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 role reflect. We do have a full quorum tonight. >> Uh council members, are there any corrections to the November 3rd workshop or meeting? Okay. approval of uh let's see comments from the audience. At this time, the council will hear comments from the audience. If you'd like to speak to the council, please step to the podium, state your name and address, and share with us your comments. >> Uh good evening. I am Clinton Tuhill from 2370 Rushmore Road. Um back on November 6th, I submitted a petition to pause all increases on fees and taxes to the city of Hastings. I'm wondering if the city has time to review that and what your thoughts are. >> At this time, we'll just hear your comments. >> Okay. Um well, with the everything going up in prices currently, um especially property taxes and just uh everything in general increasing. I think just people need a break um at least for like two years just to catch up just because um the fees are increasing, the taxes are increasing, new levies are being put in place, that doesn't mean people's incomes are also increasing. So I just think we need a pause just to give chance just to give uh people a chance to catch up. Um, I've heard some people say with the increases that they don't feel like they can afford to live here and certain people might feel like they need to move out and I think that's kind of sad because Hastings is a great community and personally I just like to see people get a chance to catch up and that is why I submitted the petition. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else wish to speak to council at this time? Anyone on Zoom? >> No one on Zoom. Okay. Council, any items to be considered? >> Okay. Consent agenda. Council, I would approve or accept a motion to approve the consent agenda. Council member Pembo, Council Member House. Any discussion? Council. All those in favor of the motion, please state by saying I. >> I. I opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Tonight, under awarding of contracts, we have a vacation of public easement for the Central Water Treatment Plant, 1292 North Frontage Road. And for this item, we have an introduction by our community development director, John Hinsman. John, welcome. >> Thank you, Mayor, City Council members. Tonight we do have a public hearing to look at a vacation of easements on a property located at 1292 North Fernage Road. We formally remember that as the home of Carbonis Pizza and Stacy Stars building has been removed there and is under construction as part of the central water treatment plant. So on the drawing here are the three easements in question. They are public easements for roadway and utilities. One towards the northeast corner and a couple down towards North Frernage Road. The reason for these was previously the property was unplatted. So easements were not dedicated on the property. So easements were done on a on a case-byase basis. With the property being replplatted and easements being established with the new building, these easements are duplicative. They're no longer necessary. So what we're asking tonight is for you to hold the public hearing and then to take action on the resolution which would vacate the easements. And I can stand for any questions. >> Great. Thank you, John. Council, I'll first open the public hearing and then we'll have discussion after that. At this time, I'll open the public hearing. Anyone wish to speak to the easement at this time? Anyone wish to speak to the easement at this time? Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Open discussion for council. Council, any discussion? Okay. If not, I would accept a uh a motion to um approve the resolution vacating the certain easement recorded in document number 498261, utility easement document number 35533, public roadway and utility easement. And as document number 542694 utility easement member life the motion a second by council member Pebble. Any discussion councel? >> Okay. All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. >> I opposed to that motion state by saying nay. >> There you go, John. Thank you. Thank you. >> So with that, uh, we have reports from city staff under community development. We have a second reading to adopt the ordinance city code amendment church uses in egg district. And John, you may continue. >> Thank you, mayor, city council members. We're looking at second reading and adoption of an ordinance amendment tonight. This would allow a or allow churches within the agricultural district. on the map here shown are in light green are all the agricultural zone districts within the city. You can see the encompasses a wide variety of areas uh areas such as uh areas on 54 and Glendale. Some other park and ravine areas towards the south end of town and up towards Lake Rebecca and north of County Road 47. Some of these areas that are zoned egg are going to be developed as other things in the future. We'll have sewer and water services coming in there and they could redevelop as houses or buildings. There are some portions of the egg district based on our comprehensive plan that are not intended to be redeveloped or developed with urban services on that. They're going to be long-term egg. That is what's shown here in the red. Essentially, that area again on Glendale Road and County Road 54 along with an area here by Fourth Street uh and eastern Hastings. These would be the areas in which a special use permit for churches within the egg district would be allowed. And so we have that language within the ordinance amendment before you tonight. Planning commission did look at this at their October 27th meeting. Did recommend approval of it as presented tonight. We also had the planning committee of council meet on October 13th. review the the not necessarily the change but the the concept of the change and if the planning commission should review it and with that direction planning commission reviewed has the amendment forward for you tonight. So this uh I can stand for any questions that you may have pertaining to this. >> Thank you John. >> Thanks. >> Any questions? Uh council member Leo. >> Thanks John. Just to make sure I understood you correctly then. So this particular circled area north the north side correct. Uh both of these this this yeah both of these areas here >> those are areas that will not get city services into them. Is that what I'm understanding you to say? >> Correct. >> So if in this particular situation >> what would they be looking I mean somebody put something there septic I mean is that how that works? >> Yep. Septic and well systemptic well. Everything here would be septic and well. So there's not a future plan where this could get services and be developed. >> Not within our comprehensive plan looking out 20 years uh with the last comprehensive plan. No. And looking out to some of our ultimate sewer plans. I mean it's beyond 20 and maybe not at all. >> Thank you, John. >> Thank you, Council Member Lifel. Any other questions, council? Council member Verich. >> Thank you, your honor. John, I know that this did go through um planning committee like you had said and there there didn't seem like there was any push back or anything like that. I'm just curious. I just want to see have we heard from any neighbors, any concerns from citizens, anything like that? >> Yeah, have not heard anything from the public on this one since it's a general ordinance amendment. We haven't we didn't do a mailed notice to a specific >> Sure. >> entity on that one, but no, I have not heard >> I guess I shouldn't have said neighbors either because >> Sure. Sure. probably corn and cows, but yes, I just wanted to see if there was any. >> So, as we look at this in the future, if an entity did want to come forward and have a church within the district here, there would be a special use permit, which would mean a public hearing notification of people within 350 ft. Planning Commission review and and council approval of that. >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. >> Thank you, Honor. Council member Jerchov. >> No other discussion. I would accept a motion. Council member Pimble >> second. >> Okay. House and house second. Thank you. New discussion council. All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. >> I opposed to that motion state by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Thank you, John. Tonight, under administration, we have a resolution to remove unpaid delinquent administrative penalties and diseased tree removals from outstanding assessment roles. And for this item, we have an introduction by our city administrator, Dan Waticha. Dan, >> thank you. Um, this one probably looks familiar since it was on our agenda two weeks ago, but we uh held off action on it. Um we had uh back in 2024 um uh primarily uh emerald ashbor but trees that were uh diseased required to be removed. uh some of those uh at city uh expense that then the bill is passed on to the the property owners with indications that if the bill's not paid, we would uh uh certify it as an assessment uh and and add essentially to their property tax bill. Um but we missed some deadlines in 24, so we didn't have the required notice ahead of the the deadline to have that certified to the county. So they carried forward to this year. Uh two weeks ago you picked up that list for 24 and get us caught up with 25 also. But uh because of that delay, there were four properties that sold in the meantime. Uh and council advised we could not uh because they had not had the original notice, we could not certify the assessment to those. Uh so had on the agenda two weeks ago uh a similar resolution saying take these four off the assessment rule. Uh but that resolution was a bit uh broadly written. So it actually said write them off entirely which uh was probably more than what the intent was. So what you have before you tonight is uh just taking them off the assessment rule uh for these four properties. we would still uh pursue other means to uh seek their payment, sending them a bill, potentially sending it to collections, uh but not just writing it off and having the the property taxpayers carry that expense. Uh that's the short version of it. Um but I I can certainly take any any further questions. Thank you. >> Sure. Thank you, Dan. Council, any questions? Council member Veriche. >> Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Dan. And I know that when we're talking about this, it is a incredibly small amount as it relates to a city budget. We're talking about less than $1,200, but $1,200 is $1,200. And so, I appreciate the city um pulling this from the last agenda, not having us vote on it, and then saying that within reason that we will try and see if we can recover those those those fees. So, thank you for hearing some concerns and acting upon them. Council