CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( March 16, 2019 Infrastructure

Similar documents
CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( September 18, 2018 GASB 34

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( September 08, 2018 Disposition of Surplus Property

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( July 22, 2018 County Purchasing Law of 1957

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( April 07, 2018 Recording, Filing and Indexing

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( July 11, 2018 Register of Deeds Records

Bedford County Board of Education

STATE OF OHIO FINANCIAL REPORTING APPROACH GASB 34 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( December 29, 2018 Property Classification

CAPITAL ASSETS MVECA. Presented by: Larry Weeks, CPA

ACCOUNTING FOR CAPITAL ASSETS. Presented by: Joel Knopp, CPA Shareholder

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( January 21, 2018 Greenbelt

Page 1 of 5 Retrieval Number: 90,046

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO STAFF REPORT November 3, 2015

Peters Township Sanitary Authority Capital Assets

CAPITAL ASSETS POLICY FOR THE VILLAGE OF FLOWER HILL. Section I. Capital Asset Definitions and Guidelines. I. (1) Overview

Section: FS Financial Services. Department: Finance. FS-03 Tangible Capital Asset Policy. Policy Statement LEDUC COUNTY MUNICIPAL POLICY

FISCAL POLICIES MANUAL... 1

1. Only items to which the Village has title to and meet the definition of the following will be recorded a tangible capital asset.

Capitalization. POLICY OWNER: AVP for Finance and Controller

POLICY 6600 CAPITALIZATION AND CONTROL OF ASSETS

GASB 34 Compliance. Retrospective Valuation of ODOT Infrastructure. A Proposed Approach

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN POLICY/PROCEDURE Approved by the Town Council at the Town Council Meeting

Capital Asset Guidelines Update. Presented by Ben M. Riden, Jr., CPA,CGFM Christy Todd

MTAS MORe. Sincerely,

UPPER BUCKS COUNTY AREA VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL SCHOOL

SHARPSVILLE AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT

CAPITAL ASSETS. POLICY No

Accounting for Capital Assets

Capitalization and Depreciation Guidelines

NEWSLETTER NO. 16 Valuing Tangible Capital Assets Estimating Historical Cost By John Rockx, KPMG

CITY OF NORTH MANKATO CAPITAL ASSET POLICY ADOPTED: JANUARY 1, 2003 REVISED EFFECTIVE: _JANUARY 1, 2016

LAC LA BICHE COUNTY POLICY

Sample Renewal Additional Information Request

SCHOOL DISTRICT FIXED ASSET POLICY

TITLE 5 MUNICIPAL FINANCE AND TAXATION 1 CHAPTER 1 MISCELLANEOUS

Storm Water Management Facility Restrictive Covenant Language

Federal Grants Manual Webinar Series: Property Management

CITY OF EAU CLAIRE, WISCONSIN. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY (Dated: November 8, 2016)

City of Bellingham Policy

CITY OF SEASIDE. Infrastructure and Fixed Asset Capitalization and Inventory Control Policy PURPOSE

Administration s Finance Office Approval Date: 4/10/12 Effective Date: 4/10/12 Capital Assets and Property Review Date:

II. What Type of Development Requires Site Plan Review? There are five situations where a site plan review is required:

TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS

APPLICATION FOR DRIVEWAY PERMIT

(2) An identification of the municipality, area, or facility to be served by the proposed system;

COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Financial Procedure Instructions FPI 4-1

Title: ENCROACHMENT POLICY Number: 0132 Reference: Administrative Committee January 21, Adopted by City Council: February 2, 2009

Deeper Dive Leases. Overview

County of Monterey. Capital Asset Policy

FYI For Your Information

Orange Water and Sewer Authority Water and Sewer System Development Fee Study

Capitalization and Depreciation of Property, Plant, and Equipment

GASBs Presented by: William Blend, CPA, CFE

GASB 87 Leases. GASB 87 Scope and Effective Date

SENATE BILL 274 CHAPTER. Tax Increment Financing and Special Taxing Districts Transit Oriented Development

P Capital Asset Guidelines Revised 5/22/2018. Table of Contents. Introduction... 2 Capital Asset Definitions and Guidelines...

