In the past number of months, there has been much discussion and disagreement as it relates to the joint law agreement between the city of Luverne and Rock County. As the council who negotiated and approved this agreement, we have been reluctant to enter the fray for obvious reasons. However, the recent "survey" which spends more effort trying to influence us than to get our opinion, has made us realize that we can no longer remain silent.Obviously, it is always proper and prudent to review such agreements periodically. This is necessary to ensure that the goals of the agreement are being achieved for both parties and that all sides understand what is expected of them.At the time the agreement was put together, the city had a police force of six members and the county had a five-member sheriff’s department. As elected officials, we were concerned about achieving as efficient a system as possible; getting a full-time investigator; achieving 24-hour coverage for the city and a rapid response to all areas of the county. We recognized that if the combining departments saved money that was a bonus, and if we received expanded and better service for comparable money at the time it was worth doing.Not all agreed, especially some members of each individual force. As time has elapsed, the workability of this system has convinced most of those doubters that the system is a tremendous success and needs to continue.As to the breakdown of costs, we would simply state that law enforcement budgets have increased rapidly for everyone. In studying who paid for what in other counties, the original Law Enforcement Study Committee learned that comparing apples to apples is difficult, as everyone does it differently. In other words, what may show up as a line item in our budgets might be paid for in some other area of a budget in another county or city. This is evident in many of the numbers quoted by the city of Luverne during the negotiating debacle.We are not going to confuse the numbers by reciting more of them here. We do believe, however, that the city has been misleading in much of what it has presented to the public in regard to this issue. We believe the city is best served by 24-hour coverage and that this coverage is best achieved by a joint agreement between Luverne and Rock County.We believe that if city officials, elected and otherwise, had made an attempt to find out why the original agreement was created the way it was, they might have approached these discussions in a more informed and responsible manner.We would have been glad to share our experiences and opinions if someone had bothered to ask, rather than to show a list of numbers from other communities that told us nothing about what the numbers included.The services expected for city residents under this agreement constitute a greater level of service than that which the county is obligated to provide. In the pay-for-service climate in which we live, a 50/50 breakdown is fair, even considering the city’s share of taxes that belong to the county. Law enforcement issues within the city limits of Luverne occupy much more than half of law enforcement time.We encourage all city residents to inform their city officials, elected and appointed, that they need to get their act together. We need to remind all county and city officials that regardless of the personal frustrations that this situation has caused, their oath still is to serve the best interests of ALL citizens of this community, city and county, and that failure to renew this joint law agreement will ultimately resort in higher costs for everyone.Respectfully submitted,Judy Herman, Former South Ward Council memberEverett Brandenburg, Former North Ward Council memberKeith Erickson, Former North Ward Council memberBill Weber, Former Mayor
