
"cnc
CO1
CD
H
i iLL.
LLJ
ZUJ
CQ
LU
0
£;
f^LL
COUJ
1
DIRECT SALARIES &CO CO COCO > >°if^N.
T—
LO
00 CD CD
OT "^= "7=
O}
o"COCM
in"
CQLL CQ
+ ^
IsCQ CO o3LL , CO
General Fund - S&W +Special Revenue FundInternal Service Fund -CO00CM
h-"
in"
COCDCD
o"COCM
in
(Q
i«Z
CDd
0CQ
0
CDc
LL
4.
co0D)CO
nX
Total Direct Salaries Iop.a.
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-J
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Salaries
Fringe Benefits
Total
DIRECT COSTS
INDIRECT COSTS
Printing
Computer Services
Conference & Training
Auto Expense
Travel / Local Mileage
Transit Tickets
Meeting Room Rentals
Office Supplies
Equipment Rental
Equipment Maintenance & Repair
Mailing & Postage
Communications
Insurance
Subscriptions / Library
Personnel Recruitment
Public Hearings
County Auditor
Law Library
Parking
Other Maintenance
Janitorial Services
Clippings/Newswire Services
Utilities
Storage Rental
Advertisement / Legal Notices
Advisory Committees
Miscellaneous Expense
Equipment less than $300
Independent Audit Fees
Memberships
Special Events
ADA Special Services
Subtotal
TOTAL BUDGET
Depreciation
Local Agency Name
FY 1997 BUDGET
DIRECT INDIRECT
COSTS COSTS
5,034,970 1,214,698
1,697,910 417,485
6,732,880 1,632,183
11,037,468
150,300
102,700
104,475
8,889
45,000
1,050
5,250
46,620
6,217
16,370
147,814
95,550
64,279
29,400
26,250
22,050
10,000
17,850
22,050
26,250
32,970
13,125
94,500
8,295
9,450
16,500
7,560
20,000
62,000
39,900
24,150
9,450
1 1 ,037,468 1 ,286,264
17,770,348 2,918,447
250,000
UNALLOWED TOTAL
COSTS BUDGET
6,249,668
2,115,395
8,365,063
11,037,468
150,300
102,700
104,475
8,889
45,000
1,050
5,250
46,620
6,217
16,370
147,814
95,550
64,279
29,400
26,250
22,050
10,000
17,850
22,050
26,250
32,970
13,125
94,500
8,295
9,450
16,500
7,560
20,000
62,000
39,900
24,150
9,450
12,323,732
$ 20,688,795
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $ 3,168,447 *
* For the sake of simplicity, this sample does not include any central service costs carried forward from a
Central Service Cost Allocation Plan. See ASMS C-10 for a sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal which
includes central service costs and a sample Central Service Cost Allocation Plan.
LPP 00-02
Page 5-43
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-J
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Local Agency Name
COMBINED STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES
AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995
FY1995
REVENUES
Sales Taxes under Transportation Development Act:
Planning $ 5,312,475
Administration 885,410
Grants:
Federal Highway Administration 4,926,640
Federal Transit Administration 750,631
Federal Aviation Administration 510
State Department of Transportation 682,542
Project revenues from state and local agencies 2,813,359
Interest 349,160
Other 863,414
Total Revenues 16,584,141
EXPENSES:
Operating:
Salaries and benefits 7,082,555
Travel 243,331
Printing and reproduction 170,641
Professional fees 2,784,847
Computer charges 54,000
Overhead 1,482,291
Contributions to other agencies 1,044,402
Other 930,155
Total Expenses 13,792,222
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER EXPENSES 2,791,919
FUND BALANCE, Beginning of Year 8,996,570
FUND BALANCE, End of year $ 11,788,489
** Total Indirect Costs
Less Indirect Salaries
Overhead
2,847,563
1.365.272
1,482,291
Page 5-44
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-J
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Local Agency Name
SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF OVERHEAD AND SALARIES AND BENEFITS EXPENSE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1995
Direct
Costs
Salaries
Benefits
Total salaries and benefits
REIMBURSABLE OVERHEAD
Printing / reprographics
Computer Services
Conference & Training
Auto Expense
Travel / Local Mileage
Transit Tickets
Meeting Room Rentals
Office Supplies
Equipment Rental
Equipment Maintenance & Repair
Mailing & Postage
Communications
Insurance
Subscriptions
Library Acquisitions
Personnel Recruitment
Public Hearings
County Auditor
Press clippings
