هیئت استانداردهای حسابداری دولتی (GASB) Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)

Cities that have long-term debt for infrastructure assets will probably want to retroactively report infrastructure in conjunction with the new model to better match long-term liabilities and assets. SO WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL? Under GASB 34, local and state government basic financial statements will become longer and more complex—and thus more difficult to prepare and audit. This will be especially true when converting to the new model. This increased difficulty and complexity directly translate into increased costs—both one-time during implementation and ongoing thereafter—for staff resources as well as audit fees and consultant services. Will the effort and cost be worth it? Goals for the new model include: • Improving financial reporting • Enhancing awareness of fiscal issues facing states and local governments • Recognizing the importance of adequately maintaining infrastructure • Size and complexity of the city’s operations • Finance staff resources • Age of its infrastructure • Availability of reliable information about current infrastructure systems For communities with relatively new infrastructure, this may be a less difficult undertaking than in older cities; and implementation and ongoing support may be easier for cities that have already extensively documented their infrastructure through geographic information systems (GIS) or established maintenance systems like pavement management plans. In evaluating costs, cities will need to consider both the one-time and ongoing costs to: prepare the additional financial information, develop and maintain the infrastructure data, and audit the results. In most cases, at least initially, outside accounting and engineering resources will be needed to implement the new model. Two Case Studies. Two cities in California recently prepared “sample” financial statements under the new model: Tracy (pop. 54,200) and Corona (pop. 123,000). For Tracy, Maze & Associates did the accounting work, and Berryman & Henigar the infrastructure work. For Corona, Caporicci Cropper and Larsen did the accounting, and Charles Abbott and Associates the infrastructure. As “pilot” case studies, all four firms donated their time in preparing the sample statements. However, the following are estimates of the value of this donated work, excluding the significant staff work that was also required. • Tracy. Estimated costs are $25,000 for changed financial statement presentation, note preparation, and MD&A review; and $25,000 to develop the infrastructure data. • Corona. Estimated costs are $30,000 for changed financial statement presentation, note preparation, and MD&A review; and $11,000 to develop the infrastructure data. (As noted below, this work built on a recently completed, comprehensive fixed asset inventory that cost $55,000 to complete.) These implementation costs, ranging from $40,000 to $50,000, should be considered “order of magnitude” estimates—and “best-case” ones for comparably sized cities for the following reasons: • Tracy and Corona start from a solid financial statement base: They already prepare their annual financials report in accordance with the high standards of the GFOA and CSMFO programs for excellence in financial reporting. • Their infrastructure assets are relatively new and GIS applications are in place. Tracy has a comprehensive pavement management program, and Corona had just completed a $55,000 appraisal of its fixed assets, providing a solid starting point. WHY IMPLEMENT IT? If GASB 34 is going to be so difficult to implement, and the benefits so unclear, why do it? The new model is supported by a number of users and professional associations. The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers has endorsed the new model, and so have the credit rating agencies (who are the primary “users” of these reports). There are many public works officials who believe the new reporting model will result in a better understanding of infrastructure needs. And a number of well-respected municipal finance professionals think the new reporting model tells a city’s fiscal story better, and is a significant improvement over the current model. It’s “GAAP.” This is probably the most compelling reason for implementing the new model. GASB is the acknowledged authoritative body in setting generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for local and state agencies. Maintaining citizen confidence in our stewardship of the assets entrusted to us requires credibility and integrity in our accounting and financial reporting systems. And preparing audited financial statements in accordance with industry standards provides an essential foundation for gaining and sustaining this trust. For this reason, despite its reservations about some of the changes in the new model, the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO), which represents more than 1,000 local government finance professionals throughout the state, has strongly encouraged its members to implement GASB 34. SUMMARY GASB 34 represents a major change in financial reporting for local and state governments. While there are concerns about the value of some of these changes (most notably infrastructure reporting), there is widespread agreement that cities should implement these changes in order to prepare audited financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. For many cities, implementing the new model should not be an overwhelming task—but for all cities, it will mean careful planning, staff training, and allocating the resources necessary to successfully make this change.