Betcha you'd like to know what's going on over at the intimidatingly-named SF County Transportation Authority, wouldn'tcha? Well, you can't. At least, not in great detail, yet. The Board of Supes (that is, the SFCTA's bosses) voted to withhold approval of the Authority's annual report for a bit longer, effectively keeping it away from prying eyes. Could this have anything to do with Supervisor "Everybody-Hates" Chris Daly's recent failed attempt to replace Jake McGoldrick as Authority head? Eh, who knows. It's all part of the mystery.
So until that report finally hits the news stands, we'll have to content ourselves with another recently-completed document pertaining to the Authority: a rootin'-tootin' brand-spanking shiny new finance report! (Part One and Part Two, both PDFs.) Yee-haw! Remember back in 2004, when the Controller's management-letter-report thingy began by stating the the SFCTA "failed to perform or performed poorly many required accounting procedures,"[PDF] then went on to detail 20 pages' worth of accounting problems, including $67 million in misrecorded grants? We still get shivers about that. Well, it looks like thing have shaped up quite a bit since then, which is nice, since we don't exactly relish the thought of paying $2 billion in sales tax just to have it misplaced.
After the jump: more financial nitty-gritty. You know you like it. Also: what's still getting screwed up, because we love to complain.
"During fiscal year 2004-2005, the Authority has taken positive steps to improve its internal controls over financial reporting," says one piece of the report, and we can almost hear everyone at the SFCTA breathing a sigh of relief. All of the recommendations from 2004 (like keeping a journal of documents and approvals) are implemented or in progress, and no material weaknesses were found. Their net assets are about $76.3 million -- that's $275 million in assets and $199 million in liabilities -- a bit lower than last year, since they spent some money on projects and expect to make the money up with new tax revenue.
This money-talk is very exciting, of course, but what's it all for? Well the SFCTA takes your taxes and spends the money on a bunch of useful things, like street-paving, bike lanes, paratransit, parking management, and beautification. They also take on some major projects, like building a Central Subway from the ballpark to Chinatown, which so far is going stupendously -- way over budget and behind schedule, and lacking a ventilation system that would permit riders to, you know, breathe. Also theirs: a new approach to the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Transbay Terminal, which is so far over budget and behind schedule it's barely even a gleam in anyone's eye anymore. They also do some clean-air and congestion-management work, which is funny, because with all that respiratory-sounding work you'd think someone would have pointed out the Central Subway's lack of air.
Political bickering about transit aside, the Authority's accountant-buddies made two recommendations: reconciliation and closing needs to be streamlined, so they can deliver paperwork faster; and they should be developing more-accurate cash flow analyses. But wouldn't you know it -- according to the Authority, they're already hard at work putting that advice to work. It won't put up the new Transbay Terminal overnight, or instantly divert the Central Subway from disaster ($213,000 spent per rider?!?! Can that be right?) but it's a start. And all it took was the SF Controller writing that "The executive director continues to demonstrate his lack of understanding of basic financial management practices." Let's hear it for cooperation!
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Thanks for the Yahoo discussion group link. I'd forgotten about this horrendous project but it's easily the most grotesque use of transportation dollars I've ever seen.
Yes that number seems ridiculously high, but something I don't think is factored in is that though the Central Subway would follow the route of the 30 or 45, it does not extended far enough north offer the enough stops/stations in the right place to actually replace any of the bus service, leaving those of us that ride the 30 or 45 waiting for delayed busses stuck in traffic.
Muni would still be paying to operate the bus lines, plus have to tack on however much more it costs to run a subway too instead of being able to save money through replacing bus with subway service.