New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-10-14

W Cllc Clly COullCll dt GQ0 CoSuls
This committee has had the repo
wick, Mitchell, Peat & Compar
audit of the books and accounts
years from March 81, 1912 to NJ;
Albert J. Meyer held the office
and under advisement for over two
In concluding their report tn
opinion that the discrepancies WI
to carelessness and bad book-keepi
According to the report, the total
receipts of the city including a cash
balance of $40, 497.T on hand March 81,
1912 amounted to $192,096.99 and the
disbursements amounted to $145,349.52
leaving on hand March 81, 1914 a
balance of $46,747.47. The accoun-
tants found correct the tax levies amount
ing to $32,963.16, the mortgage and
moneys and credit taxes in the sum of
$827.88, the. liquor licenses amounting
to $26,50O, butchers licenses $500, dog
licenses. 8$15e, sundry licenses $3.50. so,
justices fines 5000, constables' fees
$29.45, nomination fees $50, refund
donation from Junior Pioneers $500,
rent of sundry city property SIT, sundry
small receipts administration fund $50 81,
sundry small receipts street fund $134.56,
sundry small receipts fire department
fund SLIPS, interest on bank deposits
81 ,253.29, miscellaneous receipts Park
fund $67.96, sale of cemetery lots 1886,
opening and closing graves $261-5O,
ornamenting and watering graves $827.5D,
interest on cemetery trust fund $136.5O,
sundry receipts cemetery fund $500,
rental Public landing and city hospital
property $102, interest on city hail fund
$165.28, sundry receipts $15.15, interest
on electric light fund $1,9O1.22, cleo
tricians' licenses $40, meters $983.O8,
meter repairs $203.32, miscellaneous,
receipts and Water Works department
$503.75. The disbursements were found
correct with the exception of an over
payment of $14 to Franz Niemann.
This overpayment was returned to the
city before the report was filed.
| The report refers to some discrepancies
and matters not quite clear to the
auditors which were satisfactorily ex-
planned by Mr.. Meyer and need no
special reference. The discrepancies,
which have not been explained are
grouped under the following seven heads
embodied in the report of the finance
committee:
First discrepancy The first discrep-
ancy arises in connection with the
collection of special ASSESSMENTS. For
the past few years it has been the
practice of the board of public works
to provide that assessments for street
grading, water mains and similar public
improvements may, at the option of the
property owner, be paid in four or five
annual installments with interest
on deferred installments at the rate of
four per cent per annum. 1t appears
from the accountants statement that
at the end of Mr.. Meyers term of Office
deferred assessments to the amount of
ST. ,094.50 were due and uncollected.
The investigation Of the finance COM
mittee shows that little, if any, effort
was made by the city treasurer during
Mr.. Meyers term Of office to collect
these assessments and that Mr.. Never
failed to report to the city council the
fact that the assessments were not paid
and failed to take any steps whatever
to have them forwarded to the county
auditor for collection with the taxes.
The result is that the city has been
deprived Of the use of this considerable
sum Of money for long period Of time,
and that the work Of collecting this
money must now be done by the present
city clerk. Just what loss, if any, the
city will sustain by reason Of this matter
cannot be stated at this time. 3
Second discrepancy. The second dis
crepancy arises on account 81 the
receipts d from n, city scaling The stubs
$50 I