03/10/93 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

hl E M O R A N D U hi ', DATE: De~mber 23, 1992 TO: hlem~rs of the Economic Dcvelopm~-nt Commission CC: FRC)M: Mayor and Cra' Coun:itmem~rs ..-..4.'"'11 Rvm~ Schroed:r, City Administrator SUBJECT: Chapter 2 of the Ramsey City Code In 1989, the City of Ramsey initiated a pr~ect 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 Chapter 2 of the City Code dealing with Council, Boards and Commissions. Early in 1992, ~ completed draft document of this chapter was broughl 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 significan! discussion at the Council table and after some amendment over the course of four Council meetings, Chapter 2, as it current}), exists, was finally approved for inclusion in Ramsev's Code of Ordinances. As part of the document which wa~ approved, Section 2.133.02, Subdivision I,.allows that each Board and Commission will consist of no more than nine voting members in accordance with the City of Ramsey Charier, all of whom shall be residents of the City oi' Ramsey. This language was a reiteration of several other sections of similar language relating to the various Boards and Commissions of the CiD, of Ramsey. The exception was the Economic Development Commission which as you -know previously allowed for non-resident mem~rship 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 diffieuh one at thc 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 ownin~ properD' in 15,amsev but h~x, ing residence in a n=ighbor'ing community. It is my belief, however, that the Cit.',' ~ouncil believes that it is ~ long held tenant of governance that persons voting on issues impacting the community should have residency in the community. Furtt~er, thru this residency requirement is the same as is found in ordinances in the. communities of Anoka, Coon Rapids, Andover, Blaine, Eli: River, Dayton and in every community for which I imx,e worked in the 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 cf their tim, and exper/=nce to th'.' benefit of lhe community over the pasl >,ears. For this re?son, i~ was determined that ~h: 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 reouirement. As you know this situation has recently arisen resulting in an affirmation by the Council of ils previously adopted policy. The irhpact of this is that Council is afforded the option of reappointing only those Economic Development Commissioners up for re. appointment residing within the City of Rams,ey. It is the Council position that the City Commissions will be-active participants on issues currenth, 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 pro,ams being considered related to future ~owth 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 growing and changing suburban community. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for >,our time, consideration and continued community involvement.