Residents blast council over public safety, proposed tax levy
Owatonna residents last week packed city council chambers last week to oppose a double-digit tax hike and a plan to spend an estimated $61 million on new police and fire facilities.
Many had shown up an hour earlier than the 7 p.m. regular meeting start time, expecting a study session that had been moved to 1 p.m. that day–and they weren’t happy about that, either.
Resident Sarah Sanchez kicked off nearly an hour of public comment, there to voice “strong opposition” to a proposed 13.6% increase in the city’s tax levy, “because this process has failed to meet the standard of public engagement” and fiscal responsibility that residents deserve.
She said Owatonna Public Schools voters rejected a recent levy request not because they don’t care about education, but because “families in our community are experiencing real financial strain.” She also pointed to increasing prices of basic necessities and said the residents who will feel the impact are struggling the most, including seniors who on fixed incomes and young families trying to purchase a home and afford day care.
She said the levy request demands a “clear, transparent process.”
Other residents echoed concerns about tight budgets and transparency, interweaving comments about the levy increase and the proposed new police and fire facilities, expected to cost more than $60 million. Although large capital projects are typically bonded and not directly financed through the levy, residents will foot the bill for bond payments.
City administrator Jenna Tuma previously said the proposed levy increase takes into account those future payments.
Tina Schafer shared concerns about both transparency and the tax burden.
“A lot of what I’m hearing in the community is ‘we didn’t know,’” she said, urging officials to make information online easier to find. She said her taxes had already gone up significantly and asked, “What is our line? What is our cap? What tax burden are we willing to put on our citizens here, and where do we say no?”
As someone who lives on Social Security, Gail Jorgenson pointed out that seniors who boost their fixed income with a pension or savings are seeing those investments down in this economy. She urged a pause in building the police and fire buildings, with more communication.
“You've seen the resentment of the new high school, now it’s going to be police and fire,” she said.
Melissa Zimmerman, who is part of a group that filed complaints against Steele County that cited Open Meetings Act and data request violations, expressed concern that the rescheduled 6 p.m. study session was still on the council agenda as of 5:55 p.m.
“Residents are saying they’re gonna do what they want to do, and that’s because of the lack of transparency,” she said.
She and others also objected to a proposed location for the new police department, near the sledding hill on the West Hills campus.
Keith Reese, who said he lives in “the big yellow house at the bottom of the sledding hill,” also complained about the lack of transparency.
“I don’t think you’ve taken into consideration what the West Hills sledding hill means" to people in the area, he said. “We’re already on the poorer side of town… and those kids have nothing to do but run the streets and go to the hill and go sledding… I don’t understand why we weren’t told that was the proposed spot.”
Reese said he attended a recent meeting of the West Hills Commission, an advisory group that makes recommendations about the historic city campus. The group on Nov. 18 sent a memo to city officials, noting the campus is on the National Register of Historic Places and the beauty and use of the grounds, which they called “a gem” for the city and citizens.
Their list of concerns about the proposed two-story building included line-of-sight issues, the modern building being out of place among historic structures, removal of “numerous mature trees,” a new entrance driveway, increase in impervious surfaces, increase in daily traffic, and the permanent alternation of the “park-like setting” and neighborhood.
“We recognize the priority of using city-owned land, and we believe there are other alternatives than the main body of the West Hills campus,” the group said.
City Administrator Jenna Tuma, who along with administrative coordinator Jeanette Clawson took responsibility for the agenda error, said slides from the study session would be made available to the public. In addition, she said, the city will host an open house or town hall in the first quarter of next year to talk about the public safety facilities and why they are recommended. She also suggested residents subscribe to city emails through the owatonna.gov website.
While officials typically do not engage with residents during public comment, they did have a few things to say during council comments at the end of the meeting. Most thanked people for showing up.
Council member Dan Boeke talked about the challenges of dealing with aging buildings and said delaying the public safety project would only increase the price.
Mayor Matt Jessop said council members got elected because they wanted to hear from residents. “The most important thing to me going into this was hearing people’s voices.”
Council president Kevin Raney defended the public safety project. He said firefighters are exposed to chemicals and carcinogens, and when they come back to the station, need to take off their turnout gear in a segregated area–then need another set of gear ready in case they’re called out again.
“Right now, we don’t have the room to do these very basic functions,” he said, adding the city owed it to firefighters to protect them from carcinogens. “It’s my job and council’s job to do what we can to maintain the integrity of our firefighters.”