[0:00] Mayor Mary Fasbender: ...to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome. And let the roll reflect, we do have a quorum with the absence of council member Lawrence. Tonight we will hear a proclamation on international overdose and fentanyl poisoning awareness month. This evening we have our annual recognition to raise awareness about fentanyl poisoning. [0:30] Mayor Mary Fasbender: We have with us Bridget Noring and others to speak after the proclamation. Council, if you would please start the proclamation with Council Member Pemble. [0:45] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Whereas communities across Minnesota and the nation continue to face devastating opioid and fentanyl crisis that claims many thousands of lives each year, leaving behind grieving parents, families, and forever altering communities. And [1:16] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: whereas in the most recent reporting year of 2024, 994 Minnesotans lost their lives to drug overdoses with 602 of those deaths involving fentanyl, a synthetic opioid that is up to 50 times stronger than heroin, and often unknowingly ingested. And whereas the city of Hastings is not exempt from this epidemic, having lost four community members in the past year alone to overdose and/or fentanyl poisoning, a sobering reminder that the crisis reaches into every neighborhood, school, and family. And [1:42] Councilmember Angie Haus: whereas fentanyl poisoning is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, surpassing motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and homicide. And whereas overdoses can occur in people who have an addiction to substances as well as those who do not, such as someone accidentally overdosing on prescription opioids after a surgery or an injury, an elderly person consuming too much of a prescribed pain reliever, or a teenager experimenting with drugs for the first time, or a child accidentally ingesting an opioid. Most fentanyl related deaths are due to individuals unknowingly consuming fentanyl substances including counterfeit pills and other street drugs underscoring the urgent need for the public education and awareness. [2:16] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Whereas families, friends, educators, first responders, public health professionals, and community advocates in Hastings and across Minnesota are working tirelessly to prevent these tragedies, provide resources for recovery, and support those affected by substance use and disorder and grief. [2:39] Mayor Mary Fasbender: And now therefore, be it resolved that I, Mayor Mary Fasbender, mayor of the city of Hastings, Minnesota, and city council, do hereby proclaim month of August to recognize National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day on August 21st and International Overdose Awareness Day on August 31st in Hastings and encourage all residents, organizations, schools, and faith communities to come together in remembrance of those who have lost, to support those in recovery, and to commit to those working toward a safer, more informed, and more compassionate community. [3:30] Mayor Mary Fasbender: And I'd like to introduce Bridget Noring who is the founder of the Devon Noring Foundation and she would like to speak and say a few words. [3:46] Bridget Noring: Thank you. On behalf of my family, we extend our sincere gratitude to Mayor Fasbender and the Hastings City Council for proclaiming August as overdose and fentanyl awareness month. 5 years ago, we lost Devon at just 19 years old to fentanyl poisoning from a counterfeit pill, a tragedy that forever changed our family and propelled us into this fight for awareness, education, and prevention. But sadly, our story is not unique. [4:13] Bridget Noring: This proclamation is more than a formality. It is a powerful act of acknowledgement. It honors the families in our community who carry the daily pain of losing a loved one to this crisis. Your voices, your grief, and your courage matter. [4:32] Bridget Noring: My son, your children, Charlie, Dalton, Carson, Michael, Caleb, Natalyia, Kyle, Tyler, Lillian, Alex and so many others lost all matter. I say this to every parent, every caregiver, and community member. What happened to families like ours can just as easily happen to yours. Now is the time to learn the warning signs of substance misuse. [5:02] Bridget Noring: Talk openly with your children. Understand the dangers of counterfeit pills and fentanyl laced substances. And also educate yourselves on the role that social media is playing in this crisis. Visit trusted resources. Learn the signs of an overdose. Take a Narcan training class and have Narcan in your home. [5:23] Bridget Noring: Attend local events. And don't be afraid to have the hard conversations because it could save a life. And I say this in closing. If you are someone battling with a substance use disorder, please reach out and get the help you deserve. Recovery is hard, but it is possible. So, thank you. [5:45] [Applause] [7:40] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay. Approval of minutes council. Any corrections to the meetings from July 21st? Okay. Comments from the audience. At this time, we will hear comments from the audience. If you would like to speak to the council, please step up to the podium, state your name, address, and share us your comments. [8:04] David Ramirez: Hello, my name is David Ramirez. My address is 823 East Second Street, apartment B in Hastings, Minnesota. Been part of the community for the last 23 years. Um, I'm up here today to speak on—I have a building downtown Hastings. It's the only building that can be used as a dispensary. And um, my other two businesses, one is out of that business. It's Tippy's corner store and my first year I did not do very well and I have the opportunity to make the other or—I'm sorry—the store a dispensary and um I am partnered with Mitchell Paul Moses and we have all of our letters and everything that that we need. And um if I am one of the chosen, I think it would bring in a lot of revenue to the community downtown. [9:24] David Ramirez: And I think um I've been very helpful to the community. Um, I've shared and given during Christmas time—my other store, it's the collectibles downtown and I've raised and I've given over 500 presents during Christmas and I also give 5% of my daily earnings out of that business to Hastings. I've given to the wrestling program. I've given to the Sharks swimming team. I've donated and I've given and I'm willing to help out. Um I know that the community has bigger problems than just helping out during Christmas time. I know that there's a water problem and I have to use that and bathe out of that every day and I don't know what's coming out of the water and so I'm willing to help on that project. And there's also what was told last time I was here—with the hockey arena that there was some issues with that. So, I'm willing to give up some of my profits from the store if I am one of the chosen to give back to the community. And um I was here last week and there was a couple guys that were from out of state and if they're chosen, they're just going to take that money and go back to their state and spend their money. But I'm willing to help and do what I can for the community because that's how I was always brought up to do. So, I thank you folks for your time and thank you for letting me speak today. [11:44] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you for your comments. [11:59] Mark Galhar: Hi, my name is Mark Galhar. I'm commander at the VFW. [12:12] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Could you go introduce yourself and name and address, please? [12:32] Mark Galhar: All right. I am Mark Galhar, commander at the VFW, and we have a small committee put together. What I handed out is General Hines's obituary. Uh General Hines is a Hastings native and we have a small committee of family members and a couple VFW members that still grew up with General Hines and we want to publicly memorialize him in some way. [13:06] Mark Galhar: So, we've got a committee. We're going to come back in two weeks and have no more than five ideas to present to you. But we just wanted to get this to you so you could kind of familiarize yourselves with the general. And if there's no questions, I'll be done. [13:26] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mark. [13:40] Zach Roer: Good evening, uh, Mayor Mary and city council members. My name is Zach Roer. I live at 2141 West Point Drive, uh, one of the new developments in town. Um, here tonight to speak on cannabis. Um, I'm the owner of Minigrown, a hemp derived edible and beverage company, uh, that I started up in 2019, uh, just down the road where my family grew up in Cannon Falls, Minnesota. [14:07] Zach Roer: Well, it's a lot colder than that in here. I can tell you that. Um, but the reason I'm here tonight is because, you know, I've been very lucky to have a successful business and I would not have been able to do that without the support of this community. Um, this is where I was raised. This is where I went to school. This is where I started my family. Um, this community means everything to me and my business means a lot to me as well. And I want to be able to make sure that we can have a good, successful cannabis industry here in Hastings, Minnesota and not just average. I want this to be the model for the other cities to use in the state of Minnesota. [14:46] Zach Roer: And I think that the current framework misses that. And I also think that the current framework does not represent the wishes of the people of Hastings. Um, from what I understand, and feel free to correct me, I think the current cap for city retail license dispensaries is one. I think tonight as part of the agenda was maybe to vote on it for two. [15:12] Zach Roer: And I can just tell you that even if we go up to two, this is not going to be enough shops to meet the demands of cannabis in the town of Hastings. If you look at our liquor stores, if you look at our on-premise bars and restaurants, there are dozens and dozens of folks who are allowed to sell intoxicating substances to people under a reasonable regulation. If we look at our tobacco shops and our smoke shops, same grace is given to them as well. If they have the merits and if they have the balls to get into business, people should be allowed to do it. This is America. And I think by going to the minimums of what the state is going to say this is what you have to do, it's not being leaders in this community. It's not being leaders in the state. [16:00] Zach Roer: I think the current process for retail licensing in the