[0:00] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** ...or regular meeting from march 7th. Seeing none, they are approved. Uh, for public comments tonight, as we know, we don't have Zoom, so if there's anyone in the audience that would wish to speak for public comments tonight to the Council, you may step forward at this time and state your name and address, and we will hear what you have to say. Anyone in the audience at this time? Okay. Anyone in the audience at this time? Okay. Seeing none. Councilmembers, are there items to be considered? Okay. Council, I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. [0:46] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Vaughn, Councilmember Brock. Discussion? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And the consent agenda is passed. Um, tonight we have with us a public hearing, or for us a public hearing for the amendment to City Code Chapter 155. And welcome John Hinzman, and he will give us the information, followed by a public hearing and possible Council movement. Welcome, John. [1:18] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Thank you, Mayor, City Council members. Today we have before us a public hearing and a second reading for an amendment to our City Code Chapter 155.09 pertaining to the minimum parking requirements for apartments. Uh, what we're doing here tonight is establishing a different requirement for apartments that are outside of the downtown area. These would be buildings that would have more than three units, and the current standard for all residential housing units is two spaces per unit—which means if you've got a three-thousand-square-foot house or a 300-square-foot apartment, you have to provide two spaces. Uh, in reviewing other city requirements and discussion with the Planning Commission, what we're suggesting tonight and offering as part of the amendment is to reduce that to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. So that is the amendment that is before you tonight. I should note that the amendment does not include the downtown area. Downtown area parking standards are determined differently; uh, they're on a different standard. So this would not apply to that, nor would this apply to any of the recent apartments that we, uh, that we approved. They would be abiding by their standards there. So Planning Commission did review this on a couple of different occasions, recommending approval of this. Didn't have any comments from the public during the Planning Commission discussion. So this is before you tonight as a public hearing. You can open it up at this time, or I can stand for any questions. Thank you. [2:48] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, John. At this time, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that would wish to speak to the public hearing tonight on parking spaces? Have you—seeing no one on Zoom again—in the audience, anyone here to speak on parking spaces? [3:09] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Okay. At this time, I will close the public hearing and we will open the discussion for Council. Councilmember Folch. [3:14] **Councilmember Folch:** Thank you, your honor. Um, thank you, John, for bringing this forward. And I, I guess I'm a little—it's very straightforward what you're presenting and what it is that you're requesting, and I'm all for, for reducing blacktop because we've all seen the, the seas of blacktop at some of the larger businesses in town and such. But you know, as a Councilmember, something that we, that I've received, I guess, a number of calls over the years have been about um, folks being concerned about vehicles parking, you know, on the street in front of their homes and problems just in general parking problems. And, uh, and I remember last november when we had some initial conversations about changing the definition of family, and the real, uh, reason behind looking at that language change was—was the end goal was to reduce the number of vehicles that were at some of these multi-tenant buildings because there were all these parking problems with excessive parking and such. And so, um, and then I've also brought up in other meetings where I think it would be terrific if we looked at establishing some minimum ordinance requirements for electric vehicle charging stations for new high-density developments as they're coming in. And so I feel like this is just kind of the tip of the iceberg about a parking conversations that we should be having if we're going to crack open, uh, this door, you know, somewhat. And so, uh, so I feel like, yes, I want to be supportive, you know, of—if you feel that this is the direction that majority of cities are going and that it has benefit, you know, for new development and, and that it's—so we're not having um, hard surfaces, you know, and all the implications of water runoff and—yeah, I get it that we want to have the least amount of paved services as we can. But I feel like we should be having more of a comprehensive discussion about what some of these other parking concerns are, uh, in regards to residential and high-density units. And so, um, so again, I want to be supportive, but I feel like that I feel personally like we should be tabling this conversation and having a little bit more of a comprehensive conversation about some of these other issues that pertain to parking in, in high-density multi-tenant residential kinds of facilities. And so that's my personal feeling. Again, I want to be supportive, but I just feel like this is, uh, just, just kind of, like I said, the tip of the iceberg and that there's more conversation that we may need to have. So that's my comments for now. Thanks. [6:28] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Folch. Councilmember Lund. [6:30] **Councilmember Lund:** Thank you, your honor. John, um, I see in the options you go through scenarios for bed number—bedrooms and whatnot, but that just seems to me to be the most logical approach, right? Because a unit can—can vary. It could be a three-bedroom or a studio and, um, you know, I think that that can impact how many actual vehicles would be assigned to—to an actual, um, unit. And so I see only Hudson—I think from what I saw, Hudson's the only one that applies that kind of logic. Is there a reason why that's not how we would go about it or that's—that's not more standard across the board? [7:15] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Yeah, Councilmember. I'm not sure why it's not more standard across the board. From a practical standpoint, there's oftentimes where a proposal would come forward before a council with X number of units in it, but in the building plans, the—the differentiation of units between one bedroom, two bedroom, efficiency might change. So a—a plan could be approved under that circumstance at a council meeting, and then when they get to the building permit, be different on that one. So that—that could be a practical concern that could come up on that. [7:47] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Lund. Any other discussion, Council? Councilmember Leifeld. [7:53] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thanks, John. John, the previous discussion, it says, "Are existing apartment parking lots full?" And the—in here, the question was, "Are existing apartment parking lots full?" [8:10] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** From our—no, from our review, Councilmember, no. I mean, there—when we took some, some views throughout the day to take a look at how this may affect some of the newer parking, uh, some of the new apartment buildings that are out there, we don't think it's going to have much of an impact. [8:27] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** So the current apartments that we have in town, except for the downtown area, have followed the two—two parking spots per apartment. Is that what it's been? [8:32] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director):** Correct. [8:33] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thanks, John. [8:37] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. Additional discussion, Council? If not, I would accept a motion to approve an ordinance of the City of Hastings, Minnesota, amending Hastings City Code Chapter 155, Section 155-09, regarding minimum parking requirement for multi-family uses. [8:55] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Vaughn and a second by Councilmember Leifeld. Additional discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. (Group: Nay). And that motion prevails. Thank you. [9:20] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, John. Tonight we also have a—we have a resolution, uh, to award a contract for the Hastings storage building. And for this item, we have Public Works Director Ryan Stempski. Welcome, Ryan. [9:36] **Ryan Stempski (Public Works Director):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. As Mayor stated, we did receive bids for this project, the Hastings storage building. 10 bids to be exact on March 1st, with the low bidder, Ebert Construction, coming in at 1 million 147 thousand for a base bid. That's actually 33 percent under the engineer's estimate of about 1.7 million, so very competitive bids. Very pleased with the result. This low base bid positions us to include the ad alternates on the project. In this bidding environment, very nervous, so we structured our bid such that we could add and delete depending on what the market told us. This is good news. So the four alternatives include the interior mezzanine for miscellaneous storage; includes a concrete upgrade under the overhang for longevity of the pavement; and then it also includes roof insulation and wall installation of the building, putting that in before we block that space off. So some obvious things in construction to save us money long term and give us options. But again, this is a storage building, and those are the—the added components. If we add up those additional um, alternatives in the bid, the total bid for construction comes in at 1 million three hundred ten thousand and four hundred dollars. So we looked at total project cost as it compares to our 2022 budget. Total project costs about 1.6 million dollars—that includes a 10 percent for construction contingency for unforeseen issues; it includes the design construction administration services from ISG to cover the project; that includes extending electrical to the new building, extending utilities to the new building. So really all things considered, that 1.6—that really positions us well for this 2022 budget. If you remember, we budgeted about 2 million 250 thousand for the project. So we had our architect ISG look at Ebert Construction. They're a familiar name; they do a lot of municipal buildings in the metro. They listed a lot of references; all those references came back with high quality, on schedule, on budget. They actually did some work, or they completed the Pleasant Hills Library addition here in Hastings. Um, so and the last question they had for them was schedule with materials and procurement. They did not have concerns with our schedule. So our schedule really gets the project rolling about April 11th at the earliest, with conclusion at the end of October. So all things consider—good, positive review. I'm here tonight to recommend award of construction contract to Ebert Construction in the amount of 1 million 310 thousand 400 dollars, which includes in the resolution the four ad alternates. With that, I'll stand for any questions. [12:35] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Ryan. Any discussion, Council? I just have a question, Ryan. So when the building does get put up at Public Works, how much additional space is left at that actual address? I mean, for more—is there—there's a room for