This transcript has been formatted with the appropriate names of the Mayor, City Council members, and staff based on the context of the discussion and the roles provided. [00:00:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:00:30] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I move approval of the agenda. [00:00:32] **Council Member Sharon Christensen:** I'll second that. [00:00:34] **Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor of approving the agenda, please say I. [00:00:38] **Council Members:** I. [00:00:40] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:00:50] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I move approval of both sets of minutes. [00:00:52] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Second. [00:00:54] **Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Are there any corrections, changes, or discussion? All in favor, please say I. [00:00:58] **Council Members:** I. [00:01:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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 richfieldmn.gov city council. Um, madame city clerk, were there any sent in ahead of time? [00:01:25] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** We did not have any comments this meeting. Thank you, mayor. [00:01:30] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:01:55] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, Mayor. And before I read the consent calendar, um, council member Burk 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 multi-family 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 what I would describe as more clerical errors or clerical corrections. On page 12 section two, subsection 601.01. subdivision 12 is "dwelling unit": one or more rooms physically arranged so as to create—instead of "and," which is currently in the text—it should be "an independent housekeeping establishment." And then on page 13, section five, subsection 601.03, 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, there's an extra comma after material. It should just be "material shall be located." So we'll eliminate that comma. We'll make all those changes for 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. [00:03:30] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** 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 disbursements 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. [00:04:45] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Is there a motion? [00:04:47] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I move to approve the consent calendar. [00:04:50] **Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. [00:04:52] **Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Now that it's been moved and seconded, um, council member Burk, you had a question? [00:05:00] **Council Member Walter Burk:** No, just one quick comment that I'm especially excited about 7C, the development of a proposed small business center co-working space. Um, it's going to be a great addition to the city. And I was also going to mention that I think all three of these projects are really exciting. Um I know we've been talking with Hennepin County about trying to reduce our waste production. So getting the recycling up and running and facilitated at the multifamily units is really really important and also the co-working space was very exciting. So thank you. [00:05:30] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Any questions, comments? All right. All in favor of approving the four items on the consent calendar, please say I. [00:05:35] **Council Members:** I. [00:05:37] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved those. Next, we do not have any public hearings or proposed 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 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. [00:06:15] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:06:45] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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? [00:07:30] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Second. [00:07:32] **Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Now, are there any comments, questions? [00:07:36] **Council Member Walter Burk:** 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 things where we've made progress towards our strategic plans. So, I just want to say thank you very much and we appreciate your leadership. [00:07:50] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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. [00:08:05] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** And I'll just add that uh in the short time I've been here, same thing. Um, I'm a big fan and just quite amazed at what you do and your dedication to Richfield. I appreciate it. [00:08:15] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you, city manager Rodriguez. [00:08:18] **City Manager Katie 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 for and with people—and I include community in this—that are passionate about making Richfield a better place. So, thanks for another year. [00:08:45] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:08:55] **Council Members:** I. [00:08:57] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have passed that item. Thank you. So, next there is no other business. So, we'll move on to the city manager report. [00:09:05] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, mayor. I don't have a report tonight. There were no speakers at the open forum at our last meeting. [00:09:12] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:09:35] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, Mayor. And so what we'd like to do tonight is to go through each of the sections that the staff has highlighted to get your feedback on it. City Clerk Friedrich will will do that and then um I will contribute if you have questions, and also city attorney Tietjen 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 summarize the consensus at the end. Um, and we also have it up on the screens to go over it, again, section by section. And we've got the red lines, although they're blue lines. So I'll turn it over to City Clerk Friedrich. [00:10:15] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Thank you, city manager Rodriguez, and thank you, council and mayor, for giving us this opportunity to review our council rules of procedure and decorum. 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. [00:10:35] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** 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 redlined revisions made to the rules of procedure and decorum under section 5 agenda 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. [00:11:15] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Council should review and discuss suggested changes to the rules of procedure and decorum document. Each of the attachments included were the previous resolution that was adopted, the redline version which we have up on our screen for review, and then a clean version of staff recommendations. Council should consider the proposed updates by staff and direct staff on additional changes to include in the final resolution for council adoption at a future meeting. [00:11:45] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** The first item is 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." [00:12:15] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** So highlighted for council review—can you forward the language on the screen? Yes. A little bit... there it is. Okay. So, it's section 4, subdivision 2. Correct. I just read basically what was in there, the current language. Highlighted for council review: limiting council discussion on appealing the ruling of the presiding officer is not conveyed in the Sturgis 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 standard code of parliamentary procedure. [00:13:05] **Mayor Mary Supple:** So, are there thoughts on this change? Um, Council Member Hayford Oleary. [00:13:10] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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. [00:13:25] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I'm in agreement. I don't see the reason why you would want to limit participation and I would agree with that also. [00:13:35] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Any other comments? I would concur that my preference would be item two and not limit it. [00:13:40] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** 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? [00:13:50] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Since we're just going in order, can we do that one? It's some fairly simple things. [00:13:55] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** So, if you go up to the new agenda that is being proposed... [00:14:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:14:25] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** That is correct. It would be placed perhaps in other business or possibly consent agenda item in a future meeting. [00:14:32] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. And then another item that came up um I was talking with one of the other council members about liaison. And we're all assigned jobs that are liaison to other groups like say the human rights commission or the 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. Is that something where 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 Hayford Oleary. [00:15:10] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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 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 "hats off." [00:15:30] **Council Member Sharon Christensen:** I agree because 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. If we keep it brief, there's no reason to you know get through all of them if we need to. [00:15:45] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I like the idea. Also, I would prefer not to have a set scheduled time for a council member to report and leave it up to the discretion of the council member whether they think there's something relevant. We should trust them and put it at their discretion as to whether they want to share something from wherever they're assigned to. [00:16:05] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** I agree with Walter. The occasional important things that do come up 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. [00:16:15] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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 Oleary. [00:16:30] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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 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. [00:16:45] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** 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. [00:16:55] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I support us keeping it that way. Thank you. [00:17:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Thank you. Um, City Manager Rodriguez. [00:17:05] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, Mayor. Just some context and then a question to clarify. Context: we have had more council discussion. 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 discussion. For example, what we're doing exactly right now is to have the discussion here. So hopefully if you're okay with that, we'll continue to do that occasionally. We are not looking for votes on these issues. It's a discussion to give staff direction. So it would be listing the heading would be council discussion and then we'll have hats off to hometown hits. Do you want a separate letter that says liaison reports or do you want to just include that when you do your hats off to hometown hits? [00:18:00] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** My preference would be to have liaison reports. My personal preference would be that the Mayor just has a list of commissions and if we have no report we say no report. Recognizing that Council Burk and Coleman-Woods said something different, I would be okay with us just having a time, but I would like us to say "any updates from the commissions" separate from our hometown hits section. [00:18:25] **Council Member Walter Burk:** And I would be in support of that. [00:18:28] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Yeah, that's totally reasonable. [00:18:30] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. So, it looks like we have consensus to do it that way and just list it and say, "Does anyone have a liaison report?" at that point. All right. Thank you. And thank you for letting us add to the list of discussion items. [00:18:45] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** 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 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. [00:19:40] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Are there preferences for this? What if you're gone? Well, then the mayor pro tem would take over. But I also, speaking as the mayor, I would say number two works because it can either be from me or from the council. I think just share the power. I don't think it has to be anything solely in the mayor's. Council member Burk. [00:20:00] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I would agree with that. That would be the preference—my preference. [00:20:05] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** If I can just clarify on the current status because we are now 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? [00:20:25] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** So, we've done it both ways. We have had a vote to amend the agenda and then we've also had—Mayor Supple, you usually say "without objection" we're going to move, for example, presentations ahead of open forum in order to have someone be able to present and not have to wait through the open forum if we have a packed chambers. So that's an example. Or if you had someone that is supposed to make a presentation that is running late. Normally what I've heard from you, Mayor Supple, is "without objection I would like to do XYZ." So, we're just seeking clarity if you have a strong preference, but you would still be able to, during the adoption of the agenda, suggest an amendment. [00:21:20] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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? [00:21:30] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Correct. [00:21:32] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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 if people want the ability for the council to do it, I don't feel strongly. [00:21:45] **Council Member Walter Burk:** Yeah. Again, I think I just would like it to make it explicitly clear that either the mayor or majority of council can vary the agenda. It'd be nice to have it explicitly stated somewhere. [00:22:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** And I'd be fine with that because it doesn't really change anything, but it's clear. Because this is for a future council as well, so none of us might be here sometime in the future and it might be that it's important that that's spelled out. All right, moving on. [00:22:15] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay, moving on to section 5, 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. Any item removed will become one of the regular agenda items. All items not removed 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." 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. So there is no change. It's just more informational 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. [00:23:05] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Any objections to just leaving it the way it is? All right. Doesn't look like we have objections. So we'll move on. [00:23:12] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay, moving on to section five in subdivision seven... items not on the agenda. Current language: "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. The council may not take action on any item that requires public notice or hearing." New proposed language 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." [00:23:55] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** No objections. [00:23:57] **Mayor Mary Supple:** I think we can move forward then. [00:24:00] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay. Section 5, 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. Highlighted for council review: the time frame currently referenced for open forum is set from 7:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. Council should consider whether to maintain the 15-minute limit or allow for additional speakers if the open form extends beyond 15 minutes. [00:24:40] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. What are people's thoughts? [00:24:55] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** 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 as opposed to just trying to make it up on the fly. [00:25:10] **Council Member Walter Burk:** 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. Um, some some other way of starting the clock on that would be preferred. I think 15 minutes is fine. Half hour is fine also. I think a majority vote is sufficient for extending the time. [00:25:35] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** 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 concur with that. Yeah, because I know there have been a couple of issues where people have done open forum for like 45 minutes, but it's been very healthy. I would encourage the removal of the actual time in there from 7 to 7:15 and then say 30 minute limit. [00:26:05] **Council Member Sharon Christensen:** No, I think keeping it at 15 minutes was good—obviously it depends on the subject matter. If you have a whole room full of people who wish to speak, who do you say can speak and not speak in that 15 minutes? So it may just have to go 15 minutes to 30 minutes, but like other people have said, setting it really from 7 to 7:15 doesn't—it should just kind of fall within the normal agenda items. [00:26:35] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** So, are we actively trying to not use the term "personality complex"? The content stuff is that deliberately removed? "The speakers will not be permitted to make direct comments on personality complex etc." That's all stricken. Where's that? [00:26:55] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** It's down below in the actual red line versions, not in the summary. [00:27:00] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Mayor and council, I can maybe address some of that. I think that some of this language I had proposed removing because of limitations on what people can say which I think gets to be potentially problematic. I do think that we've addressed some of the disruptive behavior and how that's going to be held—dealt with later on in the document. So I think primarily some of the language about comments relating to personality conflicts etc. I recommended removing just because it seems to be verging on limiting speech of a certain type that gets us into interesting territory with free speech issues. [00:27:40] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Okay. And just to clarify, if somebody's just like screaming curse words and racial slurs, do we have to just leave that for three minutes or do we have the ability to prevent that speech or cut off that audience? [00:27:52] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Right. And I think later on there's some options about how to deal with that and when 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 how it's handled. [00:28:10] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** My other question, 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. [00:28:25] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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? [00:28:40] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** I think that is a very good question and I think in the first paragraph A where it says "during public hearings," if the council would like to see the three minute limit added there that might make it more clear. [00:28:55] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Yeah, I think that'd be helpful. [00:29:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. So are we have we then come to consensus on all of that? [00:29:05] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Could I clarify one thing? We talked about a 15 minute and a 30 minute limit and then also starting it at open forum whenever open forum begins during the meeting. Correct? [00:29:15] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Yes. So I think more people have said 30 than 15. Okay. Yes. With council option to by vote extend that if needed. [00:29:25] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay. Continuing with letter B, "all persons wishing to speak during the open forum may register with the city manager's office no later than 4:00 p.m. or by completing an open forum registration card and returning it to a staff member. 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. [00:30:10] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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? [00:30:20] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** That is correct, mayor. [00:30:22] **Philip Lori (Audience Member):** So, sir, we had open forum earlier, but we can talk to you after the meeting. [00:30:28] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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 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 it is for three minutes just so you're aware of that. [00:30:45] **Philip Lori:** Three minutes is the rule? [00:30:47] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. 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 you the card to fill out for the three minutes and let's finish the order that we're on right now. Thank you. [00:31:10] **Mayor Mary Supple:** So, we were at the point where we were talking about just saying the city they live in rather than the address. 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. [00:31:35] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay. 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. The open forum will be recorded and livestreamed via cable access and YouTube." Letter C: "During regular agenda items other than public meetings, if a council member raises an objection, a majority vote may approve accepting public comment on the agenda item." D. "Via email... Public comment received via email will be distributed to council if received before 2 p.m. on the day of the council meeting... All public comments received via email will become part of the public record." 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? [00:32:20] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Well, two things. So again, we have that same issue with repeating that three minute limit. Um, could that just go in a separate section than being tied to the specific method of which people are testifying? I guess I would just like the same terms for everything. 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 quasi-public hearing that there be an affirmative vote by the council as opposed to it being allowed by default. [00:33:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:33:15] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** That is correct. We could we could write something more explicit within that letter if you'd like us to. [00:33:20] **Mayor Mary Supple:** I think it's good to clarify that so that there's not the expectation that we'll sit here and read all the emails out loud. Any other comments on that? [00:33:30] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Mayor, can we get some more opinions on Council Member Hayford Oleary's suggestion that for item C that there should be a vote? Is there consensus on that? [00:33:45] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I would be okay with that. [00:33:48] **Council Member Sharon Christensen:** I would too. [00:33:50] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Yeah, I'm fine. [00:33:55] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Thank you. It sounds like we have consensus. [00:34:00] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Section six, voting subdivision three, excused from voting. 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. The council member must announce the member's intention to abstain prior to the vote... The clerk will record the abstension." Highlighted for council review: city code 205.13 subdivision 2A indicates a council member may only be excused by unanimous consent. [00:34:35] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Are people fine with that? Yeah, I don't see a problem there. [00:34:40] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Just curious, is there a restriction on participating in discussion if you intend to abstain? Because on principle, it seems sort of inappropriate to influence the discussion if you're prepared to not participate in the vote. [00:34:55] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Mayor and council, I think anybody abstaining should refrain from participating in the discussion as well. [00:35:05] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Is that something we should name or could we name? 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. [00:35:20] **Mayor Mary Supple:** I think just for clarity of that expectation, it would be helpful. [00:35:25] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I would agree with that language. I agree also. I think my only concern with that is you know someone who wants to abstain and not for a legal reason—they may have some valuable feedback that the council may want to consider. It's tough because I can see the concern that someone wants to kind of prolong the discussion and yet step back and abstain. But on the other hand, it seems kind of just a little too draconian to say you can't give any information. That's my only concern. [00:36:00] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Can you give any example of where we would lose something by an abstainer not being able to— [00:36:05] **Council Member Walter Burk:** Yeah, I mean I can imagine a council member abstaining not under law but for some other reason—personal—that perhaps they don't want to state. On the other hand, they do want their opinion known. They tell the council, "Listen, this is my experience on this issue... it's affecting my judgment, but still this is a point of view I want you all to know about." I can't give a specific example, but that's what I'm wondering about. [00:36:35] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** No, I just wanted to clarify. In the where there is 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 discomfort or appearance of a conflict, it is a discretionary thing. I would say the idea behind the unanimous vote is that voting should obviously be taken very seriously. It's one of your highest duties. So it should be used obviously very sparingly. And so I think that's the rationale behind the unanimous vote. That is in city code. [00:37:15] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Well, I guess I would find it helpful just in terms of this being a useful reference point for us to specifically name that if it is a 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. [00:37:35] **Council Member Walter Burk:** And for what it's worth, I I would second that—if there's a clear required-by-law to abstain, it would make it clear that they are prohibited from discussion. [00:37:45] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. So moving on to section seven. [00:37:50] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** 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 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 with the above proposed language. [00:38:25] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Do people have opinions on which option they would prefer? I would be fine with the proposed language. [00:38:35] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I also would agree with that. [00:38:40] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. So, if there are no objections, I guess we have consensus on that. [00:38:45] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay. Moving on to section seven, subdivision 9. Rules of decorum: conduct. Current language: "Any member of the council, staff, or person indulging in personal attacks... profane remarks... shall be called to order by the presiding officer. If such conduct continues may at the discretion of the presiding officer be ordered barred from further audience." New proposed language: "If the conduct at any meeting becomes violent, threatening or abusive... the presiding officer will attempt to call the meeting to order. If the conduct continues, the presiding officer may recess the meeting to consult with law enforcement and the city attorney." [00:39:35] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** My only concern is like when we do the public hearings and open forum, the script that the mayor reads is specific about people not clapping. Is it okay to have something saying specifically discouraging audience reaction? 