Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Councilmember Heineman replied he felt resolutions should be passed that are as short and <br />decisive as possible. He felt the resolution language was broad but there is a lot of language about <br />mandated injections. He suggested it simply read “The City of Ramsey shall not enforce <br />unconstitutional mandates.” <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff commented he is happy that the topic is broad but one concern would <br />be potential issues with jurisdiction such as with schools, which require the measles vaccine or <br />those types of things. When the language is this broad, he gets nervous about how it gets <br />interpreted. The alternative that he drafted was intentionally narrow so that it talks about one topic, <br />which makes a statement. That is what he would be more in favor of. He asked City Attorney <br />Knaak to speak to issues of jurisdiction. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak advised that it depends on the intended effect of what is trying to be passed. <br />If something is prohibited in an ordinance form, or if it is to allow something, then it gets into <br />issues with schools and other possible conflicts. The resolutions that he has seen so far don’t do <br />that. He stated if he is understanding correctly, the Council is looking for a strong statement, that <br />could be done without causing problems. He noted even if it is a broad statement, even if it is a <br />strong statement, as long as it is in a resolution format, it is not going to cause problems. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff clarified that the City Attorney was saying that if the Council would <br />only be saying something rather than doing something, it is fine. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied, the Council would be stating a position, correct. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated the moment that the Council tries to apply pressure to private <br />business which do have vaccine mandates, to schools or anything that has a vaccine mandate but <br />the City opposes it, that is where there is an issue. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied if it is a statement of the City’s position, that is different than an actual <br />ordinance that says, for example, “no business within the City of Ramsey shall permit the <br />following” then there is an issue. This is very hypothetical but that is where the conflicts can <br />occur. He advised it is not in terms of a statement or intended policy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff referenced the handout that Councilmember Howell just passed out <br />and asked if she would talk about the language in it that the City with holding TIF financing or <br />TIF tax abatement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell replied that was an option she put in because to her, there is no value in <br />saying the City is going to enforce something when they can’t because then people get angry. She <br />stated she was very clear about not telling private businesses what to do because it would be <br />difficult to enforce and asked if the Council wants to do that. She continued, however, that she <br />doesn’t see value in giving incentives to businesses that discriminate or those that violate Title <br />Seven. If the Council can make those options going forward, not with agreement, it was an idea <br />for discussion. She sees a lot of discrimination and believes in fighting discrimination when it is <br />seen even if it is not popular. <br />City Council Work Session / January 11, 2022 <br />Page 11 of 15 <br /> <br />