HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-06-08; City Council; 17656; Fund Exchange Agreement: RSF RdiB# 17.656 TITLE: AGREEMENT FOR FUND EXCHANGE WITH THE
CITY OF SAN DIEGO FOR RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD, dTG. 6/08/04 PHASES 1 AND 2, PROJECT NOS. 3190 AND 3907
IEPT. ENG
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
CITY ATTY. p<.
Adopt Resolution No. 2004-180 San Diego for Rancho Santa Fe Road North, Phases 1 and 2, Project Nos. 3190 and 3907.
approving an agreement for fund exchange with the City of
ITEM EXPLANATION:
The Rancho Santa Fe Road project consists of the widening and realignment of approximately 2.2 miles of Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive. The project will be constructed in two phases: Phase 1, from La Costa Avenue to San Elijo Road; and Phase 2, from San Elijo Road to Melrose Drive. Benefits of the project include reduced congestion, improved traffic flow, and increased safety for travelers on the road. Additionally, this project will improve a vital link in the North County region’s roadway network.
Both Phases of the Rancho Santa Fe Road project are currently under construction and received approval from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), via Caltrans, to receive approximately $10.8 million in federal grants. The total cost of construction for both phases based on current bids is approximately $37.4 million. Of the total cost, approximately $17.4 million is eligible for federal funding. Federal monies consist of High Priority - Demo Funds (HP-21), Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Funds (HBRR) and Regional Surface Transportation Program
Funds (RSTP). Each of these grants are reimbursements to the City after the contractor is paid and also require matching funds, which will be provided from the proposed Community Facilities District No. 2 Fund (CFD2).
In addition to the approved federal grants, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has approved an exchange of local funds from the City of Carlsbad with federal funds from the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego currently has two projects identified in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) to receive RSTP funds: Improvements to Carroll Canyon Road and Genesee Avenue, from 1-5 to Campus Point. In the interest of further developing the regional transportation system, the City of Carlsbad agreed to consider the exchange of local funds from CFD2 for RSTP funds with the City of San Diego for the projects mentioned. This exchange will enable the City of San Diego to eliminate the need for federal requirements and advance the schedule of both projects. This exchange was approved by SANDAG under Amendment No. 1 to the RTlP on September 27, 2002 and Amendment No. 2 to the RTlP on November 22, 2002 for each respective City of San Diego project.
The attached agreement between the two cities is the final requirement to allow the exchange to take place. The agreement stipulates that the City of Carlsbad will transfer local funds to the City of San Diego in an approximate amount of $6.6 million. This is the amount of the estimated costs, based on bid prices, of both phases of Rancho Santa Fe Road eligible for federal funds after the City receives all federal grants. The exchange of funds will take place after FHWA has reimbursed the City of Carlsbad for costs and after the City of San Diego has paid their contractors for work. The City of San Diego will not be entitled to any interest earned from the project funds. If the eligible costs of Rancho Santa Fe Road increase during construction, the amount of exchanged funds could increase up to $8.401 million, which is the amount of RSTP funds approved in the RTlP for the City of San Diego to receive for both the Carroll Canyon and Genesee Avenue projects. The agreement also outlines a mediation procedure to settle any potential disputes that cannot be resolved through regular negotiations.
Staff recommends the approval of the agreement by City Council. Upon execution by City Council, it will be provided to the City of San Diego for final execution by their City Council.
I
Page 2 of Agenda Bill No. 17,656
FISCAL IMPACT
No negative fiscal impact is anticipated since this exchange is a dollar for dollar exchange. The City
will receive all interest earnings on the exchange funds placed in an exchange account prior to
disbursement to the City of San Diego.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
The City Council at their meeting on June 2, 1992 passed Resolution No. 92-152 certifying EIR No.
91-1 for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Rancho Santa Fe Road project. The City Council at their
meeting on April 25, 2000 passed Resolution No. 2000-128 approving Addendum No. 2 to the final
EIR No. 91-1 for Rancho Santa Fe Road. This EIR covers the realignment and widening of
Rancho Santa Fe Road from La Costa Avenue to Melrose Drive.
EXHIBITS:
1. Resolution No. 2004-180 approving an agreement for fund exchange with the City of
San Diego for Rancho Santa Fe Road North, Phases 1 and 2, Project Nos. 31 90 and 3907.
2. Fund Exchange Agreement Between the City of San Diego and the City of Carlsbad.
DEPARTMENT CONTACT: Carrie Loya-Smalley, (760) 602-2746, clovaQci.carlsbad.com
2
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
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-180
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,
PROJECT NOS. 31 90 AND 3907.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, considers it necessary and
in the public interest to approve 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; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad agrees to exchange local funds for Regional Surface
Transportation Program funds with the City of San Diego in the interest of further developing the
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 RTlP
on September 27, 2002 for the City of San Diego Carroll Canyon Road Improvements project and
Amendment No. 2 to the RTlP on November 22,2002 for the City of San Diego Genesee Avenue,
1-5 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.
Ill
VI
'11
3
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
, 2004 by the following vote, to wit: held on the 8th day of June
ATTEST:
LORRAINE M. WWD, City Clerk '
Resolution No. 2004-180
Page Two
(SEAL)
FUND EXCHANGE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARTIES
This Exchange Agreement [Agreement], entered into and effective on ,2004,
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 OS)("Rancho Santa Fe Road Project") in the City of Carlsbad, improvements to Carroll Canyon
Road (SD 32)("Camoll 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
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
E.
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 Carlsbads regional transportation projects.
Page 1 of 5
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 Oblipation to Reimburse City of San Diego for Exchaneed 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.
Reimbursable Proiect 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.”
3.
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”).
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.
5.
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.
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.
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.
9. Mandatorv Non-binding Mediation. If a dispute arises out of, or relates to this
(a)
(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
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
Ill
(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 ha\
this Agreement on the date that the last party signs the Agreement. A
Dated:
Title: Mayor
CITY OF SAN DIEGO
BY Name:
Title: City Manager
executed
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
RONALD R. BALL, CITY ATTORNEY n
City Attorney 6 p ( d +,
Attorney for the City of Carlsbad
CASEY GWI", CITY ATTORNEY
BY Susan Y. Cola
Deputy City Attorney
Attorney for the City of San Diego
Page 5 of 5
EXHIBIT "A"
San Die90's Regional Planning Agency
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SEPTEMBER 27,2002
AGENDA ITEM NO. 0299- 6
ACTION REQUESTED = APPROVE
2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP) -
AMENDMENT NO. 1
Recomrnenda tion
It is my recommendation that the Board of
Directors approve Resolution 2003-1 1
approving Amendment No. 1 to the 2002
Regional Transportation Improvement
Program as shown in Table 1.
1
Introduction
SANDAG adopted the 2002 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
on June 28, 2002. The 2002 RTIP is a fiveyear
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 (IRROI): 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 ($1 20,000), 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 Manaaed Lanes ICAL18): 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.
2
Although this is a fully funded project
(estimated project cost of $324 million for the
freeway segment), only $221 million is shown
since this RTlP period only covers up to FY
2006107.
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 Countv (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 TransNet 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.
5 TheCTC
has allocated FY 2003 Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Elderly 81
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 .I9
million with a $297,400 local match for a total
project cost of $1.487 million for FY 2002103.
SR 941125 Widenina (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
1-805 Olvmeic Parkwav lnterchanae
ImDrovernent (CVOI): 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 KNTY14): 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
mi II ion.
City of National City
1 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)
3
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
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.
TransNet funds are being programmed to
complete the project. The total project cost is
$2.6 million.
City of San Diego
Carroll Canvon (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 $1 1.8
million.
This project was
initially programmed in the 2000 RTlP 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
TransNet) to fully fund this project. The new
project cost is $21.9 million.
Rancho Santa Fe (SM071: As part of the fund
exchange approved by the Transportation
Committee on September 12, 2002, this
project received an additional $2.5 million in
TransNet funds to fully fund the project. The
new project cost is $1 1.5 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 10-1 2).
Air Quality Analysis
On June 28, 2002, SANDAG found the 2002
RTlP 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 593.126 of the
Transportation Conformity Rule. SANDAG
followed interagency consultation procedures
to determine that these projects were
exempt. The 2002 RTlP including Amendment
No. 1 remains in conformance with the air
quality program.
GARY L. GALLEGOS
Executive Director
Attachments
Key Staff Contact: Sookyung Kim,
(61 9) 595-5350; ski@sandag.org
Funds are budgeted in Work Element #4.03
SANDAG Board of Directors September 27,2002 - Agenda Item # 6 (APPROVE)
RESOLUTION
NO- 2003-11
401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 921 01
(619) 595-5300 Fax (619) 5955305 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
lmprovement 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 RTlP 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
RTlP 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 lmprovement Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that SANDAG reaffirms conformity of the 2002 RTlP 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 27'h day of September 2002,
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
SECRETARY
MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Encinitas, Exondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon
Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, San Marcos. Santee, Solana Beach, Vista, and County of San Diego.
ADVlSORYlLlAlSON 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 CalifornialMexico.
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in
Indian Resewation Roads Program .
$5,800 $5.600 55,800
CRP I t40,1001 t3o.eool $5,900 51,300 $2,100 I $17,800 513,000 59,3 TOTALI 0221.2271 SSS,soOl $94,712 020,711 024,900 $22,800 S22,%ool $22,300 sis,ooo $18S,@27
d5WG S5800 55.800
1-15 Auxiliary Lanes
From south of Mira Mar Way to north of Mira Mesa Boulevard - Construct north & southbound auxiliary lanes
Program additional SHOPP and STIP-IIP funds mqr Reawn:
Note: CI - Capacity Increasing, NCf = Nonsapacity Increasing 5
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SOWs)
TramNet-H I I $7,380 $900 I $675 $6.705 TOTAL: I S22,OSS I $01 $12,450 S9,SOS I H,WS $14,180 $4,
ase of vehicles and various capital equipment for the provision of transit service to the elderly & disabled
Reason: Add FY 2003 funds
941125 Widening
- Freeway to freeway connector - preliminary engineering phase
: NewProJect
I TOTAL I PRIOR I ozlo3 0- 04/05 OW6 -7 1 PE Rw CON
I tfidMI tl7Ml t? 7M I SS AMI
Note: CI - Capacity Increasing, NCI = Noncepacity Increasing 6
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SoooS)
Sen Marcos Creek
1-805 Olympic Parkway Interchange Improvement
From Orange Ave. to Palornar st. - Construct soundwalk; widen bridge deck, ramp, add auxiliary Ian- &
utility relocation
$720 $2,105
I I $2,500 I s2.w
TOTAL1 $14,5321 $3,3251 $11,207 1 $1,220 $2#106 $11,201
-. -
Note: CI = Capacity Inweaslng, NCI 3 Non-capacity Increasing 7
~
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in t000s)
Vista City limits to San Marcos City limits - Reconstruct & widen from 2 to 4 lanes including bicycle lanes
lncresse TramNet funds: revise fund type -son:
$763 $3,974 $4,261
$8,403 $3,736
Boulevard Widening
om Highland Ave. to Euclid Ave.
-It-or-lace-it porky
Repair and replace rail bridge 259.6
.ng.Reason: NewproieEt
*Insurance proceeds
Note: CI = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-cspacity increasing 8
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SoooS)
~~ ~~ ~
From krrento Valley to Scranton - construct modifi 4-lane collector with bike lanes (CIP 52-392)
Ream: Part of fund exchange
TOTAL PRIOR Om3 03/04 0410b 05/06 OW7 PL Rw CON
$11,792 $3,130 $8,662 $3.130 $1.990 $6,672
Freeway to freeway interchange - preliminary engineering phase
Change lead agency fm Calvans to the Citx revise FY, & program additions1 funds Reason:
utility under grounding
Note: CI = Capacity Increasing. NCI - Non-capacity Increasing 9
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in JooOS)
~~ ~
Drive to Island Drive - Construct 4-lane arterial including grading and utility under grounding
rt of fund exchange
TransNet-L I $2,7001 I $2,700 I TOTALI Sll,S00l S2,100l $9,400 I t1.m
1-15 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations
Build four transit stations along the 1-15 corridor as part of BRT project
: Revisephases
Note: CI = Capaclty Increasing, NCI Non-capactty Increasing 10
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in Soo05)
~
R.uon: Revh STlP funds to reflect state
Qty Furids (Oceansrdr)
tall street lights at various locations
Transfer funds #om SO 16 (see below) Changm Reason:
Install trafflc signal improvements at various locations
Transfer funds to SO 75 (see above) :
Note: CI = Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capscity Increasing 11
..
Table 1
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 1
San Diego Region (in SoooS)
TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 Om4 04/05 05/06 06H17 PE RW CON
FTA funds (5307) $4,200 SMG 5 706 $706 s7oG s 700 $700 $4.201
RSTP $1,5L?G $306 $40(> 540C $1.501
AB2766 6331 $165 $766 $33 i
TDA $544 $775 $7 75 $175 $544
Note: CI - Capacity Increasing, NCI = Non-capacity Increasing 12
RTI P
Fund Types
CMAQ
CBI
CDBG
DEMO
HBRR
RSTP
RTP
SHOPP
STI P- I I P
STI P-RI P
TCI
TCRP
TCSP
TSM
TDA
TDA-B
TEA
TransNet -H
TransNet -L
TransNet -H
Section 5307
Section 5309
= 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
Section 5309 NS
Section 5309 R
Section 5311
Section 5310
= Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - New Starts
= Federal Transit Administration Discretionary - Rail Modernization
= Federal Transit Administration Rural Program
= Federal Transit Administration Elderly & Disabled Program
13
G
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
SEPTEMBER 27,2002
AGENDA ITEM NO. 0299- 7
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 $1 5,857,424 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 - 'I 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
1-5 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 I1 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.
