That's good. Good evening, everyone. I'm going to call to order this regular city council meeting of the city of Richfield. It is May 27th at 700 p.m. If you're able, please rise and join us for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank
you. The next item on our agenda is the open forum. Participants may 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 city council agenda and minutes web page on
richfield dot at richfieldmn.govc city councel. Um, so we have, I believe, three or four comments that were emailed in, but we also have people who are here in person. So, we'll begin with the people that are here in
person. If you filled out a card, you don't need to fill out the form up at the front. Um, you'll have three minutes to address the council and please state your name and your address when you're making making that. Um, I'm going to set this up to do a timer. So, I'll link let
you know when you're approaching three minutes. So, first we have Pat Pollson that we'd like to welcome up and when you the microphone should be on if there's a little green light. Thank you, mayor. Thank you, council
members. Um, I'm Pat Pollson, uh, resident on 62nd in Vincent. Um, I am not a short-term rental owner, but I am speaking in opposition to restrictions. Uh, I am on the board of
directors of the National Association of Realtors, 1.5 million members. I'm on the board of directors of the Minnesota Realtors with 21,000 members. I'm a past president of the Minneapolis area realtors, 9,000 members. Um so myself
and my colleagues have sold um uh the properties to almost every property owner in this city and we sell land, houses and rights. And what I oppose is
restrictions on rights, you know, unless they're reasonable, of course. Um, so everyone that owns property in the city um has paid for those rights and whenever there's restrictions, it's a taking of what they've paid for. So, we
have to really be cautious about that. There really has to be a compelling reason to take rights. Um, and there's legitimate concerns with short-term rentals, and I've heard uh concerns, complaints about parties, loud noises,
people coming home late at night and so forth. and it sounds exactly like my neighbors, my homeowner neighbors. Um, we do live in a city. Um, I would suggest, um, best way to handle it is
education for, uh, short-term rental owners. Um, you know, uh, owners putting clauses in their agreements when they rent. Um, you know, that that, uh, will make it harder to have parties and so forth. uh but basically speaking in
opposition with great respect for what you're trying to do to help the community. Um but yeah, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank you.
Our next participant is John Lucas Ericson. Good evening. Uh my name is John Lucas Ericson and I operate a short-term rental at 7014 Elliot Avenue. Uh first I want to say thank you for the amendment made during the first reading of the STR
ordinance. A oneweek minimum is certainly an improvement from one month. I truly appreciate the council's thoughtful and balanced approach to this topic. That said, I'd like to offer some perspective on the proposed minimum stay duration. According to Airbnb and Verbbo
data, the average stay at an STR in Richfield is 3.3 days. For most hosts, a three-day weekend visit, often to see family or attend events, is the most common and essential booking type. Imposing a oneweek minimum is respectfully like telling Domino's they
can't sell pizza anymore, but they can still sell salads, so they'll be okay. I urge the council to consider amending the ordinance to a three-day minimum stay. While it may sound like a small adjustment, it would make a major positive difference. Of the 281
reservations I've hosted here in Richfield, only four were for a full week. A oneweek minimum would drastically reduce demand and limit the number of visitors choosing to stay in Richfield. It's also important to consider the logistical impact of these ch of these minimums. A oneweek
requirement would lead to long periods of vacancy and five or six day gaps between bookings that are unfillable. On the other hand, a 3-day minimum allows for better calendar use and still leaves enough spacing to reduce back-to-back short stays, which I
understand is a concern for some residents. Many hosts already self-impose a three-day minimum and follow strict house rules, no parties, quiet hours, and guest screening, which have proven effective at avoiding nuisance behavior. This is a realistic standard the entire community can get
behind and one that many responsible operators are already following. As for the effective date of the ordinance, many hosts, myself included, have accepted bookings well in advance, up to 18 months out. Forcing cancellations due to a change in minimum stay requirements
would result in penalties that affect not just that reservation, but the host's entire account. A oneweek minimum stay requirement would be very difficult for many hosts to adjust to and would require an extended effective date. However, it would be reasonable to
expect all hosts to implement a 3-day minimum by January 1st of next year. In closing, I strongly believe that a 3-day minimum stay requirement strikes the right balance. It discourages problem bookings, aligns with guest behavior, supports responsible operators, and
keeps Richfield welcoming to visitors. Thank you again for your time and for your careful attention to this topic. Thank you. Our next participant would be Lance Bondis. Um, hello Lance Bondis, 7108 Chicago
Avenue in Richfield. Hello, Mayor. Council members, um, I'll be short and sweet. I I kind of mirror what he was saying about the the 3-day minimum. I appreciate everything you guys have done to look at the the restrictions of 30
days and and bring it to seven days. Um, and I understand the concerns with parties and that by possibly lowering it to three days would eliminate would serve the same purpose as being able to to keep um parters and and one night
stays and things that that cause or can cause um disruptions in a community. um and and to uh add the the 3% lodging tax with this department of revenue so that platforms like Airbnb and V VBO and and others
would be forced to pay the fee. Without it, they don't know. Um and that would be helpful. But thank you again for your your work on it and your listening to the community. I appreciate it. And um thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Maria
