A new accounting proposal would require the nation’s cities and states to provide a clearer picture of the age of their roads, bridges and water systems—and whether bigger repair costs may be looming than taxpayers realize.
The proposal, released April 8, 2026, by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, would push state and local governments to break out infrastructure details by network—including roads, bridges, water, sewer, lighting and communication towers—and flag assets that are nearing or have already hit the end of their estimated useful lives.
Simply put: governments could have a much harder time hiding aging public works inside giant asset totals that mean little to the average taxpayer.
The change would not automatically mean more potholes get filled or more bridges get repaired. But it could give residents, watchdogs and bond investors a much clearer picture of which systems are getting old, which ones may be headed for expensive repairs, and where future borrowing could be coming.
Comments on the proposal—Exposure Draft No. 3-43, Infrastructure Assets an amendment of GASB Statement No.34—are due June 26. If the rule is finalized, it would take effect for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2028, though governments would be allowed to adopt it earlier.
What Taxpayers Would See
At the heart of the proposal is a new requirement for governments to show, by infrastructure network, the historical cost, accumulated depreciation and weighted-average age of assets that have passed 80% of their estimated useful life. They also would have to separately identify infrastructure that has hit 100%.
That means taxpayers and analysts could get an early warning when major public assets are getting old on paper—even if they are still being used every day.
GASB said one of the recurring issues it found is that many governments report infrastructure as fully depreciated even though it remains in service. In other words, an asset may be treated in the books as if it has run its course even while drivers are still using the road, or residents are still depending on the water system.
The board says the goal is to make infrastructure reporting more comparable, more understandable and more reliable.
Why the Depreciation Fight Matters
The proposal would also tighten how some governments calculate depreciation. If a major part of an infrastructure asset has a meaningful cost and a much different useful life than the larger asset, it would have to be treated separately.
Think of a road: the base underneath may last much longer than the surface on top. Under the proposal, governments could be forced to stop treating both pieces as if they age at the same speed.
That may seem like a fine point, but municipal-bond analysts have long argued that some government depreciation numbers do not reflect reality, making it harder to tell how much wear and tear public assets are really facing.
The proposal also stresses that governments should periodically review the useful lives and salvage values they use for infrastructure depreciation. GASB did not set a fixed schedule for those reviews, but said the idea is to cut down on cases where assets stay in service long after they are fully depreciated on paper.
Smaller Governments Could Face Headaches
Still, the change could create headaches, especially for smaller governments with old records and road systems that were lumped together years ago rather than tracked asset by asset.
One GASB board member warned in an alternative view included with the draft that counties and smaller governments could struggle to decide whether future road work should be counted as routine maintenance or booked as a separate capital component—especially when original costs were pooled long ago.
That same board member said the rule could create confusion and inconsistency, particularly for road networks, where governments may not have enough detail to separate older assets cleanly.
Maintenance Policies Would Get More Attention
Another provision would require governments with a policy for monitoring infrastructure maintenance and preservation to briefly describe that policy in the notes to their financial statements.
For governments that use the so-called modified approach—an alternative to standard depreciation for certain infrastructure—the proposal would also toughen disclosure rules. Those governments would have to provide 10 years of comparisons between what they estimated they needed to spend to maintain and preserve infrastructure and what they actually expensed, up from the current five-year requirement.
They also would have to explain any change in the condition level they are aiming to maintain.
It Could Reach Beyond Roads and Sewers
The proposal would apply to all state and local governments. GASB says that generally includes not just cities, counties and states, but also public authorities, utilities, hospitals, colleges and universities.
So the impact could stretch far beyond roads and sewers.
The draft defines infrastructure assets as long-lived, stationary capital assets that are part of a network. GASB specifically lists roads, bridges, tunnels, water and sewer systems, dams, lighting and communication towers. Some buildings also could qualify if they are integral to a network but only an ancillary part of it.
That means government-owned airport infrastructure—such as runways, taxiways, airfield lighting and related systems—could also be swept in where they meet the definition. Ports, transit systems and utility networks could face added scrutiny too.
What the Proposal Does Not Do
Notably, GASB stopped short of requiring broader disclosure of maintenance and preservation expenses for all depreciated infrastructure, despite pressure from some users who wanted more direct information on deferred maintenance.
One board member, in a dissenting view, said the draft misses a rare chance to give users the data they have repeatedly said they need to judge whether governments are putting off upkeep.
Even so, the proposal would hand taxpayers and investors more information than they get now about how old infrastructure is, how governments group it, and how much of it is creeping toward the end of its expected life.
The Bottom Line
For the muni market, that could make annual reports more useful as an early warning sign of future capital strain.
For everyone else, it could finally help answer a question most taxpayers rarely get a straight answer to: How old is the public infrastructure the public depends on every day?
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
