Based on the context provided for the Richfield City Council meeting on September 23, 2025, here is the transcribed text with speaker names assigned. *** **[00:00:00] Mayor Mary Supple:** Good evening everyone. Today is September 23rd, 2025. It is 7:00 p.m. and I'm calling to order this meeting of the Richfield City Council. If you're able, please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance of the United States of America and to the stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Um, our next item is approval of the agenda. I did want to note one of the council members wants to pull item 7F off the consent calendar. And so when we get to that point, we will be doing that. I would entertain a motion to approve the agenda. With that change. **[00:00:45] Council Member Walter Burk:** I'll make that motion. **[00:00:47] Mayor Mary Supple:** Is there a second? **[00:00:48] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Second. **[00:00:49] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as printed with the exception of pulling item 7F off the consent calendar. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:00:58] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:01:00] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we've approved the agenda. Next, we'll move on to approval of the minutes. It's for city council work session from September 9th, 2025 and the city council regular meeting from September 9th, 2025. **[00:01:15] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** I move approval of both sets of minutes. **[00:01:18] Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Second. **[00:01:20] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:01:25] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:01:27] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved the minutes. Um later this evening we will be going through the rules of decorum and the rules for council meetings, but for right now we're sticking with the same rules we've had all along. So I'm going to move on to open forum. At this time, members of the public are invited to address the city council during open forum. Speakers who have completed a comment card will be called to the podium to speak first. Speakers are asked to state their first and last name, city of residence, and the topic or item they wish to speak on. Each speaker will be given three minutes to provide their comments. Please note that time may not be transferred or shared with another individual. Open forum is an opportunity for the council to listen to public input. Council members will not respond to questions or comments during this time. However, all all remarks will be taken into consideration. The council may direct staff to follow up or take appropriate action as needed. For more information on how to participate or provide public comment, please visit the city's website at www.richfieldmn.gov/city_council_information. So, it is intuitive if you go to the um to the website and go to the city government page. Also, um to make things a little easier so I don't have to interrupt anybody mid-sentence, I made a sign when you have 30 seconds left that I'll hold up. So, it won't show on camera, but then the person that's speaking will be aware of it and also a um sign for time is up. So, we'll try and have the 30 minutes. So, did anyone send in any comments ahead of time? **[00:03:15] City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** We've received no comments. **[00:03:17] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. So, we have three cards for people that are here this evening. So, I'm going to call Kathleen Baliban to the podium. Thank you. **[00:03:25] Kathleen Baliban:** Oh, I don't have to sign in. I just say something though, right? **[00:03:28] Mayor Mary Supple:** If you filled out a card, you don't need to sign in. We're trying to streamline the process. So, I'll start the timer once you start talking. **[00:03:35] Kathleen Baliban:** Okay. Thank you. My name is Kathleen Baliban. I live in Richfield and I'm a homeowner. And two things for tonight. First off, I was going to ask about the consensus calendar F as well, but you guys already talked about that, so I'll leave that one alone because I'd be interested in hearing about that Woodlake project. The other thing I was going to talk about is I did buy myself the Sturgis Book of Parliamentary Procedure. I call it the "Holy Oil" because it tells you how to play the game. The first 10 pages though are the most important. It talks about procedures, how we how we run as a democracy, okay, minutes. It talks about all of these things in here. And as everybody else has a Bible with all their stickers, so it has my Holy Oil book. Now, one of the things that it talked about was minutes and commissions and commissioners and charters and our EDA, HRA, and all of those. I'm asking our city to finally put it together and get our commissioners all equal in their websites that their data is visible equal. They're standardized to some extent and that they're detailed. It says so right here in this book how to play the game. We need to talk about that we don't document our various commissioners uh minutes. They're not documented. It says, "Oh, so and so from such and such apartment gave an update." Well, they're not online. There's no video. There's no audio. I get no update. Okay? There's nothing. When you go and look for any appendences or any added data, there's nothing there. So, I'm asking for that data because it's in our book. It's also in our state laws. We just haven't followed them. So, I'm asking that we do that. I am an active citizen as you know. And uh so I'm starting to look these things up again. I got way laid from some serious family things, but I also noticed and I'm looking or you will notice that I'm looking for your budgets. Our ACFR, we don't have it out there yet. According to Minnesota statutes, if we're accrual-based accounting system, which I think we are a GAAP, our annual report is supposed to be to them by June 30th of each year. Now, our cash, if we do a cash basis, which we are not, it's due on March 31st. Now, I'm looking for that ACFR because I use that to compare 2024 to 25, 25 to 17. I look for these comparisons. So, I'm asking that it gets out there so that I can look at it as a citizen. And I appreciate the other thing I noticed for your decorum and procedures because I have to get out of here. I only have 10 seconds left. I appreciate the fact that you have a sergeant-at-arms. It's about time. You know, uh we could have used one when Edwina filled in for Maria a few years back. Thank you. **[00:06:15] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. Next we have Rod Sather. **[00:06:20] Rod Sather:** Good evening, Mayor, City Council, staff. I'm Rod Sather, city resident. I'd like to speak about short-term rentals. It seems like the more discussion there is on short-term rentals, the more complicated the situation becomes. In January, there was a city works session on short-term rentals. There was this a discussion of banning uh rentals of less than 30 days. Now, the city council is talking of banning rentals of less than five days. Two weeks uh four weeks ago when I spoke at open forum I talked about uh the banning of rentals of less than seven days. I should have said five days. I believe that even if the limit is five, four, three, two, or even one day minimum rental, there are two words to describe it: Unreasonable and unenforceable. Unreasonable as some people only get 10 days of annual leave each year. If you require a five-day minimum stay, the renters are going to be using one half of their annual leave in one fell swoop. Maybe the renters just want a three-day weekend to attend the football game and a baseball game. If there's just a Monday holiday, they can do that instead of using their annual leave. Unenforceable as to who is going to monitor the short-term rental property owners. Are they following the rules? How are you going to limit the number of short-term rental properties a person or business owns? Does a city of Richfield now limit the number of long-term rental properties a person or business owns? The limits on the number of properties owned should be the same for owners of all rental properties, not just short-term rental properties. The five-day uh minimum stay and owning of no more than two short-term rental properties—is that an idea that was picked out of thin air or is that an idea that other cities also have this restriction? I don't believe that Airbnbs and VRBOs are going to put in their uh advertisings or their postings that uh Richfield has a 5-day minimum stay requirement. I would appreciate it if the city council would do what's best for the city of uh Richfield and its residents. Keep it simple. No rentals of less than 30 days. Thank you. **[00:08:45] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. I also have a card here for Phil Lori. Is he here tonight? He was here earlier, but I don't see him in the room. Um, so Mr. Lori, pause for a minute. Is he outside and heading this way? We can wait a minute. Okay. So, we'll just um pause and he'll be able to come in. He's heading in the door as we speak. So, we'll just wait. Is there anyone else in the room that wishes to speak? All right, then. Try and get Mr. Lori's attention. All right. So, if you could say your first and last name and the city you live in and you'll have three minutes to speak. Thank you. **[00:09:30] Phil Lori:** Wes [Phil] Lori, Richfield Minnesota. I've been here twice before. I've been battling this battle for 12 years. We've always lost. For six years, we've been trying very desperately to work with the police of Richfield and have them stop the jet-assisted engines, the jet-assisted mufflers of the thug cars that storm up Lyndale 20 hours a day from 6:00 a.m. to 2 a.m. In this battle, we've found very many very helpful people. Number one, your fire chief. Number two, your Mayor Supple. Number three, three of your four councilmen, not including O'Grady. And by far the most important one is your city clerk, Michelle. On October 11th last year, our building nursing home superintendent Megan Wubman sent a plea letter to Chief Henthorne, desperately asking him to stop these thug cars, making it impossible to sleep anytime between 6:00 a.m. and 2 a.m. For 11 months now and 12 days, 11 months and 12 days, Chief Henthorne has stubbornly refused to give us the requested written signed reply to Megan Wubman's October 11th, 2024 letter. But for 11 months and 12 days, he's stubbornly refused to give any response whatsoever. We asked for a written signed response. We've gotten nothing. Our efforts over the last six years have involved coming here, talking to our congresswoman, our two United States senators. We haven't gotten anywhere. What we've tried is saying speed up. What we've tried is see if you can go 100 miles an hour. None of that's helped. We threw rose petals at them once, but now our communications with this city council and with this police force are terminated. We will never again ask for your help. We're doing it on our own. We tried throwing rose petals. That didn't work. Three Richfield police officers suggested to us that we should try throwing peanuts at them because the three police officers said peanuts will not get you arrested and they will not damage their car and who knows they might help to stop the problem. So starting this Friday from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. is going to be our first peanut day. We're going to throw peanuts at the thug cars driven by young drugged drunk teenagers, young people. For every time that your police force arrests a criminal, a speeder, a drugger, this city council should be thanked for the officers of the police force who are outstanding. But for every time a thug car storms north or every time a thug car storms north on Lyndale between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. you should be shamed of your police officer because they're not doing their job. Their job is to protect us and Chief Henthorne is not protecting us. **[00:12:15] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you for your comments. Your time is expired. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak during open forum? All right. Next, we um are going to move on to the consent calendar. There are no proclamations or presentations tonight. Um, we've had a request to pull item 7F from the consent calendar and so I'm going to turn it over to City Manager Rodriguez to present the consent calendar. Thank you. **[00:12:45] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** 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, approve disbursements and claims. Item B, appoint 2025 election judges for independent school district 280 school board election. Item C, consider approval of the 2025-2026 emergency preparedness agreement with the city of Bloomington. Item D, consider approval of a lease agreement between the city of Richfield and Sponsel Automotive, Inc., for the private use of a portion of city-owned parking lot located north of Diagonal Boulevard and East Cedar Avenue South. Item E, consider approval of a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for a Hennepin County play area grant in the amount of 300,000 for the purchase of new features at the Richfield outdoor pool and authorizing staff to enter into a grant agreement if awarded. Item F has been removed from the consent calendar and we will consider that after the consent calendar. Item G, consider the adoption of a resolution authorizing acceptance of Office of Traffic Safety funds for an extension of an original four-year grant to fully fund an officer dedicated to DWI enforcement in Richfield. Item H, consider approval of a resolution authorizing staff to submit an application for a Hennepin County Lifeguard Services Grant in the amount of 50,000 to assist with the hiring and retention of lifeguard staff at the Richfield Outdoor Pool and authorizing staff to enter into a grant agreement if awarded. Item I, consider authorizing the purchase of self-contained breathing apparatus units and related equipment for $315,235 with billing scheduled in budget year 2026 from McQueen Emergency Group and authorize the city manager to approve contract changes of 27,500 without further city council consideration. And I submit these items for your consideration as part of the consent calendar. **[00:14:50] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. Is there a motion on the consent calendar? **[00:14:53] Council Member Walter Burk:** I move the consent calendar as read. **[00:14:55] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I'd second that. **[00:14:57] Mayor Mary Supple:** Are there any um discussion? All right. All in favor, please say I. **[00:15:02] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:15:04] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved the consent calendar as read. Next, we'll move on to consideration of items that have been removed from the consent calendar. Um, Council Member Burk, since you asked that this be moved, can you please present the item? **[00:15:20] Council Member Walter Burk:** Thank you, Mayor. So, the item for consideration is to consider the approval of prime contract change order number 003 for the Wood Lake Nature Center building project in the amount of $662,545.37 to address delays resulting from federal grant compliance and other changes impacting the guaranteed maximum price. Consistent with city council direction, capital improvement plan, and the city's comprehensive plan, staff have been working toward the construction of a new Wood Lake Nature Center building over the past few years. This includes removal of the current building and the construction of a new building with more programming, community, and exhibit space. Mortenson Construction was awarded the contract for construction manager at risk. A guaranteed maximum price or GMP was set on February 11th, 2025. Construction was expected to commence June 6, 2025. Due to delays in the release of federal grant funding, construction did not commence until September 2nd, 2025. The delay in construction requires a change order increasing the project cost by $519,635.74 and moving the substantial completion date to October 21st, 2026. In preparing for construction and breaking ground, it was identified that changes impacting GMP were necessary. While finalizing permitting, Mortenson construction identified an additional sewer availability charge due in the amount of $15,665.14. Procuring builder risk insurance was identified to be cheaper through Mortenson Construction than on the open market, creating a change of $128,894.29. Asbestos was discovered in the piping under the building slab, requiring abatement for an additional cost of $2,516.01. A reduction in the number of trees being transplanted provided a savings of $4,257.81. In total, change order number three increased the GMP by $662,454.37 to $22,229,587.57. Does staff have any additional information on any of this? **[00:17:45] Recreation Services Director Karl Huemiller:** Um, uh, yes. Um, mayor, council members, um, we just wanted to provide a little bit more information around um, the context around the delays. Um, so the delays were related to completing our National Environmental Policy Act review. Um, we started the NEPA review in um, in April of 2024 and we initially ran into some delays with accessing the system. They um they switched to a new system right as we were starting to do that and then once we got into the to the new system our um SAM's number which is used for the grant system um was not working so it took us a little while to figure that out with them and then as we went through the process we finished our environmental impact portion of the review around March um which identified no um adverse environmental impacts to the site. But because the building is more than 50 years old, um it triggered an architectural and archaeological review. And the architectural review um came back saying that there needed to be additional review um which was unexpected. And each of those reviews requires a 30-day waiting period followed by a determination of mitigation effects which requires a 30-day waiting period which stacked together provided gave us three extra months of what the time was. Um, we were able to come up with a memorandum of agreement for what the mitigation was, which includes um an exhibit with pictures of the building and a description of the importance of the building in the nature center movement as well as um a report that is now with the um State Historical Society um that people can look up to learn about the history of the building. Um and with those delays um we had to pay for Mortenson's time on site during the delay as well as moving the project later. There are um we need to work through winter conditions which extend the project timeline adding more time there as well as um moving contractors around as well. We're happy to answer any other questions that you may have. **[00:20:00] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you, Director Huemiller. Are there other questions? I I did have one. Um, so you were talking about that to in order to keep it fairly close to being online, we'd have to work during the colder weather and I know there was some discussion of would it be better to pay overtime and hurry things up or would it be better to work into the possible snow season? Can you address that of which um option we came up with? **[00:20:25] Karl Huemiller:** Yeah, they looked at three options. One option was to just maintain the schedule as we previously had and shift everything. But with that shift, it would add a lot of cost. And that came back over a million dollars in costs. And then they also looked at pouring the concrete foundation in the spring instead of in the fall to avoid winter conditions. And that also came back at over a million dollars in excess cost. And so by um speeding things up in the fall to finish the uh concrete footings um the cost impact came back to the $519,000. Um and right now they're in the process of carrying that out to some extent and things are going surprisingly well thankfully. **[00:21:10] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. Other questions, comments? **[00:21:13] Council Member Walter Burk:** And the reason why I wanted to give staff the opportunity is to give a more full account of what happened in case there are members of the public who have questions about it. You very clearly explained what happened and want to thank you for that and for your perseverance through all of it. So, thank you. **[00:21:30] Mayor Mary Supple:** Great. Thank you. Any further comments or discussion? And I believe at this point a motion would be in order if we scroll down to the recommended action. **[00:21:40] Council Member Walter Burk:** So, the recommended action uh is to approve the prime contract change order number 003 for the Wood Lake Nature Center building project. And I make that motion. **[00:21:50] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. **[00:21:52] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? I would just like to echo um what council member Burk said about the thorough explanation. I appreciate getting all it out into the public record. Any other discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:22:08] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:22:10] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved item 7F. Next, we'll move on to item nine. And I'll turn it over to Council Member Hayford Oleary. **[00:22:18] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Thanks. Uh, this item is to consider the second reading and have a public hearing for an ordinance amendment to the Richfield City Code, appendix D, the fee schedule related to building planning and zoning fees and to hold the public hearing in second reading. Um, city staff annually review fees to determine if charges for permits and services are appropriate. Staff want to ensure the costs of issuance for fees and permits reflect the staff time and costs related to performing the services associated with those fees. Staff also work to ensure that the costs for city services are in line with our peer communities are not excessive and are in compliance with state statute. Fees related to building permits, zoning, and other land use permits are established by appendix D of the city's code. But unlike other fees included in the budget agenda item, charges for building planning and zoning are required to be set by ordinance and not by resolution. Uh does staff have anything to add prior to the public hearing? Okay. So, we will now have a public hearing. If there's any comment on this item, uh, any resident wishing to participate, uh, please proceed to the podium one at a time. Provide your name and address prior to the comment. We will hear your comment. If you would like staff to follow up, please include your name and phone number or email on the sign-in document at the podium. Uh, comments will be limited to three minutes, and as a reminder, we do not respond during a public hearing. Uh, but the questions raised may be addressed during the discussion. Um, the public hearing for the fee schedule is now open if anybody would like to proceed and comment on this item. **[00:24:00] Mayor Mary Supple:** [Pause] All right, I will move that we close the public hearing. **[00:24:05] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Second. **[00:24:07] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor, please say I. **[00:24:12] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:24:14] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. We have now closed the public hearing. **[00:24:18] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I move that we approve the attached transitory ordinance amendment to Richfield City Code appendix D, the fee schedule related to building planning and zoning fees. **[00:24:28] Council Member Walter Burk:** Second. **[00:24:30] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:24:35] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:24:37] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved the transitory ordinance amendment. **[00:24:41] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I move that we approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of that ordinance. **[00:24:46] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. **[00:24:48] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to authorize summary publication. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:24:55] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:24:57] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved summary publication. Next, we'll move on to proposed ordinances. And I'm going to turn it over to Council Member Christensen for item 10A. **[00:25:08] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Thank you, mayor. The item for consideration is to approve the second reading of an ordinance regulating the use and licensing of short-term rentals and related fees in appendix D and a resolution authorizing summary public publication of the ordinance. The city council approved a zoning ordinance restricting short-term rentals to a five-night minimum at the May 27th, 2025 city council meeting. It was highlighted at that meeting that licensing regulations would be brought forth later in the summer. During review of the August 26th, 2025 city council meeting packet and prior to the meeting, the mayor asked for clarification of subsection 119.05 subdivision 2 of the draft ordinance which reads, "License required. Property owners may receive a short-term rental license for one property in the city in addition to their homesteaded property or their primary place of business." Internal staff discussion revealed several different interpretations of the language and it became clear the language needed to be clarified. During the August 26th, 2025 city council meeting, council heard the first reading of the licensing ordinance and after much discussion approved the first reading, but asked that staff further discuss the implications of the proposed language in subsection 119.05, subdivision 2, and bring back more information and recommendations. Concerns raised at that meeting included how many licenses should be issued to residents and non-residents and is it legal to have different standards for residents and non-residents? Should current operators be restricted and thereby forced to reduce the number of properties they operate if the allowed license number is one or two and they own three properties. Staff capacity to research, monitor, and regulate licensed homesteaded properties owned by LLCs, individuals, and corporate owners. Since the August 26th meeting, staff have had internal conversations with the city attorney and are recommending an alternative approach for licensing short-term rentals they believe meets council objectives and allows staff to effectively manage the licensing process. With roughly 80 short-term rental operators currently in the city, staff recommended licensing no more than 100 short-term rental operators, regardless of where they live or how many properties they currently own. While licenses will be tracked for inspection and renewed annually, this recommendation eliminates the need to monitor, research, and track property ownership and corporate LLC status and the number of licenses per owner. This allows those currently operating to continue operating the number of properties they have and allows room for new STRs to be licensed. This ordinance, if approved, can always be revisited in the future for any adjustments needed based on concerns or issues that arise after licensure. 100 short-term rentals would be equal to less than 0.6% of the total city housing stock and less than 1% of single-family units. Council should discuss the recommended alternative of capping the maximum number of licenses and direct staff accordingly. The recommended action by motion is to approve the second reading of an ordinance regulating the use and licensing of short-term rentals and related fees in appendix D and to approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. Does the staff have any recommendations or comments on this? **[00:28:45] Support Services Manager Jennifer Anderson:** Mayor and council member. Uh I do actually. Um one thing that um could be considered to be added is um fairly minor and it is um fairly standard in other ordinances that the city has. Um, and that would be just to um include that fees paid for the short-term license initial application or renewal fee um would be non-refundable. **[00:29:10] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Thank you, Support Services Manager Anderson. Uh I believe we're going to take these as two separate votes. So, we will keep the um resolution authorizing the summary publication for a separate motion. And Council Member Christensen, correct me if I'm wrong, you've made the motion to approve the second reading of the ordinance. **[00:29:30] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Yes. **[00:29:32] Mayor Mary Supple:** Is there a second? **[00:29:33] Council Member Walter Burk:** Second. **[00:29:35] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. It's been moved and seconded. We're now open for discussion. **[00:29:38] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Um couple questions. So, I reading the ordinance, I understood this to be the limit on the number of properties, but as council member Christensen read the staff report, you use the term no more than 100 short-term rental operators, which implies that like one person could—it is a limit of 100 properties that are short-term rentals, right? **[00:30:00] Jennifer Anderson:** Correct. **[00:30:02] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Okay. Um, and then there was a question raised in the open forum earlier about if there's any such limits on long-term rentals. Do we have any license cap like this for long-term rentals? **[00:30:15] Jennifer Anderson:** No, we do not. **[00:30:18] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Okay. Um, thanks. And then I will just say in terms of my position, I'm I'm not thrilled that we're including this limit because I think the the the five-day was sufficiently unattractive to these owners to prevent this from really taking over our housing stock. But I think it's an acceptable compromise to make sure this doesn't explode. Um so I will be voting for this, although I I think we should be open to raising that limit if there is demand to do so. **[00:30:45] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. And I looked up subdivision one to answer your question. Actually, subdivision two says the city will issue no more than 100 short-term residential rental licenses. So, that would be per property. Um, there was the question raised by staff about whether the license fee should be non-refundable. **[00:31:05] Council Member Walter Burk:** I'm fine with it being non-refundable. It makes sense. **[00:31:08] Mayor Mary Supple:** Um, City Attorney Tietjen, do we need to do that as an amendment? **[00:31:12] City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Mayor, council. Yes. Uh if the council would like to add that, um I would do a separate motion to amend the motion. Uh yes. So an amendment would be required on that. **[00:31:25] Council Member Walter Burk:** And I would make that motion. **[00:31:27] Mayor Mary Supple:** Is there a second? **[00:31:28] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. **[00:31:30] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. It's been moved and seconded to amend the second reading of the ordinance to make the license fee non-refundable. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:31:40] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:31:42] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. Okay. So, now we have the ordinance as amended. Um, I had a question about how we determined the number of short-term um rentals we currently have. You said you think there's about 80. What was our method of determining that? **[00:32:00] Jennifer Anderson:** There was an opportunity for residents to self-identify um whether or not they were running a short-term rental. Um and so names were collected um and kept and recently shared um in order to inform them of this potential ordinance being approved. I suspect much like um we we may find more whether through um complaints or um police/fire referrals, things like that. Um but we know for sure we have 80. **[00:32:30] Mayor Mary Supple:** So that brings me to my next question. Did you choose the number 100 because you think there probably was some under-reporting? **[00:32:37] Jennifer Anderson:** Yes. **[00:32:39] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. Any other questions? Go ahead, Council Member Burk. **[00:32:42] Council Member Walter Burk:** I'm going to the basis for denial section subdivision 4. I want to thank staff and the city attorney for modifying that as I suggested. Um I'm still a little concerned about or still confused about the wording of it and I'll just read it out loud and perhaps that'll help. The applicant has—the city will not issue a license if the applicant has a felony conviction or a gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor conviction in the last five years. So the five years applies to all three of those or is it only supposed to apply to gross misdemeanor or misdemeanor? **[00:33:15] Mary Tietjen:** Uh, Mayor, Council Member Burk, we revised that so that the intention was that it would apply to all of those. **[00:33:23] Council Member Walter Burk:** Okay, because that that's how I read it. So, thank you. **[00:33:25] Mary Tietjen:** Yes. **[00:33:27] Council Member Walter Burk:** All right. Excellent. Thank you. And again, thank you for adding the uh operation of this orderly house. It seems to fit in well. **[00:33:35] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Any other questions? Council Member Hayford Oleary. **[00:33:40] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Um, that raised a new—so, just just to clarify what was said. So, a felony conviction more than five years old does not preclude you from having a license. Is that right? Okay. **[00:33:55] Jennifer Anderson:** Correct. **[00:33:57] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** And then, um, you said in the staff report that we could revisit this if we decide that we need to have a smaller number of licenses. **[00:34:05] Jennifer Anderson:** Yeah, this is um this has been um a process in developing the ordinance and there's been a lot of questions and concerns and I think that um coming back to you in 12 months with some data may be helpful in um reassessing and certainly um ordinances can always be um amended. **[00:34:25] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Okay. And so just to clarify, we took action earlier this year that said that it has to be a minimum stay of at least five nights. So all we are voting on tonight is the licensing standards. Is that correct? **[00:34:38] Jennifer Anderson:** Correct. **[00:34:40] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** All right. Any other questions? Um so we said at 100 licenses now and you said we could revisit it in a year. Is that unusual? for example, lower the number of licenses in the future. Is that is that difficult or is that still something we can we could do if we thought it was appropriate? **[00:35:00] Mary Tietjen:** That would be something that the council could consider in the future. Um I think we would be looking at data to inform you as to how many we actually do end up licensing, any um ordinance violations um that may have um arisen out of the properties. Um you know, data that we've we've asked people to submit for the renewal process, how many nights people are staying in properties, what are they taking in for income, so forth like that. **[00:35:30] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** So we could for example, if there's challenges with enforcing a 100 licenses, another rationale would be it's just such a challenge to to monitor that many that that would be a rationale also. Would that be a possibility also? **[00:35:45] Jennifer Anderson:** Sure. **[00:35:47] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Thanks. **[00:35:48] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right, Council Member Hayford Oleary. **[00:35:50] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Uh, another another follow-up for Council Member Burk's question. Just to clarify, are we obligated to keep licensing people that are in good standing? Like if you had 80 licenses and they're all following all the rules, we can't reduce it to 70 and kick 10 people off. We're just frozen for new licenses. **[00:36:10] Mary Tietjen:** Um, council member, you know, I think it it's not like zoning where you get grandfathered non-conforming use rights. I think with licensing, it's different legally. So, I think that you legally could reduce the number, but once somebody has a license, I think there are other just more practical complications with reducing the number, which is not necessarily a legal question. Uh so um you know that's that's something I think that if council wanted to do that we'd have to look at the rationale for it and and the circumstances surrounding you know that kind of a decision. **[00:36:45] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. Thank you. I was just curious mainly because the this issue came up with our tobacco licenses of picking a lower number. Um I don't know if that's a different category or just that was a decision we made to honor the existing licenses. But that does not require a response. We're not voting on the reduction. I was just curious. All right. Is there any further questions or is there any further discussion? All right. So, right now the amendment—we have the motion as amended. So, the motion on the floor is to approve the second reading of an ordinance regulating the use and licensing of short-term rentals and related fees in appendix D, including um an amendment to that to make it so that any fees that are paid are non-refundable. And we have a second. So, all in favor, please say I. **[00:37:35] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:37:37] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have passed that. Now we'd move on to the second item. **[00:37:42] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Yes. Is it to approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance? **[00:37:48] Council Member Walter Burk:** Second. **[00:37:50] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to approve a resolution authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:38:00] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:38:02] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have approved the summary publication. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to resolutions and item 11A goes to Council Member Burk. **[00:38:15] Council Member Walter Burk:** Thank you. So, the item for consideration is to adopt the attached resolutions establishing the 2026 preliminary budget and property tax levy, setting the date for the truth and taxation hearing, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of the 2025 department budgets, and approving city fees for 2026. On August 12th, 2025, a city council special meeting was held for the purpose of presenting and discussing the 2025 revised/2026 proposed budget and 2026 preliminary property tax levy. At this meeting, staff presented to the city council a preliminary gross tax levy of $31,693,830, including a levy for general fund operations of $25,420,333, a debt service levy of $3,946,030, an equipment and technology levy of $1,682,308, and an Economic Development Agency levy of $645,160. The proposed city levy increase presented at the August 12th, 2025 work session was 5.97%. During discussion, city council directed that the public works budget be increased by $55,000. The increase will fund asphalt trail maintenance, stop sign replacement, warning sign replacement, and forestry and tree planting. The budget increase will be funded by the property tax levy. With these stated changes, staff is now presenting to the city council a preliminary tax levy of $31,749,380. This includes a levy for general fund operations of $25,475,883, a debt service levy of $3,946,030, an equipment and technology levy of $1,682,308 and an economic development agency levy of $645,160. The proposed city levy is an increase of 6.16% over the 2025 levy. The HRA levy of $742,230, a 3% increase, has been approved by the HRA and is recommended to be ratified as part of this approval. The combined city and HRA levy increase is 6.08%. Once the preliminary levy is approved, it may be further reduced at a later city council meeting, but it legally cannot be increased over the preliminary approved amount. In addition, the city must certify its proposed property tax levy for payable year 2026 to the county auditor and set a date for its truth and taxation public meeting on or before September 30th, 2025. The truth and taxation public meeting must be held between November 25th and December 30th, 2025 and must occur at 6 PM or later. The city's truth and taxation public meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 25th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. At the August 12th, 2025 city council special meeting, staff also presented the proposed city fees for 2026. Staff is asking council to approve a resolution setting city fees for 2026. A separate transitory ordinance related to building permits, zoning, and other land use permits fees established by appendix D of the city's code are included in a separate report as they are set by ordinance, not resolution. Staff have anything to add to that lengthy list? **[00:41:45] Finance Director Mike Langston:** Yes, thank you, council member. Uh so each year as we prepare to bring this uh recommended preliminary levy to the council, I survey uh cities that are comparable to our city in population and tax base. And um I got responses from 11 of those cities. Uh they average a preliminary levy increase of 8.4%. Um and it ranged from a high of 14.92% to a low of 4.98%. And again, this compares to our recommended preliminary levy of 6.08% for Richfield's combined levy. Um, you know, this is not a perfect measure, but I do think that the levy increase is a is a good measure in in that it's measuring the cost, the annual cost increase of delivering the majority of the city services. Finally, I want to thank our budget cash and debt manager, uh, Steve McDaniel for his good work in leading the budget process. He started just as we were kicking off the budget and really had to hit the ground running. Um, I also want to thank all the directors and they have staff that work very hard on the budget for a long time. I mean, we start this in May. Um, and finally, I want to thank the council because it's your vision and values that guide us in this work and um has led us to this recommendation tonight. And we're available for questions. **[00:43:10] Mayor Mary Supple:** Is there a motion? **[00:43:12] Council Member Walter Burk:** Yes. Uh, I make the motion to adopt the attached resolutions establishing the 2026 preliminary budget and property tax levy, setting the date for the truth and taxation hearing, authorizing budget revisions, authorizing revision of the 2025 department budgets, and approving city fees for 2026. I do make that motion. **[00:43:35] Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Second. **[00:43:37] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, it's been moved and seconded. We're now open for discussion. Are there any questions or discussion? Go ahead, Council Member Burk. **[00:43:45] Council Member Walter Burk:** Uh, this is my first time going through this and I want to thank staff also, reiterate the um, thanks for the hard work and um, making it simple for someone like me to understand. So, thank you all for doing that. **[00:44:00] Mike Langston:** Thank you, sir. **[00:44:02] Mayor Mary Supple:** I also had a question about the audit because normally we have the audit numbers before we do the budgeting. So, if you could go through the timeline for the audit and all of that whole process. Thank you. **[00:44:15] Mike Langston:** Yes. Thank you, mayor. And um you know, due due to staff turnover, we are late again getting out the the audit. It's the annual comprehensive financial report or ACFR. And that we got an extension from the state uh to submit it on September by September 30th. I just met and did the exit interview with the auditors today and we'll be presenting it to the council on October 14th. **[00:44:45] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay. So, if it's going to be presented on October 14th, the way it works, we do the preliminary budget now and set that levy and we can always lower it or down the road we might have to make a revision. Can you explain that process if something comes up in the audit that would cause us to make a change? **[00:45:05] Mike Langston:** Yes. So the the staff were the ones that caught the you know made the most of the adjusting journal entries. So they are in the budget documents that you that you have already reviewed. There were very few adjusting journal entries that the auditors found after we were presenting the budget to you. So there so there should not be because of the audit a journal entry adjusting journal entries there should not be a need for further revisions to the budget. **[00:45:35] Mayor Mary Supple:** So the audit will come in on in the first October meeting. **[00:45:40] Mike Langston:** Yes, it's it is completed but they will present it to you. There's—well I should say it is completed. There's some statistical sections that they are working on but the numbers are completed. So, we will meet the deadline for the state to get it in. **[00:45:55] Mayor