All right, we're on the air. Are we all set to go? Good evening, everyone. I'm calling to order this city council meeting. It is August 12th of 2025 at 7 p.m. And if you're able, please rise and join us for
the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Next item is the approval of
the agenda. I move approval of the agenda. I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor of approving the agenda, please say I. I. I. All opposed. And we've approved the agenda. Next, we'll move on to the
minutes of the city council work session from July 22nd, 2025 and the city council regular meeting from July of 2025. I move approval of both sets of minutes. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Are there
any corrections, changes, or discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. I. All opposed. And we have approved both sets of minutes. Next, we'll move on to the open forum. Participants can share their comments in person by voicemail or
email and may also request to participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the council agenda and minutes page on richfieldm.gov city council. Um, madame city clerk, is there were there any sent in ahead of
time? We did not have any comments this meeting. Thank you, mayor. Okay. And I don't believe there's any cards from anyone here. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? All right. And just as a point of interest, later in the meeting, we're going to be talking about
open forum and all of these things. So, we'll go through all what the procedures are going to be for that. All right. Next, there are no proclamations and presentations, so I'm going to turn it over to City Manager Rodriguez for the consent calendar.
Thank you, Mayor. And before I read the consent calendar, um, council member Burke pointed out a couple of mostly clerical errors, uh, with item 7B, the consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance amending 601 of the Richfield City Code, including new
language clarifying them, uh, and multi clarifying definitions and multifamily recycling requirements. And I'll just briefly go through those, and then if anyone wants to pull that item, we can pull it. Um but again it's it's uh uh what I would describe as more clerical
errors so or clerical corrections on page 12 section two uh subsection 601.01 01. Uh there is hold on. Um sub subdivision 12 is
dwelling unit one or more rooms physically arranged so as to create instead of and which is currently in the uh text. It should be an an independent housekeeping establishment. And then on
page 13, section five, subsection 601.03. Um, I'm sorry, sub 601.03. Um, there is no person shall engage in the business of solid waste collection services for
RDUs or non RDUs in the city unless all federal, state, county or city requirements are met. And that should be and city requirements. And then for page 15, section nine,
uh there's an extra comma after material. This is uh uh uh item four. Uh and it should just be material shall be located. So we'll eliminate that comma. So we'll make all those changes for this the second
reading. And if I don't hear any requests to pull the item, then I'll go ahead and I'll read the consent calendar. Okay. Uh the consent calendar contains several separate items which are acted upon by the city council in one motion. Once the consent calendar has been
approved, the individual items and recommended actions have also been approved. No further council action on these items is necessary. On tonight's consent calendar, item A, approve dispersements and claims. Item B, consider the approval of the first
reading of an ordinance amending section 601 of the Richfield City Code to include new language and clarifying definitions and multifamily recycling requirements. Item C, consider the adoption of a resolution supporting a livable communities demonstration
account grant application to the Metropolitan Council for a proposed small business center co-working space at 6440 Nicollet Avenue South. Item D, consider approval of an agreement between the city of Richfield and Utris
Burgess Architectural and Design, Inc. for professional services in the design and engineering for the Veterans Memorial Park improvements. And I submit these items for your consideration as part of tonight's consent calendar. Is there a motion?
I move to approve the consent calendar. Okay, we had second and then we'll discuss. Second. Second. Well, you made the motion. Sharon seconded. Okay. Okay. Now that it's been moved and seconded, um, council member Burke, you had
a question. No, just one quick comment that I'm especially excited about 7C, the development of a proposed small business center called working space. Um, it's going to be a great addition to the city. And I was also going to mention that I I think all three of these projects are
really exciting. Um I know we've been talking with Henipin County about trying to reduce our our waste production. So getting the recycling up and running and facilitated at the multifamily units is really really important and and also the
co-working space was very exciting. So thank you. Any questions, comments? All right. All in favor of approving the four items on the consent calendar, please say I. I. I. All opposed. And we have approved those.
Next, we do not have any public hearings or proposed ordin ordinances. So, we'll move on to resolutions. And so, item 11A is a summary of the city manager's annual performance evaluation for the
period of June 24th to July 25th. July 2025, excuse me, June 2024 to July 2025, held on July 8th and July 22nd, 2025 as required by Minnesota statutes 13D.05
subdivision 3A and consider a resolution amending the employment contract between the city of Richfield and city manager Katie Rodriguez. Each year, the city council conducts a review of the city manager's performance for the previous year. The review considers the
performance of the city manager and the organization as measured against the goals and expectations of the city council. Such performance evaluations are conducted in a closed session pursuant to Minnesota state statutes and
summarized in an open meeting. In addition to the performance evaluation, the city council also takes this opportunity to review the city manager's salary and benefits to make any adjustments that may be warranted. The historical context is that the city
has conducted a review of the city manager's performance for the past year and must now per state statute make a summary report of the outcome of that evaluation. So our summary report is as follows. City manager Rodriguez continues to do
an exemplary job. We appreciate the progress made towards city goals and implementing the strategic plan. We encourage continued focus on long-term planning and strategic plan goals. So that is our formal summary and we'll
have other comments in a moment. In addition, the city council has reviewed the compensation of the city manager and has made a conclusion concerning the city manager's employment agreement. Therefore, I'd like to move to approve the resolution amending the city
manager's employment agreement with the city reflecting a salary adjustment. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. Now, are there any comments, questions? I want to say thank you because I know there's been a whole lot of things that
have gone on and we've had the whole parks initiative and there have been a number of um things where we've made project towards our strategic plans and all of those things. So, I just want to say thank you very much and we appreciate your leadership.
