This transcript features **Mayor Mary Fasbender** presiding over the meeting, with reports from **City Administrator Dan Wietecha** and **Community Development Director John Hinzman**. Note: Several Councilmembers mentioned in the transcript (Folch, Lund, Vaughn, and Braucks) were active during this 2022 session but were not included in your initial summary list. I have labeled them according to the Mayor's address. [0:02] **Mary Fasbender:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome, and let the roll reflect that all the council members are present and a quorum has been established. Council members, are there any corrections to the minutes from the workshop and regular meeting on December 20th? Seeing none, they are approved. Tonight we have comments from the audience, and for public comments, we have options for comments to be emailed prior to the meeting as well as an interactive feature during the meeting. [0:48] **Mary Fasbender:** For the email comments, they have been forwarded to the City Council and their receipt is acknowledged. Please recognize that items not on the agenda will not be discussed this evening. For live comments, they may either be through Zoom or in person. We ask that attendees either raise their hand in person or use the raised hand feature in Zoom and they will be invited to speak one at a time. I also would like to remind people that in the public comment period it is not intended for an extended dialogue. Is there anyone here that would like to address the Council? Come forward and you can come to the microphone, Jolene, and state your name please and your address. [1:42] **Jolene Riemer:** I'm Jolene Riemer and my address is 1291 West 13th Street in Hastings. Yes, go ahead? Continue? Okay, thank you. And thanks for inviting me, Mary, to come and talk in person. I've talked with Mary the last couple years about this and as a native of Hastings, a native resident for almost 59 years and as a registered nurse for 37 years, the safety in Hastings is a priority for me. I've called for probably the last 10 years about sidewalk safety in the wintertime, and I know it used to be a complaint-based system whether it was a rule or a policy and procedure or a city ordinance, I'm not sure. [2:28] **Jolene Riemer:** But in my opinion, I feel like there needs to be some discussion to maybe make some improvements on that to have it be a more positive impact. I feel like as residents of Hastings we should be able to trust the city officials and city workers that our sidewalks that we do have in town can be utilized all year long safely rather than just spring, summer, and fall. It doesn't matter—I've seen sidewalks that are city sidewalks, county sidewalks, personal residence sidewalks, as well as business sidewalks not cleared during the wintertime. And it's not immediately after snow falls, you know, it's many times throughout the winter. [3:14] **Jolene Riemer:** And like I said, as a registered nurse and as a resident of Hastings, you know, I want to promote the safety, health, and well-being of our residents and it's important for people to be able to get out and use those sidewalks—children, elderly, all of us. In order to—if the sidewalks are cleared of snow and ice, we can better prevent falls and injuries, you know, potential falls, potential injuries for our residents, and um, people can be safer and get out more often. And if we can trust that the city is going to keep our sidewalks cleared for us and that we can use them, people will get out and I feel like as residents of Hastings we deserve that respect. [3:59] **Mary Fasbender:** Sure, Jolene. So today you had mentioned on your walk the areas, and you know, if you wanted to share the areas that you walked today and continue to let me know? [4:10] **Jolene Riemer:** Sure, and that's what I do every year, you know, because they say it's a complaint-based system so you know we have to call and report the areas, which to me, safety should be a priority. It shouldn't be based on people calling and notifying, "Hey, this sidewalk's not done." Somebody should be doing this, somebody should be evaluating and checking and going through it, in my opinion—and this is all my opinion. Um, there were several areas on Pleasant Drive today, both sides, all the way from Highway 46 to 12th Street, almost to 55 I think I went almost the whole way there on both sides like I said. [4:46] **Jolene Riemer:** And then there was areas on West 18th Street between Pine and I believe Maple that was not cleared. Casimies Park—one sidewalk was cleared, the other sidewalk on the Casimies Park was not cleared. You know, and these are areas also near schools, near churches, things like that. Not everybody drives for transportation; there's a lot of people that, you know, walk to their destinations and should be able to. Walking in the street is not safe and walking on uneven ground is not safe. It's not good for people's backs, hips, knees to walk on ground that is not smooth and equal with the snow and ice and on level ground. So thank you. [5:32] **Mary Fasbender:** Jolene, yep, thank you and thank you for your time and listening. Yes, anyone else like to speak to the Council at this time? Anyone on Zoom? No one on Zoom, okay. Council items—are there any Council members, are there any items to be considered? Okay, Consent Agenda. Council, I would—I'm sorry... [6:10] **Dan Wietecha:** I'd like to add to the Consent Agenda a JPA for a six-month continuum of the coordinated responses pilot with Dakota County. [6:25] **Mary Fasbender:** All in favor of that addition state by saying aye. And you should have the packet in front of you. Those opposed of the statement state by saying nay. That motion prevails. Now the Consent Agenda. I'm sorry, I would accept a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Vaughn and Councilmember Leifeld. Any discussion? [6:54] **Mary Fasbender:** All those in state in favor of the motion state by saying aye. Those opposed to the motion state by saying nay, and that motion prevails. We will move to the Community Development and a resolution to adopt a 2022 CDBG budget and welcome John Hinzman. [7:13] **John Hinzman:** Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Tonight before you is a resolution for consideration to adopt the 2022 CDBG budget. This is Community Development Block Grant funding that originally comes from the Housing and Urban Development Agency at the federal government and then is allocated directly to Dakota County. Dakota County has made a policy to allocate directly some of those funds to the various cities including Hastings. So our total would be $73,612. This is consistent with what we've seen in past years. [7:40] **John Hinzman:** Also consistent as in past years is what we plan to do with the money, and that is to allocate it towards our assessment abatement program. The assessment abatement program involves the assessments that are levied on city projects for street road constructions and helps to offset the costs of those to low-to-moderate income individuals, which is consistent with the charge of the Community Development Block Grant funding. This is a project that has worked really well for us over the past 25 years or so. When we take a look at the area that we would be moving into this year, we estimate that we could serve about 22 households altogether with full or partial remediation of their assessments. So before you is a resolution adopting that tonight and I can stand for any questions. Thank you. [8:42] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, John. Council, any discussion? No discussion. Okay, Council, I would accept a motion to approve a resolution approving the application for fiscal year 2022 Dakota County Community Development Block Grant funding. Councilmember Lund and Councilmember Fox. Additional discussion? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. [9:13] **Mary Fasbender:** Opposed of this motion state by saying nay. That motion prevails. Thank you, thank you John. Tonight under Administration, we have an OSHA vaccine and testing requirement, and for this item we have City Administrator Dan Wietecha. [9:34] **Dan Wietecha:** Thank you, Mayor. This one has a lot of moving parts and those parts will continue moving over the next few days, but it is before us this evening meeting our Council meeting schedule. Back in early November, at the federal level, OSHA essentially mandated that employers over 100 employees throughout the country would have to require their employees to be vaccinated for COVID. There is an option, or there was an option also, that in lieu of mandatory vaccination the employer could choose to allow employees to test weekly rather than mandating the vaccination. That got tied up in the courts; just a day before our last Council meeting on December 17th, the courts cleared it. [10:45] **Dan Wietecha:** Excuse me, the courts cleared it so it was able to then move forward, and at present, it would require Hastings as an employer of over 100 employees—it doesn't matter if they're seasonal, part-time, full-time, essentially any regular employees—to meet these OSHA requirements. A couple of the moving pieces should be noted. Technically, legally, we would not follow OSHA's regulations; we would follow Minnesota OSHA's regulations, which came out this afternoon. So one of these moving parts that when the memo was written last week didn't quite know where some of that would land—Minnesota OSHA this afternoon said adopt the federal by reference and no comments, no changes, nothing different. So it matches up with the federal one. [11:31] **Dan Wietecha:** The other moving part that should be noted is there is an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has indicated it will take accelerated oral arguments this Friday, the 7th. Don't know how that will go or how quickly the Supreme Court might make a decision. But where we stand today, this is law, this is the requirement and sort of the first deadline for when we would have to have things such as a plan in place or begin some initial implementation of it a week from today, Monday the 10th. [12:19] **Dan Wietecha:** Recognizing although there's these moving parts, we're in a position that we need to start taking some action so that we're compliant with the law and prepared to go forward with it. One thing I really want to emphasize that has been foremost in our conversations the last couple of weeks at our management team meetings has been wanting to make sure that we provide a safe work environment, wanting to make sure that we're compliant with the law, but also not wanting to be heavy-handed with our employees. I've seen in the news as an example some employers have put in place vaccine requirements and then employees quit or were even disciplined or fired employees that didn't follow up with it, and that's definitely not the approach we want to be taking with this. [13:06] **Dan Wietecha:** So a few of the pieces to reduce that burden that we've got worked in here: one is quite simply the option that if an employee chooses not to vaccinate, or chooses not to tell us that they're vaccinated even, we can still work with that. They would have to have a weekly COVID test and come up clear so they could continue working. There'd be some stricter masking requirements than what we currently have, but we're following OSHA's regulations but making sure that we're not mandating vaccinations. The weekly tests—I'm waiting on pricing from a couple of vendors for that, but have heard anywhere from 20, 40, 70 dollars per test per week. Proposed that we could use ARPA funds to cover that expense rather than putting that onto an employee to pick up those costs on a weekly basis. [14:36] **Dan Wietecha:** A couple of other pieces to it—I just really want to emphasize that any of the information that we receive, somebody's vaccination status or somebody's test results, that's all medical confidential information; it would be treated as such. So this is the proposal we've come out with through the management team closely mirroring OSHA's regulations requiring either vaccination or testing. The other two pieces that are built into it that deviate from the OSHA regulation specifically: one, proposed as an incentive, hopefully to encourage employees to vaccinate, but also a matter of telling us that they're vaccinated—which everybody that tells us is one less that we need to track and test weekly and incur those costs and all that hassle. [15:23] **Dan Wietecha:** Proposed a day off, basically a floating holiday to use sometime in the next year. They'd have to schedule it through their department to make sure we're not leaving a department empty, but a matter of: here's an incentive to encourage people to vaccinate. For a few positions—paid-on-call firefighters, some seasonal positions—they don't really work a regular schedule to have a day or a shift off, so I propose a cash stipend to those positions to make sure that we're still encouraging them to vaccinate. The other piece that's essentially required for the policy is it would have a budgetary impact, and at this point don't know what those numbers are. It would depend on the cost of the test, the number of employees, how many weeks... excuse me, how many weeks we might need to do it. Could be up to six months, but obviously there's a budget impact that we at least need to acknowledge on the front end. But with that, I can take any questions. Thank you. [17:15] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Dan. Council, any discussion? Councilmember Fox. [17:21] **Councilmember Fox:** I do have a question about the Supreme Court hearing on January 7th is going to determine if the OSHA ETS will be stayed. If the decision is that it is stayed, will this policy continue to go into effect or will the policy be stayed? [17:41] **Dan Wietecha:** I probably would defer to Attorney Land a little bit. I believe that the policy could still proceed, but if that were the case, I expect that from a practical standpoint we'd start tapping the brakes on it rather than getting too deeply involved in it and have a chance to bring it back to Council next meeting or February whenever is appropriate. [18:03] **City Attorney:** Your Honor, members of the Council, I would recommend if the Supreme Court does stay the imposition of the mandate that the City proceed with the stay and not enforce it. Because obviously if you enforce something that has—I would assume that if the Supreme Court does stay it, it's because it has consequences that you can't undo, and so we shouldn't be imposing something on our employees if the Supreme Court thinks that that is undue hardship that can't be undone once it's imposed. So I would recommend we stay it as well. Thank you. [18:24] **Councilmember Fox:** And I guess my second question is a follow-up to that, which is: are we exposing ourselves to liability if we go forward with a policy that is later found to be unconstitutional? If we have enforced or went forward with an unconstitutional policy, what protection do we have if an employee was to come to us and say that we didn't wait until the decision was made? [18:59] **City Attorney:** Your Honor, members of the Council, I think there certainly are reasons why it could be enforced, but I think the best—I always proceed with caution—and I think the best approach is just to wait until the Supreme Court decides the decision completely. And so if they recommend staying until they can have a full hearing on the mandate