Free access
GASB 34 and Asset Management
Dec 15, 2003

Asset Management, GASB 34, and the Local Entity Perspective

Publication: Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 1

Abstract

The paper presents a view of the benefits and drawbacks of applying GASB Statement No. 34 in a small municipal entity. Cole County, Missouri, is taking the requirement and using it to improve the long-term operations of the county to the benefit of the taxpayers. The county chose to use GASB 34’s modified reporting method, which, despite the effort required to maintain a database on the condition of the county’s infrastructure, can be used to justify maintenance costs. This is a cost-effective way to maintain a locality’s assets. If the infrastructure assets can be maintained in a predetermined condition, the need for deferred maintenance will decrease, and thus the life-cycle cost for the whole network will decrease.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

Go to Leadership and Management in Engineering
Leadership and Management in Engineering
Volume 4Issue 1January 2004
Pages: 14 - 16

History

Published online: Dec 15, 2003
Published in print: Jan 2004

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

ASCE Technical Topics:

Authors

Affiliations

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Download citation

If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.

Cited by

View Options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share with email

Email a colleague

Share