Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D Mike Maggard, Chair Harold Hanson Mark Salvaggio Staff: Darnell ~Haynes SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE BUDGET AND .FINANCE COMMI'n'EE .of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, February 10, 2003, - 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT DECEMBER 2, 2002 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding Audit Reports for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002 - Klimko · Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) · Independent Auditors Report - Single Audit Report - Schedule of Federal Expenditures for the City of Bakersfield · Independent Auditors Report - Compliance with Contractual Requirements relative to the Bakersfield Subregional Wastewater Management Plan Independent Auditors Report on Appropriations Limit Worksheet (GANN Limit) of the City of Bakersfield B. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding landfill closure financial plan - Rojas C. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding Solid Waste Management Program (financial implications of new County fees) - Rojas D. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding proposed 2003 Committee meeting schedule - Haynes 5. ADJOURNMENT S:\Darnel~003Bud&FinCom\bf03febl0agen.doc DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D ~ ~ ,~'C,~'-'- Mike Maggard, Chair Alan Tandy City Manager Harold Hanson Staff: John W. Stinson Mark Salvaggio AGENDA SUMMARY'REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMI'I'rEE SPECIAL MEETING Monday, December 2, 2002 City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL Called to Order at 4:05 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Harold Hanson and Mark Salvaggio 2, ADOPT NOVEMBER 14, 2002, AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4, DEFERRED BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding proposed increase in Kern County Refuse Fees Kern County Waste Management Director Daphne Washington provided a computer presentation regarding the proposed solid waste system fee increases to be implemented on July 1,2003. The presentation included an overview of revenue and expenses to operate the landfill, cost-cutting measures implemented and justification for the increases. Ms. Washington explained the County Waste Management Department has recommended to the Board of Supervisors increasing the following County fees: the land use fee charged to residents (single home) from $57.00 per year to $66.00 per AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT D AFT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, December 2, 2002 Page - 2 - year and the gate fee charged to businesses including the City from $29.00 per ton to $36.00 per ton. The recommendation included lowering vendor bin disposal fees from $2.00 per cubic yard to $1.90 per cubic yard. The proposed plan would increase rates beginning in 2003-04. The fee adjustments are proposed to increase County landfill revenue by 15%. A public hearing before the Kern County Board of Supervisors is set for December 10, 2002, with adoption of the increases by the Board. Attached is a copy of a letter dated December 10, 2002, to the Board of Supervisors from the Kern County Waste Management Department regarding the recommendation for increases. The residential land use and gate fee rate increases have been discussed for sometime at the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and Ad Hoc Committee; however, the rate increases discussed were less than those being proposed today; the land use fee of $57 was to be increased to $63 and the gate fee from $29 per ton to $34 per ton. In late September the Regional Water Quality Control Board notified the County that they intend to require a double composite liner at the Shafter-Wasco landfill and the County then raised the proposed increase on fees higher because of the chance this requirement may be extended to other County waste facilities. Public Works Director Raul Rojas expressed the City understands regulatory requirements and mandates requiring the need for an increase. However, generally you do not give a 24% increase and a 15.8% increase to the consumer all in one year. Rate increases should be phased-in over several years. Originally, when countywide systems were initiated, the City picked up all trash cans twice a week including green waste, brush, and bulky items and everything was included, which was about a two-ton average buried in the landfill. However, currently the City diverts green waste and brush at about 3,~ of a ton per year, which is recycled at City expense. One-page diagram attached. City staff expressed concern because the City directly bills the commercial bin customers and part of the commercial compactors, roll offs and other truck customers who