and whether or not it is enforceable or whether or not it is constitutional, that would be the best course of action. So even though there might be certainly other cities or other states that have done it, have imposed these mandates, and there might be reasons why you could justify it, I think it's the most prudent course to avoid liability to just wait until the issue is completely settled. [19:46] **Councilmember Fox:** Thank you. I guess my question is, given that—I appreciate that we, you know, we are not incredibly proactive in the sense because we are waiting until close to the deadline, so I appreciate that—but I guess I am concerned about enacting a policy that is obviously going to change or could change in the next several days. And I have had a couple constituents reach out to me with concerns about having this type of policy in place at all—concerns like providing personal medical information, collecting personal health information, a variety of different concerns. So I just want to acknowledge that there have been people who are concerned about this policy and I think we may be a bit premature, but I recognize that because of the OSHA deadlines and because that is the current law, we need to do something and that's why we're looking at it tonight. Thank you. [20:41] **Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Fox. Councilmember Folch. [21:13] **Councilmember Folch:** Thank you Your Honor. So just point of clarification then: are we being asked just to have the conversation about this this evening, or were you actually looking for a motion to approve this policy this evening? And follow-up to Councilmember Fox’s comments, because I agree—I don't think that we should implement a policy unless we have the courts behind it. [21:44] **Dan Wietecha:** My recommendation is essentially three actions: one, approving the policy, recognizing it might have some minor adjustments to it—I think that's less likely with Minnesota OSHA coming out with its regulations today; two, approving the wellness day/the stipend incentive; and three, recognition that there be some sort of budget impact. So I am recommending action this evening. [21:58] **Councilmember Folch:** I'm Your Honor... follow-up question in regards to booster shots. Because the policy here just stipulates that you have to provide what your vaccination status is, and so there's actually—there's kind of three, well in regards to the shots—there's kind of three options at this point. There's having, you know, the first shot, the second shot, then you're fully vaccinated. And now you're saying after, you know, six months of having your first vaccination, that the effectiveness of the vaccination—be it the Pfizer, the Johnson & Johnson or the Moderna—substantially falls off a considerable degree. [22:47] **Councilmember Folch:** And so I was looking at the League's website and I didn't see anything in there about booster shots and what that all would entail. And so, just throwing it out there for a discussion point—is there any additional information about that, or have staff had conversations about what to do with your official status in regards to having a vaccination? [23:18] **Dan Wietecha:** The definitions for fully vaccinated that are in the policy mirror the OSHA regulations. So it's the two Moderna or two Pfizer, one J&J, and two weeks. Booster shots are not part of the OSHA definition, so that's it. [23:36] **Councilmember Folch:** Okay. I think it would be beneficial to, I mean if we do move forward with this and we don't really have an option if the courts are going to uphold this—we have to do this because we as the city receive federal funds through various state agencies such as MnDOT, you know, money passes through to the city, and so that's why we're being required to do this. I mean just for a point for clarification for everybody. And so unless we want to turn away any federal funds that might come through to the city, I mean that's really our only option. Otherwise, we're legally required to comply with that. It's either use—pass a policy and use the funds—or don't pass a policy and then don't accept those funds that have federal funds behind it. And so that's my understanding of why it is we're being required to do this. [25:05] **Councilmember Folch:** And so if that's the case, if we're moving forward, I just think it would be beneficial to continue to also give incentives to staff to get the booster shots after six months so that they have a higher effectiveness rate in maintaining health. Because I quickly tried to look it up and I remember reading something to the effect that one of the vaccines, I think it went down to like 19 percent effectiveness after several months. And so it just seems like well, if you're going to require something, do we want to incentivize those staff that have been vaccinated to continue with that vaccination status, if that makes sense. [25:38] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Folch. Go ahead, Councilmember Lund. [25:41] **Councilmember Lund:** Thank you, Your Honor. I would assume that once that language and definition changes, that would impact OSHA's definition as well so it stays consistent in language and we'd just have to update and whatnot the policy at that point in time, right? To your point? [26:24] **Dan Wietecha:** Yeah, I'm not sure what to say about it. [26:26] **Councilmember Lund:** Me neither, but I think the logic would say that if the definition of fully vaccinated changes that that would impact this, and then we either would have to update it by vote or it would just be implied. I don't know, but I don't think I would worry too much about your point because I think it'll work its way out through the definition of fully vaccinated at a future date. Thank you. [26:37] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Lund. Councilmember Fox. [26:44] **Councilmember Fox:** Just the question that was on the table was if there is federal funding contingent on us implementing such a program. Is it true that we would lose any funding if we did or did not pass this policy? [27:06] **Dan Wietecha:** I'm not certain, but I do not believe that that is correct. There were three different OSHA regulations: one specifically to healthcare, one to federal contractors, and one to large employers over 100 employees. And that's the one that applies to us. So it's not related to other funding or grants; it's the fact that we have over 100 employees. But potentially it could be expensive if there were some sort of violations, particularly deliberate violations; those OSHA fines can get pretty steep pretty fast. [27:44] **Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Fox? [27:47] **Councilmember Fox:** I have a follow-up question just about impact to workforce. Do we have a concern? I know that there are other industries or workplaces where this type of mandate has affected the workforce, cut it significantly, or people who did not want to get vaccinated actually left their jobs. Do we have a concern that there is a percentage or a certain number of city staff that this policy would not sit well with them and they might leave, or we might have workforce problems because of it? [28:13] **Dan Wietecha:** Councilmember, it's unknown—sorry, it's not a good answer—but really don't know. Recognizing that this is medical information, we've particularly kept our nose out of it and it is a small office, so we know people and have a feel for who might be vaccinated or not, but we've not asked that information yet. Anticipate that there's maybe 20–25 percent of employees that are not fully vaccinated. What any individual's response to this would be, I don't know. But that's also where we've certainly tried to not be heavy-handed. We are giving the option for testing. Separate from this, we replenished the emergency sick leave at 80 hours at the first of the year—actually in early December. We would pay for the testing. So somebody might still be upset, but we've certainly done what we can to soften the blow as well as certainly point out that OSHA is the one forcing this, not the City. [29:32] **Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Folch, did you have an additional question? [29:40] **Councilmember Folch:** No Your Honor, I didn't. I was just looking up the League's information about who is required to do it and why. I was confused; I thought we were considered a federal contractor because we received money through the federal government as a pass-through through the states. [30:04] **Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Vaughn. [30:06] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Thank you Honor. I support this. I don't have any concerns about someone that's not vaccinated because I think we're giving them options. The only concern I had for the whole policy is I'm not ready to give a stipend. I think every employee gets vacation hours, and if that's the incentive that they get an eight-hour vacation or whatever it is, that employee should get that. I don't want to get into saying, "I don't want another eight hours vacation, I'm already maxed out, I want the stipend." I don't want one or the other. How about we just—the incentive is you get eight hours of vacation and it gets into your account and you use it as you want versus saying, "Hey I want the stipend value." So that's my only concern. I'd rather have it just one. [30:48] **Dan Wietecha:** Just as a point of clarification: one, there are some employees, particularly the paid-on-call firefighters, that really don't work a schedule that allows vacation time. You know, they schedule time that they're available or not, and they can just schedule that they're not available. So really that's more where the stipend came up, although it also is proposed for the seasonal employees that may work a fairly flexible schedule. The other piece just for clarification—the proposal is a full shift. So if we have an office employee that works an eight-hour day, or we have a police officer that works a 12-hour day, or a firefighter works a 24-hour day, we're giving them that full day, that full shift. So regardless of what their position is, they can choose to take a three-day weekend, not a two-and-a-half-day weekend. So just clarification that the recommendation is more than just eight hours for some employees. [31:47] **Councilmember Vaughn:** The follow-up then, Your Honor, is: it's not just full-time employees, it's all employees for the city. Have we run how much that's gonna cost us? And I would disagree with the fairness of someone gets a 24-hour shift versus eight. I get a part-time employee getting what—they get a stipend—but they only work one shift a week for us at the arena? That's why I don't think it's thought through. I would start with full-time employees—you get an eight-hour vacation. That's what the stipend is. We're taking care of the full-time employees and that's where we start it. We can always add to it later if we feel we need to. But to kick it off, that's who I would support first: that it's eight hours of vacation as an incentive for a vaccinated full-time employee. My two cents. [32:48] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Vaughn. Councilmember Folch. [32:51] **Councilmember Folch:** Well thank you Your Honor. I respectfully disagree with Councilmember Vaughn's comments only because we listened to Chief—our Fire Chief Townsend—for two Council workshops, and he went on at length about how the fire department is so completely understaffed and how the full-time staff are working just unbelievable overtime to fill those slots. And so I understand why it is that they're offering those staff money rather than time off, because they can't even take the time off probably that they are earning, I'm suspecting. [33:36] **Councilmember Folch:** And so I just think in considering, again as Councilmember Fox was saying, it just seems to me that the morale is probably suffering greatly already within the fire department—and I mean to be quite honest, let's call it out. And so I would be in support of giving monetary compensation. And I don't know if we want to just say specifically for the emergency services staff, fire and police, that they could have the monetary compensation, but it's like we can't afford to lose one more firefighter to be quite honest. And so if 100 bucks helps smooth something over with fire department personnel, I see the justification in doing that because I am really concerned. I brought this up at our last Council meeting about the impacts to the fire department and their personnel and their morale and all of that. And so I would be in support of providing a monetary incentive to those staff people. Thanks. [34:41] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Folch. Councilmember Leifeld. [34:44] **Lisa Leifeld:** Thank you Honor. Kind of in between both of those. I see the need for us doing both the eight-hour or the four-hour, right? We did something similar at work: full-time employees were given eight hours, part-time employees were given four hours to use at their discretion. Then there's the—for us it's exempt versus non-exempt from a city. Basically, are firefighters and police officers not—an exempt? I mean, I don't know how exactly that works, but that's where I feel like given that stipend then makes sense, right? If they don't have the ability to take an eight-hour day off, then I think the stipend does make sense. [35:55] **Lisa Leifeld:** And I think we're to the point honestly—it's 2022—if you haven't got your vaccine, this hundred dollars probably isn't gonna entice anyone to go get it. Let's be honest, the vaccine isn't new. So I think if people want to be enticed to get it, great. I think it's a wonderful idea. We're doing something similar at work: our employees are getting tested twice a week—they're getting tested on Mondays and Wednesdays at the company's expense—and that's what we're doing right now. And it's a big process, we're dealing with an awful lot of employees. So I'm interested to see how this whole thing's going to roll out. And I highlighted the testing done in person and administered by the supervisor—I'm very curious to see how that works out because I'm not sticking a swab up anybody's nose at work. So I'm very curious, but I really think that we need to spread this out to all of our employees and I go with the four-hour, the eight-hour, and the hundred dollars based on your shift. Thanks, Your Honor. [36:41] **Mary Fasbender:** Yes, thank you Councilmember. Councilmember Fox. [36:47] **Councilmember Fox:** I just have a question about the exception, or sometimes referred to as exemption, part of the policy. It does say that employees can file an exemption or an exception—who are they filing with and how will that be determined? Because I am aware that other employers have an exception or exemption policy but they're not granting any. So who's going to be looking at these and what is the framework for deciding if it's a legitimate request? [37:37] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you Councilmember Fox. Dan, can you help me out with the page? [37:48] **Dan Wietecha:** That's quite honestly a piece that's mirroring language in the OSHA regulations. By setting it up as an employee's option whether they would vaccinate and share that status or have weekly testing, I think that the fact that somebody might file for an exception just from a practical standpoint isn't going to happen. If somebody wanted to apply for that, they'd wind up needing to apply to the City or HR department and we'd need to puzzle through: "What does this claim for an exception mean? How does it match up with OSHA or CDC?" Maybe talk with our labor attorney to puzzle through what do we do with this. But I think that's really just extra legal language in the regulations that from a practical standpoint are unlikely to play out here where there's the option of having the testing. [39:13] **Councilmember Fox:** So an exception does not exempt them from testing? It's just basically they're lodging a letter that says they disagree with the policy? Is that a fair characterization of that paragraph? Because it doesn't have any practical effect. [39:21] **Dan Wietecha:** I don't think that it's a matter of saying they disagree with the policy. It talks about if it's medically contraindicated for them or a medical necessity to not be vaccinated. So it's not just saying I disagree with the policy; it's a matter of the employee having some medical condition that would prevent them from being vaccinated. But the policy is set up to accommodate—to encompass—employees that are not vaccinated, right. [39:53] **Mary Fasbender:** Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Fox. Any other discussion Council? Okay, then I would accept a motion to: one, approve the City of Hastings vaccination testing face covering policy noting some minor revisions may be necessary for coming days; two, approve implementation of the wellness day and stipend incentive for employee vaccination; and three, authorize necessary expenditures to implement this policy. Councilmember Leifeld. [40:37] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Question Your Honor, I second it because I support it. But I think that we're talking about details that I shared—I don't agree with it, but I think Administration needs to think about that stipend in whatever you're going to do with that. That's an administrative thing. I don't want us discussing who gets what; I just want to make sure how we're going to pay for it, I want to get some recourse of who's going to pay for it and how. And what employee—I don't like to talk about certain departments, I want to worry about every employee in the city. I don't want one department saying, "Well how come they got this, how come that?" Someone's like, "Well I worked a nine-hour shift, do I get...?" I don't want to get into that; that's an administrative thing. I support what we're doing, but I want Administration to make sure that they iron that out so I don't have to worry about that with staff. So I support this motion going forward. [41:51] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, and you're seconding it? Okay. Additional discussion Council? Okay, all those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. Opposed to this motion state by saying nay. [Councilmember Fox votes nay]. Okay, and that motion prevails. Tonight Dan will continue with our Community Investment Fund. You may continue, Dan. [42:09] **Dan Wietecha:** Thank you. This is a much more positive and fun, exciting project. This came out of discussions this summer with the Finance Committee and the City Council workshop; it was included in the 2022 budget that you approved last month at a hundred thousand dollars. This is a new program with a real emphasis on partnering the City and the community, and how do we look at enhancement-type projects. Not just routine maintenance, but what enhancements does the community feel are extra special and want to encourage the Council to budget for and move forward sooner? So something might be in the 2024 capital plan, but if the community's saying, "Let's do this in '22, we don't want to wait two years," it gives an opportunity for that. [43:08] **Dan Wietecha:** It also could be an opportunity that there may be some projects that we just haven't thought of and they're not in our capital plan, but the community might bring some things forward that let's just tap their creativity. It does not require matching funds from the applicant organization, but if they have matching funds or in-kind help, it's probably a more competitive application because it helps us stretch the dollars further and do more projects. A couple of things that the Finance Committee talked about are the projects needing to be located on City property, making sure that projects are done by the end of 2023 so we want to make sure that they're realistic and timely. [44:27] **Dan Wietecha:** A couple other pieces to point out: this is the first year that we're doing this, so although this might be a well-thought-out set of procedures to it, if we don't like it or it gives some trouble, let's improve it and make it more user-friendly next year. But this is what came through a couple of discussions with management team. The Finance Committee met on this a week or two weeks ago and really looking forward to kicking this off. The kickoff date is to be determined somewhere in the next couple of weeks—mid-January—we would schedule an evening and invite the likely organizations. We've certainly had various organizations contact us saying they'd like to see this project or that project; we'll put them on our list to invite and walk them through. Here's this new program and encourage them to apply. [45:13] **Dan Wietecha:** All the applications are due under the draft at the end of March, which then would be considered by the Finance Committee and potentially other committees or commissions. But that's intended to give organizations some time to bring their projects forward. And if there's still money beyond that March date, we can take them as they come, but trying to make sure that they all have the same starting line at the front end. Anticipate this is something that really should be fantastic and continue to be funded and go forward in the future too. But with that, I can answer questions. Obviously we've had various conversations that you all have been part of, so if you've got other opinions or questions you want to bat around, please do that as well. [46:17] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you Dan. Councilmember Lund. [46:19] **Councilmember Lund:** Thank you Honor. I just, you know, I like that you, Dan, mentioned this is a pilot or a first look at it and we can reflect and see how things went after the first go-round. I see on here it says, "as long as the funds are available," and I would hope that going forward, if this is a successful pilot, that going forward that's not necessarily the same language. Perhaps there's a carry-over for future years and it's not—and this is just conversation, right—but just that this isn't seen as X thousands of dollars that we put aside every year or whatever that are meant to be gone in that calendar or that fiscal year. But necessarily what it is, is it's building a nest egg for the community to make meaningful improvements where the passion of the community lies. [47:31] **Councilmember Lund:** And part of that passion, too, is that matching funds—I like that it's not required. I know we talked: "is it required, is it not required, is it brought up at all?" I do think matching funds helps the community where they are able to, and that's why it's not required because you're not always able to. But when you're able to, you can show that there is real passion for that, right? There is "we do want this and we're willing to also chip in," if that's a way to put it. So I guess my point of this really is, for this first year we don't know if there's a second year, so I can understand the language being in there "as long as the money is available." [48:17] **Councilmember Lund:** But I think, let's look at this long-term as an account where you don't have to spend all of it. If there's no real valuable