My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
Management Report and Recommendations 12/31/1982
LinoLakes
>
Finance
>
Annual Financial Statements
>
Management Report and Recommendations 12/31/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2014 11:22:50 AM
Creation date
5/19/2014 11:21:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Finance Dept
Finance Category
Audit
Finance Document Folder
Annual Financial Reports
Finance Number Identifier
Management Report and Recommendations
Date
12/31/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
48
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
City of Lino Lakes <br />Management Report, Page 41 <br />Percent <br />Current Proposed Increase <br />Water: <br />Flat charge per quarter 7.50 20.00 167% <br />Usage charge per thousand gallons 1.00 1.50 50% <br />Sewer: <br />Flat chage per quarter 25.00 39.50 58% <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />The above increases were proposed based on losses sustained in the utility operations 11 <br />over the past several years. Additionally, the analysis included a provision for unan- <br />ticpated repairs. <br />The effect of not funding utility operations is to require other funds of the City <br />to absorb the losses of such operations. The cash overdraft of the Utility Fund was <br />$16,583 at December 31, 1982. This overdraft will continue to increase if utility <br />operations are not fully financed through user rates or other City sources. <br />Operating expenses can be monitored and reviewed with one major exception - the pass <br />through costs of the MWCC (see previous discussion). There will be, however, a limit to <br />the degree of expense reduction available before the quality of service declines. <br />Because this remedy is limited, the City must consider changes to the revenue sources <br />available. <br />The use of a subsidy from other City funds must be carefully considered. The City <br />does not have operating reserves available in other City Funds at this time to sub- <br />sidize utility operations. Additionally, the philosophy of subsidizing such operations <br />with general City monies should be reviewed in that it is contrary to the overall prin- <br />ciple of "self sustatining" operations normally applied to enterprise operations of this <br />type. <br />The final alternative is utility rate increases. This alternative may be t he most <br />viable under the current circumstances. The rate increases recommended in the rate <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.