A Review of DOT Compliance with GASB 34 Requirements (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

15 CHAPTER 3 IDENTIFICATION OF CANDIDATES FOR CASE STUDY ANALYSES The research team was charged with selecting four to six DOTs for case study analyses. These were to be DOTs that have been particularly thorough, innovative, or repre- sentative in their approaches to meeting the GASB 34 requirements, in particular with respect to the key issues identified. In particular, the researchers considered the responses to questions dealing with the intended purposes for the GASB 34 reports and how extensively the DOT implemented the new reporting approach. In the interest of having a represen- tative sample, the team also viewed it as appropriate to iden- tify at least one department that expressed skepticism regard- ing the utility of the GASB 34 exercise. With all of these considerations in mind, the research team members each developed a list of nominations. In doing so, members were mindful that both the depreciation approach and the modified approach had many adherents among the state DOTs. The team thought it appropriate that there be a similar division between the case studies. Another consideration was geographical diversity—the team thought that each of the AASHTO regions should be represented. The team then condensed individual nominations into a single list recommended by the team. The recommended case study departments are as follows: • Illinois—depreciation approach, AASHTO Region 3, GASB 34 skeptic; • South Carolina—depreciation approach, AASHTO Region 2, change in approach anticipated; • Tennessee—modified approach, AASHTO Region 2, GASB 34 champion; • Texas—combination approach, AASHTO Region 4, major system modifications; • Vermont—depreciation approach, AASHTO Region 1, interest in using GASB 34 information; and • Washington—modified approach, AASHTO Region 4, emphasis on condition assessment. At the May 12, 2003, meeting of NCHRP Panel 19-04, the panel members decided to substitute Michigan for Illinois in view of Michigan’s leadership role in asset management. In addition, the panel authorized the research team to conduct two of the interviews by telephone and the remaining four interviews in person.