My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 10/22/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2013
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 10/22/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 12:06:11 PM
Creation date
12/2/2013 12:36:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
10/22/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
looks like. She stated it was unfortunate the survey was not followed up with a community <br />process piece. <br />Councilmember Riley stated with slowing down the process, he would like it followed up with <br />the fact the Council is following legal and Charter processes so it does not look like the Council <br />has done something wrong. He noted the Council could take up this issue again, if desired. <br />Councilmember Riley stated there is a need for education of the problem, need for funding, and <br />if a franchise fee is not approved then a new education needs to occur as the problem remains but <br />the solution would change. He stated the Charter Commission discussed the need for a <br />unanimous Council vote, which was put into the Charter for administrative purposes, such as to <br />tweak the Charter but not to make a substantive change to the Charter. That should go to the <br />residents for a vote. <br />Councilmember Backous agreed and indicated he would like to ask the Charter Commission <br />additional questions including whether Ramsey needs a Ward system. <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated the Council's agenda contains consideration of two ordinances <br />and asked if both can be continued or if the ordinances should be considered so the utility <br />companies have agreements under which to work. He felt it was difficult for the public to <br />distinguish between the two. <br />City Attorney Langel noted that both franchise ordinances have already expired. <br />Councilmember Riley stated the ordinances are different and that can be explained to eliminate <br />confusion. <br />City Attorney Langel stated the City can continue to operate under the franchise ordinances <br />but ideally, the franchise ordinances should be addressed. <br />Mayor Strommen supported moving the franchise agreements forward and holding off on the <br />franchise fee discussion. She stated at the last meeting, confusion resulted because the fee <br />language was included in the franchise ordinances. <br />City Engineer Westby stated the franchise fee schedule has now been removed from the revised <br />ordinances. <br />Mayor Strommen stated both the Council and Charter Commission are looking at limits. The <br />Council is looking to place those limits and a five -year sunset within the ordinance and the <br />Charter Commission support limits within the Charter where there would be more "teeth." She <br />stated the intent of both is not that far apart and she supports moving that discussion forward. <br />Mayor Strommen suggested that at tonight's meeting, the Council address the two franchise <br />ordinances, ask Charter Commission Chair Field to present the Charter Commission's discussion <br />and then the Council can decide if those franchise fee ordinances should be delayed. <br />The Council agreed to follow that process at tonight's Council meeting. <br />City Council Work Session / October 22, 2013 <br />Page 6 of 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.