Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Hardin stated he agrees with Staffs recommendation. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Mayor Gilbertson to continue with <br />the present offer to LELS. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gilbertson, Councilmembers Peterson, Beyer, Hardin <br />and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #11: Liquor in the Parks Ordinance <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder stated that it has been suggested that perhaps the City is <br />sending mixed messages by sponsoring' the D.A.R.E. program and then allowing liquor <br />(beer) to be sold at the Ramsey Lions Community Picnic, a family event held at Central <br />Park. Ti!~e Park and Recreation Commissioner discussed this issue at their February <br />meeting.' They reviewed Ramsey's current ordinance along with ordinances and <br />information from neighboring cities. The Commission felt comfortable to leave Ramsey's <br />ordinance as is. <br /> <br />Mayor 13i'tbertson inquired what if someone besides the Ramsey Lions requested to have <br />something in the park where beer would be sold. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated they would have to go through a permitting process the same as the <br />Lions. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson felt that the beer was a very small part of the Lion's picnic. <br /> <br />Councilmember Beyer felt that with the requirements and the cost, there wouldn't be too <br />much demand for a license to sell beer in the parks. <br /> <br />Mayor Oilbertson stated he did not have a problem with the City's ordinance as written. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman was pleased that the Park and Recreation Commission <br />reviewed the issue. <br /> <br />No action was required by Council. <br /> <br />Case #1:~: Report from Road and Bridge Committee <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that the Road and Bridge Committee met earlier this <br />evening and discussed the results of the street paving survey. Seventy-five percent of the <br />surveys were returned. For two projects, the responses were too few to be able to tell how <br />the majority of the residents felt. For six of the projects, the number of negative responses <br />was such that even if the non-responders would have been positive, there would not have <br />been enough to do the project. Three projects had at least a mathematic possibility that if <br />the non-~sponders would respond in favor of the project, it would make it. The Road and <br />Bridge Comrmttee d~scussed holding an ~nformanonal type meeting w~th the residents to get <br />additional 'input from them. <br /> <br />No action was required by the Council. <br /> <br />City Council/February 22, 1994 <br /> Page 11 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />