Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FINANCIAL AUDITS
At the request of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, we conducted a
financial review of the City’s investment in SFO Enterprises, Inc.
Highlights Recommendations
The Airport’s Investment in SFOE Will Result in a Loss The audit report includes six
recommendations for the
The San Francisco Airport Department (Airport) will lose at least Airport to properly account for
$667,000 from its investments in the private, for-profit corporation, SFO the closure of SFOE, and to
Enterprises, Inc., (SFOE). The Airport is now closing the operations of manage outside contracts,
SFOE, and SFOE’s financial position consists of the following: including the following:
• Recorded assets of $1,523,732, including a receivable of $787,200, • Retain SFOE’s liability of
which is contingent upon future events, from the sale of SFO $1,087,559, plus interest,
Honduras, a subsidiary of SFOE. on the Airport’s books
until SFOE receives the
• Recorded and unrecorded liabilities of $2,190,719. Recorded remaining proceeds of the
liabilities include $1,087,559 owed to the Airport for prior consulting sale of SFO Honduras or
services to SFOE. Unrecorded liabilities consist of unbilled costs of the receivable becomes
$760,673 that the Airport did not allocate to SFOE. uncollectible.
If SFOE does not collect the receivable from the sale of its subsidiary, • Collect from SFOE any
the Airport’s loss will increase to $1.5 million. amounts received from
the proceeds of the sale
The Airport Could Have Better Managed Its Relationship With SFOE of SFO Honduras, in
addition to any remaining
The Airport did not consider potential internal control weaknesses when cash in its bank accounts
it assigned some of its upper management staff as officers of SFOE and to reduce the debt owed
then assigned some of the same staff to manage the agreement on to the Airport.
behalf of the Airport. This may have resulted in such questionable
actions where the Airport: • Formally enter
agreements with outside
• Provided services to SFOE before it had any formal agreements with agencies before providing
SFOE and was 18 months late in formalizing the repayment any services.
agreement with SFOE to pay for past services.
• Ensure that its employees
• Did not consistently identify all its costs related to SFOE, as well as adhere to the Controller’s
its other international services projects. travel policies even when
they are working as
• Did not always follow city rules in conducting work for SFOE. consultants for private
companies.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER Ed Harrington
Controller
Monique Zmuda
Deputy Controller
The Office of the Controller (Controller) presents its report on the audit of SFO
Enterprises, Inc., (SFOE) a private, for-profit corporation, of which the City and County of
San Francisco (City) is the sole shareholder. This corporation was formed in 1999 to allow
city staff at the San Francisco Airport Department (Airport) to provide airport management
consulting services through the corporation to other international airports. SFOE has been
awarded only one contract to manage a foreign airport. The Airport is in the process of
terminating the operations of SFOE, and SFOE has completed the sale of its only
subsidiary, SFO Honduras, LLP. The fiscal year 2003-04 Annual Appropriation Ordinance
directed the Controller to conduct this audit upon the termination of operations of SFOE.
We believe this venture will ultimately result in a loss to the Airport of at least $667,000
growing to almost $1.5 million depending on whether the sale of SFO Honduras ever
produces enough income to offset the costs of the venture. The actual cost of this venture
is clouded by the interaction of the Airport’s International Services Division and SFOE.
The Airport contends that the two entities are separate and while there is legal separation,
their reason for existence, management, and staffing are virtually identical so we often
viewed them as one entity for this audit. Both entities were created to provide
management and advisory services to international airports. Accordingly, we identified
additional costs that we believe could be attributed to the venture.
The Airport’s response is attached to this report. The City Services Auditor-Financial
Audits will be working with the Airport to follow up on the status of the recommendations
made in this report.
Respectfully submitted,
415-554-7500 City Hall • 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place • Room 316 • San Francisco CA 94102-4694 FAX 415-554-7466
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Because SFOE did not have sufficient initial capital to hire its own
employees and to pay for other services, SFOE planned to use
the Airport’s employees to perform the corporation’s services. In
return, SFOE agreed to reimburse the Airport for payroll costs,
travel expenses, and other services performed by Airport staff and
other vendors.
1
of the Controller (Controller) to complete an audit of SFOE upon
termination of its operations.
2
Chapter 1
TABLE 1
Liabilities (Note 2)
Due to Airport
Consulting Services 1,087,559 1,087,559
Costs Incurred After Incorporation $357,919 357,919
Costs Incurred Before Incorporation 402,754 402,754
Due to Others
Outside Attorney Fees 342,487 342,487
Total Liabilities $1,430,046 $760,673 2,190,719
Note 1: Includes the payment of $447,800 on April 4, 2006 for a portion of the receivable.
Note 2: The Airport has advised us that SFOE has other insignificant liabilities that we have not included
in this table.
3
SFOE May Not Receive All the Proceeds
From the Sale of Its Subsidiary
4
TABLE 2
(2) Staff Benefit and Service Charges. The Airport was not
consistent in charging SFOE for the use of its staff. The Airport,
while including a provision for the payment of staff benefits, did
not charge the same benefit rates throughout the period it was
providing staff services to SFOE. From September 1999, through
June 2000, the Airport charged SFOE for staff benefits ranging
from 7 percent to 40 percent of staff hourly rates. In subsequent
years, the Airport charged staff benefits rates ranging from 36
percent to 41 percent of the hourly rates. We believe the higher
rates to be more representative of the benefits paid to employees,
and that the Airport could have recovered an additional $29,501 in
staff benefit costs.
