Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

When time is money: Reviewing your planning and development service fees

07.26.19

Read this if you are a City/County Administrator, Building Official, Community Development Director, Planning Director, Development Services Manager or work with customers providing a service for a fee.

Planning and development service fees are, for many municipalities, often discussed but rarely changed. There are a number of reasons you might need to consider or defend your fee structure―complaints from developers, rising costs of operation, and changes in code or process are just a few. 

But when is the right time for a formal review of your service fees? There are several key organizational factors that should prompt an in-depth study of your fees, either internally or with the assistance of an objective advisor. It may be time for an update if:

  • You’re considering a new permitting system. New technology may streamline your workflows, simplify processes for your customers, or necessitate changes in your staffing. All of these secondary changes can impact the cost of your services. In addition, if you’re anticipating significant changes to your fee structure or methodology (e.g., moving to full cost recovery), you’ll want to configure your new system to support that going forward.
  • You have an enterprise development fund. Development fees are collected to cover the cost of providing a service. The methodology you use to charge fees should be based on defensible formulas that can withstand the scrutiny of your customers and cover the cost to provide the service. In addition, reserve funds should be adequate to ensure your development service is funded through the completion of the project. 
  • The regulations in your municipality are changing. Perhaps your organization is moving to a unified or form-based code or making changes to the International Building or Fire Codes. Changes in the process and requirements for development may require a reevaluated fee structure.
  • It’s been a while. Even if your organization is not experiencing any significant or sweeping change, small shifts can accumulate over the years, resulting in significant fee adjustments that may be tough for you to implement and for your customers to understand. Periodically reviewing service demand and benchmarking your individual fees against those of neighboring communities can help to avoid sticker shock.

If any of these scenarios sound familiar, you may want to consider a fee review, which may consist of benchmarking against similar jurisdictions. Not sure what level of review your organization needs? Our dedicated government consultants include former planners and community development leaders who have walked in your shoes and can talk through the considerations with you.
 

Related Industries

Related Services

Consulting

Organizational and Governance

Related Professionals

BerryDunn experts and consultants

  • Kevin Price
    Senior Manager
    Community Development, Government Utilities
    T 207.541.2379

Read this if you are a community bank.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently issued its first quarter 2021 Quarterly Banking Profile. The report provides financial information based on Call Reports filed by 4,978 FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions. The report also contains a section specific to community bank performance. In first quarter 2021, this section included the financial information of 4,531 FDIC-insured community banks. Here are our key takeaways from the community bank section of the report:

  • There was a $3.7 billion increase in quarterly net income from a year prior despite continued net interest margin (NIM) compression. This increase was mainly due to higher noninterest income and lower provision expenses. Provision expense decreased $1.4 billion from first quarter 2020. However, it remained positive at $390.1 million. For non-community banks, provision expense was negative $14.9 billion for the first quarter 2021.
  • Quarterly NIM declined 28 basis points from first quarter 2020 to 3.26%. The average yield on earning assets fell 76 basis points to 3.64%, while the average funding cost fell 48 basis points to 0.37%.
  • Net operating revenue increased by $3.9 billion from first quarter 2020, a 17.1% increase. This increase is attributable to higher revenue from loan sales (increased $1.3 billion, or 126.4%) and an increase in net interest income (up $1.8 billion from first quarter 2020).
  • Non-interest expense increased 7.6% from first quarter 2020. This increase was mainly attributable to salary and benefit expenses, which saw an increase of $838.1 million (9.6%). That being said, average assets per employee increased 18.5% from first quarter 2020.
  • Noncurrent loan balances (loans 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) remained relatively stable from a year ago having slightly increased by $19.3 million, or 0.2%. However, despite the slight increase in noncurrent loan balances, the noncurrent rate decreased 8 basis points from first quarter 2020 due to strong year-over-year loan growth.
  • The coverage ratio (allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of loans that are 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) increased 30 percentage points year-over-year to 180%, a 14-year high.
  • Net charge-offs declined 7 basis points from first quarter 2020 to 0.04%, a record low. The net charge-off rate for consumer loans declined most among major loan categories, having decreased 41 basis points.
  • Trends in loans and leases showed a moderate increase from fourth quarter 2020, increasing by 1.4%. This increase was mainly seen in the commercial and industrial (C&I) loan category, which was driven by an increase in Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan balances. Total loans and leases increased by 10.8% from first quarter 2020. The majority of growth was seen in C&I loans, which accounted for approximately three-quarters of the year-over-year increase in loans and leases. However, keep in mind C&I loans include PPP loans that were originated in the first half of 2020, with additional funding provided by the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2020.
  • Nearly all community banks reported an increase in deposit volume during the year. Growth in deposits above the insurance limit drove the annual increase while alternative funding sources, such as brokered deposits, declined. However, even when doing a quarter-to-quarter comparison, deposits were up from fourth quarter 2020 by 5.6%.
  • The average community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) for the 1,845 banks that elected to use the CBLR framework was 11.15%.
  • The number of community banks declined by 29 to 4,531 from fourth quarter 2020. This change includes two new community banks, five banks transitioning from community to non-community banks, 24 community bank mergers or consolidations, and two community bank self-liquidations.

First quarter 2021 was a strong quarter for community banks, as evidenced by the increase in year-over-year quarterly net income of 77.5% ($3.7 billion). However, tightening NIMs will force community banks to either find creative ways to increase their NIM, grow their earning asset bases, or find ways to continue to increase non-interest income to maintain current net income levels. Some community banks have already started dedicating more time to non-traditional income streams, as evidenced by a 45% year-over-year increase in quarterly non-interest income. The importance of the efficiency ratio (non-interest expense as a percentage of total revenue) is also magnified as community banks attempt to manage their non-interest expenses in light of declining NIMs.

Despite the strong first quarter, there is still uncertainty in many areas. For instance, although significant charge-offs have not yet materialized, the financial picture for many borrowers remains uncertain, and payment deferrals have made some credit quality indicators, such as past due status, less reliable. The ability of community banks to maintain relationships with their borrowers and remain apprised of the results of their borrowers’ operations has never been more important. This monitoring will become increasingly important as we transition into a post-pandemic economy. For seasonal borrowers, this summer could be a “make-or-break” point. If strong demand does not materialize, the economic consequences of the pandemic may not be reversible. 

Additionally, as offices start to open employers will start to reassess their office needs. Many employers have either created or revised remote working policies due to changing employee behavior. If remote working schedules persist, whether it be full-time or hybrid, the demand for office space may decline, causing instability for commercial real estate borrowers. Recent inflation concerns have also created uncertainty surrounding future Federal Reserve monetary policy. If an increase in the federal funds target rate is used to combat inflation, community banks could see their NIMs in another transitory stage. As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team if you have any questions.

Article
FDIC Issues its First Quarter 2021 Quarterly Banking Profile

Read this if you work in an alcohol control capacity for state government.

The COVID-19 outbreak has changed the alcoholic beverage industry significantly over the last 14 months. Restrictions forced people to stay at home, limiting their travel to restaurants, bars, and even some stores to purchase their favorite spirits. In at least 32 states, new legislation allowed consumers the option to buy to-go cocktails as a way to help these establishments stay in business. As a result, consumers took advantage of alcohol delivery services. 

There were two large shifts in consumer purchasing for the alcoholic beverage industry in 2020. The first was a shift from on-premise to off-premise purchasing (for example, more takeaway beverages from bars, breweries, and other establishments). The second was the explosion of e-commerce sales for curbside pickup and home delivery. A study by IWSR, an alcoholic beverage market research firm, stated that alcohol e-commerce sales grew 42% in 2020. The head of consumer insights for the online alcoholic beverage delivery service, Drizly, attributes this growth to the “increased consumer awareness of alcohol delivery as a legal option, as well as an overall shift in consumer purchasing behavior toward online ordering and delivery”. 

How state agencies responded

The move to an e-commerce model has impacted state agencies who regulate the distribution and/or sale of alcohol. States such as Oklahoma, Alabama, and Georgia recently passed legislation allowing alcohol delivery to consumers’ homes. In alcoholic beverage control states, where the state controls the sale of alcohol at the wholesale level, curbside pickup programs (New Hampshire) were implemented, while others started online home delivery services (Pennsylvania). 

In a fluid legislative environment, states agencies are working to meet consumer needs in a very competitive marketplace, while fulfilling their regulatory obligation to the health and safety of their constituents.

How alcoholic beverage control states can adapt

Now is an opportune time for control state agencies to keep pace with consumer demand for more flexible purchasing options, such as buying online with home delivery, or some form of curbside and/or in-store pickup programs. Every one of the 17 alcoholic beverage control states has passed legislation to allow the delivery of either beer, wine, and/or distilled spirits in some form, with some limitations.