Ericson. Thank you for all that you're doing for the city because you guys do a lot. I've been to a few meetings and it's really impressive. Um, I had the opportunity to stay in one of the VBOs's over the New Year's holiday because my dad received a diagnosis of cancer and um, we wanted
everybody to come together in one place to be able to be there with him because it might be his last one. And um if we had to rent it for a week, I don't know that I would have been able to pull that off with all the little kids and my sister has like seven kids and so um she's a one-inccome house. And so just
to be able to pull families together and it's not just me. I was really amazed when I read the survey results of the survey that your staff worked hard to do. And I'm like, "Wow, I'm not alone." They allow for our family to stay nearby and help us with our children. We utilized a short-term rental nearby so my parents could visit after we had a
baby. We couldn't host them in our home. It was very handy for them since they don't know the metro very well. My family enjoyed staying at two different VBOs in 2023 and 2024. And if they had to rent individual hotel rooms, it would have caused them financial hardship. Please do not restrict the number of days for these rentals. These are quotes
from the survey. If there are some properties that are problem properties and deal with those, take away their license, but don't punish all these homeowners. Maybe give the homeowners phone numbers so that they can communicate like regular neighbors. People in the community are supportive of short-term rentals. They help generate revenue for the city and
provide more options for visitors. My neighbor converted their house to a VBO two years ago and hasn't had any issues. When the place was rented to long-term tenants, some of them were horrible to live next to a group of five young people throwing late night parties when they asked when I asked them to be
quiet, they threatened me. Another one, our family visits and stays in Airbnbs instead of hotels. You can park in the driveway, cook your meals, have a get together, kids can play outside. It's costefficient. Safety is better. the hotels around here have homeless people uh levels and the newspapers talk about the crime at our hotels weekly. I just
know from my own personal experience and from a lot of these people that it it provides something really valuable and beneficial. And I think 3 days is the only way to protect it. If you make it go longer, it the people won't want longer. They won't be able to afford longer and the this special amenity
would disappear. We're close to the airport. We're close to the Mall of America and we're this is a welcoming city. I actually own a property in Richfield. And so I just want to encourage you, please consider a 3-day. I think it can solve the problems of the people that live nearby. For sure it can. And um it provides special places
for people to do things they can't do other places. I couldn't have got my family together for Christmas at a hotel. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who w who is here in person that wishes to speak?
All right. Um do you have a card? Yeah. Okay. I'll take the card and then you can don't have to sign in as long as you have a card. Okay. All right. So, this is Ava Mcnite. Ava Mcnite. um
693511 and I represent about 850 people that are in Bloomington and Richfield that are planting natives and um feeding pollinators, birds, lowering ground surface
temperature. I'm trying to remember my notes there. And also um keeping water out of the storm system. So, we're all um I'm a community educator and educate on that not only are we doing pollinator
and bird work, we're keeping water out of the storm system. There are some cities that um see Minneapolis is one that gives to businesses if they put in rain gardens and I think it's Eden Prairie that gives
to residents. So, um they get credit. it's recognized and I'm just here to thank the uh Richfield Bloomington Water Man Man management organization for moving forward with resident grants. I'm not sure what it's going to look like,
but I'm happy that we're hearing from that water management organization. as a a resident, I feel uh connected and supported and I encourage them to keep continuing to dialogue with us as
residents and um thank you also for your work on that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who's here present that wishes to speak? I believe we had some um comments that
were sent in. So, I'm going to turn it over to city clerk Friedrich. Yes, thank you, mayor. We have uh three comments that were submitted via email. And the first one is from Jason McDonald. Dear city planner, mayor, and members of the Richfield City Council,
thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft ordinance that would ban most short-term rentals under 30 days in Richfield. I write as a licensed STR host who values both housing affordability and the vitality that home sharing brings to our neighborhoods. I respectfully urge the council to reject
a blanket ban and instead adopt a balanced license and enforce approach. Minimal impact on housing supply. I believe just 72 homes in Richfield self-identify as STRs. Only point 0.7% of the city's 10,045 non- apartment
dwellings. Even if all were converted to year-long leases, the net gain would be less than 1%, far too small to move prices or rents. A Santa Barbara County study found eliminating STRs increase long-term housing by
just10%. A statistically insignificant effect. Local responsive ownership. Staff notes that 21% of Richfield STRs are owner occupied and that such owners tend to respond more promptly to issues than others. Banning responsible, predominantly local hosts to address
isolated nuisance properties is like using a sledgehammer where a scapel is needed. Support for neighborhood businesses. According to national implant data, guests spend $264 in local shops and restaurants for everyund $100
spent on lodging. That's by Airbnb newsroom. Redirecting this activity to hotels along I9494 diverts economic benefit away from small street level businesses embedded in Richfield neighborhoods. Revenue opportunities through licensing.
Minnesota allows a 3% lodging tax on stays under 30 days. Cities like Plymouth require STR hosts to A obtain an annual license, b pass inspections, and c remit taxes monthly. Richfield could adopt a similar approach,
generating funds to support enforcement instead of losing them altogether. Proven regulatory models in Plymouth, training, inspections, tax remittance, and a link was included. New Brighton, where I currently reside, permit, local
resident agent within 30 miles, 247 response also included a link for that response. Malax Myax County annual license and safety compliance with an additional link for that item. These models show how well-designed regulations can protect neighborhood
quality without eliminating STRs entirely. Safety and accessibility already covered. The Minnesota Department of Health licenses non-owner occupied STRs as lodging estab establishments with life safety requirements. Richfield can simply
condition local licenses on proof of MDH compliance and regular fire marshall checks. Equity and property rights. STR income helps many residents offset mortgages, support their families, or remain in their homes. A ban disproportionately harms small-cale
owners while leaving corporate hotel chains untouched. And finally, recommended path forward. I urge the council to table the current ordinance direct staff to draft a licensing framework modeled after Plymouth and New Brighton. The next comment is from Abiel
Kak. Dear members of the city council, as a current short-term rental host and a previous member of the Richville community, I am writing to respectfully request your consideration in amending the current draft for short-term rental regulations. Specifically, the requirement for limiting all current and
future short-term rentals to a seven night minimum stay. I believe this restriction, this restriction would effectively shut down many responsible hosts and small service-based businesses that rely on the flexibility and accessibility of the short-term rental
market. I urge the council to revise this policy to allow two minimum or threeight minimum stays or restrict new growth in this market by limiting new short-term rental licenses while allowing current businesses to continue to operate. Restricting short-term rentals to seven night minimums would in
effect shut down small family-owned businesses like ours. Our family relies on this income to support our household, and we also employ local cleaners, maintenance professionals, and service providers, many of whom are also familyrun and small operations. One of my family members owns a local cleaning
business that depends almost entirely on short-term rental activity. When restrictions like this are imposed, it's not just homeowners who are affected. It's a whole network of workers and businesses whose livelihoods are tied to this industry. Rather than forcing responsible hosts to close or drastically reduce operations, I ask the
council to consider a more balanced and enforcable approach, allow existing licensed short-term rentals to continue operating without the seven night minimum restriction, and instead limit future growth by pausing the issuance of new STR licenses. This approach is easy
to regulate and has already proven successful in cities like Hudson, Wisconsin, Weisetta, Minnesota, and Roseville, Minnesota. These cities preserved the businesses that were already operating responsibly while giving themselves the opportunity to reassess and control the pace of future
growth. Short-term rentals provide meaningful benefits to our city by supporting tourism, creating local jobs, maintaining property values, and offering diverse lodging options for guests who don't fit the typical hotel mold. Guests often stay for just a weekend and a two to three night minimum
is far more reasonable threshold than that discourages misuse while still accommodating the needs of travelers. Thank you for your time and commitment to fair and thoughtful policymaking. I urge you to support existing small businesses like mine by allowing us to continue operating
under the Oh gosh, I'm so sorry. by continuing to operate under sensible rules and to consider policy tools that regulate new market entrance without penalizing long-standing community members. Sincerely, Max and Abby Kak.
And the last comment is by Joy Meadows um out of Arlington, Virginia. Last September, I stayed at an Airbnb for 4 days with four other senior women to attend our 60th Richfield High School class reunion. We had a lovely time and would appreciate the opportunity to make
visits back home like this in the future. Please allow short stays in our beautiful Richford comm community. And that's the end of our comments. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak that's here in person?
That will conclude our open forum. Next, we'll move on to the approval of the minutes of the city council work session meeting from May 13, 2025 and the city council regular meeting from May 13, 2025. So moved.
Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve those minutes. Is there any discussion? All in favor of approving both sets of minutes, please say I. I. I. All opposed. And we have approved those sets of minutes. Next, we'll be moving on to
a proclamation celebrating Pride Month. And so, I'm going to ask um Human Richfield Human Rights Commission member Mara Gluca to join me up at the podium. Thank you. This is a proclamation of the city of Richfield. Whereas Pride Month
is a positive stance against discrimination and violence towards individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, interex, and asexual, LGBTQIA, and celebrates sexual and
gender identities. And whereas the city of Richfield city council and staff identified celebrating diversity and being equitable as core values, recognizing that our diverse culture is one of our greatest strengths and assets.
