New Search
Local Agencies' Use of Highway Funds <br /> Performance Audit <br /> ADMINISTRATIVE AND INDIRECT ~ (OVERHEAD) EXPENSES <br /> (Continued) <br /> B. Criteria for Assessing the Economy and Reasonableness of Administrative .and <br /> i <br /> Indirect (Overhead) Expenses. (Continued) <br /> standards nor private industry standards for assessing whether the amounts charged in <br /> 1996-97 are economical or reasonable. { <br /> I~, C. ^Administrative .and Indirect (Overhead) Expenses .Charged to State Highway <br /> Funds. <br /> In all but one of the cities and counties sampled, "State Highway Fund monies and <br /> expenditures were recorded in a special revenue or construction fund. These funds also <br /> recorded monies from other sources such as interest earnings, federal and state grants, <br /> traffic impact fees and locally imposed road taxes among, others. These cities and <br /> counties that commingled funds were unable to identify expenditures for road and street <br /> operations solely funded by State Highway Fund monies. _ <br /> I - <br /> In most instances, monies from other sources become a significant portion of the cities <br /> and counties total road funds. For the ten counties in our sample, other source monies <br /> <br /> I <br /> i <br /> exceed 63 million dollars and comprise 45.6 percent of total monies received. For the <br /> <br /> ~ ! fifteen cities other source monies total over 88 million dollars and comprises 66.8 <br /> l <br /> percent of total monies received. <br /> Table 1 on the following page exhibits expenditures for indirect (overhead) and <br /> administrative costs as a percentage of total funds received from all sources for fiscal <br /> ~ 1996-97. <br /> I <br /> Talbot, Korvola & Warwick, t.t~ 19 <br /> <br />