projects that come through, we don't need to just scramble to find a way to get rid of the money. And who knows what this could build into going forward. So I appreciate all the thought that went into it. I know that the selection of any type of grant or funds, the process is always kind of difficult to really nail down what the criteria are and how you make a decision on X, Y, or Z. And I think you did a good job of laying that out. There's not necessarily any clear direction on what's weighted or not, like what is more important. So that could be helpful. Maybe not in the language itself because I think that's fluid—2025 what's more important at that juncture is different than 2023—and so that's where the component of "make sure you talk to city staff" to see what city staff thinks are some of the hitting points, what are some of the things that would be of value to justify this money. But I just—I went on a little bit there—but I think this is a good thing for the community. We get a lot of questions or requests for "Hey, we really should have this or that," and as we all know there's limited resources, limited time, limited money, and all those ideas probably are very good ideas but you can't make them always all happen. This helps give a little bit of voice to those people that are coming forward with some of those things that just don't quite make the regular budget cycle. [50:18] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Lund. Any other discussion? Councilmember Fox. [50:20] **Councilmember Fox:** I just have a question, maybe for the Finance Committee since I wasn't part of these discussions. Did you envision this fund being a bunch of smaller projects? I realize we're going to pilot it so we don't know the answer to this question, so it may be just me talking out loud. But did you envision it as a bunch of smaller projects and funding a bunch of different efforts, or kind of putting all of the money towards one larger item? What is kind of an example of how you'd see this playing out? We get a number of requests for different things—improve Vets Park, put in a skateboard park—we get a lot of one-off requests. So I get that this is meant to kind of bring some of those to fruition without having to be part of the regular budget, but are we going to try to make a real impact with a significant amount of money or are we going to break this up into little projects? Or do we not know and it could be a combination of both? What does the committee envision for this fund? [51:26] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Thank you Councilmember Fox. As chairman of that committee, that's a good question. The last part of what you stated is "we don't know." And I think the key part of this name is it's a "Community Investment Fund"—let's see what the community wants. So whoever comes forward, bring it large, bring it small, bring whatever it is. It's going to get a lot of awareness; we're going to find out what the community wants. I think Councilmember Lund talked about "wants and needs" here—this is probably going to be more on the wants, but there might be some needs in there that's going to raise some major awareness to us that we need to really start thinking about. That's probably going to be inside the budget if it's a safety concern. So I think this is truly the community: come tell us what you think is needed. And I'm going to follow up with a question to our attorney: if someone wanted to donate money to the City to the Community Investment Fund, can we accept it into this fund for that? [52:21] **City Attorney:** Your Honor, members of the Council. Donors can specify where they want their funding to go. So if in their donation they indicate specifically, "This money is to be used for... [fill in the blank]... Police Department, Fire Department, I want it to go to the Community Investment Fund," they can designate those funds for that purpose and it must be used for that purpose and that purpose only. [52:48] **Mary Fasbender:** Okay, thank you. That was our answer... my answer. Thank you Councilmember Vaughn. Councilmember Folch. [52:51] **Councilmember Folch:** Thank you Your Honor. You know, something else that we talked at length about during the Finance Committee was really the eligibility about how it is that the funds could be used. And so I was in the camp that the funds should only be used for improvements on city-owned infrastructure. So it had to be city property—a city building, a city sidewalk, whatever—it had to be city infrastructure. And so I guess I was a little surprised to see in this final version that it didn't specify that it had to be city-specific. As a for instance, I've had a local dad ask me, "Hey, can we do anything about the baseball facilities at Kennedy Elementary School because they're in such poor repair?" And I kind of shrugged my shoulders and I was like, "I'm sorry, that's school district property, the city can't use city funds to improve the infield at Kennedy. Here's the number for Trent Hansen, call Trent, the athletic director with the school district." [54:25] **Councilmember Folch:** And so I do have some angst about the way that this is worded, that it would allow for folks to ask for something to be installed in a county park, a county trail, a school district lot. And that really wasn't the intent during any of the conversations that I've been a part of. And so I don't know if others feel the same—I thought that we had a lot of unity in the Finance Committee on this particular matter. One way to address it would be under the evaluation criteria, to specifically say that additional consideration will be given only to projects that are on city-owned lands. But yeah, I am concerned about how that this has been allowed to be kind of open-ended. I mean, someone could even put in a request for something on private land as to how this is currently worded. You could have a local bank that has like a public area outside and they could make a request to put in something. And so I guess that wasn't the intent. I mean it's a nice idea, but it really wasn't the intent of this original fund to be giving money to improve other facilities outside of city-owned property. And so I think it's open for consideration and I personally feel that we should be more focused on how this is being defined. Thanks. [56:06] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Folch. Dan, did you want to answer to that? [56:10] **Dan Wietecha:** No, yeah, I know... I actually, apologies, and definitely agree Councilmember. That was the intent coming out of Finance Committee and I'm not sure what happened in translating it from notes and two different marked-up versions to this one, but I missed that. But certainly, I think even the cover memo says it's supposed to be on city property so we'll need to update that and make sure that that's clear. I read it somewhere, I just can't remember where. [56:42] **Mary Fasbender:** Any other discussion Council? [56:45] **Councilmember Lund:** Just point of clarification: should we have a motion to amend it to actually reflect what we just said there so that it's—this was just discussion? Period. Got it. Just discussion that one committee's had a chance to talk about it. Then is everybody ready with us moving it forward? [57:11] **Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Fox. [57:13] **Councilmember Fox:** I just had a question about communication. I know we've had a variety of requests over the last couple years from members of the public. Have those requests been captured and is there a way to proactively communicate this opportunity to them, or are we just going to kind of put it out on our city channels and let people see that it's there? I mean, I know I can think of at least three or four