city of Hastings is a little unfair. Um, from what I can understand is I think the city is going to wait to see who gets a license from the state of Minnesota. There is a tremendous amount of capital expenses that come in to just get an approval from the state of Minnesota. You have to have business plans. You have to have security plans. You have to have a lot of this stuff installed ahead of time. And the last part of this is going to your city or your um county and getting the approval to operate your business. So someone could invest hundreds of thousands of dollars incurring legal fees, setting up their business, setting up displays only to get to that last step and get state approval to go to the city and not be able to have the opportunity to do what they want to do. [16:56] Zach Roer: For a lot of people, this industry is about their dreams. And to be a community member and not to be able to go after your dreams like the gentleman who spoke here tonight, like me and how I want to, is just disheartening. I don't think that reflects the values in the city of the people of Hastings. So, I have a simple ask here tonight. I just asked for the city council to re-evaluate even putting a cap on the number of licenses that are going to be issued. If you are going to put a cap, I would ask you to put the same cap on it is that you put on hemp derived edibles and beverages, which I don't believe there is a cap. There's no difference in someone walking into a dispensary or a smoke shop and buying a THC product. When dispensaries open up, they'll be able to sell hemp derived THC products right along marijuana products. We're developing this artificial cap, I believe, for no reason. And once again, I ask you to reconsider the cap of not having one or capping it similar to how many tobacco shops or liquor licensed retailers are in the city. Thank you. [18:10] [Applause] [18:24] Mike Cordis: Good evening. Um, my name is Mike Cordis. I'm the owner of Patios and More Landscaping Services. I grew up in town, um, working for my grandpa and my dad, Specialized Turf and Land Images. And, uh, just wanted to vouch for David. I gotten to know him and his partners over the past few years and they're highly respected in town and in light of the fentanyl awareness, you know, I've had family and friends die from it too and I think that having respected business leaders in town in control of cannabis distribution—I've even heard of cannabis having fentanyl in it too—I think it definitely needs to be under control and that's all I had to say. [19:11] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you. [19:26] Thomas Walt: Good evening. Thomas Walt, 1306 West 20th Street. I'm wondering what you'd think if I were to drive down a bike path in my car, say at about 30 miles an hour, would it be legal? No, it wouldn't, of course. However, right now there is a growing problem that we have when you can go out from Walmart or Amazon and buy an e-scooter or an e-motorcycle or an e-bike that will do 28 miles an hour out of the box. [20:01] Thomas Walt: I happened to have had a few close calls recently. My wife was getting out of her car on the passenger side as an e-bike went by on the sidewalk at full speed. I also noticed a man going past the front of the grocery store on the sidewalk at least half speed on his e-bike right in front of people coming out of the doors there. How many times have you seen people with more than one person on a scooter, more than one person on an e-bike, more than one person on an e-motorcycle? And I've seen up to five people on these new e-golf carts. So, I'm curious, what are the ordinances that we have for the city for where they're supposed to be placed in the drive lane, in the sidewalks, in the bike lanes? Have any answers? We need to be getting this information out because I'm not aware of anything other than, well, it's kind of like a bicycle. Anybody have any ideas? [21:10] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Well, this is during public comments. It's not a dialogue. [21:13] Thomas Walt: Okay. So, years ago, mopeds, you needed a license because they went 35 miles an hour. But right now, there are a few kids that have already tweaked their little motorbikes that go 35 miles an hour and they have no headlights. They have no tail lights. Thankfully, some of them are wearing helmets, but there was the couple up in South St. Paul—ran the stop sign and the 14-year-old died on a scooter. And I don't know if his friend's out of the hospital yet either. So, I had shared some videos with Kelly Murtaugh. I don't know if she can distribute them just to give you an idea some of the things I've seen around town, but the public campaign needs to be focused to let people know where are these bikes allowed, where are these scooters allowed. Saw a couple of kids doing whoop-dedos over at Wallin Park the other day, full speed. So, it's a concern that I have. We want to make the public aware of what is respectable and good decorum for how they're riding their e-machines. Thank you. [22:18] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you. [22:31] Cindy Tobias: Hi there. My name is Cindy Tobias. I'm an emergency medical dispatcher and have been for about 13 years. I'm actually in support of David Ramirez, the first gentleman that came up here that is interested in opening up a cannabis store. He's already got a store in town, lived here all his life. Um, he's been a family friend of ours for about 25 years. I just want to speak to his character. You're not going to find a nicer man that wants to give back to the community. He did speak about the ice rink. I myself have a kid in hockey. That would be amazing. Um, I'm just interested to see what you guys all come up with. The cap is a very interesting opportunity to have more than one, but if you do have to choose, I would vote for David. Thank you. [23:18] [Applause] [23:22] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Anyone else wish to speak to the council at this time? Anyone on Zoom? No one on Zoom. All right. Thank you for the comments. Council items to be considered. Council members, are there any items to be considered? Okay. Council, I would accept a motion for the consent agenda. [23:43] Councilmember Dave Pemble: I so move. [23:43] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: Second. [23:58] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Any discussion? Council. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Tonight, under award contracts, we have an authorization signature for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency grant agreement for the Central Water Treatment Plant. And tonight, we have an introduction by our public works director, Ryan Stempski. Welcome, Ryan. [24:24] Ryan Stempski (Public Works Director): Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Yes. So, tonight—let me just get this annotation off. Thank you. Um, tonight the grant agreement we're talking about is for the central water treatment plant. Um, you can see the rendering here in the drawing at 1290 North Frontage Road. We have had MPCA grant agreements in the past, namely to purchase this property which is next door to our nitrate water treatment plant. But tonight it's about the construction of the central water treatment plant. So just to quickly remind folks, this is one plant of three. The central treatment plant is on the north side of trunk highway 55 serving three wells in our community. We would not be mitigated from PFAS from our Jordan aquifer until the other two treatment plants would be installed. But this is obviously one of three that we're talking about tonight. Um we continue to work on funding solutions for all wells in our community. [25:42] Ryan Stempski: Zooming in on this location off of trunk highway 55. This project includes a raw water main line from well 7 over to the central water treatment plant at 1290 North Frontage Road. Um again, you'll probably be familiar with our ground storage tank in that location and our existing nitrate treatment plant. Um and the address as I said is at 1290 North Frontage Road. [26:10] Ryan Stempski: Okay, getting to the funding. So, we have been out getting bids for this project, both the raw water main project and the water treatment plant. Bids have come in very favorable. We'll talk about those in detail at our next council meeting. This is again for the MPCA grant agreement approval. The pie chart on the left is what we had in the pre-bid estimates. So these were the engineering estimates and the project in total all things involved in the central treatment plant was about $27.7 million. [26:44] Ryan Stempski: Now once we have bids in hand, total project cost is coming out to be about 23.1 million. So good news on bids—we'll talk more about those later. The way this breaks down for funding of the treatment plant currently post-bid is in black there we see the $1.22 million. That's for the design of the project and that's fully funded out of a grant with the MPCA planning and design grant funds. There's $5 million in the emerging contaminants grant and that's because we are on the IUP list—intended use plan. That's a program out of the state. With the recent legislature action, this bucket was $3 million, but it was increased to $5 million after last session. So that went up from $3 to $5 million. So because we are ideally positioned and ready to move forward, we're able to take advantage of those $2 million of state legislature funds. So that totals $5 million. [27:51] Ryan Stempski: There's $5 million in water rates. We would go obtain a PFA loan. And to repay that loan, we would use water rates in the estimated amount of $5 million. And then the largest portion of the pie chart is the nearly $12 million. That is what we're here talking about tonight. And that's the 3M settlement funds that come in a way of an MPCA implementation grant. So that's what we're here talking about tonight. Um, if you add up all the grant portions, that's nearly 80% of the total project funds and then the water rates come in at just over 20%. So, that's how our funding split looks today. [28:37] Ryan Stempski: Some details in the grant agreement in your packet to note is this treatment plant isn't fully funded. It's only funding well number five. Well number five is the well that is connected to the 3M Cottage Grove plant across the river. Um we continue to work on the other wells, but currently only well five is connected. And so we worked with the co-trustees of the settlement funds to do a calculation and basically apply what it would be to build a well five only treatment plant and then do a percentage of the entire central water treatment plant which brings in wells three and seven. So that's kind of how we got to, as a team working and asking for more for our community, 59% of construction costs covered from the 3M settlement funds and nearly 90% of the construction support services. So that's like your geotech, your staking, your inspection and those sorts of things. Um, also in the grant agreement, you should be aware that if well three and well 7 are connected through our efforts with the PCA, the Pollution Control Agency, um, if they are found to be connected, we can amend this agreement to include the funding for that portion of the plant as well. So, that work is continuing and ongoing and the agreement is set up to be amended if that should change in the future. It's also important to note that the nitrate expansion area in the treatment plan is not part of the 3M settlement funds. So that's not PFAS related. So therefore, I just wanted to call that out as well. [30:09] Ryan Stempski: Okay. So, next steps really tonight, we're here for council to look at authorizing signature of the MPCA grant agreement. The next council meeting as I referenced on the 18th, we would look to award both construction contracts, that's both for the raw water main and the water treatment plant, and then also bring back to the council a resolution for bond issuance and this would be the PFA loan and grant portion that are going to be repaid by the water rates that I showed in the pie chart. If this all comes together as we anticipate with the good bids that we have in hand, we expect construction to begin in September. So with that, any questions that you have? I can take them at this time. [31:02] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Ryan. Council, any questions? Council member Haus. [31:06] Councilmember Angie Haus: Thank you, honor. I'd like to move forward and make a motion to approve the MPCA grant agreement for the central water treatment plant. [31:18] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Second. [31:21] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Any discussion council? Okay. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Ryan. Well, you're going to just stay right there, aren't you? Tonight under public works, we are going to have a resolution to modify parking restrictions on Second Street East under the Trunk Highway River Bridge. You may continue, Ryan. [31:37] Ryan Stempski: Uh, yes. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. Uh, this item is for some parking amendments as stated by the mayor. So, we'll jump right into the existing conditions photos. So, this location is on Second Street. Um we have fielded several calls over the past year or two years regarding safe crossing at this location. It's a crosswalk just east of the river bridge, trunk highway 61 river bridge. Um and upon review of the situation, parking is usually dominated in this area and therefore the sight lines are complicated. And so we did note the obstruction and the concern in this location. Currently under the bridge on Second Street on the north side of the street, we have about six parking spots in that location and about four parking spots on the south side of Second Street. And we fully understand that parking is a premium in our downtown area. And so we take these reviews very seriously and we also take safety very seriously. [32:58] Ryan Stempski: Looking at the conditions. Um we have some graphics in the next slide, but we also talked to our ops committee back in June and recognized that motorcycle parking underneath a covered bridge is a wanted item in this location, especially during events that may bring rain or weather elements. And so it's a desired spot for motorcycle parking. And we heard that loud and clear in our analysis. Therefore, our proposal from engineering tonight is to remove the two spots directly adjacent to the crosswalk on the north side of the street, clearing up some of those sight lines in that location and then to convert the vehicle parking on the south side. Um remove those four stalls identified for vehicles and actually put striping in and change the signage to allow for about 10 motorcycle parking stalls in that location. [34:01] Ryan Stempski: So we find with this recommendation that it significantly will improve the sight lines helping vehicles see pedestrians about to cross and likewise helping pedestrians and bicyclists see oncoming vehicles as well, improving visibility and safety for the crossing at that location. The cost will be fairly minimal to implement. Um we can easily get the no parking signs and the motorcycle parking signs through our sign vendor and get those installed. Um and then as we have striping contractors on our other projects in town, we can get striping done for less than a couple hundred dollars. So, uh pretty minimal cost for us to do this if the council should wish to move forward with these modifications as recommended. And with that, I'll stand for any questions. [34:47] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: Thanks, your honor. Thank you, Ryan, so much for this. Like you'd said, we understand that parking spots are a premium downtown, and we want to invite more people to come and enjoy our beautiful community. Check out downtown, other parts of town. Get out Midtown and check out our community. This here, I love this piece with the motorcycle stalls. I think that's an excellent add for our community. It's like, well, we might have—we're going to take away some parking spots, but guess what? We got a great spot for some others. When we talked about this during our committee, the Highway 61 northbound access was a really big part of this, right? So, where those motorcycles are sitting as people are coming and going up to the north 61 access, that's where we were really seeing our problem, right? A lot of cars coming down Second and turning up that side frontage road. And then the other piece was when they're coming down off of the bridge and coming in to Second Street. So, it's a great problem to have. We've got more people downtown. You know, for those of us who are from here, it was never uncommon to pull up in front of your hair appointment and park right in front and get out and run in because you were running late. That was awesome. But it wasn't, right? So, it's a great thing. And when we look at other communities like ours, right, similar to ours—Red Wing, Stillwater, Hudson—parking in front of where you're going is unheard of. You're pretty—I mean, I kind of have a parking horseshoe, so I get pretty lucky when it comes to parking, but I love this. I think it's a great problem for our community to have. It shows that we're thriving and we've got people coming to visit us. So, I know people are going to be upset. Yep. I'm one of those people who likes to park close. I know I need the exercise. So, this is awesome. Thanks for taking that into consideration and making it work. [36:51] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Thank you, your honor. Ryan, I love this. Um I believe that the role of local government is to be helpful, responsive, and thoughtful. And I think that this does all of those things. I love the fact that it is offering the sheltered parking spaces to folks on motorcycles. Um, I've shared with this body before that this is a route that I drive very, very often. I know that that crosswalk is an incredibly busy one. I understand to Council Member Leifeld's point that um we do want customers and we do want visitors to our city to feel welcome and have an easy spot in parking, but I promise anybody that's watching this and listening tonight, there are lots of really easy parking spots downtown. And I just don't think that uh moving forward with this really negates that in any way. So, I thank you and your department and the any committees that played a role in this as well. I fully support this. [37:50] Councilmember Angie Haus: Thank you, Honor. Ryan, this is an amazingly creative solution to this problem, and I want to commend you for that because it's a hard thing to find parking sometimes. So, I also love this because most of the time when I'm trying to find a parking spot downtown, uh you know, we pull out down and there's usually a motorcycle in the car spots and usually it's just one. So, I think this is a great solution to even open up more parking by adding these single lane stalls just for motorcycles. So, thank you so much for your due diligence on this. May I also make a motion to approve this as well? [38:31] Mayor Mary Fasbender: You may. Thank you. There's a motion made and a second motion by Council Member Leifeld. New discussion, council? All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you so much, Ryan. [38:33] Ryan Stempski: Thank you. [39:05] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Tonight under community development, we have a resolution for a special use permit for Leonard McQueen at 1304 Vermillion Street. And with that, we will have Amelia, our intern. Welcome, Amelia. [39:24] Amelia (Planning Intern): Thank you. Welcome, mayor. Welcome, council members. So, this first special use permit that we're looking at tonight is for cannabis retail sales for Leonard McQueen for Clua Cultivation at 1304 Vermillion Street. Um originally this passed planning commission last week 7 to 0. Since we've had planning commission, we have found um more information regarding distancing for this location. So some of the information within your memo and report is now outdated. Um we have found that there is a residential treatment facility within 500 ft from the property line. And under our city ordinance, it says—excuse me—the location of use must be located more than 500 ft from a residential treatment facility as measured from the property line to the facility of use. Um due to this, it completely goes against our city ordinance. So now the staff is recommending denial. I understand that this has come after planning commission, but that is currently where this one sits. It passed all of their other needs for the special use permit but unfortunately because of this we are now recommending denial. I can stand for any questions. [40:53] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you Amelia. Any questions council? So we will need a motion to um accept the formal denial. Council. [41:09] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Motion to deny. [41:11] Councilmember Mya Beck: Second. [41:14] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Any discussion? Council. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Amelia. Now we can move on to a resolution for a special use permit for Steve Anaviski at 2324 Vermillion Street. [41:26] Amelia (Planning Intern): So for our second special use permit tonight for cannabis retail sales for Steve for 2324 Vermillion Street. Um last week, this passed at planning commission 6 to 1 with an added recommendation from planning commission to review the parking for this site one year after operation. Um and that's based on because this site has had limited parking in the past. Um and also we had a letter sent in before the public hearing and then also a member of the community speak during the public hearing as to the parking at this location and also the safety at the intersection. Um because this is on 23rd and Vermillion or 25th and Vermillion. Um and members of the community spoke out about the difficulty of taking a left onto Vermillion and so adding more cars to the area would make that increasingly more complicated. Um for the special use permit, it did pass our parking requirements because the change of use has technically not changed—it's staying as retail as it has been before. Um, and the property itself is owned by Elgen Properties LLC. It's zoned C3 Commercial and it's consistent with our comp plan. Um, it doesn't have any distancing restrictions that have been found or noted. Um, and parking has recently been redone and restriped. Um, and I can stand for any questions about this one. [43:21] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Amelia, looking at the area and the rebuild of Highway 61, the early drawings kind of showed that there's going to be some impact at that location. Correct? [43:40] Amelia (Planning Intern): Yeah. So from my understanding of the 61 project, we are currently not taking that into account just with this because this might go into effect before or after. The timelines are a little bit iffy on that one just to look at it in its current situation. But yes, this is an area that will eventually be— [44:03] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Potentially there could be a big problem with parking there or even access to the building itself. Correct? [44:11] Amelia (Planning Intern): I'm not sure if this building specifically will be impacted by the access of 61. Um it will be during construction for sure, probably, but I'm not sure if this intersection is currently one that is being changed in any way. But currently it meets everything that we need to have for an okay. Correct. [44:34] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: Thanks, honor. To council member Pemble's question, excellent question. Uh the owners or the Steve—is he aware of this possibility? I mean, obviously the 61 project— [44:50] Amelia (Planning Intern): I have not spoken to him personally about it. Um, so I'm— [44:56] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: So just from my thought process on that, as long as—I mean, is that on him? Is it on them to say, "Hey, is there something coming?" But if they meet the zoning requirements, and what we're looking at here is just for a special use permit. Um if there were to be another dispensary that was allowed in prior within 1,000 ft that would negate this, right? So if the Bar Draft House, for instance—we don't know where anyone's at in their state processes, but I know we've already given an okay from the city regarding the location. So they're working with their state licensing. I don't know anything about that. Hypothetically, if that were to be approved, is that thousand feet? Then is that when that comes into play? [45:59] Amelia (Planning Intern): So to answer your question, it wouldn't negate the requirement that you grant the special use permit, but it may prohibit them from getting the registration for the cannabis retail registration within the city. We take the thousand feet into consideration for any of the applicants who have already submitted. So we've luckily not run into the issue right now where any applicants have tried to submit within 1,000 ft of each other. Um most applicants are running into the issue of submitting within 500 ft of a low potency. So those are already established. So it's much easier for us to say this will you cannot operate here because of that. [46:43] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: Thank you. [47:08] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay. If not, then I would accept a motion to approve resolution for the city council of the city of Hastings granting a special use permit for the retail sale of cannabis at 2324 Vermillion Street. [47:15] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: So moved. [47:18] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Second. [47:20] Mayor Mary Fasbender: New discussion council. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you. Okay. We have discussion tonight for micro-mobility recommendations. And for this item, we have our police chief with us, Chief Kyle Linscheid. Welcome, Chief. [47:44] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: Thank you, Kelly. Madame Mayor, city council members, thank you for this opportunity to talk about micromobility vehicles. I know it's very exciting. So, before we get going, before I get into the PowerPoint, I'm going to read what a micromobility definition is according to the state of Minnesota, so we're all on the same page. It can get very confusing. So, the state of Minnesota recognizes micromobility as a device capable of being propelled solely by human power or being powered solely by an electric motor drawing current from a rechargeable storage battery, fuel cell, or other portable source of electric current. [48:22] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: Also, when solely powered by an electric motor, is not capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a paved level surface and has an unloaded weight of up to 500 lbs. The reason I bring this up is we're not talking about gas powered vehicles. There are a lot of those out there. And to be honest, there are a lot of micromobility vehicles on our roadways. Uh we heard from a citizen earlier—this market's really exploding. Uh we've seen it in the last couple of years. So, we're going to talk about our ordinance tonight, the review by the Public Safety Advisory Commission and some recommendations to city council from the Public Safety Advisory Commission. [48:58] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: So the council requested—I'm going to refer to public safety advisory commission as PSAC. The city council requested PSAC to review our micromobility ordinance at a March meeting. This review has been going on for a couple of months. We have our board chair OJ with us tonight as well. Uh so the board and the commission reviewed city ordinance 70.09 which is our current micromobility ordinance. We looked at neighboring jurisdiction ordinances and reviewed those as well. There's a number of cities that have tried to address this very issue. And then a review of state statute 169.225. [49:33] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: When we talk about state statutes, they address ebikes and they address e-scooters or motorized foot scooters—the rest of the micromobility vehicles, the legislature hasn't really dove into that yet. So, there's not a lot of direction that we're receiving from the state. But in regards to state statute 169.225, they do address motorized foot scooters. And what the state says is that they have all rights and duties applicable to the operator of a bicycle. No operation on sidewalk except to enter or leave property. No carrying of passengers. Minimum age to operate one is 12 years of age. Uh headgear is required between 12 and 18 years of age. Headlight and tail light are required and electric scooters may be operated on a bicycle path, lane, trail unless not authorized by local jurisdiction. So this is very similar to our ebike ordinance that city council passed a couple of months ago, except for the age. For a motorized scooter, they have to be at least 12. For an ebike they have to be 15. [50:37] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: So public safety advisory commission came up with some recommendations and really what this is is what we recommend changing in our micromobility ordinance. And the first one is the definition and they recommend changing into items designed for individual use. A vehicle that is capable of being propelled solely by human power being powered by an electric motor drawing current from rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells etc. This is very similar to the state statute and that is the recommendation and they include skateboards, Segways, kick scooters, hoverboards, electric unicycles and e-scooters. They suggest removing the following definitions in 70.09B for bicycles and electric assisted bicycles. The reason for that is the city now has our own ordinance for those topics. So why include it in this micromobility ordinance? include language regarding 169.225. Motorized foot scooter laws are governed by Minnesota state statute and the city of Hastings enforces these laws. What that means is the state statute for 169.225 on motorized foot scooters would be the letter of the law for the city of Hastings. That is what our officers would follow. And so we don't need to identify that in our ordinance. [51:54] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: And then some operational restrictions were recommended. It will be unlawful for anyone to operate under the following conditions within the city while being pushed, pulled, or in any way propelled by any motorized vehicle or being a person on a bicycle. Single individual per device. This is the same language that we already have in ordinance 130.04 under rollerblades and skateboards. PSAC thought it was important to include that language once again under micromobility; also in a careless, reckless or negligent manner in disregard for the rights or safety of property or any other person including pedestrians. The reason this is important is it gives our officers a little bit of leeway. They can use their judgment. It's very difficult sometimes to gauge speeds on some of these devices. So, it would be up to our officers to look at how somebody is operating one of those and decide whether they're going to issue a citation, advise—whatever they choose to do. And then on any sidewalk adjacent to that part of Second Street, line between Eddy Street and Bailey Street, except for electric personal assisted mobility devices—hoveraround, elderly scooter type or those that might have a handicap—we wanted to exclude those. [53:16] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: This language is also in city ordinance 130.04 