An Asset Management Team Approach to GASB-34 Power Point

701 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
701
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

An Asset Management Team Approach to GASB-34 Power Point

  1. 1. An Asset Management Team Approach to GASB-34 Mack Curtis Utah State Auditor’s Office Doyt Bolling Utah Technology Transfer (T 2 ) Center
  2. 2. Local Agencies’ Infra-structure Elements <ul><li>Roads & Streets = </li></ul><ul><li>Signs = </li></ul><ul><li>Sidewalks = </li></ul><ul><li>Water Systems = </li></ul><ul><li>Sewer Systems = </li></ul><ul><li>Power = </li></ul><ul><li>Parks & Buildings = Total </li></ul>Assets
  3. 3. Asset Management <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain Value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintain Service Life of Infra-Structure Elements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Building New Facilities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Constraints: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased Workload and Growth Demands </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rising Expectations of the users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inadequate Resources </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Asset Management: Resource Constraints <ul><li>1. Personnel </li></ul><ul><li>2. Facilities </li></ul><ul><li>3. Equipment </li></ul><ul><li>4. Materials </li></ul>
  5. 5. Preservation & Maintenance Issues <ul><li>Reactive vs. Pro-active </li></ul><ul><li>Catch-up vs. Preventative </li></ul><ul><li>Pressure vs. Needs Driven </li></ul><ul><li>Tactical vs. Strategic (Vision) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Team Approach <ul><li>Measurable Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Direction and Support of Top Management and Elected Officials </li></ul><ul><li>Commitment of Middle Management </li></ul><ul><li>Engagement of Front Line People </li></ul><ul><li>Credible Management & Info. Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Public Support </li></ul>
  7. 7. Asset Management: <ul><li>1-Combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory, </li></ul><ul><li>2-Provides tools to facilitate an organized, logical approach to decision making, and </li></ul><ul><li>3-Provides a framework for handling both short and long-range planning. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Basic Elements of Asset Management Condition Assessment Feedback & Adjustments Performance Obj. (Standards) Performance Measurement Implementation Resource Allocation Decision Analysis of Alternatives Strategies Inventory Asset Evaluation
  9. 9. GASB Statement-34 Capital Asset Reporting Requirements
  10. 10. Capital Asset Reporting <ul><li>Statement of Assets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All Capital Assets (including infrastructure) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Statement of Activities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Depreciation (cost of using assets) </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Definition of Capital Assets <ul><li>Capital Assets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tangible or intangible assets used in operations, that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure Assets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Long-lived, stationary in nature and normally can be preserved for a number of years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>roads, bridges, tunnels, drainage systems, dams, lighting systems, buildings (except ancillary parts of a network of infrastructure assets) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Valuing Capital Assets <ul><li>Reported at historical cost, including interest, and ancillary charges </li></ul><ul><li>Donated capital assets reported at estimated fair market value at time of acquisition </li></ul>
  13. 13. Depreciation ( general requirements) <ul><li>Report net of accumulated depreciation </li></ul><ul><li>Not all capital assets depreciable </li></ul><ul><li>Non-depreciable Capital Assets </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inexhaustible (i.e. land and certain land improvements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Infrastructure assets reported using modified approach (Asset Management Approach) </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Calculating Depreciation <ul><li>Systematic and rational allocation of the net cost of assets over estimated useful lives (i.e. straight line, sum-of-the-years-digits, single fund, etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Net Cost is historic cost less salvage value </li></ul><ul><li>Estimated useful life (design life) Periodically re-evaluated in relation to actual conditions and usage </li></ul>
  15. 15. Asset Grouping Options <ul><li>Depreciation expense calculated by any of the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Individual assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>class of assets (i.e. vehicle, buildings, computers, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Network of assets (i.e. dam, street systems, etc.) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Subsystem of Network (i.e. interstate, state highways, local or rural roads) </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Composite Depreciation <ul><li>Composite group depreciation methods may be used to calculate depreciation expenses. </li></ul><ul><li>Composite depreciation rate calculated in different ways: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimated life for group may be based upon weighted average or simple average of useful lives of assets </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(Continue Next Page) </li></ul>
  17. 17. Composite Depreciation (continue) <ul><ul><li>Depreciation rate for specific year may be based upon any established depreciation method </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Note: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Composite depreciation assumes all assets are retired at the end of useful life (therefore- no gain or loss is recorded). Cost of replaced assets is removed from both the capital asset account and the accumulated depreciation account. </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. When to Report Capital Assets <ul><li>Except for infrastructure- all governments should be reporting </li></ul><ul><li>All governments must start reporting new infrastructure assets (new purchases, acquisitions, and all reconstruction and improvements of infrastructure) at the time they implement Statement 34. </li></ul><ul><li>Previously constructed or acquired infra-structure. </li></ul>
  19. 19. Modified Approach for Infrastructure Reporting <ul><li>Asset Management Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Do not let assets deteriorate below a set condition level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Costs that extend the life of infrastructure beyond its previously established useful life (preservation costs) are immediately expensed, rather than capitalized and depreciated. </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Modified v.s Traditional Depreciation Traditional Depreciation Modified Approach Expense Capitalize Maintenance and Preservation Costs Maintenance Additions and improvements Preservation costs , additions, and improvements
  21. 21. Modified Approach-Requirements to Use <ul><li>Infrastructure assets that are part of a network or subsystem of a network (eligible infrastructure assets) are not required to be depreciated as long as the government does the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Manages the eligible infrastructure assets using an asset management system, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Documents that the eligible infrastructure assets are being preserved approximately at (or above) a condition level established by the government. </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. Asset Management System <ul><li>An acceptable asset management system should: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Report an up-to-date inventory of eligible infrastructure assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Perform and document replicable condition assessments of the eligible infrastructure assets, and summarize the results using a measurement scale </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Estimate each year the annual amount to maintain and preserve the eligible infrastructure assets at the condition level established and disclosed by the government </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Documentation of Preservation <ul><li>Governments should document that: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete condition assessments are performed (representative sampling is acceptable in a consistent manner at least 3 years) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The results of the three most recent complete condition assessments show that the eligible infrastructure assets are being preserved approximately at or above the condition level established and disclosed by the government </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. Establishing Condition Levels <ul><li>Statement 34 does not establish a minimum condition level in a formal, documented manner through appropriate administrative or executive policy or by legislative action. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Required Supplementary Information for Modified Approach <ul><li>Governments should disclose as RSI the following information for infrastructure assets reported using the modified approach: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- The assessed condition, performed at least every three years, for at least the three most recent comlete condition assessments, indicating the dates of the assessment </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(Continue Next Page) </li></ul>
  26. 26. Required Supplementary Information for Modified Approach <ul><ul><li>-The estimated annual amount calculated at the beginning of the fiscal year to maintain and preserve at (or above) the condition level established and disclosed by the government compared with the amounts actually expensed for each of the past five reporting periods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Basis for the condition measurement and the measurement scale </li></ul></ul><ul><li>(Continue Next Page) </li></ul>
  27. 27. Required Supplementary Information for Modified Approach <ul><ul><li>-The condition level at which the government intends to preserve its infrastructure assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-Factors that significantly affect trends in the information reported (for example, changes in measurement scale or target condition level, etc.) </li></ul></ul>
  28. 28. RSI Example of Requirements 1&2
  29. 29. RSI Example of Requirement 3 The condition of road pavement is measured using the XYZ pavement management system, which is based on a weighted average of six distress factors found in pavement surfaces. The XYZ pavement management system uses a measurement scale that is based on a condition index ranging from zero for a failed pavement to 100 for a pavement in perfect condition. The condition index is used to classify roads in good or better condition (70-100), fair condition(50-69), and substandard condition (less than 50). It is the City’s policy to maintain at least 85 percent of its street system at a good or better condition level. No more than 10 percent should be in a substandard condition. Condition assessments are determined every year.
  30. 30. Transition For Infrastructure Reporting <ul><li>Statement 34 Provides significant accommodations to ease the transition to the new standard: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Staggered transition dates </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limited time look-back period </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Look-back required for only major assets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reporting non-major assets not required </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Historical cost may be estimated </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Staggered Transition Dates $100 million or more June 15,2001 June 15, 2005 $10 million or more, but less than $100 million June15,2002 Prospective Only (retroactive is encouraged) June 15, 2006 Less than $10 million June 15,2003 Total Revenue Implementation of Basic Standard: Year Beginning After Infrastructure Implementation: Year Beginning after
  32. 32. Look-back Limited to Major Assets <ul><li>The Look-back need be applied to the estimated historical cost of only major general infrastructure assets acquired or significantly constructed, or that received significant improvements, in fiscal years ending after June 30, 1980 </li></ul>
  33. 33. Major Infrastructure Assets <ul><li>The determination of major general infrastructure assets should be at the network or subsystem level and should be based on these criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>. The cost or estimated cost of the subsystem is expected to be at least 5 percent of the total cost of all general capital assets reported in the first fiscal year ending after June 15,1999, or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>. The cost or estimated cost of the network is expected to be at least 10 percent of the total cost of all general capital assets reported in the first fiscal year ending after June 15, 1999 </li></ul></ul>
  34. 34. Estimated Historical Costs Allowed <ul><li>Acceptable Estimating Methods: </li></ul><ul><li>. Review of engineering and bond documents. </li></ul><ul><li>.Expenditures reported in capital project funds or capital outlays in government funds </li></ul><ul><li>. Estimated replacement cost, deflated. </li></ul><ul><li>. Any approach that complies with the intent of Statement 34 </li></ul>
  35. 35. UTAH EXAMPLE SEVIER COUNTY
  36. 36. Overview <ul><li>Fiscal Accountability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fund financial statements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Short-term financial performance and condition </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Operational Accountability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Government-wide financial statements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Long-term financial performance and condition </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. Significance <ul><li>Establishes methods for governments to be more accountable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To citizens, bond market analysts (investors), and other financial users </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provides a more comprehensive under-standing of an entity’s financial position </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Makes transparent the ability to repay long-term debt and deal with infrastructure maintenance obligations </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Significance <ul><li>May reinforce an agency’s choice to preserve assets instead of deferring maintenance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Because an increased emphasis is placed on reducing life-cycle costs, the preservation choice may be demonstrated as more reasonable than deferring maintenance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Deferred maintenance may result in prematurely replacing the asset, potentially at a higher cost. </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. Infrastructure <ul><li>Entities under $10 million not required to retroactively report infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Highly recommended that you do report it </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of reporting/usefulness of report </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Offset related liabilities resulting in net assets figures that are more positive </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It’s not that difficult! </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40. Sevier County Infrastructure <ul><li>One Network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Roads and Bridges </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Four Subsystems: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Paved Roads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gravel Roads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dirt Roads </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bridges </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Sevier County - Paved Roads Total Road Mileage: 131.46 Miles Estimated average cost per mile to construct a new road $160,000 Total replacement cost $21,033,600 Deflation factor (based on average age of roads of 16 years) 74 % Estimated historical cost $15,564,864
  42. 42. Sevier County - Bridges <ul><li>Most bridges have been reconstructed within the last ten years. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, stated at actual costs </li></ul>
  43. 43. Sevier County - Land related to infrastructure Dirt Gravel Paved Miles 202.32 321.06 131.46 Feet per mile 5,280 5,280 5,280 Total linear feet (000) 1,068 1,695 694 66 feet in a right of way 66 66 66 Total square feet (000) 70,504 111,883 45,811 Divided by sq. feet per acre 43,560 43,560 43,560 Total acres 1,619 2,568 1,052 Est. ave. value per acre at acquisition $250 $250 $250 Total estimated value $404,640 $642,120 $262,920
  44. 44. Infrastructure - Depreciation versus Modified Approach <ul><li>Depreciation: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Requires determining useful lives of assets (either by individual assets, class of assets, a susbsystem, or network of assets), etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are not required to report on condition assessments </li></ul></ul>
  45. 45. Infrastructure - Depreciation versus Modified Approach <ul><li>Modified Approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Not required to determine useful lives, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Must report on condition assessments (RSI) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Preferred approach for many local governments </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Capital Assets <ul><li>Most challenging part of conversion </li></ul><ul><li>Accounting for capital assets </li></ul><ul><li>Depreciation </li></ul><ul><li>Capitalization Thresholds </li></ul>
  47. 47. Sevier County - Capitalization Thresholds % Threshold # Items $ Items $ All items 2,325 $19,324,409 100 100 $ 500 784 $19,112,101 34 98.9 $1,000 528 $18,952,262 22 98.1 $2,500 308 $18,598,739 13 96.2 $5,000 211 $18,232,147 9 94.3
  48. 48. Capital Assets <ul><li>Assets reported by type of asset on the statement of net assets </li></ul><ul><li>Depreciation reported by function on the statement of activities. </li></ul><ul><li>Accounting formats necessary to provide required information </li></ul>
  49. 52. Capital Assets - Information Needed <ul><li>Capital asset listing must provide information on each asset regarding asset type and the function that uses that asset </li></ul><ul><li>Must be sortable </li></ul><ul><li>Acquisition date including a separate list of acquisitions during the current year </li></ul><ul><li>Disposition list </li></ul>
  50. 53. Implementation <ul><li>FHWA: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Primer: GASB 34 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>AAA: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>GASB 34 Capital Assets and Infrastructure Reporting Issues for Governmental Entities </li></ul></ul><ul><li>SAO: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Checklist </li></ul></ul>

×