are also proposed to get a 24% increase. This will generate many calls and complaints to the City, when it is the County that is raising the rate. A one-page breakdown of the increases to customers is attached, which shows the increases proposed for Bakersfield will total $1.6 million. The City Manager outlined the points on which City staff fundamentally does not concur with County staff: · There is insufficient time for the City Council to review the Budget and Finance Committee's recommendations as the City Council does not meet until December 11th. There is a hearing scheduled for the December 10th Board of BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, December 2, 2002 Page - 3 - Supervisors meeting, but the Board is also planning to adopt the fees at the same meeting. · The percentage increase of 15.8% for residential customers is too severe and should be phased in over five years. · It is inequitable to charge all groups the same when one group has a green waste program that diverts a large percentage of its green waste and others do not.. · The adjustment in the ton and volume rate that causes the City and our commercial customers to have a 24% rate increase and causes other commercial customers in the County to have a 5% rate decrease may not be totally .inequitable, but City staff believe it is an extremely severe adjustment to make and should be phased-in over five years, which should still provide funds for the County to meet their debt service on the landfill. The 24% increase in the per ton charge will seriously impact the City's budget. · Using mixed revenues to pay for the County's cost at Mt. Vernon is causing Bakersfield residents to double pay. · Using revenue from the County's landfill to pay the County's cost of closing the old landfill is in effect having Bakersfield residents pay part of the County residents' $4 million share of the cost. · The City through our share of blended costs has been paying the County's exclusive costs of administration of haulers, illegal dumping, etc. · The City has been very generous in letting the County pay a break-even rate to utilize our sewer plant capacity (for example CSA 71') and now the County is asking the City to pay many expenses on top of a pure capacity issue on the use of the County landfill. Committee Member Mark Salvaggio explained he voted on the County's behalf and it is his understanding the Regional Water Quality Control Board ha~ reduced some of the requirements. So the additional $2 increases on the landfill use and gate fee the County has initiated due to the Regional Water Quality Control Board action should be reduced. It was discussed that only two cities, Bakersfield and Taft are getting increases and the other seven cities will be getting a reduction, so the other cities in Kern County may not share Bakersfield's concerns. Also the green waste issue may not affect all the other cities. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT DRAFT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, December 2, 2002 Page - 4 - Larry Pennell, City Manager of Wasco spoke. He will take the information and share it with JaSon Caudle, City Manager of Tehachapi, President of Kern County City Manager's Association, who had to leave the meeting early. As the City Council will not meet until the day after the Board of Supervisors December 10th meeting, Committee Member Hanson made a motion to send a letter to the Board of Supervisors from the Budget and Finance Committee outlining and explaining the City's concerns, and also put an item on the December 11th City Council agenda for discussion. The Committee unanimously approved. 6, ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Attendance: City Manager Alan Tandy; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Finance Director Gregory Klimko; Solid Waste Director Kevin Barnes; and Solid Waste Superintendent Sal Moretti Jason Caudle, City Manager of Tehachapi; Larry Pennell, City Manager, City of Wasco; Roland Burkert, Waste Management .Consultant. for Kern County; and Daphne Washington, Director of Waste Management, Kern County cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:\Darnell\02Budget and Finance\02dec02summary ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: January 15, 2003 I AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM: ~. ~,j. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Gregory J. K limko, Finance Director DEPARTMENT HEAD J'~,/~ CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Audit Reports: 1. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. 2. Independent Auditors Report - Single Audit Report- Schedule of Federal Expenditures for the City of Bakersfield for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. 