This transcript has been formatted with speaker names based on the context provided in your list of officials and staff. Since the original text did not include time markers, I have used a standard `[Timestamp]` placeholder as requested. *** **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, well, there's always something new. These work from when I bought them to get kids in school. All right, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's 7:00 PM and I'm going to call to order this January 14th Richfield City Council meeting. I did have one request from somebody that watched our swearing-in, and they asked us all to speak up and to be close to the microphone. So I'm just going to say that to everyone because they were very excited, but they couldn't hear all of us. So just a reminder to everyone, and so I'll try and use my teacher voice, and if other people can as well, that would be great. If you're able to, please join us, stand, and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. *(Pledge of Allegiance)* **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. We have now reached the portion of our meeting where there is an open forum. Participants can share their comments in person, by voicemail, or email, and may also request to participate virtually. For more information on submitting comments, refer to the Council agenda and minutes page on Richfieldmn.gov/citycouncil. Clerk Friedrich, did we have any email or voicemail submissions? **[Timestamp] City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** I did not receive any emails or voicemail submissions. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Has anybody filled out a form for an in-person comment? **[Timestamp] City Clerk Michelle Friedrich:** Not that I've received. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak at the open forum? All right, since no one is coming forward, we'll move on to approval of the minutes of the City Council work session meeting and the City Council regular meeting from December 10th, 2024. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I move approval of both sets of minutes. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? All right, all in favor of approving those two sets of minutes, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? And we have approved the minutes. Next, we'll move on to approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** So move. **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to approve the agenda. Is there any discussion? I know there was a request to hold Item K out of the consent calendar and to move that off of the consent calendar to talk about that and vote separately. So with that item being pulled, are there any other changes to the agenda? All in favor of approving the agenda with Item K being moved off of the consent calendar and onto the regular agenda, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? And we've taken care of that. So next we'll move on to the consent calendar. City Manager Rodriguez? **[Timestamp] 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:** Consider annual designation of Mayor Pro Tempore, Council representatives, and acting City Manager. * **Item B:** Consider the approval of the first reading of an ordinance updating requirements for maintenance of fowl and birds and schedule a public hearing and second reading for January 28th, 2025. * **Item C:** Consider a resolution designating an official newspaper for 2025. * **Item D:** Consider the approval of cannabis and substance use prevention funding from the Minnesota Department of Health. * **Item E:** Consider approval of a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Blessed Trinity Catholic School located at St. Richard's Catholic Church, 7540 Penn Avenue South, for their 2025 Snowball Dance taking place February 1st, 2025. * **Item F:** Consider a grant compliance agreement with Penn Station Apartments LLP regarding a livable communities demonstration account pre-development grant for 6501 to 6525 Penn Avenue South. * **Item G:** Consider adoption of a resolution of support for a grant application to MnDOT Safe Routes to School infrastructure grant program for a sidewalk project on streets adjacent to Sheridan Hills Elementary School. * **Item H:** Consider adoption of a resolution of support for Richfield's application for federal funding for reconstruction project on 77th Street via the United States Department of Transportation Rebuilding America Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) grant program. * **Item I:** Consider adoption of a resolution authorizing the City of Richfield to accept grant funds in the amount of $10,000 and enter into a source water protection grant agreement with the Minnesota Department of Health to seal a non-municipal community water supply well and authorizing the city to enter into a cooperative agreement with Woodlawn Terrace Cooperative to assist with the sealing of their out-of-service community water supply well. * **Item J:** Consider approval of the bid tabulation and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Visu-Sewer for the 2025 sanitary sewer cured-in-place pipe lining project in the amount of $1,034,444.97 and authorize the City Manager to approve contract changes up to $175,000 without further City Council consideration. I submit these items for your consideration as part of the consent calendar. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. So we're considering items A through J. Is there a motion? **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** So move. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, it's been moved and seconded to approve items A through J on the consent calendar. Is there any discussion? I did have a request on Item B, the first reading of the ordinance updating the requirements for fowl and birds. We're going to be having the second reading on January 28th, and I had asked a number of questions to staff about things like how the amendment's going to go to Appendix D, exactly how much the permit fee was going to be, and since we now have the avian influenza going around, how is this going to help safeguard Richfield if we do this? I got a lot of really good information and learned a lot, and my request is that that be shared in the staff report or be sent out to the rest of the Council so that they have that same information before we vote for the second one. I didn't pull it off the consent calendar, but I would request that that information be shared because it was very helpful when I was considering this. Is that possible? **[Timestamp] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** We'll make sure that that's in the staff report and shared with the Council before the next reading. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right, thank you. Any other discussion or questions? All in favor, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? We've approved items A through J. Now we're moving on to consideration of items that were removed from the consent calendar. So we're going to be going on to Item K. City Manager Rodriguez, if you could read that and present it please? **[Timestamp] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Yes, the item for Council consideration is to consider resolutions designating official depositories for the City of Richfield for 2025, including the approval of collateral in compliance with Minnesota statutes. The City of Richfield must designate on an annual basis those financial institutions it does business with. US Bank acts as the banking institution in the city's banking arrangement with the 4M Fund. The following resolutions for the City Council's consideration will designate US Bank/4M Fund as a depository of city funds and designate certain savings and loan associations, banks, credit unions, and financial institutions as the depositories for the investment of city funds. The recommended action is, by motion, adopt the attached resolutions designating official depositories with the understanding that the city could not invest in any of the depositories beyond the level of insurance coverage or the pledged collateral. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** So for this particular item, we'll go ahead and consider it, and we have a member of the Council that would like to abstain due to a conflict of interest. So we'll do an individual roll call vote rather than just doing it by acclamation. Is there a motion to approve Item K? **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** So move. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, we have a motion that's been moved to adopt the attached resolution designating official depositories with the understanding that the city could not invest in any of the depositories beyond the level of insurance company—or excuse me—insurance coverage or the pledged collateral. Is there any discussion? With that, I will put the resolution before us and you can have a choice of saying "yay" if you're for it, "nay" if you're against it, or "abstain" if you're going to abstain. Council Member Coleman-Woods? **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** Yay. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Council Member Christensen? **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Yay. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Council Member Hayford Oleary? **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Yay. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Council Member Burk? **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** Abstain. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** And Mayor Supple, I will vote yay. So we have four yays and one abstention, so the motion passes. Moving on, we're going to go to item number four and I'm going to turn it over to Council Member Hayford Oleary to present that one. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Thank you. This item is to consider approval of the second reading of an ordinance amending city code section 550, flood plane management regulations, and approval of a resolution authorizing summary publication. In April 2024, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District adopted new rules applicable to flood plane management. The proposed revisions align city ordinances with new District requirements while maintaining established requirements concerning the FEMA-designated flood plane. The proposed provisions also clarify administration of the ordinance by designating the Water Resources Engineer as the official responsible for administering the ordinance. I will go ahead and just make the motion that we approve the second reading and approve the resolution authorizing summary publication. **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? I did have one question that I had asked earlier. How do we have much flood plane in Richfield? And if Director Asher, could you speak to that? **[Timestamp] Director of Public Works Kristin Asher:** Sure, thanks Mayor. We do not. We do have there's a little tiny bit in the corner at Taft Park, as you can imagine—it's a park—but no, the city does not. We maintain this ordinance so that people are allowed to get flood insurance if they so choose, and this ordinance also is for people that are around the water body and how they can—if they want to put a structure up or something—that kind of dictates that. Thank you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Are there any other questions? Any other discussion? Okay, the motion before us has been made and seconded. Hearing no further discussion, all in favor please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? We have approved this item. Thank you, and thank you staff. I'm going to move on to item five now. Council Member Coleman-Woods? **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** The item before the Council consideration is the first reading of an ordinance amendment regarding drive-thru signs. The executive summary: Border Foods (applicant) proposed to replace their existing menu board sign at Taco Bell, 7740 2nd Avenue South, with a dynamic display. The zoning code currently does not address dynamic display drive-thru signs. The sign code permits only one dynamic display sign per property and limits the area of the dynamic display to no more than 35% of the sign area. In practice, these regulations make it difficult for existing drive-thru uses to convert their existing menu boards to digital displays as they often already have a primary dynamic display or multiple drive-thru signs. The 35% limitation is also impractical as it would require the drive-thru sign to be majority static. The applicant has thus requested an ordinance amendment that would establish regulations specifically for dynamic drive-thru signs. Currently, the zoning code only addresses drive-thru signs within the conditional uses section of the mixed-use districts. Order boards are limited up to 40 square feet and 8 feet in height. They must be located within 60 feet of the business which they serve. Although drive-up uses are also allowed conditionally in the C2 District, there's no mention of order boards within the listed conditions in that district. For consistency and clarity, staff proposes moving order board regulations to the sign section of the code and reclassifying them as drive-thru signs. This would be in keeping with cities in the metro area such as Bloomington, Golden Valley, and White Bear Lake that define drive-thru or menu board signs and have separate regulations and/or exemptions for them. In regard to dynamic display regulations, staff is proposing certain exemptions for drive-thru signs as described in the policy section below. With new advancements in technology that often make it difficult to tell the difference between static and digital menu boards, there is merit in updating and modernizing this zoning code to allow drive-thru uses to convert their existing drive-thru signs to digital. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 9th. Aside from the applicant, no members of the public spoke. The commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance amendment as proposed. The recommended action by motion is to approve a first reading of an ordinance amendment regarding drive-thru signs. Do staff have any questions or concerns? **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** I do not have anything to add other than to say that representatives of Border Foods are here tonight if you have any questions for them. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you for joining us. Before someone makes the motion, do we have any questions for the representatives? Is there a motion then? **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** I would motion to approve the first reading. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded, so we'll open it up for discussion. Is there anyone that has any questions for either the applicants or for staff, or anyone who wishes to make any comments or discuss the matter? Council Member Hayford Oleary? **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Thank you. I don't have any concerns with the immediate thing that's being proposed by Taco Bell here. I am concerned in general about these dynamic displays throughout the city. Basically, my concern is adding and allowing drive-thru users to have a second additional sign in addition potentially to a main business sign that's also dynamic. So they have these boards that are changeable, and then potentially they also have these menu boards that in some cases are just going to display the menu prices straightforwardly, but as the staff report notes, we don't control what's on those signs. They can use them similarly to the main display signs to show promotions and other things. So my primary concern is the dynamic signs; we don't really have enforcement capacity to address the way that they're used. You know, with traditional signs, the applicant comes, they show how big it is, they show how it looks, we review everything. When they put in these dynamic displays, it's very difficult because although we have well-intentioned rules to address the speed change, the brightness, etc., every time you get a new manager at a business, those things change. And so I do think the ask by the applicant is reasonable and I think it's reasonable to update these display signs. My ask is that, given the fact that these signs are not great neighbors, if a business chooses to use these menu board signs, that they give up their ability to do an additional dynamic sign on the business. So they still get one dynamic display sign per business; they simply can decide whether that goes to their menu sign or that goes to the other main business sign. I did look at all our current drive-thrus in Richfield. The staff report had noted that this can potentially be in conflict, but only one business that has a drive-thru currently has a sign that would be in conflict. So for every other business, they'd simply be choosing: do I want my dynamic display on the menu board, or do I want it on the overhead