Laserfiche WebLink
Motion by Mayor Heitman and seconded by Councilmember Cox authorizing City <br />Staff to develop a system that would: 1) identify locations of junk car <br />violations in the City; 2) confirm the violation; 3) contact the property <br />owner for permission to have the junk vehicle(s) towed away at hauler's <br />expense; 4) contact hauler and arrange for a remedy to the violation. <br /> <br />Further Discussion: Councilmember Reimann stated he will support a family's <br />right to have more than one junk vehicle, for instance, when there are boy(s) <br />in the family that are repairing cars as it is a better use of their time than <br />running the streets would be. Chief Auspos stated that according to the <br />current language in the ordinance, many local businesses are in violation. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />Reimann and $chlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to accept <br />Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc.'s offer for a Ramsey Clean Up Day with <br />Ramsey paying the tonnage tax on refuse received on that day; that the Ramsey <br />Clean Up day should be scheduled for April 26, 1986 to coincide with National <br />Keep America Beautiful Week; that Ramsey Clean Up Day will be advertised in the <br />Ramsey Resident newslettr. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heitman, Councilmembers Sorteberg, Cox, <br />Reimann and Schlueter. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Mayor Heitman noted that in the next issue of the Ramsey resident, residents <br />should be encouraged and informed that it is appropriate to name Ramsey as <br />their 'city' as long as they use the 55303 zip code. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich referred to recent discussions regarding violations to the home <br />occupation ordinance, specifically a property located at 153rd and Eland, and <br />stated that it is not a home occupation because the sod business is not carried <br />on within the home; it is not a nuisance violation because there is no real <br />refuse and the vehicles and equipment are licensed. Mr. Goodrich stated that <br />the only way the City can address situations like this is to amend the <br />ordinance to limit the number and size of trucks that property owners can park <br />on their property; that language is proposed in the zoning recodification now <br />in process. <br /> <br />Council was in favor of limiting size and number of trucks allowed to be parked <br />in residential areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Goodrich stated that recodification also introduces into the City the <br />hearing examiner concept whereby ordinance violations would be presented to the <br />hearing examiner for findings and ruling; if the property owner disagrees with <br />the ruling, he or she can appeal to the courts. The hearing examiner process <br />is legally binding. <br /> <br />Case #4: Non-Union Employee Wage Con~idera~ion~; <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cox and seconded by Councilmember Sorteberg to accept <br />the recommendations of the Personnel Committee and establish the following <br />salaries and wages retroactive to January 1, 1986: <br /> April 3, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br /> <br />