Review and Discuss the Remote Attendance Policy and Consider Taping Work Sessions

The purpose of this discussion is two part:  1) to review the Remote Attendance Policy, considering changes based on the March 9, 2021 discussions along with any new ideas; and, 2) to consider whether or not to begin audio or video recording the City Council work sessions.

Consider Updates to the Remote Attendance Policy 
The most recent discussion occurred on March 9, 2021.  It was requested to bring this discussion back to the City Council in 3 months; however, with the recent "re-opening" of Minnesota and the consensus of the City Council to return to normal as soon as possible, staff are hopeful to discuss this now.  An excerpt of the March 9th minutes are shown below and the official minutes are attached. 

Consider Audio or Video Recording Work Sessions
 At least one Council Member asked that this discussion item to considered.  Although it has been many years, it may be of interest to the City Council to have some history on this matter.   Discussions occurred in 2000, 2003 and 2007 pertaining to video taping work sessions; the 2007 agenda and minutes are attached. Staff will defer to the City Council to lead this portion of the meeting. 

Status of the Peacetime Emergency and Other Factors
The Peacetime Emergency is still in place; however, effective May 28th, businesses will no longer be subject to occupancy limits, distancing or other sector-specific requirements, which may be a factor in the City Council's discussions.

Applicable State Statutes governing remote attendance.

1. Chapter 13D.02 (regular remote attendance standards)
2. Chapter 13D.021 (emergency and pandemic-time guidance)

Current 'Interim' Policy
Currently, Ramsey continues to operate under Chapter 13D.021 which allows a less restrictive use of remote meetings. 

Looking Forward: Post-Pandemic Remote Attendance
The 'interim' policy was approved due to the pandemic.  The purpose now is to reconsider the number of meetings a Councilmember or Commissioner would be permitted to attend remotely in a calendar year. The current policy provides for unlimited remote attendance.

The standards for remote meeting attendance as provided by state law are included in the attached City Attorney's memo.  However, since the time of the City Attorney's memo, Section 13D.02 was amended twice (2019 and 2020).  It should be noted that all recent and future changes in the law will supersede the policy.  The amendments changed the following:

1. Roll call votes are now required anytime a member of a board attends remotely. Previously, regular voice votes were sufficient.
2. Previously, it was required that the public official who is attending remotely had to allow the public to participate from that remote location, wherever that is. Now, the location does not have to be public IF the member is in the military and is at a required drill, deployed or on active duty, OR the member has been advised by a health care professional to not be in a public place and a state of emergency exists (or did exist within 60 days).  These two exceptions can only be used up to three times in a calendar year.  If those exceptions do not apply, the regular rule requiring public access at the remote location still applies. The remaining provisions of section 13D.02 remain in place.  Under all circumstances, the Remote Attendance Policy will follow state law.  

 History of the City's Remote Attendance Policy

1. The policy prior to July 2020, provided for, in part:  No more than one (1) eligible user may participate in any single meeting via electronic medium.  Eligible participants for any particular meeting will be determined by the order in which notification was received by the City Administrator. An eligible user may attend a maximum of two (2) regular meetings via interactive television per year. 
2. The policy approved on July 14, 2020, provides for, in part:  There will be no maximum number of remote attendees so long as at least one (1) City Councilmember or member of a formally established commission of the City is physically present.  In the event that all members request remote attendance, eligible participants for any particular meeting will be determined by the order in which notification was received by the City Administrator.  An eligible user may attend via interactive television, an unlimited number of times per year, contingent upon the general expectation that individuals will make every practical attempt to be physically present. 

March 9, 2021 Minutes (2.04: Review and Discuss the Remote Attendance Policy)