And whereas the month of June was chosen for Pride Month to commemorate the Stonewall riots, which occurred in June 1969, championed in part by two transgender women of color, Marcia Pri Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, and became a catalyst for the
LGBTQIA movement. And whereas the LGBTQIA people have made and continue to make great and lasting contributions to the city of Richfield and the greater community. And whereas the United States has elected its first ever transgender
member of Congress, Sarah McBride of Delaware. And whereas while the LGBTQIA civil rights movement has achieved great progress, many states are reversing that progress and rights have been lost. And whereas in the current
political climate, the LGBTQIA community faces threats from forces whose goal is to end is ending freedom for everyone. We affirm that an attack on one is an attack on all. And we stand proudly with this community, particularly our transgender neighbors
and young people. And whereas the Richfield Human Rights Commission supported this proclamation at its May 6th, 2025 meeting and recommended the city council do this Richfield City Council do the same. Now therefore, I, Mary Supple, mayor of Richfield, on
behalf of the Richfield City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of June 2025 as Pride Month in the city of Richfield and call on the people of Richfield to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies, and continue to honor the contributions
of LGBTQIA residents throughout the year. Proclaim this 27th day of May, 2025. Congratulations. Thank you, Mary. [Applause]
And would you like to say something? I would like to say some things. Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um, as pretty much everybody knows, this is a pretty rough time for LGBTQ rights and transgender rights in
particular. Um, so there are a couple of things that I'd like to read. One is from a major in the Marine Corps who was also a lawyer and she wrote this. She's
transgender and she wrote this on the day that the Supreme Court decided to let uh the purge of transgender people from the military stand. She wrote, "Today effectively marks the end of my Marine Corps career. It may
take a few weeks or maybe a few months at the outside, but today the domino fell that will set everything else fully in motion, leading inexorably to my departure from my active duty roles. I have devoted my entire life to
serving my beloved nation. I am capable. I am proven. Very few people can outshoot me, outwork me or out litigate me. From the streets of Fallujah to military courtroom and everywhere in
between. I am a decorated war fighter who believes in and defends democracy, freedom, and our constitution. But none of that mattered today when the Supreme Court of the United States, of which I am a member of the bar, decided
without rationale or explanation that President Trump's ban on transgender service members can go into effect, despite precisely zero compelling evidence, despite zero negative impact
on good order and discipline, despite thousands of us serving our nation bravely, capable capably and honorably both at home and abroad. Today was a huge loss for me and my fellow trans service members, but it
was a bigger loss for our nation, the rule of law, and our democracy. Today, the sun may be setting on my time in uniform, but tomorrow the battle for the soul of our nation continues from new fighting positions.
And I also would like to read a a post that was on Facebook from a group of parents of transgender youth. As parents of LGBTQ plus kids, Pride season hits differently this year.
Behind the joy, many of us are scared for our kids. Scared that they'll lose rights. Scared that they're being erased. This year, Pride isn't just a celebration. It's a protest, a plea, a
promise. Show up, not just for the parade, but for the purpose. Not just to wave a flag, but to raise your voice. Because being an ally isn't passive. It's powerful. And our kids need you more
than ever. I'd also like to recognize that we have an openly gay city council member in Sean Olyri. And Minnesota recently elected our first transgender representative in the
Minnesota House, Leah Fininky. and Richfield in general has been ahead of the curve when it comes to LGBTQ rights, when it came to um marriage equality and when it comes to treating transgender
students with compassion and respect. And lastly, one more thing that it also came from uh Facebook. Pride Month starts in three days. Pride isn't brought to you by T-Mobile
or Absolute Vodka. It was brought to you by drag queens and trans women throwing bricks, by lesbians and queer women taking care of gay men dying of AIDS in the face of an intentional government
neglect. Thanks for listening to me and uh love trans kids. Thank you. Thank you for your advocacy and also thank you to the entire human rights commission. Next, we'll move on to the approval of
the agenda. I move approval of the agenda. Is there a second? Second. All right. Is there any discussion? Does anything want to be pulled from the consent calendar? Yes, I would like to have
um item H pulled from the consent calendar. All right. So, at this point, we would be approving the agenda with item H being pulled from the consent calendar. Are there any other changes? All right, mayor. Procedurally, do we need
to do an amendment motion and second on that? Okay, sure. Yeah, we can do that. Is that a motion? Yes, I'm sorry. That's a motion. Okay, I will second your motion to pull that. All right. So, it's been moved and seconded to um amend
the agenda to pull item H. All in favor, please say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. So, we've amended the agenda. So now we need to vote on approving the agenda as amended. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. And we've
approved the agenda as amended. So next we'll go on to the consent calendar items A through G. And I'll turn it over to city manager Rodriguez. Thank you, Mayor. On tonight's cons I'm sorry. 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, consider approval of a
temporary on sale intoxicating liquor license for their annual wrestling event scheduled to take place July 5th, 2025 at Fred Babcock BFW, number 5555 located at 6715 Lakeshore Drive. Item B,
consider the approval of a temporary on sale intoxicating liquor license for the Fourth of July committee events scheduled at Veterans Memorial Park, July 3rd and 4th, 2025. Item C, consider approval of an agreement between the city of Richfield
and JLG, Architects for Professional Services in the design and engineering for the Richfield outdoor pool improvements. Item D, consider approval of a resolution authorizing execution of Minnesota Department of Transportation
agreement number 1059794 for the dispersement of state general funds for the 70th Street Safees routes to school project. Item E, consider approval of a bid, tabulation, and award of contract
to Corrective Asphalt Materials LLC for the 2025 Maltine pavement rejuvenation project in the amount of $690,250 and authorize the city manager to approve contract changes under
$175,000 without further city council consideration. Item F, consider the approval of a resolution authorizing a grant agreement and acceptance of grant funds in the amount of $69,644 on behalf of the Richfield
Bloomington wershed management organization from the board of water and soil resources for a green infrastructure rain garden grant program and a fisheries aquatic invasive species study.
