PURPOSE

The Office of Financial Management (OFM) requires agencies to develop definitions and policies governing fixed assets, including assets considered to be small and attractive. It is not the purpose of this administrative procedure to recreate the detailed policies and procedures set by state accounting regulations, SAAM 30.40 Capital Asset Inventory Policy. It is the purpose of this procedure to fulfill OFM’s fixed asset requirement by documenting our risk assessment on assets valued between $300 and $4,999 and define Small and Attractive Assets for Skagit Valley College.

REFERENCES

• State Administrative & Accounting Manual (SAAM), Issued by Office of Financial Management (OFM), 30.40.20
• SAAM 30.40.20 allows the College discretion in defining small and attractive assets if supported by a risk assessment.
• SAAM 30.40.20 requires the College to include all Weapons, Firearms, Signal guns and Accessories as Small and Attractive assets.

POLICY

Skagit Valley College has defined the following categories of items as Small and Attractive Assets:

All items in the following asset categories regardless of cost:

• 10xx – Weapons, firearms, signal guns and accessories.
• Any asset with a value of $1,000 or more and in one of the following asset categories:
• 6651 – Optical devices, Binoculars, Telescopes, Infrared Viewers and Rangefinders
• 6710-6730 – Cameras and Photographic projection equipment
• 7013 – Laptops and Notebook Computers
• 7014 – Tablets and Smart Phones
• 7730 – Video Cameras/Camcorders
• Vehicles

RISK ANALYSIS

The state requires agencies to develop measures to control small and attractive assets in order to minimize identified risks. The College defines its greatest risk to be assets that are readily portable and easily converted to personal use, such as laptop computers and digital cameras with a value greater than $999 and less than $4,999.

Skagit Valley College considered several factors when determining which assets should be included in the Small and Attractive asset category. The first was whether or not tracking the item would provide a disincentive for theft. It was determined that, in most cases, tagging an item would not necessarily by itself prevent it from being stolen. Secondly, would tagging allow any lost or stolen item to be more readily identified? It was determined that items that are assigned to an individual, mounted or connected to a cart would be noticed quickly, while more mobile equipment would not be and should be tagged. The College also determined that the cost, time and effort to track any item with an original purchase cost of $999 or less exceeds the benefit.