Loading...
ccm19680315COMMON COUNCIL MEETING AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AS PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MARCH 15, 1968 The meeting was called to order at 7:lO P.M. by Mayor Gottfried. 0 a- Present were Aldermen Budish, Joost, Lentini, Linck, Narlock, Wieselmann and Wollman. Also present were Attorney L. C. Hammond and City Attorney Hippenmeyer. Mayor Gottfried suggested that Alderman Linck act as Chairman of the meeting so that he would be able to take a more active part in the proceedings. None objected and Alderman Linck took over as Chairman. Resolution #6-68 was read. Attorney Hammond discussed changes. Alderman Budish asked if these were standard procedures. Attorney Hammondindicated that they were in compliance with Wisconsin Statutes. Alderman Wieselmann questioned the procedure in making assessments. Attorney Hammond related the theory of assessments which is based on the assumption that the value of the sewered property will increase in propertion to sewer cost. The increased value of the lot is all that should be recovered by the City. a Alderman Lentini questioned the mechanics involved in making the assessments. Attorney Hammond Pointed out that the assessment should be high as it is impossible to change to a higher amount although if it is too high it can be lowered. Projects should be over-estimated rather than under-estimated as one cannot assess twice for the same improvement. This would be the case if the City were to try to increase an estimated assessment. Alderman Joost pointed out that all of the City would benefit to some degree from the sewer project. Alderman Lentini asked if it was possible to have a special assessment for all costs. Attorney Hammond spoke of the three funds to pay for the complete project. 1. Special Assess- ments. 2. Mortgage Revenue Bonds, and 3. General Obligation Bonds. The Mortgage Revenue Bonds would cover operation costs, depreciation and debt service. Alderman Budish indicated the necessity of General Oblig- ation Bonds in order to receive bids bearing the lowest interest rates. Attorney Hippenmeyer discussed the large differences that at times may a appear in special assessment cost of different projects. It was pointed out that the costs are very dependent on the material in which the pipes are laid. Some may have an easily work clay soil, stone, large rocks or areas of quicksand. A question was asked of assessment notice and invoice notice differences. Mayor Gottfried discussed payments and notes of 30 days to indicate full payment by November 1st. If it is indicated that it is intended to pay by November 1st and payment is not made, the full payment is due and a payable on the next tax bill. If no intent to pay is made, the payments will be placed on the ten-year installment plan. A discussion of special provisions for early payment, penalty for pre- l payment, payment of partial amounts not allowed, limited market for municipal bonds, bond prepayment penalties, call provisions. Page 2. Attorney Hippenmeyer indicated importance of time as interest costs are rising and labor costs are rising with a general inflation. Alderman Wieselmann pointed out that incomes in many cases were also going up. 0 a Mayor Gottfried discussed the need for the City providing a means to have the money in hand before a project can be started. Sta,te Statutes demand a certification of availability of money or that provisions have been made to have it available. Also discussed were dates that interest would begin under the various options of payment that were available to the property owners. Mayor Gottfried left the meeting at 8:35 P.M. A discussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using deferred payments by the City. They are permitted by Statute and must be requested. Forced subdividing may result. Impossible to have a 100% equitable assessment. Alderman Narlock requested permission to have Attorney Dennis Wagner speak on behalf of Raymond Wallner. Permission was granted. l Attorney Wagner pointed out that specific assessments have been levied by a letter dated February 7, 1968, which would mean that the landowner had 30 days after that date to indicate his options. This would be March 7th and interest would begin at that date, Attorney Hammond said that interest would not be charged and that another notice should be sent out to clarify this situation. He pointed out that there was some misunderstanding and that necessary steps would be taken to correct any hardships. Attorney Wagner charged that the Racine Avenue sewer project was not handled in the same way that the 1968 project is being processed. The differences were noted in the date of notice, installment interest date and date of full payment. He questioned the legality of this change of policy. At this time Chairman Linck permitted questions and remarks from the ' audience of some 50 people. Attorney Wittbrot expressed the opinion that 4% of the sewer cost was to be paid by general assessment. Harold DeBack remarked that forced land developed would cause other problems. It was pointed out that farm land values were determined by selling 0. price and not by land use. Attorney Hippenmeyer pointed out that the City was forced by the State to begin the sewer project. That land increases in value by the cost of the sewers. The landowner must determine the course that he will follow and that the economics of the situation cannot be changed. Harold DeBack remarked that a policy of deferred payment will help everyone. Alderman Wollman pointed out that the landowners would be subject to interest payments. a Raymond Wallner remarked that the unequal treatment of the two sewer projects is unconstitutional. Alderman Wieselmann and Hay Wallner spoke in favor of new hearings to clarify the New Berlin policies and to determine Muskego policies. Alderman Joost spoke of the policy to 0 avoid having the non-users pay more than their fair share. Attorney Page 3. Hippenmeyer spoke of increased cost of raising money and the possibility that bond issue may not be purchased. l Mrs. Hughes complained that pledge forms were not available at the * City Hall. Raymond Wallner demanded to know the cost of the sewer project and the allocation of these costs to users and non-users. There were no answers available. Alderman Wieselman remarked that a great deal of confusion still exists in the minds of many as to the City policy on sewer projects. That there are contradictory answers. He demanded another public hearing with better preparation of answers to possible questions. The meeting adjourned at 9:38 P.M.