This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context provided and the dialogue within the meeting. Please note that several council members mentioned in the transcript (specifically Council Members **Whalen** and **Troutman**) were not in your initial list but are clearly identified by the Mayor and colleagues during the meeting. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** This was sitting there so I don't know—good evening ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call together this city council meeting of the Richfield City Council. It is 7:00 PM on January 9th, 2024. At this point, if you are able, please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. [00:00] **All:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Thank you. Next on our agenda, we have the Open Forum. Thank you for attending tonight's meeting, and I have a few reminders about Open Forum. If you are someone who's calling in, you can call into the Open Forum by dialing 1-415-655-0001. You would use webinar access code 2631 556 155 and password 1234. At this point, I don't see anybody who's called in, but they may do so while we go through. I've got a couple of comment cards here, so if you're here in person, we'd like you to sign in and state your name and address. I'll begin timing after that and you'll have three minutes. Many people wish to make their opinions heard, so please respect that time limit. We're all neighbors here and want to provide a safe environment to state our opinions about municipal policies, so please stick to issues. This is not a forum to discuss individuals or pass judgments. The council will be listening and taking notes, but we will not be responding to the comments. This Open Forum is designed to hear from you but not be a debate. If there are questions that come up, they'll be addressed at the next council meeting or staff will reach out and discuss the questions with the residents. So, thank you for that. I still don't see anybody calling in, so I have two comment cards here. We'll start off with Kathleen Balaban. [00:00] **Kathleen Balaban (Resident):** Good evening. My comments this evening are twofold. One, I would like us to look at the consent calendar. I know that we're going to go ahead and authorize the Sun Current as our newspaper, and as a citizen who gets that, I think that we're not utilizing it to the extent that we can. I don't see really any articles from Richfield; the event calendar on there is pretty much Bloomington. We don't really contribute much and I'd like us to do so, because I read it, everybody reads it, but as far as I'm concerned, it looks to be more Bloomington. I'll leave that—you already have comments from me on other issues on the consent calendar. What I really want to talk about is a legislation that you guys are going to go to breakfast with and discuss the 2024 priorities. What troubled me with this is you had a work session two weeks ago or thereabouts, you know, the last City Council meeting, and then one was cancelled. So on December 13th, you were presented at a workshop with your priorities, and I have a copy here and I have what was discussed and/or changed. My problem with this is I'm not represented here at all. Nobody asked me what my legislative priorities are for my city and my liability. I've come to you on multiple occasions about the air quality in my neighborhood and about businesses polluting the air such as laundromats utilizing unscented products, and your response to me was we couldn't do anything because it's legislature—you know, "legislature this, legislature that." What I see here is staff only. I don't see anything in here from citizens about what we would like to see changed. I also don't see anything added from you guys. It's a workshop; they showed you this is what we're going to do for 2024, and you guys said "scribe, scribe, scribe," but you didn't add anything. I didn't see one thing in here that you added, not one of you for your ward or your constituents. You just said, "Okay, whatever they say we're going to do next time." And then you put it out—City staff. I can't say you, because right now you're not being utilized to your level of expertise either. What I'm trying to say is it was on public social media—I got it on the Community page—that you're going to breakfast. It was also noted here in the minutes or in the agenda that you're going to have a breakfast meeting. So what it really states is it was publicly noted in a workshop—I mean online—that you're going to have this before you even elected to say this is what we're going to do. Again: communication, lack of or poor timing. Thank you. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Thank you. All right, next we have Sana Dasgupta. [00:00] **Sana Dasgupta (Resident):** Good evening and a Happy New Year to all of you too. I'm a little nervous, so hopefully I'll get through this in the time frame. My name is Sana Dasgupta and I live at 6951 1st Avenue South, Richfield. I'm also here as a member of the Richfield community-based organization called the Richfield for Equity in Public Safety (REPS). As you know, our focus has been on the results that we found when we analyzed the data on routine, low-level traffic stops in Richfield and found that the percentage of people of color, especially those who are Black, are stopped at a significantly higher rate than those who are White. We have been raising this issue for over two years and, to date, we are disappointed that these findings have not, to the best of our knowledge, been addressed. We have now pulled the data two times and the findings continue to remain the same: that is, that the percentage of Black people stopped for routine low-level traffic stops is far higher than the percentage of Black people living in Richfield. Conversations, as you also know, are now happening across the country on how these stops often escalate into horrific endings, and several cities have either enacted laws to stop or reduce them or are actively engaged in conversations on how to deal with this routine police action where the data is showing that it does little or nothing to reduce overall crime, increases people of color's distrust in the police, and according to statements made in our own meetings with the city and the police department, takes time away from other policing work that needs to get done. We have shared some of the research findings with all of you. While we have had several meetings with the city and the PD and we are thankful that the conversations are continuing, we do not believe that this data showing high levels of inequity is being taken seriously. We are told that the real numbers can only be tallied after a decision is taken internally on each of the stops conducted, but then those numbers are not shared with us. At this time, to be honest, it feels like we have run into a brick wall and absolutely no progress on this issue is being made. We are here to ask for three things. First, as concerned citizens, while we sincerely appreciate the work of the Richfield Police Department, we also believe that this is a ticking time bomb. We need the City Council to be proactive to either prove that yes, we have an issue here, or no, a deeper dive is showing that there is no issue and here are the steps taken to show that this data analysis done by REPS is out of context. Number two, should the data analysis show that there is indeed a problem, then we want the City Council to advocate for change at the county and at the state levels. We need to advocate for changes in the law that will make it illegal for routine low-level stops to be conducted. We do not need to wait until changes are made at the top levels of the state, as bottom-up leadership is often more effective in the implementation of systemic changes. And number three: if our analysis is correct, we request the City Council to work with the City and the Police Department to review their approach towards low-level traffic stops and take appropriate actions that address this inequity. The new system provides a lot of data and we request the Council to work with the PD to conduct its own analysis to determine if they are in sync with our findings or not. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to continuing working with you to resolve this possible inequity in our city. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Thank you. Is there anyone else that is present that wishes to speak? Did anyone call in, City Clerk Leslie? [00:00] **Leslie [Deputy City Clerk]:** No, there hasn't been. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Okay, thank you. And thank you to everyone who spoke tonight. [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Mayor, I have three that— [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** That's—thank you for the reminder. Yes, we had several people that sent in comments, so I'm going to turn it over to City Manager Rodriguez to read those. Thank you for the reminder. [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** So, the first email is from Lori Bars at 6508 Stevens Avenue: "Dear Council Members, the property at 101 66th Street has been a neighborhood eyesore for at least the last decade. We as a neighborhood did our best to convince the city—" excuse me, we can't hear you? I'm sorry, I'll start again. "Dear Council Members, the property at 101 66th Street has been a neighborhood eyesore for at least the last decade. We as a neighborhood did our best to convince the city that a five-story apartment building did not fit into our single-family neighborhood, but finally, we were forced to relent. And now yet again, we are being asked to give the owner another year before building on this site. If you must vote yes to allow an extension, I would ask that you make it contingent on the immediate removal of the dilapidated buildings on the premise. They may invite vagrants, fire, and vermin. They obviously are urban blight and should have been removed long ago. Thank you, Lori Bars." And then this other email that I got is from Alex Asmos at 641 Harriet Avenue: "Respected Council Members, I would like to urge the Council to reject the request for granting an additional one-year extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development at 101 66th Street East. Policy of one-year terms for project approvals ensures momentum in development projects and prevents stagnation of valuable urban space. Repeated extensions can set a precedent for laxity in project timelines, potentially deterring other developers who adhere to their schedules. It also sets a precedent of leniency offered by Council, which could be taken advantage of in the future. While acknowledging the challenges faced by the developer, including increased labor and material costs and high interest rates, frankly, these challenges are part of the development landscape for all developers, including those who have executed their plans. Extending the deadline to January 2025 may alleviate pressure on NB, but it also prolongs the community's wait for much-needed housing and commercial space. Furthermore, the unmet condition of paying the processing fee raises concerns about the developer's commitment in good faith as well as their financial readiness. The site's change from a 31-unit project in 2018 to the current 80-unit proposal reflects our evolving vision for the area; however, this evolution also demands timely execution. The repeated delays undermine strategic goals of revitalizing and capitalizing on the investment made along 66th Street. If the challenges faced with the