My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 08/08/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
1995
>
Minutes - Council - 08/08/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 3:57:07 PM
Creation date
7/10/2003 10:05:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
08/08/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Case #6: Law Enforcement Transport Program <br /> <br />Police Chief Auspos stated that he received a Joint Powers Agreement from the Anoka <br />County Sheriff's office which is asking the City of Ramsey to share transport duties on a <br />monthly basis with regard to a transport system. He explained that the plan is to try this <br />out for awhile and then try to get Anoka County, as a member of the JLEC, to allow it to be <br />budgeted for completely, including staff. For this trial period, each community will supply <br />the officers for the duty. He stated that initially he and Sergeant Gustafson concurred to <br />opt out of the deal since it would be expensive for Ramsey to man this vehicle for our <br />scheduled weekends using our sworn personnel since we have no reserve unit. Chief <br />Deputy Beberg would like Ramsey to still sign the agreement since we are listed, probably <br />for the sake of unanimity when the County Board is asked for their approval of a future <br />budget request for this through the JLEC. Chief Auspos felt that the Police Department can <br />supply a man one or two of the nights and Mr. Beberg has indicated that he would supply a <br />reserve person to accompany Ramsey's officer. He (Auspos) felt Ramsey would have little <br />use of the transport vehicle being so close to the jail; however, there may be a future time <br />when we would benefit from this. He cautioned that this program may require some <br />overtime, as much as 16 hours, but that he would try to do it with on-duty personnel if at <br />all possible. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder commented that staff is recommending this in the spirit of <br />cooperation throughout the county. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Beyer to authorize the <br />City Administrator and Police Chief to sign the Law Enforcement Transport Program Joint <br />Powers Agreement. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Hardin, Councilmembers Beahen, Beyer, Peterson <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case g7: Covenants for Industrial Park <br /> <br />City Administrator $chroeder stated that the City has completed the acquisition of the <br />industrial property located between Sunfish Lake Boulevard (east) to the boundary of the <br />City of Anoka. At the joint meeting of the Anoka and Ramsey City Council's, it was <br />discussed briefly that Anoka City Council had passed covenants in order to have more <br />control of the aesthetics of their business park. He suggested that Ramsey may wish to <br />consider the adoption of covenants to ensure that buildings constructed are suitable for its <br />park. He presented proposed covenants that were similar to Anoka's but had been <br />amended to conform with the Ramsey City Code. He explained that it basically states that <br />within the Business Park 95 and any expansion thereof - aesthetics are restricted pursuant <br />to these covenants. He informed the Council that the covenants have been adjusted from <br />the City of Anoka's requirements to allow for an Architectural Review Board, comprised of <br />the Economic Development Commission and two property owners from the Industrial <br />Park. This will allow for a better tracking of the Board and its decisions. Generally, the <br />greatest difficulty for a subdivision with enforcement of covenants is that after the <br />development has been built out, the future enforcement is generally nonexistent. This is <br />due in large part to the developer being the sole member of the Board and no rules existing <br />for the election and future Board development. This problem is solved by having a <br />currently existing Commission function as the Board. In addition, the enactment of the <br />covenants will allow the City control over remodeling and other changes that may not be <br />covered by the site plan review process. <br /> <br />City Council/August 8, 1995 <br /> Page 7 of 15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.