member Leo >> and just for verification then Dan the we're dealing with four properties as council member Verro said less than $1,200. Are these four properties that the owner is no longer there and somebody new now lives in these properties? And so when you're talking assessments, we're not looking at assessing the current homeowner for something that >> that's exactly what it is because the uh prior homeowner has moved and there there's a new owner uh who did not receive that original notice and because of the delay allowed the sort of the sale to slip through in advance of us. We're we're proposing not to assess those four new homeowners uh but still pursuing the original four that incurred the expense to to to have payment just not through an assessment process. >> Thanks Dan. That's just good information for anybody who's listening. When we when I hear the term from outstanding assessment roles, I don't really know what that means. So um that sounds like a um smart idea to me. And that being said, I would like to make make a motion to remove the unpaid administrative penalties and special charges for disease tree removal from the accounts receivable for those four selected properties. Great. >> Thank you, Council Member Lill. And Council Member Verichoff has a second. New discussion, councel. All those in favor of the motion, state by saying I. >> I oppose that motion. State by saying nay. And that motion prevails. Also, we have a certification for delinquent utility billing for collection. And for this item, we will have an introduction by Dan Maticha. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh want to open this by saying we are following city ordinance uh uh uh determined and adopted by the city council. Uh this were some changes to our ordinance a few years ago in 2020 uh to streamline the process to collect on delinquent utility bills. It used to have a uh multiple notices uh potentially shutting off their water and we said there's a less intrusive way to do this if if the bill doesn't get, you know, send them the bill. If they don't pay the bill, give them a notice that we'll uh uh assess it. um uh and uh a penalty with that. Um it's much easier. It's worked the the last five years. Um but I I can't help but notice when you look at the list of delinquent utility or delinquent bills, there's some pretty small ones. There's one for 75 cents. Don't know what happened. Maybe miswrote the check or something. Um, if you follow the ordinance to a tee, which you can do, that property owner uh may be looking at a $50 penalty on a 75 cent uh uh pass due. Um, so you what proposes two options. Uh you you can follow the ordinance as is perfectly legitimate or you could determine some threshold and say resolution we certify the list down to $100 or $50 or $30 or wherever you want to draw a line. I would recommend that if there are any inactive accounts uh below that line that you still keep those on the certification role. uh those a matter of changing property ownerships and not wanting those ones to slip through. Um uh if you do that threshold idea um anything over that line we would certainly certify to the county for collection. Anything below the line would stay in the utility billing system. So, their next quarterly bill would say, "You still owe 75 plus a 10% uh late fee or you still owe $9.65 um whatever their amount below that threshold is." So, it's not writing them off. It it's just keeping them in the standard billing system rather than assessing it uh and and rather than putting what may be an ownorous uh penalty on those those uh amounts. If you go that route, I'd recommend that we make it a permanent piece going forward. Uh, and we we can have an ordinance on council agenda in December so that you can say when we follow our ordinance, it has a a threshold uh built right in. But uh that's for uh your your discussion this evening. If if any questions, I can certainly take those as well. Thank you. >> Thank you, Dan. Any questions? Council member Lefeld. >> Thank you, Dan. So, of the list that we are looking at totaling almost $102,000. >> Uh how this doesn't show how late I mean, how delinquent are these? Are these people who are quarter after quarter? Are these I mean, looks like some of them are people that could have missed a quarter. I mean, well, how how does this break down? And then secondary to that, since you're going to put together an answer, um, to certify these through Dakota County, does that cost us anything to do? >> You asked me two questions I cannot answer accurately. Um, the they're they're passed due, unless there's some oddball in there, they're passed due within the past year. >> Okay. Um, so they might just be one quarter, they might be two or three quarters, but they're they're passed due within the past year. Um, uh, some of them that are are a bit larger. I think the largest is around $4,000. That might be a small business. So, these are just utility customers. So, don't just assume it's the same as somebody's household. But um I I other than saying they're within the last year, I can't say exactly how past due they are. In September, they these were all given a notice saying, "Hey, you're we're coming up in the end of the year. If you don't pay this uh in the next month, uh or uh even an option to come and appeal to the city council. Nobody replied on on following up on the desire to appeal. Um these these ones would be subject