I'll actually cosign that. Um, I think that it's been a great introduction to the city council. Katie, you've made me feel, excuse me, city manager Rodriguez, you've made me feel extremely comfortable in the onboarding process. So, thank you. And I'll just add that uh in the short
time I've been here, uh, same thing. Um, I'm a big fan and just quite amazed at uh, what you do and your dedication to Richfield. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, city manager Rodriguez. Yeah, I just want to say thank you for the feedback and the good thoughtful
discussion. And um I've said it many times, but I consider myself lucky to work for Richfield. I really do think it's a special place. And um one of the things I love the most about my job is I get to work both uh for and with people, and I include community in this that are passionate about making Richfield a
better place. So, thanks for another year. Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion before us to approve the resolution amending the city manager's employment agreement with the city reflecting the salary adjustment. All in favor, please say I. I.
All opposed. And we have passed that item. Thank you. So, next there is not other business. So, we'll move on to the city manager report. Thank you, mayor. I don't have a report tonight. There were no speakers at the open forum at our last meeting.
All right. So, for the council discussion tonight, we're going to review and update the city council rules of procedure and decorum. And I think this may be quite a lengthy discussion. So, I have asked staff if they could put some of the documents up on the screen
so people could follow along with us. And so, with that, I'm going to turn it over to city manager Rodriguez to introduce this. Thank you, Mayor. And so what we'd like to do tonight is to go through each of the sections that the the staff has
highlighted to get your feedback on it and city clerk Friedrich will will do that and then um I will um contribute if if you have questions and also uh city attorney teach also helped us quite a bit with this. Uh and then we can ask council if there's any particular
sections that they would like to go over. I'm going to take notes and then I'll I'll summarize the consensus at the end. Um, and we also have it up on the screens to go over it, uh, again, section by section. And we've got the red lines, although they're blue lines.
Uh, so I'll turn it over to city clerk Friedrich. Thank you, city manager Rodriguez, and thank you, councel and mayor, for giving us this opportunity re to review our um, council rules of procedure into quorum. So, I'm going to briefly just review the
executive summary and then we will go in section by section on each of the different sections that staff has highlighted for you to review. So, briefly, the Richfield City Council rules of procedure and decorum have been updated and adopted by resolution by
city councils on four occasions since July 23rd, 2001 with the most recent update by resolution on February 14th, 2017. That item is also included in your packet as an attachment one. The changes
requested by council on April 8th, 2025 regarding the agenda order of business coincide with the current redlinined revisions made to the rules of procedure and decorum under section 5 agenda se subsection 3.
Per chapter 3 section 303 rules of procedure and decorum of the Richfield charter. Council has discretion in determining its own rules and order of business at regular meetings. Council should review and discuss suggested changes to the rules of procedure and decorum document and each of the uh
excuse me each of the attachments included were the previous resolution that was adopted 11335, the redline version which we have up on our screen for review and then a clean version of staff recommendations.
So council should I just want to review our recommended action. Council should consider the proposed updates by staff to the city council rules of procedure and decorum and direct staff on additional changes to include in the final resolution for council adoption of the adopted rules of procedure and
decorum at a future meeting. So the first item is uh current language for section 4 subdivision 2 appealing the ruling of the presiding officer. The current language indicates any member of the council may appeal a ruling of the
presiding officer. If the appeal is seconded, the member may speak once solely on the question involved and the presiding officer may explain the ruling, but no other council member may participate in the discussion. The appeal will be sustained if it is approved by majority vote. So
highlighted for council review, can you forward the language on the screen? Yes. Thank you. All right. You went past it already. Oh, did I? A little bit. Right above that. There it is. Okay.
So, it's section 4, subdivision 2. Correct. So I just I just read basically what was in there, the current language and so highlighted for council review limiting council discussion on appealing the ruling of the presiding officer is
not conveyed in the Sturgeis standard code of parliamentary procedure. As such the council has the following options regarding section 4 subdivision 2. One, you could retain the existing language. two, amend the language to
remove the provision that limits participation in the appeal discussion which would be consistent with the Sturgis uh the Sturgeist standard code of parliamentary procedure. So, are there thoughts on this change?
Um, council member Hayer Leri, I've never actually seen this happen. Um, but with that in mind, I don't see any reason why we would um limit the discussion unless this were a frequent occurrence and taking up a lot of time. So my preference would be to go with number two and make it consistent with Sturgis.
Other thoughts? Council member Burke? I'm in I'm in agreement. I don't see the reason why you would want to limit participation and uh I would agree with that. Also, any other comments? I would concur that my preference would be item two and not
limit it. Okay. Thank you. Um, mayor, would you like to review section five subdivision 3 or would you like to hold that till we've reviewed the highlights that staff has presented for you? Can since we're just going in order, can we do that one? It's it's some fairly simple things.
So, if you go up to the new there you go, the new agenda that is being proposed. I just was wondering if we could get some clarification on item N, which is council discussion. So, I'm assuming that's what we used to
call hats off and we are gonna do those kind of announcements during that time. It'll just be called council discussion. But I know right now we're having a council discussion and so my question is that just for discussion and we always vote at a later meeting. Is that the
intention of this section? It's not that we would ever vote. That is correct. It would be placed perhaps in other business or possibly consent agenda item in a future meeting. In a future meeting. Correct. Okay. And then another item that came up
um I was talking with one of the other council members about liaison. And we have we're all assigned jobs that are liaison to other groups like say the human rights commission or the um school
board or the historical society. and we informally take care of that and sometimes we announce it. But I'm wondering what people's thoughts are. Should is that something that do you want people to have more formal reports like what's going on at Community Services Commission during this council
discussion time so we can update each other on things? What do people think about that? Um go ahead, council member Hay for Leri. Yeah, I would like us to do that. since those other commissions only meet once a month. I can't imagine needing to do that um every meeting but every other
or even every two months I think that would be helpful. We always did that on planning commission and it is nice to just have a designated time to talk about that that isn't pass off. Great. Other thoughts? I agree because uh some of the some of the meetings there may be things that you would like
to pass on to others and other times the meetings are just general monthly meetings that you know if we keep it brief we should be there's no reason to you know get through all of them if we need to. All right, Council Member Burke. I I like the idea. Also, I I would
prefer not to have a set schedule time to for a council member to report and leave it up to the discretion of the council member whether they think there's something relevant, but we should trust them and put their discretion as to whether they want to share something from the wherever they're assigned to.
