Based on the provided context and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names added. **Note:** The transcript refers to "Councilmember Lund" and "Councilmember Fox." While they were not on your provided list of Ward representatives, they are clearly identified as members of the council during the meeting and have been labeled accordingly. *** [0:00] Mayor Mary Fasbender: council meeting to order please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance [0:12] Mayor Mary Fasbender: for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all welcome on this sunny bright first day of spring and the sun is shining and it's still light out so it's a good start to uh our meeting let the role reflect that we do have one absent council member tonight council member falch is absent and we have a quorum so we can continue tonight we will be having a presentation for the building remembrance for reconciliation and Heidi langenfelt is with us tonight to give us an update on what's been happening with br4r welcome Heidi [0:58] Heidi Langenfelt: thank you Mary so um yes we really appreciated the opportunity to be to be part of that um the community investment fund and thanks to that building remembrance for reconciliation was able to have a charette process and that involved having a number of artists come on September 23rd and we met in the Art Space building and they were told the story about Brown's chapel and from that they also were given our mission statement and they spent the rest of the day planning and thinking about well first of all we were shown they were shown the the space that it has been designated by the parks department for the memorial and this space in case you um just need a little help and background on in the left corner is Art Space and so this is this little corner of the Levee Park is right on the east side and it's along Tyler Street where it turns into First Street and it has this beautiful tree and a nice open space so we all went down there and looked at the space together and went back into the Art Space Gathering area there and they came up with three three different designs well actually I think four and so um we had our goal for the public art project is to create opportunities for conversation and discussion about race relations in our community while addressing reconciliation and we wanted to be an attractive space for visitors reflection events and Exhibits and we think this space is awesome that you know space to do that in what we're doing is um looking for a public art piece that commemorates the Hastings early black community and the congregation of Brown's Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Hastings that was destroyed by arson in 1907. tonight I'm going to present one of our artist teams renderings that reflects their design concept for the space designated in this area this is a work in progress and not a final concept and we'll continue to be working with artists teams to further refine and develop the project in the next stage of the Divine design process James Curry who is the chair of br4r would have been here this evening but he has to work and he has been working with the artists who were chosen through the charette process members of this team the artists are Micah Lee Anders Anders Christopher Harrison and their advisor collaborator is an art these are all artists from Saint from the Twin Cities area but and say to Jones is working with them so I'll go back to the um to the the artists Micah and Chris provided this artist statement for me to use to explain to you what what your what their idea is that you're looking at right here the name of the um they title their installation their souls Run Deep and I'm pretty much going to read this because there's um parts of it that I don't want to miss out so they say this piece was designed to celebrate the lives of Hastings early African-American Community an important part of that Community was the African Methodist Episcopal Church that they named Brown's Chapel it was a space of their own where they could worship god without shame or fear and in 1907 their church was destroyed by arson this piece is also meant to commemorate that destruction of their Sacred Space besides the celebration of the community that was here the proposed sculpture includes five concrete benches with vertical upright backs resembling Church stained glass windows equally spaced in an oval shape with a curved wall reminiscent of a chapel at the head of the formation this is another view of that the window areas of the benches are designed to have transparent weatherproof polycarbonate sheets with African adinkra symbols imprinted on them referencing the heritage of the churchgoers the idea is to have the paved concrete serving as a connective foundation for the sculpture news quotes of the events from the time and names of the church families can be engraved in concrete throughout the piece and you'll see they they're showing it here how the shadows will show through those window like church window like shapes behind the benches the curved wall with the central window space for a transparent polycarbonate sheet is designed it's designed to contain a photo imprint of the congregation of the church the members of the church and you have all seen that photo I'm sure we we've shown it a number of times the outer faces of the benches and the curved edges um pardon me to and the wood resembles the wood paneling of the church walls so I don't know if you can see that especially on that rounded place but let me go to this this design shows that in the background of the back part of these Church benches you can see it looks like the wood frame wood frame building building that's what that's meant to design to represent the edges of the main curved wall will be slightly distressed to refer to the destroyed structure see that in the middle one the middle panel the curved wall and benches will be made of poured concrete which will allow for more intricate detail in form and for the addition of text it is a very durable low maintenance material and will hold up well to weather changes and the three-quarter inch polycarbonate panels that are used in those window structures there are strong so therefore they're quite tamper resistant so these are the three looking at this straightforward and that's the last one so they say it is vital to keep the stories of all Hastings early settlers in View and accessible to the public the placement and approachability of this piece invite viewers to read the stories see some of the faces of the Browns Chapel congregation and say the names of the early residents the final Dimensions will be determined by scale and judgment so this this is what they have provided me with for for your um to show you this evening and um if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them and if not able to tonight I'll get you the answers thank you Heidi [9:28] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Council any questions council member Layfield [9:30] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: thank you honor I when did you say all of the submissions need to be in by [9:41] Heidi Langenfelt: um okay so we have everything is in everything yes so what happened that whole that day they they all came up with designs okay and then after that there was a a committee of of our members who looked at their designs and chose these artists part of the others so I guess I must have I apologize is that is the decision made is that the piece that's going to be installed no well I mean that that no we're working it's not it's still in progress but it's the one that they these artists have come up with and they've this is for what they represent what they've sent to us right now wonderful thank you [10:15] Mayor Mary Fasbender: okay thanks Heidi well look oh councilmember Lund [10:21] Councilmember Lund: oh thank you honor uh just a small comment I didn't know what to expect I didn't expect that and I was pleasantly surprised I think that's really beautiful really cool so thanks for sharing [10:36] Mayor Mary Fasbender: okay thank you again for the opportunity yeah I look forward to see the to do the process of search and yeah okay be great thank you on council members are there any corrections to the minutes from the March 6th meeting okay and at this time we'll take public comments from the audience is there anyone wishing to speak to the council at this time [11:03] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Zoom no one on Zoom okay Council items to be considered councils are there any items to be considered okay Council I would accept a motion to add the DNR grants under Parks as required by staff [11:16] Councilmember Fox: [Motion made] [11:17] Councilmember Angie Haus: [Seconded] [11:18] Mayor Mary Fasbender: any other discussion all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye aye opposed to that Motion state by saying me and that motion prevails a council I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda [11:42] Councilmember Dave Pemble: [Motion made] [11:43] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: [Seconded] [11:46] Mayor Mary Fasbender: any discussion all those in favor of the Motion councils state by saying aye aye opposed to that Motion state by saying nay and that motion prevails tonight under Parks and Rec we have a resolution for the DNR outdoor recreation Grant and for this item we have City administrator Dan Wietecha explain and we will have a motion after the explanation thank you appreciate uh accommodate accommodating this is a lead addition to the agenda we had some questions and correspondence with the Department of Natural Resources late last week and missed the uh getting on on the agenda timely but the application deadline is before our next meeting so I wanted to be able to move this uh actually it's [12:35] Dan Wietecha: three separate resolutions although they're all identical but we would be seeking uh grants through the dnr's outdoor recreation program for new playground equipment at kanzemius Pioneer and Tuttle Parks our estimates are two hundred thousand dollars at each Park 600 000 total uh if awarded uh the DNR Grant would cover uh 50 of the cost and 50 being a match requirement we do have uh cash for Park improvements available that could cover that so if there's thoughts we're getting ahead of the budget process we can work with it the other part I would point out is as we go through the budget process or a couple of upcoming meetings looking at our five-year Parks plan if some of the priorities were to change we could always pull an application or even if it was awarded even turn down the the grant so we've we've got some flexibility approving the applications tonight keeps the the most options open for us so with that I can take any questions but staff recommends approval [13:57] Mayor Mary Fasbender: okay thank you Dan any Council discussion council member Lund [13:59] Councilmember Lund: your honored thank you um Dan why are we choosing these three parks to be part of that is there I mean are the specifics of the grant to be for neighborhood parks since it says outdoor recreation so I'm just curious if there was a different project on the horizon that would be the right [14:20] Dan Wietecha: the reasons for these is a matter of they're the ones that are next in line in our comprehensive plan so when we lay out it's not the same as approved in the budget but when we lay out the comp plan saying here's the projects in 24 25 26 these are the ones that are next up [14:43] Councilmember Lund: so um and I I that makes sense I I guess my question is um maybe spurred by the one of the last sentences that says the grant is also highly competitive so are we positioning ourselves best with three neighborhood parks versus something else that's on the you know potential list of things