3. Independent Auditors Report - Compliance with Contractual Requirements relative to the Bakersfield Subregional Wastewater Management Plan for the year ended June 30, 2002. 4. Independent Auditors Report on Appropriations Limit Worksheet (GANN Limit) of the City of Bakersfield for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends referral to the Budget and Finance Committee. BACKGROUND: 1. Attached is the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), commonly referred to as the City's Annual Audit Report, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. The CAFR represents the City's financial statements as of June 30, 2002, which are audited by the accounting firm of Brown, Armstrong, Paulden, McCown, Hill, Starbuck & Keeter. 2. Attached is the City's Single Audit Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002. The Single Audit Report pertains to federal program monies expended by the City during the specified fiscal year. An Independent Audit is performed annually to review internal control procedures and compliance with federal guidelines in accordance with Office of Management & Budget(OMB) Circular A-133. This annual audit was performed by Brown, Armstrong, Paulden, McCown, Hill, Starbuck & Keeter as part of their contract to provide auditing services to the City of Bakersfield. The current compliance report issued by the outside auditors indicates that the City complied, in all material respects, with federal grogram guidelines. 3. Contract requirements contained in City of Bakersfield Agreement 76-153 as amended by Agreements 76-153(5), 76-153(4), 77-44, 85-197 and 92-106 apply to operations of the Bakersfield Subregional Wastewater management Plan. The City's compliance with contract requirements is audited on an annual basis. The current Compliance Report, issued by the outside auditors, indicates that the City complied, in all material respects, with the program's guidelines. 1 of 2 S:\KimG\Forms & Lables~Admin--Cafr2002.doc January 3, 2003, 8:11AM ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT 4. Attached is a letter form the City's independent auditors Brown, Armstrong, Paulden, McCown, Hill, Starbuck & Keeter indicating they have completed their annual review of the Appropriations Limit Worksheet prepared by the City in accordance witi'i Section 1.5 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution (GANN Limit). This annual review is performed by the auditors as part of their contract to provide auditing services to the City of Bakersfield. · The agreed upon review procedures are substantially less in scope than an audit and therefore no audit opinion is expressed regarding the calculation. klg 2 of 2 S:\KimG\Forms & Lables~dmin--Cafr2002.doc January 3, 2003, 8:11AM CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2002 (With Auditor's Reports Thereon) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa~e Auditor'S Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ....................................................... 1 Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards .................................................................................... 5 Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ...................................................................... 7 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ..................................................................................... 10 · · · ' '. . .. ...~ :... . .... x-:.~,~ ~-., , .......... ..;..~ · . - .~. . .. _ .,~. ...; .... "' ':~ '" ." ~ '~.~: '.;" '.'. ' ~ ':?" ' ':4... : y;. "; : ' ? ,~.,.:'~ '.~. ~.,~ . . , ' Peter C. B~wn, CPA Burton H. Armstrong, CPA, MST And~w J. Paulden, CPA AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNA~ Han'eyI. M~own, CPA CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON ~ AUDIT Andrea R. Hill, CPA OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE St~v~n ~. Starbuck, CPA WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS A[i~n K. K~ter, CPA · Chds M. Thomburgh. CPA To the Honorable Mayor and Lynn R. Krausse, CFA, MST Members of the City Council Joan M. Anderson, CPA City of Bakersfield, California Bradley M. Hankins, CPA Eric H. Xin, CPA We have audited the financial statements of the City Or Bakersfield, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2002, and have issued our report thereon dated October 3, Melinda A. McDanieis. CPA 2002. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted ~ho- q.¥oun~.Cp.~ ," 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 An, ~. Wil.~m, CPA States. Sharon Jones, CPA, MST Michelle L. Gonzales. CPA Corn pliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City of Bakersfield, Rebecca T~omas, CPA California's, financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of ;Vendv/uan:$wayCP:t. its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of RosalvaFk,res. cr.