To the editor:

I’m glad that the city obtained an audit on the public portion of Rock Chalk Park, but I am an accountant with 18 years of construction experience, and I have several comments.

The Journal-World has always reported the development deal as “up to $.” I would tend to believe that they got it right. I have not seen the document, but I believe it is impossible for a reasonably intelligent person to misconstrue “up to $” (a cost plus contract) to mean the same thing as “a firm fixed price of $” (a lump sum contact).

Also, as reported in Tuesday’s paper, the statement that the accounting for cost was different because of the contract type is absurd. Progress payment applications vary by contract type, cost accounting does not. I’m not saying the city did not get a good deal, but the whole process has been suspect.

To quote an old accounting saying, the audit “passed the smell test.” However, it still seems fishy to me.