The Legislative Analyst’s Office is asking the CHSRA to explain its reasoning behind asking for the amount of money the governor has proposed in his 2010-11 budget for CHSRA operations. Although this has been reported as the LAO opposing the funding request, the reality is that the LAO wants the Authority to justify the funding, particularly for staffing, before they can recommend approval.

A few excerpts from the LAO report makes it clear they’re not opposing the funding request in concept, but instead want more information on why the specific levels were requested:

Analyst’s Recommendation. In regard to the proposals for contract funding, there is no basis for the Legislature to determine the appropriate level of contract funding that should be provided to the authority for 2010–11. Accordingly, we withhold recommendation on the $203 million request pending receipt of supplemental information on the amount of work to be accomplished in the budget year, by contract, and information on how each contract fits into the overall development of the system….

Analyst’s Recommendation. We withhold recommendation on the staffing request until the authority is able to support the request for additional staffing with a strategy that outlines how to meet the short– and long–term staffing needs of the organization. The staffing strategy should include justification for the requested exempt positions. For the reasons discussed above, we further recommend that any exempt positions be defined statutorily.

In other words, the LAO is telling the CHSRA “show your work.” It’s a reasonable enough request, though the LAO needs to keep in mind that the CHSRA has been handicapped by a persistent lack of funding up to this last year. They have a few number of staff being asked to do a lot of work, including responding to the Legislature’s and LAO’s requests for more info. That’s not to say the CHSRA shouldn’t have to provide the info about the funding requests, they should – but the LAO and Legislature need to keep in mind the capacity the CHSRA has to respond.

Mike Rosenberg’s article on the issue noted comparisons being made between the HSR project and the East Span of the Bay Bridge:

Analysts fear the rail line could barrel down the same track as the Bay Bridge replacement project, where lack of oversight led to financial problems.

But there were other factors leading to the East Span’s financial problems. First, the basic design proposed by Governor Pete Wilson’s administration was rejected by Oakland politicians, including Mayor Jerry Brown, as not being aesthetically pleasing enough. A self-anchored suspension span was instead selected as a “signature span,” but this came at a much higher cost. The delays meant that construction materials procurement happened in the middle of the Chinese economic boom, which had driven steel prices through the roof. Had the line been held on design, the overall cost would have been smaller and procurement could have happened sooner, saving the state a huge amount of money.

That’s something to keep in mind as the public project planning process proceeds on the Peninsula and in other parts of the state. The best way to avoid financial problems for the project is to hit the sweet spot of a design that maximizes ridership and operations while also being integrated effectively with its surroundings.