Gary Hagen is correct in asking why the city felt the need to purchase another building in town, especially for their supposed use as a future city hall.

I have read their facilities master plan that they paid good money for. One plan in that study for a new city hall was to place it at the end of Garfield, according to the Blazing Star master plan. The other option was to re-do the present building. Nowhere did I see an option to buy a building downtown. Why is it necessary to have City Hall near the courthouse? The only city department that needs to be near the courthouse/sheriff’s department would be the police department.

It is interesting to note in that city master plan they had the police department moving into a new building with the fire department at either Front Street and Newton Avenue or East Main Street near Shellrock, which sounds absolutely ridiculous.

Why move the police department away from the sheriff’s department? If you have consultants suggesting to you to move the police department away from the sheriff’s department, why would City Hall need to be within a block of the courthouse?

They are paying, I’m guessing, large sums of money for these studies and then they are totally ignoring them and going in their own direction to purchase a building in the downtown area.

Why is the city’s responsibility to purchase buildings to help build up an area?

It looks like we need to start keeping a closer eye on what our leaders are doing. It sounds like they think we have an open pocketbook for expenditures that really aren’t required. We need to speak up about this. After all, it is YOUR money they are spending.

 

Kathy Diaz

Albert Lea