[0:00] Mary Fasbender: The time being 7 o'clock, I call the Hastings City Council meeting to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome, and let the record reflect that we do have a majority of Council with the absence of Councilmember Haus this evening. We are here to welcome new employees Sawyer Jackson and Brandon Lubinsky, and our Public Works Director Ryan Stempski will introduce them. Thanks, Ryan. [0:46] Ryan Stempski: Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. We do have two new employees that recently started in our Public Works Department. Brandon Lubinsky is our new heavy equipment mechanic. He attended Indianhead Technical College with a degree in agriculture mechanics. He's got 10 years of experience with heavy equipment that he brings to the City of Hastings. He lives in Ellsworth, Wisconsin with his wife Jenny and their two children, Owen and Lila. He enjoys working on and riding his motorcycle in his spare time. He also enjoys hot rods, metal fabrication, and demolition cars. He enjoys taking his kids swimming and biking, and he's extremely excited about his new role and his new schedule at the City of Hastings. He's excited that his new team has been so helpful—he said that, I didn't say that. With Brandon's past experience, knowledge of his trade, attention to detail, and calm approach to stressful situations, Brandon is proving to be a great addition to our department. We'd like to officially have the Council welcome Brandon Lubinsky to the City of Hastings. [Applause] [2:19] Ryan Stempski: Next, we have Sawyer Jackson. Sawyer Jackson is our new Public Works operator. Sawyer went to Inver Hills Community College with a degree in construction management. He's got six years of experience in civil construction. He lives in Welch with his wife Emily. He loves to hunt and spend time outdoors. When asked what he likes to do in his spare time, he says, "I know it sounds stupid, but really work." It's the truth. I—you know, new boss, maybe that was the quote out of context, but I'll take it. He does truly enjoy operating construction equipment and he really—he's been operating equipment since he was a little kid, and it shows. Sawyer likes to jump right in and be involved. He isn't afraid to ask questions and his personality fits right in in the Public Works Department. We're extremely excited to have him as part of our team. Welcome, Sawyer Jackson. [3:05] Mary Fasbender: Welcome. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you. Councilmembers, are there any corrections to the minutes from the regular meeting on August 19th? Okay. Comments from the audience at this time. We will hear live comments via the audience or from Zoom. If you would like to speak to the Council at this time, please step up to the podium, give your name and address, and tell us what you would like to talk to us about. [3:51] Peter Likes: Peter Likes, 3000 East Fourth Street, Hastings, Minnesota, better known as Cowtown. I'm the president of the East Hastings Improvement Association. I've been that for three years. I was one of the founding fathers of the East Hastings Improvement Association in the late 1960s, early 1970s, when the city and the federal government tried to close down the east side of the tracks because of condemned wells. So then we went to work and we obtained funds from the federal and state government and the City of Hastings. We put sewer and water in the City of Hastings and we saved East Hastings. Okay, so I've been there since 1972. I've been on the board of directors ever since and I've been the president the last three years down at the East Hastings Improvement Association. In 1987—just a little bit further in my life—the Fourth Street Bridge used to be a cattle bridge. In 1953 it was condemned. So Jim Schmidt was working here as a city engineer and I got a tip from a Minnesota State Highway coordinator. He said, "Go down and tell Clench to tip the pile over," and on the bottom of the pile was the funding for the Fourth Street bridge in 1987. Didn't cost the city anything. So that brings us up to the park. I know right after we had our annual meeting on Tuesday night of this week, I got a letter from Chris Jenkins and then you've all got basically the same thing. We're all on board. Okay, we understand that the project is now about three years behind. It's costing us money. It's time to—somebody's going to have to say, "Yeah, we made a mistake, they made a mistake," but we can't go back and forth. The thing is, we have to get it done and we'll figure out where we're going to get the money to pay for it at a later date. And with that, thank you. [5:23] Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Pete. Council, are there any items to be considered? Okay, Council, I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. Councilmember Leifeld and Councilmember Pemble. Sorry, I didn't hear you. Any discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. [6:09] City Council (Unison): Aye. [6:09] Mary Fasbender: Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion is passed. Tonight under awarding of contracts, we have the continued public hearing for the special use permit and the cannabis retail license for Hastings Tobacco, 1769 Market Boulevard. For this item, we will have an introduction by City Administrator Dan Wietecha, followed by a public hearing, followed by a recommendation to table action on the special use permit and the retail license. Welcome, Dan. [6:55] Dan Wietecha: Thank you, Mayor. What is before us tonight is the public hearing on an application from Hastings Tobacco at 1769 Market Boulevard. It's in the shopping mall that Cub Foods is in. They applied for a special use permit as well as a retailer's license to sell cannabis products. In this case, it would be the 0.3% THC product—that is all that could be licensed at this point. Part of the process for the special use permit is there has to be a public hearing. We give notice to everybody within 350 feet. That was noticed to be held two weeks ago at the last council meeting, but because the applicant or the applicant's landlord wasn't ready for this to go forward, we said, "All right, we won't do it here in August, let's continue this in September." So that's what brings us here tonight. My understanding is the landlord owner of the building and the tenant, the business itself, still are not in agreement. Essentially, the landlord is saying, "No, you will not sell THC under our lease." They have essentially 60 days from a couple of weeks ago to straighten it out. So our recommendation tonight is, since we gave notice of the public hearing, let's have the public hearing to see if any neighbors within 350 feet or the general public want to weigh in on their thoughts about the special use permit. But then for the actual SUP itself as well as the license, I ask Council to table those since the landlord still hasn't consented, but the tenant hopes they can convince them. They have until late October to get that cleared up. We can bring this back—unless they get stuff straightened out sooner—at the second meeting in October to take action. If the landlord is still in disagreement, I think the action would be to turn it down, but we want to give them the chance to work things out internally. I can certainly take questions on the process itself, but really I think all that's before you tonight is to open a public hearing and receive any comments on the application. [9:13] Mary Fasbender: Okay, thank you, Dan. Council, I will open the public hearing first and we will go forward after that. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak to the cannabis topic right now? Anyone on Zoom? There's nobody on Zoom period. One more time, anyone wish to speak to the cannabis topic? Okay, at this time I will close the public hearing. Council discussion? Council, for tabling it, Councilmember Vihrachoff? Councilmember Fox? [9:59] Councilmember Fox: I would make the motion to table the license conversation and the other piece to October 21st, 2024. [9:59] Mary Fasbender: Moved by Councilmember Fox and seconded by Councilmember Leifeld. All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. [9:59] City Council (Unison): Aye. [9:59] Mary Fasbender: Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Tonight under reports from city staff, we have our Public Works Director with us to receive an update on the Water Treatment Plant siting study. Welcome, Ryan. [10:46] Ryan Stempski: Thank you again, Mayor and City Council. Okay, I think we're all working here. So yeah, tonight we're going to talk about the Water Treatment Plant Siting Study. We've been putting efforts on this study with some Council direction, and we'll go through the specifics here tonight. I wanted to start out with just a graphic of where we're at on Treatment Plant Number One. This is a treatment plant located in our industrial park. This is a site that we're not looking at evaluating; this study was for Sites Two and Three. This building from base to peak is about 46 feet tall and it's about 100 by 100 feet. This is just a visual of kind of where we're at with the industrial park or Water Treatment Plant Number One building. To refresh folks' minds, we are working through planning and design of three decentralized treatment plants. They include granular activated carbon vessels for PFAS removal and ion exchange vessels for nitrate removal. That's the technology going into the treatment plants themselves. Depending on how many vessels we get in these buildings, the plants are going to be nearly 50 feet tall from floor to peak, and we need approximately that 10,000 square feet or 100 by 100 feet to get the components in—hallways, bathrooms, offices, storage rooms, etc. What that really equates to when we're looking for sites is approximately one to two acres. We've gotten as small as an acre when sites already have the driveway and buffering in place, but we like to look for a little bit more than that if we want to incorporate some grading improvements, flattening, berming, landscaping elements, driveway turnaround scenarios, and then stormwater management as well. [13:32] Ryan Stempski: Going back to the feasibility report, we had treatment plant locations at that time. We had Treatment Plant Number One in the industrial park. Tonight we're here to talk about Treatment Plant Number Two, which is currently in the feasibility report shown in Lions Park, and Treatment Plant Number Three located down in Wallin Park near Wells 4 and 9. These were just representations of sites near wells and on City-owned land when we started the feasibility report. We were trying to present a shovel-ready project to the state legislature for funding. Those locations were never finalized and they are subject to change. We did hear feedback on the feasibility report and Council provided staff a strong preference to locate Treatment Plants Two and Three outside of residential neighborhoods. We factored that in. Our siting factors include land area—is it owned or acquirable? We looked at the proximity to wells and raw water mains, and the proximity to our trunk distribution mains and storage tanks. It's important to understand our proximity to pressure zone facilities like booster pumps and pressure reducing valves. We also need to flush the new media in these vessels with a large volume of water per Health Department regulations, so we need to be by trunk sanitary sewers. We also look for transportation corridors for access and site topography. [15:51] Ryan Stempski: This graphic illustrates how Hastings is built out. We have a lot of residential property. Just looking at the boundary here in the black dotted line, there are not a lot of locations when you try to stay out of existing residential neighborhoods. Then we add in future zoned residential neighborhoods, which further limits where we're honing in our siting. Another thing to think about is the undulation of the land. We currently work on two pressure zones: a main pressure zone and a low pressure zone. We're going to have a future high pressure zone in the red there. What's important to note is we can't site treatment plants up into high pressure zones; we're just not going to get the system to work. In the engineering analysis, we're looking for a location that's hydraulically feasible. We also want an efficient system that minimizes major friction losses. We're trying not to impact the pumping rates from the wells. The more complex we make the system, the less efficient that pumping rate becomes. We have to apply industry standards such as pressure surge—we have to look at 10 psi or less pressure delivered to our homes and customers. We also are looking at piping. More piping increases capital costs and impacts our roads. We have to think about life cycle costs; every water main we put in, we're eventually going to have to replace someday. [19:42] Ryan Stempski: For Treatment Plant Number Two, things we took into consideration include property owner feedback and bordering elements. All wells being treated—Well 3, 5, and 7—are north of Trunk Highway 55. Highway 55 serves as a border in our siting study. Trunk highways aren't optimal to have your trunk water mains underneath because if you have a break, it's a very expensive and impactful shutdown. Proximity to the wellfield and the ground storage reservoir matters. Well 7 is in one location, Well 3 is up in Lions Park, and Well 5 is right next to the existing nitrate treatment plant off 55. Right behind Well 5 is the ground storage reservoir. All three wells pump into that reservoir. Wherever we move a treatment plant, we have to get it back to these key components. Topography also matters. For example, other areas of Lions Park are 40 feet down-gradient from the North Frontage Road and serve as a ponding basin. [22:48] Ryan Stempski: In our matrix for Treatment Plant Number Two, we looked at the feasibility location at Lions Park. It is City-owned, which is an advantage, and it's centered between the wells. However, it's in a residential neighborhood on a local road. Site 2-2 is the Carboni site. This is adjacent to the existing treatment plant, so it can serve as a campus. Because it's next door, we could take advantage of the existing nitrate plant and expand it, which comes at a cost savings. We need to send our raw water into the PFAS removal first before we send it into nitrate removal. This site is on a collector road system. Disadvantages include site acquisition and no trunk sewer. This adds about 2,400 feet of pipe. Site 2-5 is a County site off Pleasant near Well 5. It's on a collector road but includes site acquisition and has stormwater concerns—the County uses it for snow storage and it has high water marks. This site adds about 3,600 feet of pipe. Through the engineering matrix, the preferred site was the Carboni site. [26:45] Ryan Stempski: Moving on to Treatment Plant Number Three, which removes PFAS and nitrates from Wells 4 and 9. We had to stay out of the future High Zone. The Vermillion River is on the south side and we had to think about future residential proximity. In the matrix, Site 3-1 was the Wallin Park site. It's City-owned but in a residential setting with no trunk sewer. Site 3-2 is the St. Elizabeth Ann Seton (SEAS) church property off General Sieben. They have a large site and were favorable to working with the City. The building would be less tall than the church itself. It's off a collector road but would require site acquisition and annexation into the city. Site 3-5 is a County site off 46 and Pleasant. It's a large site but would require site acquisition, a river crossing, and has no trunk sewer. This adds about 4,500 feet of pipe. Site 3-7 is a City-owned parcel off General Sieben. It's positioned for trunk water but currently serves as a ponding basin and would require a river crossing and 5,500 feet of pipe. Through the analysis, the preferred site was the SEAS property. Tonight we want to receive feedback and take questions. Our goal would be to schedule a follow-up at the next meeting on September 16th where we could have a closed meeting to develop offers for purchasing real property. [32:55] Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Ryan. Council discussion? Councilmember Leifeld. [32:55] Councilmember Leifeld: Thanks, Ryan. Didn't we recently sell that site at Pleasant and 46 to the County? How long have they owned that? [33:42] Cody Mathisen: It was privately held and the County purchased it about a year ago. [33:42] Councilmember Leifeld: And then for your preferred site, have we reached out at all to SEAS? Has there been any conversation regarding annexing and purchasing that property? [34:28] Ryan Stempski: Yes, we did go and talk to several property owners; SEAS was one of them, and they were favorable to working with the City. [34:28] Councilmember Leifeld: And then for Site Number Two, the Carboni site, same thing there? [34:28] Ryan Stempski: Yes, Joe Moore Holdings owns the property and they would be favorable to working with the City on a process. [34:28] Councilmember Leifeld: Wonderful. And then just a side note since we've got so many people here: As we complete Site One in the industrial park, we have talked about a process where residents can take their bottles and get water for drinking. Could you touch on that? [35:13] Ryan Stempski: Yes, until our project is complete, all of our wells blend and mix in the towers. We have PFAS above limits in all six of our wells. Removing Treatment Plant Number One will remove PFAS from Wells 6 and 8, which lowers the overall levels, but the wells fill the towers in a complex matrix. We need to remove the PFAS from all wells at the three treatment sites to fully mitigate it. What we are building into the design for Plant Number One is a residential fill station. It would be a place where people could bring their jugs and fill up with PFAS-removed water. [36:45] Mary Fasbender: Thank you. Councilmember Vihrachoff. [36:45] Councilmember Vihrachoff: Thank you, Mayor. Ryan, thank you for this incredibly informative presentation. I had two questions. One was about the sense from the owners of SEAS and the Carboni site. Could you speak briefly to the public engagement process for residents when we are building something that impacts a residential area? [37:30] Ryan Stempski: As far as the public engagement process, we're very early on. Usually, that's done when we have agreed-upon sites and enough of a design to show what it's going to look like. We typically go to the public with an open house a year in advance of construction. In this case, because it's a unique process, if it helps inform the siting study, we could build that into the process sooner. [39:03] Councilmember Vihrachoff: I appreciate that. I just want to make sure we're being clear so that folks who have concerns know their input is valued. My second question was on cost. In the memo, it listed potential cost increases of $500,000 to $4.5 million depending on the site. Could you put some of those estimated ranges in the matrix going forward? I know as a Council, we're going to hear about placement and cost. [40:34] Ryan Stempski: Good feedback. Out of respect for the discussions with property owners and negotiations, we wanted to talk about the engineering merits first. We can definitely provide that information at our next council meeting. [41:22] Councilmember Fox: Thank you, your honor. I want to back up to when we started this process. We knew in April that the EPA levels were going to change and we were being mandated to mitigate our water. We've been trying to find funding sources beyond what the City can do alone. I'm just repeating this for the public—nothing was finalized; it was all subject to change. There's so much to consider, like friction losses and pressure zones, that we don't even have a final answer yet. We have potential answers and feasible sites, but we're not shovel-ready tomorrow. Regarding the Carboni site, Site 2-2, Dakota County GIS says it's only 0.83 acres. You mentioned we need about an acre. Is that going to be troubling? [45:14] Ryan Stempski: Great question. One of the advantages of that site is we can maximize nitrate treatment on its neighbor site. We would only need to build the PFAS (GAC) vessels there, making the building space smaller, and they share a property line so piping would be interconnected. [46:47] Councilmember Fox: Thank you. And my third question—maybe for Dan or the City Attorney—what does purchasing property from the County look like? How does that timeline affect the mitigation deadline? [47:32] Dan Wietecha: Working with government can sometimes be more difficult than working with private owners because they have a process too. There would be a typical purchase agreement, but with extra hoops like board approvals and appraisals. Generally, it's easier to work with the personalities of government because we speak each other's "love language" in contracts, but the process is sometimes longer. [48:20] Councilmember Fox: Great. One more follow-up: From my experience on HEDRA, we don't sell property at lower than its value, so it's not like we'd get this property for free from the County. It would still be a transaction between two governments. [49:06] Mary Fasbender: Thank you. Councilmember Lawrence. [49:06] Councilmember Lawrence: Thank you, Mayor. Ryan, thank you for putting this together. I also want to thank the residents of Ward 4 who are making a statement. I appreciate you holding us accountable; we are here for you guys. [49:53] Mary Fasbender: Ryan, great job. Love the visuals. Thank you to the residents for being a voice to us. It was a hard decision to see these in residential areas, even on City-owned land. We are still working on financing and we are fighting to have someone else pay for this because we did not do this on our own. Ryan, you'd like a motion to move the study forward? [51:26] Ryan Stempski: Just to schedule a follow-up to the September 16th meeting. [51:26] Councilmember Fox: I will make that motion, with the comment that the closed meeting is because it's privileged property data, not because we're hiding the process. [51:26] Mary Fasbender: Seconded by Councilmember Leifeld. All those in favor, state by saying aye. [51:26] City Council (Unison): Aye. [52:15] Mary Fasbender: Opposed, nay. The motion prevails. Under reports from city staff, we have a resolution of intent to participate in the MnDOT Highway 55 signal replacement project at Pleasant Drive and Westview. Ryan, you may continue. [52:15] Ryan Stempski: Thank you, Mayor. I'm actually going to have our brand new City Engineer, Cody Mathisen, present. Cody has been working diligently with MnDOT on this. This is in our Capital Improvement Program. MnDOT is requesting a resolution of commitment. Cody? [53:01] Cody Mathisen: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Your first reaction might be, "Don't we have enough infrastructure projects?" But through conversations with MnDOT, we realized why this is a good project. The existing signals at Pleasant and Westview are 41 and 38 years old. Traffic signals have a 25-year intended life. If we don't do this in 2025, it kicks the project to 2029, and costs would substantially increase due to new design and structural standards. There will also be sidewalk and ADA improvements, minor storm sewer repairs, and a mill and overlay of the intersections. MnDOT anticipates traffic impacts for two weeks—one week in each direction. We'll have a regional detour via Goodwin and 46 to 61. For local traffic, we'll use General Sieben and the South Frontage Road. We've requested MnDOT do this in the summer to avoid conflicts with Middle School traffic. From a financial perspective, the City's share is 50%, estimated at $550,000. This will be paid from our Municipal State Aid (MSA) account, which currently has just under $3 million. [59:14] Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Cody. Councilmember Fox. [59:14] Councilmember Fox: Thank you, your honor. Cody, the 46 and Goodwin construction should be done within the week, so that shouldn't affect it. Regarding placemaking on Highway 61, we've talked about herringbone patterns and banners. Will the lighting on 55 match what we're doing on 61? [1:00:00] Cody Mathisen: Good question. 61 and 55 are different in terms of ambient lighting, and we're evaluating that for efficiency. These signals will be galvanized silver, which is the new MnDOT standard, matching 15th and 61. As for specific placemaking lighting, that is to be determined. [1:01:34] Mary Fasbender: Councilmember Leifeld. [1:01:34] Councilmember Leifeld: I'd like to make a motion to consider the resolution of intent to participate in the MnDOT Highway 55 signal replacement project. [1:02:22] Mary Fasbender: Seconded by Councilmember Vihrachoff. All those in favor, state by saying aye. [1:02:22] City Council (Unison): Aye. [1:02:22] Mary Fasbender: Opposed, nay. Motion prevails. Ryan Stempski, approval of the industrial park water tower plans and specs and authorizing advertising for bids. [1:03:09] Ryan Stempski: Yes, you have me one more time. This is our industrial park water tower reconditioning. Our coating life is at 28 years; the life expectancy is 20 to 25. Inspections say we should program this now. It's more than just a paint job. We need to install a submersible mixer to keep ice from forming inside, which causes structural damage. We're also upgrading to LED safety lights and aviation lights, and bringing the ventilation and ladders up to OSHA standards. We're also cleaning up the wireless carrier equipment on top, which is currently a mess. We are asking for an exception to the prevailing wage policy for this project. This is a specialized project; local folks aren't bidding on hanging on the side of a tower. We saw a $200,000 to $300,000 savings on the Fourth Street tower by doing this. For the exterior, we could replace the existing logo with our new logo, like we did on Fourth Street. Or, since this is in Veterans Park, we could do a 360-degree "sports wrap" for about $40,000 extra. We don't have to decide the design tonight, but I want you thinking about it. We want to go out for bids in October for an April start date. [1:14:28] Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Ryan. Councilmember Leifeld. [1:14:28] Councilmember Leifeld: I'd like to make a motion to approve the industrial park water tower reconditioning plans and specs with the exception to the prevailing wage policy and to authorize advertisement for bids. [1:14:28] Mary Fasbender: Seconded by Councilmember Fox. [1:14:28] Councilmember Fox: Ryan, thank you for explaining the prevailing wage exception. Regarding the temporary cell service towers, if there are service issues, should residents contact their providers? [1:15:16] Ryan Stempski: Yes, we give the providers advanced notice to set up their plans. If folks have problems, they need to voice their complaint to their particular provider. [1:16:02] Councilmember Vihrachoff: Thank you, Mayor. My two-and-a-half-year-old niece thinks these are Peppa Pig's castles. Seeing the inner workings is helpful. I also wanted to thank you for the cost-saving idea regarding prevailing wage. We have a lot of costs coming before us, and we have to be mindful for future councils. [1:19:06] Mary Fasbender: Thank you. There is a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. [1:19:06] City Council (Unison): Aye. [1:19:06] Mary Fasbender: Opposed, nay. Motion prevails. Under Public Safety, we have special vehicles on city streets. Introduction by Police Chief Dave Wilske. Welcome, Chief. [1:19:06] Dave Wilske: Thank you, Mayor and Council. It's always hard to follow Stempski. This went before the Public Safety Committee twice. Currently, ordinance 70.02 requires a permit for a disability to drive an ATV on city streets. We currently only have one permit out there. PSAC reviewed this in 2019. Research shows many fatalities take place on paved roadways, and manufacturers do not recommend driving them on roads. Terminology: Class 1 ATVs are 50 inches wide or less (four-wheelers); Class 2 are 50 to 65 inches wide (side-by-sides/UTVs). In Minnesota, Class 1 can operate in ditches of county roads. Snowmobiles are allowed on city roads to get to a trail access, but we don't have ATV trails in the area. No other city in Dakota County allows ATVs on city streets. Red Wing allows UTVs but not in their downtown district, and they have lower traffic counts than Hastings. My concerns are the Highway 61 project pushing more traffic onto local roads, difficult enforcement, and potential conflicts between vehicles, bicycles, and UTVs. A permit would cost roughly $170 for employee time and stickers. I'm looking for a motion to either change the ordinance or keep it as is. [1:30:42] Dan Wietecha: If I could interject, although the Public Safety Committee didn't vote on a specific recommendation, the general consensus of those meetings was supportive of changing the ordinance to allow adults to utilize these vehicles on city streets. [1:31:28] Councilmember Leifeld: Thank you, Chief. Are there insurance concerns since the manufacturers suggest they not be used on paved roads? [1:31:28] City Attorney: Our ordinance requires insurance. It would be up to the owner to get an addendum for that vehicle from their insurance company. [1:31:28] Councilmember Leifeld: I'm in support of this. Drivers must be licensed and over 16. We can write in restrictions for Highways 55, 46, 61, and 316. I equate this to my scooter—I follow traffic laws. It's like the chicken ordinance; people were worried, but we've seen no issues. I make a motion to draft a change to 7.02 to allow UTVs and ATVs. [1:34:33] Dave Wilske: Just one clarification: your scooter is a licensed motor vehicle. UTVs are not licensed by the state; you'd be allowing an unlicensed vehicle on the roadway. [1:35:18] Councilmember Leifeld: I see that, but I think we can make it work. [1:35:18] Councilmember Vihrachoff: I tend to agree. I represent "Cowtown," and many folks there have large properties and already use side-by-sides. If I'm clear, we're sending this to staff to change the ordinance? And Chief, what is the current penalty? [1:36:50] Dave Wilske: It's an ordinance violation and you'd receive a citation. [1:37:36] Mary Fasbender: My mind always goes to safety. I see children driving these without helmets or guidance. I want the public to know these are often driven illegally and unsafely already. Can we do an experimental period like the chicken ordinance? [1:39:54] Dave Wilske: We could, but it's often not well-received if we rescind freedoms later. [1:41:26] Councilmember Lawrence: I've seen an ATV vs. Silverado crash firsthand. It's a terrible scene. We need to keep that in mind. [1:42:13] Councilmember Fox: I'll second the motion. My hope is that permitting them actually allows for better enforcement. I beg the community to be safe and diligent about permitting. [1:44:35] Mary Fasbender: Motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. [1:44:35] City Council (Unison): Aye. [1:44:35] Mary Fasbender: Opposed, nay. [1:44:35] Councilmembers Lawrence, Fasbender, and others: Nay. [1:44:35] Mary Fasbender: The motion prevails. Dan, you are on for the preliminary 2025 property tax levy. [1:45:35] Dan Wietecha: This is an increase of 7.5%, or $1.4 million. On the median-value house ($313,000), this is a $106 annual increase for the City's portion. We are adding two full-time firefighters and a second school resource officer. We're also budgeting for contracted engineering services and a 3.25% COLA. For utilities, we are looking at a 37.3% increase in water rates to pay for the first treatment plant. However, this is a worst-case scenario. We have a $1 million grant already, and we're hoping for a $3 million grant in October. If we get that, we could lower that 37% number by the time we set the final budget in December. We've worked in many efficiencies, like the prevailing wage exception on the water tower. The public hearing will be December 2nd. [2:01:06] Mary Fasbender: Do we vote on these separately? I would think so. Councilmember Vihrachoff. [2:01:06] Councilmember Vihrachoff: I’d like to thank staff. This is a really good budget and I make a motion to support it. [2:01:54] Mary Fasbender: Seconded by Councilmember Leifeld. [2:01:54] Councilmember Leifeld: Just so people know, we've discussed this at great length in workshops. What you're hearing now is a cohesive unit acting in the best interest of constituents. [2:02:41] Mary Fasbender: All in favor, say aye. [2:02:41] City Council (Unison): Aye. [2:02:41] Mary Fasbender: Opposed, nay. Motion prevails. Dan, HEDRA special tax levy. [2:03:30] Dan Wietecha: This is a formality for a separate HEDRA levy. Historically we do it at the 0.0185% level and recommend that again. [2:04:18] Councilmember Fox: I'll make a motion to approve. [2:04:18] Mary Fasbender: Seconded by Councilmember Pemble. All in favor, say aye. [2:04:18] City Council (Unison): Aye. [2:05:05] Mary Fasbender: PFAS update. Dan? [2:05:05] Dan Wietecha: We presented the siting study tonight. We wanted to talk with owners like SEAS and the Carbonis before showing it publicly. We've also submitted comments to the PCA regarding 3M's wastewater permit in Cottage Grove, emphasizing that they should be held responsible for the damage to our drinking water. [2:09:00] Mary Fasbender: Any announcements? Music in the Park is Thursday; movies in the park is Friday. Bike with a ranger is Saturday. The mattress and shred event is also Saturday. Fire Relief Booya is September 14th. [2:10:11] Councilmember Leifeld: Rivertown Live is also Saturday the 14th. Diamond Rio is playing. [2:10:58] Mary Fasbender: Still need a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Pemble and Councilmember Lawrence. All in favor, say aye. [2:10:58] City Council (Unison): Aye. [2:10:58] Mary Fasbender: We are adjourned.