San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2015-2016

Maintenance Budgeting and Accounting Challenges for General Fund Departments Maintenance Economics Versus Maintenance

Published: June 21, 2016 125 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9, F10, F11, F12, F13, F14, F15, F16, F17, F18, F19, F20, F21, F22, F23, F24, F25, F26, F27, F28, F29, F30, F31, F32, F33, F34, F35, F36, F37, F38, F39, F40, F41

Findings 2 findings

F1
Economic and Neighborhood Development/ADM $857,092
F42
F:VII.2. The City does not have accounting and financial systems and processes Controller, in place to accurately determine and report the condition of its assets or Department of Public the extent of its deferred maintenance. Works, City Administrator, Director of the Capital Planning Program, Director of the Real Estate Division, General Manager of Recreation and Parks F:VII.3. The City’s capital assets shown in its financial statements may be Controller overstated because its use of straight line depreciation assumes a longer asset life span than is likely given the reduced­life impact of deferred maintenance. F:VII.4. Existing data show that maintaining assets extends asset life and is Controller, cheaper than prematurely replacing unmaintained assets. Director of Public Works, City Administrator, Director of the Capital Planning Program, Director of the Real Estate Division, General Manager of Recreation and Parks

Recommendations 4

Conclusions 5