Minutes - Council - 05/26/2026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

that he had received feedback from residents on both sides of the issue and estimated that public opinion was relatively evenly divided. He defended the process for introducing the resolution, explaining that Councilmembers may bring forward resolutions with the support of another Councilmember. He emphasized that policy decisions belong to elected representatives rather than staff and argued that local governments should occasionally push back against decisions made by higher levels of government. He maintained that adopting the resolution would formalize the Council's previously expressed preference for flying the historic state flag. City Administrator Hagen explained that the City initially complied with State requirements by obtaining and displaying the new Minnesota State flag after it became official. He noted that following previous Council discussions and work sessions, staff were directed to remove the new flags and resume flying the historic state flag. He stated that the City possesses both versions of the flag and that adopting the resolution would not have a significant fiscal impact, as no additional purchases would be necessary. He also confirmed that previous Council discussions regarding the flag had occurred during public work sessions. City Attorney Johnson explained that her review of the resolution focused on ensuring it was appropriately structured as a policy resolution, rather than evaluating the policy arguments it contained. She stated that the decision regarding which flag to fly is a policy determination for the Council. She further advised that Minnesota law does not require municipalities to fly the State flag and explained that if the City chose not to display the State flag, that decision would be legally permissible. She cautioned the Council against opening City flagpoles to private organizations because doing so could create legal issues related to public speech. Councilmember Stewart asked whether the City was legally required to fly either version of the State flag. After receiving clarification that no such requirement exists, she inquired whether other Councilmembers planned to explain their personal support for the historic flag. Her comments focused primarily on understanding the legal framework and the reasoning behind the proposal. Councilmember Specht supported the resolution, citing consistency with his previous votes on the issue and feedback he had received from residents. He stated that many residents had expressed support for continuing to fly the historic state flag. He indicated that he believed the process used to adopt the new State flag at the State level did not adequately reflect public sentiment. He argued that his vote reflected both his prior position and the opinions he had heard from constituents. Councilmember Olson also supported the resolution. He stated that he had heard from more residents who favored the historic flag than the new flag and expressed concern about the process used to adopt the new state flag. He indicated that he personally preferred the historic flag and did not feel adequately represented by the State's decision-making process. Councilmember Riley opposed the proposal, arguing that the issue was unnecessarily divisive and did not require Council action. He noted that public feedback appeared evenly split and questioned why the Council was spending time on a matter that had little effect on City operations or services. Council discussion focused on the Council's role in making policy decisions, the history of Ramsey's flag practices, public input received on the issue, and whether the City should formally City Council /May 26, 2026 Page 10 of 19