HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.pdf87$+75$16,7
$87+25,7<
60
.,/1#'#-2(5#
--4 +Ͷ(- -!( +Ͷ#/.13
.1ũ(2! +ũ # 1ũ-"#"ũ
#!#, #1ũĊĈĔũĉćĉćũ
Ͷ!.,/.-#-3Ͷ4-(3Ͷ.$Ͷ
3'#Ͷ3 3#Ͷ.$Ͷ3 '
20
Page|2 21
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
A Component Unit of the State of Utah
Page|3 22
#!3(.-
Page|6 23
Page|4
74
76
76
78
79
80
82
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
86
24
Page|5
86
87
87
88
89
90
93
94
99
103
105
107
109
110
25
669 West 200 South
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
1-888-RIDE-UTA
www.rideuta.com
Page|7 26
Page|8 27
Utah’s decade long economic expansion, the longest on record, ended in 2020 with the emergence of COVID-19.
The public health crisis presented the greatest challenge to the Utah economy since the Great Recession. In the
early spring, the forecast for 2020 was bleak as the unemployment rate in April climbed to roughly 10 percent. But
as the year unfolded, the resiliency of the Utah economy was on full display. By November, Utah's year-over
employment was down 0.2 percent, one of the smallest employment declines of any state, and the unemployment
rate had dropped to 4.3 percent. Nationwide unemployment rate was 6.7 percent for the same period.
Although the job market in Utah has fared better than in any other state, not all industries escaped the impact of
COVID-19. Tourism has been hard hit, data for accommodations services (hotels and motels) show a drop of 22
percent in lodging. Restaurants and fast-food establishments have also been hurt, but the impact appears to be
less than expected. Take-out and delivery have given some buffer to sit-down restaurants. Retail sales activity
overall has been surprisingly strong. The 2021 forecast for taxable retail sales shows an increase of 13.3 percent,
with building, nurseries and grocery stores particularly strong.
While the public health crisis has been tragic, the impact of the pandemic on the Utah economy has been much
milder than initially expected. A strong recovery is forecast for 2021, with employment increasing by 58,000 jobs,
which would be the largest single-year increase in employment in Utah’s history.
The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the Authority for its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
(ACFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. This was the twenty-seventh consecutive year that the
Authority has received this prestigious award. This certificate of award is the highest form of recognition for
excellence in state and local government financial reporting. In order to receive this award, the Authority must
publish an easily readable and well organized comprehensive financial report whose content conforms to the
program standards. Such a report must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal
requirements. The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting is valid for a one-year period
only. We believe that our current Comprehensive Annual Financial Report continues to meet the Certificate of
Achievement Program’s requirements and are submitting it to determine eligibility for continued recognition.
The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the efficient and dedicated service of the
entire finance team at the Authority. We wish to express our sincere appreciation for the hard work and long
hours that contributed to the preparation of this report. Appreciation is also extended to the Executive Board and
the various team members for their cooperation and dedicated service that made it possible to produce a report
of the highest standards.
William Greene
Chief Financial Officer
Utah Transit Authority
Page|9 28
*RYHUQPHQW)LQDQFH2IILFHUV$VVRFLDWLRQ
&HUWLILFDWHRI
$FKLHYHPHQW
IRU([FHOOHQFH
LQ)LQDQFLDO
5HSRUWLQJ
3UHVHQWHGWR
8WDK7UDQVLW$XWKRULW\
)RULWV&RPSUHKHQVLYH$QQXDO
)LQDQFLDO5HSRUW
)RUWKH)LVFDO<HDU(QGHG
'HFHPEHU
([HFXWLYH'LUHFWRU&(2
Page|10 29
(
[
5HYLVHG
/HJDO6HUYLFHV
$WWRUQH\
*HQHUDO
V2IILFH
2UJDQL]DWLRQDO&KDUW
%RDUGRI
7UXVWHHV
)DUHER[
6HUYLFHV
&RPPXQLW\
(QJDJHPHQW%XGJHW3XEOLF6DIHW\
,QQRYDWLYH
0RELOLW\
&XVWRPHU
([SHULHQFH
$VVHW
0DQDJHPHQW
6SHFLDO6HUYLFHV&ODLPV
)DUHV
5DLO6HUYLFH
8QLWV 6XSSO\&KDLQ&XVWRPHU
6HUYLFH 3ROLF\ 5LVN
&XOWXUH
&RQWLQXRXV
,PSURYHPHQW
2SHUDWLRQV$QDO\VLV
6ROXWLRQV
&LYLO5LJKWV
7DOHQW
$FTXLVLWLRQ
7DOHQW
'HYHORSPHQW
7RWDO5HZDUGV &DSLWDO
'HYHORSPHQW
,QWHUQDO$XGLW
*RYHUQPHQW
5HODWLRQV
%RDUG
*RYHUQDQFH
2SHUDWLRQV
6HUYLFH
'HYHORSPHQW
2IILFH
6HUYLFH
'HYHORSPHQW
+56HUYLFHV
/DERU5HODWLRQV
5HDO(VWDWHDQG
72'
&RPSWUROOHU
$FFRXQWLQJ
)LQDQFH 3HRSOH
3ODQQLQJ
(QJDJHPHQW
%XV6HUYLFH
8QLWV 3ODQQLQJ
35 0DUNHWLQJ
,QIRUPDWLRQ
7HFKQRORJ\
(QWHUSULVH
6WUDWHJ\
6DIHW\ 6HFXULW\
([HFXWLYH
'LUHFWRU
Page|11 30
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
UU T A Boar d o f T r us t e e s
BB eth Holbrook JJeff Acerson
CCar lton Chr istensen
Board Chair
Davis, Weber a nd Box Elder Counties
Salt Lake County
Tooele and Utah Counties
Page|12 31
Page|13 32
87$+75$16,7$87+25,7<
,1752'8&725<6(&7,21
<HDU(QGHG'HFHPEHU
/RFDO$GYLVRU\&RXQFLO0HPEHUV
1DPH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««««$SSRLQWLQJ$XWKRULW\
0DUN-RKQVRQ««««««««««««««««««««««««««««8WDK&RXQW\&2*
(ULQ0HQGHQKDOO«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««6DOW/DNH&LW\
/HRQDUG&DOO«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««:HEHU$UHD&2*
(ULN&UD\WKRUQH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««'DYLV$UHD&2*
.DUHQ&URQLQ««««««««««««««««««««««««%R[(OGHU&2*7RRHOH&2*
-XOLH)XOOPHU«««««««««««««««««««««««««««««8WDK&RXQW\&2*
5REHUW+DOH««««««««««««««««««««««««««««6DOW/DNH&RXQW\&2*
&OLQW6PLWK««««««««««««««««««««««««««««6DOW/DNH&RXQW\&2*
7UR\:DONHU«««««««««««««««««««««««««««6DOW/DNH&RXQW\&2*
Page|14 33
B OX ELDER
Brigham City
TGREAT
S ALT
LLAKE
U TAH
L AKE
SUMMIT
WEBER
D AVIS
S ALT
LAKE
M ORGAN
UTAH
T OOELE
2020 UTA BUS & RAIL
SYSTEM MAP
010205
Miles
FrontRunner
TRAX
Bus Route
County
Pleasant View
Ogden
Roy
Layton
Farmington
Bountiful
Salt Lake City
West Valley
Draper
Eagle Mountain
Provo
Santaquin
Grantsville
Tooele
O
Lake
Park City
Page|15 34
Page|16 35
Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
(Continued)
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
Board of Trustees
Utah Transit Authority
Salt Lake City, Utah
Report on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the business-type activities and the fiduciary
activities of the Utah Transit Authority (the Authority), a component unit of the State of Utah, as of and for
the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively
comprise the Authority’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.
Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements
Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in
accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the
design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair
presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted
our audit in accordance with 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. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to
obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment
of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making
those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity’s preparation and fair
presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal
control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of
accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our
audit opinions.
36
(Continued)
Opinions
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the
respective financial position of the business-type activities and the fiduciary activities of the Authority, as of
December 31, 2020, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows
thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 2 to the financial statements, during the year ended December 31, 2020, the Authority
adopted new accounting guidance, GASB Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities, which resulted in reporting
an additional employee benefit trust fund for the Joint Insurance Trust. Our opinions are not modified with
respect to this matter.
Other Matters
Required Supplementary Information
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management’s
discussion and analysis, schedule of changes in net pension liability and related ratios, schedule of required
employer contributions, and schedule of investment returns, as listed in the table of contents, be presented
to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial
statements, is required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board who considers it to be an essential
part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic,
or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information
in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted
of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information
for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other
knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or
provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient
evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.
Supplementary Information
Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively
comprise the Authority’s basic financial statements. The introductory section, statistical section, schedule
of revenues, expenses and changes in net position budget and actual, combining statement of fiduciary net
position, combining statement of changes in fiduciary net position, and the schedule of expenditures of
federal awards as required by Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards are presented
for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the basic financial statements.
The schedule of revenues, expenses and changes in net position budget and actual, combining statement
of fiduciary net position, combining statement of changes in fiduciary net position, and the schedule of
expenditures of federal awards are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate
directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. Such
information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial
statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly
to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the
basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing
standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of revenues,
expenses and changes in net position budget and actual, combining statement of fiduciary net position,
combining statement of changes in fiduciary net position, and the schedule of expenditures of federal
awards are fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
The introductory section and statistical section have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in the audit of the basic financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any
assurance on them.
37
Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated June 30, 2021,
on our consideration of the Authority’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its
compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters.
The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting
and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the
Authority’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an
audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the Authority’s internal
control over financial reporting and compliance.
Crowe LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
June 30, 2021
38
Page|20 39
Page|21 40
THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
SUMMARY OF REVENUES FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
The COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020, and had a major effect on ridership. Passenger revenue typically
accounts for 10 to 12 percent of the Authority’s overall revenues. The pandemic has reduced the ratio of passenger
revenue to overall revenue to five percent in 2020. CARES Act funding from the federal government was meant to
offset those immediate revenue loses, but a substantial portion of passenger revenue is generated from non-exchange
like contracts with local partners. In late 2020, these local partners started to renegotiate contracts amounts and
timing of payments due to lack of ridership during the pandemic. The impact of these corporate passenger revenue
reductions will be felt more in 2021.
Since the Authority does not have the ability to levy taxes, it relies on contributions dedicated by member
governments in the form of sales tax increments. In 2020, the Authority recognized $43,793,103 increase in sales tax
receipts as compared to 2019. This trend was not expected due to the economic downturn from the pandemic, but
consumers increased buying during the pandemic, with strongest growth in online buying from typically commuter
based counties in the Authority’s service area.
In 2020, the federal government increased the amount contributed to the Authority for operating assistance by
$95,617,240 in the form of CARES Act funding. These allocations are based on a formula that factored in 2018
operating expenses of the Authority to determine the award amount.
