Who this applies to: Executive leadership, accounting professionals, and board members at governmental organizations that follow GASB standards.
Government leaders are making long-term operational decisions today that will shape their financial statements for years to come. While procurement decisions are often driven by service delivery needs, staffing challenges, regulatory requirements, or strategic initiatives, they frequently create accounting and reporting implications that emerge well after a contract is signed. Governments continue to modernize technology, invest in infrastructure and environmental initiatives, navigate fiscal uncertainty, and increase their use of financial services. These procurement trends provide valuable insight into the financial reporting challenges governmental entities are likely to encounter in the next three years.
1. Technology modernization will continue to create accounting complexity
State and local governments continue to invest heavily in cloud computing, enterprise resource planning systems, cybersecurity solutions, and software modernization initiatives. While these investments can improve efficiency and service delivery, they also create important financial reporting considerations. Governments implementing subscription-based software solutions must evaluate whether arrangements fall within the scope of GASB Statement No. 96, Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAs).
Under GASB 96, a qualifying arrangement generally results in recognition of an intangible right-to-use subscription asset and a corresponding subscription liability. The standard also established requirements for:
- Determining the subscription term
- Measuring the liability
- Capitalizing eligible implementation costs
- Providing related note disclosures
Finance teams should be involved early in procurement discussions to identify contracts that may require recognition of subscription assets and liabilities. Procurement documentation should clearly identify:
- The noncancelable contract period
- Renewal and termination options
- Payment terms
- Implementation activities
- Date the underlying technology is placed into service
These provisions can directly affect the recognition and measurement of the SBITA amounts reported under GASB 96. Waiting until year-end often results in rushed analyses, data collection challenges, and increased implementation costs. Governments that establish accounting review procedures during the procurement process are generally better positioned to achieve compliance and avoid reporting surprises.
2. Infrastructure investments will require stronger capital asset management
Infrastructure spending continues to be a major focus for many governments, particularly in transportation, utilities, public works, and community development. As capital programs expand, governments face increasing challenges in tracking project costs, managing construction-in-progress balances, documenting funding sources, and maintaining accurate fixed asset records. New projects may also require consideration of grant compliance requirements, debt financing arrangements, and long-term operational commitments.
For many governments, the greatest risk is not the accounting itself but maintaining complete and accurate project documentation throughout the life of the project. Proactive coordination between finance, engineering, facilities, and project management personnel can help ensure that assets are reported appropriately once projects are placed into service. That same coordination will also support implementation of GASB Statement No. 103, which requires the Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) to address significant capital asset and long-term financing activity within its prescribed structure. Governments will therefore need not only reliable capital asset records, but also sufficient information to explain the underlying reasons for significant changes in capital and financing activity. GASB 103 requires MD&A to include five specified sections and emphasizes that detailed analysis should explain why balances and results changed, rather than merely reporting the amount or percentage of change.
3. Fiscal uncertainty will increase the importance of transparent risk communication
As financial pressures evolve, stakeholders increasingly expect governments to provide transparent information regarding significant risks and vulnerabilities. GASB Statement No. 102, Certain Risk Disclosures, reflects this expectation by requiring governments to evaluate whether concentrations or constraints make them substantially vulnerable to future impacts. For purposes of GASB 102:
- A concentration is a lack of diversity related to a significant inflow or outflow of resources
- A constraint is a limitation imposed by an external party or through formal action of the government’s highest level of decision-making authority
A concentration or constraint alone does not automatically require disclosure. Management must also assess whether an associated event has occurred, has begun to occur, or is more likely than not to begin within 12 months after the financial statements are issued, and whether that event could cause a substantial impact. Examples may include significant dependence on a single employer, major grant program, industry sector, or revenue source. Other potential considerations could arise from statutory tax or debt limitations, externally imposed spending restrictions, or workforce concentrations, depending on the government’s specific facts and circumstances. When the disclosure criteria are met, the notes should describe the concentration or constraint, the associated event that could cause a substantial impact, and actions the government has taken before issuance of the financial statements to mitigate the risk.
Governments should not view these disclosures as merely a compliance exercise. Instead, they provide an opportunity to communicate financial risks transparently while demonstrating how management is planning for potential challenges. Establishing a documented annual risk-assessment process involving finance, budgeting, grants management, legal, and operational leadership can help management identify potential GASB 102 matters before the financial statement preparation process begins.
4. Environmental and sustainability investments will expand reporting responsibilities
Governments continue to grow environmental and sustainability-focused initiatives, including renewable energy projects, energy efficiency programs, resiliency investments, and environmental remediation efforts. These projects often involve unique funding arrangements, complex financing structures, and long implementation timelines. As governments pursue these initiatives, finance departments will need to evaluate:
- How expenditures should be capitalized
- Whether grant requirements affect accounting treatment
- What disclosures may be necessary to explain the financial impact of these investments
Many sustainability projects also involve multiple stakeholders, funding sources, and long-term commitments. Maintaining clear documentation throughout the project life cycle can help ensure accurate reporting and support management's ability to communicate the project's financial impact to governing boards and taxpayers. These projects may also intersect with GASB 102 when a government becomes significantly dependent on a particular funding source, supplier, regulatory approval, or other concentration or constraint, and the remaining disclosure criteria are met. In addition, GASB 103 may affect how governments discuss significant capital investments, financing activity, and currently known conditions in MD&A.
5. Growing demand for financial services reflects increased expectations for financial stewardship
Governments have increased their procurement activities related to financial services and insurance. This trend suggests that many governments are investing in treasury management, investment oversight, debt management, pension administration, and financial consulting services to navigate increasingly complex financial environments. As governments leverage specialized advisors and external expertise, expectations for financial transparency and accountability continue to rise. Governing boards, taxpayers, bondholders, and regulatory agencies increasingly expect finance departments to provide meaningful analysis rather than simply reporting historical results.
This trend aligns with broader financial reporting developments, including GASB Statement No. 103, which places greater emphasis on helping financial statement users understand why financial results changed rather than simply presenting what changed. GASB 103 retains MD&A as required supplementary information but limits its content to five defined sections:
- An overview of the financial statements
- A financial summary
- Detailed analyses
- Significant capital asset and long-term financing activity
- Currently known facts, decisions, or conditions
The detailed analyses should explain the underlying causes of significant changes, avoid unnecessary duplication, and focus on relevant information rather than boilerplate discussion.
Governments that strengthen financial planning, forecasting, and communication processes today will likely be better positioned to meet these growing expectations. Finance departments should begin aligning budget narratives, variance analyses, capital planning reports, and debt information with the new MD&A structure so that meaningful explanations are developed throughout the year rather than reconstructed after year-end.
Connecting procurement decisions to financial reporting
Procurement decisions often provide an early indication of tomorrow's financial reporting challenges. Technology modernization, infrastructure development, sustainability investments, and evolving fiscal pressures are transforming how governments operate and, ultimately, how they report their financial position and results. For government finance leaders, the key takeaway is that accounting considerations should not begin after a contract is signed or a project is completed. By involving finance personnel early in strategic initiatives, governments can better anticipate reporting requirements, improve compliance, and provide more meaningful information to stakeholders. As the governmental landscape continues to evolve, organizations that proactively connect operational decision-making with financial reporting requirements will be best positioned to maintain transparency, strengthen accountability, and support informed decision-making.
Key takeaways
- Involve finance teams early in procurement decisions to identify accounting and reporting implications.
- Strengthen documentation and coordination for technology, infrastructure, and sustainability investments.
- Assess fiscal risks and vulnerabilities to identify potential disclosure requirements.
- Align financial planning and reporting processes with evolving transparency and reporting expectations.
BerryDunn can help
BerryDunn’s governmental accounting team approaches each new engagement with an open mind, assessing client needs objectively to inform clear, powerful, and actionable recommendations. We partner with clients to establish compliance practices, optimize processes, and enhance the overall financial reporting process. We provide an array of customized services to support each client. Our engagements are staffed by principals, senior managers, and managers who take the time to know and understand each client. Learn more about our team and services.