Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Joint City Council/Utilities Meeting <br />November 14, 1994 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />that requires water connections to the improvements. This is similar <br />to the sewer ordinance. <br /> <br />The last Utilities Commission request to the City related to the water <br />system was for the approval of a water connection charge. The City <br />has done this through developer requirements, but has never officially <br />adopted any water ordinance or resolution on this topic as the Utilities <br />Commission has jurisdiction over the water system. The City simply <br />requires new projects to meet the water utilities requirements. <br /> <br />4.7. CITY AUDIT <br /> <br />Finance Director Lori Johnson offers the following paragraph on the <br />need of the City to have the Utilities audit information available <br />earlier in the year. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Last year the City's audit was presented to the City Council in <br />June. I know there were some concerns regarding the lateness <br />of the report presentation. As you know, the Utilities audit <br />information is included in the City's audit. This is required <br />under generally accepted accounting principles. Because the <br />Utilities audit information was not available until the last week <br />in April, the City's report could not be completed until early May <br />with presentation to the Council as soon as possible after that. <br /> <br />The reason for this update is to make the Council aware of that <br />timeframe. If the Council has a concern with the report being <br />issued in late Mayor early June, the Council could request that <br />the Utilities have audit information available to the City by mid <br />March. This would allow for the City's audit to be presented to <br />the Council sometime in mid to late April. This timeframe is <br />realistic for the Utilities I believe, as there are only two funds <br />included in the Utilities' audit. If the Council does wish to move <br />up the timeframe, it is appropriate to discuss this with the <br />Utilities at the joint meeting. <br /> <br />4.8. <br /> <br />UTILITIES MANGER CONTRACT <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />During the 1993 audit presentation this spring, it was noted that the <br />Utilities Manager's contract needs adjustments. Ron Black, who is <br />working with the Utilities Commission on this topic, provided our City <br />Attorney, Peter Beck, with an updated proposal in October. Peter has <br />now offered Ron some comments on this proposal. Formal action by <br />the Utilities Commission will need to be taken this year on this issue. <br />