more buildings, or will this be—will this kind of limit us? [13:12] **Ryan Stempski (Public Works Director):** Um, well, the—the building itself, I—I failed to mention, it's 11,200 square feet is the building we're putting up. Fortunately, we have AutoCAD designers in our office, so we've taken our space and surveyed our site. That's back in an area where we did a lot of stockpile management, so we just had the ability to bring materials in, organize them, play in the sandbox efficiently and effectively. But with re-managing how we do that, we have plenty space for this building. We can still do that management. We have room for future fueling facilities if we want to talk about it; we have room for another building. We definitely have set this building up, um, the structural support elements such that we could take the wall down and expand it for some day in the future. So we've thought through all that and, uh, to answer your question: yes, we have plenty of space for operations for now and expansion in the future. [13:58] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Perfect. Thank you. No other discussion, Council? Then I would look for a motion to approve a resolution receiving bids and awarding contract for Hastings Storage Building. [14:14] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Councilmember Leifeld, with the second by Councilmember Lund. Additional discussion? No discussion. All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Ryan. Look forward to, uh, seeing that movement. Thank you. It'll be great. Okay. Tonight under Public Works, for this item, we will remain to hear Ryan Stempski, and he will be bringing us an update on the 46 Study of County Road 46. [14:55] **Ryan Stempski (Public Works Director):** Uh, thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. This is really the County's show, but um, yeah, tonight we are here to—actually, this is a continuation from the March 7th workshop. So what we'll have tonight is kind of a brief presentation of the recommendations from the study, and you'll hear from the County staff and, and Alliant, who worked on the project. But once you hear that presentation, any questions that the Council may have, staff is here to answer those questions or address those questions. And then ultimately in your packet, we have three items for consideration. Keep those in mind: resolution adopting the study, a letter of support to Dakota County to apply for federal funding—specifically the Met Council Regional Solicitation; you'll hear more about that in the presentation—and then finally, an amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement. That's to—to pay for the study. This is—this is actually lowering that cost share, um, to the City for the study due to some County policies, and so positive things. So that's—that's really the only, uh, amendment in your packet in that JPA. So with that, I will turn it over to Jenna, I believe, is starting off, and we'll go from there. Thank you. [16:15] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Ryan. Welcome, Jen and staff. [16:16] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Thank you, Mayor, members of the Council. My name is Jenna Fabish. I'm the Dakota County Project Manager, and we're here before you tonight to provide an update on the study recommendations and consideration for adoption. With me tonight is Steve Weiser and Nick Grange from Alliant Engineering. The County Road 46 study was discussed with staff in our planning CIP process. As part of that, we looked at the study as a whole as we'd like to bring the roadway up to current design standards, as well as look at issues and needs occurring along the corridor—potentially looking at modifying existing intersection traffic control. And the study did start from the quarter mile west of General Sieben Drive and extended east to Highway 61. As part of the corridor study, we did look at existing and future traffic operations as well as the issues and needs along the corridor. That did include a review of 10 years of crash data as well as doing speed samples. This corridor on the west side has a posted speed limit of 55 miles an hour. As you head east, the speed limit then in the middle of the corridor drops to 45 miles an hour. And as you head towards the east towards Highway 61, the speed then drops to 35 miles an hour. As part of the corridor study, we did also engage the community along the corridor looking for their input of issues that they're seeing along the corridor, items that they'd like to see considered as part of the design including additional pedestrian facilities and bicyclist facilities. There's the current Vermillion River bridge is very narrow and does not have pedestrian facilities. As part of the study, we did develop short, mid, and long-term options to be considered as part of the study recommendations, with intent for a study recommendation that could possibly be an intersection improvement or as large as a corridor improvement, and developing 30 percent design. As part of the March 7th work session, we did receive some questions from Council about how the traffic would be redistributed in areas where we were constructing a raised center median. And with that, I will hand it over to Steve Weiser. [18:32] **Steve Weiser (Alliant Engineering):** Sure, thanks Jenna. So as we looked at issues and needs along the corridor and we talked with the public about, you know, their concerns at various engagement events, these were some of the issues that came to the forefront. Traffic volumes on 46 are nearing capacity for the existing undivided two-lane section that's out there today. So additional lanes were looked at, and while future volumes don't warrant the need for a four-lane facility, they do warrant the need for expanding to a three-lane facility, which would basically in this case be two through lanes with dedicated turn lanes to get that