emails I've got in my inbox that would fall into this category. Are we going to reach out to those people that we think would qualify, or are we going to leave it to them to apply? [57:56] **Dan Wietecha:** Both. The intent definitely is to reach out to ones that have contacted us or that we think are likely applicants. I apologize in advance if we lost somebody's email or forgot about a proposal from months ago, but we intend to reach out but then also advertise it broadly with social media and encourage others that might not have proposed something in the past to make sure they're aware of this. [58:20] **Mary Fasbender:** All right. Moving forward to Arts Task Force Liaison, and Dan you can continue. [58:24] **Dan Wietecha:** Earlier this evening on the Consent Agenda, you appointed eight members of the reinvigorated Arts Task Force, which I'm looking forward to their work. Planning on, somewhere in the next couple of weeks, having a kickoff meeting with them, giving them some ground rules—that hey, this is a city body and needs to abide by open meetings—and some contacts if they have a question. Some general direction about what Council talked about in October with wanting this group to advise: "What's the best structure going forward for long-term support to public arts?" as well as potentially a short-term work plan if there's particular goals or projects that might be undertaken in the next six months. Let's get those moving forward instead of waiting six months for them. [59:40] **Dan Wietecha:** The difficult piece, as much as we want this to be successful, is I just do not have staff that has available time to take on a new body. And I trust that we've got good people on it, but the question came up: would it make sense, similar to Great River Rail Commission or DCC or Dakota Broadband or some of these other groups that we work with and have City Council liaisons to, would it make sense to have a City Council liaison to this task force in order to help advise and guide it? And Councilmember Folch, during our interviews last week, offered that she'd be willing to, but because it is a bit different, because it probably is a formal appointment, I really felt that that was something that would need to come to City Council to discuss how to proceed there. [1:00:36] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Dan. Council discussion? Councilmember Leifeld. [1:00:44] **Lisa Leifeld:** Thank your honor. So I'm a little concerned just when we brought this all to us last month—or I think it was beginning in December—and we met with HPAC and had the conversations and sent it to this committee. I'm concerned that we're going off track of what I thought we were recommending by us not appointing a city employee to this. I'm concerned that some of the thoughts from the previous organization—that it's heading in the wrong direction and I'm worried that we're not following through and taking this as—I don't want to say serious, maybe that's not the right word—but I am concerned that when I spoke about it last month, it seemed to me that this was the best route for it to find its way into the city structure and we could go from there. [1:02:07] **Lisa Leifeld:** I'm a little worried that the very first thing we do is to say that we can't support it with staff. Just my observation that does concern me. I have no problem with Councilmember Folch taking that on—I don't know where she finds the time in her day—but I do want to at least represent or state that I am concerned that I don't feel as though that was the intention that I was seeking when I made my vote and my comments last time. Thank you. [1:02:44] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. Councilmember Lund. [1:02:46] **Councilmember Lund:** Thank you Honor. I can understand that it's different than what we discussed and it can, if anything, optically present itself as a back-burner or just lessened priority based on or as compared to what was discussed prior. I will say that, to be fair, we decided something and didn't have the staffing plan ahead of that, right? It'd be different if we said, "Oh hey, next year we need to have dedicated time from staff and we need to either hire somebody new or pay whatever to accommodate this thing that's coming down the line." We didn't do that, but we didn't want to hold that back from having a good idea move forward either. So I think one of the things that helps us here is that the task force is tasked themselves with creating that short-term work plan. [1:03:52] **Councilmember Lund:** As it says in here, this is the short part of the short-term work plan. Short term—it is what it is, and sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and do something different and whatever, and thank you for volunteering to do that if that's the case. Long-term structural changes is also called out in the background information of this, and I would assume that if that still is a desirable thing, then that would be part of their recommendations for possible structural changes: "Hey, we really appreciate having a council member around, but we think we need some staff attention and this is who we think or the department that we think and what the commitment level would be." Possibly that's part of the components that could come out of their longer-term plan. [1:04:47] **Lisa Leifeld:** Just to clarify, I noticed that that meeting was the end of October already. So good to see that we're moving forward—I don't know where time goes, but it was the end of October that we had that discussion originally, not in December as I was thinking. Thank you. [1:05:07] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you Councilmember Leifeld. Councilmember Folch. [1:05:09] **Councilmember Folch:** Thank you Your Honor. I agree with Councilmember Leifeld—I am very concerned about not having a staff person to help facilitate the conversations, but also trying to be very respectful of the City Administrator's position about not having enough personnel. I volunteered because, just in my experience, I know how much work it can be in facilitating a commission and there's a lot of details that go into this work. And so I feel like we're in between a rock and a hard place where we want to move forward with this Arts Task Force, but there's not any staff that have the bandwidth to be able to take on this work. [1:06:02] **Councilmember Folch:** And so when we were conducting the interviews, I made it clear to all the folks that we were interviewing that we were expecting that anyone who was on the task force was going to need to roll up their sleeves—that this wasn't going to be a group that you're just going to come and flap your lips at; you're actually going to be expected to take on work, do homework, participate, be a part of the endeavor. And so I am super excited about who we are appointing to the Arts Task Force—they were all excellent candidates, they really are. We're really truly blessed to have such a wonderful group of people step up and want to take on this work, and there's a lot of depth in the group. Dennis Peine, who was on HEDRA and the Planning Commission for a long time, is going to be a part of the group, and so is former Councilmember Barb Hollenbeck. Thank you. And so I think it's a good group, I think we can make it work. But I am kind of holding my breath because I truly believe if we can't set up an initiative for success, then we shouldn't do it. And so I do have some concerns and if anybody else wants to step up and be the liaison because they have a burning desire, please let me know. But I just wanted to make sure that we're fulfilling some kind of link between the Arts Task Force and the City Council. So thanks. [1:07:44] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Folch. Councilmember