These are some of the reasons I voted “no” on the upcoming $24.615 million school referendum. My vote is not a “Do nothing” vote, but a “You can do better — give us more options” vote. Until now, I have supported every school referendum in my 25 years in our beautiful community. After serving our community for over 25 years, with 12 years in elected office, I have grave concerns with the amount of money being proposed. There are enormous potential expenditures on the horizon, along with uncertainty in our local economy and our present population. Extreme caution and prudence must be the order of the day in considering these many factors. All local government entities split the same tax pie, and taxpayers pay for it.

There are many aspects to consider in wanting to see our city grow and prosper and not overburdening our present population while seeking to attract more. Elected and appointed officials must look ahead to the reality that unfunded government mandates could potentially spell sure death for rural communities like ours. The $72.5 million potential mandated upgrades to the wastewater treatment facility alone could bankrupt our city without government intervention such as reducing powers of the MPCA, and/or legislation that reduces the local costs of these upgrades. Potential increases to wastewater rates alone (possibly tripling per city manager) would be extremely burdensome to our many seniors on fixed incomes as well as our middle class and poverty families. ISD 241 has a 50.4 percent poverty level; the state average is 37.2 percent. Managing the tax burden is only part of the funding challenges. Adding to taxes, there are franchise fees and special assessments as well, all borne by taxpayers. Further, the $7 million fire station and the $30 million to $50 million Blazing Star community center are on the wish list, bringing the total to $134 million to $154 million.

In addition to the school referendum, common sense dictates there be increased costs for maintenance and upkeep to the newer facilities. The district admitted there is nothing extra budgeted for increases in these areas, hence the talks between district and city staff exploring “cost sharing” options. Cost sharing may sound benign on the surface, but if one government agency begins to dip into another’s portion of the tax pie, who then has to make cuts or add to their budgets? If the city takes care of school parking lots, plowing, mowing, etc., and this increases costs for the city, city residents will bear the greater share of the load. The city only has taxing authority within city limits, and school district boundaries surpass city limits. The outlying smaller communities in the district would not share in the cost increases. Finally, when the school district paid over an $80,000 pay increase over four years to just one administrative employee (an 18 percent increase), I realized it’s not always all about the kids. When did you last receive an 18 percent pay increase? I urge every voter to consider these factors when casting your vote on Tuesday. Give us more options.

George Marin

Albert Lea