While for some the COVID-19 outbreak has necessitated these more distant shopping experiences, the option of these sales channels has brought consumers flexibility they will expect going forward. This calls for control state agencies to act on this changing consumer demand. By prioritizing investing in and taking ownership of new sales channels, such as e-commerce and curbside pickup, control state agencies’ technology and logistics teams can develop strategies and tools to effectively adapt to this new demand. 

Adapting technology and logistics

Through technology, control state agencies can take advantage of e-commerce and curbside pickup sales channels, to drive more revenue. We recommend control states consider the following: 

Define the current capabilities to support an online sales strategy

An important first step is to define how to address constituents’ evolving needs as compared to the current e-commerce capabilities control state agencies can support. Considerations include:

  • Are current staff capable of developing and supporting new website capabilities to meet the increased demand on the website?  
  • How will the current customer support team(s) expand to support concerns from the new channels?
  • How will new e-commerce order volume be fulfilled for home delivery (including order errors, breakage, returns, etc.)?   

Control state agencies should complete current and future state assessments in each area above to confirm what capabilities they have today and which they would like to have in the future; which will allow for an accurate gap analysis and comparison to their future state needs. Once the current state assessment, future state strategy, and gap analysis are complete, control state agencies can define the projects required to support the future state requirements. 

Reevaluate existing fulfillment, inventory, and distribution processes

Each control state has existing product fulfillment, inventory and distribution processes, and information technology (IT) tools for delivering alcohol, to their own or licensed retail stores and businesses. These current processes and IT systems should be assessed as part of the current state capabilities assessment mentioned above, to help define the level of change needed to support the control state agency’s future needs in the e-commerce channel. Key assessment questions control state agencies should ask themselves include: 

  • Can the current IT systems (e.g., inventory management, customer relationship management [CRM], customer support/call center, financial, point of sale [POS], and website infrastructure) support required upgrades?
  • Can retail teams and today’s infrastructure support order taking, inventory, fulfillment, and buy online pickup in store programs?
  • How will warehouse and retail stores track and manage the e-commerce shipments and returns related to this channel?
  • If home delivery is part of the strategy, define how the delivery logistics will be met through state or vendor resources.
  • What staffing model and skill sets will support future business needs?
  • What is the total cost of ownership for these new e-commerce capabilities so that the short and long-term costs and profits can be accurately estimated? 

The answers to these questions will help to inform a future e-commerce strategy and accommodate the cost and staff impacts. 

Bring in online retail expertise

It is important to ensure that the control state agency has website and mobile capabilities to support today’s consumer needs. This includes the ability to order a wide range of products online for either home delivery or buy online pickup in store. The design of the website and mobile transactional capabilities is critically important to the success of this channel, the true growth in revenues. Being marketing focused (e.g., allowing consumers to view and order products, save items for later, and see similar products) will help drive traffic and sales on this upgraded channel. 

For control state agencies with a more static product website, consider purchasing a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) e-commerce product with existing retail-focused website features, or contract with a vendor to build a website that meets more unique needs. The control state agency should bring in at least one online retail subject matter expert vendor to help set the direction, design the upgrades or new site, manage the project(s) needed to implement the online capabilities, and potentially manage the operational support of the website and mobile solution.

BerryDunn provides state alcoholic beverage control boards and commissions with many services along the IT system acquisition lifecycle, including planning, needs assessment, business process analysis, request for proposal (RFP) development, requirements development, technology contract development, and project management services. 

For the full list of steps to consider and to learn more about how you can successfully position your control state agency to adapt to the changing alcoholic beverage landscape, contact us.
 

Article
COVID-19 and the e-commerce explosion

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 93 Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates

Summary

With the global reference rate reform and the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) disappearing at the end of 2021, GASB Statement No. 93 was issued to address the accounting and financial impacts for replacing a reference rate. 

The article below is focused on Hedging Derivative Investments and amendments impacting Statement No. 87, Leases. We have not included guidance related to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate or the Up-Front Payments. 

Background

We have all heard that by the end of 2021, LIBOR will cease to exist in its current form. LIBOR is one of the most commonly used interbank offered rates (IBOR). Now what?

In March 2020, the GASB provided guidance to address the accounting treatment and financial reporting impacts of the replacement of IBORs with other referenced rates while maintaining reliable and comparable information. Statement No. 93 specifically addresses previously issued Statements No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments, and No. 87, Leases, to provide updated guidance on how a change to the reference rate impacts the accounting for hedging transactions and leases.  

Here are our analyses of what is changing as well as easy-to-understand and important considerations for your organization as you implement the new standards.

Part 1: Hedging Derivative Instruments

The original guidance under Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments, as amended, requires that a government terminate a hedging transaction if the government renegotiates or amends a critical term of a hedging derivative instruction. 

Reference rate is the critical term that differentiates Statement No. 93 from Statement No. 53. The newly issued Statement No. 93 provides an exception that allows for certain hedging instruments to hedge the required accounting termination provisions when the IBOR is replaced with a new reference rate. 

In order words, under Statement No. 53, a modification of the IBOR would have caused the hedging instrument to terminate. However, Statement No. 93 now provides an exception to the termination rules as a result of the end of LIBOR. According to Statement No. 93, the exception is allowable when: 

  1. The hedging derivative instrument is amended or replaced to change the reference rate of the hedging derivative instrument’s variable payment or to add or change fallback provisions related to the reference rate of the variable payment.
  2. The reference rate of the amended or replacement hedging derivative instrument’s variable payment essentially equates to the reference rate of the original hedging derivative instrument’s variable payment by one or both of the following methods:
    • The replacement rate is multiplied by a coefficient or adjusted by addition or subtraction of a constant; the amount of the coefficient or constant is limited to what is necessary to essentially equate the replacement rate and the original rate
    •  An up-front payment is made between the parties; the amount of the payment is limited to what is necessary to essentially equate the replacement rate and the original rate.
  3. If the replacement of the reference rate is effectuated by ending the original hedging derivative instrument and entering into a replacement hedging derivative instrument, those transactions occur on the same date.
  4. Other terms that affect changes in fair values and cash flows in the original and amended or replacement hedging derivative instruments are identical, except for the term changes, as specified in number 1 below, that may be necessary for the replacement of the reference rate.

As noted above, there are term changes that may be necessary for the replacement of the reference rate are limited to the following

  • The frequency with which the rate of the variable payment resets
  • The dates on which the rate resets
  • The methodology for resetting the rate
  • The dates on which periodic payments are made.

Many contracts that will be impacted by LIBOR will be covered under Statement No. 93. The statement was created in order to ease with the transition and not create unnecessary burdens on the organizations. 

Part 2: Leases

Under the original guidance of Statement No. 87 Leases, lease contracts could be amended while the contract was in effect. This was considered a lease modification. In addition, the guidance states that an amendment to the contract during the reporting period would result in a separate lease. Examples of such an amendment included change in price, length, or the underlying asset.  

Included within Statement No. 93, are modifications to the lease standard as it relates to LIBOR. In situations where a contract contains variable payments with an IBOR, an amendment to replace IBOR with another rate by either changing the rate or adding or changing the fallback provisions related to the rate is not considered a lease modification. This modification does not require a separate lease. 

When is Statement No. 93 effective for me?

The removal of LIBOR as an appropriate interest rate is effective for reporting periods ending after June 31, 2021. All other requirements of Statement No. 93 are effective for all reporting periods beginning after June 15, 2022. Early adoption is allowed and encouraged. 

What should I do next? 

We encourage all those that may be impacted by LIBOR—whether with hedging derivative instruments, leases, and/or specific debt arrangements—to review all of their instruments to determine the specific impact on your organization. This process will be time consuming, and may require communication with the organizations with whom you are contracted to modify the terms so that they are agreeable to both parties.

If you would like more information about early adoption, or implementing the new Hedging Derivative Instruments or Leases, please contact Katy Balukas or Grant Ballantyne.
 

Article
The clock is ticking on LIBOR. Now what?

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

GASB Statement No. 96 Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements

Summary

GASB Statement No. 96 defines the term Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements (SBITA) as “a contract that conveys control of the right to use another party’s (a SBITA vendor’s) information technology (IT) software, alone or in combination with tangible capital assets (the underlying IT assets), as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction.”

GASB Statement No. 96 determines when a subscription should be recognized as a right-to-use subscription, and also determines the corresponding liability, capitalization criteria, and required disclosures. 

Why does this matter to your organization?