EX H I BIT I' B "
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NOVEMBER 22, 2002
AGENDA ITEM NO. 02-1 1- 4-A
ACTION REQUESTED - APPROVE
2002 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (RTIP)
AMENDMENTS -
A. 2002 RTlP AMENDMENT N0.2 - 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 RTlP
(Table I), 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 RTlP must conform to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality.
Conformity to the SIP means that
transportation activities in the 2002 RTlP 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 RTlP
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 RTlP on October 4, 2002.
The addition of capacity increasing projects to
the approved RTlP 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 RTlP 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 RTlP programs substantial funds for
the implementation of the four TCMs
(identified as 'IT-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 TCMdT-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.
2
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 RTlP
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, (61 9) 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 t 4-A (Approve)
RESOLUTION
NO. 2003-15
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 595-5300 Fax (619) 595-5305
www.sandag.org
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 RTlP as shown in Table 1; and
WHEREAS, the updated Air Quality Conformity report for Amendment No. 2 to the 2002
RTlP 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)/l982 State
Implementation Plan (SIP); and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTlP continues to provide for timely
implementation of transportation control measures contained in the adopted RAQSlSlP for air
quality and a quantitative emissions analysis demonstrates that the implementation of the RTlP
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 RTlP and its air quality conformity
determination; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that SANDAG finds Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTlP 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 RTlP 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 RTlP are included in the 2020 RTP; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. to the 2002 RTlP 2 is consistent with
SANDAG Intergovernmental Review Procedures; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Amendment No. 2 to the 2002 RTlP is consistent with
SANDAG Public Participation policy.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22"d day of November 2002
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST
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, US. Department of Defense, S.D. Unified Port District, S.D. County Water Authority, and Baja CalifornialMexico.
FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
City Funds $2,733 $2.733
TOTAL: $2,733 $2,733
MPO ID: SD90 CAPACITY STATUS: CI
TITLE:
DESCRIPTION:
Change Reason: New Prq'ect
SR 163IClairemont Mesa Boulevard Interchange
From Kearny Mesa Road to Kearny Villa Road - Widen from 4 to 6 lane prime arterial
PE RW CON
$645 $500 $1,588
$645 $500 $1,588
FUND TYPE TOTAL PRIOR 02103 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
RSTP $4,400 $4.400
City Funds $6,350 $6,350
TOTAL: $10,750 $10,750
Note: Program RSTP but will seek funds through 2004 STIP)
PE RW CON
$1,147 $3,25:
$1,656 $4,694
$2,803 $7,947
Note: CI = Capacity Increasing
NCI = Nontapacity Increasing
4
Attachment 1
AIR QUALITY EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
FOR THE 2002
REG I ONAL TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM,
AMENDMENT NO. 2
November 22, 2002
401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 921014231 (619) 595-5300
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
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 Horton, 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 ENClNlTAS Hon. Dennis Holz, Councilmember (A) Hon. Maggie Houlihan, Councilmember
CITY OF ESCONDIDO Hon. Lori Weiler. Mayor (A) Hon. June Rady, Mayor Pro Tern
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 Sessm. Mayor (A) Hon. Jill Greer, Cwncilmember
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, Cwncilmember (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, Vie 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 CALlFORNlAlMEXlCO (Advisory Member) Hon. Rodulfo Figueroa Aramoni Consul General of Mexico
Revised October 2, 2002
ii
ABSTRACT
TITLE:
AUTHOR:
DATE:
SOURCE OF
COPIES:
NUMBER OF
PAGES:
ABSTRACT:
Air Quality Emissions Analysis for the 2002 Regional
Transportation Improvement Program, Amendment No. 2
San Diego Association of Governments
November 2002
San Diego Association of Governments
401 B Street, Suite 800
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 595-5300
23
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.
... Ill
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 3
Air Quality Conformity Determination ......................................................................... 3
Financial Capacity Analysis ............................................................................................. 4
Consistency with the 2020 RTP ....................................................................................... 3
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
V
LIST OF TABLES
Chapter 1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table 1-1
Table 1-2
2002 RTlP Transportation Control Measure Projects ...................................................... 5
2002 RTlP Amendment No . 2 ........................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 . AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 2-3
2002 RTlP Amendment No . 2 Air Quality Conformity Analysis ................................... 12
2002 RTlP Amendment No . 2 Conformity Worksheets ................................................ 13
2002 RTlP Amendment No . 2 Control Factor Adjustments Worksheet ...................... 14
vii
Chapter I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVl E W
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 RTlP prompting an update to the regional
emissions analysis.
The RTlP 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 RTlP 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 RTlP adds two capacity increasing projects. The 2002
RTlP document, published in July 2002, fully documents the RTlP 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 RTlP 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 RTlP 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
3
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 RTlP 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 TCMdT-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 SANDAG 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 RTlP 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 RTlP 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 RTlP 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 RTlP which describes the
SANDAG public participation process.
4
Table 1-1
Transportation Control Measure Projects
2002 RTIP - San Diego Region (in $000~ of Future Dollars)
I I
RIDESHARING
SANDAG Regional TDM Program -
RideLink and Regional Vanpool Program $1 6,561
Subtotal $16,561 *
-RANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
Mission Valley East Light Rail Project $452,000
Oceanside-Escondido Rail Extension $351,520
1-1 5 Bus Rapid Transit (Rolling StocklStations) $50,800
$1 00,090 Mid-Coast Corridor Project
Sorrento to Miramar Double TracklRealign $31,716
Regional Fare Technology $35,402
Oceanside Double Track Project $6,000
$24,641 East Village lntermodal Transit Station*
San Ysidro lntermodal Transportation Center* $16,408
Oceanside Transit Center Parking $9,132
BuslRail Vehicles Purchase $1 30,674
BudRail Infrastructure $324.009
Intercity Rail Projects $34,540
Other Transit Projects (OperationslPlanning) $1 19,140
Subtotal $1,686,072
*additional funds are included under the regional TEA program
31CYCLE FACILITIES PROJECTS
Bicycle Facilities $24,607
Subtotal $24,607
I
TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENTS I CaItranslSANDAG Traffic Management System Projects $56,671 I CMAQlLocal Agency Traffic Signal Improvement Projects $35,796
Subtotal $92,467
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%
5
Table 1-2
2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program
Amendment No. 2
San Diego Region (in $000~)
FUND TYPE TOTAL
City Funds $2,733
TOTAL: $2,733
PRIOR 02103 03104 04105 05106 06107 PE RW CON
$2,733 $645 $500 $1,588
$2,733 $645 $500 $1,588
FUND TYPE I TOTAL I PRIOR I 02103 03104 04105 05106 06107 I PE RW CON
RSTP I $4,4001 I $4.400 I $1,147 $3,253
City Funds I $6,3501 I $6,350 I $1,656 $4,694
T0TAL:I $10,7501 $1 0,750 $2,803 $7,947
Note: Program RSTP but will seek funds through 2004 STIP)
Note: CI = Capacity Increasing NCI = Non-capacity Increasing
6
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 attainmentlmaintenance. 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
(ARB) 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 MovementlTruck Operation Program proposed
in the 1991 RAQS were no longer statutorily mandated and were deleted from the RAQS in 1998.
