Questions

  1. What is a liability? (PS 1000.44)
  2. A liability for remediation normally results from? 
  3. When do you record a remediation liability?
  4. What is an environmental standard?
  5. How do you know if contamination exceeds an environmental standard?
  6. What is a contingent liability?
  7. What is the difference between a contingent liability and a remediation liability?
  8. What does the word “likely” mean in the above sentence?
  9. What does the word “disclosed” mean in relation to a contingent liability and contaminated sites?
  10. If disclosure of a contingent liability is required because there is uncertainty regarding responsibility what information needs to be disclosed?
  11. What is the future event?
  12. What if the outcome of the future event is not determinable?
  13. What if, in the above example, the future event is the site assessment and the outcome is whether the contamination exceeds the standard?
  14. What is the difference between measurement uncertainty and a contingent liability?  
  15. Can I record the remediation liability when I think it’s contaminated but I haven’t assessed the site yet? 
  16. What if assessment tests have been done on identical sites that have determined that contamination exceeds the standard? 
  17. What if the site is involved in litigation?  Do I record a remediation liability or a contingent liability? 
  18. What if the estimates to remediate require a choice between full remediation (higher cost) and risk management (lower cost)? 
  19. What if all recognition criteria for a remediation liability have been met but an amount cannot be reasonably estimated?
  20. Can I accrue the low estimate as a remediation liability and disclose the high estimate under contingent liabilities? 
  21. If note disclosure is required because it is reasonably possible that the amount could change by a material amount within the next year, what information would be required?
  22. What is a reasonable estimate?
  23. What does best estimate mean?
  24. Do you ever “accrue” a contingent liability related to a contaminated site?
  25. What is discounting?  When do I need to use this to calculate the remediation liability?  What rate do I use?
  26. What does “it is expected that future economic benefits will be given up” mean?
  27. If we are at step 4 of the 10-step process for managing a contaminated site can a liability be recognized if all of the recognition criteria have been met?
  28. If we intend to remediate a Class 3, N or I site, (using departmental funds) should we include this in the liability?
  29. According to the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, Pg. 3 - "Uncertain responsibility and contingencies" - there is only one reason why we could have a contingent liability. That is - government is not directly responsible and does not accept responsibility, but uncertain if the government will be responsible.  Are there other situations that could happen that would result in us reporting a contingent liability?
  30. If we are early on (i.e. step 6) and unsure whether we will choose the low or high cost option for remediation, what should we record as a liability?   Should we wait, pick the low option, the high option, use our best judgement when comparing to past decisions? If we choose the low option, put a note in the Reason for Adjustment text in FCSI and a note in TA5a?
  31. According to the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, Pg. 3 - "Future economic benefits" - 1st paragraph - Is my understanding correct, where as a site may have a liability, if we do not think we will be remediating the site, it does not need to be recorded?
  32. When risk management is chosen for the remediation option, we have been including the whole process as the liability (including monitoring as part of the risk management). Is this correct?
  33. What costs can be included in the remediation liability?
  34. When are monitoring costs considered regular operating costs vs. remediation expenditures?
  35. Can I include the cost of fencing or capping in the remediation liability?
  36. According to the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, Pg. 4 - "Measurement" - 3rd paragraph - The remediation costs included in this section have been included in the liability and in expenditures reducing liability. Is this correct?
  37. Are care and maintenance activities included in the remediation liability?
  38. Situation: We perform remediation work that would normally be included in "Remediation work reducing liability" yet the liability had not yet been reported for the given site. We would include the expenditures in "Remediation Expenditures" only. Is this correct?
  39. The disclosure requirements are changing in the new accounting standard.  Will the TA5a be modified to include the additional disclosure?
  40. What does the “nature of liability” mean? Would this be substantive or indicative?
  41. In the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, under “Disclosure and Reporting” it indicates that we need to identify the reason for non-disclosure of a liability. What does this mean?
  42. How will we record estimated recoveries? Will this be recorded in a separate column to identify which site it will be applied to or will it be applied within the liability of the site itself to reduce liability?
  43. In “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010,  Pg. 15 - "Appendix B" - If a site is owned by the federal government and contamination is likely but it was done by a third party, how and where would we record the liability and recovery?
  44. We often have the report of an expert to help us in determining the amount of the liability to record.  Is it appropriate for us to add an amount for “contingencies” to the costs estimated by the expert in the liability to be recorded?  From experience, the actual expenses incurred often exceed a little the amount initially budgeted and consequently represents a better estimate.
