The April Board meeting seems like it will be boring except for the curious motion Jim Rough is making to change projects eligible for the PIF from at least a 15 year life to at least a 10 year life. My Spidey senses are tingling as this Board seems to have more things hidden than King Tut's tomb. So I wrote the following to Director Rough to see if we can get a bit more detail on why this is important. Jeff and I originally discussed dropping the useful life PIF requirement to 10 years and received significant pushback from Karen. I do not recall what her concern was. As you know I am in favor having one capital account that the Board allocates through the budgeting and long-range planning process. I am also a strong proponent of having a realistic reserve for emergencies. I am in favor of the "widow/widower" exception but am confident some folks will try to game the system. One thing you may want to consider is whether the exemption applies to rental properties. As currently stated, I believe it does apply to rental properties and I am not in favor of that. The questions I have on the changes in PIF/CIF useful life qualification changes are these: Is this something that is being recommended by the long-range planning committee as a part of its planning process review? What assets meet the 10-year requirement that do not meet the 15-year requirement. Can you provide a list based on accountings depreciable life criteria? I hope this is helpful to you. There are many typos in the motion, and I assume you will clean those up in a friendly amendment.
