Re: [CPEO-BIF] GASB Accounting for Pollution Remediation

I would like to solicit imput from stakeholders in Brownfield Redevelopment about the impact of the proposed accounting standards drafted by the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB Accounting for Pollution Remediation). These proposed accounting standards appear to be detrimental to the Brownfield initiative and I would welcome opinions from others on this issue.

http://www.gasb.org/plain-language_documents/pollution_plain-language.pdf

http://www.gasb.org/exp/ed_pollution_remediation_obligations.pdf

NEWS RELEASE 01/31/06
GASB Issues Exposure Draft That Would Put the Cost of Cleaning Up Pollution
on Governments' Financial Statements
New Proposal Identifies Five Key Circumstances Under Which Accounting for
Pollution Remediation is Required

Norwalk, CT, January 31, 2006-The Governmental Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) today issued an Exposure Draft intended to provide guidance and
consistency with respect to the accounting and reporting of obligations and
costs related to pollution remediation. The proposal reflects the Board's
intention to ensure that certain costs and long-term obligations not
specifically addressed by current governmental accounting standards will be
included in financial reports.

The proposed standards build on a Preliminary Views draft that was released
for public comment in March 2005.

Specifically, the proposal sets forth the key circumstances under which a
government would be required to report a liability related to pollution
remediation. According to the proposal, a government would have to estimate
its expected outlays for pollution remediation if any of the following
occur:

   1. Pollution poses an imminent danger to the public or environment and a
government has little or no discretion to avoid fixing the problem

   2. A government has violated a pollution prevention-related permit or
license

   3. A regulator has identified (or evidence indicates a regulator will do
so) a government as responsible (or potentially responsible) for cleaning up
pollution, or for paying all or some of the cost of the clean up

   4. A government is named in a lawsuit (or evidence indicates that it will
be) to compel it to address the pollution

   5. A government begins to clean up pollution or conducts related
remediation activities (or the government legally obligates itself to do
so).

In addition to the liabilities, expenses, and expenditures which would be
estimated using an "expected cash flows" measurement technique and be
reported in the financial statements, the proposed standard would require
governments to disclose information about their pollution clean up efforts
in the notes to the financial statements.

"Today's proposal intends to improve financial reporting by fostering more
transparent and more consistent accounting that encourages comparability,"
said Robert Attmore, Chairman of the GASB. "The proposed standard also
enhances the ability of users to assess a government's obligations by
requiring both earlier reporting of obligations and recognition of
obligations that may not have previously been reported."

The requirements of this proposed Statement would be effective for financial
statements for periods beginning after June 15, 2007.

A copy of the proposal may be downloaded from the GASB's website at
www.gasb.org.

The GASB encourages interested individual and organizations to comment on
this Exposure Drafts. The comment deadline is May 1, 2006. Comment letters
should be submitted electronically to director@gasb.org or via regular mail

Beth A. Grigsby, LPG
Brownfields Outreach Program Manager
Purdue Center for Regional Development
Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship, Room 220
1201 West State Street
West Lafayette, IN 47907-2057
765.494.9928
cell: 317.430.6514

From: brownfields-bounces@list.cpeo.org on behalf of Lenny Siegel
Sent: Thu 4/20/2006 12:02 PM
To: Brownfields Internet Forum
Subject: [CPEO-BIF] Rolling Hills Estates (CA) golf course project abandoned

Golf course doesn't make the cut in Rolling Hills Estates
With $2.5 million already spent, the developer decides to abandon the
project on the former Palos Verdes Landfill site.

By Nick Green
Daily Breeze (CA)
April 20, 2006

Los Angeles County officials will formally announce today they have
abandoned plans to build a golf course on the former Palos Verdes
Landfill site in Rolling Hills Estates, the Daily Breeze has learned.

The contentious proposal had incited widespread opposition from local
government officials and community groups.

The announcement comes less than a month after the Daily Breeze reported
a long overdue environmental analysis of the site was in limbo. County
Supervisor Don Knabe made the disclosure Wednesday afternoon to a group
of local mayors attending a meeting of the consortium of county
Sanitation Districts, which operates the landfill site.

...

For the entire article, see
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/2664211.html

--

Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Brownfields mailing list
Brownfields@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/brownfields