9
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 RTlP 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
(ARB), 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 RTlP Amendment No. 2. The preliminary schedule for the development of the 2002 RTlP
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,
CARB, 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 RTlP and its conformity finding were released on May 24, 2002. The Final 2002 RTlP
was adopted by the SANDAG Board on June 28, 2002, and approved by FHWAlFTA on October 4,
2002.
The following sections provide a summary of SANDAG's analysis of the 2002 RTlP 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 RTlP amendment. In summary, the emissions analysis must show that
implementation of the 2002 RTlP 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 93.1 22(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 .I 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
Average Average Weekday Weekday Average co NOx ROG
Vehicle Vehicle Highway TonslDay TonslDay TonslDay
Starts Miles Speed
(1.000s) (1,000s) (mph)
~~
SIP Emissions Budget 1,194.87 114.25 89.60
2010 Revenue-Constrained 13,814 87,567 32.4 439.46 57.04 38.72
2020 Revenue-Constrained 15,398 99,598 32.3 423.91 61.17 30.25
2023 Revenue-Constrained 15,763 101,910 32.4 421.25 61.88 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*
Burden Total Total
DTIM2 Emissions' co NOx TOG TOG^ TOG ROGJ
2010 Revenue-Constrained 439.46 108.42 48.95 8.50 57.45 53.09
2020 Revenue-Constrained 423.91 11 2.55 41.19 7.09 48.28 44.61
2023 Revenue-Constrained 421.25 113.25 39.87 6.67 46.54 43.00
NOx ROG Control Factor Adjustments4
201 0 51.38 14.37
RTlP Analysis' co NOx ROG
SIP Emissions Budget 1194.87 114.25 89.60
2010 Revenue-Constrained 439.46 57.04 38.72
2020 Revenue-Constrained 423.91 61.17 30.25
2023 Revenue-Constrained 421.25 61.88 28.63
Emissions in tons per day
Trip and VMT related emissions from DTIMZ plus emissions from Mexican vehicles derived from the BURDEN7F
documentation.
Vehicle based evaporative emissions (diurnal and resting loss) from BURDEN7F summaries.
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,
Control factors for California SIP measures not accounted for in EMFAC7F for 2010, 2020, and 2023 (see Table 2-
2010, 2020 and 2023 NOx and ROG adjusted to account for control factor reductions shown above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
3).
5.
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*
Reduction
Light 81 Applied to
Medium- Heavy-Duty Heavy-Duty SANDAG
2010’ Duty Fleet Gas Diesel Analysis
TOG from DTIM23 40.45 1.65 6.61
ROG ‘ 37.40 1.46 6.32
Control Factor 0.249 0.172 0.759
ROG Reduction 9.31 0.25 4.80 14.37
NOx from DTIM23 51.48 10.14 42.91
Control Factor’ 0.494 0.31 2 0.531
NOx Reduction 25.43 3.16 22.78 51.38
Emissions in tons per day
1.
2.
3.
4.
2020 and 2023 control factors assumed same as 2010.
fncludes light-duty automobiles, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty trucks.
Urban bus and Mexican fleet emissions not aqusted.
ROG calculated from TOG using the following factors: 0.9240 for non-catalyst exhaust, 0.8515 for catalyst
exhaust, and 0.9573 for diesel exhaust.
These factors were provided by the CARB in April 2002 for use in conformity assessments. 5.
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 93.1 26 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 DETERM I NATION
APPENDIX A
PROJECTS EXEMPT FROM AIR QUALITY CONFORMITY DETERMINATION*
rehabilitation and operation of historic
transportation buildings, structures, or facilities)
Planting, landscaping, etc.
Directional and informational signs
ALL
Intersection channelization projects
Interchange reconfiguration projects
Truck size and weight inspection stations
Si
unrest, or terrorists acts, except projects involving
substantial functional locational or capacity changes
Acquisition of scenic easements
Emergency or hardship advance land acquisitions (23
CFT 71 2.204(d))
Intersection signalization projects at individual
intersections
Changes in vertical and horizontal alignments
Bus terminal and transfer points
PROJECTS
Railroadlhighway crossing
Safer non-federal-aid svstem roads
Traffic control devices and operating assistance
Skid treatments
Adding medians
Lighting improvements
Emergency truck pullovers
Increasing site distance
MASS
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
AIR I
Continuation of ridesharing and vanpooling
promotion activities at current levels
C
Specific activities which do no involved or directly
lead to construction. such as:
Sign removal
Transportation enhancement activities except
:ETY
Hazard elimination Droaram
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
Fencino
Safety roadside rest areas
Railroadlhighway crossing warning devices
Safety improvement program
rRANSlT
Purchase of suooort 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 storagelmaintenance
facilities cateaoricallv excluded in 23 CFR Dart 771.
Purchase of office, shop and operating equipment
for existing facilities
UALITY
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
HER
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
*Source: Federal Register, August 15, 1997, Part II Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 51 81 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
A
ADA
APCBlAPCD
B
C
Con
CAA
Caltrans
CARB
CBI
CDBG
CI
CMAQ
CMP co
CTC
D
DEMO
DOT
E
E
EPA
F
FHWA
FSP
FTA
H
HESER2S
HOV
Americans with Disabilities Act
(San Diego) Air Pollution Control Board (District)
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
ISTEA Special ProjectdTEA-21 High-Priority Demonstration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Engineeringlplanning phase
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Freeway Service Patrol (and FSP Act)
Federal Transit Administration
Hazard Elimination SafetylSafe Routes to School program
High Occupancy Vehicle
21
I
IM
IRR
ISTEA
ITS
L
LRT
M
MPO
MTDB
N
NAAQS
NCI
NCTDlNSDCTDB
NHS
P
PlPE
PPNO
R
RAQS
ROG
RWlROW
RTlP
RTP
RSTP
S
SANDAG
SBTA
SDTC
SDTl
SHOPP
SIP
SLTPP
SR
STA
STlP
STIP-IIP
STIP-RIP
STP
Interstate Maintenance
Indian Reservation Road
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
Intelligent Transportation Systems
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 San Diego County Transit
Development Board
National Highway System
Preliminary Engineering Phase
Project Number (Caltrans)
Regional Air Quality Strategy
Reactive Organic Gas
Right-of-way phase
Regional Transportation Improvement Program (SANDAG)
Regional Transportation Plan (SANDAG)
Regional Surface Transportation Program
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 ProgramlSB300
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
T
TEA
TCI
TCM
TCRP
TDA
TDM
TIP
TMA
TOG
TP&D
TransNet
TSM
TEA-21
T- 1
T-2
T- 3
T-5
v voc
Transportation Enhancement Activities
Transportation Equity Act for the 2lS Century
Transit Capital Improvement (State)
Transportation Control Measure
Traffic Congestion Relief Program (Governor’s initiative)
Transportation Development Act
Transportation Demand Management
Transportation Improvement Program
Transportation Management Agency
Total Organic Gas
Transportation Planning and Development
San Diego Region 1/2% Local Transportation Sales Tax Program
Traffic Systems Management
Transportation T-tactic: Ridesharing
Transportation T-tactic: Transit
Transportation T-tactic: Bicycle
Transportation T-tactic: Traffic Improvement
Volatile Organic Compounds
23
EX H I B IT 'I C "
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
AccountinglInvoices
CHAPTER 5 ACCOUNTING~~NVOICES
CONTENTS
Section Subject Page Number
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
REQUIREMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT ............................................................... 5-3
TYPES OF INVOICES .............................................................................................. 5-5
FORMAT OF LOCAL AGENCY INVOICES ............................................................. 5-5
REIMBURSABLE PROJECT COSTS ....................................................................... 5-8
Direct Cost Reimbursement .................................................................. 5-9
Indirect Cost Reimbursement ............................................................... 5-9
EXPEDITED PAYMENT PROCEDURES .................................................................. 5-12
Accelerated Payment of Invoices Through the State Controller's
Office ....................................................................................................... 5-12
Alternative Construction Progress Payment Procedure .................... 5-12
FINAL EXPENDITURE REPORTS .......................................................................... 5-14
AUDIT OF LOCAL AGENCY EXPENDITURES ....................................................... 5-14
FINAL PROJECT COSTS ....................................................................................... 5-15
FINAL REPORT OF EXPENDITURES ON PROJECTS ADMINISTERED BY THE
STATE ...................................................................................................................... 5-15
AUDIT OF STATE EXPENDITURES ....................................................................... 5-15
FINAL PROJECT COSTS OF STATE-ADMINISTERED PROJECTS ........................ 5-15
SERVICE CONTRACTS .......................................................................................... 5-16
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
March 6. 2000 LPP 00-02
Chapter 5
Accountingnnvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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 ‘%TIP PROJECT” FEDERAL INVOICE ............................................. 5-29
5-F SAMPLE OF %TIP 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
LPP 00-02 March 6. 2000
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accountinghnvoices
LOCAL
AGENCY
make progress estimates and payments
1
Prepare and certi@ progress
invoices I
1 CALTRANS
Receive and
record payment
I
See Project complete? Project A Completion ChaDter 17
Prepare Report of Expenditures
(includes final invoice)
Veri@ invoice, Submit to
controller fir
payment, Include in Meral bill
I
FHWA
Veri@ project completion, approve final
I
D--OOO-D#
Reimburse state
payment -
Prepare Final
submit to Accounting
Adjust project
records and obligation balance
OLP 2/96
Page 5-1 LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
Chapter 5
Accountingnnvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Pages-2 ~
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
AccountingIInvoices
CHAPTER 5 ACCOUNTING/~NVOICES
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 proiects 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 proiects) and TEA Exchange Promam (TX
proiects). 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 (RTPA) 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 RTPA,
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:
0 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.
LPP 00-02
Page 5-3
March 6,2000
Chapter 5
Accounting finvoices
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 424. 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 Accountinghnvoices
0 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.
appropriate one for your project.
Use the
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 (STIP) 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:
LPP 00-02
Page 5-5
March 6,2000
Chapter 5
AccountingIInvoices
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 StudiesPermits; and Plans, Specifications and Estimates
(PS&E).
8. The invoice format may vary, but the following information must be included:
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.
Progress billing number. This is a serially assigned number that begins with #l.
This progress billing number allows LPA to determine that they have received all
the invoices for a project.
Invoice number (local agency accounting system assigned number), if applicable
Federal-aid or State project number, e.g. prefix-project number, STPL- 5012(005),
CML- 5006(089), ER- 3632(002), etc
Local agency Federal Tax Identification Number
Date project accepted by the local agency (for final invoice only). Show “On
going” if project is not complete.
Project location
Project Expenditure Authorization No. (E.A.#)
Local AgencyIState Agreement and supplement numbers; and date executed
Phase of work headings such as preliminary engineering, right of way,
construction engineering, construction contract
Federal Appropriation Codes
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
AccountingIInvoices
n) Cost breakdown by Federal appropriation code for preliminary engineering (if for Local Grant Projects in the STIP projects, Preliminary Engineering (PE) has to be
segregated into Environmental StudiesPemits, 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 andor 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
0 Total amount of claim
0) Certification, printed name, title and signature of the local agency responsible
person
Page 5-7
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
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. Preliminaw 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. Acauisition 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 andor indirect cost components.
Page 5-8
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 5
Accountinghvoices
DIRECT COST REIMBUMEMENT
Direct costs are those that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost
objective, that is-expenditures solely incurred for a specific Federal-aidstate 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-aidstate funded projects are:
0 Compensation of employees for the time devoted and identified specifically to the
performance of the project phase for which the Federal-aidstate 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 FederaYState funds were authorized.
0
0 Equipment and other approved capital expenditures.
0 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
AccountingIInvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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:
0
0
Schedule of actual directhdirect costs incurred by cost category type (Le., 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 overhnder 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
Chapter 5
Accountingnuvoices
6. Certification that the indirect cost proposal was prepared in a manner consistent with
the cost principles of OMB Circular A-87
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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 periodfiscal 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 perfom the review and approval. If Caltrans Audits and Investigations approves the
indirect cost rate proposal and central service cost allocation pIan, 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 cost$, 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.
LPP 00-02
Page 5-11
March 6,2000
Chapter 5
Accountingllnvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Detailed information regarding allowable costs, cost allocation plans, and indirect cost rate
proposals are available in OMF3 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 (2-10 is at www.hhs.gov/progorgl
grantsnetlindex2.htm. Additionally, OMB Circular A- 133 provides single audit
information and may be accessed on the Internet at www.
whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/a133/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:
e
e
0
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
Accountinghvoices
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.
2.
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.
