Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/15/1987 - Special Meeting M I N U T E S SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1987 4:00 P.M. , COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY OFFICES COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, George Bentley, Jean Harris, and. Patricia Pidcock CITY COUNCIL STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Public Safety Keith Wall , Police Captain Jim Clark, City Attorney Roger Pauly, and Assistant City Attorney Ric Rosow i . CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 4:05 P.M. All Council - members were present. II . DISCUSSION OF CITY'S EMERGENCY PROCEDURES Peterson said that the purpose of discussion on this item was to reconcile apparent conflicts between the Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and City Code. These inconsistencies were observed following the severe thunderstorm of July 23-24, 1987. City Attorney Pauly distributed and reviewed a memorandum he had prepared regarding emergency operations as contained in the EOP and the City Code. r He said that the pertinent section of the Ordinance Code had been adopted pursuant to State enabling legislation. The history of this section was to adopt the provisions of the statute. In his memorandum, the City Attorney recommended several revisions to bring the City Code in agreement with statutes and the EOP. One particular subdiviso n d which Councilmembers had found o f the Code troubling was Section 2.09 relating to "Succession to Local Offices," in which Councilmembers and the City Manager must be notified of a disaster and meet forthwith at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The City Attorney advised that this whole section was titled "Interim Emergency Succession", and should be interpreted and revised to be in accordance with provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 12. The succession issue does not come into question unless neither the 5 Mayor, Acting Mayor, nor quorum of the Council is available. He said a that State law dispenses with the requirement to make notices of special meetings in emergencies, but that good faith efforts need to be made to contact information media. Discussion turned toward the declaration of emergencies. State law says that only the Mayor may declare an emergency, and this emergency may last no longer than three days unless Council authorizes its extension. Councilmember Bentley asked if the State mandate should be the one followed in the EOP or the Code. The City Attorney responded that MSA 12.29 would prevail , and that the City' s documents should be revised to reflect that only the Mayor may declare an emergency. r 2 - The memorandum addressed several other apparent inconsistencies, " particulary the responsibilities of the Mayor and City Manager. The City Attorney recommended that the Council clarify how it would give direction to the City Manager so that he/she could direct operations. Bentley said there were two types of emergencies to be discussed. One was extreme emergency such as nucleur war where succession (and temporary emergency appointments) would come into play because of the absence or incapacitation of Counciimembers. The other type of emergency is one which could be anticipated better, such as weather or toxic spills. He wished to limit discussion to the latter case. Peterson asked what conditions would necessitate declaring an emergency. There is a formal declaration pursuant to MSA 12.29, and less official statements about the existence of an emergency situation. Councilmember Harris stated her preference to have one procedure for any emergency. Councilmember Anderson stated he was unsure of the procedure or responsibility of the City Council . He pointed out that City Code Sec. 2.09 subd. 2 related to natural disasters, and recited language requiring notification and quick assemblage for a meeting of x the Council . The City Attorney said that this procedure should be followed only if the Mayor, Acting Mayor, or quorum of the Council could not be assembled. This section is not as clear as it should be, and should be clarified to relate only to "interim emergency successions". w Bentley related the history of the discussion among Councilmembers during the adoption of this section of the Code. They wished to have one plan for any emergency. The idea was to have a Council x meeting so that a plan of action could be decided upon and begun, and to assure that one person did not assume undue control of the response efforts. e It was suggested that the memorandum prepared by City Manager Jullie be followed in analyzing the chronology of actions during an emergency situation. x Anderson said that once an emergency has been declared, the Council should be notified immediately. s Bentley noted a gap between Step 2 (Notification) and Step 3 (Direction and Control during reponse) . He wondered how the Council would be brought into a policy-making role after being notified of an emergency. Peterson noted that this is where there needs to be a distinction between the determination of an emergency, and a declaration of emergency. A declaration can be made by the Mayor, Acting Mayor, or quorum of the Council - this is a formality. The issue is the role of the Council once the Chief of Police determines that an emergency exists. The City Manager said that the Council would be called into the EOC building between Steps 2 and 3. I - 3 - Director of Public Safety Wall said that the prototype EOP developed by the State has decision-making responsibilities asigned to the Mayor; the State wished to have a uniform designation. County, officials who, along with State and Federal agencies, must approve the City' s EOP, said that the EOP should be set up to mirror the system of administration that operates day-to-day, and that in Eden Prairie's case the City Manager should be so designated. Bentley said that while Statute says that only the Mayor can declare an emergency, the City' s EOP and Code should incorporate the Acting Mayor or quorum of the Council in the succession of authority. The City Attorney said that if the Mayor and Acting Mayor are unavailable, then the quorum of the Council would meet and decide who to appoint to fulfill these functions. Councilmembers Pidcock, Harris, and Anderson expressed concern about when the Council needs to meet, and when it is told by whom. The City Manager said that as soon as the Public Safety Director determines an emergency, notification begins and the Mayor talks to the other Councilmembers. The City Attorney said the Mayor or any two Council- members can request a Council meeting. Harris stated that Council needs a briefing either, on the telephone during notification or at a meeting. Bentley suggested that there be a period of time, e.g, 12 hours, after determination of an emergency that Council would assemble. The Public Safety Director, City Manager, and Mayor together would determine when and if within that period of time a meeting should be held. Harris suggested conference calling as an alternative to meeting. Anderson wanted to have as much information as possible in a reasonable amount of time, and this desire would require a briefing. Harris suggested a 24-hour period, because time was needed to assess damage, w contain damage, and gather useful information. Peterson wished to identify a process by which Council could decide w to get together without physically meeting. They could then decide when to meet. A back-up process would be needed in case phone service was interrupted. Bentley wanted to identify when a meeting must be called. That is why a period of time should be identified. The consensus was for having a meeting within 24 hours at the EOC building or other designated place. Bentley said Council should not finish this matter by acting as a committee this evening. Peterson believed that a consensus had been given to staff for changes in language for the City' s documents. Bentley underscored the need to gain consistency with the EOP and Code. He concluded that Council needs to be notified, kept notified, and involved in the policy-making process. Anderson said a policy needs to be developed about what the Council and community should expect during emergencies. He stated he was unhappy with the response of the City in following procedures, and that policies in specific instances were handled poorly. He was concerned with how residents fit into emergency plans with regard to what they should expect from the City. I t - 4 - Bentley said Anderson's discussion was not germane to the focus of the Council 's discussion at this meeting. He did not believe a policy could be devised on how and to what extent to respond to each emergency. Anderson said the EOP should include such matters as whether sand and sandbags will be stored and identifying where they will be located. Bentley believed distinctions needed to be made on the type and severity of emergencies (e.g. , flood vs. fire), and how many resources will be dedicated. The City Manager said 60 to 90 days would be needed for the changes to the Code and EOP to be formally made. In the interim, his memorandum would serve as the document setting out the process to be followed. The Council recessed at 5:20 P.M. III , DISCUSSION ON LANDFILL LITIGATION AND CONTESTS The Council convened a closed session at 5:35 P.M. to discuss landfill litigation and contests. IV. AJOURNMENT The Council adjourned its special meeting at 6:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Craig W. Dawson Recording Secretary