Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFMTA outlines second issuance of 2014 Transportation bond; committee presses for clearer financial reports
Summary
SFMTA told the San Francisco GO Bond Oversight Committee the second issuance of the 2014 Transportation and Road Improvement Bond has been sold and will accelerate projects, but committee members pressed agency staff for clearer financial reporting, accountability and assurances that bond funds will not be redirected to Central Subway.
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency told the GO Bond Oversight Committee in March that a second issuance tied to the 2014 Transportation and Road Improvement Bond has been sold and will fund a suite of Muni and facility projects.
"We expect receipt of our second issuance of the Geo Bond as early as tomorrow," Timothy Maglamot, speaking for SFMTA, said during the committee presentation. He said the issuance will allow the agency to push more projects into or through construction.
Committee members, however, pressed SFMTA on delayed and incomplete financial reports. One member noted the first issuance — roughly $67.6 million — remains partly unspent after about three years and asked whether supporting accountability reports and financials had been submitted. Maglamot said a bond accountability report was filed with the city’s Office of Public Finance but that a recent financial-system cutover (to FSP) delayed up-to-date reporting in published quarterly materials. He added that processing a $26.2 million supplemental appropriation last June helped make additional funds visible in the system.
The exchange included a direct denial of recent press assertions tying bond funds to the Central Subway project. Asked whether any appropriation from the 2014 bond had been scheduled for Central Subway, Maglamot said, "I can say with complete confidence that there aren't any appropriations for this for the Central Subway project. Neither are there any plans for us to use bonds for the Central Subway project." He pointed committee members to the SFMTA two-year proposed capital budget and the five-year capital improvement program as not listing any such appropriation.
SFMTA staff described interim workarounds they use while financial data is being reconciled. Maglamot said the agency produces an interim financial report — a crosswalk of legacy and current financial systems — that gives project managers an estimated view of expenditures (he described it as roughly "90 to 95% accurate"). He also said data-mapping errors and the need for interdepartmental cleanup, particularly with Public Works, have slowed complete system reconciliation.
Public comment at the meeting echoed the committee's concern. Jerry Dratler, a bond oversight advocate, urged the committee to request MTA bond financial statements and to explain why regular financial reports have been missing.
Committee members asked SFMTA to follow up with specific project managers about possible uses of bond funds on individual projects named in press reports and to present updated financial materials at a future meeting. SFMTA staff agreed to provide follow-up details and to improve liaison communications between departments.
The committee did not take formal action on the presentation; it requested additional financial detail and follow-up reporting.
Next steps: SFMTA will supply project-level answers and updated financial statements for the committee’s review at an upcoming meeting.
