Based on the context of the transcript and the provided list of officials, here is the formatted transcript with speaker names. *Note: While the provided list includes current members, this specific meeting (from February 2023) features then-sitting Councilmembers Tina Folch, Jen Fox, and Trevor Lund, who are identified by name in the dialogue.* [0:01] foreign [0:15] Mayor Mary Fasbender: [Music] Welcome on this snowy evening. Let the record reflect that we do have a quorum and Councilmember Leifeld is absent tonight. We're going to do a proclamation declaring to drive out hunger in Hastings. I do have an email from Amy Sutton, who was not able to come tonight. Before reading the proclamation: Minnesota FoodShare is the time of year when our community comes together to drive out hunger. From February 27th to April 9th, Minnesota FoodShare will proportionately match monetary gifts and [1:03] pounds of food donated to Hastings Family Service. The greater the donation, the greater the match. We can all help to maximize the matching dollars available. A list of ideas to participate in Minnesota FoodShare this year is available at www.hastingsfamilyservice.org. In 2022, full food shelf orders provided by Hastings Family Service increased by 52 percent, so Minnesota FoodShare is an important time. Your help is needed and deeply appreciated. Councilmember Pemble, if you'd start the proclamation, please. [1:53] Councilmember Dave Pemble: There we go. Whereas Minnesota FoodShare has coordinated a March campaign for 42 years to restock the food shelves throughout the state of Minnesota; and whereas every day in Minnesota over 9,000 people visit a food shelf to get help meeting their daily needs of food; and whereas Hastings Family Service serves an average of 240 families each month through many different food programs; and whereas 50 percent of those served by the market food shelf at Hastings Family Service are children; and whereas the generosity of our community makes it possible for Hastings Family Service to [2:39] provide help and hope to our neighbors who need assistance with food, housing, clothing, or transportation; and whereas all gifts of money and food throughout the month of March are proportionately matched by Minnesota FoodShare; therefore be it resolved that I, Mayor Mary Fasbender of the city of Hastings, do hereby declare the Hastings community will work together to drive out hunger during Minnesota FoodShare and restock the market food shelf at Hastings Family Service. And thank you to Hastings Family Service for all they do for our community. Tonight we have a presentation, and this will be on the Highway 61 corridor. [3:25] And with us we have Bryant Fisek from MnDOT, and he will be going through the study for us. Welcome, Bryant. [3:25] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): Let me give me just a second here... there we go. Yes, thank you Mayor, members of the council. Just by way of introduction, my name is Bryant Fisek from MnDOT's Metro District. I'm the South Area Engineer, which means I'm MnDOT's liaison to the local agencies and happy to be here again, happy to talk to you about this project and really excited to dive into some details and what we figured out, what we're going to look at and recommend. It's just lots of good things coming forward. As a reminder [4:10] here is our study area. North is to the right on this. We're really looking through Hastings on Highway 61 from 4th Street to 36th. Our goal for this study was to do a comprehensive evaluation to look at a vision for the corridor and determine alternatives. What do we want this to be? How do we want this corridor to not only reflect MnDOT's goals, which is obviously moving traffic and moving freight, but really be a part of the community, which is a broader, much broader look—incorporating multimodal and really preventing that highway from being a barrier that goes through the city. So just a quick look at our project schedule: right now we are really [4:58] well, we're towards the end of this particular study, but we are at the beginning of this process which is eventually going to lead to construction. We do have a construction project programmed; it's scheduled right now for 2027. That's where we will be coming in and looking at 61, redoing the pavement, making improvements. This study is at the front end of that again to help set that vision. From here—I'll talk a little bit more about it later too—but from here we will really go into looking more at what is the final scoping, what is the preliminary design, moving into design and then ultimately construction. So, again, the end of the study but really the front end of the overall process. [5:46] All right, so I am going to hand it over to our consultant project manager, Tim Thorine. He has been here before as well; you remember him from our previous discussions. He's going to go into some of these details here. He'll do a quick refresher on our Phase One and Phase Two of the project information you've seen before—information that's available on the website—and then in that Phase Three, that's when he's going to dive into those details. We'll go through the four areas on the corridor, speak to each of them, hit some of the highlights and again really show how we work to improve the corridor, present that vision to get to better safety and better mobility, but incorporate the work you've already done on the corridor—we can't [6:33] forget that—and also listening to the businesses and the residents. We tried to incorporate all that information into what we're going to present here. I do also want to encourage that if there are questions along the way, let's turn this into a discussion. Let's have those right away. We do have a lot of slides; we'll try to get through them quickly, but we don't want to gloss over it and I don't want you to think about a question and then forget it when we're 10 slides down the road. So please feel free to break us up, break up the conversation and again, let's have that discussion back and forth. So with that, Tim. [7:18] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Thanks Bryant. Mayor, Council members, it's a pleasure to be here again. I'm really excited. It's been about a year I've been working on this study, and I think it's been really rewarding to come through this and see the vision that we're developing for Highway 61. I hope that you feel the same way about it after we walk through it here and talk through some of the next steps as well. So I'll just kind of dive into it and like Bryant said, we'll talk through some of our Phase One and Phase Two portions of the project, which really kind of set up the purpose and need aspects of the project. Why is it that we even looked at the corridor? I'll try to go through that relatively quickly so we can focus more so on the ultimate vision that we're developing for the corridor. And so, as some background here, we came into the study knowing that there's some previous documents already developed by the City of Hastings: Vermillion Corridor Study in 2018. And that's actually where we started; we adopted the four districts that you'll see as we talk about the recommendations. We look at the Downtown District, the Midtown District, the [8:04] Vermillion River area, and then also the Southtown area. So those become our four districts that we talk about recommendations. And as we go through each one of those districts, that might be an appropriate spot to offer specific questions before we jump to the next district. But the Vermillion Street Corridor Study was really instrumental in establishing some of those early ideas into the whole visioning for the corridor. So talking about landmarks and landscaping in the corridor, that’s kind of the aesthetic community feel that you would see—and you can't read this, it's kind of blurry, so I'm not trying to have you read this—but also the vision was developed for maybe a signal at 17th and 18th. And then of course, kind of the gorilla in the room that everybody's interested about is a roundabout at 316, and that was already [8:51] emerging in 2018 as something that was going to be a priority for the community looking at that intersection in particular. Then we moved to 2021 where the People Movement Plan was developed by the City of Hastings. That was more of a comprehensive look at the entire City of Hastings, but it also did address Highway 61. And interesting enough, I think even then, in some of the themes that you'll see emerging out of this vision study, it was apparent that 61 itself is not really an appropriate north-south corridor where you're going to try to cram in a bunch of pedestrian and bike movements. It's really "how do we get across that?" How does 61 act as a barrier today, and how do we maybe resolve some of those barriers that are in the corridor? And so you see some emerging intersections of interest in that People Movement Plan where we look at 4th Street as a key intersection, 10th and 55 in [9:38] particular really stood out as a priority for getting people across safely there. 15th Street as there's discussion about a bikeway at that location, and then kind of getting down to that node around the Vermillion River at County Road 47—those become key intersections that we wanted to try to address in the longer-term plan for the community. So, playing off of that discussion about the People Movement Plan, I want to preview some of the thinking that goes into developing a vision for a corridor like this. It is starting to think beyond just the immediate street. We hear a lot about "Complete Streets" for instance, and the need for a complete street and trying to get multimodal functionality. Really, we have to broaden our mindset a little bit to more of a "Complete Network." And so what might that look like in the city of [10:24] Hastings? You could imagine, like I said, making sure we have east-west barrier—the east-west crossings enabled. I've got highlighted in the red here, that's Ramsey Street. That is a potential north-south corridor where you could imagine that being a good option for bike routing instead of having bikes going on Highway 61, for instance. That also has some potential benefits with connectivity from key nodes. We talked about the Vermillion River area already as a key node in the community; maybe Ramsey offers a convenient, safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists to get to those nodes between downtown and Vermillion River, for instance. So that sort of mindset starts to come into the discussion when we look at a vision for Highway 61. And so then [11:10] looking at some of the basics about why we're even talking about this corridor: 31,000 vehicles per day coming through the corridor, especially on the north end. You see that many vehicles, and even as you get to the Vermillion River, it's still high at 27,000 vehicles per day. And then of course at 316, you see that major split—two-thirds of the traffic essentially is going onto 316 and about 7,000 vehicles heading south on 61 itself. So a lot of traffic comes through this corridor and a lot of it is regionally oriented to points southeast and into the Twin Cities. You see a lot of freight coming through the corridor. So that's what this graphic represents. And so the blue line is a depiction of traffic on the corridor over the course of a day. So from the morning, you see [11:58] this peak on the left-hand side—that's that morning peak of rush hour right at 7:30, a very intense peak of traffic—and then it drops off suddenly again. Versus in the afternoon, where you see a very steady, gradual building of traffic volumes, and it's a very prolonged peak period of traffic going through the Highway 61 corridor, and then it kind of tapers away into the evening. And trucks recognize this, and that's what the orange line is representing. You see they don't hit the corridor at 7:30 in the morning; they're waiting for all that traffic to push through. Then you see a real significant peak in trucks coming into the corridor by 8:30 or 9:00 in the morning, and then they slowly go through the corridor and slowly taper off as the PM peak builds, and then they taper away through the day. So heavy vehicles are an important part of the corridor [12:44] still. We want to make sure we're considering them in the development of solutions, and that has an effect on what the typical cross-section might be—is it a 12-foot lane or do we go to an 11-foot lane? How do we provide for turning movements, that sort of thing? On another front, in the corridor study, the safety and crashes: in the five-year period, I think there were approximately 300 crashes in the corridor. These five nodes where the numbers appear are where the most crashes occurred. We had about 28 crashes there at 10th Street, 23 at 55, so those two intersections had the most crashes in that five-year reporting period. One thing to note then is that in the pedestrian/bike range, we see most of our accidents happening in that 12th to 18th Street corridor segment. I think I've [13:30] got a graphic here just depicting where those occurred. A lot of the bike crashes were occurring between 12th and 18th Street. You see some other locations as well, but that kind of pricks up our ears about where we ought to be paying attention to pedestrian crossings—basically from 18th to the north, we should be thinking about how to get people across the corridor. And then a little bit of a preview of traffic operations: there's a lot to digest here. The focus here is existing conditions. This graph on the left, you see a lot of green there, and traffic operations are working pretty well. So actually, from a Level of Service calculation, operations are not too bad in the corridor today. What we see though is it's a very aggressive corridor. It's a fast corridor; people are going [14:18] to take risks to get onto the corridor, but once they get on, it moves okay. 2040, that's not the case. 2040 is just a real breakdown, especially in the southbound direction and during the PM afternoon peak. It really starts to break down significantly to the point where we would imagine a trip from 4th Street to 36th Street taking almost 22 minutes in normal traffic flows in 2040. So we know that something needs to be done to address this issue. So that starts to lay some of the groundwork here. And so during Phase One, we also did public engagement. We had door-knocking of businesses, we had a public meeting here on May 18th, we participated in Rivertown Days, we had an online comment map and survey tool. [15:03] These were some of the themes that came up through those discussions with the public: pedestrian crossings, as I've already talked about; some of the very common themes here through the area. People were worried about the operations at 46 and 47 at County Road. How do we provide sidewalk/trail accommodations through the corridor? So I've got a quick discussion of Phase Two, which is where we kind of get into brainstorming mode and creative analysis of opportunities and concepts. In each district, as I've talked about the four districts, we had a variety of concepts that we constructed and analyzed. We used public engagement to test those and get feedback on them. So again, more of the same: door-knocking on businesses, Business Association [15:48] meetings, we met with the Chamber of Commerce, with the Downtown Business Association. We had a public meeting on August 24th here in this building and also had an online survey. Again, same types of themes coming through here: safety for all users—we want to make sure we're talking to business access; consider some of the historic and community themes and features of the corridor; make sure that the community character isn't lost. And then there was support we were hearing from the public about roundabouts in particular—full-size roundabouts, not so much interest in compact roundabouts, but full-size was more acceptable. So through that whole process, we developed a list of evaluation criteria, and these are what we end up [16:34] applying to the concepts and alternatives. We had four major buckets of evaluation criteria around the themes of safety, community identity, traffic operations, and then just kind of basic feasibility factors like cost, whether right-of-way is required, and how maintainable these improvements are. We applied those criteria across the whole corridor. So that's my quick run-through. I'm going to take a little breather here and offer the opportunity for anybody to ask questions about just those first two phases of work, and then we'll dive into the basics of our recommendations. [17:22] Councilmember Dave Pemble: In your online survey, what kind of responses did you get? Is there a lot of response online to this discussion? [17:22] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Mayor and Council members, we were really encouraged by the feedback we're getting on the online tool. It is definitely becoming more commonly accepted across communities to be providing input that way. Versus—I mean, we will hold a public meeting open house and if it's a good meeting, we'll get, I'd say, 50 written comments. We will hold an online tool survey, and we'll get six times that at a much less significant cost. There's value in doing both, and I don't want to diminish either one of those routes, but we do see a lot of buy-in on the online tools. [18:09] All right, we'll jump into... like I said, we set up the four districts. We'll kind of start with the downtown area and walk through that segment of the corridor. Downtown in our parlance is roughly from 4th Street to 10th Street. And so here you can see we've got these—these are some maybe a preview of some of what you would see with the public engagement tools and what would become available online and what would show at the public open house next month, just calling out some of the features of our corridor. Happy to go to any one of these things, but just for brevity's sake, we'll step through the corridors. This is kind of what we're looking at, that 4th to 10th Street area. And recognizing that this is a corridor [18:54] study from 4th to 36th, we also know that there's a lot of concern about what happens when people are coming off the bridge and how that influences driving behaviors in the Highway 61 corridor. So we didn't want to neglect that, and so we do have some recommendations developing for what happens when you come into town from the north on Highway 61. And so here you can see some of the emerging ideas here. It's maybe difficult to see or really interpret, but on the right-hand side—those southbound lanes—we're imagining some kind of striping that would indicate it would give a visual cue that you ought to be slowing down. The way that striping is layered onto the pavement, it provides a little bit of a visual effect where it encourages [19:39] drivers to slow down. It's kind of an odd striping that's not typical to see, so it would encourage some slowing down. At the same time, we also know that there's a lot of interest—we heard from the business community—a lot of interest in making sure we're directing people to the downtown businesses. Currently, right now, they say they're dissatisfied with the level of signing that is available to them for directing motorists to the downtown area. So we're identifying maybe an opportunity to work with MnDOT to find an overhead sign that replaces the one that's kind of off to the side right now—something that's overhead and more prominent, really directing people off to the Main Street area from 61. [20:15] That has a benefit to the main line also; if people aren't trying to mess around doing weird audible directions, if they're able to go directly to that exit and go to Main Street, that benefits the trunk highway as well. Some of the other features we talked about: landscaping and landmarks, kind of community identity. In particular this downtown area, there's a lot of rich symbology to work with. We've got the herringbone pattern that you see on a lot of the sidewalks here; we want to see how we can continue that along Highway 61 and keep that theme running through the community. Trying to find ways to get—we talk about signing and how to get people oriented around where to go downtown—play off some of those themes that already exist for signing there. There might be, [21:00] as we talk about medians and you'll see some examples of medians in the corridor, an opportunity for some kind of banner-type displays similar to what you see on this picture here to give people a sense of coming into the community and to embrace the Hastings area. And before I get into those median discussions, also the same theme about visibility and safety: if there's a fire station right there at 5th Street, I want to make sure that we're cognizant of any of the improvements we make that are not negatively affecting what happens at the fire station and emergency services in the corridor. We've talked with them and we're confident that the solutions we're coming up with are not going to affect what they do. We did talk about the possibility of adding some warning signals that would help let motorists know that [21:47] there is an emergency vehicle coming down to Highway 61 or some operations that maybe warrant some notification. One of the themes that we have, not only for the downtown but for the entire corridor itself: the whole corridor has to eliminate on-street parking from Highway 61. And you can see this picture I've got circled here, an image of why we're concerned about that. So here, this is from 4th Street, right out the door here. You're looking southbound at the 4th Street intersection. You can see there's just kind of a mishmash of sidewalk infrastructure, trucks, cars; you just can't see what's happening. You can't see the vehicles coming up that intersection. It's a sight hazard; it's a sightline hazard that we want to try to correct. And we [22:33] think that parking on the main line is maybe not all that advisable anyway—we've got 30,000 vehicles coming through, so that area is maybe not the safest option anyway. So we're looking at eliminating parking on Highway 61. [22:51] Tim Thorine (Consultant): We'll get to the median discussion here now. So... let's see if I can go back. When we looked at this—if you can see my cursor—5th Street here and 7th Street here, we're introducing the idea of a median that makes those intersections "right in, right out" only for vehicles. I'll explain what that looks like in practice through this discussion here. So, this is a representation of the current roadway geometry at 7th Street and 5th Street. It's about a 75-foot crossing for anybody to go from curb to curb across Highway 61. I can take 25 steps [23:40] just walking around my house; walking in hallways, I count 25 steps. That's an uncomfortably long time to imagine walking across four or five lanes of traffic. It's just not a very desirable experience for pedestrians. So we wanted to try to figure out what are some ways we can make that a safe experience for pedestrians. And so we looked at those intersections in particular, 7th and 5th Street, and you can see here on the screen we've got these—these are traffic counts that were done, these are existing traffic counts. So you can see for instance in the morning and PM peak, there's zero cars that are crossing across 7th Street going in this direction here. I don't have the orientation going from the east side of 61 across to the west; zero [24:25] cars doing that movement. In the morning there's 17 cars making a left turn from southbound 61 onto 7th Street. Point is, there are relatively small numbers of cars versus the larger 1,300 cars coming through the overall corridor. So we felt comfortable with the possibility then of closing that median and making that "right in, right out," so cars can only turn right off of 61 and right onto 61, and providing that space for pedestrians as a refuge as they try to cross Highway 61. So that cuts that distance from 75 feet to less than 30 feet—a two-stage crossing of Highway 61. It offers, besides the benefit to the pedestrian, some traffic calming measures; we'd expect speeds to slow down as you come through the corridor. There's a little bit more constrained environment, which signals to the drivers that they need to slow down, and some opportunities for aesthetics, which we showed in the imagery of the banners through there. You could imagine something like that. There is a lot of controversy about whether plants could actually survive, and that's debatable, so we recognize this might not be exactly how it would look, but we are trying to imagine what the corridor could look [25:43] like through this area. [25:43] Tim Thorine (Consultant): So that's my quick run-through of the downtown area. I want to just again stop and offer—if I maybe skipped over anything, if you have questions about the downtown area, you can address those. [25:56] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): I think I will back up just to one item, which is showing—Tim hinted at it with the volumes—but when we looked at them, there's not many people taking those moves where that median would be in. So we're already seeing people... they're not doing it today. We're just recognizing what is already going on with the driver. They're coming up and saying, "I shouldn't go to 5th, I should go to 4th and go to the light." This just reinforces what people are already doing and then makes [26:29] a safer environment for pedestrians. So I just wanted to add on to what you were saying. [26:34] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Oh that's great Bryant, thank you. And to maybe piggyback on that a little bit more... whoops, go the wrong way. For instance—I mean, one of the key stakeholders using the corridor, the fire station—they do just that very same thing. So you can see here we've got indicated: if the fire station wants to go southbound on Highway 61, they'll use the 5th Street access and they'll go southbound on Highway 61 at 5th Street. If they want to go north on Highway 61, they go up around Eddy Street, go to 4th Street, and take a left at the signal. And that's not just the fire station that does that; that's common practice through the whole community. People in Hastings know how to navigate these streets; we've seen it time and time again. So [27:16] that's a good point, Bryant, for recognizing that. All right, so we'll go to the Midtown area. Midtown area, we're looking roughly from 10th Street to about 17th Street. And there, as I talked about, one of the key issues in this segment is pedestrian crossing and safety. We see a lot of concerns about that. There's also a lot of business access—multiple accesses to businesses—and a lot of concerns about density of access and how that contributes to safety issues for motorists. And we don't want to neglect the [28:02] 10th Street and Highway 55 intersection as a really key node in the overall corridor and how the overall corridor operates from a traffic perspective. So those are some of the key elements that we were looking at in the study. And specific to the Midtown area, a couple different things happen here. Those two signals are closely spaced together. We looked at multiple options for how to deal with that signal spacing, including combining them into one location. Through that study, we landed on a place where we think it's still valuable to have the two separate signals. We got a lot of questions from the community, a lot of skepticism about the signal phasing and how people can drive through there—they can see, "Well this is not working quite right." And the challenge is there's lots of turning movements that need to be accommodated within a one, maybe two-minute window. [28:47] For all these different turns to happen: you've got left turns happening from southbound 61 into the Walgreens parking lot, you've got a left turn from northbound 61 to 10th Street, you've got turns happening between 10th and 55. Those signals are trying to accommodate a lot of different movements. So we really focused on how we can simplify those movements and simplify that signal timing/phasing so that you dedicate more time to the key movements through the corridor. And so one of the things that we led off with almost immediately was looking at those left turns, for instance from southbound 61 into Walgreens. You see here we've got this kind of brownish bar through there in the middle of the corridor representing closure of those left turn lanes. So that immediately gives more time now to the [29:34] key movements through the signals. The other issue here that you can see with the picture is what's generously called the "right turn lane" on southbound 61 to Highway 55. It's really a shoulder at best. And it's just a very tight space. It doesn't take very much for that to get congested and then propagate through the whole system, even beyond the 10th Street intersection to the north. So we really wanted to take a hard look at what that would look like to add a more proper right turn lane there as well. So that has consequences for the wall, and we'll get into that a little bit, but that also provides a lot of benefit to the system. Those are a couple of [30:19] key things that we wanted to focus on through here. You'll see that part of our study then also looks at the closure of the west leg of 10th Street, as I cursor over that. So we're recommending closure of that leg. And I know that there's sometimes school movements that happen through there, but we see a lot of benefit to that closure. It creates a more pedestrian-friendly environment; it adheres to the recommendations of the People Movement Plan where that 10th Street crossing is really a focus for safety. And it creates an opportunity for some really creative, fun kind of place-making options for the community and for the school to recognize this as an event-driven space that could be very engaging and dynamic. So we see an opportunity there to close that and create some really valuable public space and [31:06] then also in doing so, it creates the opportunity for that right turn lane as well. Trying to think of what else... those are kind of the highlights to that section. [31:14] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): I can add one other thing on that. We have had conversations with the school district about 10th, and one of the things we recognized from them is that they're already closing it for their events. So they do let school buses through, but it's generally closed off. So again, I'm almost repeating that we're following through on what's already being done. These actions have already been taken because they recognize that it's a benefit to what's going on in that area. So there may be some refinement of this; we have to continue those conversations with the school district. They are encouraged by what we're doing, [31:53] but they also recognize what does that mean for the buses? Do we try to find a way to keep them through? Do we recognize a different route? There's some refinement there, but overall we're looking at: can we prevent general traffic from going through here, open up—as Tim said—open up that signal timing to recognize the main movements, and then really make that an engaging area? So just wanted to offer that as well. [32:20] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Thanks. [32:21] Councilmember Dave Pemble: I've got a question. Do you have any numbers on what the traffic level is at across at 10th Street? You know, you showed the 7th Street numbers and you didn't show the 5th Street ones, but what do you have for 10th [32:38] Street? [32:38] Tim Thorine (Consultant): I don't have those numbers immediately available to me right now. We can make them available; they'll certainly be at the public open house. I think the heaviest peak period movement through on the west leg of 10th Street is in the double-digit number. So we're not talking hundreds of vehicles, and we're not talking 10; it's in that range. So it does get used. It's certainly—we talk about the community understanding how the local system works—that's an obvious location where local residents know that that's a good alternative to getting to and from 55 and some of the local circulation needs. So it does get used, definitely. [33:14] Councilmember Dave Pemble: We'd like to see those numbers. [33:17] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Yeah, absolutely. We can make those available. [33:20] Councilmember Tina Folch: I'm so sorry. [Music] You can be going north on Highway 61 and you want to take a left-hand turn on 55, and that gets so backed up that you can't get into the left turn lane. So you'll go around that left turn lane and go up to the 10th Street turn and wait there to get across because otherwise you're waiting for two light cycles to get by. And so that's a really big problem area. [33:57] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Totally agree. I'll get to that in a moment. [33:58] Councilmember Tina Folch: Okay. All right. I'm a little personally freaked out about closing down the street. [34:10] Tim Thorine (Consultant): No, no, I appreciate that. That's a very good comment. We'll get to that here if you can bear with me for just a moment. I'll speak to Todd Field wall first, and then I will get to that comment. But the northbound left... Todd Field wall right now, I wanted to recognize that we have been in touch with the school district and the sensitivities around what to do with that wall. This picture here doesn't do it justice—that wall is falling apart. I don't know how to put it. We've done an evaluation of the wall; the integrity of the wall is a little bit questionable and it's not something that I would advise for many years beyond the present. It can work, it's functioning, it's not at any risk for imminent collapse, but it's not something that I would expect to lean on for several years ahead. [35:25] So that chimes in with what the school district's concerned about. They're concerned about safety in that area; they're also concerned about functional space in their field and the history of the area. They recognize the Todd Field wall is a historic element in the community and they want to be respectful of that, but we've had those discussions with them already and they understand the direction that we're headed about trying to resolve the condition of the wall and provide that right turn lane that we just talked about. Similarly, we've talked with the Heritage Preservation Commission; we talked to them in December about the possibility of that historic wall—the wall's been identified as historic by the community here. How do we honor that designation and work through a process to potentially rebuild that wall in a way that provides the safety that we anticipate being needed for the corridor? So we've had that discussion with them, [36:12] we understand the process that needs to unfold to do that, and so you can see a rough depiction of what that kind of repair might look like. Previously, the wall was "battered," it's kind of angled, and we're imagining more of a vertical wall. The benefit of that is that we really don't imagine that impacting too much into the field space of the school there. It's really just kind of straightening of an angled wall to vertical, and you're getting a lot of space on the highway side for sidewalks and for a right turn lane. There's other safety features we've talked with the Police Chief about—trying to add more event safety here, maybe adding bollards to the area where you'd have more of a physical barrier but that would prevent vehicles from colliding into the wall [36:58] and even going into the field space. So I recognize that's an area of concern as well. And so all things like that become available when they start doing things like closing the 10th Street corridor. We rebuild the wall; you can create a really much better, safer, more inviting pedestrian space in that area. I do have a visualization of what it looks like with the signal timing here. I'm just going to run it real briefly just as a little proof, I guess, of what we go through when it comes to studies like this. So this is a visualization of 2040 vehicles going through this corridor with the revisioned kind of system. You can see that there is—so for orientation, this is [37:45] 55 coming in, this is 10th Street, and then here's the improved right turn lane. And so you can see some of the operations benefits that are happening in there and some of the behaviors through there. It's still going to be busy, no doubt about it, and there's going to be some vehicles that queue up, and we recognize that, but in general the cycling is going to be fed through there and it's going to operate much better. The main line of Highway 61 in particular really benefits from these improvements. [38:32] Tim Thorine (Consultant): I want to think they operate much more anyway. I'm not a professional traffic engineer; Bryant's more dedicated, but I would say they're more integrated with signals. I wouldn't call one primary or the other; they really operate together. And so they feed off of each other in how screen time is allocated between the different movements. [A member of the audience, Mr. Mosing, speaks inaudibly]. [39:07] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Mr. Mosing, I'd really appreciate it if you could come to the town hall meeting on March 7th to ask questions. Thank you, my apologies. [39:15] Tim Thorine (Consultant): All right, so to get back then to the 12th Street intersection in particular and the concern there, or I should say the left turn movement from 61 to 55. Currently, you can see just barely what the current median looks like. So basically right at Dairy Queen you see that left turn lane starting to form for that movement from 61 to 55. One of the things that we're proposing as part of this vision is to make this 12th Street intersection "right in, right out." And that gives us the opportunity to extend that left turn lane back all the way to about the Perkins where you have a much longer left turn lane available for that stacking and queuing that you're concerned about. That provides more of the space, gets them off of the main line Highway 61, allows that traffic to flow through, and provides a storage space for vehicles to make a left turn. So that as we continue south through the corridor, that's where we're starting to see some of the access [40:02] changes happening. In particular, 12th Street going "right in, right out" allows us to lengthen that left turn lane. Does that answer your question about what's happening there at that left turn movement or how to address that? [40:17] Councilmember Tina Folch: Well, it requires you to be able to actually take a left turn, because as it occurs you skip that light and you go up to 10th Street and then with the timing of the lights, you're able to take a left and not sit there for a long iteration of time. Otherwise, you'd be sitting there, you'd be waiting for a second cycle. [40:36] Tim Thorine (Consultant): And that goes back... sorry, that goes back to that discussion of why we're eliminating some of those turning movements. So we can allocate that space, that green time, to those other important movements. By eliminating that left turn, for instance, from [40:48] southbound 61 into the Walgreens space, or other movements like that—trying to move across 10th Street—when you take that off of the signal pressure, you can allocate that space to other important movements like that left turn from 61 to 55. You're giving more of the time in that cycle to those sorts of movements. [41:13] Councilmember Tina Folch: I would argue that you have vehicles taking a turn on 10th Street and going up then to 55 that are now going to be forced to go up to 55. But I'm not an engineer; I just think that it's going to cause brouhaha. [41:25] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): So when we do the modeling, when we look at these things, we do reallocate the volumes. So we do up the volume for the [41:34] left turn, we put them in there, and then as Tim said, that's why we extended that left turn lane to accommodate more traffic. But then if you think of signal timing as like a pie: right now you have left turns in every direction, you have through movements in every direction. We're cutting that pie into a lot of slices. When we eliminate it, now we can make it into bigger slices. So that's why we're getting more green time there; we get a bigger piece of that pie for that left turn movement. So it's a combination of providing them more space so people can move into it and giving them a longer green time so they can get through the signal. [42:15] Councilmember Trevor Lund: Thank you, Honor. I fully acknowledge you have a challenge at this area; there's a lot going on. Not being able to turn left to go to Walgreens... again, to Councilmember Pemble's request, it would be good to see what that looks like today, how many cars are actually making that movement today. And also not just to be focused on what is today; there's a large property there that's intended to be sold and developed at one point in time. You can't use a crystal ball to make models based on that, but I do want to be cognizant of the fact that we may be diminishing the value of that property by making it very difficult to get in there from one direction too. So, not that you have to answer anything to that today, but just take that into consideration and look at those numbers. What does that movement look like today to Walgreens, and use that as a litmus for what might be going over to the other side as well? [43:17] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Understood. Mayor and Council members, appreciate that comment. Generically speaking, I believe it's single digits in the PM peak that would be making that left turn. So we're not even talking about 10 cars making that left turn in the PM peak. But, like with other data, we'll have that available. I'll also note that this picture does not depict the option for how a person gets to Walgreens from the north; they're going to have to turn left at 10th and then make their routing to Walgreens that way. We did think about the possibility of this location just north of the Dairy Queen—between Dairy Queen and Walgreens—and we are thinking about that. We are depicting here a little bit of a right turn out, or a right turn off of Highway 61 into this area. That does allow for still maintaining that sort of connectivity to Walgreens from the south, but it also does potentially offer connectivity directly to 11th Street and maybe serves as an access or service to that development opportunity you're speaking to. I know that there's maybe some conflicts there in space and it's a tight fit to try to do all this, but at a visioning level, that's kind of how we're trying to consider issues like that. Then continuing south—unless there was anything else—we know that trying to get people across is obviously one of the challenges. So we're introducing the topic... it doesn't get depicted on this image here, but we're interested in the topic of a "Z Crossing" at this area around Jersey Mike's and Perkins, where you would be able to make a crossing across the two northbound lanes for instance. You would have to then turn and walk towards the oncoming traffic—make visible contact with that traffic coming at you—turn back, and then cross the next two lanes of traffic. Again, providing a little bit of refuge for pedestrians trying to cross [45:23] Highway 61 at a location that we see there's a demand and a demonstrated safety issue in the data. So we're trying to put some of those features into the corridor where it's going to be used. We don't want to put crossings into just places where it's convenient; that won't get used. I refer to it as—with the MnDOT designers—the "Ice Cream Principle": if there's an ice cream shop, that's where people are going to cross. So let's put a crossing where that ice cream shop is, kind of a thing. And so, Perkins pie, we'll see. [46:04] Mayor Mary Fasbender: I'd like to go back to that crossing and ask: with that split crossing, is there going to be something—this is just not going to be a flat location where if there was an accident somebody veered into that area? We need some place to protect the people that are on that island. [46:21] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Mayor and Council members, thank you. Yeah, absolutely, there would be some kind of barrier there as well, that would be standard. This is really representative of the movement we're trying to demonstrate; there would absolutely have to be some sort of protection there. [46:39] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): One other thing, Tim, just since we're on this slide: this actually came up from John Hinzman and I've seen a lot of concern with this as well, but you can see the Stop Bar for the double lane, call it southbound traffic, it's pulled [46:56] back from a crossing quite a ways. And that's important because in the double lane situation, that near car might stop right at the crosswalk. And what happens is the pedestrian goes, and they have no sight distance to that far lane. That far lane cruises on through, and I can tell you who's going to win every time. That's a real concern. So John brought that up in our PMT, and we've all studied and analyzed it. So I don't know if you were going to hit on that, but I just wanted to make sure—not only the Z Crossing, which is a new unique enhancement for our city, but also recognizing the dual lane, that's a very concerning crossing movement. Like we've talked about the barrier that 61 is for pedestrians, but these—the lighting, the Z Crossing, the pulling that Stop Bar back so we clear that sight distance—all these things are very purposeful to maximize the safety of crossings. So I just want to let folks know that those are the things that we're talking about in a conceptual level. [48:18] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay, thank you Bryant. [48:21] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Thank you Bryant. I might advance my discussion or accelerate my discussion, but I appreciate the questions, keep them coming as I want to make sure we get through the whole corridor and provide answers to your questions. So, at 14th Street, we see an example of where we use a "three-quarter" type of access. Here, this is a design type here: 14th [48:29] Street here, and 15th is what this traffic signal is. With the three-quarter access location, you allow a left turn to be made off of Highway 61 onto the side street, but you cannot go from 14th with a left turn onto Highway 61. So what are the implications of that? In this case, it's convenient because the road network enables a relatively smooth connection over to 15th Street where you can have a left turn access at the traffic signal. So that's what we're trying to represent here with that option. If somebody is at this location wanting to make a left turn onto southbound Highway 61, they will need to route themselves back around to 15th and up to the traffic signal there. It's a measure to offer access, especially off of Highway 61, keep traffic moving off of Highway 61, and [49:16] force motorists to a safer location where they can get on Highway 61 at the signal. In general, we've talked about corridor-wide themes: we talked about parking and eliminating on-street parking on Highway 61. Another theme with the Highway 61 corridor—and this is really important when it comes to funding and trying to get funding at the federal level, how we demonstrate the metrics that we're trying to achieve that are going to provide the signals to our federal counterparts to provide funding to corridors like this—is access and how we're managing access for safety in the corridor. So some of the themes that you'll see that propagate through the whole corridor is on access: we really want to try to keep access to no more than one per site for future [50:04] developments, and we want to try to encourage as much as possible towards combined driveways on adjacent properties where possible—maybe you can do dual use driveway access apron onto and off of Highway 61. So that's just a theme that is through the whole corridor, that's really representative of what we see there in this stretch between 12th and 15th in particular. All right, so I'll kind of continue on down south to the Vermillion District then. And again, this is... we're starting to look at the 18th area, roughly down to about 25th Street—from Ardent Mills south across the river and towards the 316 intersection. [50:50] Some of the key features there: 18th Street is currently unsignalized. We're talking about a signal at 18th Street and a realignment of that roadway. 47 gets some treatments there, and the improvements that we're anticipating at the 21st and 23rd Street area are actually consistent with what's already in the city's Comprehensive Plan; we played off of that plan to come up with the recommendations for that location. So we'll dive into that a little bit here. And I think I skipped over this whole 18th area... one of the things that gets me really excited about the opportunity in this corridor is at 18th and to the river. So we're talking about realigning 18th Street so you've got a more proper intersection. There's a very wide, expansive pavement right now at 18th Street; you really feel it, and it's a difficult area to cross. So realigning 18 so that it gets a more proper intersection there will tighten up some [51:36] of those corners and make it a safer location to get on and off of 61. And so doing it also creates an opportunity for place-making. We talk about place-making: you can imagine this area, where it's currently pavement right now, it's an opportunity for some artwork or some kind of community identity piece there. And what I really like about that is that you have the opportunity then from 18th all the way down to 21st across the river to... with the access closures that we're proposing at Ardent Mills, you've got this opportunity for a really great pedestrian/bike environment. It's a free-flowing space for a bike or pedestrian to make that movement from this node at 18th, where you've got some place-making opportunities, all the way down across the river. You'll see we're recommending a pedestrian bridge across the Vermillion River to 21st Street where you can have another opportunity for some sort of place-making artwork, kind of community identity piece. So it's really kind of a neat change that you can see in the fabric of the Highway 61 corridor. Then, speaking to the Vermillion Street or the County Road 47 intersection in particular: that is currently right now... there's a kind of a wonky little bump out here that is for on-street parking that people are confused by. They don't know if it's the right turn lane or not. We're eliminating that bump out, we're making that a right turn lane. In doing that, we also recognize that there's a need to realign this 47 intersection; it just comes in kind of awkward, there's some unsafe sight lines, there's not really enough capacity to handle all the traffic needs to flow through here. We did look at a roundabout here as part of our early concepts, and a roundabout just doesn't work at this location. And we know there's interest in developing the site here just to the northwest of this location, and so what we're recommending is a slight expansion of the turn lanes from one to two left turn lanes and then a dedicated right turn lane that's even longer than is out there today. That just requires... those sorts of things require a slight realignment, a little bit of a curve in County Road 47 to make that all fit. I talked about the pedestrian bridge across the river. You've got a little bit of space there between the current bridge and Ardent Mills to accommodate a pedestrian crossing, and this kind of becomes an interchange of sorts for pedestrians and bikes. You can see the opportunity to go underneath the Highway 61 corridor there at the bridge. You've got the Vermillion Falls just nearby. We've talked about the area up to the 18th Street kind of becoming a little hub for pedestrians and a great little [53:53] interchange for safe networking of trails in the system there. The current bridge, if you're just curious, is in good shape. It's got a long time to last; there's really no need for MnDOT to blow that bridge up. So that was a little bit of a constraint in our analysis—we didn't want to imagine spending millions of dollars there. And again, here's the pedestrian bridge concept there. Then going down, like I mentioned, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the 21st/23rd area: we are recognizing that there's some need to clean up some of the access there and some of the turning movements through this segment of the corridor. There's a lot of talk about the aggressive morning [54:39] rush hour. This is where I really feel it happening in the corridor—this stretch between 316 and County Road 47. I really feel that aggressive driver behavior; people are really moving through there. And so I think these sorts of improvements that we're recommending—where we introduce a median, we identify the potential for a signal at 23rd Street, and some of these "right in, right out" movements—help to clean up the access and limit the amount of turning movements that are happening there for a safer environment through this corridor. This should also help with, especially with the signal, promoting slower speeds through the corridor as well. This "backage road" idea, where we have 23rd coming off from a signal, then provides the opportunity for some different economic development through this area—accessibility to these parcels [55:25] from the back side. Not only it gets access off of Highway 61, but provides maybe a more comfortable access route for locals to get to businesses through here potentially in the future. But we did talk with Smead... we talk about businesses, we did have a meeting with Smead and I asked them about their operations, and they were comfortable with the way we were representing this. Their key movement they're concerned about—and it was frankly instrumental in us looking at this—is 21st Street. We'd show this as a "right in, right out." There is a possibility we just close that off and from a pedestrian perspective it'd be kind of nice because you have one fewer crossing to worry about. Right now we're depicting this as having a "right in, right out" option, and that's really to help provide those truck movements to get to northbound Highway [56:11] 61 and out of the corridor. That's a quick little run-through. Let's see if there's anything else I've missed there. [56:18] Councilmember Tina Folch: 23rd Street... you know, the problem with this whole area is that it's like super difficult to make a left-hand turn, you know, during heavy volumes and such. And so why do you say "potential future traffic signal" when it's already really necessary at this point for there to be a safe mechanism to get across the street? Because what's happening is people, if they need to take a left, they're on—like if they're at Applebee's or those places—they have to take a right and [56:58] then go up to where you're going to put the roundabout for Highway 316 and do a turnaround there to be able to go then north, right? So what's the holdup? Why wouldn't you do something with that immediately? [57:15] Tim Thorine (Consultant): It's a fair question. I think you could... the traffic volumes at any one of those streets—22nd, 23rd, 24th... we talked about when I talked about reallocating traffic. We do the modeling, and this will certainly have that effect of reallocating traffic to 23rd. So we anticipate volumes there to be enough where you could imagine a signal being a viable option there. When we do the traffic modeling and look at it from a modeling perspective, we don't see issues. Without a signal there, it operates fine. And it's something that we want to monitor, and [57:43] part of our recommendations will be to continue monitoring that location for a future signal there. There are probably benefits there with putting the signal right away, but in terms of the priority of improvements in the corridor, we don't see that as an immediate need that stands out compared to other locations like 18th Street, for instance, where we clearly see a value in the traffic signal there. [58:10] Councilmember Tina Folch: Is there a difference between 18th Street and 23rd Street? I'm sorry... I wouldn't see any difference between the value being at 23rd. I mean, you're just talking about at 18th and then 23rd because, you know, especially inexperienced drivers are really afraid. People are having to take right turns and then jerry-rig it to come back around and take a left turn. [58:31] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Yeah, I agree. I think that we've gotten a lot of interest in the signal there. I think that that's probably where we're headed. But when we look at it from a pure modeling perspective, it just doesn't stand out as something that just is really demanded. But when we start looking at other features and improvements in the rest of the corridor, they'll start to compound probably, and it'll be getting into these future phases like Bryant's talking about—preliminary design and final design—I think we would see a need and a value behind a signal there. And I'll speak to some of the other changes to the south that maybe even put more pressure on the 23rd Street location. So I can understand the concerns about 23rd Street and a desire for a signal there; it makes sense. It's going to become a hub for traffic and especially if you get that "backage road" concept available, a signal would really provide a safe crossing there not only for vehicles but for [59:17] pedestrians also. Understood the concern there, definitely. [59:22] Councilmember Jen Fox: Thank you, Your Honor. Um, can you clarify the access—sorry to go back—the access point to the radiator shop on the corner of 47 and Vermillion Street? I know access points are going to be a really big topic of conversation. So for them, the maps that are provided at the public meeting... I think that might be a really good just clarifying what those access points are for businesses would be a really helpful landmark for conversation. Thank you. [59:53] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Mayor, Council members, I agree. [1:00:03] We'll want to be very clear about not only what we're talking about qualitatively, but also what's going to remain. And so that's not always very apparent. I'll be self-critical about some of these graphics; we need to be more clear about what is remaining in place and what would be intended to be the existing and available access point for these businesses. Clearly that location is a hotspot there, a lot happening there, and so we'd want to be sensitive to how that business would be accessed in the future. Duly noted, yeah. All right, so moving on to the Southtown area, what we call the Southtown segment District, the last segment here on our journey through Hastings. Appreciate your patience through this discussion here. So, Southtown district is from the 316 intersection to 36th Street. And so you [1:00:48] at a high level you can see images: we're talking about roundabouts—roundabout at 316 and roundabout at 36th Street—and then some improvements through that segment there between the two locations. Just wanted, as a discussion and a little bit of background into some of the Phase Two work we did, we did look at multiple concepts for this location. We looked at a "Continuous Green T" concept that uses a signal, a traffic signal, and some dedicated lanes for moving traffic through a roundabout. I also looked at the possibility: why not just direct Highway 61 to 316? That's where people are wanting to go, why not just make that very obvious if that's the route we're going to move through? And so we looked at that option as well, and they all have benefits, but ultimately the roundabout did fare the best in that in that analysis of [1:01:34] alternatives. And so here's an example image of what that roundabout did—it wouldn't look exactly like this, but it's not too far off from it. And so we are talking about full-size roundabouts; we're not talking about a compact roundabout. There's a proper median circle in there. You've got two full lanes navigating the major movement, so the major movement being from southbound all the way on 61 to 316. So we're accommodating that. One of the concerns we had with that actually was... there were two concerns: you've got two lanes of traffic coming from southbound 61 wrapping around, then you've got to get them into 316 where it merges down to one lane. Is there enough space to do that? We're confident that there is. We believe that you can do that and get traffic down to one lane of traffic before that next roundabout that occurs on 316. The other [1:02:22] concern with the roundabout here that we were... I was a little bit skeptical about, to be honest, was the northbound traffic. So we've got 7,000 vehicles in a day on Highway 61 to the south. What happens to those vehicles trying to enter the roundabout when you've got this major movement coming through from southbound onto 316? And our modeling does indicate that there will be some stacking there, some queuing, but it does flow through that; it operates fine. You don't see major issues with stacking and queuing of the vehicles on that northbound through-movement through the roundabout. We want to be cognizant of pedestrian mobility through there, so we are showing—and this is a theme to the whole southern part of the corridor—trails on both sides of Highway 61 and providing that [1:03:09] option for pedestrians and bicycles to get through the corridor. And an example of how we evaluate—so I talked about the criteria—this is way too deep, don't try to read the details here, but just... we look at a qualitative level, we look at the criteria and the pros and cons of each of these criteria against those intersection options. And again, through that analysis, we determined that the roundabout is the most appropriate option. I do have a video of that... I think I'm going to skip it just in the interest of time, but we have and we can see a video demonstration of how traffic would move through the 316 intersection as well with a roundabout. [1:03:54] Then, and again what you'll see in there is some of those queuing issues, some concerns about how the northbound vehicles get through there, but they generally cycle through there at an acceptable rate. And then looking at that stretch between 316 and 36th Street, we're trying to figure out: is there enough right-of-way to allow for basically the existing cross-section that you have through there with three lanes and the medians, and can we get trails on both sides there? We're confident that you can do that. And so we're essentially not changing the dynamic of the medians that are existing there today and the access that's provided; we're not really making dramatic changes to the access that's provided in this stretch of the corridor. The big thing that's changing here is we're adding those trails on both sides of Highway 61 and we're closing this access [1:04:39] at Cannon Street. In part, because of what we're recommending is a roundabout at 36th Street, and so that becomes a more desirable location to have vehicles safely getting onto and off of Highway 61. And it's a reasonable reroute, I'll call it, to get to points to Cannon Street from 61 through that roundabout. Recognize that there would be interest on the pedestrian side of things—we're showing a little stub there for pedestrians to be able to make a connection to the trail system from Cannon Street—but in general we see that as an opportunity maybe to clean up some of the access. They talk about funding and the desire to show safety improvements; that would be an example of how that would help to elevate the corridor in its competitiveness for [1:05:25] future funding. And then there was discussion about the 36th Street location—a lot of interest from the community about this in particular. Pedestrians are concerned about safety crossing here. And we looked at that and said, yeah, I can understand why there'd be concerns about safety there. It also serves as sort of a southern gateway to the community, and so adding the roundabout there offers an opportunity to signal to motorists as they're coming in, "Hey, I'm coming into a new area, a different space, I need to drive differently." So the roundabout helps you promote that idea that, "Okay, you're coming into a new space, this is a different environment, I need to be more aware of my driving behaviors." So we see some value there with the 36th Street roundabout idea as well. And then to go back to that idea of [1:06:12] traffic operations in the 2040 timeframe: on the left is what happens if we do nothing, and then 2040, here's how the corridor models out with the proposed improvements. So from a timeframe perspective, we're seeing what's currently between a four and five-minute drive... we're seeing in 2040, even with the improvements, you know, it's a five to seven-minute drive potentially, but a much more reliable and a safer five to seven minutes than is out there today. And it's not 22 minutes long, which is what it would be if we were to do nothing. I want to just briefly touch on this idea of community aesthetics and space and place-making and just provide some imagery. This is from Grand Marais, where you can see [1:06:57] when we start to do these sorts of corridor visioning ideas, you start to create opportunities for public space, whether it's street furniture, parks, benches, or plantings that enliven the corridor. Here's Walker, Minnesota, where you see a whole segment off of Highway 371—you've got a space there dedicated to kind of community space, public art that can start to form into that. And so you think about what that might look like in Hastings, and you've already got a lot of those elements already in Hastings available and a really great template to work with, a palette to work with for future artwork and displays throughout the whole corridor. There are a lot of things to build off of that you can imagine translating through the whole corridor now with some of these place-making spaces that we create. And then don't neglect the idea of technology also. We are firmly in the [1:07:45] 21st Century. We are going to see more and more 5G, connected vehicle, broadband issues coming up. How can we make sure that the corridor is armed with the functionality it needs to be able to adapt to that change in technology? So we don't want to neglect that in our recommendations; it doesn't make the way in terms of physical changes that you would see above ground—it might be more below-ground types of changes—but certainly important that we all want to be thinking about as we look at funding for the corridor. And then from a cost and funding perspective: I talked about funding applications. I'll translate and I'll let Bryant kind of take over this. We've just got a couple more slides left and we'll wrap it up and open up to questions. Go ahead, Bryant. [1:08:29] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): Thanks, Tim. So we have taken our kind of first cut as we look at the cost: if we implement everything, what are we looking at here? And so with the roadway and related things, we put that cost at 15 to 17 million. That's today's dollars with contingency built in, and obviously there's some inflation before we get to the construction year, but that's approximately what we're looking at. We know the city is looking at redoing their utilities in the corridor at the same time; that's another three to five million on top of it. And then beyond that, what we didn't calculate in would be some of the place-making opportunities—if you wanted to add more art, if we're doing different landscaping ideas—that would also be on top of it. [1:09:18] Um, what we show on the right there, kind of the pie chart there, is just a very, very, very rough breakdown of where we're seeing this funding coming from. A majority of it is going to come from MnDOT. I mentioned we do have a project programmed here—we do need to repair the pavement. We have money set aside to do that. That doesn't take us the whole way, but that gets you a good chunk of it there. From the city, again for your utility, I know you've got money set aside for that. What other funds might be available as part of your cost share there? Dakota County will be part of this for their County Road. And then what we're showing in gray is where we need to capture that additional funding, and that's where we're at a great time right now with all [1:10:03] the funding opportunities out there. That's where we can capture that extra, that's where we can realize the full value of that. And that's where we envision going forward with the city as a partner and looking at these funding opportunities. So MnDOT is already doing some of that. We have a... I'll call it a project where we are looking at all our projects in the state, we put the basic characteristics in, and we are trying to prioritize them for the funding opportunities that come forward and say, "Which characteristics fit best for this one? Which characteristics fit best for a separate funding opportunity?" 61 is in there; I put those characteristics in. So we're looking at... there's an INFRA grant that's coming available. There are very good characteristics on this corridor in terms of... we have the freight on there, we're looking at safety, congestion relief—there are just characteristics that fit well for that one. So that's one we're keying on. There's a couple others as we dive more into it. We are going to be going forward and saying, "Yes, this corridor, this vision has those characteristics that fit well for specific funding opportunities." And that's what we're looking forward to going forward with the city and really getting rid of that gray area and knowing exactly where all the funding is coming from. And then last one, just a quick on the schedule: and I talked a little bit about this at the beginning, but really [1:11:35] our next steps here... obviously any more conversation with you tonight, but then our open house on March 7th. There will be an online portion with that as well, so people who are not able to attend in person will be able to see that on the website, will be able to go through this same presentation, see all the material and then provide comment on it. We will continue our stakeholder outreach; we'll go back to the businesses again as we look forward to it. There may be those opportunities for additional refinement. We're looking forward to these conversations now that we have a plan that everybody can react to. And then we'll get to that final report and move forward. But otherwise, on the right side, beyond the study, we will in the future be looking for that City [1:12:20] resolution of support. We'll be going forward with those funding applications and then we get into the scoping and design—that's where the real work starts—before that construction comes up. So, that is basically what we have. Last slide is just more information: contacts, project website, that sort of thing. But otherwise happy to go back to anything and happy to answer questions. [1:12:43] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Bryant, I just have a couple things. One: appreciate you and Tim coming down and giving us an update and keeping us informed. As you know, we're the ones who need to know the answers because the people reach out to us. But more importantly, that you do reach out and allow the constituents to be able to come and express their concerns for [1:13:07] safety and movement throughout the plan. And then two: is this presentation going to be able to be on our website for references for people that maybe couldn't see it today? [1:13:21] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): Uh, we can definitely provide it. You can take this... it'll be very similar. I don't know if it'll be the exact one—we'll probably tailor it to try to make it a little shorter for the open house. But we are intending to present something very similar at the open house that will go on the MnDOT website. But we can definitely provide you this one if you want to put it on the City website. [1:13:42] Mayor Mary Fasbender: And then just to reiterate, that open house is March 7th, 5:00 to 7:00, with the presentation at 5:15? [1:13:49] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): Correct. [1:13:51] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay. Great, thank you so much. [1:13:53] Councilmember Tina Folch: All right, thank you. One last question about lighting and aesthetics... I think it kind of got glossed over. You know, something I've always been hopeful for in this whole process is that we would pull up the lighting look and feel of the downtown up onto the high—up onto the Vermillion corridor, so that when you come off the bridge you realize that there's a look and feel that then is, you know, cohesive with Second Street. And so, like, I had always hoped that... I just personally hate those cobra lights that we have because they're so ugly and they have no, yeah, no personality whatsoever to them. And so [1:14:40] um, was there... has there been any talk about the lighting specifically as you come off the bridge in that area in aesthetics? [1:14:48] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): We have talked about lighting and making sure the corridor is lit, particularly for pedestrian crossings, but that's more just the functionality of having lights there. The specific aesthetics of it... that has not been discussed as much, but I like the idea. How do we make that... have further conversation about that. [1:15:11] Councilmember Tina Folch: Oh boy. [1:15:16] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Yeah, there... you mentioned it with the herringbone kind of look within the... yeah. [1:15:20] Councilmember Tina Folch: But that's on Second Street. And pulling that up and, you know, more than just the banners. You know, for instance, like, you know, just imagine Robert Street, you know, as a for instance, where—or Highway 61 going through Red Wing, right? Where they chose more of a historic nature lighting feature and you know, and procured a lot of those lights themselves into the installation, but it was in conjunction with the Highway 61 renovation project as it was going on. And so that's what I had always hoped for in doing this, so that [1:16:04] you know... so it would really highlight our downtown more so. [1:16:08] Bryant Fisek (MnDOT): No, I... thanks for bringing that up. You pointed out a great example. We obviously do this in other areas, so absolutely I think that's a great element to pull forward. So how do we tie something into that into this whole process? I'll tell Tim to put it in the report. [1:16:22] Tim Thorine (Consultant): Okay, okay. Fair enough. [1:16:25] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you again, thank you and safe travels on the way home. All right, thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. Council members, are there any corrections to the minutes from the workshop and regular meeting on February 6th? Comments from the audience at this time... we will have comments from the audience or from Zoom, and I see no one is on Zoom. [1:16:53] Okay, and I don't think anyone is here for comments from the audience, so we'll pass that. Council, if you're okay with it, I would like to have John [Hinzman] bring up our home occupations license at this time so these people can go home. Okay, that's okay with Council? Okay, thanks John. [1:17:11] John Hinzman (Community Development Director): Thank you Mayor, City Council members. Before you tonight, we have four Type 2 home occupation licenses for your consideration for renewals. And a little bit of background on home occupation permits: we have two types within the city. One is a Type 1, which is unlicensed—if you're following the city ordinances [1:17:39] you're allowed to operate. On Type 2, they're a little more intensive; these involve situations in which a garage might be used for the business, or there may be outside employees or additional traffic beyond what's expected. In those situations, we go through a Type 2 license application. What happens is when it originally comes in, our Planning Commission reviews it, there's a public hearing, public comment taken, recommendation made going to Council, and then the issuance of a five-year license on that. The four that we have tonight went through that process already in which there was an original application, public hearing at Planning Commission, and then approval by City Council. The five-year licenses on these individuals has expired, so what we're looking for tonight [1:18:26] is an extension for another five years. And I'll briefly recap what we're looking at today. First of all, we have Dan Rother Photography at 1505 Brook Court—photography studio with outside employees and more than one customer visiting at a time. We have Patrick Mosing of Mosing Locksmithing, 413 18th Street East—key and locksmithing in a detached garage. Larry and Shelly Succo at 3121 Riverwood Drive—this is lawn art and decor that happens within the garage. And then Mitch and Darcy Shimon has Backyard Party Rentals at 3923 Martin Lane, where they're using their garage for storage and delivery. So those are the applications we have before you tonight. Prior to tonight's [1:19:12] meeting, we did provide a notification to neighbors of these four facilities. We did not receive any comments back from them, except for we do have one letter in support for Mr. Mosing's operation from a neighbor. So that's what we have before you tonight. There are four resolutions for your consideration. Mr. Mosing and the Shimons are here tonight if you have any questions for them, and I'll stand at this point. Thank you. [1:19:42] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you John. Any Council discussion? If not, then I would accept a motion to approve the resolution renewing the Type 2 home occupancy permits at 1505 Brook Court, 3121 Riverwood Drive, 413 18th Street East, and 3923 Martin [1:20:00] Lane. [1:20:00] Councilmember Dave Pemble: So moved. [1:20:01] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Councilmember Pemble. Any discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. [1:20:10] Councilmembers: Aye. [1:20:11] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. [No response] And that motion prevails. Council, any items to be considered? Okay, Council, I would accept a motion for the consent agenda. [1:20:30] Councilmember Jen Fox: So moved. [1:20:31] Councilmember Trevor Lund: Second. [1:20:32] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Councilmember Fox and Councilmember Lund. Any discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. [1:20:41] Councilmembers: Aye. [1:20:42] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. [No response] And the consent agenda prevails. Tonight we have a 2023 reconstruction project Street project. For this item, the introduction will be by our City Administrator, Dan Wietecha. [1:21:01] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): I'm really just introducing it quick. As you know, we do a major infrastructure project every year, or try to—affectionately call them our neighborhood projects. This year is Pleasant Drive and some adjacent streets. We had the project review a meeting ago, but tonight we have... trying to talk and run Zoom at the same time... we have Jessica Green from Northland Securities here to go over the financial end of the project. It is about a three-and-a-half million dollar project. The financing is a little bit different than what we normally do, but with that, happy to turn this over [1:21:46] to Jessica. [1:21:47] Jessica Green (Northland Securities): Thank you, Dan. Thank you Mayor, Council. Can you hear me okay? [1:21:51] Mayor Mary Fasbender: We can. [1:21:52] Jessica Green (Northland Securities): Great. Well, first I want to start off by saying thank you to both Council and staff for allowing me to join you remotely this evening and stay put and not be out on the road. So thank you very much. But of course, the show must go on. And of course, as Dan mentioned, you do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening related to the 2023 neighborhood infrastructure project. In the past, or in many past years, the city has approached street improvement projects with the issuance of Street Improvement Bonds. In this case, [1:22:32] because the assessments related to the project aren't going to meet a 20 percent minimum threshold, we're looking at the issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds instead. And with the issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds, a public hearing is required and a five-year street reconstruction plan is adopted by the Council. So what we have here is the 2023 through 2027 Street Reconstruction Plan for your consideration. And the plan itself is pretty simple. It goes through the statutory authority under 475—the ability to issue Street Reconstruction Bonds, the activities that can be financed with Street [1:23:18] Reconstruction Bonds, etc. And then there are some calculations related to the statutory debt authority for the city and the outstanding bonds that apply to the statutory debt authority. So there are a few bond issues that the city has outstanding that apply against that debt authority; typically those bonds are related to the financing of equipment and park improvements and the Public Works facility which was financed last year. Overall, in terms of debt authority for bonds that would apply to that calculation, approximately 66 million dollars remains. So that essentially just is noted so that the Council understands that [1:24:03] there's plenty of room here for borrowing under this street reconstruction plan. The proposed amount related to street reconstruction is expected not to exceed 3.5 million; that is the dollar figure that was noted in the public hearing notice and what is authorized in the plan. So that is the "not to exceed" amount. So certainly the city could issue less than that depending on where those bids come in once the project is bid, but by passing this plan, you would have essentially the authority to borrow up to 3.5 million. At the end of the plan, there is a table that's included that lists the projects that are under consideration for this reconstruction plan: Pleasant Drive, [1:24:50] Old Bridge Lane, Southview Drive, Southfield Place, etc., and some of those street sections. Beyond that, you do have a resolution that's for consideration following the public hearing. It should be noted of course that with Street Reconstruction Bonds—and this is a bit different than Street Improvement Bonds—a reverse referendum period does apply to the issuance of Street Reconstruction Bonds. And what that means is, following the close of the public hearing and assuming that the City Council is comfortable with approving that street reconstruction plan, 30 days from that point in time, if the city were to receive a petition signed by at least five percent of those that voted in the last general municipal [1:25:38] election, then the city would need to take that question to the community for approval. We don't see those petitions received very often, but just want to point out that that is certainly a possibility and allowable under State Statute. So with that, I am happy to stand for any questions that the Council may have; otherwise certainly can open that up to the public for comment. [1:26:08] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Great, thank you. At this time I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak on the reconstruction plan for 2023? Anyone on Zoom? Okay. At this time I will close the public hearing and open the discussion for Council. Council? [No response] Okay, no discussion. Then I would accept a motion to approve a resolution adopting a street reconstruction plan and approving the issuance of General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds. [1:26:41] Councilmember Dave Pemble: So moved. [1:26:42] Councilmember Jen Fox: Second. [1:26:43] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Councilmember Pemble and Councilmember Fox. Additional discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. [1:26:52] Councilmembers: Aye. [1:26:53] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. [No response] And that motion prevails. Thank you, Jessica. [1:27:03] Jessica Green (Northland Securities): Thank you. Safe travels, everyone. [1:27:06] Mayor Mary Fasbender: You too. Okay, Administration: we have strategic planning. This item, we will have an introduction by Mr. Wietecha again. [1:27:11] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): Thank you, Mayor. This is to pick up conversation we had earlier in January. The last year and a half, we've had some strategic priorities/initiatives that have been identified by the Council. As those wrap up, the thought is that we would develop a new set of priorities to help guide some of our activities and budgeting and other planning—how we proceed going forward. When we talked back in January, we really had a variety of input. There was some thought that we should do this [1:27:56] in-house. There was definitely some thought that we should bring in a facilitator. There was thought that we might keep it fairly simple and project-based, and some thought that it be much more comprehensive. I think in general there was thought that we should do this, but really a little bit of a range at what we are wanting to get out of it, or how we—more importantly, how we approach it. So in the meantime, I talked with three potential consultants. There's certainly more out there, but the key piece to the three that I talked to is these are all people that we've done some work with in the past, so they're not strangers; they have some familiarity with the community. Obviously some [1:28:44] turnover here, but many people on the City Council are key people and City staff, and I think it could be helpful to streamline the process bringing in somebody that we know. Not married to that, but it gave me a basis for seeing what might be out there if we chose to bring in a facilitator. And talking with those three really gave a range of... do we have sort of a project-focused approach to what we might do for some setting priorities—probably much more of a work plan of what do we do going forward? Or at the other end, do we have something that's much more comprehensive—multiple [1:29:31] steps to it, a bit more looking at what is our vision for the community, doing a SWOT analysis, maybe bringing in some sort of community input, potentially bringing in some sort of team building for the Council? A much more comprehensive approach. And then obviously we could do something more blended and in between. Each of those has a range of how much time and input it is going to need from City Council and staff to work with it. But I wanted a feel from Council: if you say, "We really want to focus on the project-focused action—that meets our needs at this point, that meets our abilities at this point"—that tells me to go talk to these one or two consultants and bring back an actual proposal and, you know, sort of a contract that we could vote on. If you say, "No, that's not what we want; we want the other end, we really want something very comprehensive," I'll talk to two different consultants. Or in between... it'll sort of gear me towards who I bring in a proposal from. All of them, whether it's existing schedules or basically just existing schedules, we're probably talking an April timeframe anyways for kicking this off. But if you give some direction at what works [1:31:03] for Council, or if there are some questions that you need fleshed out in an actual proposal, I'll certainly go talk to those consultants in the next couple of days and bring something back that we can—"Here's an actual project to work with" or "An actual proposal to work with." And with that, I can certainly stand for any questions. [1:31:38] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thanks, Dan. Council, it's your desire. [1:31:50] Councilmember Tina Folch: Thank you, Your Honor. I personally have been a long-time advocate of having a comprehensive approach to it. I think that what we had done, you know, two years ago was a strong step in this general direction. And what was [1:32:04] interesting is that as we were going along and doing it, the term kept being thrown out there that we were doing "strategic planning" when we really weren't doing strategic planning by its definition. And so I would really love to see us move in that direction. I think that it would be great if you're going to be getting proposals from a couple of consultants to have them really identify what the level of effort would be: how many meetings, what the time allotment would be for each of the meetings, and then what's the final deliverable and what does that look like specifically defined? And if there are any options, I [1:32:36] guess, that would be interesting to see as well. So, that's my two cents, thanks. [1:32:45] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Councilmember. [1:33:22] Councilmember Trevor Lund: Thank you, Honor. Dan, I think you were probably at a crossroads and said, "Huh, there's a few different ways to go about this," right? And um, yeah, I appreciate the conundrum you were probably in. Well put, well explained, and I appreciate that. I think while I completely agree with Councilmember Folch in her vision for having a comprehensive approach, it's an appropriate thing to have. I think ultimately what we all end up wanting is projects. Okay? So we have to be real with—and this is just my opinion—but we have to be real with what we're trying to get out of this. To have a comprehensive strategic plan is not to accomplish the things that we want to get done within the confines of such strategy, right? So what am I saying? A lot of times we hear complaints from individual council members about such and such plan just sitting on a shelf. You know, we've heard it on different corridor plans or whatever it [1:34:09] might be, or even the 2040 or whatever it might be, right? So if we did go down that road, I would want to see a clear path to: how do we get projects created and followed through on that meet said strategies? Because I'm not particularly interested in investing a lot of time into a neat brochure of our thoughts, right? Like, I want to have some actions that come out of this. And so that's why we tend to lean towards those projects. I think we gravitate towards them, no [1:34:54] matter how strategic we want to be, we end up going that direction because we want actionable items that come out of it—actually do the things that we want to be strategic about. So, talked a lot, but my end note is: I'd rather just, honestly, I'd rather just cut to the chase and do either the first or the second one on your list there. But if I'm going to be outvoted six to one, I'd at least like to see that we walk away with: how do we get projects kicked off and how do we resource those things? How do we agree on those things and not just have a great document? Thank you. [1:35:41] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Councilmember Lund. [1:35:44] Councilmember Angie Haus: Thank you, Your Honor. Um, yeah, and I agree. I think both ways are great ways to go about it. I'm looking more into the "blended" approach myself, just because I love the pro of it being the best of both worlds, to be honest. We do have a facilitator still, and we also still are slightly project-focused and we're still moving things. So, just my take on it. [1:36:12] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay, thank you Councilmember Haus. [1:36:30] Councilmember Dave Pemble: Looking at it—and being new to the Council—I'm used to a more comprehensive process. I think that the governance aspect and the team building play a lot in the discussions of what the Council does and the way we direct staff to build projects that come back for us to evaluate and put on a list. And I think part of that comes from that type of involvement of the Council. That's why I would lean more towards the comprehensive process, but I would want to look at a couple of different aspects of a comprehensive plan as to understanding the need for timing for [1:37:18] everybody that's sitting here and commitment for that time. But I would like to see maybe a couple of different aspects... okay, we could do the short chunk of a comprehensive plan or we can do very in-depth. I would like to see both and have some understanding of time commitment so everybody here can envision what it's going to take to get the full package or the small package, or maybe looking at that and say no, we can only do the blended. Thank you. [1:38:00] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Councilmember Pemble. [1:38:04] Councilmember Jen Fox: Dan, thank you for these options and laying them out as clearly as you did. I think that really helped us laser in on what we wanted out of—for each of us individually. I like the way that Councilmember Folch mentioned deliverables, and I think that's something that we're all looking for no matter which direction we go. And I appreciate Councilmember Folch's point about perhaps if we're picking between facilitators, we can see what version of those deliverables we get. If we end up doing a blended version, we could maybe even have a bit more of a comprehensive hour of discussion with [1:38:49] projects that are pieced together that come out of our thinking, versus how I believe I saw it come out last time we did this where, Dan, you gave us those deliverables as they were happening throughout our community. So I think we gave you big strategic priorities last time and then we found those deliverables after. And I think in a blended version we could do comprehensive planning for a little while and then come up with those projects that we see fit. So that might be where I'm leaning. [1:39:27] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Okay, thank you Councilmember Fox. And I'll add... I mean, I think last time we did this, I think it [1:39:36] was great. We do have two new Councilmembers, so it would be easier for us in discussion to get to know them, them to get to know us. I also like the blended, but I also like the focused project portion too. And I agree with Councilmember Fox; Dan displayed this very well that we could depict which we would like. So if there's maybe that blended where we could get projects done but keep it in a day retreat-type thing... I know we're all very busy, and last year's format I think [1:40:22] worked well for staff. I mean, I have to say they achieved a lot of what we were looking for, and so I want to applaud them for their works and efforts, and Dan for you leading them with that. So that is my two cents. Do you think you have enough information to figure it out? [1:40:48] Councilmember Tina Folch: One last point that I'd like to make is that I think it's really important that if we're going to do strategic planning, we do problem identification. You know, really, we didn't do that last time; we didn't actually look at data to identify what are the most important issues that are within our community that need to be addressed. And we didn't have... you know, the Fire Department and the Police Department were largely left out. And so, whereas we all know that public safety—the preservation of life and property—is our number one priority as a city, right? And so I just think that it's really important that if we're going to do this, regardless of how it is we move forward, that we're really taking the time to look at where the most need is and where our opportunities are to really make the greatest difference long-range. And then lastly, I think it [1:41:53] would really behoove us as well to be able to have that connection for how it is we're moving towards the 2040 plan, because I see a huge disconnect in that. We're not ever really moving us as a Council—maybe staff do that where they're thinking, because like Chris Jenkins of the Parks Department talks all the time about the 2040 plan and how he wants to move in that direction—and I don't think that we're always bought into that because we weren't a part of the 2040 plan decision-making process. So I think that it's just really important that we have a long-range vision, and I see the Strategic Plan as being a means of identifying: how is it that we're going to get to those long-term goals along the way and get some of the short-term, larger projects done that will make a big impact to our community as well? So, thanks. [1:42:38] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Councilmember Folch. [1:42:40] Councilmember Dave Pemble: I guess one of the things I'm thinking about also is that in the piece in here that talks about, you know, community engagement/listening sessions... I think that we all have contact with the constituency of the community and looking at: is there a point where somewhere in this process we should have those listening sessions laid out and put into the calendar, even [1:43:29] if it doesn't fit into the comprehensive plan, but somewhere that you additionally add listening sessions outside of the norm for a Council meeting? There may be some things here that are rising to the community interest but they're not at the forefront into a project or anything like that. And I'm just throwing that out there, that maybe there should be some thought about those community listening sessions. Thank you. [1:44:11] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Thank you, Councilmember Pemble. You get your homework? [1:44:15] Dan Wietecha (City Administrator): I want a quick recap, because I think there's a bit of a variety here. But as I try to in my mind piece together different emphases from the seven of you, I'm going to reach out to the two facilitators that would be probably in the range of tending towards "blended" or a little bit shading from blended towards "comprehensive"—someone that can certainly give us a more of that long-range approach but still has the opportunity to identify some specific projects within that. I think that's... I don't want to use [1:45:02] the word "compromise," but as I'm hearing comments from you, I think that's the one that sort of best gets most of you close to the target. If I'm off, please speak up. [1:45:15] Mayor Mary Fasbender: I think you're getting some head nods. Thank you much. Thank you, Dan. Council, any announcements? Okay, I have a couple. Experience snowshoeing on Sunday, February 26th—and you have a lot of snow. At Jaycee Park, a park naturalist will lead participants through the floodplain forest and prairie. Snowshoes and [1:45:49] instructions provided. Pre-registration required on the City website. Thank you to our partners at Dakota County Parks. Applications for 2023 Community Investment Fund project proposals are open, with the first review of applications set for March 31st. The City created the CIF last year to encourage and support community partnerships and community-driven projects. Meetings moving forward: Monday, February 27th, 7:00 PM Planning Commission; Monday, February 27th, 7:00 PM Utilities Committee; Monday, March 6th, 7:00 PM City Council regular meeting. I would ask for a motion to adjourn. [1:46:42] Councilmember Dave Pemble: So moved. [1:46:43] Councilmember Jen Fox: Second. [1:46:44] Mayor Mary Fasbender: Councilmember Pemble and Councilmember Fox. No discussion. All those in favor, state by saying aye. [1:46:50] Councilmembers: Aye. [1:46:51] Mayor Mary Fasbender: All those opposed, state by saying nay. [No response] We are adjourned.