  45. For the purpose of the plates, why is it required to separate the new liabilities from the old ones?  Sometimes a liability was recorded many years ago and the old information is not easily accessible.
  46. How do you report sites under litigation?
  47. If a site is being risk managed, are the costs associated with the risk management strategy included in the liability? 
  48. Is long-term monitoring (post remediation, step 10) considered a liability or an operating expense? If considered a liability, and the monitoring is required for a significant period of time (e.g., 25-years for DEW Line Sites or essentially in perpetuity for mine sites), does the length of time of the monitoring requirement change how the liability is recorded?
  49. If a remediation action plan for a site contains multiple options and a decision has not been taken on which option to choose, how should the liability be recorded?
  50. Are any changes envisioned to the Public Accounts plate TA5a for future reporting periods?
  51. Is it anticipated that there will be any changes to the TBS accounting guidance for remediation liabilities?
  52. Adjusting for inflation and cash flows are currently minor changes compared to the large shifts happening due to changes in estimates. Does it still make sense to be making these small adjustments for all sites when the liability numbers are not stable to begin with? Are adjustments only needed when the change is significant (i.e. large liabilities)?
  53. Both PSAB 3260.41 and the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, includes legal services in the measurement section. Could you provide an example of a future legal fee that would be included in a remediation liability? Potential litigation costs related to contaminated sites are currently reported separately from the main contaminated site liability.
  54. When a useful life can’t be determined and/or the useful life is over, how should future asset restoration liability costs be recorded? In cases such as these, our treatment mimics that of remediation liabilities. As there is no time period to amortize the costs, they are expensed in the year that they occur.
  55. The “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, includes a reference to the Public Sector Accounting Standard, “Solid Waste Landfill Closure & Post-Closure Liability” PS 3270. Can you shed light on how the noted supplement relates to solid waste landfills?
  56. Measurement uncertainty (PS 2130) is currently presented as a note disclosure in the financial statements. Is there a way to include the measurement uncertainty in the TA5a submission?
  57. The new Public Sector Standard PS 3260 on Liabilities for Contaminated Sites indicates that a liability for remediation is normally located on sites that are no longer in productive use, e.g. abandoned gas stations, mines, abandoned military installations, however there are contaminated sites on sites that are still in productive use, e.g. lighthouses, ports.  Does this mean we should not record a liability at these sites?
  58. If it can be established that a Contaminant of Potential Concern (COPC) at a federal site has originated directly from historical site activity (i.e., it exceeds background concentrations and is not naturally occurring in the environment), but a guideline has yet to be developed for that compound (e.g., either because it is a new/emerging contaminant, it wasn't previously thought to pose concern, or for a number of other reasons), should further steps be taken to evaluate the liability associated with the presence of that COPC?
  59. Our understanding is that risk management will never result in lowering the liability
  60. Could you give an example of when voluntary compliance could create a liability?
  61. I am curious about how a liability is assessed on government lands that are being leased?
  62. How do you record a liability for a site with ongoing operations as opposed to one slated for divestiture?
  63. Holdbacks are contractual items whereby a small percentage of each payment is held back from progress payments as the project progresses and then paid to the Contractor once 100% completion is achieved and confirmed. As these relate to the actual remedial works implementation, I would judge that these would be retained as a remediation liability until disbursed.
  64. One of our regions is asking whether expenditures related to site finalization (i.e., creation of a park) should form part of the remediation liability. My understanding is that this requirement relates to a contractual or legal agreement so although a liability probably not a remediation liability per se.
  65. Are Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines legally enforceable?
  66. Is there a means to estimate liability reduction over time if risk management is the chosen option?  This option can rely on natural attenuation to meet objectives.  Since that process may take time (5, 10, + years) to achieve RM objectives, how do we estimate expenditures reducing liability over time to ensure meeting FSCAP objectives?
  67. So let’s say I spend the $25K on the RM option and all I have to do now is regular inspections with the possibility of fixing any risk managements issues (i.e. exposed soil due to high traffic). Do I have liability after the $25K RM option is completed or do I still have to record the liability of what it’s going to cost the department to do annual inspections and fixing up any areas of concern (i.e. exposed soil). So over my lifetime it will cost the department $10K.  Is that the new liability or is it still the $25K or is it $0?

