Hastings council rejects move to abolish Utility Advisory Board after heated public comment

The Hastings City Council voted 1-7 on Jan. 23 to reject Ordinance 48-25, a proposal to eliminate the city's Utility Advisory Board, after an extended public-comment period and council debate.

Residents and current advisory-board members packed the meeting and urged the council to preserve the board as a layer of technical oversight and public transparency. "I have been here and I've been on the board 10 years, chair for 9 years," said Bill Heitzman, a long-serving utility board member who told the council the board is "very dedicated to the services that are provided to utilities." Scott Coles, another board member, called the advisory body "the city's most consistent and visible transparency tool for utility operations." Susan Mieske, who has served on the board since 2022, listed five reasons to keep it, including "specialized expertise" and "operational continuity," citing the city's 10-year lead service-line replacement plan.

Council members debated the intent behind the ordinance, which councilmember Mark Rowan said he introduced to ensure elected members could "hear all the meat" of utility issues before voting. "My sole purpose for doing this was this ... I'd like to hear all the meat," Rowan said, arguing that some council members want more direct exposure to detailed utility presentations. Derek, a utilities director speaking for staff, said the utility's day-to-day work would continue regardless of governance structure but acknowledged the advisory board provides a useful forum: "I do really appreciate, through my initial first year in this position, being able to bounce stuff off of a utility advisory board."

Several council members and members of the public proposed alternatives to outright abolition, including better information sharing with council liaisons, joint work sessions, and targeted summaries of utility-board materials for council packets. Council discussed, and briefly considered, a motion to postpone the ordinance until after a March work session; that postponement motion failed, and the council proceeded to a final vote on the ordinance, which failed 1-7.

The council also debated a companion ordinance (48-26) that would have added a routine "Utility and Public Works Matters" item to work-session agendas; that proposal likewise failed 1-7. Council members directed staff and the advisory board to schedule a joint work session in March to clarify what information the council needs and how to provide it.

What happens next: Council members said they will pursue improved communication options, including sharing utility-board packets and summaries with the full council and holding a joint March work session to sketch a path forward. The advisory board remains in place pending any future ordinance.