traffic out of the through lane. Determining available gaps in traffic for vehicles entering and exiting 46 were—was also a frequently brought up concern. A couple of the comments that stuck with me from the public were making "white knuckle turns" at some of the intersections to get onto or off of 46. Most of the corridor lacks dedicated facilities for bikes and peds. The existing shoulders out there currently on the bridge over the Vermillion River are too narrow to provide for comfortable bicycle and pedestrian use. And then consistent pedestrian and bike facilities would be beneficial throughout to provide that connectivity to the neighborhoods, to the natural resources that are in the area—the Vermillion River Greenway and the park system. Proper access spacing is important for roadway safety and mobility. Each access point that's out there creates the potential for collisions as traffic needs to slow down, either turn, or vehicles exiting driveways and intersecting streets onto the roadways. There's several areas along the corridor that don't currently meet the County's spacing guidelines. Along some segments of the corridor, sightline issues were the prevailing cause of crashes as we began our investigation. Some appear to be caused by just the stopping locations where they're obstructed views, and some are resulting really from vehicles on the side streets having difficulty seeing through right-turning vehicles—was found on the west end of the project. Additionally, the inconsistency in the presence of bypass lanes out there is causing some crash issues throughout certain areas. As Jenna mentioned, the speed limit on 46 varies from 55 on the west end to 35 on the east end, so we heard from the public that speeding was a concern out there as well as passing on the shoulder. The bridge over the Vermillion River—Jenna mentioned this as well—but it was constructed in 1968. It's nearing the end of its life; there's about 20 years or so left in that if it's maintained in the proper way. But the existing bridge also doesn't have ability to widen it for additional lanes, turn lanes, or bike and ped facilities. So the issues and needs that were identified with the study then, and the public engagement, resulted in identifying a set of recommendations for the project. So as Jenna mentioned, the entire study corridor is about 2.3 miles, but a few of the issues on the west end can be taken care of when development happens, redevelopment happens in that area, with redirecting roadways, connecting roadways onto 46. But the recommendations that we're here for tonight really include—it's a fairly robust project to address the majority of the project goals, but the work is focused more on the center and the east end of the project. So the blue lines that you see on the screen are the proposed roadway reconstruction limits, and then the red lines are the pedestrian and bike facilities that would be added. So we went through this concept at the March 7th workshop, but this is the—the project that's being brought forward at this time that the County would then seek funding on to—to take forward as an initial project. Intersection control changes, more specifically on here: roundabouts at both Pleasant Drive and Pine Street would be proposed. This would provide safer crossings for pedestrians and bikes, as well as provide safer, more consistent access to 46 and help control more consistent speeds throughout the corridor. Two-lane roadway with divided center median and curb and gutter is what we propose from just west of Pleasant Drive to Highway 61. Turn lanes will be provided at select intersections to channel that turning traffic out of the through lanes and maintain that through traffic. And then access management is proposed to eliminate some of the potential conflict points by restricting intersection movements at some locations, specifically at Riverwood Drive and then at the intersections between Pine Street and Highway 61. So when we were at the March 7th Council meeting—our Council workshop—we heard some comments or questions about the rerouting of traffic. So Nick's going to talk a little bit about that. [23:44] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Okay. Thank you, Steve. Welcome, Nick. [23:46] **Nick Grange (Alliant Engineering):** Thank you, Steve. So the first figure that we have up here is for the—the very east end between Pine Street and Highway 61, showing the added turn movements that are being redistributed due to the modifications that we're proposing along 46. So the primary intersection that sees the—the increase in traffic is Pine Street; there'll be more left turns and—and this is representing the PM peak hour, which is the highest, uh, hour of traffic during the day. So 15 vehicles in one hour is approximately one vehicle every four minutes, so that's—that's the expected increase. It's important to acknowledge that there—there will be an increase on these local roads, but it is well within the capacity of those roads. Um, you know, those people that live and drive on those roads may see more vehicles than—than they're used to, but it's not going to exceed the capacity of the roadway. There isn't going to be congestion. But there—there are some options that—that could be looked at, especially along Forest Street in terms of maybe changing the current stop signs, you know, whether that's switching them to the side streets or not. Looking more in the—the central portion of the 46 where where there's modifications proposed, uh, proposed at Riverwood, Teal Way, and Sherman Way would see the bulk of—of the diverted traffic. All of this kind of going through Village Trail. 31st doesn't really connect to this neighborhood currently, so most of the traffic would stay on—on the Village Trail side. Some of the—the trips that you see along Teal Way and Sherman Way would—it create—equate to maybe 10 vehicles a day in both directions, which would be about one vehicle every six minutes. So these—these volumes are, you know, approximated based on the counts that we collected out there. Some vehicles will—will take Village Trail all the way down to 36th rather than using Teal and Sherman Way, and then there's obviously some options we can look at with Teal and Sherman Way whether there's issues there with the stop signs, that sort of thing. Again, all of the—it's important to note that all this is within the capacity of these roadways. Um, it's not expected that there would be congestion issues with any of these roadways, although obviously people in the neighborhood would notice a little bit more traffic on these roads. Thanks. [26:22] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Thanks, Nick. Looking at the funding for the project, a typical project that would be considered a reconstruction modernization project, as this corridor project would be, would be split 85 percent County, 15 percent City. With a portion on the west end by Pleasant Drive in the township, it does increase the County's portion to 87 percent and lower the City's portion down to 13 percent. Looking at a high-level cost estimate for the project, it's anticipated that would be 15.34 million. That cost does include final design, right-of-way acquisition, agency staff time, and construction. Looking at that, Dakota County would be responsible for 13.04 million and the City would be responsible for 2.3 million. As part of the study, we did look at outside funding sources to help lower the cost for both the City and the County. One of those options is the 2022 Metropolitan Council Regional Solicitation. This project would qualify under the modernization reconstruction category, where it has a maximum award for construction costs only of seven million. That does require twenty percent local match, and that twenty percent local match on seven million is 1.4 million. We anticipate we'll be well over the 8.4 million, so we'd ask for the 7 million in Regional Solicitation funds. So if the project was successful, it would lower the County's cost to 6.95 million and the City's to 1.3 million. And looking at the schedule moving forward, we're here tonight to present the study recommendations for Council consideration as well as Council consideration of a letter of support for the Regional Solicitation application. That Regional Solicitation application is due on April 14th, and we're anticipating knowing the results this fall. If the project was successful, we could look at starting final design and the right-of-way acquisition as early as 2023, with construction as early as 2024. Currently, the funding applications are for 2026 and 2027, so we would be looking at advanced construction in 2024. With that, our project contact information—I am Jenna Fabish with Dakota County, and we have Steve Weiser and Nick Grange from Alliant Engineering. And at this time, I'll address any questions the Council may have. [28:38] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** All right, thank you. Council, discussion? Any questions? Councilmember Lund. [28:44] **Councilmember Lund:** Thank you, your honor. Um, the—the last part—third, you mentioned the funding, the seven million, but that the applications being taken now are for like 2026. Do you say—is that what I miss? I may be misunderstood. [29:15] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Councilmember Lund and members of the Council. Yes, the funding is available as part of the solicitation for 2026 and 2027. There is an opportunity to apply for 2025 funds with federal funding. An agency is allowed to ask to advance construct it, where in this case Dakota County would pay for those costs until those costs were available and the planning document from the state of Minnesota. [29:50] **Councilmember Lund:** Got it. Thank you. So—well, so when do you find out for a 2026 application? When would you find out? [29:57] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Councilmember Lund, those results would be the fall of this year. [30:00] **Councilmember Lund:** Okay. Got it. All right, because I was just trying to figure out what the City would be on the hook for, because even though you'd be covering the seven, the—that delta until the—the funds become available, that we'd still need to budget the 2.3 or the 1.39. So I'm just curious. But thank you. [30:10] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Lund. Councilmember Leifeld. [30:13] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thank you, honor. Now, Nick, I don't want to put you on the spot, but you gave us a number in our workshop that night and that really surprised me. So as residents of the community, we know that we've got an awful lot of traffic on Highway 61 coming from the north, coming from the south. A lot of people travel through Hastings. Um, Highway 55, I think we kind of expect Highway 55 is a pretty big player as well. It's a state-owned highway, right? Gets an awful lot of traffic. But that night you gave me a number of how much traffic we see on County Road 46 coming out in or out of Hastings on a day. Do you recall what that number was? [30:52] **Nick Grange (Alliant Engineering):** Yeah, the—the current ADT on 46 is 10,400 I believe, and the ADT on—on Highway 55 I believe is 14,200. But I might be off on the hundreds there. [31:07] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** You were—those were the numbers I had in my head too. I was really surprised. I grew up—my backyard was facing Highway 46—was 47 back then. Lots of numbers. And you guys called it—Jorgen? What's the other—there's another name for it. That one threw me off. Yeah, there's a lot of names for that road. But I was really surprised by that number, that ten thousand four hundred, and I never realized that. I mean, that's less than four thousand cars short of what's traveling on Highway 55. So to me, I know everything costs money and it's always hard to come by. We've got a budget; we've got a lot of things to take care of in the City. But when I look at the number of people that this road is moving in a day—these are potential—some residents, some potential residents, people that we want to get back to our City. So right now, I think looking at the numbers—when we look at the 11, when we look at the grant possible moving us down to, you know, saving a million dollars there—to me, it—you've got my support at this time. Just due to the fact that as we continue to grow, as the City continues to grow southwest heading out of Hastings, which we hope happens in the future, this will get us in a position to better suit it for that development. I believe in the safety of the residents. I don't actually turn out—I live on Pine; I don't turn out onto 46 all that often, I'm usually going the other direction, but I know what happens there. I know how busy it is. So you've got my support at this time. I think it's a wonderful project. And if I—just to make sure on what we're talking about tonight: this isn't finalizing specific in-outs; this is just moving the project forward. Is that correct? Is that right, Jenna? [32:55] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Councilmember Leifeld and the members of the Council. Yes, that's correct. [33:00] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Because I did have some questions which I think we'll talk further down the road about the right-in, right-out—all of that—because I think when I'm seeing your numbers here on the screen, the added numbers—you—that's what's going to be added as a result of right-in, right-out. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your time. [33:20] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. Councilmember Vaughn. [33:23] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Thank you, honor. Thank you, Jenna. Do you know if—if we go forward here, you talked about the area of 46 and 61. The access down there—will we—will we combine MnDOT and the County and the City in a discussion about that corner, then? Um, because I think they might land on top of each other for construction. [33:43] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Councilmember Vaughn and members of the Council. MnDOT is conducting a Highway 61 study, and we have noted as part of the study recommendations for the County Road 46 study to incorporate any recommendations from the Highway 61 study. And if that does require a re-evaluation of traffic analysis, we would look at that in final design. And I believe MnDOT's anticipating that study to be complete the winter of '22-'23. [34:10] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Got it. I—I just think it's privately owned, so I would hope that the private owner of that lot on the corner would be in that discussion of some sort. [34:18] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Councilmember Vaughn, are you speaking to the northwest corner of 61 and 46? [34:24] **Councilmember Vaughn:** That's correct. North—yeah, northwest. [34:25] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** The intent with the current study recommendations is to provide a full access at Eddy, which would allow that full access point to that development when it—when it does redevelop into something. So if there was restricted access on Highway 61, they would have full access at Eddy from County Road 46. [34:44] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Okay. Yeah, and I think that's a future discussion. I'll be curious. I think that's a good thing. Okay, I just want to make sure it goes forward. My last question, your honor, is probably for Ryan and maybe can't answer today. Still, there's still a cost to us as a City on this project, and can we use State Aid funding on this portion of our costs for this portion of the project? Not that we want to keep using the State Aid funding. [35:10] **Ryan Stempski (Public Works Director):** Yeah, Councilmember Vaughn. I—we—we would have the ability to, absolutely. Um, we have the ability to even fund a portion of the study cost. We've got a State Aid number for the study, et cetera. So we—we could use those funds. We do an accounting system of how much we bring in each year, how much we have. Obviously the 61 study—where does that all fall, and our own collector road needs. So we have the ability to, but have to look at those finances real closely. [35:36] **Councilmember Vaughn:** And I would thank you for doing it. I'm just curious, does that complicate the project, though? Because I think was the last meeting you said we had to follow state standards, and does that affect how we design this road if we use State Aid funding? [35:54] **Ryan Stempski (Public Works Director):** The County will incorporate State Aid design standards in their project. It's kind of a hierarchy of—of sorts, if you will. Sometimes because we have such lower volume roadways on our collector roads compared to the County and the State, we may not want to do certain widths or shoulders or um, cleared zones or things of that nature because of residential impacts. So we tend to maybe want to get variances from that from time to time, or not use those funds in the County project. The County state aid highway would be required to do state aid—follow State Aid standards. So we comply and follow and have that ability, yes. [36:34] **Councilmember Vaughn:** Thank you. [36:44] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Vaughn. Councilmember Folch. [36:46] **Councilmember Folch:** Thank you, your honor. I have a question for the engineers. So um, thank you for all the conversations that we've had up to this time. You know, I've been really impressed with the amount of information that you've provided and the level of thought that has gone into all the information and all the research that you've been doing. But