project weren't a telling lesson, it seems as if we are now allowing for similar challenges to take place again. We must uphold the integrity of our policies and the expectations we set for development in our city. Denying this extension could send a strong message that while we are supportive of development, we are equally stringent about commitments and timelines." And then the third email that we received is from Janna Klitch at 6641 First Avenue South: "Good morning. I'd like to submit comments on the proposed extension of the North Bay development at 101 66th East Street East. Please, exactly how many extensions is the City of Richfield going to grant to the developer for the North Bay project? The neighborhood has been sitting through meeting after meeting on the site since back in 2018. Every time the project comes up for discussion, the City shows pretty much no consideration for what the surrounding neighbors have to say on the project and approves most everything that the developer wants. There was a fire last year in the smaller house on Stevens on the site caused by trespassers, resulting in the teardown of the building. Recently there has been heavy police activity at this site with multiple squads and officers responding. The windows on the building are now boarded up with signs posted because of what I hear is due to trespassers once again. The remaining buildings are slowly falling apart and are both an eyesore and a safety risk. What is the developer's plan to address these issues? I get that the economy has changed, but it has changed for all of us and not just the developer. Why am I not attending the City Council? Quite frankly, why should I? Neighbors share their thoughts on why this development is not a good fit and is too big for the site, and then boom, once again the City Council will grant an extension to the developer, which will most likely happen again next year when they still haven't started work. And once again with no communication to all the surrounding neighbors on project status from the council members that represent our area. Thank you." And that's all I have. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Thank you. And it doesn't look like anyone else has called in. All right, thank you, and thank you for everyone who participated in the Open Forum. Next, we're going to move on to approval of the minutes of the City Council Work Session of December 12th, 2023, and the City Council Regular Meeting of December 12th, 2023. [00:00] **Council Member:** I'll move approval of the minutes. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's been moved and seconded to approve the minutes. Are there any corrections or comments? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** Council Member Troutman, small correction. My name is misspelled on page two. Thank you. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** I had emailed this in as well, but just to clarify, I did not say that staff spent too much time on the speed limits, just I thanked staff for their work on the speed limits. So if we could cut that, thank you. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right, thank you. We have those two corrections. Is there anything else? All right, all in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? All right. Next we'll move on to approval of the agenda. One of the things that we can do with the consent agenda is that council members may request that an item be removed from the consent calendar and placed on the regular agenda for Council discussion and action. Before we approve the agenda, I would like to ask that we pull Item D off of the consent agenda and put it onto the regular agenda for discussion. So, if there's no objection, I would like to approve the agenda with that change. If someone would like to make the motion... [00:00] **Council Member:** I will move the agenda modified as described. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion? All right, thank you. All in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? All right, we've approved the agenda as modified. Next, we'll turn it over to City Manager Rodriguez for the consent agenda, which will include everything except Item D, which has now been laid over for after the consent agenda. Thank you. [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Thank you, Mayor. 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 to designate an acting City Manager for 2024. Item B: Consider the designation of Mayor Pro Tem for 2024. Item C: Consider representatives to serve as the 2024 liaison to various local, regional, and state organizations and City boards and commissions. Item E: Consider approval of a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blessed Trinity Catholic School located at St. Richard's Catholic Church for their 2024 Snowball Dance taking place February 3rd, 2024. Item F: Consider the approval of an agreement allowing Richfield Department of Public Safety to accept grant monies from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program). Item G: Consider the approval of the Response Sustainability Grant via the Minnesota Department of Health. Item H: Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2024. Item I: Consider resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2024. Item J: Consider approval of the purchase of 11 Ford SUV police interceptor vehicles for Public Safety for $498,591. I submit these items for your consideration as part of the consent calendar. [00:00] **Council Member:** I move to approve the consent calendar. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. To clarify, that's items A through C and items E through J? [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Yes, with Item D remaining. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. Is there any further discussion? All right, then we'll call the question. All in favor of approving the consent calendar please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? All right, we've approved the consent calendar. Next on our agenda would be consideration of any items that were removed from the consent calendar. I had asked that Item D be removed, and that is consideration of adoption of a resolution granting an extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development at 101 66th Street East. In January 2022, North Bay Companies, the applicant, received Council approval for a mixed-use building that included 80 residential units and approximately 2,685 square feet of commercial space within a five-story building to be constructed at 101 66th Street East. Approvals typically expire after one year unless extended. Due to the economic climate, in February of 2023, the approvals were extended for one year until January of 2024. Now the applicant is in need of a second extension. A combination of labor and material costs plus high interest rates continue to make the project difficult to finance. The developer is exploring several options, including bringing in a partner to help finance the project. The developer has continued to make progress and the full building permit has now been approved. If an extension is not granted, the applicant would be required to begin the land use approval process anew. Staff continues to support the proposed development as an investment that capitalizes on the major investment made along 66th Street and the production of needed housing in our community. So before I make a motion with an amendment, did staff want to add anything? [00:00] **Melissa Poehlman (Community Development Director):** No, I do not have anything to add, Mayor. I'm happy to answer questions, though. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right, thank you. So I would move to adopt a resolution granting a one-year extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development to 101 66th Street East, adding a condition requiring the removal of the vacant buildings on the site within 90 days. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's been moved and seconded. Questions or comments? [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** Yeah, two questions. One, I completely understand and share the community concern about vacant buildings with how long this has gone on. Just knowing that when developments face unexpected additional costs, they at times will come back to us asking for more assistance—does this add a significant enough cost to have them remove it before construction starts? Do we know if that will add significant cost and what the actual impact of that will have? I mean, I don't disagree with the intent of that motion, but don't want them coming back with an additional $100,000 they needed to hire a demolitions team. [00:00] **Melissa Poehlman (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Council Member Whalen. Good question. Will it add expenses that they could come back for in the future? The amount that has been pledged to this development at this point is the maximum amount that would be available under the TIF note—it's just shy of 2.7 million. For each period of time in which the development doesn't start, the amount that will actually be available likely goes down. There isn't the ability, unless we were to look to our spending plan dollars or something like that—we don't have additional funds through the TIF District to pledge to this. I did have a conversation with the developer; although bids for demolition are coming in very high (the reason that they apparently have not come down), he did believe that he could get those buildings down within 60 to 90 days. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** Okay, thank you. And then my other question, if I can just do that right away: I know oftentimes you're trying to summarize quite a lot of detail in a short staff report. Can you say more about the sentence "the developer has continued to make progress"? Just that it seems like a clear concern is that this sounds like the same conversation we had last year. Is it going to be any different in a year from now? If you could offer some insight from behind the scenes, I'd appreciate it. [00:00] **Melissa Poehlman (Community Development Director):** Sure. Behind the scenes, the developer has submitted their full building plans, so those have been reviewed. That has taken about six months' worth of time on staff's end going back and forth with the developer and their architect to make sure that plans are ready for a building permit. So the building permit is ready now. What we are waiting on is the developer to secure his construction financing. The exceptionally high interest rates, which we are all hoping are starting to tick down a little bit, are what is causing the delay here. Banks do not have the capital on hand and the interest rates are making that very challenging. Could this happen again? You know, I don't know what the market is going to do. What I can tell you is that for the TIF District, there's a statutory timeframe for expenditures that need to happen once the district has been created—that expires in March of 2025. If this project is not moving forward and the developer has not spent those funds to do things like tear down the building and construct the underground parking, there will not be TIF assistance to help the project. I cannot see a way that this project could move forward without that. I also want to mention—although you didn't specifically ask this question—in a lot of cases where we have a developer, the HRA owns the land and we're selling it as part of the development agreement. In this case, it's a privately held parcel. So there isn't actually any obligation for the developer, the property owner, to do anything other than register the buildings as vacant and keep them secure. So while we would all like to see this move forward as quickly as possible, and in other cases we have said we will not renew your contract under the HRA and we're going to look for another developer, that's really not an option here. They own the property; it's privately held. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** Thank you. That was my last question: what is the actual impact if we were to deny this? I have certainly heard from other communities—we just have less undeveloped land sitting around—but have heard where that has sat for many, many years and it can be a big concern. So I appreciate that context as well. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. Other comments, or otherwise I can speak to the motion that I made. I took all of that into consideration, but I do think it is a valid concern from the residents that those buildings are sitting there empty. This is a way that we have leverage to get those buildings brought down because it's a safety hazard; we've already had a fire and we don't want anyone else to get injured or hurt. I do think it's been sitting there for a long time and I do think those buildings do need to come down. I think that that would add some incentive to make it happen faster and I don't think it's going to hold up the development. I really do want to see this development move forward because I do think we need the housing and it's a good proposal. I also don't want to have the whole thing start over and then people say, "Oh, we have to have 150 units there," because we've already increased it from the low 40s up to 82 and I don't think we need to go any higher density. So I think those things are important. That was why I asked to have it pulled, because I do think it was a legitimate concern that the residents brought up about having the buildings removed. I agree with Council Member Whalen—I don't want to hold it up, and I want it to move forward, and I wish that the developer was here this evening but that's not the case. A couple of questions that came up: one of the contingencies on here is to have the application fee paid, and I believe you told me, Director Poehlman, that that has now been paid? [00:00] **Melissa Poehlman (Community Development Director):** That's correct, the application fee has been paid. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. And then before the meeting, one of the residents asked me—even though we're not talking about TIF here—if you could just summarize what happened with TIF in this agreement, what's been approved? [00:00] **Melissa Poehlman (Community Development Director):** Sure, Mayor and members of the Council. The HRA has an agreement with the developer that if the development is created and qualified expenditures are made through tax increment, we will reimburse the developer up to $2.685 million over the course of the life of the district, which—I cannot remember off the top of my head—the longest that could be is 26 years. That clock has already started ticking; I think it's probably about 23 years now. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. Further comments? [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** I support the motion as amended. I guess I do just want to say it pains me to make a project that's financially struggling more expensive, especially to Council Member Whalen's comments as we're subsidizing it. But it does seem like, as Director Poehlman said, one of their duties (of their limited duties they are required to do) is to keep those buildings secure, and even that is not quite happening. I do think given the context that we've been very flexible about increasing the density of the development—admittedly against the neighborhood concerns to allow it to be more financially viable—we have subsidized it, we have given a previous extension. I don't like that we're in this situation, but I do think it's reasonable to ask that they demolish the building. So I support this. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** I'll just add my comment. I don't think anyone who's heard me talk about developments will be surprised that I have some healthy skepticism of developers at times, but the fact that this particular developer has had two other successful developments in our community gives me more confidence. I appreciate staff sharing the steps they have continued to take. I don't feel like they're just dragging us along. So I also support the overall project and think that while there's a bunch of parts of this process that we may wish had gone differently in terms of the decision before us, the impact of a "yes" versus a "no" feels very clear, and the route to move forward is through approving this. I don't have strong feelings about the amendment made, but if there's support for that among the rest of the Council, then I'm okay with that. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. Any other comments or questions before we take the vote? The motion before us is to adopt a resolution granting a one-year extension of land use approvals for a planned unit development at 101 66th Street East, adding a condition requiring the removal of the vacant buildings on the site within 90 days. City Attorney Tietjen, is that all correct as far as parliamentary procedure? [00:00] **Mary Tietjen (City Attorney):** Sounds good. Okay, thank you. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? All right, we have passed that. Next we will move on to other business, and so I'm going to turn it over to Council Member Hayford Oleary for consideration of the adoption of the city's legislative priorities for 2024. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** Thank you. Annually, the City of Richfield's legislative priorities have been compiled in collaboration with various City departments and stakeholders. The priorities are a list of policy positions and measures the city supports at the state and regional level and bonding requests for City projects. This list of priorities is a summary document to help steer the city's legislative advocacy and outreach in the coming year. City staff has pulled together a proposed list of legislative priorities for the City Council to review based on prior discussions with the League of Minnesota Cities and Richfield's contracted lobbyist. It is recommended that the City's legislative platform include three to five top priorities, that all items are within the scope of the City's purview, and that the City Council adopt the legislative priorities formally. Those proposed top legislative priorities are: 1. To introduce and support a bonding request for $10 million to supplement the city's estimated local cost share for the upcoming Nicollet Avenue reconstruction project. 2. To introduce and support limits on local contributions, ownership, and major maintenance responsibility for County and State projects. 3. To support increased accountability for Emergency Medical Services. We'll present the City's legislative platform to elected representatives at the annual legislative breakfast scheduled for January 12th. The representatives will have time to ask staff follow-up questions about the City's platform and present their priorities for the 2024 legislative session. I believe staff have some additional comments. [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Yes, thank you, Council Member Hayford Oleary. We did make several changes to the legislative platform based on your feedback at that December 12th work session and I'll just briefly review some of them. We removed the language supporting clarification on the SRO (School Resource Officer) use of force legislation. We clarified the language regarding modernizing funding for supporting public communications, and we added support for additional funding for sustainability and recreation assets. At that meeting, there was also a request to do research on the Northstar Act to consider incorporating that into the platform for this year. Basically, the Northstar Act is to support the state of Minnesota becoming a sanctuary state similar to California or Illinois. I was able to meet with several supporters; Council Member Troutman organized a meeting—it was very helpful to meet with them and learn more about it. I've also had a discussion with our lobbyists and met with Metro Cities. However, there's a lot to the proposed bill. We haven't had time as staff to thoroughly vet the legislation, and we haven't had time to bring it to you all for discussion. I propose that we continue to do the research and that we bring it to you at a future work session for potential inclusion by amendment into the platform or to consider for next year's platform. I've been really candid with you all that staff have a lot on their agenda right now in the first quarter, so I would prefer that we wait. We'll have the work session this coming year, but we wait to include it in the next year's platform. But of course, if the majority of the Council wants to include it yet this year for this year's session, we would look at trying to schedule that sooner. I'm available for questions. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** All right. Is there a motion? I will move that we adopt the proposed legislative priorities for 2024. By adopting the legislative platform formally, the City Council shows these priorities are in the best interest of the community and provides increased visibility for the issues. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's been moved and seconded. Now it's open for discussion. Council Member Troutman? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, City Manager Rodriguez. As some community members pointed out today, the process of how we come to our legislative priorities is evolving and I do really appreciate you taking the time. There was some miscommunication about whether or not—I understand there's a preference to include this potentially next year, but I know there are a lot of community members for whom this impacts significantly. One in four of our households in Richfield don't speak English as their first language. We are a city that also does a lot of really good work in this space, and in a lot of ways I think we're a model for the state, but that state legislation actually provides more cover, more continuity, and more clarity for the city. So I know there are a lot of people that would have wanted to speak today and were hoping to have an opportunity to do that and thought there would be an opportunity at a work session this year. I understand there's still some question about whether or not it could be included this year or next year, but my request to staff—who I know is stretched thin—if we could make space to hear this and consider whether or not this could be a priority included in our priorities this year, that'd be my request. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** So if I'm understanding, you're hoping that we can have a work session in the future and consider putting it onto the agenda at some future date? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** Yes. Initially we had discussed proposing an amendment here to our legislative priorities, but recognizing how short our timeline is, a compromise is to have a work session where we could give staff time instead of putting staff or council members on the spot on the dais. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** I guess I'm supportive of the idea. As someone who in my day job also works on some proposed legislative ideas, my understanding is that it's already—mean, session hasn't started—but that it's already kind of late. I don't know our work session schedule, but I feel like if we wanted to do that and have a serious impact on session this year, that would need to be in the next month or so. I guess I would ask staff: City Manager, in terms of our work session schedule, but also I am guessing Chief Henthorne, who's in the audience here, would be the one that would be speaking to it—is that a realistic timeline for both the meeting but also the prep and research that needs to happen? [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Yes, thank you, Council Member. It would be hard. I mean, if the majority of the Council wants us to do it, we will work to get it done, but it would probably have to be an additional work session that's scheduled. We currently have our work sessions scheduled; I think the first open one is the second meeting in March. But I do want to clarify: my request to look at it for next year does come with a commitment to bring it to a work session this year. I wouldn't wait until next year to have the work session, but it just wouldn't have to be done quickly. [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** Thank you, Mayor and City Manager Rodriguez. My one request—recognizing it's a significant ask—is that this is something that was timely raised prior to the work session. I'm here advocating because I think it's important and it's a priority. So that's my ask, recognizing the big ask I am making. I would be fine if we scheduled a work session and discussed it, and if we could do so in March, would that timeline be amendable to you? [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** I think that would make it not functional for this year's session. It would be something that we'd have to, as a Council, decide to make space and time for probably in the next month. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** I personally support the idea of the bill. I am wondering—my concern particularly with the "drop everything and get this in" is I am not totally clear on the nexus of this to the city government and it being within our purview. I definitely appreciate why it's relevant and important to a lot of our residents, but I'm just wondering, Council Member Troutman, if you could just lay that out and clarify if your desire is that this become one of our three to five top priorities or simply added to the list under the Public Safety item? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** I'd be open to either. It's important to cities because it provides a level of clarity not just for government but also for community members. We still have a lot of folks for whom accessing municipal government is a high risk, and that creates Public Safety problems. To ensure that what we do here is communicated to our residents and is enforced at the county level (which it is not always enforced at the county level), it really is a priority for cities like Richfield that have a lot of mixed-status families. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** And just to be clear, an example of that might be like if there were a domestic abuse situation, but because there's an undocumented person in the household they don't call the police because of fear of immigration impacts? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** That's a perfect example. Richfield could have a policy, but the county could have a different policy. Expecting our residents—many of whom have a language barrier—to understand those subtleties is another reason why state-level clarity is really important. This is not an invitation to become scofflaws; this is policy that has withstood legal challenges and is bringing clarity to the law. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** My only response or timing consideration is it does seem worth adding in the future, assuming it gets vetted by staff under Public Safety. I would be reluctant to call that one of our top priorities just because it doesn't relate as directly as items like getting the money for Nicollet Avenue. But I am fine with an additional meeting if that's necessary. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's interesting that you bring up the county level, because I happened to have a meeting with a constituent today and they were talking about how people have respect for the Richfield Police Department but they're still hesitant to contact them because they're afraid of what's going to happen if the person gets turned over to the county. I realize I didn't know the answer to what happens at that level. So I do think we need to do more research and find out how that all interplays. I'm not an expert on this. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** I was just going to add—Richfield is geographically defined, but community members don't stay within the confines of geographical Richfield and may or may not know if they're interacting with law enforcement, the DMV, or whatever. There are plenty of people who grew up in this system that don't understand the nuances of jurisdiction. If it's literally just finding a time to discuss this before session starts, I would be open to just discussing it at a Council meeting in early February. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** I did have one other question. There's been the suggestion of having a work session and getting community input. Are you suggesting that we set aside part of that work session for people to give testimony, or is that something you would expect later? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** It would be ideal if we made an opportunity. I know both the Latino churches here in Richfield and both the ministers had expressed an interest in supporting this on behalf of their congregants who sometimes feel less comfortable embedded in the conversation. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. Is there any further feedback? We have two different things going on here: we have the actual motion for the proposed agenda that's there, and then we have this question about the work session. As a procedural question, is that something that we need to have a formal motion on? [00:00] **Mary Tietjen (City Attorney):** My suggestion would be to act on the motion on the table and then just have Council give direction to the City Manager about getting a meeting scheduled. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Okay. At this point let's go back to the main motion. As far as the main motion, I want to thank you for clarifying the information about communication and the public access channels. One of our main things is that we support local decision-making authority and oppose statutory changes that erode local authority, and it seems like the whole telecommunications thing has been the poster child for taking away local authority. I appreciate that you've clarified that. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** I just wanted to thank both staff for working on it and for the work that staff has done over the last few years to update this process. Five years ago, I believe the first legislative breakfast I went to, I got sent the list ahead of it and just showed up. This year, I met with staff as far back as June about zoning questions. This is the best attempt at the most urgent agreed-upon priorities, but I certainly encourage community input throughout the year if you feel there's an issue impacting Richfield where the decision-makers are at the state or county level. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the proposed legislative priorities for 2024. All in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? All right, we have adopted those legislative priorities. Now, as far as giving direction to the City Manager... [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Mayor, I feel like based on your discussion, I believe that there is consensus among the Council to bring this back as soon as we can before February, either at a work session or at a Council meeting, to have further discussion and consider amending it into the platform. That is what I thought I heard as consensus. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Is that okay with everyone here? No objections? [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** I agree. I would just add—given the capacity concerns—if that means something else needs to be delayed or rearranged, just keep us posted on that, please. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Thank you. All right, next we'll move on to the City Manager's report. [00:00] **Katie Rodriguez (City Manager):** Nothing further to report, thank you. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All right, and then we'll move on to Claims and Payroll. [00:00] **Council Member:** I will move Claims and Payroll. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's been moved and seconded to approve Claims and Payroll. Any discussion? All in favor please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? All right, we've approved Claims and Payroll. Next we'll move on to Hats Off to Hometown Hits. Council Member Troutman? [00:00] **Council Member Troutman:** Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank the Friends of Wood Lake and the Wood Lake nature staff for their New Year's Eve midnight walk. It continues to be a place for community, and they really do a great job over the holidays to create opportunities for people to enjoy the outdoors. [00:00] **Sean Hayford Oleary (Council Member):** No items tonight. [00:00] **Sharon Christensen (Council Member):** Yes, I'd like to echo Council Member Troutman's comments about Wood Lake Nature Center. I was one of those 1,300 people that participated in the New Year's Eve walk that evening. Staff went above and beyond making sure everybody was safe on the trails and entertaining not only adults but keeping the kids active too. Hats off to them. [00:00] **Council Member Whalen:** Just want to give a hats off from my son, who's 16 months old—had his first sledding experience at Roosevelt Park and approves. So, thank you to the recreation and public works staff. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** Thank you. I wanted to do a hats off to the staff because I know there's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes that people don't see. I want to show appreciation for that. I also want to thank all the community volunteers; I've seen people helping with homework help at the library and many other things. Particular thing is: a reminder that if you're interested in signing up for the Citizens Police Academy, you need to register by the end of the day tomorrow. I participated in that last year and it was an eye-opening experience. It runs February 8th through March 14th on Thursday evenings. Finally, I want to do a hats off to Rachel from the Sustainability committee. I had all kinds of questions about organized hauling and the 3% increase, and she was very patient in explaining it. More information is on the website under Recycling and Garbage. Anything else we want to add for hats off? All right, then if there's no further business, I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. [00:00] **Council Member:** So moved. [00:00] **Council Member:** Second. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of adjourning the meeting please say aye. [00:00] **Council Members:** Aye. [00:00] **Mary Supple (Mayor):** All opposed? And we stand adjourned.