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 speakers. [00:40:00] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Mayor and council, I think I don't see a problem with having something in the summary from the mayor about about that. I was trying to take some of the rules about how the audience should be behaving and more focused on the council's options on how to respond. [00:40:20] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. It's not that we're going to like have somebody arrested for clapping, but I do think we need to have some of the rules in here. Any other comments? [00:40:45] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** One very minor thing back on subdivision six. Could we just replace the "his/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. [00:41:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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? [00:41:10] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay. Moving on. Section 8: "enforcement of decorum." Suggested staff changes under section 8 subdivision 2 include references to define actions of the sergeant-at-arms. Section 8, subdivision five, includes references to the majority vote of those present and notes the council may vote to recess or adjourn. The city attorney's proposed language is the recommended draft. [00:41:40] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. So, I had a question in the recommended draft. If you look at subdivision two, it says that "upon instruction of the presiding officer... it is the duty of the sergeant-at-arms... to place any person who violates the order... under arrest or restrained and cause the individual to be prosecuted or civilly restrained as appropriate." So, can you, City Attorney Tietjen, teach us what "restrained" or "civilly restrained" means? [00:42:15] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Sure. Thank you, Mayor and Council. There has been some case law around disorderly conduct at meetings and really limiting a city's ability to expel someone. This is getting more at the direction for someone to leave a meeting and if they don't comply then they can be considered to be trespassing. With respect to the "civilly restrained" language, that's simply providing an option for the city in very extreme situations to obtain a restraining order against an individual if the circumstances rose to that level. It's a very high standard legally. [00:43:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:43:10] **City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Correct. A pattern of that behavior that has not ceased. [00:43:15] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I think with the recent environment that we live in, I think we should have some additional precursors around what kind of results or consequences you may have about misusing our public time. [00:43:30] **Mayor Mary Supple:** And I would agree it's better to be talking about it now when there's not an emotionally charged situation. Any other comments, questions? All right. Thank you. Then we'll move on. [00:43:45] **City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Okay. Those are all the highlights that we have for council. Is there any additional items? [00:43:55] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Did you get the information you needed? [00:44:00] **City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Yes. Thank you. Yes. [00:44:05] **Mayor Mary Supple:** So, we'll finish out 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. So, right now, we're moving on to the Hats Off to Hometown Hits. Council Member Burk, did you have anything to add? [00:44:20] **Council Member Walter Burk:** Um just wanted to thank the crews that are working on Donaldson Park and 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. [00:44:35] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I will just say thanks for National Night Out for all the people who organized block parties. It was very fun. Got to six block parties in my ward. 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. [00:44:55] **Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Uh, I would agree. I actually am a block captain so I didn't get to any others besides my own. And I was able to—our more senior neighbors were able to gather. We're kind of the senior crowd of the block. The oldest neighbor we have is Mary Patassic, and she's 99. So, we are proud to have longevity on our block. [00:45:15] **Council Member Sharon 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 the numbers have risen. So yeah, so it was a good night. [00:45:35] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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 then I also have a rather sad 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 tirelessly to make the world a better place. [00:46:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Before moving to Richfield, she spent many years working for USAID in Afghanistan. After moving to Richfield, Suana served on her city's sustainability commission and was active in environmental groups like the Friends of Wood Lake. She also was an advocate in discussions between Richfield for equitable public safety and the city. 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. [00:46:45] **Council Member Walter Burk:** And I know that one thing Suana would definitely attend is the meeting coming up that's being arranged by Hennepin County about the renovation to Penn Avenue. Next Wednesday, I think 4:30 to 7 at St. Richard's Church. So hopefully people who are listening will attend and give their feedback on what's to become of Penn Avenue. [00:47:10] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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? [00:47:25] **Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. [00:47:27] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All favor of allowing this to happen, please say I. [00:47:30] **Council Members:** I. [00:47:32] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. I'm going to be calling up Mr. Philip Lori and he would like to speak about transportation. [00:47:50] **Philip Lori:** This 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 and Lindale sent this letter to Police Chief Henthorne. "I am writing to you in support of concerns brought forth by residents... I have observed the reckless driving... 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 is probable." [00:48:30] **Philip Lori:** About five months after, we've been patiently awaiting Police Chief Henthorne'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 and told me that those two positions have been added. So why hasn't he done anything? [00:49:00] **Philip Lori:** These drunken thugs head east on I-494. They take the Lindale exit. They turn left. They roar north on Lindale. They continue up Lindale. They turn around. They come back. 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 Henthorne should answer the letter. About 5 months ago, Commissioner Kettles and Councilman O'Hara visited our senior center and we gave him a 45-minute presentation. Both the councilman and the commissioner broke their promise. They have never replied. [00:49:45] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Sir, you're reaching the end of your three minutes. So, if you could finish up. Thank you. [00:49:50] **Philip Lori:** 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. [00:50:00] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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. [00:50:08] **Philip Lori:** There's been a lot of talk here about decorum and safety and order. Richfield City statute 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. [00:50:25] **Mayor Mary Supple:** 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 I'll talk to you afterwards. [00:50:40] **Philip Lori:** Can I finish this two weeks from now? [00:50:42] **Mayor Mary Supple:** You can come back every week and talk to us. [00:50:45] **Philip Lori:** I will. Thank you. [00:50:50] **Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Um, with that we have finished everything that is on our agenda. I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. [00:50:58] **Council Member Walter Burk:** I move adjournment. [00:51:00] **Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Second. [00:51:02] **Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor, please say I. [00:51:05] **Council Members:** I. [00:51:07] **Mayor Mary Supple:** Then we stand adjourned. Thank you and thank you everyone.