Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOfficial Act No. OA002-24 - Official Act - Seasonal Parking Metrics and Improvements Council Initiated Action (CIA) OFFICIAL ACT Directing Teammates to Provide the City Council with Metrics Supporting the Efficacy of the Seasonal Parking Restrictions Ordinance. The Common Council of the City of Rochester, Minnesota, hereby directs City teammates to provide the City Council with metrics that support the efficacy of our winter parking requirements and options to improve the winter parking requirements in time for the next winter season. MOVED by: Keane SECONDED by: Kirkpatrick Ayes: Bransford, Wahl, Palmer, Dennis Nayes: Keane, Kirkpatrick Absent: Carlson RESULT: Motion CARRIES 4-2-1 PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA, THIS __________ DAY OF _______________, 2024. ___________________________________ PRESIDENT OF SAID COMMON COUNCIL ATTEST: __________________________ CITY CLERK APPROVED THIS _____ DAY OF ______________________, 2024. ___________________________________ MAYOR OF SAID CITY (Seal of the City of Rochester, Minnesota) Dear City Council and Administration, I spent some time looking over our Rules and Procedures and Reading Roberts Rules this week. I have two things to bring forward to you for your consideration. First, just a reminder for us all that when a member “calls the question”, we must honor that request by immediately stopping debate and allow the Chair to take action on that motion. In our rules, unlike Robert’s Rules, we do NOT require a second. So, the chair would simply determine if anyone that had not spoken wished to, and then immediately call for a vote to stop debate. If it passes, the chair would immediately call for a vote of the original question before the body. If it fails, the chair can pick up debate where they left off until discussion is exhausted or someone calls the question again. This is not a criticism of our Chair, who did a fine job managing the meeting – I mention it because these types of issues can (and do) come up at many meetings and with our rotating system it means any city council member would have to grapple with these issues. Perhaps we should consider an annual training on these types of issues and, in the meantime, we can all help the chair out by following the decorum of Robert’s Rules and/or our Rules and Procedures so that we can do the people’s business in a way that makes them proud. The second issues is one you’ve heard me mention before. I continue to have frustration with how we, as a body, use CIA’s. The City Council is a policy setting board, done through ordinances ,resolutions and the annual budget. Our City Council meetings are the place we do that work by voting on policy, developments and the like. Our study sessions are where we can more robustly discuss issues, projects, get information and data, and talk with staff about the direction we would like to go and what action we want to take in the future. That action then comes to the body at a City Council Meeting. Rochester’s City Council Rules of Procedure and Code Of Conduct Section 2.03 Placing Items on the Business Meeting Agenda does allow for a council member (with support from another councilmember) to request an item be considered on future agenda by submitting a CIA to the City Administration who will be given 15 days to research and consider the request-during this time period the item may be submitted by the councilmember to the city clerk for addition to the council meeting. Following the 15-day administrative review, the item may be placed on the next possible meeting agenda. It seems to me that CIA requests of this nature would be to direct staff to bring back a policy recommendation for action by the City Council, not simply to request information which can be done in other ways. What are those other ways you may ask... In our Rules of Procedures there is a Section 2.04. Requesting a Study Session which states: A Council Member may suggest an item be presented in a study session meeting to acquire information (italics added). Said item shall be put in the queue to be placed on a scheduled study session agenda, provided a second to the proposal is received from another Council Member. This can be done rather easily during a study session or during “other business”. In my opinion, the topic of Monday’s CIA was most appropriate for this type of request rather than the “loaded question”-type request that required options for improvement prior to any data on efficacy indicating improvement is called for. I would ask that you also review Chapter 3, Section 3.01 Direction to Staff for Projects in City Council Rules of Procedures (page 15) where it provides guidance where direction is given by the body to the City staff to pursue items that generally impact the public policy of the City. When asking staff to just bring data or a presentation forward, it seems the easiest way would be to just bring the item up at “Other Business” to see if there is additional city council support for staff to either provide information via an email or physical report or presented at a Study Session as noted above. From my position it seems that if the request is for staff to bring forward a policy item for action by the council, then the use of a CIA makes more sense – although this should be used very thoughtfully and infrequently, as we need to continue to use care that we are not changing the direction mid-stream or adding to the workload that staff is already undertaking. So, I am vetoing I.2 on technical and procedural grounds. This starts as a request for metrics (information) and then the language makes an assumption about the need for improvements without seeing the metrics or hearing about the efficacy of our current program. Without enough information to request an actual action item to be brought for a vote a City Council Meeting, that portion of the CIA makes little sense. I’m sure this may seem picky to some of you, but I think we need to be specific about our processes so they are not abused or manipulated – I am not suggesting that was the case here, but it could be at some point in the future. I have spoken to Administrator Zelms who says that information on the Winter Parking Requirements will be forthcoming to the City Council and Mayor – despite the veto. I will note that during the discussion on Monday someone shared that it may be difficult to have useful metrics given the highly unusual winter (without snow) that we just had. I will say that I am interested in this topic and look forward seeing a report, metrics and hearing more about the rationale, costs and/or savings we might have with the current ordinance versus others that are used in similar geographic regions should it be determined that a Study Session is in order. If action by the City Council is desired at some future point, there are ways to make that happen as we’ve done it before on this very topic! In closing, I want to thank the City Council President and Members and staff who stepped up during my vacation and subsequent illness to manage some of the responsibilities on my calendar – you are very MUCH appreciated! Kim Norton Mayor