Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />November 16, 2015 <br /> <br />The Honorable John C. Hoffman <br />Chief Judge Tenth Judicial District <br />Washington County Government Center <br />nd <br />14949 – 62 Street North <br />Stillwater, MN 55082-3802 <br /> <br />Re: City of Ramsey, Anoka County, Minnesota, Charter Commission Annual Report <br /> <br />Dear Judge Hoffman: <br /> <br />In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 410.05, the following is an annual report reflecting the <br />activities of the City of Ramsey Charter Commission during the year 2014. <br /> <br />Members of the Charter Commission for year 2014 were as follows: Mark Anderson, Susan E. <br />Anderson, Jim Bendtsen, Benjamin Deemer, Joseph Field (Chair), John Niederhaus, Harry Niska <br />(Vice-Chair), Chad Sivertson and Eric Zaetsch. <br /> <br />The Charter Commission met on January 27, 2014, and reviewed a draft Council ordinance <br />proposing an amendment to the City’s Charter, Chapter 7, the taxation chapter. This was continued <br />discussion from 2013. The City Council and the Charter Commission had been exchanging <br />proposals for an amendment to the City Charter that addresses franchise fees. Such fees were <br />proposed by the Council as a means to fund a long-term road maintenance policy. The Charter <br />Commission considered the Council’s proposed amendment language and then requested feedback <br />on three options: (1) to proceed straight to the voters with the original amendment proposed by <br />the Charter Commission; (2) the alternative City Council language, plus adding the Charter <br />Commission amendment to go into effect at the end of the initial five-year term; or (3) the <br />alternative City Council language, plus adding the Charter Commission amendment to go into <br />effect at a point something less than five years. Those options were presented to the City Council <br />, <br />for discussion at a work session on February 112014. The Council discussed the Commission’s <br />options at length and consensus was to address the Commission’s concerns about the use of <br />franchise fees by requiring a Council supermajority to both enact and renew or extend a franchise <br />fee ordinance. The Charter Commission expressed their main concern was that franchise fees <br />should not be implemented to raise general revenue. The language suggested was that any <br />franchise fees imposed under applicable state statutes must be limited to defraying increased <br />municipal costs accruing as a result of utility operations and may not be used to raise general <br />revenue. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />