RAMSEY - Fire protection arrangements. It would be as dumb as dirt for a merger, when only a joint operating agreement would suffice. However other towns and Ramsey have dug themselves into a hole in pension concessions, let each live within its own circumstances. Don't share that hurt.

This ABC Newspaper link, for context, and if readers do not check it out, the remainder of this post might not make sense.

There need not be a manpower/employment contract merger; indeed, much can be said against that. However, a joint operation - scheduling - capital expenditure understanding, reduced to a writing and binding, might make sense.

That way, Ramsey has the workforce it desires, other towns do the same, and how pension arrangements are arranged should remain with each jurisdiction. Some California cities (and other towns) have turned to bankruptcy court because of pension load upon current budget and/or because of massive liability judgments; Minnesota statutory law permits "municipal" relief in bankruptcy court, and if one of those other towns goes splat, the splat should not spill over to Ramsey; and vice versa.

The fewer and more constrained the inter-governmental entanglements, the better, should contract voiding become a bankruptcy issue. Finally, nothing could be found in Ramsey's Charter barring any use of Minn. Stat. 471.831 for relief, should the Council ever adopt that choice, for whatever reason(s) it might. It is good Ramsey has so far avoided founding for itself a slush-fund Pork Port Authority, since that kind of entitiy using Sect. 471.831 is not mentioned within the statute as feasible. I want a bar against ever having a Pork Port Authority written into the charter, but with the current charter commission the thought has yet to grow legs. (Too busy diddling around on franchise fee visions and revisions, with franchise fee concerns being posed as an election day ballot issue unless my tea leaf reading is faulty.)