Other revenues reflect the sales of assets, local supported routes, and miscellaneous revenues that collectively
performed better than expected in 2020. The largest source of “other” revenue is from Salt Lake City for expanded
and increased bus service levels in their city limits. The city paid $4,106,847 for operations, administration, and capital
leasing associated with these routes.
Capital contributions decreased by $10,519,945 due to less State or local partners contributing less on capital projects
in 2020. This can be expected, as local participation in new construction projects can vary from year to year and
whether or not the project is grant funded.
2020 2019 Difference
Percent
difference
Operating
Passenger revenue 32,845,272$ 52,649,054$ $ (19,803,782)-38%
Advertising 2,035,000 2,462,500 (427,500)-17%
Total operating revenue 34,880,272 55,111,554 (20,231,282) -37%
Non-operating
Contributions from other gov'ts (sales tax)361,590,707 317,797,604 43,793,103 14%
Federal noncapital assistance 160,258,318 69,746,231 90,512,087 130%
Interest income 3,525,448 6,821,490 (3,296,042)-48%
Sale of assets 927,566 1,653,736 (726,170)-44%
Build America Bond subsidy 8,893,288 8,891,430 1,858 0%
Other 9,442,644 4,347,043 5,095,601 117%
Total non-operating revenue 544,637,971 409,257,534 135,380,437 33%
Capital contributions 24,288,898 34,808,843 (10,519,945)-30%
Total revenues 603,807,141$ 499,177,931$ 104,629,210$ 21%
Page|22 41
Page|23 42
Page|24 43
Page|25 44
Page|26 45
THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
SUMMARY OF DEBT ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITY (continued)
ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGET
Key Economic Factors
During 2020, an outbreak of a novel strain of coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged globally. As a result of the spread of
COVID-19, economic uncertainties have arisen that could negatively impact the Authority’s anticipated future
revenues and operations for an indeterminable period of time. Other financial impacts could occur, but are unknown
as of the date of publication of this report. In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the federal government has
made funding available via the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act to aid transit districts in
their response to the health crisis. Expenditures of this federal funding are subject to audit by the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) under the Uniform Guidance, and the Authority is contingently liable to refund amounts received
in excess of allowable expenditures. In the opinion of the Authority’s management, no material refunds will be
required as a result of expenditures disallowed by the FTA. See the results of the Single Audit in the Authority’s Single
Audit Report for further information.
The fiscal year 2021 Authority Budget is $326,546,000, which is a 3.2 percent increase from fiscal year 2020.
Operating Statistics
On time performance for 2020 was 90.6%.
The following information provides an annual comparison of ridership by service for years 2020 and 2019.
The Authority had a 47.2 percent decrease in ridership in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Both commuter and light rail services have shown the largest drop in ridership due to less frequent service the
Authority implemented in response to the reduced ridership. Pre-pandemic levels of commuter ridership into Salt
Lake City and Salt Lake County has not returned as of the date of this report as many businesses have encouraged
telecommuting or working from home for their employees.
CONTACTING THE AUTHORITY’S FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The financial report is designed to provide our citizens, taxpayers, customers, investors and creditors with a general
overview of the Authority’s finances and to demonstrate the Authority’s accountability for the money received.
Questions about this report or inquiries for additional information may be addressed to the Comptroller, 669 West
200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 or tbingham@rideuta.com.
Source: National Transit Database
2020 2019 Difference
Percent
difference
Bus service 12,441,304 20,799,642 (8,358,338)-40.2%
Light rail service 8,247,364 17,128,008 (8,880,644)-51.8%
Commuter rail service 2,024,524 5,193,879 (3,169,355)-61.0%
Paratransit service 187,112 388,265 (201,153)-51.8%
Vanpools 658,990 1,068,364 (409,374)-38.3%
Total ridership 23,559,294 44,578,158 (21,018,864) -47.2%
Page|27 46
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
As of December 31, 2020
STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION
2020
ASSETS
Current Assets:
Cash and cash equivalents $185,542,606
Investments 20,061,732
Restricted cash and cash equivalents (bond funds)16,457,844
Receivables
Contributions from other governments (sales tax)70,537,845
Federal grants 28,866,419
Other 7,084,940
State of Utah 3,619,783
Parts and supplies inventories 34,422,837
Prepaid expenses 2,448,303
Total Current Assets 369,042,309
Noncurrent Assets:
Restricted assets (Cash equivalents and investments)
Bonds funds 13,093,632
Interlocal agreements 4,236,800
Escrow funds 106,067,907
Self-insurance deposits 7,745,463
Total restricted assets 131,143,802
Non-depreciable capital assets
Land 410,537,405
Construction in progress 137,936,777
Total non-depreciable capital assets 548,474,182
Depreciable Capital Assets:
Land improvements 148,507,252
Leased Land Improvements 84,485,965
Building and building improvements 213,225,412
Infrastructure 2,500,620,104
Revenue vehicles 752,974,669
Leased revenue vehicles 71,632,600
Equipment 66,536,885
Intangibles 54,745,003
Total depreciable capital assets 3,892,727,890
Total capital assets 4,441,202,072
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization (1,557,835,813)
Total capital assets, net depreciation 2,883,366,259
Amount recoverable - interlocal agreement 20,272,838
Other assets 9,500,000
Total Noncurrent Assets 3,044,282,899
TOTAL ASSETS $3,413,325,208
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|28 47
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
As of December 31, 2020
STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION (continued)
2020
DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Advanced debt refunding $118,677,922
Deferred outflows of resources related to pension 21,967,097
TOTAL DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES 140,645,019
LIABILITIES
Current Liabilities:
Accounts payable:
Other 21,721,896
State of Utah 309,217
Accrued liabilities, primarily payroll-related 8,455,516
Current portion of accrued interest 9,266,627
Current portion of interlocal loan 1,885,735
Current portion of long-term debt 46,922,208
Accrued self-insurance liability 1,017,333
Unearned revenue 11,267,779
Total Current Liabilities 100,846,311
Long-Term Liabilities:
Long-term compensated absences 14,338,107
Long-term deposits 1,357,094
Long-term accrued interest 2,990,412
Interlocal loan 63,779,861
Long-term debt 2,334,703,811
Long-term net pension liability 96,783,597
Total Long-term Liabilities 2,513,952,882
TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,614,799,193
DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES
Deferred inflows of resources related to pension 21,967,293
TOTAL DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES 21,967,293
NET POSITION
Net investment in capital assets 648,605,411
Restricted for:
Debt service 29,551,476
Interlocal agreements 4,236,800
Self-insurance deposits 6,728,130
Unrestricted 228,081,924
TOTAL NET POSITION $917,203,741
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|29 48
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES AND CHANGE IN NET POSTION
2020
OPERATING REVENUES
Passenger fares 32,845,272$
Advertising 2,035,000
Total operating revenues 34,880,272
OPERATING EXPENSES
Bus service 107,390,047
Rail service 96,041,283
Paratransit service 22,646,903
Other service 3,296,275
Operations support 46,463,776
Administration 44,545,686
Depreciation 139,089,219
Total operating expenses 459,473,189
EXCESS OPERATING EXPENSES OVER OPERATING REVENUES (424,592,917)
NON-OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES)
Contributions from other governments (sales tax)361,590,707
Federal operating grants 160,258,318
Investment income 3,525,448
Sale of Assets 927,566
Other 9,442,644
Interest expense (99,898,505)
Build America Bond subsidies 8,893,288
Net non-operating revenues 444,739,466
INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS 20,146,549
CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Federal grants 20,898,309
Local 3,238,849
Capital contribution 151,740
TOTAL CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS 24,288,898
CHANGE IN NET POSITION 44,435,447$
Total Net Position, January 1 872,768,294$
Total Net Position, December 31 917,203,741$
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|30 49
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
As of December 31, 2020
STATEMENT OF CASHFLOWS
Cash flows from operating activities:
Passenger receipts 30,683,121$
Advertising receipts 453,553
Other receipts 9,442,644
Payments to vendors (94,793,255)
Payments to employees (154,354,190)
Employee benefits paid (75,525,939)
Net cash used in operating activities (284,094,066)
Cash flows from noncapital financing activities:
Sales tax receipts 356,229,453
Federal operating/maintenance grants 152,968,543
Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 509,197,996
Cash flows from capital and related financing activities:
Contributions for capital projects
Federal 16,285,407
Local 6,622,008
Proceeds from revenue bond escrow deposits (2,724,320)
Payments of bonds (31,200,000)
Payments on interlocal loan (6,107,886)
Build America Bond subsidies received 8,893,288
Bond Interest payments (96,774,945)
Proceeds from leases 12,590,000
Payment on leases (7,513,809)
Purchases of capital assets (67,520,440)
Proceeds from the sale of property 927,566
Net cash used in capital and related financing activities (166,523,131)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest on investments 3,342,053
Purchases of investments 10,920,000
Proceeds from the sales of investments (19,061,577)
Net cash used in investing activities (4,799,524)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 53,781,275$
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 279,362,977
Cash and cash equivalents at end of year 333,144,252
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|31 50
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
As of December 31, 2020
STATEMENT OF CASHFLOWS (continued)
Reconciliation of Cash to the Statement of Net Position
Cash and cash equivalents at year end from cash flows 333,144,252$
Cash as reported on the Statement of Net Position
Cash and cash equivalents 185,542,606
Restricted assets (cash equivalents)
Bonds funds 29,551,476
Interlocal agreements 4,236,800
Escrow funds 106,067,907
Self-insurance deposits 7,745,463
Total cash and cash equivalents 333,144,252$
Reconciliation of operating loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Operating loss (424,592,917)$
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash used in operatiing activities:
Depreciation 139.089.219
