Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 14 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Mayoral race: Higher quality of life or lower taxes
Candidates discuss views at forum
Published Saturday, October 25, 2008
In defining progress for Albert Lea, mayoral candidates differ on whether that means pursuing a higher quality of life or lower taxes.
“We had lower taxes for 30 years and no one came,” said incumbent Mayor Randy Erdman at the League of Women Voters forum Friday night at Riverland Community College.
Achieving progress for the community means improving the downtown, expanding trails and enhancing other amenities, Erdman said. He noted that two new businesses to town — ITC Midwest and Rainbow Play Systems — received no subsidies as incentives. They chose Albert Lea because they wanted to locate here.
Randy Erdman
“We are starting to be the place to be,” said Erdman, a self-employed salesperson who served four years as a city councilor before being elected mayor two years ago.
His opponent, Mike Murtaugh, disagreed on the role of taxes in attracting newcomers.
“We need to pay attention to property taxes so they don’t get out of line compared to our neighbors,” said Murtaugh, a computer specialist who is running for public office for the first time.
Audience members at Friday’s forum, attended by about 35 people, submitted questions for the candidates.
The mayoral candidates also differed on the city’s role in assisting housing developments.
Mike Murtaugh
Erdman said the city’s role has been to help developers bond for infrastructure.
In the case of the Tiger Hills development off Hammer Road near the high school, Erdman said the city spent more on turn lanes and a sewer lift station in order to provide for future growth.
In the case of Wedgewood Cove, a new golf course and housing development under construction on the southwest side of Albert Lea, he said the city assisted with road funding because the community was gaining a golf course and growing its tax base.
Murtaugh said he spoke against the funding for Tiger Hills as a citizen and said it’s not up to the city to take risks with taxpayer money.
One question asked about promoting grants or programs for existing businesses to expand or remain in the city.
Murtaugh said that would be more the role of the Albert Lea Economic Development Agency. The city’s role would be providing the lowest cost possible for municipal services.
Erdman said the city already has a revolving-loan fund that provides gap financing for existing businesses. While state grants are drying up, he said the Southern Minnesota Initiative Foundation provides assistance to local businesses.
Ward 3
In the race for Ward 3 City Councilor, voters will choose a new representative, as incumbent Councilor George Marin has opted not to run. Candidates Ellen Kehr, a local businesswoman, and Ryan Sabinish, an Iraq War veteran who lost his job when SoyMor closed, differed on the question of whether quality of life or lower taxes should be a priority in attracting new residents.
Kehr said quality of life is more important, though taxes play an important role.
Ryan Sabinish
Sabinish said lower taxes are more important, but added that the city needs both lower taxes and amenities to attract people.
On the issue of making city government more transparent, Kehr and Sabinish agreed that the city needs to change its preagenda meeting, a council workshop held the Thursday before each council meeting. These meetings are held in council chambers and, under state law, are open to the public. However, in contrast to the council’s regular meetings, no minutes are taken and the meetings are not broadcast on the city’s cable channel.
Kehr recommended the council either eliminate the preagenda meeting or expand public forums at meetings along with broadcasting the preagenda meetings.
Ellen Kehr
Sabinish said the city needs to either broadcast the meetings or eliminate them.
Voters head to the polls on Nov. 4. Go to http://www.city.albertlea.org/elections.htm for a list of city candidates, polling places, and link to ward maps.
On election night, AlbertLeaTribune.com will provide readers with up-to-the-minute results of local races.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of all the problems we have in this area, I can't believe that preagenda meetings are such a high priority. Why should the general public really care if there are preagenda meetings? Most people don't go anyway.
Posted by sshafer20 (anonymous) on October 25, 2008 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well that's not what I have read when Mr Murtaugh was interviewed about the subject. I believe the quote had said “he’s talked with former elected city officials and city staff, who agree that the preagenda meeting has become a source of controversy.” “I’m actually proposing to eliminate it,” Murtaugh said. “I would take away the restrictions that have been put on the public forum. I haven’t quite determined whether that’s going to take the agreement of the council or if as the presiding officer it’s something I can do.” Of course that’s what it’s all about for Mr. Murtaugh, the power to do what he wants.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How can you have quality of life when the city votes to take away people's rights. Their right to privacy, their right to private property. Mayor Erdman is no friend to the little people of Albert Lea and he has never been good for business. Albert Lea has gone backwards under his leadership. I noticed that the poll the Tribune had he was losing by a lot. Guess not listen to the people will cost him his job.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All Murtaugh talks about is the preagenda meeting and lower taxes. What else is he going to do?
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill,
Don't you think in this election year that it is just easier to vote for new ideas. I have very real problems with Mayor Erdman and that is why I am voting against him. Now with your question wouldn't it be better to have more than a 2 party system? I do agree with Mike on lower taxes and his stance on citzens rights and smaller government.
So for me it is about trust and I do not trust Mayor Erdman.
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 1:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wildbill,
I have made city spending and openness of city government the cornerstones of my campaign. As a private citizen since at least 2005, I have done the same.
As to what else I would do, have you been to any of the candidate forums, or read the articles the Tribune has written? I've answered every question with a clear opinion on each matter, or a willingness to look at options.
Here are some specifics I've stated:
- I would not be in favor of increasing the mayor's term to four years.
- I've said I believe the just-passed rental ordinance is not perfect, and will need to be revisited. I also would not have voted to pass it without having the fee schedule defined, just as Councilors Brooks and Marin did.
- I would focus our attention and spending on our existing infrastructure - our roads and sewer system that is literally crumbling under our feet.
- Along with the pre-agenda meeting, I have said I would remove the restrictions placed on the public forum during council meeting, including moving them back to the beginning of the meeting. I'd even be open to starting the meeting at 6:30 or 6:45 p.m. to accommodate that.
- I've commented on the cable TV system (although this never came up during the debates or interviews), that I would be in favor of obtaining a better agreement with Charter when that is renegotiated in a couple years, and/or look for alternatives.
- I've discussed the need to obtain some level of committment from the county regarding the operation of the transfer station.
I've also been open to answering questions online, both here and the discussion forum, instead of remaining silent.
So I respectfully disagree with your contention that taxes and the pre-agenda meeting is all I've talked about.
Mike Murtaugh
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, I commend both Ward 3 candidates for also recognizing that the pre-agenda meeting needs to be either discontinued or televised.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 2 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you tell me how you would change the rental ordinance? What will be done to lower taxes the city can do it's part I get that but what about the school and the county they are killing us as well. Thank you for running I hope you are more open than Mr. Erdman. I just ask that you don't lie to me like he did.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I want an improved quality of life in this town and I believe Mayor Erdman is the one to do it.
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 4:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't been through the rental ordinance line for line, but there would be several concerns.
1. What overlap is there with the new ordinance, and existing city codes and/or state statutues. If it's already covered, then there's no reason for it in the ordinance.
2. Why does the city need to have a list of residents in each rental unit? What makes renters different in that regard from homeowners? The city already should know who the responsible party is for a unit, for instance through a water bill. Beyond that, it should not matter. Regarding water bills, it is my understanding that unpaid water bills remain with the residence, and do not follow a renter if they move out, leaving the landlord responsible. I believe this is wrong and would try to change that.
3. Although I do not believe it is necessary for the city to have a listing of residents, I would support some sort of method in which problem tenants could be identified for instance - those that damage a unit or fail to pay rent. Those sorts of problems end up costing landlords money that they will inevitably have to pass along through increased rent, just as shoplifting in stores costs everyone.
4. I think the 'three complaints to law enforcement and you're out' eviction mechanism is too simplistic - there needs to be better definition of what sort of complaints could result in eviction, and/or a time period in which these complaints occur. I don't think a barking dog or a noise complaint would be sufficient grounds for eviction.
5. As stated earlier, I think the fee schedule should be defined and in place before the ordinance was passed. This keeps the question open as to what is the city's true motive for implementing this ordinance. Is it solely for 'health and safety' or is it also a method to increase revenue?
6. It has also been stated that this ordinance came about because of a couple problem landlords. I am concerned that this ordinance may force some otherwise respectable landlords to get out of the business in Albert Lea, possibly leaving us with a bigger problem than we have now.
7. Steve Kurth, the only member of the task force to vote against recommending passage of the revised ordinance, had a good letter to the editor a couple weeks ago. I think he had valid concerns and commend him for having the courage to vote no, and for stating why. Here's a link to his letter:
http://www.albertleatribune.com/news/200...
It seems there are enough objections to the revised ordinance from both landlords and from renters to say that it is flawed, and will need revision.
Posted by Truth (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for taking the time to explain your feelings it has made me proud to support you and when you become Mayor I look forward to talking to you about these changes.
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm curious Mr Murtaugh. If the taxes are so much better in Owatonna then Albert Lea and you work there, why not move there? Commuting can't be cheap.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can't sell his house in Al just like the rest of us.
Posted by mmurtaugh (anonymous) on October 26, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've lived here all my life, except college. I'm not interested in moving. A lot of people live in Albert Lea but commute to Owatonna. In fact, where I work, we have people commuting from Rochester, Mankato, Faribault and even the metro area.
In 2002, for a house of a $100,000 value, Albert Lea's city property tax was $147, Owatonna $273.
By 2008, it was Albert Lea $336, Owatonna $331, so still no tax advantage there. In fact, we bought a different house in 2002, and we never considered looking out of town.
In the comparisons I made to other cities in our area, I never used Owatonna as an example for lower taxes. However, other major cities within a 75-mile radius do have lower taxes for properties of equal value, including Austin, Fairmont, Faribault, Mankato and Rochester.
Here's a link to the League of Minnesota Cities property tax calculator, where I obtained my information:
http://www.lmnc.org/page/1/property-tax-...
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
The Tribune encourages healthy, respectful dialogue in the spirit of community enlightenment. It's OK to disagree, but be courteous and civil. Name-calling, vulgarity and claims of criminality are subject to removal.
(Requires free registration.)