Considering that the Albert Lea City Council had a 4-3 divided vote and that Albert Leans clearly value the quality of their parks, the public needs more time to consider City Manager Chad Adams’ proposal to divide the Parks and Recreation Department into two — parks and recreation — and fold the portions into other city departments. We ask the City Council to table the second reading of the measure on Oct. 27.

The city manager himself has said that more people ought to become informed on his proposal, and we feel residents already are trying to wrap their heads around myriad issues pertaining to the Nov. 4 general election. It would work better on such a wide-ranging, long-term decision to let the public vote for their candidates then have time to learn more about what’s proposed for the city government.

That said, we want to restate our stance on the matter. We do not oppose Adams wanting to determine his staff, as we stated two weeks ago. His decision to let the present director of the Parks and Recreation Department go as part of a reorganization is solely his choice.

However, we have other concerns and comments about the dissolution of the department:

• Adams says the proposal would not reduce taking care of the parks, and we have no doubt he is right — for now. But look at Freeborn County. It used to have a parks department, then in the 1990s it was folded into the Highway Department. There hasn’t been improvements to the parks since. They just get maintained in their present state. We agree Adams would be an advocate for improving parks, and he and his family actually can be found out using the city parks — unlike some of the past city managers. That’s good! But wait a decade or two. We worry about what happens after Adams leaves. The next city manager will inherit this structure, and it no doubt would be unlikely to change it back. Over the years, will Albert Lea end up — like the county — with a low-priority parks system?

• The city did a citizen survey in 2012 and found the parks were among the things citizens liked the most about Albert Lea. The survey said 52 percent said the parks were good and another 35 percent said they were excellent. It makes sense to keep a department the people like intact.

• The same survey results did not show favorably on the recreation side. We agree with Adams that more could be done here. For example, in our view, instead of shrugging shoulders each year because fewer softball teams sign up, the department could get the word out better. If more business leaders encountered the publicity, perhaps more teams would sign up. We’ve never seen a flier for softball posted inside the door of a local business, as we do with so many other activities. Still, problems with publicity don’t seem to be a reason to break up a department.

• The proposal would allow the parks workers to help with plowing snow and, at the same time, allow the street workers to help clean up a park after a storm. That’s great, but couldn’t that happen regardless of whether they are in different or same departments? Shouldn’t all city workers see themselves as employees of the city? We have all kinds of cross-training here at the Tribune. They have it at all kinds of workplaces. Why do departments need to be torn down to have it in city government?

• If the city is looking for improved efficiencies, it could call on the three professional engineers on the staff to do more engineering themselves and to better plan street and sewer projects. The city ought to not tear up streets two years after resurfacing because of a sewer project, like what we see on Fountain Street presently. And the city farms out too much of its engineering work to paid consultants. The consultants are needed, no doubt, for expertise in certain areas, but we hope the restructuring, if it is approved, finds measurable savings with the cost of consultants. In other words, the city ought to find savings in public works, not just in parks and recreation, with this restructuring.

See, our concern isn’t that the Public Works Department couldn’t keep the city parks going as is. Our concern is, because quality of life is so important to Albert Leans, that the city would not continue the long string of successful improvements to the city parks. We don’t want the city parks to become like the county parks — static and unimproved. Or worse, slip backward where they become an unessential service in a city that, at one time, sought to be beautiful to outsiders.

However — and this is important — we believe the City Council hired the right person when it picked Chad Adams as city manager. If this proposal had come from his two predecessors, we would have stronger reservations. If any city leader can see this unexpected vision — after all, most cities have a parks and rec department — through to success, Adams just might be person to pull it off. He is responsive to the public concerns, speaks in an honest manner, cares greatly about taking city government to the next level and doesn’t play junior high political games with people who oppose his views. His sincerity might be the best assurance to our fears.

Adams is working on providing numbers for the public and the City Council on his proposal. Let’s hope it includes benchmarks to meet, as well.

Yes, this is a divided editorial. It’s a difficult choice. The Tribune supports Adams as a leader, but that doesn’t mean we blindly follow. We have concerns about the parks because we know our readers love the parks and the facilities in the system, from the Albert Lea Senior Center to the City Arena. The ultimate test, in the end, will be the public holding the city accountable for keeping the quality of parks and recreational facilities where they need to be.