In 2018, Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Updated (ASU) 2018-15: Cloud Computing Arrangements for Service Contracts, and we knew it would only be a matter of time when a similar standard would be issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Today, more and more governmental entities are purchasing software in the cloud as opposed to a software that is housed locally on their machine or network. This creates the need for updated guidance in order to improve overall financial reporting, while maintaining consistency and comparability among governmental entities. 

What should you do?

We are going to walk through the steps to determine if a SBITA exists—from identification through how it may be recognized in your financial statements. You can use this step-by-step guide to review each individual subscription-based software to determine if Statement No. 96 applies.

Step 1: Identifying a SBITA

There is one important question to ask yourself when determining if a SBITA exists:

Will this software no longer work/will we no longer be able to log in once the contract term ends?

If your answer is “yes”, it is likely that a SBITA exists.  

Step 2: Determine whether a contract conveys control of the right to use underlying IT assets

According to Statement No. 96, the contract meets the right to use underlying IT assets by:

  • The right to obtain the present service capacity from use of the underlying IT assets as specified in the contract
  • The right to determine the nature and manner of use of the underlying IT assets as specified in the contact

Step 3: Determine the length of the subscription term

The subscription term starts when a governmental entity has a non-cancellable right to use the underlying IT assets. This is the period during which the SBITA vendor does not have the ability to cancel the contract, increase or decrease rates, or change the benefits/terms of the service. The contract language for this period can also include an option for the organization or the SBITA vendor to extend or terminate the contract, if it is reasonably certain that either of these options will be exercised.

Once a subscription term is set, your organization should revisit the term if one or more of the following occurs:

  • The potential option (extend/terminate) is exercised by either the entity or the SBITA vendor 
  • The potential option (extend/terminate) is not exercised by either the government or the SBITA vendor
  • An extension or termination of the SBITA occurs 

If the maximum possible term under the SBITA contract is 12 months or less, including any options to extend, regardless of their possibility of being exercised, an exception for short-term SBITAs has been provided under the statement. Such contracts do not need to be recognized under the Statement and the subscription payments will be recognized as outflows of resources. 

Step 4: Measurement of subscription liability 

The subscription liability is measured at the present value of the subscription payments expected to be made during the previously determined subscription term. The SBITA contract will include specific measures that should be used in determining the liability that could include the following:

  • Fixed payments
  • Variable payments
  • Payments for penalties for termination
  • Contract incentives
  • Any other payments to the SBITA which are included in the contract

The future payments are discounted using the interest rate that the SBITA charges to your organization. The interest rate may be implicit in the contract. If it is not readily determinable, the rate should be estimated using your organization’s incremental borrowing rate. 

Your organization will only need to re-measure the subscription liability is there is a change to the subscription term, change in the estimated amounts of payments, change in the interest rate the SBITA charges to your organization, or contingencies related to variable payments. A change in the discount rate alone would not require a re-measurement. 

Step 5: Measurement of subscription asset

The SBITA asset should be measured at the total of the following:

  • The amount of the initial measurement of the subscription liability (noted in Step 4 above)
  • If applicable, any payments made to the SBITA vendor at the beginning of the subscription term
  • The capitalized initial implementation costs (noted in Step 6 below)

Any SBITA vendor incentives received should be subtracted from the total.

Step 6: Capitalization of other outlays

In addition to the IT asset, Statement No. 96 provides for other outlays associated with the subscription to be capitalized as part of the total subscription asset. When implementing the IT asset, the activities can be divided into three stages: 

  • Preliminary project stage: May include a needs assessment, selection, and planning activities and should be recorded as expenses.
  • Initial implementation stage: May include testing, configuration, installation and other ancillary charges necessary to implemental the IT asset. These costs should be capitalized and included in the subscription asset.
  • Operation and additional implementation stage: May include maintenance and troubleshooting and should be expensed.

Step 7: Amortization

The subscription asset are amortized over the shorter of the subscription terms or the useful life of the underlying IT assets. The amortization of the asset are reported as amortization expense or an outflow of resources. Amortization should commence at the beginning of the subscription term. 

When is this effective?

Statement No. 96 is effective for all fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, fiscal and calendar years 2023. Early adoption is allowed and encouraged.

Changes to adopt the pronouncement are applied retroactively by restating previously issued financial statements, if practical, for all fiscal years presented. If restatement is not practical, a cumulative effect of the change can be reported as a restatement to the beginning net position (or fund balance) for the earliest year restated. 

What should you do next? 

With any new GASB Standard comes challenges. We encourage governmental entities to re-review their vendor contracts for software-related items and work with their software vendors to identify any questions or potential issues. While the adoption is not required until fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, we recommend that your organization start tracking any new contracts as they are entered o starting now to determine if they meet the requirements of SBITA. We also recommend that your organization tracks all of the outlays associated with the software to determine which costs are associated with the initial implementation stage and can be capitalized. 

What are we seeing with early adoption?

Within the BerryDunn client base, we are aware of at least one governmental organization that will be early adopting. We understand that within component units of state governments, the individual component unit is required to adopt a new standard only when the state determines that they will adopt.

If you are entering into new software contracts that meet the SBITA requirements between now and the required effective date, we would recommend early adoption. If you are interested in early adoption of GASB Statement No. 96, or have any specific questions related to the implementation of the standard, please contact Katy Balukas or Grant Ballantyne

Article
Our take on SBITA: Making accounting for cloud-based software less nebulous

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

GASB Statement No. 97, Certain Component Unit Criteria, and Accounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans (GASB 97) addresses specific practice issues that have arisen related to retirement plans. The standard can be roughly divided into two parts, each of which focus on a different aspect of governmental retirement plan accounting. 

Part 1: Component units

Over the years, GASB has wrestled with clarifying exactly what entities should be included in a set of stand-alone financial statements. In general, it defined a financial reporting entity as a stand-alone government and all entities for which it is financially accountable, known as component units. One of the many situations where the government is financially accountable for another entity is where the majority of the entity’s board is appointed by the government. 

GASB 97 clarifies that when the entity has no governing board and the government performs the functions that a board would normally perform, the consideration of consolidation should be the same as if the government appointed a voting majority of a hypothetical governing board. This portion of the standard is consistent with previously issued implementation guides. 

What is new is that GASB 97 creates an exception, allowing defined contribution pension plans, defined contribution OPEB plans, and certain Section 457 plans who do not have a board to be excluded from consideration as a component unit. While GASB believes that it would be appropriate to include them like other entities, they listened to stakeholders who voiced their concerns about the costs of presenting defined contribution plans as component units. Their research showed that most stakeholders do not use information related to defined contribution plans presented as component units of governments, although if the government controls the assets, such information is more valued. GASB decided to balance the costs of preparation with the usefulness of the information.  

Additionally, for the purposes of determining component units, the government is not considered to have a financial burden for defined contribution pension plans and defined contribution OPEB plans that are administered through trusts. 

What should you do? 

First, the intended impact is that there will be fewer defined benefit plans presented as component units. If you currently present a defined benefit plan as a component unit, you may be able to save money by excluding them from the government-wide financial statements. 

Second, if you currently report a defined contribution plan that is administered through a trust as a component unit, you should reassess whether that is still considered a component unit. Remember, even if it is not a component unit, GASB Statement No. 84 Fiduciary Activities may still require it to be included in the financials if the primary government controls the assets. 

When does this apply? 

These changes are effective immediately. 

Part 2: Section 457 plans

Back in 1997 when GASB Statement No. 32 was issued, GASB did not believe it likely that plans established under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 457 would be pension plans because at that time, most Section 457 plans did not have employer contributions. In the more than twenty years that have passed since then, the IRC and characteristics of some of these plans have changed, forcing GASB to reconsider their classification. With the issuance of GASB 97, the board stated that it believes Section 457 plans could indeed be pensions. Therefore, Section 457 plans which fit the definition of a pension trigger the same reporting requirements of any other pension plan. 

What should you do? 

If your governmental organization has an employee benefit plan under Section 457, you should take the following steps: 

First, determine whether the plan is a “pension plan” or not. Pension plans provide retirement income or other postemployment benefits such as death benefits, life insurance, and disability benefits. Pensions do not include postemployment healthcare benefits and termination benefits. 

Despite the common usage of “pension” to mean only defined benefit plans, the statement is clear that the term “pension plan” includes defined contribution plans as well.

If the plan fits this definition, proceed to the next step. If not, this statement does not impact you. 

Second, if your Section 457 plan meets the definition of a pension plan and either issues its own standalone financial statements or is included in the financial statements of another government, those financial statements should include all financial reporting requirements that are relevant to pension plans. 

Generally, this means that GASB Statement No. 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions (GASB 68) and all its related disclosure requirements are applicable, although there are some plans that don’t fall within GASB 68’s scope where GASB Statement No. 73 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statement 68, and Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68 applies instead. The additional requirements will not look the same for all entities; defined benefit and defined contribution plans have different reporting requirements and their footnote disclosures will differ. 