Law Library
Parking
Legislative analysis services / supplies
Other Maintenance
Janitorial Services
Newswire Services
Utilities
Storage Rental
Advertisement / Legal Notices
Advisory Services
ADA Services
Miscellaneous Expense
Elderly and handicapped
Audio reproduction / supply
Equipment less than $300
Independent Audit Fees
Memberships
Total Indirect G & A Costs
Depreciation
Total Overhead before carry forward
Over (under) absorbed for FY 1995"
carryforward (from FY 1993)
Total Indirect Costs
Indirect
Costs
Total
Costs
4,275,487 1,016,059 5,291,546
1,441,796 349,213 1,791,009
$ 5,717,283 1,365,272 $ 7,082,555
16,124
89,306
63,625
6,328
2,280
680
1,280
54,469
2,147
4,063
76,610
89,868
45,990
16,915
11,950
7,052
9,338
7,488
1,653
15,251
13,934
2,230
30,974
29,892
1,212
85,404
8,197
5,980
5,676
2,238
2,235
3,776
2,068
10,634
44,800
27,536
799,203
274,691
2,439,166
425,193
(16,796)
$2,847,563
Direct Salaries & Wages plus Fringe Benefits
Approved FY 1995 1C Rate
Indirect Costs Recovered
Actual Indirect Costs
"Over absorbed costs
5,717,283
50.10%
2,864,359
2,439,166
425,193
LPP 00-02
Page 5-45
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-J Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Page 5-46
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
RESOLUTION NUMBER R- 3Q?29Q
DATE OF FINAL PASSAGE JAN 19 2007
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Diego, as follows:
1. That the Mayor, or his designee, be and he is hereby authorized and empowered
to execute, for and on behalf of said City, the execution of a Fund Exchange Agreement with the
City of Carlsbad under the terms and conditions set forth in the document on file in the Office of
the City Clerk as Document No. RR- 302290 .
2. That the City Auditor and Comptroller is hereby authorized to establish a special
interest-bearing account for the local funds to be received from the City of Carlsbad.
3. That the Mayor, or his designee, is authorized to accept funds not to exceed
$6,600,000, from the City of Carlsbad.
4. That the City Auditor and Comptroller is authorized to revise the Fiscal Year
2007 Capital Improvements Program budget, CIP 52-392.0, Carroll Canyon Road Extension
Project, by deappropriating Regional Surface Transportation Project (RSTP) Funds in the
amount of $7,438,000.
5. That the City Auditor and Comptroller is authorized to revise the Fiscal
Year 2007 Capital Improvements Program budget, CIP 52-392.0, Carroll Canyon Road
Extension Project, by appropriating local funds from the City of Carlsbad in the amount of
$6,600,000.
6. That the City Auditor and Comptroller is authorized to expend the amount of
$6,600,000 from CIP 52-392.0, Carroll Canyon Road Extension Project, for the purpose of
-PAGE 1 OF 2-
(R-2007-590)
design and construction of the project contingent upon the Auditor and Comptroller certifying
that the funds are or will be on deposit with the City Treasurer.
7. That this activity is exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15061(b)(3).
APPROVED: MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, City Attorney
By
Jeremy A. Jung
Deputy City Attdrney
JAJ:cla
11/18/2006
Aud. Cert.: N/A
Or.Dept: E&CP
R-2007-590
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed by the Council of the City of San
Diego, at this meeting of JAN 1 6 2007 .
Approved:
(date)
ALAND
s
Deputy~Ctry Clerk
JERRY ANDERS, Mayor
Vetoed:
(date)JERRY SANDERS, Mayor
-PAGE 2 OF 2-
Passed by the Council of The City of San Diego on January 16, 2007 by the following
vote:
YEAS: PETERS, FAULCONER, ATKINS, YOUNG, MAIENSCHEIN,
FRYE, MADAFFER, HUESO.
NAYS: NONE.
NOT PRESENT: NONE.
VACANT: NONE.
AUTHENTICATED BY:
JERRY SANDERS
Mayor of The City of San Diego, California
ELIZABETH S. MALAND
City Clerk of The City of San Diego, California
(Seal)
By: Mary Zumava, Deputy
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 302290 approved by the Council of the City of San Diego, California on
January 16, 2007.
ELIZABETH S. MALAND
City Clerk of The City of San Diego, California
(SEAL)
L<^7 /I/ / /* / *~\ ^ * jtJtj* x->. >4^_, Deputy