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
Accountingnnvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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 frnal
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 fbnding 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
AccountingIInvoices
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 fhds 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.
LPP 00-02
Page 5-15
March 6,2000
Chapter 5
Accountinghvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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.
0 Is the program supplement executed by both Caltrans and the local agency?
0 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?
0 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?
0 Does the submitted invoice have two copies and the required back-up documentation?
0 Does the invoice claim exceed the total authorized funds on the project?
0 Does the invoice show cumulative costs to date and is the calculation correct?
0 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
AccountingJInvoices
Indirect cost reimbursement will not apply to direct costs, Le., payment of construction
contracts and right of way purchases, not included in the direct cost base.
0 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.. .)
0 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.
0 Does the invoice have the local agency’s letterhead, address, and signed certification
statement from the responsible parties?
0 Does the invoice have a contact person’s name and phone number?
0 Does the invoice show the correct project number and correct reimbursement ratio?
0 Is the invoice in the proper format of Chapter 5 of the Local Assistance Procedures
Manual?
Page 5-17
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Chapter 5
Accountingnnvoices
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Page 5-18
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
EXHIBIT 5-A Local Assistance Procedures Manual Sample Federal-aid Invoice (Except for TEA and STIP Projects)
SAMPLE FEDERAL -AID INVOICE
(PREPARE ONLETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
(EXCEPT FOR TEA AND STIP PROJECTS)
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 CityICounty:
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 Location: 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 Total
Engineering Engineering Acquisition Contract
Federal Appropriations Code Q24133D Q24/33D Q24/33D Q24/33D
Federal Authorization Date 5/12/99 5/12/99 5/12/99 511 2/99
To 71 1 5/99 7/15/99 6130199 8130199
Federal participating costs from 511 5/99 511 5/99 51 15/99 5/25/99
Total Indirect Costs to Date $825.00 $1,865.50 _-_-_---_ $2,690.50
Total Direct Costs to Date $4,000.60 $8,400.30 $8,290.00 $150,652.00 $171,342.90
Less: Retention ---------- ----------- --_-_----- (20,000.00)* (20,000.00)
Liquidated Damages --------- I---------- --------- o.oo** 0.00
Non-participating Costs (350.00) (840.00) /I ,200.00) (1 6.000.00) /18.390.00)
Total Federal Participating Costs to Date $4,475.60 $9,425.80 $7,090.00 $1 14,652.00 $135,643.40
Less: Participating Costs on previous invoice $2,120.95 $6.350.20 - 0.00 $98.23 1.00 $106,702.15
Change in Participating Costs $2,354.65 $3,075.60 $7,090.00 $16,421.00 $28,941.25
Reimbursement Ratio 88.53%
(federal and/or state) $25,621.68 Federal reimbursement State reimbursement 0.00
Amount of this claim $25,621.68***
Page 5-19
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-A Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample Federal-aid Invoice (Except for TEA and STIP Projects)
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminaw Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs: FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1185.07
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)
Approved indirect cost rate 3 1% 33%
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.
****
0
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
(PREPARE ON LETTERHEAD OF LOCAL AGENCY)
WITH TWO APPROPRIATIONS & DIFFERENT REIMBURSEMENT RATES (EXCEPT FOR TEA & STIP PROJECTS)
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 CityICounty:
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 Location: 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 Total
Engineering Engineering Acquisition Contract
Federal Appropriations Code Q24 424 Q24 424 Federal Authorization Date 5/12/99 6/5/99 51 1 2/99 6/5/99
Federal participating costs from 511 5/99 6/15/99 5/15/99 611 5/99
To 711 5/99 8130199 8/30/99 8130199
Total Indirect Costs to Date $825.00 $1,865.50 ______-__-I ------- $2,690.50
Total Direct Costs to Date $4,000.60 $8,400.30 $8,290.00 $150,652.00 $171,342.90 Less: Retention -_--_-_-__ ----------- -----I------ (20,000.00)* (20,000.00) ----------- ---------I--- o.oo** 0.00
Non-participating Costs (350.00) (840.00) ~1.200.00~ (16.000.00) (18.390.00)
Total Federal Participating Costs to Date $4,475.60 $9,425.80 $7,090.00 $1 14,652.00 $135,643.40
Liquidated Damages -_--_-_I-
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice $2.120.95 $6.350.20 o.00 $98.23 1.00 $106.702.15
Change in Participating Costs $2,354.65 $3,075.60 $7,090.00 $16,421.00 $28,941.25 Reimbursement Ratio 88.53%
Amount of this claim $25,621.68***
Page 5-21 LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-B Sample Federal-aid Invoice With Two Appropriations & Different Reimbursement Rates
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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
INVOICE TOTAL
114 114
51 1 2/99 51 1 2/99
511 5/99 511 5/99
711 5/99 8130199
$3,200.00 $6,625.25
o.00 - 0.00
$3,200.00 $6,625.25
114 5/12/99
0.00
114
511 2/99
511 5/99
8130199
--------- $1,875.25
$63,240.00 $71,190.00
(6,324.00)* (6,324.00) o.oo** 0.00
(9,500.00) J9.500.00)
$47,4 1 6 .OO $5 7,24 1.25
o.00 - 0.00
$47,416.00 $57,241.25
80%
$45,793 .OO***
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminary Engineering Indirect Costs (024):
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
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 Q24 Preliminary Engineering column)
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs CQ24133D):
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1 185.07
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 Q24/33D Construction Engineering column)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Preliminaw Engineering Indirect Costs (1 14):
Direct Cost Base Expense $972.00 $602.07
Subtotal ***+ $301.32 $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 EngineerinP Indirect Costs (1 14):
Direct Cost Base Expense $3 174.78 $1 185.07
Subtotal **** $984.18 $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)
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
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
Sample Federal-aid Invoice With Two Appropriations & Different Reimbursement Rates
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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
Billing No:
Invoice No:
State Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by CitylCounty: Project Location:
Expenditure Authorization No.
(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.
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 ?.a. Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date Number,
Preliminary Construction
Engineering Engineering
Total Indirect Costs to Date $825.00 $1,865.50
Total Direct Costs to Date $4,000.60 $8,400.30
Less: Retention --------_--- ----------
Non-participating Costs (350.00) (840.00)
Total State Participating Costs
to Date $4,475.60 $9,42530
Liquidated Damages ----------- ------I----
Right of Way/ Construction Total
Acquisition Contract
---l_l--- $2,690.50
$8,290.00 $150,652.00 $171,342.90
-----I-- (20,000.00)* (20,000.00) ---------- O.OO** . 0.00
{1.200.00) (1 6.000.00) [18.390.00)
$7,090.00 $1 14,652.00 $135,643.40
Less: Participating Costs on previous
invoice $2,120.95 $6.350.20 o.00 $98.231.00 $106,702.15
Change in Participating Costs $2,354.65 $3,075.60 $7,090.00 $16,42 1 .OO $28,941.25
Reimbursement Ratio 0.75 Amount of this claim $21,705.93
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminaw Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Subtotal *** $602.64 $222.3 6 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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1 185.07
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)
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Page 5-25
LPP 00-02 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 (Le., 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, Le., 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
SAMPLE RIGHT OF WAY INVOICE
(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 CityICounty:
Project Location: Expenditure Authorization No.
