Getting a second opinion on SMART

The current financial shortfall facing the SMART Board raises
questions regarding the credibility of the financial assumptions
underlying the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District 2009 Measure
Q Strategic Plan. The plan spans twenty years. Less than one year
into the plan, the financial assumptions for the first year missed
the mark by a substantial margin. Debates regarding delays and
destinations have surfaced and will undoubtedly continue for some
time.
Beyond the question of which cities will be included in the
first phase of the project and whether full implementation of the
plan will be delayed, there is a more basic question. How credible
are the financial assumptions upon which the plan is based? Are the
assumptions for the next 19 years more realistic than they were for
the first year? This question should be on the mind of each Board
member and those who appointed them. It is certainly on the mind of
voters.
The shortfall is blamed on the recession. Recessions happen. One
or more additional recessions will probably occur over the
remaining 19 years. It is critical the plan reflects a prudent and
realistic assessment of the future. This applies to tax revenues,
potential government grants and expense assumptions. If the plan
unraveled this early in the game, it is hardly prudent to dismiss
fears and the probabilities of future problems.
The Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association recommends the SMART
Board engage an outside professional consulting firm to complete an
independent evaluation of the plan. Ideally the independent
evaluation will be undertaken promptly, but certainly before any
new, irrevocable financial commitments are made. A “comfort letter”
indicating the confidence the firm has in the viability of the
current plan should accompany their assessment, together with their
view of potential areas of risk. This second opinion will give
voters the confidence to which they are entitled in return for
their commitment of tax dollars.
A second independent opinion can also provide a degree of
comfort to the SMART Board in the execution of their fiduciary
responsibility. It can validate the credibility of the current
plan; or in the alternative, identify potential future risks. With
advanced knowledge of potential pitfalls, the Board can plan
accordingly. The alternative approach, which we are currently
witnessing, is to grapple with problems after they materialize.
Jack Atkin is the President of the Sonoma County Taxpayers’
Association.