ccm19651122I .i ;:- _ .-A
i
” -4
1966 BUDGET HEARING
Minutes of the Public Hearing to consider adopti n of a proposed 1966 Budget, held at the Muskego High School, Al .1 Purpose Room, 8:OO PM, November 22, 1965. 'Aldermen Bostater, Budish, DeAngelis, Hudziak, Weaver, Wieselmann and Wolf were present. Mayor Gottfried presided at the hearing. Also present was Clerk owyer.
Mayor Gottfried openned the hearing with the announcement that a
copy of the proposed 1966 budget was mailed to each household in the
City of Muskego and that the budget was published in the official
newspaper, the Hub, as required.
The Clerk read the Estimated Revenues with the fo,lowing questions
raised by the floor.
Mr. Charles Ziesemer asked the following question and made the fol-
lowing statement. Regarding receipts for highway road aids, we re-
ceived $lOO,OOO.OO more in state aids as a City rather than a Town-
ship and I do not see a fair improvement in our reads. I wonder whether this would be a fair question at this time.
Mayor Gottfried stated that under a Town type government we spent more money than received from the State. The money was received in
the middle of the year. We do intend to do some major road repairs
this coming year.
Mr. M. Smith stated that he felt that the question here seems to be -how much of this increase of local aids from the 3tate - is there
a certain amount set by the State Statutes.
Mayor Gottfried asked that if perhaps the audience would wait until they got into the expenditure portion of the budget some of the ques-
tions would resolve themselves.
The proposed 1966 expenditures were reviewed by the Clerk reading the account number and total the
ACCOUNT #530 Question arose as to the cost of
ing the Newsletters? Answer
printed.
ACCOUNT #480 Mr. Smith asked why there was a
made In accounting and audit? Answer - accounting osts at the end
of the fiscal year will be less due to for the monthly bookkeeping.
1966 for elections been raised
we will now maintain seven
to two elections being held
ACCOUNT #600 Mr. Ziesemer said that he would like o recommend that
the committee make a study of the surrounding regarding cros-
Mr. McHugh stated that he not ted the increase yor Gottfried
answered this ommittee has re- costs, Cros- costs for the
City of Muskego, with might include a single.squad, two man-force co ering both shifts.
Mr. L. Dressen stated that it is unusual to see wha amount the Fin-
permanent or are they Auxilliary
permanent - we have three, one each at the larger SC Mill Valley and Tess Corners.
n. ..’ ib r*
1966 BUDGET HEARING CONT'D
ACCOUNT #700 -Mr. Smith asked - who do we contract with? Answer,
-Tess Corners Fire Dept.. Mr. Carlo asked, have you had formal
notice to the effect that a charge will be made. Mr. Gottfried
stated that as soon as Tess Corners Dept., is ready to provide
rescue service that a notice will be done via the newsletter. He further explained how charges, amount, and to whom they will be
made - thus suming up the question by saying that the Safety and Finance Committee will provide rescue services in this way. They
had contacted other communities and discovered that the procedure
had worked out fine. Mr. Carlo stated that he felt that there
would be quite a time element in sending rescue service from the eastern end of the City, down to the area of North Shore Drive and
would suggest that they consider contracting with, perhaps, Wind
Lake Fire Dept. for rescue service. Mr. Smith states that one still
had the prerogrative of attending a Public Safety Committee mtg.
ACCOUNT #670 - Mr. S. Smith asked what was the basis for Contract-
UL'dl at?rvnTe of $5,000.00. Mayor Gottfried reviewed planned ex-
penditures for 1966. Mr. Carlo asked is there any Federal Aid in-
volved in urban renewal? Mr. Gottfried stated, yes, if the City
becomes eligible.
ACCOUNT #710 - Mr. Ziesemer asked is the $1,206.00 per month a realistic figure. Answer, yes. Mrs. Rats stated that the City could
stand some beautification - citing weeds and tree growth along Racine
Avenue, north. Mayor Gottfried explained that the law only provides
for the cutting of noxious weeds. ACCOUNT #?45 - Mr. Carlo asked whether the entire City be sewered?