Answers

1. What is a liability? (PS 1000.44)

2. A liability for remediation normally results from?

Note:   When the contamination exists on a site not owned by the government, and the government neither leases nor occupies the site (past or present), and is not responsible for the contamination, the government may agree to fund remediation costs as part of a transfer payment agreement (likely a contribution agreement). In these circumstances, the accounting for the costs would fall under PS 3410 Government Transfers.  No liability should be recorded in the Public Accounts.

3. When do you record a remediation liability?

4. What is an environmental standard?

5. How do you know if contamination exceeds an environmental standard?

6. What is a contingent liability?

7. What is the difference between a contingent liability and a remediation liability?

8. What does the word “likely” mean in the above sentence?

  1. Likely - the chance of occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the future event(s) is high (a greater than 70% probability);
  2. Unlikely - the chance of the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the future event(s) is slight (a less than 30% probability); and
  3. Not determinable - the chance of occurrence (or non-occurrence) of the future event(s) cannot be determined (a probability between 30% and 70%).

Note: the occurrence or non-occurrence of the expected future event cannot be wholly under the control of the government.  Assessing the site would be considered wholly under the control of the government.

9. What does the word “disclosed” mean in relation to a contingent liability and contaminated sites?

If an item is disclosed as a contingent liability it is included in the notes to the financial statements; an amount is not accrued (or recorded) in the accounting system as a remediation liability.  Note that when an item is included on the TA5a Plate at year-end as a contingent liability and in FCSI, this is a note disclosure only. It is not accrued/recorded as a remediation liability.  The amount is disclosed in the notes in Public Accounts. (See 2013 Public Accounts, Volume I, Section 11, Contingent Liabilities, Environmental Liabilities, Pg 11.37)

10. If disclosure of a contingent liability is required because there is uncertainty regarding responsibility what information needs to be disclosed?

  1. The nature/source of the contamination;
  2. The best estimate of the contingent liability or a range of possible amounts, except where the amount cannot be reasonably estimated or where this disclosure would have an adverse effect on the outcome;
  3. The reasons for any non-disclosure of the estimate;
  4. When an estimate has been made, the basis for the estimate. (e.g. discounted, number of years, discount rate)

Note: the above items would be disclosed in aggregate in the financial statements; i.e. grouping similar items

11. What is the future event?

It is an event that will resolve the uncertainty, e.g. the resolution of litigation assigning responsibility.  The future event will determine if the government has a liability at the financial statement date.

12. What if the outcome of the future event is not determinable?

If the outcome is not determinable then the existence, nature and extent of the contamination would be disclosed as a contingent liability.

Note: The outcome of the future event would be determining whether or not the government is responsible for the remediation of a site. The future event must not be wholly within the control of the government and the future outcome is not whether or not there is contamination. The future event is not related to the choice of remediation strategies or the cost.

13. What if, in the above example, the future event is the site assessment and the outcome is whether the contamination exceeds the standard?

The undertaking of the site assessment is wholly within the control of the government and therefore this type of uncertainty does not constitute the type of uncertainty that characterizes a contingent liability.  In other words, you would not disclose a contingent liability. 

14. What is the difference between measurement uncertainty and a contingent liability?

15. Can I record the remediation liability when I think it’s contaminated but I haven’t assessed the site yet?

No.  If you have not assessed the site you cannot record a liability because you cannot meet all the recognition criteria.  You don’t know if it is contaminated. However, uncertainty does not eliminate the need to determine whether a liability exists. 

16. What if assessment tests have been done on identical sites that have determined that contamination exceeds the standard?

17. What if the site is involved in litigation?  Do I record a remediation liability or a contingent liability?

18. What if the estimates to remediate require a choice between full remediation (higher cost) and risk management (lower cost)?

19. What if all recognition criteria for a remediation liability have been met but an amount cannot be reasonably estimated?

20. Can I accrue the low estimate as a remediation liability and disclose the high estimate under contingent liabilities?

21. If note disclosure is required because it is reasonably possible that the amount could change by a material amount within the next year, what information would be required?

22. What is a reasonable estimate?

23. What does best estimate mean?

24. Do you ever “accrue” a contingent liability related to a contaminated site?

No.   A contingent liability is normally accrued when it is likely that a future event will confirm that a liability has been incurred; and the amount can be reasonably estimated.  However, for contaminated sites, when you are at this point you accrue a remediation liability, not a contingent liability.

25. What is discounting?  When do I need to use this to calculate the remediation liability?  What rate do I use?

26. What does “it is expected that future economic benefits will be given up” mean?

27. If we are at step 4 of the 10-step process for managing a contaminated site can a liability be recognized if all of the recognition criteria have been met?

The step does not matter for accounting purposes.  If you have met all the recognition criteria, including being able to provide a reasonable estimate, you should record a remediation liability however you must have auditable evidence to support the estimate.

28. If we intend to remediate a Class 3, N or I site, (using departmental funds) should we include this in the liability?

Contaminated Sites Classification Levels

Class 1:  High Priority for Action: (The available information indicates that action (e.g., further site characterization, risk management, remediation, etc.) is required to address existing concerns)

Class 2:  Medium Priority for Action: (The available information indicates that there is high potential for adverse impacts, although the threat to human health and the environment is generally not imminent.)

For both Class 1 and Class 2 – if you have met all the recognition criteria you record a remediation liability

Class 3: Low Priority for Action: (The available information indicates that the site is currently not a high concern. However, additional investigation may be carried out to confirm the site classification)

Class N – Not a Priority for Action: (The available information indicates there is likely no significant environmental impact or human health threats. There is likely no need for action unless new information becomes available.)

If action is not a priority then currently action is not likely required and therefore a liability is not recorded.

Class I – Insufficient information

29. According to the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, Pg. 3 - "Uncertain responsibility and contingencies" - there is only one reason why we could have a contingent liability. That is - government is not directly responsible and does not accept responsibility, but uncertain if the government will be responsible.  Are there other situations that could happen that would result in us reporting a contingent liability?

30. If we are early on (i.e. step 6) and unsure whether we will choose the low or high cost option for remediation, what should we record as a liability?   Should we wait, pick the low option, the high option, use our best judgement when comparing to past decisions? If we choose the low option, put a note in the Reason for Adjustment text in FCSI and a note in TA5a?

The best estimate of the liability should be recorded.  It is the amount the government would rationally pay to settle or extinguish the liability at the financial statement date.  This estimate would require professional judgement supplemented by experience and 3rd party quotes.  If a reasonable estimate cannot be made you should not record a remediation liability until such time as a reasonable estimate can be made.

31. According to the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, Pg. 3 - "Future economic benefits" - 1st paragraph - Is my understanding correct, where as a site may have a liability, if we do not think we will be remediating the site, it does not need to be recorded?

If the government chooses not to remediate because there is no risk to health or safety a liability is not recorded.

32. When risk management is chosen for the remediation option, we have been including the whole process as the liability (including monitoring as part of the risk management). Is this correct?

33. What costs can be included in the remediation liability?

34. When are monitoring costs considered regular operating costs vs. remediation expenditures?

Monitoring costs are included as regular operating expenses:

35. Can I include the cost of fencing or capping in the remediation liability?

If this is the chosen method of remediation, yes.