Other operating revenues 9,442,644
Changes in deferred outflow/inflow of resources and net pension liability:
Deferred outflows of resources related to pension (8,507,144)
Deferred inflows of resources related to pension 10,313,841
Net pension liability (7,081,242)
Total changes in deferred outflow/inflow of resources and net pension liability (5,274,545)
Changes in assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable - Other and State of Utah 1,667,028
Parts and supplies inventories 1,620,997
Prepaid expenses (149,170)
Accounts payable - Other and State of Utah (3,075,438)
Accrued liabilities (146,279)
Unearned revenue (2,675,605)
Total changes in assets and liabilities:(2,758,467)
Net cash used in operating activities (284,094,066)$
Information about noncash investing, capital, and financing activities:
Change in fair value of investments 160,221$
Capital asset acquisitions in accounts payable 10,691,789
Payments from refunding escrows:
2012A Non-Taxable Bonds in Escrow 216,650,000
2015A Non-Taxable Bonds in Escrow 74,750,000
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|32 51
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
As of December 31, 2020
STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
Pension and Other
Employment
Benefit Trust Funds
ASSETS
Cash in Bank 2,197,488$
Cash in Utah State Treasury 444,578
Total Cash 2,642,066
Global Equities 180,702,335
Fixed Income 59,948,353
Liquid Diversifiers 13,969,240
Real assets 10,947,340
Money Market 13,119,226
Total Investments 278,686,494
Prepaid Benefits 1,167,307
Deposits 104,795
Receivables
Dividends Receivable 211
Accounts Receivable - Benefits 3,879
Accounts Receivable - Contributions 3,207,801
Total Receivables 3,211,891
TOTAL ASSETS 285,812,553
LIABILITIES
Benefits Payable 10,722
Accounts Payable 130,000
TOTAL LIABILITIES 140,722
NET POSITION
Restricted for:
Pension 279,905,104
Benefit Other Than Pension 5,766,727
Total Net Position 285,671,831$
Investments
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements and supplementary schedules**
Page|33 52
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
FINANCIAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
Pension and Other
Employment
Benefit Trust Funds
ADDITIONS
Employer Contributions 44,079,123$
Participant Voluntary Contributions 654,211
Total Contributions 44,733,334
Net Investment Income
33,693,794
Interest 52,370
Dividends 919,037
Total Investment Income 34,665,201
Less: Investment Expense 771,700
Net Investment Income 33,893,501
TOTAL ADDITIONS 78,626,835
DEDUCTIONS
Monthly Benefits Paid 31,939,232
Lump Sum Distributions 6,879,961
Administrative Expense 489,653
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS 39,308,846
CHANGE IN NET POSITION 39,317,989$
Total Net Position, January 1, as restated 246,353,842$
Total Net Position, December 31 285,671,831$
Net Appreciation in Fair Value of
Investments
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements and supplementary schedules**
Page|34 53
Page|35 54
x
x
Page|36 55
x
x
Page|37 56
x
x
x
x
Page|38 57
Page|39 58
Page|40 59
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page|41 60
Page|42 61
Page|43 62
x
x
Page|44 63
x
x
x
x
Page|45 64
x
x
x
o
o
o
x
Page|46 65
FLEX/Paratransit
25-27 Years to 30 Years
30 Years to 35 Years
Page|47 66
Page|48 67
Page|49 68
Page|50 69
x
x
x
x
Page|51 70
Page|52 71
Page|53 72
Page|54 73
Page|55 74
Page|56 75
Page|57 76
Page|58 77
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page|59 78
Page|60 79
Page|61 80
Page|62 81
Page|63 82
Page|64 83
Page|65 84
Page|66 85
Page|67 86
Page|68 87
Page|69 88
Page|70 89
Page|71 90
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page|72 91
Page|73 92
Page|74 93
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
$ $ $
Page|75 94
Page|76 95
Page|77 96
Page|78 97
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supplementary Schedule
As of December 31, 2020
SCHEDULE OF FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
UTA
Employee
Retirement and
Trust
Joint Insurance
Trust Total
ASSETS
Cash in Bank 440,817$ 1,756,671$ 2,197,488$
Cash in Utah State Treasury - 444,578 444,578
Total Cash 440,817 2,201,249 2,642,066
Investments
Global Equities 180,702,335 - 180,702,335
Fixed Income 59,948,353 - 59,948,353
Liquid Diversifiers 13,969,240 - 13,969,240
Real Assets 10,947,340 - 10,947,340
Money Market 11,312,878 1,806,348 13,119,226
Total Investments 276,880,146 1,806,348 278,686,494
Prepaid Benefits 1,167,307 - 1,167,307
Deposits - 104,795 104,795
Receivables
Dividends Receivable 211 - 211
Accounts Receivable - Benefits 3,879 - 3,879
Accounts Receivable - Contributions 1,423,466 1,784,335 3,207,801
Total Receivables 1,427,556 1,784,335 3,211,891
TOTAL ASSETS 279,915,826 5,896,727 285,812,553
LIABILITIES
Benefits Payable 10,722 - 10,722
Accounts Payable - 130,000 130,000
TOTAL LIABILITIES 10,722 130,000 140,722
NET POSITION
Restricted for:
Pension 279,905,104 - 279,905,104
Benefits Other than Pension - 5,766,727 5,766,727
Total Net Position 279,905,104$ 5,766,727$ 285,671,831$
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|79 98
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Supplementary Schedule
Year Ended December 31, 2020
SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN FIDUCIARY NET POSITION
UTA
Employee
Retirement and
Trust
Joint Insurance
Trust
Total
ADDITIONS
Employer Contributions 24,273,996$ 19,805,127$ 44,079,123$
Participant Voluntary Contributions 83,988 570,223 654,211
Total Contributions 24,357,984 20,375,350 44,733,334
Net Investment Income
Net Appreciation in Fair Value of Investments 33,682,504 11,290 33,693,794
Interest 16,418 35,952 52,370
Dividends 919,037 - 919,037
Total Investment Income 34,617,959 47,242 34,665,201
Less: Investment Expense 771,700 - 771,700
Net Investment Income 33,846,259 47,242 33,893,501
TOTAL ADDITIONS 58,204,243 20,422,592 78,626,835
DEDUCTIONS
Monthly Benefits Paid 12,768,590 19,170,642 31,939,232
Lump Sum Distributions 6,879,961 - 6,879,961
Administrative Expense 407,938 81,715 489,653
TOTAL DEDUCTIONS 20,056,489 19,252,357 39,308,846
CHANGE IN NET POSITION 38,147,754$ 1,170,235$ 39,317,989$
Total Net Position (Restricted), January 1 241,757,350$ 4,596,492$ 246,353,842$
Total Net Position (Restricted), December 31 279,905,104$ 5,766,727$ 285,671,831$
**Readers wanting additional information should refer to the notes to the financial statements**
Page|80 99
Page|81 100
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
*NET POSITION AS OF December 31 - 10 years
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Capital
Investment in
Net Assets $704,734,181 $692,675,681 $827,646,243 $894,275,843 $924,260,135 $1,040,640,236 $1,230,633,230 $1,327,585,097 $1,364,803,454 $1,366,337,801
Restricted 40,516,406 66,948,773 66,559,450 63,399,717 67,381,132 77,983,022 62,779,798 7,172,060 3,872,141 3,929,644
Unrestricted 228,081,924 113,143,840 85,088,927 39,001,957 71,502,447 76,548,154 137,991,170 242,347,746 304,834,237 276,960,064
Total Net
Position 973,332,511 872,768,294 979,294,620 993,677,419 1,063,143,714 1,195,171,412 1,431,404,198 1,577,104,903 1,673,509,832 1,647,227,509
Restatement - - - - (9,497,521) (115,047,267) 4,931,557 - - Total Net
Position,
Restated $973,332,511 $872,768,294 $979,294,620 $993,677,419 $1,063,143,714 $1,185,673,891 $1,316,356,931 $1,582,036,460 $1,673,509,832 $1,647,227,509
*CHANGE IN NET POSITION - 10 YEARS
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Operating
Revenues $34,880,272 $55,111,554 $54,464,392 $54,525,870 $52,891,021 $54,346,242 $53,761,223 $52,044,200 $46,422,916 $41,527,090
Operating
Expenses 403,344,419 457,897,920 401,161,541 427,777,940 422,543,342 394,062,733 398,626,029 378,224,993 319,322,223 288,531,160
Operating loss (368,464,147) (402,786,366) (346,697,149) (373,252,070) (369,652,321) (339,716,491) (344,864,806) (326,180,793) (272,899,307) (247,004,070)
Non-Operating
Revenues 444,739,466 261,451,197 268,435,411 246,722,487 226,957,532 209,462,264 182,843,232 173,520,664 200,370,290 205,877,440
Income (loss)
before capital 76,275,319 (141,355,169) (78,261,738) (126,529,583) (142,694,789) (130,254,227) (162,021,574) (152,660,129) (72,529,017) (41,126,630)
Capital
contributions 24,288,898 34,808,843 63,879,839 57,063,288 20,164,612 9,068,708 11,389,311 56,255,200 98,811,340 44,985,270
Change in net
position $100,564,217 $106,526,326 $(14,381,899) $(69,466,295) $(122,530,177) $(121,185,519) $(150,632,263) $(96,404,929) $26,282,323 $3,858,640
*Source: Utah Transit Authority 2020 Comprehensive Annual Report
Page|82 101
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
*Revenue History by Source - 10 Years
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Operating $34,880,272 $55,111,554 $182,843,232 $54,525,870 $52,891,021 $54,346,242 $53,761,223 $52,044,200 $46,422,916 $41,527,090
Sales taxes 361,590,707 317,797,604 282,933,591 265,770,775 245,008,417 227,703,023 214,683,276 203,806,329 196,693,543 183,091,524
Investment 3,525,448 6,821,490 6,525,872 2,873,787 1,732,939 2,831,406 5,803,226 1,455,039 1,892,549 3,672,397
927,566
Other 9,442,644 (45,372,222) 8,155,668 3,954,893 3,108,191 8,314,065 3,724,610 4,347,724 2,351,713 3,483,140
410,366,637 334,358,426 480,458,363 327,125,325 302,740,568 293,194,736 277,972,335 261,653,292 247,360,721 231,774,151
Federal Preventative
Maintenance Grants 160,258,318 69,746,231 61,820,668 62,313,994 59,772,235 49,452,677 47,760,737 47,986,240 46,719,891 47,735,443
Federal Planning Grants - - - - 3,562,534 2,547,335 2,994,139 3,868,252 1,985,766 11,583,980
Federal Capital Grants 20,898,309 16,395,068 31,585,906 53,960,024 17,054,298 7,819,096 8,025,628 48,669,408 85,168,542 44,864,016
181,156,627 86,141,299 93,406,574 116,274,018 80,389,067 59,819,108 58,780,504 100,523,900 133,874,199 104,183,439
3,390,589 18,413,775 32,293,935 3,103,264 3,110,314 1,249,612 3,363,683 7,585,792 13,642,798 121,254
$594,913,853 $438,913,500 $606,158,872 $446,502,607 $386,239,949 $354,263,456 $340,116,522 $369,762,984 $394,877,718 $336,078,844
*Expense History by Function - 10 Years
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
$107,567,163 104,570,413 $96,719,747 $88,928,063 $85,841,973 $77,092,676 $79,060,631 $78,894,435 $78,894,799 $81,208,651
96,140,305 77,972,467 75,157,087 72,895,607 84,165,069 67,254,632 70,365,953 61,086,101 46,049,338 38,135,480
22,677,516 23,121,527 21,858,532 19,572,367 19,341,116 18,511,580 18,748,699 18,202,211 17,516,117 16,054,555
3,297,837 3,247,699 3,056,191 2,982,176 2,949,643 2,918,871 3,183,892 701,656 596,583 535,897
46,527,500 47,056,444 45,557,749 41,932,571 37,831,682 32,051,926 28,380,563 28,439,826 25,247,271 21,643,830
43,734,772 36,738,745 39,593,947 31,423,844 38,840,643 35,189,725 35,409,918 28,533,912 26,664,222 26,340,573
- 19,078,502 38,654,111 20,602,425 - - - - - -
139,089,219 146,112,123 80,565,077 149,440,887 153,573,216 161,043,323 163,476,373 162,366,852 124,353,893 104,612,174
99,898,505 87,541,906 91,000,388 88,190,962 85,415,870 80,575,328 91,311,842 87,132,004 48,462,258 42,878,130
810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914 810,914
$560,182,608 $546,250,740 $492,973,743 $516,779,816 $508,770,126 $475,448,975 $490,748,785 $466,167,911 $368,595,395 $332,220,204
*Source: Utah Transit Authority 2020 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
¹ Includes major investment studies
² Reported as non-capitalized interest
³ See Notes to the Financial Statement, Note 2.K
Sale of Assets
Federal Grants
Operations Support
Administration ¹
Depreciation
Interest ²
Recoverable Sales
Tax, Interlocal ³
Capital Maintenance
Projects
Other Capital
Contributions
Bus Service
Rail Service
Paratransit Service
Other Service
Page|83 102
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN THE FORM OF SALES TAX BY COUNTY - 10 YEARS
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Box Elder 1 $ 2,404,175 $ 2,019,035 $ 1,898,308 $ 1,957,740 $ 1,790,352 $ 1,552,291 $ 1,418,268 $ 1,300,577 $ 1,279,794 $ 1,226,730 $ 1,269,478
Davis 37,364,965 33,674,864 31,883,835 30,633,547 27,606,440 23,178,724 21,459,683 20,023,042 18,692,038 17,880,017 16,964,089
Salt Lake 217,849,215 196,744,294 174,704,191 163,407,564 153,201,907 146,866,479 139,199,088 132,741,112 129,169,357 120,094,110 112,379,366
Tooele 2 3,347,286 2,250,563 2,815,189 2,302,492 1,798,971 1,521,097 1,384,631 1,349,366 1,364,179 1,207,539 1,227,109
Utah 69,278,480 55,708,400 45,665,232 43,023,303 38,601,427 36,221,930 33,752,513 31,905,764 30,576,235 27,743,162 25,397,367
Weber 31,346,586 27,400,447 25,966,836 24,446,129 22,009,320 18,362,502 17,469,093 16,486,468 15,611,940 14,939,966 14,656,323
$ 361,590,707 $ 317,797,604 $ 282,933,591 $ 265,770,775 $ 245,008,417 $ 227,703,023 $ 214,683,276 $ 203,806,329 $ 196,693,543 $ 183,091,524 $ 171,893,732
1 Includes Brigham City, Perry and Willard cities only
2 Includes the cities of Tooele and Grantsville; and the unincorporated areas of Erda, Lakepoint, Stansbury Park and Lincoln
LOCAL TRANSIT SALES TAX RATES BY COUNTY - 10 YEARS
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010
Box Elder 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500%
Davis 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500%
Salt Lake 0.8500% 0.7875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875% 0.6875%
Tooele 0.4000% 0.4000% 0.4000% 0.4000% 0.4000% 0.3000% 0.3000% 0.3000% 0.3000% 0.3000% 0.3000%
Utah 0.6300% 0.6260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260% 0.5260%
Weber 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.6500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500% 0.5500%
Source:
https://tax.utah.gov/sales/rates#charts
Utah State Tax Commission
Page|84 103
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
*PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS OF SALES TAX BY COUNTY - 2010 and 2020
Rank
Percentage of
contributions Amount Rank
Percentage of
contributions Amount
Salt Lake County 1 60.25%$217,849,215 1 65.38%$112,379,366
Utah County 2 19.16%69,278,480 2 14.78%25,397,367
Davis County 3 10.33%37,364,965 3 9.87%16,964,089
Weber County 4 8.67%31,346,586 4 8.53%14,656,323
Box Elder County 5 0.66%2,404,175 5 0.74%1,269,478
Tooele County 6 0.93%3,347,286 6 0.71%1,227,109
$361,590,707 $171,893,732
*Source:
https://tax.utah.gov/sales/rates#charts
Utah State Tax Commission
*FARES - 10 Years
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
(4/1/12) (5/1/11) (11/1/10)
Cash Fares
Base Fare $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.35 $2.25
Senior Citizen/Disabled 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.15 1.10
Ski Bus 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.25 4.00
Paratransit (Flextrans)4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 2.75
Commuter Rail Base Rate 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.35 2.25
Commuter Rail Additional Station 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.55 0.50
Commuter Rail Maximum Rate 10.30 10.30 10.30 10.30 10.30 10.30 10.30 10.30 5.10 5.25
Express 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.25 5.00
Streetcar 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 n/a n/a
Monthly Passes
Adult $85.00 $83.75 $83.75 $83.75 $83.75 $83.75 $83.75 $83.75 $78.50 $75.00
College Student 42.50 62.75 62.75 62.75 62.75 62.75 62.75 62.75 58.75 56.25
Senior Citizen/Disabled 42.50 41.75 41.75 41.75 41.75 41.75 41.75 41.75 39.25 37.50
Express 170.00 198.00 198.00 198.00 198.00 198.00 198.00 198.00 189.00 180.00
Other Fares
Day Pass $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $6.25 $5.75 $5.50
Group Pass 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 14.00 13.50
Summer Youth 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 99.00 n/a n/a n/a
Token - 10-Pack 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 22.50 21.00 20.25
Paratransit - 10-Ride Ticket 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 35.00 30.00
*Source: UTA Fares Department
2020 2010
Page|85 104
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT BURDEN PER CAPITA
Sales Tax Collected Personal Income of Percentage of Per
Fiscal Year Bonds Leases (Less Proposition 1 UTA Service Area Personal Income Capita
and 4th quarter cent)
2011 $1,927,474,109 $- $183,091,524 $77,524,222,000 2.49%863.07
2012 2,083,194,109 - 196,693,543 83,156,237,000 2.51%919.40
2013 2,077,184,109 - 203,806,329 85,699,968,000 2.42%902.22
2014 2,072,399,109 - 214,683,276 91,063,808,000 2.28%885.58
2015 2,099,242,069 11,272,688 227,703,023 98,213,376,000 2.14%891.69
2016 2,070,183,567 19,605,173 238,584,981 104,042,124,000 1.99%864.94
2017 2,136,303,567 46,394,866 256,742,750 110,124,169,000 1.94%886.14
2018 2,211,117,114 56,038,716 273,007,256 118,270,822,000 1.87%906.17
2019 2,196,731,498 52,187,203 288,548,490 125,338,146,000 1.75%885.17
2020 2,207,321,498 57,263,279 311,520,915 - - -
Source: Note 9
Note:Does not include Utah County Provo Orem BRT debt
2020 income numbers not available as of June 2021
DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS
Estimated Personal Income Per Capita Unemployment
Fiscal Year Population in UTA Service Area Personal Income Rate
2011 2,233,268 $77,524,222,000 $34,713 6.7%
2012 2,265,811 83,156,237,000 36,700 5.4%
2013 2,302,315 85,699,968,000 37,223 4.6%
2014 2,332,262 91,063,808,000 39,045 3.8%
2015 2,366,874 98,213,376,000 41,495 3.6%
2016 2,416,115 104,042,124,000 43,062 3.4%
2017 2,463,158 110,124,169,000 44,709 3.3%
2018 2,501,905 118,270,822,000 47,272 3.0%
2019 2,540,671 125,338,146,000 49,333 2.6%
¹2020 2,618,206 - - 4.7%
Source: US Dept of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data (www.bea.gov)
Unemployment rate- Utah Department of Workforce Services
¹2020 personal income numbers not available as of June 2021
YEARLY DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE
Sales Tax Collected
(Less Proposition 1 Coverage Ratio
Fiscal Year Principal Interest and 4th quarter cent)Sales Tax
2011 $7,300,000 $71,932,011 $183,091,524 2.31
2012 7,615,000 71,837,998 196,693,543 2.48
2013 7,450,000 84,319,531 203,806,329 2.22
2014 7,810,000 91,382,184 214,683,276 2.16
2015 11,445,000 84,785,200 227,703,023 2.37
2016 13,570,000 94,893,898 238,584,981 2.20
2017 8,750,000 77,765,121 256,742,750 2.97
2018 10,845,000 89,110,270 273,007,256 2.73
2019 17,500,000 98,602,388 288,548,490 2.49
2020 25,920,000 90,980,361 311,520,915 2.66
Source:Note 9
Note:Does not include Utah County Provo Orem BRT debt
Bond Payments
Total Debt
Page|86 105
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS - 2019 and 2009
Employer Industry Employees Rank
% Total
Employment Employer Employees Rank
% Total
Employment
Intermountain Healthcare Health Care 20,000 +1 1.3%Intermountain Health Care 20,000+1 1.6%
University of Utah (Including Hospital)Higher Education 20,000 +2 1.3%State of Utah 20,000+2 1.6%
State of Utah State Government 20,000 +3 1.3%Wal Mart Stores 15,000-19,999 3 1.2%
Brigham Young University Higher Education 15,000-19,999 4 1.0%Brigham Young University 15,000-19,999 4 1.6%
Wal-Mart Associates Warehouse Clubs/Supercenters 15,000-19,999 5 1.0%University of Utah 15,000-19,999 5 1.2%
Hill Air Force Base Federal Government 10,000-14,999 6 0.6%Hill Air Force Base 10,000-14,000 6 1.2%
Amazon.com Services Courier/Express Delivery Service 10,000-14,999 7 0.6%Granite School District 7,000-9,999 7 0.6%
Davis County School District Public Education 7,000-9,999 8 0.4%Davis County School District 7,000-9,999 8 0.6%
Utah State University Higher Education 7,000-9,999 9 0.4%Jordan School District 5,000-6,999 9 0.6%
Smith's Food and Drug Centers Grocery Stores 7,000-9,999 10 0.4%Kroger Group/ Smiths Marketplace 5,000-6,999 10 0.6%
Granite School District Public Education 7,000-9,999 11 0.4%Utah State University 5,000-6,999 11 0.6%
Alpine School District Public Education 7,000-9,999 12 0.3%Alpine School District 5,000-6,999 12 0.6%
Jordan School District Public Education 7,000-9,999 13 0.3%Salt Lake County 5,000-6,999 13 0.6%
Salt Lake County Local Government 5,000-6,999 14 0.3%Internal Revenue Service 5,000-6,999 14 0.6%
Utah Valley University Higher Education 5,000-6,999 15 0.3%US Postal Service 5,000-6,999 15 0.6%
Total Employment 1,564,782 1,245,016
Source:Department of Workforce Services
Largest Employers by County
Utah's Largest Employers 2009
2020 data not available at time of report
Notes:https://jobs.utah.gov/wi/data/library/firm/majoremployers.html
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES - 10 YEARS
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Bus operations 1104 1138 1089 1030 1028 951 945 911 963 950
Rail operations 625 631 611 580 563 527 542 526 506 425
Paratransit operations 200 204 196 191 191.5 188 183 176 168 168
Other services 10 10 8 9 9 12 10 10 12 11
Support services 417 433 413 365 366 349 323 335 293 284
Administration 187 184 180 243 212 210 207 195 217 224
Total 2543 2600 2496 2417 2368 2237 2210 2153 2159 2062
Source: UTA Budget Staff
20092019
https://jobs.utah.gov/wi/data/library/firm/majoremployers.html
http://www.operationriogrande.utah.gov/wi/pubs/em/pastreports/09annual/lrgstemp2009.pdf
https://jobs.utah.gov/wi/pubs/em/pastreports/11annual/lrgstemp.pdf
Page|87 106
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
TREND STATISTICS - 10 YEARS
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Passengers
Bus service 12,441,304 20,799,642 19,624,935 19,749,855 20,033,242 20,560,068 20,165,174 19,695,711 21,222,669 21,560,358
Rail service 10,271,888 22,321,887 22,981,884 23,677,677 23,765,873 24,349,674 24,337,451 22,814,274 19,421,608 16,944,264
Paratransit service 187,112 388,265 394,816 386,977 389,019 388,169 372,499 383,453 715,034 683,336
Vanpool service 658,990 1,068,364 1,174,696 1,264,410 1,333,780 1,423,675 1,404,285 1,387,816 1,446,766 1,417,183
Total passengers 23,559,294 44,578,158 44,176,331 45,078,919 45,521,914 46,721,586 46,279,409 44,281,254 42,806,077 40,605,141
Revenue Miles
Bus service 15,607,429 18,158,463 17,911,404 17,454,404 15,462,834 15,367,510 15,660,520 15,706,028 15,091,645 15,869,340
Rail service 3,288,505 11,977,751 12,084,767 12,082,292 12,070,277 11,988,005 11,784,146 11,681,251 7,905,460 6,019,693
Paratransit service 1,709,396 2,881,355 2,798,928 2,727,127 2,505,343 2,293,887 2,513,535 2,932,842 3,252,193 4,094,325
Vanpool service 5,705,170 6,451,812 6,354,828 6,449,439 6,518,150 6,734,487 6,859,802 7,053,191 7,553,978 8,042,756
Total Revenue Miles 26,310,500 39,469,381 39,149,927 38,713,262 36,556,604 36,383,889 36,818,003 37,373,312 33,803,276 34,026,114
Total Miles
Bus service 17,692,313 20,854,420 20,247,617 19,899,364 17,511,624 17,662,486 17,864,847 17,191,018 16,553,983 17,416,367
Rail service 3,323,282 12,098,162 12,285,634 12,202,976 12,189,876 12,368,934 11,814,332 11,773,929 7,987,022 6,073,807
Paratransit service 2,223,889 3,566,711 3,376,772 3,263,607 3,254,559 3,192,367 2,844,468 3,493,247 4,088,027 5,256,369
Vanpool service 5,705,170 6,451,812 6,354,828 6,449,439 6,518,150 6,734,487 6,859,802 7,053,191 7,553,978 8,042,756
Total miles 28,944,654 42,971,105 42,264,851 41,815,386 39,474,209 39,958,274 39,383,449 39,511,385 36,183,010 36,789,299
Passengers per Mile
Bus service 0.80 1.15 1.10 1.13 1.30 1.34 1.29 1.25 1.41 1.36
Rail service 3.12 1.86 1.90 1.96 1.97 2.03 2.07 1.95 2.46 2.81
Paratransit service 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.22 0.17
Vanpool service 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.18
Total Passengers per Revenue Mile 0.90 1.13 1.13 1.16 1.25 1.28 1.26 1.18 1.27 1.19
Revenue Hours
Bus service 1,169,292 1,326,660 1,284,186 1,258,448 1,087,055 1,070,139 1,108,894 933,662 834,985 866,268
Rail service 480,017 532,353 527,187 513,389 511,082 506,233 487,435 641,914 536,066 388,826
Paratransit service 116,174 181,749 180,342 162,198 162,734 160,383 164,527 191,016 227,013 300,760
Total revenue hours 1,765,483 2,040,762 1,991,715 1,934,035 1,760,871 1,736,755 1,760,856 1,766,592 1,598,064 1,555,854
Passengers per Revenue Hour
Bus service 10.64 15.68 15.28 15.69 18.43 19.21 18.18 21.10 25.42 24.89
Rail service 21.40 41.93 43.59 46.12 46.50 48.10 49.93 35.54 36.23 43.58
Paratransit service 1.61 2.14 2.19 2.39 2.39 2.42 2.26 2.01 3.15 2.27
Total passengers per mile 12.97 11.13 21.59 22.65 25.09 26.08 25.48 24.28 25.88 25.19
Total System
Fare revenue $ 32,845,272 $52,649,054 $ 48,122,586 $ 52,159,202 $ 50,624,354 $ 52,112,909 $ 51,461,223 $ 49,977,533 $ 44,489,583 $ 39,693,757
Operating expense 320,787,400 311,785,797 300,954,051 257,734,612 268,970,126 242,516,933 235,149,656 215,858,141 194,968,330 183,918,986
Cost per revenue mile 12.19 7.90 7.69 6.66 7.36 6.67 6.39 5.78 5.77 5.41
Cost per passenger 13.62 6.99 6.81 5.72 5.91 5.19 5.08 4.87 4.55 4.53
Fare revenue per passenger 1.39 1.18 1.09 1.16 1.11 1.12 1.11 1.13 1.04 0.98
Note: Does not include commuter bus or contract transportation.
Source: NTD
Page|88 107
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2020
OPERATING INDICATORS AND CAPITAL ASSETS - 10 YEARS
2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Number of bus routes*104 117 114 119 125 126 121 119 125 119
Number of rail routes
Light rail 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
Commuter rail 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Bus Service Miles (weekday)63,025 62,742 57,378 56,162 53,612 49,625 51,629 55,733 64,186 64,493
Rail Service Miles (weekday)
Light Rail 6,797 8,832 8,853 8,814 8,815 8,828 8,547 8,216 6,978 5,107
Commuter Rail 3,628 4,660 4,664 4,623 4,627 4,651 4,638 4,488 2,390 2,327
Average Passengers (weekday)78,972 152,940 151,901 156,288 155,873 161,862 161,339 152,644 152,934 142,186
Buses 539 570 561 582 567 555 535 493 570 495
Paratransit vehicles (buses/vans)207 198 182 148 129 84 113 110 112
Rail vehicles
Light rail 117 117 146 146 146 146 146 146 122 122
Commuter rail 81 70 81 81 81 81 81 81 57 55
Vanpool vehicles 471 512 453 453 503 495 479 470 494 485
Park and ride lots1
Rail Park and Ride 42 42 42 42 46 41
Non-Rail and Ride Stations 12 12 12 12
Bus Stops 6,120 6,247 6,100 6,100 6,196 6,250 6,250 6,273 6,333 6,600
Rail Stations
Light Rail 57 57 57 57 57 57 51 51 41 41
Commuter Rail 17 17 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 7
Source: NTD
UTA Capital Asset Record
UTA Change-Day Roster
* Including flex
1 As of 2017 started distinguishing between rail and non rail park and ride lots
Page|89 108
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense
per Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 8.75$ 116.93$
Baltimore, MD MTA 16.03 178.36
Buffalo, NY NFT Metro 12.57 137.09
Charlotte, NC CATS 9.03 119.57
Cleveland, OH GCRTA 15.16 171.99
Dallas, TX DART 10.10 127.99
Denver, CO RTD 10.48 132.41
Ft Worth, TX The T 7.90 105.23
Houston, TX Metro 10.05 121.95
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 13.79 165.23
Orlando, FL LYNX 6.76 92.77
Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro 8.51 106.67
Portland, OR Tri-Met 13.80 149.57
Sacramento, CA Sacramento RT 13.92 157.29
San Diego MTS 8.47 92.24
San Jose, CA VTA 16.74 194.04
Spokane, WA STA 9.02 124.20
St Louis, MO BSDA 9.15 122.72
Average 11.13$ 134.24$
Maximum 16.74 194.04
Minimum 6.76 92.24
Standard Deviation 3.07 29.42
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - BUS SERVICE
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent
year available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
$0
$4
$8
$12
$16
$20
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|90 109
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Passenger
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger
Trip
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 1.78$ 7.46$
Baltimore, MD MTA 1.36 5.31
Buffalo, NY NFT Metro 1.55 5.50
Charlotte, NC CATS 1.47 6.21
Cleveland, OH GCRTA 2.01 8.46
Dallas, TX DART 1.97 7.75
Denver, CO RTD 1.23 5.40
Ft Worth, TX The T 2.04 8.48
Houston, TX Metro 1.17 6.03
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 1.52 6.40
Orlando, FL LYNX 0.75 4.58
Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro 1.31 4.59
Portland, OR Tri-Met 1.52 5.41
Sacramento, CA Sacramento RT 2.48 8.76
San Diego MTS 0.95 3.67
San Jose, CA VTA 1.95 9.72
Spokane, WA STA 1.37 5.53
St Louis, MO BSDA 1.32 7.37
Average 1.54$ 6.48$
Maximum 2.48 9.72
Minimum 0.75 3.67
Standard Deviation 0.43 1.68
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - BUS SERVICE
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
$0
$1
$1
$2
$2
$3
$3
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile NonU Avg
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip Avg
Page|91 110
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 1.2 15.7
Baltimore, MD MTA 3.0 33.6
Buffalo, NY NFT Metro 2.3 24.9
Charlotte, NC CATS 1.5 19.2
Cleveland, OH GCRTA 1.8 20.3
Dallas, TX DART 1.3 16.5
Denver, CO RTD 1.9 24.5
Ft Worth, TX The T 0.9 12.4
Houston, TX Metro 1.7 20.2
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 2.2 25.8
Orlando, FL LYNX 1.5 20.3
Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro 1.9 23.3
Portland, OR Tri-Met 2.6 27.7
Sacramento, CA Sacramento RT 1.6 18.0
San Diego MTS 2.3 25.1
San Jose, CA VTA 1.7 20.0
Spokane, WA STA 1.6 22.4
St Louis, MO BSDA 1.2 16.7
Average 1.8 21.5
Maximum 3.0 33.6
Minimum 0.9 12.4
Standard Deviation 0.5 5.0
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - BUS SERVICE
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|92 111
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 8.20$ 265.75$
Albuquerque, NM RMRTD 21.51 807.56
Baltimore, MD MTA 24.87 947.23
Chesterton, IN NICTD 11.82 405.51
Dallas, TX DART 20.69 457.79
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 29.29 1,247.14
Newark, NJ NJ Transit 17.50 570.25
Oceanside, CA NCTD 15.24 485.57
Pompano Beach, FL TRI-Rail 26.65 764.06
San Carlos, CA CalTrain 18.87 630.19
Seattle, WA Sound Transit 25.36 751.97
Average 20.00$ 666.64$
Maximum 29.29 1,247.14
Minimum 8.20 265.75
Standard Deviation 6.50 277.18
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - COMMUTER RAIL
$0
$4
$8
$12
$16
$20
$24
$28
$32
UTA NICTD NCTD NJ
Transit
CalTrain DART RMRTD MTA Sound
Transit
TRI-Rail Metro
Transit
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
UTA NICTD DART NCTD NJ
Transit
CalTrain Sound
Transit
TRI-Rail RMRTD MTA Metro
Transit
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|93 112
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Passenger
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger
Trip
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 0.33$ 8.53$
Albuquerque, NM RMRTD 0.81 37.71
Baltimore, MD MTA 0.61 18.00
Chesterton, IN NICTD 0.48 15.82
Dallas, TX DART 0.96 16.84
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 0.92 22.77
Newark, NJ NJ Transit 0.51 11.44
Oceanside, CA NCTD 0.53 13.94
Pompano Beach, FL TRI-Rail 0.82 21.77
San Carlos, CA CalTrain 0.35 7.71
Seattle, WA Sound Transit 0.49 12.33
Average 0.62$ 16.99$
Maximum 0.96 37.71
Minimum 0.33 7.71
Standard Deviation 0.22 8.41
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - COMMUTER RAIL
$0
$0
$0
$1
$1
$1
$1
UTA CalTrain NICTD Sound
Transit
NJ
Transit
NCTD MTA RMRTD TRI-Rail Metro
Transit
DART
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile NonU Avg
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
CalTrain UTA NJ
Transit
Sound
Transit
NCTD NICTD DART MTA TRI-Rail Metro
Transit
RMRTD
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip
Sum of Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip NonU Avg
Page|94 113
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 1.0 31.2
Albuquerque, NM RMRTD 0.6 21.4
Baltimore, MD MTA 1.4 52.6
Chesterton, IN NICTD 0.7 25.6
Dallas, TX DART 1.2 27.2
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 1.3 54.8
Newark, NJ NJ Transit 1.5 49.8
Oceanside, CA NCTD 1.1 34.8
Pompano Beach, FL TRI-Rail 1.2 35.1
San Carlos, CA CalTrain 2.4 81.7
Seattle, WA Sound Transit 2.1 61.0
Average 1.3 43.2
Maximum 2.4 81.7
Minimum 0.6 21.4
Standard Deviation 0.5 18.4
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - COMMUTER RAIL
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
RMRTD NICTD UTA NCTD TRI-Rail DART Metro
Transit
MTA NJ
Transit
Sound
Transit
CalTrain
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
RMRTD NICTD DART UTA NCTD TRI-Rail NJ
Transit
MTA Metro
Transit
Sound
Transit
CalTrain
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|95 114
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 7.03$ 111.46$
Buffalo, NY NFT Metro 5.74 90.06
Cleveland, OH GCRTA 9.21 132.75
Dallas, TX DART 6.68 87.08
Denver, CO RTD 4.62 74.23
Ft Worth, TX The T 4.91 80.62
Orlando, FL LYNX 3.25 51.74
Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro 5.63 73.14
Portland, OR Tri-Met 6.39 79.41
Spokane, WA STA 6.08 91.08
Average 5.95$ 87.16$
Maximum 9.21 132.75
Minimum 3.25 51.74
Standard Deviation 1.59 22.15
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - DEMAND RESPONSE
$0
$4
$8
$12
$16
LYNX The T Valley
Metro
UTA STA DART RTD NFT
Metro
Tri-Met GCRTA
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
$180
$200
LYNX The T Valley
Metro
UTA STA DART RTD NFT
Metro
Tri-Met GCRTA
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|96 115
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Passenger
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger
Trip
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 4.58$ 52.17$
Buffalo, NY NFT Metro 5.14 49.22
Cleveland, OH GCRTA 10.77 85.86
Dallas, TX DART 4.72 47.23
Denver, CO RTD 5.14 45.26
Ft Worth, TX The T 3.97 43.97
Orlando, FL LYNX 3.58 46.58
Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro 6.15 55.75
Portland, OR Tri-Met 4.62 42.58
Spokane, WA STA 3.67 33.01
Average 5.23$ 50.16$
Maximum 10.77 85.86
Minimum 3.58 33.01
Standard Deviation 2.09 13.93
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - DEMAND RESPONSE
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
