HomeMy Public PortalAbout10) 7F Audit RptsCity Council
May 1, 2012
Page2
4. Effective November 4, 2008, Measure R, approved by the electorate, increased the
County Sales Tax by one-half cent to provide for public transportation projects.
Fifteen percent of these funds are allocated to municipalities based on a per capita
basis. Cities have the year of receipt plus three additional years to expend the funds.
5. On June 23, 2011, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Board authorized an amendment to the agreement by replacing the capital reserve
authorization of $5,000,000 in Proposition C funds with $1,500,000 Proposition A
and $7,000,000 Proposition C funds for a total of $8,500,000 in capital reserve. In
addition, the term of the reserve account was extended from June 30, 2011 to June
30, 2014.
6. In December 2011, the firm of Vasquez & Company LLP conducted field work for the
annual audits of Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R and Transportation
Development Act Article 3. A separate audit of the City of Temple City's Proposition
A. Proposition C, Measure R and Transportation Funds is required on an annual
basis by an independent audit firm (Vasquez & Company) contracted and hired by
the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
7. On April 2, 2012, the City received the final audit from Vasquez & Company.
ANALYSIS:
All four audits indicate no financial or compliance issues. The following reports are
presented for your review.
Proposition A
During the FY 2010-11, the City received a total of $640,403 in revenues for Proposition
A funds which includes bus pass sales revenue of $146,587 and interest on income of
$10,347. The total expenditures for FY 2010-11 were $721,977. The City of Temple
City utilized Proposition A funds for the following items:
• Special Service Paratransit;
• Recreation Transit;
• Bus Shelter Maintenance;
• Bus Pass Subsidy;
• Portion of San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments Membership (60%); and
• Direct Administration.
Proposition C
During the FY 2010-11, the City received $419,728 revenues for Proposition C which
also includes interest income of $18,372. There were no Proposition C expenditures for
FY 2010-11.
City Council
May 1 , 2012
Page 3
MeasureR
During the FY 201 0-11, the City received a total of $301 ,393 in revenues for Measure R
funds which also includes interest income of $1,638. There was no expenditure for
Measure R in FY 201 0-11.
Transportation Development Act Article 3
Transportation Development Act Article 3 provides for construction of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities including ADA wheelchair ramps. Transportation Development Act
Article 3 funds are placed on reserve in the Local Transportation Fund Account with the
County Auditor-Controller and are drawn down whenever the funds become eligible for
a specific project.
During the FY 2010-11, the City drew down $26 ,092 from the County Auditor-Controller
in Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funds, earned $13 in interest income and
used $27,565 Transportation Development Act Article 3 funds for the Citywide Bicycle
Master Plan Project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This agenda item does not have a fiscal impact on the FY 2011-12 City Budget.
CONCLUSION:
Staff is recommending that the City Council receive and file the Proposition A,
Proposition C, Measure Rand Transportation Development Act Article 3 Audit Reports
for the year ended June 30, 2011 .
ATTACHMENT:
A. Annual Financial Report of Proposition A, Proposition C, Measure R and
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funds
FINANCIAL SECTION
The Proposition A Local Return Fund, Proposition C Local Return Fund, Measure R Local Return
Fund and the Transportation Development Act Article 3 Fund, of the City has not presented a
Management's Discussion and Analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America have determined is necessary to supplement, although not required to be part of,
the basic financial statements.
The accompanying supplemental information as listed in the table of contents is presented for
purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. The
supplemental information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the
basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the
basic financial statements taken as a whole.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City of Temple City and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and is not intended to be and should not be
used by anyone other than these specified parties.
Los Angeles, California
December 19, 2011
ASSETS
Cash $
Total assets $
City of Temple City
Proposition A Local Return Fund
Balance Sheets
June 30
2011 2010
2,210,456 $ 2,297,764
2,210,456 $ 2,297,764
UABIUTIES AND FUND BALANCE
Uabilities
Accounts payable
Salaries payable
Fund balance
Restricted
$ 101,348
1!504
Total liabilities 102,852
2,107,604
Total fund balance 2,107,604
Total liabilities and fund balance $ 2,210,456
See notes to financial statements.