-\ financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those Bryan!. Lewis, C?A provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an DebbeA Rapp. CP.-\ opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Internal Control Over Financial Reportinrj In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City of Bakersfield, California's. internal control over financial reporting in order to delermine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statemenls and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one.or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively Iow level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses.. i., 1 / This report is intended for the information of the audit committee, management and federal awarding · agencies and pass-through entities. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN McCOWN HILL STARBUCK & KEETER ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION Bakersfield, California October 3, 2002 ;urton H..~rmstmng, (P.~, MST xndm~* J. Paul&n, ~UDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS (a~'eyJ. ~l~own,~R~ ~PPLICABLE TO E~CH MAJOR PRO6R~M AND INTERNAL ,nam R. Hill, C~ COHTROC OVER COMPLIANCE IN ~ccORD~NCE WITH ·teven R. $tarbuck, CPA OM B CIRCULAR A*133 To the Honorable ~ayor end ~h6s M. ~0mburgh, ~P.~ ~embers or the City Council .ynn R. Krau~e, CPA, MST City of Bakersfield, California can M. ,~nde~on, ~radlev ~1. Hankins. (P.~Compliance ~ricH. Xin,(R~ We have audited ~e compliance of the City of Bakersfield, California, with the types of compliance requirements described in the U. S. O~ce or ~ana~ement and Budqet ,leiinda.4.~kDaniels.(pA (OM~} Circular A*~ 32 Compliance Supplement that are applicable to each of its major · o- ',.~t,ung, CP.~' federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2002. The City of Bakersfield's major ~; ....wiiso~,c~.~ federal programs are identified in the summa~ of auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the 9ha~nlo,es, CP.~.~ST requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to each of its major ,[icheileL. Conzal~.Cp.~ federal programs is the responsibility of the City of Bakersfield's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the City of Bakersfield's compliance based on {ebecca Thomas, CPR OUr audit. ,¥endy ~uan-%'av, CP.-~ (0s, lv.]Flores, CP.-k We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits 3~'an.I Le,,~, C~.-~ contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the .~e~i,..~. ~.,r~.cr.-~ United States; and OMB Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- ~rofit Orqanizations." Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and ~,~e.~..~,.tL c~.~ pedorm the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis. evidence about the City of Bakersfield, California's compliance with those requirements and pedorming such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination on the City of Bakersfield's compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the City of Bakersfield, California, complied, in all material respects, with· the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2002. /. Internal Control Over Compliance ! The management of the City of Bakersfield, California, is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the City of Bakersfield's internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. Our consideration of the internal control over compliance would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively Iow level the risk that noncompliance with applicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants that would be material in relation to a major federal program being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. However, we noted no matters involving the internal control over compliance and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Award~ We have audited the general purpose financial statements of The City of Bakersfield, California, as of and for the year ended June 30, 2002, and have issued our report thereon dated October 3, 2002. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the g~'neral purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by OMB Circular A-133 and is not a required part of the general purpose financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended for the information of the audit committee, management and federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is. not limited. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN McCOWN HILL STARBUCK & KEETER ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION . ::; Bakersfield, California October 3, 2002 4 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS JUNE 30, 2002 '. Federal Program Accrued Financial Disburse- Accrued CFDA or Award Revenue Assistance Olher mentsl Revenue Number Amount ~ Jul)/1,2001 Recognized Revenue Expenditures June 30, 2002 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: Direct Program - Community Development Block Grant Entitlement 14.218 $ 6,662,910 $ 146,250 $ 3,017,524 $ 120,366 $ 3,140,441 $ 168,489 Emergency Shelter Grant 14.231 526,783 111.444 111,444 Home Program 14.239 3,617,031 243,428 2.026.279 279.686 2,301,732 - Total Department of Housing and Urban Development 10,806,724 389,678 5.155,247 400,052 5,553,617 168,489 U.S. Department of Transportali0n: Passed Ihrough California: Department of Transporlation: Surface Transportation Program 20.205 7,065,509 757,243 2,246,453 792,453 915,811 Transportation Enhancement Acl 20.205 94,443 47,743. 78~237 875,444 230,216 Congestion Mitigation and Air Qualily Program 20.205 4,403,622 825,195 1,168,408 - 1,177,178 652,740 Highway/Bridge Replacement 20.205 111,645 13,843 - 30,233 18 Office o! Traffic Safety: Emergency Medical Services 20.600 61,940 723 . - Traffic Offender Program 20.600 537,517 6,261 15,279 15,279 Total Department of Transportation 12,274,676 1,651,008 3,508,377 2,890,587 1,798,785 U.S. Department of Justice: Seized Asset Funds - Federal 16.579 77,334 77,334 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program 16.607 5,539 5,539 Cops More Grant 16.710 232,003 . 232,023 Local Law Enforcement Block Gra[~l 16.710 339,572 - 339,572 Total Department of Justice 654,448 654,468 Total Grants $ 23,081,400 $ 2,040,686 $ 9,318,072 $ 400,052 $ 9,098,672 $ 1,967,274 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (" NOTES TO SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS JUNE 30, 2002 NOTE 1 - GENERAL The accompanying Schedule of Federal Financial Assistance presents the activity of all Federal Financial Assistance programs of the City of Bakersfield, California (City). As defined in Note I of the Notes to the City's General Purpose Financial Statements, those financial statements and the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards presents the government and its component units, entities for which the government is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component units, although legally separate entities, are, in substance, part of the government's operations and so data from these units are combined with data of the primary government. Discretely presented component units, on the other hand, are reported in a separate column in the combined financial statements to emphasize that they are legally separate from the Government. Each blended and discretely presented component unit has a June 30 year end: Blended and discretely presented component units are: 1. Discretely Presented Component Unit: The Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency (the Agency) is responsible for the development and financing of projects within (1) the Southeast Bakersfield Project Area, (2) the Old Town Kern-Pioneer Project Area, and (3) the Downtown Bakersfield Project Area. The Agency is governed by a board comprised of members appointed by the City Council. The Agency is reported as a Governmental Fund Type. 2. Blended Component Unit:: The Bakersfield Public Financing Authority (the Authority) is a joint exercise of powers authority formed on July 7, 1993 by and between the City of Bak..ersfield, California (the City), and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency (the Agency). The Authority was created to assist the City, the Agency and other local public agencies in financing and refinancing, through the issuance of bonds or other instruments of indebtedness, public capital improvements and working capital pursuant to the Marks- Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985. The Authority is authorized to make and enter into Bond Purchase Agreements and to purchase Obligations of any Local Agency. The Authority is governed by a board consisting of the Mayor and the City Council. The Authority is reported as a Governmental Fund Type. Complete financial statements for each of the individual component units may be obtained at the City's Finance Department. Federal financial assistance received directly from Federal agencies as well as Federal financial assistance passed through other government agencies are included on the schedule. NOTE 2 - BASIS OF ACCOUNTING The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards is presented using the modified accrual basis of accounting, which is described in Note 1 of the Notes to the City's General Purpose Financial Statements. 