My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/26/2024
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council Work Session
>
2024
>
Minutes - Council Work Session - 02/26/2024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 9:39:24 AM
Creation date
4/11/2024 1:53:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
02/26/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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
Department continues to enact the laws that the North Star Act prohibits. He noted if they pass a <br />resolution stating that they do not support the North Star Act, it is mainly just expressing their <br />desire to leave things as is in the State. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell stated she is not necessarily opposed to this. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove noted that the resolution made by the other county states that the <br />enforcement of the laws comes from the Federal Government and not the State and that the duty <br />of police officers is to keep the residents safe, as well as encouraging the legislature to not pass <br />the North Star Act. She stated she can get behind the sentiment in the language. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma asked how the Council feels about doing a resolution. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff said he has no interest in putting together a resolution for this as he <br />sees it as a distraction, and this is not City business. He stated he didn’t think it would pass and he <br />wouldn’t vote for it. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated there’s a possibility it could be part of the omnibus bill. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell disagreed and stated it is City business as it could burden schools and <br />cause a burden on taxpayers. She noted that she does not think that the legislature would care what <br />the City thinks and that a resolution for this would be pointless. She reiterated that she is not <br />opposed to this and suggested discussing this further at a later date. <br /> <br />City Administrator Hagen noted that Staff can continue to keep an eye on this situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove stated the City could be a motivated entity that encourages other cities <br />or groups to do something. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olson stated he is not ready to do anything tonight and agreed that Staff should <br />keep this on their radar for the time being. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht stated he does not support this legislation; however, he does not see how <br />beneficial it would be for the City to take a stance on this. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma shared he also does not support the legislation and suggested that they continue to <br />monitor the situation and revisit it if need be. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Council was to direct Staff to continue to monitor proposed legislation and <br />various advocacy groups that represent a larger consortium of Minnesota cities and counties for <br />their stance on the proposed legislation. <br /> <br />3. TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION <br /> <br />3.01: Review Future Topics/ Calendar <br /> <br />City Council Work Session / February 26, 2024 <br />Page 10 of 11 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.