All right. Um, council member Coen Woods, any thoughts? agree with Walter um the occasional important things that do come up in during the sustainability commission meetings. I think you know if I have something to report back with I
think it would be ideal to use that discussion time. All right. So it sounds like there's consensus that we'll do similar to the old hats off thing but also add in liaison reports as needed. All right. That was the question I had about the
agenda. Council member Hayford Ler. So, are we are we actively trying to not use the term hats off to hometown hits? It's still like listed as like a subsection. I I think it's cute and I think we should keep using it even though we sometimes just use it as general discussion. That's my position on that matter. All right. Um staff I think has something to say.
I was just going to say we did keep that in under council discussion as a separate letter. So, it is still listed as hats off to Hometown Hits. I support us keeping it that way. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, city manager Rodriguez.
Thank you, Mayor. Uh, just some context and then, uh, a question to clarify. So, um, context, we have had more council discussion. Uh, we can change that and add more work sessions, but our work sessions, we have more topics than we
have available meetings. And so because we've had shorter meeting agendas, I've added on council disc some, you know, for for example, what we're doing exactly right now is to have the discussion here. So um hopefully if you're okay with that, we'll continue to do that occasionally, but I wanted to
give you the context of why we're doing it. And um we yes, we are not looking for votes on these issues. It's it's a discussion to give staff direction, clarification. Um, so it would be listing the heading would be council discussion and then we'll have hats to hats off to hometown
hits. Do you want a separate a separate letter that says le liaison reports or do you want to just include that when you do your hats off to hometown hits? My preference would be to have liazison reports and if we don't like my personal preference would be that the mayor just
like has a list of of commissions and leazison responded to it and if we have no report we say no report. Um, recognizing that council Burke and Coleman Woods said something different, I I would be okay with us just having a time, but I would like us to say any updates from the commission's separate
from our hometown heads section. All right, Council Member Burke. And I would be in support of that. That'd be Yeah, that's totally reasonable. All right. So, it looks like we have consensus to do it that way and just list it and say, does anyone have a leazison report at that point?
All right. Thank you. and thank you for letting us add to the list of discussion items. Sounds good. Okay, we'll move forward with our current language for section 5, subdivision 4, varying the order of business. The presiding officer may vary
the order of business is currently what's listed highlighted for council review. The current language allows the mayor to vary the order of business without a majority vote. Notwithstanding the rules of procedure, the council retains the authority to
vary the order of business at its discretion. The council may choose to keep the existing language allowing the mayor to adjust the order of the agenda or require majority approval for any changes. Accordingly, the council has the following options regarding section
5 subdivision 4. One, retain the existing language. Two, amend the language to allow either the mayor or a majority of the council to vary the order of the agenda. Or three, amend the the language to require only a majority vote of the council to approve changes
to the order of the agenda. Are there preferences for this? What if you're gone? Well, then the mayor prom would take over. But I also, speaking as the mayor, I would say number two works because it
can neither be from me or from the council. I think just share the power. I don't think it has to be anything um solely in the mayor's. Um council member Burke, I would agree with that. That would be the preference from my preference. All right. Council member Heri,
if I can just clarify on the current status because we are now officially adop or I guess we were before it was a different order. Officially adopting the agenda. Are you saying as it currently stands, a council member moving to approve the agenda would not be able to vary the order in that motion or is this about a separate standalone action after
approval of the agenda? I'll defer to city manager Rodriguez. Okay. So, we've done it both ways. We have had a vote to amend the agenda and then we've also had uh Mayor Supple has you know usually you say without objection
uh we're going to we're going to move uh for example presentations ahead of open forum in order to have someone be able to present something and not have to wait through the open forum if we have a packed um chambers. So that that's an example or if you had someone that is supposed
to make a presentation that is running late that hasn't of happened often but that could be something where you'd want to change the order of the agenda. Um normally what I've heard from you mayor supple is without objection I would like to do XYZ. Um, so we're just seeking
clarity if you have a strong preference for one way or another, but you would still be able to when you during the adoption of the agenda suggest an amendment and then it would be okay. So even retaining the existing language, the council or the majority of the council could still act to change the order through the approval of the agenda.
Correct. With that, I would say I think we should leave it as is. I think it makes more sense for the presiding officer to do an on the-fly change, but I don't if people want the ability for the council to do it, I don't feel strongly. So, anybody have I mean, three of us have
expressed opinions. Anybody else have any strong opinions? Council member Burke. Yeah. Again, I think I just would like it to make make it explicit explicitly clear that either the mayor or majority of council can vary the agenda. It'd be nice to have it explicitly stated somewhere.