3
$ 107,094
1,492
108,586
2,189,178
2, 189,178
$ 2,297,764
City of Temple City
Proposition A Local Return Fund
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Revenues
Proposition A $
Project generated revenue
Interest income
Total revenues
Expenditures
Various projects
Total expenditures
Deficiency of revenues over expenditures
Fund balance at beginning of year
Fund balance at end of year $
See notes to financial statements.
4
Years ended June 30
2011 2010
483,469 $ 453,964
146,587 168,878
10!347 14,568
640,403 637,450
721,977 734,565
721,977 734,565
(81,574) (97,115)
2,189,178 2,286,293
2,107,604 $ 2,189,178
Project
Code
130-01
140-02
170-04
250-03
270-02
480-05
City of Temple City
Proposition A Local Return Fund
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Expenditures -Actual and Metro Approved Project Budget-
Year ended June 30, 2011
Actual for 2010
2011
Variance
Metro Positive 2010
Project Name Budget Actual ~Nesative} Actual
Special Service Paratransil $ 420,000 $ 412,282 $ 7,716 $ 410,990
Recreational Transit 46,300 42,926 3,374 33,657
Bus Shelter Maintenance 10,600 8,772 2,026 8,772
User-Side Subsidy 232,320 186,100 46,220 202,686
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments 9,500 9,461 39 9,435
Direct Administration 69,060 62,436 6,624 69,025
Total expenditures $ 787,980 $ 721,977 $ 66,003 $ 734,565
5
Balance
Date July 1,
Acguired Descri(!tion 2010
08/05/08 Form E350 Van $ 25,799
Total $ 25,799
6
$
$
City of Temple City
Proposition A Local Return Fund
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Capital Assets
Year ended June 30, 2011
Balance
June 30,
Additions Deletions 2011
- $ - $ 25,799
- $ - $ 25.799
ASSETS
Cash $
Total assets $
City of Temple City
Proposition C Local Return Fund
Balance Sheets
June 30
2011
4,071,338 $
4,071,338 $
2010
3,651,610
3,651,610
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Accounts payable
Fund balance
Restricted
$ - $
Total liabilities $ -----_-$-----
Total fund balance
Total liabilities and fund balance $
-----
4,071,338
4,071,338
4,071,338 $
See notes to financ;at statements.
7
3,651,610
3,651,610
3,651,610
City of Temple City
Proposition C Local Return Fund
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Revenues
Proposition C $
Interest income
Total revenues
Expenditures
Various projects
Total expenditures
Excess of revenues over expenditures
Fund balance at beginning of year
Fund balance at end of year $
See notes to financial statements.
8
Years ended June 30
2011 2010
401,356 $ 376,599
18,372 22,364
419,728 398,963
16,333
16,333
419,728 382,630
3,651,610 3,268,980
41071,338 $ 3,651,610
ProJect
City of Temple City
Proposition C Local Return Fund
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Expenditures -Actual and Metro Approved Project Budget
Year ended June 30, 2011
Actual for 201 0
2011
Variance
Metro Positive 2010
Code Project Name Budget Actual (Neaativel Actual
3,500,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 $ 16,333
3,500,000 $ - $ 3,500,000 $ 16,333
380-11 Rosemead Boulevard Improvement Project $-~~~~
Total expenditures$-.;;..:.;;~.;;.;;.;;;.. -----_..-;;..;;..;;.;.;..;...;;..
9
Date
Acquired
None
Description
Balance
July 1,
2010
City of Temple City
Proposition C Local Return Fund
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Capital Assets
Year ended June 30, 2011
Additions Deletions
Balance
June 30,
2011
$ ________ $ ________ $ ________ $ ______ __
Total$ -$ -$ -$----
10
Cash
Liabilities
ASSETS
$
Total assets $
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
City of Temple City
Measure R Local Return Fund
Balance Sheets
June 30
2011 2010
528,416 $ _ ____;;;2;,;;;.27,;_:,,.;;.:02::..:3~
528,416 $ ==-......;;2-27..,.,....,02.,.3"==
Accounts payable $ _________ -_$ ________ __
Fund balance
Restricted
Total liabilities
Total fund balance
Total liabilities and fund balance $
11
528,416 227 ,023
528,416 227,023
528,416 $ ====-2_2.,;7 '=02=3=
City of Temple City
Measure R Local Return Fund
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Years ended June 30
2011 2010
Revenues
MeasureR $ 299,755 $ 226,592
Interest income 1,638 431
Total revenues 301,393 227,023
Expenditures
Various projects
Total expenditures
Excess of revenues over expenditures 301,393 227,023
Fund balance at beginning of year 227,023
Fund balance at end of year $ 528,416 $ 227,023
12
Date
Acquired
None
Description
Balance
July1 ,
2010
13
City of Temple City
Measure R Local Return Fund
Schedule of Capital Assets
Additions Deletions
Balance
June 30,
2011
City of Temple City
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Fund
Balance Sheets -
Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 99234
June 30
2011 2010
ASSETS
Due from LACMT A $ ____ -=26~·~09~2~$ ______ ~7,~89~5~
Total assets $ 26,092 $ 7,895 =========--=======~--
LIABILITlES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities
Due to General Fund
Fund balance (deficit)
Restricted
$ ______ 27~,_55~2_$ ______ ~7~,8~9~5-
Totalliabilities 27,552 7,895
(1 ,460)
Total fund balance (1 ,460)
Total liabilities and fund balance $ ===......;;2-6,_,0;.;;9:::2:::.$ ====-•7-=,8=9==5=
See notes to financial statements.
14
City of Temple City
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Fund
Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
Revenues
Intergovernmental Allocations:
Article 3
Interest income
Expenditures
Construction
Total revenues
Total expenditures
Deficiency of revenues over expenditures
Fund balance at beginning of year
$
Years ended June 30
2011 2010
26,092 $ 7,895
13
26,105 7,895
27,565 7,895
27,565 7,895
(1 ,460)
Fund balance at end of year $=====(1=·=46=0=)$-----====
See notes to financial statements.
15
City of Temple City
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Fund
Supplemental Information
Schedule of Transportation Development Act Allocation for Specific Projects
Year ended June 30, 2011
Totals lo Date
Program Unexpended Project
Project Description Year Allocations Expenditures Allocations Status
Local Allocations:
Comprehensive Citywide Bicycle Master Plan 2011 $ 26,092 $ 27 ,565 $ {1,473} Ongoing
Totals $ 26,092 $ 27 ,565 (1,473)
U1expended interest accumulated to date 13
Fund balance at beginning of year
Fund balance at end of year $ p.460l
16
NOTE 1
NOTE 2
NOTE3
City of Temple City
Notes to Financial Statements
Years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accounting
The operations of the Proposition A Local Return Fund (PALRF), Proposition C
Local Return Fund (PCLRF), Measure R Local Return Fund (MRLRF) and
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Fund (TDAA3F) are accounted for in
separate sets of self-balancing accounts that comprise their assets, liabilities, fund
balance, revenue and expenditures.
PALRF and PCLRF represent 25% and 20%, respectively, of the ~ cent
Proposition A and ~ cent Proposition C sales taxes which are distributed to the
jurisdictions within Los Angeles County based on population and must be used
exclusively for transportation related programs and projects.
MRLRF represents 15% of a ~ cent sales tax which are distributed to the
jurisdictions within Los Angeles County based on a per capita basis and must be
used exclusively for transportation purposes.
TDAA3F is a Special Revenue Fund that accounts for the City's share of the
Transportation Development Act Article allocations which are legally restricted for
specific purposes.
Basis of Accounting
PALRF, PCLRF , MRLRF and the TDAA3F are accounted for using the modified
accrual basis of accounting whereby revenues are recognized when they become
both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period and
expenditures are generally recognized when the related fund liabilities are incurred.
ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
The financial statements reflect only the financial position and results of operations
of the PALRF, PCLRF, MRLRF and TDAA3F and their compliance with the
Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return Program Guidelines, Measure R
Local Return Guidelines, Transportation Development Act Article 3 and the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Funding and Allocation
Guidelines for Transportation Development Act Article 3 Bicycle and Pedestrian
Funds.
