Laserfiche WebLink
clear, ther0 are ~some issues to discuss regarding the possible reappointment of Commissioner <br />Vevea because lie is not a resident of Ramsey, as now required by Ramsey City Code. When this <br />new ordinate ~as adopted and Chapter 2 of the Ramsey City Code was recodified, it specified <br />that memi~is of all commissions must be Ramsey residents. The EDC, as a group, has sent <br />recommen~i~tiorls to City Council requesting that they change this requirement for the EDC. This <br />is based u~6n the fact that a business owner might not necessarily live in Ramsey, but would <br />understandiih~e needs of the business community. <br /> <br />Councilme~nberZimmerman suggested we poll the new member of the EDC as she has not been <br />involved of aw~e of past discussions regarding appointment of non-residents to commissions. <br /> <br />CommissiO-n~ r liJllen stated that is is very possible that a majority of the business owners do not <br />reside in tl~e!Ci~ and that it is very important to have input from the business community if the <br />EDC is to Ilean effective advisory body to City Council. <br /> <br /> i. <br />Commissir~ner l:halts asked if this ordinance gave business owners the impression that they can be <br />located in ~e City of Ramsey, but will have no voice in how the City operates or proceeds with <br />developme~nt. S;ammarily, that the City is happy to collect taxes from them, but is not willing to <br />consider th~i~ ol~inions. <br /> <br />Commissioner $chroeder stated that it may be a good idea to retain a balance on the EDC of a <br />majority ot~Ramsey residents and a minority may be non-resident business owners. <br /> <br />Councilmet'nberZimmerman said that the City does need input from local businesses and the idea <br />of a balanc~ of residents and non-resident business owners is positive. The reason for the change <br />in Chapterii2 of:the Ramsey City Code was due to the disagreement that occured between the <br />Mayor and!Mr. Commissioner Vevea at the Board of Review and that the question of residency did <br />not becoma:an issue until that time. <br /> <br />Motion by', Commissioner Vevea and seconded by Commissioner Greenberg to recommend <br />reappointnieht of Carolyn Nelson to the Economic Development Commission to a term expiring <br />January 31J, i995. <br /> <br />Motion cam'led. Voting Yes: <br />Schroeder, r Ullen and Vevea. <br />Commissioner Kent. <br /> <br />Chairperson Wagner, Commissioners Fults, Gorecki, Greenberg, <br />Voting No: None. Abstaining: Commissioner Nelson Absent: <br /> <br />Motion by Corcmissioner Schroeder and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend <br />reappoinm~'.nt o~' Kenneth Wagner to the Economic Development Commission to a term expiring <br />January 31~ 1995. <br /> <br />Motion caffied.. Voting Yes: Commissioners Fults, Gorecki, Greenberg, Nelson, Schroeder, <br />Ullen and ¥~vea. Voting No: None. Abstaining: Chairperson Wagner. Absent: Commissioner <br />Kent. <br /> <br />Motion bY ~Commissioner Fults and seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend <br />reappointme~nt Of Bernerd Vevea to the Economic Development Commission to a term expiring <br />January 31i 1995. <br /> <br />Motion carried.: Voting Yes: Chairperson Wagner, Commissioners Fults, Gorecki, Greenberg, <br />Nelson, sc.h~oeder, and Ullen. Voting No: None. Abstaining: Commissioner Vevea. Absent: <br />Commissioner Kent. <br /> <br />Economic Development Commission/December 9, 1992 <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />