[00:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right, call to order. Grant city council meeting January 2026. First item on the agenda is public input. Do we have anyone that'd like to give um public comment today? No. Anyone online? If you're online and want to give public comment, raise your hands. Nope. All right, let's move to the pledge of allegiance. [00:20] **All**: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [00:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. Approval of the regular agenda. [00:38] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Move to approve. [00:39] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I'll second. [00:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Well, that's a tie for the— [00:41] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: You call I. [00:42] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I. [00:43] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I. [00:44] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: I. [00:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. Approval of consent agenda. [00:47] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I motion to approve the consent agenda. [00:49] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Second. [00:50] **Council Members**: I. [00:51] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Staff agenda items. We have Brad on. [00:54] **Brad Reifsteck**: Good evening. [00:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Hey Brad. So we got you up first. Consider uh approval of the cooperative agreement between the city of Grant and Washington County for engineering costs for CASA 12 safe routes to school trail segment. Can you give us an update on that, Brad? [01:05] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yes. Good evening, mayor and members of the council. Um tonight I'm here to present the cooperative agreement between the city of Grant and Washington County for engineering services related to the CASA 12 safe routes to school trail segment from Inwood Way to the traffic signal at the school entrance. Uh the purpose of this agreement uh is to formalize cost sharing uh and responsibilities for engineering and related services needed to construct a new trail segment along Casawa 12. Uh this project supports safe routes to school initiative improving pedestrian and bicycle safety for students traveling to Madameai schools. Uh as you recall, this item was previously presented uh and approved conceptually at the August 5th, 2025 council meeting. Uh the initial purpose of authorizing uh the preliminary design work was to enable the county to solicit quotes from engineering firms for detailed trail design and to refine construction cost estimates. Uh the current preliminary design includes a a typical section featuring an 8ft boulevard and a 8ft trail adjacent to the south shoulder of CASA 12. Uh when the grant application was submitted initially uh engineering costs were estimated at $92,000 uh for the city share and the estimated construction cost for the trail was $555,500. As a as uh the design has progressed uh these estimates have been refined and the cooperative agreement reflects the updated figures. Uh engineering fees are paid separately and are split 50/50 between the city and the county. Uh the fees for phase one work which is the work that was been completed to date um was for geotechnical investigations, wetland delineations and preliminary engineering design work. Uh that total was $29,436 and the city share was $14,718. The fees for phase 2 work, which includes wetland mitigation, permitting, uh wetland banking credits, and final design engineering is $55,214, of which the city share is $27,67. So, the combined engineering totals for phases one and two is $84,650. Again, split evenly between the city and the county, uh the city share would be $42,325. Now, the fees associated with this agreement do not include um construction administration fees. Uh these would come later after the project is bid. Construction admin administration fees are are typically estimated at 10% of construction cost and based on the preliminary trail design and construction costs uh are estimated at $450,000 uh which would result in an estimated construction administration fee of $45,000 or $22,500 for the city share. So, the city share for interning costs for the entire project is estimated at $64,825 with the final cost to be uh reconciled at project completion. I should also mentioned the city would be responsible um for any future trail maintenance and the city or the county currently does not remove snow uh on any of their trails. So tonight, I'm requesting a motion to continue design work through bidding and to approve the cooperative agreement and authorize payment of the city share as invoiced by Washington County. Uh again, this agreement ensures that the city and the county uh work together on this project uh and deliver a safe and well-designed trail segment for our community. And with that said, I'd be happy to answer any questions that the council may have. [03:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yeah. So that construction administration cost that you mentioned that wasn't obviously included in in your report was it I didn't see it in the estimated cost. [03:52] **Brad Reifsteck**: Correct. That those costs would come later once the um the bids are known and the construction costs are known. Uh we would come back with another agreement uh for construction administration services. [03:59] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay. Okay. And we do. And can you um re remind us the the budget that we have for this, Kristina? [04:05] **Kristina Handt**: So, our current budget is or approval amount is $25,000. [04:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Well, I was talking about what we had budgeted, not that we already approved. I think we had 60 something. Kristina, can you— [04:12] **Kristina Handt**: Mayor and council, in your 2026 budget, you have 65,000 for state and county road projects. Yeah. [04:18] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay. And I I believe this is the only state or county road project for 2026 that we've got planned so far. [04:22] **Kristina Handt**: That was my next question. Thank you. [04:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Um and then you you said that we would be responsible for ongoing maintenance. Um is there an opportunity to go back to the—because that's not typically something that we do as you mentioned. Is there an opportunity to go back to the school district and see if they would be willing to um take on that? Because if they're doing the the same maintenance for their portion of this project north of the um CASA 12, would would it be possible to see if they would take on the maintenance of the— [04:45] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah. So typic—so mayor and members of the council typically these maintenance agreements are uh um figured out once the design and the construction is completed. So we could certainly uh ask the school district if they would be interested in um maintaining this trail segment uh for the city of Grant. [05:01] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Um something that we can certainly bring up to them. Let's um while the council considers that, can you bring up the um the uh screenshot of the project in in your uh memo? It was kind of cut off the actual um north south portion of the school district's trail. Can you bring that up? You know, Kristina, I need uh I need you to give me um— [05:15] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah, this is— [05:16] **Kristina Handt**: Yeah, this is— [05:17] **Brad Reifsteck**: Oh, this I need I need the responsibility to be able to share. [05:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: You know what, Brad? Um it I'm seeing here that it's showing on—So, maybe it was just my [clears throat] my PDF settings. Hang on. All right. No, no need to do that. So, just just uh to so the— [05:35] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah. So, just to remind uh the mayor and the council that, you know, this grant application was a combination of a trail segment that um went north from the signal up through this the the the campus of the school up to the first intersection. And so all these monies are tied together um including the the trail along CASA 12. Um so if you decide not to move forward uh with the CASA 12 segment uh my understanding is the entire project uh would not go forward including the school segment. [06:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yep. And I've I heard the same too from the county. So um that being said um council member Greg you have a question. [06:12] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Uh who's maintaining the the piece to the west that was built last year, Brad? Mahtomedi or the school? [06:18] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah, the city of Mahtomedi's uh doing the snow removal. I wouldn't say that they're doing any future maintenance to the trail, you know, crack sealing or anything like that. Um but they are doing the snow removal. [06:29] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: And remind us the schedule again on con. So this is funded through safe routes money. [06:33] **Brad Reifsteck**: The construction is right. Construction— [06:35] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: engineering wouldn't be. I think the money has to be spent by 2027. [06:39] **Brad Reifsteck**: All right. So their intent would be to build this this year or at least get a contract in place. [06:44] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I believe so. [06:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: So we're—the city would be on the hook for the generally 64 give or take if you include the construction costs and then potentially maintenance. Correct. [06:55] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: And they're still confident they can build this in that ditch. That's what the banking credits are for. [07:01] **Brad Reifsteck**: That's correct. Uh so we we have gone through preliminary design. They've uh narrowed up the the boulevard uh like I had mentioned to 8 ft uh to try to mitigate or lessen the impacts to the wetlands. Um there is no longer a need for the wall. I think in the original cost estimate there was a wall that uh was included with the estimate to protect or minimize the the wetlands as well. Um so we're to a point where we feel or at least the county's engineer feels um relatively confident that uh the wetland um delineations or impacts um are minimized to the uh fullest extent. [07:35] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: All right. Well, I I appreciate the project and then going through all this and getting—there's a lot of pedestrian traffic on that road. A crossing at inwood would be nice, but I'm sure the county's already covered that that they're not going to put that in there because they have a controlled intersection just to the west, right? [07:50] **Brad Reifsteck**: That's correct. [07:51] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: This is the point to get the pedestrians to one controlled crossing. [07:53] **Brad Reifsteck**: Correct. [07:54] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: All right. I think that's all my questions, Mr. Mayor. Um Lindsay? [07:58] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: I'm good. That answered everything. [08:00] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: So, you said that uh—or or was it the mayor said—that we have no snow clearing on trails uh like any capability of that as we stand right now as a city? What, you know, on a yearly maintenance, if we can't get the uh the school to take it over, like what are we looking at? Do we have to get machinery to handle it? like what what would it take to keep that clear and up to snuff for you know pedestrians? [08:23] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah, mayor, members of the council, um currently like I had mentioned, we do not uh maintain any snow removal on any of the trails that uh are the city's responsibility. Um I want to say some of those responsibilities are even further east uh on CASA 12. Um, I don't believe we have any equipment that would uh be able to remove the snow on the trail. Um, other than maybe a a skidster and and any of that work would have to be taken care of by um I would assume Ken. Um, and I'm not sure that that's part of his responsibilities right now. So, we would have to— [08:58] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: to ask Ken for a price to do that work and then maybe adjust his contract. [09:03] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: To the earlier point though, if um the the county is doing—or was it school or county? [09:07] **Brad Reifsteck**: School. [09:08] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: So, the school um— [09:09] **Brad Reifsteck**: the city of Mahtomedi is doing the piece west of the signal. [09:12] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Oh, okay. So, um, what's the likelihood of getting them to extend their maintenance a little bit farther east to cover the new trail? [09:20] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah, again, that would have have to be brought up with the city um to see if they would be willing to do that work. [09:25] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Okay, that seems to be a not totally insignificant point if we don't have any equipment to do it now. So, um, is there any, uh, thought from the council on on tabling it until we could get that information or Brad, do you say that typically that's, um, [snorts] not even entertained until the project is done? [09:44] **Brad Reifsteck**: Well, we could certainly—I mean, we could table this if you you want. Um, and we could certainly try to figure out the maintenance agreements uh prior to signing this agreement for the engineering fees. Um, but I, you know, I I think in any case, we can probably figure that out after uh this agreement is is signed, but again, that's that's up to council. [10:04] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: So, it's it's an option. I don't know what you guys think if you feel comfortable just taking the—Go ahead, Kristina. [10:09] **Kristina Handt**: Mayor, sorry, can I interrupt? Um I'm very familiar with um the county's process on these projects having worked with them for over the last decade and the city engineer is right that the county typically brings their maintenance agreement to you at the end of the project. But I don't I I would not recommend that the council put those thoughts off till the end after you've already committed to a project because yes— [10:35] **Kristina Handt**: that obviously is going to be there once you've spent tens of thousands of dollars. um you might want to think about tabling it and having those conversations whether it's with the school district or the city of Mahtomedi. The maintenance agreement that the city engineer is talking about will be between the city and Washington County and that will say that Washington County is not going to do your maintenance like snow plowing and seal coating and crack filling. They will just do your major maintenance of redoing the trail. And so, um, if the city of Grant is not going to be in the position because you don't have the equipment, you don't have the staff, it's going to require a contract of some sort, it might be in your best interest to have those conversations with those other entities and actually enter into that maintenance agreement with—again, whether it's a school district or the city of Mahtomedi—before you commit to this project so you have a full understanding of of what you're committing to. Um, I've done similar things with projects where I've worked with the county and it's been, you know, two cities and who's going to maintain this deadend road that's on the on the city, you know, this city line of two cities, for example, or things like that. So, I I I agree with the city engineer that it comes later, but I um I'm not sure I would encourage you to just kick the can on that because it does have some impact. So— [11:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: so that being said, Brad, is it safe to assume that um delaying this decision one month isn't going to significantly impact the project? [11:53] **Brad Reifsteck**: Mayor, members of the council, you're correct. It it will not impact the design or the bidding or the construction of this project if we waited a month. [12:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. So looking for potentially a motion to table till we get more alignment on ongoing maintenance. [12:05] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: I'll make that motion. [12:07] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay, [12:08] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I'll second. [12:09] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [12:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: thank you Brad. [clears throat] Um next for you Brad can and— [12:15] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: can I— [12:16] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: go ahead— [12:17] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: just for clarity who is going to make sure we have those conversations so we're ready for the next meeting? [12:21] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Staff. [12:22] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Okay. between that's between Kristina and Brad. She's Yep. [12:24] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Is that—That's a fair statement, Kristina. You're going to handle that. [12:28] **Kristina Handt**: Yourself, mayor, right? Because you'll have some meetings with the school district, right? The three of us will tackle it. [12:32] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yep. [12:33] **Kristina Handt**: Perfect. [12:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay. Um, and then um regarding the uh display, I I'm kind of concerned that um the folks here uh can't really see what's going on, what we're discussing. We have all the information in our packets, the maps and stuff. And um would it be terribly inconvenient for you to—we probably should have done this before, but for this um next presentation for for Brad just to see if he can— [12:58] **Kristina Handt**: I think I made him a co-host, so he should be. [13:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: So Brad, can you can you—so the folks can watch along on the monitors? [13:04] **Brad Reifsteck**: Do you want me to share the map? [13:06] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Well, I mean, um, we we kind of went past that that agenda item, so it's kind of moot point, but for the next one for the, um, street projects, do you have any, um, thing that to display for the— [13:16] **Brad Reifsteck**: I I I do not have anything ready, um, mayor, I didn't— [13:19] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Well, was it—it was on the on the packet, but um— [13:22] **Kristina Handt**: for this for the street project. [13:23] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yeah. Um, let's see here. Let's see how much you have for that. [13:26] **Kristina Handt**: We didn't have anything. [13:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: I think the only basically resolution, so there's only two points. [13:29] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yeah. Okay. I think we're good. If you just talk through it, Brad. [13:34] **Brad Reifsteck**: Okay. [clears throat] Again, good evening, mayor and members of the council. Um, tonight I'm presenting the next step for the 2026 street improvement project, which involves accepting the plans and specifications and authorizing staff to advertise for bids. Uh, the purpose of this action is to formally approve the plans and specifications for the project and to allow staff to proceed with advertising for bids. Um, this is a key milestone that moves the project forward and into construction. Um just some background information. On October 7th, uh at the regular council meeting, uh the city council authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the 2026 street improvement project. Uh the project includes uh improvements to 66th Street North and Great Oak Trail North, both of which have deteriorating pavement uh conditions. The selected method for these improvements is full depth reclamation which will restore pavement integrity and extend the life of these streets. Uh again the feasibility report was presented and accepted on October 7th, 2025 and a public hearing was held on November 3rd, 2025 and after the public hearing the council ordered the improvements. The total estimated cost of the project is $370,187, which includes construction costs plus a 10% contingency and engineering, legal, and financing expenses. of this amount um $37,573 will come from the city maintenance fund and the remaining balance will be funded through special assessments in accordance with Minnesota state statute 429 and the city's special assessment policy. The bid opening is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, February 26, 2026. uh and council's consideration of the bids will occur at the regular meeting on April 7th, 2026 immediately following uh the assessment hearing. So tonight, I'm requesting a motion to adopt uh resolution number 2026-08, which accepts the plans and specifications for the 2026 street improvement project and authorizes staff to proceed with the advertising for bids. This action ensures we stay on schedule for construction this summer. With that said, I'm happy to answer any questions. [15:42] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Council discussion. Lindsay, you got anything? [15:45] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Not off the top of my head. [15:47] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Couple questions, Mr. Mayor. Um, so we'll have the—You haven't changed your estimate from the report, Brad? You're still confident with that number when it comes to the total project now that the plan's ready? Okay. [snorts] [15:58] **Brad Reifsteck**: Yep. I'm still confident with the number. [15:59] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: and so we'll have a assessment hearing item for the March meeting so we can get that notifications and all that out. We got time to get everything lined up for the April meeting. I appreciate having the assessment hearing and then the award back to back. So, [16:12] **Brad Reifsteck**: yep, Council Member Anderson, that's that's the plan. We'll we'll bring um authorization to conduct the public hearing. Uh get them get the public notice out and the and the statements and uh the mailings to the residents and then conduct the uh assessment hearing um prior to awarding the bid. [16:29] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: And then one one thing on um Great Oak Trail—that has a bit curb now and that's going away with the exception of where the catch basins are. [16:38] **Brad Reifsteck**: That is correct. [16:39] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Okay. Because of the reclaiming, you'll able to lift the road up a little bit and get drain. [16:42] **Brad Reifsteck**: Correct. There's there's a—Yeah, we'll be lifting the road up about 3 in. And then um most of the area, I would say 99% of the area is is um away from the street is is positively grading into the street. And so it'll be captured into those catch basins at the low point. There is a little bit of uh grading up um towards the south end towards the county road that will be reshaping um some of the the the boulevard area so that we can get the drainage off the street and into the ditch system. [17:15] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: All right. Thank you. It's clear council may pay you for your day job. So no. [clears throat] [17:21] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Um Ben, do you have any questions? No. John's not here, we'll go on to the— [17:24] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I'm good, Mr. Mayor. [17:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Good. Okay. Got a motion. [17:27] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-08. [17:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I'll second it. [17:32] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [17:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. All right, we got Jennifer online. Talk to us about a public hearing for consideration of resolution 2026-05 variance from required wetland setback for 9850 Manning Avenue North before we open the public hearing. Jennifer, wait for her to get online and she could walk us through the variance request. [17:54] **Jennifer (Planner)**: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Uh so as you stated, we've got a request this evening for a variance from uh Wetland Setbacks. The property is located at 9850 Manning Avenue North. Uh so I have a short presentation that I will share. Uh so just one moment. [18:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: You mean [clears throat] shorter than what you had in the packet? [18:15] **Jennifer (Planner)**: Yeah. [18:16] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Oh god. [18:17] **Jennifer (Planner)**: Hey, now that's a little rough. [18:18] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: I spent 16 hours going through that entire thing. [18:21] **Jennifer (Planner)**: I believe it [snorts] if anyone believes that. All right. So, I will be I will be brief compared to what's in the packet, I guess. Um, so this evening, uh, the applicants are Jenny and Troy Bergman. The existing lot is approximately 10 acres and some change. Uh, the land use in our comprehensive plan is rural residential agricultural and the zoning is A2. Uh, we do have a duly noticed public hearing scheduled for this evening. So, a little bit about the lot and the application this evening. Uh, they are requesting a variance from uh the setback for uh our wetland. Uh, as we'll get into in just a moment, there are several wetlands that are on the subject property. Uh the request is to be permitted uh to essentially encroach into some of those setbacks uh in order to construct a 600 ft home addition uh an approximately 390 ft outdoor great room and uh 112 ft covered portico. Uh that portico actually does comply with our ordinance. So from that perspective it's part of the project but does not require a separate variance. Uh there is an existing uh single family home that was constructed in the 1970s that is on the property. Uh that structure uh is actually partially encroaching within the wetland setbacks. Uh that does happen from time to time for various reasons including the fact that in the 1970s we did not have the same setback requirements and standards. Uh as well as the fact that obviously wetlands change over time. Uh and as a result of that those boundaries actually have to be redelineated. So, it's likely there was a combination of of things going on since the 1970s. One of those primary pieces being though that uh we have different setback regulations than we did back uh back then when it was constructed. So, for purposes of folks sitting in the audience this evening, uh this is the survey uh of the subject property to give a sense of where the existing improvements are. Um hopefully some of you can see the fact that we've got a building setback line denoted here which is in blue. Uh we are actually looking at a couple different types of wetlands on the property. So we've got managed two and managed three wetlands. Uh the difference between those classifications is actually the quality of the wetlands where the manage two wetlands are slightly higher quality, the managed three are slightly lower quality. Um and our ordinance actually doesn't uh do a great job of distinguishing between those qualities. Uh and so in the past what we've done is taken a look at what is happening at the watershed district uh with respect to how they regulate uh based on the management classifications. So uh the setback lines that you see on this existing survey are the corresponding setbacks from Browns Creek Watershed district setbacks uh that are established based on those management classifications. So just uh to really highlight the fact that this site is covered uh uh with quite a few wetlands and the existing structure is actually surrounded by the wetlands. You'll see here uh that we've got a fairly large wetland. Wetland number one which is uh lying to the east of the existing structure uh and somewhat south of the structure. Wetland 2 is actually the the wetland where the greatest encroachment occurs from a from the variance request this evening perspective. Uh but hopefully this gives a good visual. The the home itself uh if you can see my cursor is sorted in the rear sandwiched kind of between wetland number two and wetland number one. In terms of what we're looking at with respect to what the variance request is this evening, uh as I said, we used the management classification setbacks uh from the Browns Creek Watershed district to determine where those setback boundaries were. Uh and then we actually have a provision within our code as well that says that uh structures have to be set back an additional 10 ft from the buffer or that setback area. So essentially uh on a managed three uh wetland we've got a 25- foot buffer uh established by the Browns Creek Watershed district. We need a 10-ft setback for the building per our code. Uh and based on that uh you can see that the house addition actually is fairly close to complying with that required setback. Uh it only requires approximately a two-foot uh variance for the encroachment. Uh and then when you look at the manage three wetland uh for where the outdoor great room is uh that portion of the addition or the improvement uh requires an approximately 15-ft setback or 5-ft set back into the actual buffer. Um so from from the perspective of what we're really looking at here, it's a fairly minor encroachment. Um, and of course because of what we're looking at here, and you can see from the blue shaded areas on this exhibit, uh, that where this where the structure is cited, uh, makes it incredibly difficult for, uh, them to do any sort of improvement to the existing structure. Uh, I would note what you can see just barely on this, and I can go back to the survey as well. Uh one of the things that further constrains the property is that uh the septic system that's serving the existing lot is actually located to the north uh on the north side uh which makes any uh sort of improvements to that side uh also very challenging. So we've got a very challenging condition here uh in which uh they are obviously from what it appears trying to minimize their encroachment uh but obviously they are proposing a variance to be able to accomplish the project that they're looking at. uh for folks that might be looking or are watching at home. Uh so this gives a little bit of an a a detail from an architectural perspective of what they're looking at doing. Uh you can see that across the west elevation. It's actually going to look quite quite uh similar to what we're looking at today. uh because the portion of the addition actually extends across that whole elevation. In terms of uh the improvement or the addition uh on the east elevation which is where the front is located today there's actually a portico that's being proposed uh the portico uh actually does meet and comply with the stepback standard. So from that perspective we're not looking at a variance uh but it is part of the overall project. Uh just to highlight it uh to make it easy in plan view you can see the pink area that is the addition that is on uh what would be the west elevation that is the portion that is encroaching the furthest uh and requires the variance uh from the wetland set back and that building setback line uh the green is the front portico. So when we take a look at a variance we have basically a three-pronged test that we have to take a look at. Criteria that we are charged with taking a look at uh is that essentially what they're requesting uh is is reasonable and that there's no other way in order for them to achieve the proposed uh use or the improvement. Uh the land owner uh it must be due to unique physical conditions of the land. uh it can't also be something that we look at and say well this would apply to every other property that would be within this land use or this zoning district. Uh the unique conditions that are established under number two uh cannot be due uh to the land owner's making. Um so essentially we're really looking at are there unique physical characteristics that exist here that are making it uh such that they are difficult to comply with the letter of the law or the letter of the ordinance. So staff went through and provided a full analysis within your staff report. Essentially we did deem that the rural residential use is obviously what it's already constructed for. That existing home was constructed. the use has been there since the 1970s. It's reasonable to want to bring it up to a modern standard. Um, and they did not pick the cited or the location of that existing structure. Um, and as I stated, there are also some of those utility improvements including the septic and the wall etc that are further constraining their opportunities for where where those improvements could be located. Um we do believe that the addition uh is also minimized uh to a significant extent. I know some of you are new. We've had a couple variances over the last decade or so where uh folks have actually proposed to almost double the size of the structure. Uh this certainly falls well short of that. Uh it's a fairly modest improvement that they're looking at and they truly are constrained in terms of where uh that improvement could be located. Uh the plight of the land owner must be due to unique physical characteristics of of the land. In this case, um obviously the major uh limiting factor from a constraining perspective is the presence of all the wetland and the fact that that wetland is sort of encasing or surrounding the property. Um that is certainly unique. Typically, we'll see a wetland uh on a property um which may constrain the ability to expand in one direction, but in this case, we do have several wetlands that are limiting the the area—as well as the location of the septic system, which makes it quite difficult uh to site uh an improvement or to resite the septic system in the event of an addition in that direction. Uh so from that perspective, uh that's certainly something uh that is unique to the property—and is not necessarily applicable to all other lots that exist within that zoning or land use designation. Uh finally, uh the conditions cannot be created or accepted by the land owner. Again, in this case, the structure was constructed in the 1970s. It predates uh the existence of several of these regulations and ordinances. Uh so from that perspective, it certainly is not something that was created by this particular land owner. Um it actually likely wasn't even created by the prior land owner from the standpoint of the standards or those setback requirements did not exist at that time. Uh the city engineer does not have any comments at this time. It is worth noting that if you were to approve the variance this evening. Obviously they will be required to get building permits uh and grading permits and comply with all standards from that perspective and the city engineer would take a look at it at that time in greater detail. Uh this is located in the Browns Creek watershed district. They will be subject to proper permitting through that watershed district process provided uh that the variance is granted this evening if you should choose to do so. Uh and there may be additional considerations by Washington County in terms of environmental services uh to check with to ensure that the septic system complies with the addition etc. So staff uh has provided a resolution in your packet this evening. Uh we are recommending approval. Uh we do believe that the applicant has demonstrated uh that they have minimized the encroachment to the extent possible. Um and and that the site is very constrained in terms of the physical conditions that exist. So uh at this time I am happy to answer any questions that you might have. [29:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Let's let's hold the questions until after the um the public hearing. So, just a reminder before I call for a motion to start the public hearing. Um, this is a chance for members of the public to express their thoughts and concerns. The council does not answer questions or deliberate or discuss matters during the public hearing. We have our discussion afterwards. So, that being said, can I get a motion to open the public hearing for consideration of resolution 2026-05? [30:25] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I will make the motion to open a public hearing for resolution number 2026-05. [30:28] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Second. [30:30] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [30:33] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. Public hearing is open. Anyone that wishes to speak, uh, please remember to sign in with your name and address so the clerk can properly record the minutes. We have anyone here online that the applicants are here. You you can speak if you wish. You don't have to. [30:50] **Troy Bergman (Applicant)**: No, she summed up more than I can do. [30:52] **Jenny Bergman (Applicant)**: She did a very fine job. She did talk to Karen Hill and she visited the site in Browns Creek with her engineer and said she didn't see any potential issues going forward, but we were more than willing to work. We just have to put in a raingarden it sounds like. Catch area. [31:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Anyone else in attendance here that would like to speak or anyone online? Kristina? [31:10] **Kristina Handt**: No one's raising their hand. [31:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: I'll entertain a motion to end the public hearing. [31:15] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Move to close the public hearing. [31:17] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Well, second. [31:18] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [31:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Council discussion. [31:22] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: I mean, it looks like they're really hamstringed on where they can actually put any addition and seems like they've put a lot of thought on where they are placing it and seems reasonable that they're not trying to um you know go over the top or have something lavish for this um addition and so I think it it makes sense. [31:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Well stated. Greg, anything from your end? [31:42] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: So, the followup with Browns Creek and or the county, Kristina and Jack will handle that if they come back with comments that are required as part of the building permit. Okay. Um, I was just confused about the last bullet Jennifer had about disturbance in the wetland. I just hope there isn't any disturbance in the wetland rather than minimize the wetland. I understand you're going to be working close to it. I imagine that's Browns Creek's concern, too. Is that—Jennifer, is that talking about like using biologs and all that kind of stuff during the construction? Is that kind of what that entails? Just um extra precautions to disturb the surrounding wetlands during construction. [32:20] **Jennifer (Planner)**: Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, it's just acknowledging the fact that uh we do know that the work will be conducted quite close to the wetland and also within the buffer area. Um and so typically during that process uh obviously they're they're required to uh mitigate and and prevent to the extent possible any disturbance and if there is uh to restore uh the buffer areas etc. So it's just acknowledging the fact that this is quite close—and obviously we're encroaching into that buffer area through the construction process— [32:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: and the watershed districts typically have site visits to ensure that too. So— [33:00] **Jennifer (Planner)**: correct. Yep. [33:01] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay. Um, Ben, do you have anything? [33:04] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Nothing. [33:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. Motion. [33:07] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I'll bring a motion to approve resolution 2026-05. [33:10] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: A second. [33:12] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [33:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: All right. We have no action items for city attorney Amanda Johnson. I think she's with us tonight. She'll probably give us some updates later on in the staff updates portion of the meeting. New business. Uh Kristina, would you like to walk us through new business? [33:30] **Kristina Handt**: Sure. Mayor and council, just some normal annual things here for our first meeting of the year. The first is the consideration of the 2026 fee schedule. I didn't actually change any of the fees for 2026. I'm just too new to really be able to dive into it and and do the research and would want to be able to run it by the other staff. Um, it does look a little different, um, in that I just kind of drafted an actual ordinance and mentioned that it's transitory in nature. And the one thing that I did add into it, again, though I haven't changed the fees, is the um, building permit fee schedule because I have gotten some questions from folks on that. Jack's always been helpful and willing to answer people's questions, but I felt from a transparency standpoint that people should be able to see this on our website and if they chose to do it themselves, knowing the valuation of their home, be able to get a a calculation of what their their building permit fee would be. So, I did add that in there, but otherwise, no changes that I'm proposing. If there's some changes that council would like to see at this point in time, um you could amend the proposed fee schedule before we um get it adopted. [34:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Council discussions would like to start. [34:52] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Yeah, I think um well understood that you know you're still getting up to speed with a lot of stuff, you [snorts] know, in your new position and as you have time through the coming months to put more thought into opportunities where we might be able to tweak those um fee schedules, it seems perfectly fine to adopt them as they are now. [35:10] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Um, just for some history, Mr. Mayor, obviously they're reviewed annually. Do you can you recall last time we've made any adjustments? The city has or— [35:18] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: I think we tweaked them two years ago. U bumped them up a little bit. I'm not going to ask you, Kristina, if that's true because I don't expect you to go—Um, but I know you have reviewed a lot of our previous meetings, so you might know, but I think it's been a couple years where we we did do some tweaking. bumped them up a little bit because the consensus at that time, it's probably still true today, is that um we're, you know, way below a lot of surrounding communities. So there might be opportunities to, you know, be a little bit more in line with um best practice surrounding communities, but I don't think it's um nothing that's too out of line that we need to worry about changing right at this minute. So Kristina, do you have anything else? [36:00] **Kristina Handt**: Yeah, I mean in general your fees should reflect the cost that you expend in them, not a—not be a money maker. And I think the fact that you have a lot of, you know, escrows that covers your consultants, you're you're covering your costs in that way. So— [36:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay. All right. Um, there's no other discussion on that one. [36:18] **Kristina Handt**: And there are two motions for this, just so you're aware. There's the ordinance and then the summary publication. So, by resolution, so um we have to do two separate roll calls for that. [36:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: You could—you could do them together if you wanted to. If you want it together or separate. Yeah, let's take a motion to do those uh together. All right. Anyone? [36:40] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I move to approve resolution 2026-06 and ordinance 2026-01. [36:44] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Second. [36:45] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [36:48] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay, we're good there. Um, next one. [36:50] **Kristina Handt**: Did you do the ordinance and resolution? [36:51] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yep, we did both. We did both together. Yep. [36:53] **Kristina Handt**: Um, the next one is your 2026 um meeting schedule. I followed the first Tuesday of the month for most of them with two exceptions. In February, the first Tuesday of the month falls on precinct caucus night and you're not allowed to have um council meetings then. So I moved it to Monday which I think had been your has been your practice and then of course the first Tuesday in November is elections. So I moved that to the first Monday. Other than that it follows the first Tuesday of the month schedule for the whole year. [37:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Questions comments go. [37:27] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Isn't there something usually with like the July meeting we do it the last— [37:31] **Kristina Handt**: Yeah. So you had—but this year it falls on July 7th. So, I thought that was far enough away from the fourth, but obviously it's up to council what your preference is. [37:41] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Works for me. Wait, I think that's fine. July 7th. [37:44] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I just remembered that. [37:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yeah, you're right. Last year we had two in June. No problem. [37:48] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Move to approve the meeting schedule. [37:50] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: I'll second. [37:52] **Council Members**: I. I. [37:54] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: uh consideration of 2026 deputy mayor. Ironically, our deputy mayor isn't here today. Hopefully, he's okay. Um, typically the deputy mayor positions are four-year assignments, but that doesn't need uh that doesn't mean we need to do it that way. [38:10] **Kristina Handt**: They're not by statute. It's an annual thing. You appoint an acting mayor. Per state statute. Yeah. So, statute calls it acting mayor. In your rules of procedure, you call it deputy mayor. So, that's why it goes back and forth in the staff report. If you're wondering if I was confused, I tried to tried to be true to your rules of procedure and statute um in how I wrote that. Um but it it is one of those things that that per statute, you should um select your acting mayor each year at your organizational meeting. So it can continue to be the same person each year. It doesn't have to change. It could be the same person for four years. Um but you should select it each year. [39:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yeah. So let's um have a quick refresher on the duties of the deputy mayor. Pretty straightforward, Kristina. I think it's basically just to um lead meetings where the mayor's not present and be a co-signer of financial accounts, you know, banking investment accounts. That's pretty much it. [39:18] **Kristina Handt**: Yeah. Just to fill in if if you were to ever be gone. [39:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Okay. So, that being said, um do we want to keep it the same? Do we want to uh—we could um switch year to year? Um, again, the only con there is, you know, we'd have to redo all the financial um, documents, which is not a big deal, but uh, let's discuss. I I really agnostic towards it, but Ben, part of me wants to say we should just um, change it because John's not here to kind of [laughter] a stick in his eye, but I'm not going to be the one to do that. So, um [laughter] all right. So, motion to keep it the same. Is that—I guess I'll—Well, I'll make the motion then. I guess I'll um contradict myself. So [laughter] [40:10] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I'll defend John here a little bit. I'll second it for John. [40:13] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: and I— [40:14] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [40:16] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: um next one consideration of appointment to Ramsey Washington Suburban Cable Commission. Um— [40:22] **Kristina Handt**: so this one I brought back because the joint powers agreement says you should do it by resolution, but um the the person that you designate as the director and the alternate director can continue to serve until such time that the council um relieves them of their duties or they're no longer on the council. It doesn't have to be an annual one. Um, the mayor has served in this position for the last year. I'm sorry. I I think I got confused thinking he had been on there for a long time, but he's he's um very involved in it and would like to continue serving. You'd had the administrator serving previously, but maybe it makes more sense to have another member of the council um serve as the alternate um going forward. So, [41:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: did we not have an alternate last year? [41:12] **Kristina Handt**: I think it—I think it was Kim. [41:14] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Um how you a couple things. It's good that we're starting to do things the correct way. So, Kristina, thank you for that. Um, and I don't think we had uh official designated alternate. Maybe we did, I don't know, but either way, it wasn't as official um resolution. So, I do think it makes sense to to name an alternate. And um the alternate can attend all the meets. It doesn't mean that they only can attend when I'm not there. So and for that matter any per any um resident can attend um those meetings as well. I mean the uh caveat for the alternate would be that they would not vote on um agenda items in the meetings in the cable commission meetings themselves unless um they were filling in for the um primary commissioner. So um is anyone interested in being an alternate? [42:12] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: I could be the alternate. I don't mind. [42:14] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: That's fine. Sounds good, Ben. [42:16] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Okay. So, we need uh a motion to make that happen. I'll approve resolution 2026-07 with the mayor as the appointed to the commission and Ben as the alternate. [42:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Second. [42:27] **Council Members**: I. I. [42:29] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: unfinished business. I don't see that we have any unfinished business. um discussion items, staff updates. I think we have some um updates. Uh we'll—Kristina, do you want to start or Okay. Well, um we'll have Kristina start and then we'll go to— [42:45] **Kristina Handt**: Mayor and council, just wanted to share a few things. I started office hours this week, uh Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8:30 to 12:30. Although, I do encourage the public to check the website um at 6:30 this morning. A notice went up that they didn't start till 10 because of the icy roads. If anybody wants a cheater, uh just follow the White Bear Lake school districts if they ever are closed or delayed. Office hours will be adjusted and [laughter] as well. Um and then obviously there's some, you know, spring break and those type of things. There's some days that I've noted that that we won't have them, but um and I've also been in the office I think um quite a bit. Um so we I'm also still doing the kind of by appointment or just call or email. In fact, today I've had a call and an email already for folks who want to come in tomorrow. So, um folks, uh shouldn't shy away if those times don't work for them. We'll find a find a time for them to um come in and um drop off checks or applications or whatever it is that they need to do. uh packets. I just want to mention too for folks that might be uh looking at that on the website. I've um taken advantage of some of the Adobe tools so that folks can hopefully more easily find the agenda items that they're more interested in through the bookmarking and thumbnails. I know the packet was longer this month at at 41 pages, but hopefully it's a little easier to navigate to the items that you're interested in. And then um lastly, we have been spending um a significant amount of time trying to get caught up on uh code complaints. Um Jack's report is in the packet. You'll see there was one there about folks living in a um non-residential structure. Yesterday I sent out the letter on the Buddhist temple and hoping that this week the city attorney will send out her letter on the tree trimming business. So, I think um from the ones that I have that we are then caught up. Um but uh just wanted to let council know that you know we are hearing those things and and trying to turn them around as as quickly as we can and and getting caught up in that backlog. And so those are the updates that I had. [45:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Thank you, Kristina. And I believe we have Amanda on. Amanda, would you like to give a quick update to the council and residents? [45:22] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney)**: Yes. Uh thank you, Mayor Council. Just a couple quick uh things and then I'm looking for some feedback from the council. One, you probably noticed that uh the last two months legal bills were pretty significant. I want to note that that is largely a product of the recent staff turnover that the city had. Obviously, that is highly unusual. It was a significant position. I do not anticipate that your legal fees will continue to be what they were for the last two months. um in recognition of the uh legal cost that you have had for the last couple months and the fact that Kristina is uh now your city administrator and obviously comes with a wide breath and depth of knowledge and experience. Um, one of the things that some of my cities do to save legal costs is to only have the city attorney attend meetings where I either have an agenda item that I need to speak on or because there is some sort of controversial topic where uh, you know, legal counsel needs to be in the room to be able to provide legal advice in real time. And so if that is something that the council wants to do moving forward, I am more than willing to attend these meetings only when requested. I can also continue to attend every month if that's uh if that's something the council would prefer. [46:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Before you continue with your update, let's have a quick uh council discussion. That seems like a reasonable thing to me. What does the council think? [46:48] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I