LYNX STA The T UTA Tri-Met DART RTD NFT
Metro
Valley
Metro
GCRTA
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile NonU Avg
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip Avg
Page|97 116
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 0.13 2.14
Buffalo, NY NFT Metro 0.12 1.83
Cleveland, OH GCRTA 0.11 1.55
Dallas, TX DART 0.14 1.84
Denver, CO RTD 0.10 1.64
Ft Worth, TX The T 0.11 1.83
Orlando, FL LYNX 0.07 1.11
Phoenix, AZ Valley Metro 0.10 1.31
Portland, OR Tri-Met 0.15 1.87
Spokane, WA STA 0.18 2.76
Average 0.12 1.79
Maximum 0.18 2.76
Minimum 0.07 1.11
Standard Deviation 0.03 0.45
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - DEMAND RESPONSE
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
LYNX Valley
Metro
RTD GCRTA The T NFT
Metro
UTA DART Tri-Met STA
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
LYNX Valley
Metro
GCRTA RTD NFT
Metro
The T DART Tri-Met UTA STA
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|98 117
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 10.83$ 194.60$
Baltimore, MD MTA 15.87 309.31
Charlotte, NC CATS 15.43 252.22
Denver, CO RTD 9.57 168.59
Houston, TX Metro 23.86 285.37
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 14.61 181.61
Portland, OR Tri-Met 18.37 261.13
Sacramento, CA Sacramento RT 17.58 313.93
San Jose, CA VTA 36.13 573.35
San Diego MTS 9.80 177.41
Average 17.20$ 271.75$
Maximum 36.13 573.35
Minimum 9.57 168.59
Standard Deviation 7.95 119.47
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - LIGHT RAIL
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
$0
$4
$8
$12
$16
$20
$24
$28
$32
$36
$40
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
Operating Expense per Revenue Hour
Operating Expense per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|99 118
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Operating
Expense per
Passenger
Mile
Operating
Expense per
Unlinked
Passenger
Trip
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 0.86$ 4.15$
Baltimore, MD MTA 1.20 6.88
Charlotte, NC CATS 0.79 4.45
Denver, CO RTD 0.75 5.47
Houston, TX Metro 1.59 4.48
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 0.76 3.04
Portland, OR Tri-Met 0.80 4.28
Sacramento, CA Sacramento RT 1.20 7.65
San Jose, CA VTA 2.59 15.16
San Diego MTS 0.39 2.32
Average 1.09$ 5.79$
Maximum 2.59 15.16
Minimum 0.39 2.32
Standard Deviation 0.62 3.66
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - LIGHT RAIL
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
$0
$1
$1
$2
$2
$3
$3
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile
Operating Expense per Passenger Mile Avg
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip
Operating Expense per Unlinked Passenger Trip Avg
Page|100 119
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
STATISTICAL SECTION
Year Ended December 31, 2019
City Agency
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Mile
Unlinked
Passenger
Trips per
Vehicle
Revenue
Hour
Salt Lake City, UT UTA 2.6 46.8
Baltimore, MD MTA 2.3 45.0
Charlotte, NC CATS 3.5 56.7
Denver, CO RTD 1.7 30.8
Houston, TX Metro 5.3 63.7
Minneapolis, MN Metro Transit 4.8 59.8
Portland, OR Tri-Met 4.3 61.1
Sacramento, CA Sacramento RT 2.3 41.0
San Jose, CA VTA 2.4 37.8
San Diego MTS 4.2 76.6
Average 3.3 51.9
Maximum 5.3 76.6
Minimum 1.7 30.8
Standard Deviation 1.2 14.0
PERFORMANCE MEASURES - LIGHT RAIL
The following charts contain information from the Federal Transit Administration's National Transit Database (NTD) for the most recent year
available (2019), and compares the Authority's performance with other like transit agencies.
Service Efficiency
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Mile Avg
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Unlinked Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour
Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue Hour Avg
Page|101 120
Page|102 121
Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
(Continued)
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT 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
Board of Trustees
Utah Transit Authority
Salt Lake City, Utah
We have audited, in accordance with the 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, the financial statements of the business-type
activities and the fiduciary activities of Utah Transit Authority (the Authority), a component unit of the State
of Utah, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2020, and the related notes to the financial statements,
which collectively comprise the Authority’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon
dated June 30, 2021.
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the Authority's internal
control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are
appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements,
but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority’s internal control.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority’s internal control.
Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and
was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or
significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that were
not identified. However, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, we
identified certain deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses and significant
deficiencies.
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 functions, 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 possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s
financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We consider the
deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as 2020-001 to be a
material weakness.
A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe
than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. We
consider the deficiencies described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as
2020-002, 2020-003, and 2020-004 to be a significant deficiencies.
122
Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Authority's financial statements are free from
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
financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an
objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed
no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing
Standards.
The Authority’s Response to Findings
The Authority’s response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying schedule
of findings and questioned costs. The Authority’s response was not subjected to the auditing procedures
applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
Purpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance
and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal
control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with
Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly,
this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
Crowe LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
June 30, 2021
123
Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
(Continued)
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM;
REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE
Board of Trustees
Utah Transit Authority
Salt Lake City, Utah
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited Utah Transit Authority’s (the Authority), a component unit of the State of Utah, compliance
with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have
a direct and material effect on each of the Authority’s major federal programs for the year ended
December 31, 2020. The Authority’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s
results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions
of its federal awards applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the Authority’s major federal programs
based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. 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 contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal
Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance require that we plan and
perform 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 Authority’s compliance
with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal
program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the Authority’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Federal Program
In our opinion, the Authority complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements
referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the
year ended December 31, 2020.
124
Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
Management of the Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our
audit of compliance, we considered the Authority’s internal control over compliance with the types of
requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the
auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on
compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in
accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Authority’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a
federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency,
or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility
that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be
prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over
compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type
of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal
control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance
that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or
significant deficiencies may exist that were not identified. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal
control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, we identified a certain
deficiency in internal control over compliance, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and
questioned costs as item 2020-002, that we consider to be a significant deficiency.
The Authority’s response to the internal control over compliance findings identified in our audit is described
in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. The Authority’s response was not
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of compliance and, accordingly, we express no
opinion on the response.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing
of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform
Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Crowe LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
June 30, 2021
125
Page|107 126
Page|108 127
Page|109 128
Page|110 129
Page|111 130
Page|112 131
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Page|113 132
Page|114 133
3'#1
-$.1, 3(.-
Page|115 134
Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
(Continued)
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL
OVER COMPLIANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE COMPLIANCE AUDIT GUIDE
Board of Trustees
Utah Transit Authority
Salt Lake City, Utah
Report On Compliance
We have audited the Utah Transit Authority’s (the Authority), a component unit of the State of Utah,
compliance with the applicable state compliance requirements described in the State Compliance Audit
Guide, issued by the Office of the State Auditor, for the year ended December 31, 2020.