PROPOSITION A AND PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN COMPLIANCE
REQUIREMENT
In accordance with Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return Program
Guidelines, funds received pursuant to these guidelines may only be used for
Proposition A and Proposition C Local Return approved programs.
17
NOTE4
NOTE5
NOTES
NOTES
NOTE 7
City of Temple City
Notes to Financial Statements
Years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010
MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT
In accordance with Measure R Local Return Program Guidelines, funds received
pursuant to these guidelines may only be used for Measure R local Return
approved programs.
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
In accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 99234, funds received pursuant to
this Code's section may only be used for activities relating to pedestrians and
bicycle facilities.
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS
The PALRF, PCLRF, MRLRF and TDAA3F cash and cash equivalents balances
were pooled with various other City funds for deposit and investment purposes.
The share of each fund in the pooled cash and cash equivalent account was
separately maintained and interest income was apportioned to the participating
funds based on the relationship of their average monthly balances to the total of
the pooled cash and investments.
PROJECT GENERATED REVENUE
PALRF's project generated revenue for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010
represents bus pass sales amounting to $146,587 and $168,878, respectively.
CAPITAl RESERVE
On July 1, 2006, LACMTA and the City entered into capital reserve agreements to
establish a capital reserve account (Account) amounting to $5,000,000 for the
Rosemead Boulevard Street Improvements project.
The Account will be funded with the Proposition C Local Return funds allocated to
the City. All interest shall be accrued and placed in the Account for use exclusively
for the said projects. On June 23, 2011, the LACMTA Board authorized an
amendment to the agreement by replacing the capital reserve authorization of
$5,000,000 in Proposition C funds with $1,500,000 Proposition A and $7,000,000
Proposition C funds for a total of $8,500,000 in capital reserve. In addition , the term
of the reserve account was extended to June 30, 2014 .
For the year ended June 30, 2011 and 2010, following is the capital reserve
amount for PCLRF:
Capital reserve at 07/01/09
Additional reserve during the year
Capital reserve at 06/30/1 0
Additional reserve during the year
Capital reserve at 6/30/11
18
$ 3,268,980
382,630
3,651,610
419,728
$ 4,071,338
NOTE 8
NOTE9
NOTE 10
City of Temple City
Notes to Financial Statements
Years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND REVENUE ALLOCATION
The revenue allocation for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 consisted of
the following:
FY 2007/08 reserve
FY 2008/09 reserve
$
$
2011
13,824 $
12,268
2010
7,895
26,092 $ ___ ......;..? •:.;;.8.;;.;95:;_
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS RESERVED
In accordance with TDA Article 3 (SB821) Guidelines, funds which will not be spent
during the fiscal year have been placed on reserve in the Local Transportation
Fund (L TF) account with the County Auditor-Controller to be drawn down whenever
the funds become eligible for a specific project and an approved drawdown request
is received by Metro. As of June 30, 2011 and 2010, the City has funds on reserve
as follows:
FY 2007/08 reserve $
FY 2008/09 reserve
FY 2009/1 0 reserve
FY 201 0/11 allocation
Available reserve balance $
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
2011
8,327
15,403
14,391
38,121 ---..;,;~,;_
2010
$ 13,824
20,595
15,403
$ 49,822
The City has evaluated subsequent events through December 19, 2011, the date
the financial statements were available to be issued, and concluded no events
have occurred that require disclosure or adjustments to the financial statements.
19
II VASQUEZ I ~ &. COMPANY LLP
t l\nflrO rlJ&liC./\((OU~lA'"TS AND blJSIJrr,lS~ COX ~lh l A!'fl\
801 Soulti Q>and Avenue. Suite 400 • Los Ansetes. CA 90017-4646 • Ph . (213) 629·9094 • Tax (213) 996-4242 • www.v~uez.cpa.com
Report of Independent Auditors on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements
Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
To the Honorable Members of the City Council of the
City of Temple City, California and the
los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
We have audited the financial statements of the Proposition A Local Return Fund , Proposition C
Local Return Fund, MeasureR Local Return Fund and the Transportation Development Act Article 3
Fund , of the City of Temple City, California (Ci ty) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011 and
have issued our report thereon dated December 19 , 2011. We conducted our audits in accordance
w ith auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards
applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Management of the City of Temple is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal
control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audits , we considered the City's
in ternal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the
purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing
an opin ion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we
do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control over financ ial reporting .