6 NOTE3 - OTHER REVENUE Amounts reported as other revenue relate primarily to interest income and reimbursements for the year ended June 30, 2002. NOTE 4 - .RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL FINANCIAL REPORTff Amounts reported in the accompanying schedule agree with the amounts reported in the related periodic Federal financial reports. NOTE' ~ - RECONCILIATION TO GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STA', ,'MENTS The following is a reconCiliation of lhe amounts listed in the Schedule of Financial Assistance to the City's general purpose financial statements: ~ Federal Grantor/Program Title U.S. Department of Housing and Urban U.S. Department Development of Transportation U.S. Department of Justice Community Intermodal Surface Office of Bulletproof Vest Local Law Development Transportation and Traffic Safety Seized Partnership Cops More01 Enforcement Block Grant Efficiency Act Grant Assets Program Grant Block Grant Federal Financial Assistance Recognized $ 5.155.247 $ 3.493.098 $ 15.279 $ 77.334 $ 5.539 $ 232.003 $ 339.572 Other 400.052 - Total $ 5.555.299 $ 3.493.098 $ 15.279 $ 77.334 $ 5.539 $ 232.003 $ 339.572 Reimbursable Disbursement/Expendilure .$ 5.553.617 $ 3.493.098 $ 15.279 $ 77.334 $ 5.539 $ 232.003 $ 339.572 Total Disbursement/Expenditure $ 5.553.617 $ 3.493.098 $ 15.279 $ 77.334 $ 5.539 $ 232.003 $ 339.572 Accrued Revenue June 30, 2002 '$ 168,489 $ 1,798,785 $ _, - $ $ $ - $ Due from Federal Government $ 168,489 $ 1,798.785 $ $ $ $ $ NOTr.., - RECONCILIATION TO GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STA~ ,-MENTR (Continued) The following is a reconciliation of the variances between Expenditures and Financial Assistance recognized: -. Federal Grantor/Program Title U.S. Department of Housing and Urban U.S. Department Development of Transportation U.S. Department of Justice Community Intermodal Surface Office of Bulletproof Vest Local Law Development Transportation and Traffic Safety Seized Partnership Cops More01 Enforcement Block Grant Efficiency Act Grant Assets Program Grant Block Grant Federal Financial Assistance Recognized $ 5,155,247 $ 3,493,098 $ 15,279 $ 77,334 $ 5,539 $ 232,003 $ 339,572 Other 400,052 . · . Total $ 5,555,299 $ 3,493,098 $ 15,279 $ 77,334 $ 5,539 $ 232,003 $ 339,572 Total Disbursement/Expenditure $ 5,553,617 $ 3,493,098 $ 15,279 $ 77,334 $ 5,539 $ 232,003 $ 339,572 Variance of Revenues Recognized Over/(Under) Expenditures $ 1,682 $ $ $ $ . $ $ ~ Surplus of Program income to Carry Forward $ (1,682) $ $ $ - $ $ $ Total $ $ $ . $ $ $ $ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2002 1. Summary of Audit Results 1. The auditor's report expresses an unqualified opinion on the general purpose financial statements of the City of Bakersfield, California. 2. No reportable conditions were disclosed during the audit of the financial statements. 3. No instances of non-compliance material to the financial statements of the City of Bakersfield, California were disclosed during the audit. 4. No reportable conditions were disclosed during the audit of the' major federal award programs. 5. The auditor's repOrt on compliance for the major federal award programs for the City of Bakersfield, California expresses an unqualified opinion on all major federal programs. 6. The audit disclosed no findings relative to the major federal awards programs. 7. The programs tested as major programs included: (1) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Communi!y Development Block Grant - Home Program (CFDA Number 14.239), (2) Department of Justice Local Law Enforcement Block Grant and Cops More Gr:ant (CFDA Number 16.710). " 8. 'The threshold for distinguishing Types A and B programs was $300,000. 9. The City of Bakersfield, California was determined to be a Iow-risk auditee 2. .Findinqs Relatinq to Financial Statements Required Under GAGAS. None. 3. Findinqs and Questioned Costs - Maior Federal Award Pro.qrams Audit None. 10 Peter C. Bm~vn, CPA Bu~on H. Armstroe. g, CPA, MST .~.d~,,'l. ~.~.,c~.~ To the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Ha.'ey I. Ni~o,vn, CRA City of Bakersfield, California Andrea R. Hill, CPA StevenR. Starbuck, CPA We have applied the procedures enumerated below to the accomp~ng .~l~,~. ~t~,c~.~ . AP:~ropfiations Limit Worksheet Six of the City of Bakersfield, California, (the City) for the year ended June 30, 2002. These procedures, which were ageed to ChrisM.~omburgh, CPA by the LeagUe of California Cities and presented in their ~icle XII~ ~,.,,~.~,c~.~,Msx Appropriations Limitation Unifo~ Guidelines, were perfo~ed solely to =sist you in meeting the requirements of Section 1.5 .of ~icle XIIB of the California l,~nXL.&nde~on, CV.~ Constitution. This report is intended for the intonation of management and the s~al~,,~.H~,k~,~,c~.~ City Council. This restriction is not intended to limit the distribution of this ~r~ H. X~,,C~.~ report, which is a matter of public record. Nlelinda A. NlcDanieb, CPA T~ ~.~s.C~.~ ' The procedures perfo~ed and our findings were as follows: Ama.aa E. Wilson, CPA "' t. We obtained 'the City's completed worksheets required to dete~ine that the Sharon Jones, CPA, NIST co,ecl a=uat adjustment factors were adopted by resolution of the City Michelle L. Gonzales, CPA Council.. Reb<ca Thomas, CPA ~,a,'¥~a,-S,,'a,'.C~:X 2. For the accomp=ying Appropriations Limit Worksheet Six, we added line A, ~o~,,t,.