Real estate project costs

CEDAR COUNTY SECONDARY ROAD DEPARTMENT POLICY FOR UPGRADE OF LEVEL B COUNTY ROADS

Version Date Comments / Changes 1.0 June 2006 Initial Policy Released 2.0 June 2012 Revised 3.0 November 2017 Revised

Policy Title ACCOUNTING FOR TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS

2017 Florida Legislative Changes To Florida Statute 720

Mining Rehabilitation Fund (MRF)

STORM WATER CREDIT MANUAL CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, ILLINOIS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

Purchasing Guide. MTAS MORe. Published on MTAS ( November 06, 2018

Capital Assets & Depreciation Policy

Impact Fees. Section 1 Purpose and Intent.

ROCKFORD AREA HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS and INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT. For the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013

CITY OF RIO COMMUNITIES, NEW MEXICO

EUROPEAN UNION ACCOUNTING RULE 7 PROPERTY, PLANT & EQUIPMENT

Technical Line SEC staff guidance

Exposure Draft. Accounting Standard (AS) 40 Investment Property. Last date for the comments: November 10, 2018

FIXED ASSET PROCEDURES

Capital Asset Accounting Policies POLICY STATEMENT

TOWN OF LINCOLN COUNCIL POLICY

Re: File Reference: No , Exposure Draft: Leases (Topic 842)

Paragraph 5.b. We ask that the Board provide a definition of the term biological assets.

CTAS e-li. Published on e-li ( February 13, 2018 Register of Deeds

LYON COUNTY TITLE 15 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AGREEMENTS AND INCENTIVES CHAPTERS October 19, 2017 Ordinance Draft DRAFT

NoRTEC Policy Statement Property Purchasing, Inventory and Disposal

CITY OF CIRCLE PINES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY

Wesley S. Davis District 1. Gary C. Wheeler Chairman District 3. Joseph E. Flescher District 2. Sandra L. Bowden Vice Chairman District 5

2018 Requirements Manual An In-Depth Look at Changes to the Requirements

LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN SOUTH SUDAN THEMATIC AREA 4: PUBLIC PROVISION OF LAND INFORMATION

Marin County Agricultural Land Conservation Program March 1, 2014

Shipping insights briefing

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT LAND DIVISION - UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS PROGRAM DIVISION 335-5

Why Uganda should be cautious about amending ARTICLE 26 of the Constitution

DRAFT. Development Impact Fee Model Ordinance. Mount Pleasant, SC. Draft Document. City Explained, Inc. J. R. Wilburn and Associates, Inc.

Series: Capital Investments How to Calculate Straight-line Depreciation

Best of Accounting Complexities Facing Local Governments Capital Assets Focus

Standard 10: Tax Benefits

ALBERTA GRAZING LEASE 2005 IN-KIND COST SURVEY RESULTS

Tangible Capital Assets Implementation of Section 3150 New Brunswick Local Governments. October 2010

Lesson 6 International Accounting Lelio Bigogno, Stefano Santucci

CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF LEEDS AND THE THOUSAND ISLANDS BY-LAW

ALGIERS RATE CASE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

SUMMER VILLAGE OF YELLOWSTONE ACCOUNTING FOR TANGIBLE CAPITAL ASSETS CLASSIFICATION/CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLD/AMORTIZATION POLICY NO.

