We're in, but because it also has a history. And so I was floating the idea with others. Could it just be declaring the city of Northfield, Minnesota as an LGBTQIA plus friendly city? And would that accomplish the same thing? But at the same time, I'm not trying to put brakes on this. I don't think anybody questions my credentials in this field at all. In fact, sometimes I think I'm probably the most liberal member that speaks out in public. So and I'm happy to speak more about where I'm coming from on this issue,
but it sounds like it's the right thing to do is to bring it back to the Human Rights Commission and get that debate, get those that, what I would call a side issue resolved, and then we can move on. And perhaps more light should be shed on this. And by going back to the Human Rights Commission, we shed more light, which is at the end of the day what we're trying to do. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilor Peterson White? Yeah. So I'm I'm thinking about, the comment earlier that Councilor Holmes echoed that, the role of government should be to keep its people safe to I'm paraphrasing.
To protect its people. We obviously our our powers to keep people entirely safe are limited, but we can do our best. And, to me, the term sanctuary city is simply a recognition of that as a role for government. I have been involved in this council since we passed other resolutions that provide other types of safety to other residents of Northfield, other groups who are residents of Northfield, in particular, recent immigrants, and, regardless of their documentation status. And, the phrase sanctuary city was not used in that legislation, though I understand some other cities have used it for similar for legislation with similar
substance. But I have not really heard any conversation, I here or elsewhere about there being really any legal I mean, I'm I'm well aware, of the sort of past uses of the word sanctuary, which legally can mean a number of things. But, as I understand it, I'm and I and I understand Councilor Ness is concerned that some people don't like the concept of sanctuary cities. I I guess I'm of the opinion that, that may be because those people don't believe that local government should be empowered to
try to create this kind of safety in the face of other levels of government attacking that safety. So I guess I'd like to kind of set aside the what sounds like a sort of linguistic slash political objection and, wrestle a little bit, I guess, with the question of whether the phrase sanctuary city has any legal substance that we need to be concerned about. And my understanding from past discussions around this topic is that the phrase sanctuary city does it it has no legal definition and therefore is a is open to interpretation and would therefore,
in my opinion, be very appropriate to use in this case. And I'm not sure what the Human Rights Commission would do were it to go back to them to reconsider this phrase. I'm I'm a little concerned that, I mean, to me, I would say that the the the word friendly is a very different and far less powerful thing than what we have before us today. And I would not consider it equivalent. So if there is reason to send this back to the board that brought it for the commission that brought it forward, I'd like to know that that is some sort of legal consideration and not simply a political question of whether people might not like the phrase sanctuary city.
Because, in my opinion, many folks who have a negative reaction to that phrase don't have the same view of our role that I do. Thank you. Yes. Miss Garcia. Thank you, chair. So we purposefully selected those words, and in the def definition. Right? It's a city whose municipal laws tend to protect undocumented immigrants in the past from deportation or prosecute persecution despite federal law. So I think I would not support the amendment. I say that it was purposeful.
We chose those words, and I don't think bringing it back to the commission, they're gonna change anything. Thank you. Thank you. Thank yeah. Thank you for, sharing what happened with the deliberation of the Human Rights Commission with us. Counselor Holmes? Can I call the question on this amendment? Yeah. Yes. So all those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed? Aye. Roll call? Councilor Ness? Yes. Councilor Peterson White? No. Councilor Soukup? No. Councilor Beamer? No. Councilor Dahlen? Yes. Councilor Holmes?
No. Mayor Zweifel? No. So the amendment fails, and we are back to the original question of, of the original motion. Just a point of order? Yes. She called the question on that. Is that what you have been on the amendment. Right. That is to stop discussion. So the first vote should have been to stop discussion. The second vote should have been on the amendment. Okay. Alright. So we have voted to stop discussion? No. You weren't voting. I'm sorry. We can go back. I just caught that. Okay. So first vote stops discussion.
Stops discussion. Second vote votes on the amendment. Right. Okay. All those in favor of stopping discussion on the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Alright. Now we can vote on do we need to revote on the amendment? That's a lawyer question, I think. He's got the book. He's got the book open. He's got the book. Here we go. For the ease of the record, I think you might as well. Alright. Alright. Now we'll, vote on the amendment. So all those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No.
No. No. No. Roll call. Councilor Ness? Yes. Councilor Peterson White? No. Councilor Soka? No. Councilor Beamer? No. Councilor Dahlen? Yes. Councilor Holmes? No. Mayor Zweifel? No. Okay. Now I declare the amendment has failed. Yeah. So we're back to the original. Thank you. Yes. Yes. Thanks for helping with the procedure. Alright. I was I I have I'll say a few things. I was gonna let you go last, if that's okay. Would you like? Sure. Yeah. Okay. So to the original motion, I am in favor very much in favor of the term sanctuary city.
I did some research on other sanctuary cities, specifically relating to, LGBTQA plus communities, And it is an identifiable, sanctuary type of sanctuary city that one can look up and see what other cities are sanctuary cities of this type. So I think having that language is important so that it is identifiable for people who are seeking that out. I love that this is another way to lift up the inclusive nature of our community. I really appreciate what has been said here tonight about saying it clearly,
loudly, and directly. I appreciate also the push toward more support. So I don't know what that looks like tonight, but I look forward to exploring it with you all. And thank you all for your, comments, and I know the bravery that it takes to move something like this forward. So thank you. And now I'll go to councilor Soukup. Thanks. So kind of, councilor Peterson White mentioned that, you know, part of what is emotional about this is that I I can't imagine Northfield as a child being a place that would ever do something
like this. So growing up here and in Faribault, the reason I left when I graduated high school was because this did not feel like a welcoming place as a queer person. And I never thought I would come back because of that. So now sitting up here as a counselor and even seeing something like this come up for discussion is something I feel incredibly grateful for, and so thank you. And I have a lot of, thoughts that I wish I could share, but I,
it's, like, too raw. So just know that, I'm really happy that I came back here. And I hope that the meaning of a sanctuary city to me as someone who grew up here and has returned here as a queer person and, now feel like it's a place that is welcoming, and I see other queer people around. And it is it feels like a different town to me in that way. That's kind of what Sanctuary City means to me personally. I I feel it personally.
And I think if this you know, it was mentioned that this can feel performative and, like, there's it's just a thing that we pass, and then we move on. And, you know, I hope you know, if there's one young person that sees sees this and it makes them feel like they're welcome here when they didn't before, then to me, it's it is completely worth it, even if nothing else comes of it. But I know that I know it will have much more meaning than that.
So, thank you again for all of your work and, bearing with us while we do really administrative motion making. I hope that didn't turn any of you off from coming to a future council meeting. And, thank you again. And thank you to the supportive parents speaking out. I think that that is life changing. So, thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Counselor Ness. Thank you. Just so the public doesn't think I'm flip flopping, I was mentioned that those are the only two words that I had trouble with,
and the council decided that those two words were okay. So I will be voting in favor of the resolution. Thank you for your clarification. Are we ready to vote? Alright. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. I'm going to hit the gavel on this one. Motion carries. Alright. That was a long I don't know if we wanna take our break now. Yeah. I think we wanna take our five minute break now. That was, pretty emotional. So thank you all. And, yeah. I know. We we have some other weighty items coming up, so we we're gonna try to get back to you in five minutes.
Alright. We're gonna bring us back together. Yes. I'm gonna bring us back together. So we just finished up agenda item number 16. And we're going to be moving on to item 17, which is the City Council approves considers approving a resolution to accept the feasibility report and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the 2026 Mill And Overlay and Milltown's state trail improvements. And I'm going to go to Mr.
Simonson for our staff report. Thank you, mayor, members of the council. I'm not gonna repeat that entire thing, but, we're in a nutshell, we're trying to accept the feasibility report and authorize the preparation of the plan and specs for the 26 mill and overlay project. We'll go through the project process. We'll update you on the public feedback that we've had since our, last visit here to council. Walk through some of the proposed improvements, main ones, and then talk about the recommendations that we came up with through the feasibility report. Finally, wrap it up with some, project cost and funding, and then any questions that you may have. The project process,
so, right now, we're at the accept feasibility report as stated earlier. Our next major, milestone in this project would be the, neighborhood meeting in January and then approving plans and specs in February 2026. Many of you seen this slide before, but we're kinda at that, bull's eye, of where influence on the project. We can still do that without having, astronomical costs of, moving this project forward. So, this is the time when we wanna hear any additional, additions or deletions from this project, so we can approve them and design this project, and get to construction.
So our neighborhood meeting that we had, number two that we had, we had a couple of questions, that we council had asked actually asked us about, during our work session too. We looked at adding some additional, median openings along Jefferson Parkway to, gain access to the Milltown State Trail. It's gonna be on the South Side. The the response on that was pretty mixed from our open house. A lot of people thought they were unnecessary, and we actually reached out to some members of the biking community too. And, thought that one, crossing was accurate or, excuse me, adequate for that. So, we'll go through that in a little bit as we get forward.
But, the recommendation to the feasibility is to only have the one crossing at each area versus two. Additional feedback, was the median on Prairie Street, the, raised median. So initially, you might remember, we brought forth a median, that was, the bike lane in or excuse me, Prairie Street was, designated as a bike route on street bike lane with the 2019 pet and bike plan. Originally, we had it going from Woodley Street all the way to Jefferson Parkway. However, with feedback from both public and with city council at our work session,
we've collected that feedback and we have shortened that median down to just from Pleasant View Court, to Prospect Court or just past that where it enters into Sibley Swale Park. The reason for that is is, that area is not a straight alignment. It's got a curved alignment. And that would probably be most likely where a vehicle could possibly drift into those bike lanes going around that curve. So that seems like that would be the, still be a, a good, preventative measure to include on Prairie Street. Again, at the second neighborhood meeting, when we talked about that,
positive, we had a lot more positive feedback on the shortened up medians versus the median along the entire length of Prairie. Prairie Sheet sidewalk, that is again another sidewalk that is been, noted from Prospect Court or excuse me, Leah Drive to Prairie View Circle. That again was, adopted as part of the 2019 pet and bike plan. This this sidewalk now would extend up to Leah Drive, and then there's actually a future sidewalk again on the 2019 pet and bike plan that would, be extended on Leah Drive, Sumac, and Prospect Drive on the north end.
And on the south end, this would connect to an existing sidewalk that ends at Prairie View Court. And, again, the sidewalk provides direct access to Meadowview Drive, which has a sidewalk, which, again, gets you all the way over to Spring Creek Elementary. Another thing that it would provide also is access to a new trail that was just put in on Prairie Street, about two years ago with a ped bridge that gets you over to the Huron Court area. So again, we talked about this at the neighborhood meeting. The biggest, hurdle that we we met with the, residents was the impact on the trees. There is a pretty area along the north end that is heavily treed.
However, we looked at what we've done in the past, and many of you have been involved in these projects is, we do we we do look into moving the curb, and meandering that sidewalk to eliminate the the tree impact. By doing that with this, we're estimating right now if we left it as is, there would be a minimum of 10 trees that would be lost. If we look at the meandering, we can get that down to four trees lost for that area. Now, again, that would that would, entail us removing the curb. We'd have to remove the parking for a short distance, and move the sidewalk out into the roadway area.
However, it's still protected by curb. This drawing that you see now is kind of a kind of an illustration of what we would do that, that new trail that goes to the right. You can just see that's the new trail. This is an old aerial, so the Rice County hasn't updated that area with the new trail, but there is a two minutes trail that runs to the right. We would, bring that curb out, eliminate parking on that small stretch, basically around a 150 feet of parking. And then we would be able to bring that sidewalk out. It's gonna gain us, close to about eight feet, in that area for us to meander that sidewalk and save, the established trees that are,
currently present there on the north end of that lot at the intersection of Prairie And Leah. Another recommendation. So this is the recommendations that we came up with some of the questions that were still asked that have changed since the original design. Again, as I mentioned before, the crossing improvements with the extra medians, we are eliminating those extra crossings along the medians on Jefferson Parkway. The Prairie Street sidewalk, I'll just reiterate again, we are looking to meander that and move some curves so we can eliminate, that tree, deforestation in that area. That's gonna save about six trees, roughly. And then the Prairie Street bikeway.
Again, following policy that city has set forth, from an engineering standpoint, we would recommend that entire corridor be protected. However, the feedback that we've heard from both residents and from city council, is the support for that, median is maybe not there. So our recommendation would be to shorten that up, and just have the median again on that curved alignment of Prairie, which would probably be which would be the most dangerous area, where cars could drift out of in into the bike lane. So that'd go from Prospect Port Prospect Court to, the Sibley Sibley Swale Park entrance.
Project funding, we did do, the recommended, cost and we we, also figured an alternate. The alternate is having the bike lane, excuse me, the protected bikeway along the entire, corridor on Prairie. So, the difference is about 212,000 that this, would be less if we go with the recommended shortened bike lane. Funding wise, again, just our normal funding for this. So I we got funding tables for both alternate and the recommended. Still street storm, you know, bonding, our enterprise funds, and then art. So the total project cost as the feasibility report is recommended is 5,153,000.000.
And if we do the alternate, which is the entire median along Prairie, that brings the price up to 3,650,000.00. I have a bunch of other slides that we could go through in all the intersections if you guys wanna look at some of that stuff. However, I my plan is to have the presentation cut off at this point to do questions. I do have an additional 20 some slides with a bunch of other information, especially along all the intersections, that we've been through with you guys before. Great. Thank you. Questions from the council? Councilor Holmes. Yeah. Sorry. This might be in one of those extra slides, but it's something that came up in the community meeting.
The Yeah. We're getting there. South Side Of Jefferson, past, like, Michigan, the trail that goes beyond, where Milltowns goes up into the park. Yeah. So I, counselor Holmes. So I I do have yep. This is the crossing beyond. Yeah. It goes off the screen. So you're east of this yet is what you're saying? Yeah. I just had neighbors concerned and and talking about that. So that it looks like to me from this design here that the trail would extend into the, into the right of way, not closer to the road,
not into yards. And do we know because this trail eventually will meet up with roads that are yet to be built. Right? But it's right now it goes into a dirt road, that will be paved at some point as well. But I think the concern is are we sending people to nowhere and then also, like, the tree impacts specifically along there? Because there are some mature trees. Will those be will those be taken down because of this? And and is this just the trail, not trail and sidewalk? It would just be a trail.
I guess, and the last question on that would be, like, width of it, is it? Because it's not state trail, Mill Towns. Would it still be 10 or would it be eight or what would what what do we have in the plans for that? Thank you, Councilor Holmes. So yes, that would be a trail extended. So right now there's currently a five foot sidewalk. We would replace that, we would try to get a 10 foot trail in there if we can. If we can't, we can move it down to an eight to lessen the tree impacts. Similar to what we did on Maple Street with the 2025 project, we transitioned from a 10 to an eight foot trail to save all those trees, between Southbridge Drive and Ford. So that is an option that we would look at during design.
And, obviously, the tree impacts is always something that we look at, especially during final design. I do have a map not in the presentation that I have to refresh my memory on. We do have tree impacts for the whole project, so I could look that up and, let let you know about those tree impacts to the East Of Michigan there. Okay. That's great. And, again, that that trail will extend to Spring Creek Road, I believe tonight. And sorry. I'm not part of the bidding on this one, but the Jefferson Road or Jefferson Parkway extension project includes, a trail extension going east of Spring Creek Road.
Yeah. Thank you. Councilor Beamer. Thank you. Mister Simonson, Is there anything in the current in our current, rules, I guess, for the lack of a better term, Basically stating that we don't allow trees to be planted in the right of way so we can potentially, you know, not have to deal with this in the future, for improvements and stuff like that. Councilor Beamer, I am unaware of anything that doesn't allow trees in the right of way. We have had some projects where we have put the where we have narrow boulevards.
We have put the trees behind the sidewalk when we build them. But, right now, majority of our trees go in the boulevard between the sidewalk and the curb and gutter. Yep. Follow-up. Councilor Beamer? Would staff recommend that we come up with a policy that doesn't allow trees in there so we're not worried about removing trees so often? Plant them and let them be kind of thing? Councilor Bremer, talking from my experience in construction, I would love to have empty boulevards. No communications, anything like that. However, that would be more of a, I think, a a a wider stance question for other staff members besides myself to,
look at that. But we have discussed that in the past. We have made the practice of moving, communication lines, always used to go in the boulevard right behind the curb. We have been moving that stuff to the easement behind sidewalks because there's a 10 foot easement on the front of all lots when it's planted. So we have been making some of the switch on utilities. However, trees hasn't been part of that conversation. However, like I said before, we have done some streets where we have some really narrow boulevards. And we have been planting some trees behind the sidewalk away from that road, which, again, a lot of times, they'll have a better chance of, surviving that urban and urban develop or urban conditions as well.
Thank you. Councilor Peterson White. I understand there was, I mean, I I was here for the council discussion on the question about the curb separated bikeway on Prairie. I don't think I heard consensus at that meeting. I understand that we've received some public feedback from folks who would prefer not to have a curb separated bikeway on Prairie. Can you talk about what our existing plans, what our bike and pedestrian plans would guide us to do. And, my understanding is that our existing plans would guide us to put in a curb separated bikeway along the full length of Prairie as staff originally brought to us.
And I just wanna make sure we have really good reasons to deviate from that plan since a really large segment of the community participated in creating those bike and pedestrian plans. And, it's, you know, there's always a difference between the sort of, big picture questions of what's best and safest. And then when we get down to an individual street, we often need to adapt. But we also often hear objections along the lines of, you know, I don't think we need a bike lane here because nobody bikes here. So setting aside those kinds of arguments that I think are shouldn't be,
in my opinion, guiding for our future decision making. Can you talk about kind of how this decision was made? What feedback there was? And, how this if we were just going to not make any additional policy decisions beyond the existing bike and ped plans, what that would guide us to? Thank you, councilor Peterson White. So in the 2019 Ped bike plan, we have a map that shows where these on street bikeways, sidewalks, all of them go. There's a there's a there's a starred note on that map, and I'm gonna read this, and I I apologize for doing it word for word.