to assessment and the penalty. Um so >> clarifying question then Dan. So is this something that as a city we do every >> year >> end of the year. >> We look at all the delinquents. We send that on to Dakota County to get assessed onto their tax statements. >> Yep. >> Okay. um >> looking at that and looking at clerical mistakes of writing checks for anyone who's ever written their house payment to county market um it happens. I've done it. So looking at some of these I mean I would not be adverse to saying something under $20 to me feels like a somebody's some it's a mistake. Somebody's not trying to get out of paying a water bill. Um, you know, when I look at these, there's like 1 2 3 4 5 six of them that are under $20. I mean, that to me feels clerical and gives us a little bit of a, hey, you probably moved your decimal or something. >> Um, I don't know what that looks like if this is something that would need to be a motion to move forward. Um, but to hear what the rest of council thinks. I mean, I just came up with the $120 $20 as a so to >> Thank you, Council Member Lyel. Council member Verich. >> Thank you, your honor. Thank you, Council Member Lifel. I appreciate the city Dian um giving thought to this and making sure that we aren't inadvertently capturing clerical errors to to to use Council Member Lifeeld's um terminology there in this. I mean, we're all here for the same reason. We want to serve our community. We want to serve people, and we certainly don't want to make a hardship for something that was a mistake. That being said, the amount that I see that is listed in the memo to council was, for example, $30. Council member Lifeeld's talking about $20. I do want to be mindful of the fact that $20 over quite a few different households can can add up. Um, would city staff then make a recommendation to council in terms of what that amount could possibly be and what that would look like going forward so that we could satisfy both parts of that, right? So, so nobody that is, you know, getting caught up in a clerical error and nobody that owes a dollar has a $50 fee or is getting, you know, certified to the county or anything like that. Obviously, we don't want anything like that, but at the same time, I don't know what that dollar amount is. If it's $50 to certify it over to the county, you think it's 20 bucks? I don't know. I feel like maybe it's a little bit more. >> Thank you, Council Member Ver. >> Council member Pimple. >> I guess I'm thinking about the dollar amount, too. And, you know, I guess the 20 $30 figure is kind of where I was thinking about. It's like, okay, yeah, the clerical air about, you know, because most people don't write checks anymore. It's usually done with a credit card or a bank card of some kind. And you don't pay attention to that. And if you're not writing well to write the check and get the right the way it's written because it's it's it definitely it's happened to me. you put in $100 and you're right down below it's $1,000 and the bank says what what's what's wrong with this and but I do think it should be the dollar value we should say okay you know 20 to $30 I don't know 25 maybe is the what to look at and then say okay we're dealing with that anything under that we'll deal with it inhouse and and continue to um you know address it the next uh billing cycle and say, "Okay, here you go. You're you have a late payment and and this additional charge and whatever and everything over that goes to the county." That's my thought. >> Thank you, Council Member Pimell. Council Member House, >> I don't mean to throw in a ringer here, but I'm going to. Um, and one of the concerning questions I have on this is if you're going to get a $50 penalty fee, I do feel like your bill should be at least $50. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> I feel like if you don't have $50 to give, you probably don't have a $50 penalty to fe to pay either. Um, that's just my two cents. Uh, I am also open on those thoughts as well. >> Thank you, Council Member House. Council member Lyel. Council member House, that's funny that you mentioned that. I'd written down some numbers here. If we looked at under $50 and less, we're dealing with 14 parcels less than $500 of $101,000 in a rears. So, yeah, if there's a $50 penalty, I kind of agree with you. It should be $501 or more. So, that being said, I'll make a motion. ever the banker in me. Um I will make a motion to I don't even know how to to >> $50 >> make a motion that um to request us to authorize the finance department to certify delinquent utilities to Dakota County that are of $501 or higher >> and I will second. >> Thank you council member Lyfeld and we have a second with council member Pemble. new or any other discussion. Council member Verich, >> I'm completely in support of this. Just for a clarifying point, I was wondering, does Dan know is this a significant increase that we've seen this time around versus in past years? Is this a much bigger list? And also, could you just remind us because when somebody has a $4,000 water bill, that's one thing, but if somebody's off by like a hundred or $200, what is the system that we currently have in place in terms of people possibly facing a hardship during this climate and and and and not being able to pay their bills. Like, could you just walk us through? So, I have a $200 water bill and I was able to pay 50 bucks towards it. Now, what happens? Could you just walk me through >> the the remaining $150 would be passed due and show up on your next quarterly bill with a 10% late fee as well as whatever your next quarterly bill is. >> Okay. So your your next bill would be under that scenario $150 pass due plus 10% $15 late fee plus assuming it was the same water $200 of the next quarter's use. So $365. >> Mayor, may I answer another question? I'm sorry, guys. I'm really not trying to to to get us super into the weeds here, but I'm just thinking that with the petition um conversation that we had at the beginning of our meeting, as we know that costs are going up for all of these things, do we have anything in place or is there what do we do if somebody simply can't afford that? If I'm not saying if they can't afford their actual water bill, but if the fees become >> so burdensome that it becomes a hardship that is then being compounded, is that something that we've dealt with as a council before? Or is it a question that city staff would be willing to talk about at a future? >> I'm not sure. It sounds like a policy discussion. I'm not able to answer beyond that. We follow the city adopt city council adopted ordinance. >> Charge them a 10% late fee. If it's another quarter, they're going to wind up with an additional late fee. If at the end of the year there's a delinquent amount, whether it's 75 cents or $4,000 or something in between, it would be assessed to the property with a $50 penalty. >> Mayor, may I ask one more question? You may. >> I promise this will be the last one. >> Would we ever shut somebody's water off for not paying? Although that's conceivable, trying to get away from the uh hardship of somebody not having water as well as the um burden on staff to be chasing it down physically. We rewrote the or city council rewrote that ordinance back in 2020 to say we're not looking to shutting off water. We're trying [clears throat] to handle it administratively and charge a fee. And here's a mechanism that has some pretty uh robust um ability to collect if if somebody's not making that payment for whatever reason. >> I appreciate that. That'll let me sleep at night. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Verov. Council member Lifel. >> Thank you. Um there is a motion and a second, but I do have a clarifying question as well. Um, on this list there are 14 inactive balance due accounts. Of those 14, three of those fall under our $50 and one penny. Can you tell us the rest, by the way, the rest of them are of those 14, they include less than $2,200 again of $101,000 debt. So, can you tell us what those um inactive balance due accounts are? >> I would recommend that if you draw a line at $50, you do not include any of the inactive ones that are below it. ones that may be at $21.32 >> or or 3704 3704 >> that those ones I would recommend you still have certified because those ones may be tougher to keep in the utility billing system if they're going inactive because of some changing of property ownership. >> Makes sense. So an active balance due would possibly mean that I sold my house and I'm >> in some fashion in the process of that that property is selling or >> I'm going to with that clarifying I'm going to maintain $501 and if it's under that whether it's active or inactive I I would maintain that but thanks for the clarification. >> Okay. There is a first and a second. Any other discussion? >> Clarification. Does the second also recognize? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. All right. All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. >> I. >> I. Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. >> And that motion prevails. All right. Thank you, council. Any announcements? Okay. I do have a few. Mendot will give an overview of the upcoming highway reconstruction project tomorrow, Tuesday, November 18th, 5 to 7 p.m. at right here at city hall. Developer 310 Design Build will update neighborhood neighbors about its plan for the Walden development on Thursday, November 20th. Gobblegate is Thursday, November 27th. You can register all the way up to race day. Proceeds benefit Hastings Family Service. Small business Saturday and holiday hoopla are Saturday, November 29th. Enjoy a visit from Mr. and Mrs. Claus. Music, crafts, s'mores, horse and wagon rides, craft fair, tree lighting, retail and restaurant deals, and much more. City offices will be closed Thursday and Friday, November 27th and 28th in observance of Thanksgiving. Recycle your old lights with Hastings Holiday Lights drop off collection. Residents can drop off their unwanted light strands at the Joint Maintenance Facility Building, 92010th Street West, during the holiday season from November 15th to January 31st. Upcoming meetings. Tuesday, November 18th, 700 p.m. Heritage Preservation Commission. Wednesday, November 19th, the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting has been cancelled. Thursday, November 20th, 6:30 p.m. Public Safety Advisory Commission. Monday, November 24th, 700 p.m. there's a finance committee meeting. And also at 7 p.m. a planning commission meeting. Monday, December 1st, 7 p.m. city council truth and taxation hearing and regular meeting. With that, I would stand for a motion to adjurnn. Council member Pebble. >> Second. >> Council member Lawrence. All those in favor of the motion state by saying I. >> I. Opposed to that motion state by saying nay. >> And we are ajourned. Maybe selfconcious.