State compliance requirements were tested for the year ended December 31, 2020 in the following areas:
Budgetary Compliance Fund Balance
Restricted Taxes and Related Revenues
Open and Public Meetings Act
Fraud Risk Assessment
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with the state requirements referred to above.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Authority’s compliance based on our audit of the state
compliance requirements referred to above. 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 contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States;
and the State Compliance Audit Guide. Those standards and the State Compliance Audit Guide require
that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the
state compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a state
compliance requirement occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the
Authority’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each state
compliance requirement referred to above. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of
the Authority compliance with those requirements.
Opinion on Compliance
In our opinion, the Authority complied, in all material respects, with the state compliance requirements
referred to above for the year ended December 31, 2020.
135
Report On Internal Control over Compliance
Management of the Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over
compliance with the state compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit
of compliance, we considered the Authority’s internal control over compliance with the state compliance
requirements referred to above to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances
for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance with those state compliance requirements and to
test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the State Compliance Audit Guide,
but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Authority’s internal control over
compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over
compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent or to detect and correct noncompliance with a state compliance requirement on a
timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of
deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material
noncompliance with a state compliance requirement will not be prevented or detected and corrected on a
timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of
deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a state compliance requirement that is less severe
than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by
those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first
paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance
that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal
control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may
exist that have not been identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing
of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the State
Compliance Audit Guide. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Crowe LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
June 30, 2021
136
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Independent Accountant’s Report
On Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures
Year Ended December 31, 2020
137
Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
(Continued)
1.
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS’ REPORT
ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES
Management
Utah Transit Authority
Salt Lake City, Utah
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has established the following standards with regard to the data
reported to it in the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics form (FFA-10) for the Utah Transit Authority’s
(Authority or UTA) annual National Transit Database (NTD) report:
• A system is in place and maintained for recording data in accordance with NTD definitions.
The correct data are being measured and no systematic errors exist.
• A system is in place to record data on a continuing basis and the data gathering is an ongoing
effort.
• Source documents are available to support the reported data and are maintained for FTA review
and audit for a minimum of three years following FTA's receipt of the NTD report. The data are
fully documented and securely stored.
• A system of internal controls is in place to ensure the data collection process is accurate and that
the recording system and reported comments are not altered. Documents are reviewed and
signed by a supervisor, as required.
• The data collection methods are those suggested by FTA or otherwise meet FTA requirements.
• The deadhead miles, computed as the difference between the reported total actual vehicle miles
data and the reported total actual vehicle revenue miles data, appear to be accurate.
• Data is consistent with prior reporting periods and other facts known about the Authority's
operations.
We have applied the procedures, as described in Attachment A, to the data contained in the accompanying
FFA-10 for the year ending December 31, 2020. Such procedures, which were agreed to and specified by
FTA in the Declarations section of the 2020 Policy Manual and were agreed to by management of the
Authority, were applied to assist the Authority in evaluating whether the Authority complied with the
standards described in the first paragraph of this part and that the information included in the NTD report
FFA-10 for the year ending December 31, 2020 is presented in conformity with the requirements of the
Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) and Records and Reporting System; Final Rule, as specified in 49
CFR Part 630, Federal Register, January 15, 1993 and as presented in the 2020 Policy Manual. The
Authority’s management is responsible for the FFA-10 and compliance with NTD requirements. The
sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the parties specified in this report.
Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures enumerated below
either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose.
138
2.
The procedures in Attachment A were applied separately to each of the information systems used to
develop the reported actual vehicle revenue miles (VRM), fixed guideway (FG), directional route miles
(DRM), passenger miles traveled (PMT) and operating expenses (OE) of the Authority for the year ending
December 31, 2020 for each of the following modes:
• Motor Bus – Directly Operated (MBDO)
• Commuter Bus – Directly Operated (CBDO)
• Commuter Rail – Directly Operated (CRDO)
• Light Rail – Directly Operated (LRDO)
• Demand Response – Directly Operated (DRDO)
• Demand Response – Purchased Transportation (DRPT)
• Motor Bus – Purchased Transportation (MBPT)
• Vanpool – Directly Operated (VPDO)
This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not engaged to and did
not conduct an examination or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or
conclusion, respectively, on conformity with the requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA)
and Records and Reporting System; Final Rule, as specified in 49 CFR Part 630, Federal Register,
January 15, 1993 and as presented in the 2020 Policy Manual. Accordingly, we do not express such an
opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our
attention that would have been reported to you. This report relates only to the information described above
and does not extend to the Authority’s financial statements taken as a whole, or the forms in the Authority’s
NTD report other than the FFA-10 form, for any date or period.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Authority and the FTA and
is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties
Crowe LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
June 30, 2021
139
3.
Attachment A
a. Obtain and read a copy of written system procedures for reporting and maintaining data in accordance
with NTD requirements and definitions set forth in 49 CFR Part 630, Federal Register, dated
January 15, 1993, and as presented in the 2020 Policy Manual. If there are no procedures available,
discuss the procedures with the personnel assigned responsibility for supervising the NTD data
preparation and maintenance.
Procedure performed without exception.
b. Discuss the procedures (written or informal) with the personnel assigned responsibility for supervising
the preparation and maintenance of NTD data to determine:
• The extent to which the transit agency followed the procedures on a continuous basis; and
• Whether these transit personnel believe such procedures result in accumulation and reporting of
data consistent with NTD definitions and requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 630, Federal
Register, dated January 15, 1993, and as presented in the 2020 NTD Policy Manual.
Procedure performed without exception.
c. Ask these same personnel about the retention policy that the transit agency follows as to source
documents supporting NTD data reported on the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics form.
Per inquiry with the Authority NTD Staff (“Staff”), NTD source documentation is retained for a
minimum of 3 years per the FTA requirements and is stored on local drives for longer. Procedure
performed without exception.
d. Based on a description of the transit agency’s procedures from items (A) and (B) above, identify all
the source documents that the transit agency must retain for a minimum of three years. For each
type of source document, select three months out of the year and determine whether the document
exists for each of these periods.
We selected a haphazard sample of 15 source documents across all modes from three different
months from 2017, 2018, and 2019. We observed that the source documents were maintained
for each year as required. Procedure performed without exception.
e. Discuss the system of internal controls. Inquire whether separate individuals (independent of the
individuals preparing source documents and posting data summaries) obtain the source documents
and data summaries for completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness and how often these individuals
perform such reviews.
Per inquiry with Staff, in 2020 internal controls were maintained through email
communication. Historically, the general managers for each department and mode were
contacted to obtain approval of the periodic data and investigate and resolve discrepancies.
In 2021, the Operations, Analysis & Solutions department (“OAS”) created and adopted a more
robust system of controls which includes formal documented preparation, review, and
approval of source documents. The OAS department performed a retrospective review of 2020
data to ensure its completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness.
f. Select a sample of the source documents and determine whether supervisors’ signatures are
present as required by the system of internal controls. If supervisors’ signatures are not required,
inquire how personnel document supervisors’ reviews.
We selected a haphazard sample of 15 source documents across all modes and observed
review of the data via email communication. Procedure performed without exception.
140
4.
g. Obtain the worksheets used to prepare the final data that the transit agency transcribes onto the
Federal Funding Allocation Statistics form. Compare the periodic data included on the worksheets to
the periodic summaries prepared by the transit agency. Recalculate the arithmetical accuracy of the
summaries.
Procedure performed without exception.
h. Discuss the procedure for accumulating and recording Passenger Miles Traveled (PMT) data in
accordance with NTD requirements with transit agency staff. Inquire whether the procedure is one of
the methods specifically approved in the 2020 NTD Policy Manual.
Per inquiry with Staff, the sampling method is in accordance with NTD requirements.
i. Discuss with transit agency staff (the accountant may wish to list the titles of the persons interviewed)
the transit agency’s eligibility to conduct statistical sampling for PMT data every third year.
Determine whether the transit agency meets NTD criteria that allow transit agencies to conduct
statistical samples for accumulating PMT data every third year rather than annually. Specifically:
• According to the 2010 Census, the public transit agency serves an UZA with a population less than
500,000.
• The public transit agency directly operates fewer than 100 revenue vehicles in all modes in annual
maximum revenue service (VOMS) (in any size UZA).
• Service purchased from a seller is included in the transit agency’s NTD report.
• For transit agencies that meet one of the above criteria, obtain the NTD documentation for the most
recent mandatory sampling year (2017) and determine that statistical sampling was conducted and
meets the 95 percent confidence and ± 10 percent precision requirements.
• Determine how the transit agency estimated annual PMT for the current report year
Per inquiry with Staff, the Authority is not eligible to conduct statistical sampling for PMT
data every third year.
j Obtain a description of the sampling procedure for estimation of PMT data used by the transit agency.
Obtain a copy of the transit agency’s working papers or methodology used to select the actual sample
of runs for recording PMT data. If the transit agency used average trip length, determine that the
universe of runs was the sampling frame. Determine that the methodology used to select specific
runs from the universe resulted in a random selection of runs. If the transit agency missed a
selected sample run, determine that a replacement sample run was random. Determine that the
transit agency followed the stated sampling procedure.
We obtained the sampling procedure and methodology for PMT data noting Automatic
Passenger Counters (APC) are utilized for a 100% count of PMT for the Commuter Rail, Light
Rail, Commuter Bus and MBPT modes. The MBDO mode uses a modified PMT measurement
method that utilizes APC data to estimate PMT. 100% of PMT are counted for the Demand
Response and Vanpool modes. Procedure performed without exception.
k. Select a sample of the source documents for accumulating PMT data and determine that the data are
complete (all required data are recorded) and that the computations are accurate. Select a sample
of the accumulation periods and re-compute the accumulations for each of the selected periods. List
the accumulations periods that were tested. Recalculate the arithmetical accuracy of the summary.
We selected a haphazard sample of 48 source documents from March 2020, May 2020, and
September 2020, and recalculated PMT. Procedure performed without exception, except for
modes and accumulation periods noted below.
For CRDO, we recalculated PMT for March, May, and September 2020 with variances of 99, 59,
and 78 miles, respectively. For LRDO, we recalculated PMT for March, May, and September 2020
141
5.
with variances of 1,416, 920, and 26,946 miles, respectively. For MBDO, we recalculated PMT for
May 2020 with a variance of 817 miles. For MBPT, we recalculated PMT for March, May, and
September 2020 with variances of 9, 1,560, and 513 miles, respectively. For VPDO, we
recalculated PMT for March 2020 with a variance of 458,095 miles. For DRPT, we performed a
recalculation of March, May, and September 2020, however, trip-level data was not available to
UTA for one of the purchased transportation contractors, and as such, we did not perform a
recalculation of that data, but rather ensured mathematical accuracy of the summary to include
in the recalculation of PMT for the mode.
l. Discuss the procedures for systematic exclusion of charter, school bus, and other ineligible vehicle
miles from the calculation of actual Vehicle Revenue Miles (VRM) with transit agency staff and
determine that they follow the stated procedures. Select a random sample of the source documents
used to record charter and school bus mileage and recalculate the arithmetical accuracy of the
computations.
