Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

In a 5-2 vote, the Albert Lea City Council voted Monday to let the voters decide on $9.8 million in proposed projects at the city’s recreational facilities.

The decision came in front of a full-house crowd in the Council Chambers with several youth in hockey jerseys, parents and others in attendance. Extra chairs had to be brought into the chambers for seating, and several people were still standing in the back and on the sides of the room.

“I think it’s important that we get our community involved and let people have their voice and speak their piece  and feel like they’ve been a part of this decision for the community,” said Fourth Ward Councilor Sherri Rasmussen.

Albert Lea Mayor Rich Murray and 2nd Ward Councilor Larry Baker were the two votes against bringing the issue to referendum, who said they felt comfortable passing the project utilizing other financing options including capital equipment certificates and tax abatement bonds without bringing it to the voters.

Baker, who said he went back and forth on the issue, said if the council went with a referendum, there’s risk the question will fail, but if the council went with an abatement bond there is risk there may not be enough money available for other economic development opportunities that may arise. Ultimately, he said he was willing to take the risk with the abatement option.

Murray said he knows how important the issue is to Albert Lea and how he hears over and over again how the city needs things for its youth to do. He said he thinks the city should be capable of paying for the project and said he did not think it was out of line to vote on as a council, though he noted he’s concerned with how to pay for all of the other capital projects that are slated to be done in the coming years.

The total cost for this project is estimated at $12.25 million, with $2.45 million coming from federal incentives. Of the total, $9.99 million is slated at City Arena, with additional projects at the Aquatic Center and Marion Ross Performing Arts Center. Restrooms are also planned near the splash pad.

Work at the arena includes replacing failing structural reinforcement for the building, installing new drainage around the Colstrup rink, installing a new floor in the Colstrup rink, putting in a new refrigeration system for both rinks, installing LED lighting and expanding the front entry, among other projects.

City Manager Ian Rigg said because the city has maintained the facility well over the years, it is able to make these improvements, instead of having to build a new facility, which would cost $45 million.

“In the end the ice will be better like a new facility, provide added ice time needed for expanded service, have lighting like new facilities, run efficiently like newer facilities, have added and better HVAC like a new facility, and will add more lobby space for better player/patron experience,” Rigg said in an email.

At the pool, projects include replacing the boiler and water heater, replacing electrical equipment in the filter room, upgrading play features in the splash pool, moving the front entry and expanding the concessions area, among others.

At the theater, projects include new windows and doors with ADA access, adding building automation to the HVAC equipment and updating lighting, to name a few. The new restrooms and storage area near the splash pad would provide the city’s only set of public restrooms downtown.

Rigg said if approved the projects would increase property taxes 9% — or $47.50 annually — for a home valued at $100,000.

The project initially included $23 million in improvements but was pared down by city staff and Parks and Rec Board members, he said. 

Of the essentially three bonding options available, the equipment certificate can cover only a maximum of $3.4 million and must be tied to qualified equipment, he said. There is concern if the city were to go over that amount that a petition could be brought and push the issue to referendum anyway.

The tax abatement bond option is intended for economic development but can fill in gaps for recreational items.

Up until 2021, the city had about $1.13 million in abatement available each year, but that number now is at $1.4 million because of changes in the market, he said. After deducting other projects already in the works, about $1.2 million is currently available. If the council were to improve the recreation facilities through abatement, that would deduct about $442,500 each year, leaving about $763,000 in remaining abatement open.

Rigg said there are other projects that could be brought up for those funds, including a potential joint trail with Freeborn County, improvements to restrooms and others. He said not leaving enough for other projects could create problems later.            

Sixth Ward Councilor Brian Anderson, who motioned to bring the issue to referendum,  said he planned to vote in favor of the issue and noted that he thought the referendum was the easiest way with a mix of what he described as maintenance items and improvements.

“Based on the financing options, I don’t see how we can in good conscience tie up this large of a percentage of our tax abatement ability to pass up potential further growth for 20 years — that’s a long time,” Anderson said.

Rasmussen said she recognized the importance of hockey to the community and in supporting opportunities for youth, but ultimately she thought it was “too big of a decision for seven people.”  She said she thinks the community will stand behind the project.

First Ward Councilor Rachel Christensen said she, too, thought it was important to maintain options for other economic development opportunities that may arise.

During the public forum of the regular meeting, Todd Ulve, president of the Albert Lea Hockey Association, said the association is 100% in support of the project and encouraged the council to figure out a way to get it done without a referendum. He described it as 95% maintenance.

He asked the council to think of the impact to the economy if the referendum fails. He said this year there are 59 teams coming to town for tournaments, which equates to about 1,700 nights at local hotels. These people also eat in town and get gas here.

He said the association has helped with several projects at the arena in the past and this time would be willing to contribute $250,000 to the expanded lobby.

Kelly Peterson of the Albert Lea Figure Skating Club said the club wouldn’t be able to survive if it were cut ice time and said it would be willing to contribute to the lobby as well.

Resident Jon Murray, who said he was in his 10th year as a hockey parent, said he wanted to see the issue passed and said if it did not, he thought it would slowly diminish the hockey program.

Rachel Poppel, owner of Advanced Family Dental, voiced her support for the projects and said she thinks Albert Lea deserves the improvements.

“We love being here in Albert Lea, and one of the reasons we enjoy it so much is because of the venues we have available,” she said.

Lawyer Abby Leach Schumaker said she was born and raised in Albert Lea, and she and her husband both chose to come back here and start their careers here.

She said that in eliminating or minimizing extracurriculars and opportunities such as these, it makes it harder to recruit people to the community.

She said it has been disappointing to see that some of the facilities have not been maintained properly and encouraged the council to skip the referendum and look at these projects as maintenance that needs to be done.

The captains of the Albert Lea girls’ hockey team also spoke in favor of the project and touched on the success they have seen in recent years. They asked the city leaders to continue to maintain the arena.

With the vote, the issue is slated to come before voters in a special election April 9, after appropriate notices to Freeborn County and the state.

 

Proposed projects

Arena: $9.99 million

Aquatic Center: $1.15 million

Civic theater: $360,000

Splash pad restrooms: $250,000

Financing, election, contingency: $500,000

Total $12.25 million

Less federal funding: ($2.45 million)

Net cost: $9.8 million