regarding rollerblades, roller skates, and skateboards. And really what PSAC wanted to do is keep these devices away from our historic downtown district. That was the idea behind it. And they also wanted to include hold harmless language, and that is: nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as an assumption of liability by the city of Hastings for any injuries to people which may result from the operation of such items. And this language was also recommended in our ebike ordinance. [53:51] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: So just some additional information—the original Hastings City ordinance for micromobilities was enacted to allow rental scooters into our community. Although we have not had rental scooters in our community for a couple of years, they might come back. So we wanted to keep that language and just make some changes. So the goal is to keep this language for future rentals and address other micromobility vehicle concerns. Something else I wanted to talk about—you know, it gets really confusing when we're talking about state statutes and micromobility devices. Motorized bicycles—I don't know why they call them that. Really, what these are are electric motorcycles. Um, but the state refers to them as motorized bicycles. They're not ebikes. The state's definition clearly states that, but they would not be included in this ordinance. And I thought it was important for you to understand the state statute definition for a motorized bicycle. It's a bicycle that is propelled by an electric or liquid fuel motor of a piston displacement capacity of 50 cubic centimeters or less similar to a moped and a maximum of two-stroke horsepower which is capable of a maximum speed of not more than 30 mph on a flat surface. The reason that is important is this is really a motorcycle. It's registered through the state of Minnesota. So, we would not include that in our ordinance. Uh we see those around town. Our officers have stopped those. People don't even realize they're on a registered motor vehicle. It's confusing because it's called a motorized bicycle. And then we have ebikes and we have regular bikes. Okay. Questions? Is that too much? [55:26] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Thank you, your honor. It's a confusing topic. It really is. Thank you for this. Thank you for everything that you've laid out in terms of this because I know that it's incredibly confusing and there's a lot of changes that happen. I appreciate this, Chief. I also have to tell you, I just appreciated your graphics. I don't know what some of those people were on at some points. I saw I think electric water skis in the beginning and maybe people riding luggage. Um but it was cool. I liked it. It caught my eye. Um but I did actually have a couple of quick questions. Um so when I see something like this coming before city council, the first thing I do is I reach out to my neighbors or I reach out to people that I think that this is going to impact. So, in my mind, because there is an age of at least 12 years old to be able to ride something like this, I'm thinking of parents with kids. And so one of the things that I heard when I was having some conversation over the weekend was people would say, "Well, isn't that kind of up to the parents to be telling their children exactly what to be riding, if they need to wear helmets, if they need to do—" and so I'm just wondering if you could just kind of speak to the community just a bit on why this is particularly helpful to have this in place as part of our city ordinance for our officers, for maintaining good safety regulations, for keeping our population safe, that kind of thing. [57:12] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: Yeah. And I agree, you know, we really rely heavily on the parents to make good decisions for their kids. But I think we've seen in the last couple of years that some of these are impacting our citizens as well. Those that are that choose to walk, those that choose to ride a regular bike—they can be extremely dangerous. The state addresses the electric scooters and identifies 12 years of age. Now some parents might think, "my child's 10, I'm still going to buy this for them." But understand that they can also receive a citation for that because it's against the law. And I think it's just—the state is doing that because they're looking out for the safety of the juveniles in our community. And it's—as a parent myself, I would have never known that 15 years of age to ride an ebike is the law. And that is really been our focus in the last six months is educating the public in regards to that because I think many parents and many of our younger adults that are in the community have no idea that that age limit is 15 or that for an electric scooter it's 12 years of age. [58:39] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Thank you, Chief. I completely agree. I will be voting in support of this. I thank you and PSAC for bringing this to us tonight. My only follow-up question was what would the penalty be? And you already covered that. Um yeah, I really appreciate this. Like I said in an earlier comment, I think the role of local government is to be responsive to its community. We've heard lots of folks come out with a lot of concerns about this and I think that this helps to address that. So, thank you. [58:55] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: And to Council Member Vihrachoff's point, I have heard from parents also who it's like, okay, this is good to know. It can be hard to say no to your kids. We've all been there. So, I've got a couple parents who have been like, "okay, this is good to know," right? This is information that they can use to talk to their children. We don't always say yes, but we don't always say no. So, you know, it goes back to, you know, kind of to Mr. Roer's point, right? It's like we want to make sure that we're not limiting our community, right? But this here is about safety and I live on Pine Street and I'm watching it all day long. It's like I just don't want an accident. I just don't want one of these young kids who's got two buddies on this motorized whatever it is. So Chief, I appreciate it. I know this is a lot of work and I know we talk about a lot of different things and trying to find that balance between what's best for everyone and not over—we don't want to overrule everyone. So I thank you for your time and I, with council member Vihrachoff, will also be moving forward with this recommendation. Excellent job, PSAC. [1:00:06] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Chief, I just wanted to reiterate the importance of what's happening in the community with our children. I mean, uh, Friday last I was at 15th and Pleasant, stopped for the stop sign, and all of a sudden, a white electric bike shot right through on my left side going southbound. And they just kept going and we were going down to the county road. So I'm—okay, it's 30 and he's pulling away. It's like, what? These things can go that fast. And my concern is it's like there's a four-way stop at 15th and Pleasant. And he just shot right by the left side of our vehicle and straight across. And there were other vehicles in the intersection. Thankfully, nobody moved, but it's like we need almost like some kind of ongoing training for young teenagers when they get on these things to be cognizant of what the rules of the road are. That's what it used to be called in my day, but that's what I'm just trying to say. Thank you. [1:01:27] Police Chief Kyle Linscheid: Thank you, council member. And I can tell you that we have been doing some targeted enforcement at the police department and our focus is really educating the youth in our community, but I'll be honest with you, some of our adults need some education, too, riding these things. Uh we did have somebody that was struck yesterday in town. Uh and they were at fault. They went through a red light in front of a vehicle at 15th and Vermillion and they were struck and thankfully they weren't injured too bad. But uh yeah, so it's kind of it runs across the board, but there are a lot of these devices and we're not the only town that's dealing with this. A lot of other communities are having these same struggles. I think we're one of the only communities that is trying to address it with ordinance changes. [1:02:11] Mayor Mary Fasbender: First of all, thank you, Council Member Pemble. Chief, thank you. PSAC, thank you. Pass that on. Um this has been ongoing for a long time and I think there we're going to continue to have conversations. It'd be nice to see like a shared community with the schools and everybody and and I know you're trying to work that route, too. So, if we could come up with some sort of campaign and of course adults should learn that, you know, the rules and regulations, too. But we all just want to be safe for our community. And I hear parents say, "Well, my kid's got to get to so and so because my husband and I are working." We understand that, but then please help us teach them or please help them learn the rules for our community so they're safe and it doesn't use all of our resources for stopping kids and educating them. There's got to be an adult campaign out there to teach your children or something. So, thank you. [1:03:52] Kelly Murtaugh (Assistant City Administrator): Thank you, Mayor Council. Uh I'm thrilled to be here before you to discuss cannabis and our response and opportunities to work with cannabis businesses in the city. Um, we do and I think will continue to revisit and review our cannabis ordinance over the next many years I suspect as we adjust to the the different processes at the state and that kind of thing. So, we will have more opportunities. Uh, but tonight I have two topics for us to revisit. One is allowing registration with the city at the preliminary license approval stage as well as reviewing the registration retail cap that we set by ordinance because we have businesses at various stages of the licensing process. [1:04:45] Kelly Murtaugh: All were notified of the items on the discussion this evening. Some are in the room and I believe there were some media outlets that also shared that this was going to be discussed this evening. So the first topic is looking at preliminary license approval. Currently, businesses would complete the registration form, submit the fee, the certificate of insurance, copy of their driver's license, and a copy of their OCM issued license. That is our ordinance plan right now. Statutory language was amended earlier this recent session requiring municipalities to complete local registration for businesses with either a