(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.
Supplement No., Number , executed on Date ,
Number , Program
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
Phase 9 Phase 2
Capital Incidental
33D 33D
5/12/99 511 2/99
511 5/99 5/ 15/99
711 5/99 71 15/99
$4,147.00
$1,133,907.00 $243,642.00
(20,750.00) (64,356.00)
$1,113,157.00 $183,433.00
-------------
$980,165.00 $150,794.00
$132,992.00 $32,639.00
88.53% 88.53%
$1 17,737.81* - $28,895.30*
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT $146,633.1 1
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Right of Wav Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $10740.49
Subtotal ** $602.64 $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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
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 Agencv name for the
LPP 00-02
Page 5-27
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-D
Sample Right of Way Invoice
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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 offrcial capacity as Title , pursuant to Section 1.3 1 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 Citv, Countv 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
EXHIBIT 5-E Local Assistance Procedures Manual Sample of %TIP 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 City, CA Zip Code
(For Final Invoice)
Name, District Director Attn: Name, Local Assistance Engineer
Department of Transportation
Street or P.O. Box
Billing No:
Invoice No:
Federal-aid Project No: Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by City/County:
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 Location: Project Limits
Reimbursement for Federal funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No. Number,
Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date.
Environmental PS&E Construction Construction Studies & Engineering
Permits
Federal Appropriations Code Q24/33D Q24/33D Q24/33D Q24/33D Federal Authorization Date 5/12/99 5/12/99 61 lot99 61 1 0199
Federal participating costs from 511 5/99 611 5/99 6/ 15/99 611 5/99 To 811 5/99 8/15/99 8/ 15/99 811 5/99
Total Indirect Costs to Date $825.00 $1,865.50 $2,690.50 -----1
Total Direct Costs to Date $4,000.60 $8,400.30 $8,290.00 $150,652.00
---------- o.oo** Non-participating Costs (350.00) (840.00) (1.200.00) (16.000.00)
Total Federal Participating Costs
to Date $4,475.60 $9,425.80 $9,780.50 $1 14,652.00
Less: Retention -------- _--_-__-_ ---------- (20,000.00)* Liquidated Damages --------- ---------I
Less: Participating Costs on previous invoice $2.120.95 $6,350.20 o.00 $98.231.00
Change in Participating Costs $2,354.65 $3,075.60 $9,780.50 $16,42 1 .OO
Reimbursement Ratio 88.53% 88.53% 88.53% 88.53%
Amount of this claim $2,084.57*** $2,722.82*** $8,658.67*** $14,537.51***
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT $2 8,003.57
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Environmental Studies & Permits Indirect Costs:
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000 Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
Subtotal **** $602.64 $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)
Approved indirect cost rate 3 1% 33%
LPP 00-02
Page 5-29
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-E
Sample of “STIP Project” Federal Invoice
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
PS&E Indirect Costs: FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1 185.07
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:
Direct Cost Base Expense $6000.00 $25 16.67
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)
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
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 %TIP 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:
Invoice No:
Tax Identification No: Date Project Accepted by City/County:
Expenditure Authorization No.
1,2 ..., or Final Local Agency’s Invoice No.
Agency IRS ID Number
Final Date or “Ongoing” if not Final
State Project No: Prefix-Proj. No.
Project Location: Project Limits
Reimbursement for State Program funds is claimed pursuant to Local Agency-State Agreement No.
Program Supplement No., Number, executed on Date
Number,
Environmental PS&E Right of Way/ Construction Total
Studies & Acquisition including CE
Permits
Total Indirect Costs to Date $825.00 $1,865.50 ---------- $4,323.22 $7,013.72
Total Direct Costs to Date $4,000.60 $8,400.30 $8,290.00 $150,652.00 $171,342.90
Less: Retention ---------- ____I_-_-_- ----------- (20,000.00)* (20,000.00) Liquidated Damages ----------- -------- --I---- o.oo** 0.00
Non-participating Costs (350.00) (840.00) /1.200.00) (16,000.00) (18.390.00)
Total State Participating Costs to Date $4,475.60 $9,425.80 $7,090.00 $1 18,975.22 $139,966.62
Less: Participating Costs on previous invoice $2,120.95 $6,350.20 - 0.00 $98.23 1.00 $106,702.15
Change in Participating Costs $2,354.65 $3,075.60 $7,090.00 $20,744.22 $33,261.47
Reimbursement Ratio 0.75
Amount of this claim $24,946.10
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Environmental Studies & Permits Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
Subtotal *** $602.64 $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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 3 1% 33%
Page 5-31
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-F
Sample of “STIP Project” State Invoice
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
PS&E Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1 185.07
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)
FY 1998-1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 3 1% 33%
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $9500.00 $4176.43
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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
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: Invoice No:
Federal-aid Project No:
Tax Identification No:
Date Project Accepted by CityICounty:
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 Location: 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
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)
Amount of this claim
Q22/33B Q22/33B Q22/33B Q22/33B 5/12/99 6/5/99 5/ 12/99 6/5/99
511 5/99 6/15/99 51 15/99 6/15/99
711 5/99 711 5/99 7/15/99 7/15/99
$4,475.60 $9,425.80 $7,090.00 $1 14,652.00
$2,120.95 $6,350.20 - 0.00 $98.23 1 .OO
$2,354.65 $3,075.60 $7,090.00 $16,42 1 .OO
88.53% 8 8.53 Yo 88.53% 88.53%
$2,084.57*** $2,722.82*** $6,276.77*** $14,537.51***
TOTAL INVOICE AMOUNT $25,62 1.67
Page 5-33
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-G Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Sample of TEA Projects Invoice
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminarv Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs: FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1 185.07
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, Le., 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 5-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
Billing No:
Invoice No:
Federal-aid Project No:
Tax Identification No: Date Project Accepted by CityICounty:
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
(Federal and/or State)
Federal Reimbursement
State Reimbursement Amount of this claim
Preliminary Construction Construction Total Engineering Engineering Contract *****
33D/33 C 3 3D/33C 33DI33C 1/15/99
3/1/99 7130199
$825.00
$4,000.60
(350.00)
$4,475.60
$2.120.95
$2,354.65
2/ 1 0199
3/1/99
7130199
$1,865.50
$8,400.30
________I---_- --------------
(840.00)
$9,425.80
$6.350.20
$3,075.60
2/10/99
3/ 1 199
1/30/99
I------- $2,690.50
$200,000.10 $212,401.00
o.oo** 0.00
(16.000.00) J17.190.00)
(20,000.00)* (20,000.00)
$164,000.10 $177,901.50
$98.231.00 $106.702.15
$65,769.10 $7 1,199.35
88.53%
$63,032.78
0.00
$63,032.78***
ADJUSTMENT OF STATE FUNDS FOR ESTIMATED CONTRACT PAYMENTS
Total of this claim
Estimate Previously Invoiced for the month
Difference (positive or negative amount)
INVOICE TOTAL
Less:
Plus: Estimate for next month
$63,032.78 $80,000.00
($16,967.22)
$100,000.00
%83.032.78
Page 5-35
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-H
Alternative Payment Procedure Sample
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
INDIRECT COST CALCULATION
Preliminaxv Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $1944.00 $673.82
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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 31% 33%
Construction Engineering Indirect Costs:
Direct Cost Base Expense $4756.23 $1 185.07
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)
FY 1998- 1999 FY 1999-2000
Approved indirect cost rate 3 1% 33%
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
suu .pm*.:
AYERICIH SAW
Anuw
Oomrn'S One.... ........... H.Sllh Smr _. ...............