$28,145,000 THE COUNTY COMMISSION OF HARRISON COUNTY (WEST VIRGINIA) TAX INCREMENT REVENUE AND REFUNDING BONDS (CHARLES POINTE PROJECT NO

Charter Township of Lyon P.A. 198 Industrial Facilities Tax Exemption Tax Abatement Guidelines

Delinquent Tax Certificate Sale

Transcription:

Published on e-li (http://ctas-eli.ctas.tennessee.edu) March 16, 2019 Dear Reader: The following document was created from the CTAS electronic library known as e-li. This online library is maintained daily by CTAS staff and seeks to represent the most current information regarding issues relative to Tennessee county government. We hope this information will be useful to you; reference to it will assist you with many of the questions that will arise in your tenure with county government. However, the Tennessee Code Annotated and other relevant laws or regulations should always be consulted before any action is taken based upon the contents of this document. Please feel free to contact us if you have questions or comments regarding this information or any other e-li material. Sincerely, The University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service 226 Capitol Blvd. Suite 400 Nashville, TN. 37219 615-532-3555 phone 615-532-3699 fax ctas@tennessee.edu www.ctas.tennessee.edu Page 1 of 5

Table of Contents... 3 Roads... 3 Right-of-ways and Other Easements... 4 Bridges... 4 Modified Approach to Reporting... 5 Page 2 of 5

Reference Number: CTAS-1985 The GASB defines infrastructure as long-lived capital assets associated with governmental activities that normally are stationary in nature and can be preserved for a significantly greater number of years than most capital assets. Examples of infrastructure are bridges, roads, dams, and lighting systems. Buildings usually are excluded from the definition of infrastructure assets unless they are an ancillary part of a network of infrastructure (i.e. a pump-house on a dam). Most small- and medium-size Tennessee counties will typically have at least two main types of infrastructure to capitalize, county-owned roads and bridges. Except for counties with less then $10 million of total revenue in fiscal year ended June 30, 1999, all Tennessee counties must capitalize all major infrastructure on a retroactive basis. While the GASB encourages all counties, regardless of size, to retroactively capitalize infrastructure, counties under the $10 million threshold are allowed to capitalize infrastructure on a prospective basis (i.e. just new additions of infrastructure beginning with the year of Statement 34 implementation). When it issued Statement 34, the GASB set forth deadlines for local governments to retroactively report assets. While the GASB encouraged early implementation, Tennessee counties with more than $10 million but less then $100 million in total revenue in the first fiscal year ending after June 15, 1999, were supposed to capitalize all major infrastructure retroactively no later then June 30, 2007. Counties with less then $10 million in total revenue are encouraged, but not required, to retroactively capitalize infrastructure assets. GASB Statement 34 requires counties to capitalize and report all county-owned infrastructure that exceed capitalization thresholds, at historical or estimated historical cost. The GASB recognized the challenge to determine an accurate historical cost in counties that are required to retroactively report assets. Therefore, counties are required to capitalize and report only major general infrastructure assets that were acquired (purchased, constructed, or donated) in fiscal years ending after June 30, 1980, or that received major renovations, restorations, or improvements during that period. Roads Reference Number: CTAS-1986 One of the biggest challenges with capitalizing roads is how to determine the historical and/or estimated historical costs of these assets. Many county-owned roads have been maintained in the county for decades, or even more then a century, and have changed over time from a simple dirt road to a multiplelane asphalt road with numerous upgrades and courses of maintenance. The GASB considered this accounting challenge when it implemented Statement 34 and requires that counties retroactively report roads at actual or estimated historical cost only back to Those acquired on or after July 1, 1980 or, The last time the road was upgraded (gravel to oil-and-chip, etc.) or, The last time the road was replaced or resurfaced in a way that it extended the original useful life of the road (i.e. not considered routine maintenance). Example 1: Blue County is trying to determine the historical cost for Turkey Town Road (a county-owned gravel road). The road has been a gravel road for at least 50 years. Every year, the county grades the road a couple times and drops a few loads of gravel (less than $100) on it for annual maintenance. As this road does not meet any of the requirements for capitalization (date acquired, no upgrades, only routine maintenance performed), county management chose not to capitalize this road. Example 2: Grey County is trying to determine the historical cost for Short Mountain Road (a county-owned oil-and-chip road). The road has existed for more than a hundred years. However, the road was gravel until 1994, when it was upgraded to oil-and-chip. Since this was the last major work project on this road, the county would determine an estimated historical cost (if actual cost was not known) for the cost of an oil-and-chip road and capitalize this amount as the road s cost with the acquisition date of the road being 1994 (when it was upgraded). Page 3 of 5

