Laserfiche WebLink
Page Piv~ <br />November 30, 1987 <br />Mr. Bennatt <br /> <br />Response: The allocation of sales tax proposed last year was <br />based on each local participant's actual payments for general <br />construction costs. An alternative method would be to use <br />total plant and interceptor general construction costs <br />(including amounts paid by EPA and N.C.) as a base for <br />allocating sales tax among local participants in relation to <br />their respective contribution percentages. As there is no <br />definitive answer, I would be willing to discuss these <br />alternatives with you in more detail. If the method is <br />changed, the new calculation would have to account for all <br />costs, not just those related to interceptor lines as it should <br />be self-evident that the sales tax refunds resulted from beth <br />interceptor and plant payments. <br /> <br />Question: Explain the discrepancies between costs in the <br />detailed cumulative schedule compared to the annual statements <br />of revenue, expenditures, and fund balance. <br /> <br />Response: Of the total discrepancies you noted between costs <br />in the detailed cumulative schedule compared to the annual <br />statements of revenue, expenditures a~d fund balance, $14,530 <br />occurred in fiscal 1985. We researched this item first. An <br />explanation showing that the detailed cumulative schedule for <br />1985 is correct is as follows: <br /> <br /> The 1985 statement of ~evenues, expenditures, <br /> and fund balance contained two errors. <br /> Revenues from participants should have been <br /> $104,407 (equal to expenditures) not $90,131 <br /> and such revenues should have been broken down <br /> among EPA, N.C., City, County and Cannon. <br /> Additionally, $500 of the overhead shown under <br /> plant should have been broken out as Irish <br /> Buffalo Interceptor. The following tabulation <br /> shows the calculation of the County's share of <br /> 1985 expenditures: <br /> <br /> <br />