see that more often than not at councils. It's as needed. [46:50] **Council Member Ben Cornett**: Yeah, I think that makes sense. [46:52] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Seems reasonable. consider it done. [46:54] **Amanda Johnson (City Attorney)**: Do you need us to like—No, on that note, um the next uh item, one of the items that we had talked about when sort of everything was in flux was the complaint process. And so that will be coming before you in February. Uh we had originally talked about having it now, but due to all of the things, all of the changes that's we're waiting until February. I will work with Kristina on that uh this month. If it's something that she feels like she wants me there, I will be at the February meeting. If it's something where she does not think she needs me, I will defer to her and she can present the complaint process. [47:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Sounds good. Um I think Brad dropped off already. I don't think we have any other updates from him. [snorts] Um I just do have a couple questions um that maybe for future um staff updates. Uh Kristina, you could follow up and we talked a little bit about this earlier, but the the Comcast cable letter of at the station uh on the final close out of the broadband project. I think you had some of these same questions, Kristina, but and I can send these to you um later, so don't worry about taking notes, but um that letter had stated that u completed project includes one to one matching funds with the FCC's affordable connectivity program and or provide access to a broad-based affordability program to income consumers. So, um, one question I have is what was the other part of the matching funds, the one in one and also, um, I believe we allocated something like $248,000 of our ARPA funds for this project to offset resident costs for for drops. And I don't know how that fits in with that summary that—so basically I guess I'm asking is we can get a breakdown of how the ARPA funds were used in conjunction with this project and the at astation letter also didn't make it clear if any households were missed. I know we got the um—the feedback from that one new resident in Hilton that was upset that he was told by Comcast that you have to pay $46,000 or something to get internet service. Um and I think you have a a call out to the government affair representative for what's the deal there. So, um, and then when you, um, speak to them also, maybe if you could get a, uh, and I know this, it'll probably be kind of tricky because they're not really, um, keen on sharing this information, but if we could have a a map or breakdown from them on any houses that are not served by highspeed. [49:40] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Yeah. Yeah. You're—That's impossible to get. [49:43] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Well, proprietary information, you know, we still know that. Yeah, I know. But we still should ask and whatever. Um, it is. So, I'm just throwing at the—I'll I'll send that in uh email to you. So, in the next um—Okay. So, we're done with staff updates, city council reports, future agenda items. [50:10] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: My biggest thing was the complaint process, which Amanda already addressed, so we have that figured out. Um I know we were going to also talk about just processes in general. Um do we have a timing on when we want to have that work session again? Yeah. So I like April. [50:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yeah. [laughter] I mean I'm I'm more like just to think ahead—coming up the end of February and so like I have I have my hands full. We talked a little bit about at some of those special session meetings and I think the the criticality of of having clear defined process—it's not quite as critical right now but I do think um we should have uh a little bit more clearly documented processes around um roles and responsibilities and the whole review process. So, Kristina, as you have time to um tick off some of those other things on the ever growing list of things that you want to get accomplished, just be thinking about um when we can work that because I think we're really looking to leverage your experience and kind of helping us shape those policies. So, um that being said, it's probably going to be a couple months before—I mean, I think— [51:25] **Kristina Handt**: I just got all the finance stuff like dumped on me yesterday, so I gotta—that's [laughter] what I mean. I got to try and get up to speed on that and get the audit done and then— [51:35] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Yeah. To me, I think it makes sense if we go, hey, let's plan for around April to kind of have like a check-in. You've had a chance to get more familiar with the role and where either you might see holes or things that we can revise or modify or, you know, essentially bolster. It'd be nice to have maybe a check-in in April for that meeting. [51:55] **Kristina Handt**: Sure. Although if I know Kristina, she'll probably um be proactive in including that in one of her many um updates that she's been sending. [52:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Yeah, her weekly ones. Yeah. So, we'll see if the email works or the phone works and all those other things. That was going to be part of one of my updates. So, one of the things that Kristina brings um as our new administrator is really um improved communication and transparency. She's already sent out three um email update comprehensive email updates to the council with here's what's going on with different things in the city that we really didn't have visibility before. And so that's very much appreciated. And in the office hours, I think is one of the big ones. I think that's um I've heard from several people as I sure other council members have that that's something that they wanted and now they're getting office hours. So I think that's going to be um really appreciated from the residents. So, thank you. Um, I do have uh some quick updates. Uh, cable commission update. So, I was just um recently named to the executive committee as a secretary and that committee met a couple weeks ago to discuss decline in cable franchising revenues. And so, we looked for ideas to cut expenses. So, we're focusing on on the uh cutting expenses and as part of our strategic plan, we'll we'll focus more on um looking at ways to generate more revenue. But um in that meeting, we we just reviewed the three highest paid uh positions at the um commission and those were a production content manager, business manager, and the AV IT technician. and we came up with a decision to eliminate the AV IT position and instead use um spot IT consulting for any IT needs and that we're anticipating approximate 40k a year yearly savings on that and that's all the updates I have and the other thing I was going to bring up you had already addressed in your um meeting schedule which is the caucuses so that uh that's covered there. And that's all I had. Any Okay. Um, that brings us to community calendar. Um, we're not going to ask John to read that— [54:30] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: I would love to. [54:32] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: You would love to. Okay. Let's Let's hear it. [54:35] **Council Member Greg Anderson**: Yep. Mahtomedi Public School Board Meeting, Monday, January 5th and January 26th. Mahtomedi District Education Center, 7 p.m. Stillwater Public Schools Board Meeting, Tuesday, January 6th and January 20th. Oak Park Learning Center 5:30 p.m. Washington County Commissioners Meeting Tuesday's Government Center 9:00 a.m. Martin Luther King Jr. Day Monday Jan 19 of this year. I motion to adjourn. [55:05] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona**: Second. [55:07] **Council Members**: I. I. I. [55:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer**: Thank you everyone. Good first meeting of the year. We did it.