Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 31 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
City Council to hold hearing on tax levy, budget
Proposed 2010 general fund budget is $13.66 million
Published Saturday, December 12, 2009
After months of planning, forming a citizen task force and conducting numerous public and council workshops, the Albert Lea City Council will hold a public hearing Monday on its proposed 2010 tax levy and annual budget.
As the city faces potential unallotments of more than $700,000 in local government aid in 2010 — in addition to an about $338,000 unallotment in 2009 and a $400,000 one at the end of 2008 — city staff and council members have worked to cut out about $1.1 million from the city’s budget for next year.
The proposed 2010 general fund budget is about $13.66 million, instead of $14.75 million in 2009. All city departments have reduced their budgets.
Albert Lea City Manager Victoria Simonsen said during the Monday meeting Finance Director Rhonda Moen will present a Power Point presentation of the proposed budget and then there will be a public hearing on it before the council potentially votes on it later in the meeting. If the council decides it wants to table the vote until its next meeting on Dec. 28, that is a possibility.
In September, the council voted 5-2 to adopt a preliminary general fund tax levy of $5,095,375, which is $135,000 higher than the city’s levy in 2009. That would equal out to an almost 3 percent property tax increase for homeowners.
Moen’s presentation Monday, however, will be based on a $70,000 tax levy increase — which is $65,000 less than what was proposed in September — though there is still the possibility of adopting a general fund tax levy with a zero percent increase. The levy just cannot go higher than what was passed in September.
If the council chooses to approve the $70,000 general fund tax levy increase, they will be able to decide where that money is allocated, Moen said. The salary of one police officer, including benefits, is right around $70,000.
If the $70,000 levy increase is approved, that will equal out to a $21 increase in city property taxes on a home valued at $100,000. This would mean 28 percent of a homeowner’s tax dollars would go toward city services, while the remainder would go toward Freeborn County, the Albert Lea Area Schools district and the Shell Rock River Watershed District.
Councilors thanked city staff for their work in preparing the budget.
Some of the proposed changes to the budget include closing the public library on Fridays and Saturdays, reducing hours in certain positions and reducing available hours at some city facilities, to name a few.
There has also been a hiring stall in place and some people have chosen to take early retirement incentives. The Albert Lea Police Department still faces potential layoffs.
In a Tribune column Friday, Albert Lea Mayor Mike Murtaugh encouraged people to give their input about the budget by contacting him or their council member, or by attending the Monday public hearing.
The city tax levy and budget are just two of the large items scheduled for the Monday council agenda.
During the Monday meeting the council will also:
• Have a public hearing about whether to adjust the city sewer and water rates.
Simonsen said City Engineer Steven Jahnke will present an overview of the proposed sewer and water rates, and there will be a public hearing to receive input.
The proposal comes after a sanitary sewer rate study was conducted by firm TKDA.
The council will vote on the rates at its Dec. 28 meeting.
• Vote whether to approve an agreement with the Freeborn County Humane Society for a joint project in regards to the operations and expansion of the animal shelter.
The Humane Society proposes to finance the construction of a new kennel facility on city property in exchange for a 30-year lease.
Under the proposal the city will pay $400 a month, and the Humane Society will operate the facility.
An anonymous donor has come forward to donate to the cause, and the Humane Society has fundraised to match that donation.
• Vote whether to approve a resolution that would request Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Minnesota Legislature to refrain from further unallotment of LGA payments to Minnesota cities. If passed, the resolution will ask the governor and Legislature to call an immediate special session or address the budget deficit upon the opening of the session on Feb. 4, 2010.
Have the first reading of an amendment to the tattoo ordinance.
The proposed ordinance came before the council earlier this year but has since been revised.
Have the first reading of an interim sign ordinance that as proposed would temporarily prohibit illuminated flashing light signs within the B-3 district and signs greater than 400 square feet throughout the community.
A second reading and public hearing on the ordinance would be Dec. 28.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by allake (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The $70,000 levy is small compared to the debt levy increase.
Posted by Intheknow (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How is the debt levy related to the loan to the Moen's Tiger Hills developement?
Posted by wildthing (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would pay the extra 21 dollars to keep the law enforcement but I still think that all these studies have been a waste of money along with the lights on main coming into the city. We need to take care of the public before we add to the city. More lights in dark areas of town would have been better. I put my input at that meeting and oh well I am just a voice of one. Take care of your people in your town or your town will move away which is what is happening.
Posted by allake (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Intheknow,
That is a great question. The payments for Tiger Hills have to be made, so this could very well be part of the increase in debt levy. If not, I would guess they are using other bond payment dollars that will be needed in the future. Maybe that is why the City Manger says the fund is ok until 2012?