Right-of-ways and Other Easements Example 3: Black County is trying to determine the historical cost for Biven s Hill Road (a county-owned asphalt road). The road has been an asphalt road for a number of years, however the road was resurfaced three years ago during a large repaving project. The original historic cost of the road would be determined at the time of resurfacing if the project extended the useful life of the road and was not considered routine maintenance. The original acquisition date for the road would be the date of this last major resurfacing. Often when new subdivisions are finished, the roads within the subdivision are brought up to county road standards and donated to the county. The capitalization cost of these roads should be the actual or estimated fair value of the roads at the time of donation. If the developer refuses to disclose the cost of the roads, the GASB has determined that a county can use an accurate estimate (based on comparable road construction costs) for the value of the donated infrastructure. Management should be cautious if they use a cost estimate provided by a road builder not to include the builder s profit margin into the cost estimate for a donated road. Right-of-ways and Other Easements Reference Number: CTAS-1987 An easement is an interest in land that is owned by another entity that entitles its holder to a specific limited use or right. Right-of-ways and other easement rights for which the county did not incur a cost are not required to be capitalized. If the easements were paid for by the county, they should be capitalized by actual or estimated historical cost. Example: Blue County has right-of-ways for a certain distance on both sides of all county roads. The county did not pay for these easement rights and private property owners that live next to the roads actually pay property taxes on the land under the roads. Since Blue County did not pay for these easement rights and the rights would cease if the road was taken off the county road list (i.e. no longer a county asset), management has decided not to capitalize these easements as infrastructure Bridges Reference Number: CTAS-1988 County-owned bridges should be capitalized at historical or estimated historical cost and depreciated as infrastructure. The Tennessee Department of Transportation bridge inspection reports are an excellent source of information for determining the construction date and dimensions of most, if not all, countyowned bridges. If the actual historical cost of the bridge cannot be located, a county can use an estimated historical cost by using a deflation calculator to index current bridge construction cost back to the year of construction. All bridges acquired on or after July 1, 1980, and above the county s capitalization threshold should be capitalized. Major renovations and repairs that are not considered routine maintenance and upgrades to bridges that exceed the capitalization threshold, such as wood to concrete, should also be capitalized and depreciated. Example 1: Blue County has a bridge that was originally built with a wooden floor in 1945. The bridge was upgraded to a concrete span in 1985. The county implemented GASB 34 in 2006 and retroactively reported the bridge as a concrete span with an acquisition date of 1985 (when the upgrade took place). Example 2: Blue County has a concrete box-type bridge that originally was constructed in 1983. However, the bridge had extensive damage in a storm and had major repairs (that extended the bridge s original useful life) in 1993. The bridge would be capitalized with an initial acquisition date as of 1993 (the date of the major renovation). Page 4 of 5

Modified Approach to Reporting Modified Approach to Reporting Reference Number: CTAS-1989 Most, if not all, Tennessee counties report their infrastructure on an individual asset basis. However, the GASB allows for a modified approach for infrastructure reporting. Under the modified approach, counties still are required to perform an initial retroactive capitalization of county-owned infrastructure (if over the $10 million threshold mentioned previously). However, instead of annually depreciating each infrastructure asset, the county must calculate a maintenance of effort amount that reflects the current costs for preserving infrastructure in lieu of depreciation. Counties are discouraged from implementing the modified approach since use of this method requires a county to periodically engage independent engineering consultants to perform condition assessments and demonstrate that all infrastructure has been maintained at or above a prescribed level. Source URL: http://ctas-eli.ctas.tennessee.edu/reference/infrastructure Page 5 of 5