When is a good time?

It is interesting to read the comments by members of the city council and the Albert Lea Tribune suggesting that the time for debating the issue of the creation of the new storm water and lighting utility has passed.

Please remember that the taxpayers were unaware of the financial implications or even the amount being proposed until a city council meeting held on December 13th. The Albert Lea Tribune gave the story light coverage by making a vague reference to "an equivalency factor" of $2.95 per residential lot under one acre and a "graduated system" for commercial and industrial property on the storm utility. The article did not even mention that the rate was per month, not per year. Same coverage on the lighting utility. Likewise, the coverage provided no explanation of what revenue was being collected or what the new revenue stream was to be used for? http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2004/12/21/news/news2.txt


Even more telling of the public's "ignorance" on this issue is revealed in the Tribune's coverage of the budget and levy limit decisions made by the city council. The coverage on the city council budget and levy amount made absolutely no reference to how much the levy was increased. I only learned that the city had increased it's levy by 25% by reviewing the minutes from the meeting. The Tribune instead ran an article indicating only that the levy was about the same as the year 2000. http://www.albertleatribune.com/articles/2004/09/14/news/news2.txt

I must confess that when I originally read that article my brain processed that the levy was about the same as last year -- I did not recognize that the comparison was to 4 years ago until much later.

It is not reasonable to expect the public to understand the intricacies of municipal finances. Yet, the public tends to have yardsticks it uses to keep an eye on what the government is doing. The primary gauge that the public watches is the annual levy increase. For example, the Tribune ran an article that the county levy increased by 5.8% from last year. Perhaps the public would not have been so quiet had they known earlier that the city's levy increase was 25%, plus two additional user fees.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that opposition to the new utilities is somehow coming out of the woodwork. Any follower of local politics knows that generally items pass through the city council with little public scrutiny. Yet, the creation of these new utilities had across the board opposition. Two of the other taxing authorities -- the school district and the watershed board -- opposed the creation of these utilities. Also, the Chamber of Commerce, representing over 500 members, clearly advocated for the use of the property tax system in lieu of the new utilities. The city council also heard from two respected members of the community, including the former mayor of Albert Lea, Bob Haukoos, asking the city to look closer at what they were doing. http://www.city.albertlea.org/9-13-04min.htm

To suggest that the public did not voice it's opposition upon the creation of these utilities is untrue. Likewise, to suggest that the public should have seen through a crystal ball what the financial implications would be at the time the "concept" was proposed seems unreasonable.