A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow
management or employees , in the normal course of performing their assigned funct ions, to prevent ,
or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a
combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possi bility that a
material misstatement of the financial statements wi ll not be prevented , or detected and corrected on
a timely basis .
Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in
the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control
over financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses.
We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we cons ider to be
material weaknesses, as defined above .
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City's Proposition A local Return
Fund, Proposition C Local Return Fund , Measure R Local Return Fund and Transportation
Development Act Article 3 Fund, financial statements are free of material misstatement, we
performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations , contracts , and grant
agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination
of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions
was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opin ion . The results of
our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported
under Government Auditing Standards.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City and the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone
other than these specified parties.
v'i:d-.. Cv-ro-~_d
Los Angeles, California
December 19, 2011
COMPLIANCE SECTION
" a V A S Q U E Z l l . : l ) & C O M P A N Y L L P
C l l l . ' t l r i [ O t U B t i C A C ( " O U : - o ' T , . , . . . ~ l i - " 1 0 f l U S I . . . . l S ' S o C O " ' o 5 U l 1 A I I . ; f S
8 0 1 S o u t h G r a n d A v e n u e , S t i l l e 4 0 0 " l o s A n g e l e s . C A 9 0 0 1 7 � 4 6 4 6 " P h . ( 2 1 3 ) 6 2 9 � 9 0 9 4 " F a x ( 2 1 3 ) 9 9 6 - 4 Z 4 Z " w w w . v 4 1 5 q u c z c p a . c o m
R e p o r t o f I n d e p e n d e n t A u d i t o r s
T o t h e H o n o r a b l e M e m b e r s o f t h e C i t y C o u n c i l o f t h e
C i t y o f T e m p l e C i t y , C a l i f o r n i a a n d t h e
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y
W e h a v e a u d i t e d t h e c o m p l i a n c e o f t h e C i t y o f T e m p l e C i t y , C a l i f o r n i a ( C i t y ) w i t h t h e P r o p o s i t i o n A
a n d P r o p o s i t i o n C L o c a l R e t u r n G u i d e l i n e s , M e a s u r e R L o c a l R e t u r n G u i d e l i n e s , T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
D e v e l o p m e n t A c t A r t i c l e 3 a n d t h e L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y ' s
F u n d i n g a n d A l l o c a t i o n G u i d e l i n e s f o r T r a n s p o r t a t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t A c t A r t i c l e 3 B i c y c l e a n d
P e d e s t r i a n F u n d s ( G u i d e l i n e s ) f o r t h e y e a r e n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 . M a n a g e m e n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e
C i t y ' s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s . O u r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s t o e x p r e s s a n o p i n i o n o n t h e C i t y ' s
c o m p l i a n c e b a s e d o n o u r a u d i t s .
W e c o n d u c t e d o u r a u d i t s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e G u i d e l i n e s a n d a t t e s t a t i o n s t a n d a r d s p u b l i s h e d b y
t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f C e r t i f i e d P u b l i c A c c o u n t a n t s a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , i n c l u d e d e x a m i n i n g , o n a
t e s t b a s i s , e v i d e n c e a b o u t t h e C i t y ' s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d p e r f o r m i n g s u c h o t h e r
p r o c e d u r e s a s w e c o n s i d e r e d n e c e s s a r y i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . W e b e l i e v e t h a t o u r a u d i t s p r o v i d e a
r e a s o n a b l e b a s i s f o r o u r o p i n i o n . O u r a u d i t s d o n o t p r o v i d e a l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o n t h e C i t y ' s
c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h o s e r e q u i r e m e n t s .