license or preliminary license approval. And I have the formal language right there on the screen for you: A local government shall issue a retail registration to a business—it lists the businesses—that has a valid license or preliminary license approval. Uh with any inquiries up to this point, we have reinforced our ordinance says license and so we have reinforced that. [1:06:17] Kelly Murtaugh: Uh but following this legislative change, there was inconsistent interpretation of the language by various entities and we held that we could continue with our current ordinance. Since then further interpretation and review of statute would suggest that perhaps that was not the right path to follow. And so the legislative language as you can see here says "local unit of government shall." It's typically not a lot of question to "shall," right? Uh so that's why we are looking at that. [1:06:40] Kelly Murtaugh: And just to hopefully not add any confusion and actually a little bit of clarity, this is what we lovingly call the "Candyland" process from start to finish in cannabis licensing. And at the top left, it's kind of got the "start here, step one," and how our licensing process is listed in ordinance. Right now, a business would need to go through every one of the steps from the darker blue through this transition to the darker green to the light green to be able to then seek registration with the city. Now, there would be touch points here and there as OCM would identify those businesses that had a site plan and that they would confirm zoning compliance with the city. But registration in our current ordinance wouldn't happen until the "you are now a license holder and may begin operations" three little asterisks—connect with your local government. [1:07:27] Kelly Murtaugh: So I just want to remind you of that path. Now, by looking at preliminary license approval instead of forcing us to wait till licensing—at the bottom of the right hand side of the darker blue, it says "you are now a preliminarily approved applicant." That with this change would be the point at which a business could then register with the city, complete all the steps that they need to with the city registration, and be approved for registration before they finish with a site plan. And as you've heard from some folks this evening, but as well as we've heard from other businesses, there is a significant investment, right? And if folks aren't going to get a registration, it's helpful to know that long before they invest the potentially $100,000 or more in a buildout and safety plans and all of that. So this is business-friendly and supports them in the site planning and the rest of the path then toward their license. So I will pause here for just this topic on the preliminary license approval adding that or honoring that language in statute. [1:09:48] Kelly Murtaugh: So the other topic is the retail registration cap. The statutory language did not change in this most recent session. That is not what sparked this conversation. But the interpretation of said statutory language did change. The statutory language is on the screen there: "local government unit may by ordinance limit the number to no fewer than one registration for every 12,500 residents." So our interpretation when we wrote the ordinance that we adopted last November/December is with a population of just under 23,000 we interpreted this to mean one because we weren't at 25,000 which would be doubling that number. The recently released interpretation by OCM requires that for a city of our size we would have to have at least two if we were looking at minimums. So 1 to 12,500 would require a minimum of 1 and then over 12,500 require two and so on. Uh our interpretation was a little different. There are varying interpretations on this to this day. There are some differences. Um, and so that is something that would be up for discussion as policymakers as to whether or not that would be supported. [1:10:58] Kelly Murtaugh: So before I get to recommendations, any questions on that? [1:12:02] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Thank you, your honor. I was sitting on my hands to try and not hit the button prior to Kelly's full presentation. Thank you for this. Thank you for everything that you've laid out in terms of this because I know that it's incredibly confusing and there's a lot of changes that happen. I don't necessarily have an issue with having two dispensaries in Hastings. My issue is that when we originally discussed this before this body, we had agreed as a group of—to use your words—that interpretation of statute of having one. And so as I talk with neighbors, as I talk with folks downtown, as I get lots of questions about this, my answer has always been there will only be one. And I'm incredibly uncomfortable now going back to those same folks in the community and saying, "Whoopsie, it's actually two." While you and I and everybody here in this room and everybody here on this day understands that these things are—it's fluid. We're figuring it out as we go. We're at a little bit of the mercy of the state in terms of how these rules are being created. But that's a real concern that I have—that the council has gone on record in one way and that we've conveyed that to constituents and now we're saying something else. I don't love that. Um, thank you, your honor. [1:14:15] City Attorney: I don't know if this will make you feel any better, but you could have five attorneys read the cannabis statute and interpret it five different ways. And I will take fault for maybe bringing this to the surface because I have a different interpretation than the previous city attorney on the cap. And it's my recommendation that a strict reading of the statute means that Hastings needs to allow two to be compliant with the state statute. And that's why this is kind of before you tonight. Although I understand your concerns and the decision that you all made—not based on bad legal advice in the past, just different. And I'm not saying that my interpretation is 100% correct because there are a lot of things in the statute that time will prove—time and litigation will prove we have varying interpretations and who is right and wrong on this. [1:15:21] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Thank you. That's helpful. And I just want to be clear—it's not again it's not that my issue is necessarily having two, if that's what we would have started the conversation off with initially, but I appreciate your diligence in bringing this to this body. We will always want to make sure that number one that we are welcoming to new businesses within our community and that we are abiding by any regulations or rules or anything that we need to in terms of those businesses. Um, forgive me if this is a little off topic, but Kelly, I think that a lot of our community would think that this is somewhat related. A question that I often get when we talk about dispensaries is also about what you presented on previously about our special use permit because I think that people get kind of confused between the two different things. And so is there a way that we could just talk very, very briefly and just kind of remind anybody that's watching or remind anybody that might be taking notes on this that—and please jump in and save me if I'm not stating this correctly—but that when a business comes before the city and we say you have to have A, B, and C and a business that wants to be licensed within the city then completes A, B, and C, we as a city have a responsibility to then provide that special use permit or that license or approve that recommendation. Is that pretty accurate? In a broad sense, sure. The question that I get so often is "why does the city—why does city council keep approving all of these folks? There's so many." And I hear that and I understand that. But in my role, it is not for this body to necessarily tell people "no" or "we don't like this business." It is to interpret what those rules and regulations are and if somebody has met those to move forward to the next step of what they're asking us. And so while we might have five, seven, nine in this case, possibly two, maybe more than that applying for a license, I don't feel like it's within this body's purview to then say no to that if they've met all of those rules and regulations. Is that a fair way to think of that? [1:17:27] Kelly Murtaugh: Yes. Specifically when we're talking about cannabis, we have two areas of our ordinance that support cannabis businesses. One is the zoning where we have lots of rules about where businesses can be and where there might be special uses that could happen in certain areas. And so cannabis is one of the special uses. So you can't just come in and open up a cannabis business. You have to have a special use permit. The special use request has a list of things that you have to meet. If you meet those and we go through planning commission, we go through the public hearing, then we get to council and everybody says, "Sure, sure, sure." Then you have your special use permit. And then that's separate yet complimentary to the business registration—I have to break my habit of saying license—the business registration for cannabis. That's a different piece and that's kind of this preliminary piece. So the registration is separate. There's another form, because we all love forms. There's another form, there's another fee, there's another set of materials that you have to provide for registration to then be eligible to get to the registration. And that's where the CAP lives. The cap doesn't live in zoning. We don't put a cap on the numbers of special use permits we give out. We also don't know, because the special use permit is good for a year—we don't know how long it's going to take any of those three, five, seven, or nine special use permit holders to continue to move through the process. So, they have a year. So if we just did one and said we gave one, we could be sitting for a year waiting to see if anything happened or nothing happened with that business. So that process is separate from the actual registration process. Does that help? [1:19:35] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Immensely. Thank you. [1:19:42] City Attorney: Kelly did a fantastic job answering that question. I would add just a little bit in that I would think of it—remove it from cannabis—think of it as a PUD amendment or a conditional use permit or something like that. If the applicant meets all of the requirements in city ordinance, then that action by this body takes the form of a quasi-judicial action, which means if they've met all the criteria that you've previously