~ ~o~,,c~'.~ last year's limit, to line E, total adjustments, and agreed the resulting amount to 8~'an J. Lewis/CFA line F, this year's limit. u~.~.~a~t.ct..x 3. We a~eed the cu~ent year intonation presented in the accompanying ~l~.~..~,.~t.c~.~ Appropriations Limit Worksheet Six to the other worksheets described in ~1 above. 4. We agreed the prior year appropriations limit presented in the accompanying Appropriations Limit Worksheet Six to the prior year appropriations limit adopted by the City CoUncil during the prior year. These a~eed-upon procedures are substantially less in scope than an audit, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion on the accomp~n~ng Appropriations Limit Worksheet Six. Accordingly, we do not express such m opinion. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT - WORKSHEET SIX FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2002 A. Last year'S limit $ 144 080 859 B. Adjustment factors: 1. Population% 1.0155% 2. Inflation % 1.0782% Total adjustment C. Annual adjustment 13,675,017 D. Other adjustments Booking fees 844,847 Property tax administration fees 550~000 E. Total'adjustments 15~069~864 F. This years limit Based on the application of the procedures referred to above, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the accompanying Appropriations Limit worksheet six was not computed in accordance with Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. Had we performed additional procedures or had we made an audit of the accompanying Appropriations Limit worksheet six and the other completed worksheets described in 1. above, matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN McCOWN HILL STAR.BUCK KEETER ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION Bakersfield, California · September 16, 2002 · ' .? . .'. .~',:~ .,<, ~.:~. ~. ,= .... :,~ .~.- ~- ..~ .', .... smsa ...~_ + , BROWN ..:~ .'.~ '~" - ".~'~:.'=':'~' .~=~.~:~=~;-~":~':, ~' '" ~' "?" '~ 4~f~Av~ ARMSTRONG ,, :.., ~ ,. .~ROWN A~S~ONGt~::::-~'- .. ~..,?.~,,.-..=' ,.'-::.-,::. = m~ '.'PAULD McC :'"" mm 4' ' ~ '~-': :"" R .... '~'~" '"'"~' .... '= ~'~' "'' "~ ' "' · .~ :~..,...., . . :?; ,~.' . · .:..?~;...,. ,;...~ -, ,~ · :~,.? _..~,: -...~, .,?;~ ~;~ · .. -., ~ ':'%" . = : .:.- .7 .-:' - :'?L:-~ ~ 't' ."' ,. - "': .~;~" ' '"' "~,' '~ ='~' ~ ' ~' ;' ' '..: . ..... . ... : ,..~ ~..-.~.=.~ .~,,.L'. ,. '~ -~ ;~' ~' ', . ' Peter C. Brown, CPA Burton H. Armstrong, CP.~, ~IST TO the Technical Adviso~ CommiRee of the B~kersfield Subregional Wastewater A~d~,,.J. ~aulden, C~.~ Management Plan, the City of B~kersfield, Han'e~. i. X~Co,,'n, C~.~ California, the Kern Sanitation Authority, Andrea R. Hill, CPA and the East Niles Community Se~ices District . Steven R. $tarbuck, CPA Ai~n~. ~ter, C~.~ We have applied the procedures enumerated below to determine the Ci~ of Bakersfield's compliance with ce~ain provisions of contractual requirements ~s specified in City of Bakersfield Agreement 7G-~53, as amended by Agreements 78-~53(5), 7G-153(4), 77~4, chis ~. ~o~ursh, C~.~ 85-197, and 92-106, regarding the Bakersfield Subregional Wastewater Management Plan. Lynn R. Krausse, CR&,~lST These procedures, which were agreed to by the Technical Adviso~ Commi~ee, were pedormed solely to assist you in meeting the requirements of Ci~ of Bakersfield Agreement Joan~l. Andet~,,.Cp.~ 76-153, as amended by Agreements 76-153(5), 76-153(4), 77~4, 85-197, and 92-106. This Bradley M. Hankins CP.& repo~ is intended for the information of the Technical Adviso~ Commi~ee of the Bakersfield Subregional Wastewater Management Plan, management, appropriate regulato~ agencies, EricH. Xin, CP.& and the Ci~ .Council of the City of Bakersfield, California. This restriction is not intended to Melinda A¢ ~[cDanMs, CP.~ :.. limit the distribution of this repoR, which is a ma~er of public reco~d. TI L ~bung, CP.~ We reviewed and tested the Gi~ of Bakersfield's compliance with ce~ain ~rovisions .~aa ~. wil~,~, c~.~ contractual requirements as s~ecifled in Git~ of Bakersfield A~reement 7~-~ 53, as amended Sha~,Jon~s,C~.~,xlst by A~r~ements 7~-~53(5), 7~-~sa(4), 77~4, 8~-~7, and ~2-~0~. These ~rocedures Michelle L. Gonzales. CP.~resulte~ in no .current year ~e~cathomas, C~.~ These a~reed-u~on ~rocedures are substantiall~ less in sco~e than an audit, the objectiw ~'e,a? ¥~aa.s,,..~?. c~.~of which is the expression of an o~inion on the Gity of Bakersfield's compliance with ~rovisions of contractual requirements as s~ecified in Gity of Bakersfield A~reement 7~- Rosa va F ore,. CP.~ 153, as amended by Agreements 76-153(5), 76-153(4), 77~4, 85-197, and 92-106. B~'an J. Lewis, CP.-~ Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. O~.~. ~.,rt, Cr.