Laserfiche WebLink
Charter Commission <br />Meeting Date: <br />Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: <br />12/18/2024 <br />Identify and implement operational efficiencies, cost savings and additional <br />funding sources. <br />Information <br />Title: <br />Ordinance #25-02 Amending the City Charter <br />5. 3. <br />Purpose/Background: <br />The purpose of this ordinance amending the City Charter is mainly to propose some housekeeping items, <br />efficiency items that mirror general practices by the City Council and to consider a cost -savings measure related <br />to the newsletter. The proposed ordinance amending the charter, and a full version of the charter with redlined <br />edits are attached to this case for reference. Below is a brief rationale behind each proposed change. <br />Vacancies to a city council seat currently do not establish a vacancy when a member moves outside their ward <br />but remains in the City of Ramsey. Staff proposes to recognize that a councilmember elected to a ward seat is <br />expected to represent residents who live within their ward. By moving to a new house within Ramsey but in a <br />different ward would not allow this direct representation as a ward resident. <br />Council meetings and the noticing process is proposed to be updated to mirror state statute and to better clarify the <br />noticing requirement between a normal special council meeting and an emergency meeting. <br />The process to consider ordinances by council is generally a two month process. Furthermore, there are some <br />unique steps required through the charter that may be outdated as technology has advanced and been implemented <br />into our operations. Staff proposes to eliminate the requirement for a roll call vote on ordinances. The rationale <br />being, a roll call vote may be requested at any time. We have a regular practice of video recording our meetings, <br />which can be viewed by the public on local TV or the internet, and if there is confusion on a voice vote we can <br />clarify the vote to ensure accurate records reflect the vote. A further recommendation is to allow for an ordinance <br />to be placed on the consent agenda for final consideration so long as it was unanimously introduced by the City <br />Council. The rationale behind this is only if the roll call vote requirement is supported, and this allows for more <br />efficient meetings by eliminating redundancy. If council chooses, any consent agenda item may be removed and <br />considered as a separate agenda item. Ordinances are still proposed to go to two city council meetings, with the <br />introduction of the ordinance as a standalone agenda item with a brief presentation by staff outlining the <br />parameters of the ordinance The last proposal is to eliminate the requirement that the ordinance be read aloud <br />before adoption. The City Council has historically utilized the charter provision to waive that requirement. With <br />technology allowing full agenda packets to be posted to the internet typically six days before the meeting, there is <br />ample opportunity for residents to review the ordinance ahead of time. Furthermore, from the first posting of an <br />agenda with the introduction of an ordinance to final consideration, an ordinance is posted to the internet for <br />approximately three weeks. Lastly, ordinances currently require a 30-day publication period before they become <br />effective. This requirement is also fairly unique, and state statute simply requires publication prior to it becoming <br />effective. Staff proposes to eliminate the 30-day waiting period. An added benefit to the near immediate effective <br />date is that staff can provide direction to residents on the changes without having to delay the enforcement of the <br />changes. <br />A past fifteen plus year practice related to the budget and levy adoption has been to adopt the budget and levy at <br />the same meeting as the public hearing. The charter requires the adoption to occur at the meeting following the <br />public hearing. Though a public hearing is required by charter and state statute, it is rare that public input is <br />provided that is relevant to the budget and levy. Staff proposes to allow for the final budget and levy to be <br />