Item G, consider approval of a resolution accepting the conveyance of real property located approximately east of Cedar Avenue South, west of Trunk Highway 77, south of 69th Street and north of Diagonal Boulevard from the Minnesota Department of
Transportation. And I submit these items for your consideration as part of tonight's consent calendar. I will move approval of the consent calendar. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent calendar items A
through G. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. I. All opposed. We've approved items A through G. So that brings us to the item that was pulled from the consent calendar, which is um item H. Did you want to go
ahead and read the executive summary, Council Member Burke? Item for council consideration. Consider a second reading and summary publication of an ordinance restricting short-term rentals. Executive summary. The city's current policy of regulating short-term
rentals, STRs, as rental housing allows operators to avoid many of the regulations placed on other similar businesses and has led to complaints related to nuisance behavior and property maintenance, as well as concerns about the availability of housing stock. After two council work sessions and a
notable public outreach effort, city council has decided that prohibiting rental terms of less than one week has decided that prohibiting rental terms of less than one week unless the operator resides on site is sufficient to address most concerns. After internal discussion
and a review of other cities requirements, staff have agreed that STR should be administered as a business license rather than a rental housing license. Consequently, staff has revised the previously presented ordinance to define the term short-term rental and to
specify that they must have a valid business license will include an inspection may not be for a term of less than one week unless the lency resides on site and is present during the term and must pay the lodging tax. Details of the business licensing
process will be developed by public safety staff and presented this fall. Staff continues to recommend an implementation date of January 1st, 2026. A midyear transition creates additional work and confusion. Staff, is there any
additional information? No, there's not. But I'm happy to answer questions. Are there any questions that anyone has? Go ahead. I don't Oh, no. No other questions? All right. It is. Would someone like to make
the motion? I will uh move that we approve a second reading of the ordinance restricting short-term rentals to no less than one week unless the lency resides on site and approve summary publication of that ordinance. Is there a second? Um actually I would
make a motion to um table this for additional um additional study. Uh I think some of the issues that have been brought up and um some feedback from the public that I've heard would merit some additional time to look at this and I would ask that this be tabled um
potentially to provide us with an additional work session also. So I would move for a table. Um, acting city attorney Ketchum, is it a postponement or a tableabling? Mayor, uh, I it's it's a motion to
table, and my only advice is just to, uh, table it to a date certain. So, um, as much time as you would need to hold that work session, but, uh, table the actual second reading of the ordinance to a date after that, and I'd defer to
staff about what makes sense in terms of the timing. Yes, thank you. Um, our work sessions are scheduled through August. We might even be into September. So, it would be adding an additional work session. Uh,
also I think if you if you do defer this then it may make most sense to wait until the business program is developed and we can present that. So you're recommending that we table till September? Our our staff are
recommending that you pass the ordinance as presented. However, if you if it is the desire of the council to delay this, then I would delay until we have the business program developed and we can present that.
All right. So, Council Member Burke, your motion is it would be to table it until staff provides the u the business uh licensing procedures and standards. Is there a second?
Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. I don't think it's debatable whether or not we can table. Is that correct, Mayor? Uh just so I understand. So, we don't have a specific time frame for the
business program. I I guess I'm I'm not familiar with that. So, I I just I might need a little more background on what that involves. Madame Mayor, members of the council, we cannot table to a date certain. We don't have one. Um we'd need to check work session schedules. We'd need to check in with business
licensing. Um so if you are not prepared to vote on this tonight, it would not be a tableabling. Rather, it would be um a denial or a rejection of the propos proposed ordinance and we would bring something back to you in the future. So we would we would start the process
over. So there's no opportunity for a suspension. I'm not able to give you a date certain. And so to table it, you need to have a date certain. And I don't have a date certain to provide.
So one option would be to vote. We could either vote it up or vote it down. If we vote it down, it can come back later is what you're saying. Correct. Mayor, if I could just make a request, I
would appreciate being able to discuss whether to delay this. So, if you wish to move this, I would ask that you consider making a motion to to reject this and then we discuss that. No, now know now knowing what would how long of a delay this would be, which was not my intention to delay it such a long time.
