My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG19880104
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1988
>
AG19880104
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2003 9:14:19 AM
Creation date
11/27/2017 12:07:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
1/4/1988
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
75
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
O CABARRUS COUNTY <br /> Peat Office Bo~ 707 <br /> CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA 28025 <br /> <br /> December 21, f987 <br /> <br /> To: Charles D. McGinnis <br /> From: Blair D. Bennett <br /> Subject: Settlement on Rocky River Project <br /> <br /> After discussions in October, 1957, with Cathy Combs, <br /> Finance Director for the City of Concord, I submitted <br /> of questions and issues which the County needed clarified <br /> relating to a final settlement on the Rocky River Wastewater <br /> Treatment Plant Project, Mrs. Combs responded by letter to <br /> the various questions posed by the County on November 30, <br /> 1987. I wiJJ address each issue separately that has not <br /> been resolved and then summarize my position concerning the <br /> final disposition of this matter. A copy of her letter is <br /> attached for your information. <br /> <br /> One of the queations addressed concerned the discepancies ' .: <br /> found in the audit schedules between costs in the detailpd ' . <br /> cumulative schedule compared to tho annual statements of <br /> revenue, expenditures, and fund balance. The amount in <br /> question was $96,065 of which the City of Concord addressed <br /> $14,530. This still leaves $81,535'in questioned costs <br /> which we believe needs further resolution. <br /> <br /> The second item in question is the distribution of $569,665 <br /> in unallocaied sales'fq~t× t~ The Iolal costs of all <br /> projects amounted tok~46*069,306. '~ this amount, <br /> $5,048,712 represents %~o~A~s--f-o-r--en'~ineering, egal, land, <br /> and Other administrative expenses which would not be subject <br /> to sales tax. If we use general construction cost only as <br /> basis for allocating sales tax, tho dlstribut on would be as <br /> follows: <br /> <br /> Total Genera'l Construction Cost - Plant 32,042,068 <br /> Interceptors . 0~978~526 <br /> Total 41,020,594 <br /> <br /> Percentage of Plant to Total 78.12% <br /> Percentage of interceptors to Total <br /> 100.00% <br /> <br /> County Share of Unallocated Sales Tax: <br /> Plant ~ 569,665 X 70.12% X 16.66% 74,141 <br /> Interceptors - 569,665 X 21.88% x 100% 124~642 <br /> Total Due County 198,783 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.