When does this apply? 

The requirements related to Section 457 plans apply to fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2021. Some stakeholders requested that GASB delay the adoption due to COVID-19, but the GASB believes that the adoption date they set provides sufficient time for adoption. 

What else do you need to know? 

If your retirement plan falls within the scope of this pronouncement, you may have new costs to deal with, including potentially having to consult with an actuary to develop a model to prepare the new disclosures if you have a defined benefit pension. Fortunately, the GASB believes that most of the additional disclosures will relate to defined contribution pensions which have simpler note disclosures. 

If you would like more information or have questions about your specific situation, please contact Nathan Dunlap or Grant Ballantyne. We’re here to help.
 

Article
GASB 97: What's new, what to do, and what you need to know

Read this if your organization operates under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

Along with COVID-19 related accounting changes that require our constant attention, we need to continue to keep our eyes on the changes that routinely emerge from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). Here is a brief overview of what GASB Statement No. 93, Replacement of Interbank Offered Rates, Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements, and Statement No. 97 Certain Component Unit Criteria, and Accounting and Financial Reporting for Internal Revenue Code Section 457 Deferred Compensation Plans, may mean to you. If you want more detail, we’ve included links to more analyses and in-depth explanation of what you need to know now.

GASB 93

We have all heard that by the end of 2021, LIBOR will cease to exist in its current form. In March 2020, the GASB provided guidance to address the accounting treatment and financial reporting impacts of the replacement of interbank offered rates (IBORs) with other referenced rates, while maintaining reliable and comparable information. Statement No. 93 specifically addresses previously issued Statement Nos. 53 and 87 to provide updated guidance on how a change to the reference rate impacts the accounting for hedging transactions and lease arrangements.  Read more in our article The Clock is Ticking on LIBOR. Now What?

GASB 96

GASB Statement No. 96 defines the term Subscription-Based Information Technology Agreements (SBITA) as “A contract that conveys control of the right to use another party’s (a SBITA vendor’s) information technology (IT) software, alone or in combination with tangible capital assets (the underlying IT assets), as specified in the contract for a period of time in an exchange or exchange-like transaction.”

GASB Statement No. 96 determines when a subscription should be recognized as a right-to-use subscription, and also determines the corresponding liability, capitalization criteria, and required disclosures. Learn why this matters and what you need to do next: Our Take on SBITA: Making Accounting for Cloud-Based Software Less Nebulous.

GASB 97

GASB Statement 97 addresses specific practice issues that have arisen related to retirement plans. The standard is roughly divided into two parts—component units and Section 457 plans—each of which focus on a different aspect of governmental retirement plan accounting. Help your organization gain an understanding of the standard with our article GASB 97: What's new, what to do, and what you need to know.

If you have questions about these pronouncements and what they mean to your organization, please contact Grant Ballantyne.

Article
Update for GASB-governed organizations: Lease accounting, LIBOR transition, SBITA, and Section 457 plans

Read this if you are at a rural health clinic or are considering developing one.

Section 130 of H.R. 133, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Covid Relief Package) has become law. The law includes the most comprehensive reforms of the Medicare RHC payment methodology since the mid-1990s. Aimed at providing a payment increase to capped RHCs (freestanding and provider-based RHCs attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds), the provisions will simultaneously narrow the payment gap between capped and non-capped RHCs.

This will not obtain full “site neutrality” in payment, a goal of CMS and the Trump administration, but the new provisions will help maintain budget neutrality with savings derived from previously uncapped RHCs funding the increase to capped providers and other Medicare payment mechanisms.

Highlights of the Section 130 provision:

  • The limit paid to freestanding RHCs and those attached to hospitals greater than 50 beds will increase to $100 beginning April 1, 2021 and escalate to $190 by 2028.
  • Any RHC, both freestanding and provider-based, will be deemed “new” if certified after 12/31/19 and subject to the new per-visit cap.
  • Grandfathering would be in place for uncapped provider-based RHCs in existence as of 12/31/19. These providers would receive their current All-Inclusive Rate (AIR) adjusted annually for MEI (Medicare Economic Index) or their actual costs for the year.

If you have any questions about your specific situation, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Article
Section 130 Rural Health Clinic (RHC) modernization: Highlights