But it says planned on street bikeways could take the form of a standard bicycle lane, buffered bicycle lane, advisory bicycle lane, separated bicycle lane, or bicycle boulevard. The exact facility type for each on street bikeway should be determined through each project development process, which which is what we're doing now, obviously. Several several factors should be considered while identifying the facility types, such as community member preferences, right of way avail availability, implementation costs, motor vehicle traffic volumes, and speed limits. So a lot of our decisions, again, as I said before, from the feedback we received at the,
at the, discussion that we had at council, I still kinda have my notes here. You know, we we were it was pretty split on a council level of for and against that. Community members, again, we took that feedback in as well. I think, a lot of the community members, there was some opposition for it, and there was some positive, discussion forward as well. However, in light of trying to keep these projects moving forward, I think the underlying, thing that I don't wanna get lost is we do have streets here that need to be repaired. And I really wanna make sure we don't, you know, I guess,
for lack of better terms, fall on our sword over some of these things that we can try to get these streets, you know, repaired in a in a in a fashion and still continue to do this. So, a lot of those factors that I just mentioned in that, you know, were taken into effect. Again, the policy that was set forth, that we're, you know, we're using right here from our 2018 pet and bike plan, it it it does have some, you know, some leeway in it. I don't wanna say leeway, but has some, you know, how we determine what's gonna go there. And, again, community feedback, right away, stuff like that are big things.
This road, in the 2022 CIP pet and bike plan that we did, this this road was put as a, what they call the quick build. So it's a it's a bike route, that's close to one of our projects, now Prairie Street. Part of Prairie Street was redone in twenty fourteen, fifteen, somewhere around there. So the the chances of us doing another full project on that are are year you know, light years out. So when we do these projects, this was, you know, Prairie was, identified as a quick build. We're trying to put these in again. Hopefully, I've got pretty long winded on my answer. But, yes, there's a lot of factors that went in to how we came up with our
recommendation. That's very helpful. I was long winded in my question, so it's very appropriate. Thank you very much. Thank you. Other questions by the from the council? Councilor Soukup? I'm just curious in terms of the the bikeway, the recommended, plan we have in front of us. For part of it being separated and part of it being painted lines, Did you all have discussions around the kind of consistency issues with that and people biking along that bikeway and there being confusion around it being separated and then not and then,
etcetera. And, like, how did you kinda come to the point of having kind of both both types along one street? And, I know the original plan, everything was separated, and so that would be visually consistent. But are you at all concerned that the kind of inconsistency along one street way is is a safety issue or is something that we should be considering tonight in our discussion? I'm just curious about that because we've talked a lot about consistency.
Thank you, councilor Soukup. Yes. So that was one of the when we had the public hearings on the, pet bike plan, one of the things that we heard from the biking community and a lot of other, members was the inconsistency of different bike lanes. I think when we first started this off, you know, we didn't have our plans in place, so we were looking at what we could do with the resources that we had. When we're doing the mill and overlays, we just don't really have the resources to pull a bunch of curves out, you know, and rebuild what what we should put there. So we're implementing some different strategies,
different types of bike lanes on streets until we can get those streets reconstructed. And, ultimately, as the plan that has been approved is get to that protected separated bikeway. That is the ultimate goal of the the plan that we have. Unfortunately, yes, we're doing piecemeal type construction. However, if we did nothing, we wouldn't get any of it done. Prairie Street, for example, as I said before, you know, the engineering would prefer to have the protected bikeway to follow the policy and provide the most protection that is possible. You know, the AAA, all ages and abilities.
However, looking at this corridor with that curved area in the hill with the sight lines, and visibility is, being reduced at that area, it just feels like we should have something there, you know, for protection in that area. And, again, the inconsistency, we are well aware of that. Like I said, at the public, meetings that we had, you know, six, seven years ago, that was probably the number one thing that we heard from, especially the biking community, is confusion and inconsistency. And, again, we're trying to make a perfect plan out of, you know, like, again, the piecemeal portion is it sounds like an excuse,
but that's just what we we have to work with until we can ultimately get to that, protected separated bikeway, which is the goal of the policy that was has been approved. Other questions? Otherwise, we'll have take public comment. We're good. Alright. So the first, I have four cards currently, and the first card is Barbara Hansen. Would you mind using the microphone? You can pull it down. There you go. And now it's on. Is that fine there? Okay. I live on Prairie Street, and, Prairie Street is really a safe street.
I don't understand why you wanna try to put all those barricades on the street when I compare it to Maple because I've had friends that, I go to the, church on Maple Street, and many people have said they turn right coming from the West. And they said they often almost hit that barricade. And I said, you know and I've heard it more more than once. And so I'm saying that we have a lot of benefits to leave Prairie Street the same, because then we'd have better parking,
and we'd be able to have no trucks for, delivery because I've heard that when they deliver things, sometimes they'll park in the bike area, and then they'll back up and make a u-turn and go out of there. That seems very dangerous to me. You know? And anybody that wants to do work on somebody's home is also a problem. And then when they do snowplow, you know, they'll bring you have, two snow plows go by when you have the barricade. So you get double snow in your driveway to pull to plow out.
And I really feel also that all wheels should go the same direction. That's what we were taught way back, that all wheels, go the same direction. And so like on on maple where you got the barricades, they're so dangerous. And and they're they're not friendly. And, when these people have told me about their accidents that they've had with the barriers, I I thought, I'm gonna go to the auto repair place and ask these workers what they've seen. And they said, yes. They've seen a lot. And I said, can you tell me about it?
And they said, yes. They said, we've had repaired wheels and tires, bumper covers, ball jacks, ball, joints, and oil pans, and much more. And our people in this town are so unhappy. Alright. Thank you. Thank you. I hope you consider Prairie Street saying without the barriers. Thank you. And right in the middle Yep. Thank you. Your two minutes have finished up. Thank you very much. Next up is Marlene Vanasek. Good evening. I live on Fremont Circle, which butts up to Prairie Street. Okay. After attending the city meeting on the upcoming street and bike path improvements,
I'm again concerned about the concrete barriers for Prairie Street. A couple of months ago, the council was shown the ten year crash study of Northfield Streets. In review, it showed one bike accident in the past ten years on the section of Prairie between Woodley and Jefferson, and it was not on the upper curve. The present layout of Prairie Street seems to be working and getting the job done. Prairie Street is wide, and the well defined painted safety lanes give both bikes and motor vehicles that little
extra room to maneuver if needed. Maybe now is the time to just stop, take a breath, and congratulate yourself on a job well done. This section of Prairie Street works. It works for bikes, motorized vehicles, and, by the way, something that is not often mentioned. The street is pleasing to the eye. It is time to move on. Let's use our money wisely. Thank you. Thank you. Next, I have Julie Boring. Okay. I have lived on Prairie for almost twenty five years,
and I've watched all of this. And I know where that curve is. I drive around that curve many times a day. And one thing I've noticed is that just for point on Sunday, I was going to church. There was a walker. If you watch Prairie Prairie, we have a sidewalk, parking lane, driving lane, safety lane, bike lanes. There are walkers, bikers, people, numerous people who walk their dogs. And when the dogs meet each other, they need the extra space. When you're driving by,
you need to move over. There was a person walking in the biking in the, parking lane. I needed to move over slightly so that I did not hear her because that is what our law says, that you move over. If there and a car coming toward me also had to move over. If there would have been this concrete barrier there, there was no place for anybody to go but hit this person. And if you can convince people to walk on sidewalks and bikers to be in
mic lanes, good luck. But on Prairie, this is not happening with the paths that are there. You have many, many walkers. And that curve, having a curve with a concrete barrier there is going to be extremely disruptive. And and there are people who park there. Their cul de sacs are there. They also need to move over and have people park in the street. So you're welcome. I will park cars there, and you can drive back and forth and see how often you don't move over.
Okay. And leave the bike lanes painted. They seem to be working as much as you're gonna convince people to walk and ride their bikes where they do. Thank you. Thank you. Ruth, you had mentioned you may speak or may not speak. Have you decided if you would like to speak? Just just here to Okay. Is that right? Okay. I don't want to be repeat, what's already been said. But, we in the last month, we've talked to so many people about Viking That's we've had a group of people We've met them on the streets We've talked to people We've talked to people in
all of our groups And, it seems that what stood out most to me is how much people hate the barriers and how unsafe they think they are in talking to parents and to and to even to kids I talked to one little boy who said, oh, no, are they going to do something different? I just learned how to use this street. And now do I have to start all over again? So it we really feel like, it seems to me that what people are they think that the bikers and cars
at intersections and turns, it makes it very, very different for both very, very difficult for both bikers and for, cars. And the bikers say that the lanes are messy. And when it rains, they're slippery. And the brakes don't work. And so they don't like to ride in the lanes. There's human error, which Julie talked about. There's, you're going to eventually, if you try to turn, next to or turn into a place next to that lane, it's really hard to do, without hitting something.
And if if there's a barrier there, you're going to hit the barrier. I was walking on Maple Street, and I saw a kid, little boy, riding his bike, banged into the barrier, tipped over. The bike went on top of his on top of him. My the person I was walking with and I went over. We lifted up the bike. Fortunately, his head didn't hit real hard. The rest of him was bloody. And, another passerby said, see, that's what the that's what those cement barriers do to kids. They're dangerous. I have a, child well, okay. That's that's it. We don't like the barriers because we don't think they're safe.
Thank you. Thank you. Those are all the cards that I have this evening. Is there anyone else who would like to speak to the council on this issue? Yeah. Please. Can you, yeah, grab a card and fill it out on your way back, but come on up and, state your name. My name is Lois Perkins. I live on Prospect Drive, just three houses up from Prairie. We've been there for thirty five years, children, grandchildren. My husband and I used to do a lot of biking. All of our kids and our grandkids bike, not the twins, the little ones. And I wanna tell you just a quick story about what happened with our nine
year old grandson about four years ago. He's an excellent biker. We went down Prospect. He went on the right hand side. We crossed Prairie. He went over to the lane which said he should be in. Now he is going against traffic. He gets up to Woodley and turns left. And he stays in the left hand side and he is now biking against traffic. I'm screaming, soaring stop. Stop. He he think you know, you are dealing with little kids minds that are not developed yet.
Even the ones that that try as hard as they can to do everything. It is so mishmash. It is so confusing. I would second what Barb said. It needs to be simplified, simplified, simplified. If you wanna do anything on Prairie to save bikers and walkers and everything, put in a few little speed bumps so that the traffic slows down. There's the issue of how environmentally damaging concrete is, and you just keep putting more and more concrete everywhere.
Anyway, I appreciate everyone and everyone's efforts on this, but I really urge people not to put in concrete barriers anywhere along Prairie. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment? Alright. So next up, I'd be looking for a motion from the council. I have a motion. Councilor Peterson White. Yes. Ready to make it. I move to approve the resolution to accept the feasibility report and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for the 2026 mill and overlay in Milltown's Trail state Milltown's state
trail improvements as presented by staff. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilor Sohka. I'll second. Thank you. Alright. Discussion. Councilor Peterson White. Thank you. I, as I noted in my question earlier, I think one of the biggest challenges I mean, there are a lot of challenges with creating safer bike and pedestrian infrastructure. The biggest one being that we've basically been building all of our street infrastructure for cars for over one hundred years. And it's really difficult for all of us to get our heads around the fact that all users actually should be entitled to use the street.
As a parent of three kids, two of whom have low vision but love to ride their bikes, the question of accessibility and true usability for all users and all abilities is really important to me and really vividly borne out in my daily life. I believe that, I was here on the council in 2018 when we passed this bike and pedestrian plan, which does in fact lay out, the standard that we should build the safest possible bike infrastructure whenever possible when doing
street projects. And that the gold standard is a curb separated two way bikeway. I believe that that's what the 2018 plan says. I also really appreciate staff's noting that it gives us some flexibility to adapt that, because we have to because all of our street circumstances are different. And I think staff have done a pretty good job of doing that here. I, I have not heard a strong, like, engineering argument why we shouldn't have a curb separated two way bikeway on all of Prairie as staff presented originally with this project.
I understand that many residents of Prairie Street and adjacent don't like that idea. I've talked to many bicyclists and many separated bikeway two way bikeways that we do have in the community. I know with my own kids, I think they're really great, really safe. As noted, all kinds of things can happen on streets, and kids can fall off their bikes in virtually any setting, I think. But I think we have a really we have there's really strong scientific engineering evidence that having a curb separating a car from a bikeway is safer for the bicyclists
And I think that there's really strong evidence also that we've seen in many places in the community that, narrowing the street somewhat in order to accommodate these improvements, calms the traffic, meaning it slows the traffic. So when I hear people say, oh, I have to go so slow in order to not hit the curb. To me, that's a win. Right? Because it means you have to go really slow, which is how people should be driving on our city streets in town. They should be going as slow as they need to to not hit the curb. And in my own neighborhood, I've I live on Washington Street, and, you know, we've had some sort of natural traffic calming due to a pretty big increase in
street parking, over the last ten years there. And, that has made the street in many ways much safer for kids because people drive really slow on our section of Washington Street now. It's something you're all probably tired of hearing me talk about. But I think about it every day when I leave my house. So I really want to be an advocate for, for traffic calming for things that cause people to drive slower on our streets. And when I hear comments like Prairie Street is so nice and wide, I think, well, that makes it less safe. And we have a lot of very scientific evidence that that's the case.
And change is really hard for people. And I there definitely are challenges with these curb separated bike lanes that we've had to adapt to and adjust to in terms of snow removal and getting UPS drivers to understand that they're not part of the space for their UPS trucks and things like that. There's a learning curve for sure. So I just I kinda wanna just speak out about this because I think that I really I I think that the main frustration I hear from folks in the community about our bike and pedestrian infrastructure is, as has been noted,
that it's inconsistent. And by definition, to some extent, it has to be inconsistent because we can't do the whole city at once. Nobody wants to pay for that. We can't it's not wouldn't be practical. I think it's really obvious that we can't build a complete network, all at the same time by And that we're always learning more about how to build it better. So at each section that we build hopefully gets a little better. So in this case I'm really torn to be honest because I think that having a chunk of this that is curb separated on Prairie and then some long stretches that are not curb separated is inconsistent.
And the main complaint I hear from constituents is about the inconsistency. So I'm interested in hearing my council colleagues' discussion about that challenge. I do think that, it's, I think it's a it's might be a reasonable compromise to do what staff is suggesting and put the curb separated bikeway just on that curved section of Prairie Street. But I think if we're gonna deviate from the plans that we have made that were adopted by past councils, that were adopted overwhelmingly by past councils in the interest of fulfilling our community's commitment
to safe bike and pedestrian infrastructure, that we should have really good reasons for that. And, and I think that, it's it's a really difficult challenge to balance sort of public opinion and people's reactions to change with what we actually have evidence for as being safer. And, I'm always going to go with the evidence based decisions. But I also believe that as Mr. Simonson noted, we need to be able get a street project done. So I won't stand in the way of a street project that we can pass here as a council. And I am determined to remain flexible on all the details of this project. I think I would like to see my colleagues remain flexible as well and remain
open to new information and to and to evidence based decision making about what creates the safest and best bike and pedestrian infrastructure. So I look forward to hearing the discussion here. Thank you. Councilor Soukup. Yeah. I'll second the, kind of curiosity about where everyone else is standing at this point because I think, my biggest concern is that consistency piece. I don't it doesn't seem at this point that there is, enough community support and enough council support to put a curb, separated bikeway along all of Prairie Street,
and so I struggle with the idea of only doing part of it. I tend to think that, in that case Signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Great. Motion carries. Councilor Beamer, you have another question? I do. So as you're as you're well aware, the the city is currently working on, some legal work for cannabis dispensaries. And in said dispensaries, there'll be flavored products sold. What are your thoughts and opinions on on, those cannabis dispensaries potentially selling gummies,
flavored sodas, you know, products that by federal definition are still considered illegal, versus something that has been legal for a very, very, very long time. Well, it is unfortunate that they are selling those products. There is not much we can personally do about it. As with the way the state legislation is written, it is illegal for local municipalities to regulate flavors in those products. Thank you. Councilor Soukup. I have a question around the part I'm sorry. The one of the recommendations about raising the minimum clerk selling age from 18 to
21. My question is with is kind of around a cons concern around staffing. And do you see that with local small businesses? Some of the gas stations only have, you know, one or or do they have to have two people working at once? If that person now has to be 21, I'm just a bit concerned that that's gonna impact some of the staffing. And so curious if you have any input about that,
or if that's something that you see really changing the game. So I would say that the, Northfield ASAP Commission really wanted to put this in front of you for consideration, Recognizing that it would be different than a lot of what the state what other municipalities have passed, that it would be more of a push. But understanding that Northfield has led the way many times in tobacco and nicotine, they wanted to throw it out to you and see if we could lead again.
So that is what I would say on that. And that there is, there is, you know, evidence that shows that kids give in to peer pressure. And so if you're selling at 18, it could be easier to sell to someone 21. So. Thank you. Further questions? Thank you. We do have, oh, you have one more. Yes. Councilor Ness. I a question for attorney Ossoff. I know the ordinance is labeled tobacco at the top, and the section two is labeled with tobacco in the definition.
But there's one retailer in town that's also licensed to sell beer. And the definition under number six says all sales of licensed products, they're referring to and beer is a licensed product and tobacco is a licensed product. So are they gonna be not able to sell beer? Sir, just clarification, comes by Marnes. You're referring to the by means of delivery sales section there, number six Uh-huh. Two of the ordinance? Well, health it it's listed a couple times.
I'm Sure. And I realized that, you know, tobacco is in, again, in the top description, and it's in the section description. But then it doesn't say licensed tobacco products. So I would say this is, the ordinance sort of in the ordinance form is adding to the, chapter 30 article two that's already in there. And in there, licensed products under this tobacco ordinance is a defined term to include the tobacco product. Just tobacco. So where it's referencing licensed products here, it's referring to that definition that we're not amending tonight. K.
Thank you. Thank you. Alright. I do have, 13 cards for public comment tonight. So, you we'll try to, yes. We wanna hear from everyone who's here and wants to speak on this issue. So, my first card is from Michelle Dee. I'm gonna go with Dee on this one because I sorry. I can't read the handwriting. It's a complicated last name. My my name is Michelle DeMonzo, and I've, been on the, Northfield ASAP Committee since December 2016. And so when Malia mentioned before, this is something that we've been very much so passionately working on,
protecting and educating our community, and looking out for the youth. Myself, I'm also a high school teacher. I teach up at ECU High School in Apple Valley. This will be my twenty seventh year. I have a son that graduated from Northfield High School in 2024 and a daughter who will be a senior there this year. And surprisingly, a suburban high school, really matches a similar experience around vaping to what, the students on the board will come up and tell you, what my students have said about fearing going to the bathroom,
knowing which bathrooms to avoid because students will be in there, vaping. There would be pressure to not, you know, say anything, to potentially use as well. So this is a way, again, I would just reiterate that we can really lead as a city, as we did before with Tobacco '21, and to put a stop to the sale of flavored products, which we know is, really impactful for our youth. So if there is one thing that has really shifted,
what we do in schools in the last ten years, it's it's related, to addiction and, to nicotine. And it's the flavored products that are hooking my students and that are a danger to our youth. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Pat McCone. And as Pat comes up here, if anyone if there's anyone else who wants to speak on this item, please fill out a card while we're working through, the comments. Thank you. Pat McCone. I'm the senior director for public policy and advocacy with the American Lung Association from
Duluth. I am here to support the policy. I have been working in tobacco control for forty five years. I've heard some of these same comments for decades about what if we don't I mean, selling to kids is not a common practice that people do deliberately. But kids will be kids because their brains aren't fully developed. And, no matter we we need to do better than what we're doing now because we're in an epidemic. I have never seen kids as addicted to nicotine with these new delivery systems as I've seen in the past two, three years,
to the point where they're getting suspended from school twelve, thirteen times a year and eventually dropping out. So I do want to address. I did submit a letter and I'm happy to answer questions. I've worked I helped pass the policy in my own community over seven years ago. I know how that's working. I know the truth about the how that's working. I know you received a letter recently from, the industry, from Minnesota wholesalers, and they presented information about Duluth, which I want to, say the truth of what's really happened,
by a letter from the mayor of Duluth that that was provided as testimony in 2024 about the retail industry in our community and that people didn't lose businesses and the world didn't end just like it didn't end with freedom to breathe. But Tom Bryant, the person who signed that letter, I have to let you know, is an award winning lobbyist for RJ Reynolds. And he argued against smoke free air at the Capitol when I was working on that in 02/1967, and he's arguing now about flavored commercial tobacco. We did have cherry cigarettes at one time.
We had chocolate cigarettes at one time, And we banned all flavors except menthol. That was left on the table because the art of politics is bargaining. But the art of politics with us is health, and it's people's lives. I wanna end with saying the tobacco industry exists to sell nicotine based on a model of addiction. I want to reaffirm your words. Government exists to protect its people, and for sure, it exists to protect its most vulnerable and our future generation, our children. Thank you. Next up is Lynn Ziegler.
And Nola Matheson will be following Lynn Ziegler. Good evening. I am one of the owners of Ziggy's. My question, have you ever been to Ziggy's? A lot of you have not. If you have, you know that we are a veteran, locally owned family company. We focus on supporting other local businesses like Cannon Bell's Cheese Carts, Dick Simon's Maple Syrup, other buddies ice cream, just to name a few. We offer fuel discounts to veterans, school employees, medical personnel, and first responders as a thank you to our community. No other convenience store does that. You're wondering why I bring this up.
This will drastically impact our business. I spoke with a high school teacher here in Northville who has taught for more than forty years. She said vaping is now the product of choice, and they always, always find a way to get it. Kwik Trip in Dundas will be the closest place for them to buy product. It is not just the sale of the flavored tobacco products that we will be losing. It is a loss of additional products and services that we bring to Northfield. Our business cannot survive this type of financial loss. We can't. Tobacco producers
or tobacco users do not like to switch brands. They will go elsewhere. Denison or Kwik Trip in Dundas. The two bars in Dundas sell a lot of tobacco. And I do know for a fact that they come from a different state and sometimes from the reservations so they can sell at a cheaper price. The ban will not stop minors from use. They have their connections. They will turn to THC gummies instead, which we too sell and regulate, and they come in a lot of flavors. So I leave you with this question. Do you really support small businesses that pay taxes in Northfield and support the community,
or do you want Northfield money to go elsewhere? Is it your purpose to close businesses that are local and pay taxes? If that is your purpose, well, then you've succeeded. Keep the money in Northfield and support mom and pops. I would like to thank the commission for their research, but I truly believe education is the key as I do work at a school district, not product removal. Education, not product removal. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Nola Matheson. Following Nola Matheson is Mikaela Grumman Grumau. Good evening.
These are my thoughts. I happen to be an employee at Ziggy's, but these are my thoughts, not not theirs. And this was written this afternoon, so I've changed a little bit here. But I oppose the proposed ban of selling flavored tobaccos tobacco products in the city of Northfield. Tobacco products are legal to purchase and to be used by those 21 years of age or older in the state of Minnesota. To ban a product because someone who is not of legal age to purchase or possess does not seem to be the most effective way to prevent the use by
minors. Enforcement of the current laws is it's wrong to penalize legal adults who are following laws and enjoying their flavored tobacco. Will a ban on flavored alcohol or the newly approved flavored cannabis progress products soon follow? I'm also opposed to raising the age of being able to sell flavored tobacco at a licensed facility to 21. Does the legal age of 18 mean anything, or is it just to show you are responsible enough that you can sign contracts,
join the military, vote to elect the people that represent you, and help govern us, but not responsible enough to check IDs for proof of age. Would the selling and or serving of alcohol soon be added to this band of having to be 21? Many jobs that young adults of legal age have involve the sale of these products. Thank you. Thank you. Next up is Mikaela, and following that is Cameron Melanchuk. My name is Mikaela Gummo, and I'm a rising sophomore at north at the Northfield High School.
Last year, when I went on the tour of the building with older students, every single one of them said to stay away from the b wing bathroom. My group had asked why. Well, one of the older students said, it's the vape bathroom. That was my very first impression of the school I would be spending the next four years in. Just a few days later, I joined the theater program. Our choreographer was telling us how everything ran and stayed together. Her last point was to not get high before the show. The fact that she even had to state that was beyond me. In the span of three days, I was informed of just how badly students struggle with nicotine and tobacco products.
Hallways smell the vape flavors, and there were and there were known rooms for someone to go and get high. You could ask students if they had anything, and too many did. Friends I had never suspected were doing drugs, and students two years younger than me were telling me how and where they hid their stash of vapes. One girl I knew was forced to transfer to a rehab school because she had checked every single mark except for getting pregnant. That same girl continued to vape on the bus and taught her sister who was four years younger than her how to acquire vapes. The fact that even middle school students are getting these hands on nicotine and tobacco
is absolutely awful, and this age group has the potential of only getting younger if this continues. For these reasons, we need you, the mayor and city council, members of Northfield, to protect our future generations from these preventable struggles. Thank you. Thank you. Cameron is next, and then Carissa Caddy is following Cameron. Hello, everyone. I'm Cameron Melmschuck, and I graduated from Northfield High School this June. To address some previous claims, people can't go to Denison. That was included in the unincorporated stores in Rice County. They may go to Dundas, but it is the goal of Northfield to protect the citizens of Northfield.
And if we pass this policy, we will put pressure on Dundas to do the same thing. We can't control Dundas. Yes. It's unfortunate. I wish we could. And I do a lot of activities. Captain the tennis team. I'm on the robotics team. I can list 10 other. I don't have the time for that. But I've seen how widespread the use of these products is. These products exist only to target youth. What kind of adult buys a pizza flavored vape? I can tell you rightfully, no one. The prominent use of these tobacco products is it's it's outrageous.
My coworkers, my sports teammates, my friends on the robotics team, every every single one of the activities I does have somebody that uses these products in it. And it's absurd. The youth and the future generations should not be plagued with an addiction that can be prevented. This policy isn't about restricting free market operations or preventing well in or for well informed adults from smoking. It's about protecting the health of your children and grandchildren, my friends and colleagues, and our future generations. By prohibiting the sale of these products, you will do just that.
