The taxpayers of Albert Lea cannot afford the costly mistake of the city’s proposed reorganization plan. An experienced city manager would have received the complete support of the council prior to presenting such a significant change to the public. Fact: There is currently a 4-3 divide on the council. This plan has been rushed and has not received adequate feedback from the council or the public.

The taxpayers are not in favor of this plan. The mayor was quoted as saying “the elections have shown the city has confidence in their city council.” Fact: Nearly one-third to one-half voted for the opponents. This would indicate a lack of confidence by many (over 2,000 in the mayoral race).

The city of Albert Lea’s tax levy has increased at a pace much faster than our surrounding communities. Fact: Since 2010, Albert Lea’s tax levy has increased 17.6 percent compared to Austin, Owatonna, and Faribault at 5.6 percent, 2.7 percent and 7.7 percent.

The city’s population has declined steadily while our neighboring communities are growing. Fact: Since 1990, Albert Lea’s population has decreased 1.96 percent compared to increases for Austin, Owatonna, and Faribault of 14.0 percent, 31.9 percent and 37.4 percent.

A city has certain core services that it provides. Recreation is one of those core services. Who could possibly think the taxpayers will get more and/or better recreational opportunities if recreation is passed on to organizations that have differing missions? Fact: A successful parks and recreation program has widespread benefits to a community. It is beneficial for economic development purposes, it promotes health and wellness, and it reduces crime rates. Why doesn’t our city manager understand this? Also, the school district costs will increase without an offsetting decrease at the city. The taxpayers will pay more and get less.

The city manager states that there may be savings in 10 years due to attrition. Where are the hard facts that demonstrate the benefits of this plan? Fact: Personnel costs are the largest part of a city’s budget. To make such significant changes in personnel with no cost savings and less services to the taxpayers is a plan motivated by the wrong reasons. This reorganization plan appears to be more about the people currently in or not in certain positions than what is good for the future of the community.

When asked how the city will measure the success of this plan, the response was through a survey. The taxpayers deserve results that are measurable. We should see results in the form of increased population, increased tax capacity due to new construction and a much-needed decrease in the tax levy. Common sense says this plan will have the exact opposite effect. People will move to where they can get exceptional services at a fair price.

Although this plan contains the popular phrases such as collaboration, efficiencies, succession planning, etc., it really is just a lot of rhetoric without any substance. The facts speak for themselves. The city manager has spent four years raising the levy without any measurable benefits to the taxpayers.

 

Rhonda Moen

Albert Lea