Special Board Proceedings
November 29, 2010
President Proctor called the
Holmen Village Board meeting to order at 6:35 PM on November 29, 2010 at the
Holmen Village Hall Board Room.
Present: President Nancy Proctor, Trustees: Ryan Olson,
Neal Forde, Mark Seitz, Tony Szak, and Richard Anderson (Michael Dunham was
excused), Robert Haines, Mike Brogan, Mike McHugh and Mary Willett. Reporter
Adam Bissen, Catherine Schmit, John Chapman, Dennis Aspenson, Jim Conway, Lloyd
Pearson, Richard and Debra Wieland were also present.
The public hearing opened at
6:36 p.m. following the Pledge of Allegiance.
The proposed budget was
presented by Administrator/Clerk Mary Willett.
The levy as proposed would increase from $1,696,429 to $1,993,848 – an increase
of $297,419, of which $245,000 is the debt payment of the general obligation
bond for a total percentage increase of 17.52%.
The Village’s assessed value increased from $467,946,880 to
$482,972,940, for a net increase of $15,026,060 in property values for the 2011
tax levy. The tax rate as proposed is a
$.5674 increase per thousand for a proposed increase in taxes from the Village
levy of approximately $57.00/$100,000 home. While the tax rate is an increase
from last year’s rate, it is less than the tax rate for all the years preceding
from 2003 – 2009 where the tax rate was more than $4.57 each and every year.
As presented, the expenses of
the Village increased by $8,971.00 over 2010, even though the Village is paying
almost $12,000 more for the shared ride program, $8,000 more for the fire
department and an additional $5,700 for the Municipal court. Additionally, the police union has a 1%
increase in pay January 1, 2011 and an additional 2% increase on July 1, 2011.
The 2011 proposed budget utilizes
fee increase in the municipal bond schedule, parking fees, licensing fees, and
recreation fees to increase the revenues $309,247 over the 2010 budgeted
revenues. Most fees have not been
studied for increase for more than 5 years.
As illustrated in the comparative charts, the fees are still less than
or equal to those charged by many surrounding municipalities.
This is a zero balance
budget. The revenues expected are
balanced by the proposed expenditures expected.
Budget adjustments throughout the year will recalculate expenses that
vary from expected sums.
The proposed budget funds an
additional police officer and new officer equipment, a surveillance camera,
squad computer, in car camera, new outfitted squad car, a street and alley
projects, computer outlay to update the systems to anticipate needs four years
out, 3 part-time staff for the front office and a new Deputy Clerk/Deputy
Treasurer position.
Jim Conway said that he is
not a happy taxpayer. He said that he
was glad that 17% was not a challenging number and that he felt it was an
unreasonable amount. He went on to say
that the Village is not charging enough fees – impact fees. The developers should cover these costs.
Tony Szak responded to Mr.
Conway stating that the fees are there but there is a delay with the timing of
when the Village actually receives some of the increased revenues from the fees
and taxes.
Lloyd Pearson questioned the
need for a Microsoft Office License for $7,500 when the programs can be
purchased individually cheaper. He also
questioned the need for additional employees.
Mike Brogan brought forward
the benefits of licensure for the program over individual licensed
programs. With licensure, all computers
in the office can be upgraded and each new computer purchase in the coming
years will a little less because we already have this program with its
applications here ready to install. The
other benefit is that if an individual computer has any problem and the program
needs to be reinstalled, finding the exact program disk is not a problem.
John Chapman said that it was
common practice for at least the last 35 years for the Village to use cash
reserves.
Trustee Richard Anderson
asked why this budget did not use reserves.
He felt this year would be a good time to use those funds.
Mary Willett explained that
the budget as proposed would use cash reserves per board approval if a
situation arose during the year that revenues could not adjust to handle. In that case, the reserves would come in as a
board-agree upon revenue to balance the expenditures exceeding the revenues
received in calendar year 2011.
Debra Wieland commented that
while it may be great to use cash reserves this year, a few years down the line
will most likely be worse rather than better.
Next year could be even more serious if we use the reserve money now.
Catherine Schmit pointed out
an error in calculations with the public works capital outlay line item that
needs to be addresses. She questioned out of concern the authority to put the
loan payment on the levy.
Additionally, she maintained
that the payment for the public works shop loan could not be levied on the
taxes.
Mary Willett said she had
been working with the Department of Revenue on this issue, but would seek
clarification.
The public hearing was closed
at 8:08 p.m.
Ryan Olson/Tony Szak motioned
to approve the 2011 General Budget as presented.
Ryan Olson stated that
overall there is more in the budget that the trustees agree on than
disagree. Questions have been
entertained from the Board and the public.
Olson cautioned that one must be careful with percentages. The Village is allowed to increase its levy
by 3.09% instead of the state mandated limit of 2.8% because of growth. With growth, there are pressures on expenses
and delivery of expected services.
Spending was held to an increase of less than 1%. Philosophically, the Board needs to question
whether the debt payment is all on the levy, some from reserves and whether
there is a tax rate increase.
There are areas that need relooking
– confirmation/clarification from the Department of Revenue and the financial
consultants for the real numbers of what can be applied to the levy. We need to make sure that we are accurate. Additionally, the capital outlay for public
works needs to be refined.
Nancy Proctor said that this
budget has been presented differently with all expenditures clearly visible for
complete understanding before we approve this budget.
Mark Seitz stated that there
remain some questions that require clarifications. Philosophically, what are
reserves? They are tax money that has
already been levied. Is it raining? How bad is it raining out there?
The budget is at a good
starting point. I would like to
compliment Mary to get it to this point.
It is a well done budget but it needs more work.
Tony Szak stated that he
would be in favor of a 4.1279 tax rate.
What we have proposed is very manageable and very well put
together. The rate is down from recent
past tax rates except last year where reserves were used to offset the rate.
The motion failed 0-5. AS presented it did not pass, but will be
presented again for consideration at the Village Board meeting on December 9,
2010.
Mark Seitz/Ryan Olson
motioned to table the fee schedule and category nomenclature until December 9,
2011 Board meeting. The fee schedule
goes together with the budget. The
motion passed unanimously.
At 8:23 p.m., Ryan/Mark Seitz
motioned to convene into closed session per the authority of the
At 8:55 p.m., Tony Szak/Mark
Seitz motioned to reconvene into open session per
Ryan Olson/Mark Seitz
motioned to pursue a contract with MSA for the Phase II of the TID #2/updated
Comprehensive Plan/South Corridor/Boundary agreement. Motion carried unanimously.
Tony Szak/Mark Seitz motioned
to adjourn. Carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
Mary M. Willett, Village
Administrator/Clerk