02/10/93 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

M E M 0 R A N D U M " DATE: December 23. 1992 TO: Members of the Economic D~vetopment Commission CC: FROM: Mayor and Cit.',' Councilmembers x. AY It R','m~ Schroeder, City Administrator ~,_J,.J SUBJECT: Chapter2 of the Ramsey City Code In 1989, the Cit.',, of Ramsey initiated a project to recodify its ordinances in an attempt to streamline and clarify its mode of operation and its various rules and regulations. This has been an ongoing effort since that time. As pan of this project, about mid-1991, City Staff began review of Ctmpter 2 of the City Code dealing with Council, Boards and Commissions. Early in 1992, a completed draft document of this chapter was brought to the City Council for their review. The proposed new Chapter 2 was one which included significant changes in format and, in some cases, area of policy. After significant discussion at the Council table and after some amendment over the course of four Council meetings, Chapter 2, as it currently exists, was finally approved for inclusion in Ramsey's Code of Ordinances. As part of the document which was approved, Section 2.03.02, Subdivision 1,.allows that each Board and Commission will consist of no more than nine voting members in accordance with the City of Ramsey Charter, all of whom shall be residents of the City of Ramsey. This language was a reiteration of several other sections of similar language relating to the various Boards and Commissions of the City. of Ramsey. The exception was the Economic Development Commission which as you 'know previously allowed for non-resident membership on the Commission, The new language brings all of the Council's Boards and Commissions into conformance with one residency requirement. The issue of residency was a difficult one at the Council table. On one hand, Council is very aware of the .',,ears of service delivered to the community of Ramsey by members of the Economic Development Commission owning property in Ramsey but having residence in a neighboring community. It is my belief, however, that Hie City Council believes that it is a long held tenant of governance that persons voting on issues impacting the communib, should have residency in the community. Further, that fl',is residency requirement is the same as is found in ordinances in the. communities of Anoka, Coon Rapids, Andover, Blaine, Elk River, Dayton and in every community for which I have worked in tile past. The City Council is aware that an ordinance change such as this one brings with it expressions of concern regarding the handling of persons who have freely given of their time and experience to thz benefit of the community over the past years. For lifts reason, it was determined that tile ordinance change would not effect incumbent Con'mfissioners but rather the ordinance would take effect upon the completion of Commissioner terms impacted by the residency requirement. As you know this situation has recently arisen resulting in an affirmation by the Council of i{s previously adopted policy. The impact of this is that Council is afforded the option of reappointing only those Economic Development Commissioners up for reappointment resi,ding, within the City of Ramsey. It is the Council position that the City Commissions will be active participants on issues currently under discussion including review of the guide plans and ordinances relating to the Highway #10 Commercial District, the industrial ares of the community and also prog-rams being considered related to future growth of these areas. Therefore, it is hoped that an issue such as this one is seen as part of the evolution of operating the local government in our rapidly g-rowing and changing suburban community. Should you have an), questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your time, consideration and continued community involvement. /jmt