My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Charter Commission - 06/25/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Charter Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Charter Commission - 06/25/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 1:17:45 PM
Creation date
6/25/2014 10:37:41 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Charter Commission
Document Date
06/25/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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
Councilmember Riley said he would prefer the language would be changed to having a Super <br />majority of 5 out of 7 versus 6 out of 7. <br />Councilmember Tossey stated he is concerned this amendment will take on a life of its own. He <br />pointed out the biggest problem is that a future Council can decide this fee is no longer just for <br />road maintenance. <br />Mayor Strommen noted some of the proposed language that came back from the Charter was to <br />change the Super majority from 6 out of 7 back to the original ratio of 5 out of 7. She asked if this <br />is an issue with this Council. <br />Motion by Councilmember Johns, seconded by Councilmember Riley, to amend Chapter 7 of the <br />Home Rule Charter of the City of Ramsey to reflect a Super Majority vote change to 5 out of 7. <br />Motion failed. Voting Yes: Mayor Strommen, Councilmembers Johns, and Riley. Voting No: <br />Councilmembers Backous, Kuzma, LeTourneau, and Tossey. <br />Councilmember Kuzma stated he would like the use of the funds to be the decision of the Council. <br />He said he did not want use of the funds to be locked into a Charter Amendment. <br />Mayor Strommen said the Charter changed two parts in the language of the Amendment and sent <br />it to the Council for discussion. Since the Council tried to vote on one of the changes, and it failed, <br />she asked what the issues are with the proposed language. <br />Councilmember Backous explained he supported this in the beginning because it was an alternative <br />to assessments, which he said does not approve of. However, now using the fees for other issues <br />than street maintenance is being discussed, and was against that. He stated he preferred the <br />franchise fees be used only for roads. He also noted he does not oppose the 6/7 Super Majority, <br />but he opposed the last motion due to the possibility of having a ballot referendum with identical <br />propositions — one with a 6 out of 7 vote and one with 5 out of 7. <br />Mayor Strommen responded the goal was to come to an agreement to have only one proposition <br />on the ballot. She stated she would like to come to a compromise, if possible. If it cannot be <br />agreed upon, possibly this discussion should take place along with the budget, which would delay <br />a plan for street maintenance <br />Councilmember Tossey suggested the question on the ballot be proposed as whether the fee should <br />be an assessment or franchise fee. <br />Jim Benson, 14131 Junkite Street NW, Ramsey, Charter Commission Member, suggested the <br />Councilmembers work to remove all assessments. He asked what it would take in property taxes <br />to eliminate a franchise fee. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau asked whether there has been a case where franchise fees had been <br />used, and if so, what for, and how long it lasted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.