sign? And you know, my concern of this just as an example—I hate to call it out—but the city has several of these signs. If anybody's going to be an expert on what our rules and regulations are for these, it would be us, and I've reported 40 different signs to the City Manager. They've been dealt with very promptly, and I appreciate that, but our own signs were out of compliance. During the Planning Commission hearing, it was discussed by the Planning Commission that we lack specific standards to regulate the brightness of these signs. So in addition to not necessarily having the staff to go keep on top of how these signs are functioning, we don't even have clear rules to enforce them. So by simply directing staff in this case to allow the other changes—allow it to convert these signs—but keep a "one dynamic sign per property" rule, I think we will limit that and allow ourselves to mature those regulations to address things like those brightness standards that were discussed by the Planning Commission. So that's my desired change, and I will certainly welcome thoughts from other council members on this. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** I have one question with regard to that. So you're saying right now if we made the change that you're suggesting, there would be one legally non-conforming sign that would be able to continue, or I need a little bit more clarification on what you're asking for. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** So my ask is, again, one per business. I'm saying of all the businesses in Richfield, only one would be prevented from converting their menu board for this reason, which would be the Dairy Queen at West 66th; in fact, they couldn't anyway because it's too close to residential. So I'm saying if you adopted my change, you would prevent a Taco Bell or similar business from also doing a dynamic sign on their main Taco Bell sign if they chose to do the menu board, but nobody else would be prevented from converting their menu board. They would simply be giving up their ability to also do a dynamic sign on their main sort of logo roadside sign. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Any other comments or questions? I don't know if staff could react to that—if that's a change that's possible—and it would be interesting to hear what the applicant thinks of that as well. **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** Yes, thank you, Mayor Supple. What I'm hearing is that you would like us to remove the exemption that is now being included in the proposed ordinance. Right now, we're proposing that the limit not apply to these order board signs, and what you're proposing is that we eliminate that exemption and there just be one dynamic sign allowed per property. From a staff perspective, I can't say that I feel strongly one way or another. I do think that it is important to allow businesses this option. The technology, especially in weather like ours, I think can be very helpful. I know a number of you watched the Planning Commission meeting, and the Border Foods representatives can speak to this too; they mentioned that this is the only remaining order board in their Minnesota system of over 200 stores that has not transitioned to electronic signs. So limiting it to one—I don't have strong concerns about that, but I do think it's important to leave the option open. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Did the applicant want to say anything from the business perspective about if you were able to have a digital menu board that you wouldn't be able to have like your big sign go? Speak at the microphone if you'd like to say something and then we can discuss more. I'm just trying to hear all the different perspectives. **[Timestamp] Border Foods Representative:** [Name Unspoken], Elk River, Minnesota. Thank you, Mayor, Council Members. We would have no concern over that. We've found that in many of the cities that we've applied for the menu board, they continue to actually have the same code in place where there's only one dynamic sign per property. It's pretty rare that we find that you have multiple available and the menu board, because in our instance, it's a national roll-out from Taco Bell corporate; our franchises don't have a lot of options with it. We've been proposed with the dynamic signs on our main pylon signs and we haven't found a lot of value to them. So the menu board, that "one per property," is actually preferred for our locations. Thank you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** And then I had a follow-up question. If we did that, could you have kind where you split like into a "Y" and you have two lanes and then it comes back together? Would that still count under this ordinance if we make the change that Council Member Hayford Oleary is suggesting? **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** Mayor Supple, that's a great question. I would need to go back and read the definition of a sign; I believe it's related to the faces. I could certainly bring that information for the second reading, but I don't have it with me tonight. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, thank you. So I'm fine with—I understand where you're coming from, but I also don't want to put overly onerous regulations in place that are going to stop people from investing in Richfield. And so if it was just that you have menu board signs or you could have the dynamic sign up there, that would be fine. But like, I know I'm thinking about like the McDonald's in Richfield where you have two different menu boards and then you come in; I don't want to put that kind of a roadblock in place. So if we're going to look at making the change that you're suggesting, I want to make sure that people have an option to have two menu board signs. I did listen to the whole Planning Commission and I think this is a good proposal and I want to make sure that we're going to be able to go to having those dynamic signs on the menu boards. I'm just wondering if you're making the change that you're suggesting, I don't want to have the unintended consequence that say you could only have one drive-thru lane and you couldn't have the split and then come back together. That would be a concern I would have. So I don't know if you—well first off, I do want to say in general I agree with you. My main concern is the dynamic menu board sign or signs and the business pylon sign both being there. The details of like if you want to allow like an advanced sign and then a larger menu board sign—I don't care if there's two displays there, personally. I'll trust staff to address that, but yes, I think my goal is the same as yours. I will say that we don't normally allow the double drive-thru anyway, so that's—I think McDonald's just has a special exception. But yeah, if it's necessary or useful for a business to have an advanced menu board sign and then a subsequent one, that's fine to me. I just don't want the double-dipping with them getting the drive-thru signs in addition to the dynamic sign out front. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Other comments or questions? Again, my concern is I want to make sure that we have a balance. I don't want to drift into over-regulation because I know from what I've been seeing in some of our neighboring cities, when they put on too many regulations, then those businesses move out. And so I want to have balance, but I also want to be respectful of the neighbors and light pollution and that type of thing. So again, I think this is a reasonable request that you're making to be able to put the digital menu boards in place and I would support the requests. I would be fine with the compromise you're suggesting as long as we're not going to make it so somebody can't functionally have those menu boards in place. So I don't know if other people have comments or questions because I just want to make sure we don't drift into over-regulation, that we have a balanced approach and that we do something that's reasonable. I'll just ask: is that something you could live with? If we took away that pylon sign and just had it on menu boards, would you be okay with that? **[Timestamp] Border Foods Representative:** Absolutely, we would. As you were discussing it, we were talking about the logo sign and the menu board. In the future, that would be helpful if there was an option to split lanes and have a second menu board and still not get that logo sign—that would be something that we would have interest in if we got to that point in the future. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, thank you. And then I guess that gets to the question that you said you don't know if that's allowed, and so that'd be information we'd need to have staff bring back to us to consider at the second reading. I don't know what the rules are on splitting. **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** Oh, I can tell you that in the mixed-use districts, you can only have a single drive-thru lane, so that would not be an option for this particular applicant. In the C2 District, I believe you are able to have two lanes, and so in that case, I would need to review the definition of a sign and see if that would be considered two signs. But it sounds to me like what you're asking staff to do is to bring back an ordinance that would strike what is Section 4, letter J, in their proposed ordinance, and then identify order board signs—or re-define them as drive-thru signs—and allow those to have the dynamic display. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Could you repeat that please? **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** Yes, thank you. You’re asking staff to bring back an ordinance that would strike letter J from Section 4. Letter J reads: "Dynamic drive-thru signs are exempt from Section 549.25, Subdivision 2, items A through C." That is the section that limits dynamic displays to a single dynamic display. So what you're asking is us to eliminate that exception or exemption from that, and then you'd like the definition of drive-thru signs to include that dynamic displays would be allowed on multiple drive-thru signs. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** To that effect, yes. And just to confirm the other changes that are described, like the limitation on the percentage of the sign that is dynamic, they could still do the entire menu board digitally? **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** Yes. We're just proposing to eliminate the exemption for the number. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, that is what I wanted. And thank you for translating it into a functional change. And so you'll put that into the staff report for the next—? **[Timestamp] Community Development Director Melissa Poehlman:** Yes, that will all be detailed in the staff report and we will provide a revised ordinance as the attachment. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Okay, then I have a question for City Attorney Tietjen. Given that, do we then pass this as it is on first reading and then the changes are made on the second, or does there have to be some kind of amendment? **[Timestamp] City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** Mayor, an appropriate motion would be to approve the first reading and directing staff to make the noted changes to bring back for the second reading. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Since we're currently discussing the motion as written, I could just make a motion to amend that motion, right? **[Timestamp] City Attorney Mary Tietjen:** That is true. You can make a motion to amend. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** Okay, I will make a motion to amend the item we're currently considering to remove the exception as described in the previous discussion, limiting drive-thru signs for dynamic signs to one per property. **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Is there further discussion? So to clarify, we will be able to have menu signs that are drive-thru menu signs that are dynamic; we just wouldn't have the dynamic ones and another one that's like the big pylon sign. Does everybody understand what we're voting on for this amendment? So we'll vote just on the amendment and then we'll vote on the motion as amended. We are voting on making that amendment—and make sure your microphones are turned on so that your green light is showing. All in favor of that amendment, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? That amendment has passed. Now we're back to the main motion as amended. Is there any further discussion or any other questions that anyone has for staff? All in favor of the main motion as amended, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? We have approved the main motion as amended. Next, we'll move on—and thank you for coming in tonight—we'll move on to item six and I'll turn it over to Council Member Christensen. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Thank you, Mayor. This is to consider adoption of a resolution approving the contract with Teamsters 320, the sergeants bargaining unit, for the period January 1st, 2024, through December 31, 2025, and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. City staff has completed labor negotiations with Teamsters 320 sergeants. The provisions of the 2024-2025 labor agreement cover all nine sergeant positions. The two-year contract provides the following changes: increase in vacation sell-back from 48 hours to 64 hours to match our non-union policy; increase the total annual holiday leave from 96 hours to 104 hours because of the additional Juneteenth holiday; include the same employer-provided health and dental insurance contributions as given to the non-represented employee groups; wage adjustments to include a 3.0% COLA and an 8.4% market adjustment for the top step in 2024 and a 3.0% COLA and a 1.0% market adjustment for all steps in 2025; and add a new specialty pay of $300 per month effective January 1st, 2025. The higher starting pay is consistent with the wages required to compete in this historically tight market for law enforcement personnel. The introduction of specialty pay is similar to the police officer pay plan that includes additional compensation for assessments. By motion, I'm asking to adopt a resolution approving the provisions of the 2024-2025 labor agreement with the Teamsters 320 bargaining unit and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. Does the staff have any other further questions or comments? **[Timestamp] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, Council Member. I just wanted to thank HR Manager Hehner, who's here tonight, and also thank you to the stewards for the sergeant Union. It has been a long haul this year; it's a very tight labor market, so it made negotiations more challenging. But we believe this is a good and fair contract, and I will turn it over to HR. **[Timestamp] Staff Member (HR Manager):** Good evening, Mayor and Council Members, and welcome Council Member Burk and Council Member Coleman-Woods. I just wanted to say a few words just to kind of re-educate on kind of where we're at with our contracts. This is our final contract—hooray—for 2024 and '25. As you know, we had a bit of a delay with our '24 contracts because of our class study and we wanted to be cognizant of that as we went into our negotiations with all of our groups. So we do have five contracts; again, this one being the final one to get approved. We have our Public Works group, we have our Fire, and then we have three contracts in our Public Safety Division which includes our Lieutenants, our Police Officers, and then this final one with our Sergeants. We'll likely be starting again here in the spring/summer, so you'll be seeing these five contracts come again shortly. Hopefully, we typically do try to negotiate a two-year contract, so we'll continue on that. Otherwise, I would welcome any questions that you might have on the contract that's in front of you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. So there is a motion; do we have a second? **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded. Do we have any questions for staff? **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** I have a question. I'm not familiar with the specialty pay. Can you describe that and at whose discretion that occurs and how that works? **[Timestamp] Staff Member (HR Manager):** Yes, thank you Council Member. So we have specialty pay for the sergeants; we also have it for the officers, and it is when they're assigned—this is part of their training as well. So they get assigned to different areas as they get rotated on. Some specialty pay assignments are for investigations, for example; I believe the K9 unit is another one. It used to be the officer in the school districts, and so those are some examples that I can think of off the top of my head. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Are there other questions? Any discussion before we vote? I want to thank both parties in the negotiations, both our HR staff and the police union representatives. I always think it's important to have everybody working together, and so I want to thank both parties in that. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? And we have approved the agreements. Thank you. Next, we will move on to the City Manager's report. **[Timestamp] City Manager Katie Rodriguez:** Thank you, Mayor and Council. I don't have anything to report tonight. Thank you. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** The next item on our agenda would be claims and payroll. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** I move to approve claims and payroll. **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** Second. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to approve claims and payroll. Are there any questions or comments? All in favor of approving claims and payroll, please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? We've approved claims and payroll. Now for the new Council Members, for "Hats Off to Hometown Hits," we kind of rotated around and we get to have Council discussion. And so I'll start off with the Council Members that have been here before so you have a little time to think about it. So we'll go to Council Member Hayford Oleary. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sean Hayford Oleary:** I regret not giving my new colleagues more time, but I have no items for tonight. Sorry. Good job on the lighting work by staff, I really appreciate it. Too cold to have any... **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Too cold. Council Member Christensen? **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** I have a couple of things. Thinking about cold weather and the lack of snow thereof, I do have to have a "hats off" to the city crews who do amazing work, no matter if we have a few inches or a few feet out there on the roads, keeping it safe and plowed and salted and things to get us moving in the mornings when we're usually still sleeping. And then the other thing is, I had an incident a week or two ago and one of the city staff, Sarah from the IT department, helped me out. I had to come in and have my iPad looked at to change some things around so I can have access to things, and it's nice to know that behind the scenes in the city here that there are a lot of people that help each other out. So that's it. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All right. The other part of it is the Mayor usually goes last, so Council Member Burk, do you have any? **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** Yeah, definitely. I want to thank the staff for their patience with one of the newbies on the Council and answering my questions as thoroughly and succinctly and patiently as you have. So I want to thank you all for that. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. Council Member Coleman-Woods? **[Timestamp] Council Member Rori Coleman-Woods:** I do want to give "hats off" to our Public Works Department who helped handle a water main break in the Ward 3 area last week. That was my first order of civic duty—to direct them to the non-emergency line when a concerned neighbor called. And she just happens to have my personal phone number, too. So hats off to those neighbors for keeping a watchful eye over our streets. It got really cold really fast, so I appreciate the Public Works Department. And a huge shout-out to one of our Richfield High School players who reached scoring 2,000 points in his career and he's not done yet. So hats off to CJ Armstrong. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** Thank you. I would also like to do a "hats off" to the Recreation staff. For the first time, I went to Candlelight and Ice at Wood Lake Nature Center, and I would encourage everyone to participate in that next year. It was amazing. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite so cold that night, but it was very well organized. I believe over 1,300 went through, but it didn't seem like a big crowd and you could go out and walk on the paths. They had—they were reusing some milk jugs with the little battery-operated candles on them so you could walk around in the dark and appreciate things. So hats off to Recreation staff and to all the volunteers that helped with that. And then I also would like to give a "hats off" to Mr. Willis and the Richfield Middle School newspaper staff. They invited me over on Monday because they wanted to interview a city official, and I was so thoroughly impressed with the questions that the students came up with. The whole—it was such a positive experience. I mean, there were questions there—Council Member Hayford Oleary, you'd be proud—they were asking urban planning questions. So we had sixth graders asking adult-level thoughtful questions. A simpler one was like, "Well, we're glad you're going to be redoing Wood Lake Nature Center, but what's the plan that the city has to protect the animals during construction?" So they're thinking and making a lot of thoughtful things that I was really impressed by. I'd say hats off to those middle school students for all the thoughtful questions they were coming up with and hats off to Mr. Willis, their advisor. Thank you everyone. It's been a great meeting. I hope you all stay warm. I would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. **[Timestamp] Council Member Walter Burk:** I make a motion that we leave the meeting—end the meeting. **[Timestamp] Council Member Sharon Christensen:** Second it. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** It's been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All in favor please say aye. **[Timestamp] Council Members (In Unison):** Aye. **[Timestamp] Mayor Mary Supple:** All opposed? We stand adjourned.