City of Alexandria, Virginia
________________
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 6, 2025
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CHERAN IVERY, CITY ATTORNEY
DOCKET TITLE:
TITLE
Consideration of Changes to the City Council Procedural Resolution. [ROLL-CALL VOTE]
BODY
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE: Consideration of changes to the City Council procedural resolution.
RECOMMENDATION: That city council adopt the proposed procedural resolution attached as Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND: Section 3.08 of the City Charter provides that the Council shall establish its own rules of procedure. City Council procedures are generally addressed in the City Code Section 2-1-41, et. seq. In addition, the City Council has adopted and periodically updated a supplemental procedural resolution, which details how Council meetings should proceed.
The City Attorney’s Office was requested to review changes to the procedural resolution to address several matters with the goal of improving meeting efficiency. The City Attorney’s Office is also recommending additional technical changes.
DISCUSSION: The proposed changes are shown in Attachment 1 and are summarized as follows:
Recommended Changes:
1. Establishment of a single consent docket.
a. Rationale - Consent dockets allow the council to vote on a group of routine or noncontroversial items, such as minutes, with a single vote and without individual discussion. Currently, the council operates with two consent dockets: the “Regular Consent Docket” and the “Roll-Call Consent Docket.” The proposed resolution would combine the two consent dockets into a single consent docket, which would be acted upon by a roll-call vote of council members in accordance with Sec. 3.08 of the City Charter. Establishing a single consent docket would eliminate concerns that an item could be mistakenly placed on regular consent as opposed to roll-call consent and eliminate an unnecessary section of the docket. Resolutions and Ordinances that are not appropriate for the single consent docket would remain at the bottom of the action docket for individual presentation and consideration by the council.
b. See proposed resolution Section 2 - Legislative Meetings subsection 6(a).
2. Establishment of a deadline for Council members to remove items from consent.
a. Rationale - The City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney carefully review each docket item to ensure it is placed under the appropriate docket heading. However, there are occasions when a member of the council wishes to remove an item from a consent agenda for individual discussion or presentation. To allow time for staff to prepare a brief presentation and ensure the appropriate personnel can attend the meeting, either in person or virtually, the proposed resolution would establish a standard timeframe for requesting the removal of items from the consent agenda. This timeframe would be 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. After such time, the Council member would need to ask for the item to be deferred if an individual presentation or vote is requested.
b. See proposed resolution Section 2(1)(a).
3. Limitation on the number of proclamations and recognitions to two (2) at Legislative Meetings but unlimited at Public Hearing Meetings (if needed).
a. Rationale - Proclamations are ceremonial in nature and are not governed by the state or City Code. Typically, governing bodies follow a protocol or custom to manage proclamation requests. In Alexandria, proclamation requests are submitted directly to the Mayor and their aide, who review the request, prepare the proclamation, and forward it to the City Clerk for appropriate docket placement. The proposed resolution would limit the number of proclamations to two in order to increase meeting efficiency.
b. See proposed resolution Section 2 - Legislative Meetings and Public Hearing Meetings.
4. Movement of oral reports from members of the City Council to the top of the docket after oral reports on boards and commissions.
a. Rationale - This is consistent with the Council’s current practice.
b. See proposed resolution Section 2 - Legislative Meetings - subsection 5(b).
5. Movement of board appointments to the end of the meeting after Roll-Call consent ordinances and resolutions
a. Rationale - This is consistent with the Council’s current practice.
b. See proposed resolution Section 2 - Legislative Meetings - subsection 6(b)(iv).
Technical Changes:
1. Section 1, Paragraph 1 - Removes the requirement that the first monthly Legislative Meeting be “reserved for business” and the second for “policy discussion and debate,” to align language with current council practice.
2. Section 1, Paragraph 2 - Expands the mayor’s authority to cancel public hearing meetings for reasons beyond inclement weather (e.g., emergencies like facility issues or public health concerns).
3. Section 2 - Adds approval of electronic participation resolutions.
4. Section 3(4) - Removes explanation of the consent docket, now addressed in Section 2.
5. Section 3(6) - Clarifies public comment limits: first 15 speakers or 45 minutes, whichever comes first (previously stated 30 minutes), to reflect actual practice.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: New procedural resolution
Attachment 2: June 2023 resolution
STAFF:
Gloria Sitton, City Clerk
James F. Parajon, City Manager