Per inquiry with Staff, the Authority does not operate charter, school bus, or other ineligible
vehicles. As such, the procedure was not performed.
m. For actual VRM data, document the collection and recording methodology and determine that
deadhead miles are systematically excluded from the computation. This is accomplished as follows:
• If actual VRMs are calculated from schedules, document the procedures used to subtract
missed trips. Select a random sample of the days that service is operated, and re-compute the
daily total of missed trips and missed VRMs. Recalculate the arithmetical accuracy of the
summary.
• If actual VRMs are calculated from hubodometers, document the procedures used to calculate
and subtract deadhead mileage. Select a random sample of the hubodometer readings and
determine that the stated procedures for hubodometer deadhead mileage adjustments are
applied as prescribed. Recalculate the arithmetical accuracy of the summary of intermediate
accumulations.
• If actual VRMs are calculated from vehicle logs, select random samples of the vehicle logs and
determine that the deadhead mileage has been correctly computed in accordance with FTA
definitions.
Per inquiry with Staff, with the exception of DRDO, DRPT, and VPDO, actual vehicle revenue
miles are computed by subtracting deadhead mileage and missed trips from the scheduled
trips. For DRDO and DRPT, actual vehicle revenue miles are calculated by subtracting the
deadhead mileage from the miles on hubodometer readings. For VPDO, actual VRMs are
calculated from vehicle logs and there are no deadhead miles since it is a non-dedicated service.
Procedure performed without exception.
n. For rail modes, observe the recording and accumulation sheets for actual VRMs and determine that
locomotive miles are not included in the computation.
Procedure performed without exception.
142
6.
o. If fixed guideway or High Intensity Busway Directional Route Miles (FG or HIB DRM) are reported,
interview the person responsible for maintaining and reporting NTD data whether the operations meet
FTA definition of fixed guideway (FG) or High Intensity Busway (HIB) in that the service is:
• Rail, Trolleybus (TB), Ferryboat (FB), or Aerial Tramway (TR); or
• Bus (MB, CB, or RB) service operating over exclusive or controlled access rights-of-way
(ROW); and
i. Access is restricted;
ii. Legitimate need for restricted access is demonstrated by peak period level of service D
or worse on a parallel adjacent highway; and
iii. Restricted access is enforced for freeways; priority lanes used by other high occupancy
vehicles (HOV) (i.e., Vanpools (VP), carpools) must demonstrate safe operation.
Per inquiry with Staff, the modes reporting FG or HIB DRM meet the FTA definitions as
listed above. Procedure performed without exception.
p. Discuss the measurement of FG and HIB DRM with the person reporting NTD data and determine that
he or she computed mileage in accordance with FTA definitions of FG/HIB and DRM. Inquire of
any service changes during the year that resulted in an increase or decrease in DRMs. If a service
change resulted in a change in overall DRMs, re-compute the average monthly DRMs, and reconcile
the total to the FG/HIB DRM reported on the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics form.
Per inquiry with Staff, the computation of FG and HIB DRM is in accordance with FTA
definitions. Additionally, no service changes resulted in an increase or decrease in DRMs.
q. Inquire if any temporary interruptions in transit service occurred during the report year. If these
interruptions were due to maintenance or rehabilitation improvements to a FG segment(s), the
following apply:
• Report DRMs for the segment(s) for the entire report year if the interruption is less than 12 months
in duration. Report the months of operation on the FG/HIB segments form as 12. The transit agency
should document the interruption.
• If the improvements cause a service interruption on the FG/HIB DRMs lasting more than 12
months, the transit agency should contact its NTD validation analyst to discuss. FTA will make a
determination on how to report the DRMs.
Per inquiry with Staff, there were temporary interruptions in service throughout the year
resulting from maintenance or rehabilitation improvements of fixed guideway segments,
however no change in reporting FG DRM was required as the interruption was less than
12 months.
r. Measure FG/HIB DRM from maps or by retracing route.
Procedure performed without exception.
s. Discuss whether other public transit agencies operate service over the same FG/HIB as the transit
agency. If yes, determine that the transit agency coordinated with the other transit agency (or agencies)
such that the DRMs for the segment of FG/HIB are reported only once to the NTD on the Federal
Funding Allocation form. Each transit agency should report the actual VRM, PMT, and Operating
Expense (OE) for the service operated over the same FG/HIB.
Per inquiry with Staff, the Authority operates modes of service over the same FG/HIB as other
transit agencies. UTA is the approved operator for all their FG and UTA is reporting their
actual VRM, PMT, and OE for their services. Step performed without exception.
143
7.
t. Observe the FG/HIB segments form. Discuss the Agency Revenue Service Start Date for any
segments added in the 2020 report year with the persons reporting NTD data. This is the
commencement date of revenue service for each FG/HIB segment. Determine that the date reported
is the date that the agency began revenue service. This may be later than the Original Date of
Revenue Service if the transit agency is not the original operator. If a segment was added for the 2020
report year, the Agency Revenue Service Date must occur within the transit agency’s 2020 fiscal
year. Segments are grouped by like characteristics. Note that for apportionment purposes, under
the State of Good Repair (§5337) and Bus and Bus Facilities (§5339) programs, the 7-year age
requirement for fixed guideway/High Intensity Busway segments is based on the report year when
the segment is first reported by any NTD transit agency. This pertains to segments reported for the
first time in the current report year. Even if a transit agency can document an Agency Revenue
Service Start Date prior to the current NTD report year, FTA will only consider segments continuously
reported to the NTD.
We obtained the FG/HIB segments form. There were no new segments added during the
reporting year 2020.
u. Compare and agree Operating Expenses with audited financial data after reconciling items are
removed.
Procedure performed without exception.
v. If the transit agency purchases transportation services, interview the personnel reporting the NTD data
on the amount of purchased transportation-generated fare revenues. Compare and agree the
purchased transportation fare revenues to the amount reported on the Contractual Relationship form.
We inquired with Staff and agreed the purchased transportation fare revenues reported on the
Contractual Relationship forms to the Authority’s working papers. Procedure performed without
exception.
w. If the transit agency’s report contains data for purchased transportation services and the procedures in
this accountant’s review were not applied to the purchased transportation services, obtain a copy of
the IAS-FFA regarding data for the purchased transportation service. Attach a copy of the statement
to the report. Note as a negative finding if the purchased transportation services were not included in
this accountant’s review, and the transit agency also does not have an Independent Auditor Statement
for the purchased transportation data.
The Authority’s report contains data for PT services, therefore the IAS-FFA is not applicable.
x. If the transit agency purchases transportation services, obtain a copy of the purchased transportation
contract and determine that the contract specifies the public transportation services to be provided;
the monetary consideration obligated by the transit agency or governmental unit contracting for the
service; the period covered by the contract (and that this period overlaps the entire, or a portion of, the
period covered by the transit agency’s NTD report); and is signed by representatives of both parties
to the contract. Interview the person responsible for retention of the executed contract and
determine that copies of the contracts are retained for three years.
The Authority contracts with three vendors to operate Motor Bus and Demand Response
modes. We obtained the executed contracts for each vendor and noted the inclusion of the
required information listed above. Procedure performed without exception.
y. If the transit agency provides service in more than one UZA, or between an UZA and a non-UZA, inquire
of the procedures for allocation of statistics between UZAs and non-UZAs. Obtain and observe the
FG segment worksheets, route maps, and urbanized area boundaries used for allocating the
statistics, and determine that the stated procedure is followed and that the computations are correct.
144
8.
The Authority provides services in three UZAs and one non-UZA. Per inquiry with Staff, the
Authority uses ArcGIS mapping to allocate statistics based on route mileage. Procedure
performed without exception.
z. Compare the data reported on the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics Form to data from the prior
report year and calculate the percentage change from the prior year to the current year. For actual
VRM, PMT or OE data that have increased or decreased by more than 10 percent, or FG DRM data
that have increased or decreased. Interview transit agency management regarding the specifics of
operations that led to the increases or decreases in the data relative to the prior reporting period.
We compared the current year FFA-10 data to the prior year reported amounts and calculated
the percentage change from the prior year to the current year. The following changes greater
than +/- 10% were noted:
• CBDO – 27% decrease in VRM, 66% decrease in PMT, and 14% decrease in OE. Per inquiry
with Staff, the changes are attributable to significantly lower ridership as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic, as many people were not riding public transportation. Additionally, the Authority
stopped servicing various off-peak-hours routes since the public wasn’t riding the commuter
buses.
• CRDO – 25% decrease in VRM and 61% decrease in PMT. Per inquiry with Staff, the changes
are attributable to significantly lower ridership of the commuter rails, as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic, as many people were not riding public transportation.
• DRDO – 45% decrease in VRM, 60% decrease in PMT, and 25% decrease in OE. Per inquiry
with Staff, the changes are attributable to significantly lower ridership as a result of the COVID-
19 pandemic, as many people were not riding public transportation.
• DRPT – 33% decrease in VRM and 53% decrease in PMT. Per inquiry with Staff, the changes
are attributable to significantly lower ridership as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as many
people were not riding public transportation.
• LRDO – 53% decrease in PMT and 16% increase in OE. Per inquiry with Staff, the changes
are attributable to significantly lower ridership as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as many
people were not riding public transportation. During this time when the public was not riding the
light rail, the Authority took the opportunity to improve various lines and perform general
maintenance, which contributed to the increase in OE.
• MBDO – 14% decrease in VRM and 37% decrease in PMT. Per inquiry with Staff, the changes
are attributable to significantly lower ridership as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as many
people were not riding public transportation.
• MBPT – 17% increase in VRM and 43% increase in OE. Per inquiry with Staff, the changes
are attributable to more riders on buses operated by the PT contractors since the route
frequency for CBDO and MBDO buses was reduced.
• VPDO – 12% decrease in VRM and 26% decrease in PMT. Per inquiry with Staff, the changes
are attributable to significantly lower ridership as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, as many
people were not riding public transportation.
aa. The accountant should document the specific procedures followed, documents reviewed, and tests
performed in the work papers. The work papers should be available for FTA review for a minimum of
three years following the NTD report year. The accountant may perform additional procedures, which
are agreed to by the accountant and the transit agency, if desired. The accountant should clearly
identify the additional procedures performed in a separate attachment to the statement as
procedures that were agreed to by the transit agency and the accountant but not by FTA.
Procedure performed without exception.
145