Mary Supple:** Yes, correct. That will be submitted by September 30th and then we'll be presenting it to the council on October 14th. Thanks for the clarification. **[00:46:05] Mike Langston:** All right. Thank you. **[00:46:07] Mayor Mary Supple:** And then um I did in addition, I want to thank the all of the staff for all their hard work on this and I was very pleased to see when we were setting the fees that there is a recreation department deposit that has to be put down. So if damage is done or a huge mess is left behind, people would lose that damage deposit. Can you say a little bit more about that because I think that was a good change that was in response to things that were happening? **[00:46:35] Mike Langston:** Yes, we had strengthened those permits to put in language that they, for example, could not park on the grass at Veterans Park. Um but uh folks still were not abiding by it. And so now there is a—they must pay a damage deposit upfront and if they don't abide by our our rules for the rental then we will keep the damage deposit. **[00:47:00] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Thank you. And I know it came up in other areas where people left a huge mess and the neighbors came in and cleaned it up, but they shouldn't have to be doing that. And so I was really glad that we have that in place. Any other comments or questions? So, we have the motion before us to adopt the attached resolutions establishing the 2026 preliminary budget and property tax levy, setting the date for the truth and taxation hearing and authorizing budget revisions and authorizing revision of the 2025 department budgets and approving the city fees for 2026. All in favor, please say I. **[00:47:40] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:47:42] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. and we have approved those. Next, we'll move on to item 11B and that is going to Council Member Coleman Woods. **[00:47:50] Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** Thank you, Mayor. Uh the item for consideration is to approve a resolution updating the city council rules of procedure and decorum. Per chapter 3 section 3.03 rules of procedure and decorum of the Richfield City Charter, Council has discretion in determining its own rules and order of business at regular meetings. The Richfield City Council rules of procedure and decorum have been updated and adopted by resolution by sitting city councils on four occasions since July 23rd of 2001 with the most recent update by resolution on February 14th 2017. At the August 12th, 2025 council meeting, council and staff reviewed language changes to the rules of procedure and decorum. Council directed staff to include the "Hats Off to Hometown Hits" item under the council discussion section of the agenda along with the liaison reports item allowing for brief updates from council members on their respective commission assignments. The changes requested by council on April 8th, 2025 regarding the agenda order of business section five agenda subdivision three are included in this final revision. Council provided staff direction on the specific sections and subdivisions summarized below. The revisions are included in the final revisions of the rules of procedure and decorum and are included in red in the attached document. Section four subdivision two: appealing the ruling of the presiding officer—amended the language to remove the provisions that limits participation in the appeal discussion and aligning with Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. Section five subdivision 4: varying order of business—the presiding officer may vary the order of business with council input. Section five, subdivision six: consent agenda—clarified current language regarding removal of an item for further council discussion from the consent calendar. Subdivision section five, subdivision 7: items not on the agenda—clarified current language regarding the addition of items to the agenda with a majority vote of the council and adding additional language to include the council may not amend the agenda to include any item that would require a public notice or hearing. Section 5, subdivision 9 A through D: public participation—clarified and updated current language regarding public participation during council meetings. Council increased public comment time to 30 minutes with a three minute limit per speaker with council consensus to extend time; it included language regarding public comment submitted via email. It included language to update address to city of residence. Section six subdivision three: excused from voting. Language updated to include language referencing council member participation in the discussion if they are abstaining from the vote or either by unanimous consent of the other members present or due to abstention as required by law. Section seven, subdivision 3: rules of decorum discussion—updated language, noting the mayor or any city council member may bring a motion to limit discussion on any question. Section seven, subdivision 9: rules of decorum conduct. City attorney Tietjen clarified the decorum document and focused on the council's conduct rather than the general public's conduct. Section 8: enforcement of decorum. City attorney Tietjen provided some context for certain enforcement and situations that may arise. And the motion before us is to approve a resolution updating the city council rules of procedure and decorum. Is there any staff discussion? **[00:51:15] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** We're available for questions. **[00:51:17] Mayor Mary Supple:** Is there a second? **[00:51:18] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I'll second it. **[00:51:20] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. And um it was pointed out to me that the discussion at the council meeting, we have a slight error in this in the um executive summary. It was on August 12th, 2025, which I think people figured out by context since it would have been happening in the future otherwise, but um thank you for pointing that out, Council Member Christensen. All right. Are there any questions or discussion? I would like to thank everybody that participated in the process. I know it took a long time to go through it and it was a very thorough discussion when we went through it the last time. So, thank you. Any further comments or discussion? Okay, we have the motion before us. All in favor, please say I. **[00:52:10] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:52:12] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. And we have passed the resolution. Next, we'll move on to other business. Item 12A, Council Member Hayford Oleary. **[00:52:20] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** This item is to approve resolution of participation in a private paid family and medical leave plan through MetLife and established premium sharing for the 2026-2027 plan year. Beginning in January 2026, the state of Minnesota will implement a new law, the paid family medical leave program. The program provides paid time off for workers experiencing a serious health condition, caring for a family member or newborn, participating in qualifying military-related activities, or addressing specific personal safety concerns. The program covers nearly all employers and employees across the state, including full-time, part-time, temporary, and most seasonal workers. Eligible former employees may also apply for benefits within 26 weeks of separation from employment. The city of Richfield in alignment with other municipalities has evaluated two options for compliance with the new state requirements. Either enrolling in the statewide Minnesota paid leave program or contracting with an approved private vendor. After careful consideration, staff recommends pursuing an agreement with MetLife, an approved external vendor. This option is more cost-effective, shifts administrative and compliance responsibilities to the vendor, and is expected to offer a higher level of service for both the city and its employees. After evaluating options, staff believes the vendor MetLife offers the best mix of services at less cost for several key reasons. First reason, MetLife currently administers paid leave in numerous other states and municipalities, they offer the city a guaranteed rate of 0.759% of employees' total wages compared to 0.88% under the state plan. Since this percentage is split 50/50 between the city and the employees, both benefit from cost savings. Second reason, staff provided MetLife committed to processing leave payments within 5 to 7 days after receiving leave application materials. All customer service inquiries related to Minnesota paid leave will be handled directly by MetLife. Third reason, the city was able to secure this lower rate by bundling additional related benefits. Richfield will transition to MetLife as its vendor for short-term disability processing as well as long-term disability coverage, reducing administrative costs and streamlining the transition for both employer and employee. Richfield intends to retain its self-insured short-term disability plan and maintain the bi-weekly hourly accrual benefit for that. As defined in the Minnesota paid leave program, lower income earners will receive a higher percentage of wage replacement while higher income earners will receive a lower percentage. As the processing vendor, MetLife will also provide human resources with guidance on how much short-term disability an employee can use from their bank to achieve up to 100% wage replacement. Staff are recommending the city accept the MetLife proposal and proceed to next steps, including passing the attached resolution so that MetLife can administer the paid leave program by January 1st, 2026. Does staff have anything to add prior to me making a motion? **[00:55:30] Assistant City Manager Sack Thongvanh:** Thank you. The resolution before you authorizes the city to apply for private plan approval for Minnesota paid leave with MetLife and the second portion of that is to establish the premium sharing in 26 and 27. Once approved, uh staff will work with NFP, our broker, and MetLife to submit an application to the state as approved. Thank you. **[00:55:50] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Okay. Um, I will move that we approve a resolution of participation in a private paid family medical leave plan through MetLife and establishing premium sharing for the 2026-2027 plan year. **[00:56:05] Council Member Walter Burk:** I second both of those. **[00:56:07] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Do we have any further questions for Assistant City Manager Thongvanh? Thank you for your work on this. I appreciate it. Any discussion? All in favor, please say I. **[00:56:22] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[00:56:24] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. We have passed the item. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the city manager report. City Manager Rodriguez. **[00:56:32] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, Mayor. Um before I summarize the comments from last week's speaker, I do want to clarify that I'll use the name that they provide on the card. Um so using only a first name if that's what they provide or both names if they provided that though. Um Candace spoke at our last meeting with concerns about the proposed ordinance change on storage containers and that the current ordinance was not equitably enforced. Um she is correct that our our staff made a mistake on it. They were new to their job and so um you know we we apologized at the time as soon as we discovered the error. And that's all I have for tonight's report. **[00:57:15] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. Any questions for the city manager? Next, we'll move on to council discussion. The "Hats Off to Hometown Hits." Um, Council Member Burk. **[00:57:25] Council Member Walter Burk:** For those of you who attended PennFest, I hope you had a good time because I certainly did. And I want to thank whoever everyone who works on PennFest and want to thank city staff for their participation also. **[00:57:40] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I was also just going to say PennFest was great and thank you to everyone who was involved. Another great year. **[00:57:50] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Yes. Uh just a reminder that the uh farmers market is still going on at down at Veterans Park for a few more weeks yet. So, everybody participate in that. **[00:58:05] Council Member Rori A. Coleman-Woods:** I want to thank everybody who has been uh reached out who's reached out to us in the last couple of weeks. My husband had a um a life-changing hospitalization and so I appreciate everybody on city staff and uh on the council here for backing me up and um covering for me on all of the things that I've missed in the last two weeks. And uh I'm deeply I'm deeply grateful for everyone. So, thank you. **[00:58:35] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. So, um, Council Member Christensen mentioned the farmers market, and when I was at the farmers market, several people came up and gave feedback on the city. And one thing that I noticed is there seems to be a number of people that are deeply grateful to our city forester for their help with diseased trees and the emerald ash borer situation. So, I wanted to do a hats off to city forester Joe Clark because I heard about it at PennFest. I heard it about it at the farmers market. So, a lot of people are very happy and so I want to extend that hats off. Um, next the city is working on getting public engagement about three different sidewalk proposals. And so they've been doing pop-up events and there's one other um opportunity to give feedback and that is at the open house that's going to be here at City Hall on the three sidewalk projects and it's October 1st from 4:30 to 6:30. And I want to thank all of the residents that came out to the pop-ups. We've been having some really good conversations. We've had four of them so far. And so this final open house will be on all three projects. So you can come and talk to people and give your feedback at that point. And finally, I wanted to say um the Richfield Foundation is in the middle of accepting grant proposals. So if you—I'm going to pull it up on my phone here so I don't have to try and memorize all of this. So, I'm going to read it from them. The 2025 annual grant applications are being accepted through October 31st. Grants typically range from $500 to $2,000. Every successful proposal must meet the basic criteria of benefiting people in the community and fit with the foundation's vision, which is that a Richfield that thrives through community connection, opportunities, and support. So you can um apply for grants by going to www.richfieldfoundationmn.org and that's through October 31st. So thank you all and we have completed our business. So I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. **[01:00:30] Council Member Walter Burk:** So moved. **[01:00:32] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. **[01:00:34] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor please say I. **[01:00:38] Council Members (Unison):** I. **[01:00:40] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed. We have adjourned the meeting. Thank you.