• Administrative Services Director Lasher reviewed the staff report.
• Councilmember Riley asked how the City would know when the pandemic has ended.
• City Administrator Ulrich stated that would refer to the emergency declaration by the Governor.  
• Councilmember Woestehoff referenced the public remote attendance noting that can be challenging for staff but appreciates that it provides additional opportunity for residents to participate.  He suggested that perhaps that be allowed to continue for six months post-pandemic and then be reviewed after that time.
• Councilmember Specht agreed that he would like to see the limitations put back in place following the pandemic.  He stated that he also agreed that this should be left open to allow remote attendance for the public.
• Mayor Kuzma asked for input from staff.
• Deputy City Administrator Gladhill provided details on the staff work that is necessary for remote attendance.  He stated that QCTV is available for residents to watch the meeting broadcast live and asked if the remote element would be desired for participation as well.  He noted that if participation is desired, there should be additional consideration for IT needs.
• Mayor Kuzma asked if there are additional CARES Act funds that would be available for equipment needs.
• Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that additional funds may be available but believed that was slated for staff time and ongoing resources rather than equipment.
• Councilmember Musgrove recognized that Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stays late to assist with remote meetings and asked if IT staff is also staying late.  She asked if staff is being compensated for that time.  She noted that some of the items in the policy are being waived because of the emergency declaration.  She stated that she would like to return to normal as soon as possible as there is no guidance from the Governor as to how long this will go on.
• Councilmember Heineman asked when the pandemic would be considered over.  He stated that he liked the recommendation of staff and suggested that this be reviewed in three to six months rather than linking this to the pandemic terminology because that is ambiguous.  
• Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that people are getting more comfortable as more people become vaccinated.  He noted that some Commission members will not be comfortable returning until more people are vaccinated.  He stated that staff can continue to engage the Commission members to determine their level of comfort for in person meetings.  
• Councilmember Howell suggested that this policy be brought back in three to four months to determine what works for the City and removing the language that muddy the waters related to the pandemic.  
• Councilmember Heineman agreed that the timeframe would allow the evaluation to be based on the City and conditions and comfort levels at that time rather than linking it to restrictions.  He suggested this be reviewed in 90 days.  
• Councilmember Musgrove commented that being vaccinated is a medical issue.  She stated that it is the choice of an individual as to whether to be vaccinated and the City cannot require proof.
• Deputy City Administrator Gladhill commented that the City is not going to ask individuals whether they have been vaccinated and it would be more based on the comfort level of individuals.
• Mayor Kuzma confirmed the consensus of the Council to reevaluate this in 90 days.  He noted that there also seems to be interest in continuing to allow public participation remotely but recognized that would place an additional burden on staff and resources that would need to be discussed in the future in terms of budgeting and allocation of resources.
• Councilmember Musgrove asked if the Commission members participating remotely still receive a stipend.
• Administrative Services Director Lasher commented that most Commission members receive a stipend of $25 per meeting but a large number of members waive that payment.  She noted that those members are using their own equipment to attend remotely.
• Councilmember Woestehoff referenced Section G, under exceptions, and stated that perhaps language be added that allow a Commission or Council member to attend remotely if they have a medical condition.  He noted that would get away from the linkage to the pandemic.
• Councilmember Specht commented that it is important that people attend in person under normal circumstances.  
• Deputy City Administrator Gladhill stated that there are rules around remote participation under normal circumstances outside of a pandemic and reviewed those guidelines.  
• City Administrator Ulrich stated that because of the pandemic the State is reviewing rules for remote attendance and there will likely be changes coming down in the future.  He stated that staff will bring this back for evaluation in three months.

Each board and commission at the City utilizes remotely attendance slightly differently. Each individual Councilmember or Commissioner has their own level of comfort attending in person during the pandemic. The City Council previously agreed to allow attendance flexibility to remain. 

This is, however, an appropriate time to discuss parameters post-pandemic. It is Staff's assumption that the City Council will want to place some limitations on usage; somewhere between where we are today and the more restrictive policy that existed before the pandemic. As a starting point for discussion, Staff would recommend (post-pandemic) to increase the number of times per year to 3 times per year (matches guidance in Statute) and allow up to 2 board members to attend remotely at the same time. 

Other Considerations

1. Staff Remote Attendance
2. Applicant Remote Attendance
3. Public Remote Attendance

Staff Remote Attendance
Staff has found efficiency in allowing Staff to attend remotely. Instead of requiring a couple hours of 'dead time' waiting for meetings, Staff can pop in for a shorter amount of time and only focus on their case presentation. Staff would ask for consideration to allow limited Staff remote attendance post-pandemic. Webcams would be required (cannot join via phone only). 

Applicant Remote Attendance
Remote attendance has been especially beneficial to out-of-town Developers. Previously, out-of-town Applicants needed to incur travel expenses for short presentations. Especially for Development Proposals, the process may require 4-6 separate public meetings. Staff would ask for consideration to allow Applicants to join remotely. Webcams would be required (cannot join via phone only).

Public Remote Attendance
This aspect of remote attendance is the most challenging, especially for official Regular Meetings where formal action is taken. Staff cannot control the technological capabilities on the other end. There is a lot of 'hidden' tech support not seen at the meeting itself in order to make public remote attendance a capability. Staff is comfortable with remote attendance for workshops and Work Sessions. However, Staff would recommend that post-pandemic that public remote attendance not be allowed for Regular Meetings unless additional Staff Resources are added. The current setup is acceptable during this temporary pandemic, but is not sustainable moving forward. 

No additional funding is required.  

Staff is providing a two-step recommendation.

1. Staff recommends that the current 'interim' policy remain in effect  through a date specified by the City Council, and  
2. Staff recommends that the 'underlying' policy be updated to place restrictions back in after the pandemic to limit remote attendance to Councilmembers/Commissioners to no more than 3 times per year and no more than 2 Councilmembers/Commissioners at the same meeting

Outcome:  1) For the City Council determine if changes are needed to the Remote Attendance Policy and if so, to direct staff to draft a revised policy for approval at an up coming City Council meeting, and 2) for the City Council to determine if either audio or video taping future work sessions is desired.