And you will prevent them from the risks of addiction. You'll prevent the protect them from making life lifelong decisions that'll affect them. You'll prevent them from making decisions that affect them for the rest of their life. And you will set the precedent for health within our community and take the first step towards eradicating this problem. Thank you. Carissa is next, followed by Ashley Gardner. That is a really tall mic, so sorry I had to adjust that there. Hello, mayor and city council. My name is Chris Acati, and I worked at the Northfield High School with the torch program through healthy community
initiatives for five years. I'm here today to express my support in restricting the sale of fruit flavored tobacco and nicotine products. I provide academic support, college readiness, and social emotional support to students. And I have seen the effects firsthand of what vaping does to the youth. I think of a few youth that I've worked with and their struggles with vaping and quitting. These students don't want to be vaping, but have turned to it as an outlet. One such story sticks out to me. This student struggles with addiction, and I know you might picture a certain type of student that is addicted to vaping. But in reality,
they are so kind, curious about the world, and want to work hard to have a good future. That being said, they struggle to quit and want to. It's not that they think they're think it's fun or they're proud of it. They expressed to me that it is really hard, and they feel very alone. It has had an impact on their mental health, and they noticed that it that it's impacted some of their friendships. It breaks my heart knowing that this student is going through this, and I know that they are definitely not the only one. To quote, almost eighty percent of current Minnesota youth who vape reported signs of dependence, like reaching for their vape without even thinking about it or feeling like they really
or feeling like they really need to use it, according to a 2023 Minnesota youth tobacco survey. It is up to us, the trusted adults that care about our youth to help them. That starts by ending the sale of flavored and menthol menthol commercial tobacco products. Help me and the community by protecting the youth from these harmful products. Thank you. Thank you. After Ashley, it'll be Emani Alam. Hello. My name is Ashley Gardner. I am reading a letter on behalf of Henry Keane, who is a a youth member on the Northfield ASAP Commission. Good evening,
city council members. My name is Henry Keane, and I'm going to be a senior at Northfield High. Ending the sale of flavors and menthol in vape products is an important subject matter to me as a student and as a youth in the community. Vaping occurs at the high school, and when it does, everyone knows about it. And this is because everyone can smell the artificial flavoring. A few separate studies from reputable organizations such as MDH and the National Institute of Health all conclude that approximately eighty percent of youth who vape started with a flavored product. This statistic and the experiences that students like myself have at the high school support
each other and the fact that youth will always be more likely to start vaping and to continue vaping if there are flavors curated to appeal to youth. This is also why there are more youth who vape than older people who vape. Thank you for taking the time to listen to myself, my peers, and the community on this important matter, And please deeply consider this ordinance that protects our youth. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Amani is next. Following Amani is Toby Anderson. Good evening, Northfield City Council members. My name is Amani Alam, and I oversee the statewide health improvement partnership grant at Rice County Public Health.
And one of our focus areas is commercial tobacco free living throughout our community. As you know, Rice County recently passed and implemented a similar tobacco ordinance with a focus on protecting our youth from the harms and effects of early tobacco use and addiction, especially through targeted flavors like candy, fruit, menthol, etcetera. Data from the 2022 Minnesota student survey actually gives us some insight into tobacco use amongst, our county's youth. So, amongst eleventh graders who, took the survey, they reported using
that reported using e cigarettes in the past thirty days, seventy four percent reported using flavored e cigarettes, with some of the top flavors being fruit flavors, candy or sweet flavors, and then mint or menthol. And aside from all the data, when I even think about my own family members or, who have struggled or are struggling with addiction, I just wish, and having to see them struggle either financially, academically, mentally, and physically, I I only wish we had policies like this in place to, help them through some of those struggles and even prevent them. So, I think it's great to see the youth in the community out here today,
and I just hope that you guys can all support, this great policy and, some of our efforts as well. Thank you. Thank you. Toby Anderson will be followed by Bob Ebbe. Alright. Forgive me if my phone turns off, and this is probably not polished, but I think you've heard all of the statistics. I'd like to add a few. My work is a licensed alcohol and drug counselor. So I've worked with a lot of adolescents who I think, according to the statistics, they have become addicted. They have become physically dependent to vaping. They don't recognize the dependence until it's too late.
And it's far easier to prevent somebody from becoming addicted to chemicals than it is to treat somebody. Right? So if we can prevent them from becoming addicted in the first place, it's a lot easier to treat than it is down the road. And I've worked with people who have, you know, much more severe substance use disorder, and they get their start with nicotine. Right. And I'm not saying that nicotine is a gateway by any means, but it opens doors to other things. And so one of the things we mentioned earlier, I think, is what what if we, you know, add some sort of consequences.
Right? One of the criteria for substance use disorder is continued use despite consequences. So enforcing consequences and putting fines on it may be a Band Aid, but I think the better solution is, is to prevent access to those flavors in the first place. Thanks. Thank you. Bob Abbe will be followed by, Julie with no last name. Thanks again for another opportunity to speak about this important legislation. I'm a retired physician from HealthFinders. Here's some good news for you. The incidence of lung cancer is falling.
And we know that back in the '50s, we started making it harder to get tobacco products. And so the expectation is that if we make flavored products less available, we're going to reduce the physical and mental health consequences of using these products. Sorry, I didn't take up much more time. Great. Well, thank you very much. Next up is Julie. Following Julie is Alva Brotland. Welcome. Hi. I'm Julie. Are you I'm gonna, like, translate for her.
My language is broke, so my friend should help me. That's fantastic. Thank you. Okay. Are you okay with me? I already I, write every down everything I wanna talk, so it's I don't wanna take long time. But is it okay if I Yes. Absolutely. Like you said? We have a system for translation, and we will account for that in the time. So Alright. Good evening, and thank you for giving us the chance to speak today. I'm a small business owner, and I run a tobacco shop that primarily sells vaping product. I'm here to express my concern about the proposed ban on flavored vapes,
especially mint and menthol. Over 70% of my store sales come from vape products. If this ban goes through, my business will not survive. This is not just a product. It's a our liable livelihood life livelihood. Many of my my adult customer prefer vaping over cigarettes because it doesn't leave a strong smells in their home. It doesn't produce ash, and it's seen as a cleaner, more special more social acceptable alternative. I'm not against regulation.
I support offer to keep these product away from minors, but banning them entire entirely will only hurt small business like mine, and it will and it will push adult customers, back towards smoking or towards the illegal market. Let's work together on better regulation and not total ban. Responsible adult user users should have the freedom to choose, and small business should be allowed to operate legal and fairly, legally and fairly. Please consider reconsider this proposal.
It will shut down business, hurt families, and remove a legal alternative that many people rely on. We always check IDs and never sell anyone to anyone 21. You know, the, the state of Minnesota collect 95 taxes on five nine 95% taxes on vape so they can fund a lot of schools and college and a lot more. I'm genuinely asking right now, what's the point of hurting our small business in town and prohibit us from selling it, but it's everywhere else?
Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is Alva. Following Alva is Kelly Podrecki, and that's the last card I have. So if there's anyone out there who still wants to speak, make sure you fill out a card. Hi. I'm Oliver Ratland. I am a phrased it differently this time. I'm a graduate of Northfield High School and a former figurehead, perhaps, of Malia Follins. I served on her former project, which was Northfield Youth Bank, and I respect what she does to get kids involved in government like this.
However, I would like to mention that the that I was on Youth Bank because I wanted it to look good on my college applications. And I would imagine that possibly some of these kids are the same as I was. But once I went to college, I realized that, oh, there were there was a lot going on at at Northfield High School that I didn't understand because it wasn't part of my social class because, like, I just kind of believed what the educators, in the schools told me about how youth behavior works. But what I would like to propose is to distinguish between recreational use of a
stimulant or rec recreational stimulation to make it even more vague because I believe that there are that tobacco can be used as a recreational stimulant. It's not always, problematic. It's like any other thing that stimulates the central nervous system. And distinguish between that and habitual use. So, use that is, like, not really a conscious decision to make, not something you're trying, but something that you do because it seems like that's just the natural thing to do. It's the kind of person you are.
It's how you live your life. It's the opportunities that make sense for where you are right now. And, when I was in high school, I had a friend who was 18 and he was employed at Cub Foods selling cigarettes. And Cub does not need him to work there in order to make money. Cub can employ 18 year olds anywhere. But he was my friend and he told me, Don't buy these. Ziggy's has done the same thing. And punishing recreational use does not does not discourage habitual use. Thank you. Kelly. Thank you, and good evening.
And I know it's late, so thank you for letting me throw my name in there last minute. I have written a letter in support of this, that you have. I had not intended to speak tonight, but I just wanted to address a few things that I've heard and confirm and back up a few things as well. Penalizing does not necessarily negate the effect and when you're already addicted. Right? And the argument that I had is that you cut it from the source. Right? And so if you think about any other, drug that's being dealt, you don't say,
well, we're not gonna stop it at the source because that's not where the kids are getting it from. It comes down the line, and then the kids get it from. And so let's stop it at the source. And then also, I just wanted to address, like, local businesses. I believe in Northfield. I believe in this community. And so if the spin in the market is that we are protecting the youngest and we're protecting the most vulnerable, market is that. And I can tell you that I have gone to Ziggy's that we get ice cream there, actually, and my kids love your root beer. But I've never bought gas there, and I will frequent you. And I believe that the citizens that believe in protecting our most vulnerable can come
out and support. So market it as such and then let us rally behind you to save your business. And then also just to city council and mayor Zweipel, thank you for protecting our most vulnerable and for protecting, the people who need it, and I ask that you support this in doing the same. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll bring it oh, administrator Martin. Thank you, mayor. Sorry. The police chief would like to, make a correction to one thing he can tell you. Thank you. Chief Schreffer. Thank you, mayor and council. I just wanna go back and make a correction that I misspoke earlier. I've obviously been in this job for too long and came from a traffic focused
agency. But, unbeknownst to me, in 2020 when they changed the age from 18 to 21, the state also took away the possession statute of tobacco. So it is not a violation to possess it under 21 by state statute. So therefore, cannot write a citation for it either. So to clarify that, there the focus there from what I'm researching here was more about, sale and furnishing and, false IDs essentially. So, still is illegal in school. So so it still specifically addresses schools.
And then back to council members NESA's question twenty twenty three, we had two violations on compliance checks. Twenty twenty four, we had zero. In 2025, we had one. Thank you. So I'll bring it back to the dais looking for a motion, on, this ordinance, the tobacco ordinance set before us tonight. It's ordinance number ten eighty two. Councilor Holmes. I will move ordinance ten eighty two as written in the agenda. Thank you. Is there a second? Is that councilor Beamer?
Is that a second? I'm sorry. Dolan. My goodness. You're both wearing blue tonight. I keep you can't stop coordinating your outfits. I second. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Kelser Holmes, would you like to comment as the motion? Yes. Thank you to everyone who spoke tonight. I think, and to Northfield ASAP, soon to be renamed. Right? That's the next that's the next item on the agenda. For the work that you put into this, I think it's a very important issue within our community. My husband teaches at the high school, so I know, you know, what what everyone is saying.
I also, though, shared the concerns. I had the same question that, councilor Soukup had about looking at our businesses and particularly hiring having to hire someone at 21 years old or to be 21 years old. So I I've I kinda came in tonight, open and curious to what where things lie. So I guess I'm gonna kinda wait and see where everything else stands. I'm open to looking at this and and to leading the way, but also want to recognize the impact that this does have on our local businesses. What I am encouraged by was the letter that we were given,
as the the guest from Duluth shared that, the impact actually in Duluth when there is this fear of our business we're gonna go out of business, they're gonna drive they're gonna go elsewhere and and that not necessarily being the case. But also, I think in this letter, it says that they worked closely to educate retailers ahead of time to make sure they were prepared and to having a local coalition that ran a social media campaign. So I feel like that's part of the question I the reason I asked the question about when this would take effect, was because do we thinking about the time that it would take for us to
be able to be better partners in this and to be able to educate or to be able to work with the small businesses to figure out how can we lessen the impact. So I'm looking at it towards that. I'm wanna hear where everyone else stands and and how we can find a way forward to help protect because government exists to protect its people. So I think and this is these are our most vulnerable folks, so, residents. So I think that that's that's important for us to be considering tonight. Thank you. Councilor Dolan is the seconder of the motion. Would you have something to
I pass. You pass. Councilor Beamer. Thank you. I've been waiting for this opportunity. First, thank you all for your for your presentation and all the work that you've put into it. Doesn't go unnoticed and and is certainly appreciated. I, for one, am severely concerned about the impact that it's gonna have on the businesses in town. We have three tobacco shops. I've talked to two of them. One of them, which actually spoke here, the convenience stores. I've talked to, miss Ziegler. I've talked to the manager of the two quick trips.
The impact on that is further reaching than what people realize. You know, responsible adults go in there to buy products, and when they go in there to buy those products, they buy sodas, they buy snacks, they buy many other things in those in those stores, and that's the impact that banning this is gonna have on those businesses. The, and I apologize. I forgot her name. Owner of, Posh Puff. Talked to her the other day. She told me the story. You know, they just signed a five year lease,
was in their store when I was chatting with her, and she's right. Almost everything in there is a flavored product of some sort. She's got a five year lease. We banned those products. She has to close her store, and she sit stuck there paying and paying on her five year lease, you know, and can't operate her store because she can't sell anything. When I was 18, I enlisted in the marine corps. I left two weeks after I graduated high school, and I could buy a tobacco. And I could when I got to California with that active ID card,
actually have a beer on base. I don't think that raising the age to 21 is fair. It's definitely not fair to, for selling it. Sorry. It's definitely not fair to the business owners who hire college students, high school students, summer help, that kind of stuff to to have to staff extra people to be able to sell it, especially when I can go to my cousin's bar over in Randolph and have my 18 year old cousin serving me a beer.
I really have a problem with this when we're sitting here having a conversation about opening up and allowing cannabis dispensaries here in town. All of which will sell flavored products, flavored beverages, flavored foods, snacks, and everything else that we are trying to not have, especially when it's a product that's still considered illegal by the federal government standards. I will not support this. I cannot support this. There is such thing as too much government.
That's what I have to say. Thank you. Saw councilor Nesco for Houston. I recently spoke with the executive director of the Minnesota Service Station and Convenience Store Association. Actually, he played in his golf tournament. But he said that the cities that have enacted a legislation like this or an ordinance, the ones it affects the most are the little mom and pop operations. They don't absolutely rely on tobacco sales, but it brings in the customers who also buy gas and pop and
chips, you know, the convenience store stuff is where a convenience store makes its money. They do make money on gas, and they're coming in as as a secondary item to buy tobacco products. And he said that he knows of several in Minnesota that have enacted that ordinance, and those stations are closed. So it does affect the small ones. And Ziggy's being a small operation, local one, they hire Saint Olaf students sometime and maybe even at night.
And if a 20 year old from Saint Olaf is working an evening shift, they're gonna be the only one there because they can't afford to have two peep paying two people to be there just to sell tobacco products. So it's a hard decision, but I think affecting that many businesses, I'm gonna have to vote against putting this ordinance in effect. And I do have one point of order question. Mhmm. Is this a simple majority, super majority for this Yeah.
I think we will get an answer for you. Yep. This would be a simple majority. Thank you. Counselor Peterson White. Thank you. I really appreciate the very thorough presentation and all the passionate testimony. I, I'm I'm living proof that regulation can be effective in changing people's behavior. I was a smoker, and I quit smoking when Minnesota's indoor air or, it's not an ordinance in what is it? What was it called? The indoor air clean indoor air act was passed. And that was in fact a nation leading, a nation leading regulation that changed a lot of people's behavior around tobacco use,
including mine. And that was, a really good example, I think, of the kind of regulation that can make a really positive change in, not just changing individual smokers behavior, but the experience of those people around them. I think it's probably hard for us all to remember what it was like to, walk into a place and, with a smoking section. Many of you are too young to remember that, but it was not good. I think that, I'm I really I think this is, something we need to take up very cautiously. And I there is a tremendous amount of evidence in this presentation about the
about the use of vape products by underage people and the risks of that vape usage. But what I don't see in this presentation is evidence that these policy changes would alter that significantly. I was able to find one study online that showed that in large scale bans on flavored vape products, I that's just one article one journal article, a peer reviewed journal journal article I was able to find. I also learned that about that three quarters of,
of ecigarette users between the ages of 18 and 30 use flavored vape fluids. So these products are not only being purchased by people under 18. They're also apparently wildly popular among people who are of legal age to use these products. And that gives me pause because I am not I I think that people between the ages of 18 and 30 should be allowed to buy a product that is legal for them to buy, in the city of Northfield. I don't I don't know that we have much business preventing access to a product that,
is that significantly used by a population who are legal to use it. And, as and I I would consider that that might be a loss worth taking as a community in terms of the freedoms of people between the ages of 18 and 30 or their access to product. And I am willing to recognize that sometimes individual businesses have to suffer in the face of new regulations. And I think things change, and sometimes things have to change. But I think to to feel like that was a worthwhile trade off that would
be really effective here, I would need to see some evidence from other communities that have done this that it's actually going to reduce youth ecigarette use. And I I have not yet heard that. I think it as with so many arguments that are made in the case of youth substance use prevention, there is an obvious ill in young people using substances. And we try to think of everything we can that might prevent their access to those substances. And some of those preventions have a really high social cost. Some have a lower social cost. I think for many of us who don't use e cigarettes,
What do we care? Right? I think these things are gross I don't want to use them, but I but we have we've heard from small businesses in our community who's who at a minimum would have to drastically change their business models and more likely would go out of business were we to enact these. And that's a high cost to the community, without me really seeing that there's evidence that it's going to be effective and reach the end that we want to reach. So I have tremendous respect for the field of public health and for public health efforts to change people's behavior.
And I am very open to hearing evidence that this would be really effective in achieving our goals here. And I hope that that conversation will remain open. I have not yet heard that tonight. And I as for the I I actually came into this meeting thinking that, the limitation on ages of clerks selling these products might be something that I could, that I could support. But I think that as a retailer myself, having recently gone through some hiring, it's really not that easy to for retailers in a community like Northfield that does
has very low unemployment to find competent people, qualified people who want to work a retail job. And I think that that would be, that would be a tough one for me to support because I think it would really prevent present a hardship for local retailers. And these local retailers are are important to our community, for many, many reasons that have been noted that they provide services and other products that, people need. They provide neighborhood based hubs of snacks and ice cream and gas and things like that.
And I think that, this is the kind of regulation that tends to hurt small mom and pop businesses the most. Because bigger corporations the quick trips can go to Dundas and they can, they can adjust their product mix. They have a much larger marketing budget. They have a lot more flexibility in their business model, than small retailers do. So all those things give me pause. I I I remain open to doing what we can as a community to reduce, youth e cigarette use. I haven't yet seen evidence that this is the thing that's gonna work. Thank you.
Councilor Silke? Yeah. I don't I don't wanna say things that have already been said. I think I I'm really on the same page with, the sentiment of being in a position of wishing that especially with vaping and how addictive it is and the nicotine content, that there's some sort of there's something beyond what we're discussing tonight that we could do to curb use among youth and at the same time feeling, uncomfortable
voting for something that I also I also believe would hurt, businesses in town, especially the smallest businesses in town. And that, like councilor Peterson White just said, just to reiterate that point, especially that larger businesses can absorb these things, and Northfield is a really small community. And I would I would need to see more of a reason to move something like this forward, that wouldn't hurt those really small retailers.
So I'm not gonna be supporting this tonight, but, I look I I do hope that we can continue to have a conversation around flavored, products, especially around ecigarettes and, like, what what we can do as a community to help curb that while also not negatively impacting the handful of businesses in town who really rely on the adult legal consumption of those products. Yeah. Thank you. I'll just add to that. It looks like, this is not gonna have support this evening,
so I'm kind of as I'm thinking about framing my comments in terms of things to think about if this were to come back to us, would be I noticed in the Duluth letter, it says they work to educate retailers ahead of time to make sure they were prepared. I I'm not sure that that's been done, so that would be something I'd be interested in knowing more about is how do we work with the the retailers ahead of time. If something like this were to come forward to get to the timing, issue that counselor Holmes addressed, once we start the clock on this,
we have our first reading, our second reading, and then thirty days. That's not a lot of time for a retailer to react to a decision like this. I agree about the the I'd like to see some more evidence about how this does decrease the vaping in youth. I totally appreciate and understand how the flavored products are being used to draw the youth toward the use. So I also share a lot of the curiosity, brought up here tonight. And one of the items of curiosity I had were the four items that you
asked us to look at. And it sounds like one thing that is coming up is the age of the clerk. Seems like that's kind of perhaps a nonstarter that were this to come back to us with something more specific about prohibiting flavored products toward youth. I was on the council previously when you came to us with the highlighters that looked like a vape or the sweatshirts that had the vaping poles on them and worked on banning those items that were looked like,
school supplies. So I think we're all we're up here, and we're curious about paths forward that wouldn't have such a drastic impact on our small businesses. That's what I'm hearing. So, yes, counselor Holmes. Thanks. No light. No idea. Okay. I said I wanted to wait and see, so I did. And I appreciate I appreciate everyone's comments, and I think I'm wondering because I I want to I I wanna support us again, feel like everyone else said in terms of, like, protecting the youth and finding ways to do that.
And I also think it's really important to have that data, to recognize is is this the way, you know, is this a solution to the problem that we're trying to solve? And so really getting clear on that. I do notice in the legislative memo, there is alternative options and one of them is a motion to postpone for further research. And I'm wondering is it more effective to make a motion to put this might be a question for staff, like, to postpone and ask for the additional research, like, has been presented here, or we vote on this and then Northfield ASAP just comes back to us
when and if if if. Right? The staff have a preference. Thank you, mayor, members of city council. I think, just off the cuff here, either approach, I think, could work. So I guess I would leave it to your discretion on that. Just recognizing that if your choice is to do the, postponement, that, it might be better to leave it non time specific because this might take a little more time to research comprehensively other, you know, what are the different strategies and solutions to the problem. So I guess I would just say I'd turn it back to you all to approach it either way, but I do think the discussion leaves it open even if it's not even if
you don't take that formal action. Yeah. Thank you. Councilor Ness. I think postponement would be better bringing up an item that has failed. That's always tricky. I think so. I would make a motion to postpone ordinance one zero eight two for further research, not time specific. Thank you. Councilor Peterson White. Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion on that? Administrator Martic. Thank you, mayor. The only item I didn't The attorney. But I would say if it comes back,
we'd work on notification of the licensees. That might be one question they have. So we'd wanna make sure we get plenty of advance notice of that too versus just returning it to an agenda. Okay. Thank you. Alright. All those oh, yep. Sorry. Councilor I think we talked about the research that we want. And I would I would say in addition to the research, I would love to see more partnership with the retailers just to get a better understanding of situation. And so I I would say and include that in in addition to any, like, scientific research or anything.
Thank you. Alright. All those in favor of the motion for postponement, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. Alright. Roll call. Councilor Ness? Yes. Councilor Peterson White? Yes. Councilor Silke? Yes. Councilor Beamer? No. Councilor Dahlen? Yes. Councilor Holmes? Yes. Mayor Zweifel? Yes. Most motion to postpone, passes. Alright. We have just two more items on our agenda, which I think we can get through pretty quickly. So, Sarah, you miss Hoffman, you are up on ordinance ten eighty one.
Mayor and members council I think is your mic on? Is it on now? A little loud, but I still can't hear you very well. It is. Is that better? Yes. Okay. We're bringing the first reading of ten eighty one back related to our board and commission governance work and the 1% for the arts. Can you see the presentation? Not yet. Can you pull that up? Staff computer. We received some council feedback at the July 1 meeting, and we made some adjustments to the ordinance related to that. We're just kinda touching on those high points and what changed. Is it up yet? Yep. Okay. Perfect. We changed the term council liaison to council member roles.
We also added some clarification on voting and advisory roles. There were some questions around that, so we tried to clarify that. We added a clause limiting the number of council members on boards, commissions, and committees, to one member unless, otherwise required. And we added the wording that council will discuss the council roles prior to the annual appointment process, which would be around September and October. There was some question after the meeting on the process to implement a new timeline. We suggested the new appointment timeline as part of this. After the second reading, the mayor will send a letter to all current members,
letting them know that their term of their term adjustment, which would be extending their term from December 31 to April 30 of their, of the respective year of the end of their term. Staff will follow-up with all members, especially those with terms that were supposed to end at the end of this year. Should members with terms ending in 2025 not wanna continue those, few more months, then we will figure out an option for that. No changes were made to the 1% for the arts, but director Draper did add a motion to add a cap to the annual contribution to the 1% for the arts if,
council wishes to. Thank you. Any questions from the council? No? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the public who'd like to comment on this item? I the mayor finds the comment out of order and would request the public to, if they'd like to speak, to fill out a comment card and come forward. So, let's see. No counsel questions, so no public comment. I'm looking for a motion. Oh, sorry. I was looking the other way. Councilor Peterson White. I'll move the first reading of ordinance ten eighty one amending city code chapter two
related to city boards and commissions. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilor Beamer. I'll second. Thank you. Council discussion. Councilor Peterson White. Yeah. I think this is all as I expected. It's what we discussed. I think that the yeah. I don't I I'm sorry. I'm just reviewing to that I understand the the motion I made is not for any changes to the 1% for the arts ordinance. It is to leave that same and to make the other changes that were discussed. So I don't think I have anything to add to where I passed discussion on this matter.
Thank you. Councilor Beamer? Any other council discussion? Alright. Thank you. All those in favor, of this ordinance, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Our last item, is, something from Councilor Dolan, to get us introduce us to, multifamily water meter ordinance in the future. Could we hold hold the subject over till the time it comes up for a vote or perhaps delay rather than go through it tonight. And I'm happy to and we'll work with staff to maybe present this over the
next two weeks and emails to council members or some public, discussion of that. Yeah. Let me just check-in with, so we did have a lot of public comment tonight. So we I think we got some introduction there. And, administrator Martig, is that okay with staff? Yes. Completely support that. Okay. So we'll hold on to that. And we've we have had, as I said, some introduction through our public comments tonight. So that just brings up the city administrator's update. No report, your your honor. Oh, well. Well, partly due to the time. Right, Alicia?
Yeah. I appreciate that. Councilor Ness. Move to adjourn. Thank you. Is there a second? Councillor Beamer? Second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Proposed? We are adjourned. Thank you all very much. I appreciate the extra time tonight.