Vaughn. [1:07:46] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Thank you Honor. I just, when some citizens came to us to ask us to start a commission right away, we agreed back in October—we voted to say a "Task Force." In my opinion, the task force is the community—we just found eight great people, we had more applicants than that. Go find the finding of facts, come bring it to us to say, "This is why we think it should be its own commission." Maybe it should not—I want to know what the community thinks that this can do to help our community forward. So that's what I want for the task force. I get staff—staff, how I read the memo, will be there to kick it off, but we're asking the community to say tell us why the value of this as a commission is going to work for us. [1:08:35] **Councilmember Vaughn:** And we get to then understand if there's some... Councilmember Lund talked about repercussions... someone says it should be a commission—okay, we now have to give them data: who's going to be the city staff member, how much time has to go into a budget? Government doesn't always move that fast sometimes for a good reason. We may have other organizations in this community that say, "Hey I want that too." Give me some findings of facts. I'll use HEP as a great example—they're doing great things in the community but they haven't approached us yet; they would probably like to have its own environmental commission that here and there might be some value to. So I think the Arts Task Force, just like HPAC did before, does great things for the community. Lead us there, tell us why and show us that value and I'm all in favor of it. But I want the community to do the work; I don't want us to do the work for them. Come tell us what it's all about. Thank you. [1:09:12] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Vaughn. And that's kind of what I was going to say—this group of people, if you see them and know them, they had that passion when they were out in the chambers and they still have it. They'll get the work done and like you said, Councilmember Vaughn, then bring it to us and say, "We feel we have this in order now, we deserve—we need a commission to maybe possibly get more additional things done." So I'm excited for it. I thank you, Councilmember Folch, for stepping up and being that person, and I look forward to what they're going to bring. Along with you, Councilmember Leifeld? [1:09:59] **Lisa Leifeld:** I would like to state that since the day I started on Council, they have been providing us with the data. So as Councilmember Vaughn pointed out—the "tell us why," "provide us with the data"—they've been doing that since the day I got here. I've got so many wonderful things; they've paid for their own studies, they've brought us all that information. They've been telling us why for the last five and a half years, probably before that. And that's what this was all about. So again, I don't have a problem right now with where it's at because we voted on it and I don't have an issue with that, but they have been telling us. We know what they're doing. They're not asking the city to give them money; they're showing the city, "This is where we're making money, this is the amount of money we can bring into the community by doing these things." So saying, "Arts Task Force, you do the work because we want you to tell us"—they've been doing that. I just want to point that out. I've kept most of that information because it's amazing to see, and I'm sure you, as well as myself, love to do things in town and other communities regarding the arts. But right now I just want to make sure that as a Council we stay on top of this. I know with Councilmember Folch being present, I'm not concerned that it's just gonna get washed down the river, so to say. I know they have—I've read the documents, they've showed us why, they've told us why. And if this is what gets them in the door, okay, we got them in the door, let's go from there. [1:11:58] **Councilmember Vaughn:** I just want to follow up with that for clarification, Councilmember Leifeld. We keep saying "they"—the HPAC Arts Task Force. I'm saying the community. I don't want to say that—I mean "arts group," there's so much more than just arts, there's a culture, there's so much more to be added to this. That's what I want them to bring at the city level. Just like at HEP, they're doing great things on their own as an independent; HPAC is doing great things on their own as independent. This is an Arts Task Force that's saying the value of a commission to the city staff and the community—that's what I'm looking for. So I want to make sure that that's clear, that I'm not saying no. They've been telling us for four or five years—I get that the community has been telling us that. Just give us the findings of fact, we'll make a vote, and if we can justify the cost that's going to go with it—I said it from the start: I value it, I think it's there—but there will be an expense and we have to be prepared for that. That's all I'm bringing up. [1:12:49] **Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Vaughn. I'd accept a motion. Councilmember Folch, Councilmember Vaughn. Any additional discussion? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. Opposed state by saying... that motion carries. Again, thank you Councilmember Folch for assisting. Council members, do you have any announcements? Okay. [1:13:28] **Mary Fasbender:** Curbside tree collection: free for Tennis Sanitation customers January 3rd to January 14th. Trees will be picked up at your regular route day. Please remove all decorations and do not bag your tree. Trees taller than six feet must be cut in half. Ice fishing adventures at Lake Rebecca: Saturday, January 8th. Bait, tackle, and instructions provided. Attendees can fish without a fishing license during this event. This event is a partnership with Carpenter Nature Center. It's free of charge, but registration is required and time slots are limited. [1:14:15] **Mary Fasbender:** The Met Council is holding a public hearing for the Hastings wastewater treatment plant facility plan on Wednesday, January 5th at 6:00 p.m. The public hearing will be on Zoom and info is at the HastingsWWTP.com. Thrive in Hastings will host Ellie Krug on Wednesday, January 5th. Ms. Krug will present "Bridging Divides: A Transgender Woman Talks About Authenticity, Resiliency, and the Four Commonalities." The event will be on Zoom and information is on Thrive's Facebook page. There will be a town hall on Homeless and Housing Access on Thursday, January 6th at 7:00 p.m. [1:15:06] **Mary Fasbender:** Recycle your old light set from the holiday at the Holiday Lights Drop-off Collection. Residents can drop off their unwanted lights at the Joint Maintenance Facility, 920 10th Street West, during the holiday season through February 1st. City offices will be closed January 17th in observance of Martin Luther King Day. Meetings coming forward are: tomorrow, January 4th, there is a 7:30 a.m. Operations Committee; Monday, January 10th, there's a Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m.; Tuesday, January 11th, Parks and Recreational Commission at 7:00 p.m.; Thursday, January 13th is HEDRA at 6:00 p.m.; Tuesday, January 18th, 5:30 p.m. City Council has a workshop with Parks and Recreational Department overview; 7:00 p.m. there's a City Council regular meeting and there's also a 7:00 p.m. Heritage Preservation Commission meeting. With that, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. [1:16:16] **Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Fox and Councilmember Lund. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. Opposed to this motion state by saying nay, and the motion prevails. We are adjourned.