36. According to the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, Pg. 4 - "Measurement" - 3rd paragraph - The remediation costs included in this section have been included in the liability and in expenditures reducing liability. Is this correct?

37. Are care and maintenance activities included in the remediation liability?

38. Situation: We perform remediation work that would normally be included in "Remediation work reducing liability" yet the liability had not yet been reported for the given site. We would include the expenditures in "Remediation Expenditures" only. Is this correct?

Yes. If the costs were not included in the liability then they cannot be recorded as reducing the liability.  They are simply recorded as a Remediation Expenditure.

39. The disclosure requirements are changing in the new accounting standard.  Will the TA5a be modified to include the additional disclosure?

40. What does the “nature of liability” mean? Would this be substantive or indicative?

Neither – it is the nature or source of contamination from the previous operations on the site, i.e. military sites, fuel related practices, marine facilities, etc.

41. In the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, under “Disclosure and Reporting” it indicates that we need to identify the reason for non-disclosure of a liability. What does this mean?

This should say – “the reason for not recognizing a liability”.  This would be the case where a contingent liability is disclosed vs. recognizing a remediation liability.    You will need to explain why you did not recognize a liability.  The only reason for disclosing a contingent liability vs. recognizing a remediation liability is due to uncertainty regarding responsibility, i.e. the government does not own the land, did not contaminate the land and does not accept responsibility and therefore does not intend on remediating the site – however there may be a degree of uncertainty as to whether the government may have to remediate, e.g. Litigation.

42. How will we record estimated recoveries? Will this be recorded in a separate column to identify which site it will be applied to or will it be applied within the liability of the site itself to reduce liability?

43. In “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010,  Pg. 15 - "Appendix B" - If a site is owned by the federal government and contamination is likely but it was done by a third party, how and where would we record the liability and recovery?

44. We often have the report of an expert to help us in determining the amount of the liability to record.  Is it appropriate for us to add an amount for “contingencies” to the costs estimated by the expert in the liability to be recorded?  From experience, the actual expenses incurred often exceed a little the amount initially budgeted and consequently represents a better estimate.

If the contractor did not include an amount for contingencies it may be appropriate to include an amount as a contingency, however the department should have a policy on this issue, and the policy should indicate the percentage to include (often ~10%-15%).  It would not be appropriate to randomly add a contingency to some jobs and not others – there should be some consistency.

45. For the purpose of the plates, why is it required to separate the new liabilities from the old ones?  Sometimes a liability was recorded many years ago and the old information is not easily accessible.

46. How do you report sites under litigation?

Examples assume all other recognition criteria have been met.

47. If a site is being risk managed, are the costs associated with the risk management strategy included in the liability?

48. Is long-term monitoring (post remediation, step 10) considered a liability or an operating expense? If considered a liability, and the monitoring is required for a significant period of time (e.g., 25-years for DEW Line Sites or essentially in perpetuity for mine sites), does the length of time of the monitoring requirement change how the liability is recorded?

49. If a remediation action plan for a site contains multiple options and a decision has not been taken on which option to choose, how should the liability be recorded?

Management needs to make a decision and record the “best estimate” as the liability.

50. Are any changes envisioned to the Public Accounts plate TA5a for future reporting periods?

Yes – for fiscal 2014/15 columns will be added to include the undiscounted liability, expected recoveries, nature and source of liability and measurement uncertainty.  Information will be required, by site, for disclosures of contingent liabilities and measurement uncertainty.  Additionally, a few questions will be asked regarding the basis for estimates. 

51. Is it anticipated that there will be any changes to the TBS accounting guidance for remediation liabilities?

Yes – the guidance will be revised to fully align with the standard.

52. Adjusting for inflation and cash flows are currently minor changes compared to the large shifts happening due to changes in estimates. Does it still make sense to be making these small adjustments for all sites when the liability numbers are not stable to begin with? Are adjustments only needed when the change is significant (i.e. large liabilities)?

53. Both PSAB 3260.41 and the “Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, includes legal services in the measurement section. Could you provide an example of a future legal fee that would be included in a remediation liability? Potential litigation costs related to contaminated sites are currently reported separately from the main contaminated site liability.