Um, but now knowing that information that it would be quite a lengthy delay, I'm I'm willing to withdraw my u withdraw my motion. Okay. So, you've withdrawn the motion to table, correct? I believe that council member Hayford
made the original motion, but there was not a second. I reintroduce or still stand by my first motion. So, if there is a second for approval and if there is a desired amendment, we can discuss that after the motion is seconded. But I would need a
second to proceed. I'll second it just so we can proceed. Okay. Okay. So, the motion is on the table. Is there discussion? I guess my uh sorry, Council Member Coleman Woods three. Um, I guess my
biggest concern would be that it would that uh down vote of of us completely eliminating um or restricting the ban or restricting Airbnb owners from having
anything less than a 7-day stay is that it would drive additional business out of our community. Um, if there's anything less than 7 days, I would request that we consider it for 3 days at a bare minimum just so
that we could keep businesses from oper from having to completely overhaul their own businesses to to accommodate for other small business owners that are here. Um, this is I'm conflicted because uh I
think there's an opportunity to keep uh small business owners here with those VRBOs or the Airbnbs and for all the the other small businesses that are supported by it. Um, I'm conflicted because I also think that no, I don't
want to create more party houses and dangerous situations for current residents that have been here for so long. So, um, how much more restriction can we put on it without driving people
away? So, do you wish to make an amendment or are you just discussing? That's just my mouth. Um, if I were to make an amendment, um, yes, I would like to move
to make it so that short-term rentals require at least a 3-day minimum stay and that they, um, are upfront with their lodging taxes and that they have a security plan in place so that they're so that our that neighbors around them
aren't uh, threatened or uh, meant to feel unsafe. All right. And there's an amendment before us. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Now, we're discussing just the amendment of whether we should go to
three days instead of seven. Comments, questions. Um, Council Member Burke, it's been difficult for me to go from 30 days to seven days. In fact, I was not in favor of lowering it to seven days and now hear that we're going to lower
it potentially lower it to three days is even more difficult. And the voices that you are not hearing in this room are the people who lack an econom economic motive for being here, which is a strong motive, and I appreciate that motive. But the people who are concerned about
their neighborhoods, they're concerned about having fewer uh uh less housing. Now, I understand people are saying 100 houses doesn't matter. It's not that not that important. However, that's a 100 families that could be here full-time,
not part-time, not 50%, 60%, 80% of the time. 100% of the time, families would be here all the time. They would certainly spend a lot of money here. They would certainly be part of the community. they would not be living somewhere else and taking the profit
from those houses and taking them to another city or another state or even another country. This is why I'm having a hard time with STRs. And I haven't even gotten to the concerns about noise or whatever the um
there was one person who wrote to me concerned that on his street alone there's at least two possibly even three STRs and how it's provided a problem for a sense of community because every weekend there's some new people showing up that they have no idea who these
people are. This is these are the voices that are not being heard. And so to go from 30 days to seven days, I voted against that. But, you know, now that I see what uh staff has worked on and has made some accommodations, I I think seven days is
a plenty good accommodation and compromise um between the voices who have strong economic motives and I understand property rights and I understand that the importance of those, but also the rights of those who want to see those homes going towards people who want to
be here all the time, who want to be in the schools, who want to be part of the community all the time. And so that's why I would strongly suggest that the city council stick with the seven days. Other comments, questions,
council member Hay for Larry. Well, to some extent, I'd be kind of reiterating what I said in the last meeting of of my desire to not be overly restrictive. But I guess there's there's two things I'm weighing here. One is finding the right term that feels appropriate for us and the other one is
just like how much time we're burning on this both our time in our meetings, our work session calendar or staff time to prepare this. So above all else, regardless of what number we land at in this discussion, I hope that we can just just pick something and just be done with
this. And and so I would ask uh Council Member Coleman was that we perhaps clarify that that if we're changing something, it should just be that language in the ordinance to change the word one week to 3 days rather than put additional factors on that staff would have to develop and enforce because I
think both, you know, this is a small number and that's part of the reason why I'm not that concerned about it, but it's such a small number. I also we have we have other things to worry about as a city. So I would hope we can be done with this uh tonight. In terms of the right number, um I I find the argument somewhat
compelling for three days. I on a personal level, I don't I think that's fine. On a council member level where I feel like I'm weighing real concerns that we heard from neighbors uh with the voices in this room. I don't I don't feel like 3 days
is enough to address those concerns. it. It was deliberate that it becomes a little bit less appealing to have a short a good amount less appealing to have a short-term rental in Richfield, but to not completely eliminate it. Um, if um, Council Members Coleman Woods uh, and Christensen feel strongly and this
amendment were to fail, I would be open to an amendment for 5 days because I think that still is close enough to seven days, but addresses some of the recent concerns we've heard. I do think three three days is too short and I will vote against this amendment. All right. Um, I agree that three days
is too short. It gets rid of the um whole incentive to not have the party houses and that was what originally brought this up. So, I don't think three days is long enough. So, I would like to stick with the original seven days. Other people would have comments or
questions. Counciloman Christensen. I think when you look at it twofold, you know, you think of three days is from a business perspective and seven days is from a community perspective. You know, um if you go if you change it
to a fiveday, that would be a compromise that might be workable to uh the owner's calendars, booking processes, that type of thing. Given the fact that the summertime is the most uh busiest
time of the year for short-term rentals historically, uh five days would be a good alternative to um come up with a happy medium. Yeah, I'd be willing to uh amend my amendment to the to the code city code
proposed um to meet halfway um and uh consider 5 days at a minimum. And is the secondary agreement switching it to 5 days? Yes, I would switch it to five days. Second item before us is
whether to switch this to five days. Is there any further comment? I will say I just I do have mixed feelings because I brought the seven-day amendment and that felt like a compromise and it feels like we're kind of negotiating against ourselves. But based on my rationale for the seven, I think the rationale still applies at
five that it does dissuade some owners, some owners will drop off and it does address the party house concern. So with five days, I would vote for this. All right, Council Member Burke. I would like to get on the record that
um and I'm not I'm not asking to amend this. Uh but things that are missing in here are, you know, limitations on how many units or how many STRs there would be in the city and some have proposed this and the some owners have proposed this and that's something that's missing
in this and I don't know if that can be adjusted later. Um but I'm really concerned. I mean Richfield as you all know is in a unique spot. I mean, we're in between the twin Minneapolis. We're close to the Mall of America and the airport. Bloomington does not allow STRs to my knowledge and
uh Edina does not. And so there's going to be some real incentive to for people who want to have STRs to come to Richfield. And we're already at someone's already given a number of 100 houses that have been lost to
STRs. And it will not surprise me that that number increases. And to me, every one of those is a is a is a family that could be living there full-time. And so, I just want to get that on those
concerns on the record. And uh I'm still thinking about I'm not sure how I'm going to vote. I'll have to decide pretty fast. Thank you. I had a question for staff. Um there was some commenters that talked
about like restricting it to not letting a new person um apply for it. It has to be people that already have a license or limiting it to a hundred. How would what would be the process for that? Is that part of the business licensing process
or is there a way to put a limit on it? Mayor Seville, members of the council, yes, we could look into that when we address the business license process. Well, um, however this turns out, I do think we need to look at that when we look at the business p um, license
because it's one thing to say we've got a hundred, but if we suddenly had two or 300 short-term rentals, that becomes an issue. And I how much is too much. And so, I do think we need to look at that as the business licency regardless of whatever we discuss now. I don't really
think we want more than a hundred short-term rentals because the density starts going up and up and up. All right, any other comments, questions? So, we're voting on the amendment. The amendment is to say no less than five
days. All in favor, please say I. I. I. I. All opposed. Opposed. Opposed. So, that amendment has passed three to two. So now we have the original motion as amended. So
everything's the same except has switched from seven days to 5 days. Is there any further discussion? All right. All in favor please say I. I. All opposed. Opposed. All right. And we had
one vote in oppos four four and one against. So, we have approved the second reading as amended and we have authorized the summary of publication and we will be looking at the business licensing requirements and perhaps putting a cap on it in the
future. Is there anything else that we need to add? Um, acting attorney Ketchum. Uh, Mayor, uh, I would just do a separate, uh, vote on the resolution. It technically requires a four-fifths vote. This would just be to uh publish
the ordinance by summary. Oh, okay. So, let's should we just go back and revote on both of them? Uh, mayor, no, just just the resolution should be voted on separately from the ordinance. Okay. So, this is mayor, but we did we did get
a four-fifth vote on that. It was only you didn't vote no on the on the motion as amended. And yeah, I voted yes. So, so it was four out of five. I believe the the amendment was you approved 3 to two. Yes. And then the
approval of the second reading you passed 4 to one, right? Attorney Ketchum is recommending that you have an additional vote on the summary publication resolution. Be redundant. I think we already did it, but it's not going to hurt anything to be redundant.
So, do you want to I I will move that we approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the short-term rental ordinance. Second. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of authorizing summary publication of said ordinance, please say I. I. I. All
opposed. All right. And so now we have unanimous publication. All right. Any other questions on that one? Next, we'll be moving on to item number five, which is the public hearing. So, I'll turn it over to Council Member
Coleman Woods. Excellent. Uh, okay. So, the item for council consideration is a public hearing and cons to consider the approval of new on sale wine and 3.2% 2% malt liquor licenses from MC Richfield
LLC DBA Dragon Pot located at 966 Street East. Uh, according to the executive summary, on April 21st, 2025, the city received the application materials for new on sale wine at 3.2% malt liquor
licenses for Mc Richfield LLC DBA Dragon Pot located at 966 Street East. All required information and documents have been received and all licensing fees have been paid. The public safety background investigation has been completed. There is nothing on in the
report that would cause the city the public safety director to recommend denial of the requested licenses. And is there any staff discussion? Is that where this goes? No. No, we don't have anything further. Okay. And the recommendation is that we
conduct and close the public hearing and by motion approve the issuance of new on sale wine and 3.2% malt liquor licenses for Mc Richfield LLC DBA Dragon Pot located at 966 Street East. All right. So, we're going to open the
public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? I move to close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. And we've closed the public hearing. So, on to the
main motion. The motion is to approve the licensing for MC Richfield LLC DBA Dragon Pot for 3.2% malt and on sale wine. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Is
there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. All opposed. And we have now approved the issuance of the license. Thank you. Next, we'll move on
to [Music] item six, which I'll turn over to council member Christensen. Thank you, mayor. This is to consider confirmation of the appointment of Janelle Brooks as fire chief fire services director for
the city of Richfield effective June 12, 2025. Staff conducted an external recruitment to fill the position of fire chief fire services director in anticipation of Mike Dobish's retirement on June 12th, 2025.
The recruitment process was approved by the Civil Service Commission on April 8th and we received nine applicants. Only two candidates met the minimum qualifications to proceed to the following steps that were scored by human resources. Preferred
qualifications review panel interview consisting of Adina's fire chief, Richfield's police chief, Richfield's human resources manager, and local 1215 president. leadership assessment by Mike uh excuse me by Martin Mallister and
interview with the city manager. The civil service approved the ranked list at their meeting this morning. Uh and Assistant Chief Janelle Brooks was first on the list. Miss Brooks impressed at every step of the recruiting process, demonstrating deep commitment to the
city and the fire department. She also demonstrated passion for the fire service and a vision for the department to s succeed in the future. Finally, she knows that success depends on investing in our staff. She has 20 years experience in the fire service and has
served in every position in her 14 years with the Richfield Fire Department, including the last four years as assistant chief staff have make any comments. I do. Thank you, council member. Um, I'm really excited to recommend Janelle
Brooks for this position. uh she really did impress in every step of the recruiting process. She was the clearly the strongest candidate in terms of her experience, her skill set, her leadership, and her her really deep
understanding of the fire department, the city, and she has some really exciting ideas about the challenges and opportunities ahead. So, thank you. Uh by motion I would make a make a motion then to confirm the appointment of Janelle Brooks as the fire chief fire
services director for the city of Richfield. Second that motion. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Go ahead, Council Member Burke. Just a quick comment. I've only had the chance to meet the assistant chief um once or
twice, but um it was very clear that she's quite dedicated to Richell Fire Department, and that's something I want to make sure everyone's aware of. You can see in the description of her serving every role uh her for 14 years clear demonstrated
um dedication to the Richville Fire Department. And I'm certainly glad that this is going to work out. Any other comments? I'm excited to welcome um Miss Brooks to the position. I think
she'll do a fabulous job. I also want to wish a best wishes to Chief Dobbish who is going into retirement and I think this is going to be a smooth transition and I'm looking forward to working with both of them. Any other comments or questions?
