City of Berkeley June 2014

CITY OF BERKELEY Audit Report SPECIAL GAS TAX STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012 TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF FUND July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012 PROPOSITION 1B FUND July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012 J C OHN HIANG California State Controller June 2014 J C OHN HIANG California State Controller June 30, 2014 The Honorable Tom Bates Mayor of the City of Berkeley 1947 Center Street Berkeley, CA 94704 Dear Mayor Bates: The State Controller’s Office audited the City of Berkeley’s Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012. We also audited the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012, as well as reviewed the Proposition 1B Fund recorded in the Proposition 1B Fund for the period of July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012. Our audit found that the city accounted for and expended its Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund in compliance with requirements, and that no adjustment to the funds is required. If you have any questions, please contact Steven Mar, Chief, Local Government Audits Bureau, at (916) 324-7226. Sincerely, Original signed by JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD, CPA Chief, Division of Audits JVB/sk cc: Danielle K. Habr, Acting Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager City of Berkeley Steve Mar, Bureau Chief Division of Audits, State Controller’s Office Mike Spalj, Audit Manager Division of Audits, State Controller’s Office Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic City of Berkeley Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund Contents Audit Report Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1 Objective, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 2 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 2 Follow-Up on Prior Audit Findings ................................................................................. 3 Views of Responsible Official ........................................................................................... 3 Restricted Use .................................................................................................................... 3 Schedule 1—Reconciliation of Fund Balance ...................................................................... 4 Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic City of Berkeley Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund Audit Report Summary The State Controller’s Office audited the City of Berkeley’s Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund—highway users tax—for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012. We also audited the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012, as well as reviewed the Proposition 1B Fund recorded in the Proposition 1B Fund for the period of July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012. Our audit found that the city accounted for and expended its Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund in compliance with requirements, and that no adjustment to the funds is required. Background The State apportions funds monthly from the highway users tax account in the transportation tax fund to cities and counties for the construction, maintenance, and operation of local streets and roads. The highway users taxes derive from state taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuels. In accordance with Article XIX of the California Constitution and Streets and Highways Code section 2101, a city must deposit all apportionments of highway users taxes in its Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund. A city must expend gas tax funds only for street-related purposes. We conducted our audit of the city’s Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund under the authority of Government Code section 12410. Government Code section 14556.5 created a Traffic Congestion Relief Fund in the State Treasury for allocating funds quarterly to cities and counties for street or road maintenance, reconstruction, and storm damage repair. Cities must deposit funds received into the city account designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for transportation purposes. The city recorded its TCRF allocations in the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. We conducted our audit of the city’s TCRF allocations under the authority of Revenue and Taxation Code section 7104. Senate Bill 1266, Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, was introduced as Proposition 1B and approved by the voters on November 7, 2006, for a variety of transportation priorities, including the maintenance and improvement of local transportation facilities. Proposition 1B funds transferred to cities and counties shall be deposited into an account that is designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for streets and roads. The city recorded its Proposition 1B Fund allocations in the Proposition 1B Fund. A city also is required to expend its allocations within four years following the end of the fiscal year in which the allocation was made and to expend the allocation in compliance with Government Code section 8879.23. We conducted our review of the city’s Proposition 1B allocations under the authority of Government Code section 12410. -1- Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic City of Berkeley Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund Objective, Scope, Our audit objective was to determine whether the city accounted for and expended the Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, the Traffic and Methodology Congestion Relief Fund, and the Proposition 1B Fund in compliance with Article XIX of the California Constitution and the Streets and Highways Code. To meet the audit objective, we determined whether the city:  Properly deposited highway users tax apportionments and other appropriate revenues in the Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund;  Properly deposited TCRF allocations into an account designated for the receipt of state funds allocated for transportation purposes;  Expended funds exclusively for authorized street-related purposes; and  Made available unexpended funds for future expenditures. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We did not audit the city’s financial statements. We limited our audit scope to planning and performing the audit procedures necessary to obtain reasonable assurance that the city accounted for and expended the Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund in accordance with the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, Revenue and Taxation Code section 7104, and Government Code section 8879.23. Accordingly, we examined transactions, on a test basis, to determine whether the city expended funds for street purposes. We considered the city’s internal controls only to the extent necessary to plan the audit. Our audit found that the City of Berkeley accounted for and expended its Conclusion Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund in compliance with Article XIX of the California Constitution and the Streets and Highways Code for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012. Our audit also found that the city accounted for and expended its Traffic Congestion Relief Fund in compliance with Article XIX of the California Constitution, the Streets and Highways Code, and Revenue and Taxation Code section 7104 for the period of July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012. In addition, our review found that the city accounted for and expended its Proposition 1B Fund allocations recorded in the Proposition 1B Fund, in compliance with Government Code section 8879.23 for the period of July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012. -2- Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic City of Berkeley Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund Follow-Up on Prior The city satisfactorily resolved the findings noted in our prior audit Audit Findings report, issued on October 29, 2003. Views of We discussed the audit results with city representative during an exit conference on June 20, 2014. Danielle K. Habr, Acting Administrative Responsible and Fiscal Services Manager, agreed with the audit results. Ms. Habr Official further agreed that a draft audit report was not necessary and that the audit report could be issued as final. Restricted Use This report is intended for the information and use of the City of Berkeley’s management and the SCO; it is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. This restriction is not intended to limit distribution of this report, which is a matter of public record. Original signed by JEFFREY V. BROWNFIELD, CPA Chief, Division of Audits June 30, 2014 -3- Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund, Traffic City of Berkeley Congestion Relief Fund, and Proposition 1B Fund Schedule 1— Reconciliation of Fund Balance July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012 Special Gas Tax Street Improvement Fund Highway Traffic Users Tax Congestion Proposition Allocations 1 Relief Fund 2 1B Fund 3 Beginning fund balance per city $ 1,429,600 $ 26,352 $ 261,347 Revenues 3,303,553 2 — Total funds available 4,733,153 26,354 261,347 Expenditures (2,471,334) (24,443) (261,347) Ending fund balance per city 2,261,819 1,911 — Ending fund balance per audit $ 2,261,819 $ 1,911 $ — ___________________________ 1 The city receives apportionments from the State highway users tax account, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code sections 2103, 2105, 2106, 2107, and 2107.5. The basis of the apportionments varies, but the money may be used for any street purpose. Streets and Highways Code section 2107.5 restricts apportionments to administration and engineering expenditures, except for cities with populations of fewer than 10,000 inhabitants. Those cities may use the funds for rights-of-way and for the construction of street systems. The audit period was July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012; however, this schedule includes only the period of July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. 2 Government Code section 14556.5 created a Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) in the State Treasury for allocating funds quarterly to cities and counties for street and road maintenance, reconstruction, and storm damage repair. The TCRF allocations were recorded in the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund. The audit period was July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2012. 3 Senate Bill 1266, Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, introduced as Proposition 1B, provided funds for a variety of transportation priorities. The audit period was July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2012. -4- State Controller’s Office Division of Audits Post Office Box 942850 Sacramento, CA 94250-5874 http://www.sco.ca.gov S13-GTA-016