54. When a useful life can’t be determined and/or the useful life is over, how should future asset restoration liability costs be recorded? In cases such as these, our treatment mimics that of remediation liabilities. As there is no time period to amortize the costs, they are expensed in the year that they occur.

55. The Remediation Liabilities Related to Contaminated Sites: A Supplement to the Financial Information Strategy (FIS) Manual”; December 15, 2010, includes a reference to the Public Sector Accounting Standard, “Solid Waste Landfill Closure & Post-Closure Liability” PS 3270. Can you shed light on how the noted supplement relates to solid waste landfills?

It doesn’t.  There is an entirely different standard for solid waste landfill sites. However, if for some reason the solid waste landfill becomes contaminated departments will have to follow the guidance on liability for contaminated sites.

56. Measurement uncertainty (PS 2130) is currently presented as a note disclosure in the financial statements. Is there a way to include the measurement uncertainty in the TA5a submission?

Yes, we are going to add measurement uncertainty to the plate.

57. The new Public Sector Standard PS 3260 on Liabilities for Contaminated Sites indicates that a liability for remediation is normally located on sites that are no longer in productive use, e.g. abandoned gas stations, mines, abandoned military installations, however there are contaminated sites on sites that are still in productive use, e.g. lighthouses, ports.  Does this mean we should not record a liability at these sites?

58. If it can be established that a Contaminant of Potential Concern (COPC) at a federal site has originated directly from historical site activity (i.e., it exceeds background concentrations and is not naturally occurring in the environment), but a guideline has yet to be developed for that compound (e.g., either because it is a new/emerging contaminant, it wasn't previously thought to pose concern, or for a number of other reasons), should further steps be taken to evaluate the liability associated with the presence of that COPC?

59. Our understanding is that risk management will never result in lowering the liability

60. Could you give an example of when voluntary compliance could create a liability?

The government may choose to voluntarily comply with a guideline and in doing so it does not create a liability unless:

  1. The government acknowledged that it will act upon its decision; and
  2. It has communicated that decision to the affected parties, i.e. the municipality or residents; and
  3. Not doing so would now cause undue hardship of the affected parties.

Note that guidelines are not standards and are not normally legally enforceable.

61. I am curious about how a liability is assessed on government lands that are being leased?

62. How do you record a liability for a site with ongoing operations as opposed to one slated for divestiture?

63. Holdbacks are contractual items whereby a small percentage of each payment is held back from progress payments as the project progresses and then paid to the Contractor once 100% completion is achieved and confirmed. As these relate to the actual remedial works implementation, I would judge that these would be retained as a remediation liability until disbursed.

No, if the remediation is complete, the amount should not remain in the remediation liability.  It is only the liability for the payment that remains.  The remediation liability should be reduced based on the contractor’s work and the stage of completion, regardless of whether there was a holdback.  The amount would be reallocated to a contractor’s holdback payable. 

64. One of our regions is asking whether expenditures related to site finalization (i.e., creation of a park) should form part of the remediation liability. My understanding is that this requirement relates to a contractual or legal agreement so although a liability probably not a remediation liability per se.

65. Are Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) Guidelines legally enforceable?

66. Is there a means to estimate liability reduction over time if risk management is the chosen option?  This option can rely on natural attenuation to meet objectives.  Since that process may take time (5, 10, + years) to achieve RM objectives, how do we estimate expenditures reducing liability over time to ensure meeting FSCAP objectives?

If risk management is being carried out via natural attenuation then a liability should not be recorded.  Monitoring or inspections would be considered operating costs

67. “So let’s say I spend the $25K on the RM option and all I have to do now is regular inspections with the possibility of fixing any risk managements issues (i.e. exposed soil due to high traffic). Do I have liability after the $25K RM option is completed or do I still have to record the liability of what it’s going to cost the department to do annual inspections and fixing up any areas of concern (i.e. exposed soil). So over my lifetime it will cost the department $10K.  Is that the new liability or is it still the $25K or is it $0?”

Footnotes

Date modified: