[0:00] **All:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [0:00] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Welcome. And let the roll reflect, we do have a full quorum tonight. [0:19] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Uh council members, are there any corrections to the November 3rd workshop or meeting? Okay. Approval of uh let's see—comments from the audience. At this time, the council will hear comments from the audience. If you'd like to speak to the council, please step to the podium, state your name and address, and share with us your comments. [0:43] **Clinton Tuhill:** Uh good evening. I am Clinton Tuhill from 2370 Rushmore Road. Um back on November 6th, I submitted a petition to pause all increases on fees and taxes to the city of Hastings. I'm wondering if the city has time to review that and what your thoughts are. [1:03] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** At this time, we'll just hear your comments. [1:03] **Clinton Tuhill:** Okay. Um well, with the everything going up in prices currently, um especially property taxes and just uh everything in general increasing. I think just people need a break um at least for like two years just to catch up just because um the fees are increasing, the taxes are increasing, new levies are being put in place, that doesn't mean people's incomes are also increasing. So I just think we need a pause just to give chance just to give uh people a chance to catch up. Um, I've heard some people say with the increases that they don't feel like they can afford to live here and certain people might feel like they need to move out and I think that's kind of sad because Hastings is a great community and personally I just like to see people get a chance to catch up and that is why I submitted the petition. So, thank you. [1:48] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to council at this time? Anyone on Zoom? [2:09] **Dan Wietecha:** No one on Zoom. [2:09] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Okay. Council, any items to be considered? Okay. Consent agenda. Council, I would approve or accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. Council member Pemble, Council Member Haus. Any discussion? Council. All those in favor of the motion, please state by saying I. [2:28] **All Council Members:** I. [2:28] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Tonight, under awarding of contracts, we have a vacation of public easement for the Central Water Treatment Plant, 1292 North Frontage Road. And for this item, we have an introduction by our community development director, John Hinzman. John, welcome. [2:54] **John Hinzman:** Thank you, Mayor, City Council members. Tonight we do have a public hearing to look at a vacation of easements on a property located at 1292 North Frontage Road. We formally remember that as the home of Carboni's Pizza and Stacy's Stars—building has been removed there and is under construction as part of the central water treatment plant. So on the drawing here are the three easements in question. They are public easements for roadway and utilities. One towards the northeast corner and a couple down towards North Frontage Road. The reason for these was previously the property was unplatted. So easements were not dedicated on the property. So easements were done on a case-by-case basis. With the property being replatted and easements being established with the new building, these easements are duplicative. They're no longer necessary. So what we're asking tonight is for you to hold the public hearing and then to take action on the resolution which would vacate the easements. And I can stand for any questions. [3:50] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Great. Thank you, John. Council, I'll first open the public hearing and then we'll have discussion after that. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak to the easement at this time? Anyone wish to speak to the easement at this time? Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Open discussion for council. Council, any discussion? Okay. If not, I would accept a motion to approve the resolution vacating the certain easement recorded in document number 498261, utility easement document number 35533, public roadway and utility easement. And as document number 542694 utility easement. [4:17] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** I'll make the motion. [4:17] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** Second. [5:01] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Any discussion council? Okay. All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. [5:01] **All Council Members:** I. [5:01] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. There you go, John. Thank you. So with that, uh, we have reports from city staff under community development. We have a second reading to adopt the ordinance city code amendment church uses in Ag district. And John, you may continue. [5:27] **John Hinzman:** Thank you, mayor, city council members. We're looking at second reading and adoption of an ordinance amendment tonight. This would allow churches within the agricultural district. On the map here shown in light green are all the agricultural zone districts within the city. You can see it encompasses a wide variety of areas—areas such as 54 and Glendale, some other park and ravine areas towards the south end of town and up towards Lake Rebecca and north of County Road 47. Some of these areas that are zoned Ag are going to be developed as other things in the future. We'll have sewer and water services coming in there and they could redevelop as houses or buildings. There are some portions of the Ag district based on our comprehensive plan that are not intended to be redeveloped or developed with urban services on that. They're going to be long-term Ag. That is what's shown here in the red. Essentially, that area again on Glendale Road and County Road 54 along with an area here by Fourth Street in eastern Hastings. These would be the areas in which a special use permit for churches within the Ag district would be allowed. And so we have that language within the ordinance amendment before you tonight. Planning commission did look at this at their October 27th meeting, did recommend approval of it as presented tonight. We also had the planning committee of council meet on October 13th to review the concept of the change and if the planning commission should review it, and with that direction planning commission reviewed and has the amendment forward for you tonight. So I can stand for any questions that you may have pertaining to this. [7:15] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you John. Any questions? Council member Leifeld. [7:15] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thanks John. Just to make sure I understood you correctly then. So this particular circled area—the north side, correct—both of these areas here, those are areas that will not get city services into them? Is that what I'm understanding you to say? [7:36] **John Hinzman:** Correct. [7:36] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** So if in this particular situation, what would they be looking at? I mean somebody put something there—septic? I mean is that how that works? [7:50] **John Hinzman:** Yep. Septic and well system. Everything here would be septic and well. So there's not a future plan where this could get services and be developed. [7:55] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Not within our comprehensive plan looking out 20 years with the last comprehensive plan? No. And looking out to some of our ultimate sewer plans, I mean it's beyond 20 and maybe not at all. Thank you, John. [8:12] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Council Member Leifeld. Any other questions, council? Council member Vihrachoff. [8:12] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Thank you, your honor. John, I know that this did go through um planning committee like you had said and there didn't seem like there was any push back or anything like that. I'm just curious. I just want to see—have we heard from any neighbors, any concerns from citizens, anything like that? [8:28] **John Hinzman:** Yeah, have not heard anything from the public on this one since it's a general ordinance amendment. We didn't do a mailed notice to a specific entity on that one, but no, I have not heard— [8:34] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** I guess I shouldn't have said neighbors either because probably corn and cows, but yes, I just wanted to see if there was any. [8:48] **John Hinzman:** So, as we look at this in the future, if an entity did want to come forward and have a church within the district here, there would be a special use permit, which would mean a public hearing, notification of people within 350 ft., Planning Commission review, and council approval of that. [8:55] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Honor. [9:10] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Council member Vihrachoff. No other discussion. I would accept a motion. [9:10] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** Motion to approve. [9:10] **Councilmember Angie Haus:** Second. [9:10] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you. Any discussion council? All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. [9:10] **All Council Members:** I. [9:10] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, John. Tonight, under administration, we have a resolution to remove unpaid delinquent administrative penalties and diseased tree removals from outstanding assessment roles. And for this item, we have an introduction by our city administrator, Dan Wietecha. Dan. [9:26] **Dan Wietecha:** Thank you. Um, this one probably looks familiar since it was on our agenda two weeks ago, but we uh held off action on it. Um we had back in 2024 um primarily emerald ash borer, but trees that were diseased required to be removed. Uh some of those at city expense that then the bill is passed on to the property owners with indications that if the bill's not paid, we would certify it as an assessment and add essentially to their property tax bill. Um but we missed some deadlines in '24, so we didn't have the required notice ahead of the deadline to have that certified to the county. So they carried forward to this year. Uh two weeks ago you picked up that list for '24 to get us caught up with '25 also. But because of that delay, there were four properties that sold in the meantime. Uh and council advised we could not, because they had not had the original notice, we could not certify the assessment to those. Uh so had on the agenda two weeks ago a similar resolution saying take these four off the assessment roll. Uh but that resolution was a bit broadly written. It actually said write them off entirely which was probably more than what the intent was. So what you have before you tonight is just taking them off the assessment roll for these four properties. We would still pursue other means to seek their payment—sending them a bill, potentially sending it to collections—but not just writing it off and having the property taxpayers carry that expense. Uh that's the short version of it. Um but I can certainly take any further questions. Thank you. [11:50] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Sure. Thank you, Dan. Council, any questions? Council member Vihrachoff. [11:50] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Dan. And I know that when we're talking about this, it is an incredibly small amount as it relates to a city budget. We're talking about less than $1,200, but $1,200 is $1,200. And so, I appreciate the city um pulling this from the last agenda, not having us vote on it, and then saying that within reason that we will try and see if we can recover those fees. So, thank you for hearing some concerns and acting upon them. [12:30] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** And just for verification then Dan, we're dealing with four properties as council member Vihrachoff said—less than $1,200. Are these four properties where the owner is no longer there and somebody new now lives in these properties? And so when you're talking assessments, we're not looking at assessing the current homeowner for something— [12:59] **Dan Wietecha:** That's exactly what it is. Because the prior homeowner has moved and there's a new owner who did not receive that original notice and because of the delay allowed the sale to slip through in advance of us. We're proposing not to assess those four new homeowners but still pursuing the original four that incurred the expense to have payment, just not through an assessment process. [13:14] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thanks Dan. That's just good information for anybody who's listening. When I hear the term "from outstanding assessment roles," I don't really know what that means. So um that sounds like a smart idea to me. And that being said, I would like to make a motion to remove the unpaid administrative penalties and special charges for disease tree removal from the accounts receivable for those four selected properties. [13:40] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Great. Thank you, Council Member Leifeld. And Council Member Vihrachoff has a second. Any discussion, council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying I. [13:40] **All Council Members:** I. [13:40] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Oppose that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Also, we have a certification for delinquent utility billing for collection. And for this item, we will have an introduction by Dan Wietecha. [13:55] **Dan Wietecha:** Thank you, mayor. Uh want to open this by saying we are following city ordinance determined and adopted by the city council. Uh there were some changes to our ordinance a few years ago in 2020 to streamline the process to collect on delinquent utility bills. It used to have multiple notices, potentially shutting off their water, and we said there's a less intrusive way to do this—if the bill doesn't get paid, give them a notice that we'll assess it and a penalty with that. Um it's much easier. It's worked the last five years. Um but I can't help but notice when you look at the list of delinquent bills, there's some pretty small ones. There's one for 75 cents. Don't know what happened—maybe miswrote the check or something. Um, if you follow the ordinance to a tee, which you can do, that property owner may be looking at a $50 penalty on a 75 cent pass due. Um, so what I propose is two options. Uh you can follow the ordinance as-is, which is perfectly legitimate, or you could determine some threshold and say by resolution we certify the list down to $100 or $50 or $30 or wherever you want to draw a line. I would recommend that if there are any inactive accounts below that line that you still keep those on the certification roll. Those are a matter of changing property ownerships and not wanting those ones to slip through. Um uh if you do that threshold idea, anything over that line we would certainly certify to the county for collection. Anything below the line would stay in the utility billing system. So, their next quarterly bill would say, "You still owe 75 cents plus a 10% late fee" or "You still owe $9.65," whatever their amount below that threshold is. So, it's not writing them off; it's just keeping them in the standard billing system rather than assessing it and rather than putting what may be an onerous penalty on those amounts. If you go that route, I'd recommend that we make it a permanent piece going forward. Uh, and we can have an ordinance on council agenda in December so that you can say when we follow our ordinance, it has a threshold built right in. But that's for your discussion this evening. If there are any questions, I can certainly take those as well. Thank you. [17:17] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Dan. Any questions? Council member Leifeld. [17:17] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thank you, Dan. So, of the list that we are looking at totaling almost $102,000—how late are these? Are these people who are quarter after quarter? I mean, looks like some of them are people that could have missed a quarter. How does this break down? And then secondary to that, since you're going to put together an answer—to certify these through Dakota County, does that cost us anything to do? [18:01] **Dan Wietecha:** You asked me two questions I cannot answer accurately. Um, they're passed due, unless there's some oddball in there, they're passed due within the past year. So they might just be one quarter, they might be two or three quarters, but they're passed due within the past year. Um, some of them that are a bit larger—I think the largest is around $4,000—that might be a small business. So, these are just utility customers; don't just assume it's the same as somebody's household. But um other than saying they're within the last year, I can't say exactly how past due they are. In September, these were all given a notice saying, "Hey, we're coming up in the end of the year. If you don't pay this in the next month, uh or even an option to come and appeal to the city council." Nobody replied on following up on the desire to appeal. Um these ones would be subject to assessment and the penalty. [19:08] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Clarifying question then Dan. So is this something that as a city we do every year at the end of the year? We look at all the delinquents, we send that on to Dakota County to get assessed onto their tax statements? [19:15] **Dan Wietecha:** Yep. [19:15] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Okay. Um looking at that and looking at clerical mistakes of writing checks—for anyone who's ever written their house payment to County Market, it happens. I've done it. So looking at some of these, I mean I would not be adverse to saying something under $20 to me feels like a mistake. Somebody's not trying to get out of paying a water bill. Um, you know, when I look at these, there's like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 of them that are under $20. I mean, that to me feels clerical and gives us a little bit of a, "Hey, you probably moved your decimal or something." Um, I don't know what that looks like if this is something that would need to be a motion to move forward. Um, but to hear what the rest of council thinks. I mean, I just came up with $20 as a— [20:30] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Council Member Leifeld. Council member Vihrachoff. [20:30] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Council Member Leifeld. I appreciate the city—Dan—giving thought to this and making sure that we aren't inadvertently capturing clerical errors to use Council Member Leifeld's terminology there in this. I mean, we're all here for the same reason. We want to serve our community. We want to serve people, and we certainly don't want to make a hardship for something that was a mistake. That being said, the amount that I see that was listed in the memo to council was, for example, $30. Council member Leifeld's talking about $20. I do want to be mindful of the fact that $20 over quite a few different households can add up. Um, would city staff then make a recommendation to council in terms of what that amount could possibly be and what that would look like going forward so that we could satisfy both parts of that, right? So nobody that is getting caught up in a clerical error and nobody that owes a dollar has a $50 fee or is getting certified to the county or anything like that. Obviously, we don't want anything like that, but at the same time, I don't know what that dollar amount is. If it's $50 to certify it over to the county, you think it's 20 bucks? I don't know. I feel like maybe it's a little bit more. [22:38] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** I guess I'm thinking about the dollar amount, too. And, you know, I guess the $20-$30 figure is kind of where I was thinking about. It's like, okay, yeah, the clerical error—because most people don't write checks anymore. It's usually done with a credit card or a bank card of some kind. And you don't pay attention to that. And if you're not writing—well, to write the check and get the right way it's written because it's definitely happened to me. You put in $100 and you write down below it's $1,000 and the bank says, "What's wrong with this?" But I do think it should be a dollar value. We should say okay, you know, $20 to $30—I don't know, $25 maybe is what to look at and then say okay, we're dealing with that. Anything under that we'll deal with it in-house and continue to um you know address it the next billing cycle and say, "Okay, here you go. You have a late payment and this additional charge" and whatever. And everything over that goes to the county. That's my thought. [23:16] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Council Member Pemble. Council Member Haus. [23:16] **Councilmember Angie Haus:** I don't mean to throw in a ringer here, but I'm going to. Um, and one of the concerning questions I have on this is if you're going to get a $50 penalty fee, I do feel like your bill should be at least $50. I feel like if you don't have $50 to give, you probably don't have a $50 penalty fee to pay either. Um, that's just my two cents. Uh, I am also open on those thoughts as well. [24:03] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Council Member Haus. Council member Leifeld. [24:03] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Council member Haus, that's funny that you mentioned that. I'd written down some numbers here. If we looked at under $50 and less, we're dealing with 14 parcels—less than $500 of the $101,000 in arrears. So, yeah, if there's a $50 penalty, I kind of agree with you. It should be $50.01 or more. So, that being said, I'll make a motion—ever the banker in me—um I will make a motion to request us to authorize the finance department to certify delinquent utilities to Dakota County that are of $50.01 or higher. [24:51] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** And I will second. [24:51] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you council member Leifeld and we have a second with council member Pemble. Any other discussion? Council member Vihrachoff. [25:12] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** I'm completely in support of this. Just for a clarifying point, I was wondering, does Dan know—is this a significant increase that we've seen this time around versus in past years? Is this a much bigger list? And also, could you just remind us, because when somebody has a $4,000 water bill, that's one thing, but if somebody's off by like a hundred or $200, what is the system that we currently have in place in terms of people possibly facing a hardship during this climate and not being able to pay their bills? Like, could you just walk us through? So, I have a $200 water bill and I was able to pay 50 bucks towards it. Now, what happens? [25:53] **Dan Wietecha:** The remaining $150 would be passed due and show up on your next quarterly bill with a 10% late fee as well as whatever your next quarterly bill is. So your next bill would be, under that scenario, $150 pass due plus a 10% ($15) late fee plus, assuming it was the same water use, $200 of the next quarter's use. So $365. [26:11] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Mayor, may I answer another question? I'm sorry, guys. I'm really not trying to get us super into the weeds here, but I'm just thinking that with the petition conversation that we had at the beginning of our meeting—as we know that costs are going up for all of these things—do we have anything in place or what do we do if somebody simply can't afford that? If I'm not saying if they can't afford their actual water bill, but if the fees become so burdensome that it becomes a hardship that is then being compounded, is that something that we've dealt with as a council before? Or is it a question that city staff would be willing to talk about at a future— [26:49] **Dan Wietecha:** I'm not sure. It sounds like a policy discussion. I'm not able to answer beyond that. We follow the city council adopted ordinance—charge them a 10% late fee. If it's another quarter, they're going to wind up with an additional late fee. If at the end of the year there's a delinquent amount, whether it's 75 cents or $4,000 or something in between, it would be assessed to the property with a $50 penalty. [27:23] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** Mayor, may I ask one more question? [27:23] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** You may. [27:23] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** I promise this will be the last one. Would we ever shut somebody's water off for not paying? [27:52] **Dan Wietecha:** Although that's conceivable, trying to get away from the hardship of somebody not having water as well as the burden on staff to be chasing it down physically, city council rewrote that ordinance back in 2020 to say we're not looking to shutting off water. We're trying to handle it administratively and charge a fee. And here's a mechanism that has some pretty robust ability to collect if somebody's not making that payment for whatever reason. [28:18] **Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff:** I appreciate that. That'll let me sleep at night. Thank you. [28:38] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Council Member Vihrachoff. Council member Leifeld. [28:38] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thank you. Um there is a motion and a second, but I do have a clarifying question as well. Um, on this list there are 14 inactive balance due accounts. Of those 14, three of those fall under our $50.01. Can you tell us the rest—by the way, the rest of them are of those 14, they include less than $2,200 again of $101,000 debt. So, can you tell us what those inactive balance due accounts are? [29:04] **Dan Wietecha:** I would recommend that if you draw a line at $50, you do not include any of the inactive ones that are below it—ones that may be at $21.32 or $37.04. Those ones I would recommend you still have certified because those ones may be tougher to keep in the utility billing system if they're going inactive because of some changing of property ownership. [29:40] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Makes sense. So an inactive balance due would possibly mean that I sold my house and I'm in some fashion in the process of that property selling? I'm going to with that clarifying—I'm going to maintain $50.01 and if it's under that, whether it's active or inactive, I would maintain that. But thanks for the clarification. [30:08] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Okay. There is a first and a second. Any other discussion? [30:08] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** Clarification. Does the second also recognize—? [30:08] **Councilmember Angie Haus:** Yes. [30:08] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** Yes. [30:24] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Okay. All right. All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. [30:24] **All Council Members:** I. [30:24] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. All right. Thank you, council. Any announcements? Okay. I do have a few. MnDOT will give an overview of the upcoming highway reconstruction project tomorrow, Tuesday, November 18th, 5 to 7 p.m. right here at city hall. Developer 310 Design Build will update neighbors about its plan for the Walden development on Thursday, November 20th. Gobble Gait is Thursday, November 27th. You can register all the way up to race day. Proceeds benefit Hastings Family Service. Small Business Saturday and Holiday Hoopla are Saturday, November 29th. Enjoy a visit from Mr. and Mrs. Claus, music, crafts, s'mores, horse and wagon rides, craft fair, tree lighting, retail and restaurant deals, and much more. City offices will be closed Thursday and Friday, November 27th and 28th in observance of Thanksgiving. Recycle your old lights with Hastings Holiday Lights drop off collection. Residents can drop off their unwanted light strands at the Joint Maintenance Facility Building, 920 10th Street West, during the holiday season from November 15th to January 31st. Upcoming meetings: Tuesday, November 18th, 7:00 p.m. Heritage Preservation Commission. Wednesday, November 19th, the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting has been cancelled. Thursday, November 20th, 6:30 p.m. Public Safety Advisory Commission. Monday, November 24th, 7:00 p.m. there's a finance committee meeting. And also at 7 p.m. a planning commission meeting. Monday, December 1st, 7 p.m. city council truth and taxation hearing and regular meeting. With that, I would stand for a motion to adjourn. [32:42] **Councilmember Dave Pemble:** So moved. [32:42] **Councilmember Tim Lawrence:** Second. [32:42] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. [32:42] **All Council Members:** I. [32:42] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And we are adjourned.