one thing I hadn't asked about, um, was in regards to as we have the roadway open: have you done any um, thought as to the other infrastructure that is alongside that roadway? And I don't know if the City has any infrastructure like water, sewer kind of infrastructure, or—or another, for instance. I know that the HBC is trying to expand into Hastings—it's, uh, the high-wealth of broadband communications to extend fiber. And so I just—I ask this now because when we were going into conversations about creating Highway 316 into a new model, that got left out, where we didn't think about fiber as we had the roadway open—the right of way open. And so I just asked that we have um, that thought and—and ask uh, stakeholders that might be interested, including the City. We keep not having a thorough conversation about infrastructure planning for possible fiber into the future. But I think, you know, when we have um, these major opportunities like this and Highway 61, that we're thoughtful, looking into the future, since we know that um, fiber will be needed more and more and more and more and more, you know, in the next 10, 10 to 20 years. And so, um, so anyhow, I just throw—have you had any conversations about including any other stakeholders into infrastructure installation? [38:25] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Councilmember Folch and members of the Council. We have not had specific discussions on that. We've talked briefly with the City about what that might mean for impacts to water and sanitary sewer from the project, but I don't defer to Ryan on any additional improvements. And there may be storm sewer improvements that are required because of any floodplain impacts in relation to broadband service, fiber service. We have on other projects in the County run in fiber tubing and fiber hand holes so that future fiber could be installed. We usually typically work with our IT department on that, but that's something we can definitely consider on this corridor to provide that facility for future use of fiber. [39:10] **Councilmember Folch:** Okay. That would be wonderful. I also sit on the Dakota Broadband board, and we were just having this conversation as a board about when these major projects are going on within our communities, to have the engineers loop in our executive director of the DBB so that there is some conversation that's happening. So, um, so it just is a—as a heads up. And I'm gonna—I had told her about we had Highway 61 coming up, but I didn't—I had forgotten about this major project as well. Okay. Thanks. [39:46] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Thank you, Councilmember Folch. Councilmember Leifeld. [39:50] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Your honor, I'd like to make a motion to question them—what? I had a question then, if I can go first. Yes, for clarification, because I think I might have misunderstood. The cost share—is it 11 or 13, or is there two different segments of the project with two different percentages? [40:02] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** Members of the Council. There is two different percentages. For the study, because the study extends further west to west of General Sieben, the cost split is 89 percent County, 11 percent City. For this project, since it would end up just west of Pleasant Drive, it increases the County—the City portion to 13 with the County's portion at 87. [40:35] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** So—so what is the 11 percent then? [40:39] **Jenna Fabish (Dakota County Project Manager):** 11 percent is for the study because—the current study. In 2020, the County board did adopt the cost participation policy, which then changed a typical study project or a modernization project from 55/45 to 85/15. So that—it's the JPA amendment is lowering those costs. When we moved forward with the study initially, it was at a higher percent. [41:13] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Okay. That answer your question? Okay. [41:18] **Councilmember Lisa Leifeld:** Thank you. I would like to make a motion to approve the resolution adopting the study recommendations, the letter of support for Dakota County to apply for outside funding on the project, and the first amendment to the JPA with Dakota County. [41:35] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. [41:38] **Councilmember Folch:** Second. [41:39] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** I'll—second from Councilmember Folch. Any additional discussion, Council? All those in favor of A, B, and C, um, stay by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion, stay by saying nay. That motion prevails. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Okay, Council. Any announcements? Okay, I have a couple. [42:10] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** We are hiring for several positions with the City. Applications are on the city website under the employment heading: Paid-on-call Firefighter, EMT, Community Development Intern, and seasonal workers for Parks and Aquatic Center. Free document shredding for Dakota County residents on Saturday, April 9th. Spring cleanup curbside and drop-off options are April 11th through April 22nd. Thursday, the 24th of March at four o'clock, there's a Finance Committee meeting. Monday, March 28th, 7 p.m., there's Planning Commission meeting. Wednesday, March 30th, 6 p.m., there's an Arts Task Force Committee meeting. Thursday, March 17th—which I think that's—that's needs to be corrected, we already had that. And April 4th, there's a 7 p.m. City Council regular meeting. At this time, I would ask for a motion to adjourn. [43:02] **Councilmember Folch:** So moved. [43:04] **Mayor Mary Fasbender:** And Councilmember Vaughn. No discussion. All those in favor, state by saying aye. (Group: Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And motion prevails. Thank you.