PrLs .nd RuieaCm. ...- Pdce ....................... P& WQCS ............-
................... ....._..... Ir*ron. .............. .-... " .......
AWMSU
^ ............................ ws
P#fha,mdlnuhm ............................................. " 001
payII*on con*& .nd Ecolopr .............................. €PA ................. OOL
/ Vol. Sl, No. 3 / Mondny, January 6,1088 / NoUcer 6,
COWWANT MEW A8Slomrwrr FW %ST
AuoutKm Urroar OMB QnaKAR A-87
AND FOR SI- Auon UNDER OM6 QRCU-
UR A-128-Cof1W
NdldmdoNgAhw
Fed ud -._. ................................ Fm ........................................ ....... GwalmfS o(lia "............... ......... .-...-..... ..." Dw Mdal ........ ...-........... .. .-... .......... nns ~mdcuNnuqD.r*opwM ....,a. ...... MJa c&*kl R.(rTa ...." . .......- ..-....-.." .-... Doc
Pd~E&dlnCannWal _.-.... ED -.ndn.wrchowa ................l-.-..... MIO Rwwon-._. -" ..--. "._* -... . ED Roaawcvs _._._...__"I."I.____I___.. EPA sxkl1.rrtsn ...... "._-*..."...".".."--" ......-.- ms
Eold We 8oud.-,.-.-........... EPA Tn- ._I._..._-.._.I._.. . ..-.......... .. OOT V-Mwa .......................................... VA W.c R- bn.ol Bovd ......_.._. EPA Yaum AulhaRy .......................
Alulwd.: cum*
Dma ucomr.." .......-.... . -.......--....----.. "S' HrwHmul savka ..._.._-_.~-..---.. Hms pcrinD ...... ...-..---....---... ................. Mo rmbrum ........... '.......".I...-" ...-....... I-." Dw sh.r[ll..-.. "...*_.." I.._....__..." -..-.. .......... Dw soda* ,....-.......- ....." ....-.-...-. nw
sk.(r ................................................ om
.
~ndsriaC4ham/srlvl#r., MM' --- --..- WD
. mum ._....-..... .. ..-...... suds anmu/---." -..... . ---. ..... )(Hs SMI1--.. .__,..___.__...._.._._.. . .........-.--.-. HIW RlrrJd. .-... ...... ..I.._." _......-...--... . ...... tws S.cnmn(0." . ...._....... .. ...-. . .. ClS SmlnBmrOno: bmnulk#DonkQmml --..--I.." ......,..-... Hllo E-W Abl* WaLI -.....-___I._I.... €PA
LPP 00-02
Page 5-37
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-1
Cognizant Federal Agencies
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Page 15-38
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 5-5
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 11. This plan was prepared by the Local Agency nume and approved by Caltrans.
SECTION I: Rates
Rate TvPe 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 11: 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 determinehither by the grantee’s Single Audit or if a
Single Audit is not required, then by the grantee’s audited financial statement-ny 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.
LPP 00-02
Page 5-39
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 5-J
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
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 (44 1.989)
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:
Title: Title:
Date of Execution: Phone:
Name of Official:
INDIRECT COST RATE APPROVAL
The State DOT has reviewed this indirect cost plan and hereby approves the plan.
Signature Signature
Reviewed and Approved by:
(Name of Audit Manager)
Title: Title:
Date: Date:
Phone Number: Phone Number:
Reviewed and Approved by:
(Name of auditor)
Page 5-41 LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
cu m .E s
+o
Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 54
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Local Agency Name
FY 1997 BUDGET
DIRECT INDIRECT UNALLOWED TOTAL
COSTS COSTS COSTS BUDGET
Salaries Fringe Benefits
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
5,034,970 1,214,698
1,697,910 417,485
Total 6,732,880 1,632,183
6,249,668
2,115,395
8,365,063
11,037,468 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
Subtotal 1 1,037,468 1,286,264
TOTAL BUDGET 17,770,348 2,918,447
Depreciation
TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS
250,000
$ 3,168,447
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
For the sake of simplicity, this sample does not include any central service costs carried forward from a
Central Service Cost Allocation Plan. See ASMB C-10 for a sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal which
includes central service costs and a sample Central Service Cost Allocation Plan.
LPP 0902
Page 5-43
March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 54
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
FY 1 995
REVENUES
Sales Taxes under Transportation Development Act:
Planning
Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
State Department of Transportation
Grants:
Project revenues from state and local agencies
Interest
Other
Total Revenues
EXPENSES:
Operating:
Salaries and benefits
Travel
Printing and reproduction
Professional fees
Computer charges
Overhead
Contributions to other agencies
Other
Total Expenses
EXCESSOFREVENUESOVEREXPENSES
FUND BALANCE, Beginning of Year
FUND BALANCE, End of year
$ 5,312,475
88541 0
4,926,640
750,631
51 0
682,542
2,813,359
349,160
863,414
16,584,141
7,082,555
243,331
170,641
2,784,847
54,000
1,482,291
1,044,402
930,155
13,792,222
2,791,919
8,996,570
$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 Indirect Total costs costs 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 8 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 I 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"
carry forward (from FY 1993)
Total Indirect 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
7,480 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 8. Wages plus Fringe Benefits 5,717,283
Approved FY 1995 IC Rate Indirect Costs Recovered 2,864,359
Actual Indirect Costs 2,439,166
"Over absorbed costs 425.193
50.10%
Page 5-45
LPP 00-02 March 6,2000
EXHIBIT 54
Sample Indirect Cost Rate Proposal
Local Assistance Procedures Manual
Page 5-46
March 6,2000 LPP 00-02