Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5:10: Adopt Resolution #26-137 Approving the Assignment of Development <br />Agreements; Roers <br />5:11: Adopt Resolution #26-138 Accepting CenterPoint Energy Community Safety <br />Grant for Police Department Indoor Drone <br />5:12: Adopt Resolution #26-139 Approving Cash Disbursements Made and Authorizing <br />Payment of Accounts Payable Invoicing Received During the Period of May 21, <br />2026, through June 3, 2026 <br />th <br />5:13: Adopt Resolution #26-140 Accepting Proposal for Andrie Street and 164 Lane <br />Pavement Evaluation <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Heineman, Councilmembers Buscher, Olson, Peters, Riley, <br />Specht, and Stewart. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC HEARING <br /> <br />None. <br /> <br />7. COUNCIL BUSINESS <br /> <br />7.01: Adopt Resolution #26-136 Declaring the City of Ramsey will not fly the State Flag <br /> <br />Community Development Director Hanson explained that on May 26, 2026, the Council approved <br />a motion declaring that the City of Ramsey would not fly the Minnesota state flag. She noted that <br />Minnesota law requires the state flag to be displayed continuously only on the State Capitol <br />grounds. She added that the resolution formalizes the Council's previously approved action and <br />recommended adopting Resolution #26-136, which declares that the City of Ramsey will not fly <br />the State Flag. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Riley, seconded by Councilmember Stewart, to adopt Resolution #26- <br />136, Declaring the City of Ramsey will not fly the State flag. <br /> <br />Councilmember Buscher stated that she did not believe it was necessary to memorialize the <br />Council's decision with a resolution. She noted that the Council had not formally adopted a <br />resolution when it previously decided to fly the former state flag and felt that, having already voted <br />on the matter, the Council could move forward without further action. <br /> <br />Mayor Heineman acknowledged receiving significant feedback from multiple perspectives and <br />noted that the Council had been closely divided on the issue, with a 4–3 vote. He remarked that <br />while the resolution was not his preferred outcome, he believed it represented the fairest <br />compromise and provided a reasonable resolution for all parties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht opposed the resolution, arguing that the Council should make a definitive <br />decision rather than avoid the issue. He expressed support for flying the former state flag and <br />expressed concern that leaving the flagpole empty could allow someone else to decide which flag <br />might be flown in the future. He concluded that he would not support the resolution. <br /> <br />City Council /June 9, 2026 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br />