Council member Hayer Liry, I will just say with every interaction I've been impressed with her her work so far and I look forward to her work as chief. So congratulations to Janelle, future Chief Brooks. Yeah, congratulations. All right. All in favor, please say I.
I. All opposed. And we have approved the appointment unanimously. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the city manager report. Thank you, mayor. Uh the last meeting we had several speakers um in person and they also emailed comments and they were
on two topics, the suspension of the Lindale pump and munch tobacco license and then the first reading of the ordinance to restrict short-term rentals. Uh we then during the meeting had a lot of conversation about both of those. So there's no outstanding questions and I don't have anything
further to report. Thank you. Moving on, we'll go to claims and payroll. I move to approve claims and payroll. Second. It's been moved and seconded to approve
claims and payroll. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. I. All opposed. And we've approved the claims and payroll. Moving on to hats off to Hometown Hits. Council member Burke. Nothing this week. Thank you. All right.
Council member Hayer Liry. Uh, no items either. Council member Christensen. Um, just two things coming up this week. Uh, the part thanks to the uh, park and recck department. The, um,
uh, groundbreaking ceremony for the uh, new Woodlake Nature Center is tomorrow and also tomorrow afternoon. And then also on Thursday is the um, uh, at the dog park. there's a event for uh dog owners and dog lovers.
Thank you, Council Member Coleman Woods. Uh hats off to all the 2025 Richfield High School graduates. I think that by our next meeting, they'll have graduated. So, congratulations, team 2025. Thank you. And I'm going to do a hats
off to the Richfield Chamber of Commerce who had their Circle of Excellence Awards and to all the award winners. It was a great experience and very heartwarming to hear all the things that were happening in the community. So, thank you everyone with that. Mayor, actually, could I could I take another
bite at the apple? Okay, go ahead. Um, I did just want to share a couple comments on Pride Month. Um, you know, we've sort of moved away from doing the comments uh in a row after the resol resolutions and the recognitions and that's fine. But this is special to me and I did just want to say a couple of things and first
was thank you to the Human Rights Commission and I'll send them the video link later since they're no longer here. But um I had some feedback and some concerns about the resolution. They took that to heart and they thought about it really carefully and I think addressed both the the historical concern that I
had while also making it really relevant to this moment. And I thought that was really really helpful. and just to think sort of where we're at and how how um difficult this this moment is of the current administration and the current situation. And I was sort of thinking
about this in some ways it feels like um gay rights and queer rights is like two steps forward, one step backward. But when you say it like that, it sounds so callous because it's like it is two steps forward for the community in an abstract sense and then one step backward that's entirely on one part of
the community which is is trans people. Um, it's tough to see that step backward and it's tough to see the like absolute malice that comes with it. It is not just people having disagreements or different values or different religious
backgrounds. It is being mean. It is being schoolyard bully mean. Um, and it is it it inflames everything. It inflames um so much. So, I'm I'm grateful to the Richfield community because I have not felt that in Richfield.
Um, but I'm I feel bad for the the members of our community, the members of our country who are being very deliberately targeted, used as political pawns to make a point and to be mean and basically just to piss off the other team. It It's upsetting. The one, you
know, comfort I think I have in all of this is public opinion has changed. Legal realities have changed. In the time since I moved to Richfield, um gay marriage was not legal in most of the country, including in Minnesota. Um that was the fall that we rejected the amendment to put in our state
constitution a ban on gay marriage. And that was part of that turn to change that and to allow gay marriage throughout the country, eventually culminating in the Supreme Court decision of that case. But what's important to me about it is not just that that happened and that we have this
legal protection and and later got the protections uh related to employment, but that public opinion actually really changed. And even in this era of this nastiness, the public opinion on those issues has not really reversed. And so it's tough, it's
immoral to see the highest levels of leaders of our country acting like bullies and harassing our residents and other residents. But I think it's a dying gasp of this kind of discrimination. It was trying to use this last little bit of malice and bias that people have to split us apart.
Um, I'm ready for this to be over. I'm ready for us to move past this horrible moment, but I do want us to think that this is one really mean blip on an arc of history that is moving towards justice. So, thank you. Thank you.
So, if there's no other business before us, I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. I'll make that motion. Second. It's been moved and second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, please say I. I. I. All
opposed. We stand adjourned.