Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Cost Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members press MARTA on discrepant audit findings as KPMG and Malden & Jenkins reports diverge
Summary
Council members pressed MARTA leadership about conflicting assessments over cost allocation and fund reconciliations: an earlier Malden & Jenkins report cited roughly $70 million, while KPMG's review found about $865,000 in questioned balances; MARTA's board has convened an ad hoc committee to reconcile the methodologies.
Multiple council members pressed MARTA leadership about divergent findings from two outside reviews of cost allocation and historical reimbursements, with sharp interest in how the agency will resolve differing methodologies and amounts.
MARTA presented a timeline showing that Malden & Jenkins had prepared an earlier operational/audit-style report that identified a large discrepancy in prior-year allocations; KPMG later performed a separate operational assessment that concluded with a materially smaller figure. "KPMG finished in February of '25. On March of '25, KPMG presented its conclusions to the MARTA board," Collie Greenwood told the committee. Greenwood said the MARTA board created an ad hoc committee in March to review both cost-allocation methodologies and that the ad hoc committee met in April.
The earlier Malden & Jenkins work — widely discussed in city forums — identified larger questioned amounts (the committee discussion referenced a $70 million figure from that report). Greenwood told the committee that MARTA does not agree with the threshold methodology Malden & Jenkins used and that KPMG's review used an alternate method that produced an $865,000 figure. Greenwood said both firms’ work informed the board's ad hoc review but that MARTA’s leadership was not in agreement with the larger Malden & Jenkins methodology.
Why it matters: The unresolved differences concern intergovernmental transfers and the proper accounting for transit-related cost allocations across years. The contested sums are material to council members and to the city's financial reconciliation of more-MARTA program funds.
Details and next steps: Greenwood said the board ad hoc committee is reviewing the methodologies and will engage staff and consultants to reconcile the numbers; public comments and council questions urged a timely resolution. Council members asked for a more narrowly defined timeline and for documentation that explains how KPMG reconstructed FY17–FY19 allocations.
MARTA’s executive team said they would allow the board ad hoc committee to complete its work and return recommendations; committee members signaled they expect a prompt process and possible engagement with city leadership when the ad hoc committee reports.
