New Search
City of Eugene Comments on the Draft Local Agencies <br /> Use of Highway Funds Performance Audit <br /> Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft audit. <br /> We believe that Table 1 -Expenditures as a Percentage of Total Funds Received, and Table II - <br /> Expenditures for Administration, Indirect (Overhead), Construction, Maintenance & Repair, Debt <br /> Service and Other, are misleading. The expenditures comprising the Indirect (Overhead) dollar <br /> figure ($1,723,198) include general engineering costs reported on the 1997 Local Road and Street <br /> Questionnaire in Section II.A.3.b. General Engineering, but are an integral part of our operations, <br /> e. .Traffic section. Re ortin these o eratin ex enditures as overhead is in error. The true <br /> g <br /> p g p g p <br /> Indirect (Overhead) as reported on A.a.3.c. is $717,606. <br /> Recommendations <br /> 1. Reporting of State Highway Funds <br /> We support the recommendation to cooperatively revise the Questionnaire to help properly <br /> classify expenditures. (See paragraph 1) <br /> 2. Specifically Identifying State Highway Fund Expenditures <br /> We believe that as long as all expenditures from our road fund comply with the constitutional and <br /> statutory requirements for the expenditure of State Highway Fund monies, we don't need to <br /> provide specific identification of State Highway Funds. <br /> 3. Revise Requirements for Accumulation of State Highway Fund Monies <br /> <br /> . We agree with this recommendation <br /> 7. Formalize Use of Commingled Funds <br /> We support the finding that the commingling of monies for road and street programs makes good <br /> business sense. <br /> ~ ~ <br /> <br />