And I'd be fine with that because it doesn't really change anything, but it's clear. So, because this is for a future council as well, so none of us might be here in sometime in the future and it might be that it's important that that's spelled out. All right, moving on. Okay,
moving on to section five, subdivision 6, consent agenda. The city manager may place certain items of business on a consent calendar. A member of the council wishing to remove any item from the consent calendar may do so at the time that the consent calendar is
reached on the general council agenda. Any item removed from the consent calendar will become one of the regular agenda items of the meeting. All items not so removed from the consent calendar may be passed by a single non-debatable motion. Matters proposed by the city
manager for the consent agenda are those that the city manager deems to be of a routine non-controversial nature. And highlighted for council review, the current language does not require a vote to remove an item from the consent calendar. Any council member may request that an item be pulled in which case it
will be moved to the regular agenda under consideration of items if any removed from the consent calendar. So there is no change. It's just more offormational because we have had that happen where we weren't sure do we need to have a vote to move this or can I just remove this from the consent
calendar. Any objections to just leaving it the way it is. All right. Doesn't look like we have objections. So we'll move on. Okay, moving on to section five in subdivision seven.
Oh, darn it. There it is. It's at the very bottom. Okay. So, the current language for section 5, sub subdivision 7, items not on the agenda. The council may consider items not appearing on the agenda as normal
business if a council member does not raise an objection. If a council member raises an objection, a vote of the majority of the council members present shall determine the appropriateness of further consideration of the matter at that time. The council may not take action on any item that require that
requires public notice or hearing. New proposed language for council review includes the council may add items to the agenda with a majority vote of the council. The council may not amend the agenda to include any item that requires a public notice or a hearing.
Are people okay with that? No objections. No objections. I think we can move forward then. Okay. So section five subdivision 9A through D public participation. Currently our language states or the new
language states A during public hearings b members of the public may address the council during open forum. Speakers will be limited to three minutes. Individuals will not be permitted to give their time to others. The city council may by majority vote extend the time limit. And
highlighted for council review in this section includes the time frame currently referenced for open forum is set from 700 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. during regularly scheduled council meetings. Council should consider whether to maintain the 15minute limit
or allow for additional speakers if the open form extends beyond 15 minutes. So I think our current practice has been that we take the speakers that come forward and we haven't limited it. So I'm wondering if people are okay with
continuing that current practice since it hasn't been abused or if somebody wants to limit it because I think in the original language it was like you had 15 minutes and then everything else got moved to the end of the meeting. So what are people's thoughts on that?
Council member Hayford. I guess I would like some limit named. I think it could be 30 minutes instead of 15, but whether we strictly enforce that or not, I think if we do want to cut it off, having something to point to is helpful. Um, as opposed to just trying to make it up on the fly. All right, Council Member Burke,
if there is a limit, I wouldn't start it at 7 o'clock because sometimes obviously we don't start at 7 o'clock. So, um, some some other way of starting the clock on that would be would be preferred. Um, I I think 15 minutes is fine. Half hour is fine also. Um I think
u majority vote is sufficient for extending extending the time. All right. Other thoughts? I think maybe not having like a time certain of like 7 to 7:15 but leaving 30 minutes and then if it's beyond that we can vote to extend. I
would could that. Yeah, I would agree with that because I know there there have been a couple of issues where people have done open forum for like 45 minutes, but it's been like a lot of debate on both sides and it's been very healthy. So, I
want the option to not limit that debate if we can have some way to do it. So, normally it would be not more than 30 minutes, but so I would I would I would ask or encourage the removal of the actual time
in there from 7 to 7:15 and then say 30 minute limit. All right. Thank you, Council Member Coleman Woods. Council member Christensen, anything? No, I I think uh keeping it at 15 minutes was good. U obviously it depends
on the the subject matter. If you have a whole room full of people who wish to speak, you know, who do you who do you say can speak and not speak in that 15 minutes? So it may just have to go like 15 minutes to 30 minutes, but like um
other people have said, setting it really from 7 to 7:15 that doesn't it should just kind of fall within the normal agenda. um with the normal agenda items that may come before or after that. So,
all right. So, to um council member Hayford Deliri and sorry if this is going to come up later. I'm just curious about removing all of the language about like um personality complex that the content stuff is that deliberately removed or is that moved somewhere else? The speakers will not be permitted to make direct
comments on personality complex etc. That's all stricken. Where's that? It's down below in the actual like red line versions, not in the summary. Okay. So, the draft resolution one
page. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thanks. So, do we um city attorney teaching um mayor and council, I can maybe address some of that. I think that um some of this language I had proposed
removing I think because of limitations on what people can say which I think gets to be potentially problematic and I do think that we've addressed some of the disruptive um behavior and how that's going to be held uh dealt with
later on in the document. So I think primarily um some of the language about comments relating to personality conflicts etc. I recommended removing just because it seems to be
verging on you know limiting speech of a certain type that that gets us into kind of interesting territory with free speech issues. Okay. And just to clarify I guess we'll review it when we get to that portion. If somebody's just like up like screaming curse words and racial slurs,
do they have do we have to just like leave that for three minutes or do we have the ability to prevent that speech or cut off that that audience? Right. And I think later on there's some options about how to deal with that and and when when um speech rises to that level, it certainly is not something
that needs to be tolerated. But there's also we need to have parameters around around how it's handled and how it's dealt with. Okay. My other question, uh, just noticing this now, the open forum mentions the limit of three minutes. Is there any place in which three minutes
or another limit is set on public hearing comments? I feel like we've enforced a three-minute limit, but I don't see where it's referenced otherwise. Maybe another way of asking the question is looking at the blue line version. where it says speakers will be limited
to three minutes. Does that refer to both public hearings and open form or is that only referring to open form? I think that is a very good question and I think um in the first paragraph A where it says during public hearings
if if the council would like to see the three minute limit added there that might make it more clear. Yeah, I think that'd be helpful. All right. So are we have we then come to consensus on all of that?
Could I clarify one thing? Sure. Um we talked about a 15 minute and a 30 minute limit and then also starting it at open forum when whenever open forum begins during the meeting. Correct.
Yes. So I think more people have said 30 than 15. Okay. Yeah. Okay. With council option to by vote extend that if needed. Correct. Yes. Okay. Can I continue?
Did you have a question? No, I just was going to say Okay. What's the next one? Go ahead. Okay. Uh, continuing with uh, letter B, uh, all persons wishing to speak during the open forum may register with the city manager's office no later than 400
p.m. on the day of the regularly scheduled council meeting or by clean completing an open forum registration card and returning it to a staff member. Also be continued. Registration will include their name, their city of residence, and the topic on which they
wish to speak. Staff will provide a list of the open forum speakers to the presiding officer at the start of each open forum. Highlighted for council discussion, a recent change to the speaker registration language now requires individuals to state their city of residence rather than their physical
address. This change will also take effect under section 7, subdivision 6, rules of decorum, addressing the council. Can I ask a clarification question? So, you either can register ahead of time at the city manager's office or you can do
the card. You can just show up and do the card and it works. That is correct, mayor. All right. Are there thoughts on any of these? Um, so sir, we had open form earlier, but we
can um talk to you after the meeting. called the city. So, um, sir, we're actually talking about what the rules are for this. And so one of the rules would be that the council could vote to let you speak. So um at this point I think we should
finish the business we're on and then we could vote if we wish to let you speak and is for three minutes just so you're aware of that. Three minutes is the rule and we'd have to take a vote on it and and if the majority of the council gives you permission to speak then you'd have your
three minutes to speak. That's in total. So if like five or 10 people wanted to speak, it comes up to 15 to 30 minutes, but each individual gets three minutes. So we'll get we'll get you the card to fill out for
the three minutes and but let's finish the order that we're on right now. Thank you. And then we'll take a vote on whether to um allow the open form to continue. So, um, we were at the point where we were talking about just saying the, um,
city they live in rather than the address. And I have had a couple of residents ask for that because one resident spoke at open forum and then somebody knocked on her door the next day and she felt very uncomfortable with that. So, I think it would be good to
just say city of residence. Thank you. Okay, continuing on. Also, letter B, the council will listen during open forum and will not give an immediate response to individuals comments. Council may direct staff to provide a future report on the topic or add to an upcoming
meeting agenda. The open forum will be recorded and livereamed via cable access and YouTube. Letter C. During regular agenda items other than public meetings, if no council member raises an objection, if a council member raises an objection, a
majority vote of the council members present may approve accepting public comment on the agenda item. D. Via email subject to the following. Public comment received via email will be distributed to council if received before 2 p.m. on the day the council of
the council meeting. Public comment received after 2 p.m. on the day of the meeting will be distributed to the council at the next regularly scheduled meeting. All public comments received via email will become part of the public record and will be archived with the appropriate meeting minutes. Highlighted
for council review language added as D indicates clarification of process for emailed public comment. Is there anything additional you would like to add? Um go ahead council member Hayford. Well, two, so again, we have that same issue with repeating that three minute
limit. Um, it could that just go in a separate section than being tied to the specific method of which people are testifying. So rather than public hearing has three minutes because it sounds like if we were to do this informal thing on another agenda item, the three-minute limit does not automatically apply. And I guess I would just like the same terms for everything.
Um, I also find it a little bit odd that we would not require like an affirmative vote to do that just since it's so out of our normal procedure. I think it'd be my preference that if we're deciding to allow that impromptu uh quasi public hearing that there be an affirmative vote by the council to do it as opposed to it being allowed by default and an
affirmative vote to deny it. Other comments or questions? I did have a question. Um, as far as the email comments, it sounds like they're going to be distributed to the council, but you're not going to have somebody
sit there and read emails because that has happened in the past and I think it's a better use of time not to do that. That is correct. We could we could write something more explicit within that letter if you'd like us to. I think it's good to clarify that so
that there's not the expectation that that we'll sit here and read all the emails out loud. Any other comments on that? Mayor, can we get uh some more opinions on uh council member Hayford Olri suggested that um for uh item C that
there should be a vote. Is there consensus on that to add something just impromptu on an agenda item to Yes. Okay. Yes. Are people okay with that?
I would be okay with that. I would too. Yeah, I'm fine. All right. Thank you. It sounds like we have consensus. Thank you. All right. Go ahead. Section six, voting subdivision three,
excused from voting. Currently, current language indicates a council member may be excused from voting on a matter properly before the council only with unanimous consent of the other members present unless the member is required by law to abstain from voting. The council member must
announce the member's intention to abstain prior to the vote being taken. The clerk will record the abstension, excuse me, as abstain with a name highlighted for council review for city code 205.13 subdivision 2A indicates a
council member may only be excused by unanimous consent of the other members present unless a member is required by law to abstain from voting. All right. Any are people fine with that? Yeah, I don't see a problem there.
Yeah. Council member here for Larry. Just curious, is there a restriction on participating in discussion if you intend to abstain? Because it's like on principle, it seems sort of inappropriate to influence the discussion if you're prepared to not participate in the vote. Um, mayor and councel, I think anybody
abstaining should refrain from participating in the discussion as well. Is that something we should name or could we name? uh we we it could include something along those lines. I think just for clarity of that expectation, it would be helpful. This has thankfully not been an issue here, but I have heard from a number of other
city councils of people who just abstain on principle but participate in discussions. Right. I would agree that language. I agree also. I I think my only concern with that is um
you know some someone who wants to abstain and not for a legal reason u you know they may have some valuable feedback or information that the council may want to consider and then if they're prevented from presenting that it might be an opinion or a thought that perhaps
the rest of the council doesn't have. Um and it's it's tough because I can see I can see the concern that someone wants to kind of prolong the discussion or interfere with the discussion and yet step back and abstain. But on the other hand, it seems kind of just a little too
draconian to to say, you know, you you have you can't give any information or opinion on this. That's my only concern. Can you give any example of where it would be we would lose something sort of by an an obstainer not being able to Yeah, I mean they I can I can imagine a
council member um abstain abstaining not under law but from some other reason uh personal or even u you know I guess personal reason that perhaps they don't want to state
but on the other hand they do want um their opinion known about it. I'm trying my best to think of that. So, I see the concern. Um I'm just not one to to limit discussion, you know, or at least getting an opinion from someone on the council, especially
when we only have five council members. I mean, if we had a council that was like a larger city with a whole bunch of people, I would I could see that. Yeah. But we don't we don't have that. So, I don't know how to Yeah. So, I mean, I guess my my instinct is like if you you should probably voting no on
I mean, it depends on the framing of what the question is and what you're voting on, but I I still feel like if if you're going to choose that like I should not be involved in this decision in a formal capacity, I don't think you should be involved in an informal capacity either in the discussion. Um,
but I don't know, I might be convinced by the right example and I just don't know what that might be. Um perhaps uh an example is um again I'm trying I I can't think of a specific example but again that they feel that they they want the council to
be aware of a point of view that perhaps they have obtained for um you know something that occurred personally and they feel that their personal
experience so affects their vote that they just feel as if they can't vote clear-headed or objectively about it or, you know, clear-headed about it. So they tell the council, listen, this is, you know, my experience on this issue or this is what I've experienced on this
issue and it's it's very close to and a little too close to my uh to my emotion or it's affecting my judgment, but still this is a point of view I want you all to know about, but it's so personal to me that I feel like I can't objectively uh vote on it.
I can't give a specific example, but that's that's kind of what I'm wondering about. No. And I I will just say like I understand um that it's just very close to the behavior that I'm specifically trying to avoid of people taking it on principle. I would also like that language is although I I think perhaps
guidance would already be to not discuss but if you did have an actual legal conflict of interest like you had a potential contract with the city obviously we don't want people being like hey you know Walter Burke Incorporated would be a great vendor for this but um and then not voting on it. So, I think for the legal conflict
definitely I want that and I still feel like it'd be better to just have it all the time, but I don't I can't completely refute your thing. I just sort of still feel the same way. All right. City attorney teaching. No, I just wanted to clarify. I mean, these are all this a good discussion. I
think in the where there is a an actual legal conflict of interest, then you are required to not participate in the discussion. So if it rises to the level of an abstension because of there's an a discomfort in in voting or for some
appearance of a conflict that you're the council member for whatever reason does not want to vote that really does it is a discretionary thing whether you want to allow I think participation in the discussion. I would say the the idea
behind the unanimous vote is that voting should obviously be taken very seriously. It's one of your highest duties is to to vote on matters and and make policy. So it should be used obviously very sparingly. Um and so I think that's the the rationale behind
the unanimous vote. Um that is in city code. So, if you wanted to do something different, we would also have to make a an ordinance change to that since it is in I didn't hear any disagreement about that unanimous vote requirement. Um, but
but it is a an interesting uh discussion about, you know, whether to participate or not. Well, I guess I will say I would find it helpful just in terms of this being a useful reference point for us to specifically name that thing that if it is a legal legal conflict, you should not participate in discussion. And I guess I would be fine leaving the rest
of it open given the fact that we do require a unanimous vote each time you do it. It seems like a pretty remote possibility that that's going to be a routine problem. And for what it's worth, I I would second that if there's a clear uh required by law to abstain that it would make make it clear that they shouldn't that they are prohibited or prevented
from discussion. All right. So moving on to section seven. Okay. Current language for section 7 subdivision 3 rules of decorum discussion. At the request of any council member or the mayor, council discussion shall be limited as provided
in this subdivision. When the rules of the subdivision are invoked, no member of the council shall speak more than twice, no more than five minutes each time without the consent of the council. New proposed language for council review includes the mayor or any council member
may bring a motion to limit discussion on any question. Council should decide if they prefer one to retain the original language or two amend section 7 subdivision 3 with the above proposed language. All right. Do people have opinions on
which option they would prefer? I would be fine with the proposed language. language. I also would agree with that. All right. So, um if there are no objections, I guess we have consensus on
that. Okay. Moving on to sub or section seven, subdivision 9. Rules of decorum conduct. Current language in this section includes any member of the council, staff, or person indulging in personal attacks or making impertinent,
slanderous, or profane remarks or who willfully utters loud, threatening, or abusive language or engages in any disorderly conduct which would impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of any meeting, hearing, or other proceeding, shall be called to order by
the preciding officer. and if such conduct continues may at the discretion of the preciding officer be ordered barred from further audience before the council during that meeting. New proposed language for council review includes if the conduct at any meeting
becomes violent, threatening or abusive or disturbs the orderly progression of the meeting, the presiding officer will attempt to call the meeting to order to stop the disruptive conduct. If the conduct continues, the presiding officer may recess the meeting to consult with
law enforcement and the city attorney about options to address the conduct. Excuse me. All right. Are there thoughts on this one? Council member Hay Ferri. My only concern is like we give like
when we do the public hearings and open forum like the the script that the mayor reads is specific about like people not clapping. Well, this more relates to section 10 that's removed because it's kind of consolidated. Sorry, subdivision 10 is removed and consolidated into nine. Is it okay to have something saying specifically discouraging
audience reaction and commentary? Um, I'm assuming the intent is that this covers both of those things, but I don't know that if I were the public looking at this that I would understand that means I shouldn't be clapping at um, speakers. Um, yeah, city attorney teach, mayor and council, I I think I I don't
see a problem with having something in the summary from the mayor about about that. I think with some of the changes with this document, since this is the council rules of decorum, we were trying to with some of the changes I was
suggesting, I was trying to take some of the rules about how the audience or the people present should be behaving and and more focused on the council's options on how to respond and address a
particular situation. So that's kind of the rationale for some of the changes that I was um proposing particularly in this section. Okay. Yeah. I don't feel strongly as long as it's it's okay to still include more specifics in what we say
and we can perhaps talk about what that um blurb is going to be that I say at each meeting so that it's consistent. I do think it's good that we're specific about if someone becomes violent, threatening, or abusive, or disturbs the
progress of the meeting. Those are all very different things. And later on, we're going to talk about what happens if those happen. And I think it's important to note that there's a big difference between somebody becoming violent and somebody just like swearing at who at the wind or
whatever there. So, it does clarify what all the different things are. It's not that we're going to like have somebody arrested for clapping or snapping their fingers or something, but I sadly with some of recent current events and some of the violence, I do
think we need to have some some of the rules in here. Any other comments or questions on that section? Uh, one very minor thing back on subdivision six. Could we just replace the his slash her with their? It's just more inclusive and a little bit less awkward. It's the only time we
use his or her in this document. Uh, members of the public give the presiding officer their name. On subdivision six, we use a hiser. right here. And so this is um I also think it's good that we have
the option of recessing the meeting because sometimes just taking a moment to pause helps. All right. Any other comments or are we okay with this language? Right. Moving on.
Okay. Moving on. Uh simply highlighted for council review, I am not going to read it, but under section 7 subdivision 10, which you can see up on the screen, uh is the rules of decorum member of the audience. Since it was redundant of subsection 9, we've deleted that
language. If you'd like me to read it, I can certainly do so. No, that's fine. Thank you. Continuing on. Okay. This is another highlighted for council review under section 8 enforcement of decorum with
legal requirements changing enforcement of decorum may need further review. Suggested staff changes under section 8 subdivision 2 include references to define persons and actions of the sergeant-at-arms regarding maintaining order and decorum at the council
meeting. Section 8, subdivision five, includes references to the majority vote of those present and notes the council may vote to recess or adjourn a meeting to preserve order and decorum or for public safety. The city attorney's proposed language is the recommended
draft. All right. So, I had a question in the recommended draft just so everybody understands what they're voting for. If you look at um subdivision two, it says that upon instruction of the
presiding officer or majority of the council, it is the duty of the sergeant-at-arms or members of the police department to place any person who violates the order and decorum of the meeting under arrest or restrained and cause the individual to be
prosecuted or civily restrained as appropriate. So, can you um city attorney teach us what restrained or civily restrained means? Uh, sure. Thank you, Mayor and Council. So, this is really adding and if I could
just maybe give a little bit of um context for some of the changes before I address that specifically. There has been some case law around disorderly conduct at meetings and really limiting a city's ability to
expel someone from a meeting. This is getting more at the um direction for someone to leave a meeting and if they don't comply then they can be considered to be trespassing and that is um a
better approach legally to deal with that situation rather than attempting to to expel someone from a meeting for disorderly conduct. So that is just some context for some of those changes. But with respect to the civily restrained
language that's simply providing an option for the city in very extreme situations, I cannot imagine that it would come up that often, but it would allow for the city to obtain a restraining order against an individual
if the circumstances rose to that level. It's a very high standard uh legally and and uh would only be in very extreme situations, but it does um allow for that option. So, just to add to that, so basically
it's if someone may not have violated a criminal law, but it's clear that they're a danger to themselves or others and they need to be restrained until they're taken care of. Correct. then there's a pattern a pattern of that behavior that um has not
ceased and and there's concern about threatening or violent behavior, threats made to individuals, that kind of thing. All right. Um thoughts that people have on this? I think with the recent I mean just with
the current state and the current environment that we live in, I think we should have some additional cur precursors around what um what can what what kind of actions or what kind of results or what what uh consequences you may have
um about misusing our public time. And I would agree it's better to be talking about it now when there's not an emotionally charged situation going on to think about what's happening ahead of
time. And I do like that it's in the context of section seven above it talks about what the conduct should be and it spells out that we're talking about like if someone becomes violent, threatening or abusive. So it's not just that somebody
interrupts to clap a couple times and you have to remind them to please not clap. We're talking about the very serious things that these are um being enforced here. Any other comments, questions? All right. Thank you. Then we'll move
on. Okay. Those are all the highlights that we have for council. Is there any additional items that council would like to discuss that we didn't present as a highlight tonight? Um, does anybody have anything else? All right. Did you get the information
you needed? Yes. Thank you. Yes. So, we'll finish out um the council discussion section and then after that, we'll take the vote to see if we're going to allow the gentleman to have his three minutes and he's filling out the card. So, right now, we're moving on to
the hats off to Hometown Hits. Is there someone who um has anything to say or should we just go down the line here? Council member Burke, did you have anything to add? Um just wanted to thank the um the crew
that crews that are working on Donaldson Park and uh renovating the playground. I know there are children in the neighborhood that can't wait to be the first ones to use it. So, thank you to the crews that are working on that. Thank them. Um, I will just say thanks for National
Night Out for all the people who organized block parties, all the staff that helped make that happen. It was very fun. Got to six block parties in my award. Um, and some were like their first year in like 20 years and some have been doing it every year. So, it's just fun to see that variety and got pretty positive feedback which feel
people are people are happy. Thank you, Council Member Coleman Woods. Uh, I would agree with Sean. I actually am block captain so I didn't get to any others besides my own. Um, and I was able to, you know, our, um, more senior
neighbors were able to gather. We're kind of the senior crowd of the, uh, block, so it was, um, good to see some of our neighbors who have gotten up in age. Uh, the oldest neighbor we have is Mary and Patassic, and she's 99. So, we
are proud to have longevity on our block. Thank Thank you for night out efforts. Council member Christensen. Yes, I agree with the national night out although I wasn't able to participate this year due to my recovery of my knee surgery um which I was kind of
disappointed in but um the numbers have risen and you know as far as who requests different applications to have a night national night out recognized. So yeah, so it's it was a good night. So
thank you. Um, I wanted to take a moment to thank the staff for all of the work on the decorum discussion. I know that took a long time and I appreciate that. Um, and then I also have a rather sad
um, topic I'd like to bring up tonight. I would like to honor the memory of Richfield resident and community leader Suana Dusgupta who passed away unexpectedly last week. Suana was a welcoming presence in our community. She
worked tire tirelessly to make the world a better place. Before moving to Richfield, she spent many years working for USAID in Afghanistan and also worked in South Asia. After moving to Richfield, Suana served
on her city's sustainability commission and was active in environmental groups like the Friends of Wood Lake and Altons. She also was an advocate in discussions between the rich between Richfield for equitable public safety
and the city of Richfield. Most recently, Suana was an integral leader in organizing the local Richfield Indivisible for all group. my deepest condolences to her family and many friends and may she rest in peace.
Thank you. Um go ahead. And I know that one thing Sana would definitely attend is the um the meeting coming up that's uh being arranged by Henipin County about the renovation to Penn Avenue and just want to encourage
residents to attend that. I believe it's not this Thursday, it's next Thursday. Is that right? Next Wednesday. Next Wednesday, I'm sorry. Next Wednesday, I think 4:30 to 7 at St. Richard's Church. So hopefully um people who are listening will will attend and give their feedback on what's to become
of Penn Avenue. All right. Are there any other hats off to Hometown Hits? All right. At this point, I will make a motion to allow the gentleman who wishes to speak at open forum to have three minutes to address the council. Is there
a second? Second. All right. All in favor of allowing this to happen, please say I. I. I. All opposed. So, sir, the way that it works is you'll go up to
the podium and tell us your name and city of residence. And you'll have three minutes and we'll listen. And then if there's any follow-up, staff will follow up with you afterwards. All right. And I'm going to be calling up um Mr. Philip Lori and he would like
to speak about transportation. is a very very emotional and horrific story to share with you. There may be some tears. On October 11th, 2024, 10 months ago,
our campus administrator for Main Street Village at 76th in Lindale sent this letter to police chief Henthornne. I am writing to you in support of concerns brought forth by residents at Main Street Village. Though I have only been
on campus a short time, short time, I have observed the reckless driving that our residents have expressed concern over. I have also heard the horribly loud vehicles with their modified exhaust exhaust system driven by drugged
drunken thugs. It is of great concern that the potential for a fatality involving one of these speeding vehicles and a resident not just from Main Street Village but from the surroundings neighborhood is probable. It is my hope that serious consideration regarding
addressing these issues is given. If you have any questions, please contact me, Megan Wubin. Her email and her phone number. About five months after, we've been patiently awaiting Police Chief Henthor's reply,
which has never arrived in 10 months. Somehow, he hasn't found 10 minutes to reply to that letter. He's very supportive with words, but he says he can't do anything about this until he gets two new officers. The mayor came
nicely to our senior village a week ago at noon out and told me that those two positions have been added. So why hasn't he done anything? What the problem is? These drunken thugs head
east on I494. They take the Lindale exit. They turn left. They roar up. Roar north on Lindale. They go right through the red light. They continue up Lindale. They turn around. They come back. Then
they roar east and west a half a mile on 77th. The problem is the noise. Residents can't sleep, can't think, can't live. These are jet
engine mufflers modified. It's like living at the MSP airport. Police Chief Enthorne should answer the letter. Police Chief Enthornne should use the two new officers to patrol the
area around 77th in Lindale. About 5 months ago, Commissioner Kettles and Councilman O O'Hara Oguire
visited our senior center and we gave him a 45minute presentation telling all about this problem. This is a horrible problem. It is a thug problem. The only way to solve this is to issue hundreds
of driving disorderly speeding tickets. That's the only thing that will stop this. We've tried throwing peanuts at them. That doesn't work. Nothing works. Now, at that meeting five months ago, we gave this presentation. Councilman
McGrady O'Hara O'Gu O'Brien Aguire and Commissioner Hedles said they would get back to us shortly. They would investigate and they would get back to us. Okay. So, both the councilman and the commissioner broke their promise. They have never
replied. They have never investigated. They've never gotten back to us. Sir, you're reaching the end of your three minutes. So, if you could finish up. Thank you. If we've got a whole evening ahead of us, why are we limiting this to three minutes? Why is open forum
stopped at three minutes? That doesn't make any sense. I've got a lot more to say. This problem needs addressed. I'd be happy to speak with you after the meeting. Thank you. So, if you want to make your final statement and then I'll talk to you after the meeting.
There's been a lot of talk here about decorum and safety and order, sergeant-at-arms, restrained, violent. You don't see any of that tonight. But Richfield City statute 607287
section 18 subsection 92 requires transparency and open discussion. 3 minutes is not open discussion. Three minutes is not transparency. I got a lot more to say, but you're going to require me to sit
down. Thank you, sir. And we will take that into consideration. And as I said, I'm happy to speak with you after. Um because of the open meeting law, one other council member can come with me, but the whole council can't be with you. But well, I'll talk to you afterwards.
Can I finish this two weeks from now? You can come back every week and and talk to us. That's I will. Thank you. These are All right. Um, with that we have finished everything that is on our
agenda. I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. I move adjournment. Second. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Then we stand adjourned.
Thank you and thank you everyone.