Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 20
20 These forms identified, by asset class, which project by program, rather than by cost category. The reported costs were for new or replacement of infrastructure. amounts were derived from budgetary information, less · The State of Vermont has not yet issued an FY02 Com- amounts capitalized in the preservation program. prehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) because of · Regarding cost categorization, the GASB definition of a change in its accounting system. Accordingly, the preservation presented difficulties. For asset management GASB 34 disclosures are not yet publicly available. purposes, WSDOT considers the complete reconstruc- VTrans believes that the information generated in the tion of a roadway as a new asset that should be capital- modified approach would be useful in preparing budgets ized. Reconstruction inevitably results in improvements and making the case for funding infrastructure preser- reflecting current design standards. Allocation of proj- vation. Some of this same type of information might be ect expenditures between capital and preservation was developed under the depreciation approach. considered impractical, with hundreds of projects per year. WSDOT suggests that GASB evaluate a more sophisticated approach for categorizing capital, preser- WASHINGTON vation, and maintenance costs and that FHWA defini- tions be considered. Washington DOT (WSDOT) used the modified approach · For historical costs, WSDOT went back to 1980 and used based on a good asset management system already in place. actual capital outlay costs in construction programs. Cost It did not want to use a different methodology for GASB 34 data were accumulated from different accounting and purposes. However, absent the existing pavement and bridge asset management data sources and required ad hoc management systems, it may have been encouraged to adopt reporting. the depreciation approach. The following items from the · Before GASB 34 there was no need to link asset man- interviews were deemed to be particularly noteworthy: agement data with financial statements. Thus, it was dif- ficult in FY02 to account for additions to and retire- · WSDOT employed a relatively structured implementa- ments of infrastructure assets. WSDOT developed ad tion procedure organizationally, using both an executive hoc reporting to accomplish this accounting; in the future committee and a working committee that held quarterly it is anticipated that the link will be automated. meetings with the State Office of Financial Management. · WSDOT hopes that in the future the GASB 34 informa- · Condition targets were derived from budget allocations tion will be useful in making the case for funding infra- that were then translated into expected conditions. This structure preservation (although this did not occur in the was a fiscally constrained approach following a method- initial year of implementation). In this regard, WSDOT ology developed years ago. questions the wisdom of requiring a shift to the depreci- · The Required Supplementary Information (RSI) compar- ation method if condition targets are not being met--a ison between planned and actual expenditures was diffi- failure to meet condition targets should be publicly dis- cult because the asset management system is organized closed, and this would be lost under depreciation.