1
Letter Agreement Regarding Services Provided by SFO to SFOE, dated March
12, 2001.
2
Letter Agreement Regarding Repayment of Expenses, dated March 12, 2001.
5
(3) Staff Payroll Costs. The Airport did not charge SFOE for all
the time its employees spent conducting work for the corporation.
In reviewing a sample of timesheets, we found that the Airport did
not charge SFOE the following:
In its letter accompanying the invoices, the firm noted that this
allocation of costs to SFOE and the Airport reflects SFOE’s board
of “directors’ judgment as to the reasonable allocation of costs of
this activity in light of the need to protect the Airport from potential
claims (however unfounded they might be) in connection with the
termination of these activities.” Further, Morrison & Foerster
acknowledged in its letter that the law firm was reissuing the
invoices in accordance with the Airport’s direction. Nevertheless,
3
Now deputy director of business and finance.
6
since SFOE was created as a separate corporation to avoid
liability to the City, we believe that SFOE should pay for these
attorney fees.
(7) Travel Costs. The Airport did not include in its invoices to
SFOE any travel costs to conferences and other places for
business activities related to privatization efforts, but not directly
related to SFOE. According to the Airport’s assistant deputy
airport director of capital planning, these amounts were
considered development costs of the Airport. However, in the
absence of an agreement that the Airport pay for development
costs, we believe that the expenses paid after the incorporation
date are development costs of the corporation and therefore could
be charged to the corporation.
TABLE 3
7
(1) International Service Costs. Although the Airport did not
allocate a budget for the International Services Division until fiscal
year 1999-2000, the Airport had taken steps prior to this time to
attempt to obtain airport management contracts and to perform
other services. According to the Airport’s records, it spent about
$636,914 from 1996 through 1999 in payroll, travel, and
professional services costs related to research, technical, and bid
preparation services that Airport staff and city vendors had
performed in their attempts to win airport management and other
contracts in such countries as Panama, Peru, Mexico, Uruguay,
Jamaica, Australia, and Chile. According to the Airport, the only
related income received during this period, was $327,191 for
services rendered to the Perth Airport Consortium in Australia.
Therefore, the Airport’s net expenses before the incorporation of
SFOE totaled $309,723.
8
they are related to the primary business of SFOE to secure
international airport management contracts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4
These rates are based on the Airport’s annual Cost Allocation Plan prepared in
accordance with the Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-87, which
promulgates cost principles for state and local government units. They are used
in conjunction with federal grant-funded projects.
9
3. Consult with the Controller and the City Attorney on the
proper treatment of any unpaid debt remaining on the
Airport’s books.
10
Chapter 2
No Arms-Length Relationship
11
Furthermore, we found no evidence that these agreements were
ever brought before the City’s Board of Supervisors, Budget
Analyst, or Controller for comment or approval by an independent
city representative. While there is no requirement to have the
agreements reviewed by an impartial party, a review might have
uncovered, for example, the fact that the Airport did not include
adequate reimbursement of its indirect charges in its letter
agreements as we discussed in the previous chapter.
The City’s FAMIS revealed that the Airport did not record any
budgets or charges in the international services project code for
fiscal year 1997-98, and only recorded $21,216 in salaries and
benefits charges for fiscal year 1998-99. However, according to
the Airport’s internal records, it had already spent more than
$630,000 on various international services projects. Instead of
charging these expenditures to the International Services Division,
12
the Airport charged other budgeted cost centers, such as the chief
of staff, bureau of planning, director’s office, and marketing cost
centers.
13
TABLE 4
Budget and Actual Expenditures for Airport Costs
Incurred for International Services and SFOE
Note: The FAMIS budget is for all international services, of which SFOE was only one project.
Travel Rules for Air Travel and Hotel Stays Not Followed
14
by the most efficient, direct and economical mode of
transportation required by the occasion.
15
Controller’s accounting staff requested an accounting of the travel
advance from the Airport in January 2001, SFOE subsequently
paid the money back in April 2001, or seven months after the
issuance of the advance, and five months after the Airport
employee returned from the travel.
The Airport maintains that the $110 hourly rate paid to the Airport
employee as a contractor was agreed to for the purpose of making
the employee whole on an after-tax basis, considering the value of
forgone benefits suffered by the employee. However, this rate
includes the total cost of all of the employee’s legal holidays and
floating holidays for an entire year, in addition to certain benefits,
which the employee would not lose by taking a leave for 11
workdays. Using the methodology and assumptions provided to us
by the Airport’s consultant, we calculated that an hourly rate of
$85, instead of $110, which is more than fair compensation,
resulted in an overpayment of $3,830.
RECOMMENDATIONS
16
6. Ensure that its employees adhere to the Controller’s travel
policies even when they are working as consultants for
private companies.
17
This page intentionally left blank.
18
SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT DEPARTMENT
RESPONSE TO THE REPORT
19
20
APPENDIX
21
This page intentionally left blank.
22
cc: Mayor
Board of Supervisors
Civil Grand Jury
Budget Analyst
Public Library
23