whether it's planned for or nice to have or whatever that would be more aligned with the you know the rubric of requirements for this just you probably don't have that off the top of your head but it you know I mean that's a [15:11] Dan Wietecha: that was certainly part of our conversations with the DNR last week we were hoping that um Trail improvements would be eligible but they're not unless it was Trails specifically within the park uh so we we were looking at sort of a different priority than this there's certainly needs throughout our system and this helps would help tackle some of that they are next in the CIP I would also point out although certainly competitive we had similar funding for the playground at Lions Park a few years ago and more than just the playground but funding towards the lake Isabel Park project which is is current too so we've used this grant program in the past [16:04] Mayor Mary Fasbender: other discussion Council okay then I would accept a motion to approve the resolution authorizing application in Minnesota Department of Natural Resources outdoor recreation grant for consemias Pioneer and Tuttle parks [16:33] Councilmember Fox: [Motion made] [16:34] Councilmember Dave Pemble: [Seconded] [16:37] Mayor Mary Fasbender: any additional discussion Council all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye I opposed to that Motion state by saying nay and that motion prevails tonight under Community Development we have a second reading to adapt ordinance on the annexation best development property Walden at Hastings trunk Highway 316 and Michael Avenue for this site and we have an introduction by community development director John hinsman followed by a potential action by city council welcome John [17:15] John Hinzman: thank you mayor City Council Members so tonight as the mayor pointed out we're asking for a second reading and Adoption of the ordinance for annexation for the property listed here this is a 71-acre property generally located east of Highway 316 and Michael Avenue just south of the South Pines area to the north here this is an area of property that has been designated for development with intercomprehensive plan and the developers of the property and the owner of the property best development being the owner and land Equity being the developer are both seeking annexation of this property we've had this consideration before us in a couple of different occasions in the past most recently we looked at this last meeting on March 6th and had a discussion on some of the ramifications we had some questions come up pertaining to traffic and land use and what happens within the process here with the annexation that moves forward tonight what we would be doing is extending the city boundaries the land use that is entailed within that site would remain the same that does not change at this point obviously the land use being agriculture is not something that the developers are looking to have in perpetuity but there's many other steps that we will be going through before we get to that point one of the things we will be going through is an environmental assessment worksheet which will be put together on on behalf of the developer and reviewed by staff as well as a number of other entities that have review authority over that this is something that would look over a number of things including some of the geology water environmental contamination Wildlife fish historic visual air quality noise and transportation so those are some of the items in which the environmental assessment worksheet is required to address and what sort of impacts that this development will have on it the transportation question has been one that's been brought up by a number of people including the council here and so the developer has made that commitment to do the traffic study this would be by independent third party but it would be reviewed not only by City staff our engineering department but also by other entities that would have a stakeholder within this including MnDOT so those would be what would be happening down the road before this development that I'm going to be showing you here becomes a reality there's a number of different steps that would need to take place I mentioned the environmental assessment worksheet which would come forward to provide impacts of the development in any mitigating factors that must be taken into consideration and then there would be land use applications that would come forward after that including a amendment to our comprehensive plan to change the land use from a low density to a mid density designation rezoning for the property planning site plan approvals we get more finite with the details as we move down the road all of those all of those different acts by the city council will be prefaced by a public hearing to Residents so they would be notified of that similarly to what we've done in the past up to this point so many opportunities for folks to come in and give comment on that as we move forward I think an important aspect of this too is the developer is moving forward with this at his own risk at this point we are looking at the annexation tonight which is bringing the land in the land would be agriculture uh the developer is is put together a concept plan which you've seen before to go through a little bit here in a moment but where there's no obligation that the council is granting tonight through the annexation to anything within that plan obviously if we're at a point where there's strong objections to what's in that plan it would be good to hear those objections at this point but your actions tonight on the annexation do not affect or do not approve any portion of that if you if you come back at a later point and traffic or some other issue comes up it's your discretion to say no to the specific plan that comes forward so that's kind of a a synopsis of where we're at like I've said before we've had a a number of different times that this has been reviewed we back when the original annexation came forward in 2021 we had a public hearing and a first reading and a couple of times at the city council and then when it was tabled at that time because the developer at that time went away we tabled the issue to bring back when a new developer came forward which we do have now and the concept has changed gone from 160 single-family homes to about 450 housing units of a variety of densities so that that has changed within here with that New Concept plan we did have a neighborhood meeting that was uh conducted by the developer on that one which we had about 25 30 people attend we did have the planning committee of city council review this as well as the Planning Commission of city council review this as well just to get a good indication of what those comments would be as we move forward in the development so the development itself looks something like this 450 units altogether I'm going to go through this a little bit we've got Twin Homes that would be towards the North End of the property as we look here this is where Michael Avenue comes in off of Highway 316 and this is a stub street that goes into the South Pines development at this point as we move forward there is a town home section which would be located in this area the town homes themselves would have their front facing towards 316 this interior Road here would serve more like an Alleyway so the garages and utilities would be in the back of this while the fronts of the homes would either face 316 or towards this Greenway in the center of the development and then in the middle of the development there'd be an act of adult Assisted Living section of it which would have a variety of different housing uses for senior individuals towards the back of the development this configuration has changed but it would be right now one apartment building kind of in an l-shape like this that would provide good views over the preserved area here which is the San Coulee again the the area that we show here the 50 acres would be developed were the 17 Acres over here would be left as is and moving down to the southern part of the development this would be a single family detached housing model and so that is really what we're looking at with the development there would be a system of trails that would go through here uh in in park-like amenities one of the things we will be doing upon approval is to ask the planning the Park and Recreation committee to review this plat this plan again to see if there's any park dedication or or Park dedication fees or physical land dedications or whatnot that should be incorporated into this development during the 160 acre 160 Home Development previously the opted to recommend cash in lieu of land with the increased number of residences here want to make sure that that has not changed so that would be something we would be doing here in the near future on that so that is how the development is set out one other aspect of this development too is that the developer believes that this would be a rental Community not sure which all if all the all of the housing units would be rental or a course of that would be but his plan is to Market it in such a fashion there from a land use standpoint we don't get into the business of regulating the status of rent of rental versus ownership we're in the business of looking at land use on that one understand that that's a it's a concern and something that's being considered by by individuals when they're looking at this development from purely a land use standpoint we're looking at the the density and the layout of the development as we move forward with it and again what we're showing here tonight is a conceptual plan that the developer would bring forward for approvals more formally in the future so that's what we have before us tonight I believe the developers representative Rick Harrison might be with us on Zoom if you have any questions directly for him the developer unfortunately was Ill tonight and was not able to make the meetings so action before you tonight for your consideration is the adoption of the ordinance for annexation with that ordinance for annexation upon adoption tonight we would take that forward to the state of Minnesota for recording and then that would be made official at that point so I could stand for any questions thank you thank you [26:11] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you John questions council member Layfield [26:13] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: thank you honor John so just for questions from people around the community that have been asking different things I my question is we talked about summergate who originally brought this in 2021 they backed off now we've got land Equity development does land Equity development currently own that property [26:36] John Hinzman: they do not the develop the owner of the property is is best development they were the owners of they've been the owners of property for about 25 years or so so they were the owner during the summer gate as well so my understanding is there's a purchase agreement between uh land equity and the current owner's best development that if certain items are achieved that they would take ownership [26:55] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: okay that so for the last 25 years a development company has owned that property with the idea of expanding it [27:03] John Hinzman: that is correct [27:04] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: how long is the Tuttle property when did that get built you know offhand I know [27:08] John Hinzman: oh just to the north there that would be uh late 2000 late 90s I think right around 2000 [27:15] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: so around the time that those houses were being built did best development already own that property [27:21] John Hinzman: I I believe so I'm not certain of that I know uh when when I've talked to them that they had owned it for about 25 or years or more which would be right around the same time frame that that development to the north was was being constructed [27:36] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: and then somebody must rent that from best development to farm it [27:40] John Hinzman: I believe that's the case I don't know how that arrangement's made [27:44] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: so right now we have a developer who owns the property that's zoned agricultural and all we want to do is talk about letting this developer eventually maybe now maybe not because that's not going forward to allow them to move forward in the concept by Along by making this part of City Limits [27:58] John Hinzman: yep that's correct and with the development here that I've had conversations with best development over 20 years and they've had desires to bring it in sooner we've held off on bringing it in prior to any improvements to 316 now that the improvements to 316 have been contemplated we told them we would be open to looking at it [28:14] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: your honor I'd make a motion to adopt the ordinance annexation of best development as written and presented by staff [28:23] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you council member Leifeld council member Fox additional new discussion council member Lund [28:44] Councilmember Lund: thank you okay um there's there's varying opinions on this in you know throughout the community obviously I think one of them is just the volume right we've talked about that like I think context matters to you mentioned 450 units roughly versus 160 roughly um before it was 160 single-family homes it's not Apples to Apples to say units right so one one nugget of information might be nice to have going forward is to talk about it is beds or or people that are you know some inhabitants of the area or whatever you know how much how much are we actually growing that from the original concept um and then also the mix right so traffic is of a concern how much of that percentage-wise or people wise are are actually people that are in that senior living or or whatever that aren't getting up and going to work every day necessarily or you know driving during peak times and wanna I'm just asking that we we start putting some more of that um context into these conversations and you know not put it on you put on the developer to to explain that because um I think even just you know even though I know about this and I've you know more than probably the average person out there would um you hear numbers like that and it seems like 3x and and I think it's not exactly 3x there's there's Nuance to it so enough said there but I'd appreciate that um and then from my I've got just a couple things and I'll be quiet but the the strong objections again traffic that's the big thing that people are concerned about you know what are we adding stress to the system what's that look like on off streets and and whatnot so um you know I understand there's a good faith effort here of you know we're not committing to a specific development but at the same time it's kind of you know chicken in the egg and you got to move or or you know or you can't make it you know it's not not going to work out for them so um if if we're incredibly opposed to that concept then you know it'd be good for me to know I think is the idea um but I think we're most people would be opposed to something that's going to be significantly negative to the the street systems and and you know traffic and so forth so as long as that message is clear they know that um for me sticking closely to the plan as as proposed at the point in which there is a plan proposed is is important um this development may take a couple of years or several years to actually fully develop and yes things do change um but you know we've we've run into some situations and other developments where um you know the the growth of that land didn't necessarily happen maybe at the rate at which they had hoped when they first kicked it off and things changed and then we get into kind of well that's not exactly what we thought we were going to get and so forth so just you know knowing that that's important at least from my opinion and then um one more thing is the net benefit so what I'd like to know and I don't expect to have that information now but um what I'd like to know is what what do we expect the the tax Revenue to be as an Adder to to the city um and how many new residents do we expect to bring into the city does that affect our school system are there these are you know uh projected additional you know ex students brought in because of this um so forth things like that would be nice to know rather than just hey you know housing's good we need housing because you know I mean it's kind of easy to say and at a certain point we need to start understanding what that actually means besides just more buildings um and then um let's let's offset that with any added liability so it's nice to know we're going to get x million dollars over the course of time of Revenue but we also need two more fire department two more fire um people staffed the fire department with two more people another police officer Public Works is going to spend X more hours or we need one more truck or whatever it might be to to serve that area so I know there's a lot but I think those things do help any concerns and also help make a good decision something like this so thanks [33:58] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you councilmember Lund council member house [34:11] Councilmember Angie Haus: well said council member council member Lund um I appreciate that because I've also had many um many concerns brought into citizens by citizens and residents and so my main question is as well is I know on the south area there are plans to do a fencing of that area if the development goes through on the North End though what is the projected um are they going to be doing a fencing area of that area as well for those residents who will be affected by having that in their new site [34:26] John Hinzman: a council member on the North and you can see there's about a 30-foot green strip that's through here within that area it was discussed what to do with the residents throughout the neighborhood meeting from the on The Unofficial vote tally at that meeting they wanted to see a Berman landscape so Berman would be the have a small hill that would be made out of here and planted up so they'll provide that additional separation here most of these homes right here have chain link fences across right now I believe [35:11] Councilmember Angie Haus: thank you so much I appreciate it and then the next thing is is that but um if this annotation goes through when would that traffic study go through I've just been asked a few times [35:22] John Hinzman: sure I believe the co the traffic study would start pretty shortly after the annexation uh the clock would be running for them to take action on the environmental assessment worksheet the traffic study being a part of that so I would think pretty quickly [35:37] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you council member house um John I just have a question I'm going to go to the other side of it we Annex it in what if it doesn't happen at all is there a liability from a city standpoint after it's already annexed in because it can't be annexed I mean it can't be taken back right so then what it just remain Farm or egg and the Continuum of that contractor or whoever is renting it out to farm will can that continue and it would just be city property [35:55] John Hinzman: yeah at this point mayor the use of the property could continue as is as agriculture would still be owned privately by best development and they could make contracts to farm it so when we go through an annexation the ad hoc zoning District we use as agriculture so our agriculture zoning District would allow for the types of activities that are occurring that are at present so they could use it as is [36:29] Mayor Mary Fasbender: okay so there's no additional liability to the city once it's annexed in [36:34] John Hinzman: I don't believe so I don't think anything would change I mean if there's anything on that one it would be on the development side because the tax structure in the city might be a little higher than the township sure okay thank you [36:59] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Council okay there is emotion on the floor all those in favor of that Motion state by saying aye I opposed to that Motion state by saying nay and that motion prevails thank you thank you John second reading city code Amendment chapter 117 cannabis and hemp licensing and for this item we have an introduction by our City attorney Corey land welcome Corey [37:38] City Attorney Corey Land: thank you your honor members of the council this is where I need John's disclaimer viewer discretion is advised it sounds better in his voice uh tonight we have a final reading for both our licensing ordinance and the zoning ordinance for cannabis regulations just a quick primer on hemp versus marijuana because I think there's a lot of just people don't really understand the difference between the two the way it all starts is it has its origins in the cannabis plant I first of all am not a scientist didn't do well in science in fact which is why I went to law school but I did get very very educated quickly on all things cannabis back in the day when medical cannabis was approved in the state of Minnesota and so I have learned a lot and now that this is on a fast track I've learned even more so the cannabis plant produces the THC and that is what differentiates the difference between hemp versus marijuana hemp is technically anything with 0.3 percent or less THC marijuana is everything more than point three percent THC it really is that simple in 2018 the federal government decided that they were going to legalize CBD the cannabity all a fun word to say it is found in all cannabis plants so again it just depends on whether or not it is 0.3 percent or less or 0.3 or more but the CBD is found in all cannabis plants so the only one that is legal federally is the type of hemp products that are produced that are 0.3 THC or less so that's federally legal states have gone completely off the rails as far as whatever the federal government said states are choosing to do other things with both CBD as well as marijuana in 2022 the legislature surprised everyone and legalized edible CBD so prior to this time it was a little unclear when when the federal government that said CBD products nobody really knew I think everybody kind of thought that meant clothing you know things that were not necessarily that people would consume but then obviously that became a thing and so in 2022 edible CBD with less than 0.3 THC became legal in the state of Minnesota but they did not have any administrative oversight they just said these are some performance standards we're putting in place but we're not going to regulate it really they do not regulate it at all the performance standards are it can't be modeled after a brand of products primarily marketed or consumed to children as you can see from the products not sure anybody's complying with that part of the law it may not be packaged in a way that resembles any kind of commercially available food product it must be packaged in a container that's child resistant and tamper evident and there's a limit of the quantity of THC in a package five milligrams of THC per serving and 50 milligrams per package so as you can see from the gummy bears on the right 25 milligrams of CBD per gummy so you get one-fifth of a gummy in the state of Minnesota of that particular product the Minnesota alcohol gambling enforcement agency which is known as age has advised they have opined they have dictated that these types of CBD beverages cannot be sold at liquor stores they can be sold at on sale establishments but they cannot be sold at liquor stores because they are considered a food and unless you are going to add a CBD product to a food you cannot sell it at a liquor store that is the law and they have opined that the beverages themselves as being a food already are not allowed to be sold at liquor stores so that's not nothing we can change we have prohibited in our ordinance because it is what age age is enforcing that doesn't mean that on sale can't sell it they can they can sell CBD products the proposed zoning ordinance introduces all of the CBD businesses for cultivating manufacturing testing wholesale retail and medical that's what we have included in our ordinance and then what we have done is put them into their proper zoning districts so for example in the AG District we're allowing cultivating but putting some performance standards on it saying but you have to have a hundred acres or more in order to qualify for that kind of a business in the AG District we're allowing for retail sales of see these now these are just the edible CBD products so it's point three percent or less THC in the C3 Community Regional and the C4 Regional shopping center districts they must comply with all the performance standards that we're putting in place in those zoning districts which I'll get to and then the manufacturing testing in wholesale we're putting in the industrial two the I2 Industrial Park zoning District uh you may say where are those districts that you're talking about I don't know what you mean I don't have my zoning map memorized well here's your zoning map so if you look at the red those are your C3 the maroon or the C4 shopping center and then the dark dark gray which is there's only one little I2 District so you can kind of see it right below right near the blue so did we see that okay it's a little L shaped that's the only I2 so C3 C4 is where your retail could go and then the dark gray is the I2 and then of course egg is green what are our performance standards on the retail businesses must require proof of age many of these are already in the state law it cannot be sold to anyone under 21. so must require proof of age and have signage of the of the age requirement products must comply with the labeling and the packaging requirements we're not sure exactly what that may look like right now we know what's on the books today for these CBD Edibles so they must comply with those requirements sales between 8 A.M and 10 p.m this is something you can choose to change it seems to be kind of a common we don't really want to have these businesses open to earlier too late because they do potentially these retail stores may have some security issues so it might be nice to have them closed down before it gets too late at night the products must be behind a counter you can't have direct contact by the customers until they reach the point of sale again this is in the current law anyway a security plan approved by the police chief many of these retailers will be unable to get Bank approved loans or lending opportunities and so they will have to be a cash business and so we think it's very important that the security plan not just include cameras and you know whatever kinds of security on sale security people staff but also where are your bushes in front of your windows you know what kinds of Windows and access do you have to your back door all of those security things that a police chief would look at just to make sure that they have a good security plan for this business to make it safe and then they have to comply with the compliance checks that we currently do for tobacco and alcohol so that we can monitor whether or not they are having a potentially illegal sales to minors or 21 under 21. no purchase used in possession by anyone under 21 clerks must be 21 to sell it that is currently in the state law no product now here's a fun one no product can contain more than point three percent THC obviously that's the current legal limit but there's legislation that may alter that uh cannot be sold by vending machines again that goes with the customer contact has to be have to have an intervention by a clerk uh no no Mobile sales would be allowed so that means no transient Merchants no Peddlers no special events uh no home occupations and no delivery of these kinds of retail sales and not allowed at liquor stores or bars now we did take the extra step not just to say they're not allowed to be sold at off sale but we also said on sale and these were direct recommendations from both the public safety advisory committee as well as the Public Safety Committee of the council the licensing ordinance is very similar it other than the fact that it requires a license so all of those zoning uses by the way require a conditional use permit so none of them will you know sneak in as a permitted use they will all come before the Planning Commission and Council for approval so you can put appropriate conditions on them if needed so every business will also have to be licensed by the city the applicant will undergo a background investigation it has your typical license requirements of being a one-year term no transfer of license from person to person or place to place the same identical performance standards that are in zoning are in licensing we are not requiring a license for medical marijuana because that appears to have been completely preempted by the state because they regulate all medical marijuana facilities and they actually approve manufacturing facilities and where they go they're also supposed to be approving the retail locations as well we do need to discuss what those license fees will be which will be part two after we get through the adoption of these ordinances then you can discuss the fees because and if you don't approve these there's no but I'll go through the exercise right so let's make sure we get through this part these two parts first and then I'll let Kelly take it away to discuss fees I'll help Now red flag there is proposed legislation right now probably as we speak being amended and added to and changed of adult use cannabis the state regulation establishes what they're calling the office of cannabis management and if they do that and they license all things cannabis that will completely preempt our licensing ordinance so we will not be able to license these uses but both of in the house and the Senate they have a provision right now that says that the cities can opt to register these uses not quite as enforcement uh friendly uh but what the registration does is it allows you to suspend a license if there's a if let's say they're a bad actor and they're not complying with your uh with the state law or your zoning regulations you can suspend their registration for a period of up to 30 days but the state's the only one that can actually revoke it so they're what they're supposed to do is then they hold a hearing and they figure out whether or not they're going to revoke a license or reverse the suspension so that's the enforcement mechanism for licensing if the adult use cannabis goes through it does not allow cities to prohibit uses one thing we have done in our ordinances is prohibit the delivery the home occupations uh the transient merchants and Peddlers and they would not be allowed in special events we can't prohibit those things we can regulate time place and manner of them uh so that's the one tool that seems to be in both the house and the Senate version is it allows zoning control as long as you're regulating time place and manner so the reason that I have duplicative performance standards is if the licensing ordinance gets tossed out we still have all of those performance standards in zoning and I can point to all of them and argue until I blew in the face that they are time placing Mana regulations even things related to Peddlers and solicitors and special events I'm not sure that depending on what ends up in the final State legislation we may or may not be able to uphold those things but I'm going to make a good faith effort it does allow cities both of the again in the house and the Senate allow cities to adopt a moratorium so if you want to just call a Timeout on anything over 0.3 percent THC so maybe you pass this and we keep the regulations on the current CBD Edibles which are the under 0.3 percent THC and you want to call a moratorium on everything else until we kind of let the dust settle you can do that and they're actually extending the moratorium law an extra long time so normally you can only have a moratorium for a year this allows it through January of 2025. so it's almost a you know it'll probably be like a year and a half moratorium if you wanted to do that so kind of the the ordinance or the parts of our ordinance that may be a little uh iffy or that we might have to revisit if the legislation is passed we can't license uses but we can register them so we'll just have to tweak the words and then we can't have our performance standards in the licensing section no product can contain more than point three percent THC that's not okay unless we call moratorium Mobile sales they're saying that's not okay to prohibit those things but again we might be able to regulate them with time place and manner restrictions and then not allowed at liquor stores or bars they're promising to fix that so they can be sold at liquor stores for sure they currently can be sold at Bars Under the current law that's just our ordinance is prohibiting it at any on sale establishment one of the versions has in it that the cities depending on your size your population you can limit the number of retail licenses you offer retail license and registrations that you offer and so Hastings would be into the category of you could limit it to four you would have to allow at least four but you could cap it at four if you so true chose to do that so the recommendation at this point I would say we move forward with the adoption of the two ordinances because we don't know for sure what the legislature is going to do believe me I've waffled back and forth with let's just put the brakes on this and wait and see what they do and I finally just you know we don't know I mean it's taken a while for it to get through all the Committees that it has the versions are not the same at the house and the Senate they have to reconcile that they have to get through their budget to find out if they can even afford to establish this office of man cannabis management so they have a lot of hurdles to get over before this is approved I think they probably will do it but why not go ahead and adopt this and then wait and see what happens now we are suggesting a late implementation to give staff time to kind of get the application forms in place and figure out what it is we need as well as to notify those that are out there selling it today that this is coming I mean it's not fair just to slap it on them tomorrow and say you're out of business you're out of business you're out of business everybody needs a license so we thought we better have an education time period let people know what we expect of them let them decide whether or not they even want to have a license they may decide it's not worth it maybe it's not profitable to them to continue to operate in that and then they need to get out sell out their inventory so July 1st is our suggested implementation date by then we will for sure know what the legislature is going to do anyway and so we can pivot if we need to or we can just choose to implement as I said this the part of it that regulates the CBD Edibles and then put a moratorium on the anything over 0.3 percent THC unless you decide that that's not something that we need to to do and then it would just be legal in Hastings so I said a lot please ask questions thank you [53:20] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you Corey Council any discussion council member Lund [53:23] Councilmember Lund: thank you honor um a few questions uh just a matter of language does the proposal um state current uh percentage or does it State the 0.3 percent explicitly [53:41] City Attorney Corey Land: I use the point three percent which is not I mean that's a very uh well established percentage it dates back to the early 70s where some scientists said anything less than 0.3 percent is hemp anything over 0.3 percent is marijuana okay and so that I don't anticipate that percentage changing [54:02] Councilmember Lund: got it and then um so so that answers my next one I think and I'll just clarify though is that that point three percent is not being reconsidered at the in the revision at the state [54:19] City Attorney Corey Land: okay no [54:21] Councilmember Lund: um you said that a cap of four for a city of our size um then let's say there's four uh brick and mortars already that that get approved um then that would remove any mobile vendor opportunity effectively [54:40] City Attorney Corey Land: yeah that's a good question it depends on how they Define retail whether it's a brick and mortar or whether a peddler counts as retail okay and I I did not read through all 100 pages of either the house or the Senate version I tried to pick out the word local Authority control and things like that to see what it was we can do but I'm sure that's a Nuance we're going to have to figure out [55:10] Councilmember Lund: yep okay yeah something obviously to look into um and then the the I think the big one is a from from my perspective is prohibitive use versus the zoning lever that we could pull so can you give us an example and I think you'd actually mentioned it in your final when your final slides where um bars may be uh questionable but let's just say there's a bar in town um in in what situation is it prohibitive uses or zoning that that that would not be allowed then so is it zoning would then Trump that or is it the state [55:54] City Attorney Corey Land: prohibitive uses then says no bars would be able to so the state law does not prohibit it on sale liquor establishments our ordinance and from the recommendations of both psac as well as the Public Safety Committee was to prohibit it on sale so that's a performance Standard Time place and manner restriction that we put in our zoning ordinance [56:19] Councilmember Lund: okay just to follow up on that so what you're saying is then because our ordinance if passed would then say um this is zoned as such therefore the prohibitive uses do not apply then we're allowing it so we're allowing retail uses just not at on sale liquor establishments right so if we said no retail whatsoever that would be prohibiting the use we're just restricting got it time place and manner place in that case [56:46] Mayor Mary Fasbender: ah council member Layfield [56:48] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: thank you honor Corey question for you then... that .3 piece is kind of a little irrelevant just because all that's telling us is what's considered THC right it's the five milligram piece that we're looking at other states have you know that it can be in 10 milligram Edibles up to 100 milligrams per package so this is just the the amount of THC that we can have five milligrams of a THC product in an edible with a Max of 50 milligrams in a package right that 0.3 thing is just the definition of how do we define THC over CBD like the ointment I put on my knee it's less than 0.3 percent it's CBD it's not THC [57:51] City Attorney Corey Land: well it's it's point three percent THC but legal as well [57:55] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: correct legal is CBD okay so it's that five milligram it's the intoxicating piece of it anything over 0.3 percent is considered intoxicating [58:08] City Attorney Corey Land: perfect and I think that's important [58:11] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: for it I don't think your knee is gonna feel it so much [58:15] City Attorney Corey Land: no no [58:17] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: um okay then one piece and I am on the committee Public Safety Committee and I do want to have a discussion about um page four section k I want to I would recommend that we remove the wording in there that prohibits um on sale from selling um THC beverages was it j or k I thought it was K [58:43] City Attorney Corey Land: so it's in both it's in both in one of them it's gay it could be and but yeah they looked a lot alike to me those two sections when I was going back and forth they looked a lot alike [58:54] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: well that's because they are that explained it because as you had said in your presentation from a liquor store standpoint we have no bearing on that right now based on current legislation law correct [59:15] City Attorney Corey Land: okay so we can't affect that [59:17] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: nope that could change once legislation is done and they figure out what they're doing okay so right now for anyone who's listening as a city we can't affect liquor stores from selling it right they can they cannot sell they cannot sell it and we can't we can't sell something here that would change that right however the state does say that bars can do on sale which means serve it in their establishment [59:45] City Attorney Corey Land: yep the state allows that [59:47] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: correct I would I would propose that we follow that guideline with the state and allow that product to be sold based on these guidelines in as an on sale option for bars and and I'll be real honest with you I Think It's Tricky for bars to sell it given the edible labeling and packaging requirements I'm not I'm sure they've figured it out uh because they're not supposed to have you know Direct Customer interaction I don't know if that means it has to be uh in a tap or if that means that the customer has to get the can but somehow they have to be able to really control the access to it between the server and the customer [1:00:28] Mayor Mary Fasbender: so what do you mean by that you have to be able to control the so is the customer able should it come in an open uh glass or is the customer supposed to be given the can directly [1:00:41] City Attorney Corey Land: I I don't know because it it's supposed to be sold in a closed container that is tamper resistant and unopened so again I I'm not going to pretend like I know how they're actually doing it in until establishments and I'm not going to regulate it I mean I'm not going to tell them how to do it they just have to comply with the law that's why I want to just say just comply with the law whatever the Minnesota Legislature decides how that has to be done [1:01:08] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: and my reasoning behind this for just for my fellow council members would be as far as bars already selling intoxicating beverages I wouldn't want to exclude I I know people who will only drink they don't drink alcohol but they will consume a THC beverage or will consume edibles to me an intoxicating beverage is exactly that I don't see this as a separate topic so I would and I don't know what the process is to move to strike that on sale piece off of our proposed recommendation [1:01:53] City Attorney Corey Land: you could do it one of two ways you could have a discussion at the table and if you feel like you have enough head nods around the table you could make the motion to adopt the ordinances striking the prohibition at on sale establishments [1:02:11] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: well I'd like to hear your thoughts from my fellow council members because it can be a real pain to make a motion with an amendment and then have to change that so let me know your thoughts before I open my big mouth [1:02:22] Councilmember Lund: thank you honor and I appreciate that I think my opinion is baby steps and and keep keep your eye on it these things can be changed we're probably going to talk about it again um maybe even this year but you know who knows maybe even this month next month um to make you know modifications to to the what we may or may not pass tonight so I guess my thought is this is so it clearly is is no one's got a good grip on it you know even at the state and federal level so let's just kind of move into it easily and um in in environments that are more controlled and that would be like that retail environment rather and and just you know if it's important to our businesses or people that you're talking to from a residence standpoint you know then let's look at that as something to to to amend later but um it's already kind of a a lot of new questionable things tossed out there that this would be one more thing especially from like a I don't know what the police chief would say but um I think it's just poses unique challenges even though it's intoxicating and so is alcohol and whatnot that probably best to um take it one step at a time in my opinion [1:03:43] Councilmember Angie Haus: thank you um and I just reiterate to comes from a lifeld I have spoken with a few of the bars regarding on how they have served it because I've seen um in a few different establishments where they do serve those beverages it is generally done in a closed can and it generally has a different top of the can as well to be better protected as well so any of the establishment establishments I've spoken to only serve it in closed cans just to make a note throughout City but I would agree with you on that council member I felt that it should be we already allow intoxicated intoxicating drinks on other levels I don't feel it just to change that as the legislator legislature will also change drastically soon I'm sure um I do understand that baby steps are needed but I don't think that completely not allowing that sale that's already been allowed by the state of Minnesota to I think it's a little overreach [1:05:08] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you council member house council member Fox [1:05:13] Councilmember Fox: um I have also been following this legislation very closely through the Minnesota craft Brewers Guild it's something that we get updates on weekly and it's something that's has its pros and cons for everyone around it is an interesting concept to have in fact two different intoxicating beverages side by side and it's really complex and it's really tough but there are some places that do it well and do it successfully um like councilmember house said um they're different containers right and there are different beverages it's not necessarily going to be an alcoholic THC Seltzer just to be clear about that it's not like you're getting both in one package it's also um there are so many also as I could give you um I would be supportive of this for our our local businesses if you would make the amendment council member lifefeld thank you councilmember fox [1:06:14] Councilmember Dave Pemble: I guess just listening to the discussion and what fellow Council folks have said here my thought is in six weeks or whenever the 20th of May comes up that there may be something completely different that finishes out of the legislature this year and I'm looking at this and saying looking at the time and the effort that staff and yourself have put into this it's like do we really want to tweak it something before the legislature has finished and given out their recommendation or set it in law and to me it's like I would rather see us just adopt both of these as they are written at this time and wait for the legislature because you're you've already stated that if this succeeds it's an implementation in July 1 right so there's there's time moving forward to address items once the legislature has said it and casted concrete and I would suggest that we just move ahead with the recommendations as stated and wait for the legislature to force us to tweak them [1:07:45] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you council member pemble council member Lund [1:07:49] Councilmember Lund: thank your honored council member pemble brings up an interesting point that I didn't consider and I think you know perhaps you can set me straight here why wouldn't we just table this until further until further action by the state what what are the negatives of that [1:08:12] City Attorney Corey Land: your honor members of the council um I think we've sort of put ourselves into a little bit of a box because the moratorium expires about now um and so then if you don't adopt anything anyone can open anything sure [1:08:35] Councilmember Lund: thank you natural question can the moratorium be extended by until 2025 uh three months or until July 1st or something like that to await this unique timing mismatch [1:08:49] City Attorney Corey Land: your honor members of the council that again um had we thought of that in advance prior to this meeting I would say absolutely you just need to amend your moratorium but that isn't before you tonight so if you wanted to do that you would you would have had to do it before it expired and now we don't have enough time before your next meeting [1:09:08] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: thank you honor I would like to make a motion that we move ahead on boarding on the city code Amendment chapter 117 of cannabis and hemp licensing with the Striking of the bars are excluded from on sale sales I will follow that up with I can go up to a smoke shop tonight on my way home and buy 10 different packs of Edibles and take them home if I'm sitting at a bar drinking I can guarantee you somebody's going to stop me from walking out that door if they're doing their job I'm not going to walk out that door that being said but I feel a whole lot safer having a bartender and a bar owner whose job in a business are on the line which is what they do every day they regulate how much boy that person is obviously intoxicated and they cut people off I feel really comfortable in that and in what we have in place in the city with our Police Department for you know their you know checks their sting operations and their checks to make sure that our local bars are abiding by that and to me this is a another Revenue source for them so on that your honor I make that motion as stated [1:10:43] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you council member Leifeld council member house second additional new discussion council member Lund [1:11:03] Councilmember Lund: I hate being the grumpy old man what happened to Mark I hope he's listening yeah um no I uh uh I appreciate that and and maybe making the mountain out of a molehill but that being said um it'll every time we add a liquor license every time we have an additional um uh facility that that potentially is a um you know a law enforcement burden um we really need to consider that so you know what does the police chief and the police department say about this we haven't necessarily had that conversation with them per se about striking that language and maybe we have um but from how I understand it they understand the implications of said ordinance proposal but not necessarily any modifications to it especially adding I don't know how many bars that that possibly could have this and what does that mean maybe maybe it's fine I don't know but we don't have that and so that's why I'm saying baby steps you know there's no reason why we couldn't in two weeks say hey you know what heard from Chief we're good to go and it's like a 30 second conversation that we're having um but instead um I feel like maybe we're doing too much now instead of these are great questions we're kind of in a time box apparently so you know we need to act now on this or there's nothing okay um so something is better than nothing in my opinion but why can't we look into a couple of these nuances and and make better choices later instead of misleading people too and and then saying oh wait that was a bad idea they're planning for July 1st and then we repeal all this stuff or something I don't know so kind of rambling but I still feel maybe that's the end state but I don't I guess I don't support that being the current decision in my opinion [1:12:36] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you councilmember Lund well I guess he's the grumpy old man I'm going to be the grumpy old woman sorry um I'm cautious I want to be cautious I want to be respectful of what the committee and the commission had gone through they've put a lot of work into it I think they've looked at all avenues respectfully and I guess I'm going to it would be a tie if we went the way we did right now so the motion would not pass so I open I know but if we openly went this route we would have more time to talk about it and we could bring it back in two weeks if we find out from the chief I'm just I'm being cautious and I'm I'm concerned because it's grown so quick so fast the state can't even figure it out and so now we want to have our little city figure it out well I that's my opinion so anyway those are my two cents and other up for discussion councilmember Fox [1:14:32] Councilmember Fox: um this is just questions about the presentation so sorry to go a different direction just a couple clarifying questions the four establishments is if we want to contain it to four establishments just to correct totally clarify um based on our population size if we would like to we would be able to um thank you second is the agricultural language in perhaps this is outside your purview as well sorry in the ordinance the same as the legislature [1:15:29] City Attorney Corey Land: okay I'm just curious about that no and and I'll I'll admit a hundred acres is arbitrary and other than I did look at Hastings agricultural area tried to piece together some properties that are contiguous to each other that where it could occur and so I felt like that was if anybody's gonna Farm they're not going to farm 10 acres they're gonna you know they need a bigger area to make it profitable and worthwhile so it felt like you know 100 acres was doable in the city if somebody wanted to Cobble that together they could and then not allowing retail sales again trying not to have too many things going on in one property at once egg didn't seem like an appropriate place for retail so that's why that restriction [1:16:13] Councilmember Fox: thank you [1:16:14] Councilmember Dave Pemble: thank you... councilmember pemble I go back to the point that nobody seems to have a good handle on what the legislature is going to do in their final resolution law to this predicament I'll say that they've set upon the cities but my fear is we've put a lot of time and effort into this there's the moratorium is at its end and if we start tweaking again I I go back to my original statement let's let the legislature finish the session and then we can tweak it to adjust what the legislature has passed [1:16:54] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you council member pemble council member Leifeld [1:16:58] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: thank you honor Corey question for you then so I know we were talking about Edibles would the current the way it's written without any modification would right now it's tobacco shops would they be able to sell beverages [1:17:15] City Attorney Corey Land: uh they can sell any THC edible product that is correct in a can they can't consume it on site obviously [1:17:21] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: but is there a limit to how much I can buy there [1:17:23] City Attorney Corey Land: the legislature did not put any limits on any Edibles there's the packaging requirement for how much can be how much THC quantity uh per container but um [1:17:34] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: no so let me just clarify and I I respect what you guys are saying the state already says that it is okay for on sale of this product am I correct [1:17:46] City Attorney Corey Land: yeah they don't prohibit it they don't they don't prohibit it's silent the law is silence [1:17:52] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: but they do prohibit off sale [1:17:54] City Attorney Corey Land: they yeah correct and so I mean the tricky thing that you just asked me is basically it's somebody's selling it's not liquor so it's not an you can't you can't sell this product at a liquor store right so a tobacco store is not a liquor store therefore they can sell a THC infused seltzer because it's not regulated by the off sale liquor store rules okay [1:18:19] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: so I'm gonna keep my motion as is to allow it to vote I am going to just final clarify the fact then that again I can go to the tobacco shop and I can buy Edibles and I can buy the Beverages and I can take them home and do whatever I want with them we're saying that our liquor our bars that already have a license alone to do that and have so many Hoops that they have to go through we're saying to them right now that geez you know what we don't trust your facilitating this but we certainly Trust we certainly trust the tobacco shops to have their insult my two senses the state's going to come out it could be six weeks it could be six months we have no idea what the state's going to do and we know they're moving not real fast this worm hold its way in in the first place and everybody who wanted it legalized jumped on it immediately and as a city I'm looking at it and going we've got some really fine responsible bars in this bars and restaurant in this town who are playing by the rules and who are following the rules this is one more revenue for them that's that's my that's my point on this and if we wait six weeks or if we wait six months for it and who knows they may not want to do it that may be the case because that'll come in the next conversation with costs so so then we'll call to remember Lund [1:19:44] Councilmember Lund: sorry yeah and I I agree with us just voting and moving on from the conversation moving out of the conversation I guess the the the clarifier that I want to put in there is there is no definitive what it is we're not just waiting for a time period for the state to do something we're we're waiting for uh what it is as well we're having this conversation right now about making changes to a proposal um there's a hundred percent chance that there's going to be a lot of people standing up at the at the house and and speaking and making proposed changes or or negotiating with each other and whatnot so what what she's showing us here is just what's been laid out but it's gonna get picked apart and tweaked and changed and whatnot with all these different things um so we could be again misleading our fine businesses of what we're going to be able to do and they're preparing for and whatnot too so I don't disagree that there's responsible businesses that this is a revenue stream and so forth that said um I just feel like the unknown really makes it kind of a backwards way to to go into this and so you almost have to go kind of more cautiously so you're not stepping in it if that makes any sense and to emphasize that you you know the that this did sneak in right this did sneak in and it made the news and people probably were embarrassed that it's not getting through you know underneath their nose and they didn't realize what they're voting for and so forth and so they may be extra motivated to have these conversations and put more limitations and restrictions on this too at the at the legislative level I don't know I'm just throwing that out there but so that's why I say let's just go with this because it's something instead of letting it expire and we have nothing and we can go back in and and say yes we do have responsible businesses and this is reasonable now that we've had a beat to think about it and we can go back and say now we know what the state is or isn't going to do or maybe it is six months we're like okay well you know what it is ridiculous so let's just do something on our own that's where I'm at [1:22:16] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you councilmember Lund any other discussion Council there is a motion on the floor for a second council member house second new discussion okay all those in favor of the motion on the floor stayed by saying aye did you get that opposed to that Motion state by saying nay nay it's a tied vote do you need to call do we need to call it Kelly you got it okay so that motion does not prevail thank you for right now councilmember Lund so that was a motion oh that was just the licensing piece we still have to do zoning yes forgot but also that was a modification that's true I okay and a second by councilmember pemble discussion Council [1:23:28] Mayor Mary Fasbender: all those in favor of that Motion state by saying aye aye opposed to that Motion state by saying nay that motion prevails thank you now now you've already heard all of the stuff in the zoning so okay so then I would accept emotion to prove an ordinance for the city of Hastings Minnesota amending Hastings City code chapter 34.0 fee schedule city clerk city clerk sorry zoning sorry [1:24:29] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: [Motion made] [1:24:30] Councilmember Dave Pemble: [Seconded] [1:24:31] Mayor Mary Fasbender: additional discussion Council okay all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye I opposed to that Motion state by saying nay and that motion prevails first reading of the city code Amendment the fee schedule Kelly [1:24:44] Kelly Murtaugh: my apologies I do not have a slide for you but I know it's in your materials so this would accompany the license portion of the fee sorry yes the licensing portion should that survive our legislature and there was some discussion among the um Public Safety commission about the fee specifically for the retail license the other fees are similar to what we're seeing in the legislature or what we already have on the books right now so we have an investigation fee this is a one-time fee similar to what we charge folks pursuing a tobacco license or a liquor license and it's a one-time fee so they pay a larger fee up front once and then annually when they renew they aren't charged an additional fee for the background check the retail license fee as proposed was ten thousand dollars per annual per year the menu the fee for the other businesses is proposed at 200 that's roughly the amount that I think the state is discussing at this point same with the cultivation license so those are the license fees that we have proposed at this time and I would be happy to stand for any questions that you have [1:25:57] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you councilman thank you Kelly council member house [1:26:02] Councilmember Angie Haus: thank you Kelly um can you by chance if you have this I completely understand if you don't do you know what the retail license prices for liquor in our city [1:26:16] Kelly Murtaugh: forty two hundred dollars a year okay [1:26:20] Councilmember Angie Haus: thank you thank you councilmember house [1:26:23] Councilmember Fox: um thank you Kelly thank you for your honor um I am on the Public Safety Committee and we had extensive conversation about this um and then I had the opportunity to talk to some businesses that are interested in potentially being retailers and um just sharing information trying to get some feedback um unfortunately this was not information I had prior to that committee meeting um ten thousand dollars is inhibitive to the people who are interested in being retailers and when we had our committee meeting it came up briefly and I know the extensive research that was done it's comparable correct me if I'm wrong please two communities near us and um that was something we were kind of interested in matching um so today I would like to make a motion to approve this at eight thousand dollars um as a slight Amendment um and I think that is still it's still high it's still within the ballpark of some of the communities we're around I know it was one of the numbers that the the commission threw out there as well um it's it maybe is even a little bit more attainable for some retailers and part of the reason just to give a little bit more background as well that the public safety commission wants it to be a strong fee is because we want strong businesses to come out and be retailers so we want serious companies who are interested in selling healthy strong safe product right so I wanted to honor that request and also the research that was put into it with my Amendment [1:28:45] Councilmember Lund: so and a second okay councilmember London thank you it's interesting I I guess okay so it was 4 200 for what liquor license annually liquor license okay and on sale sorry yeah on sale liquor license all the other liquor licenses are much less the on sale is the largest one that we have okay one more time could you state that I'm sorry [1:29:20] Kelly Murtaugh: yes a bar on sale liquor license is forty two hundred dollars right annually the other liquor licenses so for off sale or um uh beer wine that kind of thing are significantly less than that and what's the aside from that's an interesting point is you know the the fee can maybe weed out no I'll do that that's gonna make a wow yeah that's gonna be a replay um sift out um maybe the less uh qualified or quality um retailers it's that's that's a that's possible and it doesn't you know it doesn't necessarily equal that but um what is the other justification for that I mean is it is it the liability and costs that a city actually incurs by having said establishment versus you know on versus off sale or or whatever is that the driving Factor behind the logic [1:30:11] Kelly Murtaugh: or behind the logic I'm talking about liquor alcohol okay yeah you're talking about liquor fees yeah I'm just trying to understand how we get to any number so those were set prior to my arrival my understanding is that some of those things are related to risk there are responsibilities that we have to do annual compliance checks with all of those establishments liquor and tobacco so we're required to do some work alongside that license that we issue to folks and make sure that they're complying with all of the licensing requirements that we have so I'm I guess I'm [1:30:52] City Attorney Corey Land: okay yeah I'm sorry if I might interrupt councilman um there's also a lot of enforcement issues with on sale establishments that are actually serving because there's just more activity involved in that as opposed to just the sale at a liquor store where it leaves the building in its container without being consumed when it is consumed on site there's automatically more public safety issues and there's so there's more cost to the city in trying to figure out what the appropriate dollar number would be for this particular license for THC infused products Edibles or beverages we have a lot more enforcement even than liquor because now not only are they doing compliance checks but they are also monitoring every single package of the products and so that's going to take more time more enforcement and so felt like not just that we need some responsible owners who know what they're selling in the quantities that they're selling to make sure that it's appropriate but now we have to make sure that they're doing it too and so the enforcement cost had to go up just it's going to take more time [1:32:03] Councilmember Lund: yeah so thank you for that so I think not to say ten thousand or eight thousand is arbitrary it is a little bit right it just needs to be more and significantly so so I guess I don't know what that extra two thousand dollars is getting us or what we're you know I mean obviously it's giving us two thousand dollars more but um is there any are we are we hurting ourselves in that regard I I don't hear that and maybe we'll learn that later and we need to bump it up in a year so I guess I would support a reduction it's still significantly higher than any other fee in that nature so I'll second you're eight though a thousand if it hasn't been already it's already seconded [1:32:43] Councilmember Dave Pemble: okay council member or council member pemble locally where are we at with other jurisdictions are they at 7 500 10 000 where are they at [1:33:15] Kelly Murtaugh: members of the council the only other two communities that I'm aware of that have adopted uh regulations for CBD products are Cottage Grove and Woodbury so sort of moving to your North and they are both at ten thousand or more for the license [1:33:38] Councilmember Dave Pemble: I guess the one thought I do have is okay if it's everybody around us is at 10 000 or more and we say we're going to reduce it because we don't want to have we want to be more friendly for the business owner who's going to sell this but does it not also bring the opportunity for you know okay well I was going to go start a business in Cottage Grove but they're at X dollars I could come to Hastings and it's twenty five hundred dollars left whatever I guess I think it needs to be somewhat uniform and if our neighbors are at 10 grand plus I think we should stay at that 10 grand situation [1:34:09] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you councilmember pemble councilmember house [1:34:11] Councilmember Angie Haus: I would just like to agree that I think it's it is pretty restrictive for businesses at that point to have it at ten thousand dollars seeing that we're doing liquor licenses which very different in how we need to regulate them of course but I do think that's high and we are a smaller Community than Cottage Grove and Woodbury we are quite a bit smaller so I think that the 8 000 to me I think is a doable amount I still think it's high which is good because we do want really well established and safe places to be built thank you [1:35:10] Mayor Mary Fasbender: councilmember house there's a motion and a second on the floor if we're ready all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye aye opposed to that Motion state by saying nay and that motion prevails thank you Kelly okay under Administration strategic planning facilitators and for this item Dan Wietecha will give us an update [1:35:47] Dan Wietecha: thank you um over a couple of meetings we've progressed through um do we do another round of strategic planning what do we want out of that and based off of those prior discussions I talked with direct solicitation with two Consultants both who we have some prior experience working with and looked at sort of the uh the the Blended approach something was more than just uh goals projects but also something that was less than super complicated comprehensive multiple meetings try try to have something that was manageable council did indicate that they wanted part of the process to involve some sort of problem identification sort of a matter of what are we trying to to work with uh in in setting some goals they also Council you talked about wanting to make sure that the end product had some deliverables something you know as simple as a report but also a matter of something that we can Implement and work from have some metrics and how do we gauge uh progress and success both proposals one with Chad Weinstein ethical leaders in action the other Craig Rapp of rap Consulting Group I I think both would accomplish that you have the proposal materials in your packet and would recommend that Council choose one of the facilitators to move forward with with that I can certainly take some questions [1:37:16] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you Dan also council member Layfield [1:37:20] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: thank your honor I don't know Dan it seems to me that it might be best suited if we left this up to staff to figure out decide who you feel you know you're asking us to pick from two prized cows here you know it's like I think who do you feel based on any meetings that you've had or any experiences that you've had that as a city as a staff that you feel you would work really really well with or who you feel would work well with us knowing our personalities I mean I you know open up to anyone else who has an opinion on it but I I don't feel educated enough on any of either of these two companies to to choose other than based on their logo so you know I would really defer this to staff to say hey as we mentioned in our Workshop there's areas where we want to you know we rely on you guys and this is I think out of my area of of expertise so that would be my thought process anyway [1:38:29] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Dan I would agree I think that you know you're familiar with at least the contacts Folks at these two organizations pick what you think is best that fits into our time frame I mean I guess I wouldn't look at saying okay if one can do it when we want it done and the next one has to be in the next calendar year forget that we'll go with the one who we can get in this time period [1:39:15] Mayor Mary Fasbender: thank you councilmember pemble councilmember house [1:39:24] Councilmember Angie Haus: I would agree I think that I've never spoken to either company either or had any due diligence in knowing them other than their logo so I just agree on that stance as well [1:39:45] Mayor Mary Fasbender: God's Memorial council member Fox or my life councilman relief [1:40:02] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: that being said and I do want to state that if for any reason this wasn't a highly successful Venture we wouldn't blame you for that okay I feel like you might feel like you're being set up right now and I don't want you to feel that way for us to be able to go back and say but Dan you said this that is not why we're doing this um if it if it I think it's going to be highly successful but if it if it wasn't we we certainly wouldn't take that out on you sir [1:40:13] Councilmember Fox: thank you your honor I um after reading the proposals um we had I I thought I at least had a great experience with um Mr Weinstein with ethical leaders in action um but um I that said I'm always open to a new experience and I think the other proposal looked thorough and um well well laid out um but I think that they they hit the high notes that we asked you for in our last conversation about what we wanted to see out of a strategic planning session so I would um I would love to work with rap [1:41:09] Mayor Mary Fasbender: okay thank you councilmember fox councilmember Lund [1:41:10] Councilmember Lund: thank your honor I believe councilmember lifefeld and I have both worked with both of them um so there is some history regardless and I know not everybody has but um with that with that said I think threw me for a loop I didn't think that was going to be the conversation but um yeah I guess I I think it it's an interesting thought to you know have you leverage your Communications and and your kind of your gut feel and and and make that call I think we've expressed our desires for outcome and process and and I guess I would I would say I'm fine with whoever you truly feel is best I on on paper um I think it's hard to Gage because one is much more one appears to be more in line with what I'm thinking um but not necessarily the the things that aren't on paper that you may you may know about that that aren't captured in the proposals per se um in my experience with both of them isn't um markedly different where I would say absolutely not this one or the other one um so I didn't give you anything other than other than I guess I'm I'm good with with whatever you choose as well [1:43:31] Dan Wietecha: I would have to agree I mean I think our last session went well and and we got a really nice strategic movement going and the process was good and fun and I guess my concern would be is what I'd rather see it done sooner than later so if and and on budget as councilmember Lund stated so we we don't really have a motion then other than for Dan to move forward I would recommend that you I would request you make a motion I I laughed uh it was certainly not my thought that there was any sort of blame but but I appreciate the sentiment that I I'm safe um I'll tell you my recommendation would be Craig Rapp I I could work with either but I think it would produce a better deliverable where I do think emotion is important is as much as councilmember Lund refers to on budget this is not a budgeted item so I think it's important for Council to say Fair make a decision or or authorize my going forward and making a decision simply because that budget pieces is something that you would need to fill afterwards [1:44:04] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: okay that being said based on Dan's opinion I'd like to make a motion that we proceed with um contacting rap Consulting Group based on city recommendation staff recommendation [1:44:31] Councilmember Fox: [Seconded] [1:44:33] Mayor Mary Fasbender: additional discussion Council all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye aye opposed to that Motion state by saying name and that motion prevails all right we looked you over to that um Dan you may move forward on the Public Works director [1:45:02] Dan Wietecha: yeah this one has a history goes back a year and a half or even longer um when Public Works director Nick Egger took a different position summer 21 we advertised to hire a new Public Works director and um we were not thrilled with what we got out in the the job market um brought it back to the operations committee and then also the city council and talked about um Let's do an interim give us some time uh hopefully the market gets better but Council had some concerns about are we um overburdening the department by leaving a position vacant I had some concerns about Ryan stemsky as much as we appreciate him he is an employee of focus engineering and although we treat him as one of our own he's not a city employee and I know that that gave pause to some of the council members about an appointment to director position uh and then the other thought was just sort of the buying some time for maybe the market would get better um I I think we've seen a few things uh in that past year and a half we did extend the the interim piece too uh for a few months uh here at the end of the year but I think we've we've seen a couple of things one um uh Ryan has done and the department have done a fantastic job over the last year and a half so we really have not overburdened the department leaving it short staffed there's some mechanisms built into there that we we have some cushion in the budget that we can hire in some additional additional engineering work maybe with GIS or project management and that really relieves some burden on the department overall maybe not Ryan directly but it helps the entire department uh we've also seen you know besides not burdening the department they've worked extremely well with some big and complex projects some changes in Staffing with retirements uh and um they're they're you know to a certain extent it's working why change it uh but also a matter of um in in their Ryan has certainly um reinforced or re-proven himself with Partners such as MnDOT or Dakota County uh mpca and also um leadership within the department itself he has the the trust and respect of the the people he works with on a daily basis um I don't think that the the Market's changed it's working well my recommendation is that we essentially remove that interim tag and name Ryan stemski as our Public Works director and I recognize that the approval of appointments rest with the city council so so bring that to you tonight you can certainly take any questions that you might have I do want to note this was discussed a week or two ago at the operations committee and had the committee Support also thank you thank you [1:48:48] Councilmember Lund: thank you honor um so Ryan's been here a long time or you know reasonably long time he's he's got a lot of experience he knows the city um to Dan's point he has made a lot of important relation built a lot of important relationships in and outside of the city not just in his capacity within the city but in you know in his other roles um because I think that's a lot of brings a lot of value um he's definitely a good leader and people do respect him I can tell and he does work well with um with the team so for those reasons um you know it makes it hard to to not say yes to that on top of that we have from a public works um and operations standpoint we just have a mountain of things that are coming our way that are far too important and critical to do any you know OJT for you know for a new person or whatever I mean really um so great conversation to have at some point perhaps but not the time in my opinion in our history to do that um now I will say though that the reason this is even being discussed just to ground everybody you said it but just the ground everybody is not an employee he's a contractor he um yet he's also potentially going to be placed as a not a temper a non-temporary leader of a department at the city which isn't necessarily common or preferred um but for all the things I just said I think it kind of makes it the exception and not the rule and I think that's what I want to make sure that we hear at least is let's let's not make it the rule it is the exception and and that's you know been a concern of others on the council in the past as well that we don't um just throw it around like it's meaningless it means something and there's value to being an employee of the city but that's not where what we have right now and um so I think my point stands but um I would support that [1:51:26] Mayor Mary Fasbender: [Music] additional discussion Council all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye I opposed to that Motion state by saying nay all right thank you Council any announcements [1:51:42] Councilmember Lund: I had one your honor um but in eight minutes the Dairy Queen closes and today was um free ice cream cone day at the Dairy Queen and I'd like you all to know that I won't be getting my free ice cream cone [1:52:02] Mayor Mary Fasbender: well then I'm going to keep you longer I hope everybody else made it out to get their free ice cream cone uh I have a few coffee with a cop is tomorrow Tuesday March 24 first from 10 to noon at froth and cork the friends of Pleasant Hill library has a used booked sale going on March 23rd to the 26th athletic gear swap on Saturday April 1st please ensure items are in fair condition clean and usable applications for 2023 Community investment fund project proposals are open with a first review of applications set for March 31st the city created the CIF last year to encourage and support Community Partnerships and Community Driven projects happy birthday next week to council member pemble meetings Tuesday March 21st which is tomorrow Heritage preservation Commission 7 PM Monday March 27th Planning Commission 7 PM Parks committee Monday April 3rd 5 30 PM city council Workshop which is the five-year Parks plan and 7 PM city council regular meeting with that I would stand for a motion to adjourn all those in favor of the Motion state by saying aye I opposed to that Motion state