[0:05] [Music] [1:28] **Mary Fasbender**: Time being 7 o'clock, I call the Hastings City Council meeting to order. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome, and let the roll reflect we do have a majority for a quorum. Um, tonight we have a couple proclamations. And the first one, Council, we will read is the um, Multiple Sclerosis. And Councilmember Pemble, we will start with you. The second one will be Drive Out Hunger, and we will start at that time with Councilmember Haus. So, Councilmember Pemble, please. [2:23] **Dave Pemble**: Certainly. Proclamation observing March 9th through 15th, 2025, as Multiple Sclerosis Week. Whereas, Multiple Sclerosis is a neurological disease of the central nervous system affecting nearly 1 million people in the United States alone; and whereas, Multiple Sclerosis generally strikes people in the prime of life, between ages 20 through 50, and the cause and course of the often debilitating symptoms of MS remain unknown and no cure currently exists; and whereas, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society is committed to a world free of MS, heightened public knowledge about and insight into the disease; and whereas, together we have transformed what it means to live with MS and provided global leadership to help achieve our vision of a world free of MS; and whereas, since 1946 the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has been a driving force of MS research, relentlessly pursuing prevention treatments and a cure, and has invested more than $1 billion dollars in groundbreaking research; and whereas, funds raised through the National Multiple Sclerosis Society fuel research on pathways to MS cures and invest in the MS research workforce at the best medical centers, universities, and other institutions throughout the US and abroad, leading to many breakthroughs in the treatment of MS; and whereas, the mission of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society is to cure MS while empowering people affected by MS to live their best lives, and one that all Americans and Minnesotans should support; and whereas, Minnesota recognizes the importance of finding the cause and cure of MS and expresses its appreciation for the dedication that the National Multiple Sclerosis Society Upper Midwest chapter has shown towards creating a world free of MS. [4:31] **Mary Fasbender**: Now, therefore, I, Mayor Mary Fasbender of the City of Hastings, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the law of the great state of Minnesota, do proclaim March 9th through the 15th, 2025, as MS Awareness Week and do commend this observance to all of our citizens. I encourage all Minnesotans, citizens, to learn more about Multiple Sclerosis and what they can do to support individuals with MS and their families. Mary, if you’d like to take this and come up. [5:23] **Mary (MS Advocate)**: Well, thank you, Mayor Fasbender and City Council. Living with MS has been both a blessing and a curse. I've lived with MS for 25 years, but it has brought me to a larger understanding of community, which I think Hastings exemplifies on a daily basis. And I want to thank the City of Hastings and all the members for supporting the MS Society. And I would like to invite you all to Walk MS, which is the first Sunday in May at Minnehaha Park in Minneapolis. It starts at 9:00 a.m. in the morning. Come down, enjoy, spend time, music, wonder, and support everybody with MS. It's a wonderful time and you get to spend time with the outdoors and look at the falls. Great, thank you. [6:08] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you. Council, if you'd come down for a photo, please. [Music] [7:39] **Mary Fasbender**: Excellent. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. All right, Council, another proclamation for Drive Out Hunger, starting with Councilmember Haus. [7:53] **Angie Haus**: Thank you, your honor. Declaring to drive out hunger during MN FoodShare for Hastings Family Service. Whereas, MN FoodShare March campaign has helped restock food shelves throughout the state of Minnesota for 44 years; and whereas, 9 million visits were made to food shelves in Minnesota in 2024, an increase of over 1.5 million visits over the previous year; and whereas, Hastings Family Service strives to help our community members meet their basic needs of food, housing, transportation, and clothing; and whereas, in 2024 Hastings Family Service served 2,658 families with a 7 to 10 day supply of food, an increase of 78% since 2022. Hastings Family Service also provided over 453,000 pounds of food and delivered nearly 22,000 meals through Meals on Wheels with numbers continuing to rise; and whereas, Hastings Family Service is celebrating 55 years of service to the community; and whereas, the generosity of our community makes it possible for the Hastings Family Service to provide help and hope to our neighbors, and all the gifts of money and food are proportionately matched by Minnesota FoodShare throughout the month of March. And therefore be it resolved that I, Mayor Fasbender of the City of Hastings, do hereby declare that the Hastings community will work together during Minnesota FoodShare to support and restock the Market Food Shelf at Hastings Family Service to drive out hunger in our community. Amy? [10:05] **Amy (Hastings Family Service)**: Thank you, Mayor Mary, council members, administrators, and community members. I'm so happy to see so many of you here. Um, I just appreciate the opportunity to say thank you for your ongoing support and encouragement for the work that we do at Hastings Family Service. This week, Minnesota FoodShare begins its 44th year of providing a proportionate match to Minnesota food shelves, and it's a critically important time for food shelves including Hastings Family Service because every pound of food that's donated, every dollar raised, will be proportionately matched by Minnesota FoodShare now through April 6th. So that has a much bigger impact and that's really important right now for Hastings Family Service because we've experienced about 170% growth in need for food programs in the last three years. And to let you know kind of what that looks like, uh, we said it in the proclamation, a family can come in and get a what we call a full food shelf order, which is a 7 to 10 day supply of food once a month, and we had nearly 2,700 households last year do that. But then if you add our additional food programs including an expanded Mobile Food Shelf programming that we're doing out into the community, people received some type of food or food assistance from Hastings Family Service last year 20,000 times. So that is 20,000 interactions with families or individuals or people who needed help. So we can't do this alone. Um, we need all of us. And so I just appreciate that you help us fight hunger not just during the Minnesota FoodShare March campaign but all through the year. And personally, I just want to say how incredibly grateful I am to be in a community that lives the value of neighbors helping neighbors. So thank you for everything you do for Hastings Family Service, and I hope to see you all at Hastings Tastings on March 24th. Thank you. [12:54] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you. [Applause] Okay, thank you Council for doing that and thank you for being here, um, supporting MS and our food shelf. Thank you. Tonight, we will hear—council members, are there any corrections to the meeting minutes from February 18th? Okay. At this time, we will hear comments from the audience. Anyone wishing to speak to the Council at this time, please step up to the podium, state your name and your address, and your comments for the Council. There is a full house, we may have a lot of comments tonight, so please keep your limit to 3 minutes. [14:01] **Janet Staco**: Thank you. Uh, first I want to sincerely thank everyone that had a part in bringing the agenda item of e-bike ordinance to the City Council. To introduce myself, my name is Janet Staco. I live at 2320 Timberview Drive here in Hastings. Um, and I was encouraged to come and speak to the "why" behind an e-bike ordinance. Last August, August 12th, um, I decided to go for a walk and I turned on my Apple watch to track my steps and I left for my walk. I was walking, got down to 15th Street and I was on the sidewalk there and, um, I was hit from behind by an e-bike traveling at a speed of approximately 20 to 30 miles an hour. It was operated by an underage minor, 14 years old. Fortunately, my watch detected my crash and sent a call through to 911 from my phone. The police and EMT arrived and I was taken by ambulance to the Regions Hospital Trauma Center in St. Paul. The police drove to my home and let my husband know that I was injured. When my family arrived at Regions, they were met by the medical team letting them know that I was taken into an emergency brain surgery. They also let them know I may not survive the surgery. A craniotomy was performed that day. My injuries were a subdural hematoma, multiple brain bleeds, facial fractures, blunt trauma to my right eye, carotid artery injury, broken eardrum, severe concussion, whiplash, and respiratory failure from surgery. I was put into Intensive Care Unit. I was on a ventilator for two to three days. My future was unknown. A friend of mine brought our priest to the hospital to give me my blessing. From the ICU, I was moved to the Trauma Center for an overall stay at Regions for just shy of three weeks. And I would say over the last 6 months I've had several appointments with Neurology, plastic surgeon, ENT and throat specialist, occupational therapy, physical therapy, my general practitioner, and so on. But I have to tell you that each time I am seen by the team that saw me through at Regions, the first thing they say to me when they walk into the room—and I'm not exaggerating—is "You must have people praying for you." "I can't believe you're sitting here and I can't believe you look like you do. Most people that survive the injuries that you have sustained are here in a wheelchair and are cognitively impaired." These are profound statements that I think about daily. This accident changed my life. While I'm here, people see me at the store, they see me at church and see me out on walks and they think, "Oh, she's recovered," but unfortunately I haven't. I have permanent brain injury. I will never recover from this accident. The blunt trauma to my head severed the nerves that night. I no longer can smell, I no longer taste, my ear hasn't stopped ringing since I woke up in the hospital, and I continue to have pressure in my brain which causes head pain. In December, I watched the police body cam of when they arrived on the scene. It was disturbing. I tell you this because in the video I could see a gentleman close to me, he was interacting with the police and the EMT. I realized it was the person that lived right there by the scene. So in December I decided I'd go to his home and my objective was to thank him for his help, for saving me. His daughter answered the door; his wife and four young children were sitting there. I came in and I introduced who I was. The mom squeezed my arm and she said to her youngest two boys sitting at the table having a snack, "See, she's okay, she's okay." They were filled with tears. She went on to tell me that they were traumatized by the scene of the accident, they had trouble sleeping at night, they prayed for me. The gentleman shared that they were in their home that afternoon getting ready to go out to the swing set when they heard my accident and he thought somebody hit his car. That's when he came out of the house. So I'm not here tonight to focus on me, but I'm rather here to focus on our community and the why for this ordinance. I would not want any members of our community to go through what I went through, or what my husband went through and what my kids went through, or this family that I just told you about. I'll close with: last August 12th, I went for a walk on a sidewalk and my life was forever changed. I strongly encourage you to support and consider this ordinance for e-bikes. Thank you. [19:20] **Elizabeth Scoopski**: My name is Elizabeth Scoopski. Um, I'm Janet Staco’s daughter. On August 12th, I received a phone call no one ever wants to get. The police officer said, "Your mom was in an accident, she was hit by a kid on an e-bike and lost a lot of blood. She is being taken by ambulance to Regions in St. Paul." Our world turned upside down in an instant. When Greg and I arrived at Regions, the medical staff told us she had already been taken for emergency brain surgery due to a bleed putting pressure on her brain. After an agonizing 3-hour wait, we finally got word she had made it through surgery. She spent the next 2 days on a ventilator in the ICU. From there she was transferred to the trauma unit at Regions and from there to the rehab unit. My mom spent just shy of 3 weeks at Regions Hospital. After coming home, my mom had multiple weekly appointments with physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy, as well as numerous appointments with her neurologist, ENT doctor, GP, plastic surgeon, and rehab doctor. During this time, we have written on our hearts where God's hand was ever present, with most of these doctors being in disbelief that my mom was sitting there before them. A traumatic brain injury is an invisible injury. My mom's life is forever changed. She will have lasting effects from this accident that she will carry with her the rest of her life. We come before you today in the hopes that this never happens to anyone else. We want this story to be the only one of its kind. We are here to advocate for better ordinances that create a safer town for the residents of Hastings. Going for a walk should never be a near-death experience. Thank you. [21:17] **Charlie Egberg**: Uh, Charlie Egberg, I live at 106 River Street, top of the hill, and I'm here to speak a little bit on Janet's and Greg's behalf. Um, my family was in the Harley-Davidson motorcycle and Vespa scooter business in Minneapolis for 75 years. And during that time, I was president of the Minnesota Motorcycle Dealers Association, and at that time we passed legislation for education and rider safety for motorcycles. Before that, um, you didn't have to have any, um, credentials or education to ride a motorcycle. And this parallels the motorcycle industry in that, uh, when I first heard about this and realized you didn't have to have a valid license, you didn't have to have insurance, you didn't have to have any education, and you didn't have to pass a driver's test. This made me think about what we went through back in the 70s when we passed motorcycle legislation. I don't know that you can change at this point where e-bikes are driven, but I think at the very least you can tackle education and expect everybody that's riding an e-bike to have gone through some education and to pass a test and then have an endorsement on their driver's license just like you do today if you're going to ride a motorcycle. Thank you. [22:55] **Cory Likes**: My name is Cory Likes, I live at 2900 East 4th Street. Council, thank you for hearing us out the last month and a half. Mayor Mary, Administrator Dan, um, it means a lot that you folks are listening to our concerns where we live at and we all know what goes on in our neighborhood. With that being said, I hope that you also understand and take into consideration what we deal with on a daily, monthly, yearly basis. And if it happened in your backyard, just think about if you had kids walking around out there, if you had neighbors, dogs, friends. A bullet goes a long way. It goes more than 200 feet. An arrow goes longer than 200 feet. Take it into consideration and once again, thank you for all that you have done. Thank you for hearing us, listening to our concerns, and I hope that it all works out in everybody's best interest. Thank you. [24:08] **Dan Me**: My name is Dan Me. We're neighbors and friends with Janet and Greg, and my wife and I walk the sidewalks of Hastings daily. We put several miles a day on our city sidewalks and in the summertime, we have on more than one occasion had to step aside for e-bikes using the sidewalks rather carelessly. And after this happened to Janet, I had more than one family member call me and tell me that they had been hearing about young people after dark intentionally riding up and scaring people with their bikes. Whether that's what was happening in Janet's situation or not, I don't know, but I highly encourage any support we can get to make our sidewalks safe. Thank you. [25:39] **Jackie Rer**: My name is Jackie Rer and I live at 1505 Brook Court and I'm a dear friend of Janet as well. And I would have to say when we walk, you cannot hear the e-bikes coming up from behind you. They come up so fast you can't even see them. You can hear a motorcycle, you can see a car or a truck, but you can't hear or see those bikes. And you have to always be on the defensive side because when the kids are coming, you know that you have to take it to a point of going in the grass or going on the street because they don't move. They own it. So I would push this to be an ordinance. Thank you. [26:25] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Jackie. Anyone else? Anyone on Zoom? No one on Zoom. Thank you for your comments everyone. Council, any items to be considered? Okay. Council, I would accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. **Dave Pemble**: [Motion] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Second. **Mary Fasbender**: Discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Tonight, under awarding of contracts, we have our 2025 neighborhood infrastructure improvements and authorized advertisement for bids. And for this item, we have an introduction by Principal Engineer Cody Mathisen, followed by a public hearing and a potential action by Council. Welcome, Cody. [27:14] **Cody Mathisen**: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, yes, here tonight for the 2025 neighborhood infrastructure improvements public hearing on the proposed scope and features. So tonight we'll start with a presentation, we'll conduct our public hearing, and then ultimately looking for a resolution for two items: to approve our plans and specifications and also to authorize our advertisement for bids. Before we get started, I just wanted to add clarity that tonight we are not talking about the proposed assessments for the project. That will be a separate hearing that will be at our April 7th council meeting. Bo Shudy, our engineering technician, and myself also will make ourselves available after my presentation for folks that are here for the hearing, um, while the other items are taking place. [28:00] **Cody Mathisen**: To get started, where are we planning to work? Here's our proposed project map. Streets shown in red are our full reconstruction streets. On our full reconstruction streets, that's where we are fully replacing curb and gutter, the road section, and the underground utilities below. That'll be taking place on First Street East of Farm Street, as well as Farm and Fraser Street, and then State Street from First Street down to 7th Street. One note on State Street is that the segment from Third to Fourth Street was not within the original project scope within our CIP. That's because that section had a rehabilitation project done more recently than the other segments. After further investigation, we found that the utilities in that segment are just as old as the sections to the north and south, and ultimately through conversations with the Operations Committee, believe that it makes the most sense to include that within the project scope. That also gives us a chance to better align our roadway width. We'll get more into that a little bit later in the presentation. Our reclamation streets are shown in green. That's where we're ultimately grinding up the existing pavement and gravel base, leaving the utilities below and largely leaving in place the existing curb and gutters. That'll be First Street to the west of Farm Street as well as First Place, Olive Street, and Prairie Street shown there on the map. [29:31] **Cody Mathisen**: Our project goals, as always with the road project, as you'd expect: we're hoping to address that failing pavement, replace our failing curb and gutters, and again, it's an opportunity to go after those failing utilities. We've got several streets with very old water mains, cast iron pipes, and sanitary sewers with clay pipes that are in need of replacement. It's also an opportunity, as you all know with our projects, a chance to look at our pedestrian facilities and where can we improve connectivity. Looking at an example of our reconstruction street, starting with Fraser Street: you can tell that Fraser Street has become quite a nice canvas for pothole patch painting. So this street is definitely in need of a full reconstruction. We're going to talk about right-sizing our street width a little bit later, but it's currently 36 and it'll go down to 32 ft on Fraser Street. The utilities are about 73 years old under Fraser Street. They are original, water mains being cast iron, sanitary sewer being clay with heavy root intrusion requiring a lot of maintenance for our Public Works folks. So that's kind of characteristic of all of our reconstruction streets nearing that 75-year age on the underlying utilities. Our reclamation streets are a little bit newer, about 40 years old on the utilities with more desirable materials—ductile iron pipe for our water main, for example. The roadway is still needing a heavy rehab, but ultimately the majority of the curb and gutter is going to be able to stay in place. [31:03] **Cody Mathisen**: Getting into the design challenges of this neighborhood: they really center around First Street. This is where the complexity of this project lies. Reason being, it's the interface of a residential and institutional/hospital area. So as you can expect, that kind of makes this area prime for potential conflict. But that's why we identified early on that connecting with Allina and Regina was going to be important, taking them as stakeholders and making them partners in this project. Their facilities, in short, create a lot of on-street parking demand and that's sort of been the backstory and the history for this neighborhood. There's around 2,000 vehicles a day on First Street; that's not a low-volume road. Mix that with a restricted right-of-way, horizontal and vertical curvature, and it just kind of makes this a very challenging area, not necessarily characteristic of our normal neighborhood reconstruction projects. I'll joke—Chief Wilske, this picture on the right might not keep you up at night, but for an engineer seeing this, this gives us a lot of anxiety. We don't paint double yellow lines for them to be straddled and crossed. This is clearly showing us that this roadway is not designed in a way that's effectively getting people through here. Cars are not parking in a place that's safe for them to do so. [32:36] **Cody Mathisen**: So we took a pragmatic approach here on First Street as to how to improve it. How many spots do we need? Where do we need them? Where aren't they needed? And where are people ultimately trying to get to? Doing a space analysis, looking at aerials and doing a lot of site visits over the last year, we see roughly 15 to 20 vehicles in this region that are parking, largely from the hospital and Regina facilities. And under the proposed condition where we're showing parking lanes will be generated with this project—and we show it in a little bit more detail here in the next slides—but we're going to be able to fit about 18 parallel parking spots. East of Olive Street is more of a constricted roadway for those who are familiar with First Street. When you drive through there, the roadway shrinks down; ofttimes there's vehicles on both sides like that picture I showed. So cars are driving down the center, maybe even taking turns in instances where it's bad. Sorry, one point of clarity: so we would be looking to restrict parking—no parking east of Olive Street on First Street. All those areas shown in red would be no parking areas. The reason that we were able to unlock parking in the green area shown between the number two and three there on the map is largely because of this entrance into the senior living facility at entrance number three. So there's a very steep grade. If you were to pull out of that entrance, for anybody that's visited that facility, it feels like your car is at about a 45-degree angle. If you try to look left and right and see oncoming vehicles, you simply can't. And so that made that an unsafe area to pull out. That's largely why there was no parking on the north side of First Street for all this time. [34:09] **Cody Mathisen**: We worked with Regina staff as we were working through collaborative solutions and said, "What can we do here?" We offered up the solution of making this an entrance only and effectively making it so you could enter or exit over at the number two entrance there where there's much better sight distance, a lot easier for you to see vehicles coming. They were a fan of that idea; it's dangerous to be pulling out there on multiple fronts. So it really helped enable our design here. If we can see my mouse here, uh, I won't get too far into the engineering here, but the other piece that we're going to be doing to improve the visibility in this corridor is bumping out the curb where vehicles pull out. How I can best describe this is we've all had it where you're at an intersection, vehicles are parked very close, and when you look left and right you can't see around them, right? So you're starting to inch out, trying to get forward. What these bump-outs are going to effectively allow vehicles to do is be protected as they pull forward and you can look out and look around those parked vehicles, see further up these hills that are limiting your visibility. This is sort of a representation of a similar corridor and what First Street will look like if you were looking East. There'll be a drive lane only on the south side, a drive lane and a parking lane on the north side, and then a new sidewalk is also going to be added on the north side, and we'll get more into that here. [35:41] **Cody Mathisen**: This new sidewalk will provide a missing link between walking facilities on Pleasant Drive and County Road 42. This is identified in our People Movement Plan—I've worked with our Parks Director Chris Jenkins on this—and there's good real estate available on the north side of First Street for this facility. Another benefit, as you start to see how those bump-outs and parked vehicles will start to look on First Street, is this sidewalk is going to be able to service when people hop out of their cars after parking on first. It's going to give them a safe place to walk off the street, get East and West, and ultimately get to their destination at Regina and get in and out of that facility. As we go east along the corridor, this is where I was talking about limited right-of-way. So we had a bit of a roadblock—or I guess in this case, a sidewalk block—with Soldiers and Sailors Cemetery. So we were not able to get our sidewalk to fit in the existing right-of-way and still keep adequate roadway width and keep it going along First Street. So we again worked with Regina Senior Living and came up with a solution that would route our public sidewalk through their parcel. Ultimately, this sidewalk will be protected by a permanent easement, and we have communicated maintenance needs to Regina Senior Living and Allina and they will take care of all the snow clearing and they're ultimately in favor of the solution. And City Attorney Greta has been assisting me with preparing the easements for that and hoping to get those signed here shortly. [37:14] **Cody Mathisen**: A summary of our proposed roadway width that I hit on earlier: ultimately our reconstruction projects give us a chance to right-size our roadways. 32 ft is our standard residential roadway width with two-sided parking on lower-volume roads. Ultimately on this map, the roadways in blue are going to stay their existing width, 36 ft or 32 ft depending on the segment. The two areas we are looking to narrow would be Fraser Street, taking it down from 36 ft to 32 ft, which would match it up with streets like Farm. Ultimately, State Street from First Street to 4th Street would also be narrowed from 36 to 32 ft. State Street from 4th Street to 7th Street is also low volume, however, that has an increased parking demand because of Lions Park. So when we originally talked to the Operations Committee, we only talked about 5th Street to 7th Street being wider. After getting some good feedback from the neighborhood, came to learn that during some larger events we also see some of that parking volume from 4th to 5th Street. Reviewing that from an engineering perspective, 4th Street also serves as a nice delineator, that being a heavy collector roadway. So everything south of 4th Street will be a little bit wider for parking; everything north will be reduced to kind of calm speeds and better serve that area. [38:00] **Cody Mathisen**: Project funding: right now the total cost estimate for the project with contingencies in there is estimated just over 4.5 million. This is up from the 4.2 to 4.25 million that was estimated early on before the addition of that block of State Street. We're hoping, as we've got in the last few years, for competitive bids, you know, responsible construction management and try to manage that project budget as close to the original as we can get. The breakdown here shows the components of sanitary sewer and water being $520,000 and just shy of a million dollars respectively as part of that total 4.5 million. I mentioned that we are only going to hit on assessments at a high level. So our independent third-party appraisal was completed—special benefit analysis that recommends how much we should be assessing as part of this project to the benefiting homes. What that amounted to for the most common property types, which is our single-family homes, would be $7,200 per lot in our reconstruction areas and $6,000 per lot in our reclamation areas. And more will come at that April 7th assessment hearing in regards to that, as well as our different property types. I also wanted to note here as early as possible, just as an update, that the status of our CDBG federal funding, federal grant funding that we use for abatement, is currently unknown. The Dakota County CDA gave us that update a couple weeks ago. We're fingers crossed that we stay optimistic that we can find a way to use some of those, but as of right now with everything else going on from a federal pausing of funds perspective, the CDBG funds are in that grouping that right now is a little bit unsure. So the assessments right now projected as a total of the total project cost would be about 16% or just under $725,000. [40:20] **Cody Mathisen**: A big-picture view of our project timeline: in January, we engaged with our public in a variety of ways. We sent out a video that they could watch at home as well as had an open house online survey. We were able to reach about 30% of the property owners on the project to date, which is pretty standard for what we get. Brings us here to March 3rd for our public hearing. April 7th, as I mentioned, will be our assessment hearing. Open bids April 11th and hope to begin construction in early May. As far as project communications go, weekly construction updates will be provided as they have in the past to residents who want them. Those can be sent via text or email, or also be available within the project area—we can deliver them if need be. Door hangers will let people know of critical disruptions like their water being shut off or their driveway being blocked, so those won't be sent out over mail; those will get there a little quicker. And engineering staff will be on the project throughout the whole summer. Bo will be there; we're also available down at Public Works and Engineering to take any phone calls as needed. Last thing I'll mention here is our project website will be updated throughout the entirety of the project. We'll fill that with our construction updates, maps, and other resources as needed for our residents affected by the project. With that, I'll conclude my presentation. [41:06] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Cody. Council, I think I'll first open the public hearing and then we'll have discussion after that. So at this time I open the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak to the neighborhood project? Sure, please come up to the podium, state your name and your address. [41:35] **Lee Anderson**: My name is Lee Anderson. I live on 1125 First Street West, which is kind of the middle of the project here. Um, I just want to suggest one other thing and that's to reinstall the speed signs that were taken down six years ago. Um, it's a racetrack out there and it's been—we've heard some horror stories about accidents happening, and to tell you the truth, it's an accident ready to happen. And if we're going to have cars parked on one side of that street, it's going to make it a little bit tougher. I know Chief Wilske has helped considerably with speed trailers at times, but that's just a temporary fix. So I hope you consider that. Thank you. [42:48] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Anyone else wish to speak to the Council? And no one on Zoom. Okay. At this time, I will close the public hearing. Council, open for discussion. Councilmember Haus. [43:09] **Angie Haus**: Thank you, your honor. Cody, thank you so much for your presentation. Um, I really appreciate your hard work, um, especially pairing with Regina and Allina to come up with those creative solutions to go around especially that back way near the cemetery, near the Sailor Cemetery. So, amazing work there. I'd love for you to speak a little bit upon what traffic calming does for adjusting roadways, what that'll do for that area as well. [43:09] **Cody Mathisen**: Yeah, absolutely, Councilmember Haus. So for traffic calming, we're effectively looking at getting our roadways to the width that they should be, not having excessive roadways. We've seen that vehicles tend to desire to travel faster on larger roadways. So to Mr. Anderson's concern, something we're hoping is an ancillary benefit of those bump-outs is every time that curb comes in on First Street, the road's going to get down to about 30 ft wide instead of 36 ft. Hopefully, as vehicles drive by there, they feel in a more constricted environment; hopefully that influences the driver behavior and contributes to them wanting to slow down. Same thing on those lower-volume roads like Fraser Street—if it's a freshly paved 36 wide freeway, they're going to be more encouraged to drive fast. So that's what we're looking to do with right-sizing our roads. [44:41] **Angie Haus**: Thank you. Great, thank you. [44:41] **Mary Fasbender**: Any other discussion, Council? Okay, if not, I would accept a motion to adopt the resolution approving the plan and authorization of the advertisement for bids for project 2025, the 2025 Neighborhood Infrastructure Improvements. **Dave Pemble**: So moved. **Angie Haus**: Second. [44:41] **Mary Fasbender**: New or additional discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you so much, Cody. Tonight under Public Safety, we have a few items. And the first item we will have is Gors Pool number three, the Wildlife Management Area. And this is first to be removed from the table. So Council, I would need a motion to remove it from the table. We have to remove it from the table first. **Dave Pemble**: [Motion] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Second. [45:28] **Mary Fasbender**: Okay, it is removed from the table. At this time, we will have a resolution, and Chief Wilske will give us that introduction. Welcome. [45:28] **Chief David Wilske**: Thank you, Mayor and city council members. Just to be clear, so we are moving ahead with the presentation, correct? Okay. Well, first of all, I apologize because there's three topics under Public Safety, so you have to hear me quite a bit tonight. I thought it was important that we go through the PowerPoint regarding Gors Pool number three once again. We have a new council member and also it's been about six months since we went through this, so it's a good refresher. I'll try to make it as painless as possible. So, Gors Pool number three, memorandum of understanding with the DNR happened in 2008. It was a 25-year agreement. They did have in that memorandum that a 200-foot buffer zone would be enacted for special controlled hunts for a couple of addresses. Those addresses were 1621 4th Street East and 2900 4th Street East. 2925 4th Street East is a new address; that house was built about 10 years later and also is right next to Gors Pool public hunting land, so I added that address. Even though they have that 200-foot buffer for special controlled hunts, the DNR has never had a special controlled hunt, so that 200-foot buffer essentially has been ineffective. Safety need is required to establish a 200-foot buffer, that is according to the DNR. They were here back in the fall of 2024 for the presentation and heard comments from the crowd and also concerns from City Council at that time. [47:02] **Chief David Wilske**: So Gors Pool, really, what is it? There's an AMA and a WMA in this hunting land. The AMA is an Aquatics Management Area—no hunting is allowed in that area. There's also a Wildlife Management Area and a special restrictions Wildlife Management Area, which we're going to talk about more tonight. And then in the WMA, there is some hunting within city limits of Hastings, which is a little bit unusual. The rule is triple-BB or smaller shotgun rounds. So if you're not a hunter, triple-BB is a fairly large BB that would take down like a goose, so it's a fairly large BB load for a shotgun. And then archery only for deer. I thought it was important that you see a map here. You see that this highlighted portion that I'm identifying with the cursor, that is City of Hastings property. Okay, so that is a City of Hastings property line. The AMA is no hunting in this blue section here. The WMA is special restrictions hunting. So within the City of Hastings jurisdiction, there is hunting that is allowed on the WMA special restrictions, and that's triple-BB or archery. The properties that we've identified: 1621 4th Street, and that was identified in the 2008 agreement; 2900 4th Street East; and 2925 4th Street East. This is the new property, and you can see their property is right next to the Gors public hunting land. [48:36] **Chief David Wilske**: Some safety concerns: 2900 4th Street reports damage to siding due to shotgun ammo hitting the house. You have a visual there, some pictures; they would appreciate a 200-foot buffer, and this was conversations I had with those residents. 1621 4th Street reports of arrows located on property over the years, reports of BBs heard striking the home but no reported damage. Observed males exit vehicle and shoot turkeys on property which, to be honest with you, can happen even if there are changes or requests from the DNR, and they would also appreciate a 200-foot buffer. And then 2925 4th Street—that home was built in 2018, 10 years after the MOU with the Department of Natural Resources. They had an outbuilding that was struck by shotgun rounds when it was occupied, so the resident was actually in their outbuilding when it was hit. We were called, meaning Hastings Police Department, for that incident. We talked to a few people that were located hunting in that land; unknown if they were the ones responsible or not. They'd also appreciate a 200-foot buffer and they obviously have young children at that residence, are very concerned during hunting season for their children to be playing outside. Once again, I have just—this is not to scale, but these lines would give you an idea of what the request may be to the DNR. [50:09] **Chief David Wilske**: This did go to Public Safety Advisory Commission and it was discussed at our January 2025 meeting. Public Safety Advisory Commission did have a motion for Hastings City Council to request a 200-foot buffer from the DNR for those three identified properties and requesting City Council to move forward with the resolution. So some options for consideration for discussion: you could request more than a 200-foot buffer between private and public lands. You could also request a buffer for private structures rather than identifying addresses; you could just say private structures and whatever distance you would request. And that would be presented to the DNR and they would have to make a decision—it would have to go up to the chain of command, is the way I understand it, to make a decision. And then we could potentially rewrite that memorandum of understanding. So with that, is there any questions that I might be able to answer? [50:56] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Chief. Any questions, Council? Councilmember Vihrachoff. [50:56] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Chief Wilske, so much for this information. Thank you for being patient with us, listening, responding, helping our community this way. Like you said, I know that this has been a project that's been in the works for a couple of months now. Um, I'm just grateful to you for helping our neighbors to advocate for safety over here in this unique location in Ward 1. Um, I also publicly want to thank PAC, which is our Public Safety Advisory Commission, for their work over the last couple of months putting this information together for us. Um, Chief, I think that you—first, again, thank you for the presentation. I think that you kind of hit the nail on the head, apologies if that's not a great metaphor for what we're talking about here. Um, but I really like the idea of going with some of your expanded language that you proposed here. In particular, I'd love if this body was open to it, your honor, to make a motion to approve this resolution with a 500-foot buffer instead of the original 200-foot that was proposed. And I'd like for that to be from all the occupied buildings instead of just those specific addresses that are listed. [52:31] **Mary Fasbender**: That’s a motion. And a second by Councilmember Leifeld. Any other discussion, Council? Okay, Councilmember Leifeld. [52:31] **Lisa Leifeld**: So, um, we've heard a lot about this and I know that it ultimately, Chief, goes to the DNR. Yes. So this for everyone who's listening, understands that as a community we would—if we had the ability to do this, that would be different, based on where this property is located, based on the fact that we don't own all that land. So I think this is an excellent—I think it shows that we're trying as a community or as a council to try and help. We understand the concerns and the safety. Keep in mind, again, continue to call the police when somebody steps out of a vehicle to shoot a turkey or something. When you see something, the police need to be called. There are definitely things happening down there shooting-wise that we understand is not happening during hunting season, unfortunate. And as you'd made a comment, this sort of thing can happen—we'd love it to not happen, but in order for that—and of course then by the time the police get there, they're gone. So whatever can be done, keep vigilant, neighborhood, on keeping an eye on that. And Councilmember Vihrachoff, excellent job at keeping all of us informed of what the residents of the East Side have going on. We really appreciate it. So I fully can appreciate sending this forward to the DNR and see what they have to say. Okay, thank you. [54:05] **Mary Fasbender**: Councilmember Vihrachoff, you wish to speak again? [54:05] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, your honor. I just wanted to thank you and thank this group for their support as well. Um, I think the Police Chief and I think the neighbors of Ward 1 have done an incredible job of explaining to us that this is really a safety issue. There are children out and playing in this area. Um, it's no surprise to this, this is Ward 1, this is where I live. Um, I was out walking my dog over the weekend and I saw three arrows lying outside of that 200-foot buffer perimeter upon my walk. So I do know that this is something that's really important. And again, I'm just very grateful to this body for the neighbors that have come forward and Chief Wilske for your role in this as well. [54:52] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Council. Chief, I'll just echo the thanks to Chief and your department, but also for PAC. This has been a, you know, long, long talks for a couple years now and all is appreciated. And it does take a lot of conversations to get to where we need to go. We do—well, as we think we're going to accept the 500, the DNR does supersede us so it may come back for that and it may not, but we want the community to know that we are fighting for your safety. So with that, Council, we were first and a second. All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Chief. [55:38] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you. Well, you may just stay right there because now we have the ATV/UTV ordinance recommendations. [55:38] **Chief David Wilske**: Thank you, Mayor, city council members. Uh, yeah, on to Utility Task Vehicles. I'm sure, uh, we're all aware that this passed back in 2024 and then it was moved to Public Safety Advisory Commission for review. We have a couple of PAC members in the audience today including our board chair, Teresa Auge, in case you have questions for Public Safety Advisory Commissioners. So today: just review of the discussions, the PAC review, and then PAC recommendations to City Council. And if it's okay with you, I'm just going to say PAC rather than Public Safety Advisory Commission because I will mess it up eventually. So history: City Council presentation and discussion in September of 2024. City Council approved change to ordinance 7.02 to allow UTVs on city streets, and then at the next meeting it went to the Public Safety Advisory Commission for review for ordinance recommendations. PAC review included neighboring jurisdiction ordinance reviews; we had about six of them that we located. There were not a lot in the metro area, so to speak, but we did find six and could take a look at what those communities were doing. We did review the DNR regulations, we did have some resident input as well. And I will say with the DNR regulations, it can be a little bit confusing when we're talking about altering vehicles. The DNR has a booklet that talks about off-highway vehicles, and side-by-sides or UTVs are included in there. And then there are also State Statute language in regards to this, but really the DNR looks at these as off-highway vehicles, so that's where a lot of the guidance comes from. [57:54] **Chief David Wilske**: PAC did reach a consensus for recommendation on February 20th. Before we move on, just terminology so you know what we're talking about. ATV is considered an all-terrain vehicle—it includes Class 1 and Class 2 vehicles. A Class 1 vehicle is a width of 50 inches or less; so the upper left, that is what we would consider a four-wheeler with handlebars that you sit on. A Class 2 ATV is a width of 50 to 65 inches, often referred to as a utility task vehicle or a side-by-side. And a utility task vehicle or utility terrain vehicle is another name for Class 2. So really what we're talking about is Class 2 vehicles tonight. That's what PAC was tasked with, to look at regulations for that type of vehicle. Then we have off-highway vehicles, and that includes off-road trucks, ATVs, off-road motorcycles—it can get a little bit confusing and that's why I try and clarify terminology. Footnote: PAC believed it was important for the City Council to know they do not support a change to ordinance 7.02, and they did have a motion and that passed within the PAC commission. Their language: "We, the Public Safety Advisory Commission, do not support endorsing a change in our current ordinance concerning the use of ATV and UTVs on our city streets. We support the current ordinance that allows for the use of ATV/UTV with a disability," which is the way our ordinance reads now. [59:24] **Chief David Wilske**: With that said, they did come up with recommendations for Council tonight. The first one: only Class 2 ATV/UTVs are allowed under this permit, which we briefly discussed. Minnesota DNR classifies a Class 2 with greater than 50 inches, which I mentioned, not more than 65, often referred to as a side-by-side. Uh, the state statute identifies UTV as a side-by-side, a four-wheel-drive off-road vehicle that has four wheels, is propelled by an internal combustion engine and a dry weight of 1,800 pounds but less than 2,600 pounds—that's actually the state statute language. This is also in our current ordinance 7.02, so there'd be no changes there. PAC also recommended: all drivers must be 18 years of age. They must have a valid driver's license. They must have valid and current insurance. They must have their City of Hastings permit displayed on the ATV/UTV, which would be further discussion as we move forward—what would that look like as far as the permit goes, and we would look at City staff having to find a vendor and have those developed. Ordinance 7.02 c2a does require proof of insurance, that is our current ordinance language. [1:00:55] **Chief David Wilske**: Other recommendations: the driver and all passengers must wear seat belts. The thought process here is that it limits the amount of people that can ride in a UTV. They have to have a seat belt for all passengers. Generally, four passengers would be the maximum that you would see. Um, it could go higher as far as occupancy; I'm not that familiar with all the different models out there, but generally it's two-seaters or four-seaters is how they're referred to. Those 18 and older, they recommend the use of a DOT (Department of Transportation) helmet but not required, and this is from PAC. Those passengers under the age of 18, helmets are required—there is a state statute that does require helmets for those under the age of 18, so that's in line with that statute. PAC also decided passengers must be 12 years or older to ride in an ATV or UTV. Use of an ATV and UTV is limited to hours of daylight and concludes with a half-hour prior to sunset. Now, State Statute does limit hours of operation unless equipped with headlights and taillights. PAC decided that those limitations should be in place even with lighting. We do have very similar language in the current ordinance of 7.02 subdivision F. Also, the use of an ATV/UTV in city parks is prohibited. They ask that that be referred to map—we would have to develop a map from City staff so that those that applied for and received a permit know where they can operate. No ATV/UTVs on sidewalks, not on school grounds, and not in the historic section of Hastings—and we're talking about Second Street in the historic district. The reason for that is these vehicles have a tendency to be louder than a regular motor vehicle, both from output from the engine and also tire noise. And since we have parklets and things downtown, we don't want to interfere with those outdoor events. [1:01:42] **Chief David Wilske**: And then speed limits are controlled by the posted speed limits. All Minnesota traffic laws and City of Hastings ordinances must be complied with. We're not done yet, so I'll keep going. Each ATV/UTV must have three working mirrors, meaning a rearview and a right and left side mirror, which is very similar to vehicles on the roadway. Must have a roll bar—talking to some UTV enthusiasts, some that are actually commissioners within PAC, they said that's pretty standard with these types of vehicles, they come with a roll bar. They must be equipped with four DOT (Department of Transportation) tires. Thought process there is if they have DOT tires, they are going to be quieter, less complaints from community members. If the ATV/UTV does not have a windshield, the driver and any passengers must have eye protection—think of a motorcycle, same type of concept. And then each ATV/UTV must have working headlights, brake lights, and turn signals. Headlights must be on when driving. State Statute 84.928 does state ATVs cannot travel on public roadways unless equipped with at least one headlight and a taillight, so that is in line with state statute. And then no person shall use a muffler cutout, bypass, straight pipe or similar device on their ATV or UTV. Standard mufflers which are properly attached and which reduce the noise of operation of the motor to the minimum necessary for operation—we need to have a muffler, is what that gets at. And then a slow-moving emblem is required in the back of the ATV and UTV; this is State Statute language 169.045, also in our current ordinance for slower-moving vehicles. And then no person shall operate in inclement weather when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog or other conditions, or at any other time when there is insufficient visibility where someone can see more than 500 feet—that's also in the state statute language 169.045 and in our existing ordinance language. [1:04:00] **Chief David Wilske**: And then PAC thought it was important to include this last line: "Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as an assumption of liability by the City of Hastings for any injuries to people which may result from the operation of an ATV/UTV by a permit holder or the failure by the City of Hastings to revoke the permit." And to make it easy, I made a CliffsNotes version. So this kind of—we'd have to work on the language, the ordinance update language, but this just gives you a snapshot on what is covered from recommendations from PAC. I'll come back to this slide but I just wanted City Council to know State Statute 169.045 does authorize the City of Hastings to authorize operation of use on city streets and set regulations. So really the State of Minnesota said, "You know what, cities, you can figure it out, we're not going to make that decision for you." They have their own rules about where you can cross in, on, or on county roads, where you can drive, and I won't get into that detail. PAC is recommending the city maintain the medical exception for golf cart use but include the aforementioned additions for recreation and ATV use. And really what we're getting at there is if someone has a golf cart and they have a medical condition and they're currently covered under ordinance language, PAC is recommending we keep that language in there. So they really addressed UTVs specifically. So I will go back up one slide and entertain any questions that you might have for myself or board chair Teresa Auge is also here. [1:05:31] **Mary Fasbender**: Council? Councilmember Vihrachoff. [1:06:17] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Chief, for this presentation. Thank you to PAC. This is an amazing amount of information that they've obviously gone through and given very thoughtful consideration to this. Um, I'm very grateful. I do have some questions about how potential enforcement around something like this would necessarily work, Chief. And if this makes your—maybe this isn't quite the appropriate way to phrase it, but does this make your job easier or harder, right? Does this—is this making more work for our police officers for yet another thing for them to be policing, in charge of monitoring, watching? Um, and then my main concern with this—and I actually printed this out um because I was reviewing it throughout the day because it is lengthy and there are so many recommendations—but the other part of this that really gives me pause is the 18-year-old age requirement. And Chief, I just wanted to clarify with you: that’s not state statute, that’s something that we're recommending for the resolution, is that correct? [1:07:03] **Chief David Wilske**: That is a recommendation. Uh, the state—it really depends. So if you look at the DNR guidebook, somebody as young as 12 can go through a class and operate on private property—and I might have to double-check because I had to read it a couple of times. So they break it down by different age groups. PAC felt it was important that somebody have a valid license and be at least 18 years of age for safety considerations, a little bit more mature. But that valid license piece plays a lot into it as well. As far as enforcement, if you want me to answer that: I mean, it is going to—it's going to increase the needs of the officers, especially up front, because they will have to go out and inspect all ATVs and UTVs before a permit is issued. So that really depends workflow-wise, how many people apply for a permit. As far as enforcement—I mean, do you want best case or worst case? Let's just go run-of-the-mill, because I'm not 100% sure. Sure, they could be a little bit more difficult to stop because there are some distractions when you're riding in a UTV—they might not know officers are trying to stop them, there's more road noise. They can go off-road easier than a vehicle can, in fact, that's really what they're made to do. But my hope is that it'd be minimal enforcement. I know that people are, in some cases, riding UTVs on our city streets now and we have had some contact that has not been our priority. This would become our priority, especially not because we want to issue citations, but we want to educate. There's going to be a big education component for this since City Council started talking about this—there's been some confusion in the community, some people think it's legal right now and it isn't, so we've had to educate on that piece. [1:08:35] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, Chief. Mayor, can I make one more comment? Thank you. Um, I appreciate this, thank you for this information. Um, I do want to support this because I do think that there's a lot of great safety regulations in here. The one part that I'm just really having trouble kind of wrapping my head around that I think I might need a little bit more time with is that age requirement. And that's frankly because I'm a woman in my 40s who broke her foot on a four-wheeler, and my next-door neighbor is a 10-year-old girl who whips around on her four-wheeler like absolutely fantastic, like she just is doing great on it. And so I guess I'm just—I don't know, that 18-year-old seems a little arbitrary to me just given my own personal experience. But I might be able to get there either way. Thank you to PAC and thank you to the Chief for this. [1:09:20] **Chief David Wilske**: And Councilmember, I will say when we reviewed other city ordinances, that was in line with what they were recommending too, so that was part of the education piece that we went through. Thank you. Board chair Teresa Auge is asking to speak. Is that okay with City Council? [1:09:20] **Mary Fasbender**: Of course, yes. Please. [1:10:06] **Teresa Auge**: The rationale for the 18 was because there's a clause in there that says they have to be able to follow all the traffic rules and laws, and we felt that under 12 or 18 that we couldn't hold them responsible. Um, and just to be clear, PAC is not recommending you approve this. We actually made a motion that we not—that you don't make a change, but if you do, to accept those. But part of it was the—because you're going to comply with the city rules and all that. Does that help? [1:10:06] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you for your work on this, yes. Thank you, Chair Auge. Councilmember Leifeld, please. [1:10:51] **Lisa Leifeld**: Thanks, your honor. Um, I'll provide an explanation after I make the motion, but my motion will surprise people. So I'd like to make a motion um that we take PAC’s recommendation and at this time that we do not make changes to the existing ordinance. [1:10:51] **Mary Fasbender**: And then once that's—I'll need a second. **Tim Lawrence**: Second. [1:11:36] **Mary Fasbender**: Now, open discussion for Council. [1:11:36] **Lisa Leifeld**: Okay, now my explanation. So we've been talking a lot lately, we had a team-building experience the other day where I'd mentioned that um I'm really passionate about my beliefs, right? I like to listen to what people have to say, and I change my mind as I hear people talk. And I've been working on this for a number of months and my immediate reaction is: Hastings and surrounding communities, we are not currently an ATV/UTV trail community, right? You're not going from town to town, um, having dinner, um, having sodas in the bar, whatever it is you're doing. Yet if that's something that we become in the future, then I say we look at this again. As for right now, um, this story that Janet told is sitting in my brain. And I'd like to think as a manager of people during my day job that everybody starts their day and lives their life wanting to do their best for themselves and for everyone around them. As parents, we try to do our best; it can be very hard to always know where your children are and what they're doing. Maybe the case with the 14-year-old on that electric bike, I don't know. Did their parents know? Was it okay? Was it—I don't know any of that. But I know it's hard as a parent, too, when you've got all this pressure from all, you know, all of their friends doing—well, "my buddy's got an e-bike and that kid's got an e-bike" and whatever. So I like to think that the people using the ATVs, the UTVs, if we allowed this, would all be doing it for the right reason, like some of the community members I know who really brought this forward would do. But I also know what that creates, right? It creates the next piece of it, which then becomes an issue. So as much as I don't like to tell people what to do—I like people to make sound decisions for themselves and that they're doing it for the safety of themselves and others around them—I'm worried that this might turn into something more. Completely 180 or 360—180 from my original thoughts on this, because I have been paying attention. I have been thoughtfully listening to other people. So that's the reason for my about-face on this for those who know that I was the one who sort of not championed it, but really thought it made sense. And um, I've had some time to rethink that. So that's the reason for my motion. So that is that. [1:13:56] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Leifeld. Councilmember Beck. [1:13:56] **Mya Beck**: Uh, thank you, Mayor. I wasn't here in September, um, so that's something I just—I want to put out there. I wholeheartedly would have seconded uh Councilmember Leifeld's motion, um, and I would have agreed back in September with PAC's recommendation. So I just want to put that out there as somebody that wasn't here in September, and I want to thank Chief Wilske for his presentations. Thank you. [1:14:44] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Beck. Councilmember Pemble. [1:14:44] **Dave Pemble**: Chief, last Friday—and I reviewed this a couple of times and heard the neighbors talk and a few other things—but last Friday afternoon, you know, it was kind of a nice afternoon and I'm out picking up the junk in my yard because the snow had evaporated. And up the street coming up 5th Street here comes this nice green John Deere four-wheeler and a couple young kids on it, and they roared right through the corner, never looked right or left, uh, blew the stop sign. And in at least in our neighborhood, I'm seeing that more. And I'm concerned that, you know, we need to be prepared, especially with the Highway 61 rebuild and the adaptation of different routes for people to get through town, that we have to be careful about these 4x4s or the side-by-sides that are, you know, going through our community. And we need to carefully consider some of those aspects that could change very directly by the rebuild of the highway out here and moving alternate traffic either up and down the side streets or the East-West streets. Because it is happening. And, you know, I don't think we need to, you know, really beat it to death, but we just have to be careful looking forward. And if the ordinance, after all the work that council members and PAC have worked on here, and if we're going to just stay with what the current ordinance position is, I guess that's probably fine because there were the restrictions in there. And, you know, hopefully we don't have to address this again next year or the year after when this other project starts in our community. Thank you. [1:16:16] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Pemble. And we will have to educate. And like I said, it's really not our goal to be issuing citations. It's going to take education. There's been a lot of talk in our community lately about ATVs and UTVs and unfortunately, uh, some people are getting their information from friends and others they might interact with and not really looking into what the laws are. So we'll continue with that. Thank you, Councilmember Pemble, and thank you, Chief. Uh, Councilmember Haus. [1:17:02] **Angie Haus**: Thank you, honor. Uh, Chief Wilske, I just want to thank you so much and PAC so much for your hard work on this issue. I know it has been a long time working on this. So, um, I agree, I want to echo what uh Councilmember Leifeld said as well. It does make you change your mind um after thinking about it for a really long time. Um, safety is always number one priority for us here um in the Council when we're thinking of these ordinances. Um, and I really gratefully appreciate um the vulnerability to be vocal about changing your mind. Um, it's really hard to come up here and say that, you know, I don't agree with what I agreed with before. It's really hard. So I really appreciate your stance, Councilmember Leifeld, and I really appreciate all of your hard work. Thank you. [1:17:51] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Haus. And I'll just echo the same thing you've heard at the dais. I think we're all here, um, for the safety of our community. And hearing Janet's compelling story really um makes it more forward for us to think about um kids' safety, ATVs, bicycles, whatever it is, walking. Um, we have a—we have a People Movement Plan that's for walkers. So um, as much time and effort has been put in to PAC, Public Safety Advisory Commission, you know, I want to thank all of—everyone for um thinking about this for the last couple—I mean, for a while. So there is a motion and a second on the table. Councilmember Vihrachoff, more discussion? [1:18:40] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Yes, promise not more discussion, just a clarifying question. So if we are not—if this body is not voting on a change tonight, what is our current ordinance in terms of the age that somebody must be to operate a side-by-side ATV? [1:18:40] **Chief David Wilske**: Yeah, I don't know if it identifies age. [1:18:40] **Mary Fasbender**: Well, Chief, I think the ordinance states that it's for, um, disabled. [1:19:26] **Chief David Wilske**: Correct. You have to have a medical condition in order to get a permit from the city. Uh, but I can double-check that; there might be an age requirement. It's—it would be 18, I don't think it would be less than 18. Thank you for the clarification. [1:19:26] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you. Any other discussion, Council? There is a first and a second motion. All those in favor of that motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. Okay, that motion prevails. Chief, thank you again. Oh, I guess you can stay right there again. Um, sorry, uh, their next, um, is the e-bike ordinance recommendations, please. [1:20:12] **Chief David Wilske**: Thank you, Mayor, city council members. Uh, so electric bikes or e-bikes in the City of Hastings is our last topic from Public Safety tonight. So the Public Safety Advisory Commission was requested to review city ordinance 7.09 regarding micromobility vehicles as it relates to electric bicycles or e-bikes. There are other micromobility modes of transportation that were not discussed by Public Safety Advisory Commission, but those are outlined in 7.09. We drive around our community, we see all these electric types of vehicles whether they're mopeds or e-bikes or whatever they might be. But just so we're clear, uh, PAC just talked about e-bikes. So, we reviewed current ordinance language, state statute rules regarding e-bikes, and we had some internal discussions. PAC reached a consensus at the February 20th meeting and is ready for recommendations to City Council, and these recommendations would be in addition to current ordinance, but specific to e-bikes. I just want to be very clear on that. [1:20:59] **Chief David Wilske**: Some of the recommendations: no permit is required. So they made that decision that you don't have to register your e-bike. Uh, state law does require operator to be 15 years of age or older, so we would clarify that in our ordinance language. Uh, helmet is encouraged but not required. Riders must ride in traffic on the street—there's no riding on city sidewalks is a recommendation. Each bike must have a working headlight and taillight—that is also outlined in State Statute 169.000, so we would mimic some of that state statute language. Insurance is not required but encouraged. Uh, eye protection is encouraged but not required. Uh, limit of 15 miles per hour on City of Hastings park and bike trails. So when we talk about park and bike trails, the current Hastings ordinance 94.09 identifies that speed limit is 20 miles per hour. Uh, I have talked to Parks and Rec Director Chris Jenkins and he is interested in moving that down to 15 miles per hour because then it would be in line with Dakota County Regional Trail, so we would be consistent throughout our bike trail area. So that would take another ordinance amendment, but just for clarification, 15 miles per hour. Just so you know, there are three classifications of e-bikes: Class 1 means that the electric motor assists as you pedal; Class 2 means the electric motor will run without pedaling; and Class 3 is just a larger version of Class 2. Uh, Class 3 can reach speeds up to 28 miles an hour. So that's really—that's really quick. I can personally tell you they go faster than that, especially when they're going downhill. And they are heavier mode of transportation than a regular bicycle is. And then once again, that language that we saw in the ATV recommendations: "Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed as an assumption of liability by the City of Hastings for any injuries to people on which may result from the operation of an e-bike." So I will entertain any questions in regards to e-bikes and those recommendations. [1:23:15] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Chief. Councilmember Lawrence. [1:23:15] **Tim Lawrence**: Thank you, your honor. I just uh publicly want to say I totally approve this, I accept this. This is a great deal. Um, personally I think we need to even get stricter and talk about what you talked about with the scooters, the single wheel, everything. Because they're insane how fast these things can go. There's—there's one on the market now can go 40 miles per hour with a two-wheel scooter, and you're getting those on the sidewalk, that's going to cause some damage too. And I'm sorry what happened to you; it's horrific. So thank you for having the courage to come and speak on that as well. Um, so I don't know how we're going to—do we do that or add that to the ordinance? But I think this needs to um bring that up with the single wheel, the scooter, everything on that aspect of it. And then the other question I had was um what's the penalty or what—what happens if you're seen doing this? You know, first off, I think the education needs to be there, but again I think there needs to be a little, you know, something behind it if people are choosing to go against the ordinances. [1:24:02] **Chief David Wilske**: Yeah, and that's a great question. I don't have solid cost of citations uh for state statute versus ordinance citations. Uh, roughly $120 to $130 would be an average that somebody would be looking at for the state statute violation. Uh, for somebody operating an e-bike under the age of 15, it's a petty misdemeanor; it's like a traffic violation, so it's not criminal in nature. Yeah. And so just so I'm clear, uh, are you recommending that we include, you know, all micromobility vehicles with—with this language? [1:24:47] **Tim Lawrence**: That—that is correct. I think you should add every—all motorized vehicles, um, electric motorized vehicles. So your two-wheel, your one-wheel, your everything else that they've come up with, along with those age requirements of 15 and older. [1:24:47] **Chief David Wilske**: That is correct. Okay, thank you. [1:24:47] **Mary Fasbender**: Councilmember Lawrence. Dan? [1:24:47] **Dan Wietecha**: I—I would just uh suggest that as the ordinance gets drafted, you certainly consult with legal on that. Because if the recommendation is e-bikes in the street, are you suddenly putting the six-year-old on a scooter in the street? I just—when you're saying "include all these vehicles," how does—how do these other vehicles play in? [1:25:34] **Tim Lawrence**: It just—like I said, I'd hate to admit it but my—my daughter got a gift of a scooter and taking it out, it goes 35 miles an hour. My daughter will no longer be using said scooter. Um, so it's just scary that these vehicles can get that fast for little kids. Um, I don't believe it should be on any sidewalk. Um, and I—maybe there's a, you know, for little mopeds or bikes and stuff, it's a 50cc thing. I don't know how the e-bike stuff works, if there's certain power to it, because I'm sure there's, you know, less-powered ones. I don't know, we'd have to look into that and see the verbiage on that. Thank you. [1:26:20] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Lawrence. Councilmember Vihrachoff. [1:26:20] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, your honor. I uh agree with Councilmember Lawrence's comments. Um, and I just wanted to once again thank PAC. I feel like they have done so much heavy lifting lately with all of this research and recommendations. We are so grateful for all of this. Um, and I just want to echo some of my other colleagues that have publicly thanked Janet and her friends and neighbors for coming forward and talking about this tonight. Um, this really caught my eye. Um, my family does have um two e-bikes and I had no idea of how quickly they could move, um, of some of the considerations that you brought to us tonight. I think Councilmember Leifeld um did a fantastic job of explaining that we know what our residents and what our neighbors and what our friends in the community come and tell us. And I can't tell you how many times that this body um is up here deliberating and there's one or two people out in the audience. This is an anomaly to have all of you here tonight. And I'm sure I speak for everybody when I say we're incredibly grateful. Um, we want to know about these things. I'm so sorry that that happened to you. Thank you for sharing your story, and you really helped to educate me personally on this in the way that I will make sure in terms of how my daughter stays safe and how I stay safe um riding my e-bike, and probably changing my mind on how I would have voted prior to hearing you. So thank you for your time and thank you for being brave and talking with us. [1:27:51] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Vihrachoff. Councilmember Leifeld. [1:27:51] **Lisa Leifeld**: So first question: does this require any sort of a motion? What—what is—I guess what is before us? Because I—I—I mean I read it, I'm seeing it. Is this recommending it to go to ordinance, to go to—to go to Legal? So then where would Councilmember Lawrence's thoughts... because I—I think there's definitely a lot to what Councilmember Lawrence is saying. Um, but if we're talking about like on the street out in front of your house where your kids play, what does it look like, right? Um, this whole motorized thing is new to me. My kids had scooters but they didn't have motors, so I'm not exactly sure how all that works. And again, it goes back to parents, right? I know his kids—they're not going to be happy, um, so I guess—or not. So if you could help speak to some of that, thank you. [1:28:37] **Greta (City Attorney)**: Sure, thank you, Council. So it’s my understanding that the PAC recommendations and the considerations were only geared towards the e-bikes. So perhaps if the scope of this potential ordinance revision is going to be widened to additional mobility vehicles, maybe it goes back to PAC. Um, it seems there might be too much up for discussion for me to put together a first draft um at this point, unless we want to really dig into it some more tonight. Um, that seems like the logical next step for me, but we can certainly have the discussion tonight if—if Council wants to. [1:29:22] **Dan Wietecha**: I—I would suggest that there's also the option of keeping the existing recommendation about e-bikes and—and speed limits on trails and prohibiting e-bikes on sidewalks, having that drafted in an ordinance, and considering rolling in other stuff two months, three months later after some additional research is done, rather than slowing down the whole project. We're about to get into springtime, we'll start seeing more—more e-bikes. [1:30:08] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Dan. [1:30:08] **Chief David Wilske**: And Mayor, if I could ask a clarifying question just so PAC has direction: when we're talking about micromobility, we're talking about those that have an electric engine along with them, right? Not just a scooter that somebody propels with their foot? [1:30:08] **Mary Fasbender**: Correct. [1:30:08] **Chief David Wilske**: Okay. Okay. [1:30:08] **Mary Fasbender**: Uh, Councilmember Haus. [1:30:53] **Angie Haus**: Thank you, honor. Um, I'd like to make a motion then to pass the current ordinance recommendation on e-bikes but then send um other—all other motorized vehicles to PAC for recommendations further on. Um, I also want to thank Janet and her family and community of friends for coming out here to speak today. Um, I appreciate your vulnerability; it's not easy to come talk—to talk to us about your life-changing story like this. Um, and I'm so grateful that you're here today and that you're alive and well. Um, I also want to say um thank you to Councilmember Lawrence for bringing up all the other motor vehicles. I think this is a great way for us to really um look at um our surroundings and really think about what is the next step and what um is best for our city in safety-wise. So thank you. [1:30:53] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you. Councilmember Vihrachoff. [1:31:38] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, your honor. Um, yes—yes, I'll second it. But I agree with what you're saying, but I guess I just wanted a quick point of clarification. The reason that I would support this versus my nay vote with the prior one—and so, um, Attorney Greta, thank you—sorry, I'm wondering if when you're working on creating language around this, if there's a way to specify the—sorry, what I'm trying to say is: the reason that I support this is because it's electric, so it's quiet and it's silent, and so people can't hear when they're coming up necessarily on the street, in your driveway, on a sidewalk. The reason that I voted differently on the ATVs, the side-by-sides, is because I live in "Cowtown"—you can hear those a mile away. So I'm wondering if when you're drafting that language, if there's a way to make that delineation. And if so, I would gladly support a second on this. Okay. Thank you, your honor. [1:32:24] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Vihrachoff. There is a first and a second. Councilmember Lawrence. [1:32:24] **Tim Lawrence**: Yeah, I just want to follow up is—I uh appreciate, Dan, the insight you said because I do not want to delay this at all. But again, I do appreciate—because I think this needs to be added sooner than later with the rest of it. So thank you. [1:32:24] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Lawrence. Councilmember Leifeld. [1:33:12] **Lisa Leifeld**: Question—clarification question. So we've got the 10-mile loop and then we've got city sidewalks. So what about the paved shoots that go onto the loop? Is that considered the—the path? I—I guess I'm wondering where—I—you all know I tried these this past summer and I did not get hurt, but I could have. Um, they do go very fast. I felt like I was on my scooter—most of you know I ride a scooter all summer long, a real scooter, I have a license—and it felt like that. It felt like I was—it was very—they're fast, they're heavy. Um, but I guess I'm—where is the line drawn on the—because again, back to the 10-mile loop. So what do you... you know? [1:33:57] **Chief David Wilske**: The best suggestion would be uh we would work with Parks and Rec, develop a trail map and identify—so—so people were clear on where they could ride them and where they couldn't. Because I know residents do walk on the 10-mile loop. General Sieben's the perfect example—that's a trail. One side has a sidewalk and one side has a trail. Are we suggesting then that walkers should be on the sidewalk and not the trail? We're not suggesting that. Um, there are State Statute language specific for e-bikes about how they notify pedestrians when they're coming up on them. Uh, so maybe that is language that we can look at and include. But there are going to be multi-use trails in our community because they're designated bike trails, hiking trails, walking trails, and so we just kind of have to share that space. What PAC talked about was specifically sidewalks, that they're not allowed. [1:34:43] **Lisa Leifeld**: Okay. In that thought—I’m not blaming a victim by any means here—the question to me would be then: if I'm going for a walk down General Sieben, am I best to be on the west side sidewalk as just... I can be on either one, right? It's—I can do either one. But for my own safety, I'm going to say, you know what, maybe I'm going to err on the side of caution and just for my own safety. I mean, yeah, I've got as much right as an e-bike does, but going forward I think that would be helpful for people to just—I think it's a good awareness, right? If they're not allowed on sidewalks. [1:34:43] **Mary Fasbender**: That... and I think we, too, can be better, you know, for the community and try to educate as much as we can. You know, we'll do our work, you know, from the city communications as well. So. And again, I think parents need to step up and they need to be talking to their kids and explaining, you know, "this is right and this is wrong." I mean, let's face it—um, sometimes kids don't know what they can do and what they can and what they can't. So I think we can all be advocating for um the whole community to start talking about it in just mere education. So with that, there is a first and a second. Greta, did you have something? [1:35:30] **Greta (City Attorney)**: I do have a clarification question, thank you Mayor. I just wanted to clarify that the motion was for every single bullet point in the recommendation, correct? In the proposed ordinance, all the recommendations as written. [1:35:30] **Mary Fasbender**: Okay, thank you. Thank you. All right. All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Chief, thank you so much. [1:36:06] **Mary Fasbender**: Uh, as we always do under Administration, we have a PFAS update, the first meeting of the month. And uh, that is the first with—we are at the first meeting of March. So Dan? [1:36:54] **Dan Wietecha**: Thank you, Mayor. Um, yeah, there—there are a couple of updates uh in the past month or even the past couple of weeks. Um, as you know, uh Representative Pelowski has prepared uh four bills uh seeking funding assistance for Hastings water treatment. Uh, and uh something that changed in the last—if it was last week or the prior week, but very recently—uh Senator Seeberger has signed on to two of those four. So uh definitely appreciate uh where they're working together, and it really—it's vitally important that our legislators uh work in cooperation. Uh, also noting on one of those bills, uh House File 1192, last Thursday the 27th, we had a hearing in front of the House Capital Investment Committee uh about the uh capital budget request of $16.6 million towards the Eastern treatment plant, including the the uh nitrates component and the connection to—or the connection of the uh State Veterans Home in town here. So uh very exciting and hope—hopefully some progress will come from that. Uh, obviously the legislature—it's one step, and legislature is still in session, so we're far from any final decisions. Uh, but uh some—some promising uh movement the last week. [1:37:40] **Dan Wietecha**: Um, other piece uh that I wanted to note here, uh I've got highlighted uh that I expect to schedule a City Council workshop in April to discuss uh financing as well as upcoming water rate increases. Uh, I even sent uh an invite to Council earlier this evening saying, "Hey, let's move around some of our dates so we can get this on your calendars," and I'm already second-guessing that date. So I'm needing to—to talk with uh our Public Works director tomorrow and make sure it fits him or his schedule, but I'm probably going to uh look at moving that up, uh the PFAS discussion to the March 17th council meeting. The reasoning being, whether it's March or April, I'm going to miss one council member—I don't have everybody here. And if I'm missing one, I'd rather get this on an agenda and discussions sooner than 3 weeks later. So uh I—I need to check on—on other schedules, but the—the invite I sent you earlier might already be out of date. Uh, so more to come. [1:38:26] **Dan Wietecha**: The bigger piece is really wanting to uh have a chance to sit down and talk with the City Council in depth about, uh, here's where the different bills play out, here's what they mean for financing, answer questions. Because I've over the last few weeks heard um well-intended but some incorrect statements from uh uh local and state elected officials and just want to make sure you guys have the the factual information. Um, uh also we're coming up uh pretty soon on making some decisions that would affect how do we finance that—our share of the central plant—and what does that mean for water rate increases? And uh really would like you guys to have some of that discussion as much in advance as we can. So uh look for that coming soon. Um, the other piece to look for coming is uh probably in the next week, couple of weeks, uh our engineers will have uh the uh design for the central plant, uh at the point that we uh actually would have some architectural drawings. Here's what it looks like, here's what it looks like on site and with trees uh in full bloom and with trees in the winter without leaves, but allow neighbors to have some idea of what it would uh mean in their um uh neighborhood. As much as we tried to put this in a commercial area, there are some uh multi-family uh residences to the north, so wanting to make sure that uh people can see what's coming. So we're looking at scheduling uh a public open house—we would invite neighbors to that—probably later part of March, maybe early April. Uh, I'm sure that uh as long as we're bringing people in, there'd also just be questions on the project and what it means for, you know, construction and streets being closed and any other questions that come up with PFAS. Um, so uh exciting work, uh exciting uh open house coming up in the next couple of weeks. Um, and it's tight, but we're on schedule that we could be uh putting this out to bid in May. [1:41:29] **Dan Wietecha**: So um seeing the—the plant, or the—yeah, the central plant moving forward. That's the updates over the last month's piece. Uh, the other uh item that I would ask as an action item, uh and strongly recommend, is there is a draft letter from the city to uh the state's co-trustees for the uh East Metro 3M Settlement Fund. Uh, this has nothing to do—nothing directly to do with any of the legislative bills that are out there. Uh, it—it is strictly the um a portion of the uh settlement dollars. Uh, it also is not uh particularly saying "spend it on Hastings" as much as I'd like to see it on Hastings. Uh, it really is saying uh we believe that the East Metro settlement uh should prioritize and focus on clean drinking water in the East Metro. And to explain that, the uh uh settlement that came out in 2018 between the state of Minnesota and the 3M Company uh says $850 million to uh uh uh help with uh water impairments to the—the waters caused by PFAS. And a portion of that goes to paying uh state overhead, state legal fees, state staff at operating it—around 7—so 720-ish million to uh first and highest priority is uh clean drinking water in the East Metro. The second priority, number two, second priority is uh related to projects to restore and enhance aquatic resources, wildlife habitat, fishing resource improvements, and outdoor recreational opportunities. PFAS in our rivers and streams and lakes affect more than just drinking water. Um, uh uh that’s the secondary priority. But the uh settlement also gives uh an out or—or some uh uh flexibility for the state to uh, if it chooses to, uh access up to $20 million of the—the funds for those recreational opportunities up front, rather than waiting until all the Priority One drinking water is taken care of. The state could move quicker and put some of the money towards recreational opportunities. [1:43:00] **Dan Wietecha**: Last year, almost a year ago, uh the state uh acknowledged that they are on target to run out of money and not have enough money to do all the uh anticipated drinking water improvements in the East Metro. Uh, but here in January they decided to go forward and put out a application process to fund recreational projects. And my recommendation is a letter calling them on that, saying "get your priorities straight." Just because the settlement allows you to move forward with this $20 million doesn't mean you have to. Uh, it is the state—the state’s co-trustees making that decision to put $20 million into recreational enhancements before drinking water. And really encourage them to reconsider that and prioritize drinking water throughout the East Metro. With that, I can take questions on uh the recommended letter, uh which I would hope that you guys would pass and sign this evening, uh or questions on uh the PFAS update or even questions on the difficulty at scheduling a—a workshop for you guys. [1:44:31] **Mary Fasbender**: Okay, thank you Dan. Council, any discussion? Councilmember Vihrachoff. [1:45:21] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Thank you, your honor. Dan, I do recall that when engineer Cody talked to us earlier tonight that there is a potential for loss of grant funding for our neighborhood improvement project. Are you—do you have any concerns or do you see anything on the horizon in terms of our PFAS funding—in terms of federal funding—that could be impacted, delayed, anything like that? Or we don't even have anything necessarily in the hopper federal fund-wise for something like this, so we're not necessarily concerned? Did I answer my own question? [1:45:21] **Dan Wietecha**: No, no, you’re—it’s a—a good question. Unfortunately, we don't have a definitive answer. Uh, in late November or December, we were notified that we were approved for two uh emerging contaminants grants. Uh, each of them amount to $3 million, so $6 million total uh through the state Public Facilities Authority. Um, we confirmed that uh although it's through a state agency, those grants are actually federal funds. Uh, the PFA has told us uh they do not believe that it will be uh an issue, but um—that’s their belief. Uh, we can’t say definitively yes or no whether that will affect uh uh whether—whether those grant funds will follow through or not. I think that's certainly part of the discussion in the workshop in the next few weeks. Um, if we get $3 million for the central plant—again, for the—the Eastern plant, but the central plant here is the one coming up first—um, that’s great news. That’s what we’re expecting, that’s even what the 16.6 figure is based on is, "Hey, we heard good news, we're getting 3 million, let's reduce our ask." Um, if we do not get that 3 million, and if everything else uh was the same, uh that 3 million uh would translate to about a 5% increase in water rates. So uh I think when we meet in the workshop we'll talk about how to contingency that and cover—probably raise rates an additional 5%. So if it doesn't come through, we're covered. If we later get that grant, it means a—an increase that’s coming in January or—or even January of '27 we—we can, you know, reduce and make up for it. Um, very complicated answer. [1:47:42] **Mary Fasbender**: Any other discussion, Council? Okay. Councilmember Beck. [1:48:28] **Mya Beck**: Uh, thank you, Dan. I—I always appreciate how thorough all your emails and updates are. Um, and something on the top of my mind and a lot of people's mind is uh the construction just in general. But my children attend daycare less than a quarter of a mile away from the new treatment plant site. I live less than half a mile away from it, and a lot of families, neighbors, are concerned about the construction. So I'll be really happy to inform them that we'll have a public house—public open house to go to. [1:48:28] **Dan Wietecha**: Absolutely. That—that’s coming soon. Um, don't have a date yet, uh, but uh anticipate within the next month, five weeks, be looking at that. [1:48:28] **Mya Beck**: Perfect. Thank you, Dan. [1:48:28] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Councilmember Beck. Council, I am looking for a motion to accept uh to authorize the signature of the letter. **Dave Pemble**: So moved. **Tim Lawrence**: Second. [1:49:13] **Mary Fasbender**: Any discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, under uh we have a second reading and adoption for an ordinance amendment uh city code chapter 9.16, Sidewalk Cafes, and city code chapter 90.17, Parklets. And for this item, we have an introduction by Assistant City Administrator Kelly Murtaugh. Welcome, Kelly. [1:49:59] **Kelly Murtaugh**: Thank you, Mayor, Council. Uh, just two weeks ago stood before you and shared uh some amendments that we have to the Cafe uh Sidewalk Cafe and Parklets uh ordinances. And so I won't go through that whole thing um but just a—just a brief overview of what is changing. Is the biggest thing and the motivation behind the changes that are before you is the allow—allowing folks to expand the parklet up onto the sidewalk where the stamped concrete is. And so that—this is just the visual to help with that along with some other clarification of uh some definitions and some other right-of-way language, uh reaffirming the ADA um accessibility language so that uh we have folks who can move freely up and down our sidewalks when they're enjoying the summer with sidewalk cafes and parklets around them. Uh, we had the first reading uh last meeting, and then this would be the second reading for adoption. We would—uh, we are slightly behind schedule in getting out um paperwork to folks to renew their sidewalk cafe and parklet licenses, but it's ready to hit the streets tomorrow morning with the passage of this. And we've been staying in contact uh with two direct mail pieces to our downtown uh business partners, and so we'll get things going as quickly as we can because other than maybe tomorrow night and Wednesday, we have some warmer weather coming that might treat us well uh to host some sidewalk cafes and parklets here by April 1st. So I can stand for any questions. [1:51:32] **Mary Fasbender**: Thank you, Kelly. Council, any questions? Okay. If not, I would accept a motion for the second reading and adoption of an ordinance for the City of Hastings, Minnesota, amending the Hastings City Code chapter 9.16 regarding sidewalk cafes, and an ordinance for the City of Hastings amending Hastings City Code chapter 90.17 regarding parklets. **Tim Lawrence**: [Motion] **Angie Haus**: Second. [1:52:18] **Mary Fasbender**: New or additional discussion, Council? All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you, Council. Any announcements? Okay, I have a couple. Happy birthday to the City of Hastings, incorporated as a city 168 years ago on March 7th. So, happy birthday. Uh, first review of Community Investment Fund applications will be Monday, March 10th. Coffee with a Cop, which will be on Tuesday, March 25th at Froth & Cork—please meet with our police to ask questions, voice concerns, and get to know one another. Meetings: Monday, March 10th, 7 p.m. Finance Committee; 7 p.m. Planning Commission. Tuesday, March 11th, 7 p.m. Heritage Preservation Commission. Tuesday, March 12th, the Arts and Culture Commission meeting has been cancelled. Thursday, March 13th, HEDRA 6 p.m. Monday, March 17th, City Council—we do have a workshop for the Fire Department Space Needs Study and a council meeting at 7 o'clock. With that, I would stand for a motion for adjournment. **Lisa Leifeld**: [Motion] **DawnMarie Vihrachoff**: Second. [1:53:54] **Mary Fasbender**: All those in favor of the motion, state by saying aye. (Aye). Opposed to that motion, state by saying nay. And we are adjourned. Thank you.