put in your ordinances, you can't later say no. So you have a lot of discretion when you're making your zoning ordinances, when you're putting buffers in, when you're saying where cannabis businesses can go, that's when you have the discretion. You did that. Now that a business has applied and meets the ordinances that you all put together, if they meet it, then you need to—my recommendation is that you say yes. [1:20:50] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: So, the thousand feet that we talked about and voted on previously and we're talking about changing our decisions—that thousand feet, is that regulated anywhere at a state level or is that just us? [1:21:05] City Attorney: Yes, that is the ability for cities to prohibit cannabis businesses from being within a thousand feet of a school is in state statute, but the city has to put that in their ordinance to be able to do it. [1:21:26] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: What about from another cannabis business? Because I think we have a thousand feet—the buffers that we added. So that thousand feet of another cannabis retailer. So a thousand feet is less than five blocks give or take. A block's two to 300 feet. Thank you. [1:22:01] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Thank you. I guess I'm looking at this and saying we're just starting the process. This is going to be an ongoing evolution. Every legislative session, things are going to change. And some changes we may not like, but those things have to be acted on. It's just like counselor just said, if there's something laid out in a statute that the state has said "it shall," we're here to live up to that state statute in our ordinance. And so part of that in what I see here tonight is just another step. I may not—I've kind of like council member Vihrachoff. There is such a discussion in this community pro and con and you're being asked all the time, "where's the city stand on this? What's going to happen? How many low potency operations are there? When is a dispensary actually going to open up?" And a lot of that is—I go back to what I started with—once the state put together the Office of Cannabis, you're seeing these things slowly trickle along. And here's two instances that the city of Hastings is just going to adapt and we will probably be adapting next legislative session and the session after that and I've said my piece. Thank you. [1:24:02] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: So, I feel like this entire process has been really reactive, right? We haven't been able to be proactive at all in any of this because we've been waiting for the state to give us information. So, we've got businesses who want to open and we want to encourage that. My position on this is that I don't think two is probably enough. Um, that's been my position. I hope I said that at some point or another. I feel that our community can support more than two of these businesses. My concern is more with the thousand feet. That's more my concern. I just—I travel. I've been all over. I've discussed the fact that I've been to dispensaries in probably eight different states. I was just up in Duluth this weekend and it's all very interesting to me. Portland, Oregon is a perfect example, right? When you look at how close everything is, right? I don't want to drive down Vermillion Street and see what could be 20 dispensaries, you know, and we're going to know they're dispensaries cuz they got a big green leaf, right? So, we're going to know that's what they're there for. Um, that would be my concern is the thousand feet to me isn't enough. That thousand feet means nothing to me. I remember when I was putting up signs for my election and I couldn't put it within 75 feet of a polling place. I don't know how big 75 feet is. I mean, it's all relative to me. So, that would be my one concern is the thousand feet does not seem like enough. [1:25:49] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: The rest of it regarding treatment facilities, schools, daycares, that sort of thing—completely on board with. And I am probably going to vote no just because I feel like two is not enough. So, I'm not exactly sure how my vote should sit. If I vote yes, I'm not agreeing to two, but if I vote no, I'm kind of stuck on that. I'm not sure how that's going to pan out for me. I feel like you've got more knowledge that you're going to present us with, or is this kind of the end of it? Because I learn something new every time you walk up there. So, I just want to throw that out to my peers—that's my position on it. To Mr. Roer's point, um I think the community can support it. Um, another gentleman who I don't know that I got his name—might have been Mike Cordis actually—and I respected his response with that. He's had family, he's had friends who have died of fentanyl overdoses. And the regulation of marijuana and allowing people to get it legally, I believe is going to make a difference. I hope it's going to make a difference. Um, and I just—I could keep going and I'm just going to ramble. So, I'm going to wait and see what everyone else here thinks, but I'm not sure. I just want people to know though that my position is I feel that as a community we could sustain and should sustain more than two. To council member Pemble's point, however, we're just learning, right? So, that's where I was like, one makes sense. We're learning understanding the cost involved, right? We talked about a business out near Coburn's that was—I don't know where we're at with that even. Yeah, it's expensive. You have to build a building. You have to do all this all for the hopes that the state's going to give you the licensing and that we're going to have enough in our ordinance to allow it. So, I get that this is not like opening probably not like opening an ice cream shop, right? This is different and you guys are learning and so are we. So, thank you so much for your patience and helping us figure this all out. Um, but we certainly don't want to make it hard to do business. So, thank you. Thanks, your honor. Appreciate you very much, Kelly. [1:28:08] Councilmember Angie Haus: Thank you. I would also like to echo Council Member Leifeld's position as well. Um, personally for me, I do believe that one of the things I hear a lot from businesses in our town is that we're hard to do business with. And something that these businesses are specifically dealing with that's also even harder is OCM. And I feel like by having a cap of two or a cap of one, we are making this harder on them. And I don't believe that's just by us, in my personal opinion. And so I believe we should not have a cap at two. I think we should have it slightly higher as we have over 10 liquor stores in town. Dispensaries are different. You have to walk in and hand your license over immediately. Um whereas a liquor store, any person, any teenager can walk in and just grab a bottle and run out. That's the difference here. Uh there's more safety measures. Um and so for me, I believe that OCM has been already making this harder and I think that overall I think that the cap should be at least above two to three in my opinion. [1:29:20] Councilmember Mya Beck: I would just like to ask a clarifying question Kelly. Some of us are for and against the recommendations. Do we—if we were to all, just a hypothetical, be against your recommendations—would that put us anywhere in a like in a sticky situation in the future? [1:29:40] City Attorney: There is some legal risk proceeding kind of with the status quo I think because I think it is not the correct interpretation of the statute on the cap of two issue. Um it's a lot grayer with the preliminary license approval issue. So I think the cap—I think is pretty clear in statute—based on your population you need to allow two. The first issue though with the preliminary license approval is very gray and the risk is lower on that because there are varying interpretations of what that means and I'm happy to go through those if you would like me to. But if your question is purely about risk, the risk on that is I think much lower than the cap risk. [1:30:25] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay, I'll say a few words. Um, I just want to remind council where we were—I'll say six months ago—with the smoke shops and how that went through the process and that has been regulated now to lessen them as they close because we had an overabundance of them. So I want businesses too to come to town and I want dispensaries, retail, whatever to be, but I want to be safe too as we hear weekly how it changes. But I think when Kelly, when you stated 1 to 12,500 has one over would interpret as two—so now I have my head wrapped around that we should be at two. [1:31:33] Kelly Murtaugh: Because we have the two recommendations—I think it was originally written as both in one motion. I think that if there's any concern or strong feelings about the varying recommendations, we could certainly treat them as two separate motions. One for looking at the preliminary license approval piece, one for looking at the cap if there's any concern about struggling with "do I vote this down because I want one and not the other." So, it might be better to treat them as two separate. [1:33:23] Councilmember Dave Pemble: At this time I would go along and make a motion for the registration retail cap to adjust the cannabis retail cap to meet the minimums of two retail businesses. [1:34:55] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Clarification your honor. Kelly, can you confirm for us then? So number one saying consider retail cannabis registrations for licensed as well as those preliminary license approval. What does that mean? [1:35:10] Kelly Murtaugh: What that means is that when someone submits an application to register with the city right now they would have to show us their license from OCM. There aren't so many of those just yet. This would allow us to consider that license if they had one or their preliminary license approval which many businesses have right now. They are preliminarily approved and it would allow us to consider their registration much earlier than we would have been able to—we wouldn't be able to consider any licensed businesses for probably a month or more now if we don't make this change. [1:35:59] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Clarification little bit more on that then. So a new business comes and we're—this is all preliminarily coming to us is about the location. Do you meet the zoning requirements? They could be at that point applying for a special use permit. They could be doing lots of things before the buildout and coming to us