New Search
SMITH Tammy D <br /> From: SMITH Tammy D <br /> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:06 PM <br /> To: RAMIREZ Joe F <br /> Cc: CAHILL Michelle R; CLARK Debbie D <br /> Subject: JE Dunn invoice and Courthouse project <br /> Jae, <br /> In reconciling grants for the courthouse, I need to resolve the accounting issues related to this invoice. Which is that we <br /> only have one side of the transaction in the accounting system. <br /> City of Eugene invoiced JE Dunn for Courthouse Plaza Street lights for $10,403. <br /> Revenue of $10,403 <br /> Expenses of $3,864 (PSF charges related >b extra work) <br /> ODOT <br /> Expenses of $6,539 and reduced the amount available on the grant. <br /> After talking with Debbie Wydra in Financial Reporting, she is suggesting the following to resolve the $6,539 in revenue <br /> that the city has but has no expenses. <br /> 1. When contractor (Eugene Sand & Gravel) submits next invoice to ODOT for Courthouse have them issue 2 separate <br /> invoices 1st to the City of Eugene for $6,539 and 2nd to ODOT for the rest of the expenses. <br /> 2. We pay ES&G for the $6,539, I make the case that we did not perform the service so the revenue should be coded as a <br /> reimbursement of an expense and zero out the project cost on the COE books. ODOT then would not have paid $6,539 <br /> extra from federal funds, so should be available to the project. <br /> 3. Debbie W would record as timing difference for the auditors. <br /> <br /> 4. We would thoroughly discuss this before we tried this again. (I can always hope) <br /> If you have any questions or concerns about this please call or a-mail. <br /> <br /> Tammy Smith x5834 <br /> 1 <br /> <br />