WORKSHOP ITEM Michelle A. Wolfe, City Manager
Title
EMERGENCY DECLARATION IMPACTS
Background
At the June 1, 2020 regular meeting, City Council voted to extend the COVID-19 pandemic Emergency Declaration until June 16, 2020. Another extension will be on the agenda for consideration at the June 15 regular meeting. This item is placed on the workshop agenda for purposes of discussing clarification regarding in-person and virtual public meetings and other impacts of allowing the Declaration to expire.
Public Meetings: The attached chart provides some explanation. This chart, which was originally prepared for the June 1 regular meeting, was prepared in consultation with the City Attorney and Emergency Management. In addition, City Attorney Chris Nelson provided the following information:
“Regarding the electronic meetings, Minn. Stat. § 13D.021 articulates the conditions that must be met in order to hold an electronic meeting:
(1) The mayor, city manager or city attorney must determine that an in-person meeting (or a meeting conducted by interactive TV) is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 12;
(2) All members of the City Council, whatever their location, can hear one another and discuss the testimony;
(3) The members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear all discussion and testimony and all votes of the members of the body, unless attendance at the regular meeting location is not feasible due to the health pandemic or emergency declaration;
(4) At least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is physically present at the regular meeting location, unless unfeasible due to the health pandemic or emergency declaration; and
(5) All votes are conducted by roll call, so each member's vote on each issue can be identified and recorded.
For now, the local emergency declaration is operating as a determination that meeting is impractical.
That does not automatically mean the City Council and other public bodies cannot continue to participate remotely without the emergency declaration. If the Council wants to eliminate the emergency declaration but continue with Zoom meetings, the Mayor would have to make a determination that meeting in-person meetings are not practical due to due to COVID-19 which he could do at the next meeting. Then the Council could resolve thereafter that it is unfeasible to have in person meetings. Under this scenario, the local emergency declaration lapses, but meetings can continue to be completely remote.
If the Mayor wanted to provide councilmembers (and staff) the option to attend remotely, the determination that in-person meeting is not practical or prudent because of either the health pandemic or the Governor’s declared emergency would have to be made. Assuming the Mayor and Council want the meeting at least partially open, members of council and staff who choose to connect remotely would be able to use Zoom. The Zoom attendance option would need to be made available to the public as well (just as it has been). In this circumstance, however, at least one member of the council, the City Manager, or the City Attorney would need to be physically present at City Hall and the Council Chambers would be open for public attendance (likely at a reduced capacity). There is no prohibition against more members being present - just the requirement of a minimum of one.
The issue with option three isn’t so much legal difficulties, it is the practical concerns. Simultaneously holding an in-person and online meeting would be difficult. Will there be audio delays? If they are substantial, all members may not be able to hear one another, testimony, or votes, which is a statutory requirement. Further, will members who are participating via remote be able to be heard by the members participating in person and the public attending in person? This will have to be tested.
Finally, there is the option of returning to in-person meetings without any measures for remote attendance. If this happens, the question of ensuring social distancing, particularly among staff and the public becomes the primary concern. As we discussed earlier, I see this being accomplished likely with an overflow room for television monitoring.”
Staff is reaching out to current members of Boards and Commissions for input. Results of that outreach will be shared at or prior to the workshop.
Other metro area cities have approached the topic of public meetings in a variety of ways. Some cities never declared a local emergency, and continued to hold public meetings in person. Some declared a local emergency and moved to virtual electronic meetings. Of those that declared a local emergency, in some cases city councils have requested to return to in-person meetings. Some are doing a mix of in-person and electronic.
The City of Blaine needs to put safety measures and procedures in place if in-person meetings are to resume. This includes glass partitions, safely spaced seating, and alternate locations for the public if the room is at capacity based on that seating (and they must be able to view the meeting from that location). Several cities have found the mix of in-person and electronic to be technically challenging and confusing for participants. As in the case of all decisions and actions to date, staff will make all efforts to successfully prepare for successful public meetings.
Other Considerations - The attached chart includes and outline what a local declaration of emergency provides and allows. It includes a description of possible impacts from not having a local declaration in place. For example, without a declaration, if emergency purchases need to be made, they would be delayed by statutorily-required purchasing processes. Some Council members asked for examples relating to Council’s flexibility relating to specific emergency regulations. Staff and the City Attorney will be able to provide some examples during the workshop.
Recommendation
This item is presented for discussion only.