and getting that registration if they have their preliminary license. [1:36:22] Councilmember Lisa Leifeld: So to this question then back to my—we could if we approved this, which I do not want to at this point unless you all can tell me some logic that makes it click. To me, this means if we were to issue this—and we just voted for two, right? So, now we got two—we could be potentially giving one of those two spots to somebody who may or may not get registration through OCM in the state. I do not feel comfortable with that down the road. Would I feel comfortable with that? Yes. When we've established how this is going to work, when we've talked about it, when we've been able to see what the two, whoever they are, how they're doing, what they're doing, how it's impacting hopefully positively towards our community—then I feel like we could relook at this and say, "Yeah, I get it. You want to buy land and build a building. By the way, we love anyone who wants to refurbish anything currently in our inventory in the city." So, that's a bonus, right? That being said, to me, that feels like a down the road thing. I will vote no on this. I don't think based on the work that some of the businesses have already put in. I don't think moving the goalposts closer seems fair. [1:43:49] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): Very difficult for me to interpret legislative intent but I believe that the state's purpose to allowing the preliminary licenses was seeing that the process can have many steps—iterative, long, cumbersome—and the concerns about what does that mean for an entrepreneur to open their business. Whether it's buying land, constructing a building, whether it's remodeling an existing building, whether it's investing in inventory, legal costs—there's a number of different pieces. And I believe their intent at this just two months ago, this May, saying "we're going to add a preliminary license to the process as an option or a way to potentially speed up some of that." That does not change the total review of what any business needs to go through at OCM to get its final license. And it does not also prevent or require a prospective business—two hypothetical businesses. One that needs to buy land and put up a building and takes a lot of time—it also could be the one that has an existing storefront. They can both go through that preliminary process and have sort of that streamline know that they're good to move forward. So the concern that the "buy/put up a building" position might jump ahead in line—well, they all those businesses have the option to go in that preliminary and getting that those approvals from the state. So it doesn't really give a leg up or a speedier process to the the one that has more work compared to others. It just makes it easier for them to move forward. [1:51:56] Councilmember Mya Beck: I'll second the motion for the two license cap. Recommending the two license cap is just a starting point I think to get us on track as we're all very confused up here I think now. Um and I think it would be irresponsible to not place a cap tonight at all considering the first cap was set at one following state OCM guidelines. I think we just continue to follow that until we can have maybe a workshop to discuss no cap or different caps. Thank you. [1:52:36] Councilmember Angie Haus: While I support a cap of two for now, I would like a workshop as well to discuss further furthering a cap as well—furthering it as I believe again that we are being too hard on these businesses overall. So, I will vote yes on this, but again, I would love to revisit this as well. [1:53:32] Councilmember DawnMarie Vihrachoff: Thank you, your honor. I appreciate this conversation. I think these were healthy, helpful questions. I appreciate the businesses being here tonight. Yeah, let's have a workshop. Let's talk more about this. [1:53:42] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay, there's a first and second motion for the capping at two. All those in favor of that motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. (One Nay). Motion prevails. [2:00:22] Councilmember Dave Pemble: I'll go back to what I said before and that the Office of Cannabis Management and the Legislature will continue to make changes. What I'm anticipating is that we don't get the city out in front of a change that we think is coming, but the legislature thinks differently. They want to approach X and they want to do it as a Z instead. But we've just voted in a process of X and how do we correct that? I think all the way along this is going to be baby steps moving forward with whatever the legislature dictates and says municipalities and counties can and cannot do. I think that we move ahead with the best suggestion that's provided legally but also by the League of Cities on what municipalities should be doing and to jump off the course or get off the track and say "no, we're going to do this"—in the bigger picture, where is our legal obligation and how in some court we could turn out to be because we did not approach this the way that was recommended by the legislature and legally. Thank you. [2:02:04] City Attorney: As to council member Pemble's point—issuing registrations to preliminary license approval—I think if you maintain the status quo and you keep the ordinance as is and you stick with issuing the registration only to license holders, I do think the risk on that is fairly low if you want to maintain the status quo. Um, like I said, the Office of Cannabis Management's own interpretation of this statutory change is that cities can require a license—not they don't have to give it to a preliminary license holder—that the city can wait till somebody is licensed. My interpretation was slightly different than OCM's. Who is right, nobody knows. A judge will tell us potentially in the future, but that is the state's own interpretation—that the city has the right to essentially maintain the status quo and issue your two registrations to license holders. [2:04:21] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): I don't want to add to any confusion, but last week OCM changed its own interpretation and they now say "must." [2:04:39] Councilmember Mya Beck: I agree with Council Member Leifeld that we shouldn't recommend a change in what we're doing for a different reason. I don't think it—because we know most of—I mean they're in the room right now. We know most of the people that have applied for OCM licenses through the state. Um, I think it's wrong to change the goalpost when this is what we agreed on. Um, it feels like we're just cherrypicking exactly who gets to open a cannabis retailer in the city of Hastings. [2:05:47] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): I got like an eight-page memo. But no, I'm not. It really is. Public works director Stimski said all of it already practically. There's one thing I disagree with him—when he was talking about the settlement agreement. And really what I want to point out here is just some context on several moving parts. We bid the project as two different projects. One for the raw water mains connecting well 7 and then separately the water treatment plant itself. And as you saw Ryan's numbers earlier—some real competitive bids particularly on the the treatment plant. Uh some cost savings to us as well as the settlement funds. Essentially we've got two separate contractual agreements that'll be lining up the financing for the overall project or the central treatment plant project—one being the East Metro 3M settlement funds that you approved that agreement this evening. And then the other piece which Ryan indicated is coming hopefully the 18th. [2:07:09] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): We're still trying to nail down some of the final language is the Public Facilities Authority loan agreement as well as a couple of grants that are rolled in with that. If that's on the agenda and approved on the 18th, then we would recommend awarding the two contracts for construction later that same evening. Construction would begin in early September. But the piece that that we're waiting on is needing to get the finances in place. We could have approved a $3 million contract for the water mains a month ago. We opened the bids in late June. Um but we didn't have the money lined up. So what happens if we—they already changed a loan officer—what if somebody get hit by an ice cream truck and delays the process? We've got bills to pay and we don't have the the money lined up. So really that's where we've been holding this up. The project we were hoping to start in July—it looks like it's first week of September to see dirt starting to move. Um, but it's because we're trying to get these financial pieces lined up and negotiating pieces in those to best protect the city's interest. Uh, but with that I can certainly take any questions about the project, where things are at, what we might be seeing as next steps. [2:09:02] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Council members, any announcements? I do have a few. National Night Out is an annual community building event. Please join us tomorrow, Tuesday, August 5th, at Lions Park or in local neighborhood gatherings. Wreck, art, and police is Wednesday, August 6th from 1 to 2 at CP Adams Park with an obstacle course. Nature bouquet activities supported by SC Toys, Country Financial, Hastings Lions Club, Hastings Family Service, Community Ed, and Prescott Hastings Art Council. Summer Wreck programs at Levee Park. Thursday, August 7th, music and market with 70s magic sunshine, tribute to the 1970s, supported by Ruth and George Doffing charitable fund. Friday, August 8th, Movies in the Park with Inside Out 2, sponsored by Ardent Mills. Please bring a non-perishable food donation. [2:10:04] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Hastings 5th annual overdose and fentanyl poisoning awareness day is August 21st, presented by the Devon J. Noring Foundation in collaboration with United Way of Hastings and Our Savior's Lutheran Church. Wednesday, August 6, 6 PM, Arts and Culture Commission meeting. It's an arts roundtable discussion. Monday, August 11th, 7 PM Planning Commission. Wednesday, August 13th, 6 PM Arts and Culture Commission. Thursday, August 14th, 6 PM HEDRA and Monday, August 18, 7 PM city council meeting. With that, I would take a stand for a motion to adjourn. [2:10:51] Councilmember Dave Pemble: So moved. [2:10:51] Councilmember Angie Haus: Second. [2:10:53] Mayor Mary Fasbender: No discussion. All those in favor of the motion state by saying aye. (Chorus of Ayes). Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. We are adjourned.