I n o u r o p i n i o n , e x c e p t a s n o t e d i n t h e C o m p l i a n c e M a t r i x , t h e C i t y o f T e m p l e C i t y c o m p l i e d , i n a l l
m a t e r i a l r e s p e c t s , w i t h t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e y e a r e n d e d J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 1 1 .
T h i s r e p o r t i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d u s e o f t h e C i t y o f T e m p l e C i t y a n d L o s A n g e l e s
C o u n t y M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A u t h o r i t y a n d i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o b e a n d s h o u l d n o t b e u s e d b y
a n y o n e o t h e r t h a n t h e s e s p e c i f i e d p a r t i e s .
. ; ~ . . t . - r o t _ L i '
L o s A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a
D e c e m b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 1
Compliance Requirements
A. Proposition A an d Proposition c
Local Return Funds
1. Timely use offunds
2. Project was approved before
expenditures were incurred.
3. Expenditures did not exceed
25% of Metro's approved
bud!=let.
4. Administrative expenses are
within the 20% cap.
5. All on-going and carryover
projects were reported in Form
B.
6. Annual Project Summary
Report (Form B) was
submitted on time.
7. Annual Expen diture Report
(Form C) was submitted on
time.
8. Cash or cash equivalents are
maintained.
9. Accounting procedures, record
keeping and documentation
are adequate.
B. Measure R Local Return Fund
1. Funds were expended for
transportation purposes.
2. Funds were used to augment,
not supplant existing local
revenues being used for
transportation purposes unless
there is a fund ing shortfall.
3. Signed Assurances and
Understandings on file.
In
ComJiiance
Yes No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N/A
N/A
X
23
Questioned
Costs
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
City of Temple City
Compliance Matrix
Year ended June 30, 2011
If no, provide details and
management response.
No expenditures in FY 2011 .
Compliance Requirements
B. Measure R Local Return Fund
4. Separate Measure R Local
Return Account was
established.
5. Revenues received including
allocations , project generated
revenues and interest income
were properly credited to the
Measure R LR Account.
6 . Funds were expended with
MTA's approval.
7 . Form One (Expenditure Plan}
was submitted on time .
8 . Form Two (Expenditure Report)
was submitted on time .
9 . Timely use of funds.
1 O.Administrative expenses are
within the 20 % cap.
11. Fund exchanges were
approved by MTA.
12. A separate account was
established for Capital reserve
funds and Capital reserve was
approved by MTA.
13. Recreational transit form was
submitted timely.
c . Transportation Development Act
Arti cle 3 Fund
1. Timely use of funds
2. Expenditures were incurred for
activities relating to pedestrian
and bicycle facilities and
amenities.
In
Com)liance
Yes No
X
X
N/A
X
X
X
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
X
24
Questioned
Costs
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
City of Temple City
Compliance Matrix
Year ended June 30 , 2011
If no, provide details and
management response.
EXIT CONFERENCE
City of Temple City
Exit Conference
Year ended June 30 , 2011
An exit conference was held on January 4, 2012 with the City of Temple City representatives. Those
in attendance were
Vasquez & Company LLP representative:
Derrett Lambey -Senior Auditor
City of Temple City representative :
Lee Ma -Accountant
Matters discussed :
Results of the audit disclosed no significant financial and compliance issues.
A copy of this report was forwarded to the following City of Temple City representative(s) for their
comments prior to the issuance of the final report:
Lee Ma -Accountant
25
Vasquez & Company LLP
801 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90017
RE : CITY OF TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT OF THE
PROPOSITION A LOCAL RETURN FUND, PROPOSITION C LOCAL RETURN FUND,
MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN FUND AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT
ARTICLE 3 FUND FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 AND 2010
I have received the annual financial report of the Proposition A Local Return Fund , Proposition C
Local Return Fund, Measure R Local Return Fund and Transportation Development Act Article 3
Fund, for the years ended June 30, 2011 and 2010 for the City of Temple City and agreed with the
contents of the report except as indicated below:
(Attach additional pages if necessary)
Very truly yours,
Name
Title
Date