-~ Based on the application of the procedures referred to above, nothing came to our aRention .luiie.~..~vii. cF.~ that caused us to believe that the City of Bakersfield had not complied with ce~ain provisions of contractual requirements as specified in City of Bakersfield Agreement 76- 153, as amended by Agreements 76-153(5), 76-153(4), 77-44, 85-197, and 92-106. Had we performed additional procedures or had we made an audit of the City of Bakersfield's compliance with ceKain provisions of contractual requirements as specified in City of Bakersfield Agreement 76-153, as amended by Agreements 76-153(5), 76-153(4), 77~4, 85-197, and 92-106, matters might have come to our aRention that would have been repoaed to you. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN McCOWN HILL STARBUCK KEETER ~ ~y: Anar~~lden Bakersfield, California September 16, 2002 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: February 7, 2003 SUBJECT: Budget and Finance Committee Agenda Item 4B For the February 10th agenda item 4B, staff has prepared the attached chart. The Landfill Cap Funding Plan chart illustrates how the project funding has been assembled from various parts within the Refuse Enterprise Fund. The $5.4 million total at the end of FY 2002-03 should be adequate to cover the City's share of the joint City/County project. The City is responsible for half of the landfill cap cost, and all of the landfill gas system cost. This means the City will pay approximately 60 percent of the total. With a conservatively high estimate of $9 million for the total project cost, the City's portion would not exceed $5.4 million. The landfill closure plan is scheduled to be filed with regulatory agencies in the spring of this year. After a lengthy state review process, construction is anticipated in late 2004.  P:\Budget and Finance Committee 2-10-03.doc February 7, 2003 BUDGET AND F~NANCE COMMITTEE PROPOSED 2003 MEETING SCHEDULE O Budget and Finance Committee ¢City Meeting Council Holiday at 4:00 ~Budget ~Joint City/County Meeting at 5:30 p.m. Hearing or Department Presentations at City Council Meeting JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 2 3 4 1 1 5 6 7 8 91011 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 13 14~ 16 17 18 11~ 13 t4 t5 9 10 11~ 13 14 15 26 27 28 30 31 23 24 25 27 28 25 27 28 29 APRIL MAY JUNE S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 12345 123 1~ 3 4, 5 6 7 6 7 8~ 10 il 12, 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10~ 12 13 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 tl 12 13~ 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20~ 22 23 24 25 26 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24~ 26 27 28 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 ~ 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8~ 10 11 i2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 1t 12 t3 14 15 16 14~ 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 3i 26 28 29 30 28~ 30 31 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 I I 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 9 10 11 2 3 4 6 7 8 7 8 9 11 12 13 i2 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 t6 17 1 20 21 22! 23 27 28 29 30 3i 25 291 28 29 30 31 Proposed February 10, 2003 2/10/2003 '% "~- ~ COMPACTOR/ROLLOFF RECYCLING CUSTOMER BOX#1 EVERY 15 DAYS BOXg~2 ON CALL BOX#3 ON (~ALL JIt~ REFUSE S:\FILING\100 ADMIN\Commercial\Compactors\List_Compactor Accts.xls ~_ ~.' ~ % 2/10/2003 REFUSE (TEVIS'. TOTAL COMPACTOR ACCOUNTS - 121 S:\FILING\IO0 ADMIN\Commercial\Compactors\List_Compactor Accts.xls BUDGET AND F]MAMCE CO~I~ITTEE 2003 I~EET~NG SCHEDULE O Budget and Finance Committee ~City Council Meeting Holiday at 4:00 ~Budget Hearing or ~Joint City/County Meeting p.m. at 5:30 Department Presentations at City Council Meeting JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 2 3 4 1 1 5 6 7 8 91011 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14~~ 16 17 18 1t~ 13 14 15 9 10 tl 13 14 15 12 13 21 22 23 24 25 18 '19 20 21 22 18 19 20 21 26 27 28 30 31 23 24 25 27 28 25 27 28 29 .30~ APRIL MAY JUNE 8 M T W TH F ~ S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F 8 12345 123 1~ 3 4 5 6 7 6 7 8~ 10 il 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10~ 12 13 14 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13~ 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 11 t2 13 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 14 16 17 I8 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 25 26 27 29 31 26 28 29 30 28~ 30 31 OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7~ 9 10 I1 2 3 4~ 6 7 8 7 8 9 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 t0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 23 24 25 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 27 28 29 30 31 25 29 28 29 30 31 February 10, 2003