Posted by Intheknow (anonymous) on December 12, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So isn't the city manager jumping (a sinking) ship early by leaving in 2010? Perhaps even with a pay cut she would be better off leaving than to have to explain this looming budget (titanic) disaster.
Posted by megaforce247 (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To me the word BUDGET means taking what you have and dividing it out to pay your bills and still having a little left over for yourself. How come government doesnt think that way? I realize there are so many things that need to be done and paid for, but living past our means is what got the whole country in this situation in the first place. I do applaud our city council, city manager and mayor for their work and at these thankless jobs, because you no matter what you do you cant please everyone.
Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
megaforce247: You are incorrect. Government often does think that way. The "little left over" it tries to put toward building reserves. That way, in case of emergencies, such as when Republicans become governors, they have some money around to pay for the services people demand.
Posted by Straight_Forward (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If you want to see Ms. V lying again, watch WCCO TV and see the article about Albert Lea turning off christmas lights because of the budget. Go drive around town and every light pole, down town, the island, all have lights on. Another lie from her. Also Monday night at the council meeting they are voting on the budget. Everyone might want to show up, I have heard they are cutting some things that the people at the town meetings said they did not want cut. Once again they are going with there own agenda and not listening to the poeple that got them there. Maybe we don't want to show because MS. V scares us. LOL.
Posted by aletheia (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tallyman, are you suffering from a concussion? Look at your history and current events. Liberals are the ones that usually show an increase in govt. spending which is evident with the current administration. Republicans usually save money and cut taxes and spending because after all the govt. does not really have any money, it is our money. Remember that, it’s your money not theirs.
Posted by aletheia (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Services people demand", like bail outs and money for nothing programs, or welfare, or maybe millions for programs people never even hear about. Yeah liberals are the way to go. All of you socialists need to move up north or go back to the homeland you turncoats. I would call you a Benedict Arnold but at least the British are slowly learning about the short falls of socialism.
Posted by 57boy (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
time for an entire MAKEOVER at city hall !!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Wildbill (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Atleast the underprivileged puppy dogs and pussycats should have a better place to stay in the future. That's one silver lining.
I wish, however, that the City had moved all those buildings somewhere else off the lake. I think that would have been a great place for people to come and enjoyed the area.
Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's crap. Reagan and the Bushes spent way more than the Democratic presidents. They just didn't spend the money on the people of America. They spent it on defense or, in George W. Bush's case, offense.
Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, it was Bush and the Republicans who approved $700 billion in bank bailouts in 2008. Get your info right.
Posted by hotrod (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ya know all i got to say is we need another Rodger Bock to keep these clueless people in line. have moens pay there loan back and table this tell next year. i think i will be there
monday and ask if i can pay my taxes when i sell my house for what it is worth thx Vic
Posted by anasgrammy (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the city needs to live within their means. we have to. i'm opposed to raising property taxes again or water and sewer rates . water and sewer rates were raised to pay for the lighting of the street lights. then what does the city do? put in more and then put flags on them to boot. seeing all that when i come into albert lea or any other town would not give me reason to want to live there. stupid spending. why don't you think about the citizens for a change. raise this, tax that. don't you see all the forclosures in the paper and all the people that are out of work. there aren't jobs out there yet you want to screw them out of more money. live within your budget . we have to.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 13, 2009 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's crap. Reagan and the Bushes spent way more than the Democratic presidents. They just didn't spend the money on the people of America. They spent it on defense or, in George W. Bush's case, offense."
Where are your facts? Just wondering.
Why is it always Bush's fault with you guys? Just want to see your facts for this. Going to be hard to prove that.
Posted by JayJ (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that water and sewer rates are too high already for this reason.
Water is the source of life. Sewage disposal is necessary to public health.
With so many people out of work or living with reduced incomes this is not a manditory expense to mess with.
Other luxuries or conveniences can be reduced or eliminated from a household budget. Water and waste removal are essential. Those who can not pay the bill get the water shut off.
To deny someone water, especially when it is plentiful here is a crime against humanity. Is that not why the USA and other nations have spent billions world wide providing these essentials to those who needed them? They get it for free, yet we have to pay. That somewhat confuses me. Furthermore those within the city limits are prohibited from drilling their own wells or building their own septic systems. That equates to a "pay up or die" scenario.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said JayJ. Also why is it they went after cops first? Why not cut people in the city office like billing clerks, inspectors, and the like. Just trying to scare us again. I am ready to call their bluff. No increases until every city employee takes a cut. How about that.
Posted by JayJ (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't have the answers to many of the problems, some would say any of the problems. I do see on a daily basis the financial hardships that the "common folk" are facing.
I also see alot of waste and unnecessary spending that compounds these problems. I think the goal of our leaders should be to reduce our taxes and fees rather than increase them now.
It saddens me that we don't put the people first when they are in need.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe we should look at it this way. The government should get out of the way. Yes please make sure the water is clean and the waste is gone. Charge a rate that covers that but to try and use it to make money to keep people employed well that is a mis-use of their power. Sometime government means well but they really do cause more problems than they solve. Time to let us the people use our money as we see fit. Time for Albert Lea to use its resourse as it see fit. LGA is a policy (plan) that no longer works. Why send our tax dollars to the state only to beg for them back. The best government is local. Not a city manager or the state or the federal government. Until we return to the Constitution and the Republic for which we all stand life will be hard.
Posted by JayJ (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I could not agree more NoDFL.
Posted by Straight_Forward (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I've heard from a few people that tonight they are also looking at cutting a cop. I thought we said in the budget meetings that was not what we wanted cut. Anyone have the article the tribune ran about cops vs cso. If I owned a company or ran a business I would not cut a person who could do someone else job but the other person could only do one job and not cut them. Show up tonight and lets tell them again what we want and don't want. Maybe some day they will listen to the people that got them to there elected position.
Posted by JayJ (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL check out www.shouldlarsrun.com and request the mailing list if you want to read some interesting ideas on returning to the Constitution and removing government blockades to personal freedoms.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks JayJ I will do that. Straight I think I read the cop thing here but I can't find the story. I think it was 3 cops. It might have been in the story where Vern said we are afraid of the city manager.
Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NoDFL: Asking for facts on which presidents spend the most is like asking for proof that Coca-Cola cans are red. Duh! But since you ask, here is one of many examples.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_de...
You can see that the federal debt grew the most under the Republican presidents. They are the big spenders but they have you blinded by their alleged "philosophy" that you don't even bother monitoring their heavy wasteful spending.
You should start asking yourself why you are a Republican and then double check whether that spend-crazy party fits with your ideals.
Posted by tinker (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
somethings of these comments are just plan dumb.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tallyman,
First Wikipedia is not a source. Next here are some facts for you.
The federal government spent $3.5 trillion during President Obama's first year in office. This far exceeds the spending for any other first-year president.
President Obama has shattered the budget record for first-year presidents -- spending nearly double what his predecessor did when he came into office and far exceeding the first-year tabs for any other U.S. president in history.
In fiscal 2009 the federal government spent $3.52 trillion -- $2.8 trillion in 2000 dollars, which sets a benchmark for comparison. That fiscal year covered the last three-and-a-half months of George W. Bush's term and the first eight-and-a-half months of Obama's.
That price tag came with a $1.4 trillion deficit, nearly $1 trillion more than last year. The overall budget was about a half-trillion more than Bush's for 2008, his final full fiscal year in office.
That's a big increase. But compared with other presidents' first years in office, Obama is running circles around them.
Bush spent $1.8 trillion in 2001, according to government budget figures that have been adjusted for inflation based on 2000 dollars. Using the same formula, former President Bill Clinton spent $1.6 trillion in 1993.
The last president to clock in under $1 trillion was Gerald Ford, who logged a $982 billion budget in 1975. Post-war Dwight Eisenhower even brought Uncle Sam's tab down to $556 billion in his first year, 1953.
Obama's first-year budget, adjusted for inflation, is about five times that. His 2009 budget is also close to 21 percent of that for Clinton's eight years in office -- Clinton's spending added up to $13.5 trillion over his two full terms. Bush spent $16.8 trillion from 2001-2008.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/...)
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 14, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PRINCETON, NJ -- Fueled by the sentiments of Republicans and independents, a new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 59% of Americans say President Obama's proposals to address the major problems facing the country call for too much government spending, and 52% say Obama's proposals call for too much expansion of government power.
A good deal of Gallup data reinforce the idea that Americans are concerned about the long-term implications of increased levels of government spending and the expansion of government's role in society that have become a part of the Obama administration's efforts to deal with the recession. Obama receives his lowest approval ratings (out of seven issues tested in the July 17-19 poll) on handling the federal budget deficit (41% approve; 55% disapprove). Thus, the finding that a majority of Americans are worried that Obama's proposals involve too much spending and too much big government are consistent with what would be expected -- as are the very sharp partisan differences in these views.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121829/americ...
So as always we will hear the sad song of the liberal.....Its all Bush's fault......... You really need a new song.
Posted by tallyman (anonymous) on December 15, 2009 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said before. The fake philosophy of the GOP has you B-L-I-N-D to the truth.
Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on December 15, 2009 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So wikipedia is now fact???? It is now the truth???? Really so the story about Albert Lea and the strike is the truth....
I always thought Gallup, CNN, NY Times were right wing media that was hiding the truth thanks for backing me up on that. Give me a break.... Better yet give us some real facts...
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.)