Mayor Gottrried stated the final determination has not been made
as to financial responsibility, a portion of it could be financed on a City wide basis. Monies that have been spent thus far on this project will be paid back to the City from the sewer district. Mr.
Kapke stated that he felt only the people that benefit should pay
for the sewer system. Discussion followed as to determination of
financing, possible amount of indebtedness, obligation of whom, etc.
Mr. McHugh then asked what percentage of the installation are you talking about - Mayor Gottfried answered, Mail lateral lines, inter-
septors, that which might be used by the schools, etc. ACCOUNT H780 - Mr. Sam Smith asked that the highway maintenance sal-
arles be explained which was then done by Mr. Weaver, Chairman of
Public Works Committee. Mr. Weaver also reviewed some of the road
improvements the committee is considering and planning and other
road projects (culverts, brush control, traffic counts, etc.). Mr.
McHugh stated that he is very concerned about Crowbar Rd., Mayor Gottfried reviewed the intended plans for reconstruction of Crowbar.
Mr. McHugh said that he was hoping Emerson Drive would be widened. Mr. Wittbrot stated that he was wondering what the City intended to
do on Kelsey Drive as he was one of seven who lived on the road and
they are very satisfied. Mr. M. Smith said that Hillendale and Mar- tin Drive should not be forgotten. Mr. Kapke asked about Berger La.
and the Mayor stated, this is a private drive. Mr. Carlo stated that he did not know how one could prepare a budget when they could not
tell what they were going to spend for Kelsey, etc. He further com-
plained about the lack of repairs done on North Shore Dr. Mr. Smith
state-d that, I am of the opinion that no money has been earmarked
for a specific plan? Mr. Weaver said, no. Mr. Sam Smith asked about Account #817 - Maint. - Bridges, Mr. Weaver stated that it involved
shoring up, concrete work, etc. Mayor Gottfried stated that some money has already been spent on bridge maintenance. Mayor Gottfried
stated that some money was spend on maintenance. Anthony Carlo sug-
gested that more sand and gravel be used on icey roads at the inter- sections.
i, *.
,I ‘i 1966 BUDGET HEARINGS CONT'D
ACCOUNT #868 - Mr. Sam Sith questioned purchase of new equipment. Ald. Weaver reviewed what equipment had to be replaced, overhaul-
ed, and purchased. Mr. Wittbrot inquired if there was a deprec-
iation reserve account and Mayor Gottfried answered, no. ACCOUNT #900 - Mr. Ziesemer stated that he would like to compliment
the Library on the fine job.
Mr. McHugh asked why there was such a tremendous difference between
Estimated totals and that which Finance Recommends. He further
stated that he was concerned about the building of surplus funds .
. . why can't we use the funds instead of levying a tax?
Mayor Gottfried reviewed contemplated purchases and expenditures
such as municipal site, civic center, police department, etc.
Mr. McHugh then said that he felt that the Council was not fair
to the residents.... it is not fair to the people to delude them.
Mr. Wittbrot said that he felt that if the revenues were decreas-
ing, as shown, and the expenditures are increasing, the Council
would be in trouble. He further stated that the surplus is not reflected in the budget.
Mr. Faucett asked whether he could question the Municipal Site a- mount. Mayor Gottfried reviewed amounts set in reserve in previous years, present, and the 66 budget.
Following Mayor Gottfried's explanation as to amount of surplus
funds, what monies have been ear-marked for road improvement, site,
etc., Mr. Smith said that he is afraid that $135,00.00 in surplus funds is too much money, that this will become a cooky jar type
thing.
Discussion followed regarding advantages and disadvantages of sur-
plus funds, cost to taxpayers, etc.
Mr. Ziesemer suggested that the Council consider retainning as many
local people as possible in regard to professional services.
Mr. Wittbrot asked - when you have a surplus do no restrict this
to a capital improvement or as a re-curring expense?
Mr. Sam Smith stated that the estimated total for 65 was $338,560.18
while the proposed for 66 is $452,382.96, or an increase of $100,000.00. He said that he hoped this would give the people
better